|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/08/2005 : 22:36:40 [Permalink]
|
To Siberia,
It totally blows me away when people imply that abstract painters do what they do for money because they are lazy. (I'm referring to your statements “that someone decided to sell for a few bucks.” And “Or some kid who wanted a quick buck without effort.”
|
"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 08/09/2005 06:54:39 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 22:38:43 [Permalink]
|
To Matt:
Regarding 2a “The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty.”
By saying that you do not find Warhol's soup cans beautiful, isn't your sense of beauty still be engaged? I mean, you at least recognized it enough as “art” to bother noting that you didn't personally have an aesthetic experience. So it did have meaning as “art” to you.
Regarding 2c “The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.”
Didn't you consider Warhol's soup cans as a work of beauty because you associated it with a group of similar things that you know to be considered “art”?
Regarding 3 “High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value”
Was your assertion that the soup cans are not art based on them being of low quality? If so, can you back that up by explaining what set of aesthetic values you are using to make that judgment? Because one you define your set of values, the judgment ceases to be totally objective. That's exactly how we can say things like “This is a great master painting” and have that actually mean something.
Again, to be clear, I'm basically trying to get you to say that the soup cans are art, even to you, because when you use a definition of art that makes them not art, the term “art” is being used in a way that isn't useful.
Matt wrote: Would it be fair to say that this is your definition of art?
That is the definition of art that I'm using. I attempted to put into concise wording what I've come to understand is the most inclusive definition of art, without losing its meaning in social discourse. Not sure how well I succeeded in that, it could be worded dozens of ways. The American Heritage Dictionary's definition also covered all the bases that I was trying to cover.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 22:48:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
When you use a definition of art that makes [Warhol's soup cans] not art, the term “art” is being used in a way that isn't useful.
I agree. Merriam-Webster defines art as: "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects" and also "works so produced." Notice it says especially aesthetic, but not necessarily aesthetic.
I still believe it is most pragmatic to think of art as a creative process. It doesn't make sense to me to argue with an artist that his/her own creation isn't art. It seems they would know. At most, one can only state that the art isn't to one's taste.
Art appreciation is subjective. The definition of art should not be.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/08/2005 22:58:30 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 00:54:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
It totally blows me away when people imply that abstract painters do what they do for money because they are lazy. (I?m referring to your statements ?that someone decided to sell for a few bucks.? And ?Or some kid who wanted a quick buck without effort.?
Your response is a bit hasty. Did you really miss the "it might as well be"s or did you just decide to ignore them? Siberia is clearly not implying what you think she is implying.quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Regarding 2a ?The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty.?
By saying that you do not find Warhol?s soup cans beautiful, isn?t your sense of beauty still be engaged? I mean, you at least recognized it enough as ?art? to bother noting that you didn?t personally have an aesthetic experience. So it did have meaning as ?art? to you.
This is just silly. In this case why even include "in a manner that affects the sense of beauty." as part of the definition since it makes no difference anyway. Here's the new definition.
"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements."
Does that seem right to you?quote:
Regarding 2c ?The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.?
Didn?t you consider Warhol?s soup cans as a work of beauty because you associated it with a group of similar things that you know to be considered ?art??
I don't understand your point here. As far as I can tell, the answer to your question is no.quote:
Regarding 3 ?High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value?
Was your assertion that the soup cans are not art based on them being of low quality?
No, not at all. It was based on them not possessing the qualities of art.quote:
Again, to be clear, I?m basically trying to get you to say that the soup cans are art, even to you, because when you use a definition of art that makes them not art, the term ?art? is being used in a way that isn?t useful.
How so? Personally, I find it to be a useful definition.
I'm also not really clear why it matters to you that I admit that the soup cans are art. To me they are not art, but that has no impact on whether you can or cannot consider them to be art.
Art must be produced by humans, possess visual qualities and be recognized by a community of humans who commonly utilize the term 'art'.
Regarding your definition of art I do have a few questions. Does it have to be produced by humans or would any creative intelligence have the ability to produce art? When you say that it must possess visual qualities are you excluding music? What about poetry? Is a community of humans commonly utilizing the term art really sufficient. What if chess clubs all across the country started refering to chess as their art? Would you then consider chess to be art?quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Art appreciation is subjective. The definition of art should not be.
Actually, I agree. I would only add that there is no art without art appreciation. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 08/09/2005 01:08:21 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 01:38:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Art appreciation is subjective. The definition of art should not be.
Actually, I agree. I would only add that there is no art without art appreciation.
Why do you think art requires a viewer to be art? This whole concept still seems so post-modern to me. The Universe does not exist unless someone is present to observe it. Art is not art unless someone is there to appreciate it... This just seems the opposite point of view of what you were initially arguing.
According to you, if Monet painted his Water Lillies and no one ever saw it, then it was never art. That notion seems absurd to me. We aren't discussing an abstract concept such as "goodness" or "beauty," but a physical act of creation. The point of view that art isn't art without someone present to go "ooh, pretty" seems to be denying the reality of the thing--both the act itself and whatever result.
P.S. If you do not consider Warhol's work to be art, what would you call him? I mean, how would you label his profession, the way in which he made a living, if not "artist?"
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/09/2005 02:30:34 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 04:15:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Why do you think art requires a viewer to be art? This whole concept still seems so post-modern to me. The Universe does not exist unless someone is present to observe it. Art is not art unless someone is there to appreciate it...
Yeah, I think I see what you're getting at. Is a painting still art even when no one is looking at it? I suppose the answer would be 'no', but I'm not sure I like the implications of that.
I don't think that your universe analogy really holds up. The universe is an objective thing. Art is a subjective process. To me that is a huge difference.quote:
This just seems the opposite point of view of what you were initially arguing.
Well near the beginning of this thread we were discussing postmodernisn vs. objective reality. There's been a change of subject.  quote:
According to you, if Monet painted his Water Lillies and no one ever saw it, then it was never art.
Well it's hard to see how, at the very least, Monet wouldn't be present to appreciate his painting.quote:
That notion seems absurd to me. We aren't discussing an abstract concept such as "goodness" or "beauty," but a physical act of creation. The point of view that art isn't art without someone present to go "ooh, pretty" seems to be denying the reality of the thing--both the act itself and whatever result.
As mentioned, I see art as being a process. The painting itself is not the end result of the artistic process but only a neccessary step along the way.
Perhaps an analogy might help. Communication is a process. 'Bill' intends to communicate(engage in the artistic process) so he starts talking(painting), but there is no one around to hear him(view his painting) so there is no actual communication(art). The analogy is of course imperfect (especially since Bill could veiw his own painting), but hopefully it is helpful.quote:
P.S. If you do not consider Warhol's work to be art, what would you call him? I mean, how would you label his profession, the way in which he made a living, if not "artist?"
Your right I would call him an artist. But this is really just a semantic issue.
Several pages back you said:quote:
I think art is whatever someone intends to be art. Art is just creative expression.
My main problem with this definition is that it seems overly broad. Also it might entail mind reading if the creator of a dubious creation were not available to explain her intentions. Suppose someone creates beautiful works of art but claims that they did not intend for them to be art. Would it be possible to consider them as art under your definition?
BTW I'm asking cause I want to know. I'm not just gunning for you because you succeeded in planting a seed of doubt in my mind.  |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 04:50:12 [Permalink]
|
I declare this whole thread a work of art.
How much am I bid?
I think the real irony here is that Warhol created the soup cans and other peices to stimulate the very conversation being had.
Now, that's art. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 06:22:11 [Permalink]
|
Marf you seem to misinterpret everything I post, I recognise (the crap such as a pile of equal packets) as art but Im not happy about it.
IMO anything in the known universe could be considered art, with the right circumstances. |
"...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 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 06:46:02 [Permalink]
|
I don't understand your point here.
My point is that the only reason you even bothered to think or write or say that Andy Warhol's soup can are not art is because you first viewed them as works of art. Think about it - if you view an amazing sunset, perhaps you will have an emotional and aesthetic experience. But you don't think of the sunset as art. You also don't randomly look at a pencil you're writing with, or your shoes, and say that they are not art due to the lack of aesthetic response from you. You have to first view something as a work of art before you can consider if you are responding to it as art is intended by the artist to be responded to. And you view something as a work of art because it is either presented in a way that is commonly known (like hanging on a wall in a gallery) or because you hear people talking about it or writing about it.)
Think of the "Gates" in Central Park a few monthes ago. http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/tg.html If one didn't know that they were art, they might have thought they were a decoration for some festival. But as soon as people know to think of them as art, they - hopefully - drop their preconceptions, hone in, and attempt to be open for a aesthetic experience. We don't walk around open to such experienced. Sometimes things are so visually astouding as to knock us out of our stupor on their own, but not always, especially when the thing is as common as a soup can.
My frustration with your saying that Andy Warhol's soup cans are not art is that it seems too much like saying this art is not art. |
"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 08/09/2005 06:52:36 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 06:49:57 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf,
I do not think I misinterpreted what you said. I realize that you recognize them as art. But you also felt compelled to say that you could not bring yourself to call them art, and I wanted to bring it up that people only feel and respond this way to certain types of art, and then asked why that is. |
"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 - 08/09/2005 : 07:01:41 [Permalink]
|
Your response is a bit hasty. Did you really miss the "it might as well be"s or did you just decide to ignore them? Siberia is clearly not implying what you think she is implying.
I think you are right about the response being over-the-top, so I've deleted all but the first paragraph. However, the implication is there, which is why I'm leaving the first paragraph. All the other examples she gave, a construction site mess, a child putting paint on a canvas, were examples from real life. But the selling example - which she used twice - is not realistic. It is a cruel myth. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 07:53:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Your response is a bit hasty. Did you really miss the "it might as well be"s or did you just decide to ignore them? Siberia is clearly not implying what you think she is implying.
I think you are right about the response being over-the-top, so I've deleted all but the first paragraph. However, the implication is there, which is why I'm leaving the first paragraph. All the other examples she gave, a construction site mess, a child putting paint on a canvas, were examples from real life. But the selling example - which she used twice - is not realistic. It is a cruel myth.
In an idealistic world, all people do art for the love of art. I am sure that is the case with most artists and I am not trying to say all artists doing abstract art are in just for the money. I say that as a person who does abstract 'art' for pleasure (though mine uses a completely different media than the ones we're discussing about).
But we don't live in an idealistic world. I'm sure that there are a few - a very few - that do it for the money alone, just, perhaps, many watercolor painters do paintings for money (say, an order). Just like many aspiring singers care less about music itself and more about fame and fortune. Heck, I myself know a few of those.
The problem is, whereas in a watercolor we can identify skill (though with Photoshop you never know), and admire the skill rather than the art itself (I don't like watercolor that much either), when dealing with abstract sometimes (not always) we can't really tell the difference. The line is slightly blurred, between art and industrial production, in these particular (select) cases.
This may be why some people see abstract with something akin to wariness. Just my $0.2. |
"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
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 08/09/2005 08:17:02 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 08:42:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Siberia:
The line is slightly blurred, between art and industrial production..
Ha! I realize I am taking this sentence to a place it was not intended to go, but that is exactly what Warhol was consciously doing. Blurring the line between fine art and industrial production. He even called his studio “The Factory.” And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Warhol could appreciate the intent of “motel art” as an art form.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 10:00:54 [Permalink]
|
I'm sure that there are a few - a very few - that do it for the money alone, just, perhaps, many watercolor painters do paintings for money (say, an order).
A watercolor artist who "sells out" is someone who still uses a skill that they acquired in the first place out of - hopefully - a love for painting and natural talent. They only "sell out" when they start painting what is marketable, even though it is not what they really want to do. This is possible with an abstract artist, but it works in exactly the same way. They acquire a skill due to love of the process and natural talent. But there is more of a market for certain types of abstract art than others, and so a skilled painter could certainly choose to paint what is more marketable. But someone with no practice or training or skill cannot just make an abstract painting and expect to sell it anymore than someone can do that with realistic watercolor.
The problem is, whereas in a watercolor we can identify skill (though with Photoshop you never know), and admire the skill rather than the art itself (I don't like watercolor that much either), when dealing with abstract sometimes (not always) we can't really tell the difference.
I agree that the skill involved in representational painting is more muti-layered and easy for the layman to admire. But to be fair, people with a poor aesthetic sense are just as bad at looking at representational paintings as they are at looking at abstract paintings. Example: I exhibited a bunch of old paintings I did as an undergrad that were garish and clumsy as hell, and the moron who owned the building I showed them in thought they were "beautiful" and "sensual", I supposed just 'cause I recognized them as naked people and also realized they were more skilled than he could produce. But he had no sense for awkward compositions or use of color and texture. If the guy had a real sense, he would have saw that most of my work was quite amateurish, and even subtly disturbing. |
"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 08/09/2005 10:04:28 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 16:09:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
My point is that the only reason you even bothered to think or write or say that Andy Warhol's soup can are not art is because you first viewed them as works of art. Think about it - if you view an amazing sunset, perhaps you will have an emotional and aesthetic experience. But you don't think of the sunset as art. You also don't randomly look at a pencil you're writing with, or your shoes, and say that they are not art due to the lack of aesthetic response from you. You have to first view something as a work of art before you can consider if you are responding to it as art is intended by the artist to be responded to. And you view something as a work of art because it is either presented in a way that is commonly known (like hanging on a wall in a gallery) or because you hear people talking about it or writing about it.)
I honestly don't think that I ever considered it to be art, but even if I had, so what, it would just mean that I changed my mind.
Perhaps what you are getting at is that at some point I had to consider whether it was or was not art. I did do this and I came to the conclusion that it was not art. If you are saying that the very fact that I considered whether or not the soup can was art makes it art regardless of the conclusion I came to, then I challenge you to present an example of something, anything at all, which is not art.
quote:
My frustration with your saying that Andy Warhol's soup cans are not art is that it seems too much like saying this art is not art.
The problem is that you are applying what I think of the soup cans to your frame of reference. Looking back on the thread I think I may have made the same mistake in reverse. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
