What is art?
SpaceGirl
people think...
----------------
> But then there is no communication, human to human, which is what I think
is
> necessary to make it art. To me, art requires someone to be trying to
> express something, and another to try and "decode" that message. I can see
> where to some, it might be just the attempt at expression that makes art.
> Just an opinion.
----------------
How about taking this further. We're so used to seeing images with messages,
we're so manipulated by media, don't we naturally decode everything without
even realising it? All language (except, perhaps 'speaking in tongues') - be
it visual, physical or conceptual (like spoken or written language) is
passively decoded. Effortless.
So you're suggesting art requires someone to create the art, and someone to
view it, for art to actually 'become' art. Sort of transmission / receiver
stuff. Isn't this a natural process?
Art is subjective too - at least if you believe art has to have a message,
emotional or otherwise. If I'm to create a particular piece of 'art' while
in a particular mood, isn't the art a reflection of that? It might be a pile
of bricks, but to me there is an emotional meaning to it. So, perhaps that
isn't quite art yet. Lets say I throw a pot of paint onto a big canvas in a
fit of rage. Art? Perhaps. Or is it art if someone witness this event.
Because then we've both witnessed it. I created it, the other saw it. That
canvas will forever have meaning beyond the physical paper and paint.
Take that a step further. Can this be applied to anything? If I freeze frame
any portion of my life that holds meaning and splash it on a page, isn't it
art? Isn't the street outside art (after all it may or may not have meaning
to someone else, if not necessarily myself). If this isn't the case, how can
a photograph be art?
I think art is;
If the artist creates something, or draws attention to something and
attempts to infuse that item/event with a meaning which can be passed on
(transmitted), then it's art. It might just be a messed up bed, a pile of
bricks - or even an oil painting. The physical media doesn't matter. The
message does.
Now throw a spanner in the works; does the artist necessarily know the
message they are trying to communicate? I'm not even sure this matters - it
can mean different things to the artist at different times. The same goes
for the receiver (viewer) of the art. The meaning could be lost over time,
or the emotion response to art change form person to person - it could be a
completely different reaction than intended by the artist. Does this mean
it's any more/less a piece of art?
Miranda
SpaceGirl
So all the pretensions bullshit you hear on art shows and in galleries is
meaningless. Who cares what other people think a piece of art means. It's
more important to you, or the artist. The two don't really have to mirror
each other.
"Matt Bostock" <matt@butnospam...mattbostock.com> wrote in message
news:ZDC0a.16409$pS2.730524@stones...
> Art is what one makes it.
>
> --
> www.mattbostock.com
> professional graphic design
>
>
>
> "SpaceGirl" <spac...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
> news:b1usnn$15o17r$1...@ID-129131.news.dfncis.de...
> ---
> No viruses found in this message.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 1/11/02
>
>
Matt Bostock
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"SpaceGirl" <spac...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:b1usnn$15o17r$1...@ID-129131.news.dfncis.de...
Ron George
"SpaceGirl" <spac...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:b1usnn$15o17r$1...@ID-129131.news.dfncis.de...
> people think...
>
> ----------------
Buckle up. Im brewing a pot of coffee now.. stand by for deep answer, :D
CutterJon
<spac...@subhuman.net> wrote:
> Exactly!!!!!!
>
> So all the pretensions bullshit you hear on art shows and in galleries is
> meaningless. Who cares what other people think a piece of art means. It's
> more important to you, or the artist. The two don't really have to mirror
> each other.
>
meaning comes after the fact.
It's like a meteoroid crater. Art is the meteor.
The artist may have created it with the intent of producing a crater,
or they may have just wanted to create the meteor. The crater just
happens, either way.
Art is anything that a person creates out of inspiration. It's a
phenomenon that challenges description-I think, because we don't
understand other people's inspiration-we can't quantify it. We can only
instictively qualify it, and we sometimes don't trust our own
instincts, so we trust others'. We're never sure that they aren't
pulling our legs.
Words are a lesser, or at least a different form of expression.
Describing art with words is almost always bullshit. It's a lesser form
of expression.
Why does contrived crap look or sound or feel like contrived crap,
while truly inspired work has some intangible quality that people
appreciate? Because inspiration speaks to our instincts. It jumps from
one person's primal knowledge to another's. Meaning is personal and
comes after the fact. It's just a secondary hook. It's language hung
onto that which came from primal instinct.
If you were the only person on the planet, you would still feel
compelled to create. And it would all be art, even without gallery
mumbo jumbo.
In my own experience, I've furiously painted paintings-even over weeks
and weeks and then much later discovered some really obvious personal
meaning that I hadn't noticed before. Maybe my subconscious was
directing me, maybe I made up the meaning after the fact. Who cares? It
doesn't make the thing that gets made any less or more of a thing. Just
more "meaningful". (to me)
If someone else comes by and puts some other meaning into it, then you
just bridged the void between you and them with this strange form of
communication. Your primal, inspired self just said "hello!" to
another.
Big deal.
--
CutterJon
quiqueg
> Art is what one makes it.
>
much like sex, the more you speak about art, the less you make it.
QQG
Lionel
"SpaceGirl" <spac...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:b1usnn$15o17r$1...@ID-129131.news.dfncis.de...
Fred Doyle
Quite a message! I've never been one to back away from a philosophical
discussion, so.....
(You may want to put on hip boots, some might feel the bs will get very deep
in this response...)
>...don't we naturally decode everything without even realising it?
> All language (except, perhaps 'speaking in tongues') - be
> it visual, physical or conceptual (like spoken or written language) is
> passively decoded. Effortless.
Yup. Ok. Humans try to see pattern and meaning in everything innately,
sometimes even when it isn't there. Its what we do, and we are damn good at
it.
> So you're suggesting art requires someone to create the art, and someone
to
> view it, for art to actually 'become' art. Sort of transmission / receiver
> stuff. Isn't this a natural process?
Yup. A natural human process. Here's a questions for the cultural
anthropologists hanging around, does any other creature have art? I don't
think so, but I don't know.
> Art is subjective too ...
Yup, it requires a subject to see and interpret it by my definition.
>If I'm to create a particular piece of 'art' while
> in a particular mood, isn't the art a reflection of that?
Probably, I'd assume so. There are a lot of times I don't want my
professional "art" to reflect my mood, believe me. (
>but to me there is an emotional meaning to it.
Yup, ok, you encoded a message.
> So, perhaps that
> isn't quite art yet. Lets say I throw a pot of paint onto a big canvas in
a
> fit of rage. Art? Perhaps. Or is it art if someone witness this event.
Um, perhaps....just not very good art. It doesn't really tell me very much
about your mood. There's no depth, and no subtlety. You have to expect that
the general reaction to this is not going to be much more than, "ho hum."
I've felt pissed off and thrown things, and thrown things for other reasons.
Don't expect many people to value it, pay for it, care about it. There's no
beauty of execution in it, as in Ron's dictionary definintion of art, which
is one very common way that artists create value in art. It isn't going to
communicate very much, really, because no one will care to look at it. But I
guess between you and the friend that saw it, there could be a very human
moment communicated.
> If I freeze frame
> any portion of my life that holds meaning and splash it on a page, isn't
it
> art?
Just bad art for the most part. Anna Nicole Smith art. Most of the moments
that most of us have are very uninteresting, unbeautiful, ordinary,
sometimes ugly. Who would care. Again, it ain't going to communicate much,
cause no one is going to see it, or care or value it in any way. I'd say
please don't expect to make a living at it, but look at the Osborns, Anna
Nicole Smith and reality TV in general. Someone thinks it is art.
>Isn't the street outside art (after all it may or may not have meaning
> to someone else, if not necessarily myself).
Could be...there could be art on several levels, from the signs you see, to
the design of the streets and roads by some crazy, genius urban planner.
Could be bad art, too, like the roads that I try to negotiate at work
without an accident or a blown tire in a pothole. It could also be art
expressing times and lifestyles past, like the ones in the town I live in,
which reflect life in an older time when the horse and carriage were the
dominant mode of transpportation. Yeah, I do think the streets in my town
convey some meaning to me of the origins of a very unique place. (Come
visit. Saratoga is a beautiful place.)
> I think art is;
>
> If the artist creates something, or draws attention to something and
> attempts to infuse that item/event with a meaning which can be passed on
> (transmitted), then it's art. It might just be a messed up bed, a pile of
> bricks - or even an oil painting. The physical media doesn't matter. The
> message does.
>
Um, yup, I'd agree, with degrees of good and bad, or valued and less valued
as defined by how other people see it, react to it, relate to it, feel
common emotions and shared eperience from it, see a new perspective through
it. But I do believe that the condition that someone else has to see and
react to it, and evaluate it (decide what meaning and value they place on
it) must be there for it to be art.
> does the artist necessarily know the
> message they are trying to communicate?
I don't think so. Not if you mean by "know", that they consciously planned
to communicate everything they did. I'd say that I personally value art more
where the artist does consciously manipulate and control your emotions. I've
seen great art where I didn't think that all the powerful and personal
messages that were communicated, were planned.
> The meaning could be lost over time,
And probably will be
> or the emotion response to art change form person to person
and probably will, very subtly from the experiences the subject brings
> it could be a completely different reaction than intended by the artist.
Could be. As I said, I've seen powerful art where I don't think all the
reactions and messages conveyed were intended by the artist.
> Does this mean
> it's any more/less a piece of art?
Ummm, some may hate this, but in my opinion, yes. There really are degrees
of value and quality in art.
In my opinon, as I said above, I value art more where the a artist does try
and succeed in controlling and manipulating your emotions; that tries to say
something, and succeeds. that does so with craftsmanship and beauty, that
chooses a subject that conveys a personal perspective, yet one which
resonates with other people's perspectives, that demonstrates some depth and
complexity, that says something innately human. I think that's a pretty
common opinion.
> Miranda
It was nice exchanging ideas with you.
--
Fred Doyle
http://www.leafpublishing.com
Broadband Web Entertainment
"SpaceGirl" <spac...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:b1usnn$15o17r$1...@ID-129131.news.dfncis.de...
Edward Wedig
spac...@subhuman.net says...
> Reposted from deep inside another thread... I'm really curious to see waht
> people think...
I have 2 buttons from my college days that relate to art. The first one
states "I hate everything, I guess I'll be an artist", and the second
"Art is anything you can get away with". :)
-Ed
--
****************************
Edward Wedig
Graphic Designer - Web Designer - Gamemaster - Nice Guy
www.edtheartist.com and www.docbrown.net
****************************
cpg
So reading ADG posts while I'm on a conference call is art? Sweet!!
cpg
Matt Bostock
--
www.mattbostock.com
professional graphic design
"quiqueg" <qui...@freemail.it> wrote in message
news:Xns931B24B2DA368...@130.133.1.4...
---
No viruses found in this message.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31/10/02
Peach
touch.........only some poets, saints & fools comprehend this......we can
get close, but, we have to leave the group when we do.......LOL
Joe
"SpaceGirl" <spac...@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:b1usnn$15o17r$1...@ID-129131.news.dfncis.de...