If you agree that art is binary, it's unfair to bitch about people demanding it be treated as binary. I didn't invent the concept, and I'm not entirely sure in exists in any verifiable fashion. But I'm the generous sort- I'm willing to, in the face of vague and ill-defined definitions allow the word to apply to anything that somebody wants to apply it to.
Dali was a surrealist because someone said so. More specifically, there is a well accepted (and mostly objective) standard of what constitutes surrealism and what doesn't. So is the case with cubism, futurism, classicism, etc. These definitions are made up, but broadly standardized. There are clear classifications that define them and separate them from others. It's pretty clear what the difference between a pre-Raphaelite and a cubist work is.
I'm arguing that "art" is far more poorly defined. While I can cubbyhole one school vs. another, it's a far more daunting task to cubbyhole art vs. not-art. Science vs. non-science is far easier- science has a very specific definition of what is and is not science. It's an explicit method for doing something.
Your definition of dgbiffidist is neither better nor worst as the definition of surrealism. But it offers far less utility. I can discuss the details of Star Trek technology until even the staunchest nerd would surrender, but that has very little utility to the outside world. I hesitate to apply "good" or "bad" on it because those require a context- good for what?
As for Van Gogh- he wasn't a master until he was recognized as such. He was one of the lead innovators of a technique, so by the standards of critique available at the time- he was awful. But when the technique received recognition, it became broadly accepted and the details of good impressionistic work became codified and testable.
It's pointless to say that Mucha was a horrible cubist. That has nothing to do with whether or not his work is art.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 02:23 am (UTC)Dali was a surrealist because someone said so. More specifically, there is a well accepted (and mostly objective) standard of what constitutes surrealism and what doesn't. So is the case with cubism, futurism, classicism, etc. These definitions are made up, but broadly standardized. There are clear classifications that define them and separate them from others. It's pretty clear what the difference between a pre-Raphaelite and a cubist work is.
I'm arguing that "art" is far more poorly defined. While I can cubbyhole one school vs. another, it's a far more daunting task to cubbyhole art vs. not-art. Science vs. non-science is far easier- science has a very specific definition of what is and is not science. It's an explicit method for doing something.
Your definition of dgbiffidist is neither better nor worst as the definition of surrealism. But it offers far less utility. I can discuss the details of Star Trek technology until even the staunchest nerd would surrender, but that has very little utility to the outside world. I hesitate to apply "good" or "bad" on it because those require a context- good for what?
As for Van Gogh- he wasn't a master until he was recognized as such. He was one of the lead innovators of a technique, so by the standards of critique available at the time- he was awful. But when the technique received recognition, it became broadly accepted and the details of good impressionistic work became codified and testable.
It's pointless to say that Mucha was a horrible cubist. That has nothing to do with whether or not his work is art.