Can Art be visual Poetry?
8 KEW
the meaning to universal relations
withering streams
of incandescent dreams
driving through the sky
of an atmospheric lie."
This is an line from a poem copyrighted by Greg A. Olsen
He has taken art to a philosphical level. Creating abstract images to insight
multiple perspectives of mental connections. Voice your opinion at his site.
http://www.atmosphericvisions.com
Enjoy ,
8KEW
StemCell
Alicia
improvisor/composer, says his music is much more closely related to
abstract painting than it is to chordally structured music.
I saw an interesting definition of art on the CD Baby website
yesterday. "A toothbrush on the sink is not art. A toothbrush
mounted on the wall with a light on it and room full of people looking
at it is art."
Fred Weiss
"Alicia" <ali...@aliciabaylaurel.com> wrote in message
news:8d526306.01081...@posting.google.com...
> I saw an interesting definition of art on the CD Baby website
> yesterday. "A toothbrush on the sink is not art. A toothbrush
> mounted on the wall with a light on it and room full of people looking
> at it is art."
This is a perfect example of this kind of "art" being "the emperor's new
clothes".
Were you serious?
(Incidentally, whether it is a toothbrush or a Campbell Soup can or dots or
smears, it is the same thing.)
Fred Weiss
John
215.29...@posting.google.com>...
The 2nd paragraph...I agree with to a large extent. I never agreed
with Ayn Rand when it came to her views on art (including music,
literature, etc). I don't think a toothbrush on a wall would really
be all that interesting but it IS art, at least to me. It could be
"bad" art but it's still art, depending on the context, I suppose. If
the artist has an intention of some kind (whatever it may be), it's
art as far as I see it. I quote (more like paraphrase) the artist
Marcel Duchamp: "Bad art is still art, just like a bad emotion is
still an emotion"....or something to that effect....
John
John
0.atl.mindspring.net>...
Only if you accept Ayn Rand's defintion of what Art is. I don't...and
incidently refuse to accept it. I explain in another post but for
some reason, it isn't here yet....but probably will be by the time
this one gets up...
Here Ayn Rand and I part ways in a major way...
John
Fred Weiss
"John" <stjul...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:215c68c9.01081...@posting.google.com...
A toothbrush is not bad art. It's not art.
If a toothbrush is art, then art is not differentiated from any ordinary
functional object. And the purpose of art is not utilitarian.
Fred Weiss
John
2.atl.mindspring.net>...
No one said the toothbrush in and of itself was art. It was the USE
of the toothbrush that made it art. A building is a functional object
yet a building can be art (i.e. Frank Lloyd Wright). And who says
that a functional object can't be art? Who was the one person to
definitively say this is true---and don't tell me "Ayn Rand said..."
This is her opinion not an indisputable fact.
And what exactly IS the purpose of art? Many people have many
different ideas on this one---and many tomes have been written about
it over the decades. What is art's purpose to you?
Objectivism can't answer these questions definitively. It can offer
an opinion, a viewpoint and then it's up to the individual to decide
whether or not they want to agree with it. It's not the object in and
of itself that makes it art. It's the intent. Just by you completely
reacting to the notion that a toothbrush isn't art just made it so.
The artist intention would be to challenge YOUR notion of what art is
and he succeeded. Therefore, as I see it, it is art. But as I said
in my last post, whether or not it is "good art" is up to each
individual to decide for themselves.
Seems to me that I'm going to have a lot of disagreement on this
around here---which is fine. We all have our opinions and
disagreements.
John
Fred Weiss
"John" <stjul...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:215c68c9.0108...@posting.google.com...
>And who says
> that a functional object can't be art? Who was the one person to
> definitively say this is true---and don't tell me "Ayn Rand said..."
> This is her opinion not an indisputable fact.
>
> And what exactly IS the purpose of art? Many people have many
> different ideas on this one---and many tomes have been written about
> it over the decades. What is art's purpose to you?
>
> Objectivism can't answer these questions definitively.
If there is an argument in here for a position, maybe I'm missing it. All
you're saying is that many people have differing opinions about art, so
whose to say which is right. Is that your view of all philosophic issues?
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
John wrote:
> and he succeeded. Therefore, as I see it, it is art. But as I said
> in my last post, whether or not it is "good art" is up to each
> individual to decide for themselves.
Was it Shakespear who said that beauty is in the eye of
the beholder? In any case it is true. The question of good
art and bad art is 100 percent subjective. There is not a
single objective principle at work other than the existence
of the oject d'art.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B7FBEFC...@mediaone.net...
You're mixing categories. The beautiful is not equivalent to art. A sunset
can be beautiful but it is not art. It is also not entirely the issue with
regard to judging whether art is good or bad or even whether you like it or
not. I may like a particular work of art and consider it beautiful but also
acknowledge that it is not particularly great art. Speaking of Shakespeare,
he may well be the greatest dramatist of all time, but I don't particularly
enjoy his work. The reason why he is a great dramatist (or Michaelangelo a
great painter or Beethoven a great composer or Hugo a great novelist) are
objective not subjective. Whether you personally like their work is another
matter, entirely.
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> enjoy his work. The reason why he is a great dramatist (or Michaelangelo a
> great painter or Beethoven a great composer or Hugo a great novelist) are
> objective not subjective. Whether you personally like their work is another
> matter, entirely.
Hardly. If no one read or listned to the above, they would not either
be or be regarded as great artists/composers.
What objective principle makes Bethoven "great" (whatever that
means). Other people compose harmonies and are not
considered great. Can you objective discren a single characteristic
of their work, such that if I wrote music using it, my music would
be considered "great". Until you come up with such a principle,
explicitly stated you do NOT have a case.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B80F8BA...@mediaone.net...
>
>
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> > enjoy his work. The reason why he is a great dramatist (or Michaelangelo
a
> > great painter or Beethoven a great composer or Hugo a great novelist)
are
> > objective not subjective. Whether you personally like their work is
another
> > matter, entirely.
>
> Hardly. If no one read or listned to the above, they would not either
> be or be regarded as great artists/composers.
The number of people who regard something as great is not relevant to
whether it is or it isn't. It is not a subject for polls.
> What objective principle makes Bethoven "great" (whatever that
> means). Other people compose harmonies and are not
> considered great. Can you objective discren a single characteristic
> of their work, such that if I wrote music using it, my music would
> be considered "great". Until you come up with such a principle,
> explicitly stated you do NOT have a case.
Don't ask me about music. I know zip about it (technically).
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> Don't ask me about music. I know zip about it (technically).
Then why are you pontificating about something of which you
know zip (your word, not mine)? If you have a valid point to
make, it were better if you supported it by fact and logic rather
than by mere assertion.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B8102C6...@mediaone.net...
I'll be happy to pontificate about literature. I know more about that. Would
that make you any happier?
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> I'll be happy to pontificate about literature. I know more about that. Would
> that make you any happier?
A fine proposal.
Let us make it specific.
Genre = fictional novel.
Required: Objective definition of a "great" novel.
Omit obvious criterion of being understandable
(which would eliminate some of James Joyce stuff).
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B813B8B...@mediaone.net...
Arguably, you already lost the argument (and showed good taste vis-a-vis
JJ). Incidentally you know that James Joyce's Ulysses was voted the greatest
English novel of the century by a panel of "experts" picked by Random House.
Do you recall that survey?
Here a few things I would consider essential to greatness in a novel. Depth,
complexity, and logic of the plot (the flow and believability of the story -
and that it's well integrated). Depth and interest in the characterizations
(the characters are interesting and well-drawn). That there is a
well-defined and important conflict or challenge faced by the characters
which draws the reader's interest - and a climax which brings it all
together powerfully, logically. And then clear and evocative writing. It's a
pleasure to read.
What would you say?
Fred Weiss
Anthanson1
>Subject: Re: Can Art be visual Poetry?
>From: Fred Weiss pape...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 8/19/01 4:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9lo6tc$gnt$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
>If there is an argument in here for a position, maybe I'm missing it.
You did miss it, at least his and Alicia's theory, viz. the view that one and
the same object can be both art and not art depending on the context.
All
>you're saying is that many people have differing opinions about art, so
>whose to say which is right.
That is not all he is saying. He presented what is commonly called the
"institutional theory" of art. So, he gave his opinion. You appear to disagree
because of some notion that artistic objects must be qualitatively different as
objects from non-art objects. Perhaps you could enlighten all of us on what the
necessary and sufficient properties are, in virtue of which you think
an object is properly called a work of art.
Wrathbone
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Fred Weiss
"Anthanson1" <antha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010821022342...@mb-mi.aol.com...
>
> >Subject: Re: Can Art be visual Poetry?
> >From: Fred Weiss pape...@ix.netcom.com
> >Date: 8/19/01 4:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <9lo6tc$gnt$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>
> >If there is an argument in here for a position, maybe I'm missing it.
>
> You did miss it, at least his and Alicia's theory, viz. the view that one
and
> the same object can be both art and not art depending on the context.
>
>
> All
> >you're saying is that many people have differing opinions about art, so
> >whose to say which is right.
>
> That is not all he is saying. He presented what is commonly called the
> "institutional theory" of art.
That's not a theory. It's a non-theory. It's like saying, fill a basket with
words, throw them up in the air and however they come down, put them
together on some pages, print it and people will call it a novel. Or how
about, vomit on a canvas which is all it is but if you hang it in a gallery
it's art. This isn't a position I would dignify by arguing against. It's a
reductio to anyone apparently but you.
>Perhaps you could enlighten all of us on what the
> necessary and sufficient properties are, in virtue of which you think
> an object is properly called a work of art.
Perhaps for once you could keep the context of what this forum is. The
answer to your question has already been presented in Ayn Rand's The
Romantic Manifesto. Perhaps you would enlighten us with some objections to
it, present them with arguments and we'll go from there.
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> Perhaps for once you could keep the context of what this forum is. The
> answer to your question has already been presented in Ayn Rand's The
> Romantic Manifesto. Perhaps you would enlighten us with some objections to
> it, present them with arguments and we'll go from there.
I have already demonstrated that Ayn Rand's definition of
art taken literally, verbetim and at word is nonsense. Can you
suggest a better one. Reality cannot be re-created. There is only
one. It can be represented, simulated, depicted, but it cannot be
recreated, which shows Rand's definition is literally nonsense.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B824E65...@mediaone.net...
You're being excessively literal. But it might be interesting to focus on
why she selected that particular word because she always chose her words,
particularly in definitions very, very carefully. I would argue that she
wanted to distinguish art from "the smear school" on the one hand (which is
not reality, let alone a re-creation) and on the other from crafts or mere
design, which may be beautiful, and may reflect some element of "sense of
life" but are not (fine) art. But that's just a first stab. What do you
think?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> You're being excessively literal. But it might be interesting to focus on
> why she selected that particular word because she always chose her words,
I am invoking Rand's dictim at taking people at their word. Since
Rand is very dead, we shall never know what she really meant.
She could not have meant what she said literally, so she might
have misspoke (miswrote?), however we shall never know because
she is neither talking or writing anymore.
>
> particularly in definitions very, very carefully. I would argue that she
> wanted to distinguish art from "the smear school" on the one hand (which is
> not reality, let alone a re-creation) and on the other from crafts or mere
> design, which may be beautiful, and may reflect some element of "sense of
> life" but are not (fine) art. But that's just a first stab. What do you
> think?
I think you are substituing your definition for Rand's. That is what I
think.
Art is what artists do. Anything from doodles to exaulted sculpture,
even the statue of David, a high grade depiction of some fag in
Michealangelo's imagination.
Bob Kolker
R Lawrence
>Then why are you pontificating about something of which you
>know zip (your word, not mine)? If you have a valid point to
>make, it were better if you supported it by fact and logic rather
>than by mere assertion.
Pot, meet kettle.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
R Lawrence
>That's not a theory. It's a non-theory. It's like saying, fill a basket with
>words, throw them up in the air and however they come down, put them
>together on some pages, print it and people will call it a novel. Or how
>about, vomit on a canvas which is all it is but if you hang it in a gallery
>it's art.
Say, I don't think actually vomitting on the canvas has been tried yet.
This is your opportunity to be an artistic innovator! If museums will pay
good money for paintings of stripes or madonnas made of feces, imagine how
much you could earn from your puke.
Fred Weiss
"R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HRvg7.6349$Qh2.1...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
> Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >That's not a theory. It's a non-theory. It's like saying, fill a basket
with
> >words, throw them up in the air and however they come down, put them
> >together on some pages, print it and people will call it a novel. Or how
> >about, vomit on a canvas which is all it is but if you hang it in a
gallery
> >it's art.
>
> Say, I don't think actually vomitting on the canvas has been tried yet.
> This is your opportunity to be an artistic innovator! If museums will pay
> good money for paintings of stripes or madonnas made of feces, imagine how
> much you could earn from your puke.
First, according to Bob, I have to call myself an artist. Then whatever I do
is art and is in the same category as Michelangelo's David.
Fred Weiss
Wrathbone
0.atl.mindspring.net>...
> "Anthanson1" <antha...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010821022342...@mb-mi.aol.com...
> >
> > >Subject: Re: Can Art be visual Poetry?
> > >From: Fred Weiss pape...@ix.netcom.com
> > >Date: 8/19/01 4:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> > >Message-id: <9lo6tc$gnt$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>
> >
> >
> > >If there is an argument in here for a position, maybe I'm missing it.
> >
> > You did miss it, at least his and Alicia's theory, viz. the view that one
> and
> > the same object can be both art and not art depending on the context.
> >
> >
> > All
> > >you're saying is that many people have differing opinions about art, so
> > >whose to say which is right.
> >
> > That is not all he is saying. He presented what is commonly called the
> > "institutional theory" of art.
>
> That's not a theory. It's a non-theory. It's like saying, fill a basket with
> words, throw them up in the air and however they come down, put them
> together on some pages, print it and people will call it a novel.
Actually the Dadaists did this in making poems, some of which are
quite interesting. I take it you would not consider such things poems.
Why not?
Or how
> about, vomit on a canvas which is all it is but if you hang it in a gallery
> it's art.
Perhaps, the vomit artist is communicating his view about art,
politics, society or life. What if the piece were entitled "The Modern
Socialist State" or something? Why wouldn't this be art?
This isn't a position I would dignify by arguing against.
Is it your view that truth has to be dignified? Do you think that your
attention and arguments in particular dignify anything?
>
> >Perhaps you could enlighten all of us on what the
> > necessary and sufficient properties are, in virtue of which you think
> > an object is properly called a work of art.
>
> Perhaps for once you could keep the context of what this forum is. The
> answer to your question has already been presented in Ayn Rand's The
> Romantic Manifesto. Perhaps you would enlighten us with some objections to
> it, present them with arguments and we'll go from there.
Since my life is finite, I have to make choices about what I consider
to
be worthy of my time. Since everything I have read by Rand on any
topic is
underwhelming, and I know some very good works on the subject which I
have not been able to read yet, I will graciously decline your
suggestion. All you have said about the institutional theory of art is
that it is absurd. But, you have given no argument. A good place to
start would be to explain why you think the vomit painting would not
be art. Is this such a difficult request? If it's so obvious, why are
you requesting I search down and read a whole paper, when you
could enlighten me with a simple explanation?
Wrathbone
Fred Weiss
"Wrathbone" <antha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:106e897e.01082...@posting.google.com...
> Since my life is finite, ...
So's mine.
Fred Weiss
Wrathbone
7.atl.mindspring.net>...
Let me quote you in response to John:
"If there is an argument in here for a position, maybe I'm missing it."
So I guess you expect other people to provide arguments for their positions,
yet claim an exemption for yourself.
Wrathbone.
>
> Fred Weiss
Wrathbone
7.atl.mindspring.net>...
That doesn't follow. Lance Armstrong and myself are both bicyclists,
but that doesn't put me in the same category as Lance Armstrong.
Fred Weiss
"Wrathbone" <antha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:106e897e.01082...@posting.google.com...
Oh, why not?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Wrathbone" <antha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:106e897e.0108...@posting.google.com...
Apparently with you it's necessary to spell out the obvious. I don't want to
waste my time with you. "Vomit as art" is a reductio. You know what that is?
It shouldn't require argument. That you think it does is the very reason why
I don't want to pursue this with you. There is a level of intellectual
corruption, of which you are an example, that I won't dignify with debate.
Got it.
Fred Weiss
Wrathbone
2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> "Wrathbone" <antha...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Let me quote you in response to John:
> >
> > "If there is an argument in here for a position, maybe I'm missing it."
> >
> > So I guess you expect other people to provide arguments for their
> positions,
> > yet claim an exemption for yourself.
>
> Apparently with you it's necessary to spell out the obvious. I don't want to
> waste my time with you. "Vomit as art" is a reductio. You know what that is?
> It shouldn't require argument. That you think it does is the very reason why
> I don't want to pursue this with you. There is a level of intellectual
> corruption, of which you are an example, that I won't dignify with debate.
>
> Got it.
>
The problem with the reductio ad absurdum as a form of argument is
that it requires your interlocutor to judge the conclusion drawn from
his premises to be absurd. This particular conclusion has many
advocates some of which are
pretty renowned (e.g. Arthhur Danto) and some people who have posted
to this thread seem to be sympathetic to it. Most modern museums
contain a great deal
of "ready-mades" to use the Dadaist/Surrealist term, the most famous
of which is Deuschamp's Urinal first shown in the Armory show in 1919.
Clearly then, whether it is absurd is a matter of debate. To simply
pronounce it _ex hypothesi_ as false in the face of this rather
substantial opposition seems to be nothing more than an expression of
prejudice similar to the view by many half a decade ago that rock and
roll is the devil's music, or not music at all.
One way to defend your side is to provide and defend what you think
are necessary properties an object must have to be considered art. If
you are not interested in this, that's fine. But without it, your mere
prejudices make no intellectual contribution. What's the point of
airing your opinions on a newsgroup without defending them? Who cares?
Wrathbone
7.atl.mindspring.net>...
Because Armstrong is in a completely different league, as Michelangelo
is to our vomit artist.
Wrathbone
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Fred Weiss
By what standard?
Fred Weiss
Wrathbone
5.atl.mindspring.net>...
Are you asking about the analogy, or the original case?
Armstrong is a racer, has more lower body strength, is aerobically
superior to
me, has more stamina, knows much more about racing strategy, is a
mutltiple winner of the Tour de France etc., etc. Isn't it fairly
obvious what these standards are?
Assuming our vomit artist - let's call him Eeearl! - only does action
vomit paintings, then Michelangelo exhibits obviously superior mimetic
skills,
viz. draftsmenship, use of color, sculptural form and so on. Still,
depending on Eeearl's! particular vision and method of execution, he
might master some things that Michelangelo could never have thought
of, e.g. what foods to eat
and drink prior to making a painting in order to achieve just the
right consistency and colors. I imagine a lot of broccoli, peas and
mustard greens
would be suitable for an English landscape, and various fruits, corn
and fiber
for a Dutch- style still life. The semi-digested matter for portraits
would obviously depend on Eeearl's! vision of the character of his
subject.
Fred Weiss
"Wrathbone" <Antha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7e32459e.01082...@posting.google.com...
> The semi-digested matter ..
That's my view of what we get from you philosophically on this forum.
Fred Weiss
Wrathbone
7.atl.mindspring.net>...
Since we are all limited, finite beings all of our knowledge is partial and
tentative semi-digested matter. But espousing one's own semi-digested matte
r is
is certainly better than wallowing, as "Objectivists" do, in someone else's.
Wrathbone
Fred Weiss
"Wrathbone" <antha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:106e897e.01082...@posting.google.com...
> Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<9m2hkp$r9f$1@slb
> 7.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > "Wrathbone" <Antha...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:7e32459e.01082...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > The semi-digested matter ..
> >
> > That's my view of what we get from you philosophically on this forum.
>
> Since we are all limited, finite beings all of our knowledge is partial
and
> tentative semi-digested matter.
Gee thanks for the personal confession and an acknowledgment of what I said
about you. (That you hope it's more than that - by way of providing an
excuse for yourself and an actual comment on the status of human knowledge -
is of course self-refuting, not that you'd see that.)
Fred Weiss
Hywel
215.29...@posting.google.com>...
> I saw an interesting definition of art on the CD Baby website
> yesterday. "A toothbrush on the sink is not art. A toothbrush
> mounted on the wall with a light on it and room full of people looking
> at it is art."
I think that anything produced for the sake of its own existence is
art of some kind. By this definition the toothbrush would be some sort
of art since, eventhough the toothbrush itself may have been produced
so people could brush their teeth with it, the "toothbrush on the
wall" as an object placed in a particular context was produced for its
own sake. I don't know why someone would want to just stick a
toothbrush on a wall and look at it though, other than perhaps to
express a sort of dadaist conception of the absurdity of art.
art means so many things to so many people that there can't really be
a hard and fast definition. People are different and so are their
ideas about art.
Wrathbone
the aesthetic properties of a white porcelain urinal are less
interetsing than, say,
a Henry Moore sculpture? - or a Rodin, or a cubist sculpture by
Picasso?
Just curious.
Wrathbone
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Hywel <mr_gri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<f1613d51.0108241952
.3e2c...@posting.google.com>...
R Lawrence
>Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>"Wrathbone" <antha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Because Armstrong is in a completely different league, as Michelangelo
>>>is to our vomit artist.
>>
>>By what standard?
<snip>
>Assuming our vomit artist - let's call him Eeearl! - only does action
>vomit paintings, then Michelangelo exhibits obviously superior mimetic
>skills, <snip>
I am not aware of any theory of art that would both consider vomit to be
art and also ascribe substantial value to "mimetic skills" in the
evaluation of an artist. Perhaps you could explain what theory of art you
propose that would make these two evaluations consistent with one another.
As it stand, it sounds like you are saying the only difference between
Michelangelo and the vomit maestro is that the former is a better
craftsman, which is a rather weak distinction.
Wrathbone
hoon.san.rr.com>...
> Wrathbone <Antha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>"Wrathbone" <antha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Because Armstrong is in a completely different league, as Michelangelo
> >>>is to our vomit artist.
> >>
> >>By what standard?
>
> <snip>
>
> >Assuming our vomit artist - let's call him Eeearl! - only does action
> >vomit paintings, then Michelangelo exhibits obviously superior mimetic
> >skills, <snip>
>
> I am not aware of any theory of art that would both consider vomit to be
> art and also ascribe substantial value to "mimetic skills" in the
> evaluation of an artist.
I am not aware of any theory of art that would necessarily exclude
vomit as a medium. Perhaps you could quote some sources from art
theorists
who ascribe value to "mimetic skills" which explicitly deny that vomit
should be used as a medium, or any passages from which such an
inference can obviously be made.
Perhaps you could explain what theory of art you
> propose that would make these two evaluations consistent with one another.
First, I don't need any theory. If an artist wants to paint a Madonna
with his vomit, attach a title, call it art and hang it in a museum,
then I
would call it art. Fred Weiss, on the other hand, refuses to, and
gives no theory of art or explanation this cannot be art. So he
presents no theory
to block my claim.
Second, if I were asked to give my above claim theoretical support I
would simply point out that my vomit artist could easily make
figurative paintings with his vomit and any figurative painting falls
within the category of mimetic art.Vomit might be an especially good
medium for abstract expressionism
which is also often characterized as mimetic art, if nature (in "the
imitation of nature)" is defined broadly enough(to include emotions
and the unconscious.)
I don't see why it could not be used in surrealism, impressionism, or
cubism
all of which are mimetic.
> As it stand, it sounds like you are saying the only difference between
> Michelangelo and the vomit maestro is that the former is a better
> craftsman,
That depends, since we are comparing a real artist whose work we know
to a merely theoretical one. If the vomit artist was a simple abstract
expressionist, then Michelangelo's work would exhibit superior realist
craftsmanship. But a vomit artist may indeed be able to surpass
Michaelangelo's
craftsmanship, depending on how he uses his vomit. He might also be
able to express a truth or vision, as an abstract expressionist, that
Michelangelo could not have, (muck like deKooning, or Pollock.)
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wrathbone <Antha...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Assuming our vomit artist - let's call him Eeearl! - only does action
>>>vomit paintings, then Michelangelo exhibits obviously superior mimetic
>>>skills, <snip>
>>
>>I am not aware of any theory of art that would both consider vomit to be
>>art and also ascribe substantial value to "mimetic skills" in the
>>evaluation of an artist.
>
>I am not aware of any theory of art that would necessarily exclude
>vomit as a medium. Perhaps you could quote some sources from art
>theorists who ascribe value to "mimetic skills" which explicitly deny that
>vomit should be used as a medium, or any passages from which such an
>inference can obviously be made.
Nice try at turning the question around without answering it, but I'm not
biting. I have not made any claims about whether vomit-painting is art. You
are the one who has declared vomiting on canvas to be art, while at the
same time evaluating the vomit-artist as being in a "completely different
league" as Michaelangelo. I am asking for an explanation of how *your*
claims are consistent (if they are), and I am not so simple as to be
distracted from that goal by such an obvious debate maneuver.
>>Perhaps you could explain what theory of art you propose that would make
>>these two evaluations consistent with one another.
>
>First, I don't need any theory. If an artist wants to paint a Madonna
>with his vomit, attach a title, call it art and hang it in a museum,
>then I would call it art. Fred Weiss, on the other hand, refuses to, and
>gives no theory of art or explanation this cannot be art. So he
>presents no theory to block my claim.
>
>Second, if I were asked to give my above claim theoretical support I
>would simply point out that my vomit artist could easily make
>figurative paintings with his vomit and any figurative painting falls
>within the category of mimetic art.
First, the scenario as originally offered did not in any way suggest the
use of vomit for "figurative painting." It involved a person vomiting
directly onto the canvas and calling the result "art." This is why I
referred to theories that would "consider vomit to be art," rather than
to theories that would consider painting with vomit to be art. You are
changing the scenario.
Second, you are the one who declared that Michaelangelo was in a
"completely different league" from the vomit-artist, even though the
latter was truly an artist. This claim is what led to me asking you to
explain on what theory you based your distinction. I have yet to see you
justify this claim of yours. If anything, many your subsequent comments
appear to be arguments against it. So it is not true to say that you "don't
need any theory." You need some sort of justification for the seemingly
inconsistent claims you are making.
>>As it stand, it sounds like you are saying the only difference between
>>Michelangelo and the vomit maestro is that the former is a better
>>craftsman,
>
>That depends, since we are comparing a real artist whose work we know
>to a merely theoretical one. If the vomit artist was a simple abstract
>expressionist, then Michelangelo's work would exhibit superior realist
>craftsmanship. But a vomit artist may indeed be able to surpass
>Michaelangelo's craftsmanship, depending on how he uses his vomit.
Once again you are arguing against your own stated position. If the
vomit-artist can "surpass Michaelangelo's craftsmanship," then on what
grounds do you claim that the latter is in a "completely different league"?
Wrathbone
oon.san.rr.com>...
> Wrathbone <antha...@aol.com> wrote:
> >R Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Wrathbone <Antha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Assuming our vomit artist - let's call him Eeearl! - only does action
> >>>vomit paintings, then Michelangelo exhibits obviously superior mimetic
> >>>skills, <snip>
> >>
> >>I am not aware of any theory of art that would both consider vomit to be
> >>art and also ascribe substantial value to "mimetic skills" in the
> >>evaluation of an artist.
> >
> >I am not aware of any theory of art that would necessarily exclude
> >vomit as a medium. Perhaps you could quote some sources from art
> >theorists who ascribe value to "mimetic skills" which explicitly deny that
> >vomit should be used as a medium, or any passages from which such an
> >inference can obviously be made.
>
> Nice try at turning the question around without answering it, but I'm not
> biting. I have not made any claims about whether vomit-painting is art. You
> are the one who has declared vomiting on canvas to be art, while at the
> same time evaluating the vomit-artist as being in a "completely different
> league" as Michaelangelo. I am asking for an explanation of how *your*
> claims are consistent (if they are), and I am not so simple as to be
> distracted from that goal by such an obvious debate maneuver.
No manuever. You did make a claim, viz. that you weren't aware of any
theory of art in which a piece of art could be vomit and mimetic. Your
implied claim was that there probably is not one, or that these are
somehow mutually exclusive. Or were you really just sincerely asking
me to educate you? Somehow I doubt it.
So, since you did make a claim, I simply asked you to support it and
provide an example of just one theory of art that would exclude vomit
as a medium. Why is that a maneuver?
I did mention a number of artistic movements/theories that I thought
supported my claim. But I see that you have provided none to support
yours. But this is
a side issue. Please read on.
>
> >>Perhaps you could explain what theory of art you propose that would make
> >>these two evaluations consistent with one another.
> >
> >First, I don't need any theory. If an artist wants to paint a Madonna
> >with his vomit, attach a title, call it art and hang it in a museum,
> >then I would call it art. Fred Weiss, on the other hand, refuses to, and
> >gives no theory of art or explanation this cannot be art. So he
> >presents no theory to block my claim.
> >
> >Second, if I were asked to give my above claim theoretical support I
> >would simply point out that my vomit artist could easily make
> >figurative paintings with his vomit and any figurative painting falls
> >within the category of mimetic art.
>
> First, the scenario as originally offered did not in any way suggest the
> use of vomit for "figurative painting."
It didn't rule it out either.
It involved a person vomiting
> directly onto the canvas and calling the result "art."
But one could vomit directly onto the canvas in an effort to represent
something. Though any details would be difficult to manage, a rough
representation would be possible. I take it you would agree that
such a vomit/mimetic painting would be art?
This is why I
> referred to theories that would "consider vomit to be art," rather than
> to theories that would consider painting with vomit to be art. You are
> changing the scenario.
I think Dadaism would certainly consider vomiting on a canvas without
any effort
to represent anything, a work of art. Abstract expressionism, also.
Arthur Danto, who holds a certain version of the institutional theory
of art would probably also.
>
> Second, you are the one who declared that Michaelangelo was in a
> "completely different league" from the vomit-artist, even though the
> latter was truly an artist. This claim is what led to me asking you to
> explain on what theory you based your distinction. I have yet to see you
> justify this claim of yours. If anything, many your subsequent comments
> appear to be arguments against it. So it is not true to say that you "don't
> need any theory." You need some sort of justification for the seemingly
> inconsistent claims you are making.
It's pretty ridiculous to say such claims are inconsistent. The two
claims are: 1) "Both x and y are art." 2) "y is much better art than
x." Why are these inconsistent? I would think anybody, including you,
could make such claims, though your x and y might be different. If you
want to know what I think makes a piece of art better, just ask :-)
You don't have to couch your request in an accusation of some kind of
"contradiction."
I would say that what makes a piece of art better than another is its
ability to inspire and provoke questions and reflections about
important issues, including the issue of what art is. I think a vomit
painting could do this
to some degree, but Michelangelo does it better, particularly his
"unfinished" sculptures.
Wrathbone
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Hywel
08a...@posting.google.com>...
> Marcel Duchamp put a urinal in the Armory Show in 1919. Do you think
> the aesthetic properties of a white porcelain urinal are less
> interetsing than, say,
> a Henry Moore sculpture? - or a Rodin, or a cubist sculpture by
> Picasso?
I find Moore's sculpture in general and Picasso's particularly cubist
sculpture quite boring aesthetically and artistically. Rodin, I like
and I also like the piece "Fountain" by Duchamp which you described
above. You can't judge all art by the same standard because it's not
all produced to fulfill the same aims. Whilst Moore was almost solely
concerned by the aesthetics of his sculpture, Duchamp was probably
more interested by the concept of the urinal rather than the way it
looked. That said, I think that the piece is aesthetically very
interesting (though the urinal manufacturers would have to take the
credit for that, not Duchamp), Duchamp merely took this object which
would otherwise have been overlooked as a vulgarity and put it in a
different context. I think he may have found the sweeping pearly white
curves beautiful and wanted others to share this experience with him.
As far as I can tell, Duchamp's main aim was to challenge the
traditional view of Art and to try to break down the prejudices that
the majority of people have concerning what constitutes a work of art.
I think that he easily accomplished his own artistic goals and if an
artist does this, he doesn't need to do anymore.
R Lawrence
>>It involved a person vomiting
>>directly onto the canvas and calling the result "art."
>
>But one could vomit directly onto the canvas in an effort to represent
>something. Though any details would be difficult to manage, a rough
>representation would be possible.
I deny that vomiting on a canvas constitutes "representation" of anything.
>>This is why I
>>referred to theories that would "consider vomit to be art," rather than
>>to theories that would consider painting with vomit to be art. You are
>>changing the scenario.
>
>I think Dadaism would certainly consider vomiting on a canvas without
>any effort to represent anything, a work of art. Abstract expressionism,
>also. Arthur Danto, who holds a certain version of the institutional
>theory of art would probably also.
These theories do not ascribe any particular value to "mimetic skills."
This is exactly the source of the inconsistency I inquired about. You
(initially) wanted to place Michaelangelo and the vomit-artist in "a
completely different league" from one another. But the only distinction you
have been able to make between them is that the former has greater "mimetic
skills."
>>Second, you are the one who declared that Michaelangelo was in a
>>"completely different league" from the vomit-artist, even though the
>>latter was truly an artist. This claim is what led to me asking you to
>>explain on what theory you based your distinction. I have yet to see you
>>justify this claim of yours. If anything, many your subsequent comments
>>appear to be arguments against it. So it is not true to say that you "don't
>>need any theory." You need some sort of justification for the seemingly
>>inconsistent claims you are making.
>
>It's pretty ridiculous to say such claims are inconsistent. The two
>claims are: 1) "Both x and y are art." 2) "y is much better art than
>x." Why are these inconsistent?
I have explained why multiple times now, and your past behavior in this
forum leads me to question the honesty of your claim not to understand the
explanations. So I don't see any reason to repeat it any more times than I
have.
>I would think anybody, including you,
>could make such claims, though your x and y might be different. If you
>want to know what I think makes a piece of art better, just ask :-)
I've been asking. You dance around the question, offering undetailed
mentions of various (incompatible) theories of art as your response.
>I would say that what makes a piece of art better than another is its
>ability to inspire and provoke questions and reflections about
>important issues, including the issue of what art is. I think a vomit
>painting could do this to some degree, but Michelangelo does it better,
>particularly his "unfinished" sculptures.
How does he do this? Through "mimetic skills," or something else?
As it stands, I don't find this claim particularly plausible. Everyone
seems to agree that Michaelangelo's work is art. The controversy is over
the vomit. So it would appear that the vomit-artist provokes more questions
about what art is than Michaelangelo does.
StemCell
038.42...@posting.google.com>...
> How the hell do "we" define Art in the first place?
> http://modemtimes.homestead.com/
>
>
>
>
> > He has taken art to a philosphical level.
How long had this been going on?
Can verbal poetry be art......
8 September - 2002
StemCell
As a matter of Fact it can!
Look at this:
http://www.yhchang.com/DAKOTA.html
enjoy yourself and listen to it, too
this is another one:
http://youareinmy.homestead.com/now.html
...and enless story...
Cheers
StemCell