Defining ART
The Trinker
Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
is something which must take substantial time to create. He
seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
What's *your* definition of ART?
(I'll post mine later, after a few more contributions, as I'd
rather not end up influencing the thread direction too much.)
The Trinker
The proper de-spammed address is
(kat at vincent dash tanaka dot com).
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
ARCmage
The ARCmage took the time to look this one up in the dictionary before
replying. An interesting note. "Art" when used as a noun more or less
means "Skill".
The ARCmage suspects that what the Trinker really wanted was a definition of
what a *work of Art* would be.
Something giving high aesthetic satisfaction to the person experiencing it.
--
Sin(The ARCmage)
------------------------------
1
Stacy & Matthew Peterson
<Where's the WORMS in the subject line? 8>}
My definition? Don't necessarily have one... It's one of those things that I
try to stay clear of, like the a-word, the g-word, and Elian Gonzalez...
Anyone who wants to appreciate something can make a case that it is art...
That's the beauty of the whole thing.>
Maraud. Some things are too ephemeral to be pinned down like that... Destroys
the essence, y'know?
Christopher Jahn
The Trinker wrote:
>
> So...
>
> Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
> is something which must take substantial time to create. He
> seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>
> What's *your* definition of ART?
"Any work rendered to elicit a specific emotional response."
Xjahn
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
"The Wonder Twins had the right idea. I defy you to think of any
crisis situation that would not be vastly improved by the presence
of a gorilla with a bucket of water." Maraud
The Bouncing Beatnik
The Trinker asked
> What's *your* definition of ART?
>
"Any created thing that moves me in some way."
After thinking about it a bit, and I confess, looking through
some of the responses, I came up with:
"Any medium that, through being perceived, changes the way that
means of perception is experienced."
In other words, when seeing a painting, I will see things differently,
even if the difference is minute, from then on. The same applies to
hearing music, reading (and hence thinking about) literature, etc.
That this definition allows for the possibility that a wonderful sunset
or a friend's face could be seen as art is just fine by me. :)
The Bouncing Beatnik
Jacob Sommer
>
> So...
>
> Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
> is something which must take substantial time to create. He
> seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>
>
> rather not end up influencing the thread direction too much.)
Art is a dream given form, a thought given shape - one that can
be appreciated simply in perception. It does not have to be
pleasant.
The modern world is at times overwhelmed with art. It's harder
to be enthusiastic about art when it is all around and needs to
be sifted through.
Jacob
M Blaze Miskulin
> > What's *your* definition of ART?
"Art? Art is a man's name." --Andy Warhol.
:) (for the record; I think Warhol's work is a load of crap.)
As I consider myself to be an artist (in a number of media) as well as a
critic of art, I have a very well-considered definition of art.
Art is a work which represents an emotion or emotional state or is
intended to evoke an emotion or emotional reaction.
Now, this includes such emotional reactions as laughter, disgust,
respect, thoughtfulness, etc. Silly things can be art.
However, art also goes beyond the simple. This is the important thing.
A Bob Ross painting is not art. It's a formulaic landscape (with 'happy
trees').
There's good art and bad art; art I find apealling and art I find dull
or distateful. The two criteria have nothing to do with each other.
Picasso is good art. Picasso sucks. No conflict. Frazetta is not
great art. Frazetta is cool. No conflict.
Rodin is great. In both contexts.
--
M Blaze Miskulin
Winterborne Scenic Studios
http://www.winterborne-ss.com
Jai Rose
>
>What's *your* definition of ART?
Art: Anything deliberately made to one's heart which succeeds in
evoking emotion upon perception by the senses.
Jai
"Smith & Wesson - The Ultimate 'Point and Click' User Interface."
Unknown
Matthew T. Russotto
The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
}So...
}
}Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
}is something which must take substantial time to create. He
}seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
}
I know it when I see it. Usually. I sometimes know what ain't art --
putting drapery over buildings for the umpteenth time isn't (might
have been the first time, I don't know). Throwing paint into aircraft
engines isn't either. Certainly art can be ephemeral, and I see no
reason why time to create should enter into it.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
John Palmer
<katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>So...
>
>Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
>is something which must take substantial time to create. He
>seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>
>What's *your* definition of ART?
An attempt to communicate past the medium. A picture intended to
represent the image photographed isn't art, but a picture intended to
evoke an emotional image is. A grocery list, or instructions on how
to perform a task, isn't art; a story is. A still life probably isn't
(even if the banana hates the apple), but even "just another
landscape" might be.
Note that there's bad art (it communicates badly, if it all),
distasteful art (it communicates something we don't like), 'coded' art
(where you need to know the code to understand the meaning), etc..
There's "pulp" art where the communication is simple and formulaic
(the standard pulp book being like this: "Good can triumph over evil"
and "this is an exciting situation"), and "higher art" that tries for
a more complex message, but I think it's "art" when it first tries to
reach beyond the work itself, and all the rest is just qualifications.
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Once you pull the pin on Mr. Hand Grenade, he is no longer your friend.
jhe...@my-deja.com
The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
> So...
>
> Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
> is something which must take substantial time to create. He
> seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>
> What's *your* definition of ART?
>
> rather not end up influencing the thread direction too much.)
>
Thus sayeth the prophet: "Art" is the deliberate manipulation of
emotions.
(Yeah, a lot of forms of art are illegal. Some justifiably so.)
Ephemeral or permanent, it don't matter. A good pun can be art. Sand
sculpture can be art. Exotic dance can be art. Chi Kung can be art.
--
Jim
"I am but mad north-northwest: when the wind is southerly I know a
hawk from a handsaw."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
devor...@hotmail.com
The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
> So...
>
> Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
> is something which must take substantial time to create. He
> seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>
> What's *your* definition of ART?
>
(Grumble, mutter, mumble, complain under breath)
After thinking about this question for over an hour, the only answer I
could come up with hid in the corner of my brain until the Excedrin
Moment passed.
The best I could turn into words is that the definition of Art is like
the definition of Pornography - it varies from person to person, and ya
know it when ya see it.
(OT as heck, but I had to pass it along - As a former Poly Sci major,
the best and probably most real-world accurate definition I ever saw
was : "Pornography is anything that gives a judge an erection.")
More thoughts to ponder -
Is Robert Mapplethorpe 'art'?
Should we extend more legal protection to 'art' than we do any other
form of expression?
Rachel-Sara,
cackling madly as she posts brain-twisters to keep the other
callahanians up nights
members.xoom.com/devorajuno
Adam Littman
>In article <17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>,
>The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>}So...
>}
>}Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
>}is something which must take substantial time to create. He
>}seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>}
>}What's *your* definition of ART?
>
>putting drapery over buildings for the umpteenth time isn't (might
>have been the first time, I don't know). Throwing paint into aircraft
>engines isn't either. Certainly art can be ephemeral, and I see no
>reason why time to create should enter into it.
I have been thinking about that. A better way to put it would be deliberation.
Thought and effort put into the thing. Throwing paint on a canvas doesn't
qualify IMO. Any more than pinning up a house painter's drop cloth. That is
why a posed or set up photograph strikes me as being more likely to be art.
--
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------
Joyce Melton
>I have been thinking about that. A better way to put it would be deliberation.
>Thought and effort put into the thing. Throwing paint on a canvas doesn't
>qualify IMO. Any more than pinning up a house painter's drop cloth. That is
>why a posed or set up photograph strikes me as being more likely to be art.
They can help but forethought and preparation and effort do not make
art. Communication makes it art.
Joyce
mae...@bordeaux.enteract.com
> What's *your* definition of ART?
Art cannot be clearly defined. It's in the eye of the beholder, as well as
the mind of the creator. It can be beauty, it can be joy, it can be
nonsense, it can be hate, it can be the deepest depths of despair. My
definition is therefore nebulous: ART is something that causes an
emotional response in the person creating it or the person experiencing
it, that cannot be quantified as a "practical" or "logical" response to
it.
And - it's utterly subjective!
There are some things that can generally be agreed upon as being good art
- the Sistine chapel, the Parthenon, Beethoven's 9th. And some things that
can generally be agreed upon as being bad art - Tilted Wall, the
disintegrating bronze angel they installed in front of the Iowa State
University library in the late 80's, posters of dogs playing poker. And
some things that are unintentional or coincidental art - particle physics
event displays, the layout of a baseball diamond, the rhythm of a
locomotive engine.
Saying "I don't like it." is perfectly reasonable. Saying something is not
"important art" or "good art" is often defensible. Saying absolutely
whether or not something *is* "art" is not possible for an honest person.
maenad
--
____Anna________fun is good!_________BORDEAUX = spamblock____
The Wonder Twins had the right idea. I defy you to think of
any crisis situation that would not be vastly improved by the
presence of a gorilla with a bucket of water. <Maraud>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Littman
>In article <17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>,
> The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>Thus sayeth the prophet: "Art" is the deliberate manipulation of
>emotions.
Huh. Didn't realize my mother was an artist.
Adam Littman
>In article <17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>,
>(OT as heck, but I had to pass it along - As a former Poly Sci major,
>the best and probably most real-world accurate definition I ever saw
>was : "Pornography is anything that gives a judge an erection.")
Like viagra?
>More thoughts to ponder -
>Is Robert Mapplethorpe 'art'?
Yes. Deliberate, set-up, images.
Also disgusting. Though that is a side issue.
Some good art is shocking, not everything shocking is good art. Some of it is
just tacky and lazy. Counting on people not to say "the emperor has no
clothes" for fear of being labled uncultured.
>Should we extend more legal protection to 'art' than we do any other
>form of expression?
Nope. But then I don't agree with the Court that obscenity should be banned.
Avoided on an individual level, perhaps, but not banned by the government.
Sarah M Wheaton
:
: The Trinker asked
: > What's *your* definition of ART?
: >
: The immediate answer that occured to me was:
I prefer your first attempt! I think that element of creation is
important in discarding things that are not art. This also draws in
the definition of an art being a skill. The act of creation can be
a pretty minimal sort of thing, such as the movement of a found object
to a new place (eg. a rock to a Japanese garden) or the framing of
a view by a well placed window.
By this definition, your friend's smiling face is not art, but your
photograph of it, be it ever so out-of-focus or overexposed, is.
Cheers
Sarah
PS - Someone said something about an All-About? I think I like this
place!
Freyja
Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:8etb4b$j3q$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
|
| I have been thinking about that. A better way to put it would be
deliberation.
| Thought and effort put into the thing. Throwing paint on a canvas doesn't
| qualify IMO. Any more than pinning up a house painter's drop cloth. That
is
| why a posed or set up photograph strikes me as being more likely to be
art.
So, sudden inspiration to snap a photo or write a poem is not art, because
deliberation was not a factor?
--
Freyja the NurseWench
(de-spam e-mail)
http://pagina.de/eclecticeel
ICQ:9582706 AIM:FreyjaNurseWench
I guess my poetry is out. As well as my sole published photo.
Kris Overstreet
<katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>
Art is an original physical object, image, story, song, or concept
which does not serve any purpose other than its own existence.
Quality, usage, medium, time invested, etc. are not qualifiers.
Redneck
jhe...@my-deja.com
al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
> In article <8etacd$fk2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jhe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >In article <17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>,
>
> >Thus sayeth the prophet: "Art" is the deliberate manipulation of
> >emotions.
>
> Huh. Didn't realize my mother was an artist.
>
Yep. Her show probably plays to a limited audience, tho. Go for more
universal appeal and send a script to La-La land.
--
Jim
"I am but mad north-northwest: when the wind is southerly I know a
hawk from a handsaw."
Adam Littman
>
>Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:8etb4b$j3q$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
>|
>| I have been thinking about that. A better way to put it would be
>deliberation.
>| Thought and effort put into the thing. Throwing paint on a canvas doesn't
>| qualify IMO. Any more than pinning up a house painter's drop cloth. That
>is
>| why a posed or set up photograph strikes me as being more likely to be
>art.
>
>So, sudden inspiration to snap a photo or write a poem is not art, because
>deliberation was not a factor?
Poem, yes, photo, no. Poem you have originality, photo you are plagerizing the
scene the world set up for you (at least potentially, I am still trying to
decide whether fuzzes and filters qualify as art, though that probably falls
under the "special effects" category I already figure make something potential
art).
Adam Littman
>On Thu, 04 May 2000 16:31:37 -0700, The Trinker
><katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>What's *your* definition of ART?
>
>Art is an original physical object, image, story, song, or concept
>which does not serve any purpose other than its own existence.
Oh, like a brother-in-law. :-)
But seriously:
Blown glass vase? Potentially art, but also useful for storing flowers.
Book?
Chkai
>
> (p&e, as I don't appear through Remarq)
>
> >
> > So...
> >
> > Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
> > is something which must take substantial time to create. He
> > seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
> >
>
>
> Xjahn
Could I ask - why a *specific* emotional response? I can see an
emotional response - but it occurs to me that since the response is
coloured by the life experience of the one responding, it must therefore
vary from person to person.
I guess what I am asking is does the definition still work if you leave
out the word specific? And what of those works that are designed to
make you think/wonder about the subject?
Ch'kai
Matthew T. Russotto
Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
}In article <8etacd$fk2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jhe...@my-deja.com wrote:
}>In article <17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>,
}> The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
}
}>Thus sayeth the prophet: "Art" is the deliberate manipulation of
}>emotions.
}
}Huh. Didn't realize my mother was an artist.
Sure. The whole guilt trip thing is performance art.
Adam Littman
>In article <8etg86$l59$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote:
>}In article <8etacd$fk2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jhe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>}>In article <17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>,
>}> The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>}
>}>Thus sayeth the prophet: "Art" is the deliberate manipulation of
>}>emotions.
>}
>}Huh. Didn't realize my mother was an artist.
>
>Sure. The whole guilt trip thing is performance art.
Well, on that one I am not an appreciative audience. I mean the technical
skill involved is impressive but I seem pretty immune to externally imposed
guilt.
Gene Szedenits, Jr.
M Blaze Miskulin <brb...@winterborne-ss.com> wrote in message
news:39123E6B...@winterborne-ss.com...
> There's good art and bad art; art I find apealling and art I find dull
> or distateful. The two criteria have nothing to do with each other.
> Picasso is good art. Picasso sucks. No conflict. Frazetta is not
> great art. Frazetta is cool. No conflict.
>
> Rodin is great. In both contexts.
I agree with this.
Gene
Gene Szedenits, Jr.
The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com...
> What's *your* definition of ART?
Oi. This is too hard to get right without spending
at least a weekend thinking hard and writing a
lengthy essay.
But here go some thoughts.
I have heard the notion that what makes a thing
'art' is the 'frame'. Someone, the artist, has
simply decided to take a particular thing and
present it to the audience as something to focus
attention upon and experience. The amount of
labor expended by the artist to create or shape
the thing as opposed to just finding it is not a
relevant factor.
With some reluctance I have come to agree with
this notion, but only by deciding that a thing could
be technically art, yet still a piece of crap not worth
doing.
To me the amount of 'art' in something (whether or not
I regard it as worth doing) is related to the number of
decisions made. So, shaping a rock into a sculpture
is more 'art' than just finding a nifty rock and deciding
to display it on the mantle, even if I find the sculpture
totally pointless and not as nifty as the found rock.
While functional and representational art has lost status
with automated manufacture, photography, and other
mechanical reproduction techniques, often dismissed
as 'mere craft', I think 'craft' is still important for 'art',
because 'craft' makes it possible to make the decisions
that make 'art'. 'art' is -deciding- to paint a particular
line. 'craft' is -being able- to paint that particular line and
not one almost like it. Of course, there is still some 'art'
in painting random lines because one lacks ability and
deciding that one of the lot is the one to present.
So there you go. Some of my still vague and fuzzy-in-areas
thoughts on 'art'. As for relevant background, I suppose I
qualify as a Philistine. Grade school art classes which I thought
sucked as thinly disguised busy work. No formal art education.
Learned a bit on my own by reading art books and remained
unconvinced by a lot of it.
Another random thought. 'art' does have communication as
part of its nature. It used to be that artists communicated with
the viewer/audience. Now I think I see a lot of artists solely
communicating amongst themselves. Some of that has, of course,
always gone on.
Enough for now. Someone's bound to ask for examples and
I don't recall any off the top of my head.
Gene
Donna Leaf
> What's *your* definition of ART?
>
Along with others in this thread, I have no precise definition of
*art*. I think the closest I can come up with is to paraphrase an old
song. Art is (IMHO) "...different things to different people."
MM
Joyce Melton
>Poem, yes, photo, no. Poem you have originality, photo you are plagerizing the
>scene the world set up for you (at least potentially, I am still trying to
>decide whether fuzzes and filters qualify as art, though that probably falls
>under the "special effects" category I already figure make something potential
>art).
You are still demonstrating that you don't know anything much about
photographic art.
Joyce
Kris Overstreet
Littman) wrote:
>Blown glass vase? Potentially art, but also useful for storing flowers.
>
>Book?
Vase. Book. Lamp. Carved lintel. Doorstop. Notepad doodle. Obscene
phone call. Macrame planter. Floral arrangement. Table setting.
The only qualifying factor in determining art is the creative act.
Redneck
PensNest
jpal...@ix.netcom.com (John Palmer) wrote:
>>What's *your* definition of ART?
>
> An attempt to communicate past the medium.
I'll admit to being one of the many who can't figure out a personal
definition of what ART *is*, but the above makes a lot of sense to me.
Thank you.
And,
In article <39123E6B...@winterborne-ss.com>,
M Blaze Miskulin <brb...@winterborne-ss.com> wrote:
>Art is a work which represents an emotion or emotional state or is
>intended to evoke an emotion or emotional reaction.
>
>Now, this includes such emotional reactions as laughter, disgust,
>respect, thoughtfulness, etc. Silly things can be art.
>
>However, art also goes beyond the simple. This is the important thing.
>A Bob Ross painting is not art. It's a formulaic landscape (with 'happy
>trees').
>
>There's good art and bad art; art I find apealling and art I find dull
>or distateful. The two criteria have nothing to do with each other.
>Picasso is good art. Picasso sucks. No conflict. Frazetta is not
>great art. Frazetta is cool. No conflict.
>
>Rodin is great. In both contexts.
With this also I cannot disagree. [I have an emotional inclination to
think the word 'work' important, but I don't think I can justify it, except
perhaps with very flexible definitions of the word 'work'.]
For me, the best art is the kind that causes a kind of other-dimensional
pain inside me. Once in a while I've read something or looked at something
that has rooted me to the spot and made me want to sing and cry, usually
(but not always) because it is beautiful. That doesn't mean that the stuff
which leaves me cold, or only slightly moved, is not art, or even
necessarily that it's bad art.
BOYCs for both these gentlepersons, Mike, if they would care for a drink.
Pen
<To email me, remove the obvious.>
dung
>
> >>What's *your* definition of ART?
> >
Art is one of those things that means so many different things to different
people that its near impossible to set a universal definition of it.
But in general... one would think that that which is being questioned whether
it is art or not would have to be created. Then again those that believe in
God might say that even a rock is God's art, but thats a whole other debate.
The whole thing is about someone creating it. Might be expressive, might be
unrecognisible, but anything created can be art...
Now as to whether others understand it or like it.... thats one of those
things.... some like.. some hate.. some don't care...
take a sec and look around you... someone designed almost everything
surrounding you... to some extent... its art...
Jette Goldie
Adam Littman wrote in message <8etg86$l59$3...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>...
>In article <8etacd$fk2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, jhe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>In article <17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>,
>> The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Thus sayeth the prophet: "Art" is the deliberate manipulation of
>>emotions.
>
>Huh. Didn't realize my mother was an artist.
>
Mothers are often master artists in this particular art. <g>
Jette Goldie
jette....@u.genie.co.uk
HISTORICON 2001 - Setting the Standards for the Next Millennium
5th & 6th May 2001, Edinburgh, Scotland UK
http://you.genie.co.uk/jette.goldie/
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/historicon
Alison
14:13:48 GMT:
>In article <NutQ4.39507$R4.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Freyja" <lkpa...@cannedmeat.home.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>So, sudden inspiration to snap a photo or write a poem is not art, because
>>deliberation was not a factor?
>
>Poem, yes, photo, no. Poem you have originality, photo you are plagerizing the
> (at least potentially, I am still trying to
>decide whether fuzzes and filters qualify as art, though that probably falls
>under the "special effects" category I already figure make something potential
>art).
"I think, perhaps, you are running on a faulty assumption about
photography, Adam, which is that
photograph==truth==exact representation of what was really there
Even without darkroom tricks and filters, that ain't necessarily so. I
could take a photo of a house which gives the impression of it sitting
on acres of land, when in reality it's on a tiny postage stamp right
on the road. "
"Yes, the 'scene the world set up for you' is the starting point, but
it's far from the end of the story."
Alison
(remove 'SPAMKILL' from address to reply)
Marc C Allain
>Christopher Jahn wrote:
>>
>> (p&e, as I don't appear through Remarq)
>>
>> The Trinker wrote:
>> >
>> > So...
>> >
>> > Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
>> > is something which must take substantial time to create. He
>> > seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Xjahn
>
>Could I ask - why a *specific* emotional response? I can see an
>emotional response - but it occurs to me that since the response is
>coloured by the life experience of the one responding, it must therefore
>vary from person to person.
>
>I guess what I am asking is does the definition still work if you leave
>out the word specific? And what of those works that are designed to
>make you think/wonder about the subject?
>
>Ch'kai
Just butting in. In my old grammar school days, among other things,
we were told that art was a form of communication. In this context, I
might say that art is intended to portray a particular emotion or
emotional condition.
I might even go further and claim that 'good art' not only does
this, but succeeds in evoking or eliciting the particular emotional
response.
The shades of different reaction among viewers of art will depend
on many things in their own backgrounds, but generally speaking,
unless the cultures are very different, there will be some similarity
of reaction.
--
Marc C. Allain m...@cisunix.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mca
"I want to be Nobody when I grow up...because Nobody's perfect!"
Eric Allain - age 10.
Freyja
| In article <NutQ4.39507$R4.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Freyja"
<lkpa...@cannedmeat.home.com> wrote:
| >So, sudden inspiration to snap a photo or write a poem is not art,
because
| >deliberation was not a factor?
|
| Poem, yes, photo, no. Poem you have originality, photo you are
plagerizing the
| scene the world set up for you (at least potentially, I am still trying
to
| decide whether fuzzes and filters qualify as art, though that probably
falls
| under the "special effects" category I already figure make something
potential
| art).
Even though the photo evokes a reaction in the beholder? The scene was
there, it was perfect, I snapped it. No special effects whatsoever, other
than what nature provided. All I did was line it up and click, 3 seconds
elapsed. And it is published and attributed to me.
Remind me never to take you to an art exhibit.
--
Freyja the NurseWench
(de-spam e-mail)
http://pagina.de/eclecticeel
ICQ:9582706 AIM:FreyjaNurseWench
Boycott RemarQ!
Adam Littman
>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>
>>Poem, yes, photo, no. Poem you have originality, photo you are plagerizing the
>
>>scene the world set up for you (at least potentially, I am still trying to
>>decide whether fuzzes and filters qualify as art, though that probably falls
>>under the "special effects" category I already figure make something potential
>
>>art).
>
>photographic art.
Correct. I have a phd camera (push here dummy). But AFAIAC the more accurately
an unposed photo represents what I would have seen with my one eyes had I been
there, the less likely it is to be art.
Adam Littman
Serial killers are pretty creative at times. Does that make it art?
Adam Littman
>Even though the photo evokes a reaction in the beholder? The scene was
>there, it was perfect, I snapped it. No special effects whatsoever, other
>than what nature provided. All I did was line it up and click, 3 seconds
>elapsed. And it is published and attributed to me.
Then it is luck and a bit of skill but not art. No creativity on your part
went into it. Had anyone else with the same equipment been there they would
have gotten the same shot.
At least with filters and fuzzing some creative decisions are being made. "I
think this would look better if I did _this_". Deciding where to put a lamp to
improve the look of a room is more art than what you described. Not
necessarily more art than what you actually did.
You can't copyright or patent facts. (Some arrangement of them maybe, but not
the facts themselves).
>Remind me never to take you to an art exhibit.
Depending on the art exhibit it would probably be fine. As long as no one
expected me to fawn over some artist for producing things that were shocking,
but not good.
Of course posed shots can definitely be art.
I remember one I saw in NYC a while back, old B&W photo. A large man in a suit
with nothing overt about him and nothing in the background to indicate who he
was, and I said "that guy is a boxer", sure enough he was some boxer I never
heard of. My friends got the same thing from it.
Marc C Allain
>
>The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com...
>
>
>
>While functional and representational art has lost status
>with automated manufacture, photography, and other
>mechanical reproduction techniques, often dismissed
>as 'mere craft', I think 'craft' is still important for 'art',
>because 'craft' makes it possible to make the decisions
>that make 'art'. 'art' is -deciding- to paint a particular
>line. 'craft' is -being able- to paint that particular line and
>not one almost like it. Of course, there is still some 'art'
>in painting random lines because one lacks ability and
>deciding that one of the lot is the one to present.
>
I remember John Lennon, (in the Playboy interviews,) talking
about a time when song writing had become automatic. He could
crank it out, people would buy it, it might still make the
charts, but there was no inspiration, no emotional involvement
for him. This (he claimed) was part of why he retired.
Now, it can be hard for the viewer to discern when this has
happened to an artist. One can define art as separate from
craft by requiring the artist to be emotionally involved in
the creation. If he/she is just creating beauty for the market,
then it is entertainment - craft. But you or I may not always
be able to tell the difference.
David Yehudah
That's where you get into the part about art being 5%
inspiration and 95% perspiration. Anyone can get an
inspiration to write a poem or snap a photo. That in itself
doesn't always make it art. What makes it art is the
deliberate manipulation of the medium and the subject matter
so that something is created which did not exist before.
Poets often hastily scribble a poem; that's the easy part.
But then the poem has to be refined and polished many times
before it is considered completed. That takes study,
practice, and time spent learning the craft. It is not
tossed off at an odd moment off the top of the head but is
the result of dedication.
Mark Twain said about a visit to the Louvre that he saw
many art students and would-be artists copying some of the
Old Masters, and he couldn't help but notice that some of
the copies were better than the original. But that wouldn't
be art, no matter how skilled the representation. However,
if the person doing the copying were to take a detail or
even the main theme of a painting and create something new,
that would be art. Composers do it all the time; "Rhapsody
on a Theme by Paganini," that sort of thing.
Above all, art is a means of communication, involving an
artist and an audience. A work that brings the artist to
tears of emotion but leaves the audience unmoved is more an
act of self indulgence than art. On the other hand a work
can be too banal to be trite. Hackneyed themes are usually
enlarged upon by people who have not read widely enough to
know what is original. They're like Phil Silvers pretending
to be an acrobat in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to
the Forum." The acrobats would do some rather spectacular
leaps and jumps, then he would do a kind of skip and hop in
place, strike a pose, throw his arms out for applause, and
say, "Ta-da!"
The worst art is usually some kind of kitsch that fails to
raise the audience's level of comprehension beyond the
mundane. It's also usually the most popular at any given
time.
Cheers,
Dave
Freyja wrote:
>
> Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:8etb4b$j3q$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> |
> | I have been thinking about that. A better way to put it would be
> deliberation.
> | Thought and effort put into the thing. Throwing paint on a canvas doesn't
> | qualify IMO. Any more than pinning up a house painter's drop cloth. That
> is
> | why a posed or set up photograph strikes me as being more likely to be
> art.
>
> So, sudden inspiration to snap a photo or write a poem is not art, because
> deliberation was not a factor?
>
> --
> Freyja the NurseWench
> (de-spam e-mail)
> http://pagina.de/eclecticeel
> ICQ:9582706 AIM:FreyjaNurseWench
> I guess my poetry is out. As well as my sole published photo.
--
My principal said, "There are no bad students, only bad
teachers."
At the same time I noticed he had one finger in the light
socket and was
using his head for a reading lamp.
Joyce Melton
>Correct. I have a phd camera (push here dummy). But AFAIAC the more accurately
>an unposed photo represents what I would have seen with my one eyes had I been
>there, the less likely it is to be art.
It is pretty much impossible for a photo to really represent the live
scene. Pigment on a flat surface cannot replicate the experience of
perception of a three dimensional space. That it seems to is just
optical illusion. But that is beside the point. The unposed photo has
a lot of opportunity for art, there are lots of choices of what to do
both before and after the shutter is tripped.
Joyce
Joyce Melton
>>The only qualifying factor in determining art is the creative act.
>
>Serial killers are pretty creative at times. Does that make it art?
There is art and there is good art and there is bad art. On some level
a murder could be art thereby proving that all art is not a good thing
necessarily.
Joyce
Joyce Melton
>In article <ZmFQ4.43945$R4.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Freyja" <lkpa...@cannedmeat.home.com> wrote:
>
>>Even though the photo evokes a reaction in the beholder? The scene was
>>there, it was perfect, I snapped it. No special effects whatsoever, other
>>than what nature provided. All I did was line it up and click, 3 seconds
>>elapsed. And it is published and attributed to me.
>
>Then it is luck and a bit of skill but not art. No creativity on your part
>went into it. Had anyone else with the same equipment been there they would
>have gotten the same shot.
Once again, you don't really know what you are talking about.
>
>At least with filters and fuzzing some creative decisions are being made. "I
>think this would look better if I did _this_". Deciding where to put a lamp to
>improve the look of a room is more art than what you described. Not
>necessarily more art than what you actually did.
>
>You can't copyright or patent facts. (Some arrangement of them maybe, but not
>the facts themselves).
>
>>Remind me never to take you to an art exhibit.
>
>Depending on the art exhibit it would probably be fine. As long as no one
>expected me to fawn over some artist for producing things that were shocking,
>but not good.
>
>Of course posed shots can definitely be art.
>
>I remember one I saw in NYC a while back, old B&W photo. A large man in a suit
>with nothing overt about him and nothing in the background to indicate who he
>was, and I said "that guy is a boxer", sure enough he was some boxer I never
>heard of. My friends got the same thing from it.
And if it had been done without being posed? How do you know it was
posed?
Joyce
The Trinker
<sho...@netzero.net> wrote:
>Hi, Freyja
> That's where you get into the part about art being 5%
>inspiration and 95% perspiration. Anyone can get an
>inspiration to write a poem or snap a photo. That in itself
>doesn't always make it art. What makes it art is the
>deliberate manipulation of the medium and the subject matter
>so that something is created which did not exist before.
> Poets often hastily scribble a poem; that's the easy
part.
>But then the poem has to be refined and polished many times
>before it is considered completed. That takes study,
>practice, and time spent learning the craft. It is not
>tossed off at an odd moment off the top of the head but is
>the result of dedication.
> Mark Twain said about a visit to the Louvre that he saw
>many art students and would-be artists copying some of the
>Old Masters, and he couldn't help but notice that some of
>the copies were better than the original. But that wouldn't
>be art, no matter how skilled the representation. However,
>if the person doing the copying were to take a detail or
>even the main theme of a painting and create something new,
>that would be art. Composers do it all the time; "Rhapsody
>on a Theme by Paganini," that sort of thing.
Is this a "Western" perception of art, or is this general?
Because by this standard, much of Eastern art cannot be
considered art. The ideal of art in a Zen context is for
the art to flow without conscious effort/sweat from the
artist, for the work to flow from inspiration to creation
in a stream. Haiku are composed spontaneously...calligraphy
is poured out, flowers are arranged in one go...are these
things not art?
The Trinker
The proper de-spammed address is
(kat at vincent dash tanaka dot com).
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Joyce Melton
I think David was just expressing part of what makes something art to
him. I don't think he was trying to talk about general rules.
As a poet who lives with a poet, I can say that poetry can be
spontaneous or it can be polished over a period of months or years or
it can be a bit of both. :)
And copying the work of a master can be art, otherwise why would a
song ever be sung twice since recording technology became available?
But again, I think David was just talking impressions he has of what
art is, not rules for everyone.
Joyce
Jette Goldie
The Trinker wrote in message
<29a4c404...@usw-ex0104-031.remarq.com>...
Of course it is art.
To me, too much *polishing* of a poem might spoil the
first emotional impact.
The *art* in art is often knowing where to stop!
Adam Littman
>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>
>>Correct. I have a phd camera (push here dummy). But AFAIAC the more accurately
>
>>an unposed photo represents what I would have seen with my one eyes had I been
>
>>there, the less likely it is to be art.
>
>It is pretty much impossible for a photo to really represent the live
>scene. Pigment on a flat surface cannot replicate the experience of
>perception of a three dimensional space.
Wink for a time, and the world becomes art?
Adam Littman
>And if it had been done without being posed? How do you know it was
>posed?
The stiffness of positioning and expression of the boxer's face, other
details. It was obviously not a candid shot.
Even "say cheese" takes it a bit into the artistic realm.
My main problem with it is that it just doesn't feel like art when I am taking
pictures. Not like the creation of a raytracing scene does. Not even to the
very limited extent that ballroom dancing feels like art. Or the slightly
greater extent that designing an elegant logic circuit does.
M Blaze Miskulin
>
> But in general... one would think that that which is being questioned whether
> it is art or not would have to be created.
Duchamp: 'found art' series.
He took objects which were utterly ordinary (a snow shovel, a comb, a
urinal) and placed them--as is--on a pedestal in a gallery. It was
art. Why? Because it was new (creative) and illicited an emotional
response; made people think. Everyone who did it after that was being
lazy.
--
M Blaze Miskulin
Winterborne Scenic Studios
http://www.winterborne-ss.com
Adam Littman
>Hi, Freyja
> That's where you get into the part about art being 5%
>inspiration and 95% perspiration. Anyone can get an
>inspiration to write a poem or snap a photo. That in itself
>doesn't always make it art. What makes it art is the
>deliberate manipulation of the medium and the subject matter
>so that something is created which did not exist before.
> Poets often hastily scribble a poem; that's the easy part.
>But then the poem has to be refined and polished many times
>before it is considered completed. That takes study,
>practice, and time spent learning the craft. It is not
>tossed off at an odd moment off the top of the head but is
>the result of dedication.
Very, very rarely a genius comes along who can do just that. Write a fully
orchestrated symphony off the top of his head or something.
But the ability to do spontaneous art at that level leaves us in awe. In a way
that the ability to point and shoot just doesn't.
Joyce Melton
>In article <0k96hs4904c7ldj3p...@4ax.com>, Joyce Melton <jo...@qnez.com> wrote:
>>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>>
>>>Correct. I have a phd camera (push here dummy). But AFAIAC the more accurately
>>
>>>an unposed photo represents what I would have seen with my one eyes had I been
>>
>>>there, the less likely it is to be art.
>>
>>It is pretty much impossible for a photo to really represent the live
>>scene. Pigment on a flat surface cannot replicate the experience of
>>perception of a three dimensional space.
>
>Wink for a time, and the world becomes art?
Do some reading, do some experimentation, find out. You keep spending
opinion on something you don't understand and making value judgements
about things that apparently don't make sense to you.
You keep making general value judgements and you just plain don't know
what you are talking about. I can't easily pull out pictures here and
show you what I mean. I can't hand you a camera and have you try
different ways of using it. I can't easily answer individual questions
step by step. Photography is pretty easy compared to, say, playing the
violin in that you can produce something pleasing in a lot fewer
lessons. But both can be art. Both can be bloody awful also.
Saying something that you don't understand isn't art just shows that
you don't understand it, it doesn't say anything about whether it is
art or not. Photography can be art and posing pictures can result in
artful photos and so can carrying a camera around waiting for the
right time and place to take a picture. Luck enters into it, luck
enters into a lot of art. But the artful photographer will produce
artful photographs in the same situation a shuttersnapper gets
snapshots. It's not tricks, its knowing and feeling and being right.
Ever pitch softball? That's an art too. Heck of a lot of luck
involved, though. Sometimes your best, most artful pitch goes flying
over the fence cause the girl at the plate is an artist too and she
was sitting on your best pitch waiting for it to make her art.
There's craft involved in almost all art. By craft I mean the
necessary skill for making art. But the craft and the art are
different things. Craft is knowing how, art is just knowing.
Craft is making that pitch, art is watching the ball go over the fence
and knowing how good the batter was.
Craft is how to drive the car, art is knowing you've reached your
destination.
Joyce
Joyce Melton
>My main problem with it is that it just doesn't feel like art when I am taking
>pictures. Not like the creation of a raytracing scene does. Not even to the
>very limited extent that ballroom dancing feels like art. Or the slightly
>greater extent that designing an elegant logic circuit does.
Now you have an insight! Congrats, I think you've got a bit of a
handle on it.
You aren't approaching the taking of pictures as an art. Doesn't mean
that when other people take photos they aren't being artful.
Joyce
The Trinker
al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>In article <hna6hsobb2oq9jod1...@4ax.com>, Joyce
Melton <jo...@qnez.com> wrote:
>
>>And if it had been done without being posed? How do you know
it was
>>posed?
>
>The stiffness of positioning and expression of the boxer's
face, other
>details. It was obviously not a candid shot.
>
>Even "say cheese" takes it a bit into the artistic realm.
>
when I am taking
>pictures. Not like the creation of a raytracing scene does. Not
even to the
>very limited extent that ballroom dancing feels like art. Or
the slightly
>greater extent that designing an elegant logic circuit does.
As I was attempting to explain before, when I take camera
into hand, sometimes I'm looking to make snapshots, sometimes
I'm looking to create art. Sometimes on the same roll of film!
Someone can use paints and brushes to create a sign saying,
"Lemonade, 5cents". Someone else can use those paints and
brushes to create "art".
Surely you've seen some truly awful raytracing that really
isn't art? Are raytraced corporate logos art?
Let's try thinking about it this way. A typewriter or computer
can be used to write business memos. It can also be used to
write great novels. The same person might use the same machine
to do both.
It's not the medium, it's the message.
The Trinker
decire...@aol.comnohormel (Deci Reynolds) wrote:
>In article <17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com>, The
Trinker
>
>>Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
>>is something which must take substantial time to create. He
>>seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>>
>>
>>
>
that my
>definition would have to be a piece of work that contains
intrinsic worth that
>exceeds the sum of its components.
>
>Now, there are definitely different levels of art, and this
definition only
>really works for me, but it seems to make sense... art is what
happens when the
>human soul interacts with objects in the material world.
>
>Deci, who is definitely aware that YMMV - heck, my own peculiar
form of art is
>shopping.
Deci! My goodness, when did you get back?!
I like your definition very much, and with your consent, I
think I'll use some of your thoughts the next time I'm asked
that question.
David Yehudah
You're right in the sense that the art produced by the Zen
influence is spontaneous, but you left out part of it. These are
not just amateur blurbs. Most true Eastern art, just like most
true Western art, is produced by masters of their craft after
years of study and practice.
That is as it should be, IMHO. An excellent work produced by an
untrained 'natural' is often more serendipity than skill and
dedication, sort of like finding a diamond in the ditch. True,
it's a diamond, but (1) they cannot count on finding a diamond
everytime they go to the ditch, and (2) they've really done
nothing to merit praise. The praise, the fame, the adulation
should be earned by the results of effort spent learning the
craft.
In another vein, mention has been made here of photography as
art. I offer the work of Ansel Adams as being both photography
and art. Doubtless there are many others.
Cheers,
Dave
David Yehudah
knows when to start. :-) After all, it is that artist's work, and
it is up to him to present it properly. If he fails, then the art
is a failure. That's the difference between a master and an
amateur. An amateur looks at what he has produced, and decides
that, since he is the artist, he has the last word on what he
intended to say or show. Pfffftttt! A master doesn't rest until
he considers the work to be the best he is capable of producing.
Occasionally even a rank beginner (and some of them are pretty
rank) will luck out and get it right the first time. That's luck,
not talent. When a master gets it right the first time, it is
because of the time spent mastering the craft.
I was copy editor for a newspaper for several years, and that was
the difference between the old pros and the cubs. The pros
thanked me for making their stories clearer or for catching
mistakes. Cubs would threaten to quit if I dared touch their
pathetic little blurbs. Yet getting feedback is the only way they
would ever master the craft.
Christopher Jahn
> My main problem with it is that it just doesn't feel like art when I am taking
> pictures.
Oh, I get it - it's not an art you are good at, so it's not art.
You are confusing the mechanism (the camera) for the artifact ( the
photograph.
Yes, any fool can point a camera and get a well-focused, properly
exposed film of a given scene. And you are right, such a photo,
while technically proficient, is not art.
But knowing *what* to take a photo of, learning how to be in the
right place at the right time, knowing which angle conveys an
emotional impact, knowing *exactly* how to create an exposure that
is unique, *that* is what makes art.
Xjahn
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
"The Wonder Twins had the right idea. I defy you to think of any
crisis situation that would not be vastly improved by the presence
of a gorilla with a bucket of water." Maraud
Christopher Jahn
>
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
> >
> > (p&e, as I don't appear through Remarq)
> >
> > The Trinker wrote:
> > >
> > > So...
> > >
> > > is something which must take substantial time to create. He
> > > seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
> > >
> > > What's *your* definition of ART?
> >
> >
> > Xjahn
>
> Could I ask - why a *specific* emotional response? I can see an
> emotional response - but it occurs to me that since the response is
> coloured by the life experience of the one responding, it must therefore
> vary from person to person.
>
> And what of those works that are designed to
> make you think/wonder about the subject?
If that is the intended reaction, then it is art. I did not state
that you can only bring about *one* emotion, just that the artist
should have a goal or direction. What is a sense of wonder if it is
not an emotion? Is curiosity not an emotion? Or concern? Even
irritation, or arousal, or hunger, or discomfort, or personal
reflection are all emotional responses.
Any one can cast out objects and hope that someone will have some
kind of response to it, and accept whatever happens. But the artist
learns how to reach beyond our personal perceptions and reach those
things we all recognize. That gifted artist doesn't take a
scattergun approach - the gifted artist knows how to make each work
hit home.
As an actor, I need the audience to be in a specific mood or frame
of mind for my words to have their fullest impact. No matter what
the audience feels, they hear the same words, the same information
is carried to their ears. But if I can get them into just the right
emotional state, those words have palpable effect, IMPACT, not mere
recognition of information.
no...@webtv.net
pleasurable experience to which the word "art" is applied?
--
Norton Shawn
. .. .. .. ..
Christopher Jahn
>
> The Trinker <katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:17a9a93e...@usw-ex0102-014.remarq.com...
>
>
> 'art' is the 'frame'. Someone, the artist, has
> simply decided to take a particular thing and
> present it to the audience as something to focus
> attention upon and experience.
This reminds me of a somemthing a painter of my acquaintance of mine
believes. Kevin James makes his living painting pictures.
He does not sell art. And he tells people this as he takes their
money.
"Art is a verb, not a noun. Art is the process of pulling the
images out of my head and putting them on canvass. See this? It's
great painting. I'm proud I painted it. It's unique, and it
touches you - but it ain't art. What I sell is what's left when the
art is over."
Then he'll finish it with "If I had any guts at all, I'd just gesso
over this painting, and use the canvass again and again. But I
gotta eat."
I don't know that I agree with Kevin. But it's a strong thought.
The Bouncing Beatnik
Sarah M Wheaton wrote ...
> The Bouncing Beatnik wrote:
> : The immediate answer that occured to me was:
> : "Any created thing that moves me in some way."
> :
> :
> : After thinking about it a bit, and I confess, looking through
> : some of the responses, I came up with:
> :
> : "Any medium that, through being perceived, changes the way that
> : means of perception is experienced."
> : In other words, when seeing a painting, I will see things differently,
> : even if the difference is minute, from then on. The same applies to
> : hearing music, reading (and hence thinking about) literature, etc.
> : That this definition allows for the possibility that a wonderful sunset
> : or a friend's face could be seen as art is just fine by me. :)
> :
> : The Bouncing Beatnik
>
>
>
>
> I prefer your first attempt! I think that element of creation is
> important in discarding things that are not art. This also draws in
> the definition of an art being a skill. The act of creation can be
> a pretty minimal sort of thing, such as the movement of a found object
> to a new place (eg. a rock to a Japanese garden) or the framing of
> a view by a well placed window.
>
> By this definition, your friend's smiling face is not art, but your
> photograph of it, be it ever so out-of-focus or overexposed, is.
Hmm. Admittedly, my second definition risks being overbroad. You could
modify it by changing the phrase "Any medium" into "Any created medium",
and I'd take no issue with it. What I do like about this definition, though,
is
that it speaks to the transformational nature of art. It seems to me that
art changes the one who perceives it, to varying degrees, for varying
lengths of time, whether that person is the artist, the viewer, or both.
You could say that I am who I am, experience things as I do, partially
because I have seen Rodin's 'The Thinker', heard Mozart's Requiem,
read White's Once and Future King, watched Bogart's Casablanca.
These works have changed me, given me, in lesser and greater ways,
a different way of viewing life.
It seems to me that the very personal quality of this effect might be
what makes it so hard for many of us to define art, since to define this
would seem to require defining oneself.
There, have I confused the issue sufficiently enough?
The Bouncing Beatnik,
whose other definition of Art would be:
"Sang 'Bridge Over Troubled Water' with Paul"
The Beatnik is currently confusing Art with Artifice at mwhutch<AT>hit.net
William Wright
<><> somebody said:
photo, no. Poem you have originality, photo you are plagiarizing the
scene the world set up for you
...well, that's a big OUCH!! for me. One of my hobbies is serious
photography. It's a fact that film cannot record what is really there.
If a person just aims and clicks and hopes, then it's not art.... but a
serious photographer knows that he (or she) is not going to put reality
on film, and therefore the serious photographer is making conscious
choices at every step along the way about what the photograph should say
and how to make the photograph say it. This qualifies photography as
art.
Communication, effort, conscious design, representation of emotion
for its own sake, and intent to evoke emotion for its own sake.
Every serious photographer gets into an argument eventually with a
painter or sculptor or writer as to whether photography is art or not.
Many bitter feelings. But it is art IMO.
Keith Merritt
to the various and sundry definitions of art. "It seems there are
areas of Art that I had never really considered. I know that when
*I* take a photo (snapshot,) it ain't Art... but I have seen
plenty of people, both amatuers and pros, who create Art with a
camera."
"I believe just about everyone who spoke here would agree
that films are Art (good, bad, or indifferent.) Adam, flims are
just a series of 'still' pictures -- if a series of stills can be
Art, then why not *one* picture of that series. And before you
say, 'films aren't real,' I ask, how about documentaries, such as
'Hoop Dreams'?"
"A question for the Patrons -- I broadcast sports
play-by-play on the radio. It's what I do best. I describe
activity that takes place in front of my four eyes, so that those
who are not there can visualize what's happening. It is both
entertainment and reportage. Is it Art?"
Keith Merritt
The GoodKnight Goaltender
Deci Reynolds
<katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> writes:
>Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
>is something which must take substantial time to create. He
>seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>
>What's *your* definition of ART?
>
>
I've been thinking about this for a while now. I'd have to say that my
mae...@bordeaux.enteract.com
Satin-gloved hands clap delicately in appreciation and a red rose is
strewn towards the shadows, a single petal drifting away to land on the
table.
maenad
--
____Anna________fun is good!_________BORDEAUX = spamblock____
The Wonder Twins had the right idea. I defy you to think of
any crisis situation that would not be vastly improved by the
presence of a gorilla with a bucket of water. <Maraud>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Schoenberg
: (p&e, as I don't appear through Remarq)
: The Trinker wrote:
:>
:> So...
:>
:> Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
:> is something which must take substantial time to create. He
:> seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
:>
:> What's *your* definition of ART?
: "Any work rendered to elicit a specific emotional response."
Banshee pauses for a moment, thinking. "Nearly every response I've seen
to this question contains emotional response as part of the definition.
"Yet, that doesn't exactly mesh with my experience. If nothing else, I've
often heard medicine referred to as an art as well as a science, and I
agree. Yet properly performed medical practice isn't rendered with the
purpose of eliciting a specific emotional response. The art is in the
act of combining knowledge, skill, and personal ability to create a whole
that is greater than the sum of it's parts - even someone with more
knowledge than God, and the best surgical skills of any living being, can
be a bad doctor, because they lack the ability to make it art.
"I can't define the passive experience of art in words. But for me, art is
something that, when I'm performing it, puts me in a mental state somewhere
outside of myself, making me more than what I am when I'm not doing it.
When I dance, or act, or perform surgery, what I'm experiencing transcends
emotion, to become something even more powerful and integral. *That*, to
me, is something that's unique to art."
-banshee, who knows that proper medicine can elicit emotional
responses, but feels that that is more of a side effect than a
purpose in and of itself
Freyja
Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:8evlt1$j26$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
| Very, very rarely a genius comes along who can do just that. Write a
fully
| orchestrated symphony off the top of his head or something.
|
| But the ability to do spontaneous art at that level leaves us in awe. In
a way
| that the ability to point and shoot just doesn't.
If you hadn't been told that a photo was just a fortuitous point-and-shoot,
how would you know that the shot hadn't been carefully planned as an art
form?
Answer: You likely can't tell.
--
Freyja the NurseWench
(de-spam e-mail)
http://pagina.de/eclecticeel
ICQ:9582706 AIM:FreyjaNurseWench
Boycott RemarQ!
Noah Singman
[respectful snippage]
> What's *your* definition of ART?
"I always liked the Objectivist definition, so I use that. Essentially, it
says that art is a selective recreation of reality according to the values
of the artist. So I see the term 'representational art' as redundant, and
'non-representational art' as oxymoronic."
Noah
Joyce Melton
> "A question for the Patrons -- I broadcast sports
>play-by-play on the radio. It's what I do best. I describe
>activity that takes place in front of my four eyes, so that those
>who are not there can visualize what's happening. It is both
>entertainment and reportage. Is it Art?"
It could be. Red Barber did and Vin Scully does make an art of it. :)
Joyce
ann...@mindspring.com
<xj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>This reminds me of a somemthing a painter of my acquaintance of mine
>believes. Kevin James makes his living painting pictures.
>
>He does not sell art. And he tells people this as he takes their
>money.
>"Art is a verb, not a noun. Art is the process of pulling the
>images out of my head and putting them on canvass. See this? It's
>great painting. I'm proud I painted it. It's unique, and it
>touches you - but it ain't art. What I sell is what's left when the
>art is over."
>
>Then he'll finish it with "If I had any guts at all, I'd just gesso
>over this painting, and use the canvass again and again. But I
>gotta eat."
>
>I don't know that I agree with Kevin. But it's a strong thought.
>
Yeah, as a part time painter (acrylic on canvas), I tend to resemble
those remarks.
My first paintings *were* painted over. They had served their moment,
even were exhibited exactly once, and then I painted over them, made
some other things happen...
And then my friends gave me a *very* stern talking to, and insisted
(in one case) on harboring my output, to keep me from *ever* doing it
again.
I dunno.
Most of the fun/excitement is in the painting, in the creation time.
It loses interest for me when it's done.(1)
Afterward everybody tries to crawl back into your head with you (and
maybe decide what the painting is *about*), and they can't. That WAS
the moment, and even I can't replicate it. It was a footstep into a
moving stream.
(1) I gave away a lot of my work. Sometimes as I painted, I
realized/knew the painting was meant for someone- kinda as a
healing/meditation piece. Sometimes I had no clue who the painting was
for. I always found some amusement in finding the *owners* of those
clue-less paintings. A few times, they turned out to be children,
which was kinda cool.<big happy grin>
___________________________
I believe in Everything
At the Source
and I believe in Nothing
At the Destination
--- lovely syncopated song sung by Elise Witt
Fax Paladin
> Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> news:8evlt1$j26$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
> | Very, very rarely a genius comes along who can do just that. Write a
> fully
> | orchestrated symphony off the top of his head or something.
> |
> | But the ability to do spontaneous art at that level leaves us in awe. In
> a way
> | that the ability to point and shoot just doesn't.
>
> If you hadn't been told that a photo was just a fortuitous point-and-shoot,
> how would you know that the shot hadn't been carefully planned as an art
> form?
>
> Answer: You likely can't tell.
The other thing with photos is: photographers very rarely take just one
picture and trust to luck. The photographers I work with shoot dozens of
pictures at any one event; a dozen of *one shot*. Choosing the one that works
is part of the art, along with how the shot was composed (where are the people
in the frame? Horizontal or vertical shot? Where is the focus? Experience in
these matters usually, BTW, increases vastly the chances you'll get "one that
works") and what you do to the photo in the darkroom/computer (including what
you'd call special effects, but also such matters as contrast, sharpness,
lightness/darkness, color correction, etc.).
And then sometimes it just happens. Being lucky doesn't make it not art.
(Though once again, you're likelier to be lucky with skill and experience.)
Fax
--
a"} HAVE PUN, WILL TRAVEL |jwa@play -- NEW COLUMN 2/18/00
/_\ Fax Paladin, Waco | http://members.aol.com/joewabbott
--------------------------
"It'll all work out." "HOW?!"
"I don't know -- it's a mystery."
Stoppard & Norman, "Shakespeare in Love"
Adam Littman
>Surely you've seen some truly awful raytracing that really
>isn't art? Are raytraced corporate logos art?
>
>Let's try thinking about it this way. A typewriter or computer
>can be used to write business memos. It can also be used to
>write great novels. The same person might use the same machine
>to do both.
>
>It's not the medium, it's the message.
Yeah, we agree on that part. But a raytracing, no matter how bad it is, gets
its content from the artist himself. As does a posed photo to a large extent.
The artist reshapes the environment to match his vision. For a point and click
picture the content comes from outside. The artist is documenting the
environment not reshaping it.
To me that use of a camera falls into the same category as "memo".
Adam Littman
>
>Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:8evlt1$j26$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>
>| Very, very rarely a genius comes along who can do just that. Write a
>fully
>| orchestrated symphony off the top of his head or something.
>|
>| But the ability to do spontaneous art at that level leaves us in awe. In
>a way
>| that the ability to point and shoot just doesn't.
>
>If you hadn't been told that a photo was just a fortuitous point-and-shoot,
>how would you know that the shot hadn't been carefully planned as an art
>form?
>
>Answer: You likely can't tell.
Can't tell whether a worn smooth rock is from a stream or a sculptor. The one
is not art the other is.
Adam Littman
>dung wrote:
>>
>
>> But in general... one would think that that which is being questioned whether
>> it is art or not would have to be created.
>
>Duchamp: 'found art' series.
>
>He took objects which were utterly ordinary (a snow shovel, a comb, a
>urinal) and placed them--as is--on a pedestal in a gallery. It was
>art. Why? Because it was new (creative) and illicited an emotional
>response; made people think. Everyone who did it after that was being
>lazy.
Uh, yeah. I think the art this guy perfected was the art of the con job.
Getting overbred idiots to pay huge prices for cast off junk is a kind of art,
but not a particularly admirable kind.
Joyce Melton
>For a point and click
>picture the content comes from outside. The artist is documenting the
>environment not reshaping it.
>
>To me that use of a camera falls into the same category as "memo".
But a photographic artist is doing much more than point and click. Why
do you keep saying this when you have had it pointed out over and over
that you are just plain wrong.
Joyce
K Johansson
The Trinker wrote:
> So...
>
> Adam Littman, in another thread, makes the statement that ART
> is something which must take substantial time to create. He
> seems to also feel that the ephemeral cannot be art.
>
> What's *your* definition of ART?
>
What is art? On reflection it is a very hard thing to pinpoint, and as it is
subjective I'm sure folk can argue what art is and isn't tell the cows come home
;>
My own personal definition keeps drifting around. My first response is that
something that is aesthetically pleasing to me is art, but really, art
encompasses more than eye candy. In one sense art is what the creator claims
it is, in an another it is what the viewer claims it is, but IMVHO it is a
communication between the artist and viewer via an object, music, dance, words,
etc. Just to put a twist on it, an object may not be an intended work of art
by its creator - objects do move across time, space, and cultures, losing
background connections of meaning and having new ones placed upon them by the
viewer.
Do any of these thoughts make any sense? as I said it's a hard term for me to
define.
- raven- having flashbacks to uni and glad there ain't going to be any marks for
this - or is there? - eeks!
Deci Reynolds
<katNO...@strigil.com.invalid> writes:
>Deci! My goodness, when did you get back?!
>
>I like your definition very much, and with your consent, I
>think I'll use some of your thoughts the next time I'm asked
>that question.
>
>
>
>The Trinker
Hey, Trinker!
The words are free (thanks for the compliment - I like your thoughts on it as
well), and I snuck in the back door when no one was looking. I'm hoping I can
stick around a little longer this time before real life intrudes... things seem
to have settled in nicely from the wedding, and life is back on an even keel.
I've got one more question to throw into the pot here (and try to confuse
definitions even further.) Is the question of "Is it art?" settled by the
viewer, or by the creator? In other words, can a piece of work be art if only
the creator knows it exists, or must a work be defined by those viewing it?
Deci, still rooting around in her cybertrunk, trying to find June's pearls
Freyja
| In article <E0LQ4.44137$R4.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Freyja"
<lkpa...@cannedmeat.home.com> wrote:
| >If you hadn't been told that a photo was just a fortuitous
point-and-shoot,
| >how would you know that the shot hadn't been carefully planned as an art
| >form?
| >
| >Answer: You likely can't tell.
|
| Can't tell whether a worn smooth rock is from a stream or a sculptor. The
one
| is not art the other is.
Which means you can't *prove* if it is art objectively. Perception of art
is subjective.
Adam Littman
The point in this one was not "photographic artists" but what one must do to
fall into that category, and point and click without filters or other input
doesn't qualify.
I will go along with the filters and fuzzies reaching the threshold of art.
But some people have been arguing that just "point and shoot" is also art if
you point and shoot the right thing that you had nothing to do with creating.
Somewhere I have a photo I took of the Mona Lisa. It is a photo of art but it
is not art itself.
Adam Littman
>
>Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
>news:8f0e64$sm1$7...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
>| In article <E0LQ4.44137$R4.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Freyja"
><lkpa...@cannedmeat.home.com> wrote:
>
>| >If you hadn't been told that a photo was just a fortuitous
>point-and-shoot,
>| >how would you know that the shot hadn't been carefully planned as an art
>| >form?
>| >
>| >Answer: You likely can't tell.
>|
>| Can't tell whether a worn smooth rock is from a stream or a sculptor. The
>one
>| is not art the other is.
>
That is what provinence is for.
Freyja
| In article <J1QQ4.44452$R4.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Freyja"
<lkpa...@cannedmeat.home.com> wrote:
| >
| >Which means you can't *prove* if it is art objectively. <snip>
|
| That is what provinence is for.
Which can't always be proven either.
Art is subjectively perceived.
Joyce Melton
>In article <68g7hsk8rjvmh7m2s...@4ax.com>, Joyce Melton <jo...@qnez.com> wrote:
>>al...@nospam.cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>>
>>>For a point and click
>>>picture the content comes from outside. The artist is documenting the
>>>environment not reshaping it.
>>>
>>>To me that use of a camera falls into the same category as "memo".
>>
>>But a photographic artist is doing much more than point and click. Why
>>do you keep saying this when you have had it pointed out over and over
>>that you are just plain wrong.
>
>The point in this one was not "photographic artists" but what one must do to
>fall into that category, and point and click without filters or other input
>doesn't qualify.
>
>I will go along with the filters and fuzzies reaching the threshold of art.
>But some people have been arguing that just "point and shoot" is also art if
>you point and shoot the right thing that you had nothing to do with creating.
Yes, people have been saying that because it is true. That you don't
understand it doesn't make it less true. That you persist in denying
that it could be true when you admit you know little about photography
is arrogance.
Several people have explained this to you. Your responses have been
nil, tangential or irrelevant as below.
>
>Somewhere I have a photo I took of the Mona Lisa. It is a photo of art but it
>is not art itself.
Irrelevant because it is clearly not what is being talked about.
Art that you don't understand may nevertheless be art. Don't distort
what I just said as you typically have. I didn't say that everything
labelled art is art.
I'm talking specifics here. There are photographic artists who can
take a plastic-lensed, preloaded cardboard camera out on the street
shoot a roll of candid, landscape or stilllife photos on a walk
through the city or woodland, have it developed by Kodak labs and
produce artistic results. That you don't believe it doesn't change the
fact.
Saw a woman climb a rockface that had a 20'foot deep nearly horizontal
overhang. I couldn't do it, but she did. No tools except powder on her
bare hands and feet, no safety line, more than a hundred foot drop
below her.
That was art, too. Crazy art, but art.
Joyce
denaldo
<A little bar conversation snipped>
> I've got one more question to throw into the pot here (and try to confuse
> definitions even further.) Is the question of "Is it art?" settled by the
> viewer, or by the creator? In other words, can a piece of work be art if only
> the creator knows it exists, or must a work be defined by those viewing it?
>
> Deci, still rooting around in her cybertrunk, trying to find June's pearls
Arts is arts. It exists independently of its creator or its viewers. If you
have
created something that (paraphrasing you here, I liked your definition too)
has an aesthetic value that transcends the sum of its intrinsic parts, then it
is art whether you or any of its viewers realize it or not. (thank you, IMO.
you can put me back on the barstool now).
--
Denaldo aka Dennis M. Dillow ddi...@flash.net
"Onward, through the fog." Oat Willie
denaldo
< serious discussion snipped so I can get right to the bad humor>
> Somewhere I have a photo I took of the Mona Lisa. It is a photo of art but it
> is not art itself.
>
> --
>
I have a java image of the Mona Lisa that bares its breasts when you click on it.
Now, there's art. whoo hoo! Hubba hubba!
ARCmage
not art, it is a *work of art*. Look it up in the dictionary. Art, when
used as a noun, means something very similar to skill. As in the art of
chosing the correct word, or the art of war.
You can have the art of creating a painting, but the painting itself is not
art.
--
Sin(The ARCmage)
------------------------------
1
jhe...@my-deja.com
Christopher Jahn <xj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> This reminds me of a somemthing a painter of my acquaintance of mine
> believes. Kevin James makes his living painting pictures.
>
> He does not sell art. And he tells people this as he takes their
> money.
> "Art is a verb, not a noun. Art is the process of pulling the
> images out of my head and putting them on canvass. See this? It's
> great painting. I'm proud I painted it. It's unique, and it
> touches you - but it ain't art. What I sell is what's left when the
> art is over."
>
> Then he'll finish it with "If I had any guts at all, I'd just gesso
> over this painting, and use the canvass again and again. But I
> gotta eat."
>
I think that applies to architecture, at least as I do it. I'm excited
by the process, and I want to know if my solutions work for my clients,
but the actual finished building doesn't mean much to me. There are
some I've never even seen! God knows, I've never _owned_ them.
It's funny, but I think the owner/architect contract even recognizes
this -- my plans and specifications are "instruments of service," not a
product that I'm selling.
Architecture is a verb.
--
Jim
"I am but mad north-northwest: when the wind is southerly I know a
hawk from a handsaw."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Christopher Jahn
>
> In article <J1QQ4.44452$R4.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Freyja" <lkpa...@cannedmeat.home.com> wrote:
> >
> >Adam Littman <al...@nospam.cornell.edu> wrote in message
> >| In article <E0LQ4.44137$R4.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Freyja"
> ><lkpa...@cannedmeat.home.com> wrote:
> >
> >| >If you hadn't been told that a photo was just a fortuitous
> >point-and-shoot,
> >| >how would you know that the shot hadn't been carefully planned as an art
> >| >form?
> >| >
> >| >Answer: You likely can't tell.
> >|
> >| Can't tell whether a worn smooth rock is from a stream or a sculptor. The
> >one
> >| is not art the other is.
> >
>
> That is what provinence is for.
And yet again Mr Littman demonstrates his complete ignorance of the
topic he is discussing.
Provenance proves that a work was rendered by a specific artist, and
is intended to defeat forgers. Provenance has nothing to do with
deciding whether the object IS art.
But heck, Adam has never let facts interfere with his ignorance
before.
Xjahn
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Christopher Jahn
>
> On Fri, 05 May 2000 22:20:48 -0700, Christopher Jahn
> <xj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >images out of my head and putting them on canvass. See this? It's
> >great painting. I'm proud I painted it. It's unique, and it
> >touches you - but it ain't art. What I sell is what's left when the
> >art is over."
> >
> even were exhibited exactly once, and then I painted over them, made
> some other things happen...
Ahh, TRUE art!
> (1) I gave away a lot of my work. Sometimes as I painted, I
> realized/knew the painting was meant for someone- kinda as a
> healing/meditation piece. Sometimes I had no clue who the painting was
> for. I always found some amusement in finding the *owners* of those
> clue-less paintings. A few times, they turned out to be children,
> which was kinda cool.<big happy grin>
More proof of art. Wonderful!
William Wright
But some people have been arguing that just "point and shoot" is also
art if you point and shoot the right thing that you had nothing to do
a photo of art but it is not art itself.
True, your photograph is not art. But mine would be. <smile>
But here's a slightly different example. Suppose I'm crouched with
my camera near the Blazer's basket during the final game of the
playoffs. The score is 120-120. As the crowd roars, Scotty Pippen
comes thundering down the court, leaps, spins 360 degrees and .....
puts the puck into the net !!!
My photograph is going to be a great one if I release the shutter
at exactly the right moment, or it will be a dud if I don't.
If I get it right, did I do art even though the camera's auto
functions helped me out a little bit?
peremptorius
>
> Joyce Melton wrote:
> >You are still demonstrating that you don't know anything much about
> >photographic art.
>
> Correct.
peremptorius is amazed at the presumption of the adam to argue the
finer points of a subject about which it admits it has little, if
any knowledge.
peremptorius is amused that they who must be taught would argue with
a creature that can only offer its own opinion with little
supporting evidence. peremptorius imagines the adam would argue
about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
|||/
peremptorius
>
> In article <ZmFQ4.43945$R4.2...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Freyja" <lkpa...@cannedmeat.home.com> wrote:
>
> >Even though the photo evokes a reaction in the beholder? The scene was
> >there, it was perfect, I snapped it. No special effects whatsoever, other
> >than what nature provided. All I did was line it up and click, 3 seconds
> >elapsed. And it is published and attributed to me.
>
> Then it is luck and a bit of skill but not art. No creativity on your part
> went into it. Had anyone else with the same equipment been there they would
> have gotten the same shot.
peremptorius notes that the adam is rather more stupid than
peremptorius first assumed.
peremptorius reminds they who must be taught about a game called
'eyewitness'. a group of they who must be taught are exposed to a
person commiting an action. then each of they who must be taught
are asked to describe what they have just seen.
they invariably have many different recollections of events.
peremptorius notes that all living beings individually percieve the
world differently than any other individual living being.
two creatures standing on the same spot using the same camera under
identical conditions will thus take two different photographs
the art of photography is in the framing of the photograph, and the
context given to the content therein.
peremptorus further notes that art is a process and not a product.
|||/
peremptorius
>
> My main problem with it is that it just doesn't feel like art when I am taking
> pictures.
peremptorius notes that perhaps it isn't art when the adam thing
takes photos.
peremptorius notes the presumption of any creature dictating the
perceptions of others based on its own shortcomings.
|||/
The Bouncing Beatnik
peremptorius wrote
> peremptorius notes that all living beings individually percieve the
> world differently than any other individual living being.
>
> two creatures standing on the same spot using the same camera under
> identical conditions will thus take two different photographs
>
A significant part of the art of photography, I'd think, is the ability
to see the elements of a good photograph, and act upon them, when
another person might see nothing of interest. That's why a good photo
can startle us; it directs the eye in a way we hadn't before conceived.
YMMV, naturally.
The Bouncing Beatnik
peremptorius
>
> That is what provinence is for.
>
peremptorius must correct the one who must taught: provenance is to
verify the orgin of an object, not its nature.
peremptorus finds a useful reference at Sothebys.com:
Provenance
The history of ownership of the property being sold. This can be an
important part of the authentication process as it establishes the
chain of ownership back (if possible) to the time the piece was
made.
An interesting provenance can add to the a piece's value
peremptorius graciously posts a full url:
http://sothebys.com/help/ref/ref_liveterms.html#c9
peremptorius gently suggests that perhaps the adam thing should
educate itself before offering ill informed statements in a public
debate.
|||/
peremptorius
>
> Some good art is shocking, not everything shocking is good art. Some of it is
> just tacky and lazy. Counting on people not to say "the emperor has no
> clothes" for fear of being labled uncultured.
peremptorius notes that the adam who must be taught should not
confuse "being uncultured" with having "clarity of vision".
peremptorius notes that while the emperor wore no clothes, what one
does or does not wear can still be a fashion statement.
|||/
peremptorius
>
> , redneck wrote:
> >The only qualifying factor in determining art is the creative act.
>
> Serial killers are pretty creative at times. Does that make it art?
peremptorius notes that there is no evidence to suggest it is not,
and wonders 'what of it?'
peremptorius notes that there are many times in the history of those
who must be taught when certain kinds of art were proscribed.
peremptorius further notes that recognizing an art form is not the
same as approving of it.
|||/
peremptorius
>
> Getting overbred idiots to pay huge prices for cast off junk is a kind of art,
> but not a particularly admirable kind.
peremptorius notes that this discussion was spawned when the adam
who must be taught proclaimed that an artist was remiss in not
allowing others to use his ideas to make money for themselves,
through the perversion of that artist's ideals.
peremptorius can find no distinction between the earlier argument
and the current one, but notes the adam who must be taught holds
this current argument in disdain.
peremptorius notes that the adam who must be taught is remarkably
inconsistent in its consistent proclamations.
|||/
Martin Evans
naked women wrestling in six colors of paint on a canvas is art.
"...one mustn't criticize other people on grounds where he can't stand
perpendicular himself."
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court