Hacker News Reader

Let's say you see tens or hundreds of works by artists who qualify ("years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter"). Do you think you'd describe all the works as "good"?

Seems doubtful.

Or maybe you would say they are indeed all "good", but not equally good. Or maybe each night be "good and...." some other quality, varying between the works.

So what are those qualities that might distinguish between all those "good" works? And might you see if they apply to other forms of visual art? Perhaps those qualities might find a fuller or more varied expression in other media?

> At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything

Check out Marcel Duchamp.

I remember the first time I walked into a gallery and saw that someone had stenciled "FUCK" on the wall and the docent was smugly explaining about how artistically creative it was. Nah, sometimes a "FUCK" is just a "FUCK."

So-called modern art is, at best, a money laundering scheme, and other applications go downhill from there.

That's not to say there aren't tons of gifted and talented artists making art today, they just aren't who you're going to see in the galleries.

Modern art includes a bunch of amazing artists like Picasso

I think he's referring to the more "out there" postmodern stuff

You should have seen the HN thread in some Picasso some months back. Turns out many were displeased with his works and styles.

What you appreciate is the "craft" of art. Which is great, the work of talented artists that are able to craft amazing scenes and stories is truly beautiful. Eventually though, you need something more than just the aesthetics of it all.

I think its safe to argue that after thousands of years of art, we (the viewer) evolved to want more from it all, and the art world responded in kind.

A really subversive piece of art work (Ai Weiwei) is a lot more stimulating than a beautiful portrait (Rembrandt).

> In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures.

You don't count film or photography? What about art that targets other senses besides vision like music or culinary arts?

In my opinion photography is close but still distinct enough that I would call it separate from art, film takes this even furthur. Cooking is way different from art, sure you can add the word "arts" after anything, but all it's really saying is that the thing is being done in a creative manner...

I don't think I've ever heard such a circumscribed definition of art before. Did you get this conception of art from somewhere or is it just a personal redefinition of the word?

> In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures

Can’t agree with this one, two people I know that are the epitome of an “artist” are musicians.

I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things.

My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In my opinion real art is like a good view, it's a carefully crafted physical object that's only purpose is to be nice to look at, nothing else. And a real artist must make real art to truly be one.

If you want to call something art as an expression then that's totally fine, I just think it's ridiculous to say music is literally art.

What do you base this idea that “art” should only include sculptures and painting. Some cursory googling into the etymology and history of the word suggest it was often used in even more broad senses, describing things probably neither of us would consider “art”.

It's just my opinion