|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/08/2005 : 09:40:03 [Permalink]
|
So we're at the heart of this dispute:
Definition of art: A creative work which evokes an aesthetic, emotional or intellectual response.
Warhol's soup cans fit this definition. They evoke an aesthetic, emotional and intellectual response. Just because they don't do it for everyone doens't mean they aren't art. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 09:56:51 [Permalink]
|
To Dry_vby
To not include non-Western art in the definition of art is disrespectful. In the past, the Western art world has either not recognized other traditions as legitimate artwork, or has recognized it as lesser artwork. Today, it is recognized as legitimate art that belongs to a different tradition. Part of the reason we must include the creative works of all cultures in our defining of “art” is because when we look back to pre-history and early history, we see that it's all interconnected, and when we look at contemporary art, we see that new connections to each other are being formed. In other words, Australian Aborigines are making art today that is influenced by both their native traditions and Western traditions. And it is being displayed to people who come from one or the other or both. Even though I'm a white American, my work is influenced by many indigenous works from foreign cultures simply because I've been exposed to them. (Picasso, too, was influenced by African art, and that helped lead the way toward Cubism.)
It is not a trivialization to include ritualistic work in the family of art. You define art as “an attempt to represent the unrepresentable.” What is more unrepresentable than mystical forces? Western art has it's roots in Christian religious art. There has always been a close relationship between religion and art. Today's art in Western society probably seems trivial because as a society we've become so secularized and worldly, and our art reflects that.
Anyone can call anything art, but it's worth, more than it's subject matter, is usually what ends up being remembered.
By who? I suppose you're saying that the reputation of the Sistene Chapel is more memorable than the actual paintings. But that would only be true among the ignorant masses. People in the art world tend to love the art, not the reputation. That's why they chose to become part of the art world.
Why bother with art at all? It has no inherent use and can not be relied on in any kind of emergancy. / It is redundant, even more so in this day and age.
Because it makes life worth living. Why bother making food delicious instead of just sufficient for survival? Why bother skydiving, hiking, singing, dancing, engaging in conversations like this one, or anything else we do to wake ourselves up and experience life more deeply. Art is one of many things that gives life meaning. That's a pretty damn good reason to bother with it.
Also, there are practical uses for art. Look up art therapy. Or see how art has been used by political groups and religious groups to persuade people. Visual iconography can be very powerful when used properly.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 10:13:07 [Permalink]
|
| I postulate that life would indeed be worth living, even without almighty art, however dull. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 10:13:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
So we're at the heart of this dispute:
Definition of art: A creative work which evokes an aesthetic, emotional or intellectual response.
Warhol's soup cans fit this definition. They evoke an aesthetic, emotional and intellectual response.
Yes, for many people including you, Warhol's soup cans do fit this definition. Because Warhol's soup cans do evoke an aesthetic, emotional and/or intellectual response in you, you are correct when you say that they are art to you. Art is relative.quote:
Just because they don't do it for everyone doens't mean they aren't art.
If 'Bill' does not have an aesthetic, emotional or intellectual response to the work then from his perspective they do not fit the definition of art. This has no bearing on whether or not they are art to 'Sally'. But it does mean that they are not art to 'Bill'. Art is relative. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 11:25:06 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf wrote: "I postulate that life would indeed be worth living, even without almighty art, however dull."
I didn't say art was the only thing that makes life worth living. I grouped it with many things that give life meaning. Of course life would be worth living without art. It just wouldn't be as worth living for those people who find meaning and fullfillment in art.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 11:31:32 [Permalink]
|
Matt,
My frustration over your assertion that I claimed that Warhol's art was art in an “absolute” sense is because that means you ignored the context of my claim that it is art. I explained what I meant by criticizing your claim as meaningless in this paragraph:
Just so we're all on the same page, the “art world” refers to anyone who participates in dialogues about art in a way that contributes the establishment of art and art history. (This conversation wouldn't count because it is far too casual and is unlikely to go much beyond a handful of people on this forum, most of whom probably don't care all that much about art.) In practice, the art world is the people who care enough to promote/make/evaluate/acknowledge art. They get to define what art is in this time and place, for academic use and for posterity. Your opinion is only valid in the shallowest sense.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/08/2005 11:32:26 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 11:47:12 [Permalink]
|
Matt,
Regarding your definition of art as “A creative work which evokes an aesthetic, emotional or intellectual response.” What I'm saying is that that is not a definition that is commonly used in practice, and therefore not a very useful or a very meaningful definition. The problem specifically is that it totally ignores that art is a social activity.
Here is a definition of art from the American Heritage Dictionary, with points that I think align with what I'm saying in bold.
art
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
Does any of this definition support what you are claiming?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 12:15:40 [Permalink]
|
Yep, I think art is just one of those things that will never be agreed upon. I think it is a vast catagory encompassing prettey much every spectrum. However, I still cant bring myself to call a pile of equal packets art, even though I know it was created with that intention and some recognise it as such.
{BPS goes to pick a fight about the meaning of the word 'semantics') |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 12:19:17 [Permalink]
|
OK. We've moved from existentialism to post-modernism to art.
I'll put my $.02 worth in on art ($.03 Canadian)
Art is in the eye of the beholder. Art can be provoctative, mundane, subtle, and profound.
I'll give examples of pieces which are art, but nothing I'd care to own.
Provocative:
"Mirth and Girth" -- Painting depicting recently deceased Chicago Mayor Harold Washington in lingerie. I thought it was in poor taste.
"Piss Christ" -- Crucifix in a pool of urine. Ditto.
A display of dildoes on a string -- This got a NEA grant. I didn't find it particularly compelling and seemed to exist merely for the sake of being provocitive.
Mundane:
Warhol's can art -- asthetically interesting, but not pleasing to me.
Product packaging in general -- By making an aesthetically pleasing package, one does increase sales of the product.
Subtle:
A poem which reads "I ate the strawberries. I am sorry. But they were so juicy. And sweet." -- I told my college literature teacher that I believed that when a poet dies, they grab anything he writes and call it poetry. She didn't think I was funny.
Computer programming -- some people consider it an art form. Most of it is logical. The particular style that someone makes complex routines can be an art form to those that read it.
However, even though I do not appreciate some of the more provocative pieces, I still will call them art. They get someone's attention. Profound is in the eye of the beholder and can come from any of the three classes I have listed. Some people find a profound message in Warhol's work. I just don't see it.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 14:23:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Matt,
My frustration over your assertion that I claimed that Warhol?s art was art in an ?absolute? sense is because that means you ignored the context of my claim that it is art. I explained what I meant by criticizing your claim as meaningless in this paragraph:
Just so we?re all on the same page, the ?art world? refers to anyone who participates in dialogues about art in a way that contributes the establishment of art and art history. (This conversation wouldn?t count because it is far too casual and is unlikely to go much beyond a handful of people on this forum, most of whom probably don?t care all that much about art.) In practice, the art world is the people who care enough to promote/make/evaluate/acknowledge art. They get to define what art is in this time and place, for academic use and for posterity. Your opinion is only valid in the shallowest sense.
I don't get it.
Is this what you are saying?
Art world = those who decide what art is.
Everyone else = those who have no say in what art is.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 14:29:45 [Permalink]
|
I still cant bring myself to call a pile of equal packets art, even though I know it was created with that intention and some recognise it as such.
I don't experience an aesthetic, emotional or intellectual reaction to most midwestern landscape watercolor paintings, but it would sound silly or even snobby for me to say "Those aren't art."
I find it interesting that I never hear anyone question whether watercolors landscapes are art, but people often feel totally comfortable asserting that abstract, conceptual, or art that uses of nontraditional materials isn't art.
Why is that? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 14:35:28 [Permalink]
|
Art world = those who decide what art is.
Everyone else = those who have no say in what art is.
In terms of what the word "art" comes to mean in meaningful usage and for posterity, yes. If you don't participate (the "art world" is anyone who participates in the dialogue) then how could you possibly have a say? You could say you are participating by engaging in this very conversation on this forum, but seeing as it probably won't go beyond this forum, your opinion isn't really informing the way in which people who take an interest in "art" use the term, nor is your definition likely to end up in books on art history or aesthetics. It's not that your definition has zero meaning. Just so little that it is insigificant. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 14:46:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Does any of this definition support what you are claiming?
Definitions 1 and 4 aren't really what either of us are talking about. Definition 2a is similar to but more restrictive than my definition. 2b seems to be what you are talking about. 2c and 3 seem to work equally well for both of us.
Earlier you said,quote:
[Art] must be produced by humans, possess visual qualities and be recognized by a community of humans who commonly utilize the term ?art?.
Would it be fair to say that this is your definition of art?
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 15:32:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I find it interesting that I never hear anyone question whether watercolors landscapes are art, but people often feel totally comfortable asserting that abstract, conceptual, or art that uses of nontraditional materials isn't art.
Why is that?
Because for those who don't experience anything when looking at abstract art (such as myself, save for rare exceptions), it might as well be just a construction accident, something completely randomic that someone decided to sell for a few bucks. It doesn't mean anything specific to me. Let me elaborate:
Someone comes up with a huge canvas assymetrically splotched with wild colors. You may feel an aesthetic something about that. For me, that might as well have been done by a child tossing random paint tubes at said canvas. Or some kid who wanted a quick buck without effort. I don't care about it. I won't say it isn't art, because that would be silly, but I reserve the right to have no affection for it. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 16:20:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Art world = those who decide what art is.
Everyone else = those who have no say in what art is.
In terms of what the word "art" comes to mean in meaningful usage and for posterity, yes. If you don't participate (the "art world" is anyone who participates in the dialogue) then how could you possibly have a say? You could say you are participating by engaging in this very conversation on this forum, but seeing as it probably won't go beyond this forum, your opinion isn't really informing the way in which people who take an interest in "art" use the term, nor is your definition likely to end up in books on art history or aesthetics. It's not that your definition has zero meaning. Just so little that it is insigificant.
So what you're saying is, that for all practical purposes, art is absolute from the perspective of someone who is not a part of the art world. Right? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
