Is the abstract, ART?
RainLover
<and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>> >Abstract?? SFMOMA maybe. I don't believe in abstract art so I don't follow it.
>>Rainlover Wrote:
>>
>> You don't BELIEVE in abstract art? Ooooh, that could oh-so many ways!
>>
>> Do you not believe it EXISTS?
>> Do you not believe it's ART?
>> Maybe you don't believe abstract artists are real... ;-)
>>
>> Do tell!!!
>>
>> James, Seattle
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>James --
>
>I know you do abstract stuff so please don't take this personally but...
No. Of course I don't take it personally. I've just never quite
understood the idea that Abstract Art isn't really "art"...
>I don't believe in it because it was jammed down our throats, for political reasons,
>as an alternative to the powerful representational art of the New Deal era.
So you're just a rebel? Because people starting promoting something
other than representational, you don't like it? I sort of get what
your saying though... I don't like 'video art' installations for the
most part... not to be confused with Video, which is art. But I don't
take that extra step and say video installations are NOT ART. I stick
with "I don't like it."
>Those artists who initially benefited from abstract art sold out to the right wing.
The right wing? By what definition? Right wing / conservative world
views are to keep the standard, to resist change...
And what does that say about artists who are NOW benefitting from
abstract art? Have I / we "sold out" to someone as well? To whom
have we sold out?
>It basically leaves a bad taste taste in my mouth because of this.
So you're unable to set aside your feelings on the Origins of Abstract
art so that you can enjoy some of it and see it for what it really is
today? Are you just upset that some art-money is spent on Abstract
Art which leaves less money for your art?
>I don't think artists should do it unless they think they have nothing to
>really say that contributes to our society.
So art must SAY something? I suppose this gets back to the dead horse
of "what is art" then... which I won't go into to, thankyouverymuch.
Does a MOUNTAIN really have to 'say something'?
Does a lake really need to 'say something'?
Isn't there beauty in both just in the observation of these things?
Doesn't beauty contribute to our society? Of course, then the
question because 'what is beauty', doesn't it? Many would say a
70-foot tall Alexander Calder 'stabile' is awe-inspiring and
beautiful, while others would call it an eyesore.
I, on the other hand, wonder just how many bronze firemen/police
officers/doctors kneeling down to a child this world really needs.
James, Seattle
GaryR52
art isn't "real" art I am compelled to feel sorry for that person's lack of
education. Please, go take a course in art appreciation.
Gary
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOC...@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:jtnnj19b04but5ut9...@4ax.com...
Denis Grace
representational art 85% is crap with abstract art it's 97%...this assumes
you buy into my view of what art is. Which is technical skill combined with
inspiration. You can agree or disagree I wont argue with you other than to
note that there is a strong market for objects which express these
qualities.
Cheers,
Denis
in article TTU_e.27603$UI.6842@okepread05, GaryR52 at gar...@cox.net wrote
on 9/29/05 9:46 AM:
GaryR52
and then there is non-objective art. The difference between the two is that
abstraction derives from real world subject matter, whereas, non-objective
art, as the term implies, is devoid of any subject matter or external
references at all.
As for defining "art" in terms of only technical skill and inspiration, your
thinking is far too narrow. If this is all that constitutes "art," then all
crafts are "art," as well as anything made by human beings that requires
some degree of creativity. This would encompass such mundane creations as
cellphones, computers or wristwatches, not to mention all the crappy little
Sculpey figurines for sale by bored housewives on Ebay.
The question, "What is art?" has been debated for centuries and, during the
last century or so, the debate has become more irresolvable than ever. I
suggest further study of the subject if you're intent upon defining for the
rest of us what "art" is. Meanwhile, I've got to get back to my
non-objective sculpture.
Gary
"Denis Grace" <denis...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BF6191CA.60E43%denis...@comcast.net...
Denis Grace
anything for you. As I said it's my opinion. I could flesh it out a bit
more but the argument amongst "artists" isn't going anywhere so why bother?
In the market place it's a different story.
Cheers,
D
in article 1%X_e.27730$UI.24023@okepread05, GaryR52 at gar...@cox.net wrote
on 9/29/05 1:19 PM:
scul...@tfb.com
And ALL art has something to say, even if its only "don't this look
inetresting" -that is still a valid thing to express thru art.
It can just as well be argured that figurative art has nothing to 'say'
that hasn't been said before....
But the question really comes down to aesthetics.
As human beings we "see" the entire world thru the lens of aesthetics.
We see the mountain or tree or flower as beautiful, because beauty is
how we make sense of creation.
We can, as human beings, discuss and appreciate the "beauty" of even an
ugly thing like a pistol. Even an instrument of death can be
beautifully made.
I happen to think that the evolution of an aesthetic sense is the
primary trait that made us 'human' in any sense that we would recognize
as humanity. That the first human beings that we would relate to as
such were the ones who left paintings in the caves.
Everything we have become has been the result of our exquisite ability
to communicate with complex symbology.
While a prairie dog yelp is symbol for danger, the prarie dog is not
AWARE that he is using a symbol for danger, he does not use this symbol
as a metaphor for some other experience, he does not make up a story
about danger to tell his friends.
Other animals may note the approach of winter, but they do not see in
this a metaphor for their own aging bodies entering the winter of their
lives... only human beings do this.
Only human beings knowingly create symbols of their experience and only
human beings can discuss, via art, speech, music, math, their sybology
as an abstract concept. Knowingly incorporating symbology into what you
create is the foundation of all art, be it music, math, language or
visual arts.
So art is a communication of something, even if only of an idea I had
about a shape, but more so, it is the conscious act of creating
symbology towards that purpose.
In this light, all symbols are abstracts of experience or thought.
Hence ALL art is an abstraction.
Regardless of how it appears.
christopher
GaryR52
your opinion or not, and, having done so, you've set yourself up for
rebuttal by anyone who cares to differ with you. If you don't want to
discuss the topic, the best course of action is to stay out of it.
Gary
"Denis Grace" <denis...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BF61A24F.60E46%denis...@comcast.net...
GaryR52
that hasn't been said before...."
Very true. Most representational art is merely an exposition of
craftsmanship with no message or meaning whatever. The public accepts it
only because the lay person's idea of "art" is that it should look like
something recognizable. If it looks like a human being just standing there
doing nothing of any significance and it clearly has no message, the public
will still like it because it looks like something familiar to them. The
more realistic the depiction, the more they like it, because they believe
that's the point of all art; i.e., to faithfully copy reality.
If you show them something unrecognizable they don't know what to make of it
because it doesn't fit into their notion of "art." It is very sad that there
are artists who are no more enlightened about art than the average person.
Many artists believe that if they merely faithfully copy something that
exists in reality they are "artists" and not only artists, but superior
artists.
As long as the ignorant masses believe the object of art is mere
craftsmanship; i.e., the skill of duplicating objects and scenes from the
world around us, the majority of people will continue to believe that
anything else isn't "real art." They will continue to believe that the more
difficult the technique, the better the art and the better the artist and
they will reject anything they see as being easily produced, whether it was
in fact easily produced or not. "Oh, a monkey could do that!," they will
say. Or, "My four year old could do that!" This is usually said by someone
who has never produced an art object in his/her life.
Gary
<scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:1128029570....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
scul...@tfb.com
Art is CLASS of endeavor.
You don't define a class of endeavor by the what the end result looks
like...
you define a class by the FUNCTION it serves.
When you view art from the perspective of its function, then the
definition becomes very simple.
Its a communication.
And just like paintings and sculpture, all other forms of human
communication fall under the umbrella of "arts".
Literature and music and cinema are judged by the same critera as are
visual arts. Is it moving, does it speak to me, is it evocative, is it
beautiful....
Yet, like all art, it can be bad as well as glorious. Art can range
from awkward and amateurish to elegant and eloquent. Just because an
artwork sucks, does not make it any less art.
And the human intent behind making something like the iPod look and
feel and function the way it does is every bit as much of an art as any
painting.
I love my Mac because the artists involved in making it look and work
like it does are actually GOOD artists.
We ARE the aesthetic animals-
we can not even make a shoe horn without trying to make it beautiful.
christopher
GaryR52
art or non-objective art is just as valid as representational art got lost
in the shuffle, but, based upon what you've said here, I would assume you
would agree with that, as well.
If art is, as you say, a "class of endeavor," and if "you define a class by
the function it serves," then the class of objects we call "fine art" has a
different defintion than the class of objects that fall under the umbrella
of "industrial design," i.e., the iPod, your computer, and other devices.
Still, I agree they are all artistic expressions and each is equally valid
within the context of its respective class. No argument there. What I was
saying, though, is that, by Denis' definition of art, i.e., that it is
"technical skill combined with
inspiration," we could say all manmade objects are art, since everything man
devises requires his technical skills and is inspired by something, if
nothing other than necessity. This would seem to reiterate your view.
The original issue was whether abstract art is really art. If we confine our
defintion of art to Denis' definition, then, by his own definition, yes,
abstract art would certainly be art. It requires technical skill to make and
without some form of inspiration, wouldn't be made in the first place.
Granted, the level of skill required could be less than that required to
sculpt a realistic figure, but, skill is required, nonetheless. Let he who
thinks otherwise begin hacking away at a block of marble and he'll soon see
how much skill is required, whether you're sculpting another Venus de Milo
or an amorphous blob. As for inspiration, the level of inspiration may
differ and the type of inspiration may differ, as well, but no one creates
art in a vacuum. All art begins with an idea, even if it's only an
interesting shape.
What this whole argument over abstract art really boils down to is
everyone's own prejudices. Those who contend that abstract and non-objective
art are "bad" art or non-art are simply speaking from a bias that they've
either been brought up with since childhood and have never outgrown through
exposure to the arts, or they've acquired this attitude later in life,
perhaps to fit in with others who hold this view. Then there are those who
see abstract art as an extension of socialism or communism and, while some
early abstractionists were socialists and communists, the fact is that
abstract art is practiced by artists of all political persuasions. Then you
have those pinheads who believe that art is somehow effeminate and that all
artists are gay. Hitler considered the German Expressionists to be
degenerates. So, there are several sources of prejudice against art and
artists and, in particular, against abstract and non-objective artists. When
you debate these people you soon find out that they have only developed some
half-baked and often bizarre rationalizations for one prejudice or another
and they will never be persuaded that they are simply wrong.
Gary
<scul...@tfb.com> wrote in message
news:1128044994.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Gary Oblock
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:55:41 -0700, "Andrew Werby"
> <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
> >> >Abstract?? SFMOMA maybe. I don't believe in abstract art so I don't follow it.
>
> >>Rainlover Wrote:
> >>
> >> You don't BELIEVE in abstract art? Ooooh, that could oh-so many ways!
> >>
> >> Do you not believe it EXISTS?
> >> Do you not believe it's ART?
> >> Maybe you don't believe abstract artists are real... ;-)
> >>
> >> Do tell!!!
> >>
> >> James, Seattle
>
> "Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>
> >James --
> >
> >I know you do abstract stuff so please don't take this personally but...
>
> No. Of course I don't take it personally. I've just never quite
> understood the idea that Abstract Art isn't really "art"...
I never said abstract art isn't art. Also note that I didn't say that I didn't like any off it.
>
>
> >I don't believe in it because it was jammed down our throats, for political reasons,
> >as an alternative to the powerful representational art of the New Deal era.
>
> So you're just a rebel? Because people starting promoting something
> other than representational, you don't like it? I sort of get what
> your saying though... I don't like 'video art' installations for the
> most part... not to be confused with Video, which is art. But I don't
> take that extra step and say video installations are NOT ART. I stick
> with "I don't like it."
>
> >Those artists who initially benefited from abstract art sold out to the right wing.
>
> The right wing? By what definition? Right wing / conservative world
> views are to keep the standard, to resist change...
The union busting, bedroom peeping assholes that want to steal everything in sight
in the name of capitalism. That's what right wingers.
> And what does that say about artists who are NOW benefitting from
> abstract art? Have I / we "sold out" to someone as well? To whom
> have we sold out?
No, but I find it a bit pathetic that some abstract artists think that their work is
socially relevant.
>
>
> >It basically leaves a bad taste taste in my mouth because of this.
>
> So you're unable to set aside your feelings on the Origins of Abstract
> art so that you can enjoy some of it and see it for what it really is
> today? Are you just upset that some art-money is spent on Abstract
> Art which leaves less money for your art?
Yes and no. I'm more upset that there are no current artists in the vein of
Diego Rivera that receive the attention and praise of the art academia and the
professional art critics.
>
> >I don't think artists should do it unless they think they have nothing to
> >really say that contributes to our society.
>
> So art must SAY something? I suppose this gets back to the dead horse
> of "what is art" then... which I won't go into to, thankyouverymuch.
>
> Does a MOUNTAIN really have to 'say something'?
> Does a lake really need to 'say something'?
I bought a beautiful landscape painting recently by a local artist. Her
next goal is life is to work on nature trusts. It's obvious that her work
is saying something about our world.
>
>
> Isn't there beauty in both just in the observation of these things?
> Doesn't beauty contribute to our society? Of course, then the
> question because 'what is beauty', doesn't it? Many would say a
> 70-foot tall Alexander Calder 'stabile' is awe-inspiring and
> beautiful, while others would call it an eyesore.
>
> I, on the other hand, wonder just how many bronze firemen/police
> officers/doctors kneeling down to a child this world really needs.
Not everything is worth saying. That for sure! ;-) ;-)
>
>
> James, Seattle
>
> www.jameskelseystudios.com
-- Gary
--
Bronze Dreams
Santa Clara, CA
http://www.bronzedreams.com
-------------- ad for the hosting service I use ---------------
Free Web Hosting with Domain Registration or transfer
http://freewebhosting.catalog.com/jump/mw...@earthlink.net
RainLover
wrote:
>RainLover wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:55:41 -0700, "Andrew Werby"
>> <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>> >> >Abstract?? SFMOMA maybe. I don't believe in abstract art so I don't follow it.
>>
>> >>Rainlover Wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You don't BELIEVE in abstract art? Ooooh, that could oh-so many ways!
>> >>
>> >> Do you not believe it EXISTS?
>> >> Do you not believe it's ART?
>> >> Maybe you don't believe abstract artists are real... ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Do tell!!!
>> >>
>> >> James, Seattle
>>
>> "Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>>
>> >James --
>> >
>> >I know you do abstract stuff so please don't take this personally but...
>>
>> No. Of course I don't take it personally. I've just never quite
>> understood the idea that Abstract Art isn't really "art"...
>
>I never said abstract art isn't art. Also note that I didn't say that I didn't like any off it.
I was about to stop reading this thread.... what's up with all the TOP
POSTING? Thanks for bringing some sanity (and readability) back to
it.
True, you didn't say it wasn't art or that you didn't like it, but, to
me, it sounds as if you have a strong lean in that direction.
>> >I don't believe in it because it was jammed down our throats, for political reasons,
>> >as an alternative to the powerful representational art of the New Deal era.
>>
>> So you're just a rebel? Because people starting promoting something
>> other than representational, you don't like it? I sort of get what
>> your saying though... I don't like 'video art' installations for the
>> most part... not to be confused with Video, which is art. But I don't
>> take that extra step and say video installations are NOT ART. I stick
>> with "I don't like it."
>>
>> >Those artists who initially benefited from abstract art sold out to the right wing.
>>
>> The right wing? By what definition? Right wing / conservative world
>> views are to keep the standard, to resist change...
>
>The union busting, bedroom peeping assholes that want to steal everything in sight
>in the name of capitalism. That's what right wingers.
I agree with your union-busting, bedroom-peeping,
steal-everything-in-sight, asshole definition of 'right winger', but
I'm not seeing the connection between THEM and abstract art, or who
exactly 'sold-out' to those right wingers.
Sadly... many art-buyers are right-wing (or at least conservative)...
their art-purchasing amount of money often dictates their political
leanings I'm afraid. Can I hate the right wing but love their money,
or am I a sell-out for it?
>> And what does that say about artists who are NOW benefitting from
>> abstract art? Have I / we "sold out" to someone as well? To whom
>> have we sold out?
>
>No, but I find it a bit pathetic that some abstract artists think that their work is
>socially relevant.
Adding Beauty to society... *IS* 'socially relevant'. Creating a
piece of art that makes a citizen from 'society' stop and look, to
contemplate it *IS* socially relevant.
Obviously, art (figurative or abstract) doesn't need to be socially
relevant, but for you to say abstract CANNOT be relevant only succeeds
in making you look a pompous artist with an MFA... You *DO* have an
MFA, don't you? (You sure sound like you do)
>> >It basically leaves a bad taste taste in my mouth because of this.
>>
>> So you're unable to set aside your feelings on the Origins of Abstract
>> art so that you can enjoy some of it and see it for what it really is
>> today? Are you just upset that some art-money is spent on Abstract
>> Art which leaves less money for your art?
>
>Yes and no. I'm more upset that there are no current artists in the vein of
>Diego Rivera that receive the attention and praise of the art academia and the
>professional art critics.
Painters such as Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo were revolutionaries
living in turbulent times. Personally, the "attention and praise" of
the art academia is FAR overrated (I'm just bitter and jealous,
forgive me).
You know.... MFAs are overrated as well.... I'm just sayin'
>> >I don't think artists should do it unless they think they have nothing to
>> >really say that contributes to our society.
>>
>> So art must SAY something? I suppose this gets back to the dead horse
>> of "what is art" then... which I won't go into to, thankyouverymuch.
>>
>> Does a MOUNTAIN really have to 'say something'?
>> Does a lake really need to 'say something'?
>
>I bought a beautiful landscape painting recently by a local artist. Her
>next goal is life is to work on nature trusts. It's obvious that her work
>is saying something about our world.
and how is a beautiful landscape painting socially relevent? I can
run out to Kmart and purchase "paintings" of beautiful landscapes all
day long... painted by Mexicans just like Rivera....
>> Isn't there beauty in both just in the observation of these things?
>> Doesn't beauty contribute to our society? Of course, then the
>> question because 'what is beauty', doesn't it? Many would say a
>> 70-foot tall Alexander Calder 'stabile' is awe-inspiring and
>> beautiful, while others would call it an eyesore.
>>
>> I, on the other hand, wonder just how many bronze firemen/police
>> officers/doctors kneeling down to a child this world really needs.
>
>Not everything is worth saying. That for sure! ;-) ;-)
Agreed! I will buy you a beer the next time you come by my studio.
James, Seattle
scul...@tfb.com
EVERTHING human beings do incorporates art.
We try to infuse everything with beauty and or meaning.
We can't help it.
we're built that way.
Trying to form some club to exclude one another on the basis of some
arbitrary notion of what makes art "relevant' is small minded and
myopic.
Because we can find meaning in anything, Art is precisely as relevant
as we choose to find it, because relevance is an invention of the mind.
A peacock feather is beautiful, but it is not art as it grows on the
bird. But if pluck it out and stick it in a frame and hang it on a wall
it IS art because I am asking you to look at it from that perpective.
The art is not in the feather- the art is in my act of using it
symbolically.
Regardless of your TASTES in art, regardles of what you think is
pertinent or beautiful or whatever...
To define art you must use a yardstick that includes in it's set every
subset of human preference and bias about art.
And once you have done that.... you can't help but look around with
eyes much wider.
christopher
Gary Oblock
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 03:24:41 GMT, Gary Oblock <mw...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >RainLover wrote:
>
>
> I was about to stop reading this thread.... what's up with all the TOP
> POSTING? Thanks for bringing some sanity (and readability) back to
> it.
I post at the top if I reply directly to the top level posting.
>
>
> True, you didn't say it wasn't art or that you didn't like it, but, to
> me, it sounds as if you have a strong lean in that direction.
Yes, I like representational art (at least the good stuff) more than the
abstract art.
>
> I agree with your union-busting, bedroom-peeping,
> steal-everything-in-sight, asshole definition of 'right winger', but
> I'm not seeing the connection between THEM and abstract art, or who
> exactly 'sold-out' to those right wingers.
There was this extremely powerful and moving body of work done
in America (American Expressionism) largely in the twenties through
the forties that directly addressed the social problems of the era. It
deeply rankled many of the conservative politicians of that era.
When some artists started experimenting with abstract art
(surprise, surprise) the mainstream conservative media (e.g. Time
Magazine) immediately endorsed it. At the same time the
conservatives politicians strangled public funding for this type of art.
It may be reading between the lines to see what happened but there
are a number of writers and historians that see it this way to.
>
>
> Sadly... many art-buyers are right-wing (or at least conservative)...
> their art-purchasing amount of money often dictates their political
> leanings I'm afraid. Can I hate the right wing but love their money,
> or am I a sell-out for it?
>
> >> And what does that say about artists who are NOW benefitting from
> >> abstract art? Have I / we "sold out" to someone as well? To whom
> >> have we sold out?
> >
> >No, but I find it a bit pathetic that some abstract artists think that their work is
> >socially relevant.
>
> Adding Beauty to society... *IS* 'socially relevant'. Creating a
> piece of art that makes a citizen from 'society' stop and look, to
> contemplate it *IS* socially relevant.
>
> Obviously, art (figurative or abstract) doesn't need to be socially
> relevant, but for you to say abstract CANNOT be relevant only succeeds
> in making you look a pompous artist with an MFA... You *DO* have an
> MFA, don't you? (You sure sound like you do)
Art doesn't have to be socially relevant but considering the general direction
of things it sure would help if more art was. I don't have an MFA. Read my
web site about me and you'll see how far you missed on that call. ;-) ;-) ;-)
>
>
> >> >It basically leaves a bad taste taste in my mouth because of this.
> >>
> >> So you're unable to set aside your feelings on the Origins of Abstract
> >> art so that you can enjoy some of it and see it for what it really is
> >> today? Are you just upset that some art-money is spent on Abstract
> >> Art which leaves less money for your art?
> >
> >Yes and no. I'm more upset that there are no current artists in the vein of
> >Diego Rivera that receive the attention and praise of the art academia and the
> >professional art critics.
>
> Painters such as Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo were revolutionaries
> living in turbulent times. Personally, the "attention and praise" of
> the art academia is FAR overrated (I'm just bitter and jealous,
> forgive me).
Times are getting turbulent again, just wait and see. A huge number
of "middle class" families are one paycheck way from insolvency
and the conservatives seem to be trying to make that happen by
WalMartizing (huge corporate profits at the expense of wages and
benefits) the economy.
>
>
> and how is a beautiful landscape painting socially relevent? I can
> run out to Kmart and purchase "paintings" of beautiful landscapes all
> day long... painted by Mexicans just like Rivera....
Rebecca's painting shows a deep reverence for a unique California
coastal geography that is in danger of being destroyed should the battle
against development in the SF Bay Area be lost. Somehow I don't
think a painting from a factory is going to accomplish that. ;-)
>
>
>
> >Not everything is worth saying. That for sure! ;-) ;-)
>
> Agreed! I will buy you a beer the next time you come by my studio.
OK, fair enough. If you ever come down this way look me up and I'll
do the same.
-- Gary
>
>
> James, Seattle