what's art?
dini gruyters
and what's the meaning of art in our lives.
I would like to do a paper about it for my study at
the Art school St.Joost in the Netherlands.
Perhaps you know a good site about this?
Thank you in advance Dirk Gruyters
bobig
making love...art is life.
BOBIG
"art is anything and it's better"
Etienne CHOUBARD 1984
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/
dini gruyters a écrit dans le message <73s6kv$kn7$1...@reader2.wxs.nl>...
lonely...@newwave.net
> dini gruyters a écrit dans le message <73s6kv$kn7$1...@reader2.wxs.nl>...
> >Hi, I would like to know why art is so popular,
> >and what's the meaning of art in our lives.
> >I would like to do a paper about it for my study at
> >the Art school St.Joost in the Netherlands.
> >Perhaps you know a good site about this?
> >Thank you in advance Dirk Gruyters
Study Scott McCloud, author of "Comics: the Invisible Art." A good resource
on the definition of art, en toto. Quote: "In my opinion, art is anything
that does not involve either survival, or reproduction." R.Hayes, Jr
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Alfred Glass
>> dini gruyters a écrit dans le message <73s6kv$kn7$1...@reader2.wxs.nl>...
>> >Hi, I would like to know why art is so popular,
>> >and what's the meaning of art in our lives.
>> >I would like to do a paper about it for my study at
>> >the Art school St.Joost in the Netherlands.
>> >Perhaps you know a good site about this?
>> >Thank you in advance Dirk Gruyters
To me my Art is my expression..
i lack the ability to say somethings with words, or gestures, but visual
imagery makes it so easy.. well not easy, but y'know what i mean..
Art is a way to communicate an idea, a cncept. no matter how simple, or
how complex..
Steve G
if your bored,
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~aglass/gallery.html
god...@my-dejanews.com
lonely...@newwave.net wrote:
> > dini gruyters a écrit dans le message <73s6kv$kn7$1...@reader2.wxs.nl>...
> > >I would like to do a paper about it for my study at
> > >the Art school St.Joost in the Netherlands.
> > >Perhaps you know a good site about this?
> > >Thank you in advance Dirk Gruyters
> Study Scott McCloud, author of "Comics: the Invisible Art." A good resource
> on the definition of art, en toto. Quote: "In my opinion, art is anything
> that does not involve either survival, or reproduction." R.Hayes, Jr
On the contrary art is mementic and is itself involved with reproduction
of itself. Also women are not put of by artist nor are men. This
definition clearly makes homosexuality and a vaccumm art and
definitely neither Picasso nor Vermeer!
One can try to define art, it is not so profound to make a mistake in
this area, nor in recognizing the difficulty that one encounters with
trying to define art.
For my own practical and selfish purposes I define art as primarily
huile painting, sculpture, drawing/printing, and anything that sells
for money in a self-prescribed art gallery or is put on display in
a Museum. Any other definition mires itself in profound and
ecstatic ambiguity.
dini gruyters
god...@my-dejanews.com heeft geschreven in bericht
<761keh$lp3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
You're talking of kitsch not art.
Art should change the ideas and/or perceptions of people,
not for receiving money.
Of course its nice if people like your work but you should
be happy about it, and not be satisfied too soon.
If you know what I mean
Dirk Gruyters.
http://www.wxs.nl/~gruyters
mdeli
wrote:
>> lonely...@newwave.net wrote:
>>For my own practical and selfish purposes I define art as primarily
>>huile painting, sculpture, drawing/printing, and anything that sells
>>for money in a self-prescribed art gallery or is put on display in
>>a Museum. Any other definition mires itself in profound and
>>ecstatic ambiguity.
>
>You're talking of kitsch not art.
This is art school mythology passed of to students in order to cope
with a future of failure. Usually if its something the art student
sees, which he know he hasn't the skill to emulate in any way then he
assures himself its just kitsch or commercial. He then looks at idiots
like Mondrian, Kline and Twombley etc. and thus avoids the challenge
of what he dismisses as Kitsch.
A great part of modern academic art is dedicated to telling the
student what to avoid looking at.
>Art should change the ideas and/or perceptions of people,
>not for receiving money.
>Of course its nice if people like your work but you should
>be happy about it, and not be satisfied too soon.
>If you know what I mean
And what do you mean?
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
god...@my-dejanews.com
> >huile painting, sculpture, drawing/printing, and anything that sells
> >for money in a self-prescribed art gallery or is put on display in
> >a Museum. Any other definition mires itself in profound and
> >ecstatic ambiguity.
>
> You're talking of kitsch not art.
Funny you should try using the word Kitsch as a pigeonhole. It is
precisely the Museums, and Galleries, and self-proclaimed critics
(not enthusiasts) I mention who utilize this terminology.
> Art should change the ideas and/or perceptions of people,
> not for receiving money.
Exactly! And do real definitions say what ought to be or what they
are... If you are going to write a paper on def of art, advocacy
is not a definition but a position.
The vast majority of art definitions are a position of advocacy, or
fall into profound and ecstatic ambiguity.
> Of course its nice if people like your work
> but you should
> be happy about it,
No no... not happy but ecstatic, gushing, alive, mystical, silent,
faithful, honest...
> and not be satisfied too soon.
In the bedroom as in life insensitivity can keep you hard!
Why is there such a deep feer of flacidness in our society?
> If you know what I mean
gabriel
making.
While a dog can certainly express himself, we would not generally think of a
dogs' actions as art.
It is the purposeful and thoughtful execution of an idea that is expressed
using "skill" and therefore effective, that makes an act "Art"
Skill is perfected through practice and thought. These things are necessary in
ART so that the act is not mearly an animalistic instinctual
expression. Put another way, Instinct +thought + practice=skill/art....or
something like that anyway.
G
lonely...@newwave.net wrote:
> > dini gruyters a écrit dans le message <73s6kv$kn7$1...@reader2.wxs.nl>...
> > >Hi, I would like to know why art is so popular,
> > >and what's the meaning of art in our lives.
> > >I would like to do a paper about it for my study at
> > >the Art school St.Joost in the Netherlands.
> > >Perhaps you know a good site about this?
> > >Thank you in advance Dirk Gruyters
>
> Study Scott McCloud, author of "Comics: the Invisible Art." A good resource
> on the definition of art, en toto. Quote: "In my opinion, art is anything
> that does not involve either survival, or reproduction." R.Hayes, Jr
>
> >
> >
>
Overlord
>
> The word "ART" implies that the maker uses some degree of "SKILL" in the
> making.
Zero is also some degree
> While a dog can certainly express himself, we would not generally think of a
> dogs' actions as art.
Another dog might.
> It is the purposeful and thoughtful execution of an idea that is expressed
> using "skill" and therefore effective, that makes an act "Art"
How much skill is required before art can be made?
> Skill is perfected through practice and thought. These things are necessary in
> ART so that the act is not mearly an animalistic instinctual
> expression.
> G
I believe that the creation of art is an animalistic and instinctive
act. Every human has the need and desire to communicate. Some choose to
do this nonverbally. A troubled teen may go out one night and smash car
windows with a baseball bat to vent his frustrations. Is it art? On the
most base of levels, yes. Is it 'good art'? No. Is it constructive? No.
Is it criminal? Yes. The more skill one has, the more effective the
communication will be. While skill is not a prerequisite for art to be
made, more is better.
**************************************************
Understanding Contemporary Art
RESOLUTION OF NEUROSIS
http://www.paintlair.com/ronmagazine
**************************************************
V
Overlord wrote in message <3698EE...@paintlair.com>...
>gabriel wrote:
There is no question "what is art",but there is one more
significant question: "what is human mind".
You can see the art thru politics,ideology,rationality,anger,
beauty,conflict,romance,attitude...
Someone may claim that theoretically or in any way,art can be explained by
answer,
but I tell you,my friend,that art can only be explained by art.
V
www.vicenzo.com
www.vicenzoarts.com
V
There is no question "what is art",but there is one more
significant question: "what is human mind".
You can see the art thru politics,ideology,rationality,anger,
beauty,conflict,romance,attitude...
Someone may claim that theoretically or in any way,art can be explained by
answer,
but I tell you that art can only be explained by art.
V
www.vicenzo.com
www.vicenzoarts.com
V
>gabriel wrote:
There is no question "what is art",but there is one more
significant question: "what is human mind".
You can see the art thru politics,ideology,rationality,anger,
beauty,conflict,romance,attitude...
Someone may claim that theoretically or in any way,art can be explained by
answer,
but I tell you,my friend,that art can only be explained by art.
V
www.vicenzo.com
www.vicenzoarts.com
br...@wralaw.com
Q: What is art? 3-Answeres.
1. an arbitrary symbol consisting of three characters, defined ad-hoc but
generally relevant to esthetic creations by humans.
2. Whatever ends up in a self-defined museum, gallery, or art-history
or art-crit book.
3. I am the artist whatever I say is art is art.
In article <3698EE...@paintlair.com>,
wel...@paintlair.com wrote:
> gabriel wrote:
> > The word "ART" implies that the maker uses some degree of "SKILL" in the
> > making.
This certainly would end up in synonyms. I think good skill as we would
define it by Fuzzy logic(or intuitively) is an ought not a definite.
I thought I cleared this up when I stated that ALL definitions of art
end up either being too limited, too complicated, or too assertive(mean-
ing that they contain a definition of what art ought to do- like
preserve creativity and compassion).
> Zero is also some degree
No. Logic revisited none is not some. To add to your confusion zero
is a degree of skill but not some but none.
> I believe that the creation of art is an animalistic and instinctive
> act. Every human has the need and desire to communicate. Some choose to
> do this nonverbally. A troubled teen may go out one night and smash car
> windows with a baseball bat to vent his frustrations.
Another might force garden gnomes into erotic poses!
Smash away kids!
>Is it art? On the
> most base of levels, yes. Is it 'good art'? No. Is it constructive? No.
> Is it criminal? Yes. The more skill one has, the more effective the
> communication will be.
Or the more complicated. In general, Individually each artist who is
more skillfull will either become great or horrible, rather than
mediocre.
> While skill is not a prerequisite for art to be
> made, more is better.
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
zi...@interport.net
I can tkae your responses as those of a contrarian, or, until I know
you better I will repond to them . I t is not clear what I wrote and
what he/she said in this version [every thing is blue. I am guessing.h
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 18:16:06 +0000, Overlord <wel...@paintlair.com>
wrote:
>gabriel wrote:
>>
>> The word "ART" implies that the maker uses some degree of "SKILL" in the
>> making. Only in a contrarian argument not in pracitce.
>
>Zero is also some degree
>
>> While a dog can certainly express himself, we would not generally think of a
>> dogs' actions as art. I was, of coursethinking of people and their reaction. This is similar to very old Idea which I like.
Heraclitus said: If Cows had a God, iut would be in the shape of a
cow."
>
>Another dog might.
>
>> It is the purposeful and thoughtful execution of an idea that is expressed
>> using "skill" and therefore effective, that makes an act "Art". The amount of skill is that
which is necessary to the character of the art which has been essayed.
>
>How much skill is required before art can be made?
>
>> Skill is perfected through practice and thought. These things are necessary in
>> ART so that the act is not mearly an animalistic instinctual
>> expression.
>> G
>
>I believe that the creation of art is an animalistic and instinctive
>act. Every human has the need and desire to communicate. Some choose to
>do this nonverbally. A troubled teen may go out one night and smash car
>windows with a baseball bat to vent his frustrations. Is it art? On the
>most base of levels, yes. Is it 'good art'? No. Is it constructive? No.
>Is it criminal? Yes. The more skill one has, the more effective the
>communication will be. While skill is not a prerequisite for art to be
>made, more is better.
More is not better if it is not necessary. I can give you examples of
quite a few artists whose earliestworks were their best. For whom more
skill was bad for the quality of their art.
1. Jacob Lawrence
2. Constable
3. Most critics believe that Juan Gris wasbetter as an analytic
cubist, than later on.
We are animals, we also contain minerals, water and fire. The four
humors are there, too, by one way of looking. By a Freudianway, you
are talking only about the Id which cannot produce anything without
the Ego's involvement.
By my understanding we build on our animal selves in relation to the
traditions we find and make for ourselves. We don't end with them.
If you truly believe in what you say, your work would be infinitely
more inchoate than Pollock's, wsho started with a figure or severla
when he began work. He began with forms, thought about movements he
got from Benton, Etc. He was not an animal. If you are your work
should be quite a mess. Or maybe you are just a onctrarian.
GL.
Jim Leonard
<Huge Snip>
> If you truly believe in what you say, your work would be infinitely
> more inchoate than Pollock's, wsho started with a figure or severla
> when he began work. He began with forms, thought about movements he
> got from Benton, Etc. He was not an animal. If you are your work
> should be quite a mess. Or maybe you are just a onctrarian.
> GL.
Hmm...if the dialogue is going to turn to notions of animalistic origins
of art, keep in mind that one of the favorite activities of young
chimpanzees (not wild, but raised--not trained mind you--in lifelong
language studies) is drawing. They draw about as much and actively as
human children. And, like human children, when undisturbed--neither
forced, nor rewarded for their actions--they tend to be more invested in
the activity and derive the most pleasure from these activities. Some
of these young chimps have actually grown into adults who draw
representationally.
Another chimp art gesture would be alpha displays. Sometimes charges
are best described as living "tasmanian devil tornados"--the alpha or a
contender will rip through anything in it's path, even swinging and
hurling young chimps about. But another manifestation of this display
includes loud rhythm sessions.
I have also heard of captive elephants who settle on painting as a
favorite activity. Their color sense is sometimes suprisingly
compatable with human audiences. In addition, house cats are known to
have mark making abilities and the yen to employ them.
This may sound like quackary to some, especially since Western
philosophy (which is so closely woven with Western art and culture) has
been built on well over two millenia of a perceived separation from the
rest of the animal kingdom. Ethologists from the last 30 years have
proved what so many other parts of the world knew all along--this simply
isn't true. Though it's hard to tell exactly where all this stuff comes
from--art, language, music--the seeds and many of the abilities
(perceptive and manipulative) are there in other animals. In looking
for them, we just might learn something about ourselves.
-jim.
Overlord
>
> Q: What is art? 3-Answeres.
>
> 1. an arbitrary symbol consisting of three characters, defined ad-hoc but
> generally relevant to esthetic creations by humans.
>
> 2. Whatever ends up in a self-defined museum, gallery, or art-history
> or art-crit book.
>
> 3. I am the artist whatever I say is art is art.
>
> In article <3698EE...@paintlair.com>,
> > gabriel wrote:
> > > The word "ART" implies that the maker uses some degree of "SKILL" in the
> > > making.
>
> define it by Fuzzy logic(or intuitively) is an ought not a definite.
>
> I thought I cleared this up when I stated that ALL definitions of art
> end up either being too limited, too complicated, or too assertive(mean-
> ing that they contain a definition of what art ought to do- like
> preserve creativity and compassion).
>
>
> is a degree of skill but not some but none.
>
> > act. Every human has the need and desire to communicate. Some choose to
> > do this nonverbally. A troubled teen may go out one night and smash car
> > windows with a baseball bat to vent his frustrations.
>
>
> Smash away kids!
>
> > most base of levels, yes. Is it 'good art'? No. Is it constructive? No.
> > Is it criminal? Yes. The more skill one has, the more effective the
> > communication will be.
>
> more skillfull will either become great or horrible, rather than
> mediocre.
>
> > made, more is better.
>
> "Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
> discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
> is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
So, I wasn't a math major...
Art (visual art) is a form of nonverbal communication. A statement, as
one of my professors put it, about what it means to be human. An artist
lacking in skill can still produce art, and an artist who acquires loads
of skill may end up producing nothing more than skillfully rendered
images.
I don't see how skill can be a requirement for art. It's a good thing to
try to develop, a worthy lifelong endeavor, but not a requirement.
Also, I now can't seem to get the image of garden gnomes out of my mind.
Just an animal, I guess.
-Weldon
br...@wralaw.com
wel...@paintlair.com wrote:
> Art (visual art) is a form of nonverbal communication. A statement, as
> one of my professors put it, about what it means to be human.
>An artist lacking in skill can still produce art,
This may be true but I would add that your statement is considerably
less harsh than what some people, especially non-artist critics, and
artists who are clearly lacking in visual intelligence, say - and that
is that if you have skill you can not be an artist.
My opinion is that if art lacks realism it needs something else to
justify it, and if it has realism it still needs something. But
my innate impulses tell me that if an artist draws worse than I
did at eleven and less interestingly than I did at five that this
probably isn't a life-time effort but a late career choice. It
is clear from the biographies of Motherwell that he did wan't to
be a surrealist, comming to attempt art after a college age, he
was only able to accomplish the sur but not the realism. He did,
as far as I can tell, introduce Abstract Expressionism(Sumi)
to the Modern Art world in NY. And of course Pollack was ultimately
given credit for Abstract Expressionism, since Motherwell could
write more eliquently and interestingly than Greenspan. Also
Motherwells assertions of Breunels Surrealist ideation of automatism
flies in the face of what is said of the composition aspects of
Abstract Expressionism, Abstract Expressionism is originally
automatism in the act of painting.
It is also my opinion that the writing ability of Dali, and
Flack are reasons why they are being divorced from the
movements they carried, since their opinions fly in the face
of what the modern critics say is Surrealism, or Photorealism
(in the case of Flack.) Especially the ambitious hopes of
Antiquation by critics.
> and an artist who acquires loads
> of skill may end up producing nothing more than skillfully rendered
> images.
Yes, and latecommers sometimes end up producing nothing more than
unskillfully rendered images.
> I don't see how skill can be a requirement for art. It's a good thing to
> try to develop, a worthy lifelong endeavor, but not a requirement.
Modern Art has made it such that the estabolishment artist does not
need to make any life-long endevors. Any more it is better to have
rich parents and connections, than skill, or creativity, or even
verbal theoretic ability. Although all of these things help.
A lot of what has been said in regards to anti-elitism in Modern Art
is now more false than it even was at the turn of the Century.
> Also, I now can't seem to get the image of garden gnomes out of my mind.
> Just an animal, I guess.
mdeli
> It is also my opinion that the writing ability of Dali, and
>Flack are reasons why they are being divorced from the
>movements they carried, since their opinions fly in the face
>of what the modern critics say is Surrealism, or Photorealism
>(in the case of Flack.) Especially the ambitious hopes of
>Antiquation by critics.
Its not what modern critics say is surrealism but what they say is
art. Dali didn't only laugh at official surrealism he was one of the
first critics of modernism and the avant garde. He defended Gaudi
against Corbosier, Academic painting against impressionism. He dared
to laugh at Picasso, Cezanne and Matisse, He drives the critics nuts.
Greenberg the Fuhrer of flatness devoted him one paragraph.
We heed his words because his work attracts the viewer. Where we see
it we can compare it to the work of others. The best the critics can
do to defend themselves is by trying to ignore him. My favorite
examples are books and articles on surrealism which don't mention
Dali.
There are many books on Dali. Poster stores have large prints of most
of Dali's most popular works. I have checked and he has more
reproductions that sell than any other artist. I think this says a lot
much more than oceans of Artspeak.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and read about a skeptical view of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Mr man
is?"
That is sort of like asking which way is north...It's north of here,
that's where north is.
When you no longer need someone to tell you what art is...chances are
you already know.
Chris Pelletier
ever heard. nice work......
emat...@tomatoweb.com
chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
> Mrman-thats as damn fine a response to the timeless question as i've
> ever heard. nice work......
>
Maybe so, but the original query from the Netherlands was "what is the
meaning of art?" It doesn't seem to me to be the same question as "what is
art?" Furthermore, I believe it would be helpful to address the original
question to gain insight into the question that immediately mutated in the
first response in this thread: "what is art?" (not an accidental question, I
think, since artists usually ponder it from time to time).
I believe this because one would have to go outside art in order to
understand its meaning, since the term 'meaning' implies the existence of a
second agent other that art -- namely an agent that creates 'meaning.'
Obviously this second agent is an individual, a society, a culture or a
civilization. Then the argument would rest in determining where 'meaning'
resides, in the work of art or in the human. Subsequently the debate would
need to address 'what is meaning?' and not 'what is art?'
The question 'what is art' is completely unmanageable without a second agent
-- there is no answer intrinsic to art itself. You plunge directly into the
conceptual trap described in the Asian parable of the Blind Monks and the
Elephant. A group of Blind Monks encounter an Elephant, and they want to
tell each other what it is. The Monk feeling the Elephant's leg says "An
Elephant is like a great tree." The Monk at the trunk says "An Elephant is
like a snake." The one at the tail says its like a rope, another at the belly
says its like a wall, and so on.
To define 'north' as 'north' is some sort of a representation of...of...of
what? What is pizza? Well, it's pizza. I could be wrong, but it seems to me
that asking a question is a request for some sort of content other than the
question itself. Isn't this how definitions work? I don't think there could
possibly be a more shallow response, by definition, to the question 'what is
art?' Am I wrong? I believe this is a meaningless answer, unless one
believes that there is no way of defining 'north' (which is pretty simple to
do, actually).
Well, I've read this entire thread with great interest, and the one thing I
can say is that no one has looked in the right place for the answer. This
gives the concept of 'art' a rather mystical nuance, which makes it appear
even more profound the more puzzling and cryptic it can appear. We need to
look for that second agent in order to form some sort of consensus on the
answer to a question which is actually quite simple.
Erik Mattila
dini gruyters
emat...@tomatoweb.com heeft geschreven in bericht
<781t5c$om6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <23060-36...@newsd-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
>> Mrman-thats as damn fine a response to the timeless question as i've
>> ever heard. nice work......
>>
>
>Maybe so, but the original query from the Netherlands was "what is the
>meaning of art?" It doesn't seem to me to be the same question as "what is
>art?" Furthermore, I believe it would be helpful to address the original
>question to gain insight into the question that immediately mutated in the
>first response in this thread: "what is art?" (not an accidental question,
I
>think, since artists usually ponder it from time to time).
>
I believe that's a different question than "what is the meaning of art?"
the answer to that for me is: to contemplate, to be enjoyed, etc.
What is art is a different answer: that can be: products that set people
in a different picture. that set people to think.. about their lives or the
meaning of live. So products that set people to think. To contemplate.
That surely isn't the only answer and neither the right one.
But that's as far as I'm concerned.
My feeling was when I asked the question, that everyone has a different
answer. And some people are very defensive in their opinion.
The word art unlocks a lot of emotions and believes.
But a good way to solve this puzzle "what is art" is to go back in history
and find the starting point of the word art.
When was it born, and in what context?
Dirk Gruyters. Netherlands
.
dini gruyters
emat...@tomatoweb.com heeft geschreven in bericht
<781t5c$om6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <23060-36...@newsd-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
>> Mrman-thats as damn fine a response to the timeless question as i've
>> ever heard. nice work......
>>
>
>Maybe so, but the original query from the Netherlands was "what is the
>meaning of art?" It doesn't seem to me to be the same question as "what is
>art?" Furthermore, I believe it would be helpful to address the original
>question to gain insight into the question that immediately mutated in the
>first response in this thread: "what is art?" (not an accidental question,
I
>think, since artists usually ponder it from time to time).
>
art.
When is it born and why?
So what was the original meaning of art.
I think it was a spin-off of the word "artes". From the greek and latin I
believe.
G*rd*n
| My opinion is first of all, we should find what is the history of the word
| art.
| When is it born and why?
| So what was the original meaning of art.
| I think it was a spin-off of the word "artes". From the greek and latin I
| believe.
Latin _ars_, _artis_, meaning primarily "a practiced skill",
from a root meaning "fit." We still refer to that meaning
when we use phrases like "state of the art" and "term of
art." In terms of the plastic arts, it's clear that
inspiration, imagination, and spiritual qualities in general
were not necessarily part of the deal (just as they are not
with contemporary commercial art), although they could be
rung in for the sake of religion or politics (e.g., the
Parthenon).
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
dini gruyters
G*rd*n heeft geschreven in bericht <78cprp$t3d$1...@panix7.panix.com>...
>"dini gruyters" <gruy...@wxs.nl>:
>| My opinion is first of all, we should find what is the history of the
word
>| art.
>| When is it born and why?
>| So what was the original meaning of art.
>| I think it was a spin-off of the word "artes". From the greek and latin I
>| believe.
>
>Latin _ars_, _artis_, meaning primarily "a practiced skill",
>from a root meaning "fit." We still refer to that meaning
>when we use phrases like "state of the art" and "term of
>art." In terms of the plastic arts, it's clear that
>inspiration, imagination, and spiritual qualities in general
>were not necessarily part of the deal (just as they are not
>with contemporary commercial art), although they could be
>rung in for the sake of religion or politics (e.g., the
>Parthenon).
>
anymore, shouldn't the word be changed?
My opinion is that would solve a lot of discussions.
I do know that isn't a practical solution but my opinion
is that's were the solution is!!
So, I refer to my artwork that I make as work that I make,
abd I try to avoid the word art. Because if I use it,
it gives my work a whole other meaning.
Thanks for your explanation for the latin ARTES.
DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING MORE ABOUT IT?
Dirk Gruyters
Brian Shapiro
themselves similar to poets, and that was really what art was about. On the
other hand, Modern artists think themselves to be gods.
dini gruyters <gruy...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:78caca$do8$1...@reader3.wxs.nl...
>
>emat...@tomatoweb.com heeft geschreven in bericht
><781t5c$om6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>In article <23060-36...@newsd-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
>> chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
>>> Mrman-thats as damn fine a response to the timeless question as i've
>>> ever heard. nice work......
>>>
>>
>>Maybe so, but the original query from the Netherlands was "what is the
>>meaning of art?" It doesn't seem to me to be the same question as "what
is
>>art?" Furthermore, I believe it would be helpful to address the original
>>question to gain insight into the question that immediately mutated in the
>>first response in this thread: "what is art?" (not an accidental question,
>I
>>think, since artists usually ponder it from time to time).
>>
Frederic Goudal
> Well, from the Rennaissance through the 19th century, artists thought
> themselves similar to poets, and that was really what art was about. On the
> other hand, Modern artists think themselves to be gods.
The truth is :
Brian Shapiro thinks that.....
Here again theese people speak for others without their autorisation...
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
Roger STEPHENS
dini gruyters a écrit:
> G*rd*n heeft geschreven in bericht <78cprp$t3d$1...@panix7.panix.com>...
> >"dini gruyters" <gruy...@wxs.nl>:
> >| My opinion is first of all, we should find what is the history of the
> word
> >| art.
> >| When is it born and why?
> >| So what was the original meaning of art.
> >| I think it was a spin-off of the word "artes". From the greek and latin I
> >| believe.
> >
> >Latin _ars_, _artis_, meaning primarily "a practiced skill",
> >from a root meaning "fit." We still refer to that meaning
> >when we use phrases like "state of the art" and "term of
> >art."
> >As the original meaning of the word art doesn't comply
> anymore, shouldn't the word be changed?
> Myat's were the solution is!!
> So, I refer to my artwork that I make as work that I make,
> abd I try to avoid the word art. Because if I use it,
> it gives my work a whole other meaning.
>
> Dirk Gruyters
Yes, it's important to know the origin of the word 'art', but what's more
important is to know what it's real meaning is today
Considering that it 's the people who use a word in their language who determine
it's meaning. Thus the meaning
of words evolve with the consciousness and culture of the people.
For a layman the definition is easy but for an artist who's searching to express
his genius 'art' becomes like one of those other mysterious three lettered
words, 'god , 'zen' ect.
This brings us to another important part, that which an artist plays in giving
an exhalted meaning to 'art' and the consequential effect it has on our culture.
Dott Schneider
Valery
answered. But after having done research for a term paper on this question
over three years ago i finaly found that the guidelines for what is
condsidered art is different within the context of its society. Only in
modern society is there a difference between an artist and a craftsman. and
so on.
valery
Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
Valery
Dott Schneider wrote in message <36B38109...@cis.csuohio.edu>...
What is not art?
Good question. I often wonder this myself. however i find it really
repugnat when i here peole say "slap the word ART on anything and you can
sell it" (not that i have seen anyone in here say this. i heard it this
week after some guy was looking at my car) ANYWAYS! I think it may be a
lot easier to figure out what is not art than what actually is sometimes.
And I think that figuring this out depends on who you are talking to, who
made it, why it was made, and so on. it all gets very blurry. basically i
think the critics are the only ones who really know.hahhahaha ok maybe not
valery
zi...@interport.net
Seriously. An art object must present a whole idea and not be made as
an unconscious partr of someoneelse's larger idea. So I could not call
the mass produced dishes I use art. They are inside a crafts tradition
which goes back to Neoplasticism, the Bauhaus and the Suprematists.
All of those artists produced art. But these unconscious continuers,
inside that "taste" are producing artifacts within a whole
ideatedworld which the designers are not aware of. Awareness is
necessary to make art.
So, art is something which someone has set out to make inside that
context. It doesn't get to be good art unless it fulfills the criteria
in my last post about criteria. I don;t think it is much of a problem
at all. The problem is rthat many, many phonies have been trying
desperately to muddy it all up because of their need for big careers
without intrinsic ideation or true undertsanding of anything but
careerism. One example of that is Gilbert and George. I can accept
that what they do is art. But it is all vey bad, including their
"conventional" paintings.
Gabriel
Kay Kane
oca...@hotmail.com wrote in message <79j8ln$7pk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Hi there,I'm new to this list but I couldn't help myself from
>responding/inputing to this thread, hope I'm not repeating something
someone
>has already said.What do you guys
and gals (sorry, some are sensitive to gender inclusive language)
think of these guidlines for determining
>what art is.1. Appropriate Durability - is it appropriate for its use
>(covers construction and materials used)
Gray area. DaVinci's "Last Supper" wasn't very durable and what's his name
(guy with the tiles?) painting? Fell off in museum? Anslem Keifer's straw
has to be re-glued all the time. Not a factor for me. Durability would be
nice, but not necessary because would invalidate all installation and
temporary site-specific works like the controversially volitile Smithson's
"Spiral Jetty" which no longer looks like it did.
2. Functionality (Aesthetics) -
>does it do what its suppose to do (Art - does it communicate something?)
Good! But to whom? Some people (not to mention names, but stay in this
n.g. and you'll find out) don't get any communication from a Rothko, but,
that is due to their shortcomings and not Rothko's.
>3. Appropriate Aesthetics (relates to functionality) - does it look like
>what its made for or what it is trying to communicate - does it visually
>tell you how to interact with it
I think that would depend on the viewer.
4. Need - is it needed (Art = cultural
>reflection, different viewpoint/opinions, social commentary)
Needed by whom, how many, how long?
5.
>Culture/Context - is it appropriate for the place and time (does it take
>into account where we are now, example...a tv in a place with no
electricity
>is useless, maybe makes a good table but its intended use has changed)
True, but we live in an industrialized age. We are creating life and
electricity (TV) is not a major accomplishment now, but, instead reflects
the importance to tv to our daily lives. Will it live in art history 200
years from now? Who knows. Is it valid now? Very much so.
Kay Kane
P.S. Seem like fundamental rules. Art is difficult to restrict like this,
but any new discussion is certainly welcome by most of us!
oca...@hotmail.com
responding/inputing to this thread, hope I'm not repeating something someone
what art is. 1. Appropriate Durability - is it appropriate for its use
(covers construction and materials used) 2. Functionality (Aesthetics) -
does it do what its suppose to do (Art - does it communicate something?)
what its made for or what it is trying to communicate - does it visually
reflection, different viewpoint/opinions, social commentary) 5.
Culture/Context - is it appropriate for the place and time (does it take
into account where we are now, example...a tv in a place with no electricity
is useless, maybe makes a good table but its intended use has changed)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Marilyn
> >responding/inputing to this thread, hope I'm not repeating something
> someone
>
> and gals (sorry, some are sensitive to gender inclusive language)
>
> >(covers construction and materials used)
>
> (guy with the tiles?) painting? Fell off in museum? Anslem Keifer's straw
> has to be re-glued all the time. Not a factor for me. Durability would be
> nice, but not necessary because would invalidate all installation and
> temporary site-specific works like the controversially volitile Smithson's
> "Spiral Jetty" which no longer looks like it did.
>
> >does it do what its suppose to do (Art - does it communicate something?)
>
> n.g. and you'll find out) don't get any communication from a Rothko, but,
> that is due to their shortcomings and not Rothko's.
>
> >what its made for or what it is trying to communicate - does it visually
> >tell you how to interact with it
>
>
> >reflection, different viewpoint/opinions, social commentary)
>
>
> >Culture/Context - is it appropriate for the place and time (does it take
> >into account where we are now, example...a tv in a place with no
> electricity
> >is useless, maybe makes a good table but its intended use has changed)
>
> electricity (TV) is not a major accomplishment now, but, instead reflects
> the importance to tv to our daily lives. Will it live in art history 200
> years from now? Who knows. Is it valid now? Very much so.
>
> Kay Kane
>
Hi Kay,
Do you know the history of "Spiral Jetty?" We would be very
interested to know if it is extant, what condition etc.
Also, may I recommend:
"Originals American Women Artists" Eleanor Munro
if you haven't
already seen it.
Marilyn
Kay Kane
Marilyn wrote in message <36BE13...@britishcolumbia.ca>...
In the early 90s it was still in Utah and didn't even resemble a spiral or
anything because of erosion, etc. Water covered most of it. Not much there
left to see. Don't think it had public access. Very telling about the
vulnerability of art.
>
>Also, may I recommend:
>
>"Originals American Women Artists" Eleanor Munro
>if you haven't
>already seen it.
>
>Marilyn
No, I haven't. What is it? A movie? Painting? Book?
Signed,
Sometimes ignorant but always searching for answers,
Kay Kane
Frederic Goudal
> Hi there,I'm new to this list but I couldn't help myself from
> responding/inputing to this thread, hope I'm not repeating something someone
> has already said.What do you guys think of these guidlines for determining
> what art is.
Art is a wet soap, when you think you hold it in your hand, is already in the other
corner of the room
Marilyn
> >Also, may I recommend:
> >
> >"Originals American Women Artists" Eleanor Munro
> >if you haven't
> >already seen it.
> >
> >Marilyn
>
> No, I haven't. What is it? A movie? Painting? Book?
Sorry for being unclear.
It is a book, entitled: Originals: AMERICAN WOMEN ARTISTS
"enlightening about how art is made.
What states of mind are necessary to make it,
and how it feels to be doing it...
it is passion that makes this book shine.
The New York Times Book Review
by Eleanor Munro
Simon & Shuster
1979 (it's quite old, eh?)
Marilyn
zi...@interport.net
talk to each other about artists no one else has heard of. The Pomos
talk to each other about artists no one else has values for and the
figurative artists of one ilk talk only to one another.
There is no way of having an intelligent response to work which is
truly unknown except to a small coterie in Canada.
As far as what is below. It is well meaning and in no way hurtful. But
while it might be able to be used by someone to differentiate what is
art of certain varieties from all the other stuff, there is no way of
using it to differentiate between what you like and don't, oir what
you would say is good or not, except personal and irrational opinion.
I am glad to see an honest and non-polemical approach which assumes
the good will of the reader. But the other stuff does bother me some.
The reponse to the well meaning effort is polemical and a little bit
big sisterish, but it isn't mean either.
On the other hand if the only way Pomo can talk to none is for each
side to call the other names and also stupid, bigoted and provincial,
where is there any use in it? Does it help to relieve frustrations
with the daily round or grind? If you are artists you have that
already. If not, it would be better spent in the gymn keeping trim and
fit.
Gabriel
On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 14:27:53 -0800, Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca>
wrote:
>Kay Kane wrote:
>>
>> oca...@hotmail.com wrote in message <79j8ln$7pk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >Hi there,I'm new to this list but I couldn't help myself from
>> >responding/inputing to this thread, hope I'm not repeating something
>> someone
>> >has already said.What do you guys
>>
>> and gals (sorry, some are sensitive to gender inclusive language)
>>
>> think of these guidlines for determining
-N.
put my money on a nominal definition.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
-N.
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> >Hi Kay,
> >
> >Do you know the history of "Spiral Jetty?" We would be very
> >interested to know if it is extant, what condition etc.
>
> In the early 90s it was still in Utah and didn't even resemble a spiral or
> anything because of erosion, etc. Water covered most of it. Not much there
> left to see. Don't think it had public access. Very telling about the
> vulnerability of art.
I have seen images of it where salt deposits have transformed it in an
interesting white crystal manner. Other images where, if memory serves, it
was red (from micro-organism or algae growth). It has become a part of the
landscape.
Robert
at least as far as the lay person is concerned. For what its worth:
"Art is a human-created image which evokes emotion in the viewer."
So each person will have their own tastes and ideas as to what "good" art is,
since the emotional response to an artwork will vary (sometimes widely, to
the point where if a work does not evoke any emotion whatsoever in a
particular viewer, then to him it isn't art. A lot of modern art suffers this
fate for the average person). There are probably a lot of other factors, such
as originality, etc., but I think that emotional response is the core of the
issue. Perhaps the reason nobody has mentioned this is that its so obvious?
If thats the case please forgive me!
Comments? Flames? :)
Robert