Absolutely right, that's why I said France is known for its regional food. It is regional but the whole of the country is known for it, and if you want food from Languadoc in the north of France you can get it.
Your argument fails based on your own provided definitions. A Britney Spears concert is not produced for beauty, but for utility ($$$). It's not made because it expresses anything, it's made because it makes money. And your second definition uses the term "such art" meaning that these other art forms only count as art if they are used to make the art that satisfies the first definition (and a Britney Spears concert does not). And you missed my point. I didn't say that a van Gogh was "no more art" than a concert. I said it was much closer to the idea of "art" than a concert. I look at it this way: Is a penny a lot of money? To someone with absolutely no money, it is an infinitely bigger amount of money than that person possesses. To someone with a moderate amount of money (we'll say 5 dollars) that penny is worth next to nothing. There's your subjectivity. And since very few of us are completely without artistic taste, it is ridiculous to call a Britney Spears concert art. Never do I say that what I don't like isn't art. And never do I imply that only the things that I do like are art. I dislike abstract art. But by no means do I deny that it is art. I like low-intelligence action movies with lots of explosions. But I will never consider them an art. rimbaud wrote an excellent post that supports just about everything I've been trying to get across from the beginning of this thread. Just wanted to recognize him for that.
I was wondering when you were going to chime in. So unlike you to give France credit for something . What about someone like Avril Lavine or whatever her name is. She writes her owns songs, so they would exist even if she didn't have a record contract. How is that not art? Is it NOT art because it now makes a profit? And I'm not sure how any of this means the US has less culture, since as I've posted above there are plenty of examples of writers, painters, etc creating 'art' even by ender's definition.
I have seen you make fun of others for reading comprehension...booo! My argument was that they were different and that it was silly to argue that they are the same thing, the same type of "art." They are not. Just as an 18th century chest on chest is not the same as an 18th century landscape painting.
While the intention for the creation of "Oops I did it again" and "Starry Night" are different they still can be used to make a profit especially considering how much Van Gogh's works have garnered at auction. Van Gogh himself may not have been thinking about profit but there's been plenty of ART that's been created with the goal for profit, or at least to make a reasonable living. Most of the Rennaissance artists sought wealthy patronage and tailored their art to the taste and subject matter of their patrons but we don't think any less of them for it. For that matter we don't know why the Lascaux cave paintings were made but they could've been created for some material benefit. In the end its a cultural value judgement that allows one to be ART while the other is pop. Both are still commodities.
Again, mass production gets in the way of that argument. Renaissance artists (and all artists until the late 18th century) relied on commissions to survive, of course. But, again, the intent, production, ditribution, etc. is all very different. Yes, we do know (as much as it can be known) and it was not for material benefit. I don't like adding "pop" to this discussion. All I have been doing is stating that there are different kinds of art and culture, that "art" is very hard to define, and that we should just leave it at a painting is different than an action movie. Mass culture vs. "fine" culture production. We have understood that fine art is a commodity since the 19th century, so that is a given. That doesn't mean, however, that a painting is the same as a t-shirt.
well i've been accused of not comprehending rimbaud, but it appears he is saying they are different kinds of 'art,' not that one is and one isn't as you are saying. rimbaud?
Word. I should have mentioned earlier but there is a newer discipline that has emerged from art history (among others) called visual culture. This is coming out of an understanding that our visually dominant culture/society is dissolving boundaries even more than postmodern theory and such. SO advertising, politics, movies, etc. are given more important weight and analyzed in an art historical manner in order to gain clearer insight. I am not within this discipline, but I follow it and use it...such as pointing out to students that understanding and recognizing the representation of Christ throughout history can give new understanding to a Clinton press conference where he is standing in between, arms stretched out, Israeli and Palestinian leaders. One example. And, again, I also think fine (non mass-produced) furniture is art, despite it's utilitarian nature.
Your argument fails based on your own provided definitions. A Britney Spears concert is not produced for beauty, but for utility ($$$). It's not made because it expresses anything, it's made because it makes money. [/B][/QUOTE] But can't you say the same thing for most of what is considered art? Or did they all donate their work to their wealthy patrons?
rimbaud, i'm not sure what an aesthetic philosopher is so maybe you can enlighten me. anyway, the real confusion here is that everyone is getting bogged down trying to define art. why? i would say that stupidmoniker is absolutely correct in saying that britney spears is art in as much as you could call a van gogh painting art. art is where you find it, it has nothing to do with the artist's motivation, nothing. what we really need to be talking about is value. louis armstrong is mass culture and HIGH art, if you want to put it that way, ender. i have zero issue with stupidmoniker calling last action hero art, i would just say that he has bad taste. is velveeta cheese? how about monterrrey jack? who cares? there is also rouqefort, camenbert and reggiano-parmesan. eat whatever cheese you like, see if i care. sure art is expression but that doesn't tell us anything. i can express to you that since we don't see eye to eye i'm going to kick your ass. is that art? what if i said instead, i'm going to rip out your eyeball and skull-**** your ass? well, it's definately more coloful and obscene and has more metaphorical weight consequently. the value of "art" has to do with its level of complexity and the relationship the audience has with the work. people have differing levels of experience, education, and taste and bring this baggage to the table when experiencing art.
I already said it cannot be defined. Your cheese talk confuses me and makes me sleepy. Besides, if we are using a cheese standard that will anger people because France (and other European countries) can kick the US's ass. Aesthetic philosopher = a philosopher who studies aesthetics. Art is definitely a matter of taste, but (of course) "taste" is also near impossible to define. Basically, there is no art, beauty, taste...nothing. There is only dada. I have to stop because I feel guilty talking about such a worthless subject. Maybe I should go vote Democrat now.
lol I don't know about that. We ain't got no stinky cheese over heah. And everytime I ordered queso in europe i got a plate of cheese. Stupid Euros.
At first, I tried the objective approach, where a Britney Spears concert is simply not art. That wasn't too popular, so in the interest of coming to some semblance of an agreement, I made the concession of "Fine, I'll consider a Britney Spears concert 'art' if you'll admit that it's not nearly as close to the idea of 'art' as a van Gogh painting." Frankly, I think a strong case could be made objectively or subjectively. rimbaud addressed this in an earlier post. While they made money off of it, the money was not their sole driving purpose. They needed the money to live and produce more art.
Well, that is your fault for using the white-i-fied version of the dish. I thought only sorority girls called it "queso." Chile con queso, you fool. Max, Your post was hilarious, but it should be noted that the jalapeno was named after the town of Xalapa in Veracruz, Mexico...so I don't think you can claim a US voctory. We also were not the first to put it in or with cheese. Your blind patriotism is, uh, blinding you to the facts. Ender, Just go with the definition of art as "that which peope say is art." It is much easier. Then, just follow that there are levels/kinds of art that are pretty distinguishable, and then make your own judgement as to which is better. In general, a van Gogh painting is superior to a Britney Spears concert, but there are also some really bad van Goghs (he made so damn many) out there that may be less aesthetically interesting, intellectually interesting, and historically significant as Britney jiggling around on stage.
You're just missing it. They're both art. Trying to say you know where the line for 'real' art is just makes no sense. Anyway this line seems to have obscured the original dispute over whether or not the US has culture. Clearly it does as my post shows (many writers, painters and other practitioners of 'real art). If your indict of that culture is BSpears et al but that could just as easily be pointed out in Europe (check out Atomic Kitten, S Club 7, or Ali G - unless of course that is 'art' since its European ).
