Is a pile of laundry art? Challenging an earlier debate
I'd like to thank my opponent for the response. She starts out with a short introduction
to her round explaining, in a way, what art is and how it is subjective. How it once was intended to be atheistically: both visually
and auditory beautiful. However, there are a few things I'd like to object to right
off the bat. Subjective or objective: First off I already went over in the previous
debate how art is in theory objective. The feelings it may portray is subjective but
the initial impact the artist want's to convey is objective, the methods he used to
create the artwork are almost always objective methods and there is a predefined array
of objects that we will by default find to be artistic. Humans are incredibly predictable
as a group. There may be subjective fluctuations within individuals but as a group
we will almost always head for a similar, objective direction when it comes to art.
We don't need unanimity, we need somewhat of a majority. As such we need to think
as a group and consider: “will a majority of our current culture find this to be art.” This is done in an objectified method to cut our own biased opinion out of the
debate. So, will they? I'll get to that again in a moment. Pushing the boundry: She
then says, I quote: “but as per recent years it [art] has become increasingly obscure as artists try to experiment with more creative
ways to portray their message, [...] Therefore as artists seek to push the boundaries
further on what could be considered art“ Problem with that is that when you push a boundary it will eventually break. You
cannot hide behind “this is obscure, I'm pushing art to it's limit!” At some point you will cease being artistic and just be obscure.
Let m explain: There are in my opinion three overlapping main genres/goals of art. – Art that is meant to be aesthetically pleasing: such as paintings, statues, music e.t.c
– Art that is meant to show off the skill of the artist. Such as architecture or mechanical
art. – Art that is supposed to convey a message (for instance emotions). A pile of laundry is
obviously not supposed to be skillful or something to marvel at. My bed Is supposed
to give you a message. However. When you have to explain the emotion to the audience
via the description you've killed that artwork. That artwork is now no longer the
center piece and is just to support the story. The story can stand as art on it's own but the artwork cannot stand on it's own without the story as it would
revert back to being laundry. It cannot convey the message on it's own. It shouldn't depend on the artist, as the artist isn't the one that decides it is
art, the audience does. So, if the art medium cannot emit the general message on its own it has failed as an art form. It isn't pleasing, it isn't skillful and it cannot emit the correct message.
Without a premise it will just be a random piece with no value. It cannot even be
considered an artistic product seeing how not only can I recreate the work at home
(see above) but I also realize that it is just a pair of pants I can get anywhere
for a lot less. Buying After the night just signals that you have way to much money
and have nothing better to spend it on. The description should not be the artform:
Now, I have to praise my opponent for making me laugh with her brilliant over-analyzes
of my “artwork”, I didn't expect her to interpret it so in-depth and for it to become
so entertaining. But in the process she also helped me show another point. The point
that the art revolves around the story and the medium is irrelevant. Being, among other things,
a poet I could just as well have written a poem around that premise and eliminated
the need to describe that back story because it is by default integrated into the
art form. I could have created a painting and even if the story would have gaps I could
still make the piece itself the art by having a skillful painting or embedding the sad emotion as a theme and emit that
to the audience. I could have written a song, composed a musical piece, a novel, 3D
rendered graphics, a play, video art, graffiti, the description that followed the laundry before,tried to create her face
out of scrap car parts (preferably the car that killed her), or juststand in the corner
of the museum and cried her name for a few hours. All of those are medium that have
the possibility to emit a message without needing to really push the limit of what
is art. Some of these are pleasing, some are skillful, some are really strange but they
all have better potential to emit a message unaided than the clothes I had on when
the accident occurred. Just putting the clothes on a wire frame that made them look
like a human crouching over someone gave a clearer message. Don't get me wrong, I
have nothing against artworks that require you to interpret and decipher the message.
But, I will set as a standard that if the sole purpose of the artwork is to portray
a message it has to be clear enough to not include every single message there is.
For instance, my opponent managed to come up with 4 different meanings to the piece
under a gender view. 5 if you count my own story, and approaching this under society,
capitalism, as an attack against modern art itself and so forth I could make a plethora of interpretations that more often than
not portray opposite emotions and messages within a single piece. It relies on me
to be the artist and create the art from a pair of pants. That's akin to placing a blank canvas to the wall and then
expecting the audience to imagine what could be on the canvas. That's not art, it's not even subjective anymore, it is literally a $20 canvas that was nailed to
the wall. Again, this circles back to the three main points: if the story is the art, the art is not the art;the audience must agree with the artist that it is art;art should not rely on the audience to convey the message. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. (Conclusion) Let's get back down to a personal level. Both my opponent and
I are artists. We may deal with different spectra, with me being a storyteller, writer,
poet, designing and programming games and expressing the world within my imagination.
My opponent however, as far as she has described to us, deals with modern or contemporary
art intended to work on a more raw emotional level and critique the real world. We both
however share the one common goal of art: To establish a relationship with our audience. We aspire to move those that view
our art, we want to make them understand what we are doing. We can do this in numerous ways,
but neither of us would want to create a piece that fails to intrigue the audience.
A pile of laundry as an artform does not establish a connection unaided. It relies
on a different artwork, the story, to be understood. I can tell you that a pile of
laundry will note score with the wast majority of people. If we ignore the entire
premise of the three artworks (well two, the center one doesn't have a premise) we
will suddenly see that outside that gallery we would never recognize it as art as opposed, the context of “this is intended as art” is note present anymore. As a medium an ordinary object cannot fulfill the intention
the artist wants and will instead just be itself, an object with no further meaning.
If the audience cannot identify it as art then it isn't art. Art isn't created with intention; it is created by perception. A pile of laundry cannot
be art in itself. It will always require help, it will always require context and it will
never manage to create a message the audience can understand. If the audience will in a majority of cases fail to understand the message, will have
at most comments on how lazy or unoriginal the piece is or will in general not conceive
the intention of the artist and are required to over analyze the piece to find enjoyment
or artistic value in it the artist has failed: he has not created art, but the default pile of dirty laundry.
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
