Ajoke?

Are you posing this as an esthetic question or an epistemological question?

bm

That's why I stay away from surealistic paintings -
give me a Monet to admire.

Well, one must give the artist credit for being clever, and a big "sucker" to whoever bought the piece.

Sorry Joe. I dont know the word epistemological. But in any case I would say that I pose the question without any further criteria. Besides, I dont know how much fun the esthetic version would be since one can claim that anything is art.

Many moons ago I went to the Guggenheim Museum in NYC
and there was a huge "painting" divided into 3 parts of
plain red color. Nothing else on the painting as red color.
One part was painted red in acrylic, the second part was painted red in oil, and the third part - red in watercolors.
That's it! Nothing else to see, nevertheless there were
at least 10 people standing in front of that painting admiring
it.

So I stood there too for a while and another visitor mumbled
in passing by: "I don't know who is more stupid - the
person who painted that or the people who admire it."

Good one jane. But what about the person who made the remark? You say that since you saw a crowd studying the picture you went and stood in front of it, hoping to get a glimpse of what they saw as worth spending time on. You tried to understand. What did the other man do? Who is stupid?

This leads me to think that there is no such thing as an objective view...

Cyracuz

I concur there is no such thing as an objective view.
That is a the general epistemological point. i.e. there is only an "interactive event" which is a function of both the state of the observer and that of the observed. The question then becomes "what distinguishes an artistic event, in particular", and this is a matter of consensus, history, and cultural norm.

You're right Cyracuz, however, there is such a thing as a common
consent aside from the abstract.

I think you are being unfair to the artist. He could be a realist. All depends of the title. Imagine if the title of the painting was "RED".

Yea, Jane. But isn't this concent also a subjective thing? And what is abstract. To many people the idea og "god" is abstract. To others it is the most real thing in their lives.

Am I being unfair, val? I do not see it that way. You can say the painting has no artistic value, but we have already proven that this is not so. It has after all been the topic of our discussion in this thread.

Sorry, Cyr, I was joking, because the red paiting reminded me a german movie I saw some years ago. It was called "blue". And the film consisted in a blue colour on the screen. Nothing else. After 20' I left, thinking that the "artist" was at least coherent.
I had another similar experience, with another german movie, that consisted in a camera fixed on a propeller-blade of an helicopter. Moving. Very, very quickly. After some time I was mad with headache and I went into the bar. It was then that my levels of tolerance evaporated: the film director was also in the bar, talking to his friends! Perhaps joking about the idiots like me, being tortured by his "experimental film".
I deny any value to trash like that.

Well, it can be said, val, that these films you mention are meant as a mockery towards human curiousity. In that case the artist is an evil, corrupted soul who has to let himself be inflicted on others to feel he has a purpose. If we have an obligation to take down saddam hussein, do we not also have an obligation to remove mentioned artist?

Subjectively spoken, as always. Strange how moral standards vary according to the problem at hand. Good rethorics can completely justify anything as long as enough subjects agree. Maybe that's why we're f***ed up as a race...?

val, I don't think it is unfair to the artist. Everyone can
call themselves "artist" as long as they find someone
interested in their "art". I probably look at it from the
perspective of a "real" artist who spends much time and
effort into his work and the results are spectacular for
everyone to see - not just a small eclectic group.
When I look at the old masters (Van Gogh, Monet, DaVinci)
I can see the talent and special gift these artists had.

With some of the modern so called artists, I don't get
the feeling - either they're so far out for me to understand
or they're in for materialistic reasons only.

And there comes the "common consensus" into play Cyracruz, yes, it is subjective, however if you look at
the Cornfields of Van Gogh, or any great painting for that
matter, there is a common consensus that these paintings
are beautiful and artistically valuable. It is only a small
percentage of people who would disagree with these paintings, right?

There is also a common consensus for art in
general, and this includes abstract artwork from surrealists.

With beauty it is as it is with light. There is no such thing as darkness. Only the absense of light. There is no such thing as ugly (in lack of a better word) there is only the absense of beauty. Or more accurately, the inabillity to understand that what you see is beautiful. What does that say about the great masters?