Art Question
König Preuße, GmbH
Sketchy Albedo wrote:
> Is art form given meaning, or meaning given form? I keep forgetting.
>
> --
> _________________
> rev...@radix.net
> Ask your body
Form follows function, so art is form without function--
My second wife was an art historian, to have art explained
to the extent that it is no longer enjoyable, marry an art historian.
There are all kinda books on the philosophy of esthetics,
it's like politics.
But for the official opinion, at least a better one, ask Nenslo,
he of the tacky T-Shirt.
TheCharlie
>
> Is art form given meaning, or meaning given form? I keep forgetting.
>
> --
Whom are you asking?
The Artist? Agent? Buyer? Patron? Critic? Curator?
The instructor? Joe Q. Public? The waiter formerly
known as the artist?
Your mileage WILL vary..
TarlaStar
wrote:
>Sketchy Albedo wrote:
>> Is art form given meaning, or meaning given form? I keep forgetting.
>>
>> --
>> _________________
>> rev...@radix.net
>> Ask your body
> Form follows function, so art is form without function--
> My second wife was an art historian, to have art explained
>to the extent that it is no longer enjoyable, marry an art historian.
> There are all kinda books on the philosophy of esthetics,
>it's like politics.
> But for the official opinion, at least a better one, ask Nenslo,
>he of the tacky T-Shirt.
Since when was Nenslo's opinion, the official one?
NENSLO
>
> Since when was Nenslo's opinion, the official one?
What a question to ask. Somebody tell her.
?!
Sketchy Albedo wrote in message <6pgblb$r8s$2...@news1.Radix.Net>...
>Is art form given meaning, or meaning given form? I keep forgetting.
>
--
"Art is whatever an artist says it is."
Marcel Duchamps said that.
I'm not sure if anybody thought to ask him what an artist was.
---
schabe "paint a moustache on me" @mr.net
http://webpages.mr.net/schabe
?!
Sketchy Albedo wrote in message <6pim94$9nf$1...@news1.Radix.Net>...
>GOD, you people are SUCH WEENIES, I'm only asking a SIMPLE EITHER-OR
>QUESTION here. Look, I'll make it EVEN SIMPLER:
>
>ART IS
> [ ] form given meaning
> [ ] meaning given form
>
> CHECK ONE
> ===== ===
>
>Look. Just pretend I'm holding a gun to your head and you have to pick
>ONE, okay? PICK. ONE. *NOW*. I AM HOLDING A BIG FUCKING GUN TO YOUR HEAD
>AND I AM FUCKING WELL GOING TO BLOW YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF IF YOU *DON'T*
>*FUCKING* *PICK* *ONE* *** N O W ***.
>
--
If you pull the trigger now,
it's art.
---
schabe "does that answer your question?" @mr.net
http://webpages.mr.net/schabe
?!
König Preuße, GmbH
?! wrote:
> Sketchy Albedo wrote in message <6pgblb$r8s$2...@news1.Radix.Net>...
> >Is art form given meaning, or meaning given form? I keep forgetting.
> >
> --
>
> "Art is whatever an artist says it is."
> Marcel Duchamps said that.
>
> I'm not sure if anybody thought to ask him what an artist was.
>
> ---
An artist is a guy that says that kind of stuff--
?!
?!
?!
axel heyst
Sketchy Albedo <rev...@radix.net> wrote:
>ART IS
> [ ] form given meaning
> [x] meaning given form
L'axel
TarlaStar
>TarlaStar explains it all:
>:Since when was Nenslo's opinion, the official one?
>So what's YOUR answer?
It is meaning given form.
König Preuße, GmbH
TarlaStar wrote:
aesthetic
Function: noun
Date: 1822
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : a branch of philosophy
dealing with the nature
of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of
beauty
2 : a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular
taste for or approach to what
is pleasing to the senses and especially sight <modernist aesthetics>
<staging new ballets which
reflected the aesthetic of the new nation -- Mary Clarke & Clement
Crisp>
an·ti-art
Pronunciation: -'ärt
Function: noun
Date: 1937
: art based on premises antithetical to traditional or popular art
forms;
specifically : DADA
International Association of Empirical Aesthetics
http://www.ume.maine.edu/~iaea/
American Society for Aesthetics
http://www.indiana.edu/~asanl/
Jim Vandewalker
<rev...@radix.net> wrote:
{ axel heyst explains it all:
{ :In article <6pim94$9nf$1...@news1.Radix.Net>,
{
{
{ YOU are my Short Duration Personal Saviour for the next five minutes. Then
{ it's back to Tarleen again, who tends to live at the Top of the Pops.
{
I THOUGHT about the question and reached the above conclusion. Then I
DIDN'T think about it:
A poem should not mean, but be,
Papable and mute as globéd fruit.
So art is form that TAKES ON meaning. Or not. Could be JUST FORM.
--
Jim the Prophet
Licensed SubGenius Minister
Reverend AmphibiousAssault
> GOD, you people are SUCH WEENIES, I'm only asking a SIMPLE EITHER-OR
> QUESTION here. Look, I'll make it EVEN SIMPLER:
>
> [ ] form given meaning
>
> CHECK ONE
> ===== ===
>
> bullshit either, I'M NOT IN THE MOOD FOR IT. OKAY? I AM NOT IN THE FUCKING
> MOOD FOR IT. If you're having TROUBLE choosing, you MAY think of it as,
> "which is more accurate?" but that's all the rope you get, by Gobbs.
> Look. Just pretend I'm holding a gun to your head and you have to pick
> ONE, okay? PICK. ONE. *NOW*. I AM HOLDING A BIG FUCKING GUN TO YOUR HEAD
> AND I AM FUCKING WELL GOING TO BLOW YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF IF YOU *DON'T*
> *FUCKING* *PICK* *ONE* *** N O W ***.
>
I'm gonna go with "meaning given form"
Just an unartistic person's opinion.
-Amph
--
Reverend AmphibiousAssault
Church of the Inevitable Revolution
"History Ends Right Now!"
Rev. Dr. Jack MeHoff
<rev...@radix.net> spewed into the ether:
>ART IS
> [ ] form given meaning
> [ ] meaning given form
>
> CHECK ONE
> ===== ===
>
>I AM HOLDING A BIG FUCKING GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND I AM
>FUCKING WELL GOING TO BLOW YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF IF YOU
>*DON'T* *FUCKING* *PICK* *ONE* *** N O W ***.
Uhhh...uhhh...form given meaning! No, wait -
<CLICK/BANG!>
+==================+
Rev. Dr. Jack MeHoff
First Church of Total Relaxology "It's hard to act superior when
rev...@visinot.net covered in your own sick."
http://members.visi.net/~revjack -Rev. Jack
Slack Talk in Real Audio 5.0 (remove "not" to reply)
kevbob
> >QUESTION here. Look, I'll make it EVEN SIMPLER:
> >
> > [ ] form given meaning
> > [ ] meaning given form
> >
> > CHECK ONE
> > ===== ===
> >
> >AND I AM FUCKING WELL GOING TO BLOW YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF IF YOU *DON'T*
> >*FUCKING* *PICK* *ONE* *** N O W ***.
um, um, er, um, uh, well, um, the first one.
<karate sequence>
</karate sequence>
ok, now that _I_ have a gun pointed at YOU,
let me tell you this:
i don't think art is EITHER one of those,
in fact,
i DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE WHAT EITHER OF THOSE CHOICES MEANS!!!
_I_ think art is stuff that people do to be pretentious.
so THERE.
*bang*
oh my god.
jack?
JACK?
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!!
I'VE KILLED REV JACK!!!!!!
OH
MY
GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
taly...@my-dejanews.com
text from one of Schabe's many copies:
> Sketchy Albedo wrote in message <6pim94$9nf$1...@news1.Radix.Net>...
> >GOD, you people are SUCH WEENIES, I'm only asking a SIMPLE EITHER-OR
> >QUESTION here. Look, I'll make it EVEN SIMPLER:
> >
> >ART IS
> > [ ] form given meaning
> > [ ] meaning given form
> >
> > CHECK ONE
> > ===== ===
art is combining form and meaning.
if you say the form comes first, I hit you fifty times.
if you say the meaning comes first, I hit you fifty times.
if you say nothing, I hit you fifty times.
ANSWER!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
TarlaStar
wrote:
>TarlaStar wrote:
>> Sketchy Albedo <rev...@radix.net> wrote:
>>
>> >TarlaStar explains it all:
>>
>> >:Since when was Nenslo's opinion, the official one?
>>
>> >So what's YOUR answer?
>>
>> It is meaning given form.
<snip definition of "aesthetic">
>an=B7ti-art
>Pronunciation: -'=E4rt
>Function: noun
>Date: 1937
>: art based on premises antithetical to traditional or popular art
>forms;
>specifically : DADA
<snip urls>
Your point must be too subtle for me. Please explain.
TarlaStar
>In article <6pj4se$qvm$1...@news1.Radix.Net>, Sketchy Albedo
><rev...@radix.net> wrote:
>{ axel heyst explains it all:
>{ :In article <6pim94$9nf$1...@news1.Radix.Net>,
>{ :Sketchy Albedo <rev...@radix.net> wrote:
>{
>{ :>ART IS
>{ :> [ ] form given meaning
>{ :> [x] meaning given form
>{
>{
>{ YOU are my Short Duration Personal Saviour for the next five minutes. Then
>{ it's back to Tarleen again, who tends to live at the Top of the Pops.
>{
>I THOUGHT about the question and reached the above conclusion. Then I
>DIDN'T think about it:
>A poem should not mean, but be,
>Papable and mute as globéd fruit.
>So art is form that TAKES ON meaning. Or not. Could be JUST FORM.
You're not allowed to explain or expand, Jim. You have to choose
between the two. If forced into that position, I chose meaning first.
I usually think about what I want to express before I pick up the
brush or clay. Sometimes it changes in the process, but the meaning is
usually there (vague though it may be) first. The desire to express
..then the means of expression.
?!
Sketchy Albedo wrote in message <6pim94$9nf$1...@news1.Radix.Net>...
>GOD, you people are SUCH WEENIES, I'm only asking a SIMPLE EITHER-OR
>QUESTION here. Look, I'll make it EVEN SIMPLER:
>
>ART IS
> [ ] form given meaning
> [ ] meaning given form
>
> CHECK ONE
> ===== ===
>
>Look. Just pretend I'm holding a gun to your head and you have to pick
>ONE, okay? PICK. ONE. *NOW*. I AM HOLDING A BIG FUCKING GUN TO YOUR HEAD
>AND I AM FUCKING WELL GOING TO BLOW YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF IF YOU *DON'T*
>*FUCKING* *PICK* *ONE* *** N O W ***.
>
Peter Hipwell
>
> GOD, you people are SUCH WEENIES, I'm only asking a SIMPLE EITHER-OR
> QUESTION here. Look, I'll make it EVEN SIMPLER:
>
> ART IS
> [ ] form given meaning
> [ ] meaning given form
>
> CHECK ONE
> ===== ===
>
> bullshit either, I'M NOT IN THE MOOD FOR IT. OKAY? I AM NOT IN THE
> FUCKING MOOD FOR IT. If you're having TROUBLE choosing, you MAY think
> of it as, "which is more accurate?" but that's all the rope you get,
> by Gobbs.
>
> ONE, okay? PICK. ONE. *NOW*. I AM HOLDING A BIG FUCKING GUN TO YOUR
> HEAD AND I AM FUCKING WELL GOING TO BLOW YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF IF YOU
> *DON'T* *FUCKING* *PICK* *ONE* *** N O W ***.
>
>
ART IS meam given forning.
--
"I want to write about the philosophy of sitting in chairs because I
have a reputation for lolling." -- Lin Yutang
König Preuße, GmbH
TarlaStar wrote:
Only after being told so many times what art is,
I'm starting over redefining it for myself.
I got books on Dadaism thirty years ago, for example, but haven't
thought
of it as anti-art--just pre-surrealism.
I have gotten several hours of quite passably amusing
and enlightening entertainment from the ASA Journal.
http://www.indiana.edu/~asanl/ideas/index.html
I had entirely forgotten Ars gratia artis ("Art for art's sake")
So, no subtle point, just exploring again, trying to get beyond
art is either a or b
?!
Jahweh Lynch wrote in message <35c82853...@news.newsguy.com>...
>Thus spake ?!:
>
>> If you pull the trigger now,
>>
>> it's art.
>
>And if you post your response five times, it's irritating.
>
--
I'm not sure whether that's my software being overambitious, the local
newsserver freaking out, or more HipCrime hijinx, but I assure you, it
wasn't intentional.
Sorta Warhol-like, though, innit?
---
schabe "repetition" @mr.net
http://webpages.mr.net/schabe
G. G. Gordon
>Is art form given meaning, or meaning given form? I keep forgetting.
>
>--
>_________________
Art consists of chiefly what you can get away with!
Grab life by the lapels and scream in its face if you want to get anywhere!
axel heyst
!!!bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) wrote:
>If forced into that position, I chose meaning first.
Tarla says it. I say it.
You guys are acting like there's some kind of DEBATE left or something!
okbye.
L'axel
Jim Vandewalker
{ jim...@gate.net (Jim Vandewalker) wrote:
{
{ >I THOUGHT about the question and reached the above conclusion. Then I
{ >DIDN'T think about it:
{
{ >A poem should not mean, but be,
{ >Papable and mute as globéd fruit.
{
{ >So art is form that TAKES ON meaning. Or not. Could be JUST FORM.
{
{ You're not allowed to explain or expand, Jim. You have to choose
{ between the two. If forced into that position, I chose meaning first.
{ I usually think about what I want to express before I pick up the
{ brush or clay. Sometimes it changes in the process, but the meaning is
{ usually there (vague though it may be) first. The desire to express
{ ..then the means of expression.
You may think that but I bet it ain't rilly true. Look at the contrast
between Mozart and Salieri in >Amadeus<. Salieri is the court composer who
builds music by KNOWING HOW. Mozart has music FLOWING OUT OF HIM. (This is
without reference to >Amadeus'< historicity or lack thereof.)
I've done both. I CAN sit down and build a picture purely by knowing how; I
have had pictures JUST FLOW OUT. (And before anyone else make the obvious
comparison, yes, it is just like shitting. Tarla will tell you that the
stuff she's done that she likes the best JUST FLOWED OUT. And she ascribed
"meaning" [if any] AFTERWARD)
I saw another thread here somewhere about how both the Liberal Left and the
Religious Right view art:
{ The fundamentalists and the Cultural Left are in agreement in the view
{ that all art is ideological, that a work of art conveys a set of values.
{ Both sides adopt a moralistic position, that is, both ascribe to the
{ belief that art should be judged first by moral standards (though of
{ course they differ sharply on the matter of what standards are valid).
{ And both are willing to censor based on their standards. Interestingly,
{ both also focus on content as the vehicle for the presentation of values.
{ As a result, both Right and Left assume that representation is de facto
{ advocacy, and they dismiss claims to the contrary, claims of
{ interpretation of artist's intent, as irrelevant or disingenuous.
{
{ http://members.aol.com/evassembly/bewitchd.htm
THAT'S why I say NO MEANING. This stuff JUST >IS<.
König Preuße, GmbH
Jim Vandewalker wrote:
> You may think that but I bet it ain't rilly true. Look at the contrast
> between Mozart and Salieri in >Amadeus<. Salieri is the court composer who
> builds music by KNOWING HOW. Mozart has music FLOWING OUT OF HIM. (This is
> without reference to >Amadeus'< historicity or lack thereof.)
>
> I've done both. I CAN sit down and build a picture purely by knowing how; I
> have had pictures JUST FLOW OUT. (And before anyone else make the obvious
> comparison, yes, it is just like shitting. Tarla will tell you that the
> stuff she's done that she likes the best JUST FLOWED OUT. And she ascribed
> "meaning" [if any] AFTERWARD)
>
> I saw another thread here somewhere about how both the Liberal Left and the
> Religious Right view art:
>
> { The fundamentalists and the Cultural Left are in agreement in the view
> { that all art is ideological, that a work of art conveys a set of values.
> { Both sides adopt a moralistic position, that is, both ascribe to the
> { belief that art should be judged first by moral standards (though of
>
> { http://members.aol.com/evassembly/bewitchd.htm
>
> THAT'S why I say NO MEANING. This stuff JUST >IS<.
>
> --
> Jim the Prophet
> Licensed SubGenius Minister
<erratically edited>
That whacky aesthetics journal that some o' that came from
had a funny story titled:
"Teaching Aesthetics to Artists"
--Some of the humoresque highlights:
--In many ways, the problem of teaching aesthetics in the fine arts faculty
parallels the problem of teaching ethics in the business
school. Business
students are likely also to view thinking about ethical issues
as likely to
harm their abilities to act in a business context--either by
making them
“soft” on ethical issues, or what is worse, by making them
impractical,
caught up in academic theorizing to the detriment of dealing
with the real
problem at hand. And many business students are quite overt in
expressing their fear that being conscious of ethical concerns
may deprive
them of the ruthlessness they think may be necessary to allow
them to
succeed in the corporate jungle. There is also a large amount
of writing
about business which describes how to make business decisions,
manage
people, and rise in the hierarchy; these “how to succeed”
works which
proliferate in the business sections of the bookstores provide
all the
reading necessary, it might seem, for the business person who
wants to
reflect on their chosen profession. Although these works in
effect deal
with ethical issues, it is usually in the context of a
particular strategy for
success being advocated, not in the context of philosophical
analysis.
--Artists tend to be repelled by aesthetics, for a number of reasons. Many
are suspicious that too much analyzing of their art will harm
their
creativity; it will encourage them to develop their rational
ego at the
expense of their creative unconscious. Or they suspect that
aesthetic
analysis will have no effect on them, that thinking about art
in this way is
simply useless. Give a group of artists a copy of the latest
issue of the
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, and their response is
likely to
be that it simply doesn’t interest them, that the issues
discussed are not
ones that they face as artists, and that it seems to consist
mainly of
academic nit-picking and hair-splitting which has little to do
with the real
worlds of art.
--
TarlaStar
>You may think that but I bet it ain't rilly true. Look at the contrast
>between Mozart and Salieri in >Amadeus<. Salieri is the court composer who
>builds music by KNOWING HOW. Mozart has music FLOWING OUT OF HIM. (This is
>without reference to >Amadeus'< historicity or lack thereof.)
>I've done both. I CAN sit down and build a picture purely by knowing how; I
>have had pictures JUST FLOW OUT. (And before anyone else make the obvious
>comparison, yes, it is just like shitting. Tarla will tell you that the
>stuff she's done that she likes the best JUST FLOWED OUT. And she ascribed
>"meaning" [if any] AFTERWARD)
I'm not sure...I don't just draw much...almost never in fact. When I
paint, my technique doesn't allow much for just "letting it flow."
Sculpting is very calculated (armatures and all that.) What usually
happens (as best as I can reconstruct) is that I get an idea. Usually
it appears as a flash, a picture of the finished piece. That flash
disappears and in the case of a painting, is hard for me to
reconstruct at the level in which I see it in my head. Sculpture, on
the other hand, is easy for me to see, once I see it. Then I either
gather the elements that I need to use for visual reference in a
painting or I make the armature for the sculpture. After that, it's
all technique, to get me to where the original flash was. My paintings
always come short (in my view), but my sculpture comes much closer.
When I see the flash, I usually get a title with it, believe it or
not. I have the meaning of the piece in my head, long before I ever
start it. Currently I am working on a series of small female nudes
(about 18-20" high) which are meant to express a single small emotion
using only the human body. I have finished "Regret" and am working on
"Scepticism." Right now, I don't know which small emotion the third
one will represent. I'll think about it, get the flash and then I'll
know. Then I'll make it. It will be form (in my head) given meaning
(by my brain) given form (by my hands).
This doesn't mean that I don't reserve the right to change the vision
slightly in order to work within good artistic technique. For example,
if I see the hands in a certain position in my mind, then, when I'm
sculpting them, I realize that by changing the position slightly, I
can control the viewer's eye a little better, then I'm going to make
the change.
>{ The fundamentalists and the Cultural Left are in agreement in the view
>{ that all art is ideological, that a work of art conveys a set of values.
>{ Both sides adopt a moralistic position, that is, both ascribe to the
>{ belief that art should be judged first by moral standards (though of
>{ course they differ sharply on the matter of what standards are valid).
>{ And both are willing to censor based on their standards. Interestingly,
>{ both also focus on content as the vehicle for the presentation of values.
>{ As a result, both Right and Left assume that representation is de facto
>{ advocacy, and they dismiss claims to the contrary, claims of
>{ interpretation of artist's intent, as irrelevant or disingenuous.
>{
>{ http://members.aol.com/evassembly/bewitchd.htm
>THAT'S why I say NO MEANING. This stuff JUST >IS<.
That's why there's more than one artist in the world.