Are magic illustrations 'art'?

[Matt]

I am not sure if there is any reason why we need to distinguish art from great art... And no one, or few, would say that illustration, as in the diagramming of an exploded view of an V8 engine, is art.

...

Maybe I am missing the divide. If you can show me a clear and distinct division between the two then maybe I would assent to the distinction. Until then, the only defensible labels, in this instance, are art and illustration.

I hasten to point out that my definition of art resolves this problem.

[Saucemaster]

Maybe I am missing the divide.  If you can show me a clear and distinct division between the two then maybe I would assent to the distinction.  Until then, the only defensible labels, in this instance, are art and illustration.

On the contrary, you're not missing the divide, you're drawing one.  Here's the thing: take Mr. X, an aspiring artist who is, let's be totally honest with ourselves, godawful at it.  I mean, really, he just sucks at it.  Since neither of us buys into the feel-good naive egalitarian point of view, I trust you'll have no problem with my decree here.  Unfortunately for Mr. X, he doesn't really realize this, and, due to his sizable inheritance, he can afford to spend most of his waking hours on the portraiture for which he's (in)famous.

Now it seems self-evident to me that Mr. X is engaging in the same basic activity as Rembrandt when he attempts to paint one of his truly laughable portraits.  The difference is that he's so very much less SUCCESSFUL at it.  Rembrandt is still celebrated today, while this X's paintings are almost instantly forgotten, and will never be considered anything more than paltry, derivative pieces.

Now we can have a whole debate on what consitutes "successful" or non-successful art; we can endlessly go around about what's good art, what's not good art, etc.  And I think that's certainly a debate worth having.  But that's not what we're debating here.  My point is that, given that these two men (X and Rembrandt) are performing the same type of action, with radically different results, we need:

1) Some way to talk about this type of action in which they're both engaged; and
2) Some way to distinguish between the differing results of their similar actions.

I think that "art" is, in general use, the term used to discuss the type of action in which they're both engaged.  They are both making art.  However, to go to point (2), one is making very good art, and the other very bad.  And in reality, we're also going to have to admit that the "goodness" or "badness" of art is measured along a continuum, so that it's almost never as simple as just "good" or "bad", but I trust that you see my point.

I think you're conflating #2 and #1.  You want to reserve the term "art" for use in referring specifically to things that fall more or less unequivocally on the "good" side of the spectrum.  But obviously the fact that we're comparing these things at all suggests that there IS, in fact, something they share, some basic measure of similarity that allows us to judge them against each other.

As I see it, then, you're left with two choices: either you can use another term to fill the void left by co-opting the term "art", in which case this whole discussion is simply one of nomenclature, or you actually believe that the two things are not in fact comparable at all; that they are fundamentally different types of activities.

If it's the second, I'm actually very interested to hear your reasoning, though I will anticipate and say that most lines of argument I've heard on that subject tend to conflate the *action* with the *effect* of that action.  If it's the first, however, then I see no reason to change the common usage--which is that they are both "artists", but that one is a bad artist, and one a very good artist.

As for a "distinction without a difference", I think it's also pretty clear that there is a difference here.  Two, in fact.  One, between art and non-art, which is important because it's precisely the fact that they are both engaging in creating art that makes X and Rembrandt's activities directly comparable in the first place, as they wouldn't be if X was just sitting at home doing homework and Rembrandt was painting.  The second between art that is truly inspiring and beautiful--"good"--and art that is bland and banal--"bad".  Both seem like salient differences, worthy of distinction.

[Machinus]

Ric:

You are absolutely correct that there is a kind of developed, formal expertise pertaining to the art world. Indeed, if I had to answer a question about art, I would go to the opinions of some of those you named, and others, to form my conclusion. There is definitely some kind of "consensus" about art in the minds of professionals.

However, I cannot ever accept that art is in any way NON relative. I even disagree with your analysis that physics is relative. Any branch of the study of the natural sciences rests upon the hard facts of the others, and even in math, when we define things with NOT statements or null hypothesis, the CREDIBILITY of those statements rests on the firmness and clarity of definition of the rest of the field.

This credibility, while respectable in its tradition and even in some of its consistency, exists at a different level in art. My eagerness to take the 'relativist' position may be influenced by the way that Americans pretend that Art is absolutely different from precise studies, like physics. I would never respect someone's opinion on either one without some kind of proof that they had studied it or had a lot of experience with it; in this way there is no difference in the way I think about it. The reason that this is a falliable position at all is exactly because of that specificity, the abundance of definition of those fields. If someone who is a total nutcase accidentally writes a brilliant, powerful legal proof, then it is certainly going to have an effect. The fact that it is INHERENTLY brilliant really overshadows the fact that the person who wrote it has no expertise. This is the reason we pursue rationality or structure at all, so that we can know the truth objectively.

This is something that 'art' has a much more difficult time dealing with, and the reason why I can use rhetoric at all and not feel like it is completely deconstructive. Art is relative, whether you want to admit it or not, and the fact that there do exist some rules and forms to the way we understand and criticize it does not change this. Yes, there are methods and theories that I would certainly rely on when trying to analyze art. But I cannot pursue an independent understanding of art, like I could mathematics, or chemistry. It must be understood with its history, its previous incarnations and previous understandings. Even in terms of a single artist, the rate and nature of change is really important.

Let me be clear: Kandinsky, Kant, and many others have earned my deference. But the word 'art' is no longer in the control of those who respect them.

And I wouldn't debate "fairness;" that is too easy.

[dandan]

I think my brain must be lacking the artistic half, luckily the other half appears to have filled the void and my logical thinking makes up for the lack of considering which shade of purple would inspire people the most.

Prepare for the definition of art of an engineer.

Art is the production of something that has value unrelated to its function (in borderline cases consider ergonomics against aesthetics).

Bad art has a low value. Few people experience the warm and fuzzy feeling I'm told that many of you feel when experiencing 'art' and so demand is low. Note that 'bad' is a releative measure in this context and does not meet the dandan definition of bad (good=something that increases net happiness, bad=something that reduces it) as long as the artist is happy with it and a large number of taxpayers are not annoyed at their money being spent on it instead of schools or hospitals.

Good art has a higher value due to higher demand, acceptance and more warm fuzzy feelings (indeed some of the warm fuzzy feelings may in fact be other emotions such as sadness, anger)

When I see Stalking Tiger I see an excellent illustration. The picture functions in the context of the card to reinforce what the card is. I am fairly sure few would consider it great art but is an excellent illustration.

When I look at Time Walk I see nothing to inform me of what the card does and it's background skeleton is hardly walking. However several people have mentioned that they like this card's art so I use it as an example. The only function of this picture is the one of art as it does not serve any significant function other than covering up what would be a white area on the card (indeed skeletons walking along a path across a green field to a white monument in the hills hardly desribes a blue card, does it?)

From my point of view, it is crystal clear that the pictures on Magic cards can be considered art. It is also fair to say that there is a clear trend from 'arty' pictures to illustrations but I do not see any improvement in picture function particularly in terms of making cards distinct, as themed sets often end up with a number of similar illustrations.

The above is not meant to be sarcastic in any way. Any card-creation regulars will know that I am an anti-talent at flavour!

[Ric_Flair]

@Saucemaster:

Here is the scheme that I am working with:  there is art, there is design, and there is illustration.  There are other forms of creative expression but these three will help serve as the parameters of the argument.  Art is creative expression that is without purpose apart from expression.   It is designed to be both evocative and possess a degree of returnability (borrowing this idea from Derrida's and Rorty's reading of Heidegger as he compares with the "patheon" writers).  Design is like art in that it is evocative, but its expressive elements are in tension with its functionality.  Then there is illustration.  The quintessential "illustration" in my mind is the "exploded view" V8 engine.  The purpose is not to be evocative but to inform, that is, tell the view this is what X is.  An illustration is a snapshot (as opposed to a photograph) that is drawn instead of taken.  It is an attempt to convey information and that it is.  There is no evocative element and there is no returnability or "depth interpretation."  

Part of this structure comes from philosophy, particularly Kantian aesthetics.  Part comes from the Bauhaus theory as espoused by Walter Gropius, Kandinsky, and Joseph Itten.  The final piece that creates the foundation of my "theory" here is major patent, copyright, and trademark litigation, all of which deal with in some way elements of creativity.  

Here is the idea behind the legal take: works of art are copyrightable but works of design are not (they are patentable).  The courts come down on this duality in this way:  what is the primary purpose of the object?  Is it a cleverly designed functional item or a sculpture that is useful?  Sometimes it is a close call and then the intent of the creator is important.  But the close calls in the law are solved, at least in my mind, by the Kantian influences and the Derridian concept of returnability.  When something can be seen in one way then reinterpreted and again reinterpreted, it is art.  It has a depth of interpretation.  It is constantly challenging and new(s) (see previous post about "news").  Art confronts and confounds.  Design can do the same thing but it is more about doing other things.  Illustration however does not do that.  It merely conveys information.  Imagine the ineffective nature of having an impressionist illustration in a medical textbook.  Not a good idea.  

That is where I am coming from.  But the way this impacts our debate over art v. great art is this: art is art.  There is some art that is better than others, more expressive, more complex, more evocative, whatever, but it is still art.  Magic illustrations are not evocative.  They are rarely challenging.   And once you figured out what it is portraying there is usually no reason to look twice.  MaRo and the rest of the RD guys admit as much.  Magic illustrations are to be iconic and referential so that people playing cards from different languages know which cards are which.  They are designed to convey a simple message in a simple and immediately recognizable way.  One of the reasons Drew Tucker, one of the few artists, was so unpopular and unsuccessful was because he was not simple, clear, and iconic.  He was muddy and complex.  The Icatian Moneychanger has some other level of meaning.  It is art just as much as the Sistine Chapel.  It is just not good art.  The analysis and interpretation of the Moneychanger is about as deep as Bram and I laid out.  Whereas the Sistine Chapel has been spurring new interpretations for hundreds of years.  It will likely continue to do so for a millennia.  Art is art.  Some is good and some is bad, but it is primarily the same thing.  Art, however, is distinct from design, and both are different from illustration.  Art is the Sistine Chapel, design is the Wassily chair, and illustration is Ravenous Baloth.  All creative, but not all art.  

@Machinus:

However, I cannot ever accept that art is in any way NON relative.

That is because you do not know any better.  The whole point of my past post was to say that experts are the people we should consult when seeking complex and specialized information.  I would not ask a patent lawyer was is art anymore than I would ask an artist to file my molecular motor patent.  Art experts, at least in the instance of the very best art, by in large agree that the Sistine Chapel is art.  I know there is a piece missing from this argument so wait a minute...

I even disagree with your analysis that physics is relative. Any branch of the study of the natural sciences rests upon the hard facts of the others, and even in math, when we define things with NOT statements or null hypothesis, the CREDIBILITY of those statements rests on the firmness and clarity of definition of the rest of the field.

The problem here is that there ARE no "hard facts."  Knowledge of the natural world, of math, of art, of philosophy is all knowledge about our interpretation of the world.  We cannot deal with facts any more than we can touch time.  Facts, data unbiased by any point of view or interpretation, are ephemeral.  Some disciplines have a higher level of consensus than art does, but no discipline, no person deals with "hard facts."  The approximation for hard facts are what epistemology calls "overlapping consensus."  The idea here is that the more biased perspectives on a given thing we can compile the more we can combine those perspectives and "average out" the perspectival bias.  It is imperfect, but it is more accurate a description than this Enlightenment rubbish that science reads the book of nature undiluted.  No scientist believes this.  No philosopher of knowledge believes this.  No philosopher of science believes this.  Wittgenstein introduced this idea to mathematics in the 1930s and people were pissed, like Alan Turing.  I am not sure where math is on this debate, I imagine they have gone the way everyone else has, but pretty much every other discipline has accepted this as the best working model and moved on.

The problem with the "cold, hard facts" theory of science is that it makes it impossible for structural shifts to occur.  Newton thought that he was reading undiluted book of nature and that eventually people, following in his footsteps, would figure everything out.  Now we know he was wrong in part and right in part.  Every theory is simply a more refined theory than the one before, getting asymtotically closer to the truth, but never quite closing the gap between "facts/nature" and "interpretation/knowledge."  This is summed up in the famous quote from Gadamer:  "Epistemology killed metaphysics, science killed epistemology, and hermenuetics (the theory of interpretation) killed science."  Popper and his band of science thinkers have taken up this refrain and changed how most researchers and thinkers look at science.

If someone who is a total nutcase accidentally writes a brilliant, powerful legal proof, then it is certainly going to have an effect.

Unlike the humanities and science the law cannot work like this.  Stare decisis makes it impossible for a nutcase to come out of left field and make a powerful legal proof.  A legal argument is valid insofar as it comports with prior arguments.  There is no legal knowledge apart from the knowledge of what prior cases have said about other cases and statute.  The power of the law is the ability to define a concept then refine that definition through factual analogy over a period of time.  There is nothing to legal logic other than that and the basics of logical argumentation, which in the end requires legal knowledge to know when to be deployed.

This is the reason we pursue rationality or structure at all, so that we can know the truth objectively.

I am not sure who put this Enlightenment propaganda in your brain, but he/she did a good job.  That is exactly the failing of the Enlightenment.  People thought that by the 21st century we would have giant calculators that could provide the answer to any question, that could, given how accurately we would know the universe by now, predict the future.  Both Liebniz and Newton along with other less luminous minds, like Jonathan Wolfe, believed that we would have such devices.  But the reality is that knowledge, human knowledge of the universe, has not, does not and can not work like that because of the "perspective/interpretation" problem.

deconstructive

This is a charged word.  Are you using in its technical Derridian meaning or just in is plain meaning?

But the word 'art' is no longer in the control of those who respect them.

Last I checked the Harvard Architecture School was founded by Gropius, in a building designed by Gropius, named after him, and the entire program was formed from his theory of art.  Kandinsky's influence, as a cofounder of Bauhaus with Walter Gropius, is still more than alive and well through this connection.  

And I wouldn't debate "fairness;" that is too easy.

Fairness is even more precisely defined than art.  See Rawls justice as fairness and the 5th and 14th Amendments as defined in the course of American jurisprudence.  These ideas have been incorporated in statutes around the world and in the Charter of Human Rights.  Fairness is easily defined.

[Saucemaster]

Here is the scheme that I am working with:  there is art, there is design, and there is illustration.  There are other forms of creative expression but these three will help serve as the parameters of the argument.  Art is creative expression that is without purpose apart from expression.   It is designed to be both evocative and possess a degree of returnability (borrowing this idea from Derrida's and Rorty's reading of Heidegger as he compares with the "patheon" writers).

[Alot snipped here]

Okay, with this formulation I may end up finding myself in agreement with you.  A couple comments/questions, though:

1) How important do you think that the intent of the creator is here?  I'm usually VERY wary of basing almost anything on intent, in part because it's usually unknown and frequently unknowable, not to mention the myriad other reasons we could get into (I'm SO not prepared to enter into a serious debate about various theories of meaning and language here).  It seems at least possible that some of the Magic artists that I would probably label as "godawful shitty art" and you would label "not even art, just illustration" could have intended to create an expressive, original, even returnable work.  They just failed at it, miserably.

This is something of a quandary for me, actually, because on the one hand it seems intuitively right to base the status of the work as art or non-art on the purpose of the work itself.  That avoids defining away "bad art", as I argued against above.  But on the other hand, part of me thinks that "art" is more a way of *looking at* and judging a thing than it is a way of making a thing.  Certainly we can imagine someone who set out simply to illustrate something, but--potentially even accidentally, or perhaps simply because he wasn't really aware of the potential effect he was creating (i.e. "it just looked good")--ended up creating something incredibly expressive, puzzling, challenging, and eminently returnable.  I would like to be able to say, "yes, that's art, even if the creator didn't intend it as such", but obviously then we've got a problem with the intent- or purpose-based theory.  This might be a whole different discussion, however.

2) It's been a long time since I actually read either Derrida or Rorty.  I honestly don't remember "returnability".  HOWEVER, I would be interested on where that criterion leaves art like one-time performance-based art, that is specifically intended to be a singular event that is never repeated.

On the whole, however, I am inclined to agree with you when you formulate it that way.  I just think that, through what is probably a pretty well-developed lack of self-criticism, many of the Magic artists who would seem to be just "illustrators" are probably intending for their work to be viewed as art.  In which case, it is just very bad art.

[jpmeyer]

Death of the author time!

[Ric_Flair]

He's dead you know.  He died last night.  Derrida is dead, long live Derrida.

[Saucemaster]

Oh we are SO not going into that.  I was very careful to avoid actually mentioning it.

EDIT: "That" being "The Death of the Author".

[Machinus]

I even disagree with your analysis that physics is relative. Any branch of the study of the natural sciences rests upon the hard facts of the others, and even in math, when we define things with NOT statements or null hypothesis, the CREDIBILITY of those statements rests on the firmness and clarity of definition of the rest of the field.

The problem here is that there ARE no "hard facts."

This is false. In fact, this is contradictory to the rest of your argument. In claiming that specialization and expertise exist, you accept the existence of an objective truth. You cannot proclaim the relativity of science yet also proclaim a truth about art. The facts exist with or without our ability to see and understand them. If you want to suggest that Turing was an idiot, there is no reason for me to read more.

If someone who is a total nutcase accidentally writes a brilliant, powerful legal proof, then it is certainly going to have an effect.

Unlike the humanities and science the law cannot work like this.  Stare decisis makes it impossible for a nutcase to come out of left field and make a powerful legal proof.  A legal argument is valid insofar as it comports with prior arguments.  There is no legal knowledge apart from the knowledge of what prior cases have said about other cases and statute.  The power of the law is the ability to define a concept then refine that definition through factual analogy over a period of time.  There is nothing to legal logic other than that and the basics of logical argumentation, which in the end requires legal knowledge to know when to be deployed.

You have taken my example out of context. I realize how absurd this is, which is why I used it as a hypothetical. Take a different field, or just use your imagination. The meaning is very clear.

This is the reason we pursue rationality or structure at all, so that we can know the truth objectively.

I am not sure who put this Enlightenment propaganda in your brain, but he/she did a good job.  That is exactly the failing of the Enlightenment.  People thought that by the 21st century we would have giant calculators that could provide the answer to any question, that could, given how accurately we would know the universe by now, predict the future.  Both Liebniz and Newton along with other less luminous minds, like Jonathan Wolfe, believed that we would have such devices.  But the reality is that knowledge, human knowledge of the universe, has not, does not and can not work like that because of the "perspective/interpretation" problem.

Here is your biggest error. Your conception of classical reasoning, specifically classial physics, is laughable. This is not the way anyone in the physics world perceived physics. There were definite problems with classical mechanics when it was the leading theory, and nobody who was familiar with physics believed in your calculators and future-prediction machines. That is a short story people tell to hype Einstein and explain a century of physics in an hour. It is just wrong. The interpretation that classical mechanics offers of the world is in fact the best one we still have for the vast majority of problems we face. The standard model is equally problematic at explaining all of the phenomenon we encounter, and we are very well aware of its limitations in other areas. But the things we do know are not disputable, or subject to interpretation. They are hard facts.

deconstructive

This is a charged word.  Are you using in its technical Derridian meaning or just in is plain meaning?

I meant it literally, without the technical implications.

But the word 'art' is no longer in the control of those who respect them.

Last I checked the Harvard Architecture School was founded by Gropius, in a building designed by Gropius, named after him, and the entire program was formed from his theory of art.  Kandinsky's influence, as a cofounder of Bauhaus with Walter Gropius, is still more than alive and well through this connection.

That is all well and good for your academia, but unfortunately that is a significant minority. Physics, to take an example, or Law, is not subject to the same corruptions and misinterpretations that art is. You may look to etymology or your revered theorists for definition, but in the end it is dictated by the usage of the word, and the definition here is not respected or held to any of the standards you claim it to be.

And I wouldn't debate "fairness;" that is too easy.

Fairness is even more precisely defined than art.  See Rawls justice as fairness and the 5th and 14th Amendments as defined in the course of American jurisprudence.  These ideas have been incorporated in statutes around the world and in the Charter of Human Rights.  Fairness is easily defined.

Again, you take my meaning incorrectly. You seek to imply that I am being obstinate or immature because I don't think what you think about art. Fairness is in fact well defined, and said exactly what I meant. Perhaps we should discuss the English language as well.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

Well, After reading this thread in parts (Spread out over 3 days), I will try to contribute what I can to the discussion.

I even disagree with your analysis that physics is relative. Any branch of the study of the natural sciences rests upon the hard facts of the others, and even in math, when we define things with NOT statements or null hypothesis, the CREDIBILITY of those statements rests on the firmness and clarity of definition of the rest of the field.

The problem here is that there ARE no "hard facts."

This is false. In fact, this is contradictory to the rest of your argument. In claiming that specialization and expertise exist, you accept the existence of an objective truth. You cannot proclaim the relativity of science yet also proclaim a truth about art. The facts exist with or without our ability to see and understand them. If you want to suggest that Turing was an idiot, there is no reason for me to read more.

I think that Ric is saying that because EVERYTHING we know is relative to human perception, consensus upon certain matters creates what we define as "objective."  His point is that because there is consesus upon certain things in art, we must conclude that art is as "objective" as any other field of expertise.

As for what I have to say, I like Ric's definition of art.  Hence, I must conclude that most magic card "art" is actually just illustration, as it is rarely evocative and open to interpretation.  (And of course I'm sure that most experts on art would say that the exceptions arn't that good.)

Pictures on magic cards are meant to be nice illustrations, not art.  When I cast grim lavamancer to start beating and burning I want to see what he's like in front of me, not an evocative picture that causes me to interpret and then re-interpret it's meaning untill the guy gets stped.

(Although as a side note the artists/illustraters for the Kami in COK were given alot of freedom, with the only requirement being floating objects around each of the creatures(well, as well as the standard things like colour alignment and not containing religious symbols etc).  Thus, they probably could have drawn pictures that were evocative and open to interpretation.  I'm not any of them did, however, and would thus fit Ric's definition of art)

[Ric_Flair]

@Machinus:

RE: Facts and objective truth.  

Gandalf summarized my position very well.  

I think that Ric is saying that because EVERYTHING we know is relative to human perception, consensus upon certain matters creates what we define as "objective." His point is that because there is consesus upon certain things in art, we must conclude that art is as "objective" as any other field of expertise.

What I am trying to say, what Habermas' theory of knowledge and language is trying to get at is a solution to the hermenuetic problem I alluded to--namely intersubjective knowledge as a replacement for the Enlightenment concept of objective facts.  This intersubjective model, though cloaked in different jargon, is at the heart of most theories of knowledge currently used: Popper's theory of science, most philosophies of science and the like.  Right or not, the intersubjective model of reality IS the model used today.  This objective facts garbage has not been seriously considered by advanced thinkers since Descartes and Hume were smashed in the head by Kant.

You have taken my example out of context. I realize how absurd this is, which is why I used it as a hypothetical. Take a different field, or just use your imagination. The meaning is very clear.

I am sorry.  The meaning is not clear to me.  I believe that expertise is really a process of inculturation, of partaking in shared intersubjective understanding.  This "lucky genius" scenario is very unrealistic, especially in the law.  Highly subjective phrases like "extreme indifference the value of human life" or "clear and present danger" have all come to be defined collectively, through analogy of factual scenarios, over time.  Thus, the mad/lucky genius scenario is truly impossible here.  I also think that for the most part, it is impossible elsewhere.  Mozart was trained by Hadyn (albeit at 3 years old), Pascal was under the tutelage of a anti-Jesuit Christian sect, and so on.  The mad genius is not the person who steps into a speciality with all the ideas complete in their brain.  Prodigies, instead, are people capable of partaking in the intersubjective knowledge of a field earlier than most.

The interpretation that classical mechanics offers of the world is in fact the best one we still have for the vast majority of problems we face. The standard model is equally problematic at explaining all of the phenomenon we encounter, and we are very well aware of its limitations in other areas.

I offered that example as a silly anecdote about how classical Enlightenment thinking thought the world would unravel with this idea of "objective facts."

But the things we do know are not disputable, or subject to interpretation. They are hard facts.

I really hate to sound rude, but this type of talk is proof positive that you have not read the most basic works on knowledge.  Descartes' flawed but fantastic Discourse on Method shows why this is untrue in a very rudimentary, crude way.  And Hume, well, most people know that Hume put this sort of thinking to bed a long, long, long time ago.  Treatise on Human Nature is really a good thing to sit down and read.  You can believe this.  It works in a sort of cropped perspective way, but the fact is that people that have worked on this problem of factual objective knowledge in all sorts of fields, not just philosophy, have moved beyond this view.  I can't say it any other way--this argument, this belief, while "useful" in going to the grocery store and talking on the telephone cannot survive scrutiny when precision matters.  Knowledge has problems, memory has problems, cognition has problems, language has problems.  All of these things eat away this idea.  

The thing is that the field(s) that works this problem is very developed.  The arguments and counterarguments are well reasoned and your argument has just not stood the test of time.  People have tried to make it.  Descartes did, after working backwards from the abyss of uncertainty.  Berkeley did, using God as a cop out.  And Locke really gave it a good shot.  But in the end, the only person whose arguments are still "live" are Chomsky's and even he has backed way off the "objective facts" position, relying on the clever concept of deep grammar.  

You are very smart guy.  Read some of that stuff and then I would love to talk.  Its not that you don't understand or couldn't understand, its just that it seems evident that you are not familar with the major works in this area.  It is like debating Counterspell v. Mana Drain.  There are meritorious arguments both ways, but the field, the metagame that is, has moved beyond the debate and resolved the conflict.

That is all well and good for your academia, but unfortunately that is a significant minority.

I am not sure if you realize the influence and reach of Bauhaus, Gropius, and Kandinsky.  That nifty Ipod sure is influenced by the "rules" of art laid down by Bauhaus, and I think it is kinda successful.  The influence is so broad it is staggering:  Frank Lloyd Wright, VW, Apple, Herman Miller, Japanese design...on and on and on.  The ideas the Bauhaus articulated are compelling and driving concepts that are still at the center of the art and design world.  Their rules are NOT academic exersizes.  That is the exact OPPOSITE of what they are.

Again, you take my meaning incorrectly. You seek to imply that I am being obstinate or immature because I don't think what you think about art. Fairness is in fact well defined, and said exactly what I meant. Perhaps we should discuss the English language as well.

Fairness is defined in law very precisely, in the same way, but to a lesser degree, that art is defined in "art circles."  It is a difference in degree, not in kind.  

If I implied that you were stubborn or immature I am sorry.  I am however stating, not implying, that your missing a large part of the debate regarding art and knowledge, namely expertise, without having read or thought about the things that I have mentioned.  It is not that the sources I cited are the ONLY sources, but that they seem to me to be the relevant ones.  If you, or anyone, has other relevant sources, authority figures, or arguments to make, I am all ears.  


PS:  This is fantastic thread.  Thanks Bram.  I do feel a little like the target is on my ass, but it makes me more careful and precise with my arguments.  If only I had the popular opinion, then I would not have to defend myself so much.

[Bram]

This discussion should be preserved for all eternity.

I saw something interesting on the news yesterday that has some bearing on the subject at hand. A Dutch / German budget supermarket chain called 'ALDI' has commenced as of yesterday morning to sell 'art'.

Spread equally over the supermarket's branches, the stores got 20,000 signed and numbered reproductions of some 10 original paitings. The artists in question are all talended young art-school graduates who in the eyes of ALDI executives deserved a 'break'. The depictions vary in nature, style and quality but all are in some way 'modernist'.

Now the question imposes itself: is this art? Why would it be or why would it not be? If not, would it have been art if ALDI had not mass-produced it and sold it to their low-income customers for 12,99 euro a piece?

The documentary makers interviewed world-famous modernist Karel Appel on the matter. I'm sure that those of you with any interest in art are aware of this 82-year-old living legend who founded the CoBrA movement and worked together with such legends as Corneille and Mondriaan. Appel is famous for statements like 'I'm merely mucking about' and 'I paint like a barbarian in this barbaric age.' Sure enough, many of you (myself included) will hate his work, but it is internationally respected and praised by the art community.

Appel looked at the ALDI brochure and claimed he liked some of the paitings. He remarked how some of them showed talent. He also remarked that he did not consider them to be art. He made three interesting observations:
- art needs to show you something you've never seen before. It needs to open your eyes. The ALDI stuff doesn't.
- art is like cuisine. However much you sometimes may be fed up with caviar and the like; however much you sometimes ache for a Big Mac, and however good it may taste, it is not cuisine. It is not 'real food.'
- art and commerce have nothing to do with eachother. This can be interpreted in any of two ways: either as 'something can be art regardless of how it is spread' (think of Warhols desire to bring 'art to the people') or 'true art should not be used commercially'. Appel did not specify what he meant, but I'm inclined to think he was referring to the latter. Rather strange for a man who sells paintings for hunderds of thousands of dollors, though.

I'm not saying I agree with any of the above or that I have an answer for you (I don't even have an answer for myself). I just believed it could provide some food for thought. The discussion we are having is far from devoid of relevance, apparently.

For reference purposes:

ALDI: low art?







APPEL: high art?

[Hi-Val]

Here's a question: is commercial art still art? That's what I view most of the illustrations as. For the most part, they're just popcorn art. They're illustrating a scene or an object. I am hard-pressed to think of any card that has really stunning ART on it. I think Rebecca Guay dances the closest to it currently. Something like Angelic Renewal might work.

The illustrations for the most part show no individual style and communicate nothing more than what the title of the card is. You can go Derrida on it if you will, but I don't know that there's much more to interpret about the art. It isn't really an expression of the artist IMO.

[Ric_Flair]

Walter Benjamin made a pretty elegant argument that reproductions are not art.   I am not sure if I buy that but I thought I would put it out there.  Personally, I would love to be able to afford the originals, and when I can, I love to go purchase stuff from students (usually friends of my).  I have to say though, they look pretty good to me.

[Bram]

Yeah, I'd never be satisfied with a repro, either. And I think I agree a reproduction is not art by itself. It is, well, a reproduction of art, at best. Think of it as taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa, printing it out and sticking it on you wall. Is it art? Obviously the Mona Lisa is, but what you have on your wall is a picture of art. That's not to say it's not moving or beautiful or whatever. Signed and numbered repros are not entirely the same thing ofcourse, but some of the logic can be applied here as well.

I do the same thing Buying stuff from promising young artists I chance upon, the two only criteria being if I can afford it and if I like it. Screw wether or not me, they, or anyone else believes it to be art. At least it's real!

[Saucemaster]

I think I agree a reproduction is not art by itself. It is, well, a reproduction of art, at best.... Buying stuff from promising young artists I chance upon, the two only criteria being if I can afford it and if I like it. Screw wether or not me, they, or anyone else believes it to be art. At least it's real!

I think I just heard Baudrillard's head spinning.

Note: this does not mean that I am a devotee of Baudrillard, nor even that I disagree with Bram.  I'm just saying, is all.

[jpmeyer]

I think I agree a reproduction is not art by itself. It is, well, a reproduction of art, at best.... Buying stuff from promising young artists I chance upon, the two only criteria being if I can afford it and if I like it. Screw wether or not me, they, or anyone else believes it to be art. At least it's real!

I think I just heard Baudrillard's head spinning.

Note: this does not mean that I am a devotee of Baudrillard, nor even that I disagree with Bram.  I'm just saying, is all.

Boo!  Hiss!

[Machinus]

What I am trying to say, what Habermas' theory of knowledge and language is trying to get at is a solution to the hermenuetic problem I alluded to--namely intersubjective knowledge as a replacement for the Enlightenment concept of objective facts.  This intersubjective model, though cloaked in different jargon, is at the heart of most theories of knowledge currently used: Popper's theory of science, most philosophies of science and the like.  Right or not, the intersubjective model of reality IS the model used today.  This objective facts garbage has not been seriously considered by advanced thinkers since Descartes and Hume were smashed in the head by Kant.

It is entirely irrelevant what a philosophy of science would indicate. Science itself is quite unconcerned with what we think of its power, or the advances that it has given us. The natural sciences cannot grow and progress without the basic assumption that we pursue fact and that our body of knowledge and understanding is most certainly objective. There is no way to pursue technology, engineering, or theory without working under the rules of the scientific method, which relies heavily on fundamental premises such as the existence of a different kind of truth, a truth that we cannot 'decide' to interpret differently, but that we must prove is different if we wish to assert as much.

You have taken my example out of context. I realize how absurd this is, which is why I used it as a hypothetical. Take a different field, or just use your imagination. The meaning is very clear.

I am sorry.  The meaning is not clear to me.  I believe that expertise is really a process of inculturation, of partaking in shared intersubjective understanding.  This "lucky genius" scenario is very unrealistic, especially in the law.  Highly subjective phrases like "extreme indifference the value of human life" or "clear and present danger" have all come to be defined collectively, through analogy of factual scenarios, over time.  Thus, the mad/lucky genius scenario is truly impossible here.  I also think that for the most part, it is impossible elsewhere.  Mozart was trained by Hadyn (albeit at 3 years old), Pascal was under the tutelage of a anti-Jesuit Christian sect, and so on.  The mad genius is not the person who steps into a speciality with all the ideas complete in their brain.  Prodigies, instead, are people capable of partaking in the intersubjective knowledge of a field earlier than most.

My statement is not accurately categorized by a "lucky genius" scenario. What I meant to indicate was that the proof is entirely separate from the author. The theory is separate from the scientist. The information or the talent demonstrated in a piece of work is INDEPENDENT on the person writing it. Any scientist with a doctorate will know if the result from a research project is significant or not, WITHOUT having to ask who performed it or where or what their philosophy of life is. They will reproduce the experiment on their own, and witness the same objective truth that they want. I recognize that this scenario is less applicable to law, or art, but the broad statements you are making are simply incompatible with the method and structure of the scientific world.

The interpretation that classical mechanics offers of the world is in fact the best one we still have for the vast majority of problems we face. The standard model is equally problematic at explaining all of the phenomenon we encounter, and we are very well aware of its limitations in other areas.

I offered that example as a silly anecdote about how classical Enlightenment thinking thought the world would unravel with this idea of "objective facts."

You are right to say that there were people who possessed this mentality, and in fact many people still do. But it is really ignorant to say that everyone who had thoughts during the enlightenment period, ESPECIALLY those who were involved in the scientific progress of the period, was this naive. I have to say that I feel unfamiliar with the way you are using "enlightenment" to somehow convey a fundamentally flawed view of the world, that I possess.

But the things we do know are not disputable, or subject to interpretation. They are hard facts.

I really hate to sound rude, but this type of talk is proof positive that you have not read the most basic works on knowledge.  Descartes' flawed but fantastic Discourse on Method shows why this is untrue in a very rudimentary, crude way.  And Hume, well, most people know that Hume put this sort of thinking to bed a long, long, long time ago.  Treatise on Human Nature is really a good thing to sit down and read.  You can believe this.  It works in a sort of cropped perspective way, but the fact is that people that have worked on this problem of factual objective knowledge in all sorts of fields, not just philosophy, have moved beyond this view.  I can't say it any other way--this argument, this belief, while "useful" in going to the grocery store and talking on the telephone cannot survive scrutiny when precision matters.  Knowledge has problems, memory has problems, cognition has problems, language has problems.  All of these things eat away this idea.  

The thing is that the field(s) that works this problem is very developed.  The arguments and counterarguments are well reasoned and your argument has just not stood the test of time.  People have tried to make it.  Descartes did, after working backwards from the abyss of uncertainty.  Berkeley did, using God as a cop out.  And Locke really gave it a good shot.  But in the end, the only person whose arguments are still "live" are Chomsky's and even he has backed way off the "objective facts" position, relying on the clever concept of deep grammar.  

You are very smart guy.  Read some of that stuff and then I would love to talk.  Its not that you don't understand or couldn't understand, its just that it seems evident that you are not familar with the major works in this area.  It is like debating Counterspell v. Mana Drain.  There are meritorious arguments both ways, but the field, the metagame that is, has moved beyond the debate and resolved the conflict.

I have read Descartes and I do consider myself to have grasped his meaning. I have not pursued philosophy beyond a personal interest so I concede any contest of erudition. But I think there is a semantic debate here also, and I can conceive that I might be using the language in an improper manner. Science cannot afford to adopt any other mentality than the "objectivism" you refer to. It is simply insufficient to educate, evaluate, and develop the extremely complex and advanced problems that we are attempting to solve without it. There is not enough time, mental power, or other resource to allow ourselves the luxury of this kind of interpretation. In the time of the fathers of quantum theory, this kind of indulgence was possible, and even desired, to facilitate the progress of the new mechanics, but again this is just one example of many sciences, and I am only referring to it because it is the one which I am most familiar with. This philosophy applies equally to chemistry, astronomy, biology, and other sciences where we start from past achievement and do our best to bring the edge of the field farther. Yes it is all very "enlightenment" by nature, but I don't think you can propose another system to guarantee the safety of our achievement.

That is all well and good for your academia, but unfortunately that is a significant minority.

I am not sure if you realize the influence and reach of Bauhaus, Gropius, and Kandinsky.  That nifty Ipod sure is influenced by the "rules" of art laid down by Bauhaus, and I think it is kinda successful.  The influence is so broad it is staggering:  Frank Lloyd Wright, VW, Apple, Herman Miller, Japanese design...on and on and on.  The ideas the Bauhaus articulated are compelling and driving concepts that are still at the center of the art and design world.  Their rules are NOT academic exersizes.  That is the exact OPPOSITE of what they are.

I am not denying the power of anyone's theories about art. What I am denying is whether or not people care, or at least, respect anyone else's viewpoint. I think that level of awareness, of consciousness, is necessary for the kind of effect you seem to describe. As disgusting as it may seem, the egalitarian position is quite rampant. Imagine that type of thought infiltrating the sciences, or engineering. It would be far worse than any apocalypse that any objectivist author could come up with.

Again, you take my meaning incorrectly. You seek to imply that I am being obstinate or immature because I don't think what you think about art. Fairness is in fact well defined, and said exactly what I meant. Perhaps we should discuss the English language as well.

Fairness is defined in law very precisely, in the same way, but to a lesser degree, that art is defined in "art circles."  It is a difference in degree, not in kind.  

If I implied that you were stubborn or immature I am sorry.  I am however stating, not implying, that your missing a large part of the debate regarding art and knowledge, namely expertise, without having read or thought about the things that I have mentioned.  It is not that the sources I cited are the ONLY sources, but that they seem to me to be the relevant ones.  If you, or anyone, has other relevant sources, authority figures, or arguments to make, I am all ears.

What I meant was, fairness is obvious, and it doesn't merit discussion.

I would not be able to quote you any thinkers from art, and you are probably familiar with the philosophers I would use in my defense. However I do not disagree at all with your assertions about "consensus." This is a very useful method. However I cannot agree that the consensus determines the level of truth or value in work. The value is inherent, always, and the ability to recognize it then becomes the valuable property, and the one we seek in ourselves and others.

Regarding the placement of the target: it has spent some quality time on me as well. I do feel like yours is the popular viewpoint however, as there are many more here with art, philosophy, or law experience than those with hard science. I see no need to get defensive, anyway, as this is an interesting and friendly - perhaps heated - discussion.

[Ric_Flair]

Well, until now I was trying avoid an assault on the objectivist claims, but I guess I need to make an all out attack.  First a little background.

Classical thought, as best seen in the works of Aristotle, was the dominant theory of the world, knowledge, and nature for about 1200 years, with some time off during the Dark Ages.  Then the Classical notions of the world were revived and embraced, sheparded to us by Islamic scholars, who were doing geometry and the like while us Westerners were picking our Bubonic plague scabs.  This is the period traditionally call the Renaissance.  The Renaissance were eventually overturned intellectually by the development of science.  Science, as it was at the time, was really a specialization of philosophy, a sub discipline of metaphysics and phyiscs (Aristotle's concept of the study of nature, physics deriving from the idea of the physical world).  Bacon published the New Organon, the Earth was unseated as the center of the universe, and so on.  Slowly math and science departed from the course of philosophy and became their own thing.  This departure was known historically as the Enlightment.  The idea was that human beings, through the power of reason and observation, could with the use of new mathematical methods understand the fundamental "laws" of nature.  That we could understand and ultimately predict outcomes based on the operation of mechanistic principles.  This idea was dominate for a long time.  Most scientists believed it.  Leibniz, Newton, and the like all bought into this idea.  But eventually, as Popper notes, the comprehensive schema of understanding the natural world began to open up to gaps.  We could not understand certain things, certain problems, in an entirely reasonable way.  Kant, who was largely famous in his lifetime for theories of planetary movements and optics principles (with his partner Laplace), finally "explained" what was happening.  The Enlightenment's golden beacon of objective knowledge was shown to be impossible.  Reason consumed reason and Kant explains to us what happened.  So after Kant every field is searching for ground, for a foundation, and what we have now, what the dominate way to doing things is, is that our knowledge is limited, but functional.  It is not objective, we do not know nature as such (the Kantian thing in itself), but merely our perpsective of nature.  By combining these slices or perspectives we arrive at a pooled or common knowledge that we have operationalized and use.  This is the intersubjective knowledge--our current best understanding of reality.

In art this movement was not so shocking.  People were not floored by the inherent limitations of human perspectival observation.  The intersubjective model was already in operation in art.  Not that there was no consensus in art.  There is.  Less than in science, I am sure, but there is some consensus.  It is just that in art people were not so flabbergasted by this realization about knowledge.

So now to some examples of the fallibility of human knowledge.

A Humian example:

Hume asks us how we know that the Sun will rise tomorrow.  Prove it.  Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow.  

We can't.  Human knowledge about things like the Sun rising are based on observation and experience.  We have seen the sun rise time and again, at the same time (or roughly thereabout) in the same place in sky, and so on.  What we have, really, is a very well supported guess that the sun will rise.  Nothing says that the sun must rise tomorrow, in the same way that a triangle must have three sides.  The sun could blow up.  The earth could blow up.  In which case, the sun would not rise tomorrow.

The example of the sun rise is essential to understanding the fallibility of scientific knowledge.  This knowledge is always experiential.  It is based on observation, the very heart of the scientific method.  As such, scientific knowledge is merely a very good guess.  There is nothing apodectically certain about any piece of scientific knowledge, even "laws of nature" because all those principles are really inductively created fixtures in our minds.  If the sun rises a billion times in the past, odds are it will rise again in the future.

Summary: scientific knowledge is all really good guess.  There is no factuality, no necessity to it.  It isn't something that must be the way it is.  It just our assumption that it will be that way.

Wittgensteinian example:  

So if science does not provide us with facts, but merely well hedged guesses, then math and logic must provide us with certainty, right?

Wrong.  Math and logic are essentially a language.  And a language is not something that is pulled out of the fiber of the universe.  There is no red out there.  There is something we have agreed to call red.  And the same is true about triangle and the principle of equality and the A=B, B=C therefore A=C syllogism.  Logic and math view the world in a way that is functional and label that functionality X.  Then, so as to ensure we all reference X as X, there is a bit of consensus building.  In kindergarten we all learn that a triangle is an object with three sides.  Consesus provides us with a label to a functionalizing point of view of reality.  What is a triangle in geometry class is a fulcrum in physics is a ramp in a bike park is a cross section of a knife blade and so on.  There is no "triangle" out there waiting for us humans to think: "Gee, I found triangle."  Instead need and utility create a perspective as to how to view something.  That viewpoint is spread through shared need and a consensus is generated.  That consensus perspective is labeled in language and that is the "objective" facts of math and logic.  The entire process is a game.  The rules, Wittgenstein shows us, are based on what we need from the given reality in front of us at a given time AND how we refer to such reality.  

Summary:  The principle of equality, the logical syllogism, and triangle are nothing more than shared labels for a functional point of view.

Aristotlean example:

But if we are merely placing labels on things based on an arbitrary unfixed positions, how do we know when three wood planks make a triangle?  In other words what "objective" facts allow us to recognized the common traits of all three sided objects so as to allow us to call them triangles?

Nothing.  There is no "essence" of triangle.  Just like there is no essence of reality, no objective ground for science to work on.  Instead, it is all just function and inductive, principle making reasoning.   There cannot be some inherent "triangle" in the universe because of the problem of the third man, as Aristotle calls it.  So suppose I see three wood planks and I think "Triangle."  Then I see three edges of Magic cards and I think "Triangle."  Then I see three spoon handles arranged in a given fashion and I think "Triangle."  Isn't there something inherent in my brain and or reality that says "Triangle?"  The answer is no.  If there is an inherent idea of triangle, then that idea of triangle must make reference to the inherent idea of triangle's inherent idea of triangle.  That is, what makes us recognize the commonality between the inherent idea of triangle and triangles in reality?  Another inherent idea?  And then so on and so forth.  We end up with the inherent idea of the inherent idea ad infinitum.  Instead we have a simple explanation, going back to the first example.  All of these inherent ideas, these objective truths, are really consistently useful, functional interepretations of reality.  We create these objective truths because of our need to generalize.  It is just more useful to say triangle than say: three wood planks "triangle,"  three edges of Magic cards "Triangle,"  three spoon handles arranged in a given fashion "Triangle."

Summary:  Our need for convenience and inductive reasoning give rise to the illusion of objective facts.  

Those are three classic arguments against the objective nature of reality, i.e. no objective facts.  There are millions of others.  It is not that Hume, Wittgenstein, and Aristotle are revered figures and therefore you should accept these arguments.  Instead these arguments stand on their own.  They have been paraphrased unknowingly by millions of people millions of times.  These arguments are important and need to be considered because they work.  These are the three simplest, ones which science cannot disprove, because they call into question the validity of the scientific method itself.  Science can only use science to prove or disprove something.  These epistemological flaws are beyond it.  

Art, because it has always recognized the consensual nature of knowledge did not have to undergo this radical regrounding that science did in the late 1890s through about 1950 with the introduction of quantum mechanics and the like.

As for other things:

Science itself is quite unconcerned with what we think of its power, or the advances that it has given us.

There is no "science itself."  Science is not a single mind.  It knows nothing.  We are science, or more accurately, the scientific community is science.  Without humans or beings with the capacity to think there is no science.  It is a human endeavor.

There is no way to pursue technology, engineering, or theory without working under the rules of the scientific method, which relies heavily on fundamental premises such as the existence of a different kind of truth, a truth that we cannot 'decide' to interpret differently, but that we must prove is different if we wish to assert as much.

There is another way.  It is called functionality.  Science is trying to gather knowledge about nature.  Engineering is trying to harness that knowledge to useful human ends.  Whether the knowledge is objectively, universally true is entirely irrelevant.  Its utility is important.  The Wright Brothers did not need to know the entirety of aerodynamics before they could fly.  They just needed enough to accomplish the task at hand.  And that is exactly how the whole of the scientific enterprise works--if it is useful keep until it is not useful anymore.

The information or the talent demonstrated in a piece of work is INDEPENDENT on the person writing it.

I am not sure how you can say this.  But for the creator of a piece of work said piece of work by definition would not exist.  This idea that the world and its contents are already determined and people merely bring about this preordained predesigned order is just absurd and entirely unsupportable.  This is tantamount to fatalistic religious doctrines.  God works through man and everything is already set.  If you are working with this as your premise I can bust out my anti-fundamentalist Christian arguments, but I assume that this was a slip up.  You can't be in that camp.  You're too smart for that.

There is not enough time, mental power, or other resource to allow ourselves the luxury of this kind of interpretation.

I personally don't buy this.  Even if it were true, using this as an excuse to be ignorant of other fields is a tremendous disaster for anyone serious about intellectual matters.  So what if I can't know all of a given field, that never stops me from trying.  I love hearing arguments from other fields and ideas and discussions from different and foreign expertise.  It is my passion in life.  I like listening to discussions of Keynesian economics and in the same day hear from my clients about the prison economy based on cigarettes (believe it or not but one of my "frequent fliers" told me that there was inflation in prison.  With a crack down in security cigarettes buy a lot more now than they did when he was first in the pokey).

I am not denying the power of anyone's theories about art. What I am denying is whether or not people care, or at least, respect anyone else's viewpoint.

People certainly care about these things.  The Ipod is clearly and directly influenced by the Bauhaus rules of art and design.  The firm that designed the Ipod contains Dutch designers that were students of a student of the final principal of the Bauhaus school.  And the design of the Ipod is what has sold millions of units.  A recent CNET survey showed that 92% of all harddrive MP3 players were Ipods.  Obviously people care about these rules some crazy art teachers laid out.  They help make the most popular personal electronic device of the past 20 years.  The rules work, they matter, and there is undeniable proof.  

What I meant was, fairness is obvious, and it doesn't merit discussion

Geez, someone needs to tell the US Supreme Court.  They have been wasting their collective brain power on the issue of fairness for 200 years.  Send them a note.  They need to know what fairness is.  And while your at it send the note to all policy makers, politicians, government employees, policemen, judges, philosophers, political scientists, parents, siblings, and clergy in the world.  PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THIS SHIT.

Regarding the placement of the target: it has spent some quality time on me as well. I do feel like yours is the popular viewpoint however, as there are many more here with art, philosophy, or law experience than those with hard science.

Given the computer savvy of TMD's readership I feel that there are more math and science people than not.  PS my wife is a PhD chemist with a postdoc at MIT.  She and I get into debates all the time.  But even she knows the objectivist P-O-V is C-R-A-P.  

I see no need to get defensive, anyway, as this is an interesting and friendly - perhaps heated - discussion.

Discussions of any other sort just aren't worth the time and energy  

[Smmenen]

Tony,

Do you think that Comic book penciling is art?

Do yout think that Jack Kirby, Mike Mignola, Frank Miller, Juan Jiminez, etc. - are these people artists?

[Ric_Flair]

I don't know enough about those individuals specifically, but Lothar Schreyer, a playwright that worked with Kandinsky and others wrote out very detail storyboards to plays that are certainly art.  I guess that means that it is possible.  

I think the comic book thing brings up a good point, that art can be very purposive, maybe not to the same degree that Magic illustrations are, and still be art.  It doesn't, in my estimation, based on what I have read of those that know, have to be as abstract as Squares in Concentric Circles to be art.  I have in mind, specifically, some of the murals originally done for Wagner's operas.  The idea of comprehensive purposiveness, the Gesammtkunstwerk, of Wagner, certainly requires paintings to square with other ideas.  

But no one could begin to suggest that Magic cards are, as a whole, on the level of such a monumentous idea.  

So I guess, my answer is yes it is certainly possible.  Personally some of the stuff from Sandman seems very artistic and not merely illustrations to move the story along.  That is, the pieces could stand on their own, without the narrative or the other frames of visual information.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Whoa, reading this whole thread all at once was a TOTAL MINDJOB. Tony, you are awesome.

So where does taste enter into this?

Earlier, you referenced Guernica, so I looked it up on Google. As with pretty much all of the "great art" I have been exposed to, it did not move me. In fact, I thought it was kind of ugly, and it certainly didn't communicate intense grief to me. I'm pretty sure I, like dandan, have a problem with whatever side of my brain is supposed to perceive abstractions, because this same thing happens to me with poetry, where ideas are presented in nonlinear ways. To me, it is impossible to "interpret" and revisit an image looking for meaning. I can decide I think an image is beautiful or not (many Magic cards earn this perception of beauty from me), and then look at it later and feel a different level of positive or negative enjoyment, but I don't see a meaning besides what is literally portrayed in the image, and I don't see how any stylistic choice has a bearing on what I should get out of the image, other than making it more or less accurately resemble something I can identify. For example, I would find a photograph of a real corpse-laden battlefield much more evocative than Picasso's abstraction of misery. I can look at something like the Sistine Chapel as a clear homage to God, but I feel more emotions from the architecture of the chapel than the painting.

Does this kind of perceptual difference have any bearing on what is considered "art"? Or am I just being an uncultured barbarian to fail at "getting" the messages of these works?

In a rather different direction, where do (a) architecture, (b) films, and (c) photography come into this? Each presents a visual spectacle much as a painting does, but the first has much more of a functional purpose, the second has an auditory accompaniment, and the third is simply an attempt to capture a scene exactly as your eyes would see it. This may be something JP has significant input on, with his aspiration to teach courses on cartoon boobies and joy in explaining the meaning of "simulacrum".

[Ric_Flair]

Guernica, so I looked it up on Google. As with pretty much all of the "great art" I have been exposed to, it did not move me. In fact, I thought it was kind of ugly, and it certainly didn't communicate intense grief to me. I'm pretty sure I, like dandan, have a problem with whatever side of my brain is supposed to perceive abstractions, because this same thing happens to me with poetry, where ideas are presented in nonlinear ways.

I think that things like Guernica cannot be adequately conveyed via a computer screen.  The painting is absolutely enormous.  The sheer size of it is daunting and overwhelming.  It is like the difference between watching people have sex and having sex.  Guernica must be seen in person to be appreciated.  Maybe a theater is sufficient to convey the experience.  Trust me, brain parts or whatever, if you saw it, you would be moved.

As far as taste is concerned, I think that is more of a matter of choosing among pieces.  You like Rembrandt and I like Picasso, but everyone agrees they are art.  Funny thing is that Kant really honestly believed that taste had nothing to do with art.  The idea was that we would be so poised and balanced in our rational experience of art that we would be detached.  There would be no taste, no personal attachment, just basking in creativity.  This is what he called the sublime.  It is a very difficult concept to convey in English, especially given that the Critique of Judgment is difficult even for a Kant work, probably his most complex.  The best I can do is say that is sort of like equipoise, the sort of realization that something is good, even if you don't personally like it.  So in sum, many would say that appreciation of art is the very opposite of taste.

One other thing struck me Phil.  Some of the best art is not beautiful, but painful, charging, and challenging.  That is what is compelling about things like Guernica.  The idea of returnability is something that makes merely "beautiful" pictures not the most exciting thing. Imagine the way that a vet views his memory of war.  Is it like Saving Private Ryan?  Gritty, eye popping realistic with beautiful colors or Guernica?  I think Guernica speaks to the reality of war and misery and suffering.  The suffering of the people, that Picasso channeled so well, is so profound that is distorts the way you look at reality.  Experiencing this suffering allows you to return to the painting and see it anew.  

Film, architecture, and the like can be art.