Personally I don’t like advertising. But should it be regarded as the lesser of the two because of its objectives. If it’s money’s that separates it from “art” then should a big price on a painting remove it from the field? — Brett

In my opinion, it's not necessarily money itself that defines commercial art but the intent or purpose with which it's created. A clever entrepreneur could effectively brand and use advertising to market an artist, like Milli Vanilli for instance. Something like this might be even easier with a painter because there doesn't need to be live performances, and abstract art doesn't necessarily even require good technique. It could be full-on 'emperor with no clothes'. It would still be art, however, in my opinion, just not good art, unless it somehow induced an aesthetic experience and/or expressed a meaningful concept.

In my opinion, it's not necessarily money itself that defines commercial art but the intent or purpose with which it's created. — praxis

I think the objective in commercial art is ultimately about money. The art is one of many facets used to sell something, it could be butter, a country, a band or real estate.

But, governments also use commercial art to sell themselves and their ideas, and that’s not necessarily about money but persuasion, which is what commercial art comes down when I think about it. So let’s say commercial art is about persuasion. And commercial art is used to sell art itself, all those carefully designed art galleries, the books, the advertising and promotion.

Is that what sets it apart from what we’re calling art? Art is not trying to persuade us of anything, it’s a take it or leave it offer. Once you start thinking about persuasion you’re thinking about target audiences, budgets, clients and advertising mediums. I think that self consciousness removes it from what we’re trying to define about art.

Is that what sets it apart from what we’re calling art? — Brett

I’m not saying that. I thought I made it clear in my previous post that I think commercial art is still art, just with the very intuitive distinction that it’s commercial. It may not always be apparent how commercial artworks are, and marketers may deliberately attempt to deceive buyers in this regard.

It may not always be apparent how commercial artworks are, and marketers may deliberately attempt to deceive buyers in this regard.

I agree, this is what I was trying to say when I mentioned the Brit Art phenomena in the 1990's, there was a marketing and media circus whipped up which went international. Millions of people visited the shows, myself included, because they thought there was some amazing thing they needed to witness. Once in the gallery there were exhibits like an unmade bed, a cow cut in half in formaldehyde, a rotting cows head in a glass case with thousands of flies and maggots eating it etc. Even confronted with that garbage the viewers were still pretending it was amazing art and something profound was happening.

There was something quite profound happening, mass hysteria generated by some very clever marketing and advertising gurus.

Is that what sets it apart from what we’re calling art?
— Brett

I’m not saying that. I thought I made it clear in my previous post that I think commercial art is still art, — praxis

I know that’s not what you were saying. It’s what I was thinking about. I was suggesting commercial art was about persuasion.

Art seems to be more about discovery than invention. It seems to be about searching, in that moment when the artist is working. If he knows where he’s going, what he’s going to do, then there can be no moment of discovery. Repeating yourself, finding a way of doing things, is more about technique, getting it right.

So I don’t see how commercial art can be art in the sense we’re seeking meaning. Commercial art is too much about technique. No budget or client has the time for the act of discovery. All commercial art has a deadline.

That’s the problem I have with Van Gogh, slavishly painting away day after day, the same thing over and over and over, like a moth at a window. What’s his intention, what does he expect? Seemingly nothing. That’s who he is, that’s his whole history.
What’s the point of all that compared to a Picasso who tears art apart, dissects it like a frog, then puts it back together again. He does that over and over and over. Van Gogh never did it once.

A distinction needs to be made between commercial art and what you’re talking about as the Brit Art work. Commercial art and marketing was used to promote Brit Art, but that doesn’t mean Brit Art is commercial art itself, no matter how much promotion went on in support of it.

Yes, thanks for that clarification, the artists concerned where trying to express themselves in a genuine way. What I was thinking of was that the whole exercise was a commercial enterprise.

Yes, I can I imagine that. Not very impressive from what I saw.

That’s the problem I have with Van Gogh, slavishly painting away day after day, the same thing over and over and over, like a moth at a window. What’s his intention, what does he expect? Seemingly nothing. That’s who he is, that’s his whole history.
What’s the point of all that compared to a Picasso who tears art apart, dissects it like a frog, then puts it back together again. He does that over and over and over. Van Gogh never did it once. — Brett

Van Gogh had a very distinctive style/aesthetic. We could give him credit for that vision. But anyway, I notice that you use the phrase “over and over and over” for both artists. It seems they were both bound to their respective niches.

It seems they were both bound to their respective niches. — praxis

Picasso didn’t have a niche. Which is why I respect him so much. He challenged himself each day. Most artists find a vein and work it. Very few did what Picasso did. It’s possible it may not be a good thing. Had he done everything he could have with that new style or did he just get impatient and move on. Even if he failed to really explore a particular vein he explored the possible ways of doing things. Again, it’s the action, the moment, that is art, not the relic. Finish the painting then walk away from it.

Edit: art is either one of these two things; it’s the action or it’s the relic.

It occurs to me that the relic is the public experience of art. But it’s a long way from the act itself. Two completely different worlds.

The new and original idea happens in the creative moment of the work of art. You don’t have to be an artist to come up with a new subject matter. If I gave an artist an entirely new motive: “Paint polar bears climbing palm trees.” And he makes such a painting. Which one of us is the artist? Me? No, he is of course. The artistic idea that matters is in the execution of the painting. Likewise, if a painter sets out to paint the “Madonna and Child” for the millionth time, he may still be a great and original artist. (Raphael’s Sistine Madonna was not the first such painting.) He may find a subtle originality and his own unique expression, or he may just be a copyist and thus no artist at all. That can’t be decided in advance based on the chosen genre (subject, technique, style)

But if you’re working in a specific genre then by creating something original you’re breaking away from the tenets that define that genre. If you maintain the tenets of that genre then you’re not creating anything original. — Brett

Say you are giving the Madonna a certain mysterious divine look that has never before been depicted while keeping strictly to the tenets of the genre. Couldn’t that be enough to qualify as something great and original?

Sure, if you call any slight innovation a new genre, anything unique will be a new genre by default, but that’s of course not what is usually meant.

Picasso didn’t have a niche. Which is why I respect him so much. He challenged himself each day. Most artists find a vein and work it. Very few did what Picasso did. It’s possible it may not be a good thing.

I understand why you don't admire Van Gogh, I am the same about Matisse, so I am not critical of what you say about him or his work. I'm responding to the distinction you make between Picasso and other artists and about the way artists work. To be an artist, well the sort of artist we are talking about, requires a total immersion in the process, a fanaticism, an effort to push at boundaries. For each person this manifests in different ways depending on their temperament and personality, even their mental make up. So in each case the way they work and progress is going to be very different. Picasso did seem to chop and change a lot, but when you look at his body of work there is not actually that broad a range of imagery. He had a fiery, restless, domineering personality, he was a showman. But I don't see the collection of artefacts he left behind as that different to many of his peers, at least in their scope. Even more flamboyant, Salvador Dali would orchestrate vast crowds of people in his demonstration of some kind of megalomania, trying to out do many of his peers. But again the body of work he left behind was not that broad in scope, or vision.

Did any of them break the mould, I can't see it myself, they were all painters, or sculptors who developed their own way to do art in association with other members in the group or school they were involved in. I think the way in which they are judged and admired changes with changes in the societies which follow, some artists may be admired for longer than others. Few reach immortal status and the few that do may do so for anachronistic reasons, for example the fascination with the Mona Lisa is not to do with the artists achievement, but rather some ambiguity about the way he painted her mouth.

Van Gough was a flawed personality which resulted in his working in an intense but narrow confined way with a lot of repetition. This resulted in a body of work narrow in scope and variation.

In the current world naivety and vernacular work is more highly prized than accomplished, polished traditionally valued pieces. I see this too in the world of antique furniture which I have dealt in for a number of years. A country made Windsor chair of a particular naive vernacular form is often worth as much as a highly ornate accomplished chair made by a follower of Chippendale. And is certainly more sought after.

In a similar way art produced by flawed or compromised personalities is highly valued for perhaps shining a light on a distorted facet of human life in a unique way, not out of genius, but peculiarity.

To tell the truth it doesn’t really matter who’s better than who at the level we’re talking about. Nor does it help in defining art. Or maybe the disagreement does help in some way by placing the focus on unexpected things that contribute a little to what we think art might be.

Van Gough was a flawed personality which resulted in his working in an intense but narrow confined way with a lot of repetition. This resulted in a body of work narrow in scope and variation. — Punshhh

This is a fair observation. And it contributes a little bit here to what art is. You don’t want to have a relationship with an artist, you’ll be second in line to the work. They only care about their work, which means they only care about themselves. All they think about is their work, you might even call it an obsession.

So I think that obsession is an important element. And if you look at any artist of merit that’s bound to be part of their personality.

If I gave an artist an entirely new motive: “Paint polar bears climbing palm trees.” And he makes such a painting. Which one of us is the artist? Me? No, he is of course. The artistic idea that matters is in the execution of the painting. — Congau

I don’t know if that helps much in terms of originality. If the execution is done in a realist manner, as most portraits are done, then the artist is falling back on traditional techniques. What exactly could be called original in that? Even if you give the subject a mysterious divine look it would still have to be done by traditional techniques. What would be original was a painting that showed the mysterious divine look, that person, because that’s who it’s about, in a way it had never been perceived before.

All cases of what people call art is a form of emotional communication, but it is subjective, which is why not all art affects everyone the same way.

What about art semi-automatically generated by a neural network that in effect produces novel images with high artistic potential by interpolating the patterns that exist within large databases of artistic, natural and cultural images? Or that transfers the statistical qualities of an artist's style onto an arbitrary image to produce a novel 'painting' in that artist's style?

Who is the artist here, and who owns the results?

Interested in this discussion.

What about art semi-automatically generated by a neural network that in effect produces novel images with high artistic potential by interpolating the patterns that exist within large databases of artistic, natural and cultural images? Or that transfers the statistical qualities of an artist's style onto an arbitrary image to produce a novel 'painting' in that artist's style? — sime

If it helps towards defining what art is I’d be interested.

All cases of what people call art is a form of emotional communication. — Susu

Do you have any way of proving that?

Personally, anything that is made to be called art is done as a means of emotional communication. Decorations like patterns in architect for example is meant to instill an emotion in people, the more intricate and extravagant the more overwhelmed a person feels. Some decorations make people feel more cosy and homey. Other forms of art like paintings, and music are all forms of emotional communication. When you describe music for example, you say things like this song is uplifting, depressing, energizing, inspirational, revolutionary... etc. Has there been art that is not meant for emotional communication?

Suppose you are creating art, what purpose are creating for? Perhaps in your mind, you are aiming this art for a particular audience, to instill a particular feeling. As well as to convey a message.

Has there been art that is not meant for emotional communication?[/

Marcel Duchamp.

Finnegins Wake — Susu

Has there been art that is not meant for emotional communication? — Susu

The obvious one would be the Cubism developed between Picasso and Braque.

Creativity.
We as consciousness create what we want to be conscious of.

Perhaps political art is a good place to start, I accept that there are a few pieces of good political art, but most isn't.
What I am saying is bad, is the way art may be compromised by the need to convey a political message. It can become a divisive slogan.

When most people say it it just means “I don’t like this”

When people say 'that is bad art', what are they saying is bad?
Or, what is it that defines bad art? — Invisibilis

Works better if you say what you think and maybe why. I say good art makes sense and bad art does not. That leaves a lot of room for what "sense" is and who's talking.

I think you could analyse the history of art and examine what kind if things have been considered art and how widely an example diverges from the prominent model.

For example if you have an apple pie and someone makes something with beef and calls it an apple pie you can say this is not sufficiently like 99.9% of of apple pies to qualify as an apple pie.

I think if you call everything art then you make the term meaningless or useless.

Then add in the dimension of money making.

I don't think that claiming something is art can make it art because that would be the equivalent of granting magical powers to the statement.

For example I can't make a dog a cat by claiming that the dog is a cat.

In this sense you can say nothing is art if there is no consensus. But based on what humans have identified as art for their long history then I think statistically something does not qualify for the label art if it is far removed from examples related to the majority usage of the word art.

Or, what is it that defines bad art? — Invisibilis

Bad art is art that Reason disapproves of.