If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by on May 23, 2006, 10:26 pm
Warm Worm wrote:
> > 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.
I disagree. Anyone can be wrong about their abilities and capacities,
including artists, composers, architects, etc. If one accepts the
relatively basic definition of art as a manmade object with aesthetic
value derived from the masterful skill and craft involved in its design
and execution, the artist's labelling the work as such really has no
bearing. Art ought to be judged (and is routinely judged) on the
aesthetic merits of the object alone, independently of what others,
including the creator, might label it.
>
> Free it from the "elite".
The elite (whoever they are) don't judge the artistic merits of a work
for me.
>
> 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.
Conspiracy theories don't interest me, and aren't really pertinent.
People can and generally are able to make aesthetic judgments on their
own, independantly of what critics or historians or others might say.
Happens in movies all the time, and also to travellers. People the
world over who travel to Tuscany will invariably talk about the beauty
of the countryside, not because they read it in a travel brochure, but
because they've actually seen it for themselves.
>
> > 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?
None of these conditions are applicable to the normal everyday
experience of art. In fact, a reasonable claim can be made that many,
though perhaps not the majority, of artists, composers, etc are poor
judgers of the qualities of their own works. Reason- they're too caught
up in it, or too perfectionist, etc.
>
> > 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.
See my response to Kris. Craft is the basis of art (it's the
etymological basis for the word, after all). Art guilds have existed.
Whether this means elitism in your view I don't really care. (The whole
idea of elitism strikes me as artificial anyway.)
My point is fairly straightforward however. An object will have good
aesthetic value from good design and execution. This involves talent,
skill and craft. Whether these are in the superlative category, like
Michaelangelo's Last Judgment, or in a lesser category, like a fine
postcard, or a different range of superlative to ordinary, like that
found in primitive art, all of that is matter of semantic debate. What
is important, in fact what is vital, for there to be any art in the
first place, is that there is a manmade product that can be
aesthetically judged in a positive sense, based on its own merits and
characteristics. What anyone labels it is really immaterial to the
aesthetic experience as such.
>
> > 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.
In your opinion.
>
> > 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),
To me there is no 'of course'. It is not obvious that culture (meaning
a common social organization) per se can produce art. Individuals with
certain capacities produce art. These individuals may or may not be
influenced by their culture, background, social norms, etc.
> 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.
I don't know that any of that is actually relevant to the experience of
art.
>
> > 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.
My point is that one doesn't even need to wait 75 years. A beautiful
car will be beautiful from the get go. 75 years will layer with charm,
with the exotic, with monetary value as a collectible. None of this, as
far as I'm concerned informs the aesthetic experience of a car as good
looking. It MAY inform the experience of a car as 'appealing', but that
is a rather different way of looking at something.
Marcello
>
> Richard MacIntyre
|
|
Posted by Warm Worm on May 24, 2006, 5:09 am
marcenmoni@cpu-net.net wrote:
> Warm Worm wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I disagree. Anyone can be wrong about their abilities and capacities,
> including artists, composers, architects, etc.
> If one accepts the relatively basic definition of art as a manmade object with
aesthetic
> value derived from the masterful skill and craft involved in its design
> and execution,
I think we might be getting sidetracked.
My premise is the idea of a viewer claiming something as not art, when
in fact it is, or could be.
The main hinge of the issue, I believe, swings around a confusion,
difference, and/or distinction between one's *feelings* about a work
versus the *work itself*, or with confusing, (or projecting), one's
*feelings* with, (or onto), "objective reality", so to speak.
As an example, it is the difference between calling someone an idiot (as
if the label "idiot" is somehow separate or removed from the labeler),
and saying, instead, that that same person did something that irritated,
annoyed and/or embarrassed them.
There may be many other people who see that same person quite differently.
I argue, therefore, that the latter, ironically perhaps, is the more
accurate or true.
Therefore, it is not so much the *work*, itself, but rather the
*perception* offered up as the work's "objective reality" that I take
issue with.
Let the work stand or fall as art on its own merits, and own up to your
feelings or suspicions about it, rather than attempt to change it to
suit your biases.
It doesn't change, you do, and those who perceive it change.
> the artist's labelling the work as such really has no
> bearing.
> Art ought to be judged (and is routinely judged) on the
> aesthetic merits of the object alone, independently of what others,
> including the creator, might label it.
My philosophy is ok with that to a point, "ought-to's" notwithstanding. ;)
To indulge you as you have me, the context by which the artist creates
the work does indeed have bearing, and arguably, is the most important.
The artist also judges their own work. Often they are their harshest
critics. Why you and others would seem to, at least indirectly or
inferentially, diminish that is beyond me.
>> Free it from the "elite".
>
> The elite (whoever they are) don't judge the artistic merits of a work
> for me.
Actually, they "create" the work that you end up judging, as well as
influence how you or others do!
Yes, historically, they (and we do know who they are, and so should you)
have been largely responsible for the works we now call art.
If you have an Italian background, Marcello, here's one from your own
backyard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici
Never mind the link, you should recognize the name.
>> 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.
>
> Conspiracy theories don't interest me, and aren't really pertinent.
If a thought experiment was lost on you, the verdict may yet be out your
artistic judgment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
> People the world over who travel to Tuscany will invariably talk about the
beauty
> of the countryside, not because they read it in a travel brochure, but
> because they've actually seen it for themselves.
Ah yes, God's art... I imagine it was still beautiful and still art long
before we were around to judge it, or determine whether or not it is.
I like the metaphors: God's art; the artist's world; their creators'
precedences.
> In fact, a reasonable claim can be made that many,
> though perhaps not the majority, of artists, composers, etc are poor
> judgers of the qualities of their own works. Reason- they're too caught
> up in it, or too perfectionist, etc.
So what.
"Steal" the work if you must, and make it your own, but that's part of
the context of their art, and the original remains, if only in memory.
- A little poetry for you.
>>> 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.
>
> See my response to Kris.
In which thread? Is it going to be as long?
> Craft is the basis of art (it's the etymological basis for the word, after
all). Art guilds have existed.
> Whether this means elitism in your view I don't really care. (The whole
> idea of elitism strikes me as artificial anyway.)
> My point is fairly straightforward however.
It is?
> An object will have good
> aesthetic value from good design and execution. This involves talent,
> skill and craft. Whether these are in the superlative category, like
> Michaelangelo's Last Judgment, or in a lesser category, like a fine
> postcard, or a different range of superlative to ordinary, like that
> found in primitive art, all of that is matter of semantic debate.
*Sigh*
> What anyone labels it is really immaterial to the aesthetic experience as such.
Exactly. So take ownership, then, of your own aesthetic experiences.
>>> 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.
>
> In your opinion.
If I'm speaking for someone else, I'll be sure to make every attempt to
qualify that-- especially where art is concerned! ;D
>>> 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),
>
> To me there is no 'of course'. It is not obvious that culture (meaning
> a common social organization) per se can produce art.
Fair enough. Is there a culture without art?
Well, if you can produce ample evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears,
since I'm of the contention that the "creative imperative" is what forms
a large part of what drives us as a species, of who we are.
"Although popularly associated with art [re. creativity]... it is also
an essential part of innovation and invention and is important in
professions such as... architecture, industrial design, science and
engineering."
"...art is commonly understood to be the process or result of making
material works (or artwork) which, from concept to creation, adhere to
the 'creative impulse'..."
-Wikipedia, about 'Creativity' and 'Art'
> Individuals with certain capacities produce art.
Maybe we all have a capacity to produce art and it's this kind of
thinking that holds us back.
> These individuals may or may not be influenced by their culture, background,
social norms, etc.
We're all influenced by our cultures, backgounds, social norms, etc..
That's part of what makes us a social species.
>> 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.
>
> I don't know that any of that is actually relevant to the experience of
> art.
Well, I did get a little sidetracked by here. :)
I took artistic license.
|
|
Posted by on May 25, 2006, 8:47 am
Warm Worm wrote:
> marcenmoni@cpu-net.net wrote:
>
> >> Free it from the "elite".
> >
> > The elite (whoever they are) don't judge the artistic merits of a work
> > for me.
>
> Actually, they "create" the work that you end up judging, as well as
> influence how you or others do!
> Yes, historically, they (and we do know who they are, and so should you)
> have been largely responsible for the works we now call art.
> If you have an Italian background, Marcello, here's one from your own
> backyard:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici
> Never mind the link, you should recognize the name.
I have never spoken to a Medici, and never read their 15th century
commentary (if it exists) on any artistic works they may or may not
have commissioned. That artistic works get commissioned by people or
organizations (the church being the biggest commissioner of all, in
historical terms) is a fact. But just because they commissioned it
doesn't really mean much in terms of the artistic qualities of the
object itself. As an example, the Spanish Steps are a great piece of
architecture. Whether it was commissioned by the Medici, Pope Giulius
II, or Pippo doesn't really matter, since the work stands as great
architecture on its own merits.... merits that people recognize
independantly of their knowledge of who commissioned it.
Do you know who commissioned the Mona Lisa? What about Beethoven's 9th
symphony? Would those facts have any impact on the merits of those
works as works of art? Of course not.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Conspiracy theories don't interest me, and aren't really pertinent.
>
> If a thought experiment was lost on you, the verdict may yet be out your
> artistic judgment.
None of your cases above are pertinent to normal everyday experience of
art. What ifs of the extreme kind you propose don't interest me, and
aren't pertinent.
>
> > People the world over who travel to Tuscany will invariably talk about the
beauty
> > of the countryside, not because they read it in a travel brochure, but
> > because they've actually seen it for themselves.
>
> Ah yes, God's art... I imagine it was still beautiful and still art long
> before we were around to judge it, or determine whether or not it is.
> I like the metaphors: God's art; the artist's world; their creators'
> precedences.
>
> > In fact, a reasonable claim can be made that many,
> > though perhaps not the majority, of artists, composers, etc are poor
> > judgers of the qualities of their own works. Reason- they're too caught
> > up in it, or too perfectionist, etc.
>
> So what.
The fact that some artists are poor judgers of their own works goes at
odds with your claim that the artists' claim of a work as art should be
the only defining criteria of a work as art. A work may be artistic
even if the artist doesn't believe so. And, vice versa, a work may have
little artistic merit even though the artist may claim that it's a
masterpiece.
> "Steal" the work if you must, and make it your own, but that's part of
> the context of their art, and the original remains, if only in memory.
>
> - A little poetry for you.
I've written some poetry myself.
>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > See my response to Kris.
>
> In which thread? Is it going to be as long?
>
> > Craft is the basis of art (it's the etymological basis for the word, after
all). Art guilds have existed.
> > Whether this means elitism in your view I don't really care. (The whole
> > idea of elitism strikes me as artificial anyway.)
> > My point is fairly straightforward however.
>
> It is?
>
> > An object will have good
> > aesthetic value from good design and execution. This involves talent,
> > skill and craft. Whether these are in the superlative category, like
> > Michaelangelo's Last Judgment, or in a lesser category, like a fine
> > postcard, or a different range of superlative to ordinary, like that
> > found in primitive art, all of that is matter of semantic debate.
>
> *Sigh*
>
> > What anyone labels it is really immaterial to the aesthetic experience as
such.
>
> Exactly. So take ownership, then, of your own aesthetic experiences.
!!!!!
> >>> 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.
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> If I'm speaking for someone else, I'll be sure to make every attempt to
> qualify that-- especially where art is concerned! ;D
>
> >>> 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),
> >
> > To me there is no 'of course'. It is not obvious that culture (meaning
> > a common social organization) per se can produce art.
>
> Fair enough. Is there a culture without art?
Sure. It is fairly easy to imagine a culture so thoroughly enamored
with technology and science that all artistic pursuit has been
abandoned. Only utility counts.
> Well, if you can produce ample evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears,
> since I'm of the contention that the "creative imperative" is what forms
> a large part of what drives us as a species, of who we are.
>
> "Although popularly associated with art [re. creativity]... it is also
> an essential part of innovation and invention and is important in
> professions such as... architecture, industrial design, science and
> engineering."
>
> "...art is commonly understood to be the process or result of making
> material works (or artwork) which, from concept to creation, adhere to
> the 'creative impulse'..."
>
> -Wikipedia, about 'Creativity' and 'Art'
Wikipedia is a good source, but you must be careful about citing their
articles on topics like art- particularly because many of their
articles are still a work in progress (and you can see this in reading
both articles you cite.) You're better off going to Encyclopedia
Britannica, or reading Feeling and Form by Susanne Langer, if you're
truly interested in aesthetic philosophy.
>
> > Individuals with certain capacities produce art.
>
> Maybe we all have a capacity to produce art and it's this kind of
> thinking that holds us back.
Can you sketch well? What's stopping you from trying? Can you compose a
symphony? What's stopping you from trying? Can you play the piano like
Andre Watts? What's stopping you from learning?
The acknowledgement that we have different capacities is based on
reality and 'doesn't hold people back'. People have different talents
and enjoy different pursuits. Whether they choose to pursue them may
simply be a matter of practicality. I for instance would like to learn
to play the piano, but don't have time.
In addition not all of us can be great artists or great architects or
great writers. If that were truly the case, if art were truly that
easy, there would be no merit to art at all.
>
> > These individuals may or may not be influenced by their culture, background,
social norms, etc.
>
> We're all influenced by our cultures, backgounds, social norms, etc..
And artists can choose to eschew their culture completely. Gauguin is
an extreme example.
Marcello
|
|
Posted by Warm Worm on May 25, 2006, 10:59 pm
marcenmoni@cpu-net.net
>
> Warm Worm wrote:
>> marcenmoni@cpu-net.net wrote:
>>
>> >> Free it from the "elite".
>> >
>> > The elite (whoever they are) don't judge the artistic merits of a work
>> > for me.
>>
>> Actually, they "create" the work that you end up judging, as well as
>> influence how you or others do!
>> Yes, historically, they (and we do know who they are, and so should you)
>> have been largely responsible for the works we now call art.
>> If you have an Italian background, Marcello, here's one from your own
>> backyard:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici
>> Never mind the link, you should recognize the name.
>
> I have never spoken to a Medici, and never read their 15th century
> commentary (if it exists) on any artistic works they may or may not
> have commissioned. That artistic works get commissioned by people or
> organizations (the church being the biggest commissioner of all, in
> historical terms) is a fact.
I found it cute that a hegemony might provide a work that one would claim to
judge outside of their influence, since the very act of judging it in the
first place would seem to say something about their influence.
But I think I undestand what you mean.
Here's to hoping we judge art "accordingly", and to proper influence in that
regard. ;)
> But just because they commissioned it
> doesn't really mean much in terms of the artistic qualities of the
> object itself.
I hear you, but feel that the artistic qualities of the object won't mean as
much if we divorce the object from its contexts, such as whether it was
commissioned and why, or what the artist had to say about it.
> As an example, the Spanish Steps are a great piece of
> architecture. Whether it was commissioned by the Medici, Pope Giulius
> II, or Pippo doesn't really matter, since the work stands as great
> architecture on its own merits.... merits that people recognize
> independantly of their knowledge of who commissioned it.
>
> Do you know who commissioned the Mona Lisa?
> What about Beethoven's 9th symphony?
While I appreciate it, I've never really liked the Mona Lisa, or Beethoven.
...We have examples from Italy and one from Germany... How about something
from Laos, Tajikistan, or Paraguay?
> Would those facts have any impact on the merits of those
> works as works of art? Of course not.
They might, and might also on their interpretation, and more.
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Conspiracy theories don't interest me, and aren't really pertinent.
>>
>> If a thought experiment was lost on you, the verdict may yet be out your
>> artistic judgment.
>
> None of your cases above are pertinent to normal everyday experience of
> art. What ifs of the extreme kind you propose don't interest me, and
> aren't pertinent.
>
>> > People the world over who travel to Tuscany will invariably talk about
>> > the beauty
>> > of the countryside, not because they read it in a travel brochure, but
>> > because they've actually seen it for themselves.
>>
>> Ah yes, God's art... I imagine it was still beautiful and still art long
>> before we were around to judge it, or determine whether or not it is.
>> I like the metaphors: God's art; the artist's world; their creators'
>> precedences.
>>
>> > In fact, a reasonable claim can be made that many,
>> > though perhaps not the majority, of artists, composers, etc are poor
>> > judgers of the qualities of their own works. Reason- they're too caught
>> > up in it, or too perfectionist, etc.
>>
>> So what.
>
> The fact that some artists are poor judgers of their own works goes at
> odds with your claim that the artists' claim of a work as art should be
> the only defining criteria of a work as art.
If we accept one or more particular definitions of art that ostensibly hinge
especially on the artist's internal states in some ways, then how can we
conclude definitively or absolutely that their claim to their work as art is
false?
> A work may be artistic even if the artist doesn't believe so. And, vice
> versa, a work may
> have little artistic merit even though the artist may claim that it's a
> masterpiece.
How about if we accept a work that is both art and not art?
Agree to disagree.
>> "Steal" the work if you must, and make it your own, but that's part of
>> the context of their art, and the original remains, if only in memory.
>>
>> - A little poetry for you.
>
> I've written some poetry myself.
I'd like to read some sometime.
>> >>> 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.
>> >
>> > See my response to Kris.
>>
>> In which thread? Is it going to be as long?
>>
>> > Craft is the basis of art (it's the etymological basis for the word,
>> > after all). Art guilds have existed.
>> > Whether this means elitism in your view I don't really care. (The whole
>> > idea of elitism strikes me as artificial anyway.)
>> > My point is fairly straightforward however.
>>
>> It is?
>>
>> > An object will have good
>> > aesthetic value from good design and execution. This involves talent,
>> > skill and craft. Whether these are in the superlative category, like
>> > Michaelangelo's Last Judgment, or in a lesser category, like a fine
>> > postcard, or a different range of superlative to ordinary, like that
>> > found in primitive art, all of that is matter of semantic debate.
>>
>> *Sigh*
>>
>> > What anyone labels it is really immaterial to the aesthetic experience
>> > as such.
>>
>> Exactly. So take ownership, then, of your own aesthetic experiences.
>
> !!!!!
What's that supposed to mean? :)
I imagine there have been many of such responses to many forms and works of
art.
I'm in good company. ;p
>> > To me there is no 'of course'. It is not obvious that culture (meaning
>> > a common social organization) per se can produce art.
>>
>> Fair enough. Is there a culture without art?
>
> Sure. It is fairly easy to imagine a culture so thoroughly enamored
> with technology and science that all artistic pursuit has been
> abandoned. Only utility counts.
You previously wrote:
"None of your cases above are pertinent to normal everyday experience...
What ifs of the extreme kind you propose don't interest me, and aren't
pertinent."
Make up your mind. ;)
> Wikipedia is a good source, but you must be careful about citing their
> articles on topics like art- particularly because many of their
> articles are still a work in progress (and you can see this in reading
> both articles you cite.) You're better off going to Encyclopedia
> Britannica,
Perhaps, but I've read that Wiki comes pretty close:
http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Neverthess-- although while there are apparently more accurate, etc.,
sources than Britannica-- when one considers how the Wiki works, it seems
remarkable that it even compares at all.
> or reading Feeling and Form by Susanne Langer, if you're
> truly interested in aesthetic philosophy.
Fair enough.
>> > Individuals with certain capacities produce art.
>>
>> Maybe we all have a capacity to produce art and it's this kind of
>> thinking that holds us back.
>
> Can you sketch well? What's stopping you from trying?
Psychiatric problems stemming from my childhood when I was caught in class
sketching a nude?
> Can you compose a symphony?
I may yet compose an electronic symphony.
> The acknowledgement that we have different capacities is based on
> reality and 'doesn't hold people back'. People have different talents
> and enjoy different pursuits. Whether they choose to pursue them may
> simply be a matter of practicality. I for instance would like to learn
> to play the piano, but don't have time.
The piano's probably my favourite acoustic instrument.
If you're short on time but not compositional desire, you can always compose
using electronic piano sounds, which are unbeleivably realistic-sounding
these days.
> In addition not all of us can be great artists or great architects or
> great writers. If that were truly the case, if art were truly that
> easy, there would be no merit to art at all.
There'd still be merit if only in the satisfaction of engaging in something
you enjoy.
Besides, what does great mean anyway?
Is a great writer one who writes award-winning novels and then drives home
drunk and neglects family?
Is a great athlete one who runs the fastest by in part taking banned,
perfomance-enhancers in a new, undetectable way before the race.
Is great an illusion sometimes?
>> > These individuals may or may not be influenced by their culture,
>> > background, social norms, etc.
>>
>> We're all influenced by our cultures, backgounds, social norms, etc..
>
> And artists can choose to eschew their culture completely. Gauguin is
> an extreme example.
Gauguin's culture was in him and he was also a part of it, as we all are.
The very attempt at insightful eschewal would also seem to force that kind
of acknowledgement.
Culture can be experienced through a corporate 5-star "tourist bubble"
hotel, a B&B, or a local's single family home.
|
|
Posted by on May 25, 2006, 11:35 pm
Warm Worm wrote:
> marcenmoni@cpu-net.net
> >
> > Warm Worm wrote:
> >> marcenmoni@cpu-net.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Free it from the "elite".
> >> >
> >> > The elite (whoever they are) don't judge the artistic merits of a work
> >> > for me.
> >>
> >> Actually, they "create" the work that you end up judging, as well as
> >> influence how you or others do!
> >> Yes, historically, they (and we do know who they are, and so should you)
> >> have been largely responsible for the works we now call art.
> >> If you have an Italian background, Marcello, here's one from your own
> >> backyard:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici
> >> Never mind the link, you should recognize the name.
> >
> > I have never spoken to a Medici, and never read their 15th century
> > commentary (if it exists) on any artistic works they may or may not
> > have commissioned. That artistic works get commissioned by people or
> > organizations (the church being the biggest commissioner of all, in
> > historical terms) is a fact.
>
> I found it cute that a hegemony might provide a work that one would claim to
> judge outside of their influence, since the very act of judging it in the
> first place would seem to say something about their influence.
> But I think I undestand what you mean.
> Here's to hoping we judge art "accordingly", and to proper influence in that
> regard. ;)
By judging, I have meaning all throughout this discussion appraisal of
aesthetic qualities, as opposed to many characteristics of meaning.
>
> > But just because they commissioned it
> > doesn't really mean much in terms of the artistic qualities of the
> > object itself.
>
> I hear you, but feel that the artistic qualities of the object won't mean as
> much if we divorce the object from its contexts, such as whether it was
> commissioned and why, or what the artist had to say about it.
If one judges a work based on its aesthetic merits, meaning and context
don't come into play (much like appraising flowers or a sunset or
landscape). If you mix an object's 'meaning', then yes context and
artistic intent can be important. Myself I give little weight to
meaning for relatively abstract works, like architecture, classical
music and abstract painting and sculpture.
>
> > As an example, the Spanish Steps are a great piece of
> > architecture. Whether it was commissioned by the Medici, Pope Giulius
> > II, or Pippo doesn't really matter, since the work stands as great
> > architecture on its own merits.... merits that people recognize
> > independantly of their knowledge of who commissioned it.
> >
> > Do you know who commissioned the Mona Lisa?
> > What about Beethoven's 9th symphony?
>
> While I appreciate it, I've never really liked the Mona Lisa, or Beethoven.
> ...We have examples from Italy and one from Germany... How about something
> from Laos, Tajikistan, or Paraguay?
I have some nice looking stamps from Laos and Paraguay. Can't say I've
seen anything from Tajikistan.
>
> > Would those facts have any impact on the merits of those
> > works as works of art? Of course not.
>
> They might, and might also on their interpretation, and more.
>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > Conspiracy theories don't interest me, and aren't really pertinent.
> >>
> >> If a thought experiment was lost on you, the verdict may yet be out your
> >> artistic judgment.
> >
> > None of your cases above are pertinent to normal everyday experience of
> > art. What ifs of the extreme kind you propose don't interest me, and
> > aren't pertinent.
> >
> >> > People the world over who travel to Tuscany will invariably talk about
> >> > the beauty
> >> > of the countryside, not because they read it in a travel brochure, but
> >> > because they've actually seen it for themselves.
> >>
> >> Ah yes, God's art... I imagine it was still beautiful and still art long
> >> before we were around to judge it, or determine whether or not it is.
> >> I like the metaphors: God's art; the artist's world; their creators'
> >> precedences.
> >>
> >> > In fact, a reasonable claim can be made that many,
> >> > though perhaps not the majority, of artists, composers, etc are poor
> >> > judgers of the qualities of their own works. Reason- they're too caught
> >> > up in it, or too perfectionist, etc.
> >>
> >> So what.
> >
> > The fact that some artists are poor judgers of their own works goes at
> > odds with your claim that the artists' claim of a work as art should be
> > the only defining criteria of a work as art.
>
> If we accept one or more particular definitions of art that ostensibly hinge
> especially on the artist's internal states in some ways, then how can we
> conclude definitively or absolutely that their claim to their work as art is
> false?
By looking at the work itself.
>
> > A work may be artistic even if the artist doesn't believe so. And, vice
> > versa, a work may
> > have little artistic merit even though the artist may claim that it's a
> > masterpiece.
>
> How about if we accept a work that is both art and not art?
> Agree to disagree.
That's not a helpful way of speciying anything.
>
> >> "Steal" the work if you must, and make it your own, but that's part of
> >> the context of their art, and the original remains, if only in memory.
> >>
> >> - A little poetry for you.
> >
> > I've written some poetry myself.
>
> I'd like to read some sometime.
I used to have a website in the mid 90s that had some of it. Gone now,
as is Compuserve. But it's nothing to write home about.
>
> >> >>> 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.
> >> >
> >> > See my response to Kris.
> >>
> >> In which thread? Is it going to be as long?
> >>
> >> > Craft is the basis of art (it's the etymological basis for the word,
> >> > after all). Art guilds have existed.
> >> > Whether this means elitism in your view I don't really care. (The whole
> >> > idea of elitism strikes me as artificial anyway.)
> >> > My point is fairly straightforward however.
> >>
> >> It is?
> >>
> >> > An object will have good
> >> > aesthetic value from good design and execution. This involves talent,
> >> > skill and craft. Whether these are in the superlative category, like
> >> > Michaelangelo's Last Judgment, or in a lesser category, like a fine
> >> > postcard, or a different range of superlative to ordinary, like that
> >> > found in primitive art, all of that is matter of semantic debate.
> >>
> >> *Sigh*
> >>
> >> > What anyone labels it is really immaterial to the aesthetic experience
> >> > as such.
> >>
> >> Exactly. So take ownership, then, of your own aesthetic experiences.
> >
> > !!!!!
>
> What's that supposed to mean? :)
It means that taking 'ownership of aesthetic experiences' is what I've
been talking about all along, rather than having some else (artist or
critic) decide for me.
> I imagine there have been many of such responses to many forms and works of
> art.
> I'm in good company. ;p
>
> >> > To me there is no 'of course'. It is not obvious that culture (meaning
> >> > a common social organization) per se can produce art.
> >>
> >> Fair enough. Is there a culture without art?
> >
> > Sure. It is fairly easy to imagine a culture so thoroughly enamored
> > with technology and science that all artistic pursuit has been
> > abandoned. Only utility counts.
>
> You previously wrote:
> "None of your cases above are pertinent to normal everyday experience...
> What ifs of the extreme kind you propose don't interest me, and aren't
> pertinent."
>
> Make up your mind. ;)
You asked a what if. I provided one that, by the way, is rather common
in science fiction.
>
> > Wikipedia is a good source, but you must be careful about citing their
> > articles on topics like art- particularly because many of their
> > articles are still a work in progress (and you can see this in reading
> > both articles you cite.) You're better off going to Encyclopedia
> > Britannica,
>
> Perhaps, but I've read that Wiki comes pretty close:
>
http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
>
> Neverthess-- although while there are apparently more accurate, etc.,
> sources than Britannica-- when one considers how the Wiki works, it seems
> remarkable that it even compares at all.
>
> > or reading Feeling and Form by Susanne Langer, if you're
> > truly interested in aesthetic philosophy.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> >> > Individuals with certain capacities produce art.
> >>
> >> Maybe we all have a capacity to produce art and it's this kind of
> >> thinking that holds us back.
> >
> > Can you sketch well? What's stopping you from trying?
>
> Psychiatric problems stemming from my childhood when I was caught in class
> sketching a nude?
>
> > Can you compose a symphony?
>
> I may yet compose an electronic symphony.
>
> > The acknowledgement that we have different capacities is based on
> > reality and 'doesn't hold people back'. People have different talents
> > and enjoy different pursuits. Whether they choose to pursue them may
> > simply be a matter of practicality. I for instance would like to learn
> > to play the piano, but don't have time.
>
> The piano's probably my favourite acoustic instrument.
> If you're short on time but not compositional desire, you can always compose
> using electronic piano sounds, which are unbeleivably realistic-sounding
> these days.
I've composed snippets in MIDI. Without basic knowledge it's just
bumbling though.
>
> > In addition not all of us can be great artists or great architects or
> > great writers. If that were truly the case, if art were truly that
> > easy, there would be no merit to art at all.
>
> There'd still be merit if only in the satisfaction of engaging in something
> you enjoy.
> Besides, what does great mean anyway?
The Sistine Chapel, the Pyramids of Giza, the Colosseum, Beethoven's
9th, Ca d'Oro in Venice, Debussy's La Mer, Mozart's Requiem, Picasso's
Guernica, Michaelangelo's David, etc. etc. etc.
> Is a great writer one who writes award-winning novels and then drives home
> drunk and neglects family?
> Is a great athlete one who runs the fastest by in part taking banned,
> perfomance-enhancers in a new, undetectable way before the race.
> Is great an illusion sometimes?
>
> >> > These individuals may or may not be influenced by their culture,
> >> > background, social norms, etc.
> >>
> >> We're all influenced by our cultures, backgounds, social norms, etc..
> >
> > And artists can choose to eschew their culture completely. Gauguin is
> > an extreme example.
>
> Gauguin's culture was in him and he was also a part of it, as we all are.
> The very attempt at insightful eschewal would also seem to force that kind
> of acknowledgement.
But an artist can willfully reject it, ignore it, etc., just as anyone
could, if they were of the mind to do so. Much in the same way as one
can adopt a new culture. It's not for everyone, but artist's in
particular are often prone to crossing cultures in order to expand
their horizons, especially in this past century. So the influence of a
given culture on a particular artist's artistic vision or capacities
may be quite small.
Marcello
|
Page 2 of 2 << first < 1 2
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap