Is art some kind of mutual fraud? (Rin spoilers I guess)

[Markus Ramikin]

a.k.a. Art: who needs it?

I just finished Rin's route, as the last one of the five, and that's the question that's been stuck in my mind for like the latter half of it. It particularly hit me when those exhibition people started asking her questions that must have made her feel like "what the hell am I doing here?" It made me think about the place of art in the world. What allows it to exist without all artists starving to death?

Full time artists make a living by creating works of art and selling them. (Now there's a perfectly ordinary English sentence). But does what Rin puts into her paintings have anything to do with what the people who will buy them get out of them? Or is it more like:
- Art patrons: "We don't really have a way of knowing what you put into that when you created it, so we'll talk about 'interpretation' and 'subjectivity' so that we can signal culture and sophistication (this is what we pay money for), and hide the fact that nobody really has any clue what they're doing."
- Artist: "I don't really think any of you will get this, but I'm doing this for myself, to get these drives out of my system: and if you guys wanna buy it, hey, it pays the bills."

It's like... obviously we're all islands unto ourselves, and have our inner lives, thoughts and ideas and feelings which we cannot really share with one another; to know this isn't very deep wisdom, but a thought lots of us come to experience during the usual adolescent philosophising that more often than not goes nowhere in the end. Artists are just those of us who somehow - for reasons not related to anyone having an understanding of what they're doing - get a pass to make their inner selves seem like a really big deal, while the rest of us have to deal with the real world and its practical demands. I guess skill/craftsmanship has something to do with it: being able to paint well creates a way to express yourself in a way that isn't just 100% useless noise. But still, are buyers of art buying what the artists are selling?

(And that's even without going into the bullshit that is postmodern art, which I suspect works like this:
- Artist: "This rorscharch blot doesn't really mean anything, even to me, but I bet you guys will find ways to read all sorts of depth into it, so gimme money."
But I don't wanna go into that here. I'm talking about people like Rin, who genuinely are trying to do something.)

[Xanatos]

Rin isn't trying to do anything. She paints because the process is enjoyable.

Buyers of art buy the art that artists sell so yes, they're buying what artists are selling.

[Loonie]

Ask yourself what it is that people are truly buying when they pay for art. Are they paying for the idea behind the work itself? No not quite, because there's such a thing as intellectual property (even though I personally find much to disagree with the concept and would sooner say that nobody can ever truly 'own' an idea, even if they did come up with it). Or, as already demonstrated in Rin's path, it's not possible to ever get the entire idea or feeling behind a work of art - there's always something that gets lost in the interpretation (just as there is, thankfully, always something added by the person that experiences art). So are they paying for the physical or digital work of art itself? I guess at this point you run headlong into all kinds of arguments about piracy (where I detest both sides of the issue), but regardless of what the law says I would again have to say 'no.' Because if that really were true, then what 'physical goods' are being paid for by the people that pay tickets to go to an opera, concert or art exhibition? (certainly not the ticket itself because the ticket does not equal the performance itself) How are those events any less art than something that has a slightly more tangible presence, like a painting or a videogame?

In my mind people pay an artist primarily for the experience of their art. Not for its message, not for its brilliance (or lack thereof), not so that they can own it - but just for the experience of it. Nothing more or less. And (unlike moreso material goods) there is no guarantee that the experience will even work and provoke a reaction on the part of the one who pays for the priviledge. Someone who makes a bike can know, that if they don't make a device that corresponds to a specific usage of a person's hands and legs, but still sell it as a bike, that it would indeed be fraud. But how does an artist know with any certainty, that what they create will provide a meaningful experience and evoke any kind of reaction out of their audience?

That uncertainty on the part of the artist alone doesn't seem to make it possible to be fraudulent with art in the way you described. At least not if we stuck to the term properly, since fraud involves a conscious effort to decieve the buyer. That the artist *wanted* to decieve their audience about their work of art without that deception being part of the work itself. But if, for example, you (as an artist) were to say that your book is a novel when in fact it was a short story - then that would indeed be fraud. But since you mention postmodernism and such, I assume you mean stuff like an artist drawing a few smudges of paint on a canvas and calling it 'art', right?

Well...that's where we come back to our personal subjectivity. There is no objective way whatsoever to determine wether a few smudges of paint on a canvas are nothing more than that or wether they truly are a work of art. Even if the person that drew those smudges were to one day say: "You're right! I'm no artist! I just painted a few smudges and fooled all of you while getting paid!", that doesn't mean that when certain people, who paid to see those smudges of paint, did not see something more than just a fraudulent work. Even if the fraud did not intend to create anything other than a hoax from which he/she could profit, it still could've evoked a reaction, feelings or thoughts in someone who paid to see it that made the experience a work of art for them. So in this respect you can easily have someone, who by their own admission isn't an artist, creating something that for someone else (whose opinion, in the end, really is all that matters when calling something art) is a work of art.

Rin's neutral end beautifully sums this up. Everyone saw her paintings as works of art and automatically assumed (with Nomiya in the lead) that surely she must be an aspiring artist to have created such works of art. But in her own words: "I'm no artist. I just like to paint because it makes me feel good."

I'm not sure if it was Picasso who said it, but it sums up art beautifully for me in this respect: "Art is the lie that chooses the truth." And not every lie is fraudulent.

[pandaphil]

There are also the 'patron' types who'll buy the work of some new artist simply to support and encourage them to grow.

But I'm with you guys. I'll never understand the whole "Paint a square and call it art" school.

[Xanatos]

^ I'll never understand them but if possible, I will attempt to exploit them. That's just easy money.

[Loonie]

I imagine they're the sorts of people that truly like to *coughs and speaks in a deep basso voice* 'See the world in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour.'

And that's fine too.

[Dream]

But I'm with you guys. I'll never understand the whole "Paint a square and call it art" school.

Just to be sure, are you guys talking about the style of painters like Jason Pollock?

Regarding the premise... Let's see if i understand it: OP's feels or finds a conflict between the relationship of artists and public, as well as the differing perspectives on the nature of art and the "objective" nature of art and the inner mind of an artist, right? Although i hope this doesn't come across as racist, i wonder if OP lives in the U.S.

I would like to say that i haven't really created anything. It has been 3 or 5 years since i started practicing illustration, i write from time to time, and i recently started working on an animation project, but a few drawings aside, i can't say i've "created" anything. So my opinions are more from an aspiring artist rather than an actual artist. My focus is more on narrative arts so there's that to consider too.

The inherent problem when having art discussion of this sort is that "art" is a ridiculously vague and hazy term that most people use for any expressive craft (see? I've been into art my entire life and that woefully arbitrary and innacurate line is the description i came up with ). I believe art is a very human thing, it's about expression of feelings, beliefs and ideas. Connecting and communicating things from deep inside us that can't be expressed throught other means. While Rin is certainly a very odd and unique individual, she's as human as all other KS characters (and this seems to be the main realization Hisao gets in the good end in the "Raison'd'etre" scene, that Rin is just as human as he is despite being an artist) so she certainly has things to express that will connect with people. Granted there will always be some transformation of the message between receiver and interpreter when it comes to art... It isn't a perfect/clear process and no one really intends it to be. But on my experience the difference in perspective generally doesn't cloud the main "message", if you could call it that, that the artist intends to express.

I think there is a connection between art and philosophy (aesthethics is after all a branch of philosophy), and connecting that to the previous statement of art having the ability to express things that can't be normally expressed, i think i would say that the idea that "Artists are just those of us who somehow - for reasons not related to anyone having an understanding of what they're doing - get a pass to make their inner selves seem like a really big deal, while the rest of us have to deal with the real world and its practical demands." Instead of that, i would say that artists have the skill to connect to that inner self (both individual and universal) and express their thoughts/feelings/beliefs/etc. much better than other people for the same reason an architect would make a better construction than a john doe.

Regarding "But still, are buyers of art buying what the artists are selling?" That would require to both define the product and the service the artist is ostensibly offering in order to give a proper answer... Both things that i don't have the capacity or interest to define.

[Auratus]

But I'm with you guys. I'll never understand the whole "Paint a square and call it art" school.

Art for f***'s sake. Someone like the square, some like it so much they buy it (no idea why they not paint it themselves). and it's come to Supply and Demand thing. :Capitalism:

Art itself are vague term, actually you can call pretty much everything "Art".

Actually, I understand "Paint a square" school. One might feel like he is like gas, being able to presence everywhere, but unfortunately he is confined. Like the square. That's just a way to interpret it. (You might need some kind of mental disability to enjoy it BTW)

[pandaphil]

I guess that's the thing about art. Everyone has a different definition. For me, its a creative piece that takes effort and imagination, and is truly a one-of-a-kind piece of work. If it's something I, or the average person could easily reproduce, it ain't art.



A fine example. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... llion.html

wtf?!

[Xanatos]

I guess that's the thing about art. Everyone has a different definition. For me, its a creative piece that took effort and imagination, and is truely a one-of-a-kind piece of work. If its something I, or the average person could easily reproduce, it ain't art.



A fine example. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... llion.html

wtf?!

So if some guy duplicates the Mona Lisa, it's magically not art anymore? That's a weirdly arbitrary judgement...

[pandaphil]

I guess that's the thing about art. Everyone has a different definition. For me, its a creative piece that took effort and imagination, and is truely a one-of-a-kind piece of work. If its something I, or the average person could easily reproduce, it ain't art.



A fine example. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... llion.html

wtf?!

So if some guy duplicates the Mona Lisa, it's magically not art anymore? That's a weirdly arbitrary judgement...

Well you completely missed my point didn't you?

How many people can sit down and paint a duplicate of the Mona Lisa? If they can, well hell, I'll give them props and call it art. That requires skill.

Not art is picked up a Bic pen and drawing random squiggles on a sheet of paper. Taking two blocks of wood and pounding an nail through them? Not art. Painting two large blue squares and hanging it on the wall? Not art. Breaking a Coke bottle and laying the pieces on a pedestal? Not art. See where I'm going here? Sticking a feather in a grape and calling it "My Life" just doesn't cut it.

[Xanatos]

I dunno. Ya gotta be pretty imaginative and creative to equate your life to a feathered grape.

[rockin robin]

I guess that's the thing about art. Everyone has a different definition. For me, its a creative piece that took effort and imagination, and is truely a one-of-a-kind piece of work. If its something I, or the average person could easily reproduce, it ain't art.



A fine example. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... llion.html

wtf?!

So if some guy duplicates the Mona Lisa, it's magically not art anymore? That's a weirdly arbitrary judgement...

Well you completely missed my point didn't you?

How many people can sit down and paint a duplicate of the Mona Lisa? If they can, well hell, I'll give them props and call it art. That requires skill.

Not art is picked up a Bic pen and drawing random squiggles on a sheet of paper. Taking two blocks of wood and pounding an nail through them? Not art. Painting two large blue squares and hanging it on the wall? Not art. Breaking a Coke bottle and laying the pieces on a pedestal? Not art. See where I'm going here? Sticking a feather in a grape and calling it "My Life" just doesn't cut it.

taking two blocks and pounding a nail through them; you havn,t said the types of wood, the patterns or knots present or crafted into them, the intricacy of the nail or the simplicity of it even, where the nail is put. sometimes it surprises you how much detail can come from something so simple. it why i wanted to be an artist. had a few works too in canvas and crafting.

but buying an art piece to look cultured or speaking of bullshit and bollocks about things you dont even believe but say to sound like your part of the crowd isnt art. it bullying and peer pressure and popularity over power of work and why i decided to do sociology in the end. burnt my paintings too in a fit of rage

sorry, but back on topic, sometimes those works have more detail that only the artist sees and other people wish they can see. stupid in some ways, but that human emotion

[KeiichiO]

Art can be anything, and everything. There is no one way of defining art. Art is whatever you want it to be.

[Xanatos]

Art can be anything, and everything. There is no one way of defining art. Art is whatever you want it to be.

*dips Keiichi in chocolate sauce and post-it notes*

Art!