Eroticism ver. Vulgarism
Zoran Baric
I found that this topic might be an interesting discussion.
There are some different views around.
What is the freedom of visual expression?
Are there limits or not, and why?
What is the North American approach toward that issue?
What is the correlation between the specific culture and the eroticism
in it's sculptures?
Is there a difference in censorship among the cultures?
To discuss or not to discuss, question is now!
I do not want to start first because I might pull astray.
Zorba
P.S. Now I know what culture is, so I am using this word more
often.(joke)
J. C. Chism
my children don't either.
Iszolda
From my experience as a retailer and an artist, the majority of the North
American Culture is not ready for erotic art. Even in good taste (as I do with
my sculptures), this form of art is found "dirty".
I did find some respect and appreciation in the cosmopolitan areas. The
differences being perhaps a broader education in fine arts. There is an
acceptance if the erotic art is done without an obvious perverse quality..
Why would nudity and sexuality be found vulgar? And naked resins painted in
China of pigs and ducks hugging be a collectible?
Still trying to figure it all out.....
Zoran Baric
Iszolda wrote:
Why would nudity and sexuality be found vulgar? And naked resins painted in
> China of pigs and ducks hugging be a collectible?
>
> Still trying to figure it all out.....
Iszolda,
Yes, I noticed that myself.
There is a big difference in the North American view toward the eroticism in
general.
I found out that, even, statues showing a naked parts of human body are considered
highly erotic and subjected to censorship.
There is reason for that and we can start a discussion to discover those reasons
and see if there is something that artists can do to alter it.
We should maybe start from comparing the North American Culture with other Cultures
and see which one is the most similar.
The North American Culture is supposed to be the one that takes the best from all
other Cultures.
I think that we will find that this is not the case.
One Culture has an absolute dominance and some aspects of the North American
"franchise" are underdeveloped.
As you could see, that post was here for week. My opinion is that even this subject
is presenting a Taboo for the most elements of the North American Culture.
Thank you for the reply and wish to hear more from you.
Zorba
J. C. Chism
Seems to me the assumed "broader education in fine arts" makes no difference
when it comes to common sense. I agree with you Iszolda.
J. C. Chism
eroticism. There is a difference between eroticism and nudes.
Zoran Baric
"J. C. Chism" wrote:
> I consider myself an average American. I've never found nudes as art to be
> eroticism. There is a difference between eroticism and nudes.
J.C. Chism,
I got the impression that you found an eroticism as a socialy disrespected.
Can you elaborate why?
Zorba
Iszolda
impacts me so personally. And it hurts. I did not consciously choose to create
what I do. It evolved from some unknown passion &emotion. Having suffered a
few short years in retail, I learned that it was next to impossible to please
the public. Unless, one conformed to what was socially (or as you put it
Culturally) acceptable. If one was to introduce something new, there was a
period of mourning to be expected. The trends of what is desirable/marketable
to me seem territorial.Coming from where I am,
modern art can not be introduced to the craft and antique town. Now, in my art,
I again will have to search out areas for acceptance. Because I cannot expect
to be understood in the average Arts&Crafts fair that is offered to me. I am
not above those artist, just very different. Difference can be positive if it
is functional/trendy/unique etc.
But the topic is eroticism. My art would fall into the category, but in a
sensual way, not as lewdness/carnality(per the thesaurus).
Zoran Baric
Iszolda wrote:
> I'm days new to this group and so fortunate that I saw this title. Because it
> impacts me so personally. And it hurts. I did not consciously choose to create
> what I do. It evolved from some unknown passion &emotion. Having suffered a
> few short years in retail, I learned that it was next to impossible to please
> the public. Unless, one conformed to what was socially (or as you put it
> Culturally) acceptable. If one was to introduce something new, there was a
> period of mourning to be expected. The trends of what is desirable/marketable
> to me seem territorial.Coming from where I am,
>
Iszolda,
I was waiting a bit, but looks like it is time to come up with my opinion.
According to my personal belief I will beg you to keep the emotions you are
implementing into sculpturing. The moment you change them due to a social
reluctance you will, even, not consider yourself as an artist any more - deep
inside. Things are changing rapidly. We can thank to the Internet to free us from
many taboos. The entire human population will soon be connected.
Human alienation has a chance to become a part of history. Hypocrisy will be
exposed and the Art will have chance. Cultures will be shaken and eradicate all
what is irrational, unproductive and not progressive.
Many of us were or are hurt, but now we have a chance to speak up. You are not
alone.
According to my opinion - the talent for sculpturing is a gift. Consists of
unexplainable connection of: Eye - Soul - Hands.
If you loose that connection you are not the artist any more, meaning - sculptor.
You can still use your skills and make stuff that market requires. Like that, you
can still do fine in our present (visual) art establishment. You can prosper
financially, pay your mortgage, take a vacation... etc.
It is up to you to decide.
Hope to hear from you soon and discuss: where are the limits of eroticism?
I think that the Art and eroticism stop together. What do you think?
Zorba
Iszolda
Perhaps you could help me by defining eroticism in art. Where/how was it
named. Is it strictly confined to being sexually explicit. A nude statue by
itself would be just that. Unless it was posed promiscuously. A man & woman
statue embrassing would be just that. But if the man held ber breast or
buttocks, would that then be erotic and fall into the dark realm. Could you
expand on what you mean by art & eroticism stopping together? I am still trying
to discover the boundries of the term, and understand whether they are tightly
woven or loose. I'm sure there is someone out there who could add to this -
who has traveled. What is erotic art in Europe? Asia? In history, the orient
did not have these taboos. Thanks for letting me know that I got too emotional.
I'm new to the cyberspace world too.
Iszolda
Zoran Baric
Iszolda wrote:
> Zorba,
>
> Perhaps you could help me by defining eroticism in art. Where/how was it
> named. Is it strictly confined to being sexually explicit. A nude statue by
> itself would be just that. Unless it was posed promiscuously. A man & woman
> statue embrassing would be just that. But if the man held ber breast or
> buttocks, would that then be erotic and fall into the dark realm.
Iszolda,
I can give you my opinion, but this is just one opinion. There are different
personal views toward the limits.
Whether we like it or not, the eroticism is a part of our lives. Sexuality for the
sake of procreation is highly correlated with the urge for sculpturing. In a way,
with our work we are trying to overcome the fear of death. We think that our pieces
will make us immortal, - transforming our emotions and existence into 3-D objects
for the future generations.
Nature provided us with a sexual drive to reproduce and if you want to express that
motion in your sculptures -- it SHOULD be socially acceptable - I think.
Furthermore, sexuality in our lives is not strictly connected to the purpose of
reproduction. Expressing that in your work COULD be limited for the adult
population of our the Culture.
> Could you
> expand on what you mean by art & eroticism stopping together? I am still trying
> to discover the boundries of the term, and understand whether they are tightly
> woven or loose. I'm sure there is someone out there who could add to this -
> who has traveled. What is erotic art in Europe? Asia? In history, the orient
> did not have these taboos. Thanks for letting me know that I got too emotional.
> I'm new to the cyberspace world too.
> Iszolda
What I actually thought was that - when boundaries of eroticism are crossing to
vulgarism and perversion, such work ceases to be the art work any more, and should
be hidden from the eyes of our kids. This is my point of view. I might be wrong.
What do you think?
As for the other Cultures, I will give you an example what happened to me in Paris
(France) 1984.
Again bridge. Looks like the bridges are the backbone of my experience.
I was walking on the small bridge or overpass, I can not clearly remember what it
was, - at a bright daylight, when I saw a naked woman sitting on the edge, and a
man wearing a raincoat - facing her. There were two guys around them taking
pictures. They looked like professionals. There were a lot of people crossing that
small bridge and I do not remember any vehicles. As I was coming closer I realized
- they are having a sexual intercourse. I was shocked. But not as much as for them
doing that as much for the crowd's reaction. - Nobody looked at them longer than a
half a second, they did not even interrupt their conversations. It was like -
nothing important was going on there.
It is hard to believe but if you ask around you might.
As far as I am concerned: Being emotional means having a base for the artistic
expression.
Waiting for your reply, but everybody is welcome. We just scratched this topic
Regards from
Zorba
Iszolda
Thanks for your thoughts. As we await for other responses, I will add one
further thought. I am not sure whether I agree that art ceases to exist when
vulgarity & perversion exist within it. For sure
H.R. Giger would not agree. Nor turn of the century Beardsley.
Yes, I agree that it is not for the eyes of the innocent, but it has its
place. There are ancient works within this realm.Temple walls of many ancient
cultures adorned with subject matter some might find objectionable. Were they
vulgar when they were first produced?
It is my belief that vulgarity & perversion is perception based.
Iszolda
jeanne...@my-dejanews.com
isz...@aol.com (Iszolda) wrote:
> I'm days new to this group and so fortunate that I saw this title. Because it
> impacts me so personally. And it hurts. I did not consciously choose to create
> what I do. It evolved from some unknown passion &emotion. Having suffered a
> few short years in retail, I learned that it was next to impossible to please
> the public. Unless, one conformed to what was socially (or as you put it
> Culturally) acceptable. If one was to introduce something new, there was a
> period of mourning to be expected. The trends of what is desirable/marketable
> to me seem territorial.Coming from where I am,
art,
> I again will have to search out areas for acceptance. Because I cannot expect
> to be understood in the average Arts&Crafts fair that is offered to me. I am
> not above those artist, just very different. Difference can be positive if it
> is functional/trendy/unique etc.
> But the topic is eroticism. My art would fall into the category, but in a
> sensual way, not as lewdness/carnality(per the thesaurus).
How can we as artists determine just what is lewd when a large portion of the
population thinks the human body in and of itself is nasty. Our early
Victorian and Puritan heritage is still lurking underneath our cultural
sensibilities. Our efforts to be politically correct erodes our basic freedom
of expression on a daily basis. It's perfectly O.K. for people to let their
children watch death,dismemberment and carnage on T.V. but obscene to watch
two people making love, (and we're not even talking full frontal nudity
here!). We would have to prostitute ourselves beyond recognition in order to
please this kind of insanity. JJ
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
aar...@my-dejanews.com
along the way. I have cut and paste from older posts to make it easier to
follow.
J. C. Chism said:
Maybe some people decorate their houses with "erotica", but I don't. I hope
my children don't either.
My responce:
I have to admit I'm not over thrilled at this comment. It's not so much what
they said as the tone they said it in. Sounds very much like you're setting
down morals that every good decent citizen should "know."
Now granted I wouldn't want my place decorated like the local whore house but
I wouldn't hesitate for a second to proudly display a beautiful piece of art
that was considered by some to be erotic or even lewd (there's this FANTASIC
piece in the MET of a nyph and a satrye that I stare at every time I go. It's
beautiful). Sexuality is a part of our lives. True it's more a part of some
people's lives then others but to deny or hide it is only harming yourself
and those around you. But what, you say, if some innocent child should come
along it? I think the way we do not teach "our" children about sexuality is a
crime... I could go on for hours and pages and pages on this but I won't
unless asked...
Iszolda said:
From my experience as a retailer and an artist, the majority of the North
American Culture is not ready for erotic art. Even in good taste (as I do
with my sculptures), this form of art is found "dirty".
My responce:
I wouldn't say that they aren't ready. You just have to realize that you're
not dealing with the same market that will by the stuff in craft shows...
Frankly I'm surpised they even let you in... I can't see a booth that
displays erotica next to a booth of hand dipped candels... I haven't seen
your work so it's hard to say exactly but there is a show I know of down in
Florida (Las Olas Art festival) that you might do better at. I haven't seen
that show in a while but last time I was there they had more "art" rather
then crafts... It's a juried show though. They have to "approve" your work
before they let it in...
Zoran Baric said:
I found out that, even, statues showing a naked parts of human body are
considered highly erotic and subjected to censorship.
As you could see, that post was here for week. My opinion is that even this
subject is presenting a Taboo for the most elements of the North American
Culture.
My reply:
Well this news Group isn't the most popular. I tend to check it only once or
twice a week and even then I don't always post. I wouldn't take a lack of
quick responce to your post as a sign of hoplessness. North America is like
any other place. You will find conservative people and radicals. There are
more of some in different areas... There are plenty of artists that work with
sexual subject matter. Has anybody heard of Annie Sprinkle? She does some
very interesting stuff. She's a performance artist though. We could probably
talk about her work for years and never come to an opinion as to weather it's
"art" or not...
Iszolda said:
I cannot expect to be understood in the average Arts&Crafts fair that is
offered to me.
But the topic is eroticism. My art would fall into the category, but in a
sensual way, not as lewdness/carnality
My reply:
I think this is where Zoran said that you shouldn't try to change your work
to please anybody. I have to agree there. You do what you do and if you try
and change your work to please other people then it will show in the quality.
But you also have to realize that because of it's subject matter you may have
more of a difficult time selling... I've always thought that art is in this
funny place where it is and it isn't a product. If you want to make a living
off your work you have to be saleable...
Zoran Baric
What I actually thought was that - when boundaries of eroticism are crossing
to vulgarism and perversion, such work ceases to be the art work any more,
and should be hidden from the eyes of our kids. This is my point of view. I
might be wrong. What do you think?
My reply:
When you ask a question like that you also might as well as what is art. Why
does sexual subject matter make it any less art? I'm not a big fan of abstract
art but does that mean it's not art just because I don't care for it?
As for kids. There's plenty of things that aren't for their eyes. Why does
everybody get squimish when the subject is sex? Further more I think
"protecting" them from sex is a bad idea. They should be taught. Slowly and
carefully maybe but taught. Sigh... The start of our educational system drives
me crazy soemtimes.. I really think we could jump two or three rungs on the
evolutionary ladder if we taught "our" children better...
Harold
jeanne...@my-dejanews.com
Right on, Harold! As I commented earlier, our society for the most part is
extremely shy when it comes to our own sexuality and seeing it displayed
through various artistic media sets up complex emotions. There is an
ingrained prudishness that stems from the very beginnings of this culture.The
paradox is how can these same shy people change their views for their
children when they can't do it for themselves? This change that we are
proposing must be on a cultural level. We're not asking for much here are we?
Until we come to believe that sex is not inherantly evil much of our society
is still going to consider nudity, let alone erotica, something dirty. Anyone
working with erotic images needs to pay attention to these realities and make
a decision to continue with the work without much financial remuneration or
find something else to do in addtition to the erotic images that will sell
and pay the bills. Of course, the best place to be is to have a patron who
takes care of all the basic necessities and allows the artist to have
complete freedom of expression. Now there's a nice fantasy. JJ
jeanne...@my-dejanews.com
have complete freedom of expression. Now there's a nice fantasy. Another
option for marketing erotic art may be right there in front of you. There are
innuerable web sites that offer a variety of erotic materials, some of them
are specifically art. Check them out. You might even create your own site. JJ
Zoran Baric
> J. C. Chism said:
>
> Maybe some people decorate their houses with "erotica", but I don't. I hope
> my children don't either.
>
> Harold's responce:
>
> I have to admit I'm not over thrilled at this comment. It's not so much what
> they said as the tone they said it in. Sounds very much like you're setting
> down morals that every good decent citizen should "know."
>
> Now granted I wouldn't want my place decorated like the local whore house but
> I wouldn't hesitate for a second to proudly display a beautiful piece of art
> that was considered by some to be erotic or even lewd (there's this FANTASIC
> piece in the MET of a nyph and a satrye that I stare at every time I go. It's
> beautiful). Sexuality is a part of our lives. True it's more a part of some
> people's lives then others but to deny or hide it is only harming yourself
> and those around you. But what, you say, if some innocent child should come
> along it? I think the way we do not teach "our" children about sexuality is a
> crime... I could go on for hours and pages and pages on this but I won't
> unless asked...
>
Harold,
If you feel like expressing your thoughts - you are more than welcome. I am
personally convinced that we need more material for discussion. I, also, hope to
see some different opinions. So far looks like majority agrees with eroticism, and
even more than that, in our sculptures.
> You just have to realize that you're not dealing with the same market
> that will by the stuff in craft shows...
> Frankly I'm surpised they even let you in... I can't see a booth that
> displays erotica next to a booth of hand dipped candels... I haven't seen
> your work so it's hard to say exactly but there is a show I know of down in
> Florida (Las Olas Art festival) that you might do better at. I haven't seen
> that show in a while but last time I was there they had more "art" rather
> then crafts... It's a juried show though. They have to "approve" your work
> before they let it in...
>
My question:
Is it true that some artists are pushing the limits of eroticism in order to
prosper on specific markets?
> Well this news Group isn't the most popular. I tend to check it only once or
> twice a week and even then I don't always post. I wouldn't take a lack of
> quick responce to your post as a sign of hoplessness. North America is like
> any other place. You will find conservative people and radicals. There are
> more of some in different areas... There are plenty of artists that work with
> sexual subject matter. Has anybody heard of Annie Sprinkle? She does some
> very interesting stuff. She's a performance artist though. We could probably
> talk about her work for years and never come to an opinion as to weather it's
> "art" or not...
>
My question:
According to your opinion: What would be the basic difference between North
American and European aspect of sexuality? Do you really think that there is no
difference?
> Zoran Baric
>
> What I actually thought was that - when boundaries of eroticism are crossing
> to vulgarism and perversion, such work ceases to be the art work any more,
> and should be hidden from the eyes of our kids. This is my point of view. I
> might be wrong. What do you think?
>
> Harold's reply:
>
> When you ask a question like that you also might as well as what is art. Why
> does sexual subject matter make it any less art? I'm not a big fan of abstract
> art but does that mean it's not art just because I don't care for it?
>
Does everybody think that there is no difference or limit among eroticism,
perversion and vulgarism?
I think that is very important to concentrate on that question for the sake of
geting some conclusions.
>
> As for kids. There's plenty of things that aren't for their eyes. Why does
> everybody get squimish when the subject is sex? Further more I think
> "protecting" them from sex is a bad idea. They should be taught. Slowly and
> carefully maybe but taught. Sigh... The start of our educational system drives
> me crazy soemtimes.. I really think we could jump two or three rungs on the
> evolutionary ladder if we taught "our" children better...
Harold, this is very interesting thought. Do you have any suggestion related to
sexual education of adolescent population. What are the expected results of such
education?
Regards,
Zorba
Studio120
>sexual subject matter. Has anybody heard of Annie Sprinkle? She does some
>very interesting stuff.
If you're interested in learning more about Annie Sprinkle, just point your
browser's search engine to "Annie Spinkle". There's also a pretty good bio
sheet on her (with interview) at:
http://www.levity.com/mavericks/spr-int.htm
I've been somewhat reserved on comments in this section because one man's
passion is another man's perversion. Pornography, sexuality, and eroticism are
all such personal things tied up in boundary issues with each individual
person.
I agree that there are those that would hold those passions hostage to
morality, but for the most part people present very different faces on the
issue, depending on the audience they're dealing with. Hypocrisy is rampant
because most would rather protect their thoughts and feelings about sexuality
rather than discuss them. Puritanism offers a convenient way out these
discussions, but I suspect that it's only a exit strategy.
Kevin Conlon
Studio 120
2201 Bull Street, #309
Savannah, GA 31401
Zoran Baric
I've been somewhat reserved on comments in this section because one man's
passion is another man's perversion. Pornography, sexuality, and eroticism are
all such personal things tied up in boundary issues with each individual
person.I agree that there are those that would hold those passions hostage to
morality, but for the most part people present very different faces on the
issue, depending on the audience they're dealing with. Hypocrisy is rampant
because most would rather protect their thoughts and feelings about sexuality
rather than discuss them. Puritanism offers a convenient way out these
discussions, but I suspect that it's only a exit strategy.
Well, looks like that nobody is willing to draw a line between eroticism
and vulgarism. I would really like to see somebody doing that.
I know that I will expose myself to a criticism, but I will comment
that there is a similar thing happening with the Art and a Sexual issues
in our Culture. We can see a strong tendency of accepting everything into
everything as a result of democratic progress. My opinion is that - if
we do not determine the difference between eroticism and vulgarism; the
society will not allow us to exhibit any "sexually explicit" work on the
larger scale. The market for that will still be treated as a human underground.
It is a fact that 20 Ct. presented a period of a glorious economic and technological advancement. Mine, and some other, opinions are that a development of human being was not adjusted to the same speed - resulting in some irrationalities.
Our Economy needs men who cooperate smoothly and in large numbers; who
want to consume more and more - including sex; and whose tastes are standardized
and can be easily influenced and anticipated - read: manipulated.
What is the outcome: A human being that is alienated from himself,
from his fellow men and from nature. Nature that includes sexuality is
transformed in many alienated forms including vulgarism and perversion.
If we try to infiltrate perversion and vulgarism into nature of sexuality
by avoiding to draw the lines; we will have the social impact that we have,
or even worse.
Furthermore, the same Human being is transformed into commodity, experiences
her/his life forces as an investment which must bring her/him the maximum
profit obtainable under existing market conditions. Sex sells, so let do
some experiments with the nature of sex, let manipulate the creation of
specific market and we are in business. Consequences = confusion! Yes we
have to tolerate the certain aspects of our society - that is what our
democracy is telling us, but we do not like it. We will not comment that
and we will try to forget that this even exists. Another consequence is
even deeper alienation.
If we want to concentrate on the productive forces of the human nature:
Sex is a result of love, not the opposite. Alienated character formed
by the Market's power of manipulation is not capable of Love, so her/his
sex life as a result of the artificial substitute for love is presented
in sexual abnormalities
This is the way I see that, again, I might be wrong.
Come-on guys, there is more to that - go ahead!
Please, just do not accuse me that I want Revolution or ragging against the System.
Zorba.
Studio120
pornography (or as you put it eroticism and vulgarism). For each of us the
definitions of those words are completely dependent on the situation - they
have an extremely fluid connotation depending on who we are talking to, if
anyone.
For example, you may have seen the advertisments in this newsgroup for an
artist who is selling cold cast bronze works that feature women with
prominently displayed vaginas, overly large breasts, etc., as well as couples
engaged in intercourse. While that is something that I think is erotica,
others would consider it pornography.
If I were trying to monitor the efforts of my nine year old son's navigation of
the internet, I would define that as pornography and prevent him from trying to
see it. It's simple really. I want to control his access to this material
until he is old enough to make a mature judgement about it. It's not that he
doesn't know about sex, he does and has since he was much younger, but the act
of sex is not something that he is usually thinking about. At his age, he's
more concerned with the latest Iomega yo-yo or adding to his Volkswagen
collection. When he becomes more interested in sex, I'm sure that erotica or
even pornography is something about which he might express some curiosity. At
that time, as his father, I'll try to explain the basis for that sort of
material and help him to justify his interest in it.
Until then, and this is where I think that the community's morality comes into
play, I don't think that explicit acts of sex should be readily available to
the public domain. Do I want it banned in all forms in all forums? Of course
not, but I do want a degree of control over what my child, or what children in
general are exposed to.
Sex as a marketing tool and as a product in and of itself has been around for
centuries. It's not limited to our 20th century, only made more available for
more to see. The fact that its more accessible doesn't change the fact that
humans have made depictions of sex since they learned to draw on cave walls.
The alientation that you refer to is not symptomatic exclusively of the
burgeoning of the new sexual marketplace, but rather technology, population and
demographic shifts, and the demands of a more global economy. In other words,
I think that sexual deviation is a symptom of alienation, not the other way
around.
I take strong issue with you on your statement:
>If we want to concentrate on the productive forces of the human nature:
>Sex is a result of love, not the opposite.
This is completely untrue. Sexual attraction is and has always been the basis
for human interaction. Whether that attraction is explicit (acted upon, as in,
"you're cute, you smell good, so let's do it!) or implicit (sublimated as an
expression of "love"), the pheremonal dance is something we all move to. As
humans move together in this dance, other factors become involved which may or
may not provide the basis for extending the attraction beyond it initial stages
into a stable, "loving" relationship.
Hope that helps!! Take care!
Zoran Baric
Studio120 wrote:
> I don't think that it's possible to draw the line between erotica and
> pornography (or as you put it eroticism and vulgarism). For each of us the
> definitions of those words are completely dependent on the situation - they
> have an extremely fluid connotation depending on who we are talking to, if
> anyone.
>
Kevin,
Seems to me that I am on my own here and that majority is sharing your opinion.
Your first paragraph is confirmation of the tendency to avoid classification.
Our Culture consists of many elements. The very good example for that is a "Jerry
Springer" show. I agree that everybody has the right to express her/his opinion but
validity of that opinion has to be determined by the supporting arguments. If we
accept any unargumented opinion as a valid contribution to our Culture I can
predict a serious consequences.
> For example, you may have seen the advertisments in this newsgroup for an
> artist who is selling cold cast bronze works that feature women with
> prominently displayed vaginas, overly large breasts, etc., as well as couples
> engaged in intercourse. While that is something that I think is erotica,
> others would consider it pornography.
>
When you see widely open vaginas on a nice looking bronze sculptures - is that
expression consistent with the Human nature?
My belief is that Nature and/or Good created this organs to be somehow hidden in
the bodies of all animal species and humans. We are not supposed to avoid them
while sculpturing and while trying to express the beauty, emotions and whatever,
of humans and animals.
What is the point of exposing them in a such vulgar way? Just to get an erection?
If this is the case than XXX movies can be consider as Art too - meaning the pride
of the Culture.
>
> If I were trying to monitor the efforts of my nine year old son's navigation of
> the internet, I would define that as pornography and prevent him from trying to
> see it. It's simple really. I want to control his access to this material
> until he is old enough to make a mature judgement about it. It's not that he
> doesn't know about sex, he does and has since he was much younger, but the act
> of sex is not something that he is usually thinking about. At his age, he's
> more concerned with the latest Iomega yo-yo or adding to his Volkswagen
> collection. When he becomes more interested in sex, I'm sure that erotica or
> even pornography is something about which he might express some curiosity. At
> that time, as his father, I'll try to explain the basis for that sort of
> material and help him to justify his interest in it.
>
I have a little different approach toward that issue. I would try to teach my son
about sexuality and it's purpose, at the same time explaining him about sexual
deviations as a result of mental sickness. I would slowly introduce him to
everything what is around and give him my opinion. I would not be so strict in
controlling the access - I would monitor that access and give him directions. My
opinion is = if you put pressure on something - it tends to explode, sometimes,
with unexpected results.
>
> Until then, and this is where I think that the community's morality comes into
> play, I don't think that explicit acts of sex should be readily available to
> the public domain. Do I want it banned in all forms in all forums? Of course
> not, but I do want a degree of control over what my child, or what children in
> general are exposed to.
>
If we are supposed to accept the pornography and vulgarism as contribution to
society - what is the point of controlling the access for children? We want our
children to have a healthy sexual experiences but we do not want that for the
entire society. This is the way of supporting an alienation. I simply do not
understand.
> Sex as a marketing tool and as a product in and of itself has been around for
> centuries. It's not limited to our 20th century, only made more available for
> more to see. The fact that its more accessible doesn't change the fact that
> humans have made depictions of sex since they learned to draw on cave walls.
> The alientation that you refer to is not symptomatic exclusively of the
> burgeoning of the new sexual marketplace, but rather technology, population and
> demographic shifts, and the demands of a more global economy.
This is fine, you have a certain point here (according to my opinion).
> In other words,
> I think that sexual deviation is a symptom of alienation, not the other way
> around.
>
I absolutely agree with that.
>
> I take strong issue with you on your statement:
>
> >If we want to concentrate on the productive forces of the human nature:
> >Sex is a result of love, not the opposite.
>
> This is completely untrue. Sexual attraction is and has always been the basis
> for human interaction. Whether that attraction is explicit (acted upon, as in,
> "you're cute, you smell good, so let's do it!) or implicit (sublimated as an
> expression of "love"), the pheremonal dance is something we all move to. As
> humans move together in this dance, other factors become involved which may or
> may not provide the basis for extending the attraction beyond it initial stages
> into a stable, "loving" relationship.
>
Kevin,
How many "one night stands" lead to the loving relationship?
How many loving relationships lead to the sexual relationship?
Maybe I am the freak of the nature, but I remember being attracted to the "female"
due to her other qualities and after that sexual relationship took place.
Regards,
Zorba
Studio120
>accept any unargumented opinion as a valid contribution to our Culture I can
>predict a serious consequences.
I think a this is a difference in the understanding of language. Argument and
opinion can be considered mutually exclusive terms. Allow me to explain: One
can have a good point which can be convincingly argued and one can also have an
opinion that has no real basis in fact. Opinions are by their very nature
subjective - that is, different, depending on who's opinion we're looking at.
Arguments, however, usually involve the presentation of more objective,
commonly shared ideas that flow from a desire to convince someone of a
particular point of view. Here's my point: everyone has an opinion, but not
everyone can make a good argument. Your position seems to try to set a
standard for opinion and my position is that, while there are standards for
argument (we call it logic), such a standard for opinion is impossible.
>My belief is that Nature and/or Good created this organs to be somehow hidden
>in
>the bodies of all animal species and humans.
Man and woman have what are commonly referred to as gender specific sexual
characteristics (sex traits). A woman has external breasts and
semi-internal/external reproductive organs, and a man has a penis and testicles
externally. Nature designed us this way and denying their existence just
because you're uncomfortable with a "wide open" vagina or a man with an
erection is inconsistent with your position on "human nature". It is the
nature of humans to copulate, and to be aroused when seeing the act of
copulation. What we disagree on is only the format in which that act takes
place. That format should be appropriate for the individuals who are observing
it.
Regarding adult movies, there are many who would argue that dismissing the
entire genre simply because it displays acts that are "vulgar" ignores the fact
that, 1) there is inherent beauty in the act, and 2) it is part of our human
nature and, as such, it is worthy of study. Don't get me wrong, I don't make
adult movies and I've only occasionally watched them, having found most of them
to be somewhat silly. But I can see that they have an intrinsic value for what
they are.
>I have a little different approach toward that issue. I would try to teach my
>son
>about sexuality and it's purpose, at the same time explaining him about
>sexual
>deviations as a result of mental sickness.
I agree with you on the first point and that's exactly what I'm doing. My son
has a better understanding of the physical and emotional import of sex than
most adolescents twice his age. More importantly, my wife and model for him
loving behavior that puts sexuality in its place: between mature and loving
adults. That is far more constructive, I think, than talking to a child about
sexual deviations and mental sickness. Framing discussions about sex in terms
of what is "right" and "wrong" is counterproductive to the natural intuition of
children. Teaching them respect for others' feelings, giving them all the
information you can, and guiding them in the questions they have are the best
way to nuture a healthy attitude toward sex, sexuality, sensuality, and
erotica.
>If we are supposed to accept the pornography and vulgarism as contribution to
>society - what is the point of controlling the access for children? We want
>our
>children to have a healthy sexual experiences but we do not want that for the
>entire society. This is the way of supporting an alienation. I simply do not
>understand.
Well, my point is being distorted here. I'll try to reiterate: pornography is
material that is not going to go away. It has always existed in some fashion.
Those who generally produce it and those that generally consume it are doing so
because they enjoy it or profit from it. Is pornography a "contribution" to
society? Well, there are those who would argue that it has been by providing
sexual freedom, education, gender equality, and more. I'm not here to advance
that argument, but your "opinion" that it has not contributed is just that: an
opinion. Your only claim is that somehow that which is "vulgar" has created
the alienation you're referring to. But as I've already said, sexual deviation
is a symptom of alienation, not the other way around.
As a side note to the above, I find it interesting that so much attention is
paid to the issue of sexuality and its detrimental effects on society, while at
the same time ignoring the atrocities of war and it impact on the alienation
you seem to be feeling. I'm sure that you can relate to this issue more than
most of us, given your experiences and the experiences of friends and family in
the Balkans. I have several students of mine here in Savannah who have fled
their countries (two are from Croatia and one is from Serbia). Their
experience here in the United States is one of alienation, but not because of
anything that's happened here, but because of the stress and strain of leaving
loved ones behind in a land that is consuming itself with ethnic violence. The
dictatorial power of a few greedy men feeding their egos and stupid
nationalistic pride with the death of their next generation and those of
different ethnicities contributes more toward the quite literal and figurative
alienation of man than does any sexually explicit sculpture.
Finally, I can't quantify how many one night stands lead to loving
relationships and vice versa, but it doesn't matter, that wasn't my point.
Most relationships are precipitated by sexual attraction - not necessarily sex!
Here's where I think you misunderstood me. There's a difference between being
"sexually attracted" and "having sex"! We all secrete sexual hormones called
pheremones that are attractive to others. Those pheremones are the engines
that drive us, consciously or unconsciously, to make the choices we make,
whether it's to ask a woman to dance with us or to share a cup of coffee. If
the chemistry is not there, then nothing will happen! Of course long term
relationships require more than mere chemistry, but it's the sexual potential
wrapped up in all of us that moves us to make the initial inquiries.
Yes, I'm sure that there are other qualities that attract you to a woman, and
no, you are not a freak of nature, but I would argue that it's impossible
eliminate the sexual component from all of the complex motives that make up
one's initial interaction with someone you're attracted to.
Always the best to you!
ZBaric5309
>and
>opinion can be considered mutually exclusive terms. Allow me to explain:
>One
>can have a good point which can be convincingly argued and one can also have
>an
>opinion that has no real basis in fact. Opinions are by their very nature
>subjective - that is, different, depending on who's opinion we're looking at.
>
>Arguments, however, usually involve the presentation of more objective,
>commonly shared ideas that flow from a desire to convince someone of a
>particular point of view. Here's my point: everyone has an opinion, but not
>everyone can make a good argument. Your position seems to try to set a
>standard for opinion and my position is that, while there are standards for
>argument (we call it logic), such a standard for opinion is impossible.
Kevin,
I am geting confused here. If there is no standard for opinion - based on what
we are suposed to determine it's acceptance. Opinion can be presented by one
party and argued by another. The point is that validity of opinion has to be
justyfied, one way or another.
>because you're uncomfortable with a "wide open" vagina or a man with an
>erection is inconsistent with your position on "human nature". It is the
>nature of humans to copulate, and to be aroused when seeing the act of
>copulation. What we disagree on is only the format in which that act takes
>place. That format should be appropriate for the individuals who are
>observing
>it.
>
First of all, I never said that erection is incosistent with my position of
human nature. I said that for pornography and vulgurism, Kevin.
In order not to spread too much in our discussion I will bring it back with the
statement: Art in our Culture and in any Culture is to be exposed to the entire
population. Art can not be censored. If it is censored - than, either it is not
Art or the leading elements of specific Culture are not capable of the Art
recognition. No Culture is perfect, so we have more or less, both cases
present.
As for me, art is suposed to send a message or make a "move" inside the viewers
or listeners.
What is the message or "move" that our children or sexualy developed teenagers
can get by looking into sculptures with open vaginas that are significantly
different from those of adult population?
>Teaching them respect for others' feelings, giving them all the
>information you can, and guiding them in the questions they have are the best
>way to nuture a healthy attitude toward sex, sexuality, sensuality, and
>erotica.
Yes, this very good way, and I will repeat: You want to stimulate the "higher"
feelings in your child such us - sexuality, sensuality and erotica. As for me -
the Art has the same function toward the Culture as you do toward your son - to
stimulate the "higher" feelings. As you said : we will tolerate the feelings of
others - no matter what they are, but we do not stimulate in our work those
"lower" feelings like - perversion and vulgarism. They are consequences of the
human mental sicknes where Art does not belong.
>But as I've already said, sexual deviation
>is a symptom of alienation, not the other way around.
I mentioned already to agree with that. Do you want to stress that point or you
understood from my massages something else?
>As a side note to the above, I find it interesting that so much attention is
>paid to the issue of sexuality and its detrimental effects on society, while
>at
>the same time ignoring the atrocities of war and it impact on the alienation
>you seem to be feeling. I'm sure that you can relate to this issue more than
>most of us, given your experiences and the experiences of friends and family
>in
>the Balkans. I have several students of mine here in Savannah who have fled
>their countries (two are from Croatia and one is from Serbia). Their
>experience here in the United States is one of alienation, but not because of
>anything that's happened here, but because of the stress and strain of
>leaving
>loved ones behind in a land that is consuming itself with ethnic violence.
>The
>dictatorial power of a few greedy men feeding their egos and stupid
>nationalistic pride with the death of their next generation and those of
>different ethnicities contributes more toward the quite literal and
>figurative
>alienation of man than does any sexually explicit sculpture.
This is very valuable thought, Kevin. I would like to mention an alienation
that happened in their case is different from one we used to mention here. The
one here relates more to the self alienation refering to the human nature.
What happened over there is to complicated and detailed history analasis must
be performed - going from 1906 or even further. That was an artificial unity
with an artificial system.
I personaly welcome sexualy explicite sculptures as long as Love is a base for
sexuality.
>Most relationships are precipitated by sexual attraction - not necessarily
>sex!
I think I understand you, but I am not sure if you understand me!?
According to Freud and many other psycologists, sexual drive is responsible for
majority of our actions. Unconciesly, the Platonic Love is governed by sexual
drive as well.
What I wanted to say is : If we are directly - sexualy aroused (erected) ,
initialy with the person - that presents our sexual desire before anything else
== our chances for having a loving relationship are quite slim.
Again, the Love that is unconciesly sexualy stimulated is a healthy base for a
direct sexual involvement.
The best regards to Kevin
from Zorba
Zorba
Studio120
determine it's acceptance. Opinion can be presented by one party and argued by
another. The point is that validity of opinion has to be justyfied, one way or
another."
An opinion does not have to be justified. One can have an opinion that often
flies in the face of logic or truth, but once someone is trying to convince
someone of something, their discussion becomes an argument and all of the
standard rules of logic apply. Again, opinions are more subjective, based on
feeling, while an argument is much more objective, based on fact. If someone
wants to share their opinion with me, that's fine, but if they want to persuade
me of their opinion, then they must engage in an argument of fact(s). This is
an important distinction to make in this context, because failure to do so
serves as the basis for censorship.
"First of all, I never said that erection is incosistent with my position of
human nature. I said that for pornography and vulgurism, Kevin."
Well, perhaps you never said it directly, but it's implied by your statement
below. You're implying a heirarchy of human nature - that which is "good" and
that which is "bad". The good side of human nature aspires to loftier goals of
truth, beauty, grace, elegance, etc., while the bad side of human nature
appeals to the lower common denominators of lust, greed, ego, etc. By creating
this heirarcy, you can foist your opinion that:
"When you see widely open vaginas on a nice looking bronze sculptures - is that
expression consistent with the Human nature?"
Implicit in this statement is your feeling that if a work of art appeals to, or
is representative of the "bad" side of human nature, it is somehow less worthy
than one that appeals to the "good" side. My point is that it is ALL human
nature! Good and bad are part of the same package and expressions of either
(or both) by an artist are equally legitimate.
"In order not to spread too much in our discussion I will bring it back with
the statement: Art in our Culture and in any Culture is to be exposed to the
entire population. Art can not be censored. If it is censored - than, either it
is not Art or the leading elements of specific Culture are not capable of the
Art recognition. No Culture is perfect, so we have more or less, both cases
present."
Wow! This is a real indication of the cultural differences between us! Your
definition of art here, and its place in culture, are coming precipitously
close to exclusionary. If I look at your statement from a logical point of
view, you're presenting an argument that would abdicate control of the
definition of art to the culture in which it exists.
If - Art must be exposed to entire population
If - Art cannot be censored
If - Art is censored
Then - that which is censored cannot be art.
"As for me, art is suposed to send a message or make a "move" inside the
viewers or listeners."
You qualification "as for me" speaks volumes here. You want to "move" your
audience and that's great. We all want to have an impact on those who look at
our work. But more than "move" the audience, most contemporary artists are
trying to communicate a point, to make the audience THINK! As artists we are
often the conscience of the community, looking at and holding out for
inspection all aspects of humanity, including those that aren't quite so pretty
or elevating. Sometimes the work we make is disturbing or even painful to look
at. Sometimes it makes a point that provokes a cry for censorship. And
sometimes, just sometimes, it makes a difference!
Take care!
jeanne...@my-dejanews.com
zbari...@aol.comZorba (ZBaric5309) wrote:
> >I think a this is a difference in the understanding of language. Argument
> >and
> >opinion can be considered mutually exclusive terms. Allow me to explain:
> >One
> >can have a good point which can be convincingly argued and one can also have
> >an
> >opinion that has no real basis in fact. Opinions are by their very nature
> >subjective - that is, different, depending on who's opinion we're looking at.
> >
> >Arguments, however, usually involve the presentation of more objective,
> >commonly shared ideas that flow from a desire to convince someone of a
> >particular point of view. Here's my point: everyone has an opinion, but not
> >everyone can make a good argument. Your position seems to try to set a
> >standard for opinion and my position is that, while there are standards for
> >argument (we call it logic), such a standard for opinion is impossible.
>
> Kevin,
>
> I am geting confused here. If there is no standard for opinion - based on what
> we are suposed to determine it's acceptance. Opinion can be presented by one
> party and argued by another. The point is that validity of opinion has to be
> justyfied, one way or another.
I think what Kevin said was that one can hold an opinion that has no logic
behind it whereas an argument requires some logic, although one could
question the initial premises of that logic. Charles Manson had a real clear
logic behind his philosophy to justify his actions but the initial premises
of that logic were more than one taco short of a combination plate. An
opinion can be based on absolutely no imperical knowlege. Prejudice of any
kind would be a case in point. Unfortunately it is the subjective opinion
which determines just what is considered beautiful, vulgar or pornographic.
It is more of a cultural attitude filtering down to the individual. We also
need to be aware of the different regions of the country that have their own
subcultural attitudes or opinions if you will. A nude figurative bronze
sculpture in a public place in Mobile, Alabama just might receive a different
response than that same nude bronze in a public place in San Francisco. There
is no logic here, it is gut level. Emotional responses on the content of a
piece of art is significantly based on the morality of the general population
of a geographic area. Rodin's "Crouching Woman" would be considered in some
circles to be vulgar, in others it would be deemed beautifully sensual. I
suppose what we get down to is the need to determine the sophistication of
our audience. The only way that level of sophistication can be changed is
through the education of our young but then we get back to the adults in
charge of doing the education and what their standards are. It's yet another
of the many catch-22's that we as artists must face daily. Opinions,
therefore, do not have to be justified to be held in a death grip by the
opinion holder. As a matter of fact, an argument of either side of an opinion
can be made and we'll still end up in the same place. Aristotelean logic,
which was sited later in this discussion, can only take us so far when we're
discussing matters of emotion. JJ
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
ZBaric5309
>Wow! This is a real indication of the cultural differences between us! Your
>definition of art here, and its place in culture, are coming precipitously
>close to exclusionary. If I look at your statement from a logical point of
>view, you're presenting an argument that would abdicate control of the
>definition of art to the culture in which it exists.
>
>If - Art must be exposed to entire population
>If - Art cannot be censored
>If - Art is censored
>Then - that which is censored cannot be art.
>
I do not see a big cultural difference. What I see is a different style of
presentation and a slight defficiency in understanding each other. My opinion
is that we have a very close approach toward that isue.
In the perfect - imaginary Culture the Art should be exposed to entire
population.
Art will be censored until the cultural evolution reaches the point of
acceptance or else.
Maybe this explains it better.
>You qualification "as for me" speaks volumes here. You want to "move" your
>audience and that's great. We all want to have an impact on those who look
>at
>our work. But more than "move" the audience, most contemporary artists are
>trying to communicate a point, to make the audience THINK! As artists we are
>often the conscience of the community, looking at and holding out for
>inspection all aspects of humanity, including those that aren't quite so
>pretty
>or elevating. Sometimes the work we make is disturbing or even painful to
>look
>at. Sometimes it makes a point that provokes a cry for censorship. And
>sometimes, just sometimes, it makes a difference!
>
Exactly, but to make them think is to move them as well.
We had an interesting contribution from J.C. Chism, Iszolda, Harold, J.J. and
others. I wish they continue with their involvement.
There are many works of art that are disturbing and painful, but their message
is to expose deviations and pathology for the sake of recognition.
This would be an interesting topic for itself.
What do you think?
Regards,
Zorba
J. C. Chism
It's refreshing to see someone take a stand and show I am not the only
person in the world with sexual boundaries! As for "art" there has never
been anything wrong with an individual liking or disliking any particular
type of art. Seems to me the ones taking so much time to express their
disgust are the ones that know no boundaries.
J. C. Chism
this week about the women being persecuted in Afghanistan? What can we do
about it? Is our government going to put forth an effort to save the women
there? Or is this a cultural sexual issue that everyone is "comfortable"
ignoring.
(My husband sings an old song from the seventies called "Dear Abby", so
don't assume reading that column is something that only women do.)
J. C. Chism
across the border into Mexico. The begging children particularly tore at my
heart. I asked a boy if I could take his picture. I don't believe he could
understand me, so after doing so I put $2 in his basket, knowing the irony
of it. This boy was sitting on the sidewalk, playing a small accordion. He
was dirty, and had a fresh spot of blood near his left eye. He was playing
the keys with skill, and the hand he was pressing the keys with was broken
and twisted. I wished I could take him back across the border with me. There
were several men selling neck chains nearby. One made a crude remark about
buying one of my children.
I developed the picture at home, and from that picture I made a painting I
call "The Broken Hand". Based on a saying that children are the hands of
God.
After that time I opened a gallery and displayed that painting, along with
the artworks of at least 80 Northwest artists at any one time. People
reacted very strongly to that painting. Some with sorrow and a few with
disgust that I would display such a painting. I feel that piece of art
qualifies as a success because it evokes such feelings. It accomplishes a
mission, a message. I'm sorry to say I don't have it displayed on my web
site, because people buy what makes them feel good.
I keep the photo on the wall of photos of my family.
Studio120
absolutely right about the nudity issue there! Are you from Mobile? or were
you just citing it as an example?
Just curious!
Zoran Baric
"J. C. Chism" wrote:
Thank you J.C.,
I might think that we should be very careful with these boundaries. They are
somewhat loose, but to the point. There are no limits for freedom of
expression as long as we are not offending a rational Human Nature.
Same way, there are no limits of freedom as long as - it is not offending a
rational existence that includes other freedom -> that might be irrational,
but as long as this (irrational) freedom is not offending a rational
freedom. Meaning that rational freedom has right to offend irrational if
offended.
What do you think?
Regards from
Zorba
ZBaric5309
>behind it whereas an argument requires some logic, although one could
>question the initial premises of that logic. Charles Manson had a real clear
>logic behind his philosophy to justify his actions but the initial premises
>of that logic were more than one taco short of a combination plate. An
>opinion can be based on absolutely no imperical knowlege. Prejudice of any
>kind would be a case in point. Unfortunately it is the subjective opinion
>which determines just what is considered beautiful, vulgar or pornographic.
J.J.,
I am triyng to give MY opinion here that is going to be acceptet, rejected or
in-between. That is what we are all doing here. Noting is certain and "for
sure." Any opinion can be argued and somehow justified. You can almost convince
me that I am not alive. That we are a ciberspace game of the higher creatures.
That I am dreaming this world and egsistance. You can do that if you try really
hard.
The point is our aim. Aim for progress, confusion or destruction.
Antropology, Psycology and Sociology, all agree that Human Nature seeks
constant conformation of it's existance. That conformation is achived by the
use of inner forces that are either productive, directly destructive or
indirectly destructive. Because the productive force requires the most energy
and directly destructive force is (today) socialy unacceptable, even punishable
-- the third way is the most common, which is indirectly destructible and
relates to aim of confusing. This is a counterprogressive force and the most
dangerous in Modern society. One branch of that force is called Mediocracy.
To make it clear!
We have a problem in our Culture to exhibit a sexualy explicit Art work in
public places. Most of us will agree with that. What is the solution? I am the
only one who sugested a solution - which is to find out what is consistent
with the healthy Human Nature. What is "healthy" can be easily found in
Psycology, Sociology and Antropology. If we keep our work within these healthy
limits - we will have a considerable power to convince public regarding
acceptance.
Is there any other suggestion? Or, there is only sugestion that there are no
suggestions.
Regards,
Zorba
Studio120
it felt like you were arguing for some sort of boundaries in art, that it
should not offend, and that it should be rational.
To respond, all I can say is:
Life is not rational. We build a construct to try to make it so, but life is
not rational. The struggle to explain the world in completely rational terms
is a futile one. The best we can hope for is some modicum of consistency in
the way the universe moves around us so that we can plan another day in the
studio.
Art should provoke thought. If it offends in the process of doing so, the
offense doesn't deprive it of its existence as art. If art never provoked
thought, we'd be stuck somewhere back in ancient history, with lots of
classical sculptures and missing out on DaDa, Minimalism, Cubism, Biomorphism,
Abstract Expressionism, Impressionism - oh, the list goes on and on because
someone cared enough to push the boundaries a bit.
Finally, I'm very wary of anyone who wants to establish boundaries for art.
Art as a communicative act should be subject to the same rule regarding speech.
If we start setting boundaries, where will they be set, who will set them, how
will they be enforced, and what happens when they're broken.
Talk to you soon, I'm sure!
Zoran Baric
I might think that we should be very careful with these boundaries. They are
somewhat loose, but to the point. There are no limits for freedom of
expression as long as we are not offending a rational Human Nature.
Same way, there are no limits of freedom as long as - it is not offending a
rational existence that includes other freedom -> that might be irrational,
but as long as this (irrational) freedom is not offending a rational
freedom. Meaning that rational freedom has right to offend irrational if
offended.
What do you think?
Studio120 wrote:
> I'm not sure what your last post was about, Zorba. My instinctive reaction to
> it felt like you were arguing for some sort of boundaries in art, that it
> should not offend, and that it should be rational.
>
> To respond, all I can say is:
>
> Life is not rational. We build a construct to try to make it so, but life is
> not rational. The struggle to explain the world in completely rational terms
> is a futile one. The best we can hope for is some modicum of consistency in
> the way the universe moves around us so that we can plan another day in the
> studio.
>
Kevin,
Life is not rational but Art is. It has a rational function for Culture.
>
> Art should provoke thought. If it offends in the process of doing so, the
> offense doesn't deprive it of its existence as art. If art never provoked
> thought, we'd be stuck somewhere back in ancient history, with lots of
> classical sculptures and missing out on DaDa, Minimalism, Cubism, Biomorphism,
> Abstract Expressionism, Impressionism - oh, the list goes on and on because
> someone cared enough to push the boundaries a bit.
>
Art should provoke a positive thought but should not feed destructive or alienated
forces of the Culture.
Someone cared to push the boundaries toward the "light" of Humanity. Perversion and
Vulgarity will not take us to the "light." They can be exposed in art pieces as for
recognition purpose for the "dark side of Humanity."
> Finally, I'm very wary of anyone who wants to establish boundaries for art.
> Art as a communicative act should be subject to the same rule regarding speech.
> If we start setting boundaries, where will they be set, who will set them, how
> will they be enforced, and what happens when they're broken.
>
Kevin,
I see that I understand myself here and that's about it.
Nobody should put boundaries for Art, Art already did it for itself.
Regards from:
Zorba
Zoran Baric
I think a this is a difference in the understanding of language. Argument
>opinion can be considered mutually exclusive terms. Allow me to explain:
>can have a good point which can be convincingly argued and one can also have
>opinion that has no real basis in fact. Opinions are by their very nature
>subjective - that is, different, depending on who's opinion we're looking at.
>Arguments, however, usually involve the presentation of more objective,
>commonly shared ideas that flow from a desire to convince someone of a
>particular point of view. Here's my point: everyone has an opinion, but not
>everyone can make a good argument. Your position seems to try to set a
>standard for opinion and my position is that, while there are standards for
>argument (we call it logic), such a standard for opinion is impossible.
Kevin,
I am geting confused here. If there is no standard for opinion - based on what
we are suposed to determine it's acceptance. Opinion can be presented by one
party and argued by another. The point is that validity of opinion has to be
justyfied, one way or another.
>because you're uncomfortable with a "wide open" vagina or a man with an
>erection is inconsistent with your position on "human nature". It is the
>nature of humans to copulate, and to be aroused when seeing the act of
>copulation. What we disagree on is only the format in which that act takes
>place. That format should be appropriate for the individuals who are
>observing
>it.
>
First of all, I never said that erection is incosistent with my position of
human nature. I said that for pornography and vulgurism, Kevin.
In order not to spread too much in our discussion I will bring it back with the
statement: Art in our Culture and in any Culture is to be exposed to the entire
population. Art can not be censored. If it is censored - than, either it is not
Art or the leading elements of specific Culture are not capable of the Art
recognition. No Culture is perfect, so we have more or less, both cases
present.
As for me, art is suposed to send a message or make a "move" inside the viewers
or listeners.
What is the message or "move" that our children or sexualy developed teenagers
can get by looking into sculptures with open vaginas that are significantly
different from those of adult population?
>Teaching them respect for others' feelings, giving them all the
>information you can, and guiding them in the questions they have are the best
>way to nuture a healthy attitude toward sex, sexuality, sensuality, and
>erotica
Yes, this very good way, and I will repeat: You want to stimulate the "higher"
feelings in your child such us - sexuality, sensuality and erotica. As for me -
the Art has the same function toward the Culture as you do toward your son - to
stimulate the "higher" feelings. As you said : we will tolerate the feelings of
others - no matter what they are, but we do not stimulate in our work those
"lower" feelings like - perversion and vulgarism. They are consequences of the
human mental sicknes where Art does not belong.
>But as I've already said, sexual deviation
>is a symptom of alienation, not the other way around.
I mentioned already to agree with that. Do you want to stress that point or you
understood from my massages something else?
>As a side note to the above, I find it interesting that so much attention is
>paid to the issue of sexuality and its detrimental effects on society, while
>at
>the same time ignoring the atrocities of war and it impact on the alienation
>you seem to be feeling. I'm sure that you can relate to this issue more than
>most of us, given your experiences and the experiences of friends and family
>in<BR>
>the Balkans. I have several students of mine here in Savannah who have fled
>their countries (two are from Croatia and one is from Serbia). Their
>experience here in the United States is one of alienation, but not because of
>anything that's happened here, but because of the stress and strain of
>leaving<BR>
>loved ones behind in a land that is consuming itself with ethnic violence.
>The<BR>
>dictatorial power of a few greedy men feeding their egos and stupid
>nationalistic pride with the death of their next generation and those of
>different ethnicities contributes more toward the quite literal and
>figurative<BR>
>alienation of man than does any sexually explicit sculpture.
This is very valuable thought, Kevin. I would like to mention an alienation
that happened in their case is different from one we used to mention here. The
one here relates more to the self alienation refering to the human nature.
What happened over there is to complicated and detailed history analasis must
be performed - going from 1906 or even further. That was an artificial unity
with an artificial system.
I personaly welcome sexualy explicite sculptures as long as Love is a base for
sexuality.
>Most relationships are precipitated by sexual attraction - not necessarily
>sex!
I think I understand you, but I am not sure if you understand me!?
Charles Mcgregor
If I may but in.
The message <19990301211647...@ng19.aol.com>
from stud...@aol.com (Studio120) contains these words:
> I'm not sure what your last post was about, Zorba. My instinctive reaction to
> it felt like you were arguing for some sort of boundaries in art, that it
> should not offend, and that it should be rational.
> To respond, all I can say is:
> Life is not rational. We build a construct to try to make it so, but life is
> not rational. The struggle to explain the world in completely rational terms
> is a futile one. The best we can hope for is some modicum of consistency in
> the way the universe moves around us so that we can plan another day in the
> studio.
O.K. but art as a Tertiary cultural component like theatre, music,
literature etc.
is operating primarily at the sub-conscious/emotional level. As
such, it is incumbent
on artists to ensure that those members of the public without the
emotional maturity
to cope with their art(i.e. *mostly* kids), are protected. Why?
Because emotion
does take place in the subconscious and can cause unknown
psychological changes in
a developing mind. Obviously some emotions e.g. patriotism, stay
fairly constant
throughout life and can therefore be portrayed to all 'age'-groups while others
e.g. sexuality certainly do not.
> Art should provoke thought. If it offends in the process of doing so, the
> offense doesn't deprive it of its existence as art. If art never provoked
> thought, we'd be stuck somewhere back in ancient history, with lots of
> classical sculptures and missing out on DaDa, Minimalism, Cubism, Biomorphism,
> Abstract Expressionism, Impressionism - oh, the list goes on and on because
> someone cared enough to push the boundaries a bit.
I think art should also 'provoke' recognition, insight and
clarification as well
as suggesting change.
By recognition I mean containing recognisable cultural themes
By insight I mean providing emotional level understanding of some aspect
of culture.
By clarification I mean providing understanding at the
conscious/intellectual level.
The suggested change is much more likely to be accepted if society has the
other three provided. (Also the suggested change is more likely to be
accepted if it
is not too dramatic).
Most of your list of modern art movements, I regret. For me they perform no
sustainable cultural function and IMO, will be forgotten by future
generations.
The artists for the most part were immature egotists.
It isn't difficult to jump up and down screaming.
It is harder to use your talent to try to progress the ethos of society in a
controlled, constructive fashion.
This does not mean that abstraction cannot happen, not at all. Celtic art is
extremely abstract, yet the artists produced enough representational art to
show that this was by choice. This also happened at exactly the same time as
classical representational sculpture was developing in Greece.
The difference is that the development of Celtic abstract art was progressed by
cultural means, it tied in at the emotional level with their basic ethos of
Free Will, absolute sense or right and wrong and heroic ideal.
IMV representational art, esp. painting, took a severe dunt from the invention
of the camera. This was because portrait painting was by far the
largest source of funding for artists. It is not surprising at all that
there should be a return to abstraction, but the enforced change was so rapid
that somehow artists got the idea that change in itself was the sole
object of art.
That and the introduction of juxtaposed paradox. e.g. Escher's -
perspective tricks,
Surrealists - things which are obviously not real but which are painted to
look real, Giger's juxtaposition of ugliness and beauty, Doolittle's - pictures
within a picture. You want to create a new genre? Just think of a
way to represent
two opposites in the same object that hasn't been done before. e.g.
Sad-happiness.
Cliches like 'Shock of the new' and 'Enfent terrible' come to mind.
It seems to me that Art Nouveax *was* a culturally sustainable form
where Neo-Celtic
curvi-linear forms were resurrected to combine with representational figuritive
classical styles. both mainstream European cultural heritage.
It is interesting that it seems to be making a come back at the moment.
As it is, the 20th C was not entirely devoid of a culture/art
development system, via the medium of Film, Comics, and more recently
Computer Games,
and to some extent TV(TV is usually the final showcase rather than
the instigating
medium, so far anyway). Interstingly, again mostly a mix of
neo-Celtic and Classical
themes.
However, the art 'establishment' has played little part in the
cultural development
of the West in the 20th C.
> Finally, I'm very wary of anyone who wants to establish boundaries for art.
> Art as a communicative act should be subject to the same rule regarding speech.
Speech is a very good example. Those who create their own vocabulary
and grammar
will not be understood or accepted. Those who use the existing words
and grammar
and previous ideas to communicate new ideas and concepts will
contribute to their
culture.
> If we start setting boundaries, where will they be set, who will set them, how
> will they be enforced, and what happens when they're broken.
The 'boundaries' are those set by your culture or society if you
prefer. They are
not enforced. When they are broken, the breakers are eventually
ignored...ultimately
it's the artist's choice.
There are always boundaries, materials budget, size of canvas etc.
but it is more
helpful to regard them as defining an area of freedom in which to work rather
than being obssessed with beyond.
Cultural boundaries will move and develop with time, artists can
choose to influence
them ... or not.
regards
chic
J. C. Chism
piece of art that was very meaningful to him, that evoked strong feelings
from other viewers? I am not talking generalizations. I'm talking specific
pieces of art and the backgrounds behind them. Anyone?
Zoran Baric
Thank you Mr. McGregor, your reply is simply - remarkable. I think that all artists
should spend some time concentrating on your statements, especially the younger
generations.
> O.K. but art as a Tertiary cultural component like theatre, music,
> literature etc.
> is operating primarily at the sub-conscious/emotional level. As
> such, it is incumbent
> on artists to ensure that those members of the public without the
> emotional maturity
> to cope with their art(i.e. *mostly* kids), are protected.
If I understood this properly - by saying: "*mostly* kids," you were referring to
others that include psychologically underdeveloped (adolescent) adults who kept
their anal and even oral fixation - never developed to their genital stage? What
would be the role of Culture in dealing with such individuals? Is it true that this
category had a big influence on the Art Establishment in 20th C, contributing to the
confusion that happened?
> I think art should also 'provoke' recognition, insight and
> clarification as well
> as suggesting change.
> By recognition I mean containing recognisable cultural themes
> By insight I mean providing emotional level understanding of some aspect
> of culture.
> By clarification I mean providing understanding at the
> conscious/intellectual level.
>
> The suggested change is much more likely to be accepted if society has the
> other three provided. (Also the suggested change is more likely to be
> accepted if it
> is not too dramatic).
>
> Most of your list of modern art movements, I regret. For me they perform no
> sustainable cultural function and IMO, will be forgotten by future
> generations.
Exactly, but the problem that exist now is that some of these movements are
"suffocating" the progressive Art with a real cultural contribution. What can
progressive artists do now to bring themselves a little bit more of "oxygen?" Some
progressive movements are classified as an old fashioned "bullshit."
>
> The artists for the most part were immature egotists.
> It isn't difficult to jump up and down screaming.
> It is harder to use your talent to try to progress the ethos of society in a
> controlled, constructive fashion.
Perfectly right, but the economic progress with an exaggerated stimulation of the
comfortable living had to do something with that. It is enough to "press the button"
and a miracles are happening around us. Such tendency of accomplishing a huge impact
by our minimum involvement was acquired by many artists and, unfortunately, accepted
by the market.
>
> This does not mean that abstraction cannot happen, not at all. Celtic art is
> extremely abstract, yet the artists produced enough representational art to
> show that this was by choice.
That is it! By choice! Not by lack of talent, knowledge and other abilities.
> IMV representational art, esp. painting, took a severe dunt from the invention
> of the camera. This was because portrait painting was by far the
> largest source of funding for artists. It is not surprising at all that
> there should be a return to abstraction, but the enforced change was so rapid
> that somehow artists got the idea that change in itself was the sole
> object of art.
I would not generalize here. I would say:" a majority of painters" - not: "artists."
>
> That and the introduction of juxtaposed paradox. e.g. Escher's -
> perspective tricks,
> Surrealists - things which are obviously not real but which are painted to
> look real, Giger's juxtaposition of ugliness and beauty, Doolittle's - pictures
> within a picture. You want to create a new genre? Just think of a
> way to represent
> two opposites in the same object that hasn't been done before. e.g.
> Sad-happiness.
> Cliches like 'Shock of the new' and 'Enfent terrible' come to mind.
>
Excellent observation!
> It seems to me that Art Nouveax *was* a culturally sustainable form
> where Neo-Celtic
> curvi-linear forms were resurrected to combine with representational figuritive
> classical styles. both mainstream European cultural heritage.
> It is interesting that it seems to be making a come back at the moment.
>
> As it is, the 20th C was not entirely devoid of a culture/art
> development system, via the medium of Film, Comics, and more recently
> Computer Games,
> and to some extent TV(TV is usually the final showcase rather than
> the instigating
> medium, so far anyway). Interstingly, again mostly a mix of
> neo-Celtic and Classical
> themes.
> However, the art 'establishment' has played little part in the
> cultural development
> of the West in the 20th C.
>
Mr. McGregor, what would be your suggestion to sculptors in order to improve the
image of three-dimensional expression in 21st C ?
>
> > Finally, I'm very wary of anyone who wants to establish boundaries for art.
> > Art as a communicative act should be subject to the same rule regarding speech.
>
> Speech is a very good example. Those who create their own vocabulary
> and grammar
> will not be understood or accepted. Those who use the existing words
> and grammar
> and previous ideas to communicate new ideas and concepts will
> contribute to their
> culture.
>
This is a perfect motion! Readers, just replace the meaning of speech with the
meaning of Art and you will get the massage that our Cultures are sending to the
artists.
>
> > If we start setting boundaries, where will they be set, who will set them, how
> > will they be enforced, and what happens when they're broken.
>
> The 'boundaries' are those set by your culture or society if you
> prefer. They are
> not enforced. When they are broken, the breakers are eventually
> ignored...ultimately
> it's the artist's choice.
> There are always boundaries, materials budget, size of canvas etc.
> but it is more
> helpful to regard them as defining an area of freedom in which to work rather
> than being obssessed with beyond.
> Cultural boundaries will move and develop with time, artists can
> choose to influence
> them ... or not.
>
Future will establish those boundaries and let's make it easier on us now - to remain
within them later!
Regards,
Zorba
Charles Mcgregor
from "J. C. Chism" <jcc...@rosenet.net> contains these words:
I painted a hand once that was grasping from behind at a figure which
was obsessed with a source of light.
The hand was itself attached to the source of light, but that fact
was obscured by an intervening plane. The picture was intended to
portray fanaticism. One woman told me that the painting caused her to
be very afraid.
regards
chic
Charles Mcgregor
from Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> contains these words:
> Thank you Mr. McGregor, your reply is simply - remarkable. I think that all artists
> should spend some time concentrating on your statements, especially the younger
> generations.
> > O.K. but art as a Tertiary cultural component like theatre, music,
> > literature etc.
> > is operating primarily at the sub-conscious/emotional level. As
> > such, it is incumbent
> > on artists to ensure that those members of the public without the
> > emotional maturity
> > to cope with their art(i.e. *mostly* kids), are protected.
> If I understood this properly - by saying: "*mostly* kids," you were referring to
> others that include psychologically underdeveloped (adolescent) adults who kept
> their anal and even oral fixation - never developed to their genital stage? What
> would be the role of Culture in dealing with such individuals? Is it true that this
> category had a big influence on the Art Establishment in 20th C, contributing to the
> confusion that happened?
One can only hope that those are in the minority amongst the adult
population, hence the term
'*mostly* kids'.;
> > I think art should also 'provoke' recognition, insight and
> > clarification as well
> > as suggesting change.
> > By recognition I mean containing recognisable cultural themes
> > By insight I mean providing emotional level understanding of some aspect
> > of culture.
> > By clarification I mean providing understanding at the
> > conscious/intellectual level.
> >
> > The suggested change is much more likely to be accepted if society has the
> > other three provided. (Also the suggested change is more likely to be
> > accepted if it
> > is not too dramatic).
> >
> > Most of your list of modern art movements, I regret. For me they perform no
> > sustainable cultural function and IMO, will be forgotten by future
> > generations.
> Exactly, but the problem that exist now is that some of these movements are
> "suffocating" the progressive Art with a real cultural contribution. What can
> progressive artists do now to bring themselves a little bit more of "oxygen?" Some
> progressive movements are classified as an old fashioned "bullshit."
'The truth will out' is a phrase that springs to mind. I truly
believe the day of the 'Enfant Terrible' has ciome and gone.
> >
> > The artists for the most part were immature egotists.
> > It isn't difficult to jump up and down screaming.
> > It is harder to use your talent to try to progress the ethos of society in a
> > controlled, constructive fashion.
> Perfectly right, but the economic progress with an exaggerated stimulation of the
> comfortable living had to do something with that. It is enough to "press the button"
> and a miracles are happening around us. Such tendency of accomplishing a huge impact
> by our minimum involvement was acquired by many artists and, unfortunately, accepted
> by the market.
Not sure what you mean here. Elucidate.
> >
> > This does not mean that abstraction cannot happen, not at all. Celtic art is
> > extremely abstract, yet the artists produced enough representational art to
> > show that this was by choice.
> That is it! By choice! Not by lack of talent, knowledge and other abilities.
> > IMV representational art, esp. painting, took a severe dunt from the invention
> > of the camera. This was because portrait painting was by far the
> > largest source of funding for artists. It is not surprising at all that
> > there should be a return to abstraction, but the enforced change was so rapid
> > that somehow artists got the idea that change in itself was the sole
> > object of art.
> I would not generalize here. I would say:" a majority of painters" - not: "artists."
I accept sculpture was much less effected.
> >
> > That and the introduction of juxtaposed paradox. e.g. Escher's -
> > perspective tricks,
> > Surrealists - things which are obviously not real but which are painted to
> > look real, Giger's juxtaposition of ugliness and beauty, Doolittle's - pictures
> > within a picture. You want to create a new genre? Just think of a
> > way to represent
> > two opposites in the same object that hasn't been done before. e.g.
> > Sad-happiness.
> > Cliches like 'Shock of the new' and 'Enfent terrible' come to mind.
> >
> Excellent observation!
Thanks
> > It seems to me that Art Nouveax *was* a culturally sustainable form
> > where Neo-Celtic
> > curvi-linear forms were resurrected to combine with representational figuritive
> > classical styles. both mainstream European cultural heritage.
> > It is interesting that it seems to be making a come back at the moment.
> >
> > As it is, the 20th C was not entirely devoid of a culture/art
> > development system, via the medium of Film, Comics, and more recently
> > Computer Games,
> > and to some extent TV(TV is usually the final showcase rather than
> > the instigating
> > medium, so far anyway). Interstingly, again mostly a mix of
> > neo-Celtic and Classical
> > themes.
> > However, the art 'establishment' has played little part in the
> > cultural development
> > of the West in the 20th C.
> >
> Mr. McGregor, what would be your suggestion to sculptors in order to improve the
> image of three-dimensional expression in 21st C ?
Subhume personal ego to the culturally/socially traditional ethos of
Western Europe.
Free Will within the bounds of absolute right and wrong, then add
those of your own ideas that you think you might get away with.
> >
> > > Finally, I'm very wary of anyone who wants to establish boundaries for art.
> > > Art as a communicative act should be subject to the same rule regarding speech.
> >
> > Speech is a very good example. Those who create their own vocabulary
> > and grammar
> > will not be understood or accepted. Those who use the existing words
> > and grammar
> > and previous ideas to communicate new ideas and concepts will
> > contribute to their
> > culture.
> >
> This is a perfect motion! Readers, just replace the meaning of speech with the
> meaning of Art and you will get the massage that our Cultures are sending to the
> artists.
My god, are we becoming allies?
> >
> > > If we start setting boundaries, where will they be set, who will set them, how
> > > will they be enforced, and what happens when they're broken.
> >
> > The 'boundaries' are those set by your culture or society if you
> > prefer. They are
> > not enforced. When they are broken, the breakers are eventually
> > ignored...ultimately
> > it's the artist's choice.
> > There are always boundaries, materials budget, size of canvas etc.
> > but it is more
> > helpful to regard them as defining an area of freedom in which to work rather
> > than being obssessed with beyond.
> > Cultural boundaries will move and develop with time, artists can
> > choose to influence
> > them ... or not.
> >
> Future will establish those boundaries and let's make it easier on us now - to remain
> within them later!
Err...you lost me again!
> Regards,
> Zorba
regards
chic
Studio120
By the way, Zorba, this is for you too, since you seemed to be so enamoured
with chic's reponse to my last post.
Your comment:
> it is incumbent
>on artists to ensure that those members of the public without the
>emotional maturity
>to cope with their art(i.e. *mostly* kids), are protected.
I think that if you look at some of my earlier postings, I have been fairly
consistent with respect to protecting children from seeing things that they
might not have the intellectual capability to deal with. But I will tell you
that children are curious about sexuality much earlier than most are willing to
give them credit for. A national survey that was published just this week (the
results of which were on NPR yesterday afternoon and in today's paper
[Associated Press]) indicates that children as young as eight years old want
information on sex, mostly from their parents. They want information on sex,
information on AIDS, and information on sexual orientation.
By the way, just out of curiosity, would you mind qualifying what you mean by
"tertiary cultural component"? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, it's
just that I've never heard the term before.
Your comment:
>Most of your list of modern art movements, I regret. For me they perform no
>sustainable cultural function and IMO, will be forgotten by future
>generations.
>The artists for the most part were immature egotists.
>It isn't difficult to jump up and down screaming.
>It is harder to use your talent to try to progress the ethos of society in a
>controlled, constructive fashion.
It's distressing as a teacher of art in the college community to hear something
like this. The validity of these movements I quoted is beyond question and the
only thing that saves your statement from my complete dismissal is that you
qualify it with "IMO". Really now, in your opinion, would you say that your
work is completely devoid of any influence, reference, connection, or even
context of the movements you regret? If you can say that your sculpture is
totally without direct or indirect ties, I would like to see your work and
judge for myself how it is that you've managed all these years to live in a
vacuum.
Next, I have to wonder, don't you want it both ways?
>O.K. but art as a Tertiary cultural component like theatre, music,
>literature etc.
>is operating primarily at the sub-conscious/emotional level.
and then, in the same post, you say:
>By clarification I mean providing understanding at the
>conscious/intellectual level.
>
Which way's it going to be? Are we going to make art that is completely devoid
of any conscious decision making? Or are we going to make art that is
completely dry and cerebral without connection to our subconscious? You're
arguing both sides of the spectrum for the convenience of your point of view.
It seems to me that you want passion, as long as it's not "jumping up and down
screaming", and cerebral representational work without it being photography.
You want to hem in art world into a comfortable range: not too hot, not too
cold, juuuussst right!
Yes, speech is a very good example. The metaphor of speech as a commicative
act like art is not an accident. It's perfect, but you seem to conveniently
forget that even speech is constantly changing. If you want proof, look at an
unabridged dictionary from 1950 and compare it to one today, or even more
dramatic, look at the development of language across the plains of history.
The point I'm trying to make here is that change is constantly at work and yet
with comments like yours:
>somehow artists got the idea that change in itself was the sole
>object of art.
You seem to be arguing that change for change's sake is not an acceptable
vehicle for artistic expression! And why not? Well, you'd have us believe
that change is not valid unless we use the "existing words and grammar" to
express it. But what if that "existing" visual vocabulary is no long
sufficient?
Are you going to be the one that tells the next generation of artists that they
must work within the framework established by you? How arrogant, how pompous
can you be? Give me a break and study philosophy, aesthetics, reread your art
history (Jansen, Jacobus, Sokol, Rosenblum, etc.), and then come back and talk
to me. By the way, while you're at it, read Arthur Danto's "The End of Art",
and come back with an explanation as to why you're an artist in the first
place!
Finally, your statement:
>Cultural boundaries will move and develop with time, artists can
>choose to influence
>them ... or not.
Again, I've got to ask, how are the cultural boundaries going to move if you
want to limit the motion? Implicit with your statement is that you're happy
with where those boundaries are and you don't want them moved. Well, that's
convenient for you, because you've got your visual vocabulary all worked out,
but again I've got to ask: what about the artists that come after you? Are
they supposed to do the same old tired thing as you, or some sort of
recombination of "culturally acceptable" vocabulary? How much inbreeding can
art take if we aren't prepared to surrender its boundaries of it to new ideas?
Eagerly awaiting your response!
Zoran Baric
> Perfectly right, but the economic progress with an exaggerated stimulation of
> the comfortable living had to do something with that. It is enough to "press
> the button"
> > and a miracles are happening around us. Such tendency of accomplishing a huge impact
> > by our minimum involvement was acquired by many artists and, unfortunately, accepted
> > by the market.
>
> Not sure what you mean here. Elucidate.
>
Well, I would not put the whole blame on the Artists. Technology and a modern way of life
disturbed the basic impulse of Human productivity by enforcing the system of leisure. It is
sufficient to press the button and a big accomplishment is realized (remote controls). Many
artist were/are driven by that cultural trend - by involving just a little bit of
themselves in their work and, at the same time, requesting a big appreciation and price for
their (Art?) work.
> > This is a perfect motion! Readers, just replace the meaning of speech with the
> > meaning of Art and you will get the massage that our Cultures are sending to the
> > artists.
>
> My god, are we becoming allies?
>
We've always been.
Please, just do not ask how come - if you don't really have to.
> > Future will establish those boundaries and let's make it easier on us now - to remain
> > within them later!
>
> Err...you lost me again!
>
OK. For the work we do now, we can only hope that is going to be an Art. Future is going to
bring the conformation. Disregarding the productive principles of the Human Nature will
narrow the chances for our work to become an Art.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Zorba
>
>
Charles Mcgregor
from stud...@aol.com (Studio120) contains these words:
> Of course, chic, by all means, butt in!! But beware of the waters you tread.
> By the way, Zorba, this is for you too, since you seemed to be so enamoured
> with chic's reponse to my last post.
> Your comment:
> > it is incumbent
> >on artists to ensure that those members of the public without the
> >emotional maturity
> >to cope with their art(i.e. *mostly* kids), are protected.
> I think that if you look at some of my earlier postings, I have been fairly
> consistent with respect to protecting children from seeing things that they
> might not have the intellectual capability to deal with. But I will tell you
I did not mean to suggest that you were disregarding children's
immaturity, I was
merely raising the fairly obvious point that they need protecting.
> that children are curious about sexuality much earlier than most are willing to
> give them credit for. A national survey that was published just this week (the
> results of which were on NPR yesterday afternoon and in today's paper
> [Associated Press]) indicates that children as young as eight years old want
> information on sex, mostly from their parents. They want information on sex,
> information on AIDS, and information on sexual orientation.
> By the way, just out of curiosity, would you mind qualifying what you mean by
> "tertiary cultural component"? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, it's
> just that I've never heard the term before.
I qualified it in a previous (large)post. It is my own definition.
Not being cheeky, but do you know how to use dejanews, many people do not?
Anyway I think the thread title was 'what is culture?' or something like that.
> Your comment:
> >Most of your list of modern art movements, I regret. For me they perform no
> >sustainable cultural function and IMO, will be forgotten by future
> >generations.
> >The artists for the most part were immature egotists.
> >It isn't difficult to jump up and down screaming.
> >It is harder to use your talent to try to progress the ethos of society in a
> >controlled, constructive fashion.
> It's distressing as a teacher of art in the college community to hear something
> like this. The validity of these movements I quoted is beyond question and the
> only thing that saves your statement from my complete dismissal is that you
> qualify it with "IMO".
I guess I muissed *your* IMO there :-)
> Really now, in your opinion, would you say that your
> work is completely devoid of any influence, reference, connection, or even
> context of the movements you regret? If you can say that your sculpture is
> totally without direct or indirect ties, I would like to see your work and
> judge for myself how it is that you've managed all these years to live in a
> vacuum.
Steady now! I did use the word 'most'. e.g. I would be delighted if I could
get the beauty captured by Giger in the face of his late wife into my work, the
sexuality and ugliness he can keep however, sure they are immotive,
but IMO, not
helpfully so.
I do not live in a vacuum.
I do try to take a big, big, picture perspective rather than one at
the individualist
or genre level.
> Next, I have to wonder, don't you want it both ways?
> >O.K. but art as a Tertiary cultural component like theatre, music,
> >literature etc.
> >is operating primarily at the sub-conscious/emotional level.
> and then, in the same post, you say:
> >By clarification I mean providing understanding at the
> >conscious/intellectual level.
> >
Again you seem to have missed a word, this time - 'primarily'.
> Which way's it going to be? Are we going to make art that is completely devoid
> of any conscious decision making? Or are we going to make art that is
> completely dry and cerebral without connection to our subconscious? You're
> arguing both sides of the spectrum for the convenience of your point of view.
No, you have simply misread my comments. I claim both sides exist,
but that the
subconscious side is primary.
> It seems to me that you want passion, as long as it's not "jumping up and down
> screaming", and cerebral representational work without it being photography.
Again there is a line to be drawn between that urge to communicate which is
the tantrum, which is primarily about self, and that violent passion
which is about
something greater than self.
I recognise the cerebral content in most modern art movements, it, if I may say
so, generally constitutes a larger percentage of the combined
intellectual/emotional
content of these works than for mor culturally sustainable art.
> You want to hem in art world into a comfortable range: not too hot, not too
> cold, juuuussst right!
No, I merely think that there are cultural boundaries outwith which an artist's
contribution is unlikely to be acceptable by the culture concerned.
I simply suggest
that if an artist wishes to contribute to i.e. CHANGE his culture,
then he should
take cognisence of that. If he/she still wants to swing from the wing
tips, fair enough.
This I regard, more of an observation than a theory, BTW. But of course, I
may be observing wrongly.
> Yes, speech is a very good example. The metaphor of speech as a commicative
> act like art is not an accident. It's perfect, but you seem to conveniently
> forget that even speech is constantly changing. If you want proof, look at an
> unabridged dictionary from 1950 and compare it to one today, or even more
> dramatic, look at the development of language across the plains of history.
You seem to think I am against change, when in fact I am all in favour of it.
Languages change slowly, a word here a word there, but they do change and
improve. What I said was that if someone invents completely, their own
language, then it will have very little or no impact on the existing one.
For example, Esperanto hasn't exactly set the heather on fire has it?
Has any country actually adopted it?
> The point I'm trying to make here is that change is constantly at work and yet
> with comments like yours:
> >somehow artists got the idea that change in itself was the sole
> >object of art.
> You seem to be arguing that change for change's sake is not an acceptable
> vehicle for artistic expression! And why not?
No I'm not. Change is good and essential and artists SHOULD be instigators of
change. Where we differ is our belief in what is the most successful approach
to achieving that.
Going with the flow or yielding to cultural pressure is seen by many as being
anathama. Why? For millenia artists have been happy to participate fully
in cultural development and have therefore made significant contribution to
shaping culture. Maybe they do not want or care to contribute to their culture,
that is O.K., but what is not O.K. is if they are deluding themselves that
their work will influence Western cultural development.
> Well, you'd have us believe
> that change is not valid unless we use the "existing words and grammar" to
> express it. But what if that "existing" visual vocabulary is no long
> sufficient?
Then it is added to, frequently by employing previously defined words.
> Are you going to be the one that tells the next generation of artists that they
> must work within the framework established by you? How arrogant, how pompous
> can you be?
That is unfair. I am entitled to my view, you are entitled to your's.
> Give me a break and study philosophy, aesthetics, reread your art
> history (Jansen, Jacobus, Sokol, Rosenblum, etc.), and then come back and talk
> to me.
and who is being arrogant and directive?
> By the way, while you're at it, read Arthur Danto's "The End of Art",
> and come back with an explanation as to why you're an artist in the first
> place!
Well I guess you lose.
> Finally, your statement:
> >Cultural boundaries will move and develop with time, artists can
> >choose to influence
> >them ... or not.
> Again, I've got to ask, how are the cultural boundaries going to move if you
> want to limit the motion? Implicit with your statement is that you're happy
> with where those boundaries are and you don't want them moved. Well, that's
> convenient for you, because you've got your visual vocabulary all worked out,
> but again I've got to ask: what about the artists that come after you? Are
> they supposed to do the same old tired thing as you, or some sort of
> recombination of "culturally acceptable" vocabulary? How much inbreeding can
> art take if we aren't prepared to surrender its boundaries of it to new ideas?
> Eagerly awaiting your response!
<sigh>
chic
Charles Mcgregor
from Zoran Baric <zba...@sprint.ca> contains these words:
> > Perfectly right, but the economic progress with an exaggerated stimulation of
> > the comfortable living had to do something with that. It is enough to "press
> > the button"
> > > and a miracles are happening around us. Such tendency of accomplishing a huge impact
> > > by our minimum involvement was acquired by many artists and, unfortunately, accepted
> > > by the market.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean here. Elucidate.
> >
> Well, I would not put the whole blame on the Artists. Technology and a modern way of life
> disturbed the basic impulse of Human productivity by enforcing the system of leisure. It is
> sufficient to press the button and a big accomplishment is realized (remote controls). Many
> artist were/are driven by that cultural trend - by involving just a little bit of
> themselves in their work and, at the same time, requesting a big appreciation and price for
> their (Art?) work.
I think I get you, you mean like computer graphics making the unreal
seem real, e.g. the metaloid terminator? Yeah, what would Dali have
given for a Silicon Graphics machine?
I guess the very fact that computers can simulate much of the
intellectually oriented
modern art, pointillism, impressionism, geometric and other shape
generation and even come up with 'art' beyond the intellectual
capability of artists, like stereo-grams, means that
that kind of intellectual trickery development will be taken over by
the machine, albeit human
directed.
> > > This is a perfect motion! Readers, just replace the meaning of speech with the
> > > meaning of Art and you will get the massage that our Cultures are sending to the
> > > artists.
> >
> > My god, are we becoming allies?
> >
> We've always been.
> Please, just do not ask how come - if you don't really have to.
> > > Future will establish those boundaries and let's make it easier on us now - to remain
> > > within them later!
> >
> > Err...you lost me again!
> >
> OK. For the work we do now, we can only hope that is going to be an Art. Future is going to
> bring the conformation. Disregarding the productive principles of the Human Nature will
> narrow the chances for our work to become an Art.
To paraphrase JFK
"Ask not what your art can do for you, but rather ask what your art
can do for your culture?'
There are plenty of artists contributing to cultural development,
they do so quietly, for them
acceptance of their suggested change by the culture is enough.
regards
chic
th...@my-dejanews.com
Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> You seem to think I am against change, when in fact I am all in favour of it.
> Languages change slowly, a word here a word there, but they do change and
> improve. What I said was that if someone invents completely, their own
> language, then it will have very little or no impact on the existing one.
> For example, Esperanto hasn't exactly set the heather on fire has it?
> Has any country actually adopted it?
I would think analogies between language and sculpture would be fairly
limited. Language is programmed into our brains. A three year old makes
amazingly complex sentences. The grammar of an 8 year old is hard to
distinguish from that of a 30 year old. Although even small children may
have artistic impulses, the skill with which it is expressed is dramatically
less automatically achieved.
Point of information: Esperanto is not intended to be adopted by countries,
but by people. (People, such as myself, who use it to meet people overseas.)
It also wasn't meant to affect the way we speak our native language.
Thomas L. Rochestro
http://www.esperanto.net
Studio120
refreshing - I don't think that we're all that far apart, judging from the
qualifications that you've made. I think our primary disagreement has more to
do with the pace of change and who's going to govern that change. Yes, no?
But to clarify a couple of thoughts. Chic, you wrote in response to my post:
>I did not mean to suggest that you were disregarding children's
>immaturity, I was
>merely raising the fairly obvious point that they need protecting.
The tone of your previous post did, IMO, suggest that I was willing to, quite
literally, throw out the baby with the bath water in my defense of free
speech/free art. Perhaps it's only that I am a father that I took offense at
that implication. Sorry, I obviously overreacted!
No, I'm not familiar with dejanews, but I will look up the thread you mentioned
to see if I can find your definition.
>> The validity of these movements I quoted is beyond question and
>the
>> only thing that saves your statement from my complete dismissal is that you
>> qualify it with "IMO".
>
>I guess I muissed *your* IMO there :-)
>
Well, there was no IMO because to be frank, it's not my opinion. To be fair to
you, most artists have complaints with some of the historical movements that
have occurred since the end of WWII, but I don't think that many would question
the validity of the movements themselves. Additionally, the art historical
question needs to be asked here: If it's not valid, then why does it continue
to be part of our history? Why haven't we found a way to revise it? Most art
historians are ready, willing, and able to admit that some (if not all) of the
art movements had their charlitans, scam artists (nice pun!), and egocentric
stars, but their bad behavior, just because you don't personally care for it,
does not invalidate the movement as a whole. As a professor in a community of
fine artists and art historians, I've got more than just "my" opinion here!
>Steady now! I did use the word 'most'. e.g. I would be delighted if I could
>get the beauty captured by Giger in the face of his late wife into my work,
>the
>sexuality and ugliness he can keep however, sure they are immotive,
>but IMO, not
>helpfully so.
Okay! Thanks! That helps - sorry I missed your qualifying "most"!
>No, I merely think that there are cultural boundaries outwith which an
>artist's
>contribution is unlikely to be acceptable by the culture concerned.
>I simply suggest
>that if an artist wishes to contribute to i.e. CHANGE his culture,
>then he should
>take cognisence of that. If he/she still wants to swing from the wing
>tips, fair enough.
I agree with you here! But in your last posting, you at least seemed to be
questioning the validity of an artist's motivations if he "swings" too far. My
point is that the only valid judge of how far is too far is history. And
unfortunately for you and I, we may not be around to find out!:-) Again, my
point is that sometimes as artists we have to step outside of the established
visual vocabulary to create a new one. Just because the "old guard" doesn't
understand it, doesn't deprive it of its validity and its place in the visual
arts
.>Esperanto hasn't exactly set the heather on fire has it?
>Has any country actually adopted it?
Good point! But like any new language, sometimes there has to be time allowed
for translation and interpretation. That's what critics and historians are
for. As artists though, we must be patient and be prepared to surrender to one
another the prerogative to create our own visions. Any boundaries that are set
are arbitrary ones that, if allowed, will limit vision.
>Maybe they do not want or care to contribute to their culture,
>that is O.K., but what is not O.K. is if they are deluding themselves that
>their work will influence Western cultural development.
Again, I must reiterate: it's not our decision! History will be the judge.
In the meantime, cultural boundaries of a given era may have to suffer with the
artists that reside there. Eventually culture catches up and history makes
note of those who had vision and who were pioneers on the cutting edge.
>> Are you going to be the one that tells the next generation of artists that
>they
>> must work within the framework established by you? How arrogant, how
>pompous
>> can you be?
>
>That is unfair. I am entitled to my view, you are entitled to your's.
>
Yes, you're intitled to your view and I spoke out of line! Sorry, but my
passion got the best of me and I overreached - I was very tired when I last
wrote you and it shows. Again, sorry! But I still stand by my statement:
>> By the way, while you're at it, read Arthur Danto's "The End of Art",
>> and come back with an explanation as to why you're an artist in the first
>> place!
>
>Well I guess you lose.
I don't understand what you mean by "you lose", but my suggestion that you read
Danto is a good one because I think that it will go a long way to explaining my
position and opening up your mind to the reasons why I'm so passionate about
what I do. Arthur Danto's essay "The End of Art" is available in a collection
of essays edited by Berel Lang called "The Death of Art". I think that it is
essential reading for the thinking artist.
Finally, art, like speech, must be defended against those who would try to
enforce their notion of what is appropriate, valid, or otherwise acceptable.
The standards by which speech is judged can only be employed from a historical
perspective. In the meantime, make what you want to make, and allow others to
make what they want to make without passing judgement. Frankly, what you and I
say or think will not change that fact anyway. We have no power to stop "bad"
art, anymore than we have the ability to define "good" art.
One more thing - I'm sorry I was so cranky with my last posting. I do
apologize for the tone of the letter - rereading it, it's a little
embarassing!! I'd do better to let my writing sit for a day or two before, as
my wife puts it, I "launch the torpedoes!" My passion for what I do as a
sculptor and a teacher sometimes overwhelms my patience. Again, my apologies.
Take care and do write again!!
Zoran Baric
Studio120 wrote:
> Okay, okay, well let's be clear then. Reading your last post, it was very
> refreshing - I don't think that we're all that far apart, judging from the
> qualifications that you've made. I think our primary disagreement has more to
> do with the pace of change and who's going to govern that change. Yes, no?
Kevin,
I hope that you do not blame as much as before to be enamored with Chic's first
reply. Chic has a certain style and, if not understood, causes a shock and feels
offensive. Looks like that we are listening John Denver from our CD-ROM,s and he
listens Tchaikovsky - Piano Concerto No. 1 in B flat.
If you see or remember my first reaction to Chic in directory "For Kevin" and the
fact that he accepted to continue communication with me, tells us a lot about his
personality - to be of high quality. If you study his theory very carefully you
might find yourself accepting many points.
>
> But to clarify a couple of thoughts. Chic, you wrote in response to my post:
>
> >I did not mean to suggest that you were disregarding children's
> >immaturity, I was
> >merely raising the fairly obvious point that they need protecting.
>
If I can ad my opinion here!?
Children or anybody are not supposed to need any protection from the exposed
pieces, if these pieces are going to be classified as Art in the future. We
certainly do not know NOW if these pieces are going to become an Art or not. But,
what we can do!? We can try to develop an estimation or prediction technique - a
science subject that you or others can teach in the Art Academies. You will
estimate a spread direction of the boundaries based on History and present
situation. Children will still be protected, but if they, somehow, sneak to these
pieces - the chances for their psychological deformation will be narrowed down. Not
only that, - the present situation in a visual section of the Art Establishment
might be greatly improved and, with less confusion. There will be directions and
we'll be free to ignore them, but on our own risk.
>
> The tone of your previous post did, IMO, suggest that I was willing to, quite
> literally, throw out the baby with the bath water in my defense of free
> speech/free art. Perhaps it's only that I am a father that I took offense at
> that implication. Sorry, I obviously overreacted!
>
> No, I'm not familiar with dejanews, but I will look up the thread you mentioned
> to see if I can find your definition.
>
It is under directory: "What is Culture?" posted by Charles McGregor
>
> Yes, you're intitled to your view and I spoke out of line! Sorry, but my
> passion got the best of me and I overreached - I was very tired when I last
> wrote you and it shows. Again, sorry! But I still stand by my statement:
>
> >Finally, art, like speech, must be defended against those who would try to
> enforce their notion of what is appropriate, valid, or otherwise acceptable.
Yes, but it has to be challenged to defend itself for every move it tries to make.
The challenging is happening and it will intensify with the communication
development. Why it has to be challenged? Because it is disturbing for Culture and
every disturbance has to be justified and proven to lead toward the right
direction; or at least to have such intention.
>
> The standards by which speech is judged can only be employed from a historical
> perspective. In the meantime, make what you want to make, and allow others to
> make what they want to make without passing judgement.
Kevin, why shouldn't we pass our judgment? What harm is going to do?
> Frankly, what you and I
> say or think will not change that fact anyway. We have no power to stop "bad"
> art, anymore than we have the ability to define "good" art.
But we have a power to discuss, analyze and estimate.
>
> One more thing - I'm sorry I was so cranky with my last posting. I do
> apologize for the tone of the letter - rereading it, it's a little
> embarassing!! I'd do better to let my writing sit for a day or two before, as
> my wife puts it, I "launch the torpedoes!" My passion for what I do as a
> sculptor and a teacher sometimes overwhelms my patience. Again, my apologies.
If you reply to me with such passion I would take it as a respect.
The best from
Zorba
Studio120
>Children or anybody are not supposed to need any protection from the exposed
>pieces, if these pieces are going to be classified as Art in the future. We
>certainly do not know NOW if these pieces are going to become an Art or not.
Again, the boundaries are being set! If we have to protect children from
seeing a particular work of art, that immediately qualifies it for the junk
pile? Come on, Zorba, the historical record of art would be littered with the
flotsam and jetsam those that are eliminated if we followed your directive
here.
A couple of classic examples, since you seem to be profoundly influenced by the
classics:
Jacques Louis David was a neoclassist who was imprisoned by the French after
the fall of Robespierre, in part because of his painting, "The Death of Marat".
Seems the Bonapartists were made a little nervous about the theme of
assasination and decided that David was too politically motivated to be running
around suggesting that someone do in Napoleon. Later David became a
Bonapartist himself, but are you suggesting that because the painting depicted
murdered body of Marat, and that because we may need to shield children from
seeing bloody, dead bodies, that perhaps this painting should not be considered
"art"?
Another example, a student of David, Jean-Auguste Ingres, painted several
versions of his "Odalisque" and "The Bather of Valpincon". These paintings
were considered scandalous at the time they were painted because they portrayed
nude women who actually looked like they might enjoy sex. The paintings were
banned for a while because people were concerned that they might "corrupt the
youth of France". Are we to believe, according to you, that these beautiful
paintings should be consigned to the fire?
You wrote:
>But, what we can do!? We can try to develop an estimation or prediction
technique
>- a
>science subject that you or others can teach in the Art Academies.You will
>estimate a spread direction of the boundaries based on History and present
>situation. Children will still be protected, but if they, somehow, sneak to
>these
>pieces - the chances for their psychological deformation will be narrowed
>down.
I could go on and on here!! As a professor my best strategy for "protecting"
my students is to educate them as much as possible, to let them know that they
have a right to speak their minds in the visual arts. Plain and simple, Zorba,
their education is not served by censorship!
As far as pyschological deformation, most of that happens due to lack of
parental involvement, use of drugs, and social isolation (all of which we've
discussed before), not any particular exposure to art.
You wrote:
>Not only that, - the present situation in a visual section of the Art
>Establishment
>might be greatly improved and, with less confusion. There will be directions
>and
>we'll be free to ignore them, but on our own risk.
I'm not confused! Are you? If so, then take the time to look and read. If,
after that, you still don't understand, ask me and I'll be happy to help - it's
my job!
Regarding the freedom of art & speech you wrote:
> it has to be challenged to defend itself for every move it tries to
>make.
>The challenging is happening and it will intensify with the communication
>development. Why it has to be challenged? Because it is disturbing for
>Culture and
>every disturbance has to be justified and proven to lead toward the right
>direction; or at least to have such intention.
Of course it will be challenged, you and I agree here. The legitimacy of any
art form will be continually challenged, but I still have to argue that you're
not advocating a mere challenge, but censorship. Your posts have a distinctive
thread to them that smacks of puritanism - personally I have no problem with
that, but don't try to enforce it on anyone but yourself! Judgement will be
passed by history - we can dicuss, analyze, estimate, etc., until the cows come
home but it is not your place to judge anyone's speech, anyone's thoughts, or
anyone's artwork. You don't have to like it but I'll be damned if I'll let you
stop it! Plain and simple, you just don't have the right!
Talk to you soon!
Zoran Baric
Studio120 wrote:
Zorba wrote:>Children or anybody are not supposed to need any protection from the exposed
>pieces, if these pieces are going to be classified as Art in the future. We
>certainly do not know NOW if these pieces are going to become an Art or not.Again, the boundaries are being set!
Kevin,
No! No! No boundaries! I do not want to set any boundaries. I do not
know why you read me like that. I would like to estimate them, so my work
does not become a junk in a while.
If we have to protect children from
seeing a particular work of art, that immediately qualifies it for the junk
pile? Come on, Zorba, the historical record of art would be littered with the
flotsam and jetsam those that are eliminated if we followed your directive
here.
Again extreme explanation of my words! There are no strict directions; only suggestions for possible avoidance of some junk that is going to be piled up and burned in the future.
A couple of classic examples, since you seem to be profoundly influenced by the
classics:Jacques Louis David was a neoclassist who was imprisoned by the French after
the fall of Robespierre, in part because of his painting, "The Death of Marat".
Seems the Bonapartists were made a little nervous about the theme of
assasination and decided that David was too politically motivated to be running
around suggesting that someone do in Napoleon. Later David became a
Bonapartist himself, but are you suggesting that because the painting depicted
murdered body of Marat, and that because we may need to shield children from
seeing bloody, dead bodies, that perhaps this painting should not be considered
"art"?
From this example I am comparing myself with Jacques Louis David because
the way it goes I might end up in prison.
Furthermore, children have a strong instinctive defense mechanism,
so seeing a blood and dead bodies will affect them much less than adults.
It is Art, and I am not the one who made a judgment - but Time.
Another example, a student of David, Jean-Auguste Ingres, painted several
versions of his "Odalisque" and "The Bather of Valpincon". These paintings
were considered scandalous at the time they were painted because they portrayed
nude women who actually looked like they might enjoy sex. The paintings were
banned for a while because people were concerned that they might "corrupt the
youth of France". Are we to believe, according to you, that these beautiful
paintings should be consigned to the fire?
If you followed my posts in this directory you can find some statements
that many see as scandalous.
I support eroticism and sexual freedom but not perversion and vulgarism
- which I explained in a quite detail.
You wrote:>But, what we can do!? We can try to develop an estimation or prediction
technique
>- a
>science subject that you or others can teach in the Art Academies.You will
>estimate a spread direction of the boundaries based on History and present
>situation. Children will still be protected, but if they, somehow, sneak to
>these
>pieces - the chances for their psychological deformation will be narrowed
>down.I could go on and on here!! As a professor my best strategy for "protecting"
my students is to educate them as much as possible, to let them know that they
have a right to speak their minds in the visual arts. Plain and simple, Zorba,
their education is not served by censorship!
Kevin,
It is becoming disturbing to se your response so unrelated to my reply.
Please read it again and try to see where I am imposing censorship.
I gave you suggestion to teach them in a way - not to receive a Cultural
rejection in the future. Do you think - is it possible to do that? If yes,
how? If not, why?
Teach us!
As far as pyschological deformation, most of that happens due to lack of
parental involvement, use of drugs, and social isolation (all of which we've
discussed before), not any particular exposure to art.
Exactly! I could not agree more with you here: "not any particular exposure to ART."
You wrote:>Not only that, - the present situation in a visual section of the Art
>Establishment
>might be greatly improved and, with less confusion. There will be directions
>and
>we'll be free to ignore them, but on our own risk.I'm not confused! Are you? If so, then take the time to look and read. If,
after that, you still don't understand, ask me and I'll be happy to help - it's
my job!
I was. Many, still are. Your help is vary valuable and I wish you never give up on me and those alike.
Regarding the freedom of art & speech you wrote:> it has to be challenged to defend itself for every move it tries to
>make.
>The challenging is happening and it will intensify with the communication
>development. Why it has to be challenged? Because it is disturbing for
>Culture and
>every disturbance has to be justified and proven to lead toward the right
>direction; or at least to have such intention.Of course it will be challenged, you and I agree here. The legitimacy of any
art form will be continually challenged, but I still have to argue that you're
not advocating a mere challenge, but censorship.
This is becoming ridiculous! You are the only one who is accusing me of
censorship.
READ MY LETTERS: I am against censorship. I am for suggested directions.
Is this English, or what?
Your posts have a distinctive
thread to them that smacks of puritanism - personally I have no problem with
that, but don't try to enforce it on anyone but yourself! Judgement will be
passed by history - we can dicuss, analyze, estimate, etc., until the cows come
home but it is not your place to judge anyone's speech, anyone's thoughts, or
anyone's artwork. You don't have to like it but I'll be damned if I'll let you
stop it! Plain and simple, you just don't have the right!
Well, well, well. Kevin, read your paragraph again and realize
- it is 1999.
I am under impression that you transferred your anger from Mr. McGregor to me.
Do you want to shut me down?
Do you want to keep me quiet?
You are giving me an orders what to do.
You are imposing a censorship on me.
You are seting up the boundaries for my discussions.
You are depriving me from the Constitutional rights and, at the same
time, you are suggesting your students an absolute freedom of visual
expression; without any directions.
I start to wonder what are you doing on these Academies?
Eagerly waiting for your response,
Zorba
Charles Mcgregor
from stud...@aol.com (Studio120) contains these words:
> Okay, okay, well let's be clear then. Reading your last post, it was very
> refreshing - I don't think that we're all that far apart, judging from the
> qualifications that you've made. I think our primary disagreement has more to
> do with the pace of change and who's going to govern that change. Yes, no?
> But to clarify a couple of thoughts. Chic, you wrote in response to my post:
> >I did not mean to suggest that you were disregarding children's
> >immaturity, I was
> >merely raising the fairly obvious point that they need protecting.
> The tone of your previous post did, IMO, suggest that I was willing to, quite
> literally, throw out the baby with the bath water in my defense of free
> speech/free art. Perhaps it's only that I am a father that I took offense at
> that implication. Sorry, I obviously overreacted!
Well I did not mean that however poorly I conveyed my ideas.
> No, I'm not familiar with dejanews, but I will look up the thread you mentioned
> to see if I can find your definition.
> >> The validity of these movements I quoted is beyond question and
> >the
> >> only thing that saves your statement from my complete dismissal is that you
> >> qualify it with "IMO".
> >
> >I guess I muissed *your* IMO there :-)
> >
> Well, there was no IMO because to be frank, it's not my opinion. To be fair to
Why is it not your opinion? Are you aware of the principal of Enlightenment?
People should form their own opinions based using their own reason
and the facts
at hand, not accept what others opinion is.
> you, most artists have complaints with some of the historical movements that
> have occurred since the end of WWII, but I don't think that many would question
> the validity of the movements themselves. Additionally, the art historical
> question needs to be asked here: If it's not valid, then why does it continue
> to be part of our history? Why haven't we found a way to revise it? Most art
> historians are ready, willing, and able to admit that some (if not all) of the
> art movements had their charlitans, scam artists (nice pun!), and egocentric
> stars, but their bad behavior, just because you don't personally care for it,
> does not invalidate the movement as a whole. As a professor in a community of
> fine artists and art historians, I've got more than just "my" opinion here!
Sorry, I don't buy that. Opinion formed by rational processes and
based on observed facts
are all equally valid. The number of adherents is irrelevant.
I'm not denying anyone's prerogative, I merely point out that
rejecting ideas simply because they align with one's culture is not
conducive to achieving influence in that culture.
I do believe some do not consider that point because it is not made
clear to them.
> >Maybe they do not want or care to contribute to their culture,
> >that is O.K., but what is not O.K. is if they are deluding themselves that
> >their work will influence Western cultural development.
> Again, I must reiterate: it's not our decision! History will be the judge.
> In the meantime, cultural boundaries of a given era may have to suffer with the
> artists that reside there. Eventually culture catches up and history makes
> note of those who had vision and who were pioneers on the cutting edge.
I think that most with actual cultural influence see it within their
own lifetime.
Many itterations of feedback and suggestion, in fact.
I think often an artist's work is not valued monitarily until he is dead, but
that is certainly not the same as cultural influence.
> >> Are you going to be the one that tells the next generation of artists that
> >they
> >> must work within the framework established by you? How arrogant, how
> >pompous
> >> can you be?
> >
> >That is unfair. I am entitled to my view, you are entitled to your's.
> >
> Yes, you're intitled to your view and I spoke out of line! Sorry, but my
> passion got the best of me and I overreached - I was very tired when I last
> wrote you and it shows. Again, sorry! But I still stand by my statement:
> >> By the way, while you're at it, read Arthur Danto's "The End of Art",
> >> and come back with an explanation as to why you're an artist in the first
> >> place!
> >
> >Well I guess you lose.
> I don't understand what you mean by "you lose", but my suggestion that you read
Ad hominem attack loses, its a usegroup 'rule'.
> Danto is a good one because I think that it will go a long way to explaining my
> position and opening up your mind to the reasons why I'm so passionate about
> what I do. Arthur Danto's essay "The End of Art" is available in a collection
> of essays edited by Berel Lang called "The Death of Art". I think that it is
> essential reading for the thinking artist.
Don't you think that there might be a bigger picture than you envisage?
Bigger than the individual, bigger timewise too.
> Finally, art, like speech, must be defended against those who would try to
> enforce their notion of what is appropriate, valid, or otherwise acceptable.
I do my best.
> The standards by which speech is judged can only be employed from a historical
> perspective. In the meantime, make what you want to make, and allow others to
> make what they want to make without passing judgement. Frankly, what you and I
> say or think will not change that fact anyway. We have no power to stop "bad"
> art, anymore than we have the ability to define "good" art.
I stop no-one from making what they want, I simply attempt to redress
a balance. Provide
a different perspective than that given by academia which tends to be
one-sided and
narrow.
> One more thing - I'm sorry I was so cranky with my last posting. I do
> apologize for the tone of the letter - rereading it, it's a little
> embarassing!! I'd do better to let my writing sit for a day or two before, as
> my wife puts it, I "launch the torpedoes!" My passion for what I do as a
> sculptor and a teacher sometimes overwhelms my patience. Again, my apologies.
No problem. Passionate support is often born from suspicion that all
is not well
with what is supported.
Time for change, and I perceive it has begun.
regards
chic(Who BTW was first out of two classes for philosophy)
Charles Mcgregor
from th...@my-dejanews.com contains these words:
> In article <199903031...@zetnet.co.uk>,
> Charles Mcgregor <chi...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > You seem to think I am against change, when in fact I am all in favour of it.
> > Languages change slowly, a word here a word there, but they do change and
> > improve. What I said was that if someone invents completely, their own
> > language, then it will have very little or no impact on the existing one.
> > For example, Esperanto hasn't exactly set the heather on fire has it?
> > Has any country actually adopted it?
> I would think analogies between language and sculpture would be fairly
> limited. Language is programmed into our brains. A three year old makes
I didn't start the analogy, but it is better than most analogies.
> amazingly complex sentences. The grammar of an 8 year old is hard to
> distinguish from that of a 30 year old. Although even small children may
> have artistic impulses, the skill with which it is expressed is dramatically
> less automatically achieved.
> Point of information: Esperanto is not intended to be adopted by countries,
> but by people. (People, such as myself, who use it to meet people overseas.)
> It also wasn't meant to affect the way we speak our native language.
Fine, I'm sure many wild men of art have no motivation to influence
culture either, and they don't. Equally I am sure that there are
some who do think they will influence culture and they still don't.
Moral is; motivation is irrelevant to effect.
regards
chic
Studio120
you review your earlier posts, you are indeed trying to set boundaries beyond
those which you look for yourself. I'm only responding to what it is you've
said and your advocation of ideas that would restrict what can be culturally
acceptable and therefore considered art. If, in fact, these boundaries you
seek are for yourself and yourself alone, then I can accept that, but to be
honest, your previous posts were arguing for a more overarching standard that
would apply to all of us. That is what I was responding to, nothing more.
Again, if I've overreacted to your position, I'm sorry.
You wrote:
>I gave you suggestion to
>teach them in a way - not to receive a Cultural rejection in the future. Do
>you
>think - is it possible to do that? If yes, how? If not, why?
>Teach us!
The underlying premise in teaching my students a way to make work that will
"not receive a Cultural rejection" is that they are not making work to please
themselves, but rather work that will conform. I would rather give the
students all the information they need to make visual statements that are
personal and individual, rather than have them slip into an anonymous cultural
mainstream.
Gotta run!
Studio120
>Why is it not your opinion? Are you aware of the principal of Enlightenment?
>People should form their own opinions based using their own reason
>and the facts
>at hand, not accept what others opinion is.
Yes I'm aware of the principle of Enlightenment, but I'm also aware of the
rules of logic. Informed opinion is still just opinion and as such still
subjective. My intent was to move beyond opinion with the argument that with
the art historical record as the premise(s) for my point(s), the art movements
in question have validity. That's all. Of course you're entitled to your
opinion, but I suspect that if you're going to call into question the art
historical record, you may well be doing alone.
>Opinion formed by rational processes and
>based on observed facts
>are all equally valid. The number of adherents is irrelevant.
Again, this where you are seeming to equate opinion with argument. Please see
my earling posting on why these two need more clarity.
You wrote:
>Ad hominem attack loses, its a usegroup 'rule'.
Really? Do you think that my response to you was an ad hominem attack? I
admit it was a passionate one, but I was earnest when I suggested that you look
at the historical record and perhaps review Danto. This goes to the very
question you foisted in the next paragraph:
>Don't you think that there might be a bigger picture than you envisage?
>Bigger than the individual, bigger timewise too.
The "big" picture that Danto discusses is the purpose of art, the purpose of
making art, and its continuing relevance in our lives. This argument he poses
spring from other observation having to do with the meaning of life and the
purpose of man. How much "bigger" do you want the picture?
You wrote:
>I stop no-one from making what they want, I simply attempt to redress
>a balance. Provide
>a different perspective than that given by academia which tends to be
>one-sided and
>narrow.
Please expand on this! What is your bias toward academia and why do you
consider it to be narrow and one-sided?
You wrote:
>Passionate support is often born from suspicion that all
>is not well with what is supported
Please! The sentence above is a non-statement. It's logically flawed unless
you expand your premises it can support any conclusion at all.
Regards
Zoran Baric
I think that we went slightly of the topic, but we opened something extremely
interesting. I posted a new topic at the bottom of NG - ACADEMIA ?
I will be very interested to join you in discussions on that topic.
I'll wait for the reply of Mr. McGregor.
Sorry for disturbance and interference,
Zorba
Studio120 wrote:
> Chic wrote:
>
> >Why is it not your opinion? Are you aware of the principal of Enlightenment?
> >People should form their own opinions based using their own reason
> >and the facts
> >at hand, not accept what others opinion is.
>
> Yes I'm aware of the principle of Enlightenment, but I'm also aware of the
> rules of logic. Informed opinion is still just opinion and as such still
> subjective. My intent was to move beyond opinion with the argument that with
> the art historical record as the premise(s) for my point(s), the art movements
> in question have validity. That's all. Of course you're entitled to your
> opinion, but I suspect that if you're going to call into question the art
> historical record, you may well be doing alone.
>
> >Opinion formed by rational processes and
> >based on observed facts
> >are all equally valid. The number of adherents is irrelevant.
>
> Again, this where you are seeming to equate opinion with argument. Please see
> my earling posting on why these two need more clarity.
>
> You wrote:
>
> >Ad hominem attack loses, its a usegroup 'rule'.
>
> Really? Do you think that my response to you was an ad hominem attack? I
> admit it was a passionate one, but I was earnest when I suggested that you look
> at the historical record and perhaps review Danto. This goes to the very
> question you foisted in the next paragraph:
>
> >Don't you think that there might be a bigger picture than you envisage?
> >Bigger than the individual, bigger timewise too.
>
> The "big" picture that Danto discusses is the purpose of art, the purpose of
> making art, and its continuing relevance in our lives. This argument he poses
> spring from other observation having to do with the meaning of life and the
> purpose of man. How much "bigger" do you want the picture?
>
> You wrote:
>
> >I stop no-one from making what they want, I simply attempt to redress
> >a balance. Provide
> >a different perspective than that given by academia which tends to be
> >one-sided and
> >narrow.
>
> Please expand on this! What is your bias toward academia and why do you
> consider it to be narrow and one-sided?
>
> You wrote:
>
> >Passionate support is often born from suspicion that all
Zoran Baric
Studio120 wrote:
> Zorba, I apologize if you feel that I am misunderstanding your position, but if
> you review your earlier posts, you are indeed trying to set boundaries beyond
> those which you look for yourself.
Kevin,
I accept your apology and I am sorry that you misunderstood me. I simply do not
have a power to set any boundaries and I would be "fool" if I try to do it. I am
expressing my opinion about suggesting directions based on History and existing
situation in the Culture.
> I'm only responding to what it is you've
> said and your advocation of ideas that would restrict what can be culturally
> acceptable and therefore considered art.
There is no intent for any restriction.
Example:
I can suggest my friend how to behave on the interview for the job, but he can
behave the way he wants and the results of that interview will be exclusively up to
him.
> If, in fact, these boundaries you
> seek are for yourself and yourself alone, then I can accept that, but to be
> honest, your previous posts were arguing for a more overarching standard that
> would apply to all of us.
If I consider that something can be useful for me - I consider it being useful for
others.
It is called Altruism.
If I am wrong toward myself I expect from you to suggest me a right direction with
supported explanation. It is not fair to tell me: do whatever you want but leave
others alone.
> That is what I was responding to, nothing more.
> Again, if I've overreacted to your position, I'm sorry.
>
I honestly consider your involvement in this group extremely valuable.
We can learn a lot from you.
If we all (including you) change some of our views it should not be consider as a
"lost battle" of our egos.
The best from,
Zorba
P.S. I invite you to continue discussions under new post: ACADEMIA ?
Charles Mcgregor
from stud...@aol.com (Studio120) contains these words:
> Chic wrote:
> >Why is it not your opinion? Are you aware of the principal of Enlightenment?
> >People should form their own opinions based using their own reason
> >and the facts
> >at hand, not accept what others opinion is.
> Yes I'm aware of the principle of Enlightenment, but I'm also aware of the
> rules of logic.
Enlightenment necessitates the rigorous application of logic.
> Informed opinion is still just opinion and as such still
> subjective.
It is reasoned opinion using logical deduction.
Only the observed facts and premises may be regarded as subjective.
Unfortunately not everyone accepts all the facts.
> My intent was to move beyond opinion with the argument that with
> the art historical record as the premise(s) for my point(s), the art movements
> in question have validity. That's all.
But you seem to be ignoring the bits you don't like.
> Of course you're entitled to your
> opinion, but I suspect that if you're going to call into question the art
> historical record, you may well be doing alone.
Not at all, indeed I utilise it, and even if you were correct in your
'alone' jibe,
which you are not, it would still be irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
> >Opinion formed by rational processes and
> >based on observed facts
> >are all equally valid. The number of adherents is irrelevant.
> Again, this where you are seeming to equate opinion with argument. Please see
> my earling posting on why these two need more clarity.
There is no argument.
My observation is that art and cultural development have been
demonstrably linked
historically. Even though this is acknowledged by most art historians, there
appears to be no or little advice given on the cultural role of the
artist in modern art.
In fact, frequently, the impression given is that one must rail
against one's culture, try to bludgeon it into a change of direction.
Result has about as much chance of changing
cultural direction as jet-ski smacking into the side of a tanker has
of changing the direction of the tanker. The gentle nudging of the
tug-boat will achieve infinitely more.
> You wrote:
> >Ad hominem attack loses, its a usegroup 'rule'.
> Really? Do you think that my response to you was an ad hominem attack? I
> admit it was a passionate one, but I was earnest when I suggested that you look
> at the historical record and perhaps review Danto. This goes to the very
> question you foisted in the next paragraph:
You forgot the line about questioning whether I was an artist at all.
I took offense at that, but on reflection, since I have no intent to shock,
and try to align my work emotionally with my culture, then I probably am not
an artist, by your definition.
> >Don't you think that there might be a bigger picture than you envisage?
> >Bigger than the individual, bigger timewise too.
> The "big" picture that Danto discusses is the purpose of art, the purpose of
> making art, and its continuing relevance in our lives. This argument he poses
> spring from other observation having to do with the meaning of life and the
> purpose of man. How much "bigger" do you want the picture?
And he has concluded that art has no role in collective development,
i.e. culture, has he?
Because that is the impression you give, that it is all about
individual development.
I do not deny the individual development role for art, but cultural
development
is surely more important for the progress of humanity towards its 'purpose'.
Different people will have different perspectives on the role of art
because they will
come to different beliefs on the big imponderables like, 'Is
everything predestined?',
'Is there an absolute right and wrong?', 'Is there a natural
justice/retribution?'.
but Cultures too have identifiable stances on these and individual
members of that culture will be at least aware of their culture's
position if not 100%
aligned with it.
> You wrote:
> >I stop no-one from making what they want, I simply attempt to redress
> >a balance. Provide
> >a different perspective than that given by academia which tends to be
> >one-sided and
> >narrow.
> Please expand on this! What is your bias toward academia and why do you
> consider it to be narrow and one-sided?
That art is all about individual development, that one should set out to shock,
any kind of conformity is to be avoided, no collective/cultural responsibility.
It is that kind of attitude which has alienated many artists from the
public to
almost the side freak show level.
The irony is, in deliberately shunning their cultures mores, they are equally
influenced by it.
> You wrote:
> >Passionate support is often born from suspicion that all
> >is not well with what is supported
> Please! The sentence above is a non-statement. It's logically flawed unless
> you expand your premises it can support any conclusion at all.
I think you understood it well enough.
no more!
go in peace.
regards
chic
Zoran Baric
> I want my students to be perfectly aware that the society that they
> live in does not value the arts and that it will be tough to make it.
>
Kevin,
Can you please, explain to us: Why is that society we live in does not value the
arts. I think you meant - visual arts. Have you thought that Academies might have a
partial responsibility for public ignorance toward pieces of visual expression.
Hm?
Also, why is going to be tough to make it?
What should be done to be less tough?
What does it mean: - to make it ? Does this mean to make money or publicity or
both?
Thanks in advance,
Zorba
Studio120
I am trying to understand your position, but I'm confused. Bear with me while
I try to sort this out and try not to be dismissive with comments like "no
more! go in peace."
You wrote regarding Enlightenment:
>It is reasoned opinion using logical deduction.
>Only the observed facts and premises may be regarded as subjective.
I have to point out that observed fact and premises are generally regarded as
objective - that is, beyond question. Opinions are regarded as subjective.
The classic structure of the logical argument is one of process. IF; THEN.
That is, IF we assume the premise(s) to be factual, THEN the conclusion is
true. That's why I have such a hard time with your opinion. It's not based on
a factual art historical record, but more on your general dislike of the
participants within it.
You continue:
>Unfortunately not everyone accepts all the facts.
What facts were we talking about here? I thought we were talking about the
history of art on this point! That, and the relationship of those "immature
egoists" who are or are not artists, and by extension, part of and capable of
affecting culture.
>But you seem to be ignoring the bits you don't like.
This sentence could just as easily be about yourself!
You wrote:
>My observation is that art and cultural development have been
>demonstrably linked
>historically. Even though this is acknowledged by most art historians, there
>appears to be no or little advice given on the cultural role of the
>artist in modern art.
Do you think it's the responsibility of art historians to provide "advice" on
the cultural role of artists - this sounds vaguely like historical revisionism,
which I suspect may be your motivation for your position in this argument.
You continue:
>In fact, frequently, the impression given is that one must rail
>against one's culture, try to bludgeon it into a change of direction.
> Result has about as much chance of changing
>cultural direction as jet-ski smacking into the side of a tanker has
>of changing the direction of the tanker. The gentle nudging of the
>tug-boat will achieve infinitely more.
While your metaphor is certainly poetic (and gruesome), I don't think that it
necessarily parallels the modern cultural impact of artists. As we have moved
forward in the technological age since 1945, the speed of change and the
movement of information have only magnified and quickened the individual
artist's effect on culture. Perhaps in another time, without the benefit of
TV, computers, and the internet I might have agreed with you. But today, the
exponential growth in knowledge and our ability to reach around the world, the
individual artist has much more power than even a tugboat.
On my supposed "ad hominem attack", you wrote:
>You forgot the line about questioning whether I was an artist at all.
>I took offense at that
Woah, now!! I did not "question whether you were an artist at all!!!! Please
reread my post! I said "By the way, while you're at it, read Arthur Danto's
"The End of Art", and come back with an explanation as to why you're an artist
in the first place!" I NEVER said you weren't an artist! Hell, chic, I
haven't even seen your work! What I said was that you should read Danto and
challenge yourself to think about WHY you make art! What purpose does it serve
in you and what potential purpose could it serve in others?
You continued:
> on reflection, since I have no intent to shock,
>and try to align my work emotionally with my culture, then I probably am not
an artist, by your definition.
AAARRRRGGHHHH!!! You are an artist by my definition! I don't think there's
been a single time where I have advocated that those who "align their work"
with their culture should be disqualified as artists. The separation between
what is within and without the cultural mainstream is being made by you! If
anyone's being exclusionary here, it's you! My point has ALWAYS been that we
should not automatically discount those who DO NOT align their work with the
culural mainstream. We are not capable of judging the validity of that work -
it required the perspective of history.
Your understanding of Arthur Danto's position is based on assumptions you've
made about what I've said in my posts, and the prejudice you have against
academia.
About Danto, you wrote:
>And he has concluded that art has no role in collective development,
>i.e. culture, has he?
>Because that is the impression you give, that it is all about
>individual development.
Well, without summarizing the entire book here, Arthur Danto argues that art is
dead. Art is dead because there's nothing anyone can do that hasn't been done,
so everyone should just pack up their bags and go home. It's a sobering essay
for those of us who are artists and I highly recommend it because it will make
you think!
But to your comment: Danto would argue that social responsibility and
individual development are interconnected - I think that we can all agree on
that. If an artist steps completely outside his socially responsible role, say
by, committing murder in the name of art, then he has stopped serving society
and voided his postition there. Conversely if he ignores his individual
development and serves as nothing more than a mirror to the cultural mainstream
that he's a part of, he has forfeited his position as an artist as a visionary.
>I do not deny the individual development role for art, but cultural
>development
>is surely more important for the progress of humanity towards its 'purpose'.
Well, here's where we get down to the nitty gritty! You seem to feel, or at
least your arguments to date seem to indicate, that cultural development is
more important than individual development. I feel that individual development
is more important than cultural development. I suspect that it's a simple
matter of priorities and that we both feel that each has its own imperative,
but I've never said that those who would press the cultural issues above the
individual were any less qualified to make art. This is the difference between
you and I. You seem to want to strip the status of "artist" away from those
who would put their individual agendas first.
Your comments on academia:
>That art is all about individual development, that one should set out to
>shock,
>any kind of conformity is to be avoided, no collective/cultural
>responsibility.
My only response to you is that if you're ever in Savannah, I'd like to invite
you to my academic world! The kind of misconceptions you have regarding what
it is I do and believe have no foundation in fact. I've said before, my job is
to open the minds of the students, teach them the skills they need, and give
them ALL of the tools they need to make educated decisions. That doesn't mean
I'm in the classroom advocating total anarchy, just that I'm encouraging them
to THINK! To think about what they do and why they want to do it! As you're
probably aware, being an artist is a difficult vocation - you either do it
because you really love it or you get out because the pay stinks and the hours
are long. I want my students to be perfectly aware that the society that they
live in does not value the arts and that it will be tough to make it.
Finally, in response to my remark:
>> Please! The sentence above is a non-statement. It's logically flawed
>unless
>> you expand your premises it can support any conclusion at all.
You added:
>I think you understood it well enough.
Yes, I understood it perfectly well - it was the same sort of ad hominem attack
you accused me of. Guess you lose!
Sincerely,
Charles Mcgregor
from stud...@aol.com (Studio120) contains these words:
> Chic,
> I am trying to understand your position, but I'm confused. Bear with me while
> I try to sort this out and try not to be dismissive with comments like "no
> more! go in peace."
I know this is about the third time I've said this, but this is definitely
my last post on non-utilitarian issues, I just haven't got the time.
> You wrote regarding Enlightenment:
> >It is reasoned opinion using logical deduction.
> >Only the observed facts and premises may be regarded as subjective.
> I have to point out that observed fact and premises are generally regarded as
> objective - that is, beyond question. Opinions are regarded as subjective.
That may actually be true, but only because the principles of logical
deduction are not generally understood, as you conveniently go on to
demonstrate.
> The classic structure of the logical argument is one of process. IF; THEN.
> That is, IF we assume the premise(s) to be factual, THEN the conclusion is
> true.
Sorry, but that is not correct. What you have defined is not a
syllogism, the actual basis of logical deduction.
e.g.
IF cows can fly THEN cows can fly is the only trivial deduction which
can be made with the above structure, i.e. a truism.
In order to make a deduction you require at least two
premises(assumed truths) and a defined Boolean operator, AND,OR,NOT etc.
e.g.
IF ALL cows can fly AND ALL flyers have wings THEN ALL cows have wings.
This statement is logically correct. The rules of logic apply to the
operators and have nothing to do with the truth of the premises.
The statement is actually wrong because both premises are wrong.
Notice the inclusion of the scope qualifier 'ALL', this and the other
one 'SOME' are also included in a proper syllogism.
e.g.
IF SOME cows can fly AND ALL flyers have wings THEN SOME cows have wings.
Note the different logically correct conclusion.
I repeat, if someone is aware of the principles of Logic and applies
them, which I do, then the subjectivity lies only with the premises,
ie what the analyst accepts as being true, observations, 'facts', etc.
Which is exactly what I said.
Yes, there are two ways for an opinion to be wrong, one may operate
with wrong premises AND/OR
one may carry out the operations incorrectly. I do not do the latter.
You may have been confused by the use of the simple If/Then without
Boolean operators in computing where the 'conclusion' is not the same
as the premise, but that is only permittable because the programmer
defines or forces the relationship. In which case, it is still not a
deduction even though there is an implicit AND there (e.g. AND I
define X to be the consequence of the condition)
e.g.s If X=1 then Y=2, IF X=1 gosub acme, are definitions, not deductions
> That's why I have such a hard time with your opinion. It's not based on
> a factual art historical record, but more on your general dislike of the
> participants within it.
Wrong on both counts.
> You continue:
> >Unfortunately not everyone accepts all the facts.
> What facts were we talking about here? I thought we were talking about the
Various. The point I made was that some people reject facts that do
not suit them before applying what ever level of reasoning they
possess on them.
One should endeavour to deduce a theory which accounts for all the 'facts'.
Obviously
> history of art on this point! That, and the relationship of those "immature
> egoists" who are or are not artists, and by extension, part of and capable of
> affecting culture.
I have a simple definition of 'Artist':
A person who strives to produce a visual object that has some kind of
meaning. i.e. there is intent to convey meaning during the creation
of the object.
Whatever level of ability they have to produce the object, however
simple or strange the meaning is and even if they fail to produce the
object at all, it is intent during the act of creating the object that matters.
Thus the Artist with fantastic skill may fail to produce an object
acceptable to himself, and destroy all his work before any of it is
finished, and die leaving
nothing behind, yet still be an Artist.
OTOH, Give an infinite number of monkeys a paintbrush, a pallette and
an empty canvass then an infinitessimally small percentage of them
will reproduce, atom for atom, the Mona Lisa(and every other work of
art), yet those that do cannot be called artists, because there was
no intended meaning during the act of painting.
My posts so far, have not been about what an artist is, but about
which approach is most likely to influence culture, whether there is
in fact any responsibility for cultural development incumbent on art
and whether culture itself is important.
I could say a lot more, especially about the last bit, but I haven't
got the time.
> >But you seem to be ignoring the bits you don't like.
> This sentence could just as easily be about yourself!
No, I have no dangly left over bits.
> You wrote:
> >My observation is that art and cultural development have been
> >demonstrably linked
> >historically. Even though this is acknowledged by most art historians, there
> >appears to be no or little advice given on the cultural role of the
> >artist in modern art.
> Do you think it's the responsibility of art historians to provide "advice" on
> the cultural role of artists - this sounds vaguely like historical revisionism,
> which I suspect may be your motivation for your position in this argument.
All historical interpretation is revisionist, art more so than others.
Again I am not arguing, merely stating my reasoned opinion based on
the facts as I see them. As I have admitted in a previous post, I
fully concede that my observations may be wrong, obviously I do not think so.
Your's can be wrong also but you seem unwilling to concede even that
possibility.
Even in much more exact subjects like physics say, it is conceded by
the ESTABLISHMENT that the ESTABLISHED 'facts' may be wrong. If they
can concede that, why is it so hard for members of the art
ESTABLISHMENT to do so, in what is a far less rational subject?.
Because they can get away with it perhaps?
> You continue:
> >In fact, frequently, the impression given is that one must rail
> >against one's culture, try to bludgeon it into a change of direction.
> > Result has about as much chance of changing
> >cultural direction as jet-ski smacking into the side of a tanker has
> >of changing the direction of the tanker. The gentle nudging of the
> >tug-boat will achieve infinitely more.
> While your metaphor is certainly poetic (and gruesome), I don't think that it
> necessarily parallels the modern cultural impact of artists. As we have moved
Cultural impact of modern artists.
> forward in the technological age since 1945, the speed of change and the
> movement of information have only magnified and quickened the individual
> artist's effect on culture. Perhaps in another time, without the benefit of
> TV, computers, and the internet I might have agreed with you. But today, the
> exponential growth in knowledge and our ability to reach around the world, the
> individual artist has much more power than even a tugboat.
Power, I think we can agree is the ability to reach a mass
audience.(the tanker)
However, what is going to have most influence on the gestalt of that mass
audience?, someone who deliberately throws all it's existing
benchmarks in their face or someone who suggests feasible adjustment
of the current position?
> On my supposed "ad hominem attack", you wrote:
> >You forgot the line about questioning whether I was an artist at all.
> >I took offense at that
> Woah, now!! I did not "question whether you were an artist at all!!!! Please
> reread my post! I said "By the way, while you're at it, read Arthur Danto's
> "The End of Art", and come back with an explanation as to why you're an artist
> in the first place!" I NEVER said you weren't an artist! Hell, chic, I
> haven't even seen your work! What I said was that you should read Danto and
> challenge yourself to think about WHY you make art! What purpose does it serve
> in you and what potential purpose could it serve in others?
I guess this is what they mean by 'two nations united by most things
but divided by a common language'. Still reads a bit like it to me.
BTW you don't need to see my work by my definition of artist, it is
only intent that counts.(e.g. if you saw one of the monkey's Mona
Lisas and knew nothing of the 'artist', what would you conclude?).
> You continued:
> > on reflection, since I have no intent to shock,
> >and try to align my work emotionally with my culture, then I probably am not
> an artist, by your definition.
> AAARRRRGGHHHH!!! You are an artist by my definition! I don't think there's
> been a single time where I have advocated that those who "align their work"
> with their culture should be disqualified as artists. The separation between
> what is within and without the cultural mainstream is being made by you! If
Excuse me?, I just know you didn't mean that. Your blaming me for
the existence of artists outside of the cultural mainstream?
On second thoughts you are probably implying that I'm making it up that some
artists operate outside cultural norms.
Tush! In fact I would go further and say that many deliberately work
against their own culture simply to enable membership the 'elite' circle.
> anyone's being exclusionary here, it's you! My point has ALWAYS been that we
> should not automatically discount those who DO NOT align their work with the
> culural mainstream.
I am not discounting it. I actually like a lot of it. However, I believe that
many either do not consider cultural effect at all, or vaguely think
they will somehow still have an influence, even though they are
dismissing ideas just because they seem too conventional, because
that is the thing to do according to many tutors.
Generally speaking of course.
It does allow for the hiding of many charlatans also.
Those that know they will be ignored by their culture but don't care, usually
do not care either for the establishment luvees either.
> We are not capable of judging the validity of that work -
> it required the perspective of history.
I don't know what you mean by validity, but by my definition of
artist, any visual object created with intended meaning is art. Even
the charlatan's (i.e. even if it had intended meaning other than that
which they allude to).
> Your understanding of Arthur Danto's position is based on assumptions you've
> made about what I've said in my posts,
Correct.
> and the prejudice you have against
> academia.
Incorrect, I did not prejudge academia.
> About Danto, you wrote:
> >And he has concluded that art has no role in collective development,
> >i.e. culture, has he?
> >Because that is the impression you give, that it is all about
> >individual development.
> Well, without summarizing the entire book here, Arthur Danto argues that art is
> dead. Art is dead because there's nothing anyone can do that hasn't been done,
> so everyone should just pack up their bags and go home. It's a sobering essay
> for those of us who are artists and I highly recommend it because it will make
> you think!
There are two immediately challengeable assumptions(premises) here.
Firstly that something has to be new in order to be art.
Secondly that there are no new things left to discover.
Clearly, on the first, the most obvious problem is where two artists
do the same thing independently of each other, perhaps even at the
same time. Which one is the work of art?
To expand a little.
In an infinite universe, or even one of the size we know about, it is
almost certain that there will be civilizations of sentient beings
producing art other than here on Earth. One must at least admit that
possibility, Yes?
Does the prior production of an object somewhere other than Earth,
but with the same intended meaning, 'invalidate' the one here? In
which case, we logically shouldn't have bothered with art at all,
because everything was probably done long before our civilization
even came into existence.
But people would still want 'art-like' objects to enrich their lives
and culture, except we can't call it art anymore...but wait how do we
know OURS wasn't actually the first?...so maybe it is art after all????
In other words, everything we now call art throughout history could have been
done before, and lost, or even done on another planet and therefore is not art
by the 'only new is art' definition.
See the logical problem with art = new, new = art.?
However, if we say that art can be redone and remain art provided the
artist is unaware of the previous work then at least that allows for
the existence of any
art in this neck of the universe at all. This is the only logically
supportable
position that approximates to 'only new is art' but would be better written
'only new to the artist is art'.
So what does it all mean for new versus deliberate repeat art?
IOW even when deliberate reproduction of intended meaning is present,
does that invalidate it as art?
Not at all clear is it? Let's ask some questions:
Is a chinese vase with the Willow Pattern painted on it an object of
art or not?, does it matter if there is only one or a thousand? If
only one is to be art which one is it, the first or the thousandth?
We agree(I presume) that a mechanical reproduction, whether by
machine or by human, is devoid of intended meaning during the act of
production and therefore is not art per se, even if the object
appears to retain the artist's original intended meaning.
But what about hand painted images by the originator of the intended
meaning? If he strives for the same intended meaning during each act
of painting, do they therefore qualify as art?
By my definition they do.
By 'only new to the artist is art', no!
Likewise an acolyte could reproduce the same intended meaning while
producing the object, and so it would still be art, by my definition
but not by 'only new to the artist is art'.
So again we see, IMV, that the object is not the important thing but
rather the intended meaning, and that, at the act of creating the
object, whether it is one time or many times.
I do agree that for the same artist, the first time of succeeding(by
his own benchmarks) in creating an object embodying his intended
meaning, the experience will be more intense than for subsequent reproductions.
Here we have a situation reminiscent of that in Hume's Treatise on
Human Nature, where he describes the intensity of actual experience
relative to the recollection of that experience.(BTW I recommend 'The
Scottish Enlightenment, an anthology', edited by Alexander Broadie,
for any interested in the principle of Enlightenment, or in David
Hume and others rationalisation of human cognitive processes).
However, I see no evidence that an acolyte's first time is any less
intense than the 'masters'.
No, I think I'll stick to my definition of intention of meaning
during the creation of the object.
This also allows:
In theory, one could even envisage two identical objects created by
different artists with different intended meaning, so they would
actually be different objects of art. (IMV)
So even if you saw two identical/similar works, you could not be sure
that the intended meaning was the same/similar.
Regarding the second premise 'that there are no new things left to
discover', he must surely, and I am presuming here, be discounting
combinative meaning of objects. i.e. if all the objects in a work
have been done before then the entire work cannot be considered new.
The problem I have with this is that although each object may have
the same meaning as a previous one, IMV, the work itself will have a
combined meaning
that is unique to that particular combination.
The analogy of language is unavoidable once more. No-one I would
suggest, would claim that all words have been created from available
letter, or all works of literature from available words. Similarly
with music, which has only an octave
to play with, no-one suggests that no new music will be written.
Even if we concede that all basic object meanings have been
devised,(which I don't) there is considerably more of them than the
26 letters or 8 notes above. The capacity for new combinitive meaning
must therefore be all the greater.
Since IMV, meaning is all, then new meaning stemming from new combinations
means new art.
On the 'Art is dead because there's nothing anyone can do that hasn't
been done', quote, I am reminded of the great Scottish physicist,
Lord Kelvin, who infamously announced last century 'Everything than
can be discovered(in physics) has been discovered', and again point
out the more rational basis of that field.
I'm tempted to say... no I will say it. Oh yeah!
<snip non-relevant part>
> >I do not deny the individual development role for art, but cultural
> >development
> >is surely more important for the progress of humanity towards its 'purpose'.
> Well, here's where we get down to the nitty gritty! You seem to feel, or at
> least your arguments to date seem to indicate, that cultural development is
> more important than individual development. I feel that individual development
> is more important than cultural development. I suspect that it's a simple
> matter of priorities and that we both feel that each has its own imperative,
> but I've never said that those who would press the cultural issues above the
> individual were any less qualified to make art. This is the difference between
> you and I. You seem to want to strip the status of "artist" away from those
> who would put their individual agendas first.
Rubbish! Read what I have written.
Basically all I have said is that you feel individual development is
more important than cultural development, which is what you have just
admitted yourself.
> Your comments on academia:
> >That art is all about individual development, that one should set out to
> >shock,
> >any kind of conformity is to be avoided, no collective/cultural
> >responsibility.
> My only response to you is that if you're ever in Savannah, I'd like to invite
> you to my academic world! The kind of misconceptions you have regarding what
> it is I do and believe have no foundation in fact. I've said before, my job is
But you just admitted that you rate individual development the highest.
To use an Americanism 'Sheesh!'
> to open the minds of the students, teach them the skills they need, and give
> them ALL of the tools they need to make educated decisions. That doesn't mean
> I'm in the classroom advocating total anarchy, just that I'm encouraging them
> to THINK! To think about what they do and why they want to do it! As you're
> probably aware, being an artist is a difficult vocation - you either do it
> because you really love it or you get out because the pay stinks and the hours
> are long. I want my students to be perfectly aware that the society that they
> live in does not value the arts and that it will be tough to make it.
Yeah, just the thing to foster synergy.
> Finally, in response to my remark:
> >> Please! The sentence above is a non-statement. It's logically flawed
> >unless
> >> you expand your premises it can support any conclusion at all.
> You added:
> >I think you understood it well enough.
> Yes, I understood it perfectly well - it was the same sort of ad hominem attack
> you accused me of. Guess you lose!
Yep I figured you would only consider it thus if I'd hit the mark
bye
chic
Studio120
If you look at my writing you'll note:
>IF we assume the premise(s) to be factual, THEN the conclusion is
>> true.
Sorry, but I am correct. The form of if:then is what is referred to as Modus
Ponens (or MP). It is considered a valid implicational argument form with
either a single premise OR multiple premises. But even so, I covered myself in
both cases by qualifying my "premise(s)". Please read more carefully.
I cannot utilize the logical symbols that I am familiar with because they're
not part of a standard keyboard, but if you look at a description of MP, it
reads:
If P, then Q
P is true,
then Q MUST be true.
Or to put into an argument form:
If the Republican wins, the Democrat loses
The Republican has won,
The Democrat has lost.
There is no requirement here that we have more than a single premise. Assuming
it can be determined that the single premise is true, it's conclusion must be
true.
You continued:
>IF ALL cows can fly AND ALL flyers have wings THEN ALL cows have wings.
>This statement is logically correct. The rules of logic apply to the
>operators and have nothing to do with the truth of the premises.
>The statement is actually wrong because both premises are wrong.
Yes, the form of the argument is correct, that is it follows the traditional
sequence of the rules of inference, and is therefore valid. But in the context
of our discussion, the validity of your argument was not in question, only its
truth.
You continued:
>You may have been confused by the use of the simple If/Then without
>Boolean operators in computing where the 'conclusion' is not the same
>as the premise, but that is only permittable because the programmer
>defines or forces the relationship. In which case, it is still not a
>deduction even though there is an implicit AND there (e.g. AND I
>define X to be the consequence of the condition)
Again I was not confused because of my understanding of the validity of the
implicational argument. You're seem to be stating that simply because of its
implicit nature, If:Then does not apply. I have to argue that it does.
You wrote:
>I have a simple definition of 'Artist':
>A person who strives to produce a visual object that has some kind of
>meaning. i.e. there is intent to convey meaning during the creation
>of the object.
No disagreement here!
However, your next point:
>OTOH, Give an infinite number of monkeys a paintbrush, a pallette and
>an empty canvass then an infinitessimally small percentage of them
>will reproduce, atom for atom, the Mona Lisa(and every other work of
>art), yet those that do cannot be called artists, because there was
>no intended meaning during the act of painting.
This moves beyond the realm of practicable possibilities into that of the
absurd! I've heard the story before, only the last time it involved monkeys at
typewriters producing Hamlet (or some other literary masterpiece).
>My posts so far, have not been about what an artist is, but about
>which approach is most likely to influence culture, whether there is
>in fact any responsibility for cultural development incumbent on art
>and whether culture itself is important.
>I could say a lot more, especially about the last bit, but I haven't
>got the time.
Yes, I agree that you've not been forthcoming on your definition of an artist,
but you've been implicitly defining artists by your statements about the
historical traditions, artists' influence (or lack of it) on culture, and their
responsiblity to the culture that they are part of.
>All historical interpretation is revisionist, art more so than others.
>Again I am not arguing, merely stating my reasoned opinion based on
>the facts as I see them.
Yes, I agree that historical interpretation is revisionist by nature, but your
previous post indicated that artists should look to historians to provide
advice to artists on their cultural role in art. My comment in response was to
say that it seems that this is putting the cart before the horse!
You wrote:
>Your's can be wrong also but you seem unwilling to concede even that
>possibility.
Yes, you're right! I have never once considered the possibility that I am
wrong! :-) Of course I could be wrong - my wife reminds me of it all the time!
On
> the modern cultural impact of artists
vs.
>Cultural impact of modern artists.
My word order was important and deliberate there because I believe that the
impact of change on culture is much more accelerated than in the past. This
was indicated in my continued writing on this point. Please reread it.
You wrote:
>However, what is going to have most influence on the gestalt of that mass
>audience?, someone who deliberately throws all it's existing
>benchmarks in their face or someone who suggests feasible adjustment
>of the current position?
I think that the metaphor breaks down a bit here, because I can see several
instances where culture has had all existing benchmarks thrown in its face and
the culture has changed dramatically. Again, look at the art historical record
and think about what has transpired in the last 50 years to shape our
contemporary culture!
You said:
>I guess this is what they mean by 'two nations united by most things
>but divided by a common language'. Still reads a bit like it to me.
Well, I'm sincerely sorry! I was passionate then and I can see now in reading
my post how you might have taken offense. Again, I apologize if you felt your
legitimacy as an artist was being challenged.
By the way, you're right, I don't need to see your work to know you're an
artist, as long as you're happy with yourself in that role, I'm happy for you!
You wrote:
>Your blaming me for
>the existence of artists outside of the cultural mainstream?
Absolutely not!
And again:
>On second thoughts you are probably implying that I'm making it up that some
>artists operate outside cultural norms
Absolutely not!
>In fact I would go further and say that many deliberately work
>against their own culture simply to enable membership the 'elite' circle.
Here's what I was talking about! You and I both recognize that there are
artists that operate out of, and even counter to, the cultural mainstream. I
was simply stating that you seem to advocate that unless an artist's work is
compatible with (more or less) his or her culture, then he or she has no chance
of affecting and/or changing that stream.
The point I was trying to make is that an artist who is submersed in the
cultural mainstream becomes nothing more than a mirror, rather than a
visionary. Both "the mirror" and "the visionary" are artists, but I think most
artists would prefer to think of themselves as visionaries. Either way, it's a
noble profession!
>> and the prejudice you have against
>> academia.
>
>Incorrect, I did not prejudge academia.
Prejudice; not prejudge. def: an intolerance or discrimination against a
person or group
Regarding Arthur Danto. I don't disagree with anything you wrote!!
>There are two immediately challengeable assumptions(premises) here.
>Firstly that something has to be new in order to be art.
>Secondly that there are no new things left to discover.
My only comment here would be to add that Danto felt it was necessary to
collapse the Expression Theory of art in to a Historical Theory because, and
you'll like this, the Expression Theory has no sense of cultural identity -
it's simply expression, which he considers too individualistic. To collapse
the Expression Theory of art, he turns it in upon itself by insisting that true
expressive art is TOTALLY unique and individualistic to the point that the
feelings expressed by the work and the intent contained within could not be
expressed by anyone else. I think that it's a profound argument that appeals
to, and preys on the fears, insecurities, and intuitions of his (non-artist)
readers and the plethora of art movements that have occurred over the last 50
years.
Of course I don't agree with it and neither do you (I think), but I suggested
that you (and Zorba) read it because it suggests borders where none exist,
similiar to how I felt you were establishing borders with respect to the
artist's relationship with culture.
> I want my students to be perfectly aware that the society that they
>> live in does not value the arts and that it will be tough to make it.
>
>Yeah, just the thing to foster synergy.
Well, I don't think you're in a position to evaluate what sort of synergy I'm
capable of developing with a class full of students. I do quite well, thank
you! But I'm also much more pragmatic than most professors. It's my job to
train these people to be artists and to face the challenges that are inherent
with their career choice. I hope that by presenting all sides they're able to
make a more informed decision.
Finally, your statement:
>Yep I figured you would only consider it thus if I'd hit the mark
The above remark and some previous closing remarks you've made have me
believing that you're trying to be an intellectual bully, chic! If you leave
the ad hominem attacks alone, I promise that I will too.
Zoran Baric
You guys overwhelmed this forum with gorgeous material. In order for these thoughts
not to be lost I will use your replies for gradual analyzing. It is too
comprehensive, so many readers might have difficulty concentrating on the whole
issue at once. I'll do my best to contribute productively. We have two different
views here. I have to admit to accept majority of Chic's theory. This is my
personal position. If you wish, you will convince us otherwise and confirm what you
stand for. It is going to be an interesting battle and, I hope, we'll all enjoy
it. Analyzing and further discussions will take place under ACADEMIA? directory.
You are welcome to join - if you do not want, I'll do it myself.
Zorba
Charles Mcgregor
from stud...@aol.com (Studio120) contains these words:
> Chic,
> If you look at my writing you'll note:
> >IF we assume the premise(s) to be factual, THEN the conclusion is
> >> true.
If I may give a larger quote from the relevant section of the email,
courtesy of dejanews.:-
***** Start of Quote *****
Chic:-
>It is reasoned opinion using logical deduction.
>Only the observed facts and premises may be regarded as subjective.
Kevin:-
I have to point out that observed fact and premises are generally regarded as
objective - that is, beyond question. Opinions are regarded as subjective.
The classic structure of the logical argument is one of process. IF; THEN.
That is, IF we assume the premise(s) to be factual, THEN the conclusion is
true.
***** End of Quote ******
> Sorry, but I am correct. The form of if:then is what is referred to as Modus
> Ponens (or MP). It is considered a valid implicational argument form with
> either a single premise OR multiple premises. But even so, I covered myself in
> both cases by qualifying my "premise(s)". Please read more carefully.
O.K. I was the one guilty of not reading accurately this time. Sorry.
If I'd seen the (s) I'd have let it go. There is more mitigation for
my error in the fuller quote above, I guess I jumped the second sentence.
I have also included the previous two sentences and the two of my own
which you challenged.
However,... then you go and spoil it by mentioning Modus Ponens
which does have only one premise.
Also Modus Ponens is not 'if:then'. the If:then part of Modus Ponens
is only the proposition (or more formally the conditional).
> I cannot utilize the logical symbols that I am familiar with because they're
> not part of a standard keyboard, but if you look at a description of MP, it
> reads:
> If P, then Q
> P is true,
> then Q MUST be true.
This IS a description of Modus Ponens.
However, because there is but one premise, the inference is trivial, a mere
truism, which is why it is called 'Modus Ponens', 'Method of Affirmation'.
Yes it is one of the operations of Propositional logic and hence of all other
logic systems, but let me remind you, this exchange started by you
challenging my assertion that only the premises are subjective when
one applies the rules of logical DEDUCTION.(see above quote). Do you
still dispute that?
Do you still maintain that premises and 'observed fact' are beyond question.?
The simple inference possible with MP on it's own cannot sensibly be
compared to
the DEDUCTIVE logic of the syllogism. Do you claim deduction can be
carried out by MP alone?
> Or to put into an argument form:
> If the Republican wins, the Democrat loses
> The Republican has won,
> The Democrat has lost.
> There is no requirement here that we have more than a single premise. Assuming
> it can be determined that the single premise is true, it's conclusion must be
> true.
It's not a conclusion, it's a trivial inference, merely an affirmation.
BTW I would have preferred 'Modus Tollens', 'Method of denying', form
for your example.
If the Republican wins, the Democrat loses
The Democrat has not lost,
Therefore, the Republican has not won.
Still just as trivial but a better political 'result' :-).
Actually, using generic terms like 'Republican' and 'Democrat',
even when both qualified by 'the', could be confusing. e.g. are we
talking about the same democrat throughout? Also, left to the
Assumption of the reader is that either no Democrats are Republicans
and that 'wins' and 'loses' are being used specifically.
'Wins' and 'loses' have to be made specific
so:-
If All Republicans Win the election, then All Democrats Lose the election
The Democrat has not lost the election.
Therefore, the Republican has not won the election.
for complete unambiguity, leaving nothing to the knowledge of the reader.
Finally here are some examples of deductive syllogistic logic used in
a previous post.
S1:-
P1A No Robot can intend meaning
P1B Production of Art requires intended meaning
Therefore:
I1 No Robot can produce art
S2:-
using I1 as P2A
P2A No Robot can produce art.
P2B A Robot can randomly produce an exact copy of any art
object(given enough attempts)
Therefore:
I2 An exact copy of any art object, randomly produced by a Robot, is not art.
S3:-
using I2 as P3A
P3A An exact copy of any art object, randomly produced by a Robot, is not art.
P3B The original art object is art
Therefore:
I3 Art is a difference between the Robot's exact copy and the
original of any art object.
S4:-
using I3 as P4A
P4A Art is a difference between the Robot's exact copy and the
original of any art object.
P4B No difference can be distinguished between the original of any
art object and an exact Robot copy, by any art expert.
Therefore:
I4 No art expert can distinguish art by examining any art object.
So just by performing 4 basic syllogisms, a fairly startling
conclusion may be arrived at.
All that can be challenged are the most basic premises of the set of
syllogisms.
Say, for example we used just three syllogisms starting at number
two. We could then have decided to challenge the first premise of
that syllogism which resulted in a new syllogism breaking down the
'No Robot can produce art'
premise into more basic premises.
This challenge can always be made, but ultimately our level of knowledge will
fail us and no new more fundamental set of premises will be
forthcoming, at least not until our knowledge improves, OR we reach a
point where the truth of the premise is accepted as self-evidently true.
Arguments usually centre around whether a premise really is
self-evident or whether there is sufficient knowledge for further
disection, but the challenge has always to be on the basic premises.
regards
chic
Studio120
I think that you and I are a lot closer than I might have originally thought.
Your breakdown of Modus Ponens is correct. and you're right about my
assumptions contained within my initial challenge. No I can't maintain that
the original premises are "beyond question" as you put it, only that the
historical record seems to support the premises as true.
Obviously interpretation of the historical record (see comments on Danto!) can
allow one to reach a completely different set of premises and therefore
conclusion. What I was looking to do was tie in a general consensus on the
overall art historical paradigm, and assuming it's true, use it to support my
contention that valid art exists all along a contiuum, both within and without
culture (see your defintion of art/artist) Sometimes I think that I get so
carried away the "big picture" that I lose track of the details along the way.
Sorry!
The superior argument is indeed the syllogism and its more applicable here with
our discussion. I yield!! Good work!
Take care, and I'm sure we'll butt heads again! By the way, may I ask how old
you are and a little about your background? It's not often I find someone like
yourself who is as well read and has such a ready command of information from
such a broad range of subjects. I find it very refreshing and I look forward
to talking with you more (although I must confess, this last series of postings
damn near drove my wife crazy!!) :-)
Charles Mcgregor
from stud...@aol.com (Studio120) contains these words:
> Chic,
> I think that you and I are a lot closer than I might have originally thought.
Yes I suspect we are a lot closer together than either was willing to
concede in the heat of battle.:-)
For instance I do not at all advocate that artists should consciously
seek out the ethos of their culture and try to align their work to
it. That would defeat all the creativity of the subconscious. If
they have been subjected to their culture's mores during their
formative years, then they will automatically be
imbued with them.
They should follow any ideas their subconscious, throws up.
What I am unhappy with, is the rejection of some of those ideas
purely because they seem to align with their culture, i.e. are too
normal. Some people teach this.
I also point out that they are unlikely to be accepted anyway.
I'm all in favour of change, and that is a key part of the role of
art in culture. Art with suggested change is more valuable than art without.
I too, have enjoyed and learned from our exchanges, and hope that I
have more time to do so again at some point in the future.
Your gracious acknowledgment of errors made, I found most unusal but
very refreshing. I hope that I may have the same grace next time I screw up.
You, seem to be a newbie, am I right? There are a lot of erudite people on
the net with catholic tastes. 'Blinding with science', therefore rarely works,
unlike in real life, but we all try it when we first start.;-)
The Scottish educational system prides itself on it's holistic and
broad approach, so I guess we jocks maybe get a head start on that
score, but most
inquisitive types seem to end up as polymaths after a few years on the web.
I'm Scottish, married with 4 children, boys 9,17, girls 20,21,
graduated from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland 1977. Now
trying to set up a commercial art business called 'Schiehallion'.
regards
chic
P.S. tell your wife that our little tete-a-tete was nothing compared
to the bloodbaths that proliferate on the net.
Studio120
>the rejection of some of those ideas
>purely because they seem to align with their culture, i.e. are too
>normal. Some people teach this.
This is absolutely true as you can see in my posting under "academia".
Unfortunately in their zeal to reject culture, most student never really learn
anything. That's why I advocate a much more balanced, or as you put it,
holistic approach.
Yes, you're right, I'm a newbie, but I hope that as I gain experience posting
to this newsgroup that I never lose the "grace" to admit when I'm wrong. Part
of what makes the whole process of teaching so exciting to me is that I'm
learning as well. Part of that learning carries over into the other facets of
my life.
My wife, Bonnie and I have been married for twelve years now with one son,
Ethan who is nine (going on 15!). We've been here in Savannah, Georgia for
almost 6 years teaching at The Savannah College of Art and Design. Good luck
with the commercial art biz and take good care of yourself!!