Monday, October 01, 2007

Well, it's that time of year again.

Time for me to host the blog that is!
Perception. I love it. You love it. We all love it. Let's exercise it, shall we?
Below (or above, I don’t know how this thing works) I have posted a link to a website. If you have already seen it, be patient, and if not, boy are you in for a treat. The site offers something to the viewer, that thing is a test on art. The test gives you 16 images and you discern which ones are considered art, and which ones are something the author fished out of a dumpster. Notice how what one person perceives as art is different from another. Please, if you do take this quiz, post your score with your response to the following question:

Does this [the test] prove that art is pointless?

Thank you, and goodnight/day/month/year/slash-mark.

P.S. – If you are still starved perception quizzes, you can also visit the other website listed below.

Art Quiz -
http://www.modestypanel.com/artorcrap/#

Other Perception Quiz -
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/%7Epennck/pboc/

15 comments:

Notbenkessler said...

My score - 13/16
To answer my own question, and to possibly get discussion going, let's talk about art.
Art is perspective. I personally think I could take a large bite out of a tin can and claim to it to be art. Stranger things have been shown in galleries ya’ know. Art used, and some stay still is, created out of talent and not just from some guy with a crayon and an easel. But maybe that is talent. If history is always changing, is the standard of talent changing as well? Is talent more about modern ideas instead of classical training? Is art pointless? Discuss my minions.

Stitches said...

9/16
I think that this test shows that art is simply in the eye of the beholder... or the consumer stupid enough to buy it. Art is the freedom to express ourselves in whatever way we feel best suits our mood and ideas. Everyone is different, so logically speaking the way that they choose to express themselves would be different as well. Talent is simply the fire to express yourself in such a way that people take notice (in a good way) of you for it.

katrina337 said...

10/16

I don't think it shows art to be pointless. I agree that it shows that art is in the eye of the beholder. I think it proves what we've said on some other topics, mainly about Piss Christ, about art being entirely subjective. Some things I could definitely tell were not art, but others make me think the artist is insane for doing such a thing and calling it art. I suppose it depends more on the reason of why it's done in some cases.

Notbenkessler said...

Ok, I pose a question:
Why teach art classes if art is subjective? I don't need an art class to be an artist, is what we're saying. Is that what we are saying? Is art education pointless?

katrina337 said...

I wouldn't say it's pointless, I think art classes can make you gain an objective view of art as well as a subjective view. I think it's useful to have both, though not necessary. I think the point of art class is more to teach you the basics of more..classical art, I guess, rather than modern art which tends to break those forms, but it gives you a different view point. And then you have a point of comparison between your view and a more objective view. I don't think you can really tell someone how to define what they think is art, but you can have a basic guideline as to what the standard of art is, and from there you can take your own interpretation of it.

tsizzinc said...

9/16

Ok, this was fun, though i dont believe anything that the website says.
Art is a tool for survival,it is something to keep the mind occupied in times of stress and isolation. it keeps the beholder sane in sense. not the artist, the beholder, therefor if it for some reason drives the beholder insane, then this is not a good piece of art.
its viewed to pass time, so yeah, it serves its purpose.

Rachel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rachel said...

i got 13/16
looking back at what katrina said about art classes, I agree that they are valuable in teaching you to view art. In a sense, they are honing your ways of knowing - you learn to identify your emotional reaction based on your perception of your peice, and its effect on your own conclusions (your aquaintance knowledge). To justify their work, or to explain the function of various devices, an artist has to be able to identify aesthetic and subsequent emotional manipulation to turn the aquaintanc knowledge (they know what their work is about/the intended effect) descriptive.

Notbenkessler said...

I pose yet another question:
Let it be assumed that I have no classical training in art. If I (a person not trained in art) had created the Picasso piece and shown it, would it be considered art still? Or is it only art because it was created by a well known artist. If i had created this and shown it to you all, would you call it art or garbage?

Rick_Andrews_Director said...

I don't think this shows that art is pointless whatsoever. I won't sound like a broken record and state that it shows that art is relative, but that is what I'm reading from a lot of people.

A lot of this of this has already been discussed greatly in the "Piss Christ" topic, but hey, it's so much fun, let's talk about it again, shall we?

I do admit that a lot of the pictures in that test I did not consider art, and supposedly they were. But something that was very interesting that i noticed when I was taking the test was how I myself changed my approach to the test. After I got a few "wrong" answers, I started looking at the pictures not from my perception of art, but how I thought the masses would perceive art. On the "test", I said some of the pictures were art, even when I believed they were not. It made me wonder whether our perception of art was at least partially made from authority and the consensus of the population. After taking that "test", I'm starting to think that maybe it's true...

That question may be a bit off topic, but it is what came to mind when I took the "test".

Rick Andrews

katrina337 said...

If you had created the Picasso piece instead of him? It would still be art, theoretically. Artists aren't born famous, they still have to establish themselves. So even if you didn't have classical training, if you created a piece such as that, it should still be considered art.

Sierra Tamkun said...

10/16
Well, first off, I agree with the art is subjective, but I also think that there are pieces that are considered art because they were originally called art, and that Andy Warhol (sorry) is a subject that should really be stayed away from, because what he did is, in my opinion, too controversial. And now all or you are going to say, what? Warhol was an artist! You can't say he's controversial, he painted soup cans! Exactly! What was his reasoning behind the soup cans? I don't think it was because he loved soup . . . So, really, if you approach it from the view point that he was making a comment about American materialism and the commercial industry, and pointing out the ridiculousness of it all, then great, it's art. It has meaning. If he did it just because, well then I'm not sure. I mean, if I drew a picture of something for a commercial, or a poster or add, is that art? Is it? Art is not pointless. And we learn about it so we understand that alone. We take art classes because we need to understand why people create art. And in the end, I think that if the thing makes you feel something, then it's art. And in this definition, the tomato soup can is art, because it makes me angery. So, yeah, art.

Sierra Tamkun said...

If any of you are interested, you may look at Demitri Pisarev, a Russian journalist with a pragmatic view of art. He lived at roughly the same time as Dostoevsky, and was a part of the Nihilist movement, with hints of utilitarianism. His opinion was that art that did not directly and obviously benefit society was pointless. Hence the use of hte pragmatic theory.

Rebecca said...

7/16
Who's running this cite anyway? How do we know that they know what they're talking about? Anyway, I'm still iffy on the definition of art so I'm not sure I have the grounds to talk about it. For example, I don't understand why the chocolate bunnies or the can of soup couldn't be considered art. Is it becuase they're mass produced? Even if they are, someone had to design them in the first place. I would much appreciate it if someone more artsy than me could throw me a bone. How do you determine if something is art or not?

SamE said...

7/16

Ha ha, that is pretty bad. At least pure guessing gets 8 on average. I think the website said I would admire the fire extinguisher at an art gallery, which isn't out of the question. First, two complaints about the test. The pictures were rather small. Sometimes I couldn't tell what they were depicting, but on the other hand, on the second try, they made sense. Even with my limited background, I also don't think these pictures were at all representative of all art, so couldn't be used to judge art perception (or lack thereof).

Given my complaints, I would say that this test illustrates at least one of four things: first, that perhaps the general population cannot recognize true art; second, that some artists are incredibly subtle (for lack of a better word); third, that tactful arrangement of everyday objects is perceived by some as art; or fourth, that some artists, just like some historical fiction writers, attempt to emulate the real world as much as possible.