Isn't a painting identified as a work of 'art' not because of some definition, but because an authority has proclaimed it to be so?
aest...@hotmail.com
In our own times with the decline of authority figures, aren't more and
more things being proclaimed 'art' only because they happen to have
made it into a museum, an auction, or an art history textbook?
CB
<aest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148857765.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Any branch of art is a language - usually with dialects - that people use
analogously to verbal languages for the purpose of communicating ideas. And
just like verbal languages, the parameters are generally set by those people
actively participating in its use - be they artists, gallery owners,
curators, or individuals purchasing and discussing the work.
And like any language, complete autocratic control - especially when it is
exerted by non-users of the language - generally indicates that the language
itself is in a terminal stage, and probably headed for the dustbins of
history (like Latin), ort at least severe evolutionary changes (like
Victorian English). But because people still need to communicate, new
languages rise up or the old ones will be almost unrecognizably adapted..
The clearest example of this is the rise of non-Academic art in 19th Century
France, which rose to meet the needs of modern society when Academic art
failed to do so. But that example is by no means unique, nor is it confined
to Western art. There are similar issues in art as different from Western
art as Japanese Shunga. (Which surprised me, as I was only recently
introduced to it in any depth by a friend. It is positively delightful....).
BTW, if art is being included in museums, art history books, and important
auctions, it is only because the people who run them are generally
considered to be the authority figures in art. Which makes your question a
little nonsensical. But I have tried to address what I think you were trying
to get at.
Cheers;
CB
Lauri Levanto
> <aest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148857765.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Hasn't this been especially true in the past?
>>
>>In our own times with the decline of authority figures, aren't more and
>>more things being proclaimed 'art' only because they happen to have
>>made it into a museum, an auction, or an art history textbook?
>>
>
There are similar issues in art as different from Western
> art as Japanese Shunga. (Which surprised me, as I was only recently
> introduced to it in any depth by a friend. It is positively delightful....).
> Cheers;
> CB
>
Thanks to the Shunga reference.
I think the decline of Byzantine art is another example.
The best illustrated example is in the Orhan Pamuk novel
of the decline of Persian miniatures.
-lauri
CB
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@dnainternet.net> wrote in message
news:447a8066$0$22350$9b53...@news.fv.fi...
Is that the book "My Name is Red"? I've never read any of his work (and
before your post, was pretty unaware of it, although the phrase "the decline
of Persian miniatures" rang a bell - maybe from an earlier post of yours?).
Would you then recommend it?
The Shunga in themselves are fascinating, as is comparing them against
Western and modern erotic art. The former, at least in the early period, is
quite delightful in an earthy sort of way, while the latter tends to be much
more aggressive and with generally some quite unpleasant sub-themes; the
former seems to be much more focused thematically on equal enjoyment of a
shared pleasure; the latter more involved in dominance, control, and
one-sided pleasure. And certainly the gracefulness of the Shunga - at least
prior to the 1800's - exceeds that of anything I've seen in the Western
equivalent. But counter to that one has the cultural milieu in which they
were created; the Japanese culture that spawned the Shunga was rigidly
stratified and apparently more oppressive for most than its contemporary
Western counterpart. And in our own time the increased equality of people
seems to have only created a more debased pornography, rather than (what one
might expect) a happier eroticism. Go figure...
Cheers;
Chris
.
david...@aol.com
"and probably headed for the dustbins of history (like Latin)"
Latin didn't die. It changed over time in the same fashion as any
language. The modern Italian dialects are directly descended from
Latin.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
"aren't more and more things being proclaimed 'art' only because they
happen to have made it into a museum, an auction, or an art history
textbook?"
It's the other way around. More and more things have made it into
museum, auctions, and art history books because more and more things
have been labeled art. At this point, I don't see how it is possible
to provide a definition for art that applies to everything that has
ever been considered art that isn't so broad as to be worthless, which
also applies to everything admitted around the fringes by such a loose
and capacious definition. The only art worth considering, as far as
I'm concerned, is art subject to stricter definition.
-david gable
Lauri Levanto
> Cheers;
> Chris
That is the book. I was not sure about the English title.
It is in fact a crime story and fascinating reading.
As a novel it does not pretend to be an accurate analysis
or historically correct. However, it describes well
the emotional turbulence when a new paradigm collides
with the old one.
-lauri
aest...@hotmail.com
- Criticism is the child and handmaid of reflection. It works by
censure, and censure implies a standard.
Richard Grant White (1822 - 85) American author