Are magic illustrations 'art'?

[Bram]

Upon reading Ric_Flair's statement in a thread about what everyone's favourite piece of magic artwork is, he expressed doubt as to whether or not the illustrations can be called 'art' at all. A controversial subject, to be sure, but one that I rather enjoy discussing. This resulted in a series of private messages between me and Ric, which I've decided (with his permission) to publish here because I believe some (mostly his) contain various interesting ideas concerning the subject, that might be worthwhile for others to read. Please bear in mind this thread is not meant to provoke or incite a flamewar on so subjective a matter, but I nevertheless believe that more can be said on the subject than simply 'it's in the eye of the beholder.'

To make things more interesting, I added a poll (for those of you who hate reading stuff).

RIC'S ORIGINAL POST:

I guess I am not sure if I think that it is fair to think of Magic paintings as artwork. They have neither abstract beauty of Kandinsky's work (of whom I think of as the apotheosis of abstract painting) nor the starkness and realism of Rembrandt.

BRAM:

There most certainly have been some rather abstract, impressionist and expressionist magic artists (Drew Tucker for one). The fact that they may not be Van Goghs hardly justifies declaring them 'not art.' This would be along the lines of saying R.E.M. doesn't make 'music' because such a thing as Stravinsky's 'Le Sacre Du Printemps' exists.

The fact that magic art was commissioned really can't be an argument, either. Many of Rembrandt's and Vermeer's (and, like, virtually all of Rubens') stuff have been commissioned pieces as well. (On a sidenote: notice how most of the Great Painters were Dutch? ;-)

And I'm pretty sure you of all people are not going to claim something isn't art just because YOU don't like it.

The only thing open for debate at this point is talent, or imagination. It could be argued magic pieces don't have that indefinable creative 'spark'; or perhaps their creators lack the skills to really convey the subject to the public. Personally though, I'm highly doubtful as to whether:
a. this is true, and
b. if it should even be a criterion for calling stuff 'art',
but it least that, unlike the other stuff I mentioned, is open for debate.
 

RIC_FLAIR:

My big issue with Magic "art" is as you precisely described...its lack of creativity. But it is hard to explain exactly what I mean. There was an excellent interview with a sculptor named Richard Serra, who claimed that art is "purposely purposeless." And while Serra is not the end all and be all, his sentiment is endorsed by dozens of other thinkers and artists. The essence of art it seems to me is creativity. Magic "art" is creative in the same what that commercials are creative. There can be some creativity in the way the tightly scripted message is conveyed, but the purpose and composition of the general message is already determined. As such, the Magic paintings are "artsy" but not "art." When someone, like Wizards, hands you a piece of paper saying: "Large mean looking demons with barbed wire around its arms and face..." that is not really too different from a color by numbers or tracing. It can be done creatively, but it is not art.

BRAM:

Hmm. I think my opinion on that creative element is somewhat more ethereal. I see it as a 'divine' spark that sets a true artist apart from a person who merely paints stuff. Much like how emperor Joseph II wrote symphonies that were on all fronts, 'correct' and by the book, but lacked a soul, something that even Mozart was never able to teach him.

What you say, is that something cannot be art if it's commissioned. By that definition, about half of Rembrandt's (still generally considered one of the greatest painters in European art history) work would not quality as 'art' either, nor would Michelangelo's ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. While that is of course a valid opinion, it's a rather hard-to-defend one.

I believe magic artwork is by no means 'art' by definition, but I hold that it very well could be.  

RIC_FLAIR:

It is not the commission that I oppose. Plenty of people are paid to paint something. And plenty of people are told what to paint, Rembrandt painted a ton of portraits of rich people's fat ugly daughters. My issue is four fold: first WotC is given the artists much, much less freedom than Rembrandt had. Both were told to paint X, but WotC has a really limited scope of what to paint. Second, because the artists are very...um...limited in their stylistic range, one painting from the vast majority of Magic artists is not that much different from another of that same artists' painting. WotC says: "RKF paint a....barbarian...with a sword." "RKF paint a warrior with an axe." So on and so forth. Really with as limited in ability as most Magic artists are they could be given the topic of all their paintings before hand and just paint. There is no real deviation, no flourish, not uniqueness that is at the heart of art. WotC doesn't want Guay art that is different from Guay art we all know and in all likelihood she could not paint something different. Her style is pretty much all you see. Third, tying into this type casting is the fact that the artists do not change or grow that much artistically. Their abilities and images have remained static over the past ten years. That is a true disaster from an artistic perspective. Monet is probably the best example of revolutionary changes in style and ability, though Picasso is running a close second. No one, not a single artist in the Magic world comes even close to developing as much as a true artist would, let alone how much those two greats did. Finally, though this is more a difference of degree and not kind (as the other three issues were a difference of kind) Magic artists are nowhere near the talented masters of detail, perspective, and grandeur that true artists are. Compare "Guernica" with well...anything in Magic. Compare any of Rembrandt's work in terms of detail with anything that any Magic artist did. There is no comparison. The art in Magic, is at its best, a good (though not great) realistic representation of something (or maybe a cartoony caricature). It shows you X. Whereas true art is evocative. It makes you re-evaluate, rethink, and reapproach X. Magic "art" is pictoral and representative and great art or true art is evocative and challenging. Nothing in Magic is even close to what the Masters painted. Nothing brings the grief and soul searing agony of "Guernica." The difference is so great that only the most rigid egalitarians or nihilists, fearful of making any stand on issues of judgment and quality, can say with a straight face that both are "art." One is painted representation, the other is why we are alive--creation. Call it art if you want, but be assured that it is not art in any historically significant sense. Magic "art" no more art than a brochure selling you a hot tub is literature.

BRAM:

I liked your past PM. I can't say I fully agree with all of its contents, but it was well-presented and does indeed make sense. I'd like to quote almost every line and point out my view on the issue, but it'd probably be more fruitful to say I do agree with you for the most part, and take it from there.

You have admitted in your PM that it is possible to view (some) Magic pieces as art (even if you believe that such a view is 'wrong', nihilist or egalitarian). Well, we seem to agree on how hard it is to define art and while appear to you have a clearer picture of it in your own mind than I do, you too point to the lack (and perhaps impossibility) of consensus on the matter.

Most of Magic's illustrations are indeed bland, fantasy garbage. Even though I suck it drawing myself, it doesn't evoke any true admiration or other emotions at all in me. Likewise, I doubt the creator of the piece put much emotion in there in the first place. The 'creative spark' I addressed in my previous PM doesn't appear to be present in most cases. However, in my opinion, there are exceptions. The aforementioned Drew Tucker springs to mind, an artist maligned by players but hailed as a personal favourite by all the magic artists I ever talked to.

Apparently, Drew Tucker doesn't claim his pieces to be art, per se. He refers to himself as an illustrator. I applaud that. Nevertheless, his stuff appears to meet the qualifications for you mentioned. His work is provocative (to the point of many believing it to be ugly), unique in its application, and recognisable. He has a certain style he adheres to, certainly, but personal development can be seen in his work (for one thing, he departed from using solely watercolours and has branched out into multimedia related art). I find it hard to believe that 'Wizards told him to paint X' very specifically, seeing the stuff he came up with. His interpretations are liberal and he appears to (have) enjoy(ed) the same artistic freedom some of the greater artists we both mentioned had for commissioned work. He also did a prolific amount of intriguing and disturbing non-fantasy or games related artwork (non-commissioned).

I believe that, while one may believe his techniques to be strictly inferior to the masters of the past (in much the same way that no present-day band can live up to Mozart), and while one indeed may very well not like his work, some of his work can justifiably be called 'art'.

Also: you haven't spoken on the distinction between good art and bad art. The way you make things out to be, it sounds almost as if art is 'good art' by definition, and 'bad art' isn't art at all. I'd like to make that distinction however, where you can appreciate the fact that something is an artistic expression but still think it sucks at a fundamental level anyway for lack of technique etc.  

RIC_FLAIR:

I too like Drew Tucker, in particular the Icatian Moneychanger piece. It does seem like art to me. It portrays a fat man doing morally questionable work in a disjointed and muddied way, perhaps a commentary on the nobility of the work. Ironically, the card itself sucks because it does EXACTLY what a Moneychanger does--rip you off. It is one of my favorite cards in the game. It is intellectually interesting.

As for the good art equals art comment, I think that there is some syllogistic arguments here that tell us how this works. Good art is ALWAYS art, while bad art is not always art. It can be art, but just not "successful". Even radically divergent critics will claim that good art embodies whatever vague and fuzzy concept represents the core of the meaning of the term art. Bad art is often times on that border, so some critics will pronounce it art, but bad art and others not art at all.

Here is a funny thing about critique and expertise. Even in fields where there is no objective criteria, such as art or philosophy, the critics and experts can usually agree on the top 10% in the field. Every philosophy student or professor that is not a crackhead will likely admit that Aristotle, Plato, and Kant are the core of Western philosophy. EVERY ONE TO A PERSON AGREES WITH THIS. And critique of music, at least jazz and classical, the two pinnacles of musical expression with historically robust traditions of critique, function similarly. Everyone agrees that Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach are great. The other people in that group of greatness varies. The further from the top a talent is or the more "alternative" the critic is the more divergent the selection. James Levine, the conductor of the BSO, my hometown symphony (one good thing about Boston), puts Mahler in that holy triumvirate. I do not. But he is a little off kilter. He is admitted biased towards "new" classical. But even Levine would agree that Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach are great.

Expertise as a form of communal knowledge, whether objectively or subjectively, functions in largely the same way. The field is defined and the greats in the field are pretty universal. As one goes down the list or out of the critical mainstream the picture becomes less clear. Look at it this way. Video game experts all agree that Mario 64 is one of the greatest games of all time. Everyone agrees. Hardcore gamers and magazine editors. Most people also like Halo or Metal Gear Solid, but the consensus is less firm both in terms of its perceived greatest and how different types of experts or critics see its greatness. Hardcore fans will eschew its movie feel over gameplay while mag editors love this trait. Philosophy, art, music, and just about every field of expertise is organized that way. Part of it has to do with history and appeal. One person once said Beethoven is great because he is always "news". Not new, but news. That is Beethoven is always engaging. So this "returnability" is a hallmark that experts look at. History makes great figures serve as benchmarks and so they are remembered. Another factor is that human understanding works in a formal way. Classical music is defined as a style and Mozart is the epitome or essence of that style and so he is perceived as classical music at its best. Expertise because it is rigorous focuses on essences and distilled qualities, meaning that in the end consensus about the peak of the peaks is actually more widespread and homogenous than the "civilian" (non-expert) public realizes.

It is hard for people outside the field of expertise to come to grips with this. It is brutal and harsh and non-egalitarian to hear from someone "in the know" that what you like is crap. But the fact is we are all semi experts and we all have knowledge that allows us to speak from a position of superior knowledge. You and I know that Mana Drain is better than Counterspell, but some green newbie might think differently. People become so defensive and embrace egalitarianism or nihilism or relativism because it makes them feel less stupid. The problem is two fold, first these positions are easily defensible because they have face validity (that is, an appearance of correctness). The public, as the public, lacks the special knowledge that rigorous analysis and study requires and as such cannot understand the criteria. So an attack about the lack of consensus appeals to those of us outside that consensus/expertise circle. Second, the relativism attacks are supported by some high profile but low value "high brow" critics, guys like Derrida and Rorty. The issue with these guys is that they have "thought through" the expertise. They agree with the "canonical" critics in that the object of study is worth studying, but they seek to move beyond that. The egalitarian civilians see this as a sign that any position of superior knowledge is flawed and pad their uninformed egos, when, in fact, the Rorty's and Derrida's of the world would see the egalitarians as wrong headed and lazy.

The point is that we can, as non-experts, say "who can say what is art, but this is what I like" and feel good. But in the final analysis this is the position of the lazy and ill informed. It is not a position that is capable of analysis. These relativism discussions just want to make me send everyone that is an anti-critical egalitarian the following message: "Everything is great so no one feels bad. Fuck that. Magic "art" is not art. It is by in large garbage. If that hurts you feelings, go study real art. Don't bitch to me." The fact is, if we were all being consistent and self aware we'd all realize that we all have some form of expertise and we all at some point look down and scoff at inferior positions. Its just that we hate when others do that to us.

BRAM:

You're going to make one hell of a lawyer.

After reading and rereading your previous PM rigorously and letting its contents go back and forth in my mind, I find myself in complete agreement. While this is itself is interesting, it sadly makes for a very poor foundation for further discussion.

I believe we more or less got to the heart of the issue here, covering most of the critique and eventually concluding that magic illustrations aren't 'NOT ART' by definition, but that it appears to be a pretty solid estimator. While we can establish that it is impossible to properly and definitively define the concept of art, we can find a core group of characteristics that most people agree on, and most of the supposed Magic artwork simply does not meet even these requirements. We've also established that, since the requirements not everyone agrees on are open for debate, there may be some exceptions and some Magic art may actually qualify as 'real' art to a given majority.

Finally, I think we agree on that, while art and its appreciation are subjective at best, it simply won't do to say 'it's art because someone made it and because I like it' which is as nonsensical as proclaiming something 'NOT ART' simply because you don't.

I also believe many people want something to be art because it makes them feel better about themselves. I am an avid collector of 'creations' in the broadest sense of the word, and I too herald the 'I don't know what's art, but I know what I like' message you despise so much. Unlike most others however, I don't believe it's important for the stuff I display on my walls to be art by any definition. I have a unique 5" terracotta cast of a commemorative coin commissioned by the Bach society made by a famous Dutch sculptor, which undoubtedly qualifies as 'art' in most people's books, alongside a Batman sketch by Paolo Parente which undoubtedly doesn't. I'm absolutely fine with that and I don't attribute a greater value (other than perhaps for insurance purposes :-) to the terracotta piece than to the batman drawing. But I don't believe the latter to be art, nor would I choose to defend such a statement. The things I simply can't understand are logical extremes:

1. I can't fathom why people want everything they like to be 'art' (exploring this probably means entering the realm of psychology).

2. I don't understand people why will simply dismiss an entire range of (in many ways) nonidentical products such as magic illustrations based solely on those few requirements that everyone agrees on (and judging by your last PM, you are not among those people). As a physicist and engineer, I would be happy to accept the general 'non-artness' of magic illustrations as a model of how thing are, but I will never lose sight of the possibility that there may well be exceptions. On a sidenote, I'm glad both of us see some of Drew Tucker's work as a 'grey area' at worst, and possibly even as 'art' as best. Not merely because I like his work, mind you; as a matter of fact I really enjoy a lot of magic illustrations (like Anson Maddocks') work which I don't believe meets the qualifications.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that I think this brief series of PM's (especially some of yours) contains some very interesting food for thought. It'd be a shame to keep this discussion to ourselves and let these messages sit in our inboxes for eternity while they could evoke thought and discussion in others interested in the subject. Mind if I 'publish' them in a thread?

RIC_FLAIR:

No, please publish them. I would be afraid that if I published them I would seem like some Harold Bloom sycophant. As for the content of the PM itself, I agree wholeheartedly with what was said.

[rvs]

I didn't read through your PM traffic with Ric (yet), but I can say that the artwork on cards is indeed art.
I think it's really strange that you have a 'some are, some aren't' option, since it's really a yes or no question.
The case you could make for 'some arent' is that some art if meant solely to complement the card, and wouldn't be much art outside of the card context. However, it is a pretty flawed argument, because you could compare it to portrets made of rich people, aka art-on-demand.

For the record, I voted Yes.

[Bram]

I didn't read through your PM traffic with Ric (yet), but I can say that the artwork on cards is indeed art.

*sigh*

I think it's really strange that you have a 'some are, some aren't' option, since it's really a yes or no question.

If you would actually read our PM traffic record, you may well find your opinion changes.

However, it is a pretty flawed argument, because you could compare it to portrets made of rich people, aka art-on-demand.

The fact that its commissioned cannot be an argument for or against. All of this is dealt with in my above post. Please read first.

[Eddie]

Interesting. The best part is when talking about commissioning the pieces. In Alpha, the illustrators where given a lot more freedom. Therefore, they could be a lot more creative than nowadays. A good example is the Ancestral Recall art. Since then, Wizards is giving the illustrators more and more directives. While this does help to create a homogeneous world (Mirrodin, Kamigawa), it will decrease the "art" value of the illustrations. Therefore, the only card illustrations that can be considered as art are the ones from 10 years ago.

When I look at the Time Walk art (note the absence of quotes), I always think of Munch's “The Scream�. It gives me a similar feeling of hopelessness. There are very few Magic illustrations that can provoke these feelings…

[Toad]

[Eddie]

Nice one. I didn't mean all old illustrations should be considered as art...

[CF]

The PMs make it sound that you would get almost the exact same picture regardless of who you assigned to do it. Seeing how several Magic illustrators are able to really pour themselves into the assigned artwork and portray images with great identity. I had an interesting talk with Scott Fischer about the painting process of "Meloku the Clouded Mirror". Although he was somewhat limited to drawing a specific character, the whole colouring process and especially the background is somewhere he could go nuts with creativity. Is the background artwork but the total piece not? I see no point in nitpicking so yeah, I'll call it art. Not _Art_ belonging in a museum, but many of the Magic artists are definitely that - artists.

Others are copycats or "do the assigned task as cheaply/quickly as possible". *shrug*

Some Magic illustrations suck ass. *shrug*

Still, on a general level I have no problem calling it art.

art, noun
------------------
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

I think what Ric Flair calls art is what I would label "great art", although I really think such differentions are in the eyes (or ears for music) of the beholder. You can't argue with taste, really. I don't care how many experts tell me Mozart is king, I prefer Vivaldi any day. :o)

--
Chris

[Methuselahn]

The closest thing to art in MTG is from Alpha/Beta/UL when the artists had alot of freedom.

Magic 'art' today is dictated by the marketing team for the sole purpose of making money.  Artists are told how to illustrate certain figureheads and types of creatures.  This is seen in every set.  Everything is fabricated.  All the 'artwork' in magic is stylized and looks the same (well, except for Drew Tucker type work for example, but that is ancient.)   When you look at a magic card does the 'artwork' make you think?? No.  It's there for quick visual reference.  The aesthetics are often fabulous, the meaning is horseshit.

Note:  a degree in Fine Arts has biased me alot, but I think alot of what I said holds true.

[The Atog Lord]

Can art be something done for the purpose of selling you something, an advertisement? (Selling Magic cards) Can art be filled with characters and styles handed down from another source? (Gerrard and friends, or the CoK style).

Yes. I'll hold up Virgil's Aeneid as my proof of this. While a work of propaganda, drawing heavily from Greek works, if it isn't art, I have no idea what is.

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

Even with new sets if they have to follow a certain "flavor", I consider almost all of the new cards art.  Like latley some of the cards have been goofed up to appeal to the Pokemon, Yugi, Duelmasters type people. Come cards have cool art

Fist of the Suns
Decree of Justice

Hideous Laughter from kamigawa

[Bram]

Can art be something done for the purpose of selling you something, an advertisement?

We had already concluded that the commercial nature of the product at hand cannot be an argument for or against it being considered 'art'.

Or rather, it can be, but it'd be a really hard-to-defend point of view given the enormous amount of 'evidence' to the contrary.

[jpmeyer]

Your head a splode.

Anyway, I voted yes since I've considered "art" just to be creative human output using stuff like images, sounds, words, movement, whatever.

Yes. I'll hold up Virgil's Aeneid as my proof of this. While a work of propaganda, drawing heavily from Greek works, if it isn't art, I have no idea what is.

While this has nothing to do with this discussion, I would just like to point out that the Aeneid is arguably the first work of fanfiction  

[Machinus]

Clearly, coming to a consensus here is not possible. Defining art is itself something which will occupy artists and critics forever, I imagine.

But examining the conditions which lead to the production of work which is more 'artistic,' if not 'greater' art than other works, seems to me to be mostly dependent on the artist. Artists with refined, meticulous styles, such as rk post, are going to be much better at depicting certain themes or emotions than other artists. There are many distinct styles in Magic artwork, and this often is what leads us to conclude that they are among the best in the group. Higgenbotham only has like four works (key is my favorite), and they are radically different from other styles and approaches to the same type of theme. Therefore many people see his art and conclude that it is much better than others. This may or may not be true, but the point is that the artist, and the method that they use to express the specific result, is what determines how good a work is.

I think it is FAR more difficult to say whether or not there exists true 'art' in the portfolio of magic artists, than it is to determine whether or not true 'artists' are doing work for Magic cards. I think the answer is most certainly yes, that there have been at least several in the past, and there are still some.

[Matt]

These relativism discussions just want to make me send everyone that is an anti-critical egalitarian the following message: "Everything is great so no one feels bad. Fuck that. Magic "art" is not art. It is by in large garbage. If that hurts you feelings, go study real art. Don't bitch to me.

Is this art?
Is THIS art?
What about this?

People who study art tell me the first two art but the third is not. You want to fuck something, fuck that.

[jpmeyer]

Just because you have a broad sense for what is considered "art" doesn't mean that you necessarily have to consider it good.

Or I might just be confusing "art" with "text."

[MuzzonoAmi]

I've never understood visual art at all, so I'm going to just watch, and hope for someone to help me understand it better.

[Matt]

Just because you have a broad sense for what is considered "art" doesn't mean that you necessarily have to consider it good.

Or I might just be confusing "art" with "text."

My point is that so much 'art' seems to be about context, and specifically the context in which you view it. A urinal's a urinal, but not when it's on a museum wall. I think from your other posts that you'd agree with me on this - that what makes something art or not is not the same as what makes it good or not.

Art vs. nonart really seems to be more in the eye of the beholder than good vs. bad, which is actually surprisingly objective. I can look at this desk in front of and decide that while it is a very good desk, when I consider it as a jet airplane, it is a very BAD jet airplane. Similarly, I can look at a picture like [card]Exhume[/card] and decide that it is a great illustration but poor art, I can look at Tony's sales brochure and decide it is an excellent source of birdcage-liner but a poor work of literature. But my point is that art is not a state something IS or ISN'T, it's a way of looking at that thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'text'.

[Ric_Flair]

I think that JP is referring to text in the Derridian/semotic sense, as a meaning bearing construct.  I will let JP explain this more.

My big issue is this egalitarian, sweeping definition of art.  I think that JP will be shocked to hear this after our discussion at Waterbury but "creative human output" is WAY too broad.  It encompasses poop.  You are technically creating something and it is technically output.  Furthermore it covers ACCIDENTS.  Oh I spilled my coffee on my shirt it and make a cool stain--that's art.  It is creative (you made it) and it is caused by you, thus it is output.  That definition is WAY TOO BROAD.  

At the very least art needs to be output that is INTENDED to be creative.  If not the word loses any sense of meaning.

Also, as for Matt's links I really like Minimalism, especially Kandinsky.  My learning and reading has told me that alot of the power of the first two types pieces deals with space and advanced color theory.  Kandinsky's color theory is quite literally one of the most incredible ideas I have been exposed to in my entire life.  His interpretation and RULES (yes rules) about something as primordial and basic as color truly opened my eyes.  I hope I am not called on to articulate the theory because, to be very honest, it is beyond my comphrension in its fully developed form, but I can probably do a Dummies version if need be (please no, Kandinsky will spin in his minimally designed coffin).  I think this also explains why, while creative, the graffitti is not art in the same sense.  The pictured painting fundamental violates some of the basic color theory rules.  It is creative but its like a bad doodle more than art.  Perhaps this is why people who know call the first two art and not the third.

[Smmenen]

At Origins I had the pleasure of meeting Mark Tedin.  I inquired about the nature of hte original art team.  He explained that the artists had basically free reign to do what they might.

Take a look at Time Walk and Black Lotus.  That's art.

[Magi]

Ric

Reading your pm's was very enlightening and enjoyable. I don't wanna sound like I'm sucking up or anything, but one day I hope I can write as well as you can.

Just a couple of points I would like to bring up.

- I really like your talk about expertise and critique. The vast majority of us don't even know what constitutes true artwork, even at its most basic level, so we're not qualified to call anything art. I just don't like how you call the people not in the know lazy and ill informed. That's just not fair. You can't expect everyone to have atleast a little knowledge in every subject. Uninformed sounds better.

- Graffiti is art. Graffiti comes from your soul, and nowhere else. It is limitless in its potential for expression. You ask a Graffer why he chose that particular color to use. "Because I felt like it". Graffiti artists do evolve their skills over time, it's just that no one pays attention. There is no purpose to Graf, other than to express yourself. Graffing a piece of public property in itself is an expression.

The only problems with Graffiti are the negative social stigma (vandalism?!) and the fact that no one with credentials has officially declared them artwork.

I guess that's it. I thought I had more to say...but I guess not.

One more thing, I was going to vote no, but then I remembered John Avon, so I'm going to vote for the third option.

[Bram]

The vast majority of us don't even know what constitutes true artwork, even at its most basic level, so we're not qualified to call anything art.

NOONE knows what constitutes true artwork. There appears to be at the very least consensus that is has to exist in some physical sense and that it needs to have been made by man (and I can even give you examples of various whackjobs who disagree with either of these, too). The rest of it is basically up for grabs. HOWEVER, I believe interesting things can be said on the matter by intelligent people who thought long and hard about it. That doesn't make their opinion true (or even more true than, say, mine) but it does make it more likely. More...informed, if you would.

Compare it to gravity. To this day, noone really understands how it works. We could all go around saying stuff like: 'What do we know about it? OK, so, um, it exists, and it works. I don't care about the rest of the story or other people's opinions because I have formed one of my own.'  Even if that's basically valid, it's a bit of a useless definition. And if you want to explore the matter at hand further, the opinions of people like Stephen Hawking (while not necessarily true) are at least in my mind more meaningful to me than those of, say, Paris Hilton.

It's the same for art. There is consensus on some things, but that's too broad to work with. There are nothing but opinions on the rest of it, and some of those simply are better than others.

Graffiti is art.

No it isn't. What you're trying to say is that its a grey area and you hold the conviction that it is (along with many others, but likely not a majority). It probably meets most of the 'basic' criteria for something to be even considered as 'art'. And where it goes from there is strictly interpretation.

Graffiti comes from your soul, and nowhere else.  

Wrong. It comes from a can.

I'm being serious here. There's no way to tell if it comes from anywhere other than that. Example. I suck at art. If I were to 'do' graffiti, I'd consider it an enormous success if I don't get busted by the cops and don't need to throw away my clothes afterwards. It will not be beautiful. It will not be an expression of my innermost desires or fears. Hell, it will probably not even be recognizable as anything at all. It will, however, have been made. By me. And it's visual. Moreover, it's graffiti. So you seem to think that makes it art. And I'm telling you: it wouldn't be.

I guess I'm saying: graffiti, like magic, and paintings in genral can be art. It doesn't have to be. And how do we determine if a specific piece is in fact art or not? We think, and listen to the opinions of experts and non-experts alike, and then form an opinion of our own. That, ladies and gentemen, is all there will ever be.

[Matt]

Wrong. It comes from a can.

I'm being serious here. There's no way to tell if it comes from anywhere other than that. Example. I suck at art. If I were to 'do' graffiti, I'd consider it an enormous success if I don't get busted by the cops and don't need to throw away my clothes afterwards. It will not be beautiful. It will not be an expression of my innermost desires or fears. Hell, it will probably not even be recognizable as anything at all. It will, however, have been made. By me. And it's visual. Moreover, it's graffiti. So you seem to think that makes it art. And I'm telling you: it wouldn't be.

And the Last Supper came from some egg whites. What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

The 'soul' exists (such as it is), and the paint exists. Just because you and I lack the ability to effectively convey the first to a surface via the second doesn't mean that someone who CAN do that isn't making art. By your logic, if Rembrandt were given a set of paints and went to work on some nameless wall in Amsterdam, what he produced wouldn't be art because it's graffiti.

I call bullshit on that.

NOONE knows what constitutes true artwork....We think, and listen to the opinions of experts and non-experts alike, and then form an opinion of our own. That, ladies and gentemen, is all there will ever be.

There has been some recent research into the brain that actually seems to not only give a precise definition of art, but also there seems to be a region of the brain that responds to "arty" things and not to nonart. This lends some scientific backing to the accepted rules of composition. I'll try and find the book I read this in today.

[Bram]

And the Last Supper came from some egg whites. What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

The 'soul' exists (such as it is), and the paint exists. Just because you and I lack the ability to effectively convey the first to a surface via the second doesn't mean that someone who CAN do that isn't making art. By your logic, if Rembrandt were given a set of paints and went to work on some nameless wall in Amsterdam, what he produced wouldn't be art because it's graffiti.

You are completely and utterly missing my point. Did you even read what I said?

Magi said 'graffiti comes from the soul.' I say: 'Graffiti comes from a can. ART comes from the soul.' I never said graffiti can't be art. I never said graffiti can't come from the soul. I just said it isn't art by definition just because it's graffiti. Lemme tell you right now that if I do a graffiti, it won't be because of some creative spark in my soul or whatever, and it SURE as hell won't be art.

A far more interesting point was raised by someone who actually read what I said in a PM:

I can't post in the Magic Community message, so I'll PM my reply to your last post in that thread.

Shouldn't the status of 'art' be decided only by the intention of the person who created the 'art' in the first place. It seems almost elitist to try and go piece by piece and say..that's art.. that's not art... Who is to decide this if not the artist himself?

...to which I replied:

An interesting point. I used to be of the opinion that art was anyting that was made by someone and of which at LEAST the creator thought it was art.

Now I realise that's too narrow. While I still believe that it should be created, I am now of the opinion that:
1. something that the creator does not think of as art may very well be considered art by a majority (I have various examples of that), and
2. something that the creator thinks of as art may very well not be.

[ctthespian]

At the very least art needs to be output that is INTENDED to be creative.  If not the word loses any sense of meaning.

Yes theres a point to be made.  Artists use thier skills that they've learned to create a piece of art, be it, visiual, audible, literature etc.  The truth of the matter is that what the magic artists create is a form of art.  Wether or not Magic card art lives up to your elitest standardization of the term "Art" is another issue.  The fact that they intend to create these pictures and decide what to do with the skills they've learend makes them artists and their product art.  By definition that is what makes art, well art!  In a literal sense anyway.

The pictures that Matt linked to...  No aesthetic value to me what so ever.  Sure it may be considered art, but I'd take a picture of Ansel Adams or painting of Edward Blair Leighton any day over those two.  The grafitti, well it's grafitti, but I've seen some damn good looking "grafitti" before.

Before we keep debating if a magic card's picuture is "art."  We have to define in this thread what the term "art" means.  Is it the definition of art in it's literal form.  Where skill is used to create a form of presentation.  Or where a skill is developed to perfection.  Such as the point when an athlete, doctor, or even magic player becomes an "artist" in thier craft.  Even take boxing vs. Martial Arts.  Martial arts is the use of the bodies skill to it's most effect.  I'm sure there are boxers that have developed the trade far enough to become artists at the craft of boxing as well.  Still the forms of fighting are different.  I would think that martial arts requires more skill and would be considered more of an art than boxing.  I might be ignorant in saying that however.

I'm making many different references to the term art and it's uses to show that someone can view magic card pictures as art.  I think that the discussion between Ric Flair and Bram was about if the card art is "Fine Art" of the visual art sense.

-Keith

[Saucemaster]

My big issue is this egalitarian, sweeping definition of art.  I think that JP will be shocked to hear this after our discussion at Waterbury but "creative human output" is WAY too broad.

Well, I'll take issue with this.  Just because a term is broad--even if it's INCREDIBLY broad--doesn't make it meaningless or useless.  We might need to argue over what "creative" means in this case (e.g. shit probably doesn't count), but once we have then at the very least this definition would distinguish between creative and non-creative human output.  And by using the term to refer to "output" we would be distinguishing between action that produces something concrete--whether it be a material object or simply an observable event, as in performance art--and action that doesn't, like thinking.

What does that definition do for us?  Is it incredibly broad?  Yes.  But it tells us that, whatever you think of his status as an artist, Mahler was engaged in the same sort of activity that Bach and Mozart were.  And that, as far removed as it might seem, so were Joyce and Beckett, and so were Kandinsky and Klee.  And so was that annoying-ass guy at the cafe who made you listen to his shitty poetry, and so was that irritating girl in your dorm as a freshman who thought her "performance art" was so cutting edge because she got naked and used the word "vagina".  Now is that enough in and of itself?  Obviously not.  Because what would be egalitarian to a fault would be to THEN insist that simply because they were engaging in the same sort of activity, the annoying guy at the cafe and, say, T.S. Eliot produced art of the same VALUE.  But the value question--or the success question, or however you'd like to frame it--is only a question in the FIRST place because the activities that they were engaged in ARE comparable.  If we reserve "art" to mean simply good or great creative activity, then we just need a new word to fill the void left by elevating "art" to such lofty heights.

This whole argument is nearly worthless, I think, because in the end it's simply an argument about nomenclature.  I think "creative human output" is a perfectly good definition for art because I don't think the term "art" should refer to something sacrosanct.  If, however, we collectively decide that creative human activity must be truly exceptional before we call it "art", then fine.  But then we need a new term to refer to the similarity--and hence the comparability--of a whole range of activities that we currently call art.

In the end, yes, Magic illustrations are "art".  That doesn't make them special, and it most certainly doesn't make them GOOD art.  But they are art precisely because they can *be* compared to a Rembrandt, or a Kandinsky, and be found wanting.  I basically agree almost entirely with Ric_Flair if you search replace "art" with "good or great art" in his PMs and posts to date.  I just don't see the value in reserving the term solely for what I see as the apotheosis of the type.

I am also sympathetic to the argument that intention is NOT definitive of art, but that's a whole different can of worms and I'm not sure I *agree* with it--just that I feel I may be persuadable.

[Matt]

This whole argument is nearly worthless, I think, because in the end it's simply an argument about nomenclature. I think "creative human output" is a perfectly good definition for art because I don't think the term "art" should refer to something sacrosanct. If, however, we collectively decide that creative human activity must be truly exceptional before we call it "art", then fine. But then we need a new term to refer to the similarity--and hence the comparability--of a whole range of activities that we currently call art.

In other words, art is not Art.

[Saucemaster]

In other words, art is not Art.

Well if you're into that whole "brevity" thing, I guess.

[Machinus]

I am disappointed that this debate is still going. There exists NO accepted criterion for determining what is art and what isn't. It doesn't matter what you think "art" is. Your definition of "art" serves only one purpose - yourself. That is the limit of the value of your thought. The only thing that can expand that is this abstract quality that keeps coming up, that we are now describing by saying that someone is "informed." The only people whose opinions matter to ANYONE but themselves are those who have spent huge amounts of time studying "art" and talking and writing about it. But even if you are one of those people, there are still lots of other people who have done the same thing and think something different from you, because they have studied different "art" or just think differently, or any irrelevant reason. It doesn't matter what you think art is, because the only people who care what you think are those who aren't smart or intelligent enough to think about it for themselves.

Art is subjective, and that is the only thing that is consistent about it.

[jpmeyer]

Fuck Derrida.  He is at the top of my shitlist.

[Ric_Flair]

@Machinus:

I am disappointed that this debate is still going.

I am disappointed that you did not read and understand the posts between Bram and I.

It doesn't matter what you think "art" is. Your definition of "art" serves only one purpose - yourself.

Thank you for puking out the cliched relativist position.  That is not the way any form of expertise (knowledge, communal thinking, or specialized language) works.  Expertise, in general, works by having a language or short hand.  People get indoctrinated into that specialization and they begin to understand what terms, even terms with common, everyday meanings, mean.  Now this does not mean that the given expertise's definition of the word is the exclusive definition, it just means that insofar as that topic is concerned one definition, that which is shared by the community of experts, has primacy and currency over all others.  

For example, we could have this same debate about the word "fairness."  It too is a vague and amorphous terms.  It too is a term used all the time in a way that does not comport with its "experted" meaning.  In fact, the very first argument most children make is: "That is not fair!"  In my job I here people bitching everyday about what is fair.  "This isn't fair, that isn't fair...blah, blah, blah..." But "fairness" has a specific, functional connotation in the legal expertise (equal protection and due process of the substantive and procedural varieties).  This definition is important, in fact important above all others, because society has agreed that the law is arbiter of fairness society wide.  You make think it is fair that you can do X, but if the law disagrees, guess what--you lose.  The law has specialized versions of fairness apart from dictionary definitions and common parlance because the word is essential to human interaction.   The law has specialized in fairness, in other words.  The law is the expertise of fairness, among other things and society recognizes this.  

Now the cynic may reply that this works because the law has an enforcement branch (the police and the military), and this is true.  Might, in this instance, makes right.  But if we think about it, even in fields without an enforcement mechanism, specialized definitions of concepts are better than (i.e. more functional, more accurate) other definitions because a) other experts recognize them; b) the field of experts, having studied the matter in detail, concludes that it is the most accurate definition, thus achieving broader consensus and acceptance; and c) because the rest of that expertise would not function as well with an alien definition.  To flesh this out imagine if I went into a computer programming group at the Federal Reserve.  Imagine that this is the group that codes the federal reverse money transfers onto the secure transfer network (called FedWire in real life).  Imagine that they have a bunch of self-referential code and code full of cut and pastes.  This self referencing and cut and paste is the equivalent of a specialized definition of a word.  Now you can, maybe, but not likely, sit down and think of an ENTIRELY different way to do the same thing that FedWire's current code does.  You could redesign the entire system, but chances are, given the number of other people, all of whom we will assume are experts, that have worked on the code, you would not find a more efficient (or a substantially more efficient) way of doing things.  This is what expertise is all about.  It is a way of making functional and accessible complex ideas.  The problem is that it requires work, knowledge, and experience.  None of us would want to code FedWire from scratch if our paychecks depended on it or would want to make arguments on fairness pro se in the Supreme Court for our death penalty conviction.  We want experts to do it.  

But for some reason we as Americans thinking in our egalitarian, relativism way believe that art, among other things, is merely a matter of taste.  Not only does this fundamentally run afoul of the concept of expertise, because there are people who are experts in defining art, it also runs afoul of nearly all of human historical thought on the matter.   As late as the 1800s people far more intelligent than you and I (namely Immanuel Kant) were making perfectly logical arguments (and with Kant, I have broken it done to its logical components and the man makes not a single significant fallicious or invalid argument) that art is not a subjective matter and that the appreciation of art is as rigorous and apersonal as a geometry theorem.  By comparison, this nihilsm, relativism, and egalitarianism is drop in the bucket.  And if all of my persuasion is to no avail I would far rather stand on the side of the debate with people like Aristotle, Plato, and Kant over and above the average American and a few extremist critics.  History is on my side, in the event that my logic is flawed.  

Saying that art is whatever I say it is is as silly as saying that the code to FedWire or the definition of fairness is whatever you say it is.  You may say that, and you may think you are right, but in the end, the world will pass you by--and you will be an island of intellectual stubbornness in the stream of productive, creative thought.  

I too am an iconclast.  I too think I am smart.  But the truth experts are experts for a reason.  I defer to them in their area of expertise (provided it IS an area of expertise, in other words, FUCK OFF DR. PHIL) and I would expect them to do the same to me in my area of expertise (if and when I become an expert).   As such, I defer to Kandinsky's color theory.  Kandinsky was assuredly an art expert and I am pretty sure no one here has the credentials to trump him.  

But even if you are one of those people, there are still lots of other people who have done the same thing and think something different from you, because they have studied different "art" or just think differently, or any irrelevant reason.

Aye, there's the rub.  You're wrong about this.  The fact is that art, like every field of knowledge, has some consensus.  Art, has less than say, geometry, but there is a degree of consensus among critics.  The issue regarding the definition of what is art is that it is hierarchical definition.  That is, most critics agree that the Sistine Chapel and Guernica are art, but there is less consensus on, say, the urinals on the museum wall.  This is hard to deal with because in most instances a field of expertise works in the opposite way.  We define the core concepts and then extrapolate.  In art, and in philosophy coincidentally, we do not do this and this is one reason why these two areas are rife with egalitarian ideas that ignore the entirety of each tradition.  Imagine how complex the law would be if we did not have rudimentary definitions of say, a contract (a legally enforceable promise), or property (a set of rights related to a varying degree of possession or ownership), and so on.  In most fields of knowledge we define the basics and argue about the complexities.  In art, philosophy, and certain types of math we do the opposite--we cannot agree about the basics.  ASIDE: I would include physics in that list, but I think cosmological origin physics is fundamentally flawed as an idea.  :END ASIDE.  It is hard for most people of an analytic bent to accept this, but ask the experts and they will tell you thems the breaks.  

Basically it comes down to this:  I do not have the arrogance or the hubris to say that people like Kandinsky and Kant are so wrong that anything I think of is just as good as their ideas.  They are smarter than us, they knew more than you and I, and they worked on their concepts assiduously for a long, long time.  Give the experts their due.  If you want to argue with them in a meaningful way, first familiarize yourself with their mode of thinking then start the debate.

@Steve:

Lotus is the quintessential "illustration" in Magic.  There is no formal or compositional excellence and the detail, to be honest, is horrid.  Go look at some good still lifes or anything Rembrandt did.  The level of detail will have you reconsidering how your brain processes images.  Time Walk is a closer call.

@Saucemaster:

I am not sure if there is any reason why we need to distinguish art from great art.  I think it is accurate to say that the vast majority of Magic art is really illustration.  And no one, or few, would say that illustration, as in the diagramming of an exploded view of an V8 engine, is art.  It is nothing more than a photograph taken without any creativity, but in the form of being drawn.  To rephrase James, a distinction without a difference is a worthless distinction.  As such, I think that this divide between great art and art is sorta hollow.  

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.