|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 17:41:26 [Permalink]
|
Marf.....
Your definition of art was this:| Anything which is creative expression put in the context of art is art. |
I responded:| I, or anyone, can define anything conceivable as "creative expression"......... |
Wrong. The part of the definition that you are ignoring is that it must be creatively expressed in the context of art. So while a person can turn anything into art by how that person presents the thing, the PERSON DOING THIS is necessary, and thus, not anything can be art.| ..........and further define that same anything as "art" and by so doing, put it in "the context of art". |
Marf, I am saying that the very act of naming a thing as "art" is putting it in the context of art.
| the PERSON DOING THIS is necessary |
the person doing this (the artist), automatically places the art piece into the context of art by the act of identifying the piece as "art"
If I identify myself as an artist,then proclaim that the Grand Canyon is art, then it becomes art by that proclamation! It is put into the context of art by my identifying it as art!
The Grand Canyon is not art just sitting there and quietly canyoning! But as soon as I, a known artist (just ask Dave) or you (a better known artist) proclaim the Grand Canyon as art, it becomes art!
Now, in your above statement, you add | it must be creatively expressed |
Then I now understand you to say that the artist must not only proclaim their work as "art", but also "creatively express" it.
In my example involving the Grand Canyon above, I would need to proclaim the Grand Canyon as art and also advertise that proclamation in order to transform a section of the path of the Colorado River into art.
Is this correct?
Dave says no - someone (at least one, besides me) has to agree with me that the Grand Canyon is art for it to actually become art! If, at least on person agrees (my wife, who always agrees with me), then the Grand Canyon becomes art!
Do you agree?
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/21/2008 : 18:24:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
But as soon as I, a known artist (just ask Dave) or you (a better known artist) proclaim the Grand Canyon as art, it becomes art! |
Nope. The Grand Canyon wasn't your creation, nor was it anyone else's creation. It fails as art because while some people may appreciate it as art, it's never been offered by its creator as art. As soon as you can coax the Colorado River into communicating its intent with regard to said canyon, then you might be able to classify it as art. Might. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 18:27:20 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
You've missed my point. I don't mean just any individual person, I mean the collective. I mean how the term is used is defined by human consensus.
|
Name a term that doesn't fit that criteria.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 19:09:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Marf, I am saying that the very act of naming a thing as "art" is putting it in the context of art ... the person doing this (the artist), automatically places the art piece into the context of art by the act of identifying the piece as "art" |
This sounds sort of like Duchamp taking a urinal and calling it art. My gut reaction is to reject that, but a more thoughtful approach perhaps makes such things more acceptable as art.
| If I identify myself as an artist,then proclaim that the Grand Canyon is art, then it becomes art by that proclamation! It is put into the context of art by my identifying it as art! |
I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not sure why that is. I mean, if you took a picture a la Ansel Adams, you could call that-- the picture-- art. But does just proclaiming any natural thing still in its original context as art make it such? I have trouble accepting such an idea. Indeed, it seems to make meaningless the entire concept of art. Now, anything is art.
I don't think so. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2008 : 19:30:24 [Permalink]
|
| bngbuck, you could certainly use the Grand Canyon in a work of art. You could take a photograph of it. You could do a sit-specific performance art piece that involves the Grand Canyon. The point being, you need to do something with it, even if it is merely conceptual art, before it becomes your art. And when you do that, it is not the Grand Canyon by itself which becomes art, but rather, the art concept, or photograph, or performance that you have created becomes your work of 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 - 04/21/2008 : 19:33:16 [Permalink]
|
| One could argue that the Grand Canyon is already a work of art, not by God, but by virtue of a collective of people who recognize its aesthetic value and in an institutionalized fashion present and promote it to even more people as a place to be viewed for aesthetic enjoyment and fulfillment. In that way it is similar to the driftwood 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 04/21/2008 19:33:48 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 01:41:38 [Permalink]
|
No, no, you guys misunderstand. I was just trying to bring some meaning to Marf's statement that I understood Dave must have agreed with (because he agreed with her definition of art!)
Her statement was:| A rock cannot be creative or express anything itself. But a person can look at a rock, associate its shape, color, and size with something that person finds beautiful or meaningful, and then present that rock to another human as an aesthetic and/or meaningful object – and through that process, the rock becomes art. |
So, obviously, I could look at the Grand Canyon, associate it's shape, color, and size with something that I find beautiful or meaningful, and then present that Grand Canyon to another human being as an aesthetic and/or meaningful object - and through that process, the Grand Canyon becomes art.
Works for me!
Or is there maybe somrthing wrong with that? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/22/2008 : 03:25:19 [Permalink]
|
While the Grand Canyon was created mechanically, there was no conscious vision behind it, therefore, it is not art.
Unless.... Unless, of course, God did it, as AiG so often tells us.
Then it would be art, no question.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 06:23:21 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | So, obviously, I could look at the Grand Canyon, associate it's shape, color, and size with something that I find beautiful or meaningful, and then present that Grand Canyon to another human being as an aesthetic and/or meaningful object - and through that process, the Grand Canyon becomes art. |
How have I not already dealt with this question in my last two posts? In the first I talk about various ways you could use the Grand Canyon in a work of art that you would get credit for as the artist, and in the second I argue that the Grand Canyon by itself could already be regarded as a work of art which no one artist can claim since it has already been widely promoted and presented as something to be viewed for its aesthetic qualities. If the Grand Canyon is already presented in this manner, you can't re-present it in the same manner. It is already out there. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 06:47:42 [Permalink]
|
Let's look at it from another angle; the Big Ditch has inspired and been the subject of a staggering amount of art of all sorts, and the term 'art' covers a lot of ground. I might submit that it is at least an indispensable component of art and therefore can be thought of as art itself.
And let us not forget, in theory there is the minuscule chance that God did do it. 
Yay God!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 04/22/2008 06:54:10 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 09:04:23 [Permalink]
|
Marf.....
You said:| a person can look at a rock, associate its shape, color, and size with something that person finds beautiful or meaningful, and then present that rock to another human as an aesthetic and/or meaningful object – and through that process, the rock becomes art. |
I said:| I could look at the Grand Canyon, associate it's shape, color, and size with something that I find beautiful or meaningful, and then present that Grand Canyon to another human being as an aesthetic and/or meaningful object - and through that process, the Grand Canyon becomes art. |
Please define the difference between a rock and the Grand Canyon in the sense you used a rock in your first post; and the identical sense that I used the Grand Canyon in my post, Marf?
Please?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
If you will kindly do that, I will be happy to express the rest of my views that directly address your post.....| How have I not already dealt with this question in my last two posts? In the first I talk about various ways you could use the Grand Canyon in a work of art that you would get credit for as the artist, and in the second I argue that the Grand Canyon by itself could already be regarded as a work of art which no one artist can claim since it has already been widely promoted and presented as something to be viewed for its aesthetic qualities. If the Grand Canyon is already presented in this manner, you can't re-present it in the same manner. It is already out there. |
.....and give you tons of ammunition to destroy my argument! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 09:18:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Marf.....
You said:| a person can look at a rock, associate its shape, color, and size with something that person finds beautiful or meaningful, and then present that rock to another human as an aesthetic and/or meaningful object – and through that process, the rock becomes art. |
I said:| I could look at the Grand Canyon, associate it's shape, color, and size with something that I find beautiful or meaningful, and then present that Grand Canyon to another human being as an aesthetic and/or meaningful object - and through that process, the Grand Canyon becomes art. |
Please define the difference between a rock and the Grand Canyon in the sense you used a rock in your first post; and the identical sense that I used the Grand Canyon in my post, Marf?
Please? |
I won't speak for Marf but my own argument would be that if you give a rock to someone, you've taken it out of its context, and, by physically giving it as a gift, you've created a new context-- a new thought-- for that rock.
You can never take the Grand Canyon out of its context. You can't take the moon out of context. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 10:06:18 [Permalink]
|
Filthy.....
No use invoking the image of Bhagavata Purana, he's not going to help your sorry ass that's headed straight for HELL, if you don't stop worshipping false, pagan images instead of Our Lord and Saviour
Jesus the fucking Christ!! Or, at least, Al fucking lah and his shoeshine boy, Muhammed!
Shit, Filthy, get on board or the Soul Train's gonna leave you in a Lake of Fire!
You said:While the Grand Canyon was created mechanically, there was no conscious vision behind it, therefore, it is not art.
|
Of course that is correct, Filth, but I am trying to practice Critical Thinking 101 so that someday I can grow up and become a real Critical Thinker; and up until recently I Critically Perceive that no one has bothered to include that important caveat in their various definitions of "art"! For example:
Marf:| Anything which is creative expression put in the context of art is art. |
Marf again:| Art is a human invention. |
Dave:| Does the person who created thing X consider it to be art? No? Then it's not art. Does thing X have a person or group of people who will appreciate thing X as art? No? Then it's not art. Two "yes" answers are required for thing X to be art. |
I do think, with your participation, we are getting closer to a definition that truly makes sense. The bilateral aspect emphasized by Dave and myself is critical, I think; there has to be both intention on the part of the artist and comprehension on the part of a perceiver for art to happen!| In the eye of the beholder, marf; all in the eye of the beholder. |
No, Filth, in the eye of the beholder and in the eye and intent of the artist!
Conscious vision, as you have put it, or ideation - particularly innovative ideation, even (Krishna help us) inspiration should be present in the concept, and other parameters are emerging in this very useful discussion that gives me a somewhat clearer Image of the age-old question, "What is Art?" |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 04/22/2008 10:12:45 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2008 : 10:16:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Does an elephant that paints intend to create art, or does it just know that following its trainer's command results in positive reinforcement? |
.....I think, Dave. that to answer your question we need to find some way to ask the elephant.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
using abortion as an art medium
