Is cave painting art?
jha...@om.com.au
'art'. I wonder what Rembrant would have said?
The 'Oxford' says art is a skill that demands the exercise of the mind and
the imagination. A carpenter or a stone mason can be apprenticed and learn a
skill. To contend that Adam or Hepplewhite knew nothing about dovetail joints
would be like saying Wright knew nothing about cantilevers. True art, the
Oxford contends, combines the exercise of the mind and imagination and is
predicated on the grasp and extension of some particular discipline.
So is cave painting skilful, and is it 'art?'
Mnn ... if we do not agree on the previous terms of definition then any
further discussion is useless. (Goodnight to all usual my readers) If not let
us differentiate between the exercise of the mind and the imagination. The
mind provides the discipline - the imagination provides the new ways of
looking at things. The modernists, post modernists, contemporaries etc.,
endeavour to produce articles, paintings and installations that propose a new
view - usually without any exercise of the mind. And if there is - then any
hint of intellectual activity it would be strenuously denied. The idea of
explaining to someone why Vermeers 'girl with the pearl earring’ is such a
tour de force and should include an understanding of drawing, color, design
and texture is an anathema.
And there you have it! To discern or appreciate beauty do we need to be a
technician or not. Did I ever fall on love because I knew all about the object
of
my desires, or was it the opposite - the mystery?
Nevertheless, as a mixed up little panda bear, when I look at a cave painting
I ask myself - how good was the artist? remembering all the time that the
Mona Lisa may well become the cave painting equivalent of the 30th century.
So really, what is that on the walls of caves, what is art, what is painting
and will it last? John Hagan Cowdisley Institute.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
G*rd*n
| Everyone runs about proclaiming recently discovered squiggles on cliff walls
| 'art'. I wonder what Rembrant would have said?
|
| The 'Oxford' says art is a skill that demands the exercise of the mind and
| the imagination. A carpenter or a stone mason can be apprenticed and learn a
| skill. To contend that Adam or Hepplewhite knew nothing about dovetail joints
| would be like saying Wright knew nothing about cantilevers. True art, the
| Oxford contends, combines the exercise of the mind and imagination and is
| predicated on the grasp and extension of some particular discipline.
|
| So is cave painting skilful, and is it 'art?'
|
| Mnn ... if we do not agree on the previous terms of definition then any
| further discussion is useless. (Goodnight to all usual my readers) If not let
You're dispensing with "particular discipline"? Since we
probably don't know under what disciplines the squigglists
operated, we can't say whether their work was predicated on
the grasp and extension of any of them. And, not knowing
the their intentions, we don't know whether their work was
imaginative or rote replication of traditional designs. By
the standards of the Oxford, then, the squiggles are
indeterminate as to the art bag. One would have to say the
same of Lascaux, however, so it's probably not a very good
definition.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{ http://www.etaoin.com }"{
Iian Neill
> 'art'. I wonder what Rembrant would have said?
Rembrandt would have regarded it as the art of barbarians, probably. And
technologically/culturally speaking, he wouldn't have been incorrect.
> The 'Oxford' says art is a skill that demands the exercise of the mind and
> the imagination. A carpenter or a stone mason can be apprenticed and learn a
> skill. To contend that Adam or Hepplewhite knew nothing about dovetail joints
> would be like saying Wright knew nothing about cantilevers. True art, the
> Oxford contends, combines the exercise of the mind and imagination and is
> predicated on the grasp and extension of some particular discipline.
>
> So is cave painting skilful, and is it 'art?'
So far as I know, cave painting was primarily intended to have magical
significance. It was believed (so historians tell us) that by painting the images
of animals, the cavemen had some kind of "hold" over them. I do not find this too
surprising, as art has almost always developed with - and in the service of -
religion. Religion - and the State - determines what style is acceptable for the
time; hence, the realistic style of the Greco-Roman world was considered unsuited
to the particular spiritual demands of the early Christians. So a new kind of art
was developed which expressed their intentions better (?) than Classical sculpture
might have.
(It is debatable whether Byzantine art is better than Classical - even if we take
into account their different aims.)
> Mnn ... if we do not agree on the previous terms of definition then any
> further discussion is useless. (Goodnight to all usual my readers)
Your above definition is certainly a good start for any discussion about
aesthetics.
> If not let
> us differentiate between the exercise of the mind and the imagination. The
> mind provides the discipline - the imagination provides the new ways of
> looking at things. The modernists, post modernists, contemporaries etc.,
> endeavour to produce articles, paintings and installations that propose a new
> view - usually without any exercise of the mind.
Oh, the mind is exercised. Oftentimes in devising some cliched monologue to
accompany the work. Whether this particular application of the mind furthers the
creation of art .. I remain doubtful of it.
> And if there is - then any
> hint of intellectual activity it would be strenuously denied.
Apparently this is a sign of intellectual sophistication - to deny sophistication.
Who was it who said: "It is bourgeois to be afraid of being bourgeois"?
> The idea of
> explaining to someone why Vermeers 'girl with the pearl earring’ is such a
> tour de force and should include an understanding of drawing, color, design
> and texture is an anathema.
This is a consequence of the philosophical basis which allows movements like
Post-Modernism (and all categories that fit under that umbrella, presumably) to
flourish.
But here is the strage thing:
- apparently it is quite fine to admire the art of the Old Masters, but
inadvisable to paint in any similar fashion - this includes any attempt at
skillful representationalism or narrative;
- it is said that our young artists have as much freedom as they wish to create
whatever kind of art that they want ; but if their choice is to refine their
technique, then they are out in the cold - it is a case of "war of attrition" -
or, to put it differently, "starve them of the knowledge, and there will be no
contenders for the throne".
> And there you have it! To discern or appreciate beauty do we need to be a
> technician or not. Did I ever fall on love because I knew all about the object
> of my desires, or was it the opposite - the mystery?
We do not need to be a technician to appreciate beauty - but we need a technician
(read: artist) to create it.But the issue here is beauty. Apparently, beauty is
not good enough in our modern era. Beauty, according to some, is shallow,
superficial and spiritually harmful. Beauty has nothing on ugliness - ugliness
gets the mind thinking, it "pushes the boundaries", it "confronts the audience",
it "redefines the nature of <insert field here>".
These are the sort of excuses one meets with.
> Nevertheless, as a mixed up little panda bear, when I look at a cave painting
> I ask myself - how good was the artist?
For his time, the artist may have been good. But universally speaking? I find that
cave-art has little emotional sway over me, and less aesthetic appeal, barring one
or two particularly fine examples.
> remembering all the time that the
> Mona Lisa may well become the cave painting equivalent of the 30th century.
If we can judge the aesthetic beliefs of a time by the art that it produces, then
the Mona Lisa is already a cave painting. The kind of work produced in the
mainstream today would not even meet da Vinci's definition of "art".
> So really, what is that on the walls of caves, what is art, what is painting
> and will it last? John Hagan Cowdisley Institute.
Art is the expression of man's feelings towards something. This "something" could
be a beautiful landscape, a tragic scene from war, or simply one's reaction to a
story from mythology.
Good art (in the amoral sense) is that which expresses this "feeling/idea" in such
a way that people are deeply impressed with it. It is not "good art" if the idea
was to convey rage against an historical crime, and if the audience responds with
laughter or ridicule. The art, in this case, has failed in its purpose. And what
purpose is that? To COMMUNICATE!
The piece may not be aimed at any one person or even group - it is aimed at that
vast amorphous mass we sometimes dub Humanity - but in reality, the artist is
aiming the work (when not specifically commissioned) at a reflection of himself
that he CALLS Humanity. This is humanity for him. What moves him, what stirs his
emotions - these are the things he is aiming to do. Because, first of all, it is
the duty of the artist to MOVE HIMSELF. It is not enough to have the intangible
idea - it must be given form, and given form in the most effective way.
Some may argue that abstraction is the ideal form for art - that it "pares art
down to its essentials", "cuts off the dross", "removes the distractions". Okay.
That's fine. If life and beauty and comprehensibility is a distraction, then it
should be excised. If the simple (but profound) joy of the communication between
artist and audience is a distraction, then by all means, cut it out, remove it,
abstract it out of existence. How curious that in the thousands of years of
Humankind's struggle to evolve, we hadn't realized that miasmic exhalations and
pyrotechnical blobs were in fact the pinnacle of artistic creation.
Or, if all that Abstract Expressionist stuff is "old hat", or "passe", then let us
consider Post-Modern art, that great so-called uniter of disparaties.
But I am out of time for now. More later.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
JRothen318
painting (as in the Dordogne) would ask - is this art? It is quite clear that
this is not some graffiti done by some itinerant scrawler. This society
obviously chose those with special talents and abilities to depict the animals
in these settings. These are done in deep caves where lighting equipment would
have to be brought in (torches) and all the materials for the paintings
themselves. To imply that one must attend "academies" or study with "artists"
and come from a highly developed society to be called an "artist" is to have
quite a limiting vision of art.
Brother Alphabet
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 jha...@om.com.au wrote:
> Everyone runs about proclaiming recently discovered squiggles on cliff walls
> 'art'. I wonder what Rembrant would have said?
Rembrandt: Oy! Looky here at these cave paintings. (English Translation)
> The 'Oxford' says art is a skill that demands the exercise of the mind and
> the imagination.
You had to look it up in the dictionary?
> A carpenter or a stone mason can be apprenticed and learn a
> skill. To contend that Adam or Hepplewhite knew nothing about dovetail joints
> would be like saying Wright knew nothing about cantilevers.
Carpentry, Masonry and Architecture aren't art forms, so this is a valid
but irrelevant point.
> True art, the Oxford contends, combines the exercise of the mind and
> imagination and is predicated on the grasp and extension of some
> particular discipline.
Or not. If art stuck to a singular definition, half the debates on this
list would have never been, and most of the rest of the posts would just
be spam for somebody's web pages. The "Oxford" is a book (Or rather a huge
and enviable collection of books) and does not itself paint.
> So is cave painting skilful, and is it 'art?'
> Mnn ... if we do not agree on the previous terms of definition then any
> further discussion is useless.
I don't think many people agree on the defnition of art. Further
discussion is not useless, but putting all the art that ever was in one
box is.
What was done "before history" was probably not even CONSIDERED "art" by
those who made it, for there was no such notion as there is in modern
times. The cave-dwellers did not sit about pondering the social
implications of making the Bison have huge genetalia prior to painting the
walls (Well, I wasn't THERE so I don't KNOW if they did or didn't consider
the above, but I think it can be generally agreed that such discussions
were highly unlikely, considering the fact that there was no spoken nor
written language at the time.)
One thing left off the almighty Oxford definition is the matter of
the intent of the creator. It mentions that an object considered art must
also be "predicated yada yada" but that is not always so, even in modern
times. I might make an image because I was compelled to make it, not
following any discipline yet still considering my image to be art.
Likewise, any individual may do something completely instinctively, not
knowing that what it does is artistic, nor that what it makes is art. How
shall we store this grain? Let us make a basket out of mud and
sticks...when it dries, it will hold the grain. Somehow fire is applied to
the basket, the wood burns away, the clay remains, hard-fired, and pottery
is born. Who knew then that this was the foundation of "Ceramics"?
Similarly, there is a desire within human beings to communicate. We can
even call this an instinct. How could we, as primitive humans, fulfill
this desire? First of all, we would grunt and gesture a heck of a
lot. These would all eventually be mimicked by our kind and
eventually when one person made a sound or gesture, all would
recognize that as an indicator of the same thing. When gathering berries,
we find that when we mash them they stain our fingers. We take some
flowers, crush them and they ,too, stain our fingers. So on and so
forth...Soon enough we figure out that we can keep track of the days by
marking their passing on the walls of our dwellings with the crushed
flowers and berries mixed with mud...when we go on a hunt and kill large
beasts, we make note of those events on the walls of our dwellings...and
when the weather is cold and we huddle inside, we recount our past
exploits to the young by acting out the tales scribbled on the walls.
After years of this, it becomes tradition...It becomes, even, religion.
Soon there are certain special places among our dwellings where we tell
our tales and where we paint new ones. The places are sacred, and only
certain of our ranks may witness them. It is a rite of passage to know the
works of the elders and the ancestors. Only the most bold, most brave may
tell a story there, and when a story is told, a handprint is painted there
as a symbol of the one who told it.
Cave paintings, while not scholarly or academic, or even stylistically
"disciplined" are far more than mere "art". They are the roots of human
expression...not only visual expression, but literary expression,
religious expression...They are a combination of history, religion,
literature, art, and how-to manuals. Such rites were the building blocks
of not only art, but of the alphabets, languages, social systems, laws,
governments, and technologies we eventually came to develop.
Most of all they are crucial elements of proof that homosapiens are the
most intelligent and profound creatures on the face of the earth.
> If not let
> us differentiate between the exercise of the mind and the imagination.
Any excersize of the imagination is, by default, an excersize of the mind.
> The mind provides the discipline -
No, the will of the individual provides the discipline. The will is, of
course, controlled by the mind, but recall that the imagination is also
the domain of the mind...If the individual wishes to bend and flex, then
it will. If not, it will not, or it will grudgingly. "Discipline" can be
looked at from numerous vantage points. If my discipline is to defy all
disciplines then what am I? Disciplined or not? It's more simply asked in
the question posed by someone I forget: "If I try to fail, and succeed,
what have I done?" In terms of "Art", it isn't as much a matter of failure
versus success as it is a matter of conventionalism versus
anti-conventionalism (just to fling an "ism" in at random).
> the imagination provides the new ways of
> looking at things.
The intelligent mind should (ideally) possess great imagination. However,
this has little to do with the ability to problem-solve. Look at the
various critters capable of solving relatively complex problems. Put a
monkey in a room with a bunch of crates and some food hanging on a
hook...the monkey will most likely stack the crates to get the food. A dog
will eventually figure out that bringing a leash into a room will get it
taken for a walk. The ability to think, at the base level, should allow
for an individual to solve problems by examining the situation and finding
the most efficient resolution, with or without imaginative ability.
> The modernists, post modernists, contemporaries etc.,
> endeavour to produce articles, paintings and installations that propose a new
> view - usually without any exercise of the mind. And if there is - then any
> hint of intellectual activity it would be strenuously denied.
I don't care about producing "new views". I only care about producing MY
view. If it is or is not new, I don't care. I know for a fact that a great
deal of what I do has been assimilated from what has come before. Very
little of what anyone does is really "new" anyway. I would also not deny
my own intellectual involvement in what I do. My work comes from an
initial compulsion followed by an "intellectual" analysis of what I have
done. Subsequent works are a combination of compulsion and inherited
intellectual pondering.
> The idea of
> explaining to someone why Vermeers 'girl with the pearl earring' is such
> a tour de force and should include an understanding of drawing, color,
> design and texture is an anathema.
I don't see how.
> And there you have it! To discern or appreciate beauty do we need to be a
> technician or not.
Noting and dissecting the technical aspects of a thing is only one way to
appreciate that thing. More accurately, the clinical approach is a way of
understanding a thing. When an old work is examined we learn about
everything from the way the artist held his or her brush to the chemical
consistencies of the pigments used in the painting.
In terms of beauty, though, how would a great work be diminished by
technical knowledge? After hearing all the technical and academic hoopla,
only a dolt would then be incapable of being breathtaken by a marvelous
work. Hearing about something and then seeing that same somthing have 2
separate effects on us...For one thing, technical data is absorbed in a
different way that a visual phenomenon would be.
> Did I ever fall on love because I knew all about the object
> of my desires, or was it the opposite - the mystery?
Probably a little of both.
You can't rationally "love" a person you have never met and do not know at
all. If you do, that's not called "love" it's called "stalking". Yet, on
the other hand, you cannot completely know any person. You cannot fully
comprehend what makes that person the person they are. There is a
mysterious aspect to everyone and the "Love" we feel comes from a
combination of "knowing" a person and the secondary DESIRE to know the
person better, more completely, without end. (And of course, they have to
look real hot, too. :) )
For example, most of us have heard the legendary efforts of Michelangelo
in painting the Cistine Chapel...He lay on his back on a scaffold for
years to paint it all...Then many of us also probably saw the restoration
efforts, how the bland-looking images we'd seen in books for so long were
really only soot-laden, and when cleaned were vivid and incredibly
alive...and around that same time we heard about the types of paint he
used, and more and more about how he was probably homosexual...tons and
tons of information on Michelangelo. Still, who could stand in that chapel
and say "Man, this sucks now that I know that he painted this on a
scaffold and was possibly gay..."? I have never had the pleasure of seeing
the chapel in person, but I can assure you that the power of the mystery
of its creation will be in full swing if I ever make it to Italy.
I mean, I know how he did it, but HOW di he DO it? ...Could *I* lie on a
scaffold for years to make a work? Could *I* pursue such an end so
devotedly. I mean, I am so lazy that I hate to paint without the right
music playing sometimes. As an artist, there are so many MORE things to
admire *because* of the technical information.
> Nevertheless, as a mixed up little panda bear, when I look at a cave painting
> I ask myself - how good was the artist?
If you have to ask, would you know the answer if you heard it?
Cave people weren't black-wearing nose-piercing wana-be intellectuals.
Their work does not fall under the same microscope...There is no need for
critical analysis of cave-paintings for that is not the point of their
being appreciated and of their being placed on high as road-marks of human
achievement.
> remembering all the time that the
> Mona Lisa may well become the cave painting equivalent of the 30th century.
I doubt that art (or society) will make such an advance anytime soon, nor
even in the next 1000 years. Right now, we are at a panicked stand-still.
Our creative engines have ground to a near halt and instead of moving
forward, we are re-hashing the past...Re-making pop-culture that was
barely tolerable in the first place. The way society is moving, it will be
amazing if the Mona Lisa is even widely recognized in the future. DaVinci?
What team does he play for? What movie was he in? That is the future of
at least American society.
> So really, what is that on the walls of caves, what is art, what is painting
> and will it last? John Hagan Cowdisley Institute.
Considering the fact that you have currently posed a question about
paintings that are beyond ancient, don't you think the above question is
pretty ironic? ... You have defined art for us in your reference to
"Oxford's" ... The question, apparently, is one you should ask yourself
and subsequently find the answer to *for* yourself.
What is art? Is it the thing described in the dictionary? Or is it the
force of the instinctive human desire to communicate - primordial residue,
comprehended and relived by some, misunderstood by many?
What is painting? Simple: It is the application of a substance, usually
pigmented, to a surface with the desire to alter, augment, or improve that
surface's appearance. Open ended? Vague? Sure. Andy Warhol had people
peeing on canvasses...Cave People smeared mud and berry juice on walls...
Will it last? Well, who did the painting?
Will "painting" in general last? Why wouldn't it? We cannot escape
ourselves. We cannot evade our instincts. We must communicate,
express...If our society decayed all the way back to living in caves and
trees, and we had no language, no culture, no law...If no one remembered
anything and we were cast into the wilderness, ignorant and naked...What
would happen then? Would we not soon discover that berries, when crushed,
stain our fingers? Would we not soon begin to re-evolve with expression
the basis of our development?
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Perchten93
~Perchten93
"America had been discovered before Columbus, but it had always been hushed
up." ~Oscar Wilde
Larry Seiler
have assigned meaning to. Such symbols made had meaning for the one
putting it upon the wall. It served as a means to also communicate.
A word 200 years ago perhaps had total continuity for its community of
hearers that today might be meaningless. The word "gay" at one time meant
simply joy or happy exhilaration. Today....its redefined definition
cautions one against flippant crass use turning to debate and division.
What may have been once understood as art or commanded respect no doubt
risks later denouncing.
What we need to be concerned about is what happens when we disconnect
ourselves from the past and sit as its judge. When one defines themselves
by themselves and loses respect for the past, one risks being enthralled by
their own reflection like our friend Narcissus.
Larry
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
(site under temporary home page modifications)
Marilyn
M
jha...@om.com.au
reports of significant discoveries of 'art' in the form of a multitutde of
various artefacts and scratched or daubed images.
I was concerned with the use of the word 'art' when referring to all such
discoveries.
One day I saw a report of a finding of two almost identical oval shaped bone
fragments estimated at over 100 thousand years old. The archaeologists had no
doubt they were fashioned by human hands... and there was much speculation
as to their significance ... until one expert proclaimed they may be the
frames for and early pair of sunglasses.
This story underlines why the practice of proclaiming meaning or nominating
'art' from such a distance is so fraught and meaningless.
‘Cave paintings’ should be called just that.
Regards,
John Hagan
http://www.om.com.au/cowdisley
G*rd*n
| What prompted me to ask the question 'is cave painting art' were the daily
| reports of significant discoveries of 'art' in the form of a multitutde of
| various artefacts and scratched or daubed images.
|
| I was concerned with the use of the word 'art' when referring to all such
| discoveries.
It's probably incorrect in the sense that the makers would
not have conceptualized the marks in that way -- although
we really don't know.
| One day I saw a report of a finding of two almost identical oval shaped bone
| fragments estimated at over 100 thousand years old. The archaeologists had no
| doubt they were fashioned by human hands... and there was much speculation
| as to their significance ... until one expert proclaimed they may be the
| frames for and early pair of sunglasses.
|
| This story underlines why the practice of proclaiming meaning or nominating
| 'art' from such a distance is so fraught and meaningless.
| ‘Cave paintings’ should be called just that.
I don't see why you say that. The Innuit used to make
sunglasses by carving narrow openings in a flat piece of bone
which they then tied over their eyes. While the speculation
you mention sounds pretty fanciful, it's not completely out
of the question. Although our particular conceptualization
of _art_ is almost certainly different from anything anyone
thought about 100,000 years ago, my guess is that we have a
desire to shield our eyes from bright sunlight very much in
common with them.
Susan Halt
>'art' from such a distance is so fraught and meaningless.
>‘Cave paintings’ should be called just that.
>
ambiguis and conflicting meanings, invented in some other century. It
doesn't signify anything in particular anymore. Let's not call anything
art. Let's just see things for what they are! What a liberating idea!
S'alt
gavin
bone
>fragments estimated at over 100 thousand years old. The archaeologists had
no
>doubt they were fashioned by human hands... and there was much speculation
>as to their significance ... until one expert proclaimed they may be the
>frames for and early pair of sunglasses.
Since when are sunglasses not sgnificant? Since when are sunglasses not art?
What were the lenses made of anyway? What is the point? After somebody
said the might be sunglasses (absurd) nobody ever speculated about the
significance of bone fragments again. Bone fragments are fashioned by
hands? Sorry what are you trying to say? Cave painting isn't art?
Actually nobody made art until the 18th century, late in the 18th century.
And we stopped doing it in the early twentieth century. Yeah, that's right.
Geezer.
Gavin
Marilyn
> Re: Is cave painting art?
>
> References:
> [4]<6r925k$52g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> [5]<6rbbj6$s...@newsops.execpc.com>
>
>What prompted me to ask the question 'is cave painting art' were the daily
>reports of significant discoveries of 'art' in the form of a multitutde of
>various artefacts and scratched or daubed images.
>
>I was concerned with the use of the word 'art' when referring to all such
>discoveries.
>
>fragments estimated at over 100 thousand years old. The archaeologists had no
>doubt they were fashioned by human hands... and there was much speculation
>as to their significance ... until one expert proclaimed they may be the
>frames for and early pair of sunglasses.
>
>'art' from such a distance is so fraught and meaningless.
>‘Cave paintings’ should be called just that.
>
>John Hagan
Well, I agree with what you are saying. In fact is there a more misused
word than "art." Your post also reminds me of all the "digs" that are
going on, with idle rich people spending thousands for permission to
dig with the archeologists. My response is "leave it where it is."
When does it switch from archeology to grave robbing? At what point in
time. There are digs in my country of people who have living ancestors.
So, yes, cave paintings are "cave paintings."
Some could be called "graffitti."
au revoir
Marilyn
Marilyn
rec.fine.whining?
rec.fine.anything?
rec.it.all?
: )
bye now
M
Bob C
>
> What prompted me to ask the question 'is cave painting art' were the daily
> reports of significant discoveries of 'art' in the form of a multitutde of
> various artefacts and scratched or daubed images.
>
> I was concerned with the use of the word 'art' when referring to all such
> discoveries.
>
It isn't art until we ask the question "is it art?". Then it becomes
art.
This is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of art: the act of
questioning if something is art changes that thing into art, regardless
of what it was before we asked the question.
- Bob C.
Brother Alphabet
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Susan Halt wrote:
> So why bother calling anything 'art'. The word itself is a symbol that has
> ambiguis...
Is 'ambiguis' pronounced "ambigwee' or is that a typo? (not a snide
remark, just curious...)
The ambiguosity (is that a word or a typo?) of something does not nullify
its existence. I myself am quite ambiguous. Does that mean I do not exist?
Do I exist? Oh, snap...*Do* I exist? How do I know I exist? More
importantly, how do other people know I exist? Or is that important? Well,
yes, for my ego demands immortality, therefore I must exist in order to
have immortality, and to exist in the first place, other people must
acknowledge the fact that I do indeed exist.
Oop! I'm so shallow I seem deep.
> and conflicting meanings, invented in some other century...
A great many phrases, ideas, things - were coined, conjured and created in
some other century. Does that alone make them useless? In a couple of
years, all of US will be things created in other centuries! What will that
mean?
See, the debate over what is or is not art is what is important. The
ANSWER to the question doesn't really matter a hill of beets. Surely I
myself am guilty of arguing my own viewpoints on the subject, but even
though I act and sound as though I think I'm always right, I am no more or
less correct that the rest of the idiots out there arguing the same point.
As in most matters of intellectual substance, the vitality of the issue is
in posing the question, pondering the question and in coming up with and
rearranging various possible answers. The question will NEVER be answered
and that is something for which we all should be thankful.
If there ever WAS a concise and widely accepted answer, how awfully boring
would art become?
> It doesn't signify anything in particular anymore.
The term "art" does indeed signify something. The general term is often
misused, but the purified application of "Art" (capital A) represents the
collective creative achievements of all humankind. It is relevant to us to
understand our ancestry, to feel the pulse of our contemporaries and to
provide a glimpse of our consciousness to our descendants.
Does that sound a bit flowery?
Well, then...er..."Art" is a useful term for justifying what it is I do
with huge chunks of my time. How else would I explain myself to people who
ask "What *IS* that?"...
> Let's not call anything art. Let's just see things for what they are!
> What a liberating idea!
Liberating - until one encounters a large piece of cloth stretched over a
wooden frame with this hardened petroleum-based substance smeared onto it
in a seemingly ordered fashion which, from a distance, seems to represent
a female human wearing no clothing, reclined on a chais lounge eating
grapes (or some other awful figurative thing...Well, she's not EATING
some other awful figurative thing...er...)
If I see an object like the one (sort of) described above, what do I
think? I'll take as given that the object is not "art"...So how would it
be described? If I wish to see it for what it is, what is it I see? If
it's a painting, what exactly is a painting? If "paintings" do not exist
either, what then?
jha...@om.com.au
'art' is equivalent to making a judgement on ethics. If I 'owe' (by a fearful
analysis of my bank statment)$10, should I pay it or should I book a passage
on the next freighter to Brazil? I see no moral imperative in the analysis
but any act would indicate a judgement that describes a belief. Maybe I am
Humearian in this but I tend to see the message as a synthetic statement and
the method as an analytic construction (as in 2=2=4 or the mix yellow + blue
= green). If I tell a story (or paint a narrative) ... say a scene depicting
the good samaritan helping some less fortunate, does it mean I recommend
being my brother's keeper? Of course not! Ask yourself, were Carraviggo,
Leonardo or Titian altered by the nature of thier religious commissions
(paintings)? If they were they hid it well. Artists don’t necessarily have
warm hearts.The practice of painting is critical analysis; it is in essence
analytic, and therefore by definition it cannot be tainted by the message. So
all those looking for shortcuts to get your message across are doomed to
ignominy wheather you be cave painters or otherwise.
Regards,
John
jha...@om.com.au
Ah... Marilyn don't be a cynic. Life is but the passing shadow on a bright
summers hillside. To enjoy, to discover, to be.. is everything. Love the time
you spend here and believe death is the shadow in someone elses meomory. John
Hagan
Susan Halt
art, then what is it?
Ron
Monet's "Sunrise"? Maybe we could call THAT Cave Painting, in the
Platonic sense? No? Anyway, what would be the benefit of calling it
art?
Sue
Aidan Campbell
>It isn't art until we ask the question "is it art?". Then it becomes
>art.
>
>This is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of art: the act of
>questioning if something is art changes that thing into art, regardless
>of what it was before we asked the question.
>
>- Bob C.
(and is not) in the first place, Bob? For instance (to follow your
method for a moment) is it d-FPFO? Now it has become d-FPFO (and of
course we are all aware of what d-FPFO is already, aren't we?).
Surely art should be distinguished primarily from a chronological
predecessor, artefact. An artefact is an image made for a use (whether
religious, agricultural, hunting, decorative, etc). Art, on the other
hand, has no use at all - it is made purely for it's own aesthetic sake.
Initially, then, it requires a society which has developed a class which
considers work to be utterly repugnant (such as found in societies based
upon slavery) to develop art as opposed to artefact. Therefore I think
that, if cave paintings were done for religious reasons - say, to
improve success at hunting - then they should be considered to be
artefacts rather than art.
Aidan Campbell
Marilyn
> Re: Is cave painting art?
>
> Reply to: [1]Aidan Campbell
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:13:08 +0100
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<6r925k$52g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> [5]<6rbbj6$s...@newsops.execpc.com>
> [7]<35DB09...@erols.com>
>
>In article [8]<35DB09...@erols.com>, Bob C <bob...@erols.com> writes
I thought the root word was artifice rather than artifact.
I would like to see the shamanistic power of images,
and artifice worked into the discussion. Anyone?
Marilyn
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Aidan Campbell wrote:
> Surely art should be distinguished primarily from a chronological
> predecessor, artefact. An artefact is an image made for a use (whether
> religious, agricultural, hunting, decorative, etc).
This is what historians tell us artefacts are. Who really knows how many
of these objects were really crafted just for the heck of it...artefacts
for artefact's sake?
> Art, on the other hand, has no use at all - it is made purely for it's
> own aesthetic sake.
You are replacing a historical point of view with a particularly
artist-related one. As an artist, you might produce objects which you feel
have no use, or which were made for the sake of making them...
A histroian 100 years from now might think otherwise.
Besides, if something is created for any aesthetic, does that object not
have a decorative function in some capacity? I make a painting which I
then hang on a wall. There's a physical use. There are also numerous
intangible uses for art - most of which historians will only guess at.
> Initially, then, it requires a society which has developed a class which
> considers work to be utterly repugnant (such as found in societies based
> upon slavery) to develop art as opposed to artefact.
This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Which societies, at some point
or other, did not partake in slavery in some form or fashion? In the
modern USA work is repugnant to a large portion of our society, yet it is
rarely they who make art. A coca-cola bottle would be an artefact
of our society to an archaeologist 1000 years from now. Attitude toward
work has little to do with whether an object is art or artefact.
> Therefore I think
> that, if cave paintings were done for religious reasons - say, to
> improve success at hunting - then they should be considered to be
> artefacts rather than art.
OK, so a massive group of "art"-works will now be reclassified as
"artefacts" because they were done for religious reasons?
Is all of this a joke or are you coming from somewhere?
Bob C
>
> But how can we ever ask that question unless we are aware of what art is
> (and is not) in the first place, Bob? For instance (to follow your
> method for a moment) is it d-FPFO? Now it has become d-FPFO (and of
> course we are all aware of what d-FPFO is already, aren't we?).
>
When we look at cave paintings, we recognize them as such, and because
of that recognition we cannot help but treat them as artifacts.
Artifacts with artistic qualities, perhaps, but artifacts nevertheless.
As soon as we ask the question "are they art?", however, we immediately
change the way we are looking at them. During the time we are asking
that question, we are thinking about them as art, and thus they become
art.
Whether the people who created them thought about them as art or not is
an entirely different matter and probably something for which we will
never have a definitive answer. In saying this I do not mean to deny the
wonderful qualities these paintings have and the obvious skill and
dedication which went into creating them, but simply to point out that
they may have been created for reasons which have nothing to do with our
modern understanding of art.
I suppose a lot of this boils down to whether or not the quality of
being art is something which is inherent in the artifact or is based
entirely on how we think of and treat that artifact. I think it is the
latter, which is why anything we think of as art immediately becomes art
(just ask Duchamp). The usefulness of the question "is it art" is not in
the yes/no answer, but in the experience brought about by asking the
question.
> Surely art should be distinguished primarily from a chronological
> predecessor, artefact. An artefact is an image made for a use (whether
> religious, agricultural, hunting, decorative, etc). Art, on the other
> hand, has no use at all - it is made purely for it's own aesthetic sake.
> Initially, then, it requires a society which has developed a class which
> considers work to be utterly repugnant (such as found in societies based
> upon slavery) to develop art as opposed to artefact. Therefore I think
> that, if cave paintings were done for religious reasons - say, to
> improve success at hunting - then they should be considered to be
> artefacts rather than art.
>
Like most attempts to define art, this would unravel upon closer
inspection. An art object is a chronological predecessor and therefore
is both art and artifact. Many purely utilitarian objects contain
elements created for purely aesthetic reasons. And much art is created
with very specific uses in mind - this is certainly the case of anything
decorating a cathedral. It was done for religious reasons, but would you
really dare suggest that the Sistine Chapel ceiling isn't art??? ;)
- Bob C.
Aidan Campbell
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>
>On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Aidan Campbell wrote:
>
>> predecessor, artefact. An artefact is an image made for a use (whether
>> religious, agricultural, hunting, decorative, etc).
>
>of these objects were really crafted just for the heck of it...artefacts
>for artefact's sake?
>
>> own aesthetic sake.
>
>artist-related one. As an artist, you might produce objects which you feel
>have no use, or which were made for the sake of making them...
>
>A histroian 100 years from now might think otherwise.
>
>Besides, if something is created for any aesthetic, does that object not
>have a decorative function in some capacity? I make a painting which I
>then hang on a wall. There's a physical use. There are also numerous
>intangible uses for art - most of which historians will only guess at.
>
Thank you for your early reply. However, if you are inclined to permit
the word 'art' to mean anything, then naturally it will never mean
something. Will it?
And rather than speculate upon what other people might say about art -
or even honourable posterity - let us deal with the issue ourselves,
shall we?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Initially, then, it requires a society which has developed a class which
>> considers work to be utterly repugnant (such as found in societies based
>> upon slavery) to develop art as opposed to artefact.
>
>This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Which societies, at some point
>or other, did not partake in slavery in some form or fashion? In the
>modern USA work is repugnant to a large portion of our society, yet it is
>rarely they who make art. A coca-cola bottle would be an artefact
>of our society to an archaeologist 1000 years from now. Attitude toward
>work has little to do with whether an object is art or artefact.
--------------------------------------------------
You are probably correct about all this, but then I did start my
paragraph on how art originally developed in society with the word
'initially'. It's a small word - and easily missed - but an important
one. I was talking about how the idea of art developed in the first
place.
Once a tradition has been established in one society of producing art
for no functional reason at all, then any kind of society could follow
then this initiative, potentially. (NB: please note the use of the word
'potentially').
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Therefore I think
>> that, if cave paintings were done for religious reasons - say, to
>> improve success at hunting - then they should be considered to be
>> artefacts rather than art.
>
>OK, so a massive group of "art"-works will now be reclassified as
>"artefacts" because they were done for religious reasons?
>
>Is all of this a joke or are you coming from somewhere?
---------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, from the tone of your initial sentences, I would presume
you wouldn't much care if they were so re-labelled as artefacts.
Secondly, why assume that paintings that have a religious content are
done for religious reasons? As you so rightly make clear yourself: "As
an artist, you might produce objects which you feel have no use, or
which were made for the sake of making them." But then such an artist is
not typical of all human societies, but a particular society in which
the individual personality is asserting itself in its own right. It was
an unfortunate feature of history that such individuals came to the fore
in societies that were often based on slave systems. [NB note the use of
the word 'often'].
Yes I do come from somewhere - London, England.
--
Aidan Campbell
SSKYL...@aol.com
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
I myself am quite ambiguous. Does that mean I do not exist?
> Do I exist? Oh, snap...*Do* I exist? How do I know I exist? More
> importantly, how do other people know I exist? Or is that important?
You post, therefore you exist. (?) I reply, therefore you exist. (?)
Actually, I think my acknowledgment is unnecessary to your existence because
you had to have already been in existence _before_ I replied in order for
there to have been a message to which I _could_ reply.
Isn't that liberating?
The act of creating your message is sufficient proof of your existence, the
reply is just a nice gratuity.
- Laramie
SSKYL...@aol.com
jha...@om.com.au wrote:
> What prompted me to ask the question 'is cave painting art' were the daily
> reports of significant discoveries of 'art' in the form of a multitutde of
> various artefacts and scratched or daubed images.
'Art' is a word that has different meanings to different people and in
different contexts. In some contexts, such as that of archeology it can mean
anything made by artifice,i.e.: made with a vision or preconceived plan or
intention.
Those of us who consider ourselves artists tend to use the word in a sense
that doesn't always make sense to others. It can be difficult communicating
distinctions between art and craft, for instance, to someone who doesn't
engage in both activities, and the distinction is very often a fuzzy one at
that.
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Aidan Campbell wrote:
> Thank you for your early reply. However, if you are inclined to permit
> the word 'art' to mean anything, then naturally it will never mean
> something. Will it?
Art will mean anything whether or not my permission is granted. If I had
control over it's definition, I'm sure I'd ruin a few parades.
> And rather than speculate upon what other people might say about art -
> or even honourable posterity - let us deal with the issue ourselves,
> shall we?
To me, "Art" means one thing. That's about all I can afford to worry
about. A while back I resolved to let go my desire to affect change in
reference to what the world accepts as "art" so that I might stay sane.
> You are probably correct about all this, but then I did start my
> paragraph on how art originally developed in society with the word
> 'initially'. It's a small word - and easily missed - but an important
> one. I was talking about how the idea of art developed in the first
> place.
There is no foundation for your statement...whether or not a culture
"initially" practiced slavery has no bearing upon the sorts of artforms
they came to develop. Societal work ethic also has no universal effect
upon that society's artistic norms.
> Once a tradition has been established in one society of producing art
> for no functional reason at all, then any kind of society could follow
> then this initiative, potentially. (NB: please note the use of the word
> 'potentially').
I have yet to see a nonfunctional work of art. Use of "potential" noted.
> First of all, from the tone of your initial sentences, I would presume
> you wouldn't much care if they were so re-labelled as artefacts.
There is no real difference between "art" and "artefact" anyway, so I
don't suppose I would have a problem with that...Although I also don't see
the point of such classification.
An artefact is any object representative of a culture. It could be a stone
axe, or a spoon or a painting.
> Secondly, why assume that paintings that have a religious content are
> done for religious reasons?
I don't think I assumed or even said that.
> As you so rightly make clear yourself: "As
> an artist, you might produce objects which you feel have no use, or
> which were made for the sake of making them."
Yes, and I was adressing you, specifically. Anyone MIGHT do anything, but
most folks don't have the ability to read minds, certainly not those minds
which died centuries ago.
Why do you assume that a work with religious content has nothing to do
with religion?
> But then such an artist is
> not typical of all human societies, but a particular society in which
> the individual personality is asserting itself in its own right.
Which artist is typical of all societies?
Individual and artistic personalities exist in most societies, so how
could a blanket rule apply to any artform? Such a rule coupled with such
an exception ("The culture makes functionless 'art' unless that culture
never had slaves, in which case it made artefacts...oh, and of course if
the useless art was religious in nature, then, even if the culture had
slaves, that's an artefact, too....") makes classification slightly
irksome don't you think?
> It was
> an unfortunate feature of history that such individuals came to the fore
> in societies that were often based on slave systems. [NB note the use of
> the word 'often'].
I can't think of a significant civilization that did not at one time or
another use and benefit from slave labor.
> Yes I do come from somewhere - London, England.
Yes, but can you find it on a map?
Susan Halt
are art.
Just because they are the culmination of human effort to describe the
world.
Ron
Art is part of the world. Is the "culmination of human effort to
describe" art art? Ron writes art, "just because"?
Sue?
Iian Neill
> describe" art art? Ron writes art, "just because"?
No, but it can sometimes be literature.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
SSKYL...@aol.com
bob...@erols.com wrote:
> When we look at cave paintings, we recognize them as such, and because
> of that recognition we cannot help but treat them as artifacts.
> Artifacts with artistic qualities, perhaps, but artifacts nevertheless.
>
> As soon as we ask the question "are they art?", however, we immediately
> change the way we are looking at them. During the time we are asking
> that question, we are thinking about them as art, and thus they become
> art.
>
In this discussion people are presuming that there is some quantifiable
difference between art and artifact. Since the same object, in this instance
a cave painting, could be considered either depending on what was in the mind
of the creator at the time of its creation then that factor is clearly the
decisive one. In a sense the question is moot, since we don't _know_ what was
going on in the mind of the cave-person other than what is shown to us in the
work itself.
But the work does suggest something of the mind of its creator. The work
conveys grace: the mind of the creator perceived grace; it carries an
emotional or spiritual impact: the mind of the creator knew emotional and
spiritual realities of which we can gain a hint from the work. The work
conveys a message that tells us of the perceptions and feelings of the
creator; it acts as a communication across millenia. This is 'art' enough for
me, even if the creator didn't intend it as such.
I've often considered 'art' as the swiss-army knife of the mind: it can take
on many shapes, serve many functions, define itself in many ways. One of the
chief functions, though is in how it can communicate the otherwise unknowable
sense of what it is to see with another's eyes, or know the experience of
another mind/heart/soul in the world. With a broad enough vision one can see
any made thing as an object of art.
- Laramie Sasseville
mdeli
<ai...@zola.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <35DB09...@erols.com>, Bob C <bob...@erols.com> writes
>>It isn't art until we ask the question "is it art?". Then it becomes
>>art.
>>
>>This is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of art: the act of
>>questioning if something is art changes that thing into art, regardless
>>of what it was before we asked the question.
>>
>>- Bob C.
>But how can we ever ask that question unless we are aware of what art is
>(and is not) in the first place, Bob? For instance (to follow your
>method for a moment) is it d-FPFO? Now it has become d-FPFO (and of
>course we are all aware of what d-FPFO is already, aren't we?).
Etc. etc. etc.
That's why the "is it art question" is a total waste of time. It is
usually a ploy used by blow-bag aesthetes to go on forever into higher
Artspeak obfuscation.
According to Cantor if I ask whether a piece of shit is art it becomes
art. Sure its art Cantor but its also crap.
The important question which Modern Academics avoid like poison is; IS
IT ANY GOOD?
However, one can't really blame them. They have so much crap to deal
with.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
SSKYL...@aol.com
> > considers work to be utterly repugnant (such as found in societies based
> > upon slavery) to develop art as opposed to artefact.
>
> This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Which societies, at some point
> or other, did not partake in slavery in some form or fashion? In the
> modern USA work is repugnant to a large portion of our society, yet it is
> rarely they who make art. A coca-cola bottle would be an artefact
> of our society to an archaeologist 1000 years from now. Attitude toward
> work has little to do with whether an object is art or artefact.
>
I agree that it's rarely those who find work repugnant who create art; art is
a more exalted form of work in which the aim of the work is as much in the
process as in the result. This is why the work of the finest craftsmen and
women approaches art, and why artists too lazy to develop technique produce
crap.
Even a coca-cola bottle shares some traits with an object of art: it does
reveal something of the aesthetic sensibilities of its designer. The main
difference between such artifacts and what a Fine Artist calls art is in that
process of refinement that distinguishes these aesthetic sensibilities from
the confusing factors of the vessel's utilitarian function. The coke bottle
design is constrained by the need to hold coke and fit on a shelf and
accommodate the expectations of customers, where the creation of an object of
fine art is guided by the artist's creative perception alone (ideally, at
least.)
SSKYL...@aol.com
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Aidan Campbell wrote:
>
>>
> > paragraph on how art originally developed in society with the word
> > 'initially'. It's a small word - and easily missed - but an important
> > one. I was talking about how the idea of art developed in the first
> > place.
>
> There is no foundation for your statement...whether or not a culture
> "initially" practiced slavery has no bearing upon the sorts of artforms
> they came to develop. Societal work ethic also has no universal effect
> upon that society's artistic norms.
I think you are arguing about the concept of leisure. A society - or an
individual artist - requires some leisure from simple survival tasks in order
to develop art as a non-utilitarian activity. But this does not require
slavery. The bushmen of the Kalahari, for instance, live in a primitive
hunter-gatherer society without slaves, but only work about four hours a day,
and have lots of leisure for making art and artifacts.
Aidan Campbell
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>Why do you assume that a work with religious content has nothing to do
>with religion?
>
religion'. This is an interesting example of your polemical technique,
which is either black and white, with nothing grey allowed in between.
In medieval times, artists could only paint the nude if it was set in a
relgious context.
>> But then such an artist is
>> not typical of all human societies, but a particular society in which
>> the individual personality is asserting itself in its own right.
>
>Which artist is typical of all societies?
>Individual and artistic personalities exist in most societies, so how
>could a blanket rule apply to any artform? Such a rule coupled with such
>an exception ("The culture makes functionless 'art' unless that culture
>never had slaves, in which case it made artefacts...oh, and of course if
>the useless art was religious in nature, then, even if the culture had
>slaves, that's an artefact, too....") makes classification slightly
>irksome don't you think?
---------------------------------------------
Here we go again. I did not say there was an artist that is typical of
all human societies. I did say that the individual artist is not typical
of all human societies.
But here is the nub of the matter, so thanks for that. I do not agree
that individual and artistic personalties exist in most societies.
People are individuals, but in most societies they exist as members of a
highly controlled community who follow the customs, or are
expelled/exiled/killed. Only with the development of civilisation, does
the individual personality potentially arise.
>> It was
>> an unfortunate feature of history that such individuals came to the fore
>> in societies that were often based on slave systems. [NB note the use of
>> the word 'often'].
>
>I can't think of a significant civilization that did not at one time or
>another use and benefit from slave labor.
It depends upon what you mean by 'at one time or another'. Do you mean
that if a particular country EVER had a slave system then all succeeding
societies in that country can be said to have use and benefit from slave
labour? I prefer the more limited case of describing a society a slave
system if it actually possesses slaves (or runs slave colonies, say in
the West Indies). By that definition, the Renaissance was not based upon
slavery. I believe that your country was founded upon the destruction of
a slave system during the Civil War.
>> Yes I do come from somewhere - London, England.
>
>Yes, but can you find it on a map?
--------------------------------------------------
For me, this sort of personal abuse is a useful barometer of the
pressure that my arguments are exerting. So the more of it, the merrier,
from my point of view.
--
Aidan Campbell
Aidan Campbell
<hug...@interlog.com> writes
>On Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:13:08 +0100, Aidan Campbell
><ai...@zola.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <35DB09...@erols.com>, Bob C <bob...@erols.com> writes
>>>It isn't art until we ask the question "is it art?". Then it becomes
>>>art.
>>>
>>>This is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of art: the act of
>>>questioning if something is art changes that thing into art, regardless
>>>of what it was before we asked the question.
>>>
>>>- Bob C.
>>But how can we ever ask that question unless we are aware of what art is
>>(and is not) in the first place, Bob? For instance (to follow your
>>method for a moment) is it d-FPFO? Now it has become d-FPFO (and of
>>course we are all aware of what d-FPFO is already, aren't we?).
>
>Etc. etc. etc.
>
>That's why the "is it art question" is a total waste of time. It is
>usually a ploy used by blow-bag aesthetes to go on forever into higher
>Artspeak obfuscation.
>
>According to Cantor if I ask whether a piece of shit is art it becomes
>art. Sure its art Cantor but its also crap.
>
>The important question which Modern Academics avoid like poison is; IS
>IT ANY GOOD?
>
art around today? If not, why not?
>However, one can't really blame them. They have so much crap to deal
>with.
>--
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
>
>Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art
>at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
--
Aidan Campbell
Brother Alphabet
> ...which is either black and white, with nothing grey allowed in
> between.
There really is no "grey area" in any debate. "Grey areas" are those
postulates or ideas invented by people too spineless to make a firm
decision.
Is this fire hot? Well, that's a grey area...to me, it might be hot, while
to a person living on the sun, it might be cold.
> In medieval times, artists could only paint the nude if it was set in a
> relgious context.
I'm sure no one ever broke that rule.
And, just because that rule might or might not have been, what leads you
to believe that the artists didn't make works of religious value ANYWAY?
> Here we go again. I did not say there was an artist that is typical of
> all human societies. I did say that the individual artist is not typical
> of all human societies.
Saying that something is not typical implies that there exists a
comparable thing which IS typical, otherwise how would you know the thing
was atypical in the first place?
The statement above: "...the individual artist is not typical of all human
societies" means virtually nothing...you have, in short, stated the
obvious.
> But here is the nub of the matter, so thanks for that. I do not agree
> that individual and artistic personalties exist in most societies.
This might be true in London, England - but unless you have met every
person on the globe, or have lived for years in every single society on
earth, I don't think you can credibly claim this trait of other places.
> People are individuals, but in most societies they exist as members of a
> highly controlled community who follow the customs, or are
> expelled/exiled/killed.
These are 2 separate social phenomenons here.
Individuality and social responsibility are not conjunctively indicative
of some sort of submissiveness to big brother.
Most social systems have "norms" and "mores" as anyone who's taken
Sociology 101 knows. Some of these are customs, and some are laws. Some
things are not laws, but are customarily frowned upon (taboos). If an
individual follows the norms he or she is not being "controlled", but only
doing what comes relatively naturally according to a lifetime of
environmental exposure.
There is no body of power residing over these norms beyond the collective
populace. It is not an act of aggression.
Of course, some norms/mores are laws, and if an individual commits a crime
that individual faces consequences, but there is STILL nothing in place to
stop an individual from doing what he or she wishes to do...or rather, we
are all free to violate as many norms as we wish.
As a result, the only individuals controlled by the system are those
afraid to violate norms when necessary, or when morally bound to do so.
I live my life under my own influence first and foremost. I follow the
norms/mores I choose to believe in and I ignore or even denouce the rest.
I am not unique in doing so. Most people with any substance whatsoever
live exactly the same way.
Further, I have never been exiled, expelled or killed for living my life
as I see fit according to my OWN mores and norms. Individual core beliefs
are the second item neglected by taking for granted that all in a society
follow and submit to a universal norm.
> Only with the development of civilisation, does
> the individual personality potentially arise.
How would civilization have ever developed if the former instance were so
overpoweringly present? The fact that it DID develop is all the proof
necessary to negate the point.
> >I can't think of a significant civilization that did not at one time or
> >another use and benefit from slave labor.
>
> It depends upon what you mean by 'at one time or another'.
"At some point in its history."
> Do you mean
> that if a particular country EVER had a slave system then all succeeding
> societies in that country can be said to have use and benefit from slave
> labour?
That would depend upon the gains gotten on the backs of the slaves, I
suppose.
> ...the Renaissance was not based upon slavery.
Sure it was.
What was the Renaissance all about? The rekindling of the greatness of the
Roman Empire...built by? Why, slaves of course. Without slaves, there
would have been no Roman Empire, and therefore no greatness to rekindle.
> I believe that your country was founded upon the destruction of
> a slave system during the Civil War.
I believe they teach some screwed up history in England.
The civil war came much later...There was this other war in which we beat
down this opressive monarchy from somewhere...I forget...anyway, that's
when the USA was established...1776 or thereabouts.
> >> Yes I do come from somewhere - London, England.
> >
> >Yes, but can you find it on a map?
> --------------------------------------------------
> For me, this sort of personal abuse is a useful barometer of the
> pressure that my arguments are exerting. So the more of it, the merrier,
> from my point of view.
Well, aren't you proud of yourself?
My remark was in response to your own snide remark (seen above) which was
in response to my asking "is this a joke or are you coming from
somewhere?".
It was also not intended to be personally abusive.
Marilyn
> Re: Is art art?
>
> From: jha...@om.com.au
> Reply to: [1]jha...@om.com.au
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:01:28 GMT
> Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>In article [5]<35dae...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> Marilyn wrote:
>> So what would you call this newsgroup?
>>
>> rec.fine.whining?
>> rec.fine.anything?
>> rec.it.all?
>>
>> : )
>>
>> bye now
>>
>> M
>>
>
>Ah... Marilyn don't be a cynic. Life is but the passing shadow on a bright
>summers hillside. To enjoy, to discover, to be.. is everything. Love the time
>you spend here and believe death is the shadow in someone elses meomory. John
>Hagan
Thank you John Hagan,
what a poetic response!
Although cynicism is in my blood,
I do appreciate this "passing shadow
on a bright summer's hillside" and
my enthusiasm for all that it has to
offer, at times overwhelms me
(and my friends).
au revoir
Marilyn
--
* Marilyn Welch *
wq...@victoria.tc.ca
Victoria BC Canada
Bob C
>
> > As soon as we ask the question "are they art?", however, we immediately
> > change the way we are looking at them. During the time we are asking
> > that question, we are thinking about them as art, and thus they become
> > art.
>
> ponder: "Is that a sandwich?", then by rights we must answer, "Yes, it is indeed
> a sandwich. Why? - because we asked if it WAS a sandwich!" Now, you may choose
> to call the building a sandwich, and indeed treat it as such - but this does not
> alter the fact that it remains a building. (Ginger-bread houses excepted.)
>
No, in this case the answer would only be yes if someone actually put
two pieces of bread around the building and began trying to eat it
(maybe this will be Christo's next project???).
In the case of cave paintings, I simply found it inconceivable that
someone could fail to be capable of experiencing them as art if they
chose to look at them in that manner.
> > The usefulness of the question "is it art" is not in
> > the yes/no answer, but in the experience brought about by asking the
> > question.
>
> What is this experience? How is it manifested? Can it be measured?
>
This experience is the exchanging and development of opinions and ideas
- exactly what we are doing in these posts. I have no idea if it can be
measured or not.
When asking the question "is it art", or even the question "is it good
art", I find no value in the ultimate answer of yes and no, regardless
of whether I agree with that answer or not. The value is in the
discourse which the question brings about and in the way one explains
and justifies the answer, whether it's yes or no or any of the infinite
number of possible variations existing somewhere between those extremes.
>
> > Like most attempts to define art, this would unravel upon closer
> > inspection. An art object is a chronological predecessor and therefore
> > is both art and artifact. Many purely utilitarian objects contain
> > elements created for purely aesthetic reasons. And much art is created
> > with very specific uses in mind - this is certainly the case of anything
> > decorating a cathedral. It was done for religious reasons, but would you
> > really dare suggest that the Sistine Chapel ceiling isn't art??? ;)
>
> Why suggest something so blatantly false? In any case, you have made some very
> pertinent points in the above paragraph. A most enjoyable post.
>
I was referring to the idea that something done for religious purposes
isn't art. My question was how such a statement could have any validity
if, when taken to what I considered to be a logical extreme, it would
result in something so blatantly false. That's why I would suggest it
and that's why I put a winkie face a lot of question marks after it.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words!
- Bob C.
Bob C
>
> > ...which is either black and white, with nothing grey allowed in
> > between.
>
> There really is no "grey area" in any debate. "Grey areas" are those
> postulates or ideas invented by people too spineless to make a firm
> decision.
>
Dichotomies are simplifications created by people who are either
incapable or unwilling to deal with the complexities of the real world
in which they live. So they create a fantasy world in which every issue
has only 2 opposing sides and in which the side they have chosen to take
is entirely correct and therefore the opposing side must be entirely
wrong. Most people seem to find this comforting, even though it bears
absolutely no resemblance to observed reality.
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas
in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald
Bob C.
Aidan Campbell
>In article <Pine.SOL.4.02A.98082...@ra.msstate.edu>,
> Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Aidan Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>
>> > You are probably correct about all this, but then I did start my
>> > paragraph on how art originally developed in society with the word
>> > 'initially'. It's a small word - and easily missed - but an important
>> > one. I was talking about how the idea of art developed in the first
>> > place.
>>
>> There is no foundation for your statement...whether or not a culture
>> "initially" practiced slavery has no bearing upon the sorts of artforms
>> they came to develop. Societal work ethic also has no universal effect
>> upon that society's artistic norms.
>
> I think you are arguing about the concept of leisure. A society - or an
>individual artist - requires some leisure from simple survival tasks in order
>to develop art as a non-utilitarian activity. But this does not require
>slavery. The bushmen of the Kalahari, for instance, live in a primitive
>hunter-gatherer society without slaves, but only work about four hours a day,
>and have lots of leisure for making art and artifacts.
>
>- Laramie Sasseville
Laramie: to say that art is the production of images that have no
functional use cannot be equated with leisure time. The bushmen may have
plenty of opportunity for doing something that by itself has no purpose,
but they never take that opportunity (and neither does any other
primitive society). It takes a pretty sophisticated society to develop
the idea that functionless art is worth while doing just for aesthetic
reasons alone.
--
Aidan Campbell
Iian Neill
> postulates or ideas invented by people too spineless to make a firm
> decision.
>
> Is this fire hot? Well, that's a grey area...to me, it might be hot, while
> to a person living on the sun, it might be cold.
According to some doctrines, while you may THINK that fire burning your hand is
darn hot, it is not NECESSARILY hot if someone claims that it isn't. If you
insist on declaring that it is indeed hot, you will open yourself up for attack
as an "absolutist". Just a thought.
> > Only with the development of civilisation, does
> > the individual personality potentially arise.
>
> How would civilization have ever developed if the former instance were so
> overpoweringly present? The fact that it DID develop is all the proof
> necessary to negate the point.
One might say that the development of civilization gave people more leisure time
... which perhaps cultivated a greater sense of individuality in their artistic
works. But this is a different issue.
> > ...the Renaissance was not based upon slavery.
>
> Sure it was.
> What was the Renaissance all about? The rekindling of the greatness of the
> Roman Empire...built by? Why, slaves of course. Without slaves, there
> would have been no Roman Empire, and therefore no greatness to rekindle.
It may have been based on certain Imperial Roman principles, but it does not
follow that it condoned slavery in its own time.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> change the way we are looking at them. During the time we are asking
> that question, we are thinking about them as art, and thus they become
> art.
Following this logic, if one were to come across a building in a street and
ponder: "Is that a sandwich?", then by rights we must answer, "Yes, it is indeed
a sandwich. Why? - because we asked if it WAS a sandwich!" Now, you may choose
to call the building a sandwich, and indeed treat it as such - but this does not
alter the fact that it remains a building. (Ginger-bread houses excepted.)
> Whether the people who created them thought about them as art or not is
> an entirely different matter and probably something for which we will
> never have a definitive answer.
Agreed.
> In saying this I do not mean to deny the
> wonderful qualities these paintings have and the obvious skill and
> dedication which went into creating them, but simply to point out that
> they may have been created for reasons which have nothing to do with our
> modern understanding of art.
This seems very likely. Their purpose was probably magical/religious.
> I suppose a lot of this boils down to whether or not the quality of
> being art is something which is inherent in the artifact or is based
> entirely on how we think of and treat that artifact. I think it is the
> latter, which is why anything we think of as art immediately becomes art
> (just ask Duchamp).
Refer to the "Sandwich" example given above. Even Duchamp is not sacrosanct -
*especially* Duchamp.
> The usefulness of the question "is it art" is not in
> the yes/no answer, but in the experience brought about by asking the
> question.
What is this experience? How is it manifested? Can it be measured?
> > Surely art should be distinguished primarily from a chronological
> > predecessor, artefact. An artefact is an image made for a use (whether
> > religious, agricultural, hunting, decorative, etc). Art, on the other
> > hand, has no use at all - it is made purely for it's own aesthetic sake.
Does this deny any art-work with moral/propoganda aspirations? Does any art (or
literature) which aims to affect changes in societies (and idividuals) excluded
from the definition of "art"?
> > Initially, then, it requires a society which has developed a class which
> > considers work to be utterly repugnant (such as found in societies based
> > upon slavery) to develop art as opposed to artefact.
No, it takes a society which considers work to be repugnant to develop the
decadent trends in Modern Art. In the Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo and other
pre-Modern periods there was a lot of pride taken in a job well done. Art was
understood to require real work - sometimes even physical labour, particular in
the case of sculpture. The "art" of our time has excluded any real technical
training from its fundamentals and thus annhilated any element of true
craftsmanship from its own demesne. There is no "work" here.
> > Therefore I think
> > that, if cave paintings were done for religious reasons - say, to
> > improve success at hunting - then they should be considered to be
> > artefacts rather than art.
Absolutely - although we agree that they can convey aesthetic pleasure. An
important distinction. Not everything that conveys aesthetic pleasure (or
displeasure) ranks it as art. Hence, a beautiful mountainscape needs to be
painted to become art - the mountains are not art in themselves - despite what
Marcel Duchamp might have to say about the matter.
> Like most attempts to define art, this would unravel upon closer
> inspection. An art object is a chronological predecessor and therefore
> is both art and artifact. Many purely utilitarian objects contain
> elements created for purely aesthetic reasons. And much art is created
> with very specific uses in mind - this is certainly the case of anything
> decorating a cathedral. It was done for religious reasons, but would you
> really dare suggest that the Sistine Chapel ceiling isn't art??? ;)
Why suggest something so blatantly false? In any case, you have made some very
pertinent points in the above paragraph. A most enjoyable post.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> >'art' from such a distance is so fraught and meaningless.
> >‘Cave paintings’ should be called just that.
What? - "Fraught and meaningless" - or "art"?
> So why bother calling anything 'art'.
In the interests of common sense.
> The word itself is a symbol that has
> ambiguis and conflicting meanings, invented in some other century.
So does the word "love". Ergo, there is no "love".
> It doesn't signify anything in particular anymore.
Yes, and that is part of the intellectual crime I have on ocassion ranted
against. The word 'art' "doesn't signify anything in particular anymore" - I
would suggest that this by no means a natural state of affairs, and certainly
not a desirable one.
> Let's not call anything art. Let's just see things for what they are! What a
> liberating idea!
Is ignorance liberating? No, I am not calling you ignorant - not at all. But
when you suggest, "let's not call anything art," whether meant tongue-in-cheek
or not, you are asking us to abandon the use of a perfectly legitimate word. Why
should one drop the words "love" or "peace" just because there have been
disagreements over their particulars through history? Eradicating the word
"love" - or "not calling anything" love - would not liberate us from any state
of intellectual tyranny - it would merely impose the yoke of another, more
insidious one.
Some things have been so grossly distorted in our times that they are barely
recognisable. Like the word "art". This distortion has been variously excused
as, "pushing the boundaries", "confronting the audience", "redefining the nature
of ..." I am sure that there are plenty more catch-phrases that essentially
describe the same thing; catch-phrases that are so common they have certainly
become cliches in Post-Modern contemporary art-historical discourse.
Which reminds me ... the language of art appreciation has become so grey and
feeble. Scholars resort to well-worn catch-phrases instead of sincere
observations that spring out of real writing ability. Perhaps this is all part
of the "ritual" - part of the means of making the appreciation of art a matter
only for the "experts"? But this is a topic for a future discussion.
Regards,
Iian Neill
mdeli
<ai...@zola.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>The important question which Modern Academics avoid like poison is; IS
>>IT ANY GOOD?
>>
>Completely agree with you here Mani, but do you think there's any good
>art around today? If not, why not?
>
There is probably as much fine work produced today as before. It just
isn't the crap that hangs in the Modern Academic sections of important
museums.
Lots of people only see the modern crap in museums and think that it
represents all worthwhile contemporary work because they don't get
exposed to much else. This leads them to imagine that anyone who dares
criticize it likes nothing. Most are totally bored by that stuff. Its
no wonder that the general public image of the modern artist is that
of a nut-cake.
Artists who paint in those fashionable styles are usually into self
censorship. They abhor fine drawing and technique because they have
no idea how to do these things. They take great pride in their self
imposed ignorance and complain that no one really likes there work or
understands them. They imagine that their antiquated dada repetition
and no-skill-realism is something utterly new and important. This
heightens their vanity to such a degree that they can endure reliving
the starving artists myth.
What I like about Modern Academic Artists who claim to be utterly
novel and different is that it they are all so much alike.
Aidan Campbell
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>
>> ...which is either black and white, with nothing grey allowed in
>> between.
>
>There really is no "grey area" in any debate. "Grey areas" are those
>postulates or ideas invented by people too spineless to make a firm
>decision.
>
>Is this fire hot? Well, that's a grey area...to me, it might be hot, while
>to a person living on the sun, it might be cold.
Not sure if I follow this. You say there are no grey areas and then you
say the heat of a fire is 'a grey area'.
Though your use of the term 'spineless' is meant to scare me, in fact it
makes me laugh. It is actually an illustration of that well known trick:
playing pseudo-tough. When a child is told that he cannot have a candy,
he replies: well, I didn't want it anyway. Pseudo tough. When a youth's
advances are rejected by a girl he admires, he tells her: I didn't want
to go with you anyway. Pseudo tough.
The origin of your 'pseudo tough' approach of rejecting grey areas in
art lies in your inability to define what art is. Hence the
contradiction between your statement above in which you say that it is
spineless not to take firm decisions, and your previous statements in
which you say that art cannot be defined. The way that you solve this
contradiction is to assert that, by 'firmly deciding' NOT to define art,
you are making a firm decision. This decisiveness of yours is not
toughness, it is pseudo-toughness.
>> In medieval times, artists could only paint the nude if it was set in a
>> relgious context.
>
>I'm sure no one ever broke that rule.
>And, just because that rule might or might not have been, what leads you
>to believe that the artists didn't make works of religious value ANYWAY?
Whatever the motives of the artists, the works would have been of
religious value simply because of their religious content.
>> Here we go again. I did not say there was an artist that is typical of
>> all human societies. I did say that the individual artist is not typical
>> of all human societies.
>
>Saying that something is not typical implies that there exists a
>comparable thing which IS typical, otherwise how would you know the thing
>was atypical in the first place?
The comparison is with artisans who make images which have a functional
use in other societies. They do so at the behest of custom, rather than
upon their own initiative. In a more civilised society, a patron may
order a painting, but an artist can refuse to do it.
>The statement above: "...the individual artist is not typical of all human
>societies" means virtually nothing...you have, in short, stated the
>obvious.
>
>> But here is the nub of the matter, so thanks for that. I do not agree
>> that individual and artistic personalties exist in most societies.
>
>This might be true in London, England - but unless you have met every
>person on the globe, or have lived for years in every single society on
>earth, I don't think you can credibly claim this trait of other places.
Another example of your polemical technique. If I do not believe the
earth is flat, must I go up in space craft in order to convince a member
of the flat earth society - or can I do it through logic alone?
Similarly for my belief that the Earth goes around the Sun, rather than
what appears to happen (the Sun travels around the Earth).
If I make an assertion about people, then you have a right to challenge
it on logical grounds. However if all you can say is 'why, have you
interviewed everyone who has ever lived? And if you haven't, then you
are wrong' then the discussion cannot progress much further, can it?
An inexactitude of mine may be responsible for some confusion on your
part here. When I wrote 'People are individuals, but in most societies
they exist as members of a highly controlled community who follow the
customs', by 'most societies' I meant to say most societies that have
existed in human history (rather than, say, most societies today).
Naturally people in modern societies are not exiled for refusing to
follow norms. But people who lived in primitive pre-individualistic
societies were.
>> Only with the development of civilisation, does
>> the individual personality potentially arise.
>
>How would civilization have ever developed if the former instance were so
>overpoweringly present? The fact that it DID develop is all the proof
>necessary to negate the point.
Not sure what you mean here by 'the former instance'. If you mean
something like 'the strength of collective taboo', then I take your
argument to be 'how could civilisation develop with its promotion of
individualism if the collective taboos of society refuse to permit
individualism develop in the first place'? Thus the fact that
civilisation DID develop proves that individualism was not an issue for
pre-civilisation society.
Proceeding on this assumption, my answer to you is the following:
When primitive societies came into contact with other primitive
societies, these relationships (which were at first were confined to the
margins/boundaries of their communities) became so powerful within each
primitive society that they began to undermine their customs and taboos.
These relationships could be either wars (the capture of slaves) or
peaceful trading (sparking of the division of labour, initially between
men and women). Neither should they be confined to settled communities,
since it is among nomads that the concept of moveable wealth first
developed (through their animal herds).Those societies that most quickly
adopted the new situation - by dropping the old customs, or by adapting
them - were the most successful in converting to more civilised
standards.
>
>> >I can't think of a significant civilization that did not at one time or
>> >another use and benefit from slave labor.
>>
>> It depends upon what you mean by 'at one time or another'.
>
>"At some point in its history."
>
>> Do you mean
>> that if a particular country EVER had a slave system then all succeeding
>> societies in that country can be said to have use and benefit from slave
>> labour?
>
>That would depend upon the gains gotten on the backs of the slaves, I
>suppose.
>
>> ...the Renaissance was not based upon slavery.
>
>Sure it was.
>What was the Renaissance all about? The rekindling of the greatness of the
>Roman Empire...built by? Why, slaves of course. Without slaves, there
>would have been no Roman Empire, and therefore no greatness to rekindle.
Does it not worry you slightly that there is gap of almost a thousand
years between the end of the Roman empire and the start of the
Renaissance? And suppose that the Renaissance was indeed able to benefit
from 'the gains gotten on the backs of the slaves' of the Roman empire,
what had happened those 'gains' in the thousand year interval? And why
did they suddenly re-emerge after 1000 years anyway?
>> I believe that your country was founded upon the destruction of
>> a slave system during the Civil War.
>
>I believe they teach some screwed up history in England.
>The civil war came much later...There was this other war in which we beat
>down this opressive monarchy from somewhere...I forget...anyway, that's
>when the USA was established...1776 or thereabouts.
Historically true no doubt, but until the civil war the USA was not
fundamentally different from uncivilised societies. After it, it rapidly
became the world's premier civilisation ever.
>> >> Yes I do come from somewhere - London, England.
>> >
>> >Yes, but can you find it on a map?
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> For me, this sort of personal abuse is a useful barometer of the
>> pressure that my arguments are exerting. So the more of it, the merrier,
>> from my point of view.
>
>Well, aren't you proud of yourself?
>My remark was in response to your own snide remark (seen above) which was
>in response to my asking "is this a joke or are you coming from
>somewhere?".
So by 'coming from somewhere', do you mean - do I have a hidden agenda?
No I don't.
>It was also not intended to be personally abusive.
fine.
--
Aidan Campbell
Aidan Campbell
>> > Surely art should be distinguished primarily from a chronological
>> > predecessor, artefact. An artefact is an image made for a use (whether
>> > religious, agricultural, hunting, decorative, etc). Art, on the other
>> > hand, has no use at all - it is made purely for it's own aesthetic sake.
>
>Does this deny any art-work with moral/propoganda aspirations? Does any art (or
>literature) which aims to affect changes in societies (and idividuals) excluded
>from the definition of "art"?
politics (whatever Walter Benjamin may say).
>> > Initially, then, it requires a society which has developed a class which
>> > considers work to be utterly repugnant (such as found in societies based
>> > upon slavery) to develop art as opposed to artefact.
>
>No, it takes a society which considers work to be repugnant to develop the
>decadent trends in Modern Art. In the Renaissance, Baroque, Rococo and other
>pre-Modern periods there was a lot of pride taken in a job well done. Art was
>understood to require real work - sometimes even physical labour, particular in
>the case of sculpture. The "art" of our time has excluded any real technical
>training from its fundamentals and thus annhilated any element of true
>craftsmanship from its own demesne. There is no "work" here.
You are soundly dangerously like Ruskin or William Morris here.
--
Aidan Campbell
Aidan Campbell
<hug...@interlog.com> writes
we could embark on some Quixotic quest to some mysterious location where
good art does exist today. For this reason:
It is not artists who are responsible for dumbing down their artistic
skills (assuming they possess them in the first place which I think it
is only polite to do), but that is the dominant tendency that exists
right throughout all of Western society today. The modern artist is only
following conventional set in the media, education, churches, etc that
frown upon anybody demonstrating expertise or being experimental, yet
who rush to give their 'respect' to everyone who is a abject failure. In
a world where everyone passes the exams, then naturally the exam process
is worthless.
The same with art. Everyone is now a great painter, whatever they do.
Who is to say they are not? Rather than be content to point the finger
of blame at others for this situation, however, we should ask why we
have not set new standards that can demarcate what art is good and what
is not. Until then, it is churlish to blame artists for simply going
with the flow and dropping their standards too.
--
Aidan Campbell
Marilyn
it was shamanistic, a form of prayer for a good hunt.
M
Brother Alphabet
> Dichotomies are simplifications created by people who are either
> incapable or unwilling to deal with the complexities of the real world
> in which they live.
Or, those who are unwilling to waste time making simple things
complicated. Some things which are seemingly complex are really only made
complex by those who cannot accept them as simple.
When drenched by rain I could stand all day there pondering the many
reasons why water is not wet, or I could simplify the matter, resolve that
water is wet, and furthermore rather cold, and go inside to dry myself and
do something a little more productive than stand around in the rain.
Occasionally simplicity is slightly more useful in terms of getting
things accomplished. Besides, if I really wish to use my time to ponder
the wetness of rain, I could just as easily do so in the dry comfort of
the indoors.
> So they create a fantasy world in which every issue
> has only 2 opposing sides and in which the side they have chosen to take
> is entirely correct and therefore the opposing side must be entirely
> wrong. Most people seem to find this comforting, even though it bears
> absolutely no resemblance to observed reality.
There are a few billion versions of observed reality.
If my reality contains only black and white, then the above mentioned
dichotomy exactly resembles observed reality.
Also, it is not necessarily a matter of "My view is right, all else is
wrong"...This is just a happy coincidence. :)
> "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
> opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability
> to function."
> - F. Scott Fitzgerald
This refers to awareness.
I comprehend and appreciate a multitude of doctrinal or ideological
points of view, but believe in/defend only one of them wholeheartedly.
If I did not have that ability, how would I be able to boil an issue down
to black and white?
I am sure that on paper there is a fine line between ignorance and
conviction. But again, that goes right back to observed reality.
Lastly, this current point is a black/white issue in itself.
On one side, you say there are vast grey areas between any black and any
white...Further, you seem to imply that your reality is correct, and all
else is fantastic invention.
I would not be so quick to shake fingers when you are just as unwilling to
see the value in opposing points of view.
"A little nonsense now and then,
is relished by the wisest men..."
Brother Alphabet
On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Aidan Campbell wrote:
> Not sure if I follow this. You say there are no grey areas and then you
> say the heat of a fire is 'a grey area'.
> >Is this fire hot? Well, that's a grey area...to me, it might be hot, while
> >to a person living on the sun, it might be cold.
This is an illustration of the uselessness of "grey areas" in certain
debates.
> Though your use of the term 'spineless' is meant to scare me, in fact it
> makes me laugh.
Er...darn. I sure had hoped to scare you. Oh well.
> It is actually an illustration of that well known trick:
> playing pseudo-tough. When a child is told that he cannot have a candy,
> he replies: well, I didn't want it anyway. Pseudo tough. When a youth's
> advances are rejected by a girl he admires, he tells her: I didn't want
> to go with you anyway. Pseudo tough.
I see. While your childhood is sadly interesting, I think you are off base
in your parallel.
> The origin of your 'pseudo tough' approach of rejecting grey areas in
> art lies in your inability to define what art is.
I can quite easily define art.
Considering the likelihood that 9/10 people will disagree and have other
versions of the definition, how useful is it to continually re-state that
definition?
> Hence the
> contradiction between your statement above in which you say that it is
> spineless not to take firm decisions, and your previous statements in
> which you say that art cannot be defined.
I did not say that art could not be defined as much as I said that the
definition of art could not be agreed upon.
> The way that you solve this
> contradiction is to assert that, by 'firmly deciding' NOT to define art,
> you are making a firm decision. This decisiveness of yours is not
> toughness, it is pseudo-toughness.
The decision was not to "not define" it was "not to worry about how it's
defined".
> >> In medieval times, artists could only paint the nude if it was set in a
> >> relgious context.
> >
> >I'm sure no one ever broke that rule.
> >And, just because that rule might or might not have been, what leads you
> >to believe that the artists didn't make works of religious value ANYWAY?
>
> Whatever the motives of the artists, the works would have been of
> religious value simply because of their religious content.
Didn't you just dispute the religious value of such works because of the
above?
> The comparison is with artisans who make images which have a functional
> use in other societies. They do so at the behest of custom, rather than
> upon their own initiative.
Because a civilization does not function under the same rules as ours does
not mean there is no personal initiative involved in their creation of
artworks. Let's say a culture made mostly religious works...What is there
to prove that an artisan did not make an artwork out of praise for
whatever god they worshipped? Individual initiative applied to functional
artform...It was at the "behest of custom" surely, but also an individual
contribution to the whole.
> In a more civilised society, a patron may
> order a painting, but an artist can refuse to do it.
These views are quite eurocentric, just to make an observation.
A "more civilized society" means "one more like our own"...We cannot
expect other "less civilized' societies to function along the same rules
as ours, and we cannot impress our artistic values onto those societies.
> Another example of your polemical technique. If I do not believe the
> earth is flat, must I go up in space craft in order to convince a member
> of the flat earth society - or can I do it through logic alone?
> Similarly for my belief that the Earth goes around the Sun, rather than
> what appears to happen (the Sun travels around the Earth).
There is not way to "logically" convince anyone of these "facts".
Truthfully, we accept such scientific "facts" on pure faith.
Most of us have not seen, with our own eyes, some of the most crucial
"facts" of our existence. These things are said in schools or
written in books and we accept them blindly and without desire for proof.
In effect, how would we really know the earth was round?
There are numerous people (morons, to clarify) who claim we've never
really been to the moon...that it was staged in Hollywood or something...
While we scoff at the ignorance of such beliefs...how do we really know
what's true? If we do not blindly accept the "truth" people hand us on
faith alone we would have nothing but a primate's understanding of the
workings of the universe.
> If I make an assertion about people, then you have a right to challenge
> it on logical grounds. However if all you can say is 'why, have you
> interviewed everyone who has ever lived? And if you haven't, then you
> are wrong' then the discussion cannot progress much further, can it?
If you make a blanket remark and a single individual exists in contrast to
the statement, then the statement is incorrect.
> >Sure it was.
> >What was the Renaissance all about? The rekindling of the greatness of the
> >Roman Empire...built by? Why, slaves of course. Without slaves, there
> >would have been no Roman Empire, and therefore no greatness to rekindle.
>
> Does it not worry you slightly that there is gap of almost a thousand
> years between the end of the Roman empire and the start of the
> Renaissance?
Worry me? No.
> And suppose that the Renaissance was indeed able to benefit
> from 'the gains gotten on the backs of the slaves' of the Roman empire,
> what had happened those 'gains' in the thousand year interval? And why
> did they suddenly re-emerge after 1000 years anyway?
I would think that the gains got very old and musty in the 1000 years.
I have no idea why anyone would wish to dig up Roman culture. It was a
hugely ignorant and barbarous culture hiding beneath the guise of civility
(sort of like America today).
The point was that without slave labor there would have been no Rome and
without Rome there would have been no Renaissance. I agree it was a
stretch at best, but I can't rightly answer "no" to a question so easily
bent out of proportion, can I? :)
> >> I believe that your country was founded upon the destruction of
> >> a slave system during the Civil War.
> >
> >I believe they teach some screwed up history in England.
>
> >The civil war came much later...There was this other war in which we beat
> >down this opressive monarchy from somewhere...I forget...anyway, that's
> >when the USA was established...1776 or thereabouts.
> Historically true no doubt, but until the civil war the USA was not
> fundamentally different from uncivilised societies. After it, it rapidly
> became the world's premier civilisation ever.
Holy cow! NO country on earth was fundamentally different from
"uncivilized" societies until the industrial revolution!
It's getting to the point at which I am forgetting the point.
We are still discussing Cave Paintings, right?
Brother Alphabet
On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> According to some doctrines, while you may THINK that fire burning your
> hand is darn hot, it is not NECESSARILY hot if someone claims that it
> isn't. If you insist on declaring that it is indeed hot, you will open
> yourself up for attack as an "absolutist". Just a thought.
Some things ARE absolute.
There's an important distinction, actually.
The battle between truth and reality...
Fire, in truth, is hot.
Fire, as a matter of perception, could be hot or cold or floral-scented.
Truth is absolute.
Reality is flexible according to individual perception.
It would not matter what an individual or a collective perceived, or chose
to believe about fire. The truth would be that the fire was hot.
Bob C
>
>
> I am sure that on paper there is a fine line between ignorance and
> conviction. But again, that goes right back to observed reality.
No line at all, actually. I've seen these two co-exist on many
occasions.
>
> Lastly, this current point is a black/white issue in itself.
> On one side, you say there are vast grey areas between any black and any
> white...Further, you seem to imply that your reality is correct, and all
> else is fantastic invention.
I never said that black/white issues can't exist. In a few cases they
do. And to quote someone who posted earlier: 'it is not necessarily a
matter of "My view is right, all else is wrong"...This is just a happy
coincidence. :)'.
>
> I would not be so quick to shake fingers when you are just as unwilling to
> see the value in opposing points of view.
>
Why should I be any slower to shake my finger than you???? Particularly
when I'm the one who is right! ;)
- Bob C.
Andrew Werby
<s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
... the language of art appreciation has become so grey and
> feeble. Scholars resort to well-worn catch-phrases instead of sincere
> observations that spring out of real writing ability. Perhaps this is all part
> of the "ritual" - part of the means of making the appreciation of art a matter
> only for the "experts"? But this is a topic for a future discussion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill
The future is now- let's have that discussion. I agree about the debased nature
of art discourse as handed down through the major outlets for art criticism.
I'm interested in the subject, and have spent a fair amount of time pondering
the issues, but I can't make sense of much of it either. Can it be due to the
process by which one becomes a professional art critic? If this field is only
open to those who have obtained academic credentials in the study of art
history, what chance is there for a fresh point of view? Since these
credentials are only given to those who have signed on with the program, isn't
dissent weeded out in the process? How far would you get in your post-graduate
career if you kept insisting that the whole modern movement was a historical
wrong turn? When I was in art school, I found that the tenents of modernism
were championed with the fervor usually reserved for religious opinions, and
dissent was not exactly encouraged. Perhaps things have changed under the
post-modernists, who don't seem very sure of anything. Maybe you'd like to
enroll in one of these programs, and see if you manage to graduate with an
advanced degree and your anti-modernism intact?
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
Brother Alphabet
On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Bob C wrote:
> > I am sure that on paper there is a fine line between ignorance and
> > conviction. But again, that goes right back to observed reality.
>
> No line at all, actually. I've seen these two co-exist on many
> occasions.
I have no idea, and I'll defend that til the end of time.
> I never said that black/white issues can't exist. In a few cases they
> do. And to quote someone who posted earlier: 'it is not necessarily a
> matter of "My view is right, all else is wrong"...This is just a happy
> coincidence. :)'.
As long as we are of the same mind...
> Why should I be any slower to shake my finger than you???? Particularly
> when I'm the one who is right! ;)
I'm more into flailing my arms than I am into shaking my finger, but thats
an aside.
I'll concede. I don't think I could prove myself to be 100% right
anyway...There are just too many grey areas.
mdeli
<ai...@zola.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Again, agree with all your above points, except that I am skeptical that
>we could embark on some Quixotic quest to some mysterious location where
>good art does exist today. For this reason:
For starters take a look at the Society of illustrators Annual. (found
in any good library) Also Check out the Dali museum.
>It is not artists who are responsible for dumbing down their artistic
>skills (assuming they possess them in the first place which I think it
>is only polite to do),
It is the artists among others. The majority of Modern Academics
possess very little skill.
> but that is the dominant tendency that exists
>right throughout all of Western society today. The modern artist is only
>following conventional set in the media, education, churches, etc that
>frown upon anybody demonstrating expertise or being experimental,
Artists who possess skill and craftsmanship can make a good living
without artzyfartzy approval.
>The same with art. Everyone is now a great painter, whatever they do.
>Who is to say they are not?
Lots of people.
>Rather than be content to point the finger
>of blame at others for this situation, however, we should ask why we
>have not set new standards that can demarcate what art is good and what
>is not.
That is impossible.
jha...@om.com.au
postulates a future. It is called 'Cataloguing the masterpieces of the 20th
century.' It is of course an allegory (after Turner's 'Rome from the Vatican')
where I wrestle with the notion of 'artistic judgement.'
The painting is 96" by 48" and is in three panels. Its direct address is ...
http://www.om.com.au/cowdisley/allegory2b.htm
Hopefully the power is in the painting more than the message.
John Hagan.
if...@my-dejanews.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 20:33:34 +0100, Aidan Campbell
> <ai...@zola.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <35df6db0...@news.interlog.com>, mdeli
> ><hug...@interlog.com> writes
> Artists who possess skill and craftsmanship can make a good living
> without artzyfartzy approval.
So what's your problem? I assume you're very comfortable, materially that is.
Why are you then barking so loud at Cezanne and others who you can never
comprehend?
Dog barking at the Moon, and the Moon is laughing.
>
> >The same with art. Everyone is now a great painter, whatever they do.
> >Who is to say they are not?
>
> Lots of people.
>
> >Rather than be content to point the finger
> >of blame at others for this situation, however, we should ask why we
> >have not set new standards that can demarcate what art is good and what
> >is not.
>
> That is impossible.
>
blah, blah,blah
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern
Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
stop polluting
Iian Neill
> of art discourse as handed down through the major outlets for art criticism.
It's a rather disheartening situation, isn't it? It reminds me of a factory-line of
processed gruel served in book form.
> I'm interested in the subject, and have spent a fair amount of time pondering
> the issues, but I can't make sense of much of it either. Can it be due to the
> process by which one becomes a professional art critic?
Indubitably. I have noticed the tendency even in the English Department at my
university towards a uniform style of academic discourse. You will find set phrases
popping up everywhere, so much so that I sometimes can't help smiling at the
regularity of it all.
My guess is that most people new to the fields are insecure about their writing
skills and so are easily molded by their instructors. They are given an approved
method of writing that requires little or no creativity and, in the higher echelons,
is comfortably tortuous and incomprehensible.
> If this field is only
> open to those who have obtained academic credentials in the study of art
> history, what chance is there for a fresh point of view? Since these
> credentials are only given to those who have signed on with the program, isn't
> dissent weeded out in the process?
Being an ex-Fine Arts student at university, I cannot help but agree with you.
According to an old lecturer by the name of Iain Friend, discussions as to the
nature of art (what is or is not art) are "Neanderthalic". This response came after
someone (three guesses) made a critical (or "arrogant" or "impertinent" depending on
your point of view) remark about Henri Matisse.
> How far would you get in your post-graduate
> career if you kept insisting that the whole modern movement was a historical
> wrong turn?
Not very far, unfortunately. Which is why I am not taking an Art History major.
> When I was in art school, I found that the tenents of modernism
> were championed with the fervor usually reserved for religious opinions, and
> dissent was not exactly encouraged.
There is the feeling, I think, on this group and in the academia, that one is
"intellectually challenged" if you dare to question the (Post-)Modernist orthodoxy.
> Perhaps things have changed under the
> post-modernists, who don't seem very sure of anything. Maybe you'd like to
> enroll in one of these programs, and see if you manage to graduate with an
> advanced degree and your anti-modernism intact?
I have been a year through that course, and it was a year too long. The students and
I got along rather well - the teachers, however ...
In the end I had to ask myself: "Why remain here? They have no technical knowledge
to impart, a biased interpretation of art history (where they always come out the
winners), and factory-processed gruel for dogmas."
So I high-tailed it out of there, probably much to the pleasure of the lecturers -
who claim to foster and encourage divers views, but in reality disapprove of any
truly dissenting ones.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On 24 Aug 1998, Andrew Werby wrote:
>
> The future is now- let's have that discussion. I agree about the debased nature
> of art discourse as handed down through the major outlets for art criticism.
> I'm interested in the subject, and have spent a fair amount of time pondering
> the issues, but I can't make sense of much of it either. Can it be due to the
> process by which one becomes a professional art critic? If this field is only
> open to those who have obtained academic credentials in the study of art
> history, what chance is there for a fresh point of view?
Andrew, I don't disagree that there aren't many current critics capable of
serious writing in mainstream journals, but not all of them are without
fresh points of view and not all fail. I don't even know for sure that all
are required to have degrees in art history.
I've actually seen decent writing by New York Times writer Andrew Solomon.
Jed Perl, who writes for a couple of different periodicals like The New
Criterion, consistantly sounds like he's actually *looking* at visual art,
rather than trying to simply align a particular post-modern experience
with a general post-modern dictum.
On the whole, though, if we can accept that in any given period of history
only a small percentage of what is made is great art, why should we expect
higher percentages for critical writing? Most art sucks and most art
criticism is just as insipid.
I don't argue with your desire to argue with it though. I think you are
right to do so.
Mark
Okie Teeya
says...
> If this field is only
>open to those who have obtained academic credentials in the study of art
>history, what chance is there for a fresh point of view?
I always thought that you had to be versed in obscure
(or is it absurd) lexicology to qualify as an art critic.
I've failed find some words they use in even those
monstrous library dictionaries. Maybe they make them
up in the same sense that conceptual artists do... Okie Teeya.
PS I'm assuming they are trying to write in English,
but I often wonder about that too...
Mavarla
>But cave painting did have a purpose, we are told it was shamanistic, a form
of prayer for a good hunt.<
Yes, of this "we are told," by male historians, but personally, I've always
felt that these had been done by women---"the gatherers" contingency of yore,
bored out of their skulls, while the guys were out gleefully gouging critters
with spears: It's a documented fact that the oldest 2-D painting in the Asia
Minor was done by a woman; only the sickly or the "sissy" guys indulged in
these less physically-demanding pursuits, which is WHY a man who can create
beautiful, patiently-rendered work IS considered "special."
And he *is*: To us gals, it just comes naturally.
Yikes---flame on, folks!
:)