Quiz about real versus fake

[Flosshilde]

The 'fake' abstract paintings in the first quiz aren't 'fakes' in that sense.

I suspect that the statement at the head of the quiz is made with tongue firmly lodged in cheeek -

"Some of the images displayed below are True Masterpieces of Abstract Art, created by Immortal Artists. They carry profound meanings, which are, however, beyond the apprehensions of the vulgar. The rest were produced by the author of the quiz. They mean nothing."

[jean]

I suspect that the statement at the head of the quiz is made with tongue firmly lodged in cheek -

"Some of the images displayed below are True Masterpieces of Abstract Art, created by Immortal Artists. They carry profound meanings, which are, however, beyond the apprehensions of the vulgar. The rest were produced by the author of the quiz. They mean nothing."

There are four statements at the head of the quiz.

The first two are tongue in cheek; the third is a simple statement of fact. It's the fourth (which is what we're talking about here) that's meant to be taken seriously.

.

[jean]

I would regard the act that took place (and it's intention) as art

The intention (I assume) was to show that most great abstract art has the public fooled, and that they cannot tell the difference between it and pieces that were intended to have no artistic value at all. The quiz is meant to be an emperor's-new-clothes exercise.

If the 'fake' pieces are distingushable from the 'real' ones, the experiment has failed - and judging by the replies on this thread, most people could indeed tell the dfference.

But if we agree that all marks on paper regardless of intention should be considered 'works of art', is there really no distinction between the bird droppings and Jackson Pollock?

Whether someone claims something not to be "real" music is neither here nor there.

It was your analogy!

How do you describe this piece?

(I think we have had a very similar argument on here before. And I see it's repeated in the comments on the video.)

.

[MrGongGong]

The quiz is meant to be an emperor's-new-clothes exercise.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz not again
more lazy cr*p

(We can do the Pines of Rome again if you like ?)

But if we agree that all marks on paper regardless of intention should be considered 'works of art', is there really no distinction between the bird droppings and Jackson Pollock?

In what context ?

(My aesthetic philosophy reading is a bit rusty but......) I think you are making a definition of what you think "art" is then citing something that doesn't fit to "prove" that it isn't. There's a Youtube clip of a TEDeX talk by someone showing how 4:33" isn't a piece of music that does the same thing, which is nonsense.

That piece is a piece of music, whether it's any 'good' or not is another question all together.
If I see great beauty in a cloud formation it is what I see even though there is no intention on the part of the clouds.

[jean]

In what context ?

In the context of the quiz we've had our attention drawn to on this thread.

I think you are making a definition of what you think "art" is then citing something that doesn't fit to "prove" that it isn't.

That's not what I am doing at all.

I am looking at a piece its maker says is not art, and conceding that he may have a point. Which is, actually, the opposite of this:

There's a Youtube clip of a TEDeX talk by someone showing how 4:33" isn't a piece of music that does the same thing, which is nonsense.

That piece is a piece of music, whether it's any 'good' or not is another question all together.

If I see great beauty in a cloud formation it is what I see even though there is no intention on the part of the clouds.

Of course. But do you call it a 'work of art'?

[MrGongGong]

Of course. But do you call it a 'work of art'?

Depends on how I "call" it
Sometimes it is (like the birds in The Pines of Rome) and sometimes it isn't

"Beauty is underfoot, wherever we take the trouble to look": Cage

Why are some people so anxious about what they see as art or not ?

Does the maker have the ability to say whether it is or not ?
If I wrote a song and said it wasn't a song it would still be a song

and as has been pointed out above

Some of the images displayed below are True Masterpieces of Abstract Art, created by Immortal Artists. They carry profound meanings, which are, however, beyond the apprehensions of the vulgar. The rest were produced by the author of the quiz. They mean nothing.

Nothing is a meaning.

(more Cage quotes ?)

[jean]

But I put the Rothko as a fake, as the colours on the screen looked too grainy.

That's one of the problems when you are judging from tiny reproductions.

You have to be in the room with the Rothko, then you know.

[teamsaint]

That's one of the problems when you are judging from tiny reproductions.

You have to be in the room with the Rothko, then you know.

well that was my problem here.

although, I was turned on to Rothko by the Simon Schama programme on a rather modest TV.The potrayal of some of the pictures was good enough to intrigue me.
So, since presumably most people get interested in Rothko, say, before they see an original, the less than perfect reproduction still has a function.

I have a large canvas Rothko reproduction in my hall. (Blue Orange Red 1961). It is probably less well lit than I would like, and imperfectly reproduced. But when I look at it, it helps reproduce some of the emotions and thoughts that Rothko tends to bring out in me. So it does , in part, the job of a Rothko, even though it might be a "fake" reproduction, although I think not.

I assume all the Rothko works I saw at the Tate Modern exhibition were the real thing........

[jean]

Why are some people so anxious about what they see as art or not ?

Some people are interested; that's why they did the quiz(zes).

That they were anxious about it is your interpretation.

Does the maker have the ability to say whether it is or not ?

Ability is an odd choice of word here, don't you think? Aren't we rather talking about what someone is entitled to say about their own production?

If I wrote a song and said it wasn't a song it would still be a song

Yes, you've made that point before. But the maker in this case doesn't deny that his paintings are paintings, does he? He just doesn't think they come into the category usually called Art.

Nothing is a meaning.

It may be, certainly, especially if you're a nihilist. But what if he had said instead 'It has no meaning'?

[MrGongGong]

Yes, you've made that point before. But the maker in this case doesn't deny that his paintings are paintings, does he? He just doesn't think they come into the category usually called Art.

Can one paint a painting and decide that it isn't art ?

and

"no meaning" is a meaning

Aren't we rather talking about what someone is entitled to say about their own production?

So are you suggesting that if I write an Opera and persuade the ROH to put it on, with arias, chorus, overture and all of that stuff that we associate with opera I am entitled as the artist to say it's not an opera ?

[Flosshilde]

There are four statements at the head of the quiz.

The first two are tongue in cheek; the third is a simple statement of fact. It's the fourth (which is what we're talking about here) that's meant to be taken seriously.

Why? How do you know?

[jean]

Missed this from SA.

Surely they are all "real" art in that they are all art ?

Not if they were created with the specific intention that they should not be.

I don't think the Dadaists would have agreed with you there, jean.

The Dadaists would have agreed with me - it's the art establishment of the intervening years who have decided that their non-art is Art, after all.

.

[teamsaint]

Mr Barthes had interesting things to say about this kind of issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

and, here is a quite excellent text book which covers similar areas, principally in literature.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginning-theory-third-introduction-Beginnings/dp/0719079276/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403634281&sr=1-1&keywords=theory+peter++barry

[MrGongGong]

Mr Barthes had interesting things to say about this kind of issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

and, here is a quite excellent text book which covers similar areas, principally in literature.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beginning-th...y+peter++barry

[Ian]

‘Art’ is the part of an object/experience etc. that has no function other than to be valued.

A fake is presumably made with the (non-artistic) function of fooling the observer, however that doesn’t preclude the object also having artistic value.