URL: Janitor mistakenly tosses "Art"
Lee S. Billings
Hirst, having mistaken it for rubbish.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
(includes a picture of the work in question)
IMO, the cleaner's artistic statement was more profound than the "artist's".
Celine
--
"Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring."
-- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_
John Barnstead
: A cleaner at a London gallery cleared away an installation by artist Damien
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
: (includes a picture of the work in question)
: IMO, the cleaner's artistic statement was more profound than the "artist's".
: Celine
Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat, as might be expected, takes
exception to Celine's liberal use of quotation marks in her post. "My
dear, it *pains* me to be *provoked* into violating the letter of the
Allabout concerning criticizing another Patron's punctuation... Of course,
I *did* spend some years as the Patron Feline of the Nova Scotia College
of Art and Design, founded by Anna Leonowens (Pernicious the Musquodoboit
Harbour Farm Cat's faithful amanuensis and general factotum begins to hum
"Getting to Know You" -- "Yes, Barnstead, *that* Anna Leonowens -- why,
without *her* Yul Brenner would *never* have attained the sort of star
status that allows you to tape an anti-smoking public service message
before you shuffle off this mortal coil..."), and, I might add, a *hotbed*
of Conceptualism during the late 1960s and early 1970s, and this *may*
have had some *slight* influence on my purr-ception of these sorts of
stories."
"What sort of stories do you mean, Pernicious?" Pernicious the
Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat's faithful amanuensis and general
factotum queries sweetly. *He*, by the way, agrees with dear Celine's
evaluation of that rubbish heap *completely*...
"Oh, *you* know, Barnstead: those scandalized reporters who are frankly
shocked, just *shocked* that the National Gallery of Canada would shell
out 1.76 million dollars to acquire Barnett Newman's "Voice of Fire" [you
can see the painting and read a little bit about *that* little controversy
in a broader historical context at the following URL:
http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm ], or folks who
found Andy Warhol's soup cans or Marilyn Monroe portraits to be "Art"
rather than Art. "Epater les bourgeoises" has always been one of the more
amusing aspects of doing art -- stories like the one our friend Celine
has kindly brought to the attention of the Patronage-at-Large are in
*my* opinion based on the highly incongruous interrelationship of Art and
Money. It would be instructive to observe the casual way painters treat
their works when bringing them *to* the Zwicker Gallery down on Doyle
street with the extreme care taken by collectors when taking them
*away*... What mysterious alchemy is practiced behind those gallery doors
that produces such *marked* changes in human behaviour, I used to ask
myself (in the days when I *concerned* myself with the vagaries of human
behaviour). I think monsieur Damien Hirst is *quite* level-headed about
the whole thing, judging by the account given by the BBC. The *real*
artistic pretentiousness is demonstrated by the structure of the
*reporter's* story: say, for example, the *presuppositions* underlying the
following little passage: "The cleaner has not lost his job." -- I shall
leave the exploration of *this* aspect of the affair to those among the
Patronage-at-Large with the stomach for it...
"My *own* feeling, although I haven't really formulated it properly, is
that these controversies arise because people mistake the products of art
for art. The art isn't the particular painting, or sculpture, or
symphony, or poem -- the art is that fuzzy something that has taken place
in the mind and soul of the artist in the act of creation. What most
people *take* for the art is just the foam from the ripples it leaves in
its wake as it sails on by... Think of how ridiculous it would be for
folks to judge the quality of their lovemaking by the talents of whatever
little brat they engendered by means of it, and that, I think, will make
my point a bit clearer..."
Bill Gawne
> Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat, as might be expected, takes
> exception to Celine's liberal use of quotation marks in her post.
[snip of the Cat's Opinions...]
"Hey, John!" Bill calls out. "I think Pernicious has been smoking
the catnip again."
--
Bill Gawne, in Callahan's as in real life. <ga...@abs.net>
Astronomer at Large - Retired Master Sergeant USMCR - Nothing I
post represents an official position of any organization.
On the web: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~gawne
Lee S. Billings
>
>Lee S. Billings (stard...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: A cleaner at a London gallery cleared away an installation by artist Damien
>: Hirst, having mistaken it for rubbish.
>
>:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
>: (includes a picture of the work in question)
>
>: IMO, the cleaner's artistic statement was more profound than the "artist's".
>
>: Celine
>
>Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat, as might be expected, takes
>exception to Celine's liberal use of quotation marks in her post.
<looks back at posted material>
This must be a definition of "liberal" with which I was not previously
familiar... unless, of course, you've taken up J.Otto's habit of applying the
term uniformly to anyone with whom you disagree.
<ruthless snip in search of content>
>"My *own* feeling, although I haven't really formulated it properly, is
>that these controversies arise because people mistake the products of art
>for art. The art isn't the particular painting, or sculpture, or
>symphony, or poem -- the art is that fuzzy something that has taken place
>in the mind and soul of the artist in the act of creation. What most
>people *take* for the art is just the foam from the ripples it leaves in
>its wake as it sails on by...
Well, at this point I think we can agree to disagree. With the exception of the
category of "performance art", I do not agree with your definition, but I can
understand the process by which you derive it.
lotsmor...@excite.com
Barnstead) may have said:
>Lee S. Billings (stard...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: A cleaner at a London gallery cleared away an installation by artist Damien
>: Hirst, having mistaken it for rubbish.
>
>: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
>: (includes a picture of the work in question)
>
>: IMO, the cleaner's artistic statement was more profound than the "artist's".
>
>: Celine
>
>Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat, as might be expected, takes
>exception to Celine's liberal use of quotation marks in her post.
[Werehatrack turns, wearing a vertically striped black-and-white shirt
and a black baseball cap, tosses a small weighted square of yellow
fabric in front of Pernicious, and blows his whistle.]
"Five post penalty, inability to recognize that a single pair of
double quote marks used for emphasis in a sentence does not constitute
excessive puncutation." [a brief discussion ensues during which it is
pointed out that there was a pair of quote marks in the subject as
well; objection overruled on consultation with the other officials,
and the objector warned to get some breath mints or cut back on the
limburger and garlic spread.]
>"My
>dear, it *pains* me to be *provoked* into violating the letter of the
>Allabout concerning criticizing another Patron's punctuation...
[an admission against interest; Your Statements Are Being Taken Down.]
>Of course,
>I *did* spend some years as the Patron Feline of the Nova Scotia College
>of Art and Design, founded by Anna Leonowens (Pernicious the Musquodoboit
>Harbour Farm Cat's faithful amanuensis and general factotum begins to hum
>"Getting to Know You" -- "Yes, Barnstead, *that* Anna Leonowens -- why,
>without *her* Yul Brenner would *never* have attained the sort of star
>status that allows you to tape an anti-smoking public service message
>before you shuffle off this mortal coil..."), and, I might add, a *hotbed*
>of Conceptualism during the late 1960s and early 1970s, and this *may*
>have had some *slight* influence on my purr-ception of these sorts of
>stories."
[The penalty flag flies again.] "Warning to player for exceeding
quota of asterisks in a single paragraph; subsequent violations may
cause subject to have the next round on him."
>"What sort of stories do you mean, Pernicious?" Pernicious the
>Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat's faithful amanuensis and general
>factotum queries sweetly. *He*, by the way, agrees with dear Celine's
>evaluation of that rubbish heap *completely*...
[zebra-shirted Werehatrack nods.]
>"Oh, *you* know, Barnstead: those scandalized reporters who are frankly
>shocked, just *shocked* that the National Gallery of Canada would shell
>out 1.76 million dollars to acquire Barnett Newman's "Voice of Fire" [you
>can see the painting and read a little bit about *that* little controversy
>in a broader historical context at the following URL:
>http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm ], or folks who
>found Andy Warhol's soup cans or Marilyn Monroe portraits to be "Art"
>rather than Art. "Epater les bourgeoises" has always been one of the more
>amusing aspects of doing art -- stories like the one our friend Celine
>has kindly brought to the attention of the Patronage-at-Large are in
>*my* opinion based on the highly incongruous interrelationship of Art and
>Money. It would be instructive to observe the casual way painters treat
>their works when bringing them *to* the Zwicker Gallery down on Doyle
>street with the extreme care taken by collectors when taking them
>*away*... What mysterious alchemy is practiced behind those gallery doors
>that produces such *marked* changes in human behaviour, I used to ask
>myself (in the days when I *concerned* myself with the vagaries of human
>behaviour). I think monsieur Damien Hirst is *quite* level-headed about
>the whole thing, judging by the account given by the BBC. The *real*
>artistic pretentiousness is demonstrated by the structure of the
>*reporter's* story: say, for example, the *presuppositions* underlying the
>following little passage: "The cleaner has not lost his job." -- I shall
>leave the exploration of *this* aspect of the affair to those among the
>Patronage-at-Large with the stomach for it...
[one eyebrow of the zebra-shirted one goes up as he counts and confers
with the other officials, then the flag flies again.] "Repeated
overuse of asterisks, one round on the cat and loss of dignity for
five minutes."
Unknown
Barnstead) may have said:
>Lee S. Billings (stard...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>: A cleaner at a London gallery cleared away an installation by artist Damien
>: Hirst, having mistaken it for rubbish.
>
>: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
>: (includes a picture of the work in question)
>
>: IMO, the cleaner's artistic statement was more profound than the "artist's".
>
>: Celine
>
>Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat, as might be expected, takes
>exception to Celine's liberal use of quotation marks in her post.
[Werehatrack turns, wearing a vertically striped black-and-white shirt
and a black baseball cap, tosses a small weighted square of yellow
fabric in front of Pernicious, and blows his whistle.]
"Five post penalty, inability to recognize that a single pair of
double quote marks used for emphasis in a sentence does not constitute
excessive puncutation." [a brief discussion ensues during which it is
pointed out that there was a pair of quote marks in the subject as
well; objection overruled on consultation with the other officials,
and the objector warned to get some breath mints or cut back on the
limburger and garlic spread.]
>"My
>dear, it *pains* me to be *provoked* into violating the letter of the
>Allabout concerning criticizing another Patron's punctuation...
[an admission against interest; Your Statements Are Being Taken Down.]
>Of course,
>I *did* spend some years as the Patron Feline of the Nova Scotia College
>of Art and Design, founded by Anna Leonowens (Pernicious the Musquodoboit
>Harbour Farm Cat's faithful amanuensis and general factotum begins to hum
>"Getting to Know You" -- "Yes, Barnstead, *that* Anna Leonowens -- why,
>without *her* Yul Brenner would *never* have attained the sort of star
>status that allows you to tape an anti-smoking public service message
>before you shuffle off this mortal coil..."), and, I might add, a *hotbed*
>of Conceptualism during the late 1960s and early 1970s, and this *may*
>have had some *slight* influence on my purr-ception of these sorts of
>stories."
[The penalty flag flies again.] "Warning to player for exceeding
quota of asterisks in a single paragraph; subsequent violations may
cause subject to have the next round on him."
>"What sort of stories do you mean, Pernicious?" Pernicious the
>Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat's faithful amanuensis and general
>factotum queries sweetly. *He*, by the way, agrees with dear Celine's
>evaluation of that rubbish heap *completely*...
[zebra-shirted Werehatrack nods.]
>"Oh, *you* know, Barnstead: those scandalized reporters who are frankly
>shocked, just *shocked* that the National Gallery of Canada would shell
>out 1.76 million dollars to acquire Barnett Newman's "Voice of Fire" [you
>can see the painting and read a little bit about *that* little controversy
>in a broader historical context at the following URL:
>http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm ], or folks who
>found Andy Warhol's soup cans or Marilyn Monroe portraits to be "Art"
>rather than Art. "Epater les bourgeoises" has always been one of the more
>amusing aspects of doing art -- stories like the one our friend Celine
>has kindly brought to the attention of the Patronage-at-Large are in
>*my* opinion based on the highly incongruous interrelationship of Art and
>Money. It would be instructive to observe the casual way painters treat
>their works when bringing them *to* the Zwicker Gallery down on Doyle
>street with the extreme care taken by collectors when taking them
>*away*... What mysterious alchemy is practiced behind those gallery doors
>that produces such *marked* changes in human behaviour, I used to ask
>myself (in the days when I *concerned* myself with the vagaries of human
>behaviour). I think monsieur Damien Hirst is *quite* level-headed about
>the whole thing, judging by the account given by the BBC. The *real*
>artistic pretentiousness is demonstrated by the structure of the
>*reporter's* story: say, for example, the *presuppositions* underlying the
>following little passage: "The cleaner has not lost his job." -- I shall
>leave the exploration of *this* aspect of the affair to those among the
>Patronage-at-Large with the stomach for it...
[one eyebrow of the zebra-shirted one goes up as he counts and confers
Unknown
I cut the wrong thing and pasted it without looking; there has been a
definite surplus in the foulup capacitor charging of late.
John Barnstead
: Well, at this point I think we can agree to disagree. With the
: exception of the
: category of "performance art", I do not agree with your definition,
: but I can
: understand the process by which you derive it.
"Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is, and indicate briefly
just what it is about works such as those indicated in Celine's URL
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
that would exclude them from being considered to be Art, if in fact in
*your* opinion monsieur Damien Hirt's installation is *not* Art.
Thanks very much!" says Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat's
faithful amanuensis and general factotum.
Jim Hetley
>
> "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
> Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is, and indicate briefly
> just what it is about works such as those indicated in Celine's URL
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
>
>
> that would exclude them from being considered to be Art, if in fact in
> *your* opinion monsieur Damien Hirt's installation is *not* Art.
>
Well, my definition of "art" requires that it touch my emotions, for
either good or ill. The "installation" fails to do this, at least
from the limited viewpoint of a 'net URL. It leaves me totally
indifferent -- as if it was, indeed, no more than a tabletop in need
of cleanup. I can produce those in quantity, with little or no
effort.
Jim
Erick Vermillion-Salsbury
John Barnstead wrote:
> "...I wonder if I could ask the Patronage-at-Large what *their*
> definition of Art is..."
This question seems to come up every year or so; I'll restate my
position to provide a jumping-off point, if nothing else.
I believe that if someone's willing to point at it and say, "That's
art!" ...then it is.
Not necessarily *good* art, mind you, but for somebody, somewhere, it
provides them food for thought.
This leads me to Rick's Corollary: Just because someone points at it and
says, "That isn't art!" ... they're not necessarily correct. And my
definitions of "art" and "religion" are identical.
Regards,
Rick
--
Erick Vermillion-Salsbury, graphic artist
http://www.concentric.net/~erick/
Lynn Allen
> "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
> Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is, and indicate briefly
> just what it is about works such as those indicated in Celine's URL
I think I agree with Celine.
Art is a verb.
The only possible definition of art is as an act of creation. "It was
art when I made it" is a profoundly true statement. It's a state of
being or expressing for the creator...identifiable objects, performances
or effects which persist after the act are elements of communication
with the future which may please or be required by either audience or
artist...but are NOT NECESSARY to define the act of creating art.
If I paint, but destroy every painting before anyone else sees it, I'm
still an artist.
Art as a noun is as slippery in concept as love. There can be NO
universally true definition of perceived art....people, cultures and
perceptions are too different (vive la difference!).
Even with most of us here sharing a common Western culture, we cannot
agree what is art, what is craft, what is crap.
As someone who produces art in the form of quilted pieces, I've
struggled long and hard with these concepts. I know the difference
between making a comfort object which is quilted...and making an art
quilt. But the rest of the world may never perceive the difference.
It was art when I made it.....*I* know the difference. Whether you (the
rest of the world you) agree is irrelevant.
Lymaree
Sea Wasp
> "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
> Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is,
"Hm. I don't think I could define it. I could say fairly easily
whether any given piece of something called "art" seemed to have any
meaning to me, and, if told the meaning someone else saw in it,
whether I could understand why they attached such a meaning to it, but
other than that, no. The works in question are meaningless to me -- I
would have cleared the pile of junk away myself, and wouldn't notice
whether the re-creation of it was accurate or not without before-after
pictures to work from."
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Lee S. Billings
>"Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
>Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is, and indicate briefly
>just what it is about works such as those indicated in Celine's URL
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
>
>
>that would exclude them from being considered to be Art, if in fact in
>*your* opinion monsieur Damien Hirt's installation is *not* Art.
I can tell you what my personal definition of art is, at least WRT the visual
arts. Actually, I have two...
1) Applies to painting & drawing, sculpture, etc. Since I have absolutely ZERO
talent in any of these areas, if *I* could reproduce it, it's not art. I
realize that this is a quirky and extremely personal definition, not terribly
useful to anyone else, but it's one of the things I use for evaluation. This is
also one of the reasons I don't think the item in question is art. Anybody can
pile a bunch of garbage together and call it a sculpture, but that doesn't make
it one.
2) On a more general (and more useful) level, art requires the use of both
talent and training. I am starting to make jewelry, but I don't yet consider
myself to be a "jewelry artist" because I'm still in the training stage, trying
to develop the skills to do it well. No matter how much raw talent a person
has, it still needs to be focused and practiced. This includes self-teaching;
I'm not saying that a person can *only* be an artist by taking Approved
Courses. But the training, or the practice, does need to happen somehow. As a
corollary, I will also note that all the training in the world will not make
someone an artist who does not have *some* spark of talent. I'm sure everyone
here has seen a few examples -- people whose work, though technically fine,
shows no evidence of creativity or imagination.
This seems like a good place to quote sticker #504:
"The fact that no one understands you does NOT make you an Artist."
"John ...@oemcomputer.foo.bar
In article <3BD1CF...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp wrote:
>John Barnstead wrote:
>> "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
>> Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is,
> "Hm. I don't think I could define it. I could say fairly easily
>whether any given piece of something called "art" seemed to have any
>meaning to me, and, if told the meaning someone else saw in it,
>whether I could understand why they attached such a meaning to it, but
>other than that, no. The works in question are meaningless to me -- I
>would have cleared the pile of junk away myself, and wouldn't notice
>whether the re-creation of it was accurate or not without before-after
>pictures to work from."
So, it's defined sort of the same way as pornography?
:-)
- --John "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" Kelsey
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1 Int.
iQCVAwUBO9Ia00Hx57Ag8goBAQEkMAP+J7yoVCIuUYAEiFgUqmP0V9nX3uI5YrBM
FOVM5aCQk83RXo/DrYkpkvY7yIyVeObP3i6xK1ilZReALjvY/DvEYckr+8Kf4n6C
+N1JjYh5ykFXuY+RZyUnBfmjzz0PETwngj5+68RaVLtWaWuBdAnTBEkwoVuy5tBz
RmO2THDHxV0=
=stML
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sam Robinson
"John Barnstead" <user...@is.dal.ca> wrote in message
news:9qrot4$pja$1...@News.Dal.Ca...
> Lee S. Billings (stard...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
> : Well, at this point I think we can agree to disagree. With the
> : exception of the
> : category of "performance art", I do not agree with your definition,
> : but I can
> : understand the process by which you derive it.
>
> "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
> Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is, and indicate briefly
> just what it is about works such as those indicated in Celine's URL
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.s
tm
>
>
> that would exclude them from being considered to be Art, if in fact in
> *your* opinion monsieur Damien Hirt's installation is *not* Art.
>
SamR looks over at John and says "I've always considered Art to be
communication. This lets me look at the display mentioned and allow that it
might be art, but IMHO, it's not effective art. You might notice that I've
avoided a value judgement about the art, I've hated art I found effective,
and I've thought some things that I didn't feel communicated a message at
all were pretty. Now there are artistic endevors that I've found just plain
silly, and some of them were pure drivel, but as long as there was intent,
it was art."
SamR
Who spent the last few hours playing at art with his woodworking tools. The
message was "Walnut is pretty".
David C. Kifer
>
> I can tell you what my personal definition of art is, at least WRT the visual
> arts. Actually, I have two...
> 2) On a more general (and more useful) level, art requires the use of both
> talent and training. I am starting to make jewelry, but I don't yet consider
> myself to be a "jewelry artist" because I'm still in the training stage, trying
> to develop the skills to do it well. No matter how much raw talent a person
> has, it still needs to be focused and practiced. This includes self-teaching;
> I'm not saying that a person can *only* be an artist by taking Approved
> Courses. But the training, or the practice, does need to happen somehow. As a
> corollary, I will also note that all the training in the world will not make
> someone an artist who does not have *some* spark of talent. I'm sure everyone
> here has seen a few examples -- people whose work, though technically fine,
> shows no evidence of creativity or imagination.
>
> This seems like a good place to quote sticker #504:
> "The fact that no one understands you does NOT make you an Artist."
Celine's second reason, in different words, by a different writer:
"Because two things are needed to create anything -- say, a great
painting. The concept, which is the art of it, and the skill with
colors and brush that's the craft behind its making. To have a great
dream is one thing. To execute it in real elements calls for a skill
with all the elements involved; and that requires knowledge."
-- Gordon R. Dickson _The Chantry Guild_
"..Here were the artifacts of creativity. But they were strangely
lacking in some invisible element he could not put a mental finger
on. Then, it came to him. Where were the souls that had created these
things? It was strange. You could follow the creation of a piece of
art or discovery down through the levels of the craft that made it
actual and real. But only up to a certain point. Then you came suddenly
to a gap, a quantum jump, beyond which the work became wholly the
product of the individual who did it -- no one else could have done it
just that way -- and there was no more craft bridge there to explain
the uniqueness of what you saw, heard, or felt. Beyond was simply
incomparable, irreplaceable, individual talent made manifest, the
essence of creativity itself at work, as if it were magic."
-- Gordon R. Dickson _The Chantry Guild_
"But you know why it appears in the real universe. You can watch it
being painted."
"No," said Hal, "What you watch are materials of various colors
being applied to an even, vertical surface. When do you see the painter
put into the painting whatever it is that makes those colors have a
profound emotional effect on you?"
-- Gordon R. Dickson _The Chantry Guild_
[p&e]
--
Dave
"Tam multi libri, tam breve tempus!"
(Et brevis pecunia.) [Et breve spatium.]
Kris Overstreet
Barnstead) wrote:
>"Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
>Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is, and indicate briefly
>just what it is about works such as those indicated in Celine's URL
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
>
>
>that would exclude them from being considered to be Art, if in fact in
>*your* opinion monsieur Damien Hirt's installation is *not* Art.
Art generally defies definition, but I would make an attempt: visual
art is a means by which some sort of aesthetic or contextual message
is conveyed to the audience through visual means.
The reason I do not classify Mr. Hirt's installation as art is that it
can be, and often is, recreated in substance if not in precision by
sheer accident, without any message of any kind. There is no message
without intent, and without such intent any installation, mobile, or
photograph becomes a mere depiction of reality, having no real affect
upon the viewer.
Redneck
John Palmer
Barnstead) wrote:
>Lee S. Billings (stard...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: Well, at this point I think we can agree to disagree. With the
>: exception of the
>: category of "performance art", I do not agree with your definition,
>: but I can
>: understand the process by which you derive it.
>
>"Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
>Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is, and indicate briefly
>just what it is about works such as those indicated in Celine's URL
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
>
>
>that would exclude them from being considered to be Art, if in fact in
>*your* opinion monsieur Damien Hirt's installation is *not* Art.
Well, my definition of art has remained, for a long time, "an
attempt to communicate beyond the medium".
I can guess that Mr. Hirt's setup wanted to communicate something
more than "oooh, look at this messy collection of things!", so it's
art. However, I don't know if it's good art... I don't know how many
people can read the message, and how well it's carried. If the work
is supposed to convey, say, the resilience of the artist ("see how
much work has been done, how much time has been spent, and along with
this, you also see an easel and a chair... no work to show for it.
Yet you know that the artist will return and continue working, trying
yet again to wring meaning out of the canvas...") then it could be
pretty good, because I can read it. If it's meant to show that
motherhood is a continuous pain, even when it is joyful, I think it's
probably lousy art.
I don't think art has to be specific, though. For example, an
artist could be trying to communicate a feeling or a concept, and you
may not be able to put that into words. That's partly why art is so
important to us (= humanity in general), IMHO. If an artist was
trying to portray complete freedom, and it made some feel overjoyed,
others overwhelmed, made some cry, and others laugh, etc., even if no
one could quite put the word "freedom" to it, it would be good art.
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Shock and grief can rip you apart, but love can help knit you back
together. Be loving, and understanding - there's too much pain out
there already.
Unknown
>Lee S. Billings (stard...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: Well, at this point I think we can agree to disagree. With the
>: exception of the
>: category of "performance art", I do not agree with your definition,
>: but I can
>: understand the process by which you derive it.
>
>"Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
>Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is, and indicate briefly
>just what it is about works such as those indicated in Celine's URL
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/arts/newsid_1608000/1608322.stm
>
>
>that would exclude them from being considered to be Art, if in fact in
>*your* opinion monsieur Damien Hirt's installation is *not* Art.
>
Anything whatsoever can be "art", but whether the art is worthy of
respect, retention, and presentation is another matter entirely, and
is determined not by the artist but by the viewer/listener/etc. Just
as not all things that can be cooked are pleasing, beneficial or even
*safe* to eat, much of the output of those who call themselves artists
is worthy of nothing but the dumpster as a repository. Frankly, I see
little substantial difference between labelling something as "really
bad art" and "not art"; since the point with *all* art is to
communicate in some way, when the bulk of the intended recipients
refuse the message on the grounds of either offensive content or utter
lack of content or some combination of the two, the artist has no beef
to make with a finding that it's a flop and needs to be tossed. If
the artist wants to defend the piece personally and at his or her own
expense, that's fine with me. If said artist then ends up in the same
dumpster with the crapola, well, cluelessness has always been regarded
as a potential capital offense. There are enough ugly things in the
world right now; I see no reason to glorify anyone for intentionally
creating *more* of them.
sfw
John Barnstead wrote:
> "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
> Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is,
I spent a sememster in an aesthetics class last year.
We spent the semester trying to come up with a working definition of
art, and ways to describe art - as well as reading other people's
discussions of such matters.
The final result for me was a page a bit over 25 pages.
I'll try to boil it down, and post it later, but I find that deining
"art" or "Art" is NOT an easy matter.
Sarah
Pat Kight
> Well, my definition of art has remained, for a long time, "an
> attempt to communicate beyond the medium".
>
> I can guess that Mr. Hirt's setup wanted to communicate something
> more than "oooh, look at this messy collection of things!", so it's
> art. However, I don't know if it's good art...
Jezebel, who thinks Lynn Allen has hit closest to the head of this
particular nail, reminds John that "good" is entirely a judgment call by
the observer.
"Hell, I have a dear friend who has said, `If that's art, then my
6-year-old is an artist.'
"Sie was referring, by the way, to Vincent Van Gogh's `Starry Night.'
"Me, I think art is both a verb, and a mirror. Art is what artists *do*
... and when they hold it up to the public eye, each of us sees
reflected back something about ourselves."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
maenad
> : Well, at this point I think we can agree to disagree. With the
> : exception of the
> : category of "performance art", I do not agree with your definition,
> : but I can
> : understand the process by which you derive it.
> "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
> Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is,
Well, that's a tough question. Hmmm. Short form answers follow.
art is whatever a self-defined artist calls their work; art is also what a
viewer/listener/experiencer describes as art, even if its creator demurs; in
general, art is a material thing, or experience (such as music) that is
greater than the sum of its parts, typically an emotional component or
reaction.
Art meets the criteria above by general consensus of society at large, or
possibly Art Critics. (But not always, as the Art Community is often an
incestuous circle suffering from Groupthink.)
"good art" is like pornography - I know it when I see it, and people's
definitions vary widely. :)
maenad
--
Cry "CHEEBLE!" and let slip the hamsters of war.
-------------------> maenad <at> vex <dot> net <-------------------
John Palmer
wrote:
>John Palmer wrote:
>
>
>> Well, my definition of art has remained, for a long time, "an
>> attempt to communicate beyond the medium".
>>
>> I can guess that Mr. Hirt's setup wanted to communicate something
>> more than "oooh, look at this messy collection of things!", so it's
>> art. However, I don't know if it's good art...
>
>
>Jezebel, who thinks Lynn Allen has hit closest to the head of this
>particular nail, reminds John that "good" is entirely a judgment call by
>the observer.
Well... when I said "good" above, I meant only "communicates
beyond the medium". And, admittedly, even *THAT* is a bit of a
judgement call. If LonelyPerson writes a story that makes lonely
people break down in tears, and makes those who don't have problems
with loneliness think "eh. nothing worth writing home about", it'd
still be good art if it was meant to speak to lonely people. If
someone makes a piece of art for a particular person, and that one
person understands it, it's good art.
There are lots of other uses of the word "good". Maybe a better
word would have been "effective".
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
If it's from Acme, and the words "rocket powered" or "explosive" are on
the package, walk, don't run, away quickly, and don't bother the nice
birdie on your way out.
Dane Anderson
>
> John Barnstead <user...@is.dal.ca> wrote:
> > Lee S. Billings (stard...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
> > : Well, at this point I think we can agree to disagree. With the
> > : exception of the
> > : category of "performance art", I do not agree with your definition,
> > : but I can
> > : understand the process by which you derive it.
>
> > "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask the
> > Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is,
>
> Well, that's a tough question. Hmmm. Short form answers follow.
>
> art is whatever a self-defined artist calls their work; art is also what a
> viewer/listener/experiencer describes as art, even if its creator demurs; in
> general, art is a material thing, or experience (such as music) that is
> greater than the sum of its parts, typically an emotional component or
> reaction.
>
> Art meets the criteria above by general consensus of society at large, or
> possibly Art Critics. (But not always, as the Art Community is often an
> incestuous circle suffering from Groupthink.)
>
> "good art" is like pornography - I know it when I see it, and people's
> definitions vary widely. :)
For ME art is an "arrangement" of "something" that is pleasant to experience.
Good music is art. A beautiful picture (paint or photo) is art. Paint
thrown, shot, or dropped onto a canvas MIGHT be art. A Statue MIGHT be
art. Art MIGHT have a message from the artist hidden in it but a message
is NOT necessary. A pile of JUNK is highly unlikely to be ART. It's much
more likely to be the result of laziness or greed on the part of the
would be artist. Somebody piling junk up, intending to impart a message,
does not make the junk pile art. If the resultant mess is not pleasant to
experience it's NOT art. Something being pleasant is definately an
individual thing that is certainly variable from one person to another.
--
Sometimes my wife wakes up grumpy.
The rest of the time she lets me sleep in.
Dane Anderson.
Pat Kight
> For ME art is an "arrangement" of "something" that is pleasant to experience.
"Well, that's certainly one way to look at it, Dane," says Jezebel. "But
for me, `pleasant' isn't a prerequisite. Nor is `pretty' or even
`beauitful' - although a lot of what I think of as art certainly
qualifies on all those counts.
"But a lot doesn't, too. Picasso's incredible anti-war painting,
`Guernica,' comes to mind - nothing pleasant or pretty about that, but
it makes a powerful visual statement about death and devastation.
"Closer to most people's experience, take movies - most of them don't
rise above the level of `entertainment,' but once in a while, one of
them manages to impress me as `art.' `Schindler's List' did that for me,
and it certainly wasn't pleasant. So did the strange but very effecting
movie, `Pi,' which was jarringly *un*pleasant in places.
"Art ... takes me out of myself, emotionally ... or turns me inward in a
deep and meaningful way. It might transport me to heights of rapture, it
might startle me, it might move me to tears, it might make me burst out
in astonished laughter - but somehow, it provokes a visceral or
intellectual response that shakes me out of my rut, even if only for a
moment."
--Jezebel
just thinking out loud here
kig...@peak.org
Tina S.
news:3BD57CD6...@nospam.bdvdc04i.ca.boeing.com...
<snip>
> For ME art is an "arrangement" of "something" that is pleasant to
experience.
> Good music is art. A beautiful picture (paint or photo) is art. Paint
> thrown, shot, or dropped onto a canvas MIGHT be art. A Statue MIGHT be
> art. Art MIGHT have a message from the artist hidden in it but a message
> is NOT necessary. A pile of JUNK is highly unlikely to be ART. It's much
> more likely to be the result of laziness or greed on the part of the
> would be artist. Somebody piling junk up, intending to impart a message,
> does not make the junk pile art. If the resultant mess is not pleasant to
> experience it's NOT art. Something being pleasant is definately an
> individual thing that is certainly variable from one person to another.
The redhead at the end of the bar slips back in after a bit of an absence,
considers this, and says, "I'm sort of jumping in here more or less at
random. I've been reading this thread with great interest, and just haven't
mustered the energy to post anything.[1] That said, there's an awful lot of
work that I consider to be art that I don't find particularly 'pleasant' to
experience. Picasso's "Guernica" is one example-- it's beautiful and moving
and painful and not at all pleasant to experience if one really *looks* at
it and takes in the components, but I'd most definitely call it art. I
suppose I agree that there's a significant emotional component to the
experience of art, in addition to the aesthetic, but that emotional
component may not be pleasant. I would, perhaps, say that the stronger the
emotional reaction, whether positive or negative, the more *effective* the
art is for that particular viewer, but I'm not sure that makes it 'good
art'."
Tina
[1] Have I mentioned how much I REALLY dislike packing and moving? Life is
chaos.
jhetley
"Dane Anderson" <duc...@nospam.bdvdc04i.ca.boeing.com> wrote in message
news:3BD57CD6...@nospam.bdvdc04i.ca.boeing.com...
>
> For ME art is an "arrangement" of "something" that is pleasant to
experience.
> Good music is art. A beautiful picture (paint or photo) is art. Paint
> thrown, shot, or dropped onto a canvas MIGHT be art. A Statue MIGHT be
> art. Art MIGHT have a message from the artist hidden in it but a message
> is NOT necessary. A pile of JUNK is highly unlikely to be ART. It's much
> more likely to be the result of laziness or greed on the part of the
> would be artist. Somebody piling junk up, intending to impart a message,
> does not make the junk pile art. If the resultant mess is not pleasant to
> experience it's NOT art. Something being pleasant is definately an
> individual thing that is certainly variable from one person to another.
>
Pleasant? I can think of a fair amount of "art" that can be damned
unpleasant. That is the effect the artist is trying to invoke. Britten's
_War Requiem_ comes to mind, in music. I don't like it, but it is powerful
art.
I drop the designation of "art" when something doesn't cause _any_ reaction
in me.
--
Jim
THE SUMMER COUNTRY, a novel of dark contemporary fantasy
Coming in 2002 from Ace Science Fiction & Fantasy
Dane Anderson
You say that you found it beautiful. That IMPLIES that you got SOME pleasure
out of viewing the piece. It's MY understanding that Picasso did his
impressionistic pieces as a joke, and as a slap in the face of art critics.
That he HATED the impressionistic work. HE didn't consider it art. He did
it and continued to do it because that was what the art critics wanted and
would pay for.
Dane Anderson
Well, for me, if I don't get pleasure from something I WON'T look at it,
listen to it, or experience it again. At least not willingly. No pleasure,
no art.
Tina S.
<snip>
Not necessarily. 'Beauty' and 'pleasant' don't necessarily map to the same
receptors for me, though I understand that mileage may vary. For example, I
find the aesthetics of the photos of the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima to be
beautiful, but there's nothing *pleasant* about it at all. It's terrible,
and awe-inspiring, and beautiful in an aesthetic sense, but NOT pleasant in
any way, shape, or form. The same is true of the Guernica, which, btw,
isn't Impressionistic at all, to my knowledge. It's Cubist, which is,
AFAIK, a completely different artistic movement from Impressionism. What
Picasso's opinions of his own work were, I'm not sure, as I haven't studied
it that intensely. There certainly seems a lot of power in it, even if he
was just doing it as a hack.
Tina
Trinker
Dane Anderson wrote:
>
> Well, for me, if I don't get pleasure from something I WON'T look at it,
> listen to it, or experience it again. At least not willingly. No pleasure,
> no art.
Not even if it makes you *think* for a moment?
Not all "art" is designed with pleasure in mind.
Trinker
jhetley
"Dane Anderson" <duc...@nospam.bdvdc04i.ca.boeing.com> wrote in message
news:3BD5DB41...@nospam.bdvdc04i.ca.boeing.com...
You would not consider it art if it made you weep? If it struck terror in
your heart, or awe, or woke anger? Then _Schindler's List_ wouldn't be art,
under your definition? Or _A Clockwork Orange_?
It has to be pleasure?
BetNoir
> Not even if it makes you *think* for a moment?
> Not all "art" is designed with pleasure in mind.
Nod...
One of my all-time favorite movies -- Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' -- is
very hard for me to watch because it makes me very uncomfortable.
But it is just that lack of comfort that makes it one of my favorites.
I would say the same for 'Saving Private Ryan' (those first 20 minutes
in particular) and 'The Truman Show.'
All brilliant films, and all designed to make the viewer uncomfortable
with their assumptions about the universe.
--
BetN -- NEVER parry with your head
Benevolent Cap'n, Bad Ship BetNoirian -- You there! Hoist something!
First Mate Midnight Rose -- Don' MAKE me break dis lightsaber offn yo'
ass
AFR Goddess of Pith and Vinegar
Blood Angel
Welcome to Team Too Stupid to Quit...you WILL be assimilated
Proud Member #014, Assassins' Guild -- Nihil Privatus
I'm not short...I'm concentrated!
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist
the black flag and begin slitting throats -- H.L. Mencken
To desire the end is to desire the means -- Draka
BetNoir
> It's terrible,
> and awe-inspiring, and beautiful in an aesthetic sense, but NOT pleasant in
> any way, shape, or form. The same is true of the Guernica, which, btw,
> isn't Impressionistic at all, to my knowledge. It's Cubist, which is,
> AFAIK, a completely different artistic movement from Impressionism. What
> Picasso's opinions of his own work were, I'm not sure, as I haven't studied
> it that intensely. There certainly seems a lot of power in it, even if he
> was just doing it as a hack.
There is a story I heard about a Nazi officer who came to visit Picasso
and saw the painting of Guernica and asked Picasso if he had done it.
Picasso replied, "No, you did."
Hardly the insight of a 'hack,' if true...
EHursh
Check out Tom Lea's painting (The Two Thousand Yard Stare) at
http://www.vfw.org/magazine/nov98/22.shtml (it's at other sites, that's
just the shortest URL I saw in Google). Pleasure-evoking? No, not
particularly. But it *is*, IMO, compelling and magnetic. I'd be lying
if I said I *liked* it, but I still have a copy in my personal archive.
(Pfui. Does anybody have that scene from Stranger in a Strange
Land close at hand -- the one with Mike trying to figure out what
to get for Jubal?)
> --
> Sometimes my wife wakes up grumpy.
> The rest of the time she lets me sleep in.
> Dane Anderson.
--
Ellen K. Hursh
"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair.
Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and
all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually
deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility
and unfairness of the universe." --Marcus Cole
* * *
This post has been paid for in part by Anubis Markets, a division
of Osiris Foods. So shop at the sign of the jackal-headed man for
food so good, you can eat it.
Kirsten M. Berry
}Dane Anderson wrote:
}
}> jhetley wrote:
}> >
}> > I drop the designation of "art" when something doesn't cause _any_ reaction
}> > in me.
}>
}> Well, for me, if I don't get pleasure from something I WON'T look at it,
}> listen to it, or experience it again. At least not willingly. No pleasure,
}> no art.
}
}Check out Tom Lea's painting (The Two Thousand Yard Stare) at
}http://www.vfw.org/magazine/nov98/22.shtml (it's at other sites, that's
}just the shortest URL I saw in Google). Pleasure-evoking? No, not
}particularly. But it *is*, IMO, compelling and magnetic. I'd be lying
}if I said I *liked* it, but I still have a copy in my personal archive.
*shudder* Brilliant. Absolutely painful to look at. But if you can
find a single veteran in this Place who can look at that painting and
NOT relate immediately to what the character in the painting has gone
through, you can have anything I own.
}(Pfui. Does anybody have that scene from Stranger in a Strange
}Land close at hand -- the one with Mike trying to figure out what
}to get for Jubal?)
Ask and ye shall receive....
Nevertheless they looked, Anne and Jill and Mike, and
Anne picked out three books as bearing evidence (to her eyes)
of having been looked at most often. "Hmm..." she said.
"It's clear that the Boss would like anything by Rodin. Mike,
if you could buy one of these for Jubal, which one would you
pick? Oh, here's a pretty one - 'Eternal Springtime.'"
Mike barely glanced at it and turned the page. "This
one."
"What?" Jill looked at it and shuddered. "Mike, that
one is perfectly *dreadful!* I hope I die long before I look
like that."
"That is beauty," Mike said firmly.
"Mike!" Jill protested. "You've got a depraved taste
- you're worse than Duke. Or else you just don't know any
better."
Ordinarily such a rebuke from a water brother, most
especially from Jill, would have shut Mike up, forced him to
spend the following night in trying to understand his fault.
But this was art in which he was sure of himself. The
portrayed statue was the first thing he had seen on Earth
which felt like a breath of home to him. Although it was
clearly a picture of a human woman it gave him a feeling that
a Martian Old One should be sumwhere around, responsible for
its creation. "It is beauty," he insisted stubbornly. "She
has her own face. I grok."
--
Kirsten M. Berry square peg in a round planet
ksha...@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~kshandra/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kshandra/
Lee S. Billings
>Check out Tom Lea's painting (The Two Thousand Yard Stare) at
>http://www.vfw.org/magazine/nov98/22.shtml (it's at other sites, that's
>just the shortest URL I saw in Google). Pleasure-evoking? No, not
>particularly. But it *is*, IMO, compelling and magnetic. I'd be lying
>if I said I *liked* it, but I still have a copy in my personal archive.
Yes. Another one in the same general vein is titled "Reflections" -- I don't
know the artist. I saw it in the window of a mall art gallery and it stopped me
*cold*. I just stared at it for about two minutes, and all I could think was,
"Wow, someone put a LOT of pain into that."
I did eventually buy and frame a copy, and it was on my dining-room wall for a
while. At the moment it's not hanging because there isn't enough wall space
here to display even half the art I'd *like* to display. Again, not a pleasant
image by any means -- but the pain in it moved me enough to draw me back to
that shop window over and over again, and eventually to bring it home.
D_Jim
>}Check out Tom Lea's painting (The Two Thousand Yard Stare) at
>}http://www.vfw.org/magazine/nov98/22.shtml (it's at other sites, that's
>}just the shortest URL I saw in Google). Pleasure-evoking? No, not
>}particularly. But it *is*, IMO, compelling and magnetic. I'd be lying
>}if I said I *liked* it, but I still have a copy in my personal archive.
While I've never been in combat, I have seen that drawing before in
a book of combat art from WW 2.
I've been told it happened, that look, may times in combat over
the centuries.
Its the look of someone pushed beyond human endurance. Some
come back, some don't. Some come back part way.
D.J.
--
djim55 atty datasync dotty com Disclaimer: Standard
"Utopia does not exist."
http://www.crosswinds.net/~drivein/ drive-in movie theaters update Sep 11,2001
http://www.datasync.com/~djim55/index.html
cynical innocent
> }(Pfui. Does anybody have that scene from Stranger in a Strange
> }Land close at hand -- the one with Mike trying to figure out what
> }to get for Jubal?)
>
> Ask and ye shall receive....
Oh, _that's_ why you needed to come and get it back from me. *)
--Rose
--
"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said,
but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
-- Robert McCloskey, U.S. State Dept. spokesman
~~ http://i.am/rwp ~~ ro...@callahans.org ~~
Dane Anderson
For ME, yes it has to be pleasure. I HATED "A Clockwork Orange" and have
avoided "Schindler's List" (because my wife told me the plot line) and
know that I would take NO pleasure in it at all, and would probably hate
it.
Dane Anderson
As I said. If I derive no pleasure from it I don't consider it to be art. It
doesn't matter to me WHAT the artist intended. All I care about is how -I-
take it. I WON'T pay for something that I don't like, and see no reason that
I should.
Dane Anderson
> (Pfui. Does anybody have that scene from Stranger in a Strange
> Land close at hand -- the one with Mike trying to figure out what
> to get for Jubal?)
Presumably you are talking about the Rodin (?) statue of an
old woman bent by age/burden that Mike eventualy purchased.
What you consider art is fine for you. What Heinlein considered
art is fine for him. What -I- consider art determines what -I-
will go out of my way to experience, and/or purchase. I would
NEVER consider telling YOU what to like, or dislike. Please
accord ME the same respect. No two people are going to have
exactly the same criteria for determining what art is. Art
is amoung THE most subjective subjects that exist.
Oscagne
duc...@DieSpammer.bdvdc04i.ca.boeing.com wrote:
<nitpick>
There were three scuptures (1) mentioned in that scene. From memory: The
Little Mermaid, She Who Was the Beautiful Huelmiere (sp?), and Fallen
Caryatid (I think). Huelmiere was the one bent by age, Caryatid bent by
her burden, and Mermaid bent (2) by ennui.
</nitpick>
(1) "statues are dead politicians"
(2) emotionally, ok? jeeze, its makes the comment consistent.
--
To bypass the Atans guarding my mailbox, replace FornMin.tam.gov with ev1.net.
virtualbabe
day in Callahan"s.:
>Trinker wrote:
>
>> Not even if it makes you *think* for a moment?
>> Not all "art" is designed with pleasure in mind.
>
>Nod...
>
>One of my all-time favorite movies -- Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' -- is
>very hard for me to watch because it makes me very uncomfortable.
>
>But it is just that lack of comfort that makes it one of my favorites.
>
>I would say the same for 'Saving Private Ryan' (those first 20 minutes
>in particular) and 'The Truman Show.'
>
>All brilliant films, and all designed to make the viewer uncomfortable
>with their assumptions about the universe.
One movie I highly recommend but cannot watch without an incredible
amount of pain happening is Boys Don't Cry.
--
Debbie
I have decided to bypass my inner child and go directly to my inner
spoiled brat.
Sam Robinson
> Trinker wrote:
> >
> > Dane Anderson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, for me, if I don't get pleasure from something I WON'T look at
it,
> > > listen to it, or experience it again. At least not willingly. No
pleasure,
> > > no art.
> >
> > Not even if it makes you *think* for a moment?
> >
> > Not all "art" is designed with pleasure in mind.
>
> As I said. If I derive no pleasure from it I don't consider it to be art.
It
> doesn't matter to me WHAT the artist intended. All I care about is how -I-
> take it. I WON'T pay for something that I don't like, and see no reason
that
> I should.
>
art? After all, I've yet to see any art where I couldn't find someone who
hated it. Since you don't feel you should pay for something you don't like,
it follows by extension that there will always be some small segment of the
population that doesn't like a given artistic embellishment on a public
structure.
Of course if you don't mind expensive constructions that serve no purpose
placed in public places...
SamR
Who thought the Picasso in downtown Chicago a bit odd, but probably worth it
if you like baseball. The SunCatcher in Raleigh may also be art, but it's
not _smart_art_. It's comprised of mirrors hung on a tower structure between
two traffic lanes. Is it just me, or does this not seem like obious problem
to anyone? I've been sun-blinded by it once while driving by, I don't go
that way if I can avoid it now.
den...@tanstaafl.zipcon.net
<debbiechrist...@ELIMINATORhome.com> held forth, saying:
>, BetNoir took computer in hand to inscribe the following thoughts one
>day in Callahan"s.:
>
>>Trinker wrote:
>>
>>> Not even if it makes you *think* for a moment?
>>> Not all "art" is designed with pleasure in mind.
>>
>>Nod...
>>
>>One of my all-time favorite movies -- Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' -- is
>>very hard for me to watch because it makes me very uncomfortable.
>>
>>But it is just that lack of comfort that makes it one of my favorites.
>>
>>I would say the same for 'Saving Private Ryan' (those first 20 minutes
>>in particular) and 'The Truman Show.'
>>
>>All brilliant films, and all designed to make the viewer uncomfortable
>>with their assumptions about the universe.
>
>One movie I highly recommend but cannot watch without an incredible
>amount of pain happening is Boys Don't Cry.
"The Piano" is like that, too.
-denny-
"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him
with a terrible resolve ... "
-- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Dec. 8th, 1941
Jim Hetley
> jhetley wrote:
> >
> > You would not consider it art if it made you weep? If it struck terror in
> > your heart, or awe, or woke anger? Then _Schindler's List_ wouldn't be art,
> > under your definition? Or _A Clockwork Orange_?
> >
> > It has to be pleasure?
>
> For ME, yes it has to be pleasure. I HATED "A Clockwork Orange" and have
> avoided "Schindler's List" (because my wife told me the plot line) and
> know that I would take NO pleasure in it at all, and would probably hate
> it.
Art means different things to different people. I don't doubt that
some things I dismiss as trash or noise are, indeed, "art" to other
people. So be it.
But I think you are missing something valuable if you are unwilling to
be moved to tears.
Jim
John Palmer
<duc...@nospam.bdvdc04i.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
>EHursh wrote:
>> (Pfui. Does anybody have that scene from Stranger in a Strange
>> Land close at hand -- the one with Mike trying to figure out what
>> to get for Jubal?)
>
>Presumably you are talking about the Rodin (?) statue of an
>old woman bent by age/burden that Mike eventualy purchased.
(meaningless nitpick: had copied - they wouldn't sell it, and only
duplicated it because it was a favor to the man from mars)
>What you consider art is fine for you. What Heinlein considered
>art is fine for him. What -I- consider art determines what -I-
>will go out of my way to experience, and/or purchase. I would
>NEVER consider telling YOU what to like, or dislike. Please
>accord ME the same respect. No two people are going to have
>exactly the same criteria for determining what art is. Art
>is amoung THE most subjective subjects that exist.
That's a strong definitional difference, I think, between you and
others. I believe everyone else is using "art" to mean something
beyond the personal. The question is not "is it art, as far as I'm
concerned?", but "is it art?"
If you're using art to be a purely subjective phenomenon, I can
understand why people have a problem with it. The problem with using
that as a definition is that many people will say "it's art, but not
my kind of art" to express that they don't like it, and maybe find no
pleasure in it. However, I do understand what you're saying now.
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Shock and grief can rip you apart, but love can help knit you back
together. Be loving, and understanding - there's too much pain out
there already.
Sea Wasp
> Not necessarily. 'Beauty' and 'pleasant' don't necessarily map to the same
> receptors for me, though I understand that mileage may vary. For example, I
> find the aesthetics of the photos of the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima to be
> beautiful, but there's nothing *pleasant* about it at all.
Mileage definitely does vary. Awe-inspiring, beautiful, and so on
definitely map to "pleasure" for me.
In the case of the mushroom cloud, I don't even particularly connect
it with the destruction -- certainly not if I'm viewing it AS A THING
rather than as a symbol. Looking at pictures of Mount Saint Helens
going up gave me a great deal of pleasure, even though a bunch of
people were getting blasted by it at the time it went up.
A piece of art that doesn't give me SOME form of pleasure definitely
won't make it to the "ART" category for me. It's possible for it to
ALSO do other things -- make me think about some subject or other, for
instance -- but I think about all art the same way I do about fiction:
your first job is to keep my attention, to make it pleasurable enough
to focus on you so that whatever ELSE you are doing is worth my while
to sit through.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Sea Wasp
> I assume from your comments then that you feel there should be no public
> art?
If a private individual wants to donate their own funds to the
government for the express purpose of making art available, that's
fine.
I do have a problem with spending general tax monies on "art" when
there isn't even a decent working definition of the word. You can bet
there'd be flamewars galore if the Pentagon was known to be spending
money on phitwillers, but couldn't explain what phitwillers were --
not WOULDN'T explain (as in "that's classified"), but COULDN'T
explain.
Sea Wasp
> You would not consider it art if it made you weep? If it struck terror in
> your heart, or awe, or woke anger?
Awe is pleasure, at least for me.
But in most cases, the others aren't.
Seeing a little boy hurt can make me angry or weep. That isn't art.
Trinker
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Sam Robinson wrote:
>
> > I assume from your comments then that you feel there should be no public
> > art?
>
> If a private individual wants to donate their own funds to the
> government for the express purpose of making art available, that's
> fine.
>
> I do have a problem with spending general tax monies on "art" when
> there isn't even a decent working definition of the word. You can bet
> there'd be flamewars galore if the Pentagon was known to be spending
> money on phitwillers, but couldn't explain what phitwillers were --
> not WOULDN'T explain (as in "that's classified"), but COULDN'T
> explain.
Um...public art..."installation by Artist made of [materials]"
Sounds like a description to me.
--Trinker
jhetley
"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:3BD776...@wizvax.net...
> jhetley wrote:
>
> > You would not consider it art if it made you weep? If it struck terror
in
> > your heart, or awe, or woke anger?
>
> Awe is pleasure, at least for me.
>
> But in most cases, the others aren't.
>
> Seeing a little boy hurt can make me angry or weep. That isn't art.
>
But I think there is rather a difference between "seeing a little boy hurt"
and seeing a painting that makes you weep.
Sea Wasp
For me, as posted in another response, if I want to "THINK" without
any specific additional pleasure associated with it, there's FAR
better ways to do it than throw together some wierdass artistic
construction which may, or may not, convey your point at all. If you
want to say "The Advertising Industry is Oppressing (whatever)", well,
that sentence says it clearly and unambiguously, and further
paragraphs can explain and clarify your specific position. For the
purposes of conveying an idea, this is far superior to throwing up
something made up of a bunch of commercial products and putting them
on top of a symbolically-crushed figure (to use an example).
The only reason I would bother to view a work of art, read a work of
fiction, etc., is if I thought it would be FUN to do -- give me some
enjoyment of one kind or another. Sometimes it's a revelatory pleasure
-- Escher is Art, and High Art, to me, because he gives pleasure in
the sheer skill of execution, and THEN gives pleasure in the brilliant
exploration of perceptual cognition.
Sea Wasp
> If you're using art to be a purely subjective phenomenon, I can
> understand why people have a problem with it.
Um, that appeared to me that the purely subjective and PERSONAL
definition of art was PRECISELY what was being asked:
> "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask
the
> > Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is,
That sounds to me like you're asking for an awfully lot of personal
definitions...
Trinker
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Trinker wrote:
> >
> > Dane Anderson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, for me, if I don't get pleasure from something I WON'T look at it,
> > > listen to it, or experience it again. At least not willingly. No pleasure,
> > > no art.
> >
> > Not even if it makes you *think* for a moment?
> >
> > Not all "art" is designed with pleasure in mind.
>
> For me, as posted in another response, if I want to "THINK" without
> any specific additional pleasure associated with it, there's FAR
> better ways to do it than throw together some wierdass artistic
> construction which may, or may not, convey your point at all. If you
> want to say "The Advertising Industry is Oppressing (whatever)", well,
> that sentence says it clearly and unambiguously, and further
> paragraphs can explain and clarify your specific position. For the
> purposes of conveying an idea, this is far superior to throwing up
> something made up of a bunch of commercial products and putting them
> on top of a symbolically-crushed figure (to use an example).
Why is text superior to a non-text presentation, to you?
Those words you suggest simply state the speaker/writer's thought.
They do not make me *feel* it.
I reject your notion of "superior" and "inferior" in this case.
I can accept "different", and even "better understood by SeaWasp".
But "superior" ?
I note with some irony that the cultures that have mandated
what is and is not art, and have rejected the expression of
emotion as art, have mainly been totalitarian.
> The only reason I would bother to view a work of art, read a work of
> fiction, etc., is if I thought it would be FUN to do -- give me some
> enjoyment of one kind or another. Sometimes it's a revelatory pleasure
> -- Escher is Art, and High Art, to me, because he gives pleasure in
> the sheer skill of execution, and THEN gives pleasure in the brilliant
> exploration of perceptual cognition.
I do not only read escapist prose or poetry, either. I read
some things to in hopes of *understanding*. I will not turn my
eyes from the pain of others and pretend that they do not exist.
Escher's work is beautiful, but it does not move me.
Trinker
Martin Julian DeMello
>
> "good art" is like pornography - I know it when I see it, and people's
> definitions vary widely. :)
Okay, since no one else did, and because I like the poem...
'The Conundrum of the Workshops'
When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
Wherefore he called to his wife and fled to fashion his work anew-
The first of his race who cared a fig for the first, most dread review;
And he left his lore to the use of his sons-and that was a glorious gain
When the Devil chuckled: "Is it Art?" in the ear of the branded Cain.
They builded a tower to shiver the sky and wrench the stars apart,
Till the Devil grunted behind the bricks: "It's striking, but is it Art?"
The stone was dropped by the quarry-side, and the idle derrick swung,
While each man talked of the aims of art, and each in an alien tongue.
They fought and they talked in the north and the south,
they talked and they fought in the west,
Till the waters rose on the jabbering land, and the poor Red Clay had rest-
Had rest till the dank blank-canvas dawn when the dove was preened to start,
And the Devil bubbled below the keel: "It's human, but is it Art?"
The tale is old as the Eden Tree-as new as the new-cut tooth-
For each man knows ere his lip-thatch grows he is master of Art and Truth;
And each man hears as the twilight nears, to the beat of his dying heart,
The Devil drum on the darkened pane: "You did it, but was it Art?"
We have learned to whittle the Eden Tree to the shape of a surplice-peg,
We have learned to bottle our parents twain in the yolk of an addled egg,
We know that the tail must wag the dog, as the horse is drawn by the cart;
But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: "It's clever, but is it Art?"
When the flicker of London's sun falls faint on the club-room's green and gold,
The sons of Adam sit them down and scratch with their pens in the mold-
They scratch with their pens in the mold of their graves,
and the ink and the anguish start
When the Devil mutters behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it art?"
Now, if we could win to the Eden Tree where the four great rivers flow,
And the wreath of Eve is red on the turf as she left it long ago,
And if we could come when the sentry slept, and softly scurry through,
By the favor of God we might know as much-as our father Adam knew.
-- Rudyard Kipling
John Palmer
wrote:
>John Palmer wrote:
>
>> If you're using art to be a purely subjective phenomenon, I can
>> understand why people have a problem with it.
>
> Um, that appeared to me that the purely subjective and PERSONAL
>definition of art was PRECISELY what was being asked:
Asking for your personal definition does not mean that one is
asking for you to make the definition subjective.
>
> > "Folks, rather than agreeing to disagree, I wonder if I could ask
>the
>> > Patronage-at-Large what *their* definition of Art is,
>
> That sounds to me like you're asking for an awfully lot of personal
>definitions...
It sounds to like John Barnstead is asking for personal
definitions.
However, "personal definitions" does not mean "a definition that
must be completely subjective".
For example, I said that "art is an attempt to communicate
beyond the medium". Insofar as you can learn from the artist, or
infer that the artist was trying to communicate beyond the medium, you
can apply that definition.
Dane's definition (it seems to me) does not allow itself to be
applied in that sort of manner. One can not say "I believe this is
art", but can only say "This is art for me, and I believe it will be
art for many others."
This is not a bad thing, but it was different, and seemed
confusing or bothersome to some folks.
Jette Goldie
<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote in message
news:i2aettop1hlr824jf...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:45:46 GMT, virtualbabe
> <debbiechrist...@ELIMINATORhome.com> held forth, saying:
>
> >, BetNoir took computer in hand to inscribe the following thoughts one
> >day in Callahan"s.:
> >
> >>Trinker wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not even if it makes you *think* for a moment?
> >>> Not all "art" is designed with pleasure in mind.
> >>
> >>Nod...
> >>
> >>One of my all-time favorite movies -- Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' -- is
> >>very hard for me to watch because it makes me very uncomfortable.
> >>
> >>But it is just that lack of comfort that makes it one of my favorites.
> >>
> >>I would say the same for 'Saving Private Ryan' (those first 20 minutes
> >>in particular) and 'The Truman Show.'
> >>
> >>All brilliant films, and all designed to make the viewer uncomfortable
> >>with their assumptions about the universe.
> >
> >One movie I highly recommend but cannot watch without an incredible
> >amount of pain happening is Boys Don't Cry.
>
> "The Piano" is like that, too.
"The Color Purple" - book and film. (there's more to the
book but the film is more immediately accessible)
I can't watch, or read, this without an entire box of tissues
to hand. I cry with the protagonist, for the protagonist and
cry on her behalf when she can't. Tears of sorrow, tears of
anger, tears of rage, tears of hope and tears of joy. And
at the end, tears of triumph.
To me, it is a work of Art.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain fiercely loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp wrote:
> >
> > Trinker wrote:
> > >
> > > Dane Anderson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, for me, if I don't get pleasure from something I WON'T look at it,
> > > > listen to it, or experience it again. At least not willingly. No pleasure,
> > > > no art.
> > >
> > > Not even if it makes you *think* for a moment?
> > >
> > > Not all "art" is designed with pleasure in mind.
> >
> > For me, as posted in another response, if I want to "THINK" without
> > any specific additional pleasure associated with it, there's FAR
> > better ways to do it than throw together some wierdass artistic
> > construction which may, or may not, convey your point at all. If you
> > want to say "The Advertising Industry is Oppressing (whatever)", well,
> > that sentence says it clearly and unambiguously, and further
> > paragraphs can explain and clarify your specific position. For the
> > purposes of conveying an idea, this is far superior to throwing up
> > something made up of a bunch of commercial products and putting them
> > on top of a symbolically-crushed figure (to use an example).
>
> Why is text superior to a non-text presentation, to you?
Not text VS non-text, although that's usually the easiest dichotomy
to use as an example. Direct Showing versus Obfuscated as Art I find
superior IN THE SENSE OF CONVEYING AN ACTUAL THOUGHT OR MEANING.
>
> Those words you suggest simply state the speaker/writer's thought.
> They do not make me *feel* it.
Nothing can "make" you feel anything.
>
> I reject your notion of "superior" and "inferior" in this case.
> I can accept "different", and even "better understood by SeaWasp".
> But "superior" ?
For conveying thoughts and ideas? How the heck can you even argue it?
Take a Pollock painting (the "splashed paint" type). I presume he
meant to convey SOMETHING with them (otherwise he's just an older two
year old with a lot more paint than mommy usually gives them), but I
will be utterly damned if I could possibly even BEGIN to figure out
what.
By contrast, he could certainly frame in words the basic idea and it
would take me all of ten seconds to read and understand.
Now, if YOU can interpret his work, it may have more IMPACT for you
due to the visual interpretation and mental processes involved, but I
really can't see how you could say that FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONVEYING
THE IDEA, this presentation is superior.
And that was my point: If the point of the Art is the Idea, but the
Idea is harder to get through the Art version, then the Art has to
offer me something to make the effort worth my while.
>
> I note with some irony that the cultures that have mandated
> what is and is not art, and have rejected the expression of
> emotion as art, have mainly been totalitarian.
Dunno what this has to do with anything; I can't see anywhere my
mandating anything.
>
>
> > The only reason I would bother to view a work of art, read a work of
> > fiction, etc., is if I thought it would be FUN to do -- give me some
> > enjoyment of one kind or another. Sometimes it's a revelatory pleasure
> > -- Escher is Art, and High Art, to me, because he gives pleasure in
> > the sheer skill of execution, and THEN gives pleasure in the brilliant
> > exploration of perceptual cognition.
>
> I do not only read escapist prose or poetry, either. I read
> some things to in hopes of *understanding*.
And to understand something, I would think, would be better served by
someone stating that thing they want you to understand clearly and
unambiguously, without covering it in paint or words that make the
outline of the concept harder to see... UNLESS the paint or words by
themselves were enjoyable enough to make it worth my while to chip
away at them and find out what's in the creamy center, so to speak.
> Escher's work is beautiful, but it does not move me.
Escher's work hits straight at my Sense of Wonder -- the awe inspired
by both a master craftsman and the ability to twist reality itself to
force a new vision on you by images alone.
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp wrote:
> > I do have a problem with spending general tax monies on "art" when
> > there isn't even a decent working definition of the word. You can bet
> > there'd be flamewars galore if the Pentagon was known to be spending
> > money on phitwillers, but couldn't explain what phitwillers were --
> > not WOULDN'T explain (as in "that's classified"), but COULDN'T
> > explain.
>
> Um...public art..."installation by Artist made of [materials]"
> Sounds like a description to me.
Um, no. That's a circular definition, unless you have something to
define "Artist" which doesn't involve "Art", or doesn't involve
something which DOES rely on "Art".
Sea Wasp
> > Seeing a little boy hurt can make me angry or weep. That isn't art.
> >
>
> But I think there is rather a difference between "seeing a little boy hurt"
> and seeing a painting that makes you weep.
Can't imagine such a thing -- unless I was weeping over the expense..
"They paid a million dollars for THAT?"
I've cried at movies occasionally, usually happy tears for a proper
resolution of some emotional moment. But if the ONLY thing a movie did
for me was make me cry it wouldn't be worth my time to view.
Pat Kight
> A piece of art that doesn't give me SOME form of pleasure definitely
> won't make it to the "ART" category for me.
"It's ... odd ... to hear people using personal response as the standard
for `what is art'," muses Jezebel. "I mean, I can certainly saying, `If
it doesn't give me pleasure, then it's not *my* kind of art,' or even
`... not the kind of art I think should be displayed in public places.'
That's an opinion, and we're all entitled to those.
"But the way you and Dane are stating it here, Sea Wasp, it's as if you
think art can *only* be defined by the individual. Which sounds a
little, I dunno, egocentric.
"But I may be reading you wrong.
"Suppose you were in a gallery, and you came across a painting that
didn't give you any pleasure at all. Would you say, "Wow, I don't like
*that*" or would you say, "That's not art!"
"It's a serious question. I'm interested in why art - especially
graphical/visual art - gets this sort of response, when, say, books and
music don't. People might say, `That book stunk!' or `That music makes
my ears bleed!', but I hardly recall hearing people say, `That's not a
book' or `that's not music' (well, except maybe my parents, once upon a
time, in the latter case ...)
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> jhetley wrote:
>
>
>>You would not consider it art if it made you weep? If it struck terror in
>>your heart, or awe, or woke anger?
>>
>
> Awe is pleasure, at least for me.
>
> But in most cases, the others aren't.
>
> Seeing a little boy hurt can make me angry or weep. That isn't art.
"Logical fallacy," Jezebel points out mildly. Saying "Art can make one
weep" does not equate to saying, "That which makes one weep is art."
--Jez
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
>
> 'The Conundrum of the Workshops'
(snip)
> -- Rudyard Kipling
"Why, Zem, I didn't even know you kippled!"
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Trinker
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Trinker wrote:
> >
> > Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> > > I do have a problem with spending general tax monies on "art" when
> > > there isn't even a decent working definition of the word. You can bet
> > > there'd be flamewars galore if the Pentagon was known to be spending
> > > money on phitwillers, but couldn't explain what phitwillers were --
> > > not WOULDN'T explain (as in "that's classified"), but COULDN'T
> > > explain.
> >
> > Um...public art..."installation by Artist made of [materials]"
> > Sounds like a description to me.
>
> Um, no. That's a circular definition, unless you have something to
> define "Artist" which doesn't involve "Art", or doesn't involve
> something which DOES rely on "Art".
Sorry, let me put in the markers, again.
"installation by [Artist] made of [materials]" is a description
of the actual object. That's what the governing body spent the
money on. Not a bogey at all.
Trinker
Trinker
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Trinker wrote:
> >
> > Sea Wasp wrote:
> > >
> > > Trinker wrote:
> > > > Not even if it makes you *think* for a moment?
> > > >
> > > > Not all "art" is designed with pleasure in mind.
> > >
> > > For me, as posted in another response, if I want to "THINK" without
> > > any specific additional pleasure associated with it, there's FAR
> > > better ways to do it than throw together some wierdass artistic
> > > construction which may, or may not, convey your point at all. If you
> > > want to say "The Advertising Industry is Oppressing (whatever)", well,
> > > that sentence says it clearly and unambiguously, and further
> > > paragraphs can explain and clarify your specific position. For the
> > > purposes of conveying an idea, this is far superior to throwing up
> > > something made up of a bunch of commercial products and putting them
> > > on top of a symbolically-crushed figure (to use an example).
> >
> > Why is text superior to a non-text presentation, to you?
>
> Not text VS non-text, although that's usually the easiest dichotomy
> to use as an example. Direct Showing versus Obfuscated as Art I find
> superior IN THE SENSE OF CONVEYING AN ACTUAL THOUGHT OR MEANING.
So, it would be better for Shakespeare to say,
"Boy meets girl from wrong family, boy and girl die, the end."
Fuck writing the play. I mean, that's simple, right?
What about the Vietnam Memorial -- it's just a slab with a list of
names. Why bother? Why not just stick a phone-bookful on a stand.
Hell, why list the names? Why not just say 'a lot of people died' ?
> > Those words you suggest simply state the speaker/writer's thought.
> > They do not make me *feel* it.
>
> Nothing can "make" you feel anything.
I should really stop participating in this discussion here, because
you and I completely disagree on this.
> > I reject your notion of "superior" and "inferior" in this case.
> > I can accept "different", and even "better understood by SeaWasp".
> > But "superior" ?
>
> For conveying thoughts and ideas? How the heck can you even argue it?
Because my sense of memory and thought and idea isn't just verbal.
Because I've seen the evidence of many people here who remember
Guernica. Because sometimes, what you see, what you come to realize
on your own, is more powerful than any laundry list of facts.
> Take a Pollock painting (the "splashed paint" type). I presume he
> meant to convey SOMETHING with them (otherwise he's just an older two
> year old with a lot more paint than mommy usually gives them), but I
> will be utterly damned if I could possibly even BEGIN to figure out
> what.
I find it an interesting study in what constitutes art, actually.
I think it was a logical continuation of the exploration of
the change from painting as the only way to capture color images
in a permanent form, to painting being "an artform" separated from
the task of setting down imagery in the most realistic manner
possible.
> By contrast, he could certainly frame in words the basic idea and it
> would take me all of ten seconds to read and understand.
And maybe 5 seconds to forget.
> Now, if YOU can interpret his work, it may have more IMPACT for you
> due to the visual interpretation and mental processes involved, but I
> really can't see how you could say that FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONVEYING
> THE IDEA, this presentation is superior.
What do you think of photojournalism?
I find that the WWII era photograph of a grocer with a huge sign
reading "I AM AN AMERICAN" to be more powerful than words alone.
I find that the pictures of the survivors and dead from the death
camps in Europe to be more powerful than words alone.
> And that was my point: If the point of the Art is the Idea, but the
> Idea is harder to get through the Art version, then the Art has to
> offer me something to make the effort worth my while.
To *you*.
> > I note with some irony that the cultures that have mandated
> > what is and is not art, and have rejected the expression of
> > emotion as art, have mainly been totalitarian.
>
> Dunno what this has to do with anything; I can't see anywhere my
> mandating anything.
Every culture I've seen that says "THIS IS NOT ART, THAT IS ART"
and says that ideas should only be presented in certain acceptable
media...
> > > The only reason I would bother to view a work of art, read a work of
> > > fiction, etc., is if I thought it would be FUN to do -- give me some
> > > enjoyment of one kind or another. Sometimes it's a revelatory pleasure
> > > -- Escher is Art, and High Art, to me, because he gives pleasure in
> > > the sheer skill of execution, and THEN gives pleasure in the brilliant
> > > exploration of perceptual cognition.
> >
> > I do not only read escapist prose or poetry, either. I read
> > some things to in hopes of *understanding*.
>
> And to understand something, I would think, would be better served by
> someone stating that thing they want you to understand clearly and
> unambiguously, without covering it in paint or words that make the
> outline of the concept harder to see... UNLESS the paint or words by
> themselves were enjoyable enough to make it worth my while to chip
> away at them and find out what's in the creamy center, so to speak.
I think the issue is that for *you*, anything other than a screaming
blatant blinking sign (or equivalent) is ambiguous, and that you
dislike the idea that the meaning is not immediately obvious.
I gather from your Web page that you're a tech writer. Is that
correct? What is an asset in tech writing doesn't apply everywhere.
> > Escher's work is beautiful, but it does not move me.
>
> Escher's work hits straight at my Sense of Wonder -- the awe inspired
> by both a master craftsman and the ability to twist reality itself to
> force a new vision on you by images alone.
What if he had just said "repeating patterns can look cool", or
"what if we subverted the concept of directionality" ? That would
be a clear statement. Superior?
Trinker
Gene Szedenits, Jr.
"Pat Kight" <kig...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote in message
news:3BD8668F...@ucs.orst.edu...
[snip idiocentric definition of 'art' proposed by a few previous posters]
> "It's a serious question. I'm interested in why art - especially
> graphical/visual art - gets this sort of response, when, say, books and
> music don't. People might say, `That book stunk!' or `That music makes
> my ears bleed!', but I hardly recall hearing people say, `That's not a
> book' or `that's not music' (well, except maybe my parents, once upon a
> time, in the latter case ...)
Does anyone know if this was the case when painting and sculpture
were still mostly representational?
I think I have a wee part of the answer. The further from the concrete
and familiar a piece of art gets, the more it is vulnerable to accusations
of not being art.
Looking at literature first, any novel is recognizably a book. It may be
badly written, boring, cliched, or have any number of other flaws but
as long as the words are strung together into sentences that try to tell
a story, it is still a book.
Poetry on the other hand can look like random words and disjointed
ideas trying to appear deep while being vacuous. I have seen some
poetry (the kind that doesn't even rhyme) criticized as not being poetry.
Music next, is about as far from concrete as an art form can get. Except
for pieces like 'Peter and the Wolf' where each instrument represents a
character or bits of realism like using a genuine cannon in the '1812
Overture', music is abstract sounds. (I am omitting lyrics.) But as long as
the sounds and modalities(?) are familiar, it gets recognized as music.
For some of our parents, 'familiar' meant melodic compositions using
mainly European orchestral instruments. Play something using dissonance
or electronic sounds or 'exotic' scales and it can be called 'not music'.
Painting, as long as it is representational, seems to me to get the same
benefit of the doubt as a novel does. It is recognized as art, however
ill composed or ineptly executed it is. But the more abstract it becomes,
the more likely someone will say "that's not art, that's a paint spill".
Continuing the argument for sculpture is left as an exercise for the reader.
Extra credit for collages. 8)
Gene
Craig Motbey
<snip>
> Take a Pollock painting (the "splashed paint" type). I presume he
>meant to convey SOMETHING with them (otherwise he's just an older two
>year old with a lot more paint than mommy usually gives them), but I
>will be utterly damned if I could possibly even BEGIN to figure out
>what.
>
> By contrast, he could certainly frame in words the basic idea and it
>would take me all of ten seconds to read and understand.
Ahhh, no. The ideas/emotions/experiences he's trying to convey are ones that
he _can't_ clearly and simply express in words. That's the whole _point_.
--
Craig Motbey
Sea Wasp
But why did they buy the installation? It's one thing if it's a
hammer, a set of reference works, or a building. This is something the
public will, at least in reasonable theory, get use out of, directly
or indirectly.
That is not at all clearly the case with "art", especially if you
can't define why installation A by artist B is being purchased, but
not installation X by artist Y.
To be properly democratic, the government should purchase all works
of purported art from all putative artists, unless they can come up
with an objective definition of art that no one will argue with.
Martin Julian DeMello
Enthusiastically :)
--
Martin DeMello/zem
Sea Wasp
I was about to say "gimme an example" but then realized how
ridiculous THAT would be. ;)
All I can say in response to that is that I can't think of any MAIN
IDEA that can't be put forth in words. The ASSOCIATED emotions are
hard, yes, but then only certain people will respond to your imagery
correctly.
John Barnstead
: I was about to say "gimme an example" but then realized how
: ridiculous THAT would be. ;)
: All I can say in response to that is that I can't think of any MAIN
: IDEA that can't be put forth in words. The ASSOCIATED emotions are
: hard, yes, but then only certain people will respond to your imagery
: correctly.
Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat's faithful amanuensis and
general factotum, who has been following this thread closely with grateful
interest, is struck by the fact that so many of the members of the
Patronage-at-Large participating in the discussion view Art as a mode of
communication of an idea... that a work of Art has to 'mean' something...
"I *can't* be the only one around here who derives enormous but
essentially non-ideational pleasure from a Calder mobile or a Brancusi
sculpture -- and then there is non-communicability of the *essence* of
even those forms of Art that *do* 'mean' something -- here I am thinking
specifically of Joseph Cornell's boxes -- there is one of these made by
Elizabeth Bishop which brought tears to my eyes the first time I saw it...
tonight I'll scan a picture of it so that interested folks may view it if
they haven't seen it and can see if they have a similar reaction...
"Anyhow, a heart-felt 'thank you!' to all who are participating in this
discussion -- I am finding it enormously thought-provoking."
Sam Robinson
"John Barnstead" <user...@is.dal.ca> wrote in message
news:9rbr80$79m$1...@News.Dal.Ca...
I may have been a bit confusing in the reply I gave. I said that (IMO) art
is communication. I'm not sure that my statement was clear that
communication doesn't have to be a specific idea or emotion. Much of my
favorite, and IMO the more effective art is not ideational. Music, to a
large extent is not ideational (for me) but rather a journey that is pure
experience. But I feel that this or a mobile, or any number of other forms
communicates an experience.
I feel that this is sort of art might be akin to the speculated
communication of cetacians where the echo return is susupected to allow one
cetacian to "tell" another cetacian _exactly_ how they feel.
<G>
For me, art can be like that.
SamR
Trinker
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Craig Motbey wrote:
> >
> > In article <3BD85C...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net says...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Take a Pollock painting (the "splashed paint" type). I presume he
> > >meant to convey SOMETHING with them (otherwise he's just an older two
> > >year old with a lot more paint than mommy usually gives them), but I
> > >will be utterly damned if I could possibly even BEGIN to figure out
> > >what.
> > >
> > > By contrast, he could certainly frame in words the basic idea and it
> > >would take me all of ten seconds to read and understand.
> >
> > Ahhh, no. The ideas/emotions/experiences he's trying to convey are ones that
> > he _can't_ clearly and simply express in words. That's the whole _point_.
>
> I was about to say "gimme an example" but then realized how
> ridiculous THAT would be. ;)
>
> All I can say in response to that is that I can't think of any MAIN
> IDEA that can't be put forth in words. The ASSOCIATED emotions are
> hard, yes, but then only certain people will respond to your imagery
> correctly.
Umm...explorations of the process of setting paint to canvas.
Expressions of the esthetic pleasure of a certain alignment of
shapes. Motion captured in graphic or tactile format, rather
than a verbal or auditory format.
Trinker
suspecting the problem is that Sea Wasp generally thinks in
words, and not in other ways.
Trinker
Ah, but normally, the process is, "we would like to have some
sort of art to place in the Plaza. We will solicit proposals
until [date]." Artists then submit their ideas, a commmittee
chooses from the proposals, and then the piece is created
and installed.
What is it you're seeking? A formula for selection? Objective
guidelines for "what is good" ?
Trinker
Sea Wasp
> Pernicious the Musquodoboit Harbour Farm Cat's faithful amanuensis and
> general factotum, who has been following this thread closely with grateful
> interest, is struck by the fact that so many of the members of the
> Patronage-at-Large participating in the discussion view Art as a mode of
> communication of an idea... that a work of Art has to 'mean' something...
"Well, if it doesn't MEAN anything, then I can't see any purpose it
can serve but being PLEASING to view. And the whole "pleasure" thing
was being argued against by the other side."
> "I *can't* be the only one around here who derives enormous but
> essentially non-ideational pleasure from a Calder mobile or a Brancusi
> sculpture -- and then there is non-communicability of the *essence* of
> even those forms of Art that *do* 'mean' something -- here I am thinking
> specifically of Joseph Cornell's boxes -- there is one of these made by
> Elizabeth Bishop which brought tears to my eyes the first time I saw it...
You MUST scan a picture; I can't even imagine some object bringing
tears to my eyes (aside from a recently-cut onion, etc) in the absence
of it having a powerful emotional connection with something personally
important to me...
Trinker
People may be interested in my friend Columbine's journal entry
regarding Art http://www.inu.org/bieyi/cruises/notart.htm
Columbine and I (and a few other correspondents) had a rather
impassioned discussion on this a while ago. She likes Mark
Tansey, I don't. She dislikes Claes Oldenburg, whose work
I do like. And I *love* Tom Friedman's work. I know a lot
of people think that Friedman's work is ridiculous, but I
find it a really compelling meditation on the nature of the
creative process, and where one finds art and beauty.
> "Anyhow, a heart-felt 'thank you!' to all who are participating in this
> discussion -- I am finding it enormously thought-provoking."
Thanks for the names you've added to the discussion, Barnstead.
I look forward to seeing the scanned image you mentioned.
--Trinker
Sea Wasp
> I may have been a bit confusing in the reply I gave. I said that (IMO) art
> is communication. I'm not sure that my statement was clear that
> communication doesn't have to be a specific idea or emotion. Much of my
> favorite, and IMO the more effective art is not ideational. Music, to a
> large extent is not ideational (for me) but rather a journey that is pure
> experience. But I feel that this or a mobile, or any number of other forms
> communicates an experience.
It's my contention, though, that if you can't express it accurately
in words, then you're not actually communicating *AN EXPERIENCE*, as
in whatever the Artist wanted to express, but *an* experience, as in
"for some reason you feel X when you look at this painting".
That doesn't seem to be much in the way of "communication" to me,
because you have no idea what the original Artist felt when he made
the work, what the Artist meant to convey, and no idea whether the
experience that you have viewing it is in any way similar to that of
your friend Joe viewing it. In another context (maybe here or on
r.a.sf.w) some people have mentioned that they find, for instance,
descriptions of mountains that imply that they're dark and threatening
to almost wreck their SOD because they don't FIND mountains
threatening but inspiring and uplifting. Such people therefore would
probably be having an experience diametrically opposed to you if you
were viewing a painting of mountains and found them threatening. You
would see the dark, forboding mountains, and they'd see the majestic,
imposing mountains.
In other words, it sounds like Rorsach Blots, and I don't consider
those art.
So if you can't know, let alone feel, what the Artist intended, how
do you tell Art from Inkblots, so to speak? Or, to put it another way,
if you found that some piece of artwork that affected you deeply was,
in fact, a random assemblage of paint or whatever materials thrown
together by pure chance, would you still consider it art?
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp wrote:
> >
> > Craig Motbey wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3BD85C...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net says...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Take a Pollock painting (the "splashed paint" type). I presume he
> > > >meant to convey SOMETHING with them (otherwise he's just an older two
> > > >year old with a lot more paint than mommy usually gives them), but I
> > > >will be utterly damned if I could possibly even BEGIN to figure out
> > > >what.
> > > >
> > > > By contrast, he could certainly frame in words the basic idea and it
> > > >would take me all of ten seconds to read and understand.
> > >
> > > Ahhh, no. The ideas/emotions/experiences he's trying to convey are ones that
> > > he _can't_ clearly and simply express in words. That's the whole _point_.
> >
> > I was about to say "gimme an example" but then realized how
> > ridiculous THAT would be. ;)
> >
> > All I can say in response to that is that I can't think of any MAIN
> > IDEA that can't be put forth in words. The ASSOCIATED emotions are
> > hard, yes, but then only certain people will respond to your imagery
> > correctly.
>
> Umm...explorations of the process of setting paint to canvas.
Ok. That's a fairly simple idea. Easy to express in words. Takes a
lot of paint to explore all the avenues, of course, and some of the
results might be worth looking at. Some won't, as witness my few
attempts to put paint on canvas.
>
> Expressions of the esthetic pleasure of a certain alignment of
> shapes.
An easily expressed idea. Again, however, it's tremendously relative
in any given example. You don't find Escher immensely impressive, yet
this is some of what he does best. He explores the manner of
displaying shapes, of changing your perception of the shapes, and so
on.
Motion captured in graphic or tactile format, rather
> than a verbal or auditory format.
Once more, the idea's trivially easy to describe. And once more, any
individual example is going to be wildly variant in its effects on the
artist and the viewer -- to the point that (as described in detail in
an earlier post) I can't really call this COMMUNICATION.
>
> Trinker
> suspecting the problem is that Sea Wasp generally thinks in
> words, and not in other ways.
I tend to think in words when writing, and images or sensations when
they're appropriate. After all, I can't describe the Ice Peaks or
Thologondoreave and the emotions the characters feel if I can't
visualize them myself.
Sea Wasp
Good? Not necessarily. "What is Art", yes. If the government is going
to choose Artist X's proposal over Artist Y's proposal, I want the
same objectivity of standards of selection that are, at least in
theory, supposed to apply to things like buying jet planes. As in (A)
do we need them, (B) what are the pros and cons of the selections we
have available, and (C) therefore what is the best use of the money.
I don't see that we've even established "A" yet for artworks, in the
sense of "we need them badly enough to take the money we extort from
the citizens and spend it on this stuff", has been reasonably
established.
>
> Trinker
Trinker
enjoyment.]
Trinker
Sea Wasp wrote:
> I don't see that we've even established "A" yet for artworks, in the
> sense of "we need them badly enough to take the money we extort from
> the citizens and spend it on this stuff", has been reasonably
> established.
Sea Wasp, I find myself *so* enraged by this conversation that
it is no longer worthwhile for me to continue any attempt to
communicate my viewpoint to you.
Jette Goldie
Trinker <trinke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BD9991C...@yahoo.com...
> [headbanging against brick walls ceases to bring any shadow of
> enjoyment.]
One suspects that Sea Wasp is a master of the Art Form
of Arguement and Frustration Making ;-)
maenad
> Sam Robinson wrote:
> It's my contention, though, that if you can't express it accurately
> in words, then you're not actually communicating *AN EXPERIENCE*, as
> in whatever the Artist wanted to express, but *an* experience, as in
> "for some reason you feel X when you look at this painting".
Perhaps what the artist wanted is for a people who viewed or heard the work
to have *an* experience, as defined above.
Perhaps the artist couldn't give a rat's ass about MY experience of the work
and is only concerned with their experience of it.
> That doesn't seem to be much in the way of "communication" to me,
> because you have no idea what the original Artist felt when he made
> the work, what the Artist meant to convey, and no idea whether the
> experience that you have viewing it is in any way similar to that of
> your friend Joe viewing it.
So what? It gives me and Joe something to talk about and promotes thinking
and staying up late with half a bottle of Scotch and a discussion of what the
artist might have felt.
> So if you can't know, let alone feel, what the Artist intended, how
> do you tell Art from Inkblots, so to speak? Or, to put it another way,
> if you found that some piece of artwork that affected you deeply was,
> in fact, a random assemblage of paint or whatever materials thrown
> together by pure chance, would you still consider it art?
Sure, why not? Some of the art that has affected me most deeply in the recent
past are shots from the Hubble.
maenad
--
Cry "CHEEBLE!" and let slip the hamsters of war.
-------------------> maenad <at> vex <dot> net <-------------------
Sea Wasp
> > enjoyment.]
>
> One suspects that Sea Wasp is a master of the Art Form
> of Arguement and Frustration Making ;-)
Densetsu no Supaa-Poster Sugoi!
Sea Wasp
Fair enough. I consider "art" to be something with an actual
conscious purpose behind it. I am emotionally affected, as you are, by
things like Hubble photographs, big mountains, etc., but I don't
consider THEM to be art.
Pat Kight
An aside: For anyone interested in Jackson Pollock, Jezebel
wholeheartedly recommends Ed Harris' relatively recent film, "Pollock,"
which is available on videotape. "Among other things, you can seee how
the artist's work evolved from the fairly representational to the later
stuff he's better known for; having that context helps make sense of the
later pieces.
"Harris, BTW, spent years trying to get this film made and during that
period built his own studio and taught himself to paint in Pollock's style.
"If the movie biographers are to be believed, Pollock was a troubled man
and probably not a very nice one, but whatever you think of his work, he
certainly had an artist's *drive* ..."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
>..then
there is non-communicability of the *essence* of
> even those forms of Art that *do* 'mean' something -- here I am thinking
> specifically of Joseph Cornell's boxes -- there is one of these made by
> Elizabeth Bishop which brought tears to my eyes the first time I saw it...
> tonight I'll scan a picture of it so that interested folks may view it if
> they haven't seen it and can see if they have a similar reaction...
The Spinster down in the Lounge, who finds Cornell's assemblages to be
wonderful and mysterious and beautiful and emotionally evocative, offers
a URL in case Barnstead doesn't find time to scan the picture he's
talking about:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cornell/
"Cornell's work was literally fashioned out of trash - one of the
objections some here seem to have with the installation mentioned at the
start of this thread - but to my eyes and soul, it's trash elevated to
art in the hands of a real master."
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> Ah, but normally, the process is, "we would like to have some
> sort of art to place in the Plaza. We will solicit proposals
> until [date]." Artists then submit their ideas, a commmittee
> chooses from the proposals, and then the piece is created
> and installed.
"And in most communities, these committees include representation from
`just plain folks,' not just Arts Eggheads," Jezebel points out.
--Jez
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
> You MUST scan a picture; I can't even imagine some object bringing
> tears to my eyes (aside from a recently-cut onion, etc) in the absence
> of it having a powerful emotional connection with something personally
> important to me...
"Are you saying, then, that you take the world entirely literally, and
feel no visceral or emotional response to metaphor or symbolism?"
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Pat Kight
Jez nods in empathy, and sighs. "The thing that makes me keep probing
here, Trinker, is that Sea Wasp's opinion of public art is one I've
heard expressed before by a *lot* of people ... often including the ones
who hold the public purse strings. So I'm taking this opportunity to try
to understand what's at the bottom of it.
"For what it's worth, I think public art is not only valuable, but quite
possibly necessary to a civilized society ... and I'm damned glad that
cultures past didn't hold to such a narrow definition of Public Works."
Jez offers to buy Trinker a cup o' whatever and sits back to ponder the
troubling notion of Egypt without the Sphinx, Venice without its
statuary, Greece without the caryatids, the Sistine Chapel without its
ceiling ...
--Jezebel
kig...@peak.org
Trinker
>
> Trinker wrote:
> >
> > Sea Wasp wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see that we've even established "A" yet for artworks, in the
> >>sense of "we need them badly enough to take the money we extort from
> >>the citizens and spend it on this stuff", has been reasonably
> >>established.
> >
> > Sea Wasp, I find myself *so* enraged by this conversation that
> > it is no longer worthwhile for me to continue any attempt to
> > communicate my viewpoint to you.
>
> Jez nods in empathy, and sighs. "The thing that makes me keep probing
> here, Trinker, is that Sea Wasp's opinion of public art is one I've
> heard expressed before by a *lot* of people ... often including the ones
> who hold the public purse strings. So I'm taking this opportunity to try
> to understand what's at the bottom of it.
Trinker nods, because that's exactly what got her so worked up.
And considers to herself that she's very thankful that Jez is
contributing to the discussion.
> "For what it's worth, I think public art is not only valuable, but quite
> possibly necessary to a civilized society ... and I'm damned glad that
> cultures past didn't hold to such a narrow definition of Public Works."
"I remember going to Chicago, downtown, and nearly crying with joy
at the sight of so many embellished buildings. The overt function
of a public structure is simply to hold the contents securely, but
oh, how marvelous when it also adds something more to the blank
facade!"
> Jez offers to buy Trinker a cup o' whatever and sits back to ponder the
> troubling notion of Egypt without the Sphinx, Venice without its
> statuary, Greece without the caryatids, the Sistine Chapel without its
> ceiling ...
Trinker accepts the offer and asks Mike for a cup of Darjeeling,
and slides across a golden Sacajawea for Jezebel's next. In
passing, she notes the sculptural quality of the coin, and
wonders about a world where the currency is simply marked with
the denomination and nothing else.
Gene Szedenits, Jr.
"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:3BD991...@wizvax.net...
[big snip]
> In other words, it sounds like Rorsach Blots, and I don't consider
> those art.
> So if you can't know, let alone feel, what the Artist intended, how
> do you tell Art from Inkblots, so to speak?
It sounds to me as if your objection is that the communication
in nonverbal art is ambiguous and not totally reliable.
You are right but consider that the written word has similar
problems. The reader must understand the language of
the author. The reader must have the same vocabulary or,
at least, be willing to look up unfamiliar words. The reader
must 'get' any cultural references or allusions or in-jokes made
by the author or the writing will be less, perhaps not at all,
impressive or satisfying.
I have my Philistine moments (quite a few, actually) when I
dismiss various pieces of art as 'crap' if they fail to move
me at all in any way, but in many cases part of the 'blame'
is mine for not bothering to acquire the background that may
let me see something worthwhile in the piece.
Then other times, it really is just crap. 8)
Gene
that
Gene
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> > I don't see that we've even established "A" yet for artworks, in the
> > sense of "we need them badly enough to take the money we extort from
> > the citizens and spend it on this stuff", has been reasonably
> > established.
>
> Sea Wasp, I find myself *so* enraged by this conversation
How odd. I wasn't even TRYING to annoy anyone. In general I gave up
on that ten, fifteen years ago, with only minor relapses.
Pat Kight
> Pat Kight wrote:
>
>>Trinker wrote:
>>
>>>Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I don't see that we've even established "A" yet for artworks, in the
>>>>sense of "we need them badly enough to take the money we extort from
>>>>the citizens and spend it on this stuff", has been reasonably
>>>>established.
>>>>
>>>Sea Wasp, I find myself *so* enraged by this conversation that
>>>it is no longer worthwhile for me to continue any attempt to
>>>communicate my viewpoint to you.
>>>
>>Jez nods in empathy, and sighs. "The thing that makes me keep probing
>>here, Trinker, is that Sea Wasp's opinion of public art is one I've
>>heard expressed before by a *lot* of people ... often including the ones
>>who hold the public purse strings. So I'm taking this opportunity to try
>>to understand what's at the bottom of it.
>>
>
> Trinker nods, because that's exactly what got her so worked up.
> And considers to herself that she's very thankful that Jez is
> contributing to the discussion.
The Spinster smiles broadly (pun intended), inordinately pleased to have
pleased Trinker.
> "I remember going to Chicago, downtown, and nearly crying with joy
> at the sight of so many embellished buildings. The overt function
> of a public structure is simply to hold the contents securely, but
> oh, how marvelous when it also adds something more to the blank
> facade!"
"Cities with a long history of art in public places are a treat to
visit, aren't they?" Jez smiles. "In older cities, I love the suprising
juxtapositions that result - old bronze sculptures of half-forgotten war
heroes just down the block from the strange, stark forms of monumental
modern sculptures. Such cities feel to me like playgrounds, in a way.
And I've always loved a good playground.
"To me, public art is partly about context. And changing context can
turn a whimsical work into something profoundly moving, overnight." Jez
rummages through her bookmarks and comes up with one that makes the point:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/629487.asp
"This Seward Johnson sculpture probably startled people or made them
chuckle for years. But when I saw the photo, it suddenly seemed to me
rich with metaphoric meaning the sculptor probably never intended.
Context does that, and nowhere more than with public art."
>>Jez offers to buy Trinker a cup o' whatever and sits back to ponder the
>>troubling notion of Egypt without the Sphinx, Venice without its
>>statuary, Greece without the caryatids, the Sistine Chapel without its
>>ceiling ...
> Trinker accepts the offer and asks Mike for a cup of Darjeeling,
> and slides across a golden Sacajawea for Jezebel's next. In
> passing, she notes the sculptural quality of the coin, and
> wonders about a world where the currency is simply marked with
> the denomination and nothing else.
"Or worse yet, vanishes altogether in favor of an imaginary currency
fashioned of digital ones and zeros," Jez agrees.
--Jezebel
happy to find aesthetic meaning in the mundane as well as the sublime
kig...@peak.org
Gene Szedenits, Jr.
"Pat Kight" <kig...@ucs.orst.edu> wrote in message
news:3BD9BE4E...@ucs.orst.edu...
[snippety]
> Jez nods in empathy, and sighs. "The thing that makes me keep probing
> here, Trinker, is that Sea Wasp's opinion of public art is one I've
> heard expressed before by a *lot* of people ... often including the ones
> who hold the public purse strings. So I'm taking this opportunity to try
> to understand what's at the bottom of it.
Being part Philistine, maybe I can help. 8)
First, speaking of the U.S., education in art is generally poor.
The average individual will end up judging artwork as he does
pop music. No beat. Can't dance to it. Must be crap.
Second, following from the first, this individual will resist the notion
that there are other ways to judge and that he lacks the knowledge,
training, etc. to judge fairly. You and the artist are trying to baffle
him with academic bullshit.
Third, original art is, in some ill-defined sense, expensive. Economically
speaking, it is trying to support an artist. It has no economies of scale
to push the price down. And public art, like any public work, involves
sums of money too large for the average individual to have a feel for.
They spent how much? For that?[See 1st point]
Solutions? I dunno. Better art education I suppose but that is
also one of the things the average individual will cut funding for.
Gene
Trinker
The average non-artist also has no idea how expensive art
materials can be...
> Solutions? I dunno. Better art education I suppose but that is
> also one of the things the average individual will cut funding for.
<sigh> I continue to be saddened by the philosophy that cuts
music and art funding and continues funding for sports.
--Trinker
Gene Szedenits, Jr.
[SUH-NIP]
> <sigh> I continue to be saddened by the philosophy that cuts
> music and art funding and continues funding for sports.
Yeah. In my pragmatic Philistine moments I sometimes look
at the former cuts and think, oh, well, it's more important the
kids learn 3R's and technology than playing the clarinet and
a buncha frou frou color names. But then I wonder why they
need to learn running around and throwing balls at school?
Gene
Trinker
Pat Kight wrote:
>
> Trinker wrote:
[...]
> > "I remember going to Chicago, downtown, and nearly crying with joy
> > at the sight of so many embellished buildings. The overt function
> > of a public structure is simply to hold the contents securely, but
> > oh, how marvelous when it also adds something more to the blank
> > facade!"
>
> "Cities with a long history of art in public places are a treat to
> visit, aren't they?" Jez smiles. "In older cities, I love the suprising
> juxtapositions that result - old bronze sculptures of half-forgotten war
> heroes just down the block from the strange, stark forms of monumental
> modern sculptures. Such cities feel to me like playgrounds, in a way.
> And I've always loved a good playground.
"There seems to be a new trend in some communities to aim for more
interesting public gathering spaces. I love this. I think this is
also why I'm pining for a New Beetle. I want to have more whimsy
in my life."
> "To me, public art is partly about context. And changing context can
> turn a whimsical work into something profoundly moving, overnight." Jez
> rummages through her bookmarks and comes up with one that makes the point:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/629487.asp
>
> "This Seward Johnson sculpture probably startled people or made them
> chuckle for years. But when I saw the photo, it suddenly seemed to me
> rich with metaphoric meaning the sculptor probably never intended.
> Context does that, and nowhere more than with public art."
"Wow."
[...]
> > and slides across a golden Sacajawea for Jezebel's next. In
> > passing, she notes the sculptural quality of the coin, and
> > wonders about a world where the currency is simply marked with
> > the denomination and nothing else.
>
> "Or worse yet, vanishes altogether in favor of an imaginary currency
> fashioned of digital ones and zeros," Jez agrees.
"I've been feeling wistful about the impending diseappearance
of the various European currencies. Coupled with the redesign
of American currency, it's making me feel really unsettled.
Losing the Petit Prince seems so..."
> --Jezebel
> happy to find aesthetic meaning in the mundane as well as the sublime
"I made a promise to myself a while ago, which I've been keeping
with occasional lapses -- I'm not going to buy anything that I
find ugly, if I can find something equally functional that I
consider beautiful, instead. I'm not willing to pay double,
or anything, but no more ugly-but-functional trash bins.
I find them too depressing."
--Trinker