Is it Art?
Luk
Is it art? Sine qua nons and quiddities
Art can be good, can be simple, or can be awkwardly done. It can be
lousy. There are degrees of accomplishment among people who try
their hand at art. A child can produce art on a simple level.
I do believe a first grader is capable of producing art, though a
child’s creation is a beginning or a budding. It’s not the doting mom
who makes it art by believing Junior is a genius. The artist does that
by applying learned skills in a process of creativity and discovery.
The work must have form or design conceived by the artist. A great deal
of excellent art has been inspired by religion. But if there’s anything
spiritual about art itself, it’s the spirit of the creative process.
That spirit is what the artist feels. It's an emotion. In addition, a
worthy artistic creation must have the capability of producing a
response in someone else.
Nature can be beautiful and inspiring. But sunsets, are not art. Sun
sparkles on a lake aren't either. There was no human creative spirit
involved when these were produced. The form there didn't result from
human creativity. The same must be said for the scribbling of a
two-year-old, since the child is only manipulating a toy which happens
to be a crayon.
Not all humanly conceived products are art. A manufactured deck chair
is an item produced for convenience. It’s not art. But a chair can be
a work of art. On the other had, if someone splashes paint on a canvas,
the outcome might rightfully be called art (unless the paint fell on the
canvas accidentally). Someone who intentionally throws paint at a
canvas has taken the time to choose a medium, select colors, etc. The
work may proceed in a creative manner. The result may belong in a trash
basket, but successful paintings have been done that way.
Quite a few of the “pieces” shown in major museums around the country
are an insult to the community of artists who have legitimate skills and
intentions. They’re only objects submitted for the purpose of getting
attention and making money. Examples: a canvas painted black all over,
a coat on a coat hanger, a dried pile of cow manure.
You can call it art all day long, but it isn’t. The fact that you may
accept it as art, or even that it tugs on your heartstrings doesn’t make
it art. The “artists” responsible were not expending artistic creative
energy. They were looking at their bank books and negotiating with
their agents.
About Serrano’s photographs: I’ve seen some of his work. I don’t
claim to have seen much. I wouldn’t call what I’ve seen good art. Too
much of it appears to be an effort to make money by appealing to people
who giggle or delight at anything indecent. Those who appreciate such
debris often think they’re participating in an antiestablishment
movement. I see little artistic merit in the photographs I’ve so far
viewed by Serrano, unless you count the skill it takes to purchase a
good camera and locate the shutter release. But it pains me to see a
good camera go to waste. Whatever acceptable qualities one finds in
Serrano's results seem attributable to his photo lab.
Good art is craft combined with inspiration, design, flair, and personal
expression. Up to now, Serrano hasn’t shown me that.
Luk
NanLeeCro
>Is it art? Sine qua nons and quiddities
>
>Art can be good, can be simple, or can be awkwardly done. It >can be lousy.
There are degrees of accomplishment among >people who try their hand at art.
A child can produce art on a >simple level.
>
>I do believe a first grader is capable of producing art, though a
>child’s creation is a beginning or a budding. It’s not the doting >mom who
makes it art by believing Junior is a genius. The artist >does that by
applying learned skills in a process of creativity and >discovery. The work
must have form or design conceived by the >artist. A great deal of excellent
art has been inspired by religion.
>But if there’s anything spiritual about art itself, it’s the spirit of the
>creative process.
I love this thought.
Whatever Art is, it ain't what Martha said it is:
"... the high and the pretty..."
>That spirit is what the artist feels. It's an emotion. In addition, a
>worthy artistic creation must have the capability of producing a
>response in someone else.
>Nature can be beautiful and inspiring. But sunsets, are not art. >Sun
sparkles on a lake aren't either. There was no human >creative spirit involved
when these were produced. The form >there didn't result from human creativity.
The same must be said >for the scribbling of a two-year-old, since the child
is only >manipulating a toy which happens to be a crayon.
>
>Not all humanly conceived products are art. A manufactured >deck chair is an
item produced for convenience. It’s not art. But >a chair can be a work of
art. On the other had, if someone >splashes paint on a canvas, the outcome
might rightfully be called >art (unless the paint fell on the canvas
accidentally). Someone >who intentionally throws paint at a canvas has taken
the time to >choose a medium, select colors, etc. The work may proceed in a
>creative manner. The result may belong in a trash basket, but >successful
paintings have been done that way.
>
>Quite a few of the “pieces” shown in major museums around the >country are an
insult to the community of artists who have >legitimate skills and intentions.
They’re only objects submitted for >the purpose of getting attention and making
money. Examples: a >canvas painted black all over, a coat on a coat hanger, a
dried pile >of cow manure.
YES! SHIT really happens in the art world, believe me.
Excellent example.
>You can call it art all day long, but it isn’t. The fact that you may
>accept it as art, or even that it tugs on your heartstrings doesn’t >make it
art. The “artists” responsible were not expending artistic >creative energy.
They were looking at their bank books and >negotiating with their agents.
>
>About Serrano’s photographs: I’ve seen some of his work. I >don’t claim to
have seen much. I wouldn’t call what I’ve seen >good art. Too much of it
appears to be an effort to make money >by appealing to people who giggle or
delight at anything >indecent.
Until the reality of "it" hits them via the Email! Pretension levels drop
several haute degrees.
>Those who appreciate such debris often think they’re >participating in an
antiestablishment movement. I see little artistic >merit in the photographs
I’ve so far viewed by Serrano, unless >you count the skill it takes to purchase
a good camera and locate >the shutter release. But it pains me to see a good
camera go to >waste. Whatever acceptable qualities one finds in Serrano's
>results seem attributable to his photo lab.
>
>Good art is craft combined with inspiration, design, flair, and >personal
expression. Up to now, Serrano hasn’t shown me that.
>
>Luk
Dear LUK! Why did you have to bring up that all-black (was it a warm or cool
black pigment) painted canvas with dung and coathanger??????? Cristos
Pistos!!
Now, Martha will launch into Art Appreciate Ib, having exhausted AAIa, and will
defend the ODD artwork until Picasso resurrects.
Enjoyed your essay - honest and unpretentous. from Nan
"... Siqueiros [another Mexican artist] and Rivera brandishing pistols, attack
each other with inflammatory rhetoric..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance...Coleridge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, Sat, 30 May 1998 14:48:27 -0400,
on "Is it Art?"
Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> cast this ASCII:
>Is it art? Sine qua nons and quiddities
[ snip ]
>Nature can be beautiful and inspiring. But sunsets, are not art. Sun
>sparkles on a lake aren't either. There was no human creative spirit
>involved when these were produced. The form there didn't result from
>human creativity.
As the bell tones fade,
blossom scents take up the ringing --
evening shade!
The observer creates the form. Nature with observer. Art for one.
> The same must be said for the scribbling of a
>two-year-old, since the child is only manipulating a toy which happens
>to be a crayon.
Red dragonflies!
Take off their wings,
and they are pepper pods!
Red pepper pods!
Add wings to them,
and they are dragonflies!
Which is the master Matsuo Basho, and which is his student, the boy
Kikaku?
And what of Mozart's little plinkings on the clavichord and his
scribbly notation at age 6 or so?
>Not all humanly conceived products are art. A manufactured deck chair
>is an item produced for convenience. It’s not art. But a chair can be
>a work of art. On the other had, if someone splashes paint on a canvas,
>the outcome might rightfully be called art (unless the paint fell on the
>canvas accidentally). Someone who intentionally throws paint at a
>canvas has taken the time to choose a medium, select colors, etc. The
>work may proceed in a creative manner. The result may belong in a trash
>basket, but successful paintings have been done that way.
On the matter of accidents in martial arts, see the Aikido Pro Shop at
<http://www.dragonscorner.com/aikido.html>.
Better yet <http://www.mysticfire.com/TVWatts.html#ZenAccident> for
review of a lecture the art of the controlled accident. Nice photo
too.
For application of accidents in drama, see
<http://films.beyond.com.au/kisskill/cast/kisskillcaststanmax.html>.
Consider conservative economic philosopher Friedrich Hayek:
"The case for individual freedom rests chiefly on the recognition of
the inevitable ignorance of all of us concerning a great many of the
factors on which the achievement of our ends and welfare depends....We
must recognize that the advance and even the preservation of
civilization are dependent upon a maximum of opportunity for accidents
to happen."
(quoted from The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1960. At website <http://www.friesian.com/donner.htm>)
Compare Hayek's view of the necessaries for civilization above with
this view of the spiritual:
"This is an astonishing jump to conclusions for a being who knows so
little about himself, and who will even admit that such sciences of
the intelligence as psychology and neurology are not beyond the stage
of preliminary dabbling. For if we do not know even how we manage to
be conscious and intelligent, it is most rash to assume that we know
what the role of conscious intelligence will be, and still more that
it is competent to order the world..."
(Quoted from Alan Watts, Nature, Man and Woman. New York: Pantheon
Books, 1958. at the website above)
And this view of art, (Watts, above, p 10):
"The Chinese phrase which is ordinarily translated as "nature" is
tzu-jan, literally "of itself so," and thus a better equivalent might
be "spontaneity." This is almost Aristotle's idea of God as the
unmoved mover, for nature in both whole and part is not regarded as
being moved by any external agency. Every movement in the endless knot
is a movement of the knot, acting as a total organism, though the
parts, or loops, of the knot are not looked upon as passive entities
moved by the whole....All art and artifice, all human action, is felt
to be the same as natural or spontaneous action -- a world-feeling
marvellously expressed in Chinese poetry and landscape painting, whose
technique involves the fascinating discipline of the "controlled
accident," of doing exactly the right thing without force or
self-conscious intention."
Better yet, read the entire essay where I nabbed the ascii quotes:
<http://www.friesian.com/donner.htm>.
Then explain again why accidents cannot be art. [1]
>Good art is craft combined with inspiration, design, flair, and personal
>expression. Up to now, Serrano hasn’t shown me that.
Great art is "exactly the right thing without force or self-conscious
intention". But only a fool would conclude that no discipline, craft,
or skill are necessary to have such an accident.
G "ars est celare artem" B
[1] and just for ducks, on the matter of accidents in martial arts,
see the Aikido Pro Shop at <http://www.dragonscorner.com/aikido.html>.
Better yet <http://www.mysticfire.com/TVWatts.html#ZenAccident> for
review of a lecture the art of the controlled accident. Nice photo
too. For application of accidents in drama, see
<http://films.beyond.com.au/kisskill/cast/kisskillcaststanmax.html>.
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc., and are NOT legal advice.
"I don't believe in accidents. They're just premeditated carelessness."
<< Brother Dave Gardner >>
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Is it Art?
>From: Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
>Date: Sat, May 30, 1998 14:48 EDT
George's pedantic, thoroughly referenced, presentation proves sycophantism is
not effortless. I am surprised, struck beyond
*belief truly*, George hasn't hailed any references at Martha's "high art" and
"peoples pretty art" pompier aureate proclamations. Connaissance in time and
in space?
George is stuck in his groove, defiantly entrenched - consider his weighty post
a great compliment. Your essay is quite superior in thoughtfulness than
anything Martha, the Eruditee, has uttered or hawked spontaneously as being
truly knowledgeable about TRUE or "high" art. George is a spirit killer, an
Amerind concept. Sang froid et sanguinary. You know them when you meet them.
Thank GOD! (heh, heh) Martha is not sanguinary.
But, George - tres sang froid. You know them when you hear them. Dehumanized
pursuit in the guise of altruism.
One's meets them everywhere. Lawyers are great at looking up citations and
precedents. I prefer artful honesty. Thanks, Luk.
from Nan
.
>Is it art? Sine qua nons and quiddities
>
>Art can be good, can be simple, or can be awkwardly done. It can be
>lousy. There are degrees of accomplishment among people who try
>their hand at art. A child can produce art on a simple level.
>
>I do believe a first grader is capable of producing art, though a
>child’s creation is a beginning or a budding. It’s not the doting mom
>who makes it art by believing Junior is a genius. The artist does that
>by applying learned skills in a process of creativity and discovery.
>The work must have form or design conceived by the artist. A great deal
>of excellent art has been inspired by religion. But if there’s anything
>spiritual about art itself, it’s the spirit of the creative process.
>That spirit is what the artist feels. It's an emotion. In addition, a
>worthy artistic creation must have the capability of producing a
>response in someone else.
>
>Nature can be beautiful and inspiring. But sunsets, are not art. Sun
>sparkles on a lake aren't either. There was no human creative spirit
>involved when these were produced. The form there didn't result from
>human creativity. The same must be said for the scribbling of a
>two-year-old, since the child is only manipulating a toy which happens
>to be a crayon.
>
>Not all humanly conceived products are art. A manufactured deck chair
>is an item produced for convenience. It’s not art. But a chair can be
>a work of art. On the other had, if someone splashes paint on a canvas,
>the outcome might rightfully be called art (unless the paint fell on the
>canvas accidentally). Someone who intentionally throws paint at a
>canvas has taken the time to choose a medium, select colors, etc. The
>work may proceed in a creative manner. The result may belong in a trash
>basket, but successful paintings have been done that way.
>
>Quite a few of the “pieces” shown in major museums around the country
>are an insult to the community of artists who have legitimate skills and
>intentions. They’re only objects submitted for the purpose of getting
>attention and making money. Examples: a canvas painted black all over,
>a coat on a coat hanger, a dried pile of cow manure.
>
>You can call it art all day long, but it isn’t. The fact that you may
>accept it as art, or even that it tugs on your heartstrings doesn’t make
>it art. The “artists” responsible were not expending artistic creative
energ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Luk
Nan wrote:
> Dear LUK! Why did you have to bring up that all-black (was it a warm or cool
> black pigment) painted canvas?
I dunno. It just looked black to me. A tape machine at the museum said there were
"quiet subtleties" in the black. Like you said, they're full of it.
> with dung and coathanger??????? Cristos Pistos!!
Besides the all black painting I mentioned two "works". One was a coat thrown over
a hook on the wall. Another was a pile of cow manure, just sitting in the middle of
the floor. The list goes on.....
> Now, Martha will launch into Art Appreciate Ib, having exhausted AAIa, and will
> defend the ODD artwork until Picasso resurrects.
No, I've been killfiled. I can tell.
> Enjoyed your essay - honest and unpretentous.
I yam what I yam. Pretending is too much trouble.
Luk
NanLeeCro
>>Subject: Re: Is it Art?
>From: Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
>Date: Sat, May 30, 1998 19:58 EDT
Hey, "I yam what I yam" used to be my line when I first (dared) entered the
inner sanctum of the TC. Pretense is a way of life for some - one runs into
them persons all the time in various social nooks and crannies. Nothing worse
than conforming to politically agendized thinking. I am loathe to align
myself with political partyism and agendized conformity on issues - especially
social issues. Are there congenital "liberals" who call everyone who differs
with them "Right-wing" or "Religious right?" or "strangled by their "true
belief" system which is false because only theirs is not? And they demand your
conversion? on that basis? Too much!
Artists are free-thinkers who perceive inperceivable essences in matter by
their specialized ability to deeply enhance visually. That's deep Black
canvas. But, then again Bull Pucky stinks no matter how you look at it.
Luk wrote: Besides the all black painting I mentioned two "works". One was a
coat thrown over a hook on the wall. Another was a pile of cow manure, just
sitting in the middle of the floor. The list goes on.....
Nan really thinks: Doesn't matter - it is all insult, and it ain't "pretty" at
all. If you wonder how "stuff" like that makes it to a museum, the "art
world" suffers from peer nepotism too, ya know.
I had a thought about the Twenties' prohibition. Most police forces were very
corrupt and were on payola. They aided and abetted bootlegging. I wonder how
much that contibuted to the
"failure" of prohibition? Have to research that one.
Later.... from Nan
Luk
George wrote:
> The observer creates the form. Nature with observer.
Well, I guess we can pitch the artists. What was I thinking?
Luk wrote:
> > The same must be said for the scribbling of a
> >two-year-old, since the child is only manipulating a toy which happens
> >to be a crayon.
From George:
> Red dragonflies!
> Take off their wings,
> and they are pepper pods!
>
> Red pepper pods!
> Add wings to them,
> and they are dragonflies!
Poetry does it for me every time.
> And what of Mozart's little plinkings on the clavichord and his
> scribbly notation at age 6 or so?
It's the budding process. Note that my crayon-wielding tot was only two.
Artists emerge. Strike that. They develop. They don't hatch.
> Consider conservative economic philosopher Friedrich Hayek:
>
> ...We must recognize that the advance and even the preservation of
> civilization are dependent upon a maximum of opportunity for accidents to
> happen."
This was true before the stone age, George. You're out of date.
> Compare Hayek's view of the necessaries for civilization above with
> this view of the spiritual:
> ... it is most rash to assume that we know
> what the role of conscious intelligence will be, and still more that
> it is competent to order the world..."
Conscious intelligence isn't the problem. Conscious greed is the problem.
> ...Aristotle's idea of God ....All art and artifice, all human action, is
> felt to be the same as natural or spontaneous action -- a world-feeling
> marvellously expressed in Chinese poetry and landscape painting, whose
> technique involves the fascinating discipline of the "controlled accident,"
> of doing exactly the right thing without force or self-conscious
> intention."
Do you have some instructions handy on how to control an accident without
self-conscious intention?
Luk wrote:
> >Good art is craft combined with inspiration, design, flair, and >personal
> expression.
George wrote:
> Great art is "exactly the right thing without force or self-conscious
> intention". But only a fool would conclude that no discipline, craft,
> or skill are necessary to have such an accident.
I availed myself of your links, George, and I see they contain quotes by Ayn
Rand. Which made me happy. It could help get you going in the Right
direction.
Luk
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, Sun, 31 May 1998 09:57:59 -0400,
on "Re: Is it Art?"
Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> cast this ASCII:
>George wrote:
>> The observer creates the form. Nature with observer.
>Well, I guess we can pitch the artists. What was I thinking?
Maybe you weren't thinking. I never suggested "pitching the artist",
only that the observer sometimes is the artist in the sense that the
observer sometimes creates the art.
[ snip ]
>It's the budding process. Note that my crayon-wielding tot was only two.
>Artists emerge. Strike that. They develop. They don't hatch.
It is only the allegation that it is impossible for a child to be an
artist with which I took issue. That few are or become so is neither
a matter of serious debate nor an assertion with which I disagreed.
>> Consider conservative economic philosopher Friedrich Hayek:
>>
>> ...We must recognize that the advance and even the preservation of
>> civilization are dependent upon a maximum of opportunity for accidents to
>> happen."
>This was true before the stone age, George. You're out of date.
Hayek, the seminal conservative voice of this century, is out of date?
>> Compare Hayek's view of the necessaries for civilization above with
>> this view of the spiritual:
>> ... it is most rash to assume that we know
>> what the role of conscious intelligence will be, and still more that
>> it is competent to order the world..."
>Conscious intelligence isn't the problem. Conscious greed is the problem.
I only took issue with the notion that accident has no place in art.
Greed is found in all manner of human actions.
[ snip ]
>Do you have some instructions handy on how to control an accident without
>self-conscious intention?
You can always avail yourself of the literature cited on the links I
posted.
[ snip ]
>I availed myself of your links, George, and I see they contain quotes by Ayn
>Rand. Which made me happy. It could help get you going in the Right
>direction.
Been there. Done that. Rand was too ponderous for light reading and
too shallow for serious reading 35+ years ago when I was reading it.
The later bickering among the Branden factions was occasionally
amusing, but they didn't think so.
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc. and are NOT legal advice.
"You're going to have to answer to the Coca-Cola Company."
<< Col. Bat Guano to Grp. Capt. Lionel Mandrake, from _Dr_Strangelove_ >>.
Luk
George wrote:
> I never suggested "pitching the artist", only that the observer sometimes is
> the artist in the sense that the observer sometimes creates the art.
I see the observer as either capable of appreciating the art or not capable or
doing so. But his participation has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of
the work.
> It is only the allegation that it is impossible for a child to be an
> artist with which I took issue. That few are or become so is neither
> a matter of serious debate nor an assertion with which I disagreed.
>
My exact quote was that "A child can produce art on a simple level". But I said
that a two-year-old playing with a crayon is no more than a two year old playing
with a crayon. And I said that what a growing child does artistically is to
develop. At what point the child becomes an "artist", if he does, depends of
course on the individual. Mozart was an accomplished pianist at a very young
age. But I doubt even he could do very much at two.
> >I availed myself of your links, George, and I see they contain quotes by Ayn
> >Rand. Which made me happy. It could help get you going in the Right
> >direction.
>
> Been there. Done that. Rand was too ponderous for light reading and
> too shallow for serious reading 35+ years ago when I was reading it.
She was definitely represented in the links you posted. Her novels,
"Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" can be read like any other novel. Frankly, I
thought Rand was very clever in that regard.
Luk
Luk
> Luk wrote:
> >I yam what I yam. Pretending is too much trouble.
>
> Nan wrote:
> Hey, "I yam what I yam" used to be my line when I first (dared) entered the
> inner sanctum of the TC.
I picked up the expression at ATC or WH. That just shows the wide reaching
influence you've had.
> I am loathe to align
> myself with political partyism and agendized conformity on issues - especially
> social issues.
I'm a VRWC charter member, myself. Political partyism is what I eat for breakfast.
> Luk wrote: Besides the all black painting I mentioned two "works". One was a
> coat thrown over a hook on the wall. Another was a pile of cow manure, just
> sitting in the middle of the floor. The list goes on.....
>
> Nan really thinks: Doesn't matter - it is all insult, and it ain't "pretty" at
> all. If you wonder how "stuff" like that makes it to a museum, the "art
> world" suffers from peer nepotism too, ya know.
That's a fact. But despite the awfulness of what gets promoted and sold in art
circles, the spirit of art continues to function. I see it every day, and not in
the museums. At the same time, and because of the same human energy and
persistence, many who aren't artists produce and flourish. They do it despite
those who shout that life is unfair, that trying is too hard, and that the
government should take care of everyone.
Luk
Douglas M. Case
In article <3570547B...@mindspring.com>, Luk
<lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>... But if there’s anything
>spiritual about art itself, it’s the spirit of the creative process.
>That spirit is what the artist feels. It's an emotion. In addition, a
>worthy artistic creation must have the capability of producing a
>response in someone else.
I think that's well put, but I would raise the quibble that it is an
*aesthetic* response, that "emotional" is somewhat perjorative...the
aesthetic response is heightened by an intellectual component, not
constrained by it. It's more of a gestalt, if you will, or tzu-jan, for
George.
To use blatant examples, the response to Ingres, say, or Mozart, or
Winged Victory is more along the lines of an appreciation of balance, of
correctness, of no wasted motion, than an emotional experience. In fact
in the case of music some would deny there can be any emotional component
at all.
...>Quite a few of the “pieces” shown in major museums around the country
>are an insult to the community of artists who have legitimate skills and
>intentions. They’re only objects submitted for the purpose of getting
>attention and making money. Examples: a canvas painted black all over,
>a coat on a coat hanger, a dried pile of cow manure.
Much art of the 20th Century is recursive, that is, it comments on Art
itself, or the processes of art, or the "art game". So that what
confronts us may require knowledge of the philosophical and intellectual
basis, not simply of the work itself but of its predecessors. This
actually does not differ from our approach to Giotto or Bach, except that
it is now made explicit.
When Duchamp signed and titled a urinal and sent it to an exhibition, or
when John Cage composed a musical work without notes, there was obvious
(and intentional) provocation, but also profundity, and the need to
confront the friction between the two. It is no longer possible to
evaluate all works of art based on mastery of technique or agreed-upon
standards. The artists have taken that out of your hands, Luk, just as
means of production and mechanical replication took it out of their hands
in the 19th Century.
Having said that, let me then agree with you that much "art" which seeks
to provoke simply fails. But while you believe it fails because it seeks
to be provocative, I believe it fails because both the tension and the
intellectual basis for it have been all but exhausted. Not for everyone,
obviously. But then the future gets to decide who was an artist and who a
manqué.
>You can call it art all day long, but it isn’t. The fact that you may
>accept it as art, or even that it tugs on your heartstrings doesn’t make
>it art. The “artists” responsible were not expending artistic creative
>energy. They were looking at their bank books and negotiating with
>their agents.
Well, Rossini wrote for money (and quit once he was comfortable), and
Picasso certainly traded on his signature, but they both were artists,
unquestionably. I don't quite understand why you think a computer
warehouseman is a Capitalist Hero, but someone making money in the art
game is a bum. Do you say the same of schlockmeisters like Aaron Spelling
or Michael Crichton or James Cameron?
dmc
---------------------
And I catch myself thinking today that our long journey had only defiled with a sinuous trail of slime the lovely, trustful, dreamy, enormous country that by then, in retrospect, was no more to us than a collection of dog-eared maps, ruined tour books, old tires, and her sobs in the night-every night, every night-the moment I feigned sleep.
-Humbert Humbert
Douglas M. Case
In article <3571F167...@mindspring.com>, Luk
<lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I see the observer as either capable of appreciating the art or not capable or
>doing so. But his participation has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of
>the work.
The idea completely baffles me, so I've asked Dr. Schrödinger to assist.
He, being dead-he told me he wasn't sure about his Cat,btw-wasn't doing
much. So he's put a heretofore unseen painting in a box. It is either an
undiscovered Titian, or a forgery. Is it Art?
The point being (I know you Objectivists are so damned
literal-minded,Luk, so I'm explaining) there's no such thing as intrinsic
Art. Art is a human judgement.
>>
>> Been there. Done that. Rand was too ponderous for light reading and
>> too shallow for serious reading 35+ years ago when I was reading it.
>
>She was definitely represented in the links you posted. Her novels,
>"Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" can be read like any other novel.
Frankly, >I thought Rand was very clever in that regard.
Well, I like hate mail, and I'll definitely side with George. As a
novelist Rand was a middling philosopher, and as a philosopher she was a
middling novelist. She's got a valued place in my library, though,
because I'm really hard on paperback covers, and laying Atlas Shrugged on
top of 'em for a few days straightens them right out. Though I suppose
Mitchner would do as well...
dmc
---------------------
Let us be strange and well-bred: Let us be as strange as if we had been married a great while,and as well-bred as if we were not married at all.
William Congrieve
Luk
> Luk wrote:
> >I see the observer as either capable of appreciating the art or not capable or
> >doing so. But his participation has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of
> >the work.
>
> The idea completely baffles me, so I've asked Dr. Schrödinger to assist.
> He, being dead-he told me he wasn't sure about his Cat, btw - wasn't doing
> much. So he's put a heretofore unseen painting in a box. It is either an
> undiscovered Titian, or a forgery. Is it Art?
Dear Doug:
I don't know Dr. Schrodinger (and I apologize to his family for not being able to write his name properly. I'm very sorry to hear he died, though.
And I'm sorry his cat got put in a box. No wait, it was the painting that got put in a box.
Well really, I think it's Titian we should worry about. He died too. And then his painting got stuck in a box.
> The point being (I know you Objectivists are so damned
> literal-minded,Luk, so I'm explaining) there's no such thing as intrinsic
> Art. Art is a human judgement.
Douglas you're breaking my heart. All those artists. All that wasted time.
> As a novelist Rand was a middling philosopher, and as a philosopher she was a middling novelist.
Well Douglas, I didn't say she was Plato or Dostoevsky.
But she did do a spiffy job of presenting her ideas, which were not badly thought out.
Luk
Terence P Higgins
From article <3573002A...@mindspring.com>, by Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>:
> I don't know Dr. Schrodinger (and I apologize to his family for not being able to write his name properly. I'm very sorry to hear he died, though.
And I'm sorry his cat got put in a box. No wait, it was the painting that got put in a box.
Actually, they put the message in the box, put the box inside the
car, and drove the car around the world....
--
no more thinking now
I think it suits me not
it's down to la la la
and dot dot dot
Luk
> Terrence wrote:
> Actually, they put the message in the box, put the box inside the
> car, and drove the car around the world....
> --
> no more thinking now
> I think it suits me not
> it's down to la la la
> and dot dot dot
Cats, cars, boxes, it's all a blur.What was the subject? I think it was fur.
What can I say? I've done my best
My brain is tired and needs to rest.
Luk
Luk
lordsir wrote:
> Dear Doug and George,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to try to help poor Luk. You are both so very good
> at clearly expressing yourselves on this and in other matters, and though I have
> been tempted to post to this thread, I have held back for fear that Luk would
> not get it and I would be drawn into another circular discussion.
Dear Lordsir:
You did the right thing.
Luk
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: Is it Art?
>Date: Mon, Jun 1, 1998 11:15 EDT
>
<lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>... But if there’s anything
>>spiritual about art itself, it’s the spirit of the creative process.
>>That spirit is what the artist feels. It's an emotion. In addition, a
>>worthy artistic creation must have the capability of producing a
>>response in someone else.
> I think that's well put, but I would raise the quibble that it is an
>*aesthetic* response, that "emotional" is somewhat >perjorative...the
aesthetic response is heightened by an >intellectual component, not
>constrained by it. It's more of a >gestalt, if you will, or tzu-jan, for
George.
> To use blatant examples, the response to Ingres, say, or Mozart, >or...
(snip of Doug's pedantic pageant of verbage)
Dear Doug,
You do great "art" pontification. Why did you not "lecture" Martha on the
rather bizarre and pretentious statements she made about "pretty art, ", et al?
I think Luk is paying you more courtesy than you deserve. By displaying your
"art gnosticism", you prove to me your onerous hypocrisy and bias. Why didn't
respond to Martha - that is, before she started applying damage control posts
to which you did positively responded? Jesu! plus merde!!!!
digusted from Nan
Wolf Str8
LUK: (on Ayn Rand)
But she did do a spiffy job of presenting her ideas, which were not badly
thought out.
They were horribly thought out. She presents a system of ethics as based on
'objective principle' when, bottom line, at its heart is nothing but sheer
faith. Then she has the gall to proclaim that people who don't think as she did
are mystic witch doctors. What a hypocrite.
E. Tracy Tucciarone
Curator, Museum of Psychiatric Anomalies
== Wolf...@aol.com ==
Website: http://members.aol.com/WolfStr8/Wolf.html
'This is the strangest life I've ever known'
Douglas M. Case
In article <6kuuud$o...@edrn.newsguy.com>, ladyl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Where hast thou stumbled upon all this truth? :)
>
> -William Congreve
Well, I guess my major pratfall was misspelling his name,eh?
dmc
---------------------
Men occasionally stumble over the truth,but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
苦inston Churchill
Douglas M. Case
In article <3573002A...@mindspring.com>, Luk
<lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Dear Doug:
>
>I don't know Dr. Schrodinger (and I apologize to his family for not being
able to write his name properly. I'm very sorry to hear he died, though.
Schrödinger was a womanizer, so maybe it's just as well.
>
>Well really, I think it's Titian we should worry about. He died too.
And then his painting got stuck in a box.
Oh no. Titian is an immortal.
>> As a novelist Rand was a middling philosopher, and as a philosopher
she was a middling novelist.
>Well Douglas, I didn't say she was Plato or Dostoevsky.
I think you mean Tolstoy. Dostoevsky was the Hermann Hesse of prose.
>
>But she did do a spiffy job of presenting her ideas, which were not badly
thought out.
>
Luk, rewards for coloring between the lines stop in elementary school.
Dontien-Alphonse-François, Marquis de Sade, did a better job of both, if
you've the stomach. Or spend a little time with the Reverend Swift.
dmc
---------------------
Men occasionally stumble over the truth,but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
Winston Churchill
Luk
Douglas M. Case wrote:
> >I don't know Dr. Schrodinger (and I apologize to his family for not being
> able to write his name properly. I'm very sorry to hear he died, though.
>
> Schrödinger was a womanizer, so maybe it's just as well.
Good grief. I should say so.
> >> As a novelist Rand was a middling philosopher, and as a philosopher
> she was a middling novelist.
>
> >Well Douglas, I didn't say she was Plato or Dostoevsky.
>
> I think you mean Tolstoy. Dostoevsky was the Hermann Hesse of prose.
Do I know Hermann?
> >But she did do a spiffy job of presenting her ideas, which were not badly
> thought out.
>
>
> Luk, rewards for coloring between the lines stop in elementary school.
> Dontien-Alphonse-François, Marquis de Sade, did a better job of both, if
> you've the stomach. Or spend a little time with the Reverend Swift.
The Marquis is a womanizer too.Or so I'm told.
Luk
Terence P Higgins
From article <foureyes-020...@ip143.indianapolis.in.pub-ip.psi.net>, by four...@earthlink.net (Douglas M. Case):
> Oh no. Titian is an immortal.
Huh huh, huh huh huh, you said Titian
Martha Sprowles
Douglas M. Case wrote:
>
> In article <6kuuud$o...@edrn.newsguy.com>, ladyl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Where hast thou stumbled upon all this truth? :)
> >
> > -William Congreve
>
> Well, I guess my major pratfall was misspelling his name,eh?
>
>
> ---------------------
> Men occasionally stumble over the truth,but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.
>
And how *is* your prat, now, Doug?
Wondering,
Martha Sprowels
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, Tue, 02 Jun 1998 08:24:48 -0500,
on "Re: Is it Art?"
>In article <6kuuud$o...@edrn.newsguy.com>, ladyl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Where hast thou stumbled upon all this truth? :)
>>
>> -William Congreve
> Well, I guess my major pratfall was misspelling his name,eh?
I would have said She Conks to Stupor, but that would be mistaken
identity. Maybe it's just The Way of the World.
G "is this the Restoration of a cascade thread?" B
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc., and are NOT legal advice.
"This is not artificial intelligence. It is canned insanity."
<< Hugh Kenner, circa 1984, reviewing Racter's (tm) novel, >>
<< _The_Policeman's_Beard_Is_Half_Constructed_ >>
Douglas M. Case
In article <6l1c2d$erk$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, geo...@apan.org.SPAM_NOT wrote:
>I would have said She Conks to Stupor, but that would be mistaken
>identity. Maybe it's just The Way of the World.
That's a very cavalier attitude for you, George.
dmc
---------------------
Marie Prevost did not look her best/
The day the cops bust in to her lonely nest...
-Nick Lowe
ladyl...@hotmail.com
In article <6l1c2d$erk$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, geo...@apan.org.NO_UCE says...
>
>In <alt.true-crime>, Tue, 02 Jun 1998 08:24:48 -0500,
> on "Re: Is it Art?"
> four...@earthlink.net (Douglas M. Case) cast this ASCII:
>
>>In article <6kuuud$o...@edrn.newsguy.com>, ladyl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>>Where hast thou stumbled upon all this truth? :)
>>>
>>> -William Congreve
>
>> Well, I guess my major pratfall was misspelling his name,eh?
>
>identity. Maybe it's just The Way of the World.
LL: Well! :)
I am persecuted with letters! Nobody knows how to write letters, and yet one has
'em, and one does not know why. They serve one to pin up one's hair. Nay, this
is extravagance. Pray, forbear.
>
>G "is this the Restoration of a cascade thread?" B
Seems to me we're just having a "Carousel Conversation™."
Cry mercy!
LadyLocust
PostScript: Clearly, we are the lot of us sufficiently "strange." But I'll say
this for you boys, next time I'm out Bunburying, I'm takin' you two along. Best
work on your accents. ;)
>
>--
>Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc., and are NOT legal advice.
> "This is not artificial intelligence. It is canned insanity."
> << Hugh Kenner, circa 1984, reviewing Racter's (tm) novel, >>
> << _The_Policeman's_Beard_Is_Half_Constructed_ >>
>
>
------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://extra.newsguy.com
THEnoveau
Terence said :
> Huh huh, huh huh huh, you said Titian
ROFL.... anyone remember the SNL skit from waaayyy back when with Dan Akroyd??
"Here's one by Tittie-an called 'Naked Broad on a Couch' "
Lynn < showing her age>
George Byrd
In <alt.true-crime>, Tue, 02 Jun 1998 22:08:37 -0500,
>geo...@apan.org.SPAM_NOT wrote:
>>I would have said She Conks to Stupor, but that would be mistaken
>>identity. Maybe it's just The Way of the World.
> That's a very cavalier attitude for you, George.
Well, I admit it wasn't utterly Marvellous.
Guess I'm just a Herricktic.
G "now I'm Donne for" B
--
Opinions above are NOT those of APAN, Inc. & are NOT legal advice.
"... and fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
<< Alexander Pope, _Essay_on_Criticism_ >>
Karen Stanga
Well, after reading through this (and I suppose it isn't over yet), I
have figured something out about myself: I appreciate *art* and I like
*pictures*.
~K
Douglas M. Case
>From article
<foureyes-020...@ip143.indianapolis.in.pub-ip.psi.net>, by
four...@earthlink.net (Douglas M. Case):
>> Oh no. Titian is an immortal.
>
>
> Huh huh, huh huh huh, you said Titian
Terry, you're a Trollope.
dmc
---------------------
To sum up:
1) The cosmos is a gigantic fly-wheel making 10,000 revolutions a minute.
2) Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it.
3) Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to give him the ride.
胄.L. Mencken
Douglas M. Case
He has such song as I have not,
I think it's all a Popish Plot.
I'm left to stand off stage and mutter
That Byrds can fly, while I just Flutter.
Terence P Higgins
From article <foureyes-030...@ip128.indianapolis.in.pub-ip.psi.net>, by four...@earthlink.net (Douglas M. Case):
> Terry, you're a Trollope.
I prefer chucklehead, myself.
--
restart the cycle I vowed to break
and walk before the world's awake
and sidestep that I'm drowned
Luk
> > Terry, you're a Trollope.
>
> I prefer chucklehead, myself.
Hey -
Can we have some respect please?
We're talking about "high art" here.
Luk
Terence P Higgins
From article <35755643...@mindspring.com>, by Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>:
> Hey -
Can we have some respect please?
We're talking about "high art" here.
Hey -
The great Sam Clemens hisself used the word.
If Roughing It ain't "high art," I don't know what is.
--
down here on the planet earth
they line you up on the day of your birth
they give you a number and call it a name
and until you die it's more of the same
Martha Sprowles
Terence P Higgins wrote:
>
> From article <foureyes-030...@ip128.indianapolis.in.pub-ip.psi.net>, by four...@earthlink.net (Douglas M. Case):
>
> I prefer chucklehead, myself.
> restart the cycle I vowed to break
> and walk before the world's awake
> and sidestep that I'm drowned
<shy remark: I hope you guys won't let this thread die. It's providing
much joy out my way. Thanks. Martha>
Luk
> shy remark: I hope you guys won't let this thread die. It's providing
> much joy out my way.
Martha:The erudition died a long time ago.
The baloney doesn't seem to want to.
Luk
Luk
Luk wrote:
> >... But if there’s anything
> >spiritual about art itself, it’s the spirit of the creative process.
> >That spirit is what the artist feels. It's an emotion.
Doug wrote:
> ....the
> aesthetic response is heightened by an intellectual component, not
> constrained by it. It's more of a gestalt, if you will, or tzu-jan, for
> George.
Doug, I don't give a rat's rear end about the component of the aesthetic response, intellectual or otherwise. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It's the *artist's* emotional component that matters. And if that ain't there, it ain't art.
> To use blatant examples, the response to Ingres, say, or Mozart, or
> Winged Victory is more along the lines of an appreciation of balance, of
> correctness, of no wasted motion.
Hey - I thought Mozart was pretty music. Next time I put on a CD, I'll be sure to measure some motion.
> Much art of the 20th Century is recursive, that is, it comments on Art
> itself, or the processes of art, or the "art game".
Thanks for defining "recursive". My dictionaries are getting threadbare.
> So that what
> confronts us may require knowledge of the philosophical and intellectual
> basis, not simply of the work itself but of its predecessors....
> When Duchamp signed and titled a urinal and sent it to an exhibition, or
> when John Cage composed a musical work without notes, there was obvious (and intentional) provocation,
You mean they snickered as they cashed their checks. I don't blame them, by the way. But you don't see me writing out the checks.
> but also profundity, and the need to
> confront the friction between the two. It is no longer possible to
> evaluate all works of art based on mastery of technique
Not in the museums these days.
> or agreed-upon
> standards. The artists have taken that out of your hands, Luk, just as means of production and mechanical replication took it out of their hands in the 19th Century.
No the curators have. You can't evaluate technique when there isn't any.
> Having said that, let me then agree with you that much "art" which seeks
> to provoke simply fails. But while you believe it fails because it seeks
> to be provocative, I believe it fails because both the tension and the
> intellectual basis for it have been all but exhausted.
How about because it was only intended to make money to begin with. But you did make a point. If the justification for a urinal on the museum floor is that the art world is analyzing itself, that certainly opens no doors.
> Well, Rossini wrote for money (and quit once he was comfortable), and
> Picasso certainly traded on his signature, but they both were artists,
> unquestionably. I don't quite understand why you think a computer
> warehouseman is a Capitalist Hero, but someone making money in the art
> game is a bum. Do you say the same of schlockmeisters like Aaron Spelling or Michael Crichton or James Cameron?
Doug: This is a very hard concept for liberals. There's nothing wrong with making money. There never has been anything wrong with making money. It's OK to make money. It's OK to create art and get money in return. Art is still art after it has been traded for money. Money can be an incentive, an impetus for art. In fact, it usually is.
But art is still art. And trash is still trash. If art is sold for money and trash is sold for money, art is STILL art and trash is STILL trash.
It's so simple. So simple.
Luk
Douglas M. Case
>Dear Doug,
>
>I believe you are involved a hopeless and thankless task.
>
>Regards,
>
>Lord Sir
>
Oh, many. But not here, necessarily. I like to think we all write for
the unknown Reader, not to talk among ourselves. I don't undertake to
change anyone's mind, just to get my point across as best I can.
I'm a reasonably dedicated Modernist, but one of my favorite quotes about
Art is Claude Lévi-Strauss's "The Modern artist illustrates the
techniques he would use to execute a painting, if by chance he were to do
so."
That's what makes horseraces...
dmc
---------------------
If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.
British graffito