Reliced Basses

[Stylon Pilson]

In my opinion, it stops being art as soon as the creator puts a ridiculous price tag on it.

S.P.

[Buzz]

See, this is why I like BC, some other forums have people who'd not get the humour and take it as a full bore insult, here's different

Glad you've found a new sig

[EssentialTension]

OK I picked on one post to respond to. I don't have time for more at present.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='393324' date='Jan 28 2009, 12:43 AM']ULTIMATELY it boils down to this... Is there a universally accepted standard which dictates what is and is not art? No.[/quote]
OK, I agree that there is no 'universally [i]accepted[/i] standard which dictates what is and is not art'. However, I'd be much more interested in whether there is a universal standard which dictates what is and is not art even if some people don't know what it is, or make a mistake about what it is, and so do not accept it. I'm not necessarily claiming that there is in fact such a universal standard but you can't establish that there isn't merely by saying that not everyone accepts it.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='393324' date='Jan 28 2009, 12:43 AM']Do any one of us have the right to decide personally what is not art? No.[/quote]
OK, I agree that no-one has 'the right to [i]decide personally[/i] what is not art'. However, first, this is because I don't recognise the existence of rights at all in the sense you put it. And, second, I don't accept that deciding whether there is a universal standard which dictates what is not art would be a personal matter anyway. And, third, I don't understand how you can say no-one has the right to decide what is not art without also thinking that no-one has the right to decide what is art - but in your next point you claim in effect that anyone has the 'the right to [i]decide personally[/i] what is art'. There's a lot of confusion here.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='393324' date='Jan 28 2009, 12:43 AM']therefore if just ONE person says this is art.... It's hard to argue that it's not.[/quote]
You said above that there was no 'universally [i]accepted[/i] standard which dictates what is and is not art'. Yet now you seem move towards a universal standard by saying 'if just ONE person says this is art.... It's hard to argue that it's not'.


[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='393324' date='Jan 28 2009, 12:43 AM']I *know* this will lead to some *SILLY* example of art, but again... who reckons they're the king or nazi dictator, that has the right to decide what is art?[/quote]
But you yourself are deciding what art is when you claim that art is whatever someone says is art. So you make yourself a king or dictator.

Given your definition of art, I don't need any *SILLY* examples because according to you anything and everything can be art if someone says so.

And if claiming something is art could make it art then couldn't claiming something is not art make it not art? You give no grounds (I believe because there aren't any) for accepting the first claim but rejecting the second.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Erm there just isn't. You agree that yourself, no?[/quote]
Andy, I agree that there is no universally [i]accepted[/i] standard. I do not agree that it's necessarily clear that there [i]could not[/i] be an absolute standard which remains not universally accepted. However, what I think is most likely is that there are, in fact, several possible standards for what can be art. But I don't agree that one of those possible standards can be that something does become art or even can become art merely because any [i]one[/i] person says it is art - except in a particular sense and in a particular case: if a group of people, let's call them 'the artists/art critics/art galleries/art dealers/art buyers group', between themselves agree to institutionalise the production, critique, exhibiting, selling, buying, and collecting, etc., of works of art (which in fact they do) then, at least in practice, those works are art because the individuals involved have the social power to name what is to count as art in ways in which not everybody does. This is a kind of institutional theory of art.

There could be at least several other [i]possible[/i] standards of what is to count as art, for example: imitation or represention; certain formal qualities; a family resemblance with objects already considered to be art; the expression of emotion or truth or beauty; etc.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Find a single piece of evidence which suggests there is [b]any[/b] sort of a standard for what *isn't* art and I will capitulate. (however, I have to add some kind of caveat here which suggests either "universally accepted", or at least "widely recognised" standard, or it will just come down to a single opinion, which just sidesteps the very point I was tying to make. See my "lights on" example later.)[/quote]
Any standard for what is [i]not [/i]art must logically also be a standard for what is art by [i]inclusion of what is not art[/i] and [i]exclusion of what is art[/i]. Similarly, any standard for what is art must logically also be a standard for what is not art by [i]inclusion of what is art[/i] and [i]exclusion of what is not art[/i]. Such a standard, either way, must draw a line between what is and what is not art which is exactly what your claim that if 'someone says it's art then it is art', I think, fails to do. I would say this is a matter of the logic of setting up a standard and distinguishing between one thing and another. A standard must be able to distinguish between what is within the standard [i]and[/i] what is not within the standard. As such, it has nothing to do with any particular evidence. Nonetheless, as you asked, I will give an example of a 'sort of standard for what *isn't* art': anything the art institutions named above reject as not art (and also as art but as bad art) has been subjected to their standards of what is and isn't art etc. And I'd submit that this would count as a 'widely recognised' standard for what is and what isn't art.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']The line "you can't establish that there isn't, merely by saying that not everyone accepts it" just misrepresents the statement I was making. I'm saying that there isn't a "universally accepted standard". It's a single sentence which says there isn't a 'universal standard' for people to agree or disagree with.
I think thats just being pedantic about the way I wrote the point rather than actually forwarding your argument.[/quote]
Saying, on the one hand, that there isn't a 'universally accepted standard' and saying, on the other hand, that there isn't a 'universal standard for people to agree or disagree with' are not the same thing. I don't think it is pedantry, I think they really mean different things. However, originally I had no intention to get into a discussion on the philosophy of art but merely intended what I thought was a humorous but friendly jest at your first post - hence the line about being a t****r. So, as this is a bass players site and not a philosophy of art site I am going to get out of this thread very soon.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Hmmmm I can see why you think I'm confused, but I'm really not.
I possibly see it differently to you, you see. The way I see it is: Individuals DO decide if something *IS* art. But individuals (and even majorities) CAN'T decide something *ISN'T* art.
To help explain this ask everyone in the world that has a lightswitch "Is a light on?" the answer, unless EVERYONE has their lights off is "Yes" The people with off lights don't get to decide.
And I see it the same for art: "Is this object art?" If most people disagree, but just a few say "yeah, I think it's art" then who are the others to disagree. The others simply don't like the thing which some people consider art, and their opinions cant really change it.[/quote]
Well, I guess you do see it differently to me but, really, I'm not trying to say how I see it so much as to establish what actually is the logic of the situation. I'm not clear how the lights analogy works because there is an easily understood and probably universally accepted standard for whether a light is on or not. I still cannot grasp why you think an individual can decide something is art but no-one can decide that it isn't art.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']no I'm not. You just misrepresented my statement again. I have nothing to do with it. My light can be on or off. I'm just a lightswitch owner. I can make a thing art, as can you. A dictator would be someone who has the ability to turn his light off and everyone elses lights go off. And that's the reason I argue this point. I argue it for you, and I argue it for me. And even though no one else get it, and probably disagree with me, I STILL defend your right to use your switches as you wish, but DON'T SAY THE LIGHT IS OFF just because yours is off.[/quote]
You said 'who reckons they're the king or nazi dictator, that has the right to decide what is art?' but your claim appears to be that if just one person says it is art then it is art whether I (or any other person) says it is not art; so that first person is now deciding what is to count as art for all the rest of us, dictating to us. Now, my complaint here is not that the dictation is taking place, as such, but that your position entails dictation but you don't see it.

[quote name='GremlinAndy' post='394907' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:30 PM']Yes I realise this, which is why I wanted to head off the possibility of anyone still reading this, of suggesting daft examples, which my theory makes possible. I UNDERSTAND the unfortunate downside of my argument because it allows for silly examples of what can be called art, like pickled sharks and half cows... (except they ARE art)
But please don't burn me alive for the "one person makes it art" standpoint. It's a theoretical minimum. 0 people = no light = not art. Anything above this leads to the "light on" response. And while it's hard to defend, I have to stand by it to be true to my argument. Call it a 'quantum defense of a statistically unlikely extreme'.


erm I HOPE I answered this in an acceptible manner. Maybe you might even begrudgingly accept that I might have a point?[/quote]
For me, gudge doesn't come into it, nor does winning or losing. I really like these kind of discussions and it's a sign of BC's maturity and tolerance that they can sometimes be had. But I am going to drop out of this and you can feel free to have the last word. I'm going to avoid the philosophy of art until the mods open up a special forum for it. (I have a feeling I may have said that before)

By the way, the chainsaw bass which started this thread, I think there are many good reasons for calling it art, and I would call it art (comedy is an art isn't it?) but it's not as artful as either of my Fenders or my Lakland and I wouldn't have it in the house.

[Delberthot]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='Delberthot' post='395162' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:56 AM']ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz[/quote]

Hey ... wake up at the back.