What do people think of the "fine art" world?

More than ever, the technical production of artworks can be found to demonstrate a small, or not so important portion of many artists talents. As far as much of the fine art world is concerned, the artistry is more crucially involved in how artworks engage with their contexts (culture, art world etc).

At a basic level this can mean things like being sensitive about how each artwork an artist makes functions as a context for prior or previous artworks. For example, people might be more inclined to believe in an an artists sincerity if they see the artist has done so much work that they must have enjoyed it. Or if an artist exhibits abstract sculptures when they had previously shown portraits, that may generate a sense of surprise and dynamic that merits more praise than either exhibit would have alone. These are pretty base examples, but they show how appreciation for an artists work can quickly go beyond what any one artwork contains in and of itself.

For many fine artists, the context beyond an artwork is part of the artwork, so contextual sensitivity is often highly important. The concern is to produce art works that do interesting things with their contexts.

For example, putting something common place (Soup can pictures, a urinal, etc) in an art gallery where only "special" things were supposed to be displayed challenged cultural boundaries, creating a dynamic and engaging relationship between artwork and context.

Its as though the 'context' is the artwork and the artist creates work to develop the context in some way. Of course, any artwork fundamentally interacts with the outside world, and various great historic painters have contributed significantly to the development of the art worlds context just as have the more conceptual likes of Duchamp or Warhol. But artists like Duchamp and Warhol have helped get the ball rolling towards a lot of insular and esoteric conversations between artworks in the fine art world.

I like the Paris Hilton comparison to fine artists because she's a good example of someone who can only be so successful within the right context. A great deal of fine art is just like that.

I like the Paris Hilton comparison to fine artists because she's a good example of someone who can only be so successful within the right context. A great deal of fine art is just like that.

So is this good or bad in your view?

I'm pretty ambivalent. I suppose a lot of open mindedness and sensitivity is being encouraged when the Tate modern exhibits a heater.

The fine art world has opened up very interesting creative territories, and its obviously decided to revel in them for a while. But all this preoccupation with conceptual innovation has detracted from things like atmosphere and emotional depth. Maybe sometimes its like Barb said, maybe there is some devaluing of human spirit occurring.

Just like rap.

While I love rap, I'd have to interject that there's little preoccupation with any innovation, conceptual or otherwise, right now. I think most of the underground peeps and the big artists would love to have the clock turned back 10 years right now.

To contribute to the above conversation, everyone's made some valid points. But I also think that a lot of us are giving the work a bit too much context - at the time when Duchamp and Warhol came about, the kneejerk response and ensuing critical discourse was what they wanted (obv). I think we're somewhat past the time for that conversation, though. By either subconciously or consciously taking into account post-Duchamp modern art (at least the kind we're talking about), the frame of reference for the debate that they and contemporaries wanted is shifted and different. I think it's difficult, even impossible, to have that conversation after we've had Lichtenstein, Nagel, Koons, and the thousands of bullshit and legit artists that have followed in their paths. I think both the original artists and their critics on both sides of the debate would have wanted something new by now. I guess my point is that it's less important at this time to bring Warhol and Duchamp into the debate than it is to try to find something new and interesting (as Peter aims to do) or to trash people like Tony Rosenthal (like I enjoy doing. "CUBES!" "ACCUMULATIONS!" Not to devolve into the "Pollock's paint splatters? EVEN I could do that" mindset, but seriously. Circles, lines, and piles of stuff. Even I could do that.)

I think either way - whether you still think Warhol is trash or you still enjoy their play with artful context - they're laughing at us and giving us the thumbs up from their graves.

And I concur - Lichtenstein is a fuck.

Wow, I just realized you're THAT Peter Chung. I tip my hat.

Hehe, what other Peter Chung would it be in a place like this?