Hacker News Reader

> As a semi-professional musician, that definition of art as "what I can't do" is really a rough thing to hear.

I think you've misunderstood, on two fronts. First, the definition given was "what Rush Limbaugh can't do." More generally, it's what laypeople, those untrained in art, can't do. If you're a "semi-professional musician," then your ability to perform a work of music is a non-factor. Second, I read Limbaugh as focused on creation rather than performance. Sure, you can play those pieces. But could you have composed them, or pieces of similar quality, from scratch? Could Limbaugh have?

1. that shouldn't matter. you don't need to be "trained" to produce art. Where even is the threshold? Is it only art if you're a professional, i.e. getting paid? If you took classes? There are so many problems with this definition. Art is creative expression; unskilled creators tend to create bad art. that should cover all the bases.

2. performances are art though.. so that distinction is meaningless.

Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood.

Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star...

It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best.

And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.

I guess "what Rush Limbaugh can't do" is a better baseline in your case.

My reading of that definition is that it depends on not being or claiming to have any skill at art whatsoever. Limbaugh can't see the distinction that makes those things art and suspects that nobody else can either; that it's only art because it was produced by an artist.

Of course this is a facile take on art, but there's a nugget of a question in there... if exhibits were anonymous and selected by lottery, how many famous artists who got the space would be recognized as genius vs. unknown artists vs. cranks out to show that art appreciation is a joke?

Well, I posted this down thread, but I have the same response:

Well, I don't agree that I've misunderstood. Like, there are many subtle levels between me and the professionals in my craft. And there are many, many levels between me and rank amateurs. But the fact remains that Limbaugh probably could sing; if I held hit nuts to the fire, he'd probably be able to croak out at least Twinkle Twinkle Little Star...

It isn't the case that there is a hard distinction between the laity and the priests of music-- we're all just doing our best.

And no, frankly I don't think El Rushbo is up for composing abstract musical compositions; he only thinks he is because he's happily enjoying his ignorance about the reality of music production to score some points in his fantasy of what a culture war looks like.

-=-=-=-=

But here's a response to the question you ask:

So the question begged by your question: given the importance of context, why does the provenance of a piece of art matter outside of that context?

For instance, s there a difference between the mona lisa "original" and a copy you hang on your wall?

If there is a difference, then the who produced it and the context does matter regardless of who can tell a "fake".

If there is no difference, why would your hypothetical lottery be relavent to the status of art as art... wouldn't the art be in the eye of whoever is trying to judge the work?

I find your response interesting. Thank you.

I think that the nature of the context can vary a lot. Some art speaks to people on a primal level, and the context is shared human experience. Other art needs more shared cultural context. Then there's art that requires the context of the artist's life to really move you.

In short, I concede your point that context matters. I think it can and does vary quite a bit.

I still don't want to conflate works requiring the context of knowing and understanding the artist with thinking a work is deep because the artist is well regarded.

But you're making the argument. You have skills and training and surely thousands of hours of practice, of course you can play plenty of pieces.

Limbaugh's point was that he is utterly without art and music talent/training yet can re-create some of these highly praised "works of art." Of course it was hyperbolic, and it's not a rock-solid scientific definition of art -- perhaps no such thing can ever exist -- but it's a great practical working definition. Perhaps it would be better stated "if everyone can do it, it's not art."

Luciano Pavarotti once called singing "shouting, but on pitch." I think he was understating his gift.

So Limbaugh measures art for how hard it is to make. Peeling potatoes is hard (I've been told). I would not claim that peeling potatoes is an art. Same with painting a house, or mining coal.

I disagree that the only thing we get from experiencing art is "oh wow, that look hard". IMO the appeal of art is that it either makes you feel or think in a certain way. This "definition" feel closer to the reasons one would want to experience the creations of others, it also gives some explanation for why one would enjoy the oft ridiculed avant-garde stuff.

Plus every designer I've listened to has told me that the "weird stuff" eventually feeds into and enhances the "normal stuff".

I think muddying the definition of art and the mechanics with which art is created doesn't do either justice. Art is simply creative expression - that Limbaugh quote could be seen as a form of art (although it's a very contrived example for me to make).

Really (in my opinion) everything we do to express ourselves is some form of art, and the works that we consider 'great art' is that something that represents a combination of something humans can do (draw, write, sing, design, ...) and something that contains a meaning found within the content of the physical application that draws a reaction from either the artist or audience.

The real beauty of art is that everything can be art to someone, no matter how bad technically or lacking in content it can be. My favourite example of a great piece of art that has no content (and is fully participatory!) is Cage's 4'33" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAbXwr3qkg). To people who aren't interested in experimental music or musique concréte, a pre-warning, there's 0 technique or musical skills required to play the piece.

> Limbaugh's point was that he is utterly without art and music talent/training yet can re-create some of these highly praised "works of art."

Recreating something is worthless. Who cares if you can recreate something. He can splatter paint on canvas, but never thought to do it until he saw other people get popular from it. So sure, he can splash some paint on canvas, but he can't think of doing it, and that part is the art. A painting is more than just the paint on the canvas.

If I buy a machine-cut perfect 1:1 replica of the statue of David, does that make my statue as much a masterpiece as the original? What if I pay a human to make it instead of a machine?

Tell that to any classical orchestra.

Kids will sometimes fling pant on canvas as fun, but it's not art.

> Tell that to any classical orchestra.

Sure. Playing Beethoven doesn't make you Beethoven. A song is more than the sounds it takes to make it. It's nice to hear played but it doesn't mean the performers could have written it. And even if they could it doesn't mean they did.

> Kids will sometimes fling pant on canvas as fun, but it's not art.

I disagree. Or do parents not sometimes hang this on their fridge. I'm not saying you have to call it good art.

For a more exaggerated example, I can type the entirety of any great book. Or even handwrite it in pen if we want to be picky because maybe computers didn't exist at the time it was written. Does that make it as much of an achievement as the original writing of it? Is that art?

It may not be good art, it may not be meaningful art, but it is art. Claiming that it isn't creates more problems than it solves.

And this isn't directed at you - but let me just make this clear. Orchestral performances are art. Shockingly, it seems like a lot of commenters think that music is just about the composition. Performances involve the composer and the performers' interpretations of the work, their technical skills, their styles. These are nontrivial. These add to and elevate a piece.

I welcome Limbaugh's attempt to pull this piece off! I'm a semiprofessional musician and organist, generally willing to get way in over my head on pieces, but trying to perform this would terrify me. How would you ever get back on track if you lost the meter?...

It's only Limbaugh's ignorance of the context of the piece that makes him think it's random.

If I didn't know how to read, I'd say that the squiggles on a page are just squiggles that anyone with a piece of charcoal could make.

For sure. And yet, it's easy to fall into this trap in modern art. :-)

I remember a particular work of art in MOCA in Los Angeles once upon a time that was a strip of fur on the wall that extended from eye level down to the ground, then ran out along the floor for a short distance. My friend and I were simultaneously amused and outraged by that little work! Surely a nine-year-old could have done that!...