Art
Paul Mesken
arises from differences about the meaning of the word "art". Some
state that everyting is art, some state that art necessarily must
involve a certain degree of skill, some believe it is meant to serve
some non obvious purpose.
Group, rejoice! For I have taken it upon me to allocate some of my
immeasurable intellectual power to solve this issue once and for all.
To bring light where previously was the sole domain of Darkness and
Voidness. To lift the curtains from thy eyes and to cast away the
clouds of doubt, replacing it with Certainty and Clearness so that all
of r.a.f. will carry on in Harmony and speak of nothing else but my
Greatness. The lamb will sleep with the lion, the dead will walk the
face of the earth, Babylon, Zion, the Matrix, etc. etc. ;-)
First off : art is not the same as good or even great art. The
definition of art doesn't involve its quality, success or amount of
skill involved in making it. If I throw a rock it might either land a
mere 2 inches from where I'm standing or it might go straight into
orbit. Both cases are throws irrespective of the distance the rock
travelled. The first case was just a particularly lousy throw, the
second was science fiction (yeah, yeah, if the rock weighed over two
tons then the first case wouldn't have been so bad, I know :-)
Secondly : art is man made. If the word is used for something not man
made then it's used metaphorically. If I say : that tree is a work of
art then I'm using the word "art" metaphorically because I think the
tree is so beautifull it appears to be made to please my senses. Which
brings us to :
Thirdly : art is made with the intention to be experienced by the
senses. The so called "Mind's Eye" is also part of the senses for
people (and a lot of animals) are capable of imagining experiences
(imagery). Ofcourse a lot of products can be experienced by the senses
but it is art that has this experience at its design's core.
Fourthly : art is meant to affect , it is made to move the
experiencer (which can be the maker) by the senses. Art is meant as a
vehicle to evoke emotions, feelings or thinking (about something else
than the work itself). This separates a chart from the Mona Lisa and
is the aesthetical aim of art.
Filthy : art is symbolic in nature, it represents something else than
itself. Ofcourse a painting might represent a scene of the real world
but in any event a work of art represents the idea or feeling it aims
to evoke.
Furthermore : human experience of the world around them and of their
own being doesn't leave them unaffected. It is in art that they try to
find exactly what the form is that moves them. Thus : art is also a
search to what is called the "essence" of something. An attempt to
isolate those features essential to evoking a certain feeling or idea.
Art is both a search to and requires knowledge about how the senses
move the Self.
Originality, self expression, technical skills, dreams, etc. are not
requirements of art although they might certainly be involved in both
the execution of it or judging it.
Art can be judged without taking taste into the equation. Both the
senses and the elements of proper design are well known, for a large
part even to the point of formalization.
P.S. All of what I've written above is the undenieable Truth and above
judgement of mere mortals. To dispute its validity is to travel down
the Road of Folly. Those unfortunate enough to do this anyway will not
go to Heaven, they will be cast into the Abyss in which they will
endure eternal burning by flames about 71 times hotter than the fire
of a regular gas stove and be flocked with the stinging nettles from
my mother's garden. They will have a melon sized cactus rectally
inserted and their brains picked out by ravens. They will walk over
shreds of glass while being forced to listen to the Sesame Street
opening tune, etc. etc. You have been warned! ;-)
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
>The word art comes from the Latin word ARS, which means SKILL.
Arse? Er.. I mean "ars"? ;-)
Interesting, analogously the greek word "techne" means art, craft and
skill. Now it's used in words like "Technique" and "Technology". On a
side note : strangely enough "logos" means "word" so "technology"
would mean something like the study (words about) of skill but
nowadays it means the stuff itself (the result of skill).
But yes : one can see in a lot of languages that art still has the
meaning of skill (the art of wood working, the art of driving a car,
etc.) even when the word itself doesn't resemble "art" (in dutch the
word is "kunst" but it is used in the same way).
Lauri Levanto
SumGuy wrote:
>
> The word art comes from the Latin word ARS, which means SKILL.
>
The word automobile comes from latin or greek but it
no longer refers to clouds that move by themselves
-lauri
judith
constructed by the hand, and reflects the spirit of its human maker. As
such it is capable of communicating across time, culture and geography,
touch our humanity and causes a reaction. Love or hate it, call it good or
bad, you can't ignore or forget it if it's art.
Consider Shang Dynasty bronzes, Aboringinal 'teaching stones', a Japanese
wedding kimono, the Hula, drawings by Rubens, Michaelangelo's 'David',
Chartres Cathedral, van Gogh's paintings, even the bloody bagpipe.
Cheers
Judith
Paul Mesken
>x-no-archive: yes
>We read and learn, Master
>:-)
>p.s "filthy"? surely fifthly :-)
>Thur
>
Freudian slip ;-)
Hans Klapeen
>Consider Shang Dynasty bronzes, Aboringinal 'teaching stones', a Japanese
>wedding kimono, the Hula, drawings by Rubens, Michaelangelo's 'David',
>Chartres Cathedral, van Gogh's paintings, even the bloody bagpipe.
Whooops - you left out the Venus of Willendorf.
G*rd*n
> ...
> experiencer (which can be the maker) by the senses. Art is meant as a
> vehicle to evoke emotions, feelings or thinking (about something else
> than the work itself). This separates a chart from the Mona Lisa and
> is the aesthetical aim of art.
It would seem that the objects produced by art are supposed
to be ends in themselves, rather than tools for some other
object or purpose. Or one might say they have some other-
worldly, shamanistic purpose.
This wouldn't cover commercial art, though.
> Filthy : art is symbolic in nature, it represents something else than
> itself. Ofcourse a painting might represent a scene of the real world
> but in any event a work of art represents the idea or feeling it aims
> to evoke.
> ...
Filthy indeed. How are we going to deal with Man Ray's
'Gift' (the flatiron with nails glued to it) or his
"Indestructible Object / Object To Be Destroyed" (the
metronome with a photograph of an eye attached to it)?
These refer to the world, but don't seem to _represent_
(re-present) anything in particular.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Paul Mesken
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>:
>> ...
>> Fourthly : art is meant to affect , it is made to move the
>> experiencer (which can be the maker) by the senses. Art is meant as a
>> vehicle to evoke emotions, feelings or thinking (about something else
>> than the work itself). This separates a chart from the Mona Lisa and
>> is the aesthetical aim of art.
>
>It would seem that the objects produced by art are supposed
>to be ends in themselves, rather than tools for some other
>object or purpose. Or one might say they have some other-
>worldly, shamanistic purpose.
The exact goal of a _work_ of art is not stated in my story. My 5
points only decide on what is art. It's like a description of "war",
it describes what events qualify to be called a war, how it works but
not what a particular war (like WW2 for instance) was all about (the
goal of the war).
>This wouldn't cover commercial art, though.
As a matter of fact : it does include commercial art for especially
commercial art is made to catch the attention of the audience quickly,
evoke desired feelings and ideas in them and use a product of a brand
as the carrier. Hopefully, positive ideas or feelings will be
associated with the product or brand. It's a clever application of art
and a lot can be learned from it for it reveals our understanding from
the human psyche.
>> Filthy : art is symbolic in nature, it represents something else than
>> itself. Ofcourse a painting might represent a scene of the real world
>> but in any event a work of art represents the idea or feeling it aims
>> to evoke.
>> ...
>
>Filthy indeed. How are we going to deal with Man Ray's
>'Gift' (the flatiron with nails glued to it)
If his flat iron would be nothing else than itself then it would be a
pretty lousy flat iron, tearing clothes apart with the nails. It's
obviously symbolic in nature. The title "the gift" is meant to make us
think.
http://www.etsu.edu/philos/classes/rk/modernzenith/htmdescriptionpages/iron.htm
Mani Deli
wrote:
>First off : art is not the same as good or even great art. The
>definition of art doesn't involve its quality, success or amount of
>skill involved in making it.
tangent snipped. We don't agree.
>Secondly : art is man made.
agreed but an obvious point. Art also usually contains molecules.
>Thirdly : art is made with the intention to be experienced by the
>senses.
Unavoidable. The dead aren't interested.
>Fourthly : art is meant to affect ,
repetition of the above.
>
>Filthy : art is symbolic in nature, it represents something else than
>itself.
Pollock etc. does neither.
>Furthermore : human experience of the world around them and of their
>own being doesn't leave them unaffected. It is in art that they try to
>find exactly what the form is that moves them. Thus : An attempt to
>isolate those features essential to evoking a certain feeling or idea.
>Art is both a search to and requires knowledge about how the senses
>move the Self.
Art isn't a " a search to what is called the "essence" of something."
In fact I don't believe that statement means anything.
>Originality, self expression, technical skills, dreams, etc. are not
>requirements of art although they might certainly be involved in both
>the execution of it or judging it.
Then what are the requirements. So far you have said a lot of almost
nothing.
>Art can be judged without taking taste into the equation. Both the
>senses and the elements of proper design are well known, for a large
>part even to the point of formalization.
You already said that.
>P.S. All of what I've written above is the undenieable Truth and above
>judgement of mere mortals.
That also excludes you.
>To dispute its validity is to travel down
>the Road of Folly. Those unfortunate enough to do this anyway will not
>go to Heaven, they will be cast into the Abyss in which they will
>endure eternal burning by flames about 71 times hotter than the fire
>of a regular gas stove and be flocked with the stinging nettles from
>my mother's garden. They will have a melon sized cactus rectally
>inserted and their brains picked out by ravens. They will walk over
>shreds of glass while being forced to listen to the Sesame Street
>opening tune, etc. etc. You have been warned! ;-)
And Jesus will arrive on a golden chariot!
...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/
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2003 00:20:28 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>First off : art is not the same as good or even great art. The
>>definition of art doesn't involve its quality, success or amount of
>>skill involved in making it.
>
>tangent snipped. We don't agree.
It is true that we don't agree. You are of the opinion that art
requires a certain level of skill. I am of the opinion that it is
skill that separates the good art from the bad art. What you call
"art", I call "good art". There's ofcourse always the danger that I
call something art when it fact it is a scam job.
>>Secondly : art is man made.
>
>agreed but an obvious point. Art also usually contains molecules.
Granted, but the point still needed to be made before people start
calling trees and stuff art.
>>Thirdly : art is made with the intention to be experienced by the
>>senses.
>
>Unavoidable. The dead aren't interested.
That's not the point. For example : in the design of a computer mouse
it is the human hand that stands central, not the senses.
>>Fourthly : art is meant to affect ,
>
>repetition of the above.
The senses and their effect is not the same. If I see a painting of a
computer or a painting of a nude woman then my reactions to both of
them are quite different even though both were made to be experienced
by my senses. To understand why I react the way I do to a nude woman
is quite important to me :-)
>>Filthy : art is symbolic in nature, it represents something else than
>>itself.
>
>Pollock etc. does neither.
Well, I'm not so sure whether Pollock's stuff is art. Until now I've
given him the benefit of the doubt.
>>Furthermore : human experience of the world around them and of their
>>own being doesn't leave them unaffected. It is in art that they try to
>>find exactly what the form is that moves them. Thus : An attempt to
>>isolate those features essential to evoking a certain feeling or idea.
>>Art is both a search to and requires knowledge about how the senses
>>move the Self.
>
>Art isn't a " a search to what is called the "essence" of something."
>In fact I don't believe that statement means anything.
It's far more down to earth then what the art scene would like to have
you believed. A cartoonist might make a cartoon of George Bush by
isolating (and magnifying) those facial features that make the
likeness. What the cartoonist has done is finding the essentials in
the face of Bush, the "essence" of the likeness.
>>Originality, self expression, technical skills, dreams, etc. are not
>>requirements of art although they might certainly be involved in both
>>the execution of it or judging it.
>
>Then what are the requirements. So far you have said a lot of almost
>nothing.
The requirements are listed as the five points. The problem you have
with them is that they don't rule out bad art.
>>Art can be judged without taking taste into the equation. Both the
>>senses and the elements of proper design are well known, for a large
>>part even to the point of formalization.
>
>You already said that.
Yeah, and I keep on saying it in the hope people don't consider
something good art merely because it is "self expression" or
something. It is proper use of good technical skill and knowledge that
is central to deeming a work of art as "good art".
I guess my mantra should be something like :
...No skill, No good! :-)
Erik A. Mattila
Lauri, in ancient times I bought a '57 Porsche 356A - in fact it was
that year's "late" model, and it was among the last line of hand-built
Porsche's, but it did have the 356B under-carriage with some improved
suspension, but it was 200 lbs lighter than the model B.
That car truly fit the Greek definition. I realize that it really
didn't move by itself, but it sure seemed that way.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
> Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>:
>
>>...
>>Fourthly : art is meant to affect , it is made to move the
>>experiencer (which can be the maker) by the senses. Art is meant as a
>>vehicle to evoke emotions, feelings or thinking (about something else
>>than the work itself). This separates a chart from the Mona Lisa and
>>is the aesthetical aim of art.
>
>
> It would seem that the objects produced by art are supposed
> to be ends in themselves, rather than tools for some other
> object or purpose. Or one might say they have some other-
> worldly, shamanistic purpose.
>
> This wouldn't cover commercial art, though.
Ahem...you might want to reconsider that in the context of Marx'
commodity fetish...
Erik
Andrew Werby
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:c3e4dvotr95no0cpr...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 11:39:58 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 26 May 2003 00:20:28 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>First off : art is not the same as good or even great art. The
> >>definition of art doesn't involve its quality, success or amount of
> >>skill involved in making it.
> >
> >tangent snipped. We don't agree.
[I'm with you on this one, Paul. It's important to be able to define
something before entering into value judgements about it.]
>
> It is true that we don't agree. You are of the opinion that art
> requires a certain level of skill. I am of the opinion that it is
> skill that separates the good art from the bad art. What you call
> "art", I call "good art". There's ofcourse always the danger that I
> call something art when it fact it is a scam job.
[The intent of the artist is another bugaboo that is frequently thrown into
the mix, but I think it's unimportant, and ultimately distracting. Even if
someone makes art for all the wrong reasons, it's still art. If you want to
rank art by the sincerity of its producers, then that's a separate exercise.
Do you think every painting should be accompanied by the readout from a
lie-detector test?]
>
> >>Secondly : art is man made.
> >
> >agreed but an obvious point. Art also usually contains molecules.
>
> Granted, but the point still needed to be made before people start
> calling trees and stuff art.
[What if Marcel Duchamp had cut down a tree and dragged it into a gallery
instead of a urinal? Would the act of cutting have transformed it into art,
or the act of displaying it? Does an ordinary object become art by the act
of selection by an artist? If not, do you put Installations outside the
realm of art? If you photograph a tree instead of cutting it, is the
photograph art? How much effort must be put into transforming a natural
object before it becomes an art object?]
>
> >>Thirdly : art is made with the intention to be experienced by the
> >>senses.
> >
> >Unavoidable. The dead aren't interested.
[What if an artist painted a picture, locked it in an iron box and buried
it? Would that disqualify it as art, even if it was accidentally discovered
years later and thought beautiful?]
>
> That's not the point. For example : in the design of a computer mouse
> it is the human hand that stands central, not the senses.
[You've lost me here- what about the sense of touch?]
>
Fourthly : art is meant to affect , it is made to move the
experiencer (which can be the maker) by the senses. Art is meant as a
vehicle to evoke emotions, feelings or thinking (about something else
than the work itself). This separates a chart from the Mona Lisa and
is the aesthetical aim of art.
> >
> >repetition of the above.
>
> The senses and their effect is not the same. If I see a painting of a
> computer or a painting of a nude woman then my reactions to both of
> them are quite different even though both were made to be experienced
> by my senses. To understand why I react the way I do to a nude woman
> is quite important to me :-)
[It seems like you're wading further out into murky water here. Much art is
made with the intention of invoking precisely nothing but further
contemplation of the work itself. Is it thus disqualified, in your view? If
it's unsuccessful in this, and does in fact evoke extraneous emotions, has
it then redeemed itself and become a work of art after all? Is the painting
of a computer, in your example, not to be considered a work of art because
it's not an object of desire for you? Do I have to remind you that some
people (ie gay male nerds) are powerfully stirred by beige boxes while the
aforementioned nude leaves them cold? After this promising start, are you
arguing for a subjective definition of art after all?]
>
> >>Filthy : art is symbolic in nature, it represents something else than
> >>itself.
> >
> >Pollock etc. does neither.
>
> Well, I'm not so sure whether Pollock's stuff is art. Until now I've
> given him the benefit of the doubt.
[So you always thought that Pollock's work was symbolic or representational
of something? What would that be- spaghetti? And having that extra point of
reference was what redeemed it in your view? It seems like you've backed
away from your point number one and are now de-defining the art you don't
happen to like.]
>
> >>Furthermore : human experience of the world around them and of their
> >>own being doesn't leave them unaffected. It is in art that they try to
> >>find exactly what the form is that moves them. Thus : An attempt to
> >>isolate those features essential to evoking a certain feeling or idea.
> >>Art is both a search to and requires knowledge about how the senses
> >>move the Self.
> >
> >Art isn't a " a search to what is called the "essence" of something."
> >In fact I don't believe that statement means anything.
>
> It's far more down to earth then what the art scene would like to have
> you believed. A cartoonist might make a cartoon of George Bush by
> isolating (and magnifying) those facial features that make the
> likeness. What the cartoonist has done is finding the essentials in
> the face of Bush, the "essence" of the likeness.
[So the closer something gets to caricature, the more "artistic" it is, in
your view? While I'd admit this might be one aim of certain kinds of art, it
hardly seems a defining qualification for art in general.]
>
> >>Originality, self expression, technical skills, dreams, etc. are not
> >>requirements of art although they might certainly be involved in both
> >>the execution of it or judging it.
> >
> >Then what are the requirements. So far you have said a lot of almost
> >nothing.
>
> The requirements are listed as the five points. The problem you have
> with them is that they don't rule out bad art.
[I have other problems with your "five points". For one thing, they aren't
internally consistent. You veer from an inclusive, objective stance to an
exclusive, subjective one, and don't address the contradictions you raise.
Perhaps you're trying to do too much; both to define art itself and also to
discover what you personally find interesting in certain art objects,
generalizing from there to the aims, as you see them, of all art and all
artists.]
>
> >>Art can be judged without taking taste into the equation. Both the
> >>senses and the elements of proper design are well known, for a large
> >>part even to the point of formalization.
> >
> >You already said that.
>
> Yeah, and I keep on saying it in the hope people don't consider
> something good art merely because it is "self expression" or
> something. It is proper use of good technical skill and knowledge that
> is central to deeming a work of art as "good art".
[By bringing in the intent of the artist (which may never be known) and the
reaction of the viewer (which varies wildly from person to person) you've
subverted your attempt to establish a definition that is independent of
"taste". If you haven't succeeded in that, I don't see how you can then say
it's possible to make an objective judgement of a work's quality. While the
senses themselves are beginning to be scientifically mapped (although
they're far from "well-known") the "elements of proper design", whatever
they might be, are by no means agreed upon even by the academic art world,
much less by people in general. Making art certainly would be a boring
exercise if they were, but judging it could be done by machine, which would
save a lot of time for distinguished jury members. ]
>
> I guess my mantra should be something like :
>
> ...No skill, No good! :-)
[Closer, but no cigar...]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
>
Paul Mesken
<and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:c3e4dvotr95no0cpr...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 May 2003 11:39:58 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 26 May 2003 00:20:28 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>> >wrote:
>[The intent of the artist is another bugaboo that is frequently thrown into
>the mix, but I think it's unimportant, and ultimately distracting. Even if
>someone makes art for all the wrong reasons, it's still art. If you want to
>rank art by the sincerity of its producers, then that's a separate exercise.
>Do you think every painting should be accompanied by the readout from a
>lie-detector test?]
I believe intent to be important. It can be the difference between an
accident and a crime. It is true that it might be hard to establish
but is no reason to take it out of the equation.
>> >>Secondly : art is man made.
>> >
>> >agreed but an obvious point. Art also usually contains molecules.
>>
>> Granted, but the point still needed to be made before people start
>> calling trees and stuff art.
>
>[What if Marcel Duchamp had cut down a tree and dragged it into a gallery
>instead of a urinal? Would the act of cutting have transformed it into art,
>or the act of displaying it? Does an ordinary object become art by the act
>of selection by an artist? If not, do you put Installations outside the
>realm of art? If you photograph a tree instead of cutting it, is the
>photograph art? How much effort must be put into transforming a natural
>object before it becomes an art object?]
Ofcourse, nothing man made is *really* man made. We can't make
something out of nothing. All what people can do is physically
transforming existing materials into a new object. If material has
underwent transformation by humans then we can call it man made
because the transformed object is a new object. A tree is not man made
but a cut down one is. A photograph is clearly man made even if it
depicts something that isn't.
But merely displaying (or selecting) an object that is not man made is
a border case. Very few concepts have clearly defined boundaries and
it is here that I'm not sure whether we've overstepped the boundary of
art or not.
Let's take a look at it from another viewpoint. Suppose a man finds a
beautifull flower in a forest (or an ugly one, it doesn't matter). He
doesn't do anything with it (not even moving it). He merely declares
it as being a work of art of him. People come to the forest to take a
look at this flower which the man calls his art.
Now : I don't think this man could call himself the artist who made
this work of art because I don't believe it is man made. The mere act
of selection is not enough IMO.
But what if the man takes the flower out of the forest, puts it in a
vase or something and displays it in a museum? Does this make it art?
This is basically what DuChamp did but he did it with a urinal. That
the urinal is a man made object and the flower is not doesn't make any
difference in this case since the urinal was not made to be a work of
art, it was selected as one, just like the flower.
>> >>Thirdly : art is made with the intention to be experienced by the
>> >>senses.
>> >
>> >Unavoidable. The dead aren't interested.
>
>[What if an artist painted a picture, locked it in an iron box and buried
>it? Would that disqualify it as art, even if it was accidentally discovered
>years later and thought beautiful?]
Art is _intended_ to be experienced by the senses. It doesn't mean it
actually has to be experienced by the senses before it can be called
art. This is expressed in the resulting form of the art.
>> That's not the point. For example : in the design of a computer mouse
>> it is the human hand that stands central, not the senses.
>
>[You've lost me here- what about the sense of touch?]
The hand is central to the design of the mouse (its shape that is, I
should have mentioned that from the start). Even though it is the most
important design consideration, it's not the only one of its design.
It's the same as with an automobile. Central to its design is that it
needs to be able to transport people (in the more narrow sense which
fits the car as a means of transportation) but this doesn't mean it
doesn't need to please the senses as well. A car needs to be
beautifull as well (this improves sales) but its beauty is subjected
to more important considerations. It doesn't matter how beautifull a
car is, if it's designed in such a way that it is unable to transport
people then it has failed as a car (but perhaps succeeded as being
art)
>> The senses and their effect is not the same. If I see a painting of a
>> computer or a painting of a nude woman then my reactions to both of
>> them are quite different even though both were made to be experienced
>> by my senses. To understand why I react the way I do to a nude woman
>> is quite important to me :-)
>
>[It seems like you're wading further out into murky water here. Much art is
>made with the intention of invoking precisely nothing but further
>contemplation of the work itself. Is it thus disqualified, in your view?
If something is made without the intention to evoke nothing at all
than the mere contemplation of the work itself and succeeds in it then
it cannot be called art.
Ofcourse making such a thing is close to impossible since people
always impose some kind of meaning to objects displayed as art. The
mere act of displaying something as art suggests there is some meaning
apart from its mere existence.
> If
>it's unsuccessful in this, and does in fact evoke extraneous emotions, has
>it then redeemed itself and become a work of art after all? Is the painting
>of a computer, in your example, not to be considered a work of art because
>it's not an object of desire for you? Do I have to remind you that some
>people (ie gay male nerds) are powerfully stirred by beige boxes while the
>aforementioned nude leaves them cold? After this promising start, are you
>arguing for a subjective definition of art after all?]
No, I believe the mere attribution of the word "art" AND a judgement
about art can be done objectively in as far people are capable of such
a feat. Taste shouldn't make any difference.
Ofcourse I never said that art should satisfy one's personal desires,
taste would have crept into the equation in that case.
My point is that people react to the world around them. They are
affected by what their senses report to them. This shouldn't be taken
as that art needs to evoke strong emotions. But it needs to to be made
to evoke some reaction (an idea, feeling, emotion). This is not the
same as saying that it needs to be succesfull in evoking the reaction,
merely that it must be made in an attempt to evoke such a reaction.
Take the simple act of recognizing an emotion on someone's face, a
facial expression. The recognition is the reaction to seeing that
face. But there is also a reaction to that recognition. I might become
sad when I see a painting of a beautifull woman in distress or I might
(more likely ;-) get all kinds of erotic feelings. In any way, the
painting acts like a trigger for an emotional (or cognitive, if it
makes me think) reaction. Even though the painting might not succeed
in triggering such a response of the onlooker, it still should be
obvious that it was meant to do such a thing.
>> >>Filthy : art is symbolic in nature, it represents something else than
>> >>itself.
>> >
>> >Pollock etc. does neither.
>>
>> Well, I'm not so sure whether Pollock's stuff is art. Until now I've
>> given him the benefit of the doubt.
>
>[So you always thought that Pollock's work was symbolic or representational
>of something? What would that be- spaghetti? And having that extra point of
>reference was what redeemed it in your view? It seems like you've backed
>away from your point number one and are now de-defining the art you don't
>happen to like.]
With representational or symbolic I didn't mean that art needed to be
a representation or symbol of a visual object (if we restrict art to
the visual arts for now). It might also be a concept or a feeling. The
problem with this kind of art is that it is hard to judge because we
don't have a good reference like in more naturalistic art. Does a red
and yellow color field represent joy or is it just a scam? I believe
it's better for the artist not to be ambiguous in this way.
Some believe art is a form of language. In language we talk about
something (it's not merely making air vibrate, words have a meaning to
us). It is important to form our sentences in such a way that the
meaning can be easily extracted.
Seagull Manager believes art should be made with the audience in mind.
This means art should make use of agreed upon symbolism. Even though
this would have prevented the discussion we have now, I don't believe
this restriction to be of overriding importance although I do realize
that allowing art to be of a very personal symbolism opens the door to
scam artists. Pollock's work doesn't convince me completely even
though it hangs in museums. I find it difficult to prove that his work
complies with all of my 5 points.
>> >>Furthermore : human experience of the world around them and of their
>> >>own being doesn't leave them unaffected. It is in art that they try to
>> >>find exactly what the form is that moves them. Thus : An attempt to
>> >>isolate those features essential to evoking a certain feeling or idea.
>> >>Art is both a search to and requires knowledge about how the senses
>> >>move the Self.
>> >
>> >Art isn't a " a search to what is called the "essence" of something."
>> >In fact I don't believe that statement means anything.
>>
>> It's far more down to earth then what the art scene would like to have
>> you believed. A cartoonist might make a cartoon of George Bush by
>> isolating (and magnifying) those facial features that make the
>> likeness. What the cartoonist has done is finding the essentials in
>> the face of Bush, the "essence" of the likeness.
>
>[So the closer something gets to caricature, the more "artistic" it is, in
>your view? While I'd admit this might be one aim of certain kinds of art, it
>hardly seems a defining qualification for art in general.]
Caricature is not the right term because it has connatations with
Mickey Mouse etc. :-) It's about the so called "Peak Shift Principle",
it might be examplified as "if something appears to be square, an
artist will make it even more square".
I believe it to be a requirement and part of my third point that art
is made with the intention of being experienced by the senses. It's
also said that "art is the cultivation of the senses".
Zeki (1998) wrote "... it may not be a coincidence that the ability of
the artist to abstract the 'essential features' of an image and to
discard redundant information is essentially identical to what the
visual areas themselves have evolved to do.".
Ofcourse this still doesn't make for art if it wasn't for my fourth
point that art needs to affect us because this one gives the third
point a goal.
>> >>Originality, self expression, technical skills, dreams, etc. are not
>> >>requirements of art although they might certainly be involved in both
>> >>the execution of it or judging it.
>> >
>> >Then what are the requirements. So far you have said a lot of almost
>> >nothing.
>>
>> The requirements are listed as the five points. The problem you have
>> with them is that they don't rule out bad art.
>
>[I have other problems with your "five points". For one thing, they aren't
>internally consistent. You veer from an inclusive, objective stance to an
>exclusive, subjective one, and don't address the contradictions you raise.
>Perhaps you're trying to do too much; both to define art itself and also to
>discover what you personally find interesting in certain art objects,
>generalizing from there to the aims, as you see them, of all art and all
>artists.]
He, the problem is that I didn't use enough words since that would
have frustrated the goal that the article had to be read. There are
three things that get mixed up in the discourse :
1 - What are the rules governing the attribution "art"? (what is art?)
2 - What makes art good? (IMO the skill part or the effectiveness)
3 - What art do I like?
My article "Art" is only about the first point even though I suggest
that it is possible to judge the quality of art (the second point)
objectively. My long article in "Hi there to all" gives a number of
examples.
It should be very clear that my 5 points also let in bad art and even
allow border cases in. What I like has nothing to do with it even
though I sometimes express what I like, it is not part of my
definition of art (else art would be quickly reduced to naturalistic,
erotic paintings :-)
It is true that my 5 points enable a lot of products to be called art,
even ones that shouldn't be called art or ones that aren't called art.
Also, my 5 points might exclude things that are art.
I've pointed the limitations out in my 255 line article in "Hi there
all" which wasn't read at all because of its size. The article
starting this thread was only 74 lines and contained only part of the
bigger article.
Even though my 5 points might not be perfect doesn't mean it is
worthless. I think it covers quite a big deal although it doesn't
cover everything.
>[By bringing in the intent of the artist (which may never be known) and the
>reaction of the viewer (which varies wildly from person to person) you've
>subverted your attempt to establish a definition that is independent of
>"taste".
I've never brought in the reaction of the viewer as an indicator
whether something is or is not art. I have stated that art needs to be
*made* to evoke a reaction of the viewer, the two are not equivalent.
Nevertheless I reason that in most cases it can be shown that a work
of art was made with this goal in mind even when it fails in it for a
particular or even all viewers.
To re-iterate the offending point :
"Fourthly : art is meant to affect , it is made to move the
experiencer (which can be the maker) by the senses. Art is meant as a
vehicle to evoke emotions, feelings or thinking (about something else
than the work itself). This separates a chart from the Mona Lisa and
is the aesthetical aim of art."
I always say "is meant" and never "should", "is" or "must".
>If you haven't succeeded in that, I don't see how you can then say
>it's possible to make an objective judgement of a work's quality.
You really should read the longer article in "Hi there to all", it
contains examples. Ofcourse it is an enormous job to even list the
majority of rules, systems, heuristics, etc.
>While the
>senses themselves are beginning to be scientifically mapped (although
>they're far from "well-known")
I wouldn't say that, especially not for the visual system. What people
have difficulty with is grasping that the visual system doesn't work
like they expected.
>the "elements of proper design", whatever
>they might be, are by no means agreed upon even by the academic art world,
>much less by people in general.
Those elements are really not that hard and not much disputed. A
simple one is for example that there shouldn't be any false junctions.
This would violate the so called nonaccidental shape properties and
they arise from an abhorrance of a unique viewpoint. Furthermore there
are such things like grouping, balance, etc.
>Making art certainly would be a boring
>exercise if they were, but judging it could be done by machine, which would
>save a lot of time for distinguished jury members. ]
I don't agree. It is not a complete freedom that brings out the best
in humans, it is dealing with restrictions because that's our natural
environment. A game is no fun without rules.
Hans Klapeen
says...
>Granted, but the point still needed to be made before people start
>calling trees and stuff art.
Some might argue that "humans" are the consummate
art object...along with trees and other such
contructs of Mother Nature, God, or whoever
you believe the 'Consummate Artist' to have been.
My own personal belief is that Consummate Artist
sure had a funny notion of what 'art' is when
S(he) created some people I know!!
Seagull Manager
> On Sun, 25 May 2003 15:30:21 -0700, SumGuy <Sum...@SumPlace.com>
> wrote:
>
> Interesting, analogously the greek word "techne" means art, craft and
> skill. Now it's used in words like "Technique" and "Technology". On a
> side note : strangely enough "logos" means "word" so "technology"
> would mean something like the study (words about) of skill but
> nowadays it means the stuff itself (the result of skill).
Actually, the core meaning of "logos" is not "word", but "thought". In
certain contexts it can mean other things, including "word" and
"conversation".
I agree with the rest.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2003 11:39:58 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 May 2003 00:20:28 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>First off : art is not the same as good or even great art. The
>>>definition of art doesn't involve its quality, success or amount of
>>>skill involved in making it.
>>
>>tangent snipped. We don't agree.
>
>It is true that we don't agree. You are of the opinion that art
>requires a certain level of skill. I am of the opinion that it is
>skill that separates the good art from the bad art. What you call
>"art", I call "good art". There's ofcourse always the danger that I
>call something art when it fact it is a scam job.
Well I suspect your definition will end up having most anything
manmade called art. I've often said I'll go along with that definition
if one admits most art is crap. So I guess we don't disagree that
much.
>>>Secondly : art is man made.
>>
>>agreed
>>>Thirdly : art is made with the intention to be experienced by the
>>>senses.
>>
>>Unavoidable. The dead aren't interested.
>
>That's not the point. For example : in the design of a computer mouse
>it is the human hand that stands central, not the senses.
>
>>>Fourthly : art is meant to affect ,
>>
>>repetition of the above.
>
>The senses and their effect is not the same. If I see a painting of a
>computer or a painting of a nude woman then my reactions to both of
>them are quite different even though both were made to be experienced
>by my senses. To understand why I react the way I do to a nude woman
>is quite important to me :-)
>
>>>Filthy : art is symbolic in nature, it represents something else than
>>>itself.
>>
>>Pollock etc. does neither.
>
>Well, I'm not so sure whether Pollock's stuff is art. Until now I've
>given him the benefit of the doubt.
but it would fall into your category of bad art.
>
>>>Furthermore : human experience of the world around them and of their
>>>own being doesn't leave them unaffected. It is in art that they try to
>>>find exactly what the form is that moves them. Thus : An attempt to
>>>isolate those features essential to evoking a certain feeling or idea.
>>>Art is both a search to and requires knowledge about how the senses
>>>move the Self.
>>
>>Art isn't a " a search to what is called the "essence" of something."
>>In fact I don't believe that statement means anything.
>
>It's far more down to earth then what the art scene would like to have
>you believed. A cartoonist might make a cartoon of George Bush by
>isolating (and magnifying) those facial features that make the
>likeness. What the cartoonist has done is finding the essentials in
>the face of Bush, the "essence" of the likeness.
What are accurate still life paintings of the Dutch 17th century in
relation to the "essence" of something?" I could say they portray as
far as possible the whole something.
>
>>>Originality, self expression, technical skills, dreams, etc. are not
>>>requirements of art although they might certainly be involved in both
>>>the execution of it or judging it.
>>
>>Then what are the requirements. So far you have said a lot of almost
>>nothing.
>
>The requirements are listed as the five points. The problem you have
>with them is that they don't rule out bad art.
The problem is that you have tried to define art (impossible in any
hard sense and a waste of time in my opinion.) and I see no
definition. At most you mentioned the properties of some art.
>>>Art can be judged without taking taste into the equation. Both the
>>>senses and the elements of proper design are well known, for a large
>>>part even to the point of formalization.
>>
>>You already said that.
>
>Yeah, and I keep on saying it in the hope people don't consider
>something good art merely because it is "self expression" or
>something. It is proper use of good technical skill and knowledge that
>is central to deeming a work of art as "good art".
But now it sounds like you are agreeing with me.
>I guess my mantra should be something like :
>
>...No skill, No good! :-)
Its a good beginning. But I suspect that you then can't avoid --
Seagull Manager
"judith" <jud...@vianet.net.au> wrote in message
news:basesl$8hp$1...@yeppa.connect.com.au...
> Call it what you will but 'Art' is any object that is conceived in the
mind,
> constructed by the hand, and reflects the spirit of its human maker.
I think this is too inclusive. I think Paul Mesken's definition is nearer
the truth.
Seagull Manager
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bat94a$e9v$1...@panix3.panix.com...
>
> It would seem that the objects produced by art are supposed
> to be ends in themselves, rather than tools for some other
> object or purpose. Or one might say they have some other-
> worldly, shamanistic purpose.
I would tend to disagree with that. I think works of art may have uses other
than purely aesthetic, and often do, but, their aesthetic value is a major
part of their entire value, regardless of what (if anything) they are used
for.
Paul Mesken
G*rd*n
> > to be ends in themselves, rather than tools for some other
> > object or purpose. Or one might say they have some other-
> > worldly, shamanistic purpose.
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk>:
> I would tend to disagree with that. I think works of art may have uses other
> than purely aesthetic, and often do, but, their aesthetic value is a major
> part of their entire value, regardless of what (if anything) they are used
> for.
Yeah, but what is "aesthetic value"? If we can't break it
down into something else, it's primordial, elemental, not
something which refers to or accesses other things in the
world. In which case the works might be said (in another
frame of reference) to embody a shamanistic quality, to provide
a pathway for visions, spirits, forces, gods.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 May 2003 18:21:11 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 May 2003 11:39:58 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 26 May 2003 00:20:28 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Filthy : art is symbolic in nature, it represents something else than
>>>>itself.
>>>
>>>Pollock etc. does neither.
>>
>>Well, I'm not so sure whether Pollock's stuff is art. Until now I've
>>given him the benefit of the doubt.
>
>but it would fall into your category of bad art.
Yes, I've been pretty explicit about that in other posts.
>>>>Furthermore : human experience of the world around them and of their
>>>>own being doesn't leave them unaffected. It is in art that they try to
>>>>find exactly what the form is that moves them. Thus : An attempt to
>>>>isolate those features essential to evoking a certain feeling or idea.
>>>>Art is both a search to and requires knowledge about how the senses
>>>>move the Self.
>>>
>>>Art isn't a " a search to what is called the "essence" of something."
>>>In fact I don't believe that statement means anything.
>>
>>It's far more down to earth then what the art scene would like to have
>>you believed. A cartoonist might make a cartoon of George Bush by
>>isolating (and magnifying) those facial features that make the
>>likeness. What the cartoonist has done is finding the essentials in
>>the face of Bush, the "essence" of the likeness.
>
>What are accurate still life paintings of the Dutch 17th century in
>relation to the "essence" of something?" I could say they portray as
>far as possible the whole something.
The "essence" shouldn't be taken to complex. If one takes the gold
Rembrandt painted in his later works it is obvious he only rendered
that part of what he saw that got the message through. Even when
striving for the highest degree of naturalism this kind of "filtering"
still takes place to amplify the effect by leaving out that what
distracts from it.
>>>>Originality, self expression, technical skills, dreams, etc. are not
>>>>requirements of art although they might certainly be involved in both
>>>>the execution of it or judging it.
>>>
>>>Then what are the requirements. So far you have said a lot of almost
>>>nothing.
>>
>>The requirements are listed as the five points. The problem you have
>>with them is that they don't rule out bad art.
>
>The problem is that you have tried to define art (impossible in any
>hard sense and a waste of time in my opinion.) and I see no
>definition. At most you mentioned the properties of some art.
A complete and perfect definition of art is indeed impossible to make.
What I'm aiming for is to at least put forward a number of (very)
inclusive requirements in order to defy the statement that art can be
"anything". Indeed it is a very broad definition (but at least
narrower than "art can be anything") and also a compromise. The
disadvantage of a compromise is ofcourse that no party is happy with
it :-)
Seagull Manager
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 18:32:08 GMT, "Andrew Werby"
> <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>
> Seagull Manager believes art should be made with the audience in mind.
> This means art should make use of agreed upon symbolism.
>
Not sure how this follows.
> "Fourthly : art is meant to affect , it is made to move the
> experiencer (which can be the maker) by the senses. Art is meant as a
> vehicle to evoke emotions, feelings or thinking (about something else
> than the work itself). This separates a chart from the Mona Lisa and
> is the aesthetical aim of art."
Perhaps a chart showing, say, the number of children who die annually from
malaria, if presented for propaganda purposes, would fulfill this and all
your other conditions of "art". What say you?
Paul Mesken
>"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> > It would seem that the objects produced by art are supposed
>> > to be ends in themselves, rather than tools for some other
>> > object or purpose. Or one might say they have some other-
>> > worldly, shamanistic purpose.
>
>"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk>:
>> I would tend to disagree with that. I think works of art may have uses other
>> than purely aesthetic, and often do, but, their aesthetic value is a major
>> part of their entire value, regardless of what (if anything) they are used
>> for.
>
>Yeah, but what is "aesthetic value"? If we can't break it
>down into something else, it's primordial, elemental, not
>something which refers to or accesses other things in the
>world. In which case the works might be said (in another
>frame of reference) to embody a shamanistic quality, to provide
>a pathway for visions, spirits, forces, gods.
Even though aesthetic value is hard to pin down I believe elements of
it can be identified. If we can agree that something's "aesthetic
value" is the degree of "well formedness" and personal taste is left
out of the equation (after all : we're on a Holy mission to find
Universals ;-)
In order not to merely subtitute one word for another which meaning
can't be pinned down either :
Symmetry, balance and certain prefered proportions (roughly 5:8, the
"Golden Mean") can be considered central to well formedness. Even
though taste differs between individuals it has been shown that these
three are quite universal. The experience of beauty and attractiveness
is not an accident, they are properties that serve survival. A
symmetrical mate is prefered over an a-symmetrical one (or a less
symmetrical one).
I believe these three to form part of the core of well formedness.
Deviations are ofcourse possible but they must be justified else they
are perceived as imperfect.
Furthermore : there's the issue of defining something by relating it
to its opposite. Amplifying salient features in such a way is
considered good practice and might also be part of "aesthetic value".
Paul Mesken
Yes, this is a good example. Such a chart might be just a chart when
used in some WHO meeting but it can also be used with the intent to
evoke feelings (of shock in this case) and thus be art.
The difference is the use of it (and its natural companion : intent)
An apple can be food (this is how it is typically perceived) but it
can also be used as a projectile when throwed at someone. Even though
the object remains the same, its meaning changed by the use.
Central to the definition of art should be the intention of art (and
most of my points are about intention). "Use" could also have been
used but this would confuse (stuff starts to rhyme :-) since art is
perceived as something "not utilitarian" although this is not strictly
true ofcourse since art is used for a lot of things.
Nikolaus Maack
The blind leading the bland.
Defining "art" is silly. When you sit down to create some, do you worry
in advance what the definition is?
(Oh God. Seagull, you probably do. Okay, so you're a bad example.)
It's like worrying about what the definition of a conversation is when
you're talking to someone. Every word out of your mouth will be a block
of wood.
Or, to put it another way, ask for your limitations and they shall be
yours. Defining art limits art, and limits the artist. If art is
potentially ANYTHING, the artist is left free to explore EVERYWHERE --
and not just in the conventional boundries established by pedants.
Anyway -- I'm working on a (commissioned) large portrait of Kurt
Vonnegut. What are you people up to?
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Seagull Manager wrote:
>> "judith" <jud...@vianet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:basesl$8hp$1...@yeppa.connect.com.au...
>>
>>>Call it what you will but 'Art' is any object that is conceived in the
>>
>> mind,
>>
>>>constructed by the hand, and reflects the spirit of its human maker.
>>
>>
>> I think this is too inclusive. I think Paul Mesken's definition is nearer
>> the truth.
>
>The blind leading the bland.
Hm, I wonder if I'm the "blind" or the "bland". In either case I don't
think it was meant as a compliment :-)
Erik A. Mattila
http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
????? ? = word thought
(many cultures do not distinguish between "word" and "thought.")
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D%2319873
logos 1 [legô3] (A) the word or that by which the inward thought is
expressed, Lat. oratio; and, (B) the inward thought itself, Lat. ratio.
# A. Lat. vox, oratio, that which is said or spoken:
(there are many other "in context" defs on this page, which don't
support your "thought" definition.)
Logolphobia - fear of words
Logorrhea - pathologically incoherent, reptitive speech
Logotype - (Logo) a single piece of type bearing two or more uncombined
letters, a syllable, or a word.
Logophile - a lover of words
Logopedics - study of speech impediments
Logomachy - a dispute about words
Shall I go on?
http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE267.html
The "root" is "leg" (Indo-European).
Derivatives include leech1, lecture, legend, intelligent, sacrilege,
loyal, and logic.
1. Perhaps Germanic *lkjaz, enchanter, one who speaks magic words.
leech1, [and so on]
In contrast, "thought" has "tong" as it's IE root, and the idea of
thinking and thanking go hand and hand in it's etymology.
Back to the drawing board for you, S&M.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 18:32:08 GMT, "Andrew Werby"
> <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> >news:c3e4dvotr95no0cpr...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 26 May 2003 11:39:58 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 26 May 2003 00:20:28 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
> >> >wrote:
> >[The intent of the artist is another bugaboo that is frequently thrown
into
> >the mix, but I think it's unimportant, and ultimately distracting. Even
if
> >someone makes art for all the wrong reasons, it's still art. If you want
to
> >rank art by the sincerity of its producers, then that's a separate
exercise.
> >Do you think every painting should be accompanied by the readout from a
> >lie-detector test?]
>
> I believe intent to be important. It can be the difference between an
> accident and a crime. It is true that it might be hard to establish
> but is no reason to take it out of the equation.
>
Games are indeed no fun without rules (though the players of Australian 'no
rules' football might disagree!) - part of the fun is knowing how and where
to bend them. Pretending to abtruse motivations, as evidenced by pretentious
word salad attached to paintings, and having these believed (or at least
taken seriously) is part of the game. The more lightweight and frivolous the
piece and its motivation the heavier the anchor of inchoate prose seen
necessary to hold it down!
--
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)
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:baub7h$78s$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
conversation.
Mike Stengl
>
> Anyway -- I'm working on a (commissioned) large portrait of Kurt
> Vonnegut. What are you people up to?
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
Please see post, "Painting a Broad with a Brush", for today's
efforts... I'm reading Slap Stick by K. V., waiting for the results of
a grant submission, cooking for the bourgeois living in or traveling
through Northern CA, have failed at my first attempt but tomorrow is
another day, trying to paint a lively portrait of Julia "Butterfly"
Hill, reknowned activist/and tree sitter, from a photo scan I scored
from the photographer of a picture taken the day she came down from a
tree after 2 years; she's walking with a stick and has an
undescribable look of accomplishment, joy, disbelief, etc. She also
happens to be a beautiful woman which is not a roadblock to my
creative process. I have scheduled a solo exhibition in September
'04(!), so of course I have work to do...
Hey, Nic, thanks for asking.
Nikolaus Maack
>>The blind leading the bland.
>
>
> Hm, I wonder if I'm the "blind" or the "bland". In either case I don't
> think it was meant as a compliment :-)
Let's make sure. We'll spend the next two weeks discussing the single
sentence from every particular angle, analyzing each word, dissecting
every possible definition, hovering over the single piece of
punctuation. By God, we'll squeeze this sentence until the very life of
it comes squirting out! That'll give us some answers!
Everyone! Put this "defining art" project on hold! We've got to sort
out this sentence I wrote.
There's no surer way to kill a moment of pleasure than trying to
determine how it came about.
Nikolaus Maack
> Please see post, "Painting a Broad with a Brush", for today's
> efforts... I'm reading Slap Stick by K. V., waiting for the results of
> a grant submission, cooking for the bourgeois living in or traveling
> through Northern CA, have failed at my first attempt but tomorrow is
> another day, trying to paint a lively portrait of Julia "Butterfly"
> Hill, reknowned activist/and tree sitter, from a photo scan I scored
> from the photographer of a picture taken the day she came down from a
> tree after 2 years; she's walking with a stick and has an
> undescribable look of accomplishment, joy, disbelief, etc. She also
> happens to be a beautiful woman which is not a roadblock to my
> creative process. I have scheduled a solo exhibition in September
> '04(!), so of course I have work to do...
I think this demonstrates that those who are *alive* rarely have the
time to define the word. Or to put it another way... If you know
*exactly* where you are, you're standing still.
Good luck with your work, Mike. Thanks for sharing.
Hans Klapeen
>It's like worrying about what the definition of a conversation is when
>you're talking to someone. Every word out of your mouth will be a block
>of wood.
By pure happenstance (is that a legit word?), I saw
this in another newsgroup just awhile ago and
copy it for your enlightenment herewith:
On Talking
You talk when you cease to be at peace with your
thoughts; and when you can no longer dwell in the
solitude of your heart you live in your lips and sound
is a diversion and a pastime.
And in much of your talking, thinking is half
murdered; for thought is a bird of space that, in a
cage of words, may indeed unfold its wings, but cannot
fly.
There are those of you who seek the talkative through
fear of being alone. The silence of their loneness
reveals to their eyes their naked self and they would
escape.
And there those, and without knowledge or forethought,
reveal a truth which they themselves do not
understand.
And there are those who have the truth within them,
but they tell it not in words. In the bosom of such as
these the spirit dwells in rhythmic silence.
G*rd*n
> >> > It would seem that the objects produced by art are supposed
> >> > to be ends in themselves, rather than tools for some other
> >> > object or purpose. Or one might say they have some other-
> >> > worldly, shamanistic purpose.
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk>:
> >> I would tend to disagree with that. I think works of art may have uses other
> >> than purely aesthetic, and often do, but, their aesthetic value is a major
> >> part of their entire value, regardless of what (if anything) they are used
> >> for.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >Yeah, but what is "aesthetic value"? If we can't break it
> >down into something else, it's primordial, elemental, not
> >something which refers to or accesses other things in the
> >world. In which case the works might be said (in another
> >frame of reference) to embody a shamanistic quality, to provide
> >a pathway for visions, spirits, forces, gods.
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>:
> Even though aesthetic value is hard to pin down I believe elements of
> it can be identified. If we can agree that something's "aesthetic
> value" is the degree of "well formedness" and personal taste is left
> out of the equation (after all : we're on a Holy mission to find
> Universals ;-)
>
> In order not to merely subtitute one word for another which meaning
> can't be pinned down either :
>
> Symmetry, balance and certain prefered proportions (roughly 5:8, the
> "Golden Mean") can be considered central to well formedness. Even
> though taste differs between individuals it has been shown that these
> three are quite universal. The experience of beauty and attractiveness
> is not an accident, they are properties that serve survival. A
> symmetrical mate is prefered over an a-symmetrical one (or a less
> symmetrical one).
>
> I believe these three to form part of the core of well formedness.
> Deviations are ofcourse possible but they must be justified else they
> are perceived as imperfect.
>
> Furthermore : there's the issue of defining something by relating it
> to its opposite. Amplifying salient features in such a way is
> considered good practice and might also be part of "aesthetic value".
The problem with this sort of theory is that it can be used
only in retrospect. If we could create new works of art by
simply mixing in a certain amount of this and that, e.g.
symmetry or emotional reference, we could have machines do it.
Often, by the standards of their time, the works of what are
now considered great masters were grossly deficient -- so
much so that in the last (the 20th) century, it became a
standard practice to shock and offend the audience, until
this too became yet another boringly formulaic technique.
Paul Mesken
Yes, I'll quote myself from my article in "Hi there all" :
"It should be noted however that this definition, like with all formal
definitions, is an after thought meant to find rules believed to be
governing what people typically call art. People are ofcourse not
governed by rules that can be put down in language so some art might
be excluded by this definition and some things not being art might be
included (also check Gödel :-)"
> If we could create new works of art by
>simply mixing in a certain amount of this and that, e.g.
>symmetry or emotional reference, we could have machines do it.
That should be quite a machine. The machine should react in similar
ways to the world and to itself as ourselves (or have knowledge about
it but that would even be harder to make).
G*rd*n
> > If we could create new works of art by
> >simply mixing in a certain amount of this and that, e.g.
> >symmetry or emotional reference, we could have machines do it.
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>:
> That should be quite a machine. The machine should react in similar
> ways to the world and to itself as ourselves (or have knowledge about
> it but that would even be harder to make).
Actually, people do that sort of thing in AI experiments.
There was someone who had a program that would compose music
like Beethoven. It sort of sounded like Beethoven, too, but
Beethoven on a very bad day.
It's a good exercise, though, because by listening to the
real thing and the AI / expert system imitation, you can
get a very clear feeling of the difference, however
indefinable it may be.
Paul Mesken
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>> > If we could create new works of art by
>> >simply mixing in a certain amount of this and that, e.g.
>> >symmetry or emotional reference, we could have machines do it.
>
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>:
>> That should be quite a machine. The machine should react in similar
>> ways to the world and to itself as ourselves (or have knowledge about
>> it but that would even be harder to make).
>
>Actually, people do that sort of thing in AI experiments.
>There was someone who had a program that would compose music
>like Beethoven. It sort of sounded like Beethoven, too, but
>Beethoven on a very bad day.
Well, machines still have a lot to learn when it comes to art. The
danger of the Eliza effect is always present. As long as machines
cannot perceive the way we do it will be impossible but I say we're on
our way :-)
>It's a good exercise, though, because by listening to the
>real thing and the AI / expert system imitation, you can
>get a very clear feeling of the difference, however
>indefinable it may be.
I absolutely agree. The field of AI is enormously interesting. At some
point I'm convinced we will be able to build machines that appear
completely human to us (and ourselves). From a philosophical point of
view we will have come up with a definition of what it means to *us*
to be human.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>The field of AI is enormously interesting. At some
>point I'm convinced we will be able to build machines that appear
>completely human to us (and ourselves).
"and themselves", not "and ourselves". I should quit proof reading
after I sent the message and do it before sending instead :-)
Chris
> Vonnegut. What are you people up to?
Congratss on the commission! As four me, here's 4 thast are in various
stages of progress:
http://tinyurl.com/crqx
Chris
Chris
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:X2MAa.2598$ik4.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Plus another Kraft paper/conte drawing to go on the block when I get around
to it (drawings seem to sell well on eBay).
Chris
Paul Mesken
I like the work on "Richard and Christa" and especially "Terra Nova in
the Sun". Is it just me or is your style of composition undergoing
drastic changes? Your older work (like "The Construction") is mostly
concerned with depicting a scene while your new work puts the form
more central. This development is most interesting to follow.
Chris
You are probably right, though I don't think about it too much. A couple of
years ago I dicovered the pleasures of just working with tone, rather than
colour (as conte, or raw umber/iron oxide pigments on prepared grounds), and
it sort of changed the way I see things. (But now it is time to put the
color back in, before I get to Art Renewalish :) Plus the models are people
I've gotten to know over a period several years, I think that makes a big
difference.
For any Nova Scotians here, Richard & Christa are starting up as
professionals, and I can pass on their contact info if you get in touch with
me at bro...@ns.sympatico.ca
Chris
G*rd*n
> >The field of AI is enormously interesting. At some
> >point I'm convinced we will be able to build machines that appear
> >completely human to us (and ourselves).
>
> "and themselves", not "and ourselves". I should quit proof reading
> after I sent the message and do it before sending instead :-)
In fact, some day we will be able to produce human beings
that appear human.
Oliver Gili
The more I create, the more I realise that one can never fully know Art.
This is not to say that research and investigation is not essential. I think
its a matter of faith in Art to acknowledge this ultimate unknowingness.
Oliver
Thur
Some assumptions have to be thrown out though.
That we are living in an important period of Art.
That amongst the art being produced today there are gems.
To appraise Art, there needs to be a wider view than
the one I feel shows it's head usually.
It might be that we are living in a period that will be shown
to be another "Renaissance" or even likened to that part of
Greek history now referred to as Classical, but we can
never know by looking to distance art from the past.
If we need the word "Art" to mean something, then it must
include all eras, and therefore each trend, style, or whatever
that can be seen as part of the whole.
The ambition of artists contains a clue to what level they are
producing. It must be more than monetary gain, and more
than self-satisfaction, but including some motive that spurs
the artist to the limits of creativity and technique.
Is there any such motive today that artists have which they
share with each other? (and maybe with the buyer?)
If there is any unifying thought and spirit in today's Art, then I
am interested to know.
I think "faith in Art" means something, but needs some definition.
Cheers,
Thur
"Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bb0r8g$lsr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Oliver Gili
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:so0Ba.14120$sJ4....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> I think "faith in Art" means something, but needs some definition.
> Cheers,
> Thur
>
Faith that while there is dark days of doubt and despair where
disappointment in one's own ability, and the actions of others loom like the
gallows shadows, that the ecstasy* of creation will return.
Oliver
*(and I mean that in a pre-rave culture sense: The state of being beside
one's self or rapt out of one's self; a state in which the mind is elevated
above the reach of ordinary impressions)
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3ED2C...@oco.net...
>
> http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
> ????? ? = word thought
> (many cultures do not distinguish between "word" and "thought.")
>
Why? I'm right, and you haven't shown me to be wrong. At the heart of the
meaning of "logos" is "thought". Depending on the context, it can mean
"thought", "idea", "consciousness", "rationality", as well as "word",
"utterance" or even "conversation".
Western Chrtistians should worry, because John 1:1, as given in all
translations based on the Latin Vulgate, is wrong (and those modern
translations that persist in translating "logos" as "word" in this passage
are *deliberately* wrong - no wonder the Greeks follow a different
orthodoxy, eh?) God is not "the Word", he is "thought". The idea of the
creator-god being consisting of "pure thought" or "intelligence" is a very
Greek one (Aristotelian, to be precise).
Erik A. Mattila
Seagull Manager wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED2C...@oco.net...
>
>>http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
>>????? ? = word thought
>>(many cultures do not distinguish between "word" and "thought.")
>>
>>Back to the drawing board for you, S&M.
>
>
> Why? I'm right, and you haven't shown me to be wrong. At the heart of the
> meaning of "logos" is "thought". Depending on the context, it can mean
> "thought", "idea", "consciousness", "rationality", as well as "word",
> "utterance" or even "conversation".
But that's not the "core" of "Logos," S&M. As I have shown, "leg" is.
"Leg" doesn't mean "thought." It means "that which is gathered to
announce" (collected) or, by reduction, "speaking."
http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.lexfiles.com/basic%2Dgrk%2Da%2Dl.html
logo-, log-, -logia, -logical, -logism, -logician, -logian, -logist,
-logy, -logue (Greek: talk, speech, speak; word).
locu-, loc- (Latin: talk, speak, say, word, speech).
But to be fair, please provide us with an authority that backs up your
contention that "Logos" means "thought." I'm all ears.
>
> Western Chrtistians should worry, because John 1:1, as given in all
> translations based on the Latin Vulgate, is wrong (and those modern
> translations that persist in translating "logos" as "word" in this passage
> are *deliberately* wrong - no wonder the Greeks follow a different
> orthodoxy, eh?) God is not "the Word", he is "thought". The idea of the
> creator-god being consisting of "pure thought" or "intelligence" is a very
> Greek one (Aristotelian, to be precise).
Latin - logos (-us) -i m. [a word; a joke , jest, bon mot].
Latin - cogitatio -onis f. [thinking , conception, reflection,
reasoning]; sometimes a particular [thought, idea or intention].
Greek - I already gave you those. But you're saying everyone is wrong.
That's an interesting position...how would you defend it?
eam
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED2C...@oco.net...
> >
> > http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
> > ????? ? = word thought
> > (many cultures do not distinguish between "word" and "thought.")
> >
> > Back to the drawing board for you, S&M.
>
> Why? I'm right, and you haven't shown me to be wrong. At the heart of the
> meaning of "logos" is "thought". Depending on the context, it can mean
> "thought", "idea", "consciousness", "rationality", as well as "word",
> "utterance" or even "conversation".
>
'to say' - not 'to think'. I attach the entry from the OED below.
--
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)
qLogos
("lQgQs) [Gr. k¾co| word, speech, discourse, reason, f. koc-,
ablaut-variant of kec- in kÅ’c-eim to say.]
A term used by Greek (esp. Hellenistic and Neo-Platonist) philosophers in
certain metaphysical and theological applications developed from one or both
of its ordinary senses ‘reason’ and ‘word’; also adopted in three passages
of the Johannine writings of the N.T. (where the English versions render it
by ‘Word’) as a designation of Jesus Christ; hence employed by Christian
theologians, esp. those who were versed in Greek philosophy, as a title of
the Second Person of the Trinity. By mod. writers the Gr. word is used
untranslated in historical expositions of ancient philosophical speculation,
and in discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity in its philosophical
aspects.
1587 Golding De Mornay v. 52 We cal him Logos, which some translate word
or Speech, and othersom Reason. 1647 H. More Song of Soul ii. i. xxiv. 79
That inward awfull Majestie Hight Logos, whom they term great sonne of God.
1720 Waterland Eight Serm. 243 Origen+thence draws an Argument for the
Eternity of the Logos or Word. 1831–3 E. Burton Eccl. Hist. xvii. (1845)
375 Plato never imagined this Logos or Mind to be a person in the sense in
which Christians believe the Son of God to be a person. a1834 Coleridge
Lit. Rem. (1838) III. 158 If Christ be that Logos or Word that was in the
beginning. 1882 S. D. F. Salmond in Encycl. Brit. XIV. 803/2 Heraclitus
holds that nothing material can be thought of without this Logos, but he
does not conceive the Logos itself to be immaterial. Ibid. 804/1 The Logos
of the Stoics is a reason in the world gifted with intelligence, and
analogous to the reason in man. Ibid., His [Philo's] Logos is the
representative of the world to God as well as of God to the world.
1882
a1834
1587
1647
1720
1831–3
b. attrib. and Comb.
1839 I. Taylor Anc. Chr. I. ii. 150 Man+shall+under the conduct of the
Logos-Redeemer, reascend to his source. 1865 tr. Strauss's New Life Jesus
I. i. vi. 30 They are mere explanations of the Logos-theory. 1874
Supernatural Relig. II. iii. i. 340 The dogmatic system of the Logos Gospel
did not admit of more than mere reference to it. 1883 Schaff Hist. Ch. II.
lxxii. 555 This extension of the Logos revelation explains the high estimate
which some of the Greek fathers+put upon the Hellenic+philosophy.
1883
1874
1865
1839
Hence logos-ship, the dignity and office of the Logos.
1895 Expositor Sept. 163 The logos-ship was attributed to Jesus.
1895
Christian Tangoe
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:bb3ha4$p9t$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3ED2C...@oco.net...
> > >
> > > http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
> > > ????? ? = word thought
> > > (many cultures do not distinguish between "word" and "thought.")
> > >
> > > Back to the drawing board for you, S&M.
> >
> > Why? I'm right, and you haven't shown me to be wrong. At the heart of the
> > meaning of "logos" is "thought". Depending on the context, it can mean
> > "thought", "idea", "consciousness", "rationality", as well as "word",
> > "utterance" or even "conversation".
> >
> What ever you might think about the 'heart' of logos, the meaning comes from
> 'to say' - not 'to think'. I attach the entry from the OED below.
And so on...
One look.com gives (among 10 other less comprehensive answers) the
foolowing two results for LOGOS:
Main Entry: Lo·gos
Pronunciation: 'lO-"gäs, -"gOs
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural Lo·goi /-"goi/
Etymology: Greek, speech, word, reason -- more at LEGEND
Date: 1587
1 : the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and
redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of
the Trinity
2 : reason that in ancient Greek philosophy is the controlling
principle in the universe
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth
Edition. 2000.
Logos
SYLLABICATION: Lo·gos
PRONUNCIATION: lgs, lgs
NOUN: 1. Philosophy a. In pre-Socratic philosophy, the principle
governing the cosmos, the source of this principle, or human reasoning
about the cosmos. b. Among the Sophists, the topics of rational
argument or the arguments themselves. c. In Stoicism, the active,
material, rational principle of the cosmos; nous. Identified with God,
it is the source of all activity and generation and is the power of
reason residing in the human soul. 2. Judaism a. In biblical Judaism,
the word of God, which itself has creative power and is God's medium
of communication with the human race. b. In Hellenistic Judaism, a
hypostasis associated with divine wisdom. 3. Christianity In Saint
John's Gospel, especially in the prologue (1:1–14), the creative word
of God, which is itself God and incarnate in Jesus. Also called Word.
ETYMOLOGY: Greek. See leg- in Appendix I.
Now, in danish (sory folks, the old viking sneaking up again) the
translation is (now translated into english)
Teaching
thus referring to the pragmatic use of the word as suffix in f. ex.
sociology and so on.
This is not in conflict with most of the above, referring to Logos as
a word for wisdom etc.
But why was this brought up in group RAF under the headline Art ?
As far as I can backtrack the thread it started when (i don´t recall
who) tried an ethymological approach to the queestion "what is art"...
It can thus be argued (and some has indeed done that in the RAF) that
in latin, german (and danish) the root of art reflect "skill" or
technique.
However, just as this one search for "logos" is getting many results
in possible interpretations, so will probably the search for "a
meaning of the word art".
Maybe this discussion of Logos and the meaning of words (ethymology)
came up, because it would be easier, if we could just "look up the
right definition on art" ?
And maybe the teaching (or logos) of this little snip is, that art
is....Art is a word....Which means, that it is subject to change, it
is only kept alive as long as humans use it, and it is ONLY A LABEL,
not he logos itself...
Thus it was very beautifull, that the group pointed to LOGOS, since we
can now learn some more about reasoning about the "divine" and the
more earthly physical principles.
So maybe Art(with big A, the underlying principle, the eternal,
everlasting impossible to make and still we try to do it ART) is like
High Voltage on a air-wire:
We KNOW it is there, we know how to make it, we know how to utilise
it, we can messure it with the right instruments....
But we can´t experience it directly....(then we would die, in order to
feel the power...)
In the old testasment there is a equation about the face of god...you
cannot see god, but you can see the light, that He radiates....
In art, we can discuss the implications of art, what art includes, but
we can never reach a universal definition on art....But we try anyway,
to get as close as possible....!
Christian Tangoe
Erik A. Mattila
Good work, Christian. Personally, I'm always fascinated with the
etymololy of terms, and having some Viking imput makes it even better.
But I don't see a great difference in the many definitions produced
so-far...at least on a conceptual level. "Meaning" is always a
complicted affair.
It's the association of the concept of the "word" with creativity,
rationality, idea, consciousness and so on that is fueling this debate
about whether or not "Logos" means "thought" or "word".
Here's another tidbit about the subject: the linguist Julia Kristeva
has written, on the topic of semiotic, that the human ego comes into
being with the human individual's very first act of semiosis - that is,
when the individual first connects the "sign" with the "signifier."
So if a culture's creation story says "In the begining, there was the
word" for all practical purposes the very act of being an individual,
capable of understanding the concept of "I", is said to originate in
language.
Erik
Christian Tangoe
> "judith" <jud...@vianet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:basesl$8hp$1...@yeppa.connect.com.au...
> > Call it what you will but 'Art' is any object that is conceived in the
> mind,
> > constructed by the hand, and reflects the spirit of its human maker.
Ladies and gentlemen.
I was about to post this as a new post, headlined Art, what is art ?
However, many discussions has taken place in this thread, which can be
both disgressive and still helpfull to a final, patended decalration
on the mystical can labeled ART.
May I suggest, dear group, that we start once again and start by
discussing two very important theorys prevalent among the "wise men"
in our time.
The first theory says, that the main qualities in art can be described
as skill, will and need.
SKILL meaning anything that is related to the construction of the
art-piece or skill necessecary to propell a more abstract idea...
WILL meaning that there should be an inner need in the artist, that
drives him or her to do the artwork, despite all obstacles, that there
is some MESSAGE that he or she wants to get across to others...
NEED meaning, that there is a relevance for the artwork APART from the
artists own need to produce it...
Now, please DO NOT limit these categories by arguing that they should
not exist, but try to expand them and see what they can contain. In
doing so you probably end up by seeing, that - although they could
have been labeled slightly different - the 3 categories pretty well
sums up the most important aspects of art.
Finally, to really understand "Need" and to discuss QUALITY in art as
an interhuman and commercial phenomena one has to include the other
big theory in modern art,
the theory of instituionalism. In short, that big instituions like
state, government, money-people, big galleries and not to forget the
museums and curators (and to som extend the massmedia) decide what is
art. (Those artist who can lick a certain part of the right peoples
body gets the fame, others don´t....
Now, the reason for setting this up as theory on its own is, that it
is alson a "skill" to persuate these people, as is the case with
conceptualism in its extreeme.)
I hope I have been inclusive enough, and that somebody will continue
in this line....
Christian Tangoe
Seagull Manager
>
> But that's not the "core" of "Logos," S&M. As I have shown, "leg" is.
> "Leg" doesn't mean "thought." It means "that which is gathered to
> announce" (collected) or, by reduction, "speaking."
That's a bit like saying the core of the meaning of "thing" is "meeting",
because that's its oldest meaning, even though it is no longer current.
Just wrong.
>...authority...
The dictionary references given in this thread so far say that "logos" means
"word" and "thought", but don't explain very clearly the link between these
for an english speaker.
Try this link. Note that the first definition is "computation, reckoning":
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057
%3Aentry%3D%2363773
I hope this gives more of an idea of the richness of meanings of "logos",
and the web of connections between those meanings.
Seagull Manager
>
> The problem with this sort of theory is that it can be used
> only in retrospect. If we could create new works of art by
> simply mixing in a certain amount of this and that, e.g.
> symmetry or emotional reference, we could have machines do it.
Non-sentient machines cannot make art. The intent to make something valuable
is a precondition of something's being art. That which is not sentient
cannot, by definition, have such intent.
> Often, by the standards of their time, the works of what are
> now considered great masters were grossly deficient
Not true. Most art that we now call great was admired in its own time.
Seagull Manager
>
> Yeah, but what is "aesthetic value"?
Value that comes through the senses. If paying attention to a thing (by
looking, listening, or some other sensory modality), observing its parts and
its whole, and the relations between the parts, and the ideas evoked thereby
is an experience valued by someone, then that thing has aesthetic value for
that person.
Seagull Manager
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 02:17:50 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> ...Such a chart might be just a chart when
> used in some WHO meeting but it can also be used with the intent to
> evoke feelings (of shock in this case) and thus be art.
>
> The difference is the use of it (and its natural companion : intent)...
>
> ...Central to the definition of art should be the intention of art (and
> most of my points are about intention).
I think you are right that intention is necessary, but wrong in how you
characterize the necessary intention. The intention that is necessary is
intention to create aesthetic value, not intention to evoke emotions. The
chart is an example of something that fits your definition of art, but is
clearly not art, according to most people's thinking.
Christian Tangoe
> "Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> news:1lf5dvcs3r1s66lo0...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 27 May 2003 02:17:50 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> > <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > ...Central to the definition of art should be the intention of art (and
> > most of my points are about intention).
Yes.Itention is central, one of the 3, the other two being skill and
need.
> I think you are right that intention is necessary, but wrong in how you
> characterize the necessary intention. The intention that is necessary is
> intention to create aesthetic value, not intention to evoke emotions. The
> chart is an example of something that fits your definition of art, but is
> clearly not art, according to most people's thinking.
Artistic intention however can take so many directions today. To judge
about these directions....say a political intention of an artist is
WRONG whereas an intention of just pleasing other people is RIGHT....I
donæ„’ belive in this kind of judgement.
If we can just agree that Intention IS important in defining art, well
that is a BIG step forwards.
I personally feel, that decoration, "just pleasing somebody and
myself" by doing artwork is not a real intention. Sometimes the
intention of the work however will be so strong, that you donæ„’ really
need an "intention" in order to grasp it. And I would say, hopefully
this is the case: That the Art-work is strong enough to speak for
itself and display these qualities - intention, skilll need - as an
integrated whole.
But mostly no artwork by itself convinces everybody. Pragmatically
speaking: Sometmes I see a potfolio, and I think....hmmm...this
is....like well...not really my cup of tea....So I usually dig a
little bit deeper, to see if there is any written intention, that can
help me along....And sometimes I do get eye-opened...and mostly I just
get supported in my first rejection.
Now sometimes you run into the real hardcore "Im just painting lovely
flowers for no reason other than pleasure, and I扉e been earning my
living doing so for 45 years. Well, I think it is pathetic. I know,
that i might be oppposed to Decoration, because I惴 into
Intentionalism and a fight for deeper truth in the paintings. But
decoratism is just as difficult to grasp intentionally as is " a pile
of dirt". Decorativism goes back to the Romanian guestchambers, it
involves reflection of problems such as God, the creation of nature,
possible ways to paint nature and abstract from nature, the old
byzantinian fight and I donæ„’ know what...
Funnyly enough, those artist who later becomes really great has all
reflected upon art ( not all artist who reflects get great, thoug...!)
Somebody at the workshop asked me today,
"but why should you bother about these things, like fakeart, what is
art and what is not...If people buy and enjoy the painting, isn t that
enough ????"
And yes, it is enough....But art has greater potential. If you buy
something aout of narrowmindedness today, it is probably going to end
up as tomorrows kitsch. So reading, talking, writing about art is -
for the artist as awell as for the audience - a tool, to - at some
level - insure the investment.
Whether this instituionalizing is REALLY good for art, well...lets get
back to that in another thread.
Christian Tangoe
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED559E9...@oco.net...
>
>>But that's not the "core" of "Logos," S&M. As I have shown, "leg" is.
>>"Leg" doesn't mean "thought." It means "that which is gathered to
>>announce" (collected) or, by reduction, "speaking."
>
>
> That's a bit like saying the core of the meaning of "thing" is "meeting",
> because that's its oldest meaning, even though it is no longer current.
>
> Just wrong.
But, but, but....now you're invoking the authority of current usage. It
should be clear that in current usage the meaning "word" is accepted.
You're argument has been that there is some exiled meaning, or repressed
meaning, that is "thought."
"Word" and "thought" are easily conflated, in that we "think" in words.
But you have to ask yourself...do they really mean the same thing? So
how would you answer that question? I would think by exploring the
Greek examples, to see if there is a contrast between the meaning of
"Word" and "Thought."
>
>
>>...authority...
>
>
> The dictionary references given in this thread so far say that "logos" means
> "word" and "thought", but don't explain very clearly the link between these
> for an english speaker.
>
> Try this link. Note that the first definition is "computation, reckoning":
>
> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2363773
>
> I hope this gives more of an idea of the richness of meanings of "logos",
> and the web of connections between those meanings.
I think that's the same ref I gave you, isn't it? At any rate, we would
do well to consider the 10 contextual definitions given:
I. computation, reckoning
II. relation, correspondence, proportion
III. explanation
IV. inward debate of the soul
V. continuous statement, narrative
VI. verbal expression or utterance
VII. a particular utterance, saying
VIII. thing spoken of, subject-matter
IX. expression, utterance, speech
X. the Word or Wisdom of God, personified as his agent in creation and
world-government
Only in IV is "thinking" cited, but it's important to note that it
refers to "dialog" - or the words in our head when we think. At any
rate, taken as a whole, these ten citations and their sub-citations
clearly defines "logos" as "word"...not "thought."
"Think" on the other hand is "dokeo" in ancient Greek. If you look it
up in Perseus you'll find definitions quite different than "Logos."
I. expect, have or form an opinion - I seem to myself, methinks - I am
determined, resolved - seem, pretend - to be considered - the current
opinions etc.
II. seem - seem good, be resolved on - to be reputed etc.
Modern Greek "skepsis" - viewing, perception by the senses -
examination, speculation, consideration -
Anyway, I'm sure you can see the conceptual contrast.
eam
Seagull Manager
"Christian Tangoe" <ma...@tangoe.dk> wrote in message
news:92189330.03053...@posting.google.com...
>
> Artistic intention however can take so many directions today.
Yes, that's true, but there's only one intention that is a necessary for
something's being art, and that is the intention to create an artefact of
high aesthetic value.
Nikolaus Maack
> Non-sentient machines cannot make art. The intent to make something valuable
> is a precondition of something's being art. That which is not sentient
> cannot, by definition, have such intent.
What then, would you call the attempt of a non-sentient machine to
create art? That is, what NAME would you give to the end result?
Given that a programmer created the software that makes the machine
create the art, what is the difference between that, and say, someone
using a very complicated mechanical pencil to create art?
I think the lines you've drawn in the sand are shifting even as we speak.
>>Often, by the standards of their time, the works of what are
>>now considered great masters were grossly deficient
>
> Not true. Most art that we now call great was admired in its own time.
Van Gogh sold a single painting when he was alive.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Someone in the SOLO group posted this today.
>
>http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikatotimes/0,2106,2509183a6580,00.html
>
LOL! This is great, thanks :-)
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > Non-sentient machines cannot make art. The intent to make something
valuable
> > is a precondition of something's being art. That which is not sentient
> > cannot, by definition, have such intent.
>
> What then, would you call the attempt of a non-sentient machine to
> create art? That is, what NAME would you give to the end result?
A thing that is not sentient cannot *attempt* to make art. That requires
intent, which non-sentient things do not have.
> Given that a programmer created the software that makes the machine
> create the art, what is the difference between that, and say, someone
> using a very complicated mechanical pencil to create art?
To the extent that the programmer is responsible for the outcome, and the
outcome is art, the programmer made the art (not the computer). Or do
complicated pencils make art now?
> I think the lines you've drawn in the sand are shifting even as we speak.
No, they're not.
> >>Often, by the standards of their time, the works of what are
> >>now considered great masters were grossly deficient
> >
> > Not true. Most art that we now call great was admired in its own time.
>
> Van Gogh sold a single painting when he was alive.
Van Gogh only worked for five years, from when he started learning to paint
right up until he committed suicide. He made no serious attempt to sell or
promote his work, and he lived for that period in the countryside, far away
from the art-world of his day. It is ludicrous to present him as an example
of an artist who was rejected in his own time. Find better example (if you
can).
Christian Tangoe
> Van Gogh only worked for five years, from when he started learning to paint
> right up until he committed suicide. He made no serious attempt to sell or
> promote his work, and he lived for that period in the countryside, far away
> from the art-world of his day. It is ludicrous to present him as an example
> of an artist who was rejected in his own time. Find better example (if you
> can).
examples are numerous.
One is Monet, who was not really appreicated in france and in
opposition to the establishment and first started selling in France
after he had succes in the US.
Asger Jorn is a danish example of an artist, who was rather starving
the msot of his life, and the later became extremely popular and
expensive.
One could keep on finding examples, but truly there are also examples
of artists who did pretty well from day one and still became popular
and eternal. Michael Ancher would fall in this category.
Now I dare to state, that artist who makes TOTALLY weird art that
NOBODY understands in their own time and who doesn´t make ANY effort
to get their work shown or communicate to the public is most likely to
remain in their secret basement where they work and live...unless
sombody suddenly digs them out of the grave.
To rely on such luck as an artist...well, I surely don´t.
Christian Tangoe
Nikolaus Maack
> A thing that is not sentient cannot *attempt* to make art. That requires
> intent, which non-sentient things do not have.
You didn't answer my question -- you merely repeated yourself.
Here are three cases. I'd appreciate if you could address each one.
1. A robot, programmed, rolls around on a piece of paper and squirts
out colourful marks from a spray can in its butt. A friend of yours
takes the paper and hangs it, in a frame, on the wall of his office.
He invites you in, and says, "Look at this piece of art. Do you like it?"
You reply, "It's not art, it's...."
Do you argue with your friend? What do you call it, if it isn't art?
Please avoid the obvious crank comments such as "crap!" I'm serious.
If it's on the wall, framed, and a friend is telling you, "This is art,"
and you disagree, what term do you apply to it? "Not art"?
2. A woman you're dating finds a large piece of paper that has been
lying in the street. It has a number of tire tracks across it, and has
been given an odd texture thanks to dirt and gravel. She takes it home
and puts it in a black steel frame and hangs it over her computer desk.
You're over at her place, drinking martinis, when she points out the
thing on the wall and says, "What do you make of my found art?"
Do you tell her she's mistaken, that it's not art? What do you call the
thing? Are you at all concerned that she'll be upset by your insisting
it isn't art?
3. Your three year old daughter, Debbie, paints two stripes on a piece
of paper. Her teacher writes "Debbie" in the corner, as your daughter
isn't capable of writing her own name yet. While you're at work, your
wife has the stripes framed and hangs them on the wall. When you get
home, Debbie excitedly leads you by the hand to the living room and
shows you her work.
"Daddy, daddy," she says, "look at the art I made!"
Do you take the time to carefully explain to Debbie that it isn't art?
What is it, if not art? What would you call it?
>>I think the lines you've drawn in the sand are shifting even as we speak.
>
> No, they're not.
It's difficult to argue with constipation, but it'll all come out in the
end.
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Seagull Manager wrote:
>> A thing that is not sentient cannot *attempt* to make art. That requires
>> intent, which non-sentient things do not have.
>
>You didn't answer my question -- you merely repeated yourself.
>
>Here are three cases. I'd appreciate if you could address each one.
>
>1. A robot, programmed, rolls around on a piece of paper and squirts
>out colourful marks from a spray can in its butt. A friend of yours
>takes the paper and hangs it, in a frame, on the wall of his office.
>
>He invites you in, and says, "Look at this piece of art. Do you like it?"
>
>You reply, "It's not art, it's...."
>
>Do you argue with your friend? What do you call it, if it isn't art?
>Please avoid the obvious crank comments such as "crap!" I'm serious.
>If it's on the wall, framed, and a friend is telling you, "This is art,"
>and you disagree, what term do you apply to it? "Not art"?
This is known as the Eliza effect. No doubt (since you have a degree
in psychology) you've heard about it. It was named after the "Eliza"
program (by Weizenbaum) that simulated a Rogerian psychotherapist by
rephrasing many of the patient's questions and posing them to the
patient. Even though the simple program had not a single grain of
intelligence itself, people reacted to it as if it had.
The point is that people can be deceived. Does this mean that
intelligence (in the Eliza case) cannot be defined because people can
be tricked into believing something has intelligence while in fact it
has not?
Perhaps you know of the famous program "Aaron" which makes pretty good
stuff (note that I didn't use the word "art" ;-) It was made by the
painter/programmer Harold Cohen and is perhaps the best example of a
robot making ar.. stuff
Check it out. It contains photos of Aaron's work in the pdf's
>2. A woman you're dating finds a large piece of paper that has been
>lying in the street. It has a number of tire tracks across it, and has
>been given an odd texture thanks to dirt and gravel. She takes it home
>and puts it in a black steel frame and hangs it over her computer desk.
>
>You're over at her place, drinking martinis, when she points out the
>thing on the wall and says, "What do you make of my found art?"
>
>Do you tell her she's mistaken, that it's not art? What do you call the
>thing? Are you at all concerned that she'll be upset by your insisting
>it isn't art?
I can't speak for Seagull Manager but my definition can include it
(the five points). I just wouldn't like to see it sold for millions
and accompanied by a lot of Artspeak (c)
My 331 line article in this thread, posted on May the 26th adresses
this very issue. It's a border case but it can be included on the mere
use of this object as a work of art (the display part).
>3. Your three year old daughter, Debbie, paints two stripes on a piece
>of paper. Her teacher writes "Debbie" in the corner, as your daughter
>isn't capable of writing her own name yet. While you're at work, your
>wife has the stripes framed and hangs them on the wall. When you get
>home, Debbie excitedly leads you by the hand to the living room and
>shows you her work.
>
>"Daddy, daddy," she says, "look at the art I made!"
>
>Do you take the time to carefully explain to Debbie that it isn't art?
>What is it, if not art? What would you call it?
Basically the same goes for this. It isn't excluded by my definition.
It seems to me you're overly defensive when it comes to art but let's
not forget that a definition of art is valued the same way art is
valued.
Nikolaus Maack
> This is known as the Eliza effect. No doubt (since you have a degree
> in psychology) you've heard about it. It was named after the "Eliza"
> program (by Weizenbaum) that simulated a Rogerian psychotherapist by
> rephrasing many of the patient's questions and posing them to the
> patient. Even though the simple program had not a single grain of
> intelligence itself, people reacted to it as if it had.
As far as I can tell, no painting I have encountered has any
intelligence whatsoever. What difference does it make if the abstract
painting is created by a robot, a person, or the forces of nature (say,
a tornado) knocking over paint cans on to a canvas? Why should an
intelligence behind the art decide whether it's art or not?
Or, to put it another way:
1. A person finds a piece of paper run over by cars, puts it on their
wall, and calls it art. (You said you had no problem with this.)
2. A person finds a piece of paper run over by robots and calls it art.
3. A person builds robots, makes them run over the piece of paper, and
calls the end result art.
I see no difference at all between 1, 2, and 3. Do you?
> http://crca.ucsd.edu/~hcohen/
>
> Check it out. It contains photos of Aaron's work in the pdf's
WHY did the guy save the pictures as PDFs? *sigh*
> It seems to me you're overly defensive when it comes to art but let's
> not forget that a definition of art is valued the same way art is
> valued.
Someone has to defend a broad definition of art, when people show up and
start stomping on it.
The three examples I raise are, to me, the same, and address a single
issue.
1. If your friend Dave calls a piece of paper run over by robots "art",
are you going to tell him otherwise?
2. If your girlfriend finds a piece of paper run over by cars "art", are
you going to tell her she's full of shit?
3. If your 3 year old daughter Debbie says her two lines on paper is
art, are you going to question her?
The main point being, why SHOULDN'T these people be allowed to call
these things art? And if these people are friends, lovers, and
offspring of yours, will that change how you respond to their declarations?
It's one thing to tell stupid old Nik on Usenet that it's not art. But
if it's your lover, your daughter, your friend -- I'm willing to bet
that suddenly "carved in stone" rules get chucked out the window.
None of this is to say that you, Paul, are evil. I'm talking about a
certain Seagull.
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> This is known as the Eliza effect. No doubt (since you have a degree
>> in psychology) you've heard about it. It was named after the "Eliza"
>> program (by Weizenbaum) that simulated a Rogerian psychotherapist by
>> rephrasing many of the patient's questions and posing them to the
>> patient. Even though the simple program had not a single grain of
>> intelligence itself, people reacted to it as if it had.
>
>As far as I can tell, no painting I have encountered has any
>intelligence whatsoever. What difference does it make if the abstract
>painting is created by a robot, a person, or the forces of nature (say,
>a tornado) knocking over paint cans on to a canvas? Why should an
>intelligence behind the art decide whether it's art or not?
>
>Or, to put it another way:
>
>1. A person finds a piece of paper run over by cars, puts it on their
>wall, and calls it art. (You said you had no problem with this.)
>
>2. A person finds a piece of paper run over by robots and calls it art.
>
>3. A person builds robots, makes them run over the piece of paper, and
>calls the end result art.
>
>I see no difference at all between 1, 2, and 3. Do you?
Not if you put it that way. It's the "person" in all three that makes
the art but at some point it becomes unclear who actually made the
art. The machine or the person who made the machine?
My idea was that intent should play a central role in deciding whether
something is art but the work of "Aaron" certainly does look like art
even though the machine didn't have the intent to make art.
The program "Aaron" works quite independently and it is not clear who
can claim being the artist of his works. Does it really matter that
"Aaron" doesn't know what it is doing? When confronted with its work
we call it art (it certainly does look like it) but art requires an
artist (at least, I like to think it does). Who can claim being the
artist? "Aaron" or Harold Cohen?
These are interesting problems and I believe my own definition should
use the word "use" instead of "intent". You see, by exposing my
definitions publicly I start to get new ideas :-)
>> http://crca.ucsd.edu/~hcohen/
>>
>> Check it out. It contains photos of Aaron's work in the pdf's
>
>WHY did the guy save the pictures as PDFs? *sigh*
There are more pictures on the internet, just search with "harold
cohen" and "aaron". It's pretty neat stuff and an interesting
enterprise.
>It's one thing to tell stupid old Nik on Usenet that it's not art. But
>if it's your lover, your daughter, your friend -- I'm willing to bet
>that suddenly "carved in stone" rules get chucked out the window.
But ofcourse, only an absolutist would rip his little daughter's work
from the wall, throw it in the bin and yell at her "THAT AINT ART YOU
LITTLE %$^&!! GO STUDY REMBRANDT THATS REAL ART!!" (I wonder if Deli
has kids? ;-)
There's something like importance and its more important to be nice
than right (to a certain degree ofcourse) Besides : being right is
hard to prove universally (involves a lot of mathematics and stuff)
None of the definitions presented here should be considered carved in
stone and I don't believe any of the makers believe they are. They are
simply fun to make in themselves and to compare one's own convictions
against others. To me that's the value of presenting a definition of
Art. I still question whether a lot of stuff is art but I'm open to
all suggestions.
>None of this is to say that you, Paul, are evil. I'm talking about a
>certain Seagull.
Seagull Manager isn't evil. He just likes to pull out all kinds of
verbal tricks in discourse (much like Erik BTW but he's more into
citations :-) I took SM on for fun in my 218 line article on May the
26th (in the "Self Expression" thread) I quickly disposed of his "word
juggling" and never got a reply again :-)
Christian Tangoe
I don´t get you. What exactly is "an artefact of high aesthetic value
?" I think thats even harder to define than Art or intention itself. I
must dissapoint you, and say, that I don´t feel you bring any light on
the subject with your definition. Where did you buy it ?
It is a shame, beacuse we were pretty close to agreeing on at least
one major ingreedience in Art, apart from Skill: The "will" or
intention-part. But if you spoil it all by saying that you alone know
what is "the right intention". I don´t follow. You can define that for
yourself, like I prevalently prefer "art that is beautifull" (which I
interprete your "aestetic value" equal to) but this doesn´t mean I
don´t respect or like or admire art, which deals with "the ugly as an
aestetic quality".
Every time you rule out somebody, who´s work you don´t find
beautyfull, you also rule out a possible "monet", a possible "jorn"
and so on...This is NOT to say, that every artist doing "junk-art the
ugly way" is a tomorrows not yet understood genious...
I would agree that beauty - aesthetic value of the artefact - just as
skill is underrated in todays artscene. Partly. Because if you go the
commercial scene, these qualities are the only parameters.
Therefore I strongly favor that some deeper "motif" - "intention" - is
present in the artists creations.
Only if one goes to a total antique version of "aestetic" the greek
meaning of - art as the play of the gods - your definition could pass.
#######Some shots at the word aestetic (go on at onelook.com)
aesthetic
/i:s" et k/ adjective 1 of or sensitive to beauty. 2 tasteful.
aesthetically adverb. aestheticism /-s z( )m/ noun.
·1artistic, cultivated, refined, sensitive. 2artistic, beautiful,
tasteful.
Main Entry: 1aes·thet·ic
Pronunciation: es-'the-tik, is-, British usually Es-
Variant(s): or aes·thet·i·cal /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
Etymology: German ästhetisch, from New Latin aestheticus, from Greek
aisthEtikos of sense perception, from aisthanesthai to perceive --
more at AUDIBLE
Date: 1798
1 a : of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful
<aesthetic theories> b : ARTISTIC <a work of aesthetic value> c :
pleasing in appearance : ATTRACTIVE <easy-to-use keyboards, clear
graphics, and other ergonomic and aesthetic features -- Mark Mehler>
2 : appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful;
also : responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the
senses
- aes·thet·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
aesthetic, US ALSO esthetic adjective
1 relating to the enjoyment or study of beauty:
The new building has little aesthetic value/appeal.
2 describes an object or a work of art that shows great beauty:
furniture which is both aesthetic and functional
aesthetics, US ALSO esthetics noun [U]
the formal study of art, especially in relation to the idea of beauty
aesthetically, US ALSO esthetically adverb
I like objects to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing.
aesthete, US ALSO esthete noun [C]
a person who understands and enjoys beauty:
The ugliness of the city would make an aesthete like you shudder.
from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary######
I really like this one:
aesthetics, US ALSO esthetics noun [U]
the formal study of art, especially in relation to the IDEA of beauty
(my emphasis)
this of course implying, that beuty itself is not that easy to
define...
Christian Tangoe
Chairman of the Democratic Art World Movement (allthough not formerly
elected yet)
Christian Tangoe
> On Sat, 31 May 2003 08:50:48 -0400, Nikolaus Maack
> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Seagull Manager wrote:
> >> A thing that is not sentient cannot *attempt* to make art. That requires
> >> intent, which non-sentient things do not have.
> >
> >You didn't answer my question -- you merely repeated yourself.
> >
> >Here are three cases. I'd appreciate if you could address each one.
Hi folks I惴 SO HAPPY, that all the examples here ARE FRAMED !
You see, I work a few hours during the week in making frames for
paintings to support my overall-business as an artist. So - speaking
for my employer - I惴 really happy !
But there is more to it. "The frame is the key" I once stated in a
painting, meaning, that the art-object has to be "judged" in the
context with the "room" where it is exhibited.
1. So in that respect - judging from the theory of institution - all
three are art.
2. Since there is in all 3 cases somebody postulating these objects to
be art, well indeed they are. Thats the basic principle of "Democratic
Art". Law nr. one: Anybody has the privilliged right to acclaim an
object to be art. Wether they can get more people to go down the drain
along with them...welll.....
So my answer would in any case be: Well, I can愒 say that what you扉e
got here is NOT art.
If I had to go beyond that, I should discuss various part of the
techniques in manufaturing, what the intentional interpretaion would
be, etc.
Remeber, the worst thing that can happen to you as an srtist is not,
that you are hated for your uglyness, your lack of technique or your
lack of intentions....
It is, that you are so pathetic, that nobody cares to care...
Christian de Tangoe
(selfelected chairman of Democratic WorldMovement in Art )
Seagull Manager
situations, or refrain from calling non-art, when we know perfectly well
that if they are art, they are marginal cases. Such are the cases you offer.
Seagull Manager
> Paul Mesken wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell, no painting I have encountered has any
> intelligence whatsoever. What difference does it make if the abstract
> painting is created by a robot, a person, or the forces of nature (say,
> a tornado) knocking over paint cans on to a canvas? Why should an
> intelligence behind the art decide whether it's art or not?
Paintings (and works of art generally) are not themselves intelligent, of
course, but they *reflect the intelligence of the maker*. If they fail to do
so, they fail to fulfill some of the essential functions of art.
> 1. A person finds a piece of paper run over by cars, puts it on their
> wall, and calls it art. (You said you had no problem with this.)
>
> 2. A person finds a piece of paper run over by robots and calls it art.
>
> 3. A person builds robots, makes them run over the piece of paper, and
> calls the end result art.
>
> I see no difference at all between 1, 2, and 3. Do you?
I do. 3 could be an example of the exercise of "art" in an Aristotelian
sense, but 1 and 2 are not.
> Someone has to defend a broad definition of art, when people show up and
> start stomping on it.
Your so-called "broad definition of art" is itself a stomping on the very
idea of art.
> 1. If your friend Dave calls a piece of paper run over by robots "art",
> are you going to tell him otherwise?
Depends how he asks. Does he want a discussion? Or is he just being a prat?
Good manners dictate silence in the latter case.
> 2. If your girlfriend finds a piece of paper run over by cars "art", are
> you going to tell her she's full of shit?
No. I just dump her.
> 3. If your 3 year old daughter Debbie says her two lines on paper is
> art, are you going to question her?
No, because she's right. It is art.
> None of this is to say that you, Paul, are evil. I'm talking about a
> certain Seagull.
You're the evil one, Nik.
Nikolaus Maack
Then I guess the question is, why don't you feel the need to be polite
in this forum?
Nikolaus Maack
>>3. If your 3 year old daughter Debbie says her two lines on paper is
>>art, are you going to question her?
>
>
> No, because she's right. It is art.
Why is this art? She probably used no skill whatsoever.
What if we had three completely identical paintings -- Two coloured
stripes smeared together. One is by your three year old, one by a 45
year old man who just had a stroke, and one by Pierre, a 35 year old in
perfect health. Which ones are art, and why?
Have you noticed the distinctions you make are getting sillier and sillier?
Paul Mesken
Well, I'm certainly glad I excluded "skill" right from the start of my
definition of art :-)
The problem with skill is that it has some "trick" like qualities and
that makes it dependent on the performer while art can clearly stand
on itself. There's nothing special to humans walking on two legs but
as soon as a dog does this we call the dog skilled.
I think all of this debate largely stems from the fact that a lot of
people expect "art" to be the same as "good art". But "good art"
relies on extra criteria outside of the definition of art. IMO "skill"
is one such an extra criteria (although I must say I sometimes doubt).
Paul Mesken
Now now now, neither of you have behaved very polite. Let's all hold
hands together and join me in song :
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord kumbaya
Someone's crying my Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying my Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord kumbaya
etc. ;-)
Nikolaus Maack
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 08:49:05 -0400, Nikolaus Maack
> <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>There are lots of things that we might politely call art in certain social
>>>situations, or refrain from calling non-art, when we know perfectly well
>>>that if they are art, they are marginal cases. Such are the cases you offer.
>>
>>Then I guess the question is, why don't you feel the need to be polite
>>in this forum?
>
>
> Now now now, neither of you have behaved very polite. Let's all hold
> hands together and join me in song :
>
> Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
I am teasing the poor Seagull. But really, if he's not willing to
question his friend's definition of art, or his girlfriend's definition
(though he did dump the poor woman) or his child's definition -- what
good is his own, personal, definition?
One of my big, annoying arguments that I'm repeating over and over is
that all perspectives of art are valid ones.
If Dave wants to eat paint and throw up on a canvas, I'm not going to
tell him, "Dave, that isn't art."
What I'll tell him is, "Dave, interesting idea. I don't know if I want
to hang it on my wall. Maybe you shouldn't have had pizza for breakfast
first. How about fasting for a day, and then puking paint?"
In other words, I would not question if it's art or not. I'd question
if it's "art of value" to me.
What's the difference? Approaching it as "art of value" acknowledges
that I am contemplating the art from a subjective standpoint. Even if I
don't like it, so what? It's possible other people will. Who knows?
There are many kinds of art lovers out there -- even ones who'd hang
partially digested pepperoni trapped in acrylic blue.
Maybe if I were an expert on the art market, I could provide Dave with
some helpful guidance. Words like, "In my experience, no one would buy
this. Sorry Dave."
But I definitely wouldn't try to objectively state that Dave's puke
isn't "art" because it's not an "artefact of aesthetic value" that
required skill to create. Who am I to tell Dave that his perspective of
reality is invalid?
gleitzeit
The theme of Narcissus in Jaisini's "Blue..." may be paralleled with
the problem of the
two-sexes-in-one, unable to reproduce and, therefore, destined to the
Narcissus-like
end. Meanwhile, the Narcissus legend lasts. In the myth of Narcissus a
youth gazes
into the pool. As the story goes, Narcissus came to the spring or the
pool and when his
form was seen by him in the water, he drowned among the water nymphs
because he
desired to make love to his own image. Maybe the new Narcissus, as in
"Blue
Reincarnation," is destined to survive by simply changing his role
from a passive man to
an aggressive woman and so on. To this can be added that, eventually,
a man creates a
woman whom he loves out of himself or a woman creates a man and loves
her own
image but in the male form. The theme of narcissism recreates the
'lost object of desire.
"Blue" also raises the problem of conflating ideal actual and the
issue of the feminine
manhood and masculine femininity. There is another story about
Narcissus' fall, which
said that he had a twin sister and they were exactly alike in
appearance. Narcissus fell
in love with his sister and, when the girl died, would go to the
spring finding some relief
for his love in imagining that he saw not his own reflection but the
likeness of his sister.
"Blue" creates a remarkable and complex psychopathology of the lost,
the desired, and
the imagined. Instead of the self, Narcissus loves and becomes a
heterogeneous
sublimation of the self. Unlike the Roman paintings of Narcissus,
which show him alone
with his reflection by the pool, the key dynamic in Jaisini's "Blue"
is the circulation of
the legend that does not end and is reincarnated in transformation
when autoeroticism
is not permanent and is not single by definition. In "Blue," we risk
being lost in the
double reflection of a mirror and never being able to define on which
side of the mirror
Narcissus is. The picture's color is not a true color of spring water.
This kind of color is
a perception of a deep-seated human belief in the concept of eternity,
the rich saturated
cobalt blue. The ultra hot, hyperreal red color of the figure of
Narcissus is not supposed
to be balanced in the milieu of the radical blue. Jaisini realizes the
harmony in the most
exotic color combination. While looking at "Blue," we can recall the
spectacular color of
night sky deranged by a vision of some fierce fireball. The
disturbance of colors creates
some powerful and awe-inspiring beauty. In the picture's background,
we find the
animals' silhouettes, which could be a memory reflection or dream
fragments. In the
story, Narcissus has been hunting - an activity that was itself a
figure for sexual desire
in antiquity. Captivated by his own beauty, the hunter sheds a
radiance that, one
presumes, reflects to haunt and foster his desire. The flaming color
of the picture's
Narcissus alludes to the erotic implications of the story and its
unresolved problem of
the one who desires himself and is trapped in the erotic delirium. The
concept can be
applied to an ontological difference between the artist's imitations
and their objects. In
effect, Jaisini's Narcissus could epitomize artistic aspiration to
control levels of reality
and imagination, to align the competition of art and life, of image
with imaginable
prototype. Jaisini's "Blue" is a unique work that adjoins reflection
to reality without any
instrumentality. "Blue" is a single composition that depicts the
reality and its immediate
reflection. Jaisini builds the dynamics of desire between Narcissus
and his reflection-of-
the-opposite by giving him the signs of both sexes, but not for the
purpose of creating a
hermaphrodite. The case of multiple deceptions in "Blue" seems to be
vital to the cycle
of desire. Somehow it reminds one of the fates of the artists and
their desperate
attempts to evoke and invent the nonexistent. "Blue" is a completely
alien picture to
Jaisini's "Reincarnation" series. The pictures of this series are
painted on a plain ground
of canvas that produces the effect of free space filled with air.
"Blue," to the contrary, is
reminiscent of an underwater lack of air; the symbolism of this
picture's texture and
color contributes to the mirage of reincarnation.
By Yustas Kotz-Gottlieb New York 2003, Text Copyright: Yustas
Kotz-Gottlieb ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED Send private comments to author Gtt...@aol.com
The Art of Paul Jaisini by Yustas Kotz-Gottlieb
http://jaisini.artbabyart.net/
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> >>3. If your 3 year old daughter Debbie says her two lines on paper is
> >>art, are you going to question her?
> >
> > No, because she's right. It is art.
>
> Why is this art? She probably used no skill whatsoever.
She's three. She used the skill available to her. It's a marginal case, but
we can fairly give it the benefit of the doubt. Recall that art, by my
account, is artefacts that reflect their makers' intention to make something
of high aesthetic value. The knowledge the crude painting was made by a
three year old, when added to the evidence of the painting itself, allows me
to classify it is "children's art", just as a crude carving might be
"primitive art", if it was made by someone who had no exposure to anything
more sophisticated.
> What if we had three completely identical paintings -- Two coloured
> stripes smeared together. One is by your three year old, one by a 45
> year old man who just had a stroke, and one by Pierre, a 35 year old in
> perfect health. Which ones are art, and why?
It is not clear that Pierre's work reflects aesthetic ambition, so it is not
clear that it is art. It may very well not be art.
> Have you noticed the distinctions you make are getting sillier and
sillier?
No. My distinctions are quite straightforward.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
>
> Then I guess the question is, why don't you feel the need to be polite
> in this forum?
I am polite to the extent that I refrain from personal attacks on those
participants who have not launched attacks on me (and even if they do, I
often do not respond in kind). Beyond that, this is a discussion forum. As
such, it would be absurd, whenever someone expressed an opinion with which I
disagree, to respond with "fine, whatever rocks your boat", or words to that
effect.
Hadley
> "Nikolaus Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3ED8C9D2...@sympatico.ca...
> > Paul Mesken wrote:
> >
> > As far as I can tell, no painting I have encountered has any
> > intelligence whatsoever. What difference does it make if the abstract
> > painting is created by a robot, a person, or the forces of nature (say,
> > a tornado) knocking over paint cans on to a canvas? Why should an
> > intelligence behind the art decide whether it's art or not?
>
> Paintings (and works of art generally) are not themselves intelligent, of
> course, but they *reflect the intelligence of the maker*. If they fail to do
> so, they fail to fulfill some of the essential functions of art.
>
> > 1. A person finds a piece of paper run over by cars, puts it on their
> > wall, and calls it art. (You said you had no problem with this.)
> >
> > 2. A person finds a piece of paper run over by robots and calls it art.
> >
> > 3. A person builds robots, makes them run over the piece of paper, and
> > calls the end result art.
> >
> > I see no difference at all between 1, 2, and 3. Do you?
>
> I do. 3 could be an example of the exercise of "art" in an Aristotelian
> sense, but 1 and 2 are not.
Ah! So then you are of the Aristoetelian view of art! However, I
believe Aristotle would've merely said it is art because it has art in
it, or whatever circumlogic he used in his proofs.
> > Someone has to defend a broad definition of art, when people show up and
> > start stomping on it.
>
> Your so-called "broad definition of art" is itself a stomping on the very
> idea of art.
However in those above examples that Nik had given, it appears to me
that he is attempting to argue that it is *not* the end product that
makes it art, but the *process* that differentiates it from mere
decoration. Art is not just limited to aesthetic theory after all.
> > 1. If your friend Dave calls a piece of paper run over by robots "art",
> > are you going to tell him otherwise?
>
> Depends how he asks. Does he want a discussion? Or is he just being a prat?
> Good manners dictate silence in the latter case.
>
> > 2. If your girlfriend finds a piece of paper run over by cars "art", are
> > you going to tell her she's full of shit?
>
> No. I just dump her.
LOL!! I think I would've dumped her too. However, let's take a
slightly different situation: say for example that my fiancee was a
musician and she liked to incorporate ambient sound into her
compositions; that is she recorded some sounds of cars passing on the
highway and wanted to use that certain recording for her work. I would
say that the recording itself might not be art, but that if she used
it in a particular context for her piece, then I would probably say
that it is *art* What's interesting is that since back in the days of
Cage, contemporary german expressionist music etc that this *movement*
has already occurred in music, had already reached its height in pop
art, but is rather a trendy and marketable thing now in visual arts.
Take for example, Tracy Emin. One of her pieces are framed pages from
the British pornographic tabloids. She didn't do anything other than
merely frame certain sections of the newspaper and then hung them up
on the wall at Tate Modern. Obviously her aesthetic is a replica of
the Dadaist movement at the turn of the century which in the
description does not mention. Instead it says something like "by
framing images from the tabloids, Tracy asks the viewer to see the
content of the tabloids under a different context" Would you say this
was an example of art, Bruce?
Regards,
Hadley
Seagull Manager
"Hadley" <hadle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8ec3e2c.03060...@posting.google.com...
>
> Ah! So then you are of the Aristoetelian view of art!
Broadly, yes, though that is not implicit in what I wrote.
> However, I
> believe Aristotle would've merely said it is art because it has art in
> it, or whatever circumlogic he used in his proofs.
When we talk about "art" as stuff for aesthetic appreciation, we are not
talking about the stuff Aristotle is discussing when he discusses "the
arts". Aristotle's discussion of "the arts" is clear and reasonably
straightforward and not circular. Arguably, there is "an art" of making
"art", but that is not incontrovertible.
> However in those above examples that Nik had given, it appears to me
> that he is attempting to argue that it is *not* the end product that
> makes it art, but the *process* that differentiates it from mere
> decoration. Art is not just limited to aesthetic theory after all.
There are process-oriented theories of art, and functional theories. My
definition takes both process and function into account. I claim that art is
"artefacts that reflect the fact that they are made with high aesthetic
ambition". This implies that all works of art have a function, specifically,
an aesthetic function, which may or may not be fulfilled. At the same time,
it implies a process (making with a particular purpose in mind, on the one
hand, and appraisal of the resultant artefact, on the other).
> Art is not just limited to aesthetic theory after all.
It is on my account, although it seems that you interpret "aesthetic" as
having only to do with beauty, where I understand the word more broadly. If
looking at a thing or listening to it, or otherwise paying attention to it
is a rewarding experience, then that thing offers "aesthetic" reward,
regardless of whether the adjective "beautiful" is felt to be ascribable to
the thing.
> say for example that my fiancee was a
> musician and she liked to incorporate ambient sound into her
> compositions; that is she recorded some sounds of cars passing on the
> highway and wanted to use that certain recording for her work. I would
> say that the recording itself might not be art, but that if she used
> it in a particular context for her piece, then I would probably say
> that it is *art*
I have no difficulty with that. If an artefact has been created that
reflects its maker's intention to create an aesthetically highly rewarding
experience through that artefact, then that artefact can be called a work of
art, even if it incorporates elements from nature.
> Take for example, Tracy Emin. One of her pieces are framed pages from
> the British pornographic tabloids. She didn't do anything other than
> merely frame certain sections of the newspaper and then hung them up
> on the wall at Tate Modern. Obviously her aesthetic is a replica of
> the Dadaist movement at the turn of the century which in the
> description does not mention. Instead it says something like "by
> framing images from the tabloids, Tracy asks the viewer to see the
> content of the tabloids under a different context" Would you say this
> was an example of art, Bruce?
I would tend to say no, because I can't see any good evidence in the thing
to persuade me that Ms Emin wants to provide aesthetic reward through it.
The evidence that would suggest that she's simply taking the piss is far
stronger.
Seagull Manager
> Well, I'm certainly glad I excluded "skill" right from the start of my
> definition of art :-)
Skill doesn't need to be part of a good definition of art, as I see it, but
skill is still necessary to the making of art.
> The problem with skill is that it has some "trick" like qualities and
> that makes it dependent on the performer while art can clearly stand
> on itself.
I don't quite get you. For skill to be expressed, there needs to be a
skillful agent expressing it, and for art to be made, there has to be
someone to make it. Where's the big difference?
> I think all of this debate largely stems from the fact that a lot of
> people expect "art" to be the same as "good art". But "good art"
> relies on extra criteria outside of the definition of art. IMO "skill"
> is one such an extra criteria (although I must say I sometimes doubt).
Well, I admit the possibility of bad art, and yet I believe skill is
necessary in the making of art.
Paul Mesken
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:mq0kdvoauhmpgjqa2...@4ax.com...
>> The problem with skill is that it has some "trick" like qualities and
>> that makes it dependent on the performer while art can clearly stand
>> on itself.
>
>I don't quite get you. For skill to be expressed, there needs to be a
>skillful agent expressing it, and for art to be made, there has to be
>someone to make it. Where's the big difference?
What I mean is the following : it's not completely obvious how much
skill went into a painting since it doesn't show the effort the
painter got through to make it.
For example : I like to pause my dvd player and draw interesting faces
and facial expressions. Tomorrow I'll get "Leon", I'll immediately go
to that cinema scene coz I want to get Jean Reno's amazed face :-)
Anyway, I always use a simple Bic ballpoint to do them and I'll
typically finish them in under 2 minutes. This takes a fair amount of
skill and sometimes the likeness is off (but luckily the expression
never is).
However, I still have a panel with a sketch on it waiting to get
painted. The girl on it looks perfect but it required far less skill
than my "dvd sketches" since I just put her picture on my projector
and traced it (Capital Sin, I know :-) It's believed Vermeer did
something similar with a "camera obscura". Don't worry, it's not a
habit of mine to trace photos, I just needed a quick sketch to try out
a sunset scene :-)
So, there you have it. My "dvd sketches" took more skill than my
better looking "photo trace". But the public can't tell by the
painting whether some short cut techniques were used.
But don't worry, I still think even a monkey can make a "Pollock", no
matter how hard Erik tries to convince me otherwise ;-)
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>But don't worry, I still think even a monkey can make a "Pollock", no
>matter how hard Erik tries to convince me otherwise ;-)
That's an elephant you're thinking of...
http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/default.php
Monkeys aren't tall enough (no height, no art).
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Mani Deli
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Skill doesn't need to be part of a good definition of art, as I see it, but
>skill is still necessary to the making of art.
I'm always amused how the word skill frightens those whose artwork
show it lacking. They imagine that my mention of skill alone defines
art.
Wheels are a necessity for a car to function. A car is more then
wheels, they don't define a car.
...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/
Erik A. Mattila
Neil Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:51:11 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
> wrote:
>
>
>>But don't worry, I still think even a monkey can make a "Pollock", no
>>matter how hard Erik tries to convince me otherwise ;-)
>
>
> That's an elephant you're thinking of...
>
> http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/default.php
>
> Monkeys aren't tall enough (no height, no art).
haha - good one...no "high" art, at any rate. But strangely (and you
may not believe this) Paul actually agrees with me - he really doesn't
believe a monkey could do it. But he started this claim just after he
started dicing up those Berserker 'schrooms that grow in his
neighborhood into his tulip greens salad. Next thing you know he'll be
saying a Jomviking could paint as good as Norman Rockwell.
Erik
Seagull Manager
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:17:35 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
>
> skill went into a painting since it doesn't show the effort the
> painter got through to make it.
Yes, there's always potentially some potential for doubt or confusion, so
long as a possibility of "cheating" exists. We may be entering an era in
which anything a human can do, a machine can do better. Then the confusion
will be overwhelming. However, up to the present moment, we can fairly say
that it is possible to create images such that anyone looking at them is
rightly confident that they *must* have been made by someone who cared, and
not merely automatically or accidentally.
> But don't worry, I still think even a monkey can make a "Pollock", no
> matter how hard Erik tries to convince me otherwise ;-)
Yes, and I have great difficulty in believing that anyone who can paint with
even moderate skill would believe otherwise.
Seagull Manager
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6aqsdvk994o8ut0bn...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:17:35 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Wheels are a necessity for a car to function. A car is more then
> wheels, they don't define a car.
Exactly. If people remembered that fact more often when thinking of
definitions of art, a whole branch of philosophy could disappear.
Paul Mesken
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:iuesdv4k0amv75hh5...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:17:35 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
>>
>> What I mean is the following : it's not completely obvious how much
>> skill went into a painting since it doesn't show the effort the
>> painter got through to make it.
>
>Yes, there's always potentially some potential for doubt or confusion, so
>long as a possibility of "cheating" exists. We may be entering an era in
>which anything a human can do, a machine can do better. Then the confusion
>will be overwhelming. However, up to the present moment, we can fairly say
>that it is possible to create images such that anyone looking at them is
>rightly confident that they *must* have been made by someone who cared, and
>not merely automatically or accidentally.
"... made by someone who cared"
Some modernist artists are quite notorious for preservators because
their art falls apart in a short time by any measure. I say, it's not
worth saving for even its creators didn't have any respect for it,
neither do they show respect to the prospective buyers. They use the
cheapest of paints, the lousiests of canvases, etc. They don't even
have the skill of a common house painter and highly skilled restorers
try painstakingly to mend their self disintegrating work, a waste of
their great talent. Oh yes, some use shit to paint with, I wonder how
to restore that?
Sure, we're told that this is part of the art but how stupid do these
critcs believe we are? No amount of words can justify the sloppiest of
work by people who are hailed to be great artists.
Paul Mesken
<neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 20:51:11 +0200, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>wrote:
>
>>But don't worry, I still think even a monkey can make a "Pollock", no
>>matter how hard Erik tries to convince me otherwise ;-)
>
>That's an elephant you're thinking of...
>
>http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/default.php
>
>Monkeys aren't tall enough (no height, no art).
It actually does bear a striking similarity to some of the stuff
hanging in museums. The disturbing part is that elephants have quite
lousy eye sight :-)
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Some modernist artists are quite notorious for preservators because
>their art falls apart in a short time by any measure. I say, it's not
>worth saving for even its creators didn't have any respect for it, neither do they show respect to the prospective buyers.
It's big money if it has the right signature. That's why restorers are
having a ball. No other reason. Similar but worthless crap enters the
realm of garbage every day. I've seen cans full of it when some artzy
fartzy moves out of his hovel.
> They use the
>cheapest of paints, the lousiests of canvases, etc. They don't even
>have the skill of a common house painter and highly skilled restorers
>try painstakingly to mend their self disintegrating work, a waste of
>their great talent. Oh yes, some use shit to paint with, I wonder how
>to restore that?
Some guy who needs the money will figure it out.
>Sure, we're told that this is part of the art but how stupid do these
>critcs believe we are? No amount of words can justify the sloppiest of
>work by people who are hailed to be great artists.
...no skill no art!