[ivanbakel]

>I think art should have to pass a test: If you saw it in an alleyway, would you think it was art or trash?

It would only be fair to force traditional art to pass a similar test - if you saw it being sold by a street painter, would you think it was art or kitsch?

I think other replies to your comment have already pointed out the biggest flaw in this argument - the experience of art leans heavily on things outside the artwork. The Mona Lisa might be sublime, but copies of it are essentially worthless, no matter if they required the same level of technical talent.

Lots of people feel that art is decided by aesthetics, but not in a logically consistent way. Art is purely aesthetic, until they consider forgeries or copies. Art is decided by realism, except that some of the most popular and well-known art in the modern world comes from post-realist movements like cubism or surrealism (which have become mainstream despite setting out to challenge conservative views of aesthetics). Art is decided by technical skill, except that the technical skills responsible for classical artworks have never been more prolific than they are right now (as evidenced by the number of street hawkers), yet classically-styled artworks don't really interest people anymore.

[alienbeast]

Street painters sell kitsch art instead of modern art because the average street buyer prefers kitsch :)

Conversely, I guess museums showcase modern art instead of kitsch art because the average museum buyer prefers modern art. I don't know whether the average museum goer prefers modern art, although that's a chicken-and-egg situation; maybe more people would go if the art was more kitsch.

It's understandable that laypeople would enjoy kitsch, while enthusiasts might become bored of it, want something new, and seek out experimental modern art. There's a place for each type; I just feel that their places have flipped, and the art world focuses on what only a minority actually enjoy. This unfortunately spills out into public spaces (architecture, public parks, etc.)

Regarding forgeries, I guess we can separate artistic value into historical value and aesthetic value. The original Mona Lisa has more historical value than its copies, but equal aesthetic value.

[ivanbakel]

>Street painters sell kitsch art instead of modern art because the average street buyer prefers kitsch :)

But does that mean that the average street buyer considers street-vendor kitsch art? Not necessarily, since street vendors don't have to produce art in order to sell paintings - they just have to make things people will buy. I would say that consumerist, mass-produced products like street-hawked paintings can't really be art in the commonly-understood sense.

The issue I have with what you're saying is that you seem to consider "enjoyment" and "appeal" the be-all and end-all of the definition of art. I sincerely doubt that most people would agree with you; most people can probably distinguish between media they enjoy and media they consider art. I would bet that most people would define art as needing to contain something of the sublime (even if they don't use that word.) It seems unlikely to me that you could successfully fill museums with kitsch.

>Regarding forgeries, I guess we can separate artistic value into historical value and aesthetic value. The original Mona Lisa has more historical value than its copies, but equal aesthetic value.

But do they have equal artistic value? Or does the historical value of the original somehow factor in to its artistic value - hence explaining why people don't flock to see copies of the Mona Lisa in other museums?

[goblinux]

Why can’t art be mass produced?

[ivanbakel]

Do you think that art - not in the sense of "something artistic", but in the sense of "a piece of art" i.e. something that belongs in a museum - can be mass produced? I think most people would answer no, since mass production loses some of what people value in art - which is that it's unique (or limited) and purposefully made.

[alienbeast]

I don't mean that kitsch is the best thing ever, but that art should generally incorporate technical skill, craft, precision, meaning, intention, composition, realism...

Maybe art is undefinable, like pornography ("I know it when I see it"). Any limits on what is and isn't art will be immediately and intentionally explored by modern artists. But those explorations are likely to be unappealing. It's fine to have some artists exploring new ideas, but not in the mainstream.

To put it in context: I live in Houston, and I have relatives staying from China. I took them to one of the few outdoor activities here: The Cullen Sculpture Garden, which is next to the art museums. I've been there a bunch of times, but not since it was renovated a few years back. The whole museum, in fact, was renovated in your standard minimalist modern architecture style.

And, well, they were unimpressed. Most of the sculptures are just simple abstract shapes; you can see what I mean on a Google Image Search. My least favorite are what I call the "trash bags" (https://www.schindlermetalworks.com/mfah-fontana-sculpture.h...). There are some decent humanoid bronze statues, but overall, my relatives found it boring, as did I, and I noticed it was mostly empty of people. I felt like my relatives were thinking: "This is it? A bronze triangle nailed to the wall? This is the best sculpture in town? You think this is cool enough to put on display over here? I traveled around the planet for this?"

There's only one place in Texas they've actually said was beautiful, and it's the State Capitol building in Austin. I noticed it was crowded with people hanging out and appreciating it. It's just a typical neoclassical structure, nothing special if you're used to Europe, but it's actually a nice-looking building.

I just felt like the museum renovation and sculpture garden were such a waste. They could have gotten classical marble statues and put gargoyles all over the building like in Prague, Venice, Vienna, etc., which looks really cool. People visit those cities for their architecture, sculptures, and gardens. Houston had a chance to make something similar, but instead we got more modern crap. We don't have to copy those old styles verbatim, but we shouldn't throw them away, either. We could have done something syncretic that drew from traditional European, Asian, African, and American art traditions, but instead, we got more bland modernist abstract geometric stuff.

At the very least, I think people like to see realism, precision, intricacy, and skill in artwork and architecture. The worst part of modern art is the lack of effort it conveys.

Guess I'm just ranting by now, and should get back to work.