|
Posted by Warm Worm on May 23, 2006, 3:53 pm
> Warm Worm wrote:
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>> > IMO painting a canvas one color and then plopping a dot or stripe
>> onto it isn't art.
>>
>> I've thought about this, and my formative take is that, if an artist
>> calls their work art, and they are being entirely honest and sincere
>> about it, then it *is* art, whether you think so or not.
>>
>> You may question their sincerity or truthfulness, and reject it as such,
>> but, absolutely, it is the artist, alone, who determines whether their
>> work is art or not.
>>
>> This philosophical perspective appeals to me because it respects and
>> elevates the artist and their work, such as by acknowledging their right
>> to one of the crucial aspects of their art-- its definition as such--
>> while at the same time, wresting the same kind of power of definition
>> where it doesn't belong.
>> It also improves our semantics regarding, and possibly our understanding
>> and appreciation of, 'art'.
>>
>> Richard MacIntyre
>
> The definition of art is actually fairly well established:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art
That's the trap in which some of you seem to be falling.
Art is already defined as you and others have pointed out.
What I'm saying is that the benefit of *absolute* doubt need lay with the
artist, never you. It probably cannot.
I'm saying that we need to acknowledge that fact, encode it in our
definitions of art, if it isn't already, and teach it, so as to uphold and
further its integrity for art, artist and culture.
Free it from the "elite".
If the artist lives on a planet and makes a work that positively *everyone*
on that planet claims (some through media brainwashing) is not art, that
still doesn't necessarily mean so, contrary to what some might have them
beleive.
Hell, the artist might have a higher-intelligence or creativity-mutation, or
their work may appeal to those on another planet who do get it.
> I agree that the artist's claim also plays a part, but it is
> not, and should not, be the only defining criteria.
The artist's claim shall trump or supercede all others.
If a tree falls in a forest and there's only one person to claim to have
heard it, does it make a sound?
What if everyone decides that it did not make a sound, despite the witness'
insistence?
> There ought to be a
> body of work that clearly demonstrates that an artist claiming to be
> so, is so because of their exceptional skill and concept.
"Ought to" and "Should be", etc., seem like less-than-virile arguments.
I'm tempted to reject skill as a prerequisite, due to cave art, folk art, or
art that is composed by those who, *according to some*, have "less" skill or
different motor or conceptual capacities than others, yet want to still
create sincere, soulful, spiritual, communicative or otherwise truthful
artwork.
That sounds like you're proposing a form of elitism-- art guilds and
art-critics and whatnot. An industry.
> Some people take the position that any creative act is 'art'.
> Unfortunately this view is not really helpful in
> allowing one to distinguish lesser and greater craft.
The injection of the kind of criteria you seem to be suggesting seems to
muddy the matter beyond helpful.
The cure worse than the cause.
> After all, there is a whole range, from 'everyday craft' (in painting by
> the numbers for
> instance- which is more like a game rather than a craft) to mastery of
> art exhibited by Michaelangelo, Rembrandt, Cezanne, etc. In between is
> the gamut of artistic works which demonstrate more or less craft, skill
> and concept. Whether these in-between works ought to be placed in a
> museum is a matter of debate, and ultimately, a matter of time (and
> space).
You know, over the years, I've found myself questioning the whole matter of
what we see or call culture (which of course includes art), and I've been
forming a contention that what we see as such may be a kind of illusion,
merely the tip of an iceberg...
Backstreet Boys, Michaelangelo, art guilds, Martha Stewart Living, Oprah,
The Gap, Survivor, McDonalds, NBC...
Salient culture served up *as* culture.
Culture as defined by elite groups.
As some have complained, often the loud, aggressive, self-absorbed,
officious, obtuse, power-crazy or ruthless.
By that perspective, every culture in the world is a form of illusion, and
that the biggest, perhaps truest, culture is that which holds the top up,
and that is below the waterline, less seen, unless you're willing to sail up
real close and take another look.
> The same applies to all aesthetic fields (architecture, painting,
> music, etc.) as well as, to some extent, manufacturing.
>
> Marcello
75 years later, a car is art.
Richard MacIntyre
|
|
Posted by Warm Worm on May 23, 2006, 5:53 pm
eds wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>> 75 years later, a car is art.
>>
>> Richard MacIntyre
>
> Two comments:
> Robert Frost when asked by a graduate student if he was a poet answered:
> "A poet is what others call you, to declare yourself a poet would be
> arrogant" I think this goes for all artist types.
I'd be curious to know what the response was to that, if any. There
might have been if I were that student. ;)
Quoting quotees out of context, incidentally, is all very fine and nice,
but can seem rather like ripping out the art from the artist, which only
serves to further illustrate my original point.
I'd also be curious to know if someone on this NG actually agrees with
my contention(s) (if with some qualifications), or if they're waiting to
see which way the prevailing wind is blowing.
In any case, I'm talking about the work, not the so-proclaimed artist.
As for Mr. Frost, I'd be cautious in my usage of the term arrogant, as
its usage runs the risk of being seen as self-righteous or falling under
its own definition by its usage.
> Some cars have been artistic designs from almost the beginning of the
> automobile. Perhaps we should look on them as craft objects. I recently saw
> some photographs of a Porsche Carrara that were in my mind art. Partly the
> photographer and even more so the subject.
Well, from what I understand, craft objects have been called art.
So you like the Carrara? I'll have to check it out.
I'd say for me, since its inception, its always been the McLaren F1,
although I wouldn't say no to a Porsche.
Ever seen those Smart cars, BTW?
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap