Measurable Qualities in Art
Flying_Naked_People
Is there a dominant color? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Does this dominant color lend to the mood of the artwork? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Can perspective be detected? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Are all the objects in the picture positioned and in proportion to this
perspective? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Is the picture In balance? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Can a center of interest be found? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Are there elements in the picture that lead the eye to the center of interest?
[yes] +1...[no] -1
Is the center of interest illuminated by contrast? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Is the center of interest illuminated by emphasis? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Are the objects in the picture in correct proportion to each other and to its
counter parts? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Is there a detectible pattern in the number of objects or in texture? [yes]
+1...[no] -1
Is this pattern arranged in a steady rhythm? (can be counted) [yes] +1...[no]
-1
Are the elements and subjects arranged in such a way that they offer unity?
[yes] +1...[no] -1
Are the elements and/or subjects arranged in such a way that they offer
variety within a detectable pattern? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Are the colors harmonious? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Are cool colors placed in the background? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Are warm colors placed in the foreground? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Do the colors of the objects reflect their color onto nearby objects? [yes]
+1...[no] -1
Is the foreground, middleground, and background detectable via the amount of
detail in these planes? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Do forms have height, width and thickness? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Is the negative space as interesting as the positive space? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Do the objects show light, reflected light, and highlights? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Can the direction from a light source be found? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Do any shadows cast follow the direction of the light source? [yes] +1...[no]
-1
Does light and color show through cast shadows? [yes] +1...[no] -1
Has the artist been careful to avoid tangent lines? [yes] +1...[no] -1
There are probably many many more. And now I just depressed myself. Lol.
Noumenon
> Just all the ones I can think of at the moment:
> There are probably many many more. And now I just depressed myself. Lol.
This is a nice list.
Why wouldn't we develop it and turn into some soft of evaluation system?
It's better than to waste time talking about Cezanne.
And of course there should be classification based on score earned:
points < 10 - looser, no chance to be an artist;
points >10 but < 15 - schmartist, but there is still a hope;
... etc
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Flying_Naked_People
> Subject: Re: Measurable Qualities in Art
> From: Noumenon <ArtE...@Concentric.Net>
> Reply-To: no.dam...@the.present
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
> Flying_Naked_People wrote:
>
> > Just all the ones I can think of at the moment:
> [skipped]
> > There are probably many many more. And now I just depressed myself. Lol.
>
>
> This is a nice list.
>
> Why wouldn't we develop it and turn into some soft of evaluation system?
I think we should!! And I think the same thing could be done for technique,
creativity, and this subjectivity stuff.
> It's better than to waste time talking about Cezanne.
>
> And of course there should be classification based on score earned:
>
> points < 10 - looser, no chance to be an artist;
> points >10 but < 15 - schmartist, but there is still a hope;
> ... etc
Yup, yup.
christian tangoe
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>Just all the ones I can think of at the moment:
>
>Is there a dominant color? [yes] +1...[no] -1
>Does this dominant color lend to the mood of the artwork? [yes] +1...[no] -1
>Can perspective be detected? [yes] +1...[no] -1
For your own sake...give up this kind of quality-judgement on art. Its
much faster to just go by your emotion. Do you like or not ?
In the end you will have to rely on "non annalytical" powers anyway...
However, from an analytical point of view you have quire many
points...That is, if one is judging "figurative" art. In fact you
could just ask : Is the painting equal to reality /photographical
truth ?
However, there are many more questions to be asked, if you include
other kind of painting than just figurative.
Moreover, you deal only with the "skill"-part of painting. Now what
about the expression of the artist, and what about the purpose of the
painting ?
Christian
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Moreover, you deal only with the "skill"-part of painting. Now what
> about the expression of the artist, and what about the purpose of the
> painting ?
Those belong in a "content" check.
> Christian
>
Marc Sabatella
> I think we should!! And I think the same thing could be done for
technique,
> creativity, and this subjectivity stuff.
The problem is,. virtually everything on your list *is* "subjective
stuff". I mean, just look at the second item: "Does this dominant color
lend to the mood of the artwork". How you do even determine what the
mood of the painting is except subjectively? Different people might
look at the same painting and sense different moods. And to the extent
that people agree on the mood, there may be much disagreement over where
the mood comes from - is it subject matter? Key? Composition? Use of
colors *aside* from the dominant color? There is simply no way you can
measure whether what you want to measure, ecept subjectively - ask
someone there opinion. And be prepared to get a different answer from
everyone you ask.
The same is true of many other items on the list, like all the qualities
relating to interest, balance, rhythm, unity, and harmony. These are
all extremely subjective qualities. What interests you might not
interest someone else. What you find in balance, someone else might
not. What you find harmonious, someone else might not. And so on.
Really, the only things on the list that are objective have to do with
perspective, proportion, and representation of the effects of light and
atmosphere (shadow color, etc). This is understandable, because these
qualities are not measuring how good the painting is, but how
*realistic* it is. If that's all there is to being good, then I am glad
I am not trying to produce art, but rather schmart - that world is a lot
more complex. Well, there were two items that did not relate to realism
but are measurable objectively - the very first (does the painting have
a dominant color), and the one about avoiding tangent lines. This
leads, though, to the basic problem with lists like this: who gets to
determine how *important* any of these determinations are. That is,
what difference does it make if a painting has a dominant color or
tangent lines or not? I think you are reversing cause and effect here.
Someone somewhere noticed that paintings generally considered good
tended to have these qualities. That doesn't mean it has to be that
way.
That said, I agree that this is a good checklist for evaluating your own
paintings, on the assumption that your goal is the particular brand of
realism that this list is biased towards. You will be making subjective
judgements on many of the areas, but that can't be helped, and you can
still trust that some percentage of other people with similar tastes
will judge them similarly. Although one suggestion - it probably would
be more helpful to rate most of these qualities on a scale - instead of
yes/no, 1-10, or something like that. For instance, what if proportion
is almost perfect, except one side of the left kneecap is off by half a
millimeter?
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> The problem is,. virtually everything on your list *is* "subjective
> stuff". I mean, just look at the second item: "Does this dominant color
> lend to the mood of the artwork". How you do even determine what the
> mood of the painting is except subjectively? Different people might
> look at the same painting and sense different moods. And to the extent
> that people agree on the mood, there may be much disagreement over where
> the mood comes from - is it subject matter? Key? Composition? Use of
> colors *aside* from the dominant color? There is simply no way you can
> measure whether what you want to measure, ecept subjectively - ask
> someone there opinion. And be prepared to get a different answer from
> everyone you ask.
To a degree. Different cultures (as I understand) can interpret the
elements you described as different moods. However, looking at a
painting's subject, let's say a figure, one should determine the mood
based on the figure's facial expression and body language. Even specific
shapes are associated with specific moods, and that includes colors.
> The same is true of many other items on the list, like all the qualities
> relating to interest, balance, rhythm, unity, and harmony. These are
> all extremely subjective qualities. What interests you might not
> interest someone else.
By "interesting," I mean: Could the background stand as an independent
piece of art? A blank background certainly could not. These things can be
measured.
> What you find in balance, someone else might
> not. What you find harmonious, someone else might not. And so on.
Finding balance is a simple matter of counting. Rhythm can be found by
counting. Harmony can be found by counting shared hues.
> Really, the only things on the list that are objective have to do with
> perspective, proportion, and representation of the effects of light and
> atmosphere (shadow color, etc). This is understandable, because these
> qualities are not measuring how good the painting is, but how
> *realistic* it is.
*Many* of these qualities can be successfully applied to non-realistic
art.
> If that's all there is to being good, then I am glad
> I am not trying to produce art, but rather schmart - that world is a lot
> more complex. Well, there were two items that did not relate to realism
> but are measurable objectively - the very first (does the painting have
> a dominant color), and the one about avoiding tangent lines. This
> leads, though, to the basic problem with lists like this: who gets to
> determine how *important* any of these determinations are. That is,
> what difference does it make if a painting has a dominant color or
> tangent lines or not?
Dominant color lends to the picture's harmony. Harmony is very important,
and the lack of it is one reason why Cezanne's Olympia is horrible. The
use of tangent lines does not offer sufficient visual information to
imply depth. Non-realistic paintings can most certainly contain depth.
> I think you are reversing cause and effect here.
> Someone somewhere noticed that paintings generally considered good
> tended to have these qualities. That doesn't mean it has to be that
> way.
>
> That said, I agree that this is a good checklist for evaluating your own
> paintings, on the assumption that your goal is the particular brand of
> realism that this list is biased towards. You will be making subjective
> judgements on many of the areas, but that can't be helped, and you can
> still trust that some percentage of other people with similar tastes
> will judge them similarly. Although one suggestion - it probably would
> be more helpful to rate most of these qualities on a scale - instead of
> yes/no, 1-10, or something like that. For instance, what if proportion
> is almost perfect, except one side of the left kneecap is off by half a
> millimeter?
I agree. Great suggestion!
Flying_Naked_People
christian tangoe
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
I still think, that in judging art, three complete different
paramters must be exmined:
The artists intetions, the actual work and the contemporary relevance
or meaning.
That is: The artist, the work and the spectator.
The artifice should be judged from all three angels, including a
cross-reference.
Thus, one cannot just judge a picasso by saying "its bad painting".
Thus, not all piles of dirt in a gallery is great art.
And so on.
Judging art is a very complex matter, yet it is important to maintain
the position, that it can be done, in a serious, not judgemental, not
tastebiased way. But only if one is aware of the the ghosts of taste
as well as tradition.
In the end not even the finest scientific investigations can be 100
pct. foolproof.
However, to start defining these quality principles is great, because
it gies qualified room for discussion.
I must point out thoug, that skill today in judging art is much more
complex than what you outlined. And I will strongly warn against a
model, that just "sums up" technical points to evalute quality.
The most difficult part of art evalutation is - and now I speak
personally as an artist too - this: Who knows what relevance the work
will have tomorrow ? No matter how much I strive to be reaching for
eternal relevance in my painting, iot might still get foolish for a
spectator in the next milennium. So the biggest ghost of the
evaluation proces is not just "the quality" seen from a contemporary
artview, but from an arthistorical point of view.
Wherther arthistory can be incorporated in a qualityjudgment not only
retrospective but also futuristic...
Well, what do you think ?
Christian Tangoe
Curating my own art - not an easy task....
Milt Lauenstein
but assigning plus or minus values a totally subjective act. The
implication is that a "plus 1" means that a painting with that quality
is "better" than one without it. What is the basis for using these
criteria to judge merit?
Painting and looking at paintings are activities done for pleasure.
What gives one person pleasure annoys another. Any attempt at
assigning a degree of merit to a painting is certain to fail, except
in the sense that it may create money value to the painting or to the
critic.
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message news:<vfl9k0j...@corp.supernews.com>...
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> The characteristics listed by Flying Naked People are measurable, ok,
> but assigning plus or minus values a totally subjective act. The
> implication is that a "plus 1" means that a painting with that quality
> is "better" than one without it.
Well??? I really don't think a quality piece of art can own just a few of
these characteristics. Each one seems to depend on or contribute to another.
And like I said, that list is missing some stuff for sure!
> What is the basis for using these
> criteria to judge merit?
I do know that appraisers certainly consider composition (and technique) when
assessing the monetary value of art. What components are in that consideration
exactly, I do not know. My point in making the list is that although it seems
lengthy, it really is *basic* stuff - Design 101. (and even still, everything
might not be on there)
That leads me to believe that artwork which does not contain at the very
*least*, the very *basics*, is questionable in regards to its value or
quality.
> Painting and looking at paintings are activities done for pleasure.
> What gives one person pleasure annoys another. Any attempt at
> assigning a degree of merit to a painting is certain to fail, except
> in the sense that it may create money value to the painting or to the
> critic.
>
True! Let's say a painting was made to please the artist or a friend or
whatever, but it fails miserable within the "constraints" of *basic* design.
Should that painting be heralded as a "masterpiece" and representative of
human accomplishment?
It should not, imo.
Seagull Manager
"Milt Lauenstein" <mi...@miltlau.com> wrote in message
news:63084d73.03062...@posting.google.com...
>
> Painting and looking at paintings are activities done for pleasure.
> What gives one person pleasure annoys another. Any attempt at
> assigning a degree of merit to a painting is certain to fail, except
> in the sense that it may create money value to the painting or to the
> critic.
Compare paintings to food: some people love olives, others hate 'em. So, are
olives good food? One can say that it is subjective, and there's no
objective answer. But consider a buffet: a buffet that consists of nothing
but porridge is lousy, while one that contains many delicious foods (i.e.,
foods known to be considered delicious by many people) is great, even though
some people will dislike some of the individual foods, because everyone will
find enough things that they like in order to get a tasty meal. One can say
that the first buffet is objectively lousy, and the second is, in a sense,
objectively great, because the lousiness of the first and the greatness of
the second is "all-round" -- almost certainly, EVERYBODY will prefer the
second to the first, and if someone does prefer the first, they are either
doing so for non-aesthetic reasons, or they are aesthetically perverse.
Now, a painting isn't equivalent to an olive, it is equivalent to a buffet,
in the sense that it can (in principle, at least) present a large number of
aesthetic delights to viewers, so even if a particular viewer is not too
sure about one or two aspects of the work, he or she can still find plenty
else to like in it. An excellent painting such as Botticelli's Minerva, or
Holbein's the Ambassadors offers many delights, many forms of beauty and
virtuosity. A person would have to be a bit strange not to enjoy at least
some of them. These paintings are really and truly great, not just in the
accidentally coincidental subjective view of a number of people, but in a
sense that reaches beyond subjectivity into something like objectivity.
Nikolaus Maack
buffets, wouldn't the art gallery be the buffet? That way there would
be room for "oatmeal" and Botticelli.
Is your world so small, you think there's only room for Botticelli?
Seagull Manager
"Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3EFD810A...@sympatico.ca...
> Your analogy is broken. If art is food, and we're talking about
> buffets, wouldn't the art gallery be the buffet?
Not on this analogy. The art gallery would be the banqueting hall.
> That way there would
> be room for "oatmeal" and Botticelli.
You've missed the point entirely.
> Is your world so small, you think there's only room for Botticelli?
No.
Nikolaus Maack
> Not on this analogy. The art gallery would be the banqueting hall.
*sigh*
> You've missed the point entirely.
Not at all. It's the same point you've been trying to make ever since
you got here. It's difficult to miss, given the repetition.
>>Is your world so small, you think there's only room for Botticelli?
>
> No.
If we take your analogy further, could it be argued Mani is an insane
food critic constantly complaining about people who eat nouvelle cuisine?
Chris
> buffets, wouldn't the art gallery be the buffet? That way there would
> be room for "oatmeal" and Botticelli.
>
The silly part of the analogy is - why not a buffet for oatmeal? I know of
lots of different ways of doing things with it - from haggis to oatmeal
cookies to muesli bread; it could actually be fun. I've been to buffets that
were all chocolate, and certainly most of us have been to wine fairs, which
are mostly just wine with the odd palate cleanser, and they've been
delightful. I guess Bruce needs to stop reading about life, and start
tasting of it...
Here's to Icelandic liver loaf (primarily oatmeal and ground internal
organs...)
Cheers;
Chris
Nikolaus Maack
> The silly part of the analogy is - why not a buffet for oatmeal? I know of
> lots of different ways of doing things with it - from haggis to oatmeal
> cookies to muesli bread; it could actually be fun. I've been to buffets that
> were all chocolate, and certainly most of us have been to wine fairs, which
> are mostly just wine with the odd palate cleanser, and they've been
> delightful. I guess Bruce needs to stop reading about life, and start
> tasting of it...
My partner and I once bought a dozen different types of colas and laid
them out buffet style for my brother to taste, so he could tell us which
one he liked best. A sort of Pepsi Challenge write large, where we
included strange Asian colas bought at obscure specialty stores.
He ended up picking Diet Pepsi, which made us all laugh at him for some
reason.
> Here's to Icelandic liver loaf (primarily oatmeal and ground internal
> organs...)
Blood sausage is oatmeal and blood, is it not? Would this be allowed at
the table?
Let's find some other analogy we can beat to death. What if art were
fish in the ocean? Would it be wrong to enjoy the taste of calimari?
Marc Sabatella
> To a degree. Different cultures (as I understand) can interpret the
> elements you described as different moods. However, looking at a
> painting's subject, let's say a figure, one should determine the mood
> based on the figure's facial expression and body language. Even
specific
> shapes are associated with specific moods, and that includes colors.
Associating a shape or color with a mood is about as subjective as you
can get. Is there *nothing* you don't think can be detemrined
objectively?
It is true that in the cases where people are included in a painting,
facial expressions and body language represent mood in a relatively
objective way, within a given culture. But what of the vast number of
paintings that do not include people?
> By "interesting," I mean: Could the background stand as an independent
> piece of art? A blank background certainly could not. These things can
be
> measured.
How? Do you honestly believe that any two people would agree on which
backgrounds are interesting and which are not?
> > What you find in balance, someone else might
> > not. What you find harmonious, someone else might not. And so on.
>
> Finding balance is a simple matter of counting. Rhythm can be found by
> counting. Harmony can be found by counting shared hues.
Those give you numbers, but who said those provide the definition of
balance, rhythm, or harmony? What numbers constitute good balance, good
rhythm, or good harmony? Certainly no dictionary in the world has ever
provided an answer; what makes you think you can?
> > Really, the only things on the list that are objective have to do
with
> > perspective, proportion, and representation of the effects of light
and
> > atmosphere (shadow color, etc). This is understandable, because
these
> > qualities are not measuring how good the painting is, but how
> > *realistic* it is.
>
> *Many* of these qualities can be successfully applied to non-realistic
> art.
Sure, you *can* apply them, but doing so to art that is admittedlty not
realistic is pretty much going to guarantee a poor showing. If it is
representational but not particularly realistic, it is usually going to
be because it has violated some of those principles. I would readuly
agree that realism can be measured fairly objectively (but by no means
completely so). But if realism = quality, I am not interested in
quality. Only beauty.
> Dominant color lends to the picture's harmony.
It can. if you have happen to respond to it in that particular way. Not
everyone does.
> Harmony is very important,
> and the lack of it is one reason why Cezanne's Olympia is horrible.
And the fact that many find it beautiful is more evidence that this
stuff is *not* objective.
> Non-realistic paintings can most certainly contain depth.
They can, but must they? Why? Because *you* prefer it that way?
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> Compare paintings to food: some people love olives, others hate 'em.
So, are
> olives good food? One can say that it is subjective, and there's no
> objective answer. But consider a buffet: a buffet that consists of
nothing
> but porridge is lousy, while one that contains many delicious foods
(i.e.,
> foods known to be considered delicious by many people) is great, even
though
> some people will dislike some of the individual foods, because
everyone will
> find enough things that they like in order to get a tasty meal.
Can you guarantee this? I've been to buffets others loved where hardly
anything was to my liking. I'm a picky eater, though.
Also, one could indeed, by throwing enough stuff into a painting, come
up with one that most people found *something* to like in. But what if
everyone found only two things to like, while disliking other parts.
Compare that to a painting containing only five elements, all of which a
segment of the population was completely 100% in love with, while others
didn't care for at all. Which is better - pleasing a lot of people a
little bit, or pleasing a few people a lot?
> These paintings are really and truly great, not just in the
> accidentally coincidental subjective view of a number of people, but
in a
> sense that reaches beyond subjectivity into something like
objectivity.
It becomes objectively great only if you define objectively great
according to a popularity poll. You can do this, indeed - and that is
precisely what I did with schmart.
Hola Vecinos
>
>Your analogy is broken. If art is food, and we're talking about
>buffets, wouldn't the art gallery be the buffet? That way there would
>be room for "oatmeal" and Botticelli.
Sorry to interrupt this thread with this
revelation: "The ELITE eat WHEAT!"
As in Cream of Wheat. When I was a kid
there was a kiddie program on the radio
every Saturday morning that had this ditty:
Cream of Wheat is so good to eat
and we have it every day.
Sing it's song and it will make
you strong and then you'll shout HOORAY!
etc etc
For all the family's breakfast, you
can't beat Cream of Wheat.
On the other hand, REAL MEN eat GRITS!
Grits for breakfast, grits and gravy
for supper, and TRUE GRIT for the
evening's entertainment.
Milt Lauenstein
very well, but would like to go back to the discussion of Measurable
Qualities in Art, as opposed to dealing with the food analogies.
The point I tried to make earlier is that while there are obviously
measurable qualities in a painting (size, for example), I have never
come across a convincing argument that it is possible to measure some
kind of absolute merit in a painting. It seems to me to be purely a
matter of taste. I have seen paintings in which I could see no merit
whatsoever, but someone put them where I would see them and surely
thought that some viewers would appreciate the opportunity to see
them. I have seen paintings by amateurs, by children, and by cave men
that excited me. Finally, I have seen a great many paintings in
museums that I don't respond to at all.
Some take the position that with enough effort, one can learn to
distinguish "good" art from "bad". I have attended leading art schools
in the US and Europe and have failed to learn any way to tell what I
"should" like - possibly because I lack the ability to do so. Perhaps
only a select few are able to determine whether a painting "should" be
enjoyed. I have been painting and looking at paintings for over 50
years and am content to paint and look without the help of experts to
tell me what to enjoy.
Milt Lauenstein
.
Nikolaus Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<3EFDD0B7...@sympatico.ca>...
Bernard Victor
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Your analogy is broken. If art is food, and we're talking about
>buffets, wouldn't the art gallery be the buffet? That way there would
>be room for "oatmeal" and Botticelli.
A Bernard Buffet !
Milt Lauenstein
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:24:52 -0000, "Flying_Naked_People"
> <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> I still think, that in judging art, three complete different
> paramters must be exmined:
Why must art be judged? What good does it do, other than to affect the
dollar value of the work? Judging tends to make most people reluctant
to react spontanrously to art for fear that their reactions could seem
unsophisticated to the "experts", whose taste must be good. Worse
still, the practice of judging art makes most people reluctant to
engage in artistic activity for fear of being judged as "bad".
Seagull Manager
>
> Why must art be judged?
Human beings have a degree of self-conscious built in. They can't enjoy
something without saying "I liked that, that was good!" Which means that
when they enjoy (or fail to enjoy) art, they judge it automatically.
> Why must art be judged?
For that matter, why must it be made?
> What good does it do, other than to affect the
> dollar value of the work?
Most judgements of works of art do not do that - only those in auction
houses, galleries, in print and in the media. Most judgements are merely
personal opinions that don't go anywhere. The good that it does is that it
helps people understand their own taste better and seek out more art that
they will enjoy.
> Judging tends to make most people reluctant
> to react spontanrously to art for fear that their reactions could seem
> unsophisticated to the "experts", whose taste must be good.
Unsophisticated people either ignore art, or ignore the experts. It is the
sophisticated we have to worry about.
> Worse
> still, the practice of judging art makes most people reluctant to
> engage in artistic activity for fear of being judged as "bad".
To make art on the condition that it not be judged would be the height of
arrogance, and quite insane.
Nerd Gerl
> To make art on the condition that it not be judged would be the height of
> arrogance, and quite insane.
This is bugging me. What if a person is making art for spiritual
reasons? Or therapy reasons? Or just to have fun? Or as a personal
challenge?
I don't think judgement is a default incentive. One of these days, I'm
going to make a mantra. Now that's pretty personal and I won't care
about other's opinions. Does that make me arrogant or insane?
Seagull Manager
"Nerd Gerl" <nerd...@rcip.com> wrote in message
news:c45b61ca.03070...@posting.google.com...
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:<becu5q$fv6$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
> > To make art on the condition that it not be judged would be the height
of
> > arrogance, and quite insane.
>
> This is bugging me. What if a person is making art for spiritual
> reasons? Or therapy reasons? Or just to have fun? Or as a personal
> challenge?
If it is for fun or personal challenge, judgement is implicit there - the
judge is the person who's making it. Art therapy generally isn't art, and
I'm not sure what is meant by "spiritual reasons". Anyway, I don't mean it's
necessarily arrogant to make art without an expectation that others will
judge it, but it would be extremely arrogant to make some stuff, call it
art, allow people to see it, and insist that they not judge it.
Nikolaus Maack
>>This is bugging me. What if a person is making art for spiritual
>>reasons? Or therapy reasons? Or just to have fun? Or as a personal
>>challenge?
>
> If it is for fun or personal challenge, judgement is implicit there - the
> judge is the person who's making it. Art therapy generally isn't art,
If it's not ART why is it called *ART* THERAPY? What distinction do you
see between the two?
> and
> I'm not sure what is meant by "spiritual reasons".
Care to take a guess? What *spiritual* qualities do you think a person
might derive from the creative process? I suspect you understand what
"spiritual reasons" might be, but find the idea somehow personally
distasteful.
Do you have a "spiritual" or "religious" aspect to your life?
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Seagull Manager wrote:
>> Art therapy generally isn't art,
>
>If it's not ART why is it called *ART* THERAPY?
The same reason Christian Science is by some called science.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Flying_Naked_People
seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk says...
> Art therapy generally isn't art
Well, I don't know what art therapy is... but I do know that making art can be
therapeutic. So... maybe art therapy is "Therapeutic Art Making."
In that sense... art therapy can most certainly be a form art.
I suspect you're talking about the frantic scribbles of the abused. Or that
silly, "If you were a tree, draw the kind of tree you would be." Lol. I had to
do that once... and I refused to move based on the fact that trees can't
draw.
Seagull Manager
>
> If it's not ART why is it called *ART* THERAPY? What distinction do you
> see between the two?
By that reasoning, Art Garfunkel is art, too.
Peter H.M. Brooks
quite an interesting pattern.
My brother (at the age of about six) was expelled from ballet lessons
because, when asked to act as if a tree, he stood with one finger in the
air, explaining that all his branches had been blown off in a storm.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)