art must be differentiated.

the idea that something is quantifiable is not all consuming,. in science only the things that are quantifiable are experimented on. anything that is not is relegated to the realms of philosophy or theology, until we come up with new technology or theory o allow us to quantify those things. (one cannot quantify the love felt by people towards a pet, nor the willpower needed to avoid chocolate sweets if one is dieting, for example)

as far as art goes, I tend to agree with the above statement that what constitutes art is not important, but what makes GOOD art is. and as such, what makes art "good" is a subjective thing for the most part.

"beauty" is the most primal and personal criteria for what makes art. iS IT BEAUTIFUL?

I half agree with you on that. I agree that within art education the question 'what is art?' has been largely abandoned. I'm not sure if that's such a good thing though. Someone applies to study art at an art school so it obviously means something. If that same person were to turn up at an art school and then have to write essays about quantum physics for three years they'd be justified in saying that what they're studying "isn't art". They should therefore be encouraged to look at what art actually is. The fact that there's no single answer to that question shouldn't mean that it's avoided as a question altogether. When Duchamp created R. Mutt he had a clear enough understanding of what art was meant to be on an establishment level at that time in order to oppose it. My fear is that many contemporary artists have little awareness of the various discourses surrounding 'what art is' now and, as such, are prevented from making conscious moves either to reinforce those ideas or oppose them.

Is it something particular to the nature of art that you wouldn't ever say 'well, it's not really astronomy, is it?'

I tend to feel that, while there's clearly a lot of fraudhattery in the (visual, gallery-based) art world, I can't think of another field which comes under so much scrutiny by people who largely don't actually care. By which I mean, I almost never read any articles complaining that the LHC (or whatever) are a fatuous and superfluous use of money (it probably isn't, I neither know nor care) but people seem to think that galleries they haven't visited are fair game for accusations of emperor's new clothes.

Which isn't to say I don't sympathise with your opinion I just... well, it's odd is all.

that makes sense.

I majored in art and art history and we did not ever go into "what is art?"

I appreciate and adore Modern Art enough to know when a piece is tired, boring, aesthetically dry, and plainly designed to start this exact (and very tired and boring and over-exhausted) discussion. That is exactly what this piece is doing. Good job, hose-man. You are challenging no one. It is 2010. This kind of "thought-provoking" piece should be mailed back 80 or 90 years.

I say this as someone who has truly enjoyed looking at many an untitled black canvas.

I would agree with you if I believed that the capacity (read: potential) to quantify had to be sound quantification by definition in order to be a capacity, but I don't. Likewise, I think there exists slippery territory for quality. It's tell-tale that we persist in attempting to quantify and qualify everything around us despite fundamental doubt.

true. a drawing can be made with quality in all respects but that does not make it a moving piece of art. likewise, a rough, technically sub-par drawing can have a large emotional effect on a viewer.

I also agree with savage clone as to the merits of the hose piece. it is just begging for some fucking idiot to declare that "this! This is art!"

To be fair, quantum physicists are constantly being asked whether what they're doing is really 'scientific'. The difference I suppose is that the quantum physicist is likely only to be asked that question by another scientist while an artist has to justify what they do to Richard Littlejohn.

EDIT: For those who don't know who Richard Littlejohn is, think Bill O'Reilly with less charm.

is this because Art is a field of human endeavor where the results are supposedly up for judging by anyone, regardless of their knowledge of art history, art movements, artists, symbolism, etc.?

only an idiot presumes to know how to judge scientific research without deep knowledge of the subject. In art, a purely personal judgement of "I like it," or "I don't like it," is given weight regardless of who says it.

we once discussed how a lot of art is a language deed thing, it's art once you place it in an art context. duchamp took his urinal and put it on a pedestal in a museum and it was art. take the hose out of the garden and put the sign next to it and bam! i'm not saing i agree on this though.

according to kant there are two ways people judge things: they can judge out of their own taste on a particular moment, but also there are things that are above these individual tastes and will appeal to a large number of people. for example mozart's music might not be everyone's taste, but most people will agree that it is beautiful in a way they can't just describe. it's about a beauty that is within the piece itself.

I think that's true and is in many ways one of art's greatest virtues: the idea that someone can walk into a gallery with no knowledge of art, see a Caravaggio or a Van Gogh and be utterly overwhelmed by it. But does the fact that that same person is likely to look at Picasso's Guernica and be completely unmoved by it make Picasso any less of an artist?

duchamp turned the urnial upside down. GENIUS! ;)

he obviously had his eye on the australian art market

Modern art is a complete joke. If I saw a hose pipe lying around in town, I'd think a lazy bastard of a council worker couldn't be assed to put it away after watering the flowers. I wouldn't react like a retarded pseud and think "what an amazing, groundbreaking piece of art! I'm going to cum in my pants!"

I thought people who don't like modern art enjoyed looking at art that looks like stuff.
This piece does look like stuff. It looks like a hose.

People who don't like modern art, don't like the pseud shit variety.

cool I love thing out of the ordinary like this. they always bring a smile to my face. congrats on a cool idea

Writing off all of "modern art" is pretty much cutting yourself off from much of the valuable aesthetic experiences you could be having. It's just like music or literature; sure, tons of it is lousy, but you hang in there and dig for gold.

I'm sure lots of people would say the same about a band using feedback: 'If I heard some feedback on a record I'd assume some stupid bastard guitarist was standing too close to his amplifier. I wouldn't react like a retarded pseud and think "what an amazing, groundbreaking piece of art! I'm going to cum in my pants!"'

Pseuds toss the word "art" like confetti to describe all kinds of everyday shit. Going to the shop. Art! Picking your nose. Art! Uisng the toilet. Art! No wonder modern art is treated with such ridicule and disdain by the general public.