(no subject)

[trinityvixen]

The PI who is friends with my boss, A., is such a jerk some times.

He lectured me today on going into a certain room with gloves on. No, you're not supposed to touch handles with gloves, hospital policy. It's meant to be sure people don't go from place to place with the same glove and spread shit. Forget the fact that I had just put mine on and knew they were clean. It is, in fact, a rule.

And one that absolutely everyone breaks, but he actually promised to narc on me if I didn't stop doing it. It was a stand-off, of sorts, because I needed to open the door and toss out a box into the hallway. I know he was hoping his superior clout and the real threat of censure would get me to back down. Because I am stubborn son of a bitch, I proceded to open the door with my elbow, gloves still on. A door that opened inward, I might mention, which added to the difficulty. (My starting difficulty for that maneuver: 6.5--god, I need the Olympics to be over.)

All because people wearing gloves where they shouldn't is his goddamned pet peeve. I don't wear them to his lab any more when I pick up the supplies out of respect for that. But I've worked with his post-doc for a year not worrying about it and now that she's gone and he's doing more of the work, I'm not altering my routine because it irks him.

I have my paranoias and peeves, too, and I don't force him to cater to them. The number of things he does that piss me off are many. He's constantly abrasive, pushing me to define what I mean and assuming every off-hand remark I make is my real theory on everything as opposed to two people shooting shit while they work. (Today's example: he tried to get to define what "art" is. I told him that was subject to opinion, gave him some of my views, that sort of thing. I was promptly TOLD what I thought--because I said this, that must be my "standard"--and that it's a co-opt to say that art is in the eye of the beholder. But that's what I think art is!!)

He's started bringing his music into the space, which is fair--he sits through mine, and I was determined to do the same until he got up in my gril about gloves. He played this big-band jazz stuff that just grated on my brain. Yes, partly because I was mad, but also because a) I don't like jazz, and b) the woman singing was half good and half shitting around the way you do in real jazz and I don't like that.

He also smokes and he'll grab a cigarette before coming into a small space (maybe twice the size of our bathroom). The tar smell makes me gag. But I get over it. He's not actively harming me--okay the jazz was driving me nuts, but if he tolerates my music, I can just ignore his--even if his behavior irritates me. I don't see why, of all things, gloves set him off on his superior kick.

Worst of it, I get accused for being confrontational. People get testy when you command them to obey some assinine rule better applied to nurses nine floors below you than a lab tech? No shit!

Now, worst of all, I find myself still debating (since I had to leave in the middle) what is "art." I described it as being innovative, difficult etc. I was immediately challenged to defend that against people who paint landscapes today--are they not artists?! (This is why I hate talking with Andrew. He wants me to defend everything as if this were a debate tournament. And I'm always, always wrong because I don't agree with him.) The English language is too limited. Sure, they're artists. What they produce is art. Whether it is "Art" with the capital A and the space on the wall of Louvre, I can't say. I'm not trained, I think a lot of art is bullshit, and that's me. I am supposed to draw the Platonic ideal of art for him in between changing medium and doing transfers? I don't think so.

Comments

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

I think you should wear gloves out in the hall, in the lobby, etc. Not ones you already had on--put on clean ones out there, and then toss them before going into the lab. Make them your "outdoor" gloves.

As far as art, yeah, very subjective. I've had arguments with a friend who thinks everything is art. I disagree. I don't believe in "found art"--I think trying to capture or recreate an image or feeling in some medium qualifies as art but simply discovering something doesn't. So, by my definition, seeing a cool tree outside isn't art. Taking a photo of it is, because you're giving it your own unique stamp by choosing the lighting, the angle, the lens, the exposure, etc. I hate Jackson Pollack's stuff but it is art. It's just BAD art. :)

[avram]

I was never impressed by any of Pollack's paintings until I actually stood in the physical presence of one. Same with Chagall.

I think the there's a subjectivity to consideration of art. That the question of whether something is a work of art is inherently subjective, much like the question of whether something is holy. And just like there are spiritual disciplines devoted to experiencing the whole world as holy, there are artistic approaches devoted to seeing the whole world as art.

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

See, I disagree--I feel that the subjective issue is whether something is GOOD art. Ivy03's definition of "anything that results from a creative process" matches my own, and I hold to it. Art is a human endeavor, in my opinion, and thus Nature is not art. It can be beautiful, of course, and awe-inspiring, but only when it's interpreted does it become art.

But again, that's my take on it.

[avram]

While there is some subjectivity to it, the question of whether something is good art is something that can be discussed with some objectivity. For example, if a painting makes use of formal perspective, you can objectively evaluate whether it's done correctly. Likewise for human anatomy, or consistence of light-sourcing. Aspects of composition turn out to be subject to almost-mathematical rules.

The question of whether something is art, on the other hand, is pretty wide open.

Also, note that "found art" still has an element of human interaction. Duchamp's readymades were often assembled out of several found pieces. Even the "pure" readymades were selected by the artist, signed, and placed in a viewable context. It's not just "seeing a cool tree outside".

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

Those evaluations only work if you're applying the same rules--if you're looking for an understanding of human anatomy, for example, any surrealist painting will probably be judged crap rather than art. So you can define it as good in the sense that it meets your definition of that, fitting your own criteria of realism, composition, color use, etc. but it is still incredibly subjective.

And the argument with the friend involves "found art" as in "look, that paper bag someone discarded there on the sidewalk, it's art! That bike leaning against that post is art!" Those are not deliberate compositions on anyone's part. You're working from a different definition of "found art," one that does involve deliberate human interaction, and I would agree that such works qualify as art.

[avram]

Actually, surrealist paintings tend to be strong on the formal aspects (anatomy, perspective, light sourcing, reflections), so that the places where they depart from reality read as intentional deformations, rather than mere lack of ability. Cubism would probably be a better example.

As far as found art goes, I'm using the definition of found art actually used in the artistic community. I think the "bike leaning against that post" definition is a straw man, or perhaps an informal or joking usage.

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

You're clearly working from you what you consider established definitions, so there's little point in arguing them, though I'll point out that "the artistic community" as a whole isn't likely to have a fixed definition for anything, especially "art." However, the found-art examples I provided are direct quotes. I used to teach logic--I don't use straw men.

[avram]

Direct quotes from whom?

You wrote above: I've had arguments with a friend who thinks everything is art. I disagree. I don't believe in "found art"

This implies to me that maybe you're using your friend's definition. But if you don't agree with your friend about what constitutes art, why should you take his definition of "found art"? Why say "I don't believe in 'found art'" instead of "My friend has a broken notion of 'found art'"?

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

I concede--you are more pedantic than I am. Congratulations.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I hate Jackson Pollack's stuff but it is art.
It's actually pretty cool close up. :)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I have to confess that it is. I make fun because it is a convenient example of how mystifying the process is of determining what is or is not ART, but it's pretty fabulous to see the texture to it when you get close up. Plus, when I'm close to it, the picture makes me less dizzy.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with the act of creation being art, even with found things (if you take it and alter it slightly to be something it wasn't, that is). But the question of "What is ART?" still eludes me.

Perhaps it is a question of good/bad implied in that--not what is ART but what is worthy art? I don't know. I know what I like and don't, but I'm prepared to say things I don't like are still ART. I don't like Pollack, but he's ART. Ditto Warhol. Hell, things I like I some times think aren't ART, like Lichtenstein. I think it's interesting, even fun, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to declare that it is ART! I'm almost certain that any modern art I like isn't ART! (At a MoMA display of British 1960s mod art, they had wallpapers on display, one of which was a wallpaper of the galaxy/universe where all the stars were albums and the planets songs by Deep Purple. That's trippy cool. Is it ART!? I DON'T KNOW!!!) It just doesn't feel serious enough to be ART.

[gryphonrose.livejournal.com]

I don't much care for "ART," both the notion that some art should be hoisted on a pedestal and the term itself. Hence the whole subjective thing. Pollack could be considered significant but that doesn't change the fact that his work is just paint splatters. Etc.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Well, when I was hastily trying to both work and defend myself, I mentioned that things that are innovative should count as "ART." Innovation and significance to a movement definitely qualify you for consideration as a maker of "ART." I didn't mean to imply, however, that you had to be innovative to be "ART."

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

ART is a myth, a term used by the pretentious to elevate something.

Lower-case art is likely anything created that someone chooses to apply the term to, but I've kind of stopped being concerned about that. I'm much more concerned with what is beautiful, and with created works, trying to understand what the creator did to make them, what makes them unique and distinct, with the how and the why. Is it art? Eh, why not, but who cares? Doesn't make it any more or less nice to look at/listen to, or interesting to think about.

[avram]

I am trained, and I think a lot of art is bullshit too.

I think a lot of discourse about art (and literature) has been damaged by people who use the word with a capital letter, to imply greatness. ("Eh, that's just a painting, it's not Art.") Time was, drawing and writing poetry were part of the normal set of skills that every well-educated person was expected to have. (Granted, back then only the upper class was roundly educated.) Not because they were all expected to produce great poems and paintings, but (I think) because the desire to create art is a universal human need, and the actual production of art (even lousy art) makes it easier to appreciate great art.

Ed Wood applauded every movie he watched, because his own experiences in making (astonishingly crappy) movies had made him appreciate just how difficult every act of movie-making is.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to work out what it is, and since I've never been a very great art appreciator, I have to do it by analogy. So I think about things I enjoy that are art forms--movies, fashion--and try to put into focus what I like about them. Mostly, it's a faulty analogy because the disciplines are meant to provoke in entirely different ways. But I came to a conclusion nonetheless that what makes "Art" is the ability to move someone. A movie is artful if it provokes a reaction, so by that definition Ed Wood had it right--even if you hate it, it's Art because you hate it.

In that respect, anything that is boring, mundane, or just a copy of an idea is Not Art. It is art, little a, in the sense that it is a creation. The transformative is what Art is. However, that still leaves me with the problem that what counts as "transformative" is very different, person to person. And I'm still stuck at "Art is in the eye of the beholder."

Really, with the way high art is managed these days, a better definition of "Art" might be "Anything that people with pay a lot of money for." It's still subjective--"a lot" could mean anything--but I like to think the realistic pessimism of that answer makes up for that.

[avram]

I try to avoid the capital letter. To me, art can be transformative, or banal. Art that's great is great art. Art that's lousy is lousy art.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I much prefer the idea that all works created are art and leave the "This is Art, that is not" to someone else. I'm free to disagree with them because the capital letter immediately assumes some degree of judgment. And once it's a judgment call, no one is entirely wrong.

[viridian.livejournal.com]

I think the reason I can enjoy a lot of crappy movies is that I've acted, and I can recognize what takes talent even if the movie itself is dubiously good, so the Ed Wood thing makes a lot of sense to me.

It doesn't explain why I like some awful books, though -- in those cases I think "my God, I wrote better fanfic than this at 18, why am I reading and enjoying this when someone got paid for it???" and yet I go on reading.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

That is a good question. :P

Mostly, I think there's a comfort in reading what we've read before, so that might explain the comfort with stuff that feels like a retread, even if it's a bad retread.

[avram]

There's also the "so bad it's good" thing.

The failures of Ed Wood's movies highlight the successful of better movies. For example, I generally don't think about the fact that an outdoor scene in a movie might be filmed over several days, with somebody having to make sure that the lighting stays consistent. Wood's day-then-night-then-day-again chase scene brings that bit of artifice into the foreground.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Eh, you can also make much better food than a bag of cheesy poofs, but that doesn't stop you eating the cheesy poofs, does it?

I personally don't see anything wrong with enjoying something that I fully admit is, objectively, terrible. :)

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

he desire to create art is a universal human need
I disagree.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I think that art is anything that results from a creative process. But I reserve the right to say anything I don't like "isn't art." :)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Well likes/dislikes came up when I was accused of judging anything I didn't like as "not art." Sure, I say that, but that's not entirely what I mean. And plenty of things I like are "Art" only dubiously in my mind. (I like Mondrian paintings a lot, but they're still just somebody with a T-square and limited paint options.)

I like the idea that all creative things are art, but here's a question: if you follow a pattern that you did not necessarily create (sewing, knitting, what have you) is what you produce art?

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

I think in this case, I'd call slavishly following a design to be "manufacturing," while any innovation to be "creating." And yes, I will define art in the broadest way possible, to encompass all acts of creativity, no matter how trivial or "worthless." By any other definition, it's possible to exclude something that one does not like by saying it isn't creative enough.

If you're going to call art something like, a creative process that adds something valuable to the world, or enlightens and enriches us, or something like that, it will always be a matter of taste, no matter what people say otherwise.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

If you're going to call art something like, a creative process that adds something valuable to the world, or enlightens and enriches us, or something like that, it will always be a matter of taste, no matter what people say otherwise.

Which is what "Art" seems to be. So I'm baffled as to why "Art is in the eye of the beholder" isn't an entirely accurate statement.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

Of course it isn't. If you acknowledge that there's no objective measure then you can't dictate taste. And that's just too much fun to give up.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Touche :)

[viridian.livejournal.com]

Don't you have some poison you could slip into his coffee, or something?

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

There's lots of poisons in a lab. Unfortunately, they're all easily detectable in autopsies. Though someone did tell me a really fun story where some psycho put acrylamide into a coffee maker and poisoned his coworkers. (Acrylamide is a HUGE carcinogen.) I can dream, though.