Judge Clears Way for Barnes Collection Move Into Philadelphia

Washington Post ^ | 12/15/04 | By David B. Caruso

[Argh]

Hah! I could probably play it too. If I had a stopwatch. :^)

And I agree that he's given too much credence. I suspect the primary intention of such credence is the French expression "épater les bourgeois". But maybe I'm too cynical.

[John O]

yet I can take your responses and arrive at a formal philosphical definition of art.

And the end result always comes down to "art is something that looks good to someone" The same object may or may not be 'art' depending on who's looking

[John O]

While I wouldn't say that the coke can there would be art alone (again, because I don't see meaning in it),

Here's where the discussion between Dat Mon and I applies. Art (as I see it) doesn't have to have meaning it just has to look good.

your photo of it could be seen as art, because you are contrasting a beautiful place with a commercial product suggesting tourism, etc., in that place.

Actually it just looked good. It was a good contrast and it amazed me that the pepsi can had ended up upright rather than rolling to the bottom.

Now that could be an interesting photo. Whether it was "great" art might depend on how technical you want to be about the quality of the photo. (Some of my professor colleagues are really picky about technique in photography.)

Years ago (1983?). 110 instamatic. blurry. I was not (nor am I now even though I have much better equipment) a good photographer. too bad really cause it would look good over the sofa if it was a better picture.

[Dat Mon]

You said..."The same object may or may not be 'art' depending on who's looking"

Im suggesting that the activity of creating art defines it as art...provided it satisfies certain criteria. For example.. I would say that a pile of cinderblocks at a construction site isnt art unless somebody placed them there by hand using certain criteria...to make a representation of something.

The end product of this activity defines it as either good art or bad art...and the skills of the artisit in conveying what they intended define them as either good or bad artists.

The problme is that many people dont allow for the existence of bad art..to them its either good art...or no art. I think thats the trap you are falling into.

[John O]

Im suggesting that the activity of creating art defines it as art

And I am stating that whether something looks good or not is the sole determining characteristic of art. We'll just have to disagree on our definition of art.

The problme is that many people dont allow for the existence of bad art..to them its either good art...or no art. I think thats the trap you are falling into.

But it's not a trap. It's simply a statement of the value of the object being viewed/purchased. It either looks good (art) or doesn't (scrap metal/waste of paint/garbage). The artist's message, technique, skill etc have no relevance whatsoever. (Beyond making it look good, that is)

The 'gates' are an exellent example. Christo may be very talented. He may use the best materials. He may have a compelling message. But material draped on ski gates in central park is still just pollution. Because it doesn't look good. I've seen the very same effect on the banners that they string along the boardwalk in Virginia Beach. And it's not art there either.

[Republicanprofessor]

Art is in the eye of the beholder, and I would say that most people that I've talked to thought that Christo's Gates not only looked great but were a great experience as well.

You say that the meaning of the artist doesn't matter. That may not matter to you, but from the beginning of time, content has been paramount: from the pyramids to Michelangelo. No one would put the time, effort and money into the pyramids unless the purpose and meaning was important (to keep the pharoah's soul--or ka--alive forever).

From the Middle Ages through the 17th century, the meaning was often religious. Chartres cathedrals, and all cathedrals, were to glorify God and make man seem small. It worked. Michelangelo and Bernini created similarly awesome, religious works where the content was essential.

Now, one of the drawbacks of "esteemed" contemporary art is that some of it doesn't have much content. It's hot today, due to political and gallery connections, but I don't think it will be respected in 50-100 years. But for some, today is what counts, and not tomorrow.

[John O]

No one would put the time, effort and money into the pyramids unless the purpose and meaning was important (to keep the pharoah's soul--or ka--alive forever).

Pyramids were a tomb not art.

From the Middle Ages through the 17th century, the meaning was often religious. Chartres cathedrals, and all cathedrals, were to glorify God and make man seem small. It worked. Michelangelo and Bernini created similarly awesome, religious works where the content was essential.

OK I'll give you the meaning being important to religious art (including the statues and paintings of cathedrals etc. the cathedrals themsleves are not art)