I can appreciate the type of conceptual art you're talking about as like a commentary on the very context it has ended up in, or as a way to question what makes us call an object "sculpture" vs. "garbage", or whatever. But I'm with you. I want to see folk art, outsider art, works-in-progress, beginner projects, and new experiments - both to connect with the community around me and so I can steal some of what I'm seeing to adapt for my own projects.

I like to do the critic thing too, but for me experiencing the products of art does not get me nearly as excited as experiencing the processes of it, whether I'm the artist or someone else is.

Example: the Voyager record. Any sufficiently-intelligent alien who comes across it is likely to conclude "That object probably wasn't an accident".

Compare this to tabloid articles with stories like "The face of Jesus appeared in my toast this morning!". Regardless of whether you're an atheist or not, the Voyager record undeniably offers a higher standard of evidence that some intelligent entity intentionally produced it. Somebody spent time and energy to make it look exactly like that.

I like this definition because it acts as an interesting litmus test.

Fantasy novels? Art.

A toilet? Definitely intentional, but how much thought went into every little aspect? How much of the design and production was left to chance?

An extremely ergonomic and well-designed toilet? Inching more towards "art", because it's not just any old toilet -- it's that toilet.

Plain white canvas in a fancy modern art museum? Debatable. Why does it look like that? Is the intent intrinsically obvious? Maybe it's obvious to serious art critics with a background in this stuff, but maybe it seems meaningless to everybody else.

Random squiggles in a fancy modern art museum? Still debatable, but more obvious than the white canvas - even if it was all random, somebody decided that they really liked those squiggles, and made the call that the squiggles were "done", and they decided to put it up on a wall instead of trashing it. From the artist's perspective, this is definitely art - it encodes a number of judgement calls on the part of the artist. To everybody else, it might just look like squiggles, so everybody else doesn't have to agree that it's art.

I think you're missing the point though.

The whole significance of that exhibition is that esteemed artists are given a grand platform (with a long history) to express any idea they want and this (the 3 blank canvases) is the one they chose. That in and of itself is the art.

They had no obligation to display those 3 blank canvases. In fact, they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive with the finest strokes and details (presumably if you're at the level of getting museum exhibits, this is just a base level of skill you've acquired and is trivial to display).

But the very fact that the artist used the platform to express the idea that the canvas itself is the art and the entire point is beautiful. They placed an emphasis on the very beginning rather than the end of the creative process.

In some ways, the exercise is totally pointless, cliche, and lazy. I agree. But there is also immense beauty in the same exercise because somewhere along that very seam lies the answer to the question "What is the meaning of anything at all? What's the point of this museum?".

If that pointless piece with 3 blank canvases led to you and I to having this conversation here, then I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished".

I'm pretty sure we could argue for the rest of our lives about what art is. Suffice to say, I disagree.

> they could have just as easily whipped up something that was technically impressive

I honestly doubt that. At one point, most avant-garde artists were also very capable craftsmen, but that's a long time ago.

> there is also immense beauty in the same exercise

While there is truth to the old adage of the eye of the beholder, I happen to believe there is also universal, objective beauty. I sincerely disagree that any of the two need to be constructed by some contrived abstraction and over-interpretation of the act of exhibiting three blank canvases.

> I think in that artist's eyes "mission accomplished"

I think they considered their mission accomplished by the sheer increase in worth their work will have from being displayed at the Guggenheim.

Just the fact that there is a disagreement about what is and isn't art points to the reality that there isn't an objective standard for judging art. Art by it's nature is personal.

If there was truly an objective standard of beauty, then you could measure it, and there wouldn't be a debate. Unless you're claiming that there is an objective standard, but it's secret knowledge only known to you. Then I would be the one calling you full of shit.

You can call this or that "full of shit" and that's your opinion, not some objective fact in reality.

Defining art and defining beauty must not be confused. I don't think art _must_ be beautiful, I was commenting on whether three blank canvases could convey some kind of beauty. Perhaps, to some, depending on how they were arranged, the background offsetting them, the overall surroundings, etc. But having to construct some abstract concept around exhibiting them and calling that concept beautiful is, I think, a bit of a stretch. Beauty is a very profound concept. We know if it's there.

Objective beauty is measurable. There's for example a definable, codifiable way of determining what we consider to be a beautiful face (it's about symmetry and averages).

Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours).

There can be art without beauty and there can be beauty without art, but the art I find most lasting, enjoyable and interesting is the one that manages to convey beauty above all else.

Don't confuse being able to measure something with attempts to explain what the measurement means.

Even if everyone agrees the mathematically-perfect face or landscape is beautiful, "we" are what was actually measured. If there isn't absolute agreement that the mathematically-perfect face is beautiful, be very suspicious of the interpretation.

Beauty is an experience, not a thing. It is inherently relational, not absolute or objective. If all things were equally "beautiful", the concept would vanish. If we all had mathematically-perfect faces, that particular spell would be broken.

Art--like beauty, boredom, and curiosity--is a relative, relational experience.

Don't get confused by the art-object; it is not the art. It is, at best, a call to have an art-experience, which you may or may not respond to.

Don't get confused by the art-museum; it is not where art lives. It is, at best, a physical space where it is socially acceptable to have art-experiences and leave art-objects laying around.

>Nature is objectively beautiful. Symmetry. Harmony, for example in matching colours or colours offsetting each other in specific ways (such as complementary colours).

These are opinions. I can find things that are symmetrical that are not beautiful. I can find things from nature that are definitely not beautiful.

Many times it's the exceptions to things that are beautiful - the out of place line in something that's otherwise symmetrical. But there are very few things in life that I think people will universally say is beautiful. There are always exceptions, people who do not like this thing or that.

You really seem to be suffering from an inability to differentiate opinion from fact.

But it's precisely the context that makes this art in my view. I don't think someone displaying 3 blank canvases in their garage would be the same. It's different when a highly respected artist chooses to do that in the Guggenheim. It adds an element of theater that produces an emotional response.

This is quite a messy conversation since the bounds are effectively "what is art?". But it's always a fun one to have.

That our culture rewards such non-effort so generously is the set up.

“The mission” isn’t to make a statement. But to get a doofus with more money than brains to pay rent for no effort whatsoever so they can make art for themselves.

You haven’t even seen it and you had an emotional reaction enough to keep posting about it.

There’s no contrived setup required. You replied with a contrived setup about art the way you did. Others replied with a contrived setup about art the way they did.

Please explain how that amount of subjectivity in this story alone create a framework for objectively beautiful art?

Too many ways in which chemical loops in billions of brains can flow to suggest such a thing.

Whether you can based upon some theory of pure science doesn’t matter since it’ll end up a cognitively subjective answer.

If you don't like a style, don't go to exhibits that feature it. That's why I avoid still lifes and portraits and a lot of other pre-19th-century work. I find them dreadfully dull.

And if you want to see new things vs things you've already made up your mind about, you're gonna have to do more work and more digging to find the right venues!

The criteria for what goes on display in a museum is not ability but significance. If someone is does the first version of style X, if style X is significant, then that someone's art rates museum display even if their version is a bit amateurish.

The significance of blank canvas in particular is detail I wouldn't otherwise comment on, however.

She had a lot of paintings that look like empty canvas from afar but show lot of details up close [0]

You don't have to like her work, but dismissing her paintings as "full of shit" is, well, remarkably full of...

Minimalism was her artistic choice that spanned many decades, and who knows how much time she spent to master her pursuit. She was so into her choice, she sought out to destroy her earlier works [1]

She was recognized by her peers, who are more qualified than you and I in judging at the very least technique and dedication.

[0] - https://www.moma.org/artists/3787 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnes_Martin

It sounds like you're disparaging the art (and in fact the artists for producing it) because you think it's not sufficiently technically difficult. It also sounds like you believe the artists are trying to present it as more than it is. But tell me if I've misunderstood you.

This is a very antagonistic attitude. You're approaching art with an adversarial mindset that only recognizes it if it's something nontrivial. I don't think anyone is trying to bullshit you - art is just subjective.

For many people, what's more important than the competence is the originality. Not even necessarily the originality of the thing itself, but of the meta surrounding it. In that sense, plain white canvas in a museum is actually pretty original. It's certainly less derivative than a lot of the highly competent also-rans who painted the same scenes in the same (highly proficient) styles in the same time period. Moreover, it made you think. You didn't have a positive reaction to it, but then (as any artist would tell you) art doesn't restrict itself to positivity :)

Now with that in mind, let's circle back to your other statement:

> You're supposed to have some kind of ability and that ability shouldn't have to be defended by pointless platitudes.

It seems like they do have an ability, it's just not an ability you respect because your definition of art is more narrow than theirs. And that's okay! No one is forced to deeply appreciate all forms of art. But the way you're disparaging this kind of modern art is a perfect example of the middlebrow dismissal that's already been brought up in this thread.

People are not full of shit just because you don't appreciate the (highly subjective) things they do. The triviality of many modern art pieces is part of a broader context which your criticism completely fails to capture.

Yes and no. I can find beauty in - or otherwise appreciate - simplistic creations as well. For example, a lot of contemporary photography is very little about technical skills and very much about selection, timing, subject and setting. I can find that highly engaging. But yes, there has got to be some thought behind it other than that it's supposedly "unique".

> Moreover, it made you think.

Lots of things make me think. I believe this is a simultaneously pretentious and simplistic approach to defining art.

> meta (...) original (...) derivative

What about beautiful? Emotional? Timeless and with lasting meaning? The kind of meta-art "commenting" on what art is or trying be "unique" that seems to make up the bulk of today's production is more than a century old by now.

> bullshit

Quoting this last because this is the core of my reasoning. The majority of the contemporary art world has long since lost any kind of connection to what's worthwhile, beautiful, thoughtful, insightful or interesting. It's a massive bullshit machine, propped up by nothing but a lot of pseudo-intellectual meta-reasoning about made-up abstract concepts commenting on themselves.

Many are provoked and angered by people getting famous for participating in reality shows or exposing their lives on Instagram. I can find the concept absurd, but it doesn't bother me as such. It's easy to ignore and if they can monetize their fame, good for them. That's between them and their audience.

As soon as something is considered art, on the other hand, it's considered to be of such significance that it warrants not only recognition, but also for example public funding, the interest of academia and a self-evident spot in any public place. It demands to be taken seriously, and people in positions of power will comply, no matter how inane it is. It's the naked emperor, if you will: it permeates society in ways that are systemically upheld by people who, when asked the question, probably couldn't explain what's actually good or beautiful or interesting about it, yet I'm expected to accept it at face value. For every blank canvas exhibited, there is one carrying true beauty that is left ignored. That bothers me copiously, however much I wish it didn't.

Is it? I have a plain white canvas sitting in the garage. Maybe I should charge admission? :-)