[lbo-talk] artsy-fartsy

[jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net]

> Here's my (predictably) sociological take on this: what is or is not
> a work of art at a given point in time is a product of social
> negotiation, contestation, and consensus.  There is no
> "essence" of art that shines through so people in every social
> context would define product X as art (in fact, the idea of "art"
> itself is culturally bound!).  Put simply, X is art if there is
> a social recognition and validation of the work as "art": e.g.,
> the producer of the work is respected as an artist, critics discuss
> the work, people pay money for the work, it is analyzed in
> art history classes, and so on.  The platonic question "What is
> art?" is exactly the wrong question to ask here.
> 
> Miles

There must be social recognition and validation but by whom and in what numbers? The fart performance 
will soon be forgotten and no one will in all likelihood do it again. If they did it would be ignored. This is 
what I meant by art must be reproducable and still retain some if not most of its original meaning. If I paint 
portraits in a style reminiscent of Klimt, and it is done skillfully, it would most likely be considered art by the 
person who bought it and by most who viewed it. Certainly it would be derivative and not change peoples 
perceptions of art nor would it influence others after me but it would still be art.

Art cannot be simply every pretty picture or any performance some engages in. I'm not a scholar nor am I a 
writer so explaining what makes something art and something else not art is probably not something I am 
fully equiped to do. That doesn't mean art is anything I care to label as such however.

John Thornton