Artistic - By nature or learnt
Ian Waters
like developing back-end solutions such as databases and e-commerce sites as
that is what I am good at but as I run my own web design business and cant
afford more staff I have to do the designing aswell. However, I was never
very good at art and I find it very difficult to come up with new
interesting ideas and I have a very bad choice of colours. Do you think
that I could learn to be artistic and creative or do you think that you are
just born with the talent?
Any comments please
Ryan
I'm in the same boat, I really excel at backend work but web design work is
easier to
come by, so I end up doing more design work than dev work. Anyhow, I too
have at times have just run out of ideas... I dunno how creative folks do
it.
However, I find that I'm actually a decent designer as I was big into art
and cartooning
and all that when I was a kid.
I think it's probably possible for people to "learn" to be creative, but it
would certainly be a chore... I think its pretty much something your born
with
or without like most everything else. Just gotta make due with what you've
got.
Then again, you could always outsource the design work. Oops, there's my
aggressive marketing side coming out. Better end this before it turns ugly.
Good luck!
--
Ryan Flynn
Practical web development/design
www.ryanflynn.com
Info
a grasp on e-commerce and not design. With the continued proliferation of
software for the "at home web designer", more individuals are diving into
web design. But very few have the talent and knowledge to deal with the
"money" end of it. You folks with e-commerce experience; your time is coming
SOON!!!
Oz Trad
<nospa...@ianwaters.com> wrote:
The only thing you need to be creative is to want to be creative.
The only thing you need to be artistic is to want to be artistic.
Its just like anything else. Sure there are people who have been born
with talent but it matters more of what they did with their talent. I
have seen people go far because of sheer desire, focus and persistence
and who became talented and creative in the process.
Beware of the follow though; the more you develop your right brain your
left brain will suffer the consequences and visa-versa. I think women's
minds are not as delineated but it still happens to some degree.
Being 'creative' is also a mind set and lifestyle. The following
suggestions will help you to develop your creative side:
1) sleep in late, everyday (in fact discard your alarm clock)
2) try to get 3 or 4 days (non-consecutive) out of your clothing before
a wash
3) go unshaven for days at a time
4) have at least one item of black clothing on your person at all times
5) read The New Yorker magazine
6) never wear socks or underwear
7) have several lovers
8) discard all watches, pagers, cell phones and palm pilots
9) assemble a wardrobe consisting of found garments, yard sale and
thrift store purchases, clothing your family gives you for holidays,
sweaters from former lovers, t-shirts from Old Navy and fleece from REI.
10) Hang out in small, dark, quaint jazz clubs sipping scotch.
11) register to vote green party
12) keep pubic areas shorn above a nub
13) never watch television unless you are at a family member's house
during a holiday
14) go on hikes
15) read a book by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez
16) Play a musical instrument or hang out with friends that play musical
instruments
17) go to art openings just to eat the free food
18) get a couple of esoteric tattoos
19) cook using only olive oil, garlic, white wine, vegetable stock or
honey.
20) smile to the elderly and people of oppressed ethnicity.
21) donate to NPR, PBS, the Surfrider Foundation, Alliance for Survival
and Greenpeace
22) get a part time job at a bookstore or a good bakery
HTH
regards,
andrew
as long as the e-commerce is solid!
andrew
same reason why many people could train and train and train and train and
train,
and still not be able to jump 7' in the air,
and why some people are doomed to always change lanes without signaling,
while others anticipate their lane changes.
BH
Our brains are wired differently, so some people will be more creative while
some will be more logical and sensible. ; )
I also think a lot of this is determined at the early stages of life. The
more you do at a younger age, the more your brain is wired into that kind of
logic. Considering that, I must have beeen raised in a box. ; )
Br.
"Ian Waters" <nospa...@ianwaters.com> wrote in message
news:98el1s$6j5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Oz Trad
<hu...@icenter.net> wrote:
> Right side of the Brain....... Left side of the Brain.....
>
> Our brains are wired differently, so some people will be more creative
> while some will be more logical and sensible. ; )
> I also think a lot of this is determined at the early stages of life. The
> more you do at a younger age, the more your brain is wired into that kind
> of logic.
I would agree. If you have read any of Depak Chopra's books (i read them
before they were trendy) he always referenced studies about an
experiment conducted on newborn kittens who were divided into groups.
The first group being raised in a room in which the only visual input
made available was horizontal lines and the second with only vertical
lines as input. When the kittens were placed in a normal environment,
the kittens who had been raised in the horizontal-line room seemed to be
unable to see vertical lines, and vice versa for the group raised in the
vertical-line room.
Technor
design is more about usability and simplicity rather than purer artistic talent.
I suggest you use some color picker tools to blend the colors for your site. And
nobody is born with talent, just they develop it over the ages due to
encouragement or personal interest. Anyway, one thing to remember is that you
can experiment with colors a lot in web pages. And if you are not into designer
pages, than your task is much simple.
Hari.
"Ian Waters" <nospa...@ianwaters.com> wrote in message
news:98el1s$6j5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Will Sansbury
Yeah, sure... that's what they all say. :)
whs
godspeed you black hypemonger!
> > Right on, Ryan! The future of the web will be in the hands of those who
have
> > a grasp on e-commerce and not design. With the continued proliferation
of
> > software for the "at home web designer", more individuals are diving
into
> > web design. But very few have the talent and knowledge to deal with the
Tape recorders didn't butt recording studios out of buisness and create tons
of
record exec. jobs. The invention of super 8 cameras like 40 years ago didn't
shut
the doors of Hollywood.
> > "money" end of it. You folks with e-commerce experience; your time is
coming
> > SOON!!!
Yeah, sure.. as many MANY dot.coms fail and thousands of workers are laid
off.
Rick Cooper
I don't ... especially if it is an ecommerce site ... if it looks like a
piece of crap, I doubt the seriousness and validity of the company... like
hmmm ... seems to be a fly-by-night operation. I never get far enough into
the site to find out whether the ecommerce works or not. Another example, I
was part of a team that worked on an mp3 site (the design part of the team)
and the programmers continually got their way, overriding the ideas of the
designers. Site had a bulletin board... many guests posted on the bulletin
board .... "site is supposed to be about music .... its looks about as
exciting as turtles mating"... I don't think you can learn to be creative
... although you can learn design and emulate good designers ... anymore
than I can learn the back-end design ... I've tried and I cannot even muster
up one iota of interest in it.
______________________________
Suzanne@CampusTech
http://www.campustech.com Beta site: http://campust.iserver.net
Big Discounts on Software for Students and Teachers.
"andrew" <and...@no.mail> wrote in message news:3AAAF715...@no.mail...
Philipp Lenssen
kahuna-D5BC03....@news.tstonramp.com...
>..
> Beware of the follow though; the more you develop your right brain your
> left brain will suffer the consequences and visa-versa.
Before I go into a lengthy rant of how it's all just about ideas and being
creative and doing quality work and reflecting on what you do and really
wanting to achieve something because you love the craft, be it painting,
programming, music, and that because you get fresh views on the world one
activity will only enhance the others, be it left or right or any other side
of the brain in this esoteric oversimplification... tell me, are you just
kidding?
Back on topic: everbody's an artist, you just start out by being really bad
at what you do, and you go from there, forward in slow steps to wherever you
want to take it. After that it sometimes happens you will slowly start to go
back, but then you're intentionally bad, and you can call it modern or naive
art, and make a quick buck out of it and bath in champaigne the whole
weekend, two or more people of the preferred sex by your side.
Dimitri
Knowing how to design OR program for e-commerce doesn't get you an
honorary MBA.
Why do some people argue over the importance of trades in an industry?
You are just a hired hand like most everyone else. Business runs the
web, not e-commerce programmer or designer- nor writer for that matter.
Some individuals will make more money than other's, some attempt to
perform all job tasks so they can maximize their profits. But when push
comes to shove- people who have the money to hire specialties prefer to
do just that.
And yes, we have seen where this 'talent' of money handling by
e-commerce wizards has taken the web so far. : )
andrew
sign me up
Dimitri
Oz Trad wrote:
>
> 17) go to art openings just to eat the free food
>
> 18) get a couple of esoteric tattoos
>
> 19) cook using only olive oil, garlic, white wine, vegetable stock or
> honey.
>
> 20) smile to the elderly and people of oppressed ethnicity.
>
> 21) donate to NPR, PBS, the Surfrider Foundation, Alliance for Survival
> and Greenpeace
>
> 22) get a part time job at a bookstore or a good bakery
>
> HTH
>
(taking notes)
Wizard of Draws
> Being 'creative' is also a mind set and lifestyle. The following
> suggestions will help you to develop your creative side:
>
> 1) sleep in late, everyday (in fact discard your alarm clock)
I try, I *really* try.
>
> 2) try to get 3 or 4 days (non-consecutive) out of your clothing before
> a wash
My Levis® last a week minimum.
>
> 3) go unshaven for days at a time
Many parts of my body are unshaven.
>
> 4) have at least one item of black clothing on your person at all times
I look best in red.
>
> 5) read The New Yorker magazine
Nope. Flying mags only.
>
> 6) never wear socks or underwear
I get bent when I have to wear the "mismatched" white socks.
>
> 7) have several lovers
Um, 24 years of monotony, er, monogamy.
>
> 8) discard all watches, pagers, cell phones and palm pilots
Throw away my GPS?! Are you nuts?!
>
> 9) assemble a wardrobe consisting of found garments, yard sale and
> thrift store purchases, clothing your family gives you for holidays,
> sweaters from former lovers, t-shirts from Old Navy and fleece from REI.
Levis®, Levis® and more Levis®.
>
> 10) Hang out in small, dark, quaint jazz clubs sipping scotch.
If it ain't Neil Diamond, it ain't music.
>
> 11) register to vote green party
Libertarian or nothin'.
>
> 12) keep pubic areas shorn above a nub
I'm Italian. We have more than just nubs, thank you.
>
> 13) never watch television unless you are at a family member's house
> during a holiday
Soprano's baby!
>
> 14) go on hikes
Can do it in a Cessna?
>
> 15) read a book by Gabriel Garcia-Marquez
If it ain't Tom Clancey, it ain't literature.
>
> 16) Play a musical instrument or hang out with friends that play musical
> instruments
Does the harmonica count as an instrument?
>
> 17) go to art openings just to eat the free food
I hate hanging out with the artsy crowd.
>
> 18) get a couple of esoteric tattoos
Why put engrave a piece of art permanently on my body, when I wouldn't hang
the same thing on the walls of my house?
>
> 19) cook using only olive oil, garlic, white wine, vegetable stock or
> honey.
Mmmmmmmmmm.
>
> 20) smile to the elderly and people of oppressed ethnicity.
Why not smile at everyone?
Everybody now...
[the Coca-Cola theme]
I'd like to teach the world to sing,
In perfect harmony...
>
> 21) donate to NPR, PBS, the Surfrider Foundation, Alliance for Survival
> and Greenpeace
[expletive deleted]
>
> 22) get a part time job at a bookstore or a good bakery
Got at least one more more job than I need now, than you.
-----
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
www.wizardofdraws.com
www.cartoonclipart.com
Have You Soloed and Been Pilot in Command?
http://www.wizardofdraws.com/main/shirts.html
Slips with Flaps shirts still available!
Angela M. Cable
http://www.justkiss.com/psp/cre_intro.htm
Ian Waters wrote:
> However, I was never very good at art and I find it very difficult to come up with new
> interesting ideas and I have a very bad choice of colours.
--
Angela M. Cable
http://www.neocognition.com
PSP Tutorial Links:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/9871/PSPlinks.html
5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/
BladePro Visual Archive:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~angeal/
Oz Trad
<ca...@allwest.net> wrote:
> Here's an URL I ran across in another group a while ago that might help:
> http://www.justkiss.com/psp/cre_intro.htm
angela, anybody ever tell you you're great
Dimitri
Technor wrote:
>
> I am too in the same boat, but I was never told that I am bad in design. Web
> design is more about usability and simplicity rather than purer artistic talent.
> I suggest you use some color picker tools to blend the colors for your site. And
> nobody is born with talent, just they develop it over the ages due to
> encouragement or personal interest.
Disagree.
Many people work very hard to develop a particular skill and they
respect natural talent-but in some cases choose to minimize it as
something simply due to age or education. By far it's a fact that
individuals being the *individuals* they are have unique ability and
capacity unto themselves. Whether it would be an atypical information
absorption rate or a grasp of spatial concepts. How the world would
change if it was just a simple matter of having enough motivational
experts at hand for us to become the next Da Vinci, Bethoven, or
Socrates for that matter?
It's also not a matter of taking credit away from someone to acknowledge
they aren't 'talented'. We shouldn't cater to emotional securities in
the equation. You can't take away what people didn't have to begin with.
You can learn skills, you can't learn to be a mountain goat or virtuoso.
Why some people get hung up on limitations is beyond me. The real power
comes from accepting and understanding our limitations, *once we have at
least attempted to reach them*.
For instance-no matter how I try I cannot think like my brother- who is
a natural clown. I could never LEARN to become as mentally reflexive as
he regarding developing comical scenarios and quick wit. I just can't do
it. That is not my strong suit. I can accept that. Again, people cannot
develop what they don't have-they will always fall short- just ask a
triathelete or bodybuilder if everybody has identical potential;
building the same stamina, bone or muscle mass for intance. Then how can
one rationally go about differentiating physical and mental capacity if
both originate at our core atomic level?
Now, if the subject is having enough skills to do the job- that's a
different subject. That can come simply from discovery, observation,
duplication and repetition. You'll make a living, even be successful,
but it has little to do with anything. If you've never witnessed and
acknowledged talent- quite possibly you're uncomfortable with being
humbled by it.
I can't be convinced it's all a matter of trying harder or other
anectodal means to self-improvement. There's a missing variable we can't
place our finger on in these discussions. I would say that talent is
natural inclination- something which is hard-wired into our
physiological framework. It doesn't have to be fully realized, it just
needs to exist in a raw observable form.
One thing I believe is that we are ALL talented in something and we
should ALL strive to develop and refine it to enhance the world we live
in.
Take care.
Craig
Technor
trying to make here is that with ecommerce sites or back-end websites, the
stress is more simplicity and usuaability rather than pure artistic talent. And
this can be developed. Observation and experimentation help a lot in this
context.
And your example of being like your brother, you are talking of personal
nature rather than art. Though both are deeply interrelated, to an extent they
do differ. A talented musician can be called a genius, but an ordinary person
can be called a musician and he can be one too, though he might not become a
genius. Certain arts are related to human nature, like music, and painting arts.
I believe that no one is born special, it is only motivation that makes
experts, motivation of different kinds that are incomprehensible to others and
that sometimes cannot be expressed.
Hari.
Carol Ott
your environment has anything to do with the way you turn out.
This should be interesting....
--Carol
"Technor" <hari_k...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98ggph$1ponn$1...@ID-35318.news.dfncis.de...
Dion
just steal from other artists, and after a while you'll start to see
something that's really yours..
draw the things around you everyday for a year and im sure anyone that
honestly did it would be talented by the end of it..
after the year, you'll be addicted to art and everything else will be
unimportant..lol
--
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~dion/
Ian Waters <nospa...@ianwaters.com> wrote in message
news:98el1s$6j5$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Angela M. Cable
that's approaching half a meg :-)
--
Technor
say, environment is a crucial factor that induces productivity and the quest for
excellence.
Hari.
"Carol Ott" <cs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cwQq6.1787$6p5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Poptart7O4
>trying to make here is that with ecommerce sites or back-end websites, the
>stress is more simplicity and usuaability rather than pure artistic talent.
Don't mistake simplicity as the non-involvement of design. It's often the
designer's job to take a riot of information and convey it to the user in a
somple, concise, usable manner.
Michelle
Jo
artistic. It is part of our nature.
dimitri
"Jo" <joanne...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3AAE61B0...@home.com...
> If you have the desire to learn and observe and take the time to, anyone
can be
> artistic. It is part of our nature.
>
Within the infinite range of how 'art' is defined I would agree. A 2 year
old can create 'art'. It seems at times that art is simply defined as an
object that's appreciated, no matter who, or what size the audience.
I'm not sure that this really tells us anything about the capacity of anyone
to create it however, and which would engender the origin of the stimulus
(academic training and / or raw talent) and the ability to competently
repeat the event.
And that's what I believe separates 'artistic' creativity from a pleasant
happenstance, or rote monkeysee-ism for that matter. Simply having a desire
doesnt' mean much without the ability to understand how and where to add a
little bit of ourselves to an easily replicated mix and birth an
individualistic expression in the process. I don't believe it's part of our
nature to find creativity at the end of some long persistent journey. A
certain degree of sophisticated thinking (whether concious or subconcious)
must happen along the way. Though I don't believe we are all born with
those instructions.
Oz Trad
<pla...@the-spa.com> wrote:
> Within the infinite range of how 'art' is defined
"art is the lie that shows us the truth"
-- Pablo Picasso
Madman
A wise man wrote:
> A certain degree of sophisticated thinking (whether concious or
subconcious)
> must happen along the way. Though I don't believe we are all born with
> those instructions.
"dimitri
Hmm... ok, but can that level of thinking be trained into a person? What if
its a matter of perception? And isn't perception not only influenced by
genetics, but also by circumstance, conscouse, and unconscous thought, and
free will? I always thought that I had a slighlty differant then average
view of the world. I think that most if not all artists feel this way. We
"see" different. Not because we where born this way, but because we apply
our own values/perceptions to something. We think different, applying what
we know to be true (at least to us)and what we want to be true. So for
example, raise a child to hate things that normal society thinks are
attractive. say a women (just an easy example) and you ask him to describe
the women, to paint a picture. you'll get a series of images that don't seem
to fit, that odds are, tend to be pretty interesting. The child is making
jumps in logic and ituition based on how he was raised, how he dealt with
being raised that way, his hormonal instincts (women gooood). You make him
think different. I always thought art was interpreting things based on your
perception. The more unique or strange, the more chance for something
unexpectant, and fascinating. As for design theory, alot of that breaks down
into logical thinking, which almost anyone who applies him/her self too, can
do. I'm not rock solid on this, just thinking out loud.
uh.........I stop now, brain hurt.
Madman
grayehound
What makes an artist?
Why are we creative?
Are we born to be creative or are we trained that way?
What is the nature of talent?
And the original question: If I'm not creative, can I learn to be?
I don't have any answers. I'm not a psychologist, nor have I studied
the depths of the reasons why people become the beings that they are. I
only know what I view through my tiny fleshy window:
I know my mom wanted to be an artist, but never got the chance. I
remember growing up seeing her little drawings and wanting to do that.
So I did. I know many of my mom's family are artistic, so does that
make it genetics or is it training, or both?
I know when I entered school I had unique experiences that made my
projects different from everyone elses. Not necessarily better, just
different. As time went by I had plenty of opportunities to discover
what I really enjoy doing and what I like challenging myself with. I
always found creating images to be fun, and always looked forward to the
next one.
When I got out of shool and started to do this stuff for real, it was
occasionally hard, occasionally easy and occasionally boring. But I
always had fun doing it. I wouldn't give this up for anything.
I often feel like I'm not creative enough. Even when I finish something
I'm proud of I take a look back and see things I could improve...not go
back and change, just know I have to do better the next time. I read
essays and books by artists and hear that same thing over and over...I
want to do better, I'm never satsified.
I don't consider myself an artist. It's not because I don't think what
I do is art, but because I am so much more than just some little title
or classification. Besides, calling onself and artist seems so
egotistical, seems like you are taking an undo amount of attention to
what everyone around you is saying about you.
I haven't answered any of those questions and I can't. I don't know how
someone who knows how to do the backside of web pages really well can be
more creative. I don't think anyone can help this person. They asked
looking for a reason for their inability, a salve perhaps to sooth their
insecurity. All I have to tell this person is just keep trying harder,
don't accept what you have done as being the best you can do. Once you
think you are at the top of you abilities, you are.
grayehound
Gem
--
Gem
Technor
intelligence and perceptions. And satisfaction in Art is death.
Hari.
"grayehound" <graye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3AAEBC3B...@my-deja.com...
Geophagus
that I would be a graphic artist today, I would have laughed and gone
back to taking care of my various animals (I think I wanted to be a
veterinarian at one point). I still to this day can't draw worth a
damn, but I can push pixels around in a somewhat pleasing manner. :)
I seriously doubt I have an "innate" artistic ability....I just know I
gradually evolved to where I am now, and believe me, no one could be
more surprised. :)
For what it's worth,
-Julie B.
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 04:00:33 GMT, andrew <and...@no.mail> wrote:
>born with it.
>
>same reason why many people could train and train and train and train and
>train,
>and still not be able to jump 7' in the air,
>
>and why some people are doomed to always change lanes without signaling,
>while others anticipate their lane changes.
>
>Ian Waters wrote:
>
>> Do you think
>> that I could learn to be artistic and creative or do you think that you are
>> just born with the talent?
>>
>> Any comments please
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
andrew
Stan Wojda
dimitri wrote.
> Within the infinite range of how 'art' is defined I would agree. A 2 year
> old can create 'art'. It seems at times that art is simply defined as an
> object that's appreciated, no matter who, or what size the audience.
>
I'll join the fray with my definition.
To me art is simply communications. We as humans have a need to communicate
our thoughts, feellings, ideas to fellow humans. We use whatever means at our
disposal, be it visual, audio, tactile, etc. to reach the rest of humanity.
Our ability to do so and the success we have in reaching others is the measure
of art. A dancer for example is as much a true artist as someone who draws or
paints, in that the dancer is capable of comunicating emotion as well as visual
astetics through their medium. I measure my success as a visual artist not by
the technical prowess I have achived through training or natural ability but
by my success in communicating to my fellow humans. If I reach someone on an
intellectual or emotional level I am an artist. We as "commercial artists"
simply transfer our ability to communicate to the practical needs of others,
who do not have those communication skills. It does not make what we do any
the less "art" if it successfully communicates. The Mona Lisa and the
Coca-Cola can are equally good pieces of "art".
Mike C.
Geophagus wrote:
>
> I disagree. If you had told me 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago,
> that I would be a graphic artist today, I would have laughed and gone
> back to taking care of my various animals (I think I wanted to be a
> veterinarian at one point). I still to this day can't draw worth a
> damn, but I can push pixels around in a somewhat pleasing manner. :)
> I seriously doubt I have an "innate" artistic ability....I just know I
> gradually evolved to where I am now, and believe me, no one could be
> more surprised. :)
Can I see a sample of your work?
":^) ®
--
Mike C.
* Logo Design
* DHTML & GIF Animation
* Custom Graphics for YOUR Site!
Stop by and see if my skills and talents are up to your standards.
Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
NEW SITE at: http://www.mikeslogoland.com/
mailto:mi...@artistmike.com?Subject=Logo.Project
Tor de Vries
Sounds like the Peter Principle, no?
I missed most of this discussion (everybody give a round of applause to
OnSite's news servers), but I'll jump in and possibly be way off-topic,
dunno.
The nature of art is elusive. One of the most interesting books I've read
regarding the subject is "Has Modernism Failed?" by Suzi Gablik. It isn't
directly about the nature of art, but it discusses the relationship between
society and art -- which is really how art is defined. Is something "art"
because the artist says so, because an art critic says so, because a small
group of people says so, or because society at large says so? Is there an
_objective_, Platonic definition of art that everyone agrees to, or is art
really _completely_ subjective?
tdv
grayehound
Tor de Vries wrote:
>
> > Once you think you are at the top of you abilities, you are.
>
> Sounds like the Peter Principle, no?
>
Nope, not in the least. The Peter Principle states that (and this is a
gross oversimplification) as a system (in the original version it was an
employee) evolves and completes progressively more difficult tasks, at
some point they reach the limit of their competence and progress no
further. My point was simply if you convince yourself that you are the
best you can be, then you've closed yourself off from trying anything
new. Whether or not the Peter Principle has and basis in reality is
another discussion entirely.
grayehound
Greg Dorr
original post.
Ian, you don't need to worry about "art." What your customers want is Good
Design -- form executing function -- which can be easily learned. Too many
designers confuse art with design, which is why we end up with publications
like RayGun, that look cool but are unreadable. There is a delineation
between the two. Art is meant to express an idea. Design is meant to
aesthetically facilitate a function. The two can intermingle, but aren't
married.
There are simple rules to design and when you become comfortable with those,
you can move on to more complex ideas.
There's a book by English designer Robin williams called something like
"Design for the Non-Designer" and it gives a brief overview of the basic
design rules. No art -- just easy to learn.
Dan
to, or is art really _completely_ subjective?<<<
Subjective. Wonderfully, refreshingly subjective.
Man needs to quantify and qualify: "Why does this make me feel so good? Does
it have the same effect on others? No, not on everyone. Why?"
Art is a catalyst that leads to passionate discussions/debates/insights
about ourselves. Art will never be objective.
Dan
--
To reply, remove ooo from address
---------------------------------------------
"Tor de Vries" <tdev...@isospace.com> wrote in message
news:B6D5146D.18C18%tdev...@isospace.com...
Tor de Vries
In that case, is it pure coincidence that much "art" is universally accepted
as art, while some is only accepted by a small percentage of the population?
We all agree that da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is art, but many people disagree on
Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ".
Should we invoke sociology to determine why art gains acceptance over time?
Does it? Should it?
> Art is a catalyst that leads to passionate discussions/debates/insights
> about ourselves. Art will never be objective.
For most of history, art has been considered very objective. This changed
only in the last 200 years (or so), and really only changed for Western
culture. (Ask a typical Chinese peasant about a typical painting by Jackson
Pollock; I've never done this, but I have predictions.) This change has
given rise to all sorts of things being labeled "art" -- colored shit in
glass jars, nailing oneself to the roof of a Volkswagen and selling the
bloody nails, burying a kilometer-long bar of steel vertically and capping
the hole with the name plate, sitting in a large empty room and rapidly
writing your name on t-shirts, etc.
So, what you really mean is, "in Western culture, art will never again be
objective."
Mike C.
Tor de Vries wrote:
>
> > Subjective. Wonderfully, refreshingly subjective.
>
> In that case, is it pure coincidence that much "art" is universally accepted
> as art, while some is only accepted by a small percentage of the population?
> We all agree that da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is art, but many people disagree on
> Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ".
You are looking for a universal truth. I don't think you will
find one.
Tor de Vries
>> as art, while some is only accepted by a small percentage of the population?
>> We all agree that da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is art, but many people disagree on
>> Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ".
>
> You are looking for a universal truth. I don't think you will find one.
Actually, I was merely commenting on sociological issues, and that the
concept of "art" varies across time and space. It has not always been (and
is not always) the freewheeling "anything-goes" idea we are discussing, and
which most of us accept.
I can try to look for more universal truths about art, but the only one I've
found so far is: Art Exists.
Dan
>>>So, what you really mean is, "in Western culture, art will never again be
objective."<<<
No, I wrote exactly what I meant.
>>>We all agree that da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is art, but many people disagree
on Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ".<<<
If someone thinks something is art, are they wrong? If it is art *to them,*
are they wrong?
>>>For most of history, art has been considered very objective.<<<
By who? Scholars? Certainly not artists, and certainly not common folk. Line
up 2000 people and ask them about the Mona Lisa -- now talk to me about
"objective." You may never use the word again.
>>> (Ask a typical Chinese peasant about a typical painting by Jackson
Pollock; I've never done this, but I have predictions.)<<<
You are hinting at something, but you haven't made your point. Make your
point here.
>>>This change has given rise to all sorts of things being labeled
"art" --<<<
Spoken as if art were only to be enjoyed, labeled, dissected, blessed and
defined by some imaginary, exclusionary club. They wish!!
>>>...-- colored shit in glass jars<<<
I'm picking up a vibe here. Are you saying this *isn't* art?
Dan
--
To reply, remove ooo from address
----------------------------------------------
"Tor de Vries" <tdev...@isospace.com> wrote in message
news:B6D53790.18C6D%tdev...@isospace.com...
Tor de Vries
>>>> For most of history, art has been considered very objective.<<<
>
> By who? Scholars? Certainly not artists, and certainly not common folk. Line
> up 2000 people and ask them about the Mona Lisa -- now talk to me about
> "objective." You may never use the word again.
Maybe here and now, but if you had lined up 2000 Italians during the
European Renaissance, you would have gotten mostly similar responses about
art. There were VERY definite ideas about what was art, and what wasn't;
"artists" stepping outside these bounds were ostracized, ignored, sometimes
killed. Ditto for the Greco-Roman culture. Check your art history books --
in most cultures, during most of history, "art" has been very narrowly
defined.
I'm trying (not very well, apparently) to say that even though you and I may
think of art as purely subjective, this is a fairly recent and localized
belief over the course of history. I am not saying that all cultures have
always agreed upon a universal definition of art. Rather, each culture has
a narrow definition of art (likely conflicting with other cultures), but
only recently has any culture (Western) chosen to believe that _all_
artistic viewpoints are acceptable/correct. You seem to be saying that all
cultures, all the time, have believed that art is subjective, and if I lined
up 2000 people today, I'd learn that. Yeah, right. If I lined up 2000
people from America, versus 2000 people from Iraq, versus 2000 people from
China, I strongly suspect the first group would have wildly diverse opinions
about art, while the other two would have much narrower definitions of art.
Different from each other, but very narrow.
Maybe the problem here is that you think I'm looking for an omniscient,
omnipresent art ideal. Whereas I think I'm discussing attitudes in art
across time and space, and how your comment that "art will never be
objective" is a fairly new and radical idea in the art world (historically
speaking).
Do _you_ think there is any unifying characteristics of art, things that
apply to all art ever created?
>>>> ...-- colored shit in glass jars<<<
>
> I'm picking up a vibe here. Are you saying this *isn't* art?
I'm not sure. I need to know more about the artist's intentions. If
different colors of shit were self-evidently artistic, then I see beautiful
art all over the ground every time I walk the dog path at a nearby park --
and it sure isn't art. If the artist has a purpose or point of discussion,
then it might very well be art. Either way, this work is debated, and so I
mention it.
</opinion>
Madman
of competance, but of incompetance. This is supposed to explain bad bosses
and the like. Just what I heard, though it would explain an awfull lot.
Madman
"grayehound" <graye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3AAFA2C6...@my-deja.com...
grayehound
Tor de Vries wrote:
>
> <opinion>
Good of you to note that fact. But, then, everything in this newsgroup
is opinion, so it just stating the obvious. An opinion is only so good
as the factual data it is based upon.
>
> Maybe here and now, but if you had lined up 2000 Italians during the
> European Renaissance, you would have gotten mostly similar responses about
> art. There were VERY definite ideas about what was art, and what wasn't;
> "artists" stepping outside these bounds were ostracized, ignored, sometimes
> killed. Ditto for the Greco-Roman culture. Check your art history books --
> in most cultures, during most of history, "art" has been very narrowly
> defined.
Art history books are written by people who never lived at that time
(for the most part) and who only know what they know by reading and
studying and guessing. What you "know" of a common Renaissance
Italian's opinion on what makes up art is absolutely nothing, unless of
course you have read through an enormous cache of private journals that
gives you a great cross section of society at that time. Yes, there
were cases documented in court registeries throughout the Renaissance of
an artist's work being denigrated or even destroyed because it didn't
fit within the strictures of the dominant art-purchasing body, the Roman
Catholic Church (an excellent example would be Veronese's Feast in the
House of Levi), but how do you presume to suppose that the church spoke
for the opinions of the common citizenry? Art historians are usually
the first to admit that they don't try and define what art is, but
because their expertise their opinion is taken as law it is interpreted
in that way.
>
> I'm trying (not very well, apparently) to say that even though you and I may
> think of art as purely subjective, this is a fairly recent and localized
> belief over the course of history.
Another case of assumption and guessing based on few true facts. Unless
you know what everyone throughout history was thinking, how can you
presume to state this point?
>I am not saying that all cultures have
> always agreed upon a universal definition of art. Rather, each culture has
> a narrow definition of art (likely conflicting with other cultures), but
> only recently has any culture (Western) chosen to believe that _all_
> artistic viewpoints are acceptable/correct. You seem to be saying that all
> cultures, all the time, have believed that art is subjective, and if I lined
> up 2000 people today, I'd learn that. Yeah, right. If I lined up 2000
> people from America, versus 2000 people from Iraq, versus 2000 people from
> China, I strongly suspect the first group would have wildly diverse opinions
> about art, while the other two would have much narrower definitions of art.
> Different from each other, but very narrow.
I would really, REALLY strongly suggest you talk to someone who has
studied art in China and find out how "narrow" their view of art is. We
think that because we live in America that we are open-minded and
liberal in our definitions of art. Sure, you are unlikely to find
things found at the Tate in the Chinese National Museum, but don't think
that the CNM speaks for over a billion people.
>
> Maybe the problem here is that you think I'm looking for an omniscient, omnipresent art ideal.
Give up that search. It's a red herring.
>Whereas I think I'm discussing attitudes in art
> across time and space, and how your comment that "art will never be
> objective" is a fairly new and radical idea in the art world (historically
> speaking).
Perhaps. Western views of art have opened dramatically as technology
has leapt forward. If art is a reflection of the society that it is
based on (about the only true definition of art that I've ever heard),
then it should come as no suprise that a time of greater possibilities
has led to an opening in the views of art.
>>>> ...-- colored shit in glass jars<<<
Ahhhh, Maplethorpe. He continues to bug people even after all these
years. Same could be said for Picasso and Klee I suppose.
> >
> > I'm picking up a vibe here. Are you saying this *isn't* art?
>
> I'm not sure. I need to know more about the artist's intentions. If
> different colors of shit were self-evidently artistic, then I see beautiful
> art all over the ground every time I walk the dog path at a nearby park --
> and it sure isn't art. If the artist has a purpose or point of discussion,
> then it might very well be art. Either way, this work is debated, and so I
> mention it.
I am not here to provide a view on what is and isn't art. I don't know
what it is for anyone but me. But making broad-based allegations with
vague historical references, layering on heaps of assumption and
sprinkling liberally with personal bias goes a bit further than just
opinion. I don't disagree with your ideas, I just think the way you
went about presenting them to be questionable.
grayehound
grayehound
Madman wrote:
>
> The way a teacher of mine described it, was not reaching the highest level
> of competance, but of incompetance. This is supposed to explain bad bosses
> and the like. Just what I heard, though it would explain an awfull lot.
>
> Madman
Yea, the original theory was actually written as a farce of sorts to
explain why your boss is an imbecile. Really good reading if you can
get your hands on it. The idea's so good that it's been adapted to
explain some evolutionary threory.
grayehound
Dan
>>>Maybe here and now, but if you had lined up 2000 Italians during the
European Renaissance, you would have gotten mostly similar responses
about...<<<
====> but
====> Italians
====> during European Renaissance
====> would have
C'mon Tor. You clearly asked what IS, not what WAS. I am not going to debate
art history with you.
>>>I'm trying (not very well, apparently) to say that even though you and I
may think of art as purely subjective, this is a fairly recent and localized
belief over the course of history. I am not saying that all cultures have
always agreed upon a universal definition of art. Rather, each culture has
a narrow definition of art (likely conflicting with other cultures), but
only recently has any culture (Western) chosen to believe that _all_
artistic viewpoints are acceptable/correct.<<<
blah blah blah blah blah so f*%#ing what?
>>>You seem to be saying that all cultures, all the time,...<<<
I wrote *exactly* what I meant to write, with no qualifications and no
historical baggage. Take it at face value.
>>>Maybe the problem here is that you think I'm looking for an omniscient,
omnipresent art ideal.<<<
I don't think either one of us know what you're looking for or what your
point is this afternoon.
>>>I think I'm discussing attitudes in art across time and space,...<<<
Kewl. With who?
>>>Do _you_ think there is any unifying characteristics of art, things that
apply to all art ever created?<<<
Oh good, a question. Yes.
>>>> ...-- colored shit in glass jars<<<
>
> I'm picking up a vibe here. Are you saying this *isn't* art?
>>>I'm not sure. I need to know more about the artist's intentions.<<<
You see, now *this* is very interesting to me. You need intentions. For art.
Are you serious? Intentions. "What are your intentions, Artist?" As in,
"Please explain your work to me."
What if you really liked a particular piece of art -- loved it -- bought it
and enjoyed it for years, and then one day met the artist of your beloved
work who explained his "intentions" -- and you found him to be disturbing
and morally bankrupt. What then? Is the art still art, or is it now bad art,
or is it total crap?
>>>If the artist has a purpose or point of discussion, then it might very
well be art.<<<
Oh my god, what if he doesn't??? What happens if the art doesn't come with
an acceptable essay? By the same token, if the work arrives duly
authenticated and with a 27-page artists' dissertation on *purpose,* is it
art?
Depends, doesn't it? It depends on something else...what?
Dan
--
To reply, remove ooo from address
---------------------------------------------
"Tor de Vries" <tdev...@isospace.com> wrote in message
news:B6D55168.18C8A%tdev...@isospace.com...
Mike Minovski
>Tor de Vries wrote:
>>
>> > Once you think you are at the top of you abilities, you are.
>>
>> Sounds like the Peter Principle, no?
>>
>
>Nope, not in the least. The Peter Principle states that (and this is a
>gross oversimplification) as a system (in the original version it was an
>employee) evolves and completes progressively more difficult tasks, at
>some point they reach the limit of their competence and progress no
>further. My point was simply if you convince yourself that you are the
>best you can be, then you've closed yourself off from trying anything
>new. Whether or not the Peter Principle has and basis in reality is
>another discussion entirely.
>
Ooops... wrong detail here. According to Peter's Principle, the
'progress-no-further' point is not the limit (i.e. maximum level) of
competence, but the initial level of incompetence :)
This makes a world of diference, doesn't it? Achieving one's maximum
competence level is an excellent goal, whereas going an inch beyond it turns
things upside down.
Aside from the aphorismic style of that book, I believe it was written to
attract attention to the fact that energy and determination always have to
be
accompanied by caution, especially at 'higher levels'.
Anyway, I think Peter's Principle could hardly be related to art... it was
formulated rather having in mind structured systems - to which art
definitely
doesn't belong.
mike m.
--- Observing equilibrium. ---
grayehound
Mike Minovski wrote:
> Ooops... wrong detail here. According to Peter's Principle, the
> 'progress-no-further' point is not the limit (i.e. maximum level) of
> competence, but the initial level of incompetence :)
>
> This makes a world of diference, doesn't it? Achieving one's maximum
> competence level is an excellent goal, whereas going an inch beyond it turns
> things upside down.
Okay, I believe the correct term is DOH! That's what I meant, yeah,
that's what I meant, and what's more, I was going to say EXACTLY what
you said, but I figured I was just going on to long like i always seem
to do. I guess I just like to write...
grayehound
Mike Minovski
Hey, Stan, I'm coming in to contradict :))
To me art is before all perception. We as humans have a desperate (even if
not
readily realized) need to perceive, over and over again, what's around us.
This is a process fed on both ends: through both the infinite human
curiosity
(a separate topic to dwell on) and the richness of our funky little universe
that keeps revealing itself slowly, layer by layer, no one knowing when/if
this will end...
Imagine mankind as one creature, and perception as its 'eye' (generally
speaking). Then the perceptive ability of each individual is an elementary
facet in this eye, seeing things from a different angle, and with different
intensity. All those facets/visions have a unique angle. The vision of
artists, however, is not only unique but also deep and clear... or
peculiarly
distorted. By all means, the facet of a true artist is worth many 'ordinary'
facets because it adds to the overall perception (hence, knowledge) of
mankind
much more than an ordinary facet does.
This explains what is the common between a painter, a composer and a dancer:
they all have *that* perception, first of all - and it makes them artists.
Communication comes after that - for the simple reason that the perceived
needs to be communicated; otherwise the existence of perception wouldn't
make
sense.
This explains why the recognition of art sometimes remains for the future.
Communication is rather a skill, a craft... although every perfectly
mastered
skill tends to be called 'art'. In fact, given the vague way in which human
beings use words, *any* human creation that is impressive and not easily and
universally conceivable/accomplishable, tends to be called 'art'.
This explains why the Coca Cola notion (hmmm... some doubt here ;) could be
called 'art', too.
What you perhaps had in mind with your definition is that those who are
'officially recognized' as artists usually have both the artistic perception
and the skills to communicate it, the skills being the more visible part of
the set.
What possible combinations can we have then? (from an artistic point of
view!)
Artistic perception (+), communication skills (+) = officially recognized
artist.
Artistic perception (+), communication skills (-) = unrealized artist.
Artistic perception (-), communication skills (-) = non-artist.
Artistic perception (-), communication skills (+) = ..... designer, maybe?
;))
mike m., designer :)
--- Observing equilibrium. ---
Mike C.
Maybe you reached your level of Incompetence?
Mike Minovski
>
>> Ooops... wrong detail here. According to Peter's Principle, the
>> 'progress-no-further' point is not the limit (i.e. maximum level) of
>> competence, but the initial level of incompetence :)
>>
>> This makes a world of diference, doesn't it? Achieving one's maximum
>> competence level is an excellent goal, whereas going an inch beyond it
turns
>> things upside down.
>
>
>Okay, I believe the correct term is DOH! That's what I meant, yeah,
>that's what I meant, and what's more, I was going to say EXACTLY what
>you said, but I figured I was just going on to long like i always seem
>to do. I guess I just like to write...
>
>grayehound
Don't worry, graye, same with me... :))) Wish I had time more often...
BTW, I very much agree with you former post (the long one ;)
Oz Trad
<tdev...@isospace.com> wrote:
> We all agree that da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is art,
BTW, there is speculation that the Mona Lisa was a self-portrait in
drag, no kidding. Researchers have superimposed da vinci's image over
the ML face to find it identical. That is also presumably the reason for
the ML smirk.
grayehound
grayehound
Drew wrote:
> This promises to be a thriller!
>
> In the pink boa and purple thong known throughout Usenet as a
> cantankerous ass. Able to chase his tail and bark nonsense at the same
> time. Known to put bevel and embossing moves on his opponents with one
> hand tied behind his back. Hypocritical and full of shit. Yes folks,
> let's give it up for the Imperor of the Silly People, Mike C.
>
> His challenger today hails from parts unknown. Wearing his
> camouflage green halter and shorts, a renowned marksman famous for
> saving ammunition, quick with the word and sharp with the pixel. Let's
> hear it for os2K!
>
> Settle in now folks, this should be good.
>
> Ding. Ding. Ding.
Dan
>>>Along the same lines, I imagine many of us have seen the cat painting
books where cats get paint on their paws on then run about canvasses, white
walls, etc.. So is the cat the artist or is the cat-owner the artist and
the cat but a brush. ;-)<<<
Cat labor laws aside, I'd say it was a collaboration.
Carol Ott
Have a nice pain pill and keep ice on your face. Otherwise you'll swell up
like a Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade float.
Bog smooches!
--Carol
"grayehound" <graye...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3AB25849...@my-deja.com...
<snip>
> grayehound (recovering from having wisdom teeth chooped out)
>
Madman
Its like a zen puzzle, if a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one to
hear it...did it make a sound?
Madman
::just being annoying at this point::
"Stan Wojda" <srw...@mtco.com> wrote in message
news:3AB22B02...@mtco.com...
>
>
> Geophagus wrote:
>
> >
> > So I guess my question is: does it have to be done by a human to be
> > considered art?
>
> Not at all. The finest examples of "art" exist without any human
> intervention at all. A sunset over the ocean, the spirals of a seashell,
> colors of a New England fall, all elicit the same range of emotion and
> involvement as any work of humans. The art, as I've said in this thread
> before, is in the eye of the beholder. Humans are ego centric in their
> belief that only they have the ability to either produce or appreciate
> art. We are just becoming sensitive to the intricacies of a whales song. I
> saw a gorilla using sign language to convey his deep sense of loss at the
> death of his mate. His touching epitaph was easily as good as much of the
> modern poetry I've read. I choose to believe that art is as much a force
> of nature as gravity and just as hard to define. There is an old song
> called "The Old Master Painter" that credits God with creating everything
> as pieces within an all encompassing work of art. Regardless of your
> religious belief, there might be a germ of truth in it.
>
Mike Minovski
<3AB18773...@the-spa.com> :
>
>
>Mike Minovski wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Why do I sense some 'dryness' in your points, Dimitri? Come on, *you* can't
>> be
>> disillusioned about art!!!
>>
>
>Not at all. Though I don't know what you mean by 'dry'. Maybe: a readied
>opinion as if I've tested my theories and become bored with anticpated
>results, and like now I'm bored with art as it's lost a sense of
>exploration for me?
Yeah, that's what I thought for a sec...
>Not likely my good friend. I love art. I love exploration. My opinions
>are just ineffective attempts at grasping something that's beyond my
>understanding.
Just as mine... still I like the attempt, never mind its inefficiency... hm... which is not typical of me, should I be honest... :) Obviously art is bound to be an exception - in all possible ways...
.. which is fine, BTW. Just imagine art as a norm... BAH!!!
>
>I have spent a few hours contemplating art in this context. I don't have
>the answers, never will. But it's fun to explore.
Right... and it's even more fun to explore together with others whose mindsets are different from your own.
>In fact I don't really
>want to know the truth about art- it's not a prerequisite for me
>enjoying the process.
Oh, well, I personally wouldn't mind to know it... but that's my mathematical side speaking, don't pay attention ;)
mike m.
--- Observing equilibrium. ---
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
Dimitri
andrew wrote:
>
> wrong.
>
> Dimitri wrote:
I guess I'll never know why, though will I......
Will Sansbury
> Can we get Gregory Girl or Carol in the thong, instead?????
Not so sure I'd want to see that "Gregory Girl" character in a thong.....
whs
Geophagus
http://nether.to/julie/picaday.htm
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:12:17 GMT, "Mike C." <mi...@artistmike.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Geophagus wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:53:41 GMT, "Mike C." <mi...@artistmike.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Can I see a sample of your work?
>>
>> Did you not see my 14 Days project?
>> http://www.nether.to/julie/picaday.htm
>
>
>The DNS on "nether.to" does not resolve. "Unknown server"...
>
>":^) ®
>
>--
>Mike C.
>
>* Logo Design
>* DHTML & GIF Animation
>* Custom Graphics for YOUR Site!
>
>Stop by and see if my skills and talents are up to your standards.
>
>Site at: http://www.artistmike.com
>NEW SITE at: http://www.mikeslogoland.com/
>mailto:mi...@artistmike.com?Subject=Logo.Project
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dimitri
: )
I believe that art is influential perception of an object that has no
better instantaneous purpose but to stir our imaginations. The resultant
'message'(if any) is pure subjective translation, and this
'communication' should not imply a minimum degree of assimilation, nor
understanding of the process.
We give art life by the simple act of gazing upon it. We give it
humanistic purpose by honoring it with appreciation.
IMHO the debate is not about what art is really, but rather how our
'appreciation' threshold works. Something cannot be considered art if we
just let it sit there regardless of WHO created it or WHAT their
motivation was.
An analogue of 'does a falling tree make a sound if nobody heard it?'
Neither is something art simply because it exists.
--
Panta Design Studio
Dimitri
Madman wrote:
>
> The way a teacher of mine described it, was not reaching the highest level
> of competance, but of incompetance. This is supposed to explain bad bosses
> and the like. Just what I heard, though it would explain an awfull lot.
>
>
I see this alot, especially in management. It's the person who squeaked
into a promotion and makes decisions by using an old set of rules. And
to top it off, they don't know they're over their head so they neglect
expanding their knowledge or skill base. Just a matter of time before
someone notices. Then BANG, back down a level. And now that black mark
will take a long time to wash off.
I have a friend who spent 8 years building his credibility back up.
I've always suscribed to 'don't let your ability lag too far behind your
BS'
grayehound
"Mike C." wrote:
> > Okay, I believe the correct term is DOH! That's what I meant, yeah,
> > that's what I meant, and what's more, I was going to say EXACTLY what
> > you said, but I figured I was just going on to long like i always seem
> > to do. I guess I just like to write...
> >
> > grayehound
>
> Maybe you reached your level of Incompetence?
>
> ":^) ®
In that case, my best posts are behind me and I might as well hang it up and never
post again.
*sigh*
I was beginning to like being a pest, too.
grayehound
Tor de Vries
> the common citizenry? Art historians are usually the first to admit that they
> don't try and define what art is, but because their expertise their opinion is
> taken as law it is interpreted in that way.
In this case, no historical is reliable; it is all subjective and open to
whatever interpretation you and I want to make.
I have read quite a lot of Italian Renaissance literature, by artists, about
artists, and otherwise. I've also studied under people who focus their
research on the Italian Renaissance. I do not feel that I'm just shooting
in the dark. Perhaps at the end of the I.R., the artistic ideal began to
shred, but for most of it there seem to have been fairly narrow ideas
_throughout_ the culture. (Being Italian may have clouded my interpretation
of history.)
> I would really, REALLY strongly suggest you talk to someone who has
> studied art in China and find out how "narrow" their view of art is.
I haven't talked to everybody in China, of course -- 1.5-2 billion people is
an awful lot. You're right in saying that I am making vast allegations
about a complex and ancient culture located on the opposite side of the
planet; I extrapolated these opinions based on native Chinese, Korean and
Japanese artists I know, have met, or have read.
> I am not here to provide a view on what is and isn't art. I don't know
> what it is for anyone but me. But making broad-based allegations with
> vague historical references, layering on heaps of assumption and
> sprinkling liberally with personal bias goes a bit further than just
> opinion. I don't disagree with your ideas, I just think the way you
> went about presenting them to be questionable.
It is also questionable for you to assume I am speaking out of ignorance.
If you want historical references to the first point, I could spend a few
weeks researching it and provide you with a lengthy bibliography, but it
isn't worth my time.
Taking the "2000 random people" example, it seems obvious that a "narrow
definition" would not be limited to a single point of view. On a
statistical chart of people versus art ideas, I think you would get a much
taller and narrower curve in Renaissance Italy (for example), and a much
shorter and broader curve in modern America. If you assumed that I meant
"Everybody believes X", then you need to turn the contrast down on your
monitor; I said it was significantly narrow, not totally unanimous. But in
modern American, "everybody believes A, B, C... Z, A1, B1, C1... Y^N or Z^N,
take your pick".
What about my "ideas" don't you disagree with?
Tor de Vries
Thanks for contributing.
> You see, now *this* is very interesting to me. You need intentions. For art.
> Are you serious? Intentions. "What are your intentions, Artist?" As in,
> "Please explain your work to me."
Don't be ludicrous. Artists sit down and make art. If all art has
something in common (as you say) then at the BARE MINIMUM there is some kind
of commonality to what the artist creates. There is always something I can
interpret for myself -- color sense, shapes, surface quality, tone,
atmosphere, attitude, whatever. But with something like colored shit in
jars, it seems _obvious_ that there was an intention, because it insists on
circumventing social norms. Perhaps that's all the artist wants, which is
fine. In this particular case, I want to know more.
As I said, I know where to find colored shit just lying around on the
ground. If you like, I can pick it up and mail some to you, for you to
display in your home.
Tor de Vries
>
> BTW, there is speculation that the Mona Lisa was a self-portrait in
> drag, no kidding. Researchers have superimposed da vinci's image over
> the ML face to find it identical. That is also presumably the reason for
> the ML smirk.
Yeah, I know, that suspicion has been around for years. God's cloud and
entourage in the Sistine Chapel also bear a strong shape resemblance to a
brain and cerebral cortex.
Tor de Vries
> never post again.
No need for you to do this, grayehound, but sometimes I wish others would.
:-)
> I was beginning to like being a pest, too.
lol...
Tor de Vries
> Neither is something art simply because it exists.
There are a lot of people who would disagree with you.
Mike C.
Dimitri wrote:
> Something cannot be considered art if we
> just let it sit there...
So for you "art" does not exist until some human "considers" it?
Things do not have intrinsic "art" qualities until a human thinks
that they do?
Hummm.
I don't think I agree.
":^) ®
Humans are not necessary for objects to have qualities.
Stan Wojda
Mike Minovski wrote:
>
> What you perhaps had in mind with your definition is that those who are
> 'officially recognized' as artists usually have both the artistic perception
> and the skills to communicate it, the skills being the more visible part of
> the set.
>
Mike -
I think were both saying the same thing in two diffrent ways. My point is that
the "art" is in the communication or transfer of an idea, or emotion to someone
else. The "perception" as you call it is understood. Without the peception there
would be nothing to communicate. I used the coke can analogy because as an icon
the can is instantly recognizable to virtually everyone. We see that red can and
recognize the logo and know instantly what to expect. It has perfectly
communicated its message to us. My son went to the Art Institue in Chicago this
weekend and was bowled over by a Degas on exhibit. He came back stunned that a
painting could have that kind of impact on him. That painting by Degas fits my
definition of art not so much by its techincal mastery but by the effect it had
on my son. From my viewpoint the artist creates or if you will percieves the
work but it becomes "art" when it connects to the viewer. I understand my view is
not going to be widely held. By my standards a Norman Rockwell is as much "art'
as a Rembrant. The difference between them is not if one is the better artist.
In my opinion they are both excellent communicators. The difference is in the
value of the message they convey. Rembrant being the clear leader.
The problem I have with much of the "art" created is not with the skill, or lack
of it, that I see but with the fact that it fails to communicate its message to
me. The artist perception as you called it dies a lonely death if it is not
recieved by his audience.
os2k
news:3AB0FE2B...@artistmike.com...
>
>
> Stan Wojda wrote:
> >
> > The artist perception as you called it dies a lonely death if it is not
> > recieved by his audience.
>
> sand, there was no "death".
>
> Art objects ... objects made by an artist have no need to be seen
> by a human. The objects will not "die a lonely death" if they
> are not seen by humans.
>
> You are giving human characteristics to objects. They don't have
> those characteristics.
>
> Humans on the other hand do die, do die lonely deaths at times.
>
> Mixing the two together does nothing to understand what "Art" is.
>
Do you understand what the word "perception" means? I perceive your work to
be shit, you perceive it to be great, I perceive you to be a banal ranting
fool, you perceive me to be funny, so on and so forth.
Mike C.
Stan Wojda wrote:
>
> The artist perception as you called it dies a lonely death if it is not
> recieved by his audience.
Objects have no "death"... even if taken apart and ground into
sand, there was no "death".
Art objects ... objects made by an artist have no need to be seen
by a human. The objects will not "die a lonely death" if they
are not seen by humans.
You are giving human characteristics to objects. They don't have
those characteristics.
Humans on the other hand do die, do die lonely deaths at times.
Mixing the two together does nothing to understand what "Art" is.
":^) ®
os2k
>
> does this "perception" float above the object? Float just to the
> right of the object?
>
> The art object possesses the "artist's perception" or it would
> not be "art".
>
The "art" possesses nothing but the chemicals it was created from. I have
never, nor will I ever meet DaVinci, I know very little about the man with
the exception of what I have read about him. My perception of his work is
one thing, I have no freaking idea what his perception was. For all I know,
he may have been totally disgusted by what he did on the Mona Lisa, I enoy
it. You may find what I do to be crap, or in your words, "shit".
Unfortunately, you will never find out, unless you heppen to have a 128 bit
encrypted password, a top secret clearance, and a document from someone that
I work for and a letter from your mother.
> Thus the object being destroyed also destroys the "artist's perception".
>
> Do you understand yet?
>
> I chuckle at you.
>
> ":^) ®
>
>
>
> > I perceive your work to
> > be shit, you perceive it to be great, I perceive you to be a banal
ranting
> > fool, you perceive me to be funny, so on and so forth.
>
>
> You are writing about YOUR perceptions not the "artist's
> perceptions". You are confused again.
>
> I laugh at you now.
Mike C.
os2k wrote:
>
> Do you understand what the word "perception" means?
Is the artist's "perception" incorporated into the object? Or
does this "perception" float above the object? Float just to the
right of the object?
The art object possesses the "artist's perception" or it would
not be "art".
Thus the object being destroyed also destroys the "artist's perception".
Do you understand yet?
I chuckle at you.
":^) ®
> I perceive your work to
> be shit, you perceive it to be great, I perceive you to be a banal ranting
> fool, you perceive me to be funny, so on and so forth.
You are writing about YOUR perceptions not the "artist's
perceptions". You are confused again.
I laugh at you now.
":^) ®
Mike C.
os2k wrote:
>
> > > Do you understand what the word "perception" means?
> >
> > Is the artist's "perception" incorporated into the object? Or
> > does this "perception" float above the object? Float just to the
> > right of the object?
> >
> > The art object possesses the "artist's perception" or it would
> > not be "art".
> >
> The "art" possesses nothing ...
Oh. I see... you bring the "art" to the object. The object has
no intrinsic "art"... the viewer brings all the qualities of
"art-ness" that may be attributed to the object.
Interesting ego you have there.
":^) Ž
Too bad your ego inflation is based on nothing.
":^) Ž
os2k
> no intrinsic "art"... the viewer brings all the qualities of
> "art-ness" that may be attributed to the object.
>
> Interesting ego you have there.
>
> ":^) Ž
>
> Too bad your ego inflation is based on nothing.
>
Just like the ignominious statements that you make? Sorry sport, no ego
here. Also no scruples, no morals, and no conscience. If you would like to
continue this conversation, I suggest you find someone more on your level.
I'll see if Homer Schnerdlinger is available. If not, be advised that I can
shoot from the hip, I hit what I aim at, and I usually aim at the heart.
Think very carefully before replying fella, what I have to say just might
screw you to the wall.
Stan Wojda
contension is that the "art" is in the eye of the beholder, and the sucess of
the artist is in his/her ability to communicate that concept they intended to
the viewer. Using the Mona Lisa example. The art DaVinci intended (percieved)
when he created the Mona Lisa may not be the same art you precive in viewing
it. The fact that you enjoy viewing it means simply that you found "art" that
DaVinci may or may not have intended. He has communicated with you in some
maner.
cpg
>
>":^) ®
But humans are necessary for purely human constructs to exist. So does
'Art' exist independent of the human experiences necessary to create
it and interpret it? I don't think so but I invite you to come up with
an example of art that does not rely on human qualities.
cpg
Dan
I say Tomato, you say European Renaissance.
I say 2000 people, you say 2000 Italians.
I say Objective, you say art history books.
Grayehound suggests you talk to someone who has studied art in China, you
say "I haven't talked to everybody in China, of course -- 1.5-2 billion
people is an awful lot."
I say when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Drew
In the pink boa and purple thong known throughout Usenet as a
cantankerous ass. Able to chase his tail and bark nonsense at the same
time. Known to put bevel and embossing moves on his opponents with one
hand tied behind his back. Hypocritical and full of shit. Yes folks,
let's give it up for the Imperor of the Silly People, Mike C.
His challenger today hails from parts unknown. Wearing his
camouflage green halter and shorts, a renowned marksman famous for
saving ammunition, quick with the word and sharp with the pixel. Let's
hear it for os2K!
Settle in now folks, this should be good.
Ding. Ding. Ding.
Tor de Vries
Very original, Dan. Did you have something deeper to contribute, or are you
content with belittling fellow ADG'ers?
Tor de Vries
>
Beer! Get your beer over here! Cold beer, $5.50 a cup! Warm beer, $2.75!
Might be hot piss, $1.25!
Drew
Maybe not, but humans are necessary for appreciation/rejection.
Drew
os2k
news:3AB125AD...@nobodyimportant.com...
ROTFLMFAO!
os2k
news:B6D690BB.18DAB%tdev...@isospace.com...
RROTFLMFAO!
Drew
Does it come with a crucifix stirrer stick?
Drew
Mike C.
os2k wrote:
>
> > Oh. I see... you bring the "art" to the object. The object has
> > no intrinsic "art"... the viewer brings all the qualities of
> > "art-ness" that may be attributed to the object.
> >
> > Interesting ego you have there.
> >
> > ":^) ®
> >
> > Too bad your ego inflation is based on nothing.
> >
>
> Sorry sport, no ego
> here. Also no scruples, no morals, and no conscience.
I am pleased you bring nothing to the discussion.
":^) ®
Tor de Vries
>
> Does it come with a crucifix stirrer stick?
Only if you supersize your order.
Dan
won't discuss your beloved Italian Renaissance. That's *your* deal, not
mine.
Concerning your generous offer of sending me colored shit to display in my
home -- it would be sealed in some sort of air-tight container, yes? And on
the off chance that it doesn't fully compliment my decor (you never know), I
assume I can return it without penalty...correct?
Dan
--
To reply, remove ooo from address
--------------------------------------------
"Tor de Vries" <tdev...@isospace.com> wrote in message
news:B6D68E92.18DA5%tdev...@isospace.com...
Drew
Mike C. misses with a weak right cross. Fans, he's looking a little
sluggish early in this match. Not his usual form.
Tor de Vries
> won't discuss your beloved Italian Renaissance. That's *your* deal, not
> mine.
To quote Mike C... * chuckle * You've spent time telling me I'm wrong, but
haven't said much more. For example, you haven't mentioned what
characteristics you think are shared by all art; you simply said "yes", you
think there are some. Would you care to elaborate? Otherwise, I am left
with the impression that you would rather nit-pick than contribute
substantively to the spirit of the discussion. (That's the "predictability"
I mentioned some months ago.)
> Concerning your generous offer of sending me colored shit to display in my
> home -- it would be sealed in some sort of air-tight container, yes? And on
> the off chance that it doesn't fully compliment my decor (you never know), I
> assume I can return it without penalty...correct?
Air-tight, for sure. But there is enough of this to go around, so if it
doesn't match your decor, just pass it along to someone else. It makes a
great birthday present. You can even sell it, if you like -- royalty-free!
I am thinking about starting a mail-order business for this stuff; would you
be interested in being a dealer or salesperson? Charter members get a
discount.
tdv
Mike Minovski
>Oh jesus.. you guys are starting to sound like me.
>
>: )
You're contagious, Dimitri... :)))
>
>I believe that art is influential perception of an object that has no
>better instantaneous purpose but to stir our imaginations. The resultant
>'message'(if any) is pure subjective translation, and this
>'communication' should not imply a minimum degree of assimilation, nor
>understanding of the process.
Ditto. To dwell a bit further, the beauty of art lies to a great extent in
the
fact that the way it stirs one's imagination and the resulting message are
as
varied as the individuals that 'consume' it... even though sometimes the
message is so loud and clear everyone tends to agree on its content;
nevertheless its details remain different for each viewer.
>
>We give art life by the simple act of gazing upon it. We give it
>humanistic purpose by honoring it with appreciation.
... and we give it value by allowing the consequences of its message take
place in ourselves, be they rational or irrational, material or spiritual...
if you wish, positive or negative (standards?... ;)
>
>IMHO the debate is not about what art is really, but rather how our
>'appreciation' threshold works. Something cannot be considered art if we
>just let it sit there regardless of WHO created it or WHAT their
>motivation was.
In the same line, something *can* be considered art if it has opened a
different 'perception window' to even one single viewer. I'd always have
that
initial respect for everything that has been created with the intention to
be
'art', even if its message to me is not so memorable. Maybe for someone out
there the meeting with it would be the event of their life...
>
>An analogue of 'does a falling tree make a sound if nobody heard it?'
>Neither is something art simply because it exists.
>
True... although it *may* still be latent art which will be recognized as
such
in the days to come.
Why do I sense some 'dryness' in your points, Dimitri? Come on, *you* can't
be
disillusioned about art!!!
mike m.
--- Observing equilibrium. ---
os2k
> >
> > Sorry sport, no ego
> > here. Also no scruples, no morals, and no conscience.
>
> I am pleased you bring nothing to the discussion.
>
> ":^) ®
>
I prefer that the table be even during a discussion.
Mike Minovski
>Mike Minovski wrote:
>
>>
>> What you perhaps had in mind with your definition is that those who are
>> 'officially recognized' as artists usually have both the artistic
perception
>> and the skills to communicate it, the skills being the more visible part of
>> the set.
>>
>
>Mike -
>
that
>recieved by his audience.
Yes, I agree we're both saying the same thing.
The difference is that IMO the *basic* thing about art is the presence of
that
unique artist's view on things which is beyond the abilities of the
non-artist.
Communication is a toolset. Of course, you can have different tools, and you
can master them to a different extent. You can even create your own, unique
tools - but that doesn't necessarily make you an artist. I'm sure you can
think of some illustrator who has a unique graphic style but all he can (or
would) is interpret other's ideas. No, I wouldn't object calling him an
artist, this is a gesture of respect. But I know people who are artists in
their souls, and the fact that their toolset is (yet) poor, or not well
mastered, doesn't deprive them of the right to be respected for their
potential. The difference is that they use their artistic talent when doing
simple things: arranging their homes or telling stories... still, they *are*
'artists by soul', and I'm always glad to grant such a recognition to those
who deserve it.
Or, should I continue that facet analogy, I'd say that if you have a
facet/window with a wonderful and peculiar view, you still have it - even if
the window is dirty. Of course, it would be best if you had a high-quality,
non-distortion, perfectly clean panoramic glass, plus some night lights,
plus
everything non-relevant removed from the site, plus comfortable seats for
the
audience... that's communication. Sometimes good communication can make even
a
simple view adorable.
Still, the point is having the view.
Some have to bring down walls to reveal theirs.
I do respect your points, Stan... and I, as a designer, practice them much
of
the time, providing flawless and efficient communication means for ideas
that
are not necessarily mine, and not necessarily ones that I like ;) But I also
like to generate my own ideas... that is, invite others to look through my
facet - as far as this is possible in a commercial discipline such as
graphic
design for the advertising industry.
Not self-confident enough to jump into fine art, though... :)
Dimitri
"Mike C." wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh. I see... you bring the "art" to the object. The object has
> no intrinsic "art"... the viewer brings all the qualities of
> "art-ness" that may be attributed to the object.
>
Exactly. Beauty is a human term. Perfection is a human term. By OUR rule
set alone.
Dimitri
Drew wrote:
>
> > Might be hot piss, $1.25!
>
> Does it come with a crucifix stirrer stick?
Would that be the same crucifix stirrer stick belonging to the rabbit on
the moon who never had to make a decision?
: )