Art that has no discernible point--Modern or Postmodern--is not art
"Even the broadest terms have definitions, and so it is with art." That's fair. I'll
examine the definition of art as provided by my opponent. "According to Wikipedia, "Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human
senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas."" This is
a fair definition. I agree with it. "My personal definition is that an artwork must possess truth and beauty--whether
these are apparent at first glance or only after long study." This is where I must disagree. I can concede the wikipedia definition, but truth
and beauty are completely subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we
assume infinite opinions. Thus, beauty cannot be a necessary quality. As for truth,
I'm not sure how my opponent defines truth. "The pieces I spoke of ARE generally "products
of human activity," and they MAY, on a basic level, have the INTENT of "stimulating
the human senses as well as the human mind," (although I would hazard that it most
of these pieces were made for personal gratification or pure monetary value)" That
is a concession. That means I only have to focus on the final requirement. "but they
are CERTAINLY not "transmitting emotions and/or ideas." They are not even symbolic.
They have no meaning. "The pieces I spoke of ARE generally "products of human activity," and they MAY, on a basic level, have the INTENT of "stimulating the human senses as well as the
human mind," (although I would hazard that it most of these pieces were made for personal
gratification or pure monetary value)" That is a concession. That means I only have
to focus on the final requirement. "but they are CERTAINLY not "transmitting emotions
and/or ideas." They are not even symbolic. They have no meaning. Art, I'm sure you'll agree, must have meaning." Yes, and those pieces do have meaning.
Meaning is not intrinsic, meaning is bestowed upon other things by human beings. A
piece of art is a piece of art as long as one person views it as such. Whether it is the artist himself or another
admirer. "My opponent says, "We can only conclude that these pieces stray from the
traditions of past artists and that my opponent dislikes them." My opponent cannot
conclude that these artists have strayed from past traditions. People have been creating
NON-art art for centuries. However, it is only in this day and age that it has transcended all
other forms of "art." He can logically conclude that I do not like the pieces, but that in itself is
irrelevant, and it is fallacious to boil my argument down to that. It would be like
me saying, "We can conclude that my opponent DOES like the pieces."" That's fine.
When I mentioned these two points, I was conceding them as irrelevant fact. If my
opponent chooses to attack a concession, that's fine with me. "My opponent also says,
"I argue that it is impossible to give an objective scale to measure whether something
is art or not, so my opponent's declaration that 'X is not art' is false." If this were true, then this would be a futile debate for both of us
because if there is no standard for art, there is no art, and nothing to judge the debate by. Art, like most everything in this universe, is finite and has standards. It is objective."
I retract that statement. I instead offer one objective standard: That someone believe
it to be art. As long as one person believes something to be art, it is art. I extend this point by noting that art does not intrinsically exist. Art is a description, not a thing. This description is given by humans. "In conclusion,
my opponent says, "Simply put, everything is art." Again, this is fallacious, and would be akin to me saying "Simply put, NOTHING
is art," and equally false. The most BASIC definition of art is that it is created by human activity. Since "everything" is not created by human
activity, this statement is utterly false." Fair. But I have already accepted the
wikipedia definition and offered a rebuttal. "You cannot hang a tree in a frame and
call it art. Well, actually you can, and if you have a big name in the art business, you can even sell it to a museum or eager private collector for a large
sum of money. But this is not art." I disagree. The fact that my opponent says a tree hanging on a frame is not art does not mean it is not art. For example, I can hang a tree in a frame and interpret it as irony, or a symbol
for nature-worship, or for anthropomorphic thinking. So long as one person sees art in something, it is art. "Once again, the "art" that I have described is not true art. It has no truth or beauty, it is merely scratches on paper, etc. Perhaps it does
not signify anything, even to the artist. And it is most certainly not created to
stimulate the mind and senses, or if it is, it fails and thus fails to be art." Scratches on paper can be interpreted as futility and frustration. Imagine an artist
trying to draw something but the lead snapped and he can only scratch on the paper.
It becomes a symbol of rebellion and apathy. To me, that is beautiful, meaningful,
and true. Even if the artist did not intend that, that is how I interpret it, and
thus it is art. "The Modern/Postmodern art craze can be summed up by a comic strip I once saw. I believe it was from Non Sequitur.
A man, trying to impress his companion, walked up to a blank piece of wall in an art museum and, with arms outstretched, started to extol its virtues. He believed it
was a piece of art, and gave it all sorts of pop-art qualities likes, "shows the artist's soul," etc. While this was going on, a janitor
came up and hung an artwork on the blank space on the wall. "Had to clean the dang
thing," he said, apologetically. The last panel showed the other people in the room
looking at the man in disgust, while he hung his head. It was an excellent, meaningful
comic strip, and it's totally true." Argumentum ad populum. Whether or not something
is art is not dictated by majority rule. Art is in the mind. If the man felt such an emotional connection to the frame, does that
not reflect the purpose of art? Did he not feel an actual connection and was he not uplifted? *************** To
sum up, I have offered a contrary definition that I think is more acceptable. Art is art when someone sees it as art. Art is not a thing. It is a description. To call something art is to give it meaning, and meaning is an arbitrary outgrowth of man. Things mean
things only to us. Each and every single one of the examples my opponent provides
can be seen as art. The Virgin Mary in a container of urine may be a statement on how religion is disregarded
in our secular, cynical world. I already gave my interpretations of the tree hanging
in the frame, the blank frame, and scratches on paper. My opponent has conceded 2
out of the three requirements. I need only respond to the last one, which is that
art must elicit some sort of emotional response. I have done so, and have simplified
it to "Art is art when someone sees it as art". Those pieces elicit a response in me, at the very least, so they are must undoubtedly
art.
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
