what is art?
mar...@my-dejanews.com
and I've seen art that I think is absolutely hideous. But who am I to judge
someone's self-expression?. What are the elements that a piece has to have
to be considered art? I once heard someone say that you could wipe snot on a
canvas, hang it in an art gallery, and call it a work of art. I don't think
so, but is it self-expression? Or would it just be a mockery? MH
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Gloria Heim
compare my work to those doing the same type of art. For example: I'm a
wildlife artist, I aspire to be as good as some other wildlife artists
whose work I have seen.
Wildlife art is little different as accuracy is of the utmost importance
whether you're using oils, acrylics or pencil. A wildlife artist will be
judged on how well they know their animal. Accuracy in lighting, pose,
composition, etc. is extremely important if you want to create piece
that will be deemed "good" by judges.
Somebody made a very broad statement, something like "if you create
something, you're an artist." I have to strongly disagree with that.
My kid sister who's five can throw some paint on a canvas but that
doesn't make her an artist. I think anyone can have passion for what
they do: paint, write, dance, speak, sing, etc. but an "artist" has a
love for it, a need to get better and better or to branch out and
explore their medium and subjects. They will hone their skills to
create work that is acceptable to his or herself and *they* are usually
the harshest judge of their "art."
I don't think a loogy on a canvas is art. I'm sorry, maybe it's just
the "technical" part of me but that is just not art to me. Nor is a
single red smear on a blue canvas.
I'm certain there are 100 opposing views in a group of 120 people on
this subject but I'm a pretty harsh critic. A bugger on paper doesn't
cut it for me.
Gloria
Pascale Camus-Walter
I recently wrote a paper about the Imaginary Museum seen by contemporaries like
Malraux, Picasso and Malevich.
You can read it at my site:
http://www.citeweb.net/malevich/virtuality.html
Kay Kane
Gloria Heim wrote in message <36F2ABC8...@us.ibm.com>...
>When I think of art I think of "my art" or "my style" of art and tend to
>compare my work to those doing the same type of art. For example: I'm a
>wildlife artist, I aspire to be as good as some other wildlife artists
>whose work I have seen.
(snipping stuff about wildlife art)
>Somebody made a very broad statement, something like "if you create
>something, you're an artist." I have to strongly disagree with that.
>My kid sister who's five can throw some paint on a canvas but that
>doesn't make her an artist.
Spoken like countless others who are fixated on depicting reality and don't
have much knowledge about (and therefore fear/dislike) all
non-representational art - usually they are referring to Jackson Pollock.
I think anyone can have passion for what
>they do: paint, write, dance, speak, sing, etc.. but an "artist" has a
>love for it, a need to get better and better or to branch out and
>explore their medium and subjects. They will hone their skills to
>create work that is acceptable to his or herself and *they* are usually
>the harshest judge of their "art."
This includes knowing what is going on in art and having an open mind; to
make a commitment as an artist to continually learn.
(snipping boogers on canvas)
> I'm sorry, maybe it's just
>the "technical" part of me but that is just not art to me. Nor is a
>single red smear on a blue canvas.
Who is this non-artist you are criticizing? Rothko? Doesn't matter. Learn
more about art that is not your in your regular "comfort zone", then,
perhaps, we can continue this discussion.
>I'm certain there are 100 opposing views in a group of 120 people on
>this subject but I'm a pretty harsh critic.
Sounds like I like a lot more than you. I pity you - you've denied yourself
so much... (Honest criticism: I really can't think of any visual image less
stimulating than realistic wildlife art.)
A bugger on paper doesn't
>cut it for me.
>
>Gloria
How about a blast of gas?
Kay
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Gloria Heim <gh...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> When I think of art I think of "my art" or "my style" of art and tend to
> compare my work to those doing the same type of art. For example: I'm a
> wildlife artist, I aspire to be as good as some other wildlife artists
> whose work I have seen.
>
> whether you're using oils, acrylics or pencil. A wildlife artist will be
> judged on how well they know their animal. Accuracy in lighting, pose,
> composition, etc. is extremely important if you want to create piece
> that will be deemed "good" by judges.
>
> something, you're an artist." I have to strongly disagree with that.
> My kid sister who's five can throw some paint on a canvas but that
> they do: paint, write, dance, speak, sing, etc. but an "artist" has a
> love for it, a need to get better and better or to branch out and
> explore their medium and subjects. They will hone their skills to
> create work that is acceptable to his or herself and *they* are usually
> the harshest judge of their "art."
>
> the "technical" part of me but that is just not art to me. Nor is a
> single red smear on a blue canvas.
>
> cut it for me.
I can see why a 'bugger on paper' doesn't cut it for you, given your standing
as a wildfife artist. I'be been teased a bit on this n.g. for liking
Bateman's work -- but it goes further than that, I like wildlife art
generally. Now what I'm wondering if there are any serious texts treating
the art history of wildlife art generally, as an art practice well embedded
in the same tradition as what some call "Fine Art" (as distinct, for example,
from wildlife art.)
I'm not aware of such studies, but I am aware of some specifics of this
traditional practice which I have gleaned from the study of the History of
Art.
Now what were those Northern Italian books called? I just can't remember.
But since the Middle Ages there were a series of books, hand made before the
development of the woodcut, of animals, plants etc (things of nature). The
drawings and woodcuts are terrific -- and surprising. They were secular art,
in an age when practically all art had a religious connotation.. And they
were carefully observed renderings, which suggest life drawings, in constast
to the ideograpic art of the middle ages. Some Art Historians have been able
to look at the array of rabbits, deer, bears, horses etc. that appear in
Renaissance "High Art" and identify the exact 'wildlife' book and drawing
that was traced and applied to the painting. I also should mention that the
craftsman who made these drawings (they did not achieve the stature of
'artist' in Medieval Italian culture) were very much 'ahead of the times' in
rendering a landscape with any illusionistic success (a genre that was
developed in Northern Europe in 'painting').
Another example -- in Victorian England many estate libraries contained a
category called the "British Sporting Print." While much of this genre
illustrating gentlemanly hunting and fishing, a large part are simply what we
call today 'Wildlife" art, and that attention to biological accuracy is very
evident as intrinsic to that specific discipline of art making (which cleaves
right into the notion of The Enlightenment). It's really an interesting
topic.
I'm certain if serious scholarship is applied to the idea of wildlife art as
a continuous historical development many very surprising things would come to
light. Perhaps evidence of a more contiguous development in the arts could
be demonstrated, than say, painting. Of course the practice goes back to
Rome, as we can see by the many wildlife examples in Roman art (and I'm not
talking about the infamous Roman 'orgy' as an example of Roman Wildlife).
Perhaps you know of such studies.
Erik Mattila
mdeli
>
>I can see why a 'bugger on paper' doesn't cut it for you, given your standing
>as a wildfife artist. I'be been teased a bit on this n.g. for liking
>Bateman's work -- but it goes further than that, I like wildlife art
>generally.
What this indicated is that even a pompous ass like you is attracted
to an exhibition of superior skill. No bullshit theory necessary here.
>
>Another example -- in Victorian England many estate libraries contained a
>category called the "British Sporting Print." While much of this genre
>illustrating gentlemanly hunting and fishing, a large part are simply what we
>call today 'Wildlife" art, and that attention to biological accuracy is very
>evident as intrinsic to that specific discipline of art making (which cleaves
>right into the notion of The Enlightenment).
Has nothing to do with the Enlightment and doesn't "cleave" into
anything.
>I'm certain if serious scholarship is applied to the idea of wildlife art as
>a continuous historical development many very surprising things would come to
>light. Perhaps evidence of a more contiguous development in the arts could
>be demonstrated, than say, painting. Of course the practice goes back to
>Rome, as we can see by the many wildlife examples in Roman art (and I'm not
>talking about the infamous Roman 'orgy' as an example of Roman Wildlife).
You might start on your level, with cavemen.
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/
Jennifer Eiserman
Now, after many years, many failed artworks, lots of education, more good and
bad works, and various experiences I have decided that it doesn't matter one way
or the other what "Art Is..." or what "Art Isn't...". Anything you say CAN AND
WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU anyway. For example:
Kay Kane wrote:
> Spoken like countless others who are fixated on depicting reality and don't
> have much knowledge about (and therefore fear/dislike) all
> non-representational art - usually they are referring to Jackson Pollock.
Why is it wrong to fear/dislike certain art forms? I myself am terrified of
performance
art that uses sharp objects or greasy foodstuffs. Also...
> ...anyone can have passion for what
> >they do: paint, write, dance, speak, sing, etc.. but an "artist" has a
> >love for it, a need to get better and better or to branch out and
> >explore their medium and subjects. They will hone their skills to
> >create work that is acceptable to his or herself and *they* are usually
> >the harshest judge of their "art." (Gloria Heim wrote)
>
> This includes knowing what is going on in art and having an open mind; to
> make a commitment as an artist to continually learn. (Kay Kane wrote)
Why can't an artist be lazy as sin, hates what he or she does, and never want to
learn
another thing? And...
> > I'm sorry, maybe it's just
> >the "technical" part of me but that is just not art to me. Nor is a
> >single red smear on a blue canvas. (Gloria Heim wrote)
>
> Who is this non-artist you are criticizing? Rothko? Doesn't matter. Learn
> more about art that is not your in your regular "comfort zone", then,
> perhaps, we can continue this discussion. (Kay Kane wrote)
Maybe in 10 thousand years the art philosophers will finally agree on the
properties
that are necessary and sufficient to define an artwork, and then maybe everyone
will
be shocked to learn that most of what we thought was art (i.e., a single red
smear
on a blue canvas) really isn't, but was just "a pretty good guess". Until then,
its much
safer to say that all the things we now refer to as "ART" might, or might not
be. Finally...
> >I'm certain there are 100 opposing views in a group of 120 people on
> >this subject but I'm a pretty harsh critic.(Gloria Heim wrote)
>
> Sounds like I like a lot more than you. I pity you - you've denied yourself
> so much... (Honest criticism: I really can't think of any visual image less
> stimulating than realistic wildlife art.) (Kay Kane wrote)
I know a guy who only likes green paintings. They can be mimetic, expressive,
formal, minimal, any old thing will do as long as its green. However, not just
any
green will do: it must be a semi translucent moss green existing within a very
limited
range of half a dozen values. I like this guy a lot because, even though his
taste in art
is a bit "narrow", he leads the most aesthetically intense existence that I've
ever seen.
When I spend time with him in his quirky green universe, I get the sense that
everything, the earth, art, art materials, art makers, light, air, the colour
green,
everything was made to help my friend realize the ecstasy of losing himself in
something
greater than himself so that he might finally come around to finding out who and
why he is. Sometimes, I think I would give anything to be like that.
Cheers, Terry
Kay Kane
Jennifer Eiserman wrote in message <7d7cso$g...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
>I was so content when I didn't know that there was anything to know about
art.
>Now, after many years, many failed artworks, lots of education, more good
and
>bad works, and various experiences I have decided that it doesn't matter
one way
>or the other what "Art Is..." or what "Art Isn't...".
You are right; it doesn't matter as a collective whole, but it really SHOULD
matter to the individual artist. S/he should know the parameters which will
enable the person to MAKE what they have defined as art to themselves.
Anything you say CAN AND
>WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU anyway.
Huh?
> For example:
>Kay Kane wrote:
>> Spoken like countless others who are fixated on depicting reality and
don't
>> have much knowledge about (and therefore fear/dislike) all
>> non-representational art - usually they are referring to Jackson Pollock.
>Why is it wrong to fear/dislike certain art forms? I myself am terrified of
>performance
>art that uses sharp objects or greasy foodstuffs. Also...
I am afraid of that "Barney" character and of someone projectile vomiting in
my direction while I'm at a restaurant. So?
>> ...anyone can have passion for what
>> >they do: paint, write, dance, speak, sing, etc.. but an "artist" has a
>> >love for it, a need to get better and better or to branch out and
>> >explore their medium and subjects. They will hone their skills to
>> >create work that is acceptable to his or herself and *they* are usually
>> >the harshest judge of their "art." (Gloria Heim wrote)
>> This includes knowing what is going on in art and having an open mind; to
>> make a commitment as an artist to continually learn. (Kay Kane wrote)
>Why can't an artist be lazy as sin, hates what he or she does, and never
want to
>learn
>another thing?
If an artist is lazy, how can the art get made? Part of making art is
showing art which includes talking about the art you made. If you never
learn another thing, eventually you will be found out. In addition, I can't
even imagine never wanting to learn another thing. I don't even know how to
apply that last statement of yours...
And...
>> > I'm sorry, maybe it's just
>> >the "technical" part of me but that is just not art to me. Nor is a
>> >single red smear on a blue canvas. (Gloria Heim wrote)
>> Who is this non-artist you are criticizing? Rothko? Doesn't matter.
Learn
>> more about art that is not your in your regular "comfort zone", then,
>> perhaps, we can continue this discussion. (Kay Kane wrote)
>Maybe in 10 thousand years the art philosophers will finally agree on the
>properties
>that are necessary and sufficient to define an artwork, and then maybe
everyone
>will
>be shocked to learn that most of what we thought was art (i.e., a single
red
>smear
>on a blue canvas) really isn't, but was just "a pretty good guess". Until
then,
>its much
>safer to say that all the things we now refer to as "ART" might, or might
not
>be.
Not being able to time-travel myself, I'd prefer to judge art by whatever
means we have at our disposal from the past and the present. I'll take your
word for 10,000 years from now.
Finally...
Sounds obsessive/compulsive. Tell him to get a script for Prozac. That
statement doesn't correlate with being an artist at all.
Kay
Gus & Gloria
>
> Kay Kane wrote:
>
> > Spoken like countless others who are fixated on depicting reality and don't
> > have much knowledge about (and therefore fear/dislike) all
> > non-representational art - usually they are referring to Jackson Pollock.
>
> Why is it wrong to fear/dislike certain art forms? I myself am terrified of
> performance
> art that uses sharp objects or greasy foodstuffs. Also...
Who said anything about fearing anything? You have no idea what I've studied in the
past. You're judging me and stereotyping me. Not very open minded dearie.
>
> > This includes knowing what is going on in art and having an open mind; to
> > make a commitment as an artist to continually learn. (Kay Kane wrote)
Again, read my above comment.
>
>
> Why can't an artist be lazy as sin, hates what he or she does, and never want to
> learn
> another thing? And...
>
> > > I'm sorry, maybe it's just
> > >the "technical" part of me but that is just not art to me. Nor is a
> > >single red smear on a blue canvas. (Gloria Heim wrote)
Nobody, who said I was criticizing anyone.
>
> >
> > Who is this non-artist you are criticizing? Rothko? Doesn't matter. Learn
> > more about art that is not your in your regular "comfort zone", then,
I've done many, many, MANY abstracts in the past and I still do. DO NOT presume to
know anything about me.
>
> > perhaps, we can continue this discussion. (Kay Kane wrote)
Not until you open your mind a little.
>
>
> Maybe in 10 thousand years the art philosophers will finally agree on the
> properties
> that are necessary and sufficient to define an artwork, and then maybe everyone
> will
> be shocked to learn that most of what we thought was art (i.e., a single red
> smear
> on a blue canvas) really isn't, but was just "a pretty good guess". Until then,
> its much
> safer to say that all the things we now refer to as "ART" might, or might not
> be. Finally...
>
> > >I'm certain there are 100 opposing views in a group of 120 people on
> > >this subject but I'm a pretty harsh critic.(Gloria Heim wrote)
> >
> > Sounds like I like a lot more than you. I pity you - you've denied yourself
> > so much... (Honest criticism: I really can't think of any visual image less
> > stimulating than realistic wildlife art.) (Kay Kane wrote)
Tell me what I've denied myself again? I've been painting, all types of medias,
techniques and styles for over 25 years. Tell me again?
I think just because someone does not share your views that you should *not* flame
them like you've done to me. You don't know me, I don't know you and by attacking
me your are exposing your lack of art knowledge by your impetuous remarks and muddy
ideas. Either that or you're extremely jealous of the TALENT AND SKILL it takes to
actually paint a piece of wildlife art.
Anyone can put a bugger on some paper, sounds like that's what you do. Anyway,
that's what you've done here.
Jennifer Eiserman
view. I used to be very passionate about art, and I still am in many ways. When I had a
little education in my chosen field of study I became very obnoxious because I kept
preaching my "gospel" of art to everyone who would listen. I believed that artists were
like prophets who are charged with the sacred responsibility of elevating the "spiritual
atmosphere" of society. At that point I was half way through a graduate level research
paper on Wassily Kandinsky and the Blaue Reiter group. I still admire Kandinsky and what
he believed, but I'm no longer trying to convert the un-washed masses. I now prefer to
let others do what they do best (or what they do worst if they prefer). I think grad
school was good for me because none of my comrades (all of them brilliant in their own
ways) would stand for my soapbox ranting, regardless of how well-meaning I might have
been. They kicked the pretentiousness out of me.
Personally, I sympathize with Gloria. Unlike Kay, I don't think we all have to be lean,
mean, art making machines feverishly packing our brains to over-flowing with all manner
of art knowledge. Nor do I think that an artist has to know everything there is to know
about making art (there's just way too much to absorb). Nor do I think that the only way
to lead an aesthetically rich life is to become an artist. Kay seems to have "judged" my
poor friend (the guy who only likes green paintings) as an obsessive/compulsive in need
of Prosaic. Maybe he would benefit. Who knows? But, I wonder how Van Gogh's work might
have changed if he had embarked on a "mind normalizing" regime? (Personally: I wouldn't
change a single brush stroke!) Anyway...I don't begrudge Kay for her passion, but I
think she would do well to remember: An entire world full of Kays would be a boring
place to live!!
Cheers,
Terry Reynoldson
Studio120
I agree with most of what you said about graduate school. The waters there are
indeed fierce.
There was one very amusing typo (I assume) that I just had to thank you for!
>Kay seems to have "judged" my
>poor friend (the guy who only likes green paintings) as an
>obsessive/compulsive in need
>of Prosaic.
The Prozac/Prosaic relationship is one that I had never seen before! Damn, I
wish I had thought of it! Thanks for a good post and a good laugh!
Sincerely,
Kevin Conlon
Studio 120
2201 Bull Street, #309
Savannah, GA 31401
Jennifer Eiserman
I agree. Prozac would probably do nothing for my friend. Obsessive/compulsive
disorders are caused (or maybe intensified by) low seretonin levels. I've been
taking a seretonin re-re-uptake inhibitor called Luvox for about a year now and
I've noticed a definite decrease in my obsesssive/compulsive carryings on. Your
right about SRRI's not changing what a person feels or thinks, although for me
it makes "life in general" seem easier to deal with, and somehow less dark.
I'll suggest to my friend that he spend some time camping this summer and see
how that goes.
I also agree about the value of trying to shape ones life as though IT were an
artwork. I've been trying to do that for a number of years now. Having some
power over how things unfold is important, but for me, at least, too much
control is not a good thing. More important for me is an attentiveness to each
moment. It seems that when I manage to maintain that kind of awareness for
extended periods, I become much more receptive to alternatives and
possibilities. It takes practice though. I really think life could become an
amazing experience if a person was able to live like that always.
Cheers,
Terry