just what do we consider as ART ?
JAD
new thread. How about "What's your favorite color in opera?"
JAD
Amanda Koh wrote:
> my definition of art is:
>
> a work produced by an individual as an expression of emotions or opinions or
> addressing issues of his own, or society at large so as to communicate to
> his audience the way that he feels or thinks about the subject he addresses.
> He uses his skill in the medium that he chooses to execute this artwork with
> to portray this opinion or idea, and is in control of the medium he chooses.
> a work of art is one that is able to be appreciated by the people that the
> work was intended to reach out to, portraying artistic depth that goes
> beyond mere aestheticism (or it would be just a decoration with little
> artistic value) to reflect the emotional imput of the artist. A piece of art
> is one that is a personal expression, yet one that is expressed to all who
> see the work. a piece of art makes the observer think, and encourages him to
> form his own opinions on the issue, or to realise the artist's perception
> through seeing it through the eyes of the artist in the artwork.
>
>
>
> Amanda Koh
>
> What if you're in hell, and you're mad at someone, where do you tell them to
> go?
Samuel Vriezen
>addressing issues of his own, or society at large so as to communicate to
>his audience the way that he feels or thinks about the subject he addresses.
Subjects sound more like essays or papers. Art, I feel, tries to
capture the sense of being alive, being somebody, somewhere.
Samuel
Amanda Koh
i've seen so many threads of debate over what to consider art, that certain
works cannot be considered art etc.... its a little ironic isn't it, because
these are often the same people who claim that we are to embrace all forms
of creativity expressed artistically through the various creative forms of
the arts as ART.
yet if we were to consider every creation as an artwork, it would result in
the abuse of the term 'artistic license', and we'll just end up with more
crucifixes in urine..... but place standards and guidelines on what we
should consider art is indeed a paradox, because we cannot be creative and
remain within restrictions.... then the artwork is no longer free
expression, but one adhering to certain standards ?
my definition of art is:
a work produced by an individual as an expression of emotions or opinions or
addressing issues of his own, or society at large so as to communicate to
his audience the way that he feels or thinks about the subject he addresses.
He uses his skill in the medium that he chooses to execute this artwork with
to portray this opinion or idea, and is in control of the medium he chooses.
a work of art is one that is able to be appreciated by the people that the
work was intended to reach out to, portraying artistic depth that goes
beyond mere aestheticism (or it would be just a decoration with little
artistic value) to reflect the emotional imput of the artist. A piece of art
is one that is a personal expression, yet one that is expressed to all who
see the work. a piece of art makes the observer think, and encourages him to
form his own opinions on the issue, or to realise the artist's perception
through seeing it through the eyes of the artist in the artwork.
i may be opening a big can of worms here.... or a been-there-done-that
topic....
i've been here long, but not that long, even so, and i think that this needs
addressing again to put us all into perspective before we are able to
properly discuss about the arts without going into debates over definitions
and losing track of the subject that initiated the threads in the first
place.
Adrian
Amanda Koh wrote in message <7bub0v$k99$1...@newton3.pacific.net.sg>...
>it is interesting the way that each person chooses to define what art is.
>
>i've seen so many threads of debate over what to consider art, that certain
>works cannot be considered art etc.... its a little ironic isn't it,
because
>these are often the same people who claim that we are to embrace all forms
>of creativity expressed artistically through the various creative forms of
>the arts as ART.
>
>yet if we were to consider every creation as an artwork, it would result in
>the abuse of the term 'artistic license', and we'll just end up with more
>crucifixes in urine..... but place standards and guidelines on what we
>should consider art is indeed a paradox, because we cannot be creative and
>remain within restrictions.... then the artwork is no longer free
>expression, but one adhering to certain standards ?
>
>my definition of art is:
>
>a work produced by an individual as an expression of emotions or opinions
or
>addressing issues of his own, or society at large so as to communicate to
>his audience the way that he feels or thinks about the subject he
addresses.
A work (musical) does not need to express emotion, or express an opinion.
Likewise the individual may not be addressing any particular 'issues'. These
criteria may be useful in cases similar to 'Piss Christ', which you mention
above, where the artist is using the medium of the artwork to express
something. To try to apply that definition to music, particularly early
music, I don't think is necessarily wise. The music may *suggest* the things
you mention, but it is very difficult to argue that Bach, for instance,
intended the music to suggest these. For instance, in the Orgelbuchlein,
there are many instances where there may/may not be word painting,
references to the texts of the chorales etc. However, a lot of what appears
to be illustrative composition could also be seen as simple usage of the
popular figures & figuration of the time.
>He uses his skill in the medium that he chooses to execute this artwork
with
>to portray this opinion or idea, and is in control of the medium he
chooses.
>a work of art is one that is able to be appreciated by the people that the
>work was intended to reach out to, portraying artistic depth that goes
>beyond mere aestheticism (or it would be just a decoration with little
>artistic value) to reflect the emotional imput of the artist.
Again, who is to say that the work was intended to reach out to anyone? Some
composition (turning again to Bach - Art of Fugue, Well-Tempered clavier) is
written without that purpose in mind.
A piece of art
>is one that is a personal expression, yet one that is expressed to all who
>see the work. a piece of art makes the observer think, and encourages him
to
>form his own opinions on the issue, or to realise the artist's perception
>through seeing it through the eyes of the artist in the artwork.
>
>i may be opening a big can of worms here.... or a been-there-done-that
>topic....
>
>i've been here long, but not that long, even so, and i think that this
needs
>addressing again to put us all into perspective before we are able to
>properly discuss about the arts without going into debates over definitions
>and losing track of the subject that initiated the threads in the first
>place.
>
>Amanda Koh
>
>What if you're in hell, and you're mad at someone, where do you tell them
to
>go?
A piano-accordion convention
>
>
>
>
Adrian
Marilyn
>
> it is interesting the way that each person chooses to define what art is.
>
> i've seen so many threads of debate over what to consider art, that certain
> works cannot be considered art etc.... its a little ironic isn't it, because
> these are often the same people who claim that we are to embrace all forms
> of creativity expressed artistically through the various creative forms of
> the arts as ART.
>
> yet if we were to consider every creation as an artwork, it would result in
> the abuse of the term 'artistic license', and we'll just end up with more
> crucifixes in urine..... but place standards and guidelines on what we
> should consider art is indeed a paradox, because we cannot be creative and
> remain within restrictions.... then the artwork is no longer free
> expression, but one adhering to certain standards ?
>
> my definition of art is:
>
> a work produced by an individual as an expression of emotions or opinions or
> addressing issues of his own, or society at large so as to communicate to
> his audience the way that he feels or thinks about the subject he addresses.
> to portray this opinion or idea, and is in control of the medium he chooses.
> a work of art is one that is able to be appreciated by the people that the
> work was intended to reach out to, portraying artistic depth that goes
> beyond mere aestheticism (or it would be just a decoration with little
> is one that is a personal expression, yet one that is expressed to all who
> see the work. a piece of art makes the observer think, and encourages him to
> form his own opinions on the issue, or to realise the artist's perception
> through seeing it through the eyes of the artist in the artwork.
>
> i may be opening a big can of worms here.... or a been-there-done-that
> topic....
>
> i've been here long, but not that long, even so, and i think that this needs
> addressing again to put us all into perspective before we are able to
> properly discuss about the arts without going into debates over definitions
> and losing track of the subject that initiated the threads in the first
> place.
>
> Amanda Koh
>
> What if you're in hell, and you're mad at someone, where do you tell them to
> go?
to a phoney art exhibition on opening night.
To respond to your thread, the definition of art.
yes it has been discussed over, & over and
nothing was concluded because
it is art is inconclusive, too fluid to be
trapped by a single definition.
However, I appreciate your effort, your sincerity in opening up the subject
and giving us your own definition. As the years go by you will probably
modify that definition, over & over again. Just by taking the time to
articulate your own view and express it on an open forum takes incentive
and courage. You are off to a good start.
Marilyn
Samuel Vriezen
>>a work produced by an individual as an expression of emotions or opinions or
>>addressing issues of his own, or society at large so as to communicate to
>>his audience the way that he feels or thinks about the subject he addresses.
>
>Subjects sound more like essays or papers. Art, I feel, tries to
>capture the sense of being alive, being somebody, somewhere.
Hmm... my statement must have been too short to merit follow-ups...
perhaps if I had pontificated a bit more... :-)
Alexandros Salazar-Kardozo
there.
Alex
--
"Nous voulons, tant ce feu nous brule le cerveau,
Plonger au fond du gouffre, Enfer ou Ciel, qu'importe?
Au fond de l'Inconnu pour trouver du NOUVEAU!"
--Charles Baudelaire "Les fleurs du Mal"
gotts...@my-dejanews.com
gte...@acmex.gatech.edu (Alexandros Salazar-Kardozo) wrote:
> Read Tolstoy's "What is art?" Some interesting concepts are to be found
> there.
I have read it four times so far. As with many books, my agreement with the
author is not unilateral, but I found some of his points very impressive.
Regards,
Seven Octaves
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mike Metcalf
I realize the original post is old and has already been addressed, but...
Everytime I come through and see this article title,
"just what do we consider as ART ?", quite frankly, it bugs me out.
The title conjurs an image, for me at least, of a reader of this NG
sitting at their computer and reading someone's post or going to
someones web site, viewing their work, their "Art", and saying
to themselves, "What is THIS? This is a prime example of..."
and then deciding to post this article.
The title of the post seems antagonistic at the outset. I mean,
a more non-objective title could have been, "What is considered Art?".
Instead, the title starts with "just what..." as in my mother saying
to me as a kid, "just where have you been young man...". =)
The next thing that gets me every time is the "we" statement.
Who is "we"? As if the collective readers all share the same opinions.
Especially with regards to something as lucid as defining what is art.
Is there some council or something that I am unaware of to which
this article was addressed which has the power to such a question?
Anyway, thanks to the original poster for
motivating my brain. =)
Peace
Alexandros Salazar-Kardozo <gte...@acmex.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:7cm1lu$s...@catapult.gatech.edu...
>Read Tolstoy's "What is art?" Some interesting concepts are to be found
>there.
>
Marilyn
>
> I realize the original post is old and has already been addressed, but...
> Everytime I come through and see this article title,
> "just what do we consider as ART ?", quite frankly, it bugs me out.
>
> The title conjurs an image, for me at least, of a reader of this NG
> sitting at their computer and reading someone's post or going to
> someones web site, viewing their work, their "Art", and saying
> to themselves, "What is THIS? This is a prime example of..."
> and then deciding to post this article.
>
> The title of the post seems antagonistic at the outset. I mean,
> a more non-objective title could have been, "What is considered Art?".
>
> Instead, the title starts with "just what..." as in my mother saying
> to me as a kid, "just where have you been young man...". =)
>
> The next thing that gets me every time is the "we" statement.
> Who is "we"? As if the collective readers all share the same opinions.
> Especially with regards to something as lucid as defining what is art.
>
> Is there some council or something that I am unaware of to which
> this article was addressed which has the power to such a question?
>
> Anyway, thanks to the original poster for
> motivating my brain. =)
>
> Peace
>
> Alexandros Salazar-Kardozo <gte...@acmex.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:7cm1lu$s...@catapult.gatech.edu..
> >there.
> >
> >Alex
> >
> >--
> >"Nous voulons, tant ce feu nous brule le cerveau,
> > Plonger au fond du gouffre, Enfer ou Ciel, qu'importe?
> > Au fond de l'Inconnu pour trouver du NOUVEAU!"
> > --Charles Baudelaire "Les fleurs du Mal"
This tired simplistic question keeps rearing its ugly head.
It is a simplistic question dealing with a complex subject.
To make the interpretation whether something is ART in
Western culture, here & now, one needs an art background
consisting in knowledge of art history up to this point.
One also needs some concept of art theory. This background
is not difficult to achieve, you just go to your local
library. The librarian will help you. Then you start looking
at art, preferably not on the net alone. Go to galleries
and museums, ask questions. Go to contemporary galleries
where you can meet artists, ask them about their work and
what they want to achieve. Most are only too glad to talk.
Would you ask "what is brain surgery" and expect a casual answer?
Marilyn
Kay Kane
Marilyn wrote in message <36F308...@bc.ca>...
Hi Marilyn,
Clearly & intelligently put. Have you read "Spending" by Mary Gordon?
(Light fiction but fun). She uses a brain surgery analogy re: artists being
asked to do art for free so much. I believe that if one follows the sound
advice you posted, then they can BEGIN to search for this answer, which
should continue throughout their lives.
Kay
David_U
>
> This tired simplistic question keeps rearing its ugly head.>
> It is a simplistic question dealing with a complex subject.>
> To make the interpretation whether something is ART in
> Western culture, here & now, one needs an art background
> consisting in knowledge of art history up to this point.
unable to cogitate and formulate a definition of art, right?
> One also needs some concept of art theory. This background
> is not difficult to achieve, you just go to your local
> library.
I see, you of course are able to decide which of us is just
too ignorant to discuss this subject without following your
course of study.
The librarian will help you. Then you start looking
> at art, preferably not on the net alone. Go to galleries
> and museums, ask questions. Go to contemporary galleries
> where you can meet artists, ask them about their work and
> what they want to achieve. Most are only too glad to talk.
Thanks for the info. Without your generous input the rest
of us will remain intellectually starved for enlightenment.
>
> Would you ask "what is brain surgery" and expect a casual answer?>
> Marilyn
Well, if one has a resonable acquaintance with Epistomology
I would expect them to be able to give a cogent answer.
--
**************************************
* Join the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* Del.& from address e=k. *
**************************************
www.freeyellow.com/members2/lumbercartel/index.html
www.robertstech.com/gallery/page13.htm
Notice: Spelling mistrakes left in for people who
need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
David_U
>
> I realize the original post is old and has already been addressed, but...
> Everytime I come through and see this article title,
> "just what do we consider as ART ?", quite frankly, it bugs me out.> >
> The next thing that gets me every time is the "we" statement.
I took that to rhetorical personnaly.
> Who is "we"? As if the collective readers all share the same opinions.
> Especially with regards to something as lucid as defining what is art.
I felt that he was asking the question in general, we as in
"you readers out there. I did not feel that he had any
sinister motivation and was trying to stimulate a good
discussion.
>
> Is there some council or something that I am unaware of to which
> this article was addressed which has the power to such a question?
I am sure that there are some who consider themselves to be
the ultimate council but fortunately not on this N.G. at
present.
John Haber
What starts as such an effort to evaluate a work could end up telling
what's going on, even if only why you don't like the work, and that
could change your perceptions and assumptions. How much faster to
declare it non-art.
In practice, it's bound to be cheating. To be effective, it has to
identify art with its technique or subject matter. (You know, rocks
can't be as artistic as modeling clay, or abstraction or sci-fi can't
be as artistic as studies from nature, whoever he is.) That's
obviously silly, given how often these criteria have changed, as in
the adoption of sketches or still life as art.
So the next version looks for something finer. The pile of rocks has
to reveal an artist's handiwork. The painting has to be more than a
political poster, but a work of art. And then one really isn't
talking any longer about the in-out of art worlds. One is back with
the hard work after all, just in denial of it.
Give you two analogies. If morality is the word of God, it saves a
lot of time. People who don't buy it needn't even be argued with.
And yet one still has to find reasons to think that the voice or book
is the word of God. Eventually the chain of appeals to authority must
stop, and one must examine oneself and one's beliefs. Or think of how
protesters against some barbarity have been called un-American. It
adds outrage and labels, and it saves a lot of questioning about
America.
Eventually, the act of exclusion should make one examine the borders.
But then one adopts the excluded into one's world, and that runs the
risk of shifting the border yet further still.
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
br...@wralaw.com
In order to answere the thread. Art.1 is whatever ends up being
documented as art by being placed in an Art Museum, art Gallery,
Art School, Art Book/publication, or is somehow defined to the
self-referential art community as art. Repeat-whatever becomes
documented as art. For sales value often what is 'ar+' is often
put in front of something that happened in a gallery. It allows
us () to relive the thrill people must have felt close to a
century ago when they called Duchamps P.Mutt art.1 Of course
people seriously continuing to search for some future real meaning
in art are generally wasting their time by again refering to some
sub-duchampian prank and asking is it Ar+?
Even something that would have gone slightly farther than a Urinal
defined as sculpture won't beat Duchamp since that Ar+ world was
many times more easily shocked. Most media pranks in the art world
are far less than a Urinal... What is a piece of notebook paper next
to the Urinal prank? Or the mustache on the Mona Lisa?
Definition is a synonym of non-art.
In article <36f654ae...@news.cc.columbia.edu>,
jh...@columbia.edu wrote:
> You're right,
Dear JOhn who are you talking to? Since I have responded on this
thread I'll take it to mean I'm right.
At least that's one thing you are absolutely right on!
> In practice, it's bound to be cheating. To be effective, it has to
> identify art with its technique or subject matter. (You know, rocks
> can't be as artistic as modeling clay, or abstraction or sci-fi can't
> be as artistic as studies from nature, whoever he is.) That's
> obviously silly, given how often these criteria have changed, as in
> the adoption of sketches or still life as art.
? What is it (ahr+ or Ar+) ?
> So the next version looks for something finer. The pile of rocks has
> to reveal an artist's handiwork. The painting has to be more than a
> political poster, but a work of art.
Propaganda?
>And then one really isn't
> talking any longer about the in-out of art worlds.
Parallel Universes (art worlds) Maybe we will find shroendingers
cat soon.
> John (jha...@haberarts.com)
Bryn Ayers
Paul Reader
>> Who is "we"? As if the collective readers all share the same opinions
Well this could be an interesting question about newsgroup identity.
I often look at newsgroups for their collective identity. Yes I know ! You
have to resort to statistics or something to get a community profile of a
newsgroup.
But I think it is a nice idea to think that something as big as
rec.arts.fine has a collective identity.
Regards to all, Paul Reader
peter nelson
>Would you ask "what is brain surgery" and expect a
>casual answer?
I suggest that this analogy is not a good one.
People who ask "what is art" are, in effect also
asking "what ISN'T art?" This is not true with brain
surgery because there is not some category of
activity which is in dispute as to whether it is
brain surgery or not.
Indeed, until the rise of nonrepresentational art
in the west this was not even a major question about
art. 150 years ago people may have debated whether
something was "good" art or not but very few people
spent much time worrying about whether something
was art. Nowadays, however there is a clash
between people's common sense notions about what
art is and much of the art which is applauded by
academic elites.
The question is important, not because of what, if
anything, the answer is, but because it is being asked
at all. In Mozart's time the concert halls were filled
with all classes of society, and today's concert goers
would probably have been taken aback by some of
the people and things they might have seen there.
This is all the more remarkable because we think of
those days as much more class-devisive and ourselves
as more egalitarian. All of the arts today have separated
themselves from people's ordinary day-to-day experiences
and conceptions of what art is. Instead of being inclusive,
the artistic aristocracy goes out of its way to cling to
its elitism and separation. They do so at their peril.
---peter
David Cleary
[snip]
: Indeed, until the rise of nonrepresentational art
: in the west this was not even a major question about
: art. 150 years ago people may have debated whether
: something was "good" art or not but very few people
: spent much time worrying about whether something
: was art.
Actually, if you take a look through Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical
Invective," you'll see 19th-century-era criticisms which question whether
a particular piece of music is even "art" or "music" at all. This would
suggest that such grumbling is not unique to our century, only that the
bar keeps being moved to a different place. Which would appear to be
contrary to your assertion.
: Nowadays, however there is a clash
: between people's common sense notions about what
: art is and much of the art which is applauded by
: academic elites.
Given the above, "nowadays" is like 150 years ago in this regard. Only the
names of the bogeymen have changed. Lately, it's the "academic elites" to
blame. Before, it was the "Lisztian/Wagnerian school" or something/someone
else. It'll be someone else in fifty years.
[snip]
: All of the arts today have separated
: themselves from people's ordinary day-to-day experiences
: and conceptions of what art is. Instead of being inclusive,
: the artistic aristocracy goes out of its way to cling to
: its elitism and separation. They do so at their peril.
Sorry, not buying. The exact same thing could have been written in the
1820's by someone who didn't like the late Beethoven string quartets and
Gericault's paintings. "Plus ca change" and all that.
Dave
peter nelson
>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: Indeed, until the rise of nonrepresentational art
>: in the west this was not even a major question about
>: art. 150 years ago people may have debated whether
>: something was "good" art or not but very few people
>: spent much time worrying about whether something
>: was art.
>
>Actually, if you take a look through Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical
>Invective," you'll see 19th-century-era criticisms which question whether
>a particular piece of music is even "art" or "music" at all. This would
>suggest that such grumbling is not unique to our century, only that the
>bar keeps being moved to a different place. Which would appear to be
>contrary to your assertion.
I said "FEW people spent much time worrying" about it. It is
unlikely that you could have pulled random people off the street
in Vienna and found many who would have claimed that what
Beethoven created was not music, or that they could not
understand why others called it music. This is not the same as
some critics who complained that, say, his Symphony 7
was the "work of a drunkard"; they weren't denying he made
music, only that they didn't think it was very good music.
But when you show ordinary people purely monocolor canvasses
most of them will question whether it is art at ALL.
>: All of the arts today have separated
>: themselves from people's ordinary day-to-day experiences
>: and conceptions of what art is. Instead of being inclusive,
>: the artistic aristocracy goes out of its way to cling to
>: its elitism and separation. They do so at their peril.
>
>Sorry, not buying. The exact same thing could have been written in the
>1820's by someone who didn't like the late Beethoven string quartets and
>Gericault's paintings. "Plus ca change" and all that.
You have proven my point above, by your phrase, "didn't LIKE".
We're not talking about LIKING it; we're talking about recognizing
it as an instance of music in the first place.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people from
that era who genuinely doubted that what Beethoven (or
Dvorak, or Brahms) composed was music. Wheras it is
easy to find this among the public encountering many examples
of modern art.
---peter
Vulpecula
> most of them will question whether it is art at ALL.
The watermark that I suppose I unconsciously look for when perceiving art is
the extent to which *craft* was involved in a work's creation. That is, I
don't believe in allowing art to become separated too liberally from the
techniques that have been developed over time in its service. A blank
canvass, by this criterion, would not qualify as art, as it did not require
any craft to produce.
The OED alternately defines craft in this sense as "human skill, art as
opposed to nature", "ability in planning or performing, ingenuity in
constructing, dexterity", and "an art, trade, or profession requiring special
skill and knowledge".
Until relatively recently, it seems, art was without question intimately
linked with craft, discipline and skill, and those lacking either an
exceptional talent for a specific set of techniques, or years of specialized
training and exposure to a specific set of techniques, did not presume to
label themselves artists. Techniques would change with time, but the talent
for them and discipline adherence to them remained compulsory.
This principle, of course, applied equally to the singing art. Appreciating
art should, in my opinion, involve an investigation of the techniques used to
make the art in question, in order to appreciate the unique challenges
involved, and the unique talents in possession of such disciplined techniques.
Sorry if any of this is redundant according to what has already been posted.
Just my two cents.
Vulpecula
David Cleary
:>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
:>
:>[snip]
:>
:>: Indeed, until the rise of nonrepresentational art
:>: in the west this was not even a major question about
:>: art. 150 years ago people may have debated whether
:>: something was "good" art or not but very few people
:>: spent much time worrying about whether something
:>: was art.
:>
:>Actually, if you take a look through Slonimsky's "Lexicon of Musical
:>Invective," you'll see 19th-century-era criticisms which question whether
:>a particular piece of music is even "art" or "music" at all. This would
:>suggest that such grumbling is not unique to our century, only that the
:>bar keeps being moved to a different place. Which would appear to be
:>contrary to your assertion.
: I said "FEW people spent much time worrying" about it. It is
: unlikely that you could have pulled random people off the street
: in Vienna and found many who would have claimed that what
: Beethoven created was not music, or that they could not
: understand why others called it music.
How do we know what they would--or would not--have thought? Were you
there? Are you privy to data that suggest what these folks thought?
: This is not the same as
: some critics who complained that, say, his Symphony 7
: was the "work of a drunkard"; they weren't denying he made
: music, only that they didn't think it was very good music.
But not all critics from that time gave pieces they disliked the benefit
of the doubt of being music at all. If the so-called experts did this at
times, can we assume the laymen knew any better?
: But when you show ordinary people purely monocolor canvasses
: most of them will question whether it is art at ALL.
Really? "Most" of them? Have you actually done this, or are you just
guessing? Most of the laymen I know wouldn't question whether it is "art
at all." They might not think it's good art, but that's not the same
thing. Who says your sample of people is any better than mine?
And there are two other potential problems running in back of your
argument:
1. even if we can prove that a majority of people think a purely monocolor
painting isn't art, so what?
2. I'm a "man on the street" just as much as anyone else. Are you saying
what I think doesn't count?
: >: All of the arts today have separated
:>: themselves from people's ordinary day-to-day experiences
:>: and conceptions of what art is. Instead of being inclusive,
:>: the artistic aristocracy goes out of its way to cling to
:>: its elitism and separation. They do so at their peril.
:>
:>Sorry, not buying. The exact same thing could have been written in the
:>1820's by someone who didn't like the late Beethoven string quartets and
:>Gericault's paintings. "Plus ca change" and all that.
: You have proven my point above, by your phrase, "didn't LIKE".
I've done no such thing. How people express "didn't like" in words can
vary a lot. I've encountered some people (in rec.music.classical, in fact)
who, when pressed in discussion, equated "didn't like the piece" with
"isn't art"--and didn't appear to know they were doing it.
: We're not talking about LIKING it; we're talking about recognizing
: it as an instance of music in the first place.
Then I suggest you reread the Slonimsky. There are examples of criticisms
there from the 19th century in which the piece being slammed is in fact
questioned as being a piece of music at all.
: I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people from
: that era who genuinely doubted that what Beethoven (or
: Dvorak, or Brahms) composed was music. Wheras it is
: easy to find this among the public encountering many examples
: of modern art.
I think you're guessing and would be hard-pressed to demonstrate these
points in any meaningful way.
Dave
peter nelson
>: I said "FEW people spent much time worrying" about it. It is
>: unlikely that you could have pulled random people off the street
>: in Vienna and found many who would have claimed that what
>: Beethoven created was not music, or that they could not
>: understand why others called it music.
>
>How do we know what they would--or would not--have
>thought? Were you there? Are you privy to data that
>suggest what these folks thought?
I collect diaries and letters from people in the 19th
century. The social history of societies during the
industrial revolution is an area of study for me.
---peter
peter nelson
Dr.Matt wrote in message <7ds27h$5os$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
>Just a note that the "it's not music" meme can be trace through
>music criticism to at latest 1601 (l'Artusi).
I agree, but I think that was in the nature of academic
or scholarly criticism. In other words, I do not believe
that ordinary people did not recognize what Beethoven or
Mozart wrote was music. I would be very surprised if
the average person would have listened to a Beethoven
symphony or a Mozart concerto and either mistaken it
for mere noise, or concluded that they could have done
just as well themselves. Whereas this is a common
reaction by ordinary people when confronting art by
people like Rothko or Pollock.
And again, this is not speculation. I have an extensive
collection of diaries and letters of ordinary people in the
19th century since social history is an area of study of
mine and I pursue it by reading what ordinary (not
famous, wealthy or noteworthy) people wrote in their
diaries and letters to each other. Quite ordinary folks
such as clerks, farmers, teachers, soldiers, etc, were
surprisingly aware of art and culture and had definite
opinions and tastes, rather like we do. And I see
no sign of people not acknowledging that the major
artists or composers of that day were not making art or
music, even if they didn't care for the result.
---peter
Dr.Matt
music criticism to at latest 1601 (l'Artusi).
--
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
Just because you found my e-mail address, that doesn't mean I have solicited
your commercial e-mail. What part of "unsolicited" don't spammers understand?
Links & addresses for spammers: http://e-scrub.com/cgi-bin/wpoison/wpoison.cgi
Samuel Vriezen
>industrial revolution is an area of study for me.
Ah! Then you may enlighten us as to what art meant for the 19th
century mind. As a spoilt 20th century individual, I have no idea what
the generic 19th century person in the street would think about the
nature, function and inner workings of art (consciously or
unconsciously): which makes it very hard for me to make sense of your
assertions.
Marilyn
>
> > But when you show ordinary people purely monocolor canvasses
> > most of them will question whether it is art at ALL.
>
No not redundant.
However, to some people, Rothko's paintings (as an example)
are considered blank canvases, requiring no skil.
In reality they are colour field paintings, requiring a great
deal of skill, and especially discipline and patience.
He applied many thin layers of paint, so that the colours
shimmer and glow in those transparent layers.
Some are unable to distinguish skill in a work of art,
and many have their own fixed ideas of skill. Anything
too spontaneous might look unskilled not considering
how much practice it took to become "spontaneous."
M.
Vulpecula
> No not redundant.
> However, to some people, Rothko's paintings (as an example)
> are considered blank canvases, requiring no skil.
>
> In reality they are colour field paintings, requiring a great
> deal of skill, and especially discipline and patience.
> He applied many thin layers of paint, so that the colours
> shimmer and glow in those transparent layers.
>
> Some are unable to distinguish skill in a work of art,
> and many have their own fixed ideas of skill. Anything
> too spontaneous might look unskilled not considering
> how much practice it took to become "spontaneous."
I didn't do back-reading to see whether this discussion had touched on Rothko
personally, so my comments were not necessarily in allusion to his work. I will
say, now that you mention him, that I do question the actual skill in his technique
of "color fields" (which I have had explained to me before). I readily concede the
discipline and patience involved, but in terms of degree of skill I personally place
it below the techniques of other schools.
Rothko's paintings are as spontaneous as you like, and as attractive. His
manipulation and perception of color seems to me to be very good. Skill is measured
by degrees, according to the evaluation of the (hopefully informed) beholder. I do
not call Rothko an untalented artist, and there is definitely room in the art world
for his interesting technique. I happen to esteem it lower than other forms which
I, personally, consider to be more visually stimulating, and which evince to me an
even more disciplined and skilful technique. His innovations are valuable,
nonetheless.
Vulpecula
David Cleary
: > peter nelson wrote:
:>: I said "FEW people spent much time worrying" about it. It is
:>: unlikely that you could have pulled random people off the street
:>: in Vienna and found many who would have claimed that what
:>: Beethoven created was not music, or that they could not
:>: understand why others called it music.
:>
:>How do we know what they would--or would not--have
:>thought? Were you there? Are you privy to data that
:>suggest what these folks thought?
: I collect diaries and letters from people in the 19th
: century. The social history of societies during the
: industrial revolution is an area of study for me.
Ah. In that case, I'd guess you'll have no problem presenting lots of
specific examples, naming names and citing what they wrote on the subject,
especially Viennese people of the time. Please do--I'm very interested in
knowing more.
And, more importantly, even if you can provide lots of tangible evidence,
I'd be interested in finding out how you know that what you possess is a
fair representative sample to present for "everyman" in Beethoven's Vienna
(or any other time, for that matter). I'd guess it's not easy to do for
our own time, never mind that of nearly 200 years ago. Heck, you might
wind up excluding me from your "today's man on the street" sample or
something.... ;)
Dave
John Haber
>in terms of degree of skill I personally place it below the
>techniques of other schools.
I'm leaping in late, but your post was so perceptive and gentlemanly,
that it might be a good place to take issue. You're the question at
its best, and yet I'd have quarrels with what you say. How about an
outline, in no paticular order:
1. WHO SAYS IT AIN'T SKILL? Speaking very personally as a
non-artist, since I can't do it, I assume it's skill. Indeed, since
I've seen plenty of boring abstract paintings, including ones that
have frustrated their makers in the way my bad drafts frustrate me as
a writer, I assume others with discipline, patience, and skill must
feel the same way.
2. WHO CARES? On a gut level, I want to ignore your concerns. For
the moment I'm there, I think, "Who cares about criteria for art or
skill?" Or I don't even think this. They have the power to induce me
and others to moments of happiness, meditation, and fear. I think of
man sitting before me as I entered the Rothko Chapel -- or my own hush
and the joyful perception of things around me that stayed with me all
day after. I think of the people sitting on the floor at the
Washington retrospective -- or caught by surprise when a neighboring
room came into view at the Whitney's version. I think intellectually
of his altering the relation of figure to ground, of image to the
canvas as object, of questioning the notion of pictorial space as a
mirror of perception, of asking each viewer to question the clarity of
his own mirror. Then you speak, and I can hardly even hear you.
3. WHERE'D THAT IDEA COME FROM? You contrast skill with hard work.
Suppose you're right. So what? You've created a definition that is
coherent at all only if it identifies art with the native talent of
the artist, apart from what he or she does. That's the worst
inheritance of Romanticism: art is the artist. It helps not just to
question this -- and one can say that Rothko's work would be art if it
did only that -- but also to recognize your taking for granted a
notion barely 200 years old. Ever wonder how art got done before
that?
4. WHY DEFINE ART? I myself think it's always the wrong question.
We talk about Rothko's work, our responses, his work and desires, the
world of color they show, the times in which they were made, the
implications for all sorts of things. We can talk about their quality
and make comparative judgments. We can talk, too, if we wish about
whether they're art. Seems to me that with each of the three
questions we're getting further and further from art, not closer to
making sense of it.
5. WHO DEFINED ART? The few who take the question seriously will
never agree. These days film is art. On alternate Thursday some
ceramics from other cultures are. Maybe it's just a dumb question.
6. CAN YOU ACCEPT THAT THE QUESTION AT ITS BEST MAY
BE WHAT MAKES IT ART? In this century, the question, "What is art?"
has mingled closely with our interpretations and value judgments.
It's the century that asked for things in a museum NOT to be art or
dared us to accept they were. It's extended art to design, as part of
a drive (as in Bauhuas) to take art so seriously it'll change the
world. Designers have borrowed from art with or without pretension.
Pop artists have asked us to reconsider "low" or "popular" forms
versus high culture. Conceptual artists have flung the question in
our face. If you think this kind of questioning is valid, despite my
hesitations in (5), then it becomes background to interpretation art
and part of their interpretation, not necessarily a criticism of them.
I say forget looking for the border and trying to place Rothko on one
side. It's not worth the time and trouble.
Last, I'm trying to indicate some Web links in my signature. This
time, I am going to beg for readers, humbly. My review of Rothko's
retrospective is something very dear to me. Thank you.
John (www.haberarts.com/rothko.htm;
on the anti-art stuff:
www.haberarts.com/fake.htm
www.haberarts.com/hypo.htm)
Vulpecula
> 1. WHO SAYS IT AIN'T SKILL?
Not me. I was hinting at qualifying skill, on an arbitrary perceptual
scale.
> Speaking very personally as a
> non-artist, since I can't do it, I assume it's skill.
Me too.
> Indeed, since
> I've seen plenty of boring abstract paintings, including ones that
> have frustrated their makers in the way my bad drafts frustrate me as
> a writer, I assume others with discipline, patience, and skill must
> feel the same way.
Right.
> 2. WHO CARES? On a gut level, I want to ignore your concerns. For
> the moment I'm there, I think, "Who cares about criteria for art or
> skill?"
Me too, sometimes. It can be, as you point out below, more confining than
might be worthwhile, and can lead one further away from appreciating art.
I wouldn't call them "concerns", just unconscious value judgements.
> Or I don't even think this. They have the power to induce me
> and others to moments of happiness, meditation, and fear. I think of
> man sitting before me as I entered the Rothko Chapel -- or my own hush
> and the joyful perception of things around me that stayed with me all
> day after. I think of the people sitting on the floor at the
> Washington retrospective -- or caught by surprise when a neighboring
> room came into view at the Whitney's version. I think intellectually
> of his altering the relation of figure to ground, of image to the
> canvas as object, of questioning the notion of pictorial space as a
> mirror of perception, of asking each viewer to question the clarity of
> his own mirror. Then you speak, and I can hardly even hear you.
Actually, you're "preaching to the choir" here. Contrary to what you
might have assumed, I really don't spend a great deal of time qualifying
or excluding. It's more a matter of making value judgements when faced
with a imaginary choice. I didn't (intentionally) steer the discussion
toward Rothko, but once someone brought him up I saw fit to apply his work
to my original logic (if logic it was). I don't value Rothko as highly as
Rembrandt, or Michelangelo. But I would probably enjoy the Rothko Chapel
as much as the next dilletante.
> 3. WHERE'D THAT IDEA COME FROM? You contrast skill with hard work.
Not so. I meant to include both of them as aspects of the artist, but
probably didn't phrase it clearly enough. I can't think of a great artist
who did not, to my knowledge, work hard at his or her craft.
> Suppose you're right. So what? You've created a definition that is
> coherent at all only if it identifies art with the native talent of
> the artist, apart from what he or she does.
See above.
> That's the worst
> inheritance of Romanticism: art is the artist. It helps not just to
> question this -- and one can say that Rothko's work would be art if it
> did only that -- but also to recognize your taking for granted a
> notion barely 200 years old. Ever wonder how art got done before
> that?
Hmm, you've lost me a little here, and I think misinterpreted. Sorry if I
was confusing. Whatever I might have said to make you suppose I directly
correlate art and artist, I do not. Art prior to 200 years ago is a good
deal of what I had in mind when discussing art as craft.
> 4. WHY DEFINE ART? I myself think it's always the wrong question.
> We talk about Rothko's work, our responses, his work and desires, the
> world of color they show, the times in which they were made, the
> implications for all sorts of things. We can talk about their quality
> and make comparative judgments. We can talk, too, if we wish about
> whether they're art. Seems to me that with each of the three
> questions we're getting further and further from art, not closer to
> making sense of it.
Possibly, if you become obsessed and forget to enjoy what is there. But
we define art because it is simply interesting to do so. I never called
Rothko's work non-art, but implied comparing it to other forms as evincing
in my mind less skill, apart from whatever psychological issues it
provokes. This might be a simplistic way of viewing art, but it also is
not one I obsess about.
> 5. WHO DEFINED ART? The few who take the question seriously will
> never agree. These days film is art. On alternate Thursday some
> ceramics from other cultures are. Maybe it's just a dumb question.
Maybe!
> 6. CAN YOU ACCEPT THAT THE QUESTION AT ITS BEST MAY
> BE WHAT MAKES IT ART? In this century, the question, "What is art?"
> has mingled closely with our interpretations and value judgments.
> It's the century that asked for things in a museum NOT to be art or
> dared us to accept they were. It's extended art to design, as part of
> a drive (as in Bauhuas) to take art so seriously it'll change the
> world. Designers have borrowed from art with or without pretension.
> Pop artists have asked us to reconsider "low" or "popular" forms
> versus high culture. Conceptual artists have flung the question in
> our face. If you think this kind of questioning is valid, despite my
> hesitations in (5), then it becomes background to interpretation art
> and part of their interpretation, not necessarily a criticism of them.
I do think it is valid questioning. I think art can be found everywhere
you look, to varying degrees of "totality". There are masterpieces, and
there are works in progress which only hint at art. A structural design,
such as a building, might be artistic in one sense but not in others.
But, I do not, personally, accept wholesale certain far-flung notions of
deconstructionist/reconstructionist thinkers. I don't try to exclude
things, such as cartoon or pop art, from my consideration along artistic
lines; I don't rule out enjoyment of such forms, but I will probably
always impose a value judgement based upon my makeshift, subjective
definition of art as craft. This is a personal preference, not very
complicated at all, which I do not try to impose on others.
> I say forget looking for the border and trying to place Rothko on one
> side. It's not worth the time and trouble.
Well, first of all not much time or trouble is involved, no more than the
speed of thought expedites, and second the practical result of placing
Rothko "on one side" is not so extreme as to bar my appreciation of him.
If I were writing a comprehensive book about art I wouldn't leave Rothko
out, or any others who called themselves artists and had exerted
noticeable influence in the "field". It would then be up to me to qualify
and categorize according to how editorial I wanted to be.
Vulpecula
John Haber
annoying, it's only worth arguing with someone pointing your way, but
I apologize if that felt like picking on you or preaching to the
choir.
John
mdeli
>However, to some people, Rothko's paintings (as an example)
>are considered blank canvases, requiring no skil.
>
>In reality they are colour field paintings, requiring a great
>deal of skill, and especially discipline and patience.
If opening a paint can requires skill, and especially discipline and
patience.
>He applied many thin layers of paint,
He didn't, take a close look.
> so that the colours
>shimmer and glow in those transparent layers.
They are flat as a board
>
>Some are unable to distinguish skill in a work of art,
Especially schmierers like you.
>and many have their own fixed ideas of skill. Anything
>too spontaneous might look unskilled not considering
>how much practice it took to become "spontaneous."
What's "spontaneous" about Rothko?
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Dr.Matt
>>: unlikely that you could have pulled random people off the street
>>: in Vienna and found many who would have claimed that what
>>: Beethoven created was not music, or that they could not
>>: understand why others called it music.
>>
>>How do we know what they would--or would not--have
>>thought? Were you there? Are you privy to data that
>>suggest what these folks thought?
>
>I collect diaries and letters from people in the 19th
>century. The social history of societies during the
>industrial revolution is an area of study for me.
Point of information: how widespread was literacy during that period
and how do we know that?
Samuel Vriezen
required to do what they want and no more. Your technique is great
only if it is in accordance (or even identical) with your intentions.
Thus I find great compositional technique in Ockeghem, Bach, Debussy,
Boulez but also in Cage and Feldman whose work is 'easier' (but try to
do it yourself....)
If technique outgrows intention (whatever the hell that might mean),
art is in danger of turning into crossword puzzles (and now I hear the
voice of a legion of imaginary conceptual artists yelling "What's
wrong with crossword puzzles?")
Samuel
Vulpecula <myad...@email.com>:
>Marilyn wrote:
>
>> No not redundant.
>> However, to some people, Rothko's paintings (as an example)
>> are considered blank canvases, requiring no skil.
>>
>> In reality they are colour field paintings, requiring a great
>> deal of skill, and especially discipline and patience.
>
>> He applied many thin layers of paint, so that the colours
>> shimmer and glow in those transparent layers.
>>
>> Some are unable to distinguish skill in a work of art,
>> and many have their own fixed ideas of skill. Anything
>> too spontaneous might look unskilled not considering
>> how much practice it took to become "spontaneous."
>
>I didn't do back-reading to see whether this discussion had touched on Rothko
>personally, so my comments were not necessarily in allusion to his work. I will
>say, now that you mention him, that I do question the actual skill in his technique
>of "color fields" (which I have had explained to me before). I readily concede the
>discipline and patience involved, but in terms of degree of skill I personally place
>it below the techniques of other schools.
>
Vulpecula
> Well, I think artists should strive for the amount of technique
> required to do what they want and no more. Your technique is great
> only if it is in accordance (or even identical) with your intentions.
> Thus I find great compositional technique in Ockeghem, Bach, Debussy,
> Boulez but also in Cage and Feldman whose work is 'easier' (but try to
> do it yourself....)
>
> If technique outgrows intention (whatever the hell that might mean),
> art is in danger of turning into crossword puzzles (and now I hear the
> voice of a legion of imaginary conceptual artists yelling "What's
> wrong with crossword puzzles?")
:-)
I agree -- technique should continue to be in service of a philosophical idea, which is
something I didn't give proper wording to a few posts ago. The closest I came was in
saying that techniques will change with time, and this obviously is because ideas about
art shift with time. Personally I cannot acuse Cage's "technique" of not being in
service of his individual form of expression, but I do feel more or less comfortable
reaching the conclusion that he essentially "priced himself out of the market" in terms
of his philosophical approach to music making. He was a wonderful man to talk to. He
appeared to have achieved a sort of blissfulness, and was profoundly contented with his
broadened perception of what music is. Of course, I don't think his music will ever gain
a widespread following, and I don't think many others will follow his example of sitting
and listening to passing traffic for stimulation. I suppose it comes down to the
subjective; whatever difficulties he imposed on his composing (difficulties in the broad
sense, i.e. including the perhaps facile, or beautifully simple, end result, whose
uniqueness was born of a rare creativity which you and I might have had a "difficult"
time inventing ourselves) are subjectively, to me, less impressive than other forms. It
is a case by case evaluation. In Cage's case, I wouldn't be surprised if the kinds of
ideas he "revolutionized" had in fact occurred to people before, but had been discarded
as ridiculous (I don't refer to prepared pianos and like specifics, rather to his brand
of serialism or chance-composing). I don't mean to play at being omniscient, however.
It only would not surprise me -- this, however, is quickly turning the discussion in a
pointless direction!
Vulpecula
Samuel Vriezen
[on Cage]
>Of course, I don't think his music will ever gain
>a widespread following, and I don't think many others will follow his example of sitting
>and listening to passing traffic for stimulation.
Quite possibly. The idea that you _can_ do so did help me, I think, in
enjoying life.
>I suppose it comes down to the
>subjective; whatever difficulties he imposed on his composing (difficulties in the broad
>sense, i.e. including the perhaps facile, or beautifully simple, end result, whose
>uniqueness was born of a rare creativity which you and I might have had a "difficult"
>time inventing ourselves) are subjectively, to me, less impressive than other forms. It
>is a case by case evaluation. In Cage's case, I wouldn't be surprised if the kinds of
>ideas he "revolutionized" had in fact occurred to people before, but had been discarded
>as ridiculous (I don't refer to prepared pianos and like specifics, rather to his brand
>of serialism or chance-composing).
Oh, definitely! It's something I have been finding increasingly
strange - that it took music history such a long time before somebody
came and tried to make music as simple as it could possibly be.
My favorite Cage is the very late Cage, of the number pieces. Most of
these pieces are quite long; they have no scores, only parts; and the
parts were composed using a technique that is ridiculously simple. It
led to pieces such as the percussion quartet, in which the parts only
indicates the number of sounds to be made between which two time
points; the piece lasts for 74 minutes and contains very few sounds.
But he also wrote this orchestral piece '68', which a friend described
to me and I am dying to hear it - it has all players play an identical
part, which consists of some 15 notes, each of which with a possible
starting and ending time. Players come in separately, play the note in
any way they like and let it go again. Apparantly, it gives a very
beautiful sound. Now why did noone in the 18th century say, 'hey, why
not play on note with the orchestra really beautifully?' - it's so
easy to think of something like that and the result is so effective.
Anyway, Cage puzzles me the more I know about him. He must have had a
tremendous creativity and a good sense of practicality. But I can
wholly imagine someone being more interested in Mozart (or Rihm or
chocolate)
Samuel
Andy & Shannon Skaggs
love to read and study old items, and I usually have little luck.
Suggetions?
shannon
Dr.Matt
peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>Dr.Matt wrote in message <7ds27h$5os$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
>>music criticism to at latest 1601 (l'Artusi).
>
>or scholarly criticism. In other words, I do not believe
>that ordinary people did not recognize what Beethoven or
>Mozart wrote was music. I would be very surprised if
>the average person would have listened to a Beethoven
>symphony or a Mozart concerto and either mistaken it
>for mere noise, or concluded that they could have done
>just as well themselves. Whereas this is a common
You're making up factoids. What could you possibly have to go on?
>reaction by ordinary people when confronting art by
>people like Rothko or Pollock.
Equally unmeasured factoids.
It seems obvious to me that you could just as well argue
that the scholars who had the ability to write down their
reactions were giving voice to a popular reaction when they said
Beethoven, Monteverdi, etc. were making not-music.
>And again, this is not speculation. I have an extensive
>collection of diaries and letters of ordinary people in the
>19th century since social history is an area of study of
People who could write. And this has to do with what illiterati
thought in 1601: what, exactly?
>mine and I pursue it by reading what ordinary (not
>famous, wealthy or noteworthy) people wrote in their
>diaries and letters to each other. Quite ordinary folks
>such as clerks, farmers, teachers, soldiers, etc, were
>surprisingly aware of art and culture and had definite
>opinions and tastes, rather like we do. And I see
>no sign of people not acknowledging that the major
>artists or composers of that day were not making art or
>music, even if they didn't care for the result.
Guess what. I mix among ordinary folks all the time, haven't
encountered a single one among them who thinks Pollack's work
is not-art.
So I say your work appears to be drawing conclusions from highly
selective data.
Kip & Cathy
>Guess what. I mix among ordinary folks all the time, haven't
>encountered a single one among them who thinks Pollack's work
>is not-art.
Is that because they never think about him? Or because he has been topped
again and again in the 'ridiculous art' arena?
For the record, I have encountered people who don't think Pollack's work is
good art, but that's not the same thing, is it?
--Kip Williams
Leigh Kimmel
fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) writes:
> Guess what. I mix among ordinary folks all the time, haven't
> encountered a single one among them who thinks Pollack's work
> is not-art.
I know an instructor at the college level who considers Pollock's work
to be non-art, and has made the comment that a lot of his stuff looks
more like someone puked on the canvas.
Of course he said that in a situation where he felt safe to say so -- a
lot of people carefully avoid saying that they feel a piece looks like
a mess instead of a painting because they're afraid of being lumped
with the various tyrants of this century who called modern art
"degenerate" while committing various atrocities against humanity. (IE
they're afraid that if they say a piece of modern art is rubbish,
people will think they also support atrocities and the other hateful
things practiced by the dictators who called modern art rubbish).
I think that the Whistler-Ruskin lawsuit back in the late 1800's set a
very bad precedent. Perhaps Ruskin was intemperate in calling
Whistler's work "a pot of paint thrown in the public's face" (and
hypcritical after having defended Turner from similar accusations of
simply throwing and smearing the paint on his cavases), but suing
Ruskin for saying it had the result of making it dangerous to make
strongly negative criticisms of pieces whose art status the critic
honestly considers to be questionable.
--
One terrified boy, and a girl who would save him.
"Claws of Vengeance" now available, http://www.alexlit.com/
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@globaleyes.net
http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel!
Check out my bookstore http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/bookstore
peter nelson
>"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com>:
>
>>David Cleary wrote in message <7drgn7$hm6
>>
>>>: I said "FEW people spent much time worrying" about it. It is
>>>: unlikely that you could have pulled random people off the street
>>>: in Vienna and found many who would have claimed that what
>>>: Beethoven created was not music, or that they could not
>>>: understand why others called it music.
>>>
>>>How do we know what they would--or would not--have
>>>thought? Were you there? Are you privy to data that
>>>suggest what these folks thought?
>>
>>I collect diaries and letters from people in the 19th
>>century. The social history of societies during the
>
>Ah! Then you may enlighten us as to what art meant for the 19th
>century mind. As a spoilt 20th century individual, I have no idea what
>the generic 19th century person in the street would think about the
>nature, function and inner workings of art (consciously or
>unconsciously): which makes it very hard for me to make sense of your
>assertions.
My assertion is simple: The reaction that a piece of artwork
blessed by the high priesthood of art was not, in fact,
"art" was not COMMON in those days. It is COMMON today.
On Thursday I was at the Met in NYC and as is often my wont
I tagged along behind two different lectures through the modern
section. One was from a girl's school (Greenwich Academy,
I think) and I don't know who the other lecturer was with.
And **BOTH** of them received questions about why a
particular item was considered "art".
So THAT is a good illustration of my assertion: that doubt
that a particular work even qualifies as "art" is a common
occurrence these days, and with good reason. It was
not common in the past.
---peter
peter nelson
Dr.Matt wrote in message <7duilk$bo0$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
>In article <7ds847$3ui$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
>peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>David Cleary wrote in message <7drgn7$hm6
>>
>>>: I said "FEW people spent much time worrying" about it. It is
>>>: unlikely that you could have pulled random people off the street
>>>: in Vienna and found many who would have claimed that what
>>>: Beethoven created was not music, or that they could not
>>>: understand why others called it music.
>>>
>>>How do we know what they would--or would not--have
>>>thought? Were you there? Are you privy to data that
>>>suggest what these folks thought?
>>
>>I collect diaries and letters from people in the 19th
>>century. The social history of societies during the
>>industrial revolution is an area of study for me.
>
>and how do we know that?
In the US during the period of my research (19th century) it
was quite widespread. Almost every town had a public
school and literacy was considered essential if, for nothing
else, studying religion. My diaries include indentured servants,
day laborers, farmers, soldiers, clerks, textile factory workers,
craftsmen, teachers, etc. Obviously they had to be literate to
write diaries or letters, so my sample excludes illiterates.
---peter
peter nelson
Andy & Shannon Skaggs wrote in message <3706CCD8...@prodigy.net>...
>A little off topic, here, but where do you find these old diaries? I
>love to read and study old items, and I usually have little luck.
>Suggetions?
These are all published works, although most of them were
published by local historical societies, privately published by
the families of the writer, or published by college or university
presses. Many of the are quite old and I buy them at
used-book stores for a few dollars apiece.
---peter
peter nelson
Dr.Matt wrote in message <7e790e$59v$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
>In article <7e6gnp$dbf$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
I'm talking about the 19th century when literacy was common
in the industrializing nations.
>Guess what. I mix among ordinary folks all the time, haven't
>encountered a single one among them who thinks Pollack's work
>is not-art.
I was in the Met in NYC on Thursday, following lecture groups
around in the Modern art section and TWICE in the course of
maybe 90 minutes people asked "why is THIS considered "art"?
I think this reaction is far more common that you think.
---peter
David Cleary
:>"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com>:
:>
:>>David Cleary wrote in message <7drgn7$hm6
:>>
:>>>: I said "FEW people spent much time worrying" about it. It is
:>>>: unlikely that you could have pulled random people off the street
:>>>: in Vienna and found many who would have claimed that what
:>>>: Beethoven created was not music, or that they could not
:>>>: understand why others called it music.
:>>>
:>>>How do we know what they would--or would not--have
:>>>thought? Were you there? Are you privy to data that
:>>>suggest what these folks thought?
:>>
:>>I collect diaries and letters from people in the 19th
:>>century. The social history of societies during the
:>
:>Ah! Then you may enlighten us as to what art meant for the 19th
:>century mind. As a spoilt 20th century individual, I have no idea what
:>the generic 19th century person in the street would think about the
:>nature, function and inner workings of art (consciously or
:>unconsciously): which makes it very hard for me to make sense of your
:>assertions.
: My assertion is simple: The reaction that a piece of artwork
: blessed by the high priesthood of art was not, in fact,
: "art" was not COMMON in those days. It is COMMON today.
You're just blowing smoke. I'd like to see you prove this contention with
something resembling a viable basis. To do this, you have to have a
good-sized sample of people which is truly and fairly representative of
people of our time and older times. And diaries nonwithstanding, you're
going to run into particular problems trying to do this with samples of
people long dead.
All you've done so far is assert the same thing over and over again with
varying degrees of vehemence, backed by at best a highly questionable
sample of people. One could easy guess that this shows nothing other than
1. the fact that you think what you say is true and
2. that you believe that this darned well should be good enough for
everybody.
: On Thursday I was at the Met in NYC and as is often my wont
: I tagged along behind two different lectures through the modern
: section. One was from a girl's school (Greenwich Academy,
: I think) and I don't know who the other lecturer was with.
: And **BOTH** of them received questions about why a
: particular item was considered "art".
: So THAT is a good illustration of my assertion: that doubt
: that a particular work even qualifies as "art" is a common
: occurrence these days, and with good reason. It was
: not common in the past.
Why is this a "good illustration?" Two small groups of people, about whom
you know essentially nothing is a worthless sample. If this sample is a
"good one," then so are my buddies who think such works are indeed "art,"
whether they like the paintings or not. I can argue by assertion with
questionable data, too. Big deal.
If you want to prove your contentions, get serious or give it up.
Dave
John Haber
>around in the Modern art section and TWICE in the course of
>maybe 90 minutes people asked "why is THIS considered "art"?
>I think this reaction is far more common that you think.
Hi, Peter. I'm so glad you got into town, and I hope it was fun. You
should post in a new thread what you saw that you liked best.
Absolutely, it's a common reaction. I think it's one that we should
all cultivate. Re-open the wonderment that Monet is considered
realism. Re-open the question of what makes some work of contemporary
art you yourself like ART. It's a very important philosophical
question, and one fascinating thing about much art of this century is
that it incorporates the question into its existence and meaning. And
then we can wonder where that leads us.
Beyond philosophy and our sense of meaning, it's necessarily tied up
in valuation. That's not a problem either.
What goes wrong is where it becomes a rhetorical question, a
dismissal. And it does, and that's really depressing -- although that
sense of confrontation or strangeness is part of the wonderment I was
getting at just above. It's doubly depressing when someone who spends
as much time with art as yourself play the game.
Yes, why would the average person start to get into contemporary art
or literature beyond the best-sellers? Why would anyone read
philosophy, which is either not obviously intelligible or else, when
clear, drives into the grounds questions about what we all "know" to
be 'true"? The answer is the self-questioning and learning that's
part, too, of the wonderment and meaning built into these things in
the first place.
You might say that art's like an annoyed person around the high-school
bully. After some childish insult, it replies, "Oh, why don't you
just grow up!!" Only that advice turns out to be one you and I can
cherish instead of getting further peeved.
John
Dr.Matt
Twenty years ago I was at a very posh catered party with live music
(it was a fiftieth anniversary). One of the musicians was trying to convince
the others to try playing some Claude Bolling, and he took out a little
cassette player and played a bit from the suite for flute and jazz piano.
I looked over, and he said, you know what that is? I said, sure, it's
Claude Bolling, and he said to his friend, see, even the youngsters know
this music. I smiled and didn't mention that there had just been a very
very short-lived fad for Bolling among conservatory piano faculty...
Anecdotal evidence is extremely tricky to manage.
peter nelson
>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>You're just blowing smoke. I'd like to see you prove this contention with
>something resembling a viable basis. To do this, you have to have a
>good-sized sample of people which is truly and fairly representative of
>people of our time and older times. And diaries nonwithstanding, you're
>going to run into particular problems trying to do this with samples of
>people long dead.
Obviously it's just an assertion. Nothing on this newsgroup
has any scientific basis. Nonetheless I attend museums
regularly and I hear comments like that regularly. And only
in response to modern art. I've never heard anyone assert that
paintings from the 19th century are art. Even on this very
newsgroup the question of why something is regarded as
'art' is introduced regularly. And you will also hear this many
times if you review the transcripts of the hearings a few years
ago on NEA funding.
If you ignore everything that isn't scientifically provable you'll
have a very narrow life and you'll miss out on important
realities.
I <assert> that a central problem in art today is that it is
increasingly unapproachable, and hence irrelevant, to ordinary
people. Artists are increasingly isolating themselves in
their own little world with its own specialized language,
making art which is only appreciated by other artists or
similar initiates. You can claim that I am wrong and that
such art IS comprehensible and enjoyed by ordinary people
but such an assertion has no more statistical support than my
claims.
But the issue is not just academic. At the national level
where NEA funding is attacked every year, to the local level where
we try to get more funding for arts programs in schools the
question of the public perception or art and artists has real,
concrete CONSEQUENCES.
---peter
peter nelson
John Haber wrote in message <370a42f8...@news.cc.columbia.edu>...
>>I was in the Met in NYC on Thursday, following lecture groups
>>around in the Modern art section and TWICE in the course of
>>maybe 90 minutes people asked "why is THIS considered "art"?
>>I think this reaction is far more common that you think.
>
>Hi, Peter. I'm so glad you got into town, and I hope it was fun. You
>should post in a new thread what you saw that you liked best.
>
>Absolutely, it's a common reaction.
David Cleary doesn't think so.
> I think it's one that we should all cultivate. Re-open the wonderment
that
> Monet is considered realism. Re-open the question of what makes some
> work of contemporary art you yourself like ART.
I agree up to a point. I want art that challenges and surprises me.
But to use an analogy, I'm a runner. I don't just run on flat surfaces,
I like to run on hills too, for the extra challenge. But I wouldn't want
to run up all the stairs at the World Trade Center, even if there are
a few fanatics who might do so to try to prove something.
My concern is that there are serious real world consequences to
artists increasingly isolating themselves in a world where they
only make art which can be appreciated by other initiates, and
speak a language which only they can understand. Whether it's
NEA funding or attempts to get art programs in schools or
support for museums, the public perception of art and artists
MATTERS in practical terms.
Your mention of Monet made me think of the impressionists. When
the original Salon des Réfusés show was held in 1863 featuring
works of Manet, Pissarro, and others it was a big hit among the public
even though it was panned by many in the art establishment. THAT's
the stuff revolutions are made of! Today artists do just the OPPOSITE -
they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the public perceives
them.
---peter
David Cleary
:>>I was in the Met in NYC on Thursday, following lecture groups
:>>around in the Modern art section and TWICE in the course of
:>>maybe 90 minutes people asked "why is THIS considered "art"?
:>>I think this reaction is far more common that you think.
:>
:>Hi, Peter. I'm so glad you got into town, and I hope it was fun. You
:>should post in a new thread what you saw that you liked best.
:>
:>Absolutely, it's a common reaction.
: David Cleary doesn't think so.
More to the point I've been repeatedly trying to make in my replies, you
can't prove your contention. You're just saying it's true based on what
appears to be your say-so.
It would be more accurate to say in this case that I'm sceptical of your
contention and very suspicious of the motives behind your contention. And
given the rest of this post and a subsequent one you've made, it would
appear my concerns are pretty well founded.
[snip]
: My concern is that there are serious real world consequences to
: artists increasingly isolating themselves in a world where they
: only make art which can be appreciated by other initiates, and
: speak a language which only they can understand.
The old "I hate academia--it's an ivory tower--look at the emperor's new
clothes--people giving prizes to themselves" thing. Yawn. Plan on selling
the "welfare mothers driving Cadillacs" bromide as well?
: Whether it's
: NEA funding or attempts to get art programs in schools or
: support for museums, the public perception of art and artists
: MATTERS in practical terms.
And the other old one, "popular art equals good art." Yawn number two.
: Your mention of Monet made me think of the impressionists. When
: the original Salon des Réfusés show was held in 1863 featuring
: works of Manet, Pissarro, and others it was a big hit among the public
: even though it was panned by many in the art establishment. THAT's
: the stuff revolutions are made of!
Especially since it resulted in art you happen to like, given a 100 year
plus head start. One wonders if you had lived back then whether you would
have liked the stuff or not. From what I've read, there were devotees of
what is now called the French Academic Style that hated the
Impressionists' work. Were they all painters in that style and critics?
: Today artists do just the OPPOSITE -
: they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the public perceives
: them.
Same shoehorn, different place in the thread.
Dave
Dr.Matt
evidence, couldn'tt we conclude justly from the evidence that the
"It's not music" meme has filtered down from the treatise-writers and
critics to other folks--or even that the feeling that one is empowered
to say "that's not music" or "that's not art" has gradually filtered
down as democratic ideals slowly overtook ingrained elitism, but that
people believed they were encountering not-art all along, and just didn't
say so as overtly?
You might also consider the possibilty that the difference you're
encountering is entirely independent of the art itself. Take folks to
a traditional Japanese ceramics exhibition, and see how many of them
openly express the "that's not art" reaction to a traditional
masterpiece from the 1690's.
I'm still unclear on why you think it valid to discard all data
coming from newspaper reviews and published polemics, as if these were
somehow less indicative of what people thought 1601-1990 than
19th-century prarie correspondence. Why are all the published attacks on
"impressionist" painters as non-artists, on Chopin as an "artistic
non-entity", etc. not valid data here? And have you really controlled
for the freedom-to-speak-your-mind factor that I mentioned above, or have
you simply ignored it?
peter nelson
>: Whether it's
>: NEA funding or attempts to get art programs in schools or
>: support for museums, the public perception of art and artists
>: MATTERS in practical terms.
>
>And the other old one, "popular art equals good art." Yawn number two.
It isn't a yawn if the consequences result in inadequate funding
for arts and arts education.
>: Your mention of Monet made me think of the impressionists. When
>: the original Salon des Réfusés show was held in 1863 featuring
>: works of Manet, Pissarro, and others it was a big hit among the public
>: even though it was panned by many in the art establishment. THAT's
>: the stuff revolutions are made of!
>
>Especially since it resulted in art you happen to like, given a 100 year
>plus head start. One wonders if you had lived back then whether you would
>have liked the stuff or not.
It doesn't matter whether I would have liked it. (I'm not that big
a fan of Impressionism in the first place). What matters is that
the PUBLIC liked it, even though it was revolutionary and
even though no one had attempted to educated them to like
it beforehand.
> From what I've read, there were devotees of
>what is now called the French Academic Style that hated the
>Impressionists' work. Were they all painters in that style and critics?
They weren't ALL the latter. The public is never of one mind
about anything. But the point is that the Salon des Réfusés
show was very popular.
>: Today artists do just the OPPOSITE -
>: they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the public perceives
>: them.
>
>Same shoehorn, different place in the thread.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Above you dismiss
popular tastes ("'popular art equals good art.' Yawn number two").
Here you seem to dismiss my claim that modern artists don't
care whether the public likes their stuff. Which is it?
---peter
peter nelson
Dr.Matt wrote in message <7eg263$n5l$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
> Hmmm. Peter, even supposing we limit ourselves to your restricted
>evidence, couldn'tt we conclude justly from the evidence that the
>"It's not music" meme has filtered down from the treatise-writers and
>critics to other folks--or even that the feeling that one is empowered
>to say "that's not music" or "that's not art" has gradually filtered
>down as democratic ideals slowly overtook ingrained elitism, but that
>people believed they were encountering not-art all along, and just didn't
>say so as overtly?
This is certainly possible. The past was more
authoritarian; today people think for themselves.
But it's relevant to the issue I was raised with John Haber:
When the original Salon des Réfusés show was held in
1863 featuring works of Manet, Pissarro, and others it was
a big hit among the public even though it was panned by many
in the art establishment. If people were simply following the
dictates of some cultural priesthood then that would not have
occurred.
What I'm struck by is that THOSE artists (with Napoleon III's
help) had enough confidence in the tastes of the public that
they were willing to bypass the art priesthood of the time
(The Salon and the French Academy) and go directly to
the public.
Moreover, the result of the show was dramatic - not just
in terms of the subsequent impact on art history but AT
THE TIME. It was in all the papers - everyone had to go see
it; people debated it vociferously, some loved it, some
were scandalized. This was art that MATTERED to
ordinary people. When was the last time that a revolution
in art had that kind of impact here? What does this say
about the relevance of today's art in people's lives?
Today's modern artists who think they're being revolutionary
are really the French Academy: they ARE a high priesthood
dictating standards and disconnected with the man in the street,
and even dismissing the man in the street. They're on
the wrong side of the barricades.
> I'm still unclear on why you think it valid to discard all data
>coming from newspaper reviews and published polemics,
> as if these were somehow less indicative of what people
>thought 1601-1990 than 19th-century prarie correspondence.
I'm not dismissing them; I'm just noting that throughout art
history there has often been a tension between some
high priesthood of aesthetic standards and popular tastes
and that historically the revolutionaries were on the side
of the public, whereas the establishment has been the
conservative force. I'm saying that critics and reviewers
typically represent the establishment, whereas the people
to really listen to have usually been those in the street.
And what's interesting about today is that it's the people in
the street, not the art establishment, who are saying
"that doesn't seem like art to me".
--peter
Dr.Matt
more authoritarian---but corporations define popular conceptions of
what is art today rather than academics?
David Cleary
[large undocumented snip from the original by peter nelson]
:>: Whether it's
:>: NEA funding or attempts to get art programs in schools or
:>: support for museums, the public perception of art and artists
:>: MATTERS in practical terms.
:>
:>And the other old one, "popular art equals good art." Yawn number two.
: It isn't a yawn if the consequences result in inadequate funding
: for arts and arts education.
That's also assuming this is the reason for such things as cutbacks in NEA
funding and corporate funding for these things. How do we know this is the
cause?
One could just as easily wonder whether NEA funding was cut back under a
spearhead of conservative congressmen who had no more Communist bogeyman
to flog and decided artists (among others) were a convenient target for
their nastiness; artists can make a good "them, not us" target for such
folks.
Or one could wonder if the reason corporate arts funding has slumped is a
result of less money to go around--so when arts organizations and social
programs (like battered women's shelters) come crying for money, the
latter get funded for basic compassion reasons and little is left over for
the arts.
There could be these or perhaps other reasons not related to art being
popular. I don't see that you, I, or anyone else has all the answers here.
:>: Your mention of Monet made me think of the impressionists. When
:>: the original Salon des Réfusés show was held in 1863 featuring
:>: works of Manet, Pissarro, and others it was a big hit among the public
:>: even though it was panned by many in the art establishment. THAT's
:>: the stuff revolutions are made of!
:>
:>Especially since it resulted in art you happen to like, given a 100 year
:>plus head start. One wonders if you had lived back then whether you would
:>have liked the stuff or not.
: It doesn't matter whether I would have liked it. (I'm not that big
: a fan of Impressionism in the first place). What matters is that
: the PUBLIC liked it, even though it was revolutionary and
: even though no one had attempted to educated them to like
: it beforehand.
Perhaps this indeed happened. If so, why is this so important? Scads of
people love Madonna, if record sales and concert attendance is any
indicator. Is this therefore an indicator of the stunningly high artistic
quality of her music? How about Herman's Hermits? Or the Bay City Rollers?
:> From what I've read, there were devotees of
:>what is now called the French Academic Style that hated the
:>Impressionists' work. Were they all painters in that style and critics?
: They weren't ALL the latter. The public is never of one mind
: about anything.
Thank you. I'll gladly accept this as a truism, as you seem to.
Given this, I would then ask that you not be shy about applying this
dictum to things other than this narrow point. I won't be shy about doing
so.
: But the point is that the Salon des Réfusés show was very popular.
Perhaps so. But who says this must be the blueprint for all "arts
revolutions?" You seem to suggest it should be so.
:>: Today artists do just the OPPOSITE -
:>: they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the
:>: public perceives them.
:>
:>Same shoehorn, different place in the thread.
: You can't have your cake and eat it too. Above you dismiss
: popular tastes ("'popular art equals good art.' Yawn number two").
That's not a fair characterization of what I meant above. Some good art is
popular. Some popular art is good. But who says it has to be true in all
cases?
: Here you seem to dismiss my claim that modern artists don't
: care whether the public likes their stuff. Which is it?
That's not what I'm referencing. You snipped what's being referred to
from your reply. Criticism not relevant.
Dave
David Cleary
:>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
:>You're just blowing smoke. I'd like to see you prove this contention with
:>something resembling a viable basis. To do this, you have to have a
:>good-sized sample of people which is truly and fairly representative of
:>people of our time and older times. And diaries nonwithstanding, you're
:>going to run into particular problems trying to do this with samples of
:>people long dead.
: Obviously it's just an assertion. Nothing on this newsgroup
: has any scientific basis.
Assuming that's true, what makes your assertion any better than mine?
: Nonetheless I attend museums
: regularly and I hear comments like that regularly.
I go to museums with some regularity and I don't hear such comments.
Assert, assert.
: And only
: in response to modern art. I've never heard anyone assert that
: paintings from the 19th century are art.
I'm assuming you meant to finish that sentence by saying "are not art."
:)
19th century art has been around for a much longer time. That's an
apples-and-oranges comparison.
: Even on this very
: newsgroup the question of why something is regarded as
: 'art' is introduced regularly.
If twenty biased people on a usenet newgroup say something is true, does
that make it true?
: And you will also hear this many
: times if you review the transcripts of the hearings a few years
: ago on NEA funding.
I don't care what Jesse Helms thinks about art. IMHO he's an ignoramus
with an axe to grind. I'd rather fight him (and his ilk) than kiss his
arrogant fanny.
: If you ignore everything that isn't scientifically provable you'll
: have a very narrow life and you'll miss out on important
: realities.
By the same token, if you aren't skeptical of things you're told, you're
going to end up swallowing a lot of rotted baloney.
And who says your reality is necessarily my reality?
: I <assert> that a central problem in art today is that it is
: increasingly unapproachable, and hence irrelevant, to ordinary
: people.
I assert that you like to make assertions and don't care if they're based
on facts or not.
: Artists are increasingly isolating themselves in
: their own little world with its own specialized language,
: making art which is only appreciated by other artists or
: similar initiates. You can claim that I am wrong and that
: such art IS comprehensible and enjoyed by ordinary people
: but such an assertion has no more statistical support than my
: claims.
Which makes any further discussion meaningless. If we can say anything we
want and support be damned, what's the point? It becomes little more than
a kindergarten-level screaming exercise.
: But the issue is not just academic. At the national level
: where NEA funding is attacked every year, to the local level where
: we try to get more funding for arts programs in schools the
: question of the public perception or art and artists has real,
: concrete CONSEQUENCES.
I say we vote out morons like Jesse Helms who don't have a clue what art
is about and want to impose their prejudices on everyone. I think we
deserve better.
Dave
Samuel Vriezen
>
>John Haber wrote in message <370a42f8...@news.cc.columbia.edu>...
>>>I was in the Met in NYC on Thursday, following lecture groups
>>>around in the Modern art section and TWICE in the course of
>>>maybe 90 minutes people asked "why is THIS considered "art"?
>>>I think this reaction is far more common that you think.
>>
>>Hi, Peter. I'm so glad you got into town, and I hope it was fun. You
>>should post in a new thread what you saw that you liked best.
>>
>>Absolutely, it's a common reaction.
>
>David Cleary doesn't think so.
I never read him say that.
>My concern is that there are serious real world consequences to
>artists increasingly isolating themselves in a world where they
>only make art which can be appreciated by other initiates, and
>speak a language which only they can understand.
Such things should not happen, I agree. BTW, who were you thinking of
exactly?
Samuel Vriezen
>They weren't ALL the latter. The public is never of one mind
>about anything. But the point is that the Salon des Réfusés
>show was very popular.
Let's get this straight. Then the 'public' was not of one mind but the
Salon was popular. Now 'artists' are not popular even if the 'public'
is not of one mind. Forgive me, I don't mean to sabotage your
statements but I simply do not see what you are saying, you are far to
vague for me to make sense.
Samuel Vriezen
>I've never heard anyone assert that
>paintings from the 19th century are art.
Most especially no members of the 19th century public!
>If you ignore everything that isn't scientifically provable you'll
>have a very narrow life and you'll miss out on important
>realities.
Like which?
>I <assert> that a central problem in art today is that it is
>increasingly unapproachable, and hence irrelevant, to ordinary
>people. Artists are increasingly isolating themselves in
>their own little world with its own specialized language,
>making art which is only appreciated by other artists or
>similar initiates. You can claim that I am wrong and that
>such art IS comprehensible and enjoyed by ordinary people
>but such an assertion has no more statistical support than my
>claims.
I'll not claim you're wrong unless you give some details, who are
these artists and who are the ordinary people that they should have
treated differently.
peter nelson
Samuel Vriezen wrote in message <370be5d...@news.xs4all.nl>...
>"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com>:
>
>>They weren't ALL the latter. The public is never of one mind
>>about anything. But the point is that the Salon des Réfusés
>>show was very popular.
>
>Let's get this straight. Then the 'public' was not of one mind but the
>Salon was popular.
Yes. Something can be popular without 100% of the public
liking it. What propelled Impressionism was that it had
popular support even though the high priesthood of art was
opposed to it. Just as important, it was the talk of Paris,
even among those who DIDN'T like it. Art was relevant
enough in people's lives for it to matter talking about. Today
only the ArtSpeak crowd talks about it, and only among
themeselves. Artists are making themselves irrelevant, and
when someone buck this trend by actually connecting with the
man in the street they are derided by the high priesthood as
too commercial.
What resulted in last July's 217-216 vote in the House to terminate
NEA funding was that art today does NOT have grass-roots
support. Modern artists are increasingly distancing themselves
from the public whose support they need.
> Now 'artists' are not popular even if the 'public'
>is not of one mind. Forgive me, I don't mean to sabotage your
>statements but I simply do not see what you are saying, you are far to
>vague for me to make sense.
I don't see what's vague about hard numbers like 217-216, or a 39%
reduction in public funding for the arts since 1989, or the recent
Supreme Court ruling upholding the 1990 Decency Clause.
---peter
Samuel Vriezen
[snip]
>Today
>only the ArtSpeak crowd talks about it, and only among
>themeselves.
What is ArtSpeak? How do you recognize someone is speaking it?
>Artists are making themselves irrelevant, and
>when someone buck this trend by actually connecting with the
>man in the street they are derided by the high priesthood as
>too commercial.
Who form the priesthood and who did it deride? Some names might be
helpful.
>> Now 'artists' are not popular even if the 'public'
>>is not of one mind. Forgive me, I don't mean to sabotage your
>>statements but I simply do not see what you are saying, you are far to
>>vague for me to make sense.
>
>I don't see what's vague about hard numbers like 217-216, or a 39%
>reduction in public funding for the arts since 1989, or the recent
>Supreme Court ruling upholding the 1990 Decency Clause.
You are vague, not the figures.
Samuel Vriezen
>The past was more
>authoritarian; today people think for themselves.
That's what they think! (or are told to think) (personally I'd tell
them to think something else for a change)
David Cleary
: What propelled Impressionism was that it had
: popular support even though the high priesthood of art was
: opposed to it. Just as important, it was the talk of Paris,
: even among those who DIDN'T like it. Art was relevant
: enough in people's lives for it to matter talking about.
The yardstick you use for what the "norm" is appears to be unique to the
19th century. I don't see that this "norm" necessarily holds well for any
other time in art history (or for much of music history, for that
matter--for music, it holds for the 19th century, the latter part of the
18th century, and isolated genres of the Baroque era like Italian Opera).
Did a broad section of the Baroque era public even get to see the palace
at Versailles? Did a broad section of the Medieval-era public wax
rhapsodic about the artistic wonderfulness of the various "Madonna and
Child" paintings we see in museums today?
Why must this one era necessarily be held up as the blueprint and the norm
other eras must aspire to?
Look, I see nothing wrong with good art being appreciated and liked by a
lot of people--but if that doesn't happen, does that invalidate the art in
some way?
Dave
peter nelson
>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>The yardstick you use for what the "norm" is appears to be unique to the
>19th century. I don't see that this "norm" necessarily holds well for any
>other time in art history (or for much of music history, for that
>matter--for music, it holds for the 19th century, the latter part of the
>18th century, and isolated genres of the Baroque era like Italian Opera).
>Did a broad section of the Baroque era public even get to see the palace
>at Versailles? Did a broad section of the Medieval-era public wax
>rhapsodic about the artistic wonderfulness of the various "Madonna and
>Child" paintings we see in museums today?
>
>Why must this one era necessarily be held up as the blueprint and the norm
>other eras must aspire to?
Because it was the 19th century that saw the rise of mass literacy,
mass media, and democratic institutions. In other words, finally
what ordinary people thought MATTERED. It started then but
it continues today and there's no turning back.
>Look, I see nothing wrong with good art being appreciated and liked by a
>lot of people--but if that doesn't happen, does that invalidate the art in
>some way?
I didn't say it "invalidated" it; I said that a failure of artists to make
art
which is accessible, or alternatively to educate the public about what
is good and important about their art, has PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES.
I deal with those consequences on a regular basis as I try to convince
people of the importance of art education. Working artists, especially
those doing fine art, deal with it as they see funds dry up.
---peter
peter nelson
Dr.Matt wrote in message <7egcgq$rld$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
>Peter: has the possibility occurred to you that today's folks are even
>more authoritarian---but corporations define popular conceptions of
>what is art today rather than academics?
This depends on what you mean. Do you mean through their
creation of art, or their buying art/funding museums?
Most of the art in todays world is created by corporations. Even
though "fine artists" look down their noses at commercial art, the
fact remains that art directors, book illustrators, commercial illustrators,
designers, animators, cinematographers, directors, writers, actors,
composers, dancers, singers, rock stars, advertising photographers,
etc, etc, ET CETERA, are working artists and in terms of sheer dollar
volume represent the bulk of art being funded today. The amount
of money the advertising industry spends creating art alone dwarfs all
the private and public donations combined. Moreover, some of it is
of superb quality. Advertising agencies can afford to hire the best
and they do and some of the greatest art being created today is in
advertisements.
But the significance of this is that corporations operate on a different
principle from traditional authoritarianism. They can't just hand it
down from on-high and expect it to be accepted. Instead they have
to toss it into a marketplace of ideas and designs and it has to
sink or swim on its own, based on the public's response.
On the other hand, in their role as patrons of museums or buyers of
art at galleries and auctions, they operate in a more traditional
authoritarian mode. But here their role is diluted by their sheer
numbers and diversity - there is no French Academy. Some
corporate patrons are intimidated by their shareholders and lawyers
into selecting un-adventurous art, others seek to create a brazen
image by soliciting it. Private corporations or private individuals
made rich by their corporate success simply buy what they like.
---peter
peter nelson
Samuel Vriezen wrote in message <370c8b09...@news.xs4all.nl>...
Ah, yes, the old, "I'm a free-thinking agent; all around me are
mindless automatons" argument. Next it will be "everything
you know is wrong, Area 51, black helicopters, hollow earth, etc.
If what you say is true then Impressionism would never have
succeeded. Who was telling them to like that?
Anyway, with such a vast array of choices available to people
no one has the authority to narrow the choices in the manner you
describe. There is no central corporate art authority akin to
the French Academy. With 100 cable channels, literally THOUSANDS
of print publications, and the Internet, people will choose the artistic
concepts they like.
---peter
David Cleary
:>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
:>The yardstick you use for what the "norm" is appears to be unique to the
:>19th century. I don't see that this "norm" necessarily holds well for any
:>other time in art history (or for much of music history, for that
:>matter--for music, it holds for the 19th century, the latter part of the
:>18th century, and isolated genres of the Baroque era like Italian Opera).
:>Did a broad section of the Baroque era public even get to see the palace
:>at Versailles? Did a broad section of the Medieval-era public wax
:>rhapsodic about the artistic wonderfulness of the various "Madonna and
:>Child" paintings we see in museums today?
:>
:>Why must this one era necessarily be held up as the blueprint and the norm
:>other eras must aspire to?
: Because it was the 19th century that saw the rise of mass literacy,
: mass media, and democratic institutions. In other words, finally
: what ordinary people thought MATTERED.
I'm frankly suspicious, especially given what seem to be your rather
biased views on art. How do I know you're not using "ordinary people" the
way Nixon used the term "silent majority?" Nixon essentially used this
phony construct to mean "those people who agree with me" added to a vague,
faceless army of people who may or may not exist who supposedly agree with
him.
Besides, I'm not necessarily impressed with "argument by majority." What
if a majority of people think the sun revolves around the earth? (If what
I've read is true, it would seem most people believed this in Copernicus's
time). Were they right?
: It started then but
: it continues today and there's no turning back.
Gee. I wonder if die-hard Russian communists in 1970 believed communism
was "here to stay" and "there's no turning back" at the time--bah, those
old-fashioned capitalists, they're obsolete now that our belief system has
been in place for fifty years....
Anybody can guess about the future. Or assert, for that matter.
:>Look, I see nothing wrong with good art being appreciated and liked by a
:>lot of people--but if that doesn't happen, does that invalidate the art in
:>some way?
: I didn't say it "invalidated" it;
OK then, I'll rephrase. We've got an example (Work A) which we both agree
is not liked or appreciated by a lot of people. Does this fact necessarily
say something about the quality of Work A?
: I said that a failure of artists to make
: art
: which is accessible, or alternatively to educate the public about what
: is good and important about their art, has PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES.
So let's start educating. Show people that there are lots of different
ways to make and think of art. Show them Pollock and Hopper and Ernst and
Johns and Picasso as well as art from earlier centuries. Show that a
painting by Klee is not a bunch of sloppy lines any kid could draw.
Let's not think that the answer is to stand over artists' shoulders
playing censor. "Accessible or else" was the communist way of doing
things, too, if memory serves. I don't like the viewpoint regardless of
its origin.
: I deal with those consequences on a regular basis as I try to convince
: people of the importance of art education. Working artists, especially
: those doing fine art, deal with it as they see funds dry up.
Or they have more realistic expectations--that they might or might not see
tangible rewards for their work, but they're going to make the art they
want to make anyway. None of the artists I know (musical or visual) are
doing what they do to get rich.
Dave
peter nelson
>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>: David Cleary wrote in message <7eidef$sid$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
>:>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>:>Why must this one era necessarily be held up as the blueprint and the
norm
>:>other eras must aspire to?
>
>: Because it was the 19th century that saw the rise of mass literacy,
>: mass media, and democratic institutions. In other words, finally
>: what ordinary people thought MATTERED.
>
>I'm frankly suspicious, especially given what seem to be your rather
>biased views on art. How do I know you're not using "ordinary people" the
>way Nixon used the term "silent majority?" Nixon essentially used this
>phony construct to mean "those people who agree with me" added to a vague,
>faceless army of people who may or may not exist who supposedly agree with
>him.
Simple. Most ordinary people DON'T agree with me.
>Besides, I'm not necessarily impressed with "argument by majority." What
>if a majority of people think the sun revolves around the earth? (If what
>I've read is true, it would seem most people believed this in Copernicus's
>time). Were they right?
Then it means the science community has not done an adequate
job of public outreach/public education.
>: It started then but
>: it continues today and there's no turning back.
>
>Gee. I wonder if die-hard Russian communists in 1970 believed communism
>was "here to stay" and "there's no turning back" at the time--bah, those
>old-fashioned capitalists, they're obsolete now that our belief system has
>been in place for fifty years....
Let's put it this way - why would anyone WANT to have an authoritarian
society with centrally-controlled values. Don't you think it's better to
have
a society where the people's values and priorities are the ones which
matter?
>:>Look, I see nothing wrong with good art being appreciated and liked by a
>:>lot of people--but if that doesn't happen, does that invalidate the art
in
>:>some way?
>
>: I didn't say it "invalidated" it;
>
>OK then, I'll rephrase. We've got an example (Work A) which we both agree
>is not liked or appreciated by a lot of people. Does this fact necessarily
>say something about the quality of Work A?
Not necessarily. But it may signal a failure of the art comunity to
educate the public. And as I also mentioned, if could result in a
lack of funding for Artist A.
>: I said that a failure of artists to make art: which is accessible, or
>: alternatively to educate the public about what is good and important
>: about their art, has PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES.
>
>So let's start educating. Show people that there are lots of different
>ways to make and think of art. Show them Pollock and Hopper and Ernst and
>Johns and Picasso as well as art from earlier centuries. Show that a
>painting by Klee is not a bunch of sloppy lines any kid could draw.
But I don't see this happening. What I see happening is that artists
who "get it" in regard to Pollock and Picasso dismissing the public
as boors who will never like anything other than couch art that they
van buy by the pound at the local MalMart. This attitude is prevalent
on this board.
>Let's not think that the answer is to stand over artists' shoulders
>playing censor. "Accessible or else" was the communist way of doing
>things, too, if memory serves. I don't like the viewpoint regardless of
>its origin.
That's why I said, "make art which is accessible, OR alternatively
educate the public..." It's one or the other because if artists don't
get the public on their side the funding will dry up. Public funding
for the arts has already fallen 39% since 1989.
>: I deal with those consequences on a regular basis as I try to convince
>: people of the importance of art education. Working artists, especially
>: those doing fine art, deal with it as they see funds dry up.
>
>Or they have more realistic expectations--that they might or might not see
>tangible rewards for their work, but they're going to make the art they
>want to make anyway. None of the artists I know (musical or visual) are
>doing what they do to get rich.
No, but it would be nice for them to be able to make a living at it.
I dunno - what do other people think? Does it matter if public
funding for the arts goes away? My point of view is that current
public funding has been cut so much and so hamstrung by new
rules and oversight by bluenoses that it's on the verge on not
mattering. Personally I'm fortuntate to know many working
artists and almost all of them do some kind of commercial
art for money and do what they really want to do creatively on
the side for fun. But you don't have to be an artist to do
that - I'm an engineer and I paint and draw on the side.
What I would LIKE to see is a renewal of public funding for the
arts but with enough public support to insulate it from the likes
of the Jesse Helms. But this can't happen without an active
effort by the arts community to engage the public, and I see
scant interest in this by many artists.
---peter
Samuel Vriezen
My post was a joke on 'thinking for yourself': I believe in this
society, everyone is being badgered around into thinking that they
think for themselves. Like all those tobacco commercials that I see,
in which smoking some cigarette is the 'taste of the free' or that
allow you to 'be what you want to be', things like that. Or a
democracy with only two parties. Real thinking for yourself about
something is tantamount to a lifetime activity.
Citing the amount of TV channels, print publications and websites is
only of help if you can measure the actual diversity in them. You
know, all those magazines in the stands will all have a laughing human
on the front cover. Or let's count the Spice Girls Home Pages or porn
sites see how much of the internet they make up. Such freedom!
Dr.Matt
sink or swim also depending on how well the product it's attached to does.
A new poster for Job's cigarette papers hasn't a chance, even with
the greatest Art Nouveau behind it, if public approval of cigarettes drops.
Only the "down-their-nose" people---like the Art Institute of Chicago---will
display it, and then possibly out of the context of Life Magazine and the
original tie-ins to, say, Barcelonian tourism. Is this a good thing or a bad
thing? Does the quality of such a work of art change proportional to the
market fate of the item advertised?
You seem to have an idea out there that there's a deep dark conspiracy of
artists to undermine the free marketplace of ideas and replace them with
a uniform academic repertoire. A brief glance at this year's College
Music Symposium ought to provide you with enough basis to suspect that maybe
there really isn't and really has never been anything like a concensus among
academics on matters artistic.
David Cleary
:>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
:>: David Cleary wrote in message <7eidef$sid$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
:>:>In rec.music.classical peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
[snip]
:>Besides, I'm not necessarily impressed with "argument by majority." What
:>if a majority of people think the sun revolves around the earth? (If what
:>I've read is true, it would seem most people believed this in Copernicus's
:>time). Were they right?
: Then it means the science community has not done an adequate
: job of public outreach/public education.
For certain. But it also shows that "the majority" can be dead wrong.
:>: It started then but
:>: it continues today and there's no turning back.
:>
:>Gee. I wonder if die-hard Russian communists in 1970 believed communism
:>was "here to stay" and "there's no turning back" at the time--bah, those
:>old-fashioned capitalists, they're obsolete now that our belief system has
:>been in place for fifty years....
: Let's put it this way - why would anyone WANT to have an authoritarian
: society with centrally-controlled values. Don't you think it's better to
: have
: a society where the people's values and priorities are the ones which
: matter?
What I am not keen on is replacing one dictator with another. It's my
guess that "the people" can be just as repressive as any other form of
government. I have no problem with "the people" getting to know,
understand, and like art. I have a big problem with "the people"
(especially through certain folks who think they have been anointed as the
official spokesman for "the people") dictating to me which art is good and
bad, what art should and should not be, and what kind of music I should
compose.
[snip]
:>: I said that a failure of artists to make art: which is accessible, or
:>: alternatively to educate the public about what is good and important
:>: about their art, has PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES.
:>
:>So let's start educating. Show people that there are lots of different
:>ways to make and think of art. Show them Pollock and Hopper and Ernst and
:>Johns and Picasso as well as art from earlier centuries. Show that a
:>painting by Klee is not a bunch of sloppy lines any kid could draw.
: But I don't see this happening. What I see happening is that artists
: who "get it" in regard to Pollock and Picasso dismissing the public
: as boors who will never like anything other than couch art that they
: van buy by the pound at the local MalMart. This attitude is prevalent
: on this board.
Perhaps it boils down to priorities. For some artists, doing their work
the way they want is enough. For others, a career is an important part of
being an artist. It's my guess that educating the public, getting your
work out there to be seen/heard, doing PR in general, schmoozing contacts,
and exercizing dogged patience (perhaps among other things) are pretty
important to building a career. The artists, writers, and composers I've
met run the gamut from hermits who create art for their desk drawer to
hustling careerists who ooze oil from every pore. Personally, I'm keen on
finding a middle ground that draws from the best aspects of both worlds.
Others may not agree.
:>Let's not think that the answer is to stand over artists' shoulders
:>playing censor. "Accessible or else" was the communist way of doing
:>things, too, if memory serves. I don't like the viewpoint regardless of
:>its origin.
: That's why I said, "make art which is accessible, OR alternatively
: educate the public..."
Good. We agree on something. I'm all for educating the public. As a
bonus, it can also be good PR. :)
: It's one or the other because if artists don't
: get the public on their side the funding will dry up.
That depends on whether they believe the hooey people like Jesse Helms
tell them. From what I've read, polls indicate that a majority of
Americans support public funding for the arts.
: Public funding
: for the arts has already fallen 39% since 1989.
There may be various causes for this, of course. Personally, I think a
well-run, long-haul PR campaign to beat back the Helms-type crusaders
might do a lot of good, though not all may agree with me. Getting media
attention on the side of the arts (winning the PR war) might prove very
powerful.
:>: I deal with those consequences on a regular basis as I try to convince
:>: people of the importance of art education. Working artists, especially
:>: those doing fine art, deal with it as they see funds dry up.
:>
:>Or they have more realistic expectations--that they might or might not see
:>tangible rewards for their work, but they're going to make the art they
:>want to make anyway. None of the artists I know (musical or visual) are
:>doing what they do to get rich.
: No, but it would be nice for them to be able to make a living at it.
Agreed. I never say no to a commission. But I'll write music anyway. :)
: I dunno - what do other people think? Does it matter if public
: funding for the arts goes away? My point of view is that current
: public funding has been cut so much and so hamstrung by new
: rules and oversight by bluenoses that it's on the verge on not
: mattering.
Personally, I'd like to see the arts community make more of an effort to
take control of the public debate here; right now, people like Helms are
essentially taking to the airwaves unopposed. Problem is, doing that is a
full-time job; I'd guess one needs a fleet of lobbyists and professional
PR guys on the case. And that takes money--lots of it. Corporations,
political parties, and certain special-interest groups like the Moral
Majority have the bucks to do it. It would be nice if we did, too.
: Personally I'm fortuntate to know many working
: artists and almost all of them do some kind of commercial
: art for money and do what they really want to do creatively on
: the side for fun. But you don't have to be an artist to do
: that - I'm an engineer and I paint and draw on the side.
Agreed. Nearly every composer I know earns a living from something other
than the music they write.
: What I would LIKE to see is a renewal of public funding for the
: arts but with enough public support to insulate it from the likes
: of the Jesse Helms. But this can't happen without an active
: effort by the arts community to engage the public, and I see
: scant interest in this by many artists.
Personally, I think this can be accomplished without imposing stylistic
constraints. But it'll take a lot of time and money. I don't mind
contributing a bit of time to that end if it will make a real difference.
In fact, I do just that: in person and (hopefully) on usenet, usually one
individual at a time.
Dave
Dr.Matt
peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>the stuff revolutions are made of! Today artists do just the OPPOSITE -
>they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the public perceives
>them.
Since this is rec.music.classical, I assume this is on topic. So
please explain to us in unambiguous terms with examples who exactly is
the classical music priesthood, and name at least one musical
composition, preferrably two, which the composer wrote for this
priesthood and not for the general public. Please state your primary
sources. And please don't bother us with student counterpoint
exercises, as they'd nix your point--- Debussy won a silver cup in
academic counterpoint, see his published biographies.
Dr.Matt
peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>David Cleary wrote in message <7eft6s$fb6$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...>>: John Haber wrote in message
>
>>: Whether it's
>>: NEA funding or attempts to get art programs in schools or
>>: support for museums, the public perception of art and artists
>>: MATTERS in practical terms.
>>
>>And the other old one, "popular art equals good art." Yawn number two.
>
>It isn't a yawn if the consequences result in inadequate funding
>for arts and arts education.
>
>
>>: the original Salon des Réfusés show was held in 1863 featuring
>>: works of Manet, Pissarro, and others it was a big hit among the public
>>: even though it was panned by many in the art establishment. THAT's
>>
>>Especially since it resulted in art you happen to like, given a 100 year
>>plus head start. One wonders if you had lived back then whether you would
>>have liked the stuff or not.
>
>It doesn't matter whether I would have liked it. (I'm not that big
>a fan of Impressionism in the first place). What matters is that
>the PUBLIC liked it, even though it was revolutionary and
>even though no one had attempted to educated them to like
>it beforehand.
>
>>what is now called the French Academic Style that hated the
>>Impressionists' work. Were they all painters in that style and critics?
>
>about anything. But the point is that the Salon des Réfusés
>show was very popular.
>
>
>>: they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the public perceives
>>: them.
>>
>
>You can't have your cake and eat it too. Above you dismiss
>popular tastes ("'popular art equals good art.' Yawn number two").
>care whether the public likes their stuff. Which is it?
These two sentences have one term in common ("public") and are not
in any way mutually contradictory.
Keith Edgerley
>
>
>
> I'm frankly suspicious, especially given what seem to be your rather
> biased views on art. How do I know you're not using "ordinary people" the
> way Nixon used the term "silent majority?" Nixon essentially used this
> phony construct to mean "those people who agree with me" added to a vague,
> faceless army of people who may or may not exist who supposedly agree with
> him.
>
This is way off point, but the curious thing about Nixon's hijacking of
the term 'silent majority' is that the expression really means 'the
dead'.
--
Keith
Sapere aude
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>>>: Today artists do just the OPPOSITE -
>>>: they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the public perceives
>>>: them.
>>>Same shoehorn, different place in the thread.
>>You can't have your cake and eat it too. Above you dismiss
>>popular tastes ("'popular art equals good art.' Yawn number two").
>>Here you seem to dismiss my claim that modern artists don't
>>care whether the public likes their stuff. Which is it?
>These two sentences have one term in common ("public") and are not
>in any way mutually contradictory.
Peter: since I've seen evidence here that you may have a difficulty
understanding this, I'll spell it out.
David can't have dismissed your claim that modern artists don't care
whether the public likes their stuff because your claim was not that.
It was that modern artists pander to a priesthood. That claim has
not been supported.
Dismissing the claim "popular = good" does not require that one take
a stand on popular tastes. Instead it says the test of popularity is
uncontrolled for some nontrivial factors outside of the art itself.
Given a concensus between you and me that two works of art are
artistically roughly equal in quality, let one of them just happen to
cross the desk of a diamond merchant at the right time of day and
consequently be used ten times a day to advertise diamonds, and see if
it doesn't become more popular than the one that wasn't used for that
purpose. The mass media has a limited number of spots for works like
this, and like any employer, the mass media does not have time to
check out every prospective work to find the "best". Nor is every
employee the best person in the world for their job, nor is every
deployed technology the best conceivable. In the English language,
"best" is a more abstract term than "expedient", right? Really, the
"popular = good" meme is freely dismissed in industry, where e.g. for
12 years MS-DOS was used as a Grand Compromise For Compatibility
rather than a Good Thing (Good Things being e.g. forms of Unix or
other as-yet-unconcieved systems that don't bomb and waste resources).
By developing Linux, Linus was not pandering to some mysterious
cabal somewhere. Neither was he pandering to the herd mentality that
says the only valuable contribution a non-Microsoft employee can make
to computing is to build applications for MS frameworks using MS
tools. He was pandering to neither, but rather donating years of his
life to putting quality computing power in the hands of PC owners.
And this even impacts DOS and Windows users, by raising the quality
benchmark for software. Linux is freeware, Peter. How's that again?
Pandered to who?
When a composer does not put mass marketing at the top of their
priorities, why do you assume that they must be disdaining the public?
Every such composer I've ever met was in fact demonstrating great
respect for the public and its ability to employ intellect and
imagination and decide for itself, person by person, what music it
enjoys. Once more I ask you to please provide an example--verifiable--
of a living musician who operates strictly for an artistic priesthood,
with disdain for the public. Document for us two such compositions,
please.
If you'd bother to glance at music history, I think you'll find that
composing for a deliberately limited audience--royalty, or the pope,
e.g.--is a far greater feature of musics of past centuries than of the
one just ending.
Cheers!
Samuel Vriezen
>Let's put it this way - why would anyone WANT to have an authoritarian
>society with centrally-controlled values. Don't you think it's better to
>have
>a society where the people's values and priorities are the ones which
>matter?
Only if they're right of course!!!
>But I don't see this happening. What I see happening is that artists
>who "get it" in regard to Pollock and Picasso dismissing the public
>as boors who will never like anything other than couch art that they
>van buy by the pound at the local MalMart. This attitude is prevalent
>on this board.
How bad. Not with me. I like Pollock and will 'defend' his work, but
not by calling people who do not agree boors. However, should they say
rude things about Pollock I will call them boors, not because of
Pollock but because of unjust rudeness. Posting from
rec.music.classical I see just that happening a lot, people shouting
really inane things about some music they most of the time not even
listened to. If that is what democracy is all about....
>That's why I said, "make art which is accessible, OR alternatively
>educate the public..." It's one or the other because if artists don't
>get the public on their side the funding will dry up. Public funding
>for the arts has already fallen 39% since 1989.
Incidentally, I cannot imagine there not being artists who make
'accessible' work. The government could decide to only sponsor them,
of course. However, you quickly get a 'superstar' principle: we need
only five or so 'accessible' composers, authors, or one poet to write
an inaugural poem to serve the whole of Western civilization. So why
subsidize more?
Personally, however, I like _huge_ diversity.
>Does it matter if public
>funding for the arts goes away? My point of view is that current
>public funding has been cut so much and so hamstrung by new
>rules and oversight by bluenoses that it's on the verge on not
>mattering.
It would not matter if it would only subsidize art that is too much
either like what we already know (often identical with 'accessible'!)
or too much like art that could survive commercially just as well. It
would matter if it makes unique and precious things possible.
>What I would LIKE to see is a renewal of public funding for the
>arts but with enough public support to insulate it from the likes
>of the Jesse Helms. But this can't happen without an active
>effort by the arts community to engage the public, and I see
>scant interest in this by many artists.
Well, count me in, but do not expect me to make my style more
'accessible' if it involves making it sound like Beethoven because I
am Samuel Vriezen and not Beethoven, that's all. Otherwise, I like it
when 'ordinary' people show an interest for what interests me. Like
the time I was involved in a production of Xenakis' Oresteia and there
were these old ladies who knew nothing about modern music, but as I
could see after the show they had enjoyed themselves tremendously.
There's the public I like.
Samuel
peter nelson
>Given a concensus between you and me that two works of art are
>artistically roughly equal in quality, let one of them just happen to
>cross the desk of a diamond merchant at the right time of day and
>consequently be used ten times a day to advertise diamonds, and see if
>it doesn't become more popular than the one that wasn't used for that
>purpose. The mass media has a limited number of spots for works like
>this, and like any employer, the mass media does not have time to
>check out every prospective work to find the "best". Nor is every
>employee the best person in the world for their job, nor is every
>deployed technology the best conceivable. In the English language,
>"best" is a more abstract term than "expedient", right?
This may not be true for art. In most of the other examples
you give, e.g., operating systems, there are objective bases
for determining "better". It's not clear this is true for art. Whether
art is "good" may *JUST* be a matter of opinion. It may be
purely a socially-constructed property.
If "good" art is that which reaches people emotionally, spiritually,
or intellectually, then familiarity may, in fact make art "better".
> By developing Linux, Linus was not pandering to some mysterious
>cabal somewhere.
Maybe not a cabal, but he was responding to a need by
many people for a compact, efficient, stable, cheap OS.
"Pandering" is an emotionally-loaded term. Both Microsoft
and the open software movement are attempting to meet
needs. Different needs, by different people, and in different
ways, and for different motivations, but nonetheless, they are
both responding to externalities. Most free software developers
will tell you that they are writing to impress their peers with
the skill and prowess. programmers at Microosft are doing
it for money. Both (we hope) are also having fun doing it.
> When a composer does not put mass marketing at the top of their
>priorities, why do you assume that they must be disdaining the public?
>Every such composer I've ever met was in fact demonstrating great
>respect for the public and its ability to employ intellect and
>imagination and decide for itself, person by person, what music it
>enjoys. Once more I ask you to please provide an example--verifiable--
>of a living musician who operates strictly for an artistic priesthood,
>with disdain for the public. Document for us two such compositions,
>please.
>
> If you'd bother to glance at music history, I think you'll find that
>composing for a deliberately limited audience--royalty, or the pope,
>e.g.--is a far greater feature of musics of past centuries than of the
>one just ending.
I agree; the same is true for painting. Most music and art were done
on commission. This is a point I've mande many times in response
to people here who claim that "fine art" is not supposed to
be sullied by commercialism. But I'm not sure I know what your point
is in this regard.
---peter
Dr.Matt
peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>Dr.Matt wrote in message <7ekm3c$3h3$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
>>In article <7ejk3v$i76$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>>Dr.Matt <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>>Given a concensus between you and me that two works of art are
>>artistically roughly equal in quality, let one of them just happen to
>>cross the desk of a diamond merchant at the right time of day and
>>consequently be used ten times a day to advertise diamonds, and see if
>>it doesn't become more popular than the one that wasn't used for that
>>purpose. The mass media has a limited number of spots for works like
>>this, and like any employer, the mass media does not have time to
>>check out every prospective work to find the "best". Nor is every
>>employee the best person in the world for their job, nor is every
>>deployed technology the best conceivable. In the English language,
>>"best" is a more abstract term than "expedient", right?
>
>This may not be true for art. In most of the other examples
>you give, e.g., operating systems, there are objective bases
>for determining "better". It's not clear this is true for art. Whether
>art is "good" may *JUST* be a matter of opinion. It may be
>purely a socially-constructed property.
This is why I asked this as a question. What exactly are you taking
about here?
>If "good" art is that which reaches people emotionally, spiritually,
>or intellectually, then familiarity may, in fact make art "better".
>
>
>> By developing Linux, Linus was not pandering to some mysterious
>>cabal somewhere.
>
>Maybe not a cabal, but he was responding to a need by
Need? or desire? Can we obtain food and water without such an OS?
>many people for a compact, efficient, stable, cheap OS.
>"Pandering" is an emotionally-loaded term.
AH..
In article <7efpb5$2j5$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>the stuff revolutions are made of! Today artists do just the OPPOSITE -
>they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the public perceives
>them.
So what are you talking about in that paragraph, and where is an example
of such pandering---or need-filling, if you prefer--and who is the
artistic priesthood? Any special reason you used the term pandering
in your description? Any reason not to dismiss your description as a
paranoid fantasy?
> Both Microsoft
>and the open software movement are attempting to meet
>needs. Different needs, by different people, and in different
>ways, and for different motivations, but nonetheless, they are
>both responding to externalities. Most free software developers
>will tell you that they are writing to impress their peers with
>the skill and prowess. programmers at Microosft are doing
>it for money. Both (we hope) are also having fun doing it.
Aha.
>
>> When a composer does not put mass marketing at the top of their
>>priorities, why do you assume that they must be disdaining the public?
>>Every such composer I've ever met was in fact demonstrating great
>>respect for the public and its ability to employ intellect and
>>imagination and decide for itself, person by person, what music it
>>enjoys. Once more I ask you to please provide an example--verifiable--
>>of a living musician who operates strictly for an artistic priesthood,
>>with disdain for the public. Document for us two such compositions,
>>please.
Request repeated, and context restored.
>> If you'd bother to glance at music history, I think you'll find that
>>composing for a deliberately limited audience--royalty, or the pope,
>>e.g.--is a far greater feature of musics of past centuries than of the
>>one just ending.
>
>I agree; the same is true for painting. Most music and art were done
>on commission. This is a point I've mande many times in response
>to people here who claim that "fine art" is not supposed to
>be sullied by commercialism. But I'm not sure I know what your point
>is in this regard.
Please show us even one example that fits this:
In article <7efpb5$2j5$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>the stuff revolutions are made of! Today artists do just the OPPOSITE -
>they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the public perceives
>them.
One more time, in case you missed it:
What concrete examples can you give of the phenomenon described in
this sentence?
In article <7efpb5$2j5$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
peter nelson <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>the stuff revolutions are made of! Today artists do just the OPPOSITE -
>they pander to the art priesthood and don't care how the public perceives
>them.
mark webber
(snipping a bit)
> >This may not be true for art. In most of the other examples
> >you give, e.g., operating systems, there are objective bases
> >for determining "better". It's not clear this is true for art. Whether
> >art is "good" may *JUST* be a matter of opinion. It may be
> >purely a socially-constructed property.
Rather than trying to compare operating systems to art, I would ask what
is wrong with the notion that quality in art is a social construct?
What isn't a social construct? Does seeing quality as a social construct
suddenly make it not enjoyable? Ineffective?
So we identify quality in art as a social construct. Fine, where does that
take us? It doesn't exactly help us make better art, does it?
Aren't we better off accepting the notion and working within it?
Aren't we better off focusing on the construct and its workings than
marching around continuously identifying it as such?
Wouldn't we challenge ourselves a bit more by accepting it, moving on to
experience it and becoming expert at it, than spending seasons simply
identifying it?
puzzled,
Mark
John Haber
construct? Nothing. I agree totally.
But I like to think that the pomo insights here really add something,
just as getting background on a painting can help. You can even start
to think about what you are willing t accept in new ways. Perhaps an
added ambivalence about what you like can be even more interesting and
inspiring to new ideas than an outright change in what you like.
John
emat...@tomatoweb.com
I really think where the 'what's wrong' comes into play is that the concept
of 'social constructs' hedges in on the concept of the 'individual.' Once a
person begins to grapple with these sorts of concepts it's bound to be
disorienting, especially if much of one's views is based on some sort of
ideology about individualism in art practice. Cultural determinism doesn't
threaten me much, but I can remember when it did. I don't know how I got
through all that -- I think it was simply a matter of entertaining the idea
of social constructions long enough for something to sink in, augmented with
a bunch of reading that was way over my head. Maybe I'm (foolishly?)
describing a pomo rite of passage, eh?
Now I'm trying to remember, because I've got all my books packed up. Who was
it who said "The theory of modern art is a theory of consumption disguised as
a theory or production?" Meyer Shapiro?
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mark webber
> What's wrong with accepting quality after seeing it as a social
> construct? Nothing. I agree totally.
>
> But I like to think that the pomo insights here really add something,
> just as getting background on a painting can help. You can even start
> to think about what you are willing t accept in new ways. Perhaps an
> added ambivalence about what you like can be even more interesting and
> inspiring to new ideas than an outright change in what you like.
>
> John
>
>
You get no argument from me - but it's just as plausible that someone can
ignor the pomo stuff - even deny, outright deny, that quality is a social
construct, and go on to make really fine paintings. Only a hypothetical,
of course.
regards,
Mark
peter nelson
>>>In article <7ejk3v$i76$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
>>>Dr.Matt <fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Given a concensus between you and me that two works of art are
>>>artistically roughly equal in quality, let one of them just happen to
>>>cross the desk of a diamond merchant at the right time of day and
>>>consequently be used ten times a day to advertise diamonds, and see if
>>>it doesn't become more popular than the one that wasn't used for that
>>>purpose. The mass media has a limited number of spots for works like
>>>this, and like any employer, the mass media does not have time to
>>>check out every prospective work to find the "best". Nor is every
>>>employee the best person in the world for their job, nor is every
>>>deployed technology the best conceivable. In the English language,
>>>"best" is a more abstract term than "expedient", right?
>>
>>you give, e.g., operating systems, there are objective bases
>>for determining "better". It's not clear this is true for art. Whether
>>art is "good" may *JUST* be a matter of opinion. It may be
>>purely a socially-constructed property.
>
>about here?
Up to this point I had taken the position that artists needed
to engage the public for political reasons: the protect the
arts from funding cuts.
I am now introducing another reason why the public may
need to be engaged: because maybe aesthetics is socially
contructed. Or in other words maybe the answer to the
question: "if an artist paints in the woods, is it good?"
is "no" by definition. It may be like word definitions -
try as you might you can't invent your own personal
language - word meanings only become validated through
use. Word meanings come and go; likewise good aesthetics
can become bad aesthetics and vice versa. 100 years from
now maybe the man in the street will think of Rothko the
way he thinks of Monet today. And maybe Monet will be
considered a hack.
The art establishment, be it the French Academy in 1863 or
MOMA today share a common trait - they think that aesthetics
is a feature of the work itself (*this is good/this is bad") and
that only the initiated can declare it.
>Please show us even one example that fits this:
Any artist who is loved by the art establishment but who
is disdained by the man in the street. Rothko, say,
or Barnett Newman or Seranno. The art priesthood
is trying to *declare* this to be good art and the public
is resisting.
---peter
John Haber
>need to be engaged: because maybe aesthetics is socially
>contructed.
I'm quoting only a few words, but I agree wholeheartedly, and I admire
you for bringing it up and expressing it so well throughout your
message. It's been a burning issue for artists in many ages. It's
been a lively and often nasty issue on campuses, too, when they debate
what to teach in survey courses!
There's never an easy answer either to what to do with the past. You
start from it, keep what you can, enrich it as best you know how, and
challenge it from your heart, and use your head to extend it or move
it in directions it never imagined.
I think you go astray only when you turn this construction into the
work of a priesthood. The art world is tougher and more corporate
than its ever been, with wealthy instutitions now stretching around
the globe. And yet its still no more than a lot of art worlds, and
the only social construction that can exist is our entirety of
cultures. Including the culture that's part of a big public lining up
for modern-art museums as never before.
Do your best as an artist and critic to act on what you believe.
Remember that public, the people who will engage you and your work in
turn, and remember, as you do so clearly, that it ought to have the
potential to include a big public out there. Distrust categories,
like high and low, if they keep you from doing your work.
But don't go looking for excuses either when the public turns to line
up around the block elsewhere. It doesn't matter if you're a realist
and the public prefers Warner Brothers, or a realist and another part
of the public prefers something modernist. You're on your own. Sneer
at those on a different course, ignore them, learn from them, rely on
them, be richer in your soul for doing all of these, or just keep your
own faith. But don't make excuses. It's part of the same high
standards it takes to do get angry -- and to do your art.
John
peter nelson
>You get no argument from me - but it's just as plausible that someone can
>ignor the pomo stuff - even deny, outright deny, that quality is a social
>construct, and go on to make really fine paintings. Only a hypothetical,
>of course.
But they may only be fine when they are acknowledged as such
by the public.
The question is whether the aesthetic quality of the work is
intrinsic in the work, or is it defined by the public?
Word-definitions are not intrinsic. A few decades ago the word
"gay" meant a sort of carefree happiness. Today it means
homosexual. When it was shifting various word-czars tried to
stop it but failed. But you can't stop that sort of thing. Because
word definitions are a social consensus - they are DEscriptive,
not PREscriptive.
---peter
yi...@my-dejanews.com
Someone is attracted to the realm of artists and desires to create
and express.
They study and learn.
They bring ideas into existence with regard to parameters of discipline
and may end up tying string to bumpers of wrecked old trucks.
Or painting seascapes in photorealistic fashion. Both are art from artists.
I guess....
sandwich unit
http://www.s0n.com
Samuel Vriezen
>I am now introducing another reason why the public may
>need to be engaged: because maybe aesthetics is socially
>contructed. Or in other words maybe the answer to the
>question: "if an artist paints in the woods, is it good?"
>is "no" by definition. It may be like word definitions -
>try as you might you can't invent your own personal
>language - word meanings only become validated through
>use. Word meanings come and go; likewise good aesthetics
>can become bad aesthetics and vice versa.
Truisms, of no consequence. If I do bad art in the woods but I like
it, no problem, no? I'm only expecting money for it if I come out of
the woods. What are you getting at? Do you secretly want to make
popularity a measure for artistic quality otherwise what's bothering
you so much? I really don't understand.
Samuel Vriezen
>The art establishment, be it the French Academy in 1863 or
>MOMA today share a common trait - they think that aesthetics
>is a feature of the work itself (*this is good/this is bad") and
>that only the initiated can declare it.
Wow! You know quite something about the art world! (that one, yes)
Let's make the discussion somewhat more interesting. But first we must
settle this:
I am a composer of not so very tonal music, I get an education from a
conservatory and organize concerts of new music. I like Cage, Ashbery,
Annie MG Schmidt, Gerhard Richter, Pollock, de Kooning, Monet, Gary
Larson, Boulez, Ferneyhough (poetry and music), Derrida, Mondriaan,
Schwitters (mostly the texts), Stella, Star Wars, algorithmic music
and lots of terrible stuff besides. My question:
Am I a member of the art establishment?
Samuel
Marilyn
I don't understand this obsession with art for "the public."
William Blake said that the best thing to do with a poem
was to set it on fire and watch the wisps of ashes rise to
the heavens. Emily Dickenson kept her best works in a wooden
chest, unread.
Money for art is only the wine with the repast. I have
personally refused to sell work to a person I didn't like.
Marilyn
David Cleary
: Up to this point I had taken the position that artists needed
: to engage the public for political reasons: the protect the
: arts from funding cuts.
Seems to me it was suggested that we can do this through education, not
necessarily by telling artists what they can and cannot do in their art.
: I am now introducing another reason why the public may
: need to be engaged: because maybe aesthetics is socially
: contructed.
Hrm. I'm suspicious as to where you're going with this.
: Or in other words maybe the answer to the
: question: "if an artist paints in the woods, is it good?"
: is "no" by definition.
Or then again, maybe not.
What constitutes a viable social construct in this case? Five people who
are "in the know" on a very obscure but talented artist? Five thousand
people, most of whom prefer a velvet Elvis painting to any by Picasso for
reasons other than the fact that one artist is "better" than the other? Or
just the social constructs you happen to belong to?
I don't see any easy answers here.
: It may be like word definitions -
: try as you might you can't invent your own personal
: language - word meanings only become validated through
: use.
I for one am not ready to blanketly accept this assumption. I've seen a
number of people use "alright" as a word and use "it's" as a possessive
pronoun. Just because a number of people use these things, does this
necessarily "validate" them?
: Word meanings come and go; likewise good aesthetics
: can become bad aesthetics and vice versa. 100 years from
: now maybe the man in the street will think of Rothko the
: way he thinks of Monet today. And maybe Monet will be
: considered a hack.
Maybe. Or maybe both will be liked a lot. Who can say? But since we'll all
likely be dead by then, why does it matter? I'd just like to make sure
Rothko's work is still there to be considered and not buried under biased
rhetoric.
: The art establishment, be it the French Academy in 1863 or
: MOMA today share a common trait - they think that aesthetics
: is a feature of the work itself (*this is good/this is bad") and
: that only the initiated can declare it.
Ah. Back to asserting again?
And I wonder: is that the whiff of profoundly sour grapes I'm getting from
your direction?
:>Please show us even one example that fits this:
: Any artist who is loved by the art establishment but who
: is disdained by the man in the street. Rothko, say,
: or Barnett Newman or Seranno. The art priesthood
: is trying to *declare* this to be good art and the public
: is resisting.
Baloney. I'm just as much a "man on the street" as anyone else; I'm
certainly not a member of any "art priesthood." And I happen to like the
work I've seen by Rothko and Serrano. Don't know Newman's work, so I can't
say on that. Your model doesn't wash.
Dave
Norman Strand~
velvet and have it be art. I have seen many paintings of Elvis on black vekvet
and some are better than others, but I have not seen one that I liked well
enough to buy and take home. Is it the media that makes the art?
Norman Strand
THis is not the opinion of intel corp. of course.
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
nst...@hal086.ch.intel.com (Norman Strand~) wrote:
> Just a dumb question. Is it possible to paint a portrait of Elvis on black
> velvet and have it be art.
If a crucifix in a bottle of piss is art, a velvet elvis is easily art.
> I have seen many paintings of Elvis on black vekvet
> and some are better than others, but I have not seen one that I liked well
> enough to buy and take home. Is it the media that makes the art?
Considering that piss and elephant shit are now considered art, it's
unlikely the media has much to do with it.
Nice troll, by the way :P
Frank Eggleston
>
> Just a dumb question. Is it possible to paint a portrait of Elvis on black
> and some are better than others, but I have not seen one that I liked well
> enough to buy and take home. Is it the media that makes the art?
>
"I have a book at home" said Stephen "in which I have written down
questions which are amusing than yours were. In finding the answers to
them I found the theory of the esthetic which I am trying to explain.
....
If a man hacking in fury at a block of wood" Stephen continued "make
there an image of a cow, is that image of work of art? If not, why
not?"
"That's a lovely one" said Lynch, laughing again. "That has the true
scholastic stink."
--- from James Joyce's "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man"
Frank E
--
".... the isle is full of noises,
"Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight, and hurt not.
"Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
"Will hum about mine ears; and sometimes voices...."
----- "The Tempest", Shakespeare
emat...@tomatoweb.com
nst...@hal086.ch.intel.com (Norman Strand~) wrote:
> Just a dumb question. Is it possible to paint a portrait of Elvis on black
> velvet and have it be art. I have seen many paintings of Elvis on black vekvet
> and some are better than others, but I have not seen one that I liked well
> enough to buy and take home. Is it the media that makes the art?
>
> Norman Strand
> THis is not the opinion of intel corp. of course.
Sounds like a good question to me, Norman. I remember that movie some years
ago with Peter Falk -- I forget the name, but Falk was a CIA agent whose
daughter was going to marry the sone of a Dentist, and the two (The CIA agent
and the Dentist) go off on an adventure and end up visiting a South American
dictator who wants to show off his Art Collection. The collection was all
black velvet paintings. It was hilarious.
On the other hand, once when I was working in a frame shop a German woman
brought in an old painting for a new frame. It was a landscape with deer and
waterfalls all painted on black velvet. About 125 years old. She explained
that it was a tradition if Bavaria for a long time. Personally, I thought
the art was a bit too much like a greeting card nature-utopia sort of thing,
but on the other hand I got caught-up in the idea that the piece was a
'treasured heirloom' in the woman's particular family, and maybe many in
southern Germany respected such as works of art.
I'll bet you anything, too, that a comprehensive collection of velvet
paintings from the 60s and 70s would be pretty pricey in today's
collect-o-mania circles.
But I don't think it would ever be 'art' in the sense of an 'art museum,'
unless the museum was making a point of displaying kitsche.
Erik Mattila
John Haber
You got me.
jh
John Haber
>who are "in the know" on a very obscure but talented artist? Five
>thousand people, most of whom prefer a velvet Elvis painting to any
>by Picasso for reasons other than the fact that one artist is "better"
>than the other? Or just the social constructs you happen to
>belong to?
Reminds me of the problems with a provocative and well-respected
definition of art by George Dickie, a philosopher. It's called the
"institutional theory of art."
Arthur C. Danto, an even more influential philosopher of art, was an
art lover and gallery-goer long before he turned his philosophical
attention to art. Danto had been puzzling over something ever since
he first attended the early Warhol exhibitions, back before they had a
huge public and when they were still pretty shocking. Why should a
soup can in a gallery be art, when an indistinguishable one in a
supermarket isn't? He described the conundrum and his own first
thoughts about it in an essay called "The Art World." What, he was
asking, makes something enter the art world?
Now, Danto's questions have some awfully loaded assumptions I'll spare
you, along with his own interesting answers. However, the very
question framed Dickie's theory. (Danto quipped that he's a father
who can't entirely be responsible for his children.) Or maybe I
should say that Dickie's theory stops by restating the question: a
work of art is whatever "the art world" accepts as art. He's saying
that something becomes art by fiat: we know it's art because an
artist made it and because it's in an art gallery.
Your comments get right away to the problem: the definition is
circular! It's a work of art because an artist made it, but the
creator is an artist because it's a work of art. It's a work of art
because a gallery chose it, but that shop is an art gallery, not just
another expensive furniture store in SoHo these days with 'gallery' in
its name, because it displays art.
It seems to imply that once the label "gallery" is up there, problems
go away. How do we know the soup can isn't the dealer's lunch? I
myself once mistook a packing crate for part of an installation. It
lay near a realistic painting of storage items, and I'd seen Robert
Rauschenberg re-cycle the shipping cardboard from his dealer into
future works.
It seems as well to imply an immediate consensus, contained in a grand
and glorious institution, fine art. (This IS, after all, Dickie's
"institutional theory of art.) Suppose, however, that the gallery
won't accept the artist's work as art. Should the artist seriously
wait for a consensus to emerge before her achievement is really art?
(I hope not.) What then constitutes a consensus?
The "art world" is a pretty recent term. We accept it because it
sounds familiar (no terms that would offend Dik, which might be part
of the problem, the veneer of common sense). It reminds us of the
obstacles facing an artist that feel institutional or private --
opening parties, galleries with snots behind the desk, museums that
expand globally, esthetes who absorb all art into one huge "imaginary
museum." (Gosh, someone actually likes Malraux??)
Dickie's theory is interesting, not trivial or foolish, because it
reflects these things. Philosophy is always about finding interesting
insights like these, not about settling matters anyway. It just
happens to be wrong.
It labels a social construct, the art world, without an effort to put
it into serious question or to raise the politics, culture, or
economics behind any social construct. It reifies a world just as
attacks on "the canon" are tearing it apart and artists are making the
multiplicity of experience part of the content of their work.
For the previous generation, it notes a Pop artist's acceptance as art
without the art's questioning of "fine art" versus commercial art. It
notes a Minimalist's dependence on the setting (a site or gallery),
without observing how the Minimalist involves every viewer in the work
and in defining where the experience of art begins.
Anyhow, I apologize that I just was entertaining myself with this bit
of explanation and digression. I love philosophy, becuase it is
getting at questions and intuitions that won't go away. It reminds me
that perhaps the role of "the public" remains interesting, even in the
age of the avant-garde. To return to the arguments with Peter,
however, neither one, "the public" or "the art world," is an excuse
for the artist either to pander or to complain about being left alone.
John (www.haberarts.com. I forget where I wrote up the packing case
on my site.)
John Haber
Not at all. They're several questions actually, and good ones. <ay I
take them seriously?
I just sniff something unsightly: a question masquerading as an
answer. That is, if I have to ask, it can't be art. Sorry.
Questions should never become answers. It's a disdain for answers
that aren't obvious, just when we know that art has long been
investigating the obvious.
>Is it possible to paint a portrait of Elvis on black velvet and have
>it be art?
Apparently so.
>I have seen many paintings of Elvis on black velvet and some
>are better than others ...
Hmm. Seems to me that if you're able to compare their quality, with
gradations, you've already treated them as art. So it's rude then to
pretend you don't think they're art. Either they're not art and you
were foolish to think they were; or else they're art and you are
foolish now to double back.
Again, the problem seems to be that of taking your questions for an
answer. You've here pointed to something interesting about recent
art: "that's not art" has become a judgment of value as much as a
judgment of fact. This suggests that art is unsettling both fact and
value in ways we should appreciate before stomping out of the room.
>...but I have not seen one that I liked well enough to buy
>and take home.
So you have to want to own it for it to be art? Rather small art
world, then. And as Marilyn says, sometimes the more one cherishes
something, the more one would rather burn it than put it in the hands
of the uncaring. Which is to say in the hands of people who take
their questions for answers.
John (www.haberarts.com)
John Haber
book of mine, too.
jh
Lawrence Faltz
> >MOMA today share a common trait - they think that aesthetics
> >is a feature of the work itself (*this is good/this is bad") and
> >that only the initiated can declare it.
>
>
> Let's make the discussion somewhat more interesting. But first we must
> settle this:
>
> I am a composer of not so very tonal music, I get an education from a
> conservatory and organize concerts of new music. I like Cage, Ashbery,
> Annie MG Schmidt, Gerhard Richter, Pollock, de Kooning, Monet, Gary
> Larson, Boulez, Ferneyhough (poetry and music), Derrida, Mondriaan,
> Schwitters (mostly the texts), Stella, Star Wars, algorithmic music
> and lots of terrible stuff besides. My question:
>
> Am I a member of the art establishment?
Only if you get invited to their parties and occasionally get quoted in
the "New York Review of Books" or have a little blurb about you in New
York Magazine.