is architecture fine art?
Dilettante
architecture and fine art, especially painting; and after that the
validity of abstraction, since architecture is primarily an art, if it
is an art, of abstraction.
If architecture is accepted as a fine art, then the right of painting
in abstraction as a fine art can hardly be denied.
Dilettante
Anka
in abstraction as a fine art can't be denied. For me it is very funny that
people think about abstract art as something unreal. For example I've made
the part of one exhibition calld "Killing loop" with motives of a little
stones from the beach. I've just enlarged theirs colors on a board. They
really look as I have painted them only you can't see that they are stones,
you see only a colours. But for me this is not an abstract painting, it is a
realism, this stones looks just like this paintings only i didn't put them
all in the picture so you can't tell what is it. So for me abstract painting
isn't something unreal, it is only a painting that does not give you all
answers so that you can stop think about painting and start feel it.
I don't know how good my english is so if you don't understand go to my page
and see http://free-du.hinet.hr/ankabajurin
keith o'connor
> in abstraction as a fine art can hardly be denied.
The logical structure is there but your conditional if is the problem. It is
doubtful if you will gain complete acceptance on a definition of art
primarily because it requires a pluralist disposition that accepts different
styles as equal but different e.g.. liner and painterly.
It could be argued that the five style concepts are comparable to different
races of people creating proportional variations through inter-breeding.
The concept of assimilation of all styles into one acceptable style that
becomes the king of art is very similar in concept to the predatory
disposition of religions each wishing to assimilate all other religions.
That sets up the argument that discussions on art are culturally based and
since westerners tend to have a Christian influenced culture all discussion
of art leads to defining the one king of art (one god metaphor) which is
about as unrealistic as dogmatic religion itself.
The bottom line is "a meaningless tempest in a tea pot".
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.0401...@posting.google.com...
Lauri Levanto
As late as renaissance time, there were no distinction between artist and
architect.
Nowadays, architects a separate breed. They work in applied arts, like
furniture makers, jewellers etc. Although some pieces of modern
architecture seems to be almost useless - that is fine art.
On the other hand, many site-specific artworks
are but poor architecture.
Abstract art is fine art, not because other abstract thins are art,
but because they belong to the tradition of fine arts.
-lauri
>
Dilettante
> > If architecture is accepted as a fine art, then the right of painting
> > in abstraction as a fine art can hardly be denied.
>
> The logical structure is there but your conditional if is the problem. It is
> doubtful if you will gain complete acceptance on a definition of art
Yes, that is exactly the point. Can abstraction be accepted as one
acceptable genre of fine art. So the if is not the problem but
necessary for the logical structure.
All the race and religion stuff is a bit over the top for this
discussion.
>
>
> The bottom line is "a meaningless tempest in a tea pot".
But I have many times examined many bottom lines and plan to continue.
Dilettante
keith o'connor
> discussion.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.04011...@posting.google.com...
Paul Mesken
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>> All the race and religion stuff is a bit over the top for this
>> discussion.
>Not if you have studied the influence of metaphor on thinking.
Ah, "The Metaphores we live by" (pun intended ;-)
Joe
Questions like this always bring me to this thought:
I feel it's a disservice to label things as art, fine art,
craft, etc. In my mind these ideas work better as
adjectives, not nouns. Everything has an artistic quality
to some degree, whether intentional or not. Same with
craftsmanship. In the ceramics world, people always
debate is it art or craft. I say it's a piece of ceramic.
It has some degree of artistic thought put into it, and
some degree of craftsmanship exhibited.
Instead of comparing architecture to fine art, you can ask
the difference between architecture and painting, and the
answers are much easier.
If you want to compare a specific piece of architecture to
a specific painting, then it's possible to talk about
their relative artistic merits. Yes some buildings can be
considered fine art, just as some paintings should not
even be called art.
--
Joe
http://www.joekaz.net/
http://www.cafeshops.com/joekaz
Erik A. Mattila
Good points, Joe. And beneath the whole question lurks this irony:
Kandinsky wrote that he was inspired to invent abstract painting by
viewing the heavily decorated interiors of Ukranian farm houses.
Erik
>
>
keith o'connor
> but because they belong to the tradition of fine arts.
You don't deal with the question of why? As my father used to say "because"
is not an answer.
The logical approach is to define artistic attributes and then evaluate
their application.
Abstract expressionism is an attempt to create an art that ignores the
traditional concepts of composition - artistic attributes. It is an art that
deliberately attempts to be anti-art or an art that attempts to create
artistic suicide.
This is the equivalent of "this is not a pipe".
Can you call a painting that does not want to be art a work of art.
One option is that abstract painting is art as long as it is not abstract
expressionism, which is not an art.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:40027AB4...@netti.fi...
Lauri Levanto
keith o'connor wrote:
> Abstract art is fine art, not because other abstract things are art,
> > but because they belong to the tradition of fine arts.
>
> You don't deal with the question of why? As my father used to say "because"
> is not an answer.
keith elsewhere:
You know as well as I that he or she who has power defines the
culturalstructure. Art is therefor what that group defines it to be.
That is why :-)
-lauri
Dilettante
> Abstract art is fine art, not because other abstract things are art,
> > but because they belong to the tradition of fine arts.
>
> You don't deal with the question of why? As my father used to say "because"
> is not an answer.
She did answer to a certain extent by saying the abstraction is a fine
in painting for reasons other than its validity in architecture.
> Abstract expressionism is an attempt to create an art that ignores the
> traditional concepts of composition - artistic attributes. It is an art that
> deliberately attempts to be anti-art or an art that attempts to create
> artistic suicide.
>
> This is the equivalent of "this is not a pipe".
Magritte's message, which by the way might be negated utterly by being
in incorrrect French, was not artistic suicide. He meant "This is not
a pipe because it is a PAINTING of a pipe."
Dilettante
Dilettante
> Instead of comparing architecture to fine art, ...
I am not sure you got the point of the thread. It was to see if
abstraction was a valid form of painting, inasmuch as it is the
dominate design form of architecture.
Dilletante
Erik A. Mattila
But the concept of "abstraction" only plays into the concept of
"representation," neither of which has ever been of great interest to
architecture. So I think it is untrue to claim the architecture's
dominant design is "abstraction." (unless you wish to reduce
architecture to "there once was a woman who lived in a shoe" sort of thing.)
Architecture has always been about enclosure of space, and the dominate
problem has always been the play-off between positive and negative
space. That is comparable with painting, on some levels, but it
wouldn't hold as any measure of comparison between abstract and
representational painting, since both play with positive and negative space.
There is one area of architecture that may be called "representation,"
and that is when architects seek to reinterpret previous architectural
styles or motifs in new form, such as the Greek Classical ploy of the
Chicago Public Library.
As for "fine art," I think Lauri has it exactly right about the
semantic/cultural value of that. It's not written in stone.
Erik
keith o'connor
pipe has to do with imitative painting abstract expressionism deals with
this is not art.
If an abstract expressionist is to paint a non art painting then he or she
must have a definition of artistic content in order to avoid it.
The linguistic equivalence may be gibberish words on a page. This is not a
language but looks like a language because of the alphabet used in its
construction. Then one of the problems becomes avoiding the accidental
creation of a word. This becomes more complex in a matrix filled with alpha
characters.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.04011...@posting.google.com...
keith o'connor
The "tradition" argument is one type of argument - mind you it's a weak one.
e.g.. if you argue tradition: then the response can be it's not traditional
that we fly so we should not have aeroplanes. Cannibalism is part of our
culture and your trying to destroy our culture.
That's why I don't like to use it.
Dominant group argument - we know historically the group power to impose
it's will on the minority so its a reasonable argument.
The logical augment requires more formalised structure of the type if - the
and the use of proof negation.
Much argument in this group is of the logical type which requires
definitions of words phrases etc. Usually this logical argument is countered
with the "historical argument /traditional".
That is one of the reasons why no one gets anywhere. There is a lack of
knowledge with regard to the type of argument being used between the
debaters.
If I add much more my email will crash.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:4003ABF1...@netti.fi...
Mani Deli
>the simile deals with conceptual parallelism not exactitude. this is not a
>pipe has to do with imitative painting abstract expressionism deals with
>this is not art.
>
>If an abstract expressionist is to paint a non art painting then he or she
>must have a definition of artistic content in order to avoid it.
>
>The linguistic equivalence may be gibberish words on a page. This is not a
>language but looks like a language because of the alphabet used in its
>construction. Then one of the problems becomes avoiding the accidental
>creation of a word. This becomes more complex in a matrix filled with alpha
>characters.
The usual convoluted drivel!
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>Much argument in this group is of the logical type which requires
>definitions of words phrases etc.
They have almost no logic content! You can hardly write a clear
understandable sentence.
>Usually this logical argument is countered
>with the "historical argument /traditional".
>
>That is one of the reasons why no one gets anywhere.
Its the reason you get nowhere. You arguments are little more than
gibberish. They are on the level of your artwork.
keith o'connor
better than your convoluted drivel any day of the week.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:c0ua00tqci59p7dv2...@4ax.com...
Mani Deli
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>And you said I could not write great artspeak.
Yes its third rate!
>My convoluted drivel is
>better than your convoluted drivel any day of the week.
I agree completely. In fact you write little else.
b
are architects trying to define themselves as fine artists or
something? wouldn't surprise me...everyone wants to be a fine artist.
Dilettante
> the simile deals with conceptual parallelism not exactitude. this is not a
> pipe has to do with imitative painting abstract expressionism deals with
> this is not art.
then you are prescribing the concept Magritte wanted to convey, which
differs from my impression of his intent. If my understanding of your
interpretation is correct, the parallel would be: 1) showing a picture
of a pipe and saying it is is not what it looks like compared with 2)
Magritte's painting and the implied message that it is not a painting,
or not art.
At this point I cannot infer this interpretation from the painting
itself, although it is in keeping with DADA.
>
> If an abstract expressionist is to paint a non art painting then he or she
> must have a definition of artistic content in order to avoid it.
>
> Then one of the problems becomes avoiding the accidental
> creation of a word.
An interesting game to play, but as soon as artists get hold of such a
system, then art itself must absorb these contradictory definitions of
itself. So the game is to continually deny any principles that become
canonised by the art schools or whoever else is setting standards.
Then if the art community makes a concerted effort not to get caught
again and refuses to enshrine any principles that can be identified,
the artist must intuit which unspoken principles are actually being
followed.
At this point I think that is what is necessary in the West, since
everyone is trying to say there are no rules. If this were true,
however, then wall space in museums and galleries would not be so
difficult to obtain. The cloistered hermetic atmosphere of the art
world still exists and can only be maintained by rules, whether they
are articulated or not.
The avant-garde or even intellectually successful artist, therefore,
is the one who cuts through the game of manners to see the rules
actually in operation and creates an art that confronts and destroys
them. This would be my elaboration of the principle it appears you
have articulated.
Dilettante
Tripp
I believe the definition of art to be anything that creates its own
universe, its own world. By that I mean anything that you can fall
into; that you can get wrapped up in, completely absorbed in.
Therefore a painting, a drawing, a song, a poem, architect, and even
an abstract painting/drawing, can all be art if they each create their
own universe.
Tripp
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
trippl...@yahoo.com (Tripp) writes:
...
>I believe the definition of art to be anything that creates its own
>universe, its own world. By that I mean anything that you can fall
>into; that you can get wrapped up in, completely absorbed in.
>Therefore a painting, a drawing, a song, a poem, architect, and even
>an abstract painting/drawing, can all be art if they each create their
>own universe.
I'm not sure that could work as a full definition [though it might].
Would you classify, e.g., Euclidean geometry, or paranoid psychosis,
as art?
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept http://www.ewartshaw.co.uk
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
Tripp
> In article <c84e32a2.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> trippl...@yahoo.com (Tripp) writes:
> ...
> >I believe the definition of art to be anything that creates its own
> >universe, its own world. By that I mean anything that you can fall
> >into; that you can get wrapped up in, completely absorbed in.
> >Therefore a painting, a drawing, a song, a poem, architect, and even
> >an abstract painting/drawing, can all be art if they each create their
> >own universe.
>
> I'm not sure that could work as a full definition [though it might].
> Would you classify, e.g., Euclidean geometry, or paranoid psychosis,
> as art?
Personaly I would not classify Euclidean geometry as art, becase I
don't belive it creats its own universe; but to you it might, and you
are intitled to your own opinion. Now by "paranoid psychosis" are you
refering to the uk remastered album of Black Sabbath's, or something
else?
P.S. What part of the uk are you from?
Tripp
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
trippl...@yahoo.com (Tripp) writes:
>st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk () wrote in message news:<bu6jdi$2l3$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>...
>> In article <c84e32a2.04011...@posting.google.com>,
>> trippl...@yahoo.com (Tripp) writes:
>> ...
>> >I believe the definition of art to be anything that creates its own
>> >universe, its own world. By that I mean anything that you can fall
>> >into; that you can get wrapped up in, completely absorbed in.
>> >Therefore a painting, a drawing, a song, a poem, architect, and even
>> >an abstract painting/drawing, can all be art if they each create their
>> >own universe.
>>
>> I'm not sure that could work as a full definition [though it might].
>> Would you classify, e.g., Euclidean geometry, or paranoid psychosis,
>> as art?
>
>Personaly I would not classify Euclidean geometry as art, becase I
>don't belive it creats its own universe; but to you it might, and you
>are intitled to your own opinion.
The joy of mathematics is that one creates a mental universe,
with simple rules (e.g. the axioms of Euclidean geometry,
or group theory, or Newtonian mechanics), and investigates
the properties of this universe. The consequences of the axioms may be
surprising, or profound, or beautiful (at least to a mathematician),
but they are inevitable. Thus if there is intelligent life out there,
then it is quite likely to have come up with the idea of group theory,
then come up with the idea of classifying the finite simple groups,
and then will inevitably have come up with the same (beautiful)
classification as Earthlings have.
Thus one is discovering things that in a sense have always been "there",
always will be, and exist and would be true even if the physical
universe didn't exist.
Aesthetics come into it all - the choice of axioms in the first place,
the idea of what to look for within the universe, the method of proof.
Mathematicans talk a lot about "beautiful results", "elegant proofs",
and might even go all misty-eyed and burble into our beards about
"the mind of God".
This ties in perfectly with what you originally said:
"I believe the definition of art to be anything that creates its own
universe, its own world. By that I mean anything that you can fall
into; that you can get wrapped up in, completely absorbed in."
> Now by "paranoid psychosis" are you
>refering to the uk remastered album of Black Sabbath's, or something
>else?
Just referring to the fact that somebody with a mental illness
may create their own universe, their own world; fall into it,
get wrapped up in it, and completely absorbed in it.
>P.S. What part of the uk are you from?
Kenilworth [midlands] - pleasant but tame.
My heart lies in North-West Scotland.
> Tripp
Mani Deli
art. I'd say that for all the sciences.
Those who have a foundation in plane and solid geometry have a handle
on all the arts. It was a professional requirement for centuries.
Murray Peterson
news:bu6jdi$2l3$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk:
> Would you classify, e.g., Euclidean geometry, or paranoid psychosis,
> as art?
I don't know about Euclidean Geometry, but I would assert that calculus is
certainly an art form. If you take a sufficiently advanced course, your
assignments are no longer good enough if they are merely correct -- style
and form become significant.
Dilettante
>
> But the concept of "abstraction" only plays into the concept of
> "representation," neither of which has ever been of great interest to
> architecture.
Not true unless we throw out our definitions of abstraction, in which
case we have no way of characterizing the non-representational forms
architecture. The interplay between the abstract and the
representational is quite constant and strong.
Proof that representation has been very much a part of architecture is
the emulation of mountains sought by the pyramid and tomb builders of
many places and eras.
Representation is also important in decor, for example as caryatids
and entrance statures as well as ornamental heads, not to mention the
Parthenon friezes and the Ionian and Corinthian column capitals, which
began representational while becoming more abstract.
So I think it is untrue to claim the architecture's
> dominant design is "abstraction."
In the sense of its describing non-living and geometric forms, this
could indeed be said. Classical archicture uses the arch, triangle,
square, circle and dome, which are abstract forms.
(
> Architecture has always been about enclosure of space, and the dominate
> problem has always been the play-off between positive and negative
> space.
Not true at all. The stupas or chedis of Buddhism date from the early
centuries b.c. and were solid forms, meant as monuments and votive
objects.
That is comparable with painting, on some levels, but it
> wouldn't hold as any measure of comparison between abstract and
> representational painting, since both play with positive and negative space.
Since painting can include the representation of 3-d space, which in
turn includes architecture, yours seems to be a doomed argument. In
any case similar dynamics can be operative except that painting does
not have the physical forces--tension and compression--to factor in.
>
> There is one area of architecture that may be called "representation,"
> and that is when architects seek to reinterpret previous architectural
> styles or motifs in new form, such as the Greek Classical ploy of the
> Chicago Public Library.
There is also the direct representation of human forms in sculpture,
for example in scupture at the entrance to libraries and in grotesques
on walls.
>
> As for "fine art," I think Lauri has it exactly right about the
> semantic/cultural value of that. It's not written in stone.
the point of this thread is to discuss whether the use of the abstract
in architecture validates its use in painting.
Dilettante
>
> Erik
keith o'connor
> The avant-garde or even intellectually successful artist, therefore,
> is the one who cuts through the game of manners to see the rules
> actually in operation and creates an art that confronts and destroys
> them. This would be my elaboration of the principle it appears you
> have articulated.
Right on.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.04011...@posting.google.com...
frankvo...@web.de
wrote:
>To many of those who understand it mathematics is more beautiful than
>art. I'd say that for all the sciences.
>
>Those who have a foundation in plane and solid geometry have a handle
>on all the arts. It was a professional requirement for centuries.
>
My work, which consists of internet animations, uses mathematics to
the extreme. But I can still remember another mail from Mani where he
calls it "scribbling" or somethong like that.
Form an opinion by yourself and have a look at:
Frank
Dilettante
> Snip:
> > The avant-garde or even intellectually successful artist, therefore,
> > is the one who cuts through the game of manners to see the rules
> > actually in operation and creates an art that confronts and destroys
> > them. This would be my elaboration of the principle it appears you
> > have articulated.
>
> Right on.
Except that perhaps the game of manners becomes the rules of art.
D.