what is art? dicuss
Peter
a whole greater than the parts.
I'm not too sure about this reality thing - unless you mean just the
external world.
Reality is really the combination of our internal world and external world -
what we experience is
not just what is out there - take the experience of colour for example. I
art as the synthesis of
inner and outer, fiction and reality, some which is and isnt, something
paradoxical but accepted.
Take a painting of an apple - it is both an apple and just the application
of paint on a surface.
Art enables us to take a step back from everyday experience and to consider
objects disinterestedly.
It was through being able to do so which enabled language to develop, which
in turn develops the sense
of the self - the very fact that we exist and ourselves - the fact that we
can think and are not automatons.
It is through creativity - both actually being an artist and viewing things
creatively that we reaffirm our self-consciousness.
We truely live rather than exist.
Such ideas above are mainly inspired by the work of the English
psychoanalyst , DW Winnicott (his work on child development - the use of
what he termed transitional objects mainly), as well as very selective use
of Kant, Hegel, Roger Fry, Michael Podro and Peter Fuller.
I'll be writing a thesis about such nonsense soon, so any replies along
these lines would be really appreciated -nobody
i speak to really buys this - as it is pretty anti modern art (abstract,
installation etc - and anything where the work is an adjunct
to the word - see Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word)
Cheers for reading this if you got through it
Peter
e-mail pe...@alston99.freeserve.co.uk
SynthSky
Art is more than the sum of its parts, but there is not a mystical occurance
that takes place to create the painting, or sculpture, etc., out of paint and
canvas, or fired ceramic, or molded bronze. The 'more' is involved as the
human concsiousness observing the work integrates the image with previous
memories, concepts, and ideas, to 'read' the image.
You say that a painting of an apple is both an apple and just the application
of paint on a surface.
This is not correct. A painting of an apple is NOT an apple, it is a
re-creation of the artist's impressions, accurate or no, of a real apple. But,
the painting is ONLY the application of paint on the surface. The recognition
of that painting AS 'a painting of an apple' requires a human mind
(consciousness) which has seen an apple, and thus has a concept of an apple to
compare to the painting. Someone who had never seen an apple might be able to
appreciate that a painting of an apple is a good looking fruit, but it would
not have the same meaning for them, as it would for someone who really liked
apples-or as it would for someone who really DIDN'T!
You wondered about reality. Reality, defined simply, is 'everything which
exists.'
I do agree with you, though, that having representations in place of actual
objects enabled language to develop. No other animal on this planet other than
us 'human animals' or 'rational animals' (to use Aristotle's insight) creates
art.
I am a science fiction fine artist, currently studying art history, and I, too,
am anti-abstract, and very pro-representational. I am hoping to continue my
educaiton to the point where I will be able to write my theories as theses,
too. Abstract art IS art, but it is designed to show a very different view of
existence than representational art. Jackson Pollock's work glorifies
violence, emotion, and chaos, not rational thought, purposeful action, and the
ability to perceive truth by observation. Because Pollock was trying to show
his view of reality, his work qualifies as art. But, it is not a benevolent
view of human existence, and in my opinion, not an accurate one, either.
Where are you in college, what level?
I am also a bit of an anomaly among artists, I am an Objectivist, a student of
the philosophy discovered by Ayn Rand.
We Objectivists don't like the ideas of Kant or Hegel very much. I noticed
their ideas in your posting, and was actually surprised to see you mention them
by name. Most people are influenced by their ideas, without ever knowing where
those ideas came from.
Anyway, though I disagree with some of what you wrote, I am very, very glad
that someone is finally using this newsgroup to discuss art, rather than simply
trying to get other artists to look at their websites.
If you want to discuss these ideas further, I would love to, and although I
cannot promise we'll agree on everything, and we probably won't, I can promise
no ad hominem.
I only criticize ideas, never persons.
I enjoyed your posting, and hope we can turn this newgroup into a real forum
for aesthetic ideas, rather than a big shopping mall.
Keith Russell
Science Fiction Fine Art
Allegory and Metaphor
synt...@aol.com
Jkryczka
art out here when I stumbled onto your posting. I am new to Newsgroups, but
would like to request the opportunity to continue to read your comments, and
contribute what I can. Thanks, Jkryczka
Hilly
I think art is subjective. Especially modern art. Can you call that art? Is it
art? If other people like what you do, can you call your work art? Sure a lot of
people will agree that the ord from the old masters IS art. Since they put
reality so perfectly on linnen and other fabric.
I am an 'artist' myself. I make nice pencil drawings and since recently I am
working with water paint in an abstract way which I really like. Some think it's
fabulous, others say it's nice, but... so you see. Art is in the eyes of the
beholder and how famous are you? :-) If your name is known to many people your
'art' work will be excepted more like art then when you let a child do the same
thing.
Good luck with you writing! Thanks for letting me say what I think.
Cya,
Hilly.
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Arc/1700
Peter wrote:
> I too like the idea of art being a synthesis in reponse to an earlier post)-
> a whole greater than the parts.
> I'm not too sure about this reality thing - unless you mean just the
> external world.
> Reality is really the combination of our internal world and external world -
> what we experience is
> not just what is out there - take the experience of colour for example. I
> art as the synthesis of
> inner and outer, fiction and reality, some which is and isnt, something
> paradoxical but accepted.
> Take a painting of an apple - it is both an apple and just the application
> of paint on a surface.
Hilly
I agree, it's good to see real discusion on this newsgroup. I haven't studied art
like you though. Had lessons at secondary school (In Holland) and always enjoyed
looking at art. And still do as a matter of fact.
My own definition about art is if you're able to move others with your impression.
One way or the other. I think it's an art if you can make people discuss your piece
of work, how they see it, what they feel when looking at it.
Well, just wanted to let you know, I enjoyed your reply to Peter.
Will follow your follow ups.
Take care,
Hilly.
RA Friedman
Objectivism as a philosophy is basically untenable for artists because the
creation of art IS largely about unconscious processing; a mystic experience in
that it IS outside the artist's control. The artist sets the stage, but the the
creative faculty is largely autonomous, primitive in its motivation, and wiser in
its ability to integrate.
An artist can be a great thinker, even a great scientist or philospher, but there
has to be a point where all that gets put aside. Ideas are not the soil out of
which art grows. Art reaped purely from ideas is propaganda, and pretty dull and
inhuman. As seductive as it sounds, you can't make art the way an engineer
designs a bridge. Or perhaps, you can, but the result only holds up in a state of
suspended disbelief. Otherwise, your audience jumps off.
Objectivisim attempts to substitute the primacy of the ego in all things.
Unfortunately, the human condition is far more complex than the pure plying of
unadulterated conscious ego. To ignore the unsconscious is inhabit only half of
one's existence, to deny our own duality. That is, whereby some things in life
require of us a cold, clinical eye, there also needs to be room for the
irrational, the fanciful, the subjective, the mystical, and the unexplained.
The hard core Objectivists would probably say that today's science follows an
irrational philosophy, but science is proving over and again that things are what
they are and also what they are NOT. The fine thread of "reality" is getting
thinner and thinner as physicists, for instance, are creating real, concrete
devices that work because the theoretical math SAYS they should.
Best,
RA Friedman
Kay Kane
toward "modern art"... For color theory (of the last century & early 20th -
I recommend van Gogh, Gauguin & Franz Marc (you aren't even entering the
realm of Kandinsky's "Concerning the Spiritual in Art" or elsewhere. Your
ignorance shouts out!
Kay Kane
Desbysean wrote in message <19990301225438...@ng136.aol.com>...
>Oh please, the last thing this world needs is one more "modern artist".
>Especially one who wants to learn from a book. Artistic talent is
something
>you are born with, you either have it or you don't. It is not something
that
>can be learned. Yes, granted the talent must be nutured and developed
through
>study, but if the talent and insight is not there, no amount of study can
put
>it there. Attempting to produce art "by the book" is not art, it is
industry.
> I don't even want to get started on "modern art". Symbols and colors on
a
>canvas? What a waste of good canvas! Those who produce such "art" only do
so
>because they don't have what it take to be a "real artist".
>Michael
Brian Sommers
excuse me for jumping in.
i love modern art. i would like to give it a try myself (acryllics on
canvas, etc) however. is there a book that explains the meaning of symbols
and colors??
when I was in college my english teach told me that usually green means a
new begining, etc.
anything would be really helpful here
thanks
BrianS
Desbysean
Brian Sommers
I'm sorry for wanting to learn, excuse me.
I am a roof truss layout designer, my hobbies include designing, flying and
building radio-controlled model airplanes and i just thought dabbling into
some art might be fun...
strange, there are no other fun police in my other hobbies, I guess a good
thing for me uh??
well thanks for you comments and have a great day!
Brian S
Winston Smith
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
Could this persons sphincter be torqued any tighter?
>All self-taught self-proclaimed artists seem to have your negative attitude
>toward "modern art"... For color theory (of the last century & early 20th -
>I recommend van Gogh, Gauguin & Franz Marc (you aren't even entering the
>realm of Kandinsky's "Concerning the Spiritual in Art" or elsewhere. Your
>ignorance shouts out!
>Kay Kane
>Desbysean wrote in message <19990301225438...@ng136.aol.com>...
Chuck Easttom
definition of art:
When the artist, the medium and the product become 1 entity then you
have art.....
In article <36ddc478....@news.got.net>,
Chuck Easttom
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Peter
And you're right in a sense, BUT, should it be so when really considering
what this experience that we have is all about.
If art is merely subjective then art is whatever anybody calls art, and in a
sense there is no art, because everyhting and anything is so.
BUT, I think there is some sort of shared, common experience which is able
to be discussed and appreciated commonly, and it mainly resides within those
feelings that 'ordinary' people have concerning things they call art
(ordinary as opposed to critics and hangers-on)
It's tough one though that has excerised the best minds for eons
Peter
Hilly wrote in message <36D6B6A7...@yahoo.com>...
Peter
be told what green means - dont you know??
Painting according to a book of symbols spell trouble. - Paint what you
feel, and then youll feel something.
Peter
Brian Sommers wrote in message ...
Peter
I just cant buy Kandinsky's little book - what does he say - yellows give
you the feeling of cirlces, blue - squares, reds - triangles - DO THEY
REALLY??
Peter
Kay Kane wrote in message ...
Peter
Peter
Chuck Easttom wrote in message <7bopso$meh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I won't debate whether art can be learned or not. However I will give my
>definition of art:
>
> When the artist, the medium and the product become 1 entity then
you
>have art.....
>
>
>In article <36ddc478....@news.got.net>,
> ge...@got.net (Winston Smith) wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:49:12 -0700, "Kay Kane"
>> <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>> Could this persons sphincter be torqued any tighter?
Oak of VisThink
>>I won't debate whether art can be learned or not. However I will give my
>>definition of art:
>>
>> When the artist, the medium and the product become 1 entity then
>>you have art.....
It is a while since I have contributed anything to this discussion, but I
think that the above definition is the best so far.
As a teacher, I do believe that art can be learnt. We all learn, the only
difference is that some learn without being aware that they are learning -
and so others term them talented. The most difficult thing about learning
deliberately is that in order to learn you have to have rules - and in order
to be an artist you have to abandon the rules! Sadly, some never make that
transition.
Oak of VisThink
E-Mail: postm...@visthink.u-net.com
Art&Magic website: www.visthink.u-net.com
I am now running an Art&Magic Mailing List at http://www.onelist.com.
The e-mail address is artm...@onelist.com
"Art by pagans, for pagans, with a mystical/magical slant. Can include ideas
for art work as well as pictures for discussion/exhibition. Work can be of
any standard, whether naive or technically accomplished. Pieces can be
finished or just rough sketches. The purpose of the mailing list is to
stimulate discussion and ideas for art work."
Kay Kane
Peter wrote in message <7bueeb$9kd$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Color theory - the spiritual sort is just mumbo jumbo - or common sense-
>
>I just cant buy Kandinsky's little book - what does he say - yellows give
>you the feeling of cirlces, blue - squares, reds - triangles - DO THEY
>REALLY??
>
adapted his theories. Of course it is not an artistic "rule" of today -
there are other approaches (many). "Understanding the Spiritual in art"
applied to what Kandinsky was doing and to what he believed and others felt
that it was innovative and applicable to much of the art created at that
time. However, it is not an artistic color-theory "Bible" and won't be
applicable to all artists because there are so many different approaches to
be taken. It was just an important part of art. Does red give you the
feeling of heat or cold?
Kay
>Peter
>
>
>Kay Kane wrote in message ...
>> your negative attitude
>>toward "modern art"... For color theory (of the last century & early
20th -
>>I recommend van Gogh, Gauguin & Franz Marc (you aren't even entering the
>>realm of Kandinsky's "Concerning the Spiritual in Art" or elsewhere.
>>Kay Kane
>>Desbysean wrote in message
<19990301225438...@ng136.aol.com>...
>>>Oh please, the last thing this world needs is one more "modern artist".
>>>Especially one who wants to learn from a book. Artistic talent is
>>something
>>>you are born with, you either have it or you don't. It is not something
>>that
>>>can be learned. Yes, granted the talent must be nutured and developed
>>through
>>>study, but if the talent and insight is not there, no amount of study can
>>put
>>>it there. Attempting to produce art "by the book" is not art, it is
>>industry.
>>> I don't even want to get started on "modern art". Symbols and colors
on
>>a
>>>canvas? What a waste of good canvas! Those who produce such "art" only
>do
>>so
>>>because they don't have what it take to be a "real artist".
>>>Michael
>>
Please, Oh Great One - tell us what it takes to be a "real artist".
Kay
Kay Kane
Desbysean wrote in message <19990307192131...@ng150.aol.com>...
>A bit defensive are you Kay? Did I hit a nerve with you? Perhaps if you
>convince the world you're worth your salt as an artist, you might be able
to
>convince yoursef.
> It's the classic---"if you have to ask, then you just don't get it." And
you
>won't. You just prove my point, you've got to be born with it.
>Michael
>
Michael,
I was born with it. I have proven myself professionally. I have
credibility and degrees and galleries to prove it. Now, quit bullshitting
and tell me what you've got.
Kay
Desbysean
Peter
objects - so yeah, it does
in the same way that blue is cold
there's no mystery
but i know what you're getting at - and i know im taking colour theory
examples to the extreme
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
desb...@aol.com (Desbysean) wrote:
> It's the classic---"if you have to ask, then you just don't get it." And
you
> won't. You just prove my point, you've got to be born with it.
> Michael
Really?
An artist has to convay a meaning.
Were you born with meanings?
IMHO, one has to *mature* as a person
(some training of skills does not harm, either)
and then express this as an artist.
- lauri
Hilly
Everything where feelings were put in is art!
Chuck Easttom wrote:
> I won't debate whether art can be learned or not. However I will give my
> definition of art:
>
> When the artist, the medium and the product become 1 entity then you
> have art.....
>
> In article <36ddc478....@news.got.net>,
> ge...@got.net (Winston Smith) wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:49:12 -0700, "Kay Kane"
> > <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> > Could this persons sphincter be torqued any tighter?
> > >All self-taught self-proclaimed artists seem to have your negative attitude
> > >toward "modern art"... For color theory (of the last century & early 20th -
> > >I recommend van Gogh, Gauguin & Franz Marc (you aren't even entering the
> > >realm of Kandinsky's "Concerning the Spiritual in Art" or elsewhere. Your
> > >ignorance shouts out!
> > >Kay Kane
> > >Desbysean wrote in message <19990301225438...@ng136.aol.com>...
> > >>Oh please, the last thing this world needs is one more "modern artist".
> > >>Especially one who wants to learn from a book. Artistic talent is
> > >something
> > >>you are born with, you either have it or you don't. It is not something
> > >that
> > >>can be learned. Yes, granted the talent must be nutured and developed
> > >through
> > >>study, but if the talent and insight is not there, no amount of study can
> > >put
> > >>it there. Attempting to produce art "by the book" is not art, it is
> > >industry.
> > >> I don't even want to get started on "modern art". Symbols and colors on
> > >a
> > >>canvas? What a waste of good canvas! Those who produce such "art" only do
> > >so
> > >>because they don't have what it take to be a "real artist".
> > >>Michael
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Chuck Easttom
Hilly
*smile*... reading your reply makes me wonder if Art excist. :-). Maybe that's
why it's so hard to describe what art is. I have been thinking about art and
went back in time when people lived in caves. All the murals they've made. What
is that? Art?
Or just a need to express feelings toward others? Or a need to tell how you see
your world? Like a journal, diary?
What do you think?
Hilly
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Arc/1700
Hilly
feelings, emotions, for me, that's art. I don't have to like it though. :-).
It's almost natural that when medium and the product become one entity, emotions and
the product are one.
Chuck Easttom wrote:
> In article <36E3E8C8...@yahoo.com>,
> Hilly <HILL...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yep, this definition is the best I've seen!
> > Everything where feelings were put in is art!
>
> Well that is not quite what I said... If I tell my neighbor to "go to hell" I
> have put feelings in , but thats not art...
Hilly
Peter
I think cave paintings were the beginnings of art, beginnings of a
capability of appreciating things at a remove from the actuality of things -
crucial to the development of language.
BUT, they weren't (I believe) created as art in the sense we know art - I
think that cave paintings of aniamal etc were linked to weird spiritual
beliefs about hunting etc
But , we don't really know what the hell they are/were!!
Peter
Hilly wrote in message <36E3EB5D...@yahoo.com>...