just what do we consider as ART ?
Donald Rice
Much of what we consider to be art is the result of craft. That is to say, the
creators of medieval music and art were fulfilling their responsibilities as
craftsmen. They didn't consider what they were doing as "ART". They were
painting or sculpting decorations for a church. They were making the
accompanying music for a religious service.
The notion of craft as an essential part of art is expressed repeatedly by
Stravinsky and Hindemith in their writings. My own feeling about this is that
when something that is called art doesn't exhibit evidence of mastery of the
technical skills involved in creating it, I am suspicious that the creation
isn't art. What skill, or mastery of medium, was necessary to produce that
crucifix in urine you mention below? The creator had an unusual idea but that
alone isn't art. The famous painting "white on white" is an interesting idea but
didn't require great mastery of painting and hence is suspect to me. I
hesitantly include Cages silent piano piece sometimes known as 4'33" (or 4'32",
I forget.) because of the intensity of discussion it usually provokes. If you
were to look back through DejaNews about this creation, many people have debated
with considerable passion the various qualities of this conceptual piece. Most
of the debate revolves around the _idea_ of the work, and obviously, not the
mastery of musical composition required to create it. I think the debate rages
around my point about craftsmanship being absent from this work. Those who scoff
at it are scoffing at the lack of craft, not the concept which is intriguing and
the product of a thoughtful and very imaginative person.
The converse isn't necessarily true. Great mastery of the craft doesn't
guarantee ART either. At least we feel the creator has expended some effort to
produce his work.
I'm starting to get over my head as I am not a skilled esthetician. The idea of
craft in art as one of the criteria for assessment helps me a bit in deciding
what art is and how good it is. That is obviously a personal judgment.
Don
> Amanda Koh wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
>
> Amanda Koh
>
> What if you're in hell, and you're mad at someone, where do you tell them to
> go?
BHeneg8560
<a...@pacific.net.sg> writes:
>What if you're in hell, and you're mad at someone, where do you tell them to
>go?
>
A Viotti concert?
Ben Heneghan
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
Zeitbauer
>From: "Amanda Koh" <a...@pacific.net.sg>
>Date: 3/7/99 7:00 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <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 ?
>
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>
>What if you're in hell, and you're mad at someone, where do you tell them to
>go?
>
place to start. the "object" of the art is a reflexion of the artist. the
quality of the art lays with the talent of the artist and the needs of his
audience. so far, we can be talking about a basket.
one needs an idea of consciousness here. when does the artist go against the
aesthetic of the group? when does the group come to accept innovation? this is
historical.
being with an art object is a dialog with the artist. you yourself help invent
the art.
IanWLawson
writes:
>
>
>Much of what we consider to be art is the result of craft. That is to say,
>the
>creators of medieval music and art were fulfilling their responsibilities as
>craftsmen. They didn't consider what they were doing as "ART". They were
>painting or sculpting decorations for a church. They were making the
>accompanying music for a religious service.
>The notion of craft as an essential part of art is expressed repeatedly by
>Stravinsky and Hindemith in their writings. My own feeling about this is that
>when something that is called art doesn't exhibit evidence of mastery of the
>technical skills involved in creating it, I am suspicious that the creation
>isn't art.
A piece of music is almost by definition a piece of art. This is because its
almost exclusive function is to be valued. In that sense the composer can be
sure that he is working on a work of art. However, the actual composing of
music is a craft and often a great deal of skill has to go into a piece before
anyone will think it has much artistic value or, put another way, will like it
much. Looking for evidence of skill need not be part of this valuation process,
but if the listener wishes to find 'value' in the mastery of technical skills,
then so be it.
This might explain why music which wears its technical mastery on its sleeve,
is often credited as being 'greater' than music which seems to have no
technique at all - a good tune might be in this category. The former also has
the advantage that it is relatively easy to write about - but can any one put
into words why a 'good' tune is a good tune.
>What skill, or mastery of medium, was necessary to produce that
>crucifix in urine you mention below?
None, this does not preclude it from having artist value, but someone would
have to like it first.
> The idea
>of
>craft in art as one of the criteria for assessment helps me a bit in deciding
>what art is and how good it is. That is obviously a personal judgment.
It's also a personal judgement to use that criteria.
regards, Ian lawson
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.
Donald Rice
IanWLawson wrote:
If you are referring to a classical music composer writing a piece of music today,
I agree almost by definition it has to be intended to be art because of lack of
utilitarian purpose. Pop music is different - dance music, music played as
background sound, relaxation music, original music for broadcast commercials - all
have utilitarian purpose but (unlikely) may also be regarded as art if, as you say,
it is valued enough. It is imaginable that music we today consider to be art may be
trash 300 years from now and Frank Sinatra or The Beatles may be considered art. My
feeling about these is based on craftsmanship. The greater the skill involved in
producing the music, the more willing I am to consider it art, but I also have to
value it.
The "good tune" is not often a matter of craftsmanship - but an average tune can be
made art by the skill employed in composing around it. Handel's Hallelujah chorus
is stirring and a great tune but I'm sure it loses some of its greatness if it were
played as a flute solo. Beethoven's four note motto in the 5th symphony is not much
by itself. His skillful craftsmanship makes it into something else. Now I have to
admit that other professional composers applying their skills to this theme
probably would not have produced art. There's definitely more than just
craftsmanship to art.
Most certainly it is my personal choice to use craftsmanship as one of the measures
in assessing whether something is art. I think Stravinsky and Hindemith did also -
on a much higher plane than my poor amateur musical knowledge allows. It is not an
absolute criterion - there are none, but it can be used.
Don
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
Zeitbauer
>From: Marilyn <m...@bc.ca>
>Date: 3/7/99 11:19 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <36E396...@bc.ca>
fact that we ourselves have a hierarchy of likes hints that there is a general
hierarchy. what if i simply can't hear chord structures as well as you? what
would my opinion of debussy be worth to you, if you were debussy? to hold an
absolute relativist's (mouurraaahahaa!!!) position, i'd have to say debussy was
faking.
mikko
BHeneg8560
writes:
>If you are referring to a classical music composer writing a piece of music
>today,
>I agree almost by definition it has to be intended to be art because of lack
>of
>utilitarian purpose. Pop music is different - dance music, music played as
>background sound, relaxation music, original music for broadcast commercials
>- all
>have utilitarian purpose but (unlikely) may also be regarded as art if, as
>you say,
>it is valued enough.
The actual accomplishing of the "utilitarian" purposes of the non-classical
musics you mention depends on the consumer's subjective reaction to the music
itself.
For example, if s/he doesn't actually want to dance to the music, or finds it
obtrusive when it should merely be completing the psychological make-up of a
film-scene, or can't relax to it, or finds it irrelevant or distracting when
used in an advert, then the music in question, for that listener, has *no*
utilitarian purpose.
S/he may still, nevertheless, value it highly simply as a piece of music
(=art), no matter what the style is. And this would be equally subjective a
reaction too. The so-called utilitarian music would end up having no other
function than to be valued, which is one of the hallmarks of the art component
of any artefact, including all types of music.
The common element in all this is the listener's subjective reaction. I admit
that this innocent reaction is often also influenced by suggestion or
peer-group pressure. ("Mahler IS a great composer, no argument"..."C'mon -
we're all going to dance to this one..." etc.)
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
IanWLawson
>f you are referring to a classical music composer writing a piece of music
>today,
>I agree almost by definition it has to be intended to be art because of lack
>of
>utilitarian purpose. Pop music is different - dance music, music played as
>background sound, relaxation music, original music for broadcast commercials
>- all
>have utilitarian purpose but (unlikely) may also be regarded as art if, as
>you say,
>it is valued enough.
To describe the function of dance music simply as music to dance to is like
saying the purpose of concert music is to sit down to. Both statements are
true. But both kind of musics have to succeed so far beyond this, most basic of
levels, that these utilitarian functions become irrelevant.
Film music is a component part of film, the purpose of which is to be valued.
> It is imaginable that music we today consider to be art
>may be
>trash 300 years from now and Frank Sinatra or The Beatles may be considered
>art.
I don't think it's useful to use 'we' to imply everyone. There are only
individuals, and individuals find artistic value in different things including
The Beatles and Sinatra. I would be interested to know what the 'art' music you
have in mind might be.
My
>feeling about these is based on craftsmanship. The greater the skill involved
>in
>producing the music, the more willing I am to consider it art, but I also
>have to
>value it.
>
>The "good tune" is not often a matter of craftsmanship - but an average tune
>can be
>made art by the skill employed in composing around it. Handel's Hallelujah
>chorus
>is stirring and a great tune but I'm sure it loses some of its greatness if
>it were
>played as a flute solo. Beethoven's four note motto in the 5th symphony is
>not much
>by itself.
I keep on reading this, but actually I think it's a cracking idea. I wish I had
thought of it.
His skillful craftsmanship makes it into something else. Now I
>have to
>admit that other professional composers applying their skills to this theme
>probably would not have produced art.
What would they have produced then? Would they be trying to do something other
than producing a work to be valued?
There's definitely more than just
>craftsmanship to art.
>Most certainly it is my personal choice to use craftsmanship as one of the
>measures
>in assessing whether something is art. I think Stravinsky and Hindemith did
>also -
>on a much higher plane than my poor amateur musical knowledge allows. It is
>not an
>absolute criterion - there are none, but it can be used.
I suppose I tend to use the term 'art' functionally, without implying any
value, rather than applying it to specific examples that conform to a given
standard, or, for me, have the highest value.
A piece of art is an artefact, the main purpose of which, is to be valued - to
have artistic value if you like. But the measure of this value will be
different for every person - which is why it is futile to try and pin it down
anywhere in particular.
Regards, Ian
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... :-)
Donald Rice
all subjective." I believe those people interested in classical music would
generally agree that Beethoven's 5th symphony was a work of art. There are those
who think it's a noisy piece of trash and millions who don't know it or care to
know it. To those who read this newsgroup, a select group admittedly, most would
agree that Beethovens 5th symphony is a work of art. If you don't concede that then
the discussion is at and end and I've enjoyed your comments.
If you concede the point above, then I'm suggesting that Beethovens extraordinary
skills as a musical craftsman contributed importantly to the perception that this
work is more than notes strung together and that it is valued as a work of art.
That's all I'm saying.
I don't know if Beethoven set out to create a work of art or to satisfy some inner
compulsion to elaborate that 4 note motive he identified. He certainly applied his
craftsmanlike musical skills to the task. I believe his skills combined with his
imaginative creativity combined to produce a work of art. I believe that another
composer would likely not have produced art from this 4 note motive. My implication
is that Beethoven was a genius creatively and hence capable of conceptualizing the
work at a level that many (not everybody) would value it as a work of art and that
this effort was very substantially achieved as a consequence of his craftsmanlike
skills in understanding sonata form, musical instruments, tempos etc. etc. that
went into his effort. My only point is that the craft aspect was very important.
His special instincts that we call "creativity" lift the craft to the level of art.
There is another question with which I've struggled and that is when, if ever does
Beethoven's 5th stop being Beethoven's 5th. Is it still Beethovens 5th if it is
played by a solo flute or by a mandolin band or a rock band with melody and bass
guitars, drum set and electronic keyboard? If these instrumental groups didn't play
all the notes and edited the musical score to fit their personal desires, is it
still Beethovens 5th?
I think I'll know it when I hear it but I can't write a definition for someone else
to decide. Sort of like the definition of pornography.
Don
Donald Rice
convinced to by the product in music for a commercial is a measure of the music's
success in fulfilling its stated purpose. That doesn't change the composers
intention to write dance music, relaxation music, or commercial background music.
The music created with a purpose in mind may incidentally be considered to be art
but such a perception would be incidental to the creation of the music and depends
on the subjective "liking" of the music. The craftsmanlike skill to write music to
serve as a background for a commercial for athletic shoes is entirely beyond me -
I don't write music, I'm not knowledgeable about marketing athletic shoes, I have
no idea what genre of music would appeal to a particular audience etc. etc. A
person who has that knowledge and can synthesize it has skills. If in applying
those skills to produce music for a commercial, the music becomes valued as art,
the esthetic worth is incidental to the application of the composers skills and
knowledge.
Now this is all very hypothetical but all I was suggesting is that the
craftsmanlike skills required to create music which is considered to be art, are a
necessary part of that creation. Some composers felt that what they were doing
was applying their craftsmanlike skills to writing music and that art was
incidental to their efforts.
Don
BHeneg8560 wrote:
> In article <36E31ACF...@yahoo.com>, Donald Rice <don...@yahoo.com>
> writes:
>
> >If you are referring to a classical music composer writing a piece of music
> >today,
> >I agree almost by definition it has to be intended to be art because of lack
> >of
> >utilitarian purpose. Pop music is different - dance music, music played as
> >background sound, relaxation music, original music for broadcast commercials
> >- all
> >have utilitarian purpose but (unlikely) may also be regarded as art if, as
> >you say,
> >it is valued enough.
>
BHeneg8560
writes:
>Discussing "art" and "esthetics" is pointless if the discussion is reduced to
>"it's
>all subjective."
Unfortunately, that's no reason not to admit that "it's all subjective", if it
*is* actually all subjective. Perhaps discussing art and aesthetics is indeed
pointless. I don't think one should pretend to believe a lie (if that's what
it is) just to confer point on an otherwise pointless activity.
>I believe those people interested in classical music would
>generally agree that Beethoven's 5th symphony was a work of art. There are
>those
>who think it's a noisy piece of trash and millions who don't know it or care
>to
>know it. To those who read this newsgroup, a select group admittedly, most
>would
>agree that Beethovens 5th symphony is a work of art.
You could go further and say that even those who don't like it themselves still
concede that it's art, even though it's not art that *they* like.
>If you concede the point above, then I'm suggesting that Beethovens
>extraordinary
>skills as a musical craftsman contributed importantly to the perception that
>this
>work is more than notes strung together and that it is valued as a work of
>art.
>That's all I'm saying.
Are you implying that unless a composer's as skilled as Beethoven, then his
output isn't art, it's just notes strung together? When you talk of Beethoven's
extraordinary skills, does that mean that another composer's *ordinary* skills
just aren't good enough?
>I don't know if Beethoven set out to create a work of art or to satisfy some
>inner
>compulsion to elaborate that 4 note motive he identified.
Whichever intention he had (assuming it wasn't some blend of both) is not
relevant, at least, not for everyone. There's you, and there's the music, and
in addition there's as many other considerations as you yourself feel like
noticing.
>He certainly
>applied his
>craftsmanlike musical skills to the task. I believe his skills combined with
>his
>imaginative creativity combined to produce a work of art. I believe that
>another
>composer would likely not have produced art from this 4 note motive.
I can't see this at all. Much as I love Beethoven's music, it's easy to imagine
that other fine pieces could be written using this motif. What if a piece by
Haydn, authenticated as predating the 5th and using this motif, were
discovered? Would it automatically *not* be art? Or would Beethoven's 5th
suddenly *stop* being art?
>My
>implication
>is that Beethoven was a genius creatively
I like his music too. What do you actually mean, though?
>and hence capable of
>conceptualizing the
>work at a level that many (not everybody) would value it as a work of art
What do you mean by "conceptualizing"? I'm not trying to give you a hard time,
I'm just not clear what idea you've got in mind when you use such a word. Do
you mean, for example, that Beethoven *could* have composed a different sort of
piece using this motif, one that might appeal to a different audience?
>and
>that
>this effort was very substantially achieved as a consequence of his
>craftsmanlike
>skills in understanding sonata form, musical instruments, tempos etc. etc.
>that
>went into his effort. My only point is that the craft aspect was very
>important.
Have I got this right - are you saying that unless Beethoven had been able to
draw on these skills, a very different work might have resulted - perhaps a
bagatelle, or a small-scale song, for example? Well, no doubt. But I still
don't see why the result wouldn't be art.
>His special instincts that we call "creativity" lift the craft to the level
>of art.
And are these "special instincts" different from the "craftsmanlike skills" you
mentioned two paragraphs back?
>There is another question with which I've struggled and that is when, if ever
>does
>Beethoven's 5th stop being Beethoven's 5th. Is it still Beethovens 5th if it
>is
>played by a solo flute or by a mandolin band or a rock band with melody and
>bass
>guitars, drum set and electronic keyboard? If these instrumental groups
>didn't play
>all the notes and edited the musical score to fit their personal desires, is
>it
>still Beethovens 5th?
>I think I'll know it when I hear it but I can't write a definition for
>someone else
>to decide.
Well, my advice is: don't bother thinking about how many elements can be
changed before an entity "officially" becomes another entity. But it's worth
noticing the implications of your question, which are
a) that nothing is simply one thing, it's always made up of smaller-scale
things.
b) deciding which of those smaller-scale things are most important in
identifying the larger-scale thing is also a subjective decision. In the case
of Beethoven's 5th, I'd say it's the four-note motif, which survives any amount
of change of medium, into a disco-track ("A fifth of Beethoven") or into a joke
(Mrs Beethoven:"I'm leaving you, Ludwig, all you ever do is compose."
Beethoven:"Don't leave me, dear, I need you, you're my inspiration." Mrs.
Beethoven:"Oh, ha-ha-ha-HA!").
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
BHeneg8560
>Whether a listener dances to dance music, relaxes to rlaxation music, or is
>convinced to buy the product in music for a commercial is a measure of the
>music's
>success in fulfilling its stated purpose. That doesn't change the composers
>intention to write dance music, relaxation music, or commercial background
>music.
Not sure what you mean here. You seem to be saying that if a piece of music
successfully accomplishes the composer's intention, that has no effect on his
intention. Well, of course it has no effect. How on earth *could* it? The
composer's intention comes first - then he writes the piece - then perhaps
months later it gets played in the appropriate context. Only then can its
success, in relation to the composer's intention, be gauged. How can this
success possibly go back in time and affect the composer's original intention?
>The music created with a purpose in mind may incidentally be considered to be
>art
>but such a perception would be incidental to the creation of the music and
>depends
>on the subjective "liking" of the music.
True.
>The craftsmanlike skill to write
>music to
>serve as a background for a commercial for athletic shoes is entirely beyond
>me -
[snip]
>If in
>applying
>those skills to produce music for a commercial, the music becomes valued as
>art,
>the esthetic worth is incidental to the application of the composers skills
>and
>knowledge.
True, as above.
>Now this is all very hypothetical but all I was suggesting is that the
>craftsmanlike skills required to create music which is considered to be art,
>are a
>necessary part of that creation.
"Which is considered to be art"...by who? The same people who consider the
advert music to be art? Or different people? This is relevant, if you're going
to start believing that some piece of music is or isn't art according to
somebody *else's* claims.
As far as I can see, the only difference between an advert-jingle that no-one
likes as art, and a piece of *art* that no-one likes as art is that the latter
is completely useless, but the former at least sells shoes (assuming it does
actually trigger off that subjective reaction among prospective shoe-buyers.)
Perhaps this whole thread is more highly-charged for those who feel that it's
intrinsically better that something be considered as ART than not to be so
considered. I don't feel that. There are plenty of artefacts that we variously
value (from anaesthetics to zircon-encrusted tweezers) but which don't, as far
as I can see, contain ART, or at least art that the artefact MUST HAVE in order
to fulfil its function.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
David
wrote:
> Discussing "art" and "esthetics" is pointless if the discussion is
> reduced to "it's all subjective."
I disagree: it's at that point that the discussion becomes interesting.
> I believe those people interested in classical music would
> generally agree that Beethoven's 5th symphony was a work of art.
Yes, but that's their subjective opinion. You may wish to say that
Beethoven's 5th is objectively a work of art, but since perception is
subjective, objectivity can never be experienced.
> There are those
> who think it's a noisy piece of trash and millions who don't know it or
> care to
> know it. To those who read this newsgroup, a select group admittedly,
> most would
> agree that Beethovens 5th symphony is a work of art. If you don't
> concede that then the discussion is at and end and I've enjoyed your
> comments.
Since I define "art" as "anything that is considered to be art", then I
concede that Beethoven's 5th symphony is a work of art, because you think
it is.
> If you concede the point above, then I'm suggesting that Beethovens
> extraordinary
> skills as a musical craftsman contributed importantly to the perception
> that this
> work is more than notes strung together and that it is valued as a work
> of art.
> That's all I'm saying.
Yes, but since it's only valued as a work of art by those who value it as
a work of art, the valuation is entirely biased.
David
Donald Rice
BHeneg8560 wrote:
> In article <36E6081...@yahoo.com>, Donald Rice <don...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >Whether a listener dances to dance music, relaxes to rlaxation music, or is
> >convinced to buy the product in music for a commercial is a measure of the
> >music's
> >success in fulfilling its stated purpose. That doesn't change the composers
> >intention to write dance music, relaxation music, or commercial background
> >music.
>
> Not sure what you mean here. You seem to be saying that if a piece of music
> successfully accomplishes the composer's intention, that has no effect on his
> intention. Well, of course it has no effect. How on earth *could* it? The
> composer's intention comes first - then he writes the piece - then perhaps
> months later it gets played in the appropriate context. Only then can its
> success, in relation to the composer's intention, be gauged. How can this
> success possibly go back in time and affect the composer's original intention?
Sorry my linguistic efforts were so obscure. I meant quite the opposite. Whether
the music is successful or not doesn't alter the composers purpose.
I was trying to say, a composer who sets out to write dance music is fulfilling a
utilitarian purpose. Whether people dance to it is a measure of the success of the
composer in achieving his utilitarian purpose of writing dance music. Whether
people dance to it or not doesn't change the composers intent to write dance
music, only how successful he was in fulfilling his objective.
If his dance music becomes "valued" it may also be art.
I agree with the above paragraph which states my original proposition in a
different, even simpler way. Craftsmanship can be assessed with some objective
qualities better than artistic qualities, and well crafted music may be enjoyed
even if it is not "ART".
Don
>
>
> best wishes
> Ben Heneghan
>
>
Donald Rice
succeed in making a work that was generally considered art using similar materials,
but I think it's unlikely. You think it is likely. I think Beethovens technical
skills as a musician (skills which other musicians may have had in equal measure)
facilitated his creation of art. You think that other composers could have done the
same, but I think it's unlikely. Creative abilities without craftsmanlike musical
skills don't result in art, nor does technical skill without creative ability.
You imply that anyone who has the technical skills of Beethoven could produce works
of artistic value. I don't. Why don't you acknowledge that musical craftsmanship
is critically important to creating a work of art? Do you think it's unnecessary? I
think it's necessary. I suggest that the production of a work of art involves
imaginative creative ability combined with craftlike skills. Either applied
separately won't likely produce art. Is it possible? It's possible that a monkey
sitting at a computer keyboard could produce Hamlet. Not likely.
Don
BHeneg8560 wrote:
> Are you implying that unless a composer's as skilled as Beethoven, then his
> output isn't art, it's just notes strung together? When you talk of Beethoven's
> extraordinary skills, does that mean that another composer's *ordinary* skills
> just aren't good enough?
>
> >I don't know if Beethoven set out to create a work of art or to satisfy some
> >inner
> >compulsion to elaborate that 4 note motive he identified.
>
Donald Rice
David wrote:
> In article <36E60420...@yahoo.com>, don...@yahoo.com (Donald Rice)
> wrote:
>
> > Discussing "art" and "esthetics" is pointless if the discussion is
> > reduced to "it's all subjective."
>
> I disagree: it's at that point that the discussion becomes interesting.
The discussion becomes a list of likes and dislikes which doesn't interest me
at all. My interest is stimulated by debating why someone likes something.
Don
BHeneg8560
writes:
>Having seen Beethoven use his 4 notes and create art, another composer might
>succeed in making a work that was generally considered art using similar
>materials,
>but I think it's unlikely. You think it is likely.
But why do you think it's unlikely? I'd really like to know.
[snip]
>I suggest that the production of a work of art involves
>imaginative creative ability combined with craftlike skills. Either applied
>separately won't likely produce art.
Now we're getting somewhere. Assuming we both agreed that a particular work is
indeed "art", and that we both agree on what we mean by "imaginative creative
ability" and "craftlike skills", then here's what I think:
a) I'm not really bothered whether or not the creation of a work of art
involves "imaginative creative ability combined with craftlike skills". All I
care about is the quality, as I perceive it, of the particular artefact I'm
considering at any given moment, whoever created it, me or someone else. What's
more, I'm not all that interested in debating whether or not it's art. It's not
an important question for me.
b) I still don't understand why you reckon that *only* Beethoven, and no other
composer with both imaginative creative ability and craftlike skills, could
create art out of the 5th symphony motif. It's not that intractable an idea.
I'm *not* suggesting that you or I might prefer the result to what Beethoven
did with it, but nevertheless, our reaction to it can never be innocent of the
experience of having already heard the 5th.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
Donald Rice
BHeneg8560 wrote:
I agree that having heard Beethoven's effort, it would be difficult to judge a work
using that same 4 note motif. Nevertheless, if such a work were produced my guess
is that it would not measure up. You're using your personal likes to define those
works you consider to be art. I specifically chose LvB's 5th sym. becuase many
people consider it to be art and I'm interested in what induces many people to make
that judgement and not an individuals likes or personal definitions of art ( though
obviously the personal and the more general may share definitions.)
Perhaps it's my ignorance of composing technique that makes me think that a brief
simple and uncomplicated 4 notes could easily be transformed into something many
people would consider art. You do. I think that 4 note motto is by itself -
unadorned by our non-musical associations with it impressed subliminally in our
memories - a pretty unpromising and dull musical theme. Without using Beethoven's
blueprint for elaboration of that theme, I think it goes nowhere. If you compose
and can see how to make that 4 notes into something artful that others besides you
would consider art, I'm listening.
By your criteria if you think it's art - it is. Can't argue with that but there's
not much more discussion possible if I disagree.
Don
Roland van Gaalen - Amsterdam - NL
: [...]
: The notion of craft as an essential part of art is expressed repeatedly by
: Stravinsky and Hindemith in their writings. My own feeling about this is
: that when something that is called art doesn't exhibit evidence of mastery
: of the technical skills involved in creating it, I am suspicious that
: the creation isn't art.
I am inclined to agree. Does anyone know of any examples of more or less
generally recognized (or classic) works of art that appear to violate the
requirement of craftsmanship?
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
L'Crowe
Roland van Gaalen - Amsterdam - NL wrote:
> I am inclined to agree. Does anyone know of any examples of more or less
> generally recognized (or classic) works of art that appear to violate the
> requirement of craftsmanship?
--
`> a crowe by any other color is still a crowe `>
L'Crowe
that critics and audiences have been nonplussed. Try as they might to have come
to some satisfactory definition for 'art', none could be found. Perhaps it is
analogous to religion. I believe in something, but I deny anyone to write down
in a book a conception of God that will mean all things to all people. 'God'
and 'art' are subjective. You might as well try to define what 'is' is.
Merriam Webster....ART
1: skill aquired by experience, study or observation. 2: a branch of learning
..... 3. an occupation requiring knowledge or skill. 4. the conscious use of
skill or creative imagination. 5. a skillful plan. 6. decorative or
illustrative elements in a printed manner.
Jim Curtis, wherefore ART thou:
> I know something about art...it suffers greatly with attempts to define it.--
BHeneg8560
writes:
>BHeneg8560 wrote:
>> b) I still don't understand why you reckon that *only* Beethoven, and no
>other
>> composer with both imaginative creative ability and craftlike skills, could
>> create art out of the 5th symphony motif. It's not that intractable an
>idea.
>> I'm *not* suggesting that you or I might prefer the result to what
>Beethoven
>> did with it, but nevertheless, our reaction to it can never be innocent of
>the
>> experience of having already heard the 5th.
>I agree that having heard Beethoven's effort, it would be difficult to judge
>a work
>using that same 4 note motif. Nevertheless, if such a work were produced my
>guess
>is that it would not measure up.
That's not the point. You claimed it wouldn't even be art. Can't you see that
it could still be art, even though it didn't "measure up" to what Beethoven
did? It sounds like you're refusing to allow anything to be art unless it's as
"good as" (i.e., you like it as much as) Beethoven. That's what you've been
saying, and it's nonsense.
>You're using your personal likes to define
>those
>works you consider to be art.
And what's wrong with that? What do you use? A set of criteria that you believe
in? Well, how's "believing in" criteria different from liking them?
>I specifically chose LvB's 5th sym. becuase
>many
>people consider it to be art and I'm interested in what induces many people
>to make
>that judgement and not an individuals likes or personal definitions of art (
>though
>obviously the personal and the more general may share definitions.)
Can't you guess why many people consider it to be art? Perhaps it's because
many people (individually) like it. In addition, many people whom many *other*
people regard as authorities in such matters have said that Beethoven's 5th is
great, and that's good enough for the many *other* people, so long as they
themselves don't have to listen to it. Why do the many *other* people accept
those authorities as authorities? Because yet other authorities have told them
to, or simply because they want to.
>Perhaps it's my ignorance of composing technique that makes me think that a
>brief
>simple and uncomplicated 4 notes could easily be transformed into something
>many
>people would consider art. You do.
You're putting words into my mouth. I never said it would be easy, I said that
you don't have to be Beethoven to make a work of art out of those four notes.
>I think that 4 note motto is by itself -
>unadorned by our non-musical associations with it impressed subliminally in
>our
>memories - a pretty unpromising and dull musical theme. Without using
>Beethoven's
>blueprint for elaboration of that theme, I think it goes nowhere. If you
>compose
>and can see how to make that 4 notes into something artful that others
>besides you
>would consider art, I'm listening.
Of course those 4 notes could be made into another piece of music. And many
people (perhaps not you) would consider the result art. What I don't understand
is on what grounds you would decide, in advance, that the result is *not* art.
>By your criteria if you think it's art - it is. Can't argue with that but
>there's
>not much more discussion possible if I disagree.
I haven't heard from you anything concrete and unambiguous about why you
consider one piece of music (and not another) to be art. I've heard a lot of
vague remarks about craftsmanship without any indication of what you actually,
specifically consider to *be* craftsmanship in music, what musical procedures
or combinations of small- and/or large-scale structures. I don't need to
produce anything similar because all I claim is that if you like an artefact
and it provides something beyond its prosaic, defined function that other
similar artefacts don't provide, something which you value and which has to be
experienced at first hand to be appreciated, then what you're liking is ART.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
Jim Curtis
news:19990311200607...@ngol03.aol.com...
Donald Rice
you say I put words in your mouth.
Best Wishes,
Don
David
Off...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Curtis) wrote:
> I know something about art...it suffers greatly with attempts to define
> it.
You suggest that the thing you know about art is that it's hard to define.
Is that your definition?
If you can't define art, how can you know that "it" suffers greatly with
attempts to define it? Since you don't know what the "it" is, how can you
say whether it suffers or not?
David
> BHeneg8560 <bhene...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990311200607...@ngol03.aol.com...
David
(L'Crowe) wrote:
> The 19th and 20th centuries have witnessed so many changes in style and
> intent,
> that critics and audiences have been nonplussed. Try as they might to
> have come
> to some satisfactory definition for 'art', none could be found.
How about, "Art is anything that is considered to be art"?
David
> Perhaps it is
> analogous to religion. I believe in something, but I deny anyone to
> write down
> in a book a conception of God that will mean all things to all people.
> 'God'
> and 'art' are subjective. You might as well try to define what 'is' is.
>
> Merriam Webster....ART
> 1: skill aquired by experience, study or observation. 2: a branch of
> learning
> ..... 3. an occupation requiring knowledge or skill. 4. the conscious
> use of
> skill or creative imagination. 5. a skillful plan. 6. decorative or
> illustrative elements in a printed manner.
>
> Jim Curtis, wherefore ART thou:
>
> > I know something about art...it suffers greatly with attempts to
L'Crowe
course, which has certainly resonated with a core listening audience, and yet
which takes no particular music skill in order to accomplish.
L'Crowe wrote:
> Does anyone know of any examples of more or less
> > generally recognized (or classic) works of art that appear to violate the
> > requirement of craftsmanship?
>
> --
Samuel Vriezen
>How about, "Art is anything that is considered to be art"?
I prefer, "Art is what I consider to be Art"
Perhaps: "Art is what I need to be art for the purpose of the
discussion I'm engaged in at that moment"
Have you noticed how easy it is to trick people into pontificating at
length about style and technique and content and greatness? So
sophomoric! I wonder if they can even write a limerick...
Well, even I had my years of pontificating... (have)
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
>> Does anyone know of any examples of more or less
>> generally recognized (or classic) works of art that appear to violate the
>> requirement of craftsmanship?
> I might add that there is a lot of incidental music out there, avant garde of
> course, which has certainly resonated with a core listening audience, and yet
> which takes no particular music skill in order to accomplish.
In a way, I might agree. What I enjoy about Cage is that
aesthetically, his best pieces work, and that he arrived at them in
the most (almost insultingly) simple ways possible. Now why did we
have to wait for 2000 years for somebody to approach things his way!
Everyone can think up the 'Number Pieces'
Actually, I think Cage was able to do anything he wanted to
accomplish, he always knew how to proceed, he was amazingly
productive, managed to solve every practical problem he came across,
and I think that's by definition brilliant technique. So it only
_appeared_ to violate the requirement of craftsmanship.
Samuel
David
Vriezen) wrote:
> sapp...@cix.co.uk (David):
>
> >How about, "Art is anything that is considered to be art"?
>
> I prefer, "Art is what I consider to be Art"
That's fine, except that you might not want anyone else to adopt your
definition, as it leads to a contradiction.
If someone adopts your definition and considers a certain item to be art,
they will be right by definition: so if you disagree, you will be wrong.
But you would also be right to say that this item isn't art, since art is
what you consider to be art, by definition.
So your definition leads you to be both right and wrong about the same
thing. To be honest, I quite admire this :)
However, you can get round the problem by rewording your definition as
"Art is what Samuel Vriezen considers to be Art", if you wish :)
> Perhaps: "Art is what I need to be art for the purpose of the
> discussion I'm engaged in at that moment"
If "the purpose of the discussion" is to define art, then there's a
paradox. Your definition of art will then be what you need to be art in
order to define art; but you don't need to define art, because you've
already defined it.
> Have you noticed how easy it is to trick people into pontificating at
> length about style and technique and content and greatness?
No - I didn't think any tricks were necessary.
> So sophomoric! I wonder if they can even write a limerick...
>
> Well, even I had my years of pontificating... (have)
I used to be an intellectual. Now I'm trying to think.
David
>
> Samuel
>
D.G. Porter
I'd like to add that it takes a friendly performer to make these pieces
work. Maybe Cage would not have approved of this, but a performer
should take pains to make sure that the results being played are
"musical." When I realized a piece of his written on graph paper for
magnetic tape, I did some picking and choosing in the way each piece was
made, when in the music it started and stopped, etc., and the results
are still "Cagean" yet not purely random. Looking at some of the
instrumental parts in some of the pieces, I'd say that each performe
should want to express the written materials in a "musical" manner and
not in a hostile way, as you can hear some players doing on the 1958
Avakian recording.
Samuel Vriezen
>> Perhaps: "Art is what I need to be art for the purpose of the
>> discussion I'm engaged in at that moment"
>
>If "the purpose of the discussion" is to define art, then there's a
>paradox. Your definition of art will then be what you need to be art in
>order to define art; but you don't need to define art, because you've
>already defined it.
Now I'm a trained paradox-spotter, but this was a good eyeopener for
me. It sums up the whole pointlessness of the present discussion very
well.
BTW, Art is what is Made to Move People Profoundly and Made Well such
that it can be seen by Virtue of Good Craftsmanship as Exemplified by
Great Masters and by Virtue of It Moving People Profoundly in the Way
Desired by the Creative Individual or the Creative Observer or in any
unexpected Profound Way which then may be attributed to the Creative
Character's 'Intuition' and so that the Movement caused in the
Beholder of the Art will teach this Subject something about Himself or
about the Timeless and General Thing Tying him to the Creative
Individual and Creative (in this Context) means that
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
>> In a way, I might agree. What I enjoy about Cage is that
>> aesthetically, his best pieces work, and that he arrived at them in
>> the most (almost insultingly) simple ways possible. Now why did we
>> have to wait for 2000 years for somebody to approach things his way!
>> Everyone can think up the 'Number Pieces'
>>
>> Actually, I think Cage was able to do anything he wanted to
>> accomplish, he always knew how to proceed, he was amazingly
>> productive, managed to solve every practical problem he came across,
>> and I think that's by definition brilliant technique. So it only
>> _appeared_ to violate the requirement of craftsmanship.
>
>I'd like to add that it takes a friendly performer to make these pieces
>work. Maybe Cage would not have approved of this, but a performer
>should take pains to make sure that the results being played are
>"musical." When I realized a piece of his written on graph paper for
>magnetic tape, I did some picking and choosing in the way each piece was
>made, when in the music it started and stopped, etc., and the results
>are still "Cagean" yet not purely random. Looking at some of the
>instrumental parts in some of the pieces, I'd say that each performe
>should want to express the written materials in a "musical" manner and
>not in a hostile way, as you can hear some players doing on the 1958
>Avakian recording.
It stands to reason! Cage did not (I believe) enjoy bad performances
of his work. In fact, there was this notion of 'discipline' which was
important for him: through discipline, you can make the mind more open
to musical perceptions.
Samuel
David
sapp...@cix.co.uk (David) wrote:
> In article <36e911bf...@news.xs4all.nl>, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel
> Vriezen) wrote:
>
> > sapp...@cix.co.uk (David):
> >
> > >How about, "Art is anything that is considered to be art"?
Addendum:
Art is the thought of art.
David
> > I prefer, "Art is what I consider to be Art"
>
> That's fine, except that you might not want anyone else to adopt your
> definition, as it leads to a contradiction.
>
> If someone adopts your definition and considers a certain item to be
> art,
> they will be right by definition: so if you disagree, you will be wrong.
> But you would also be right to say that this item isn't art, since art
> is
> what you consider to be art, by definition.
>
> So your definition leads you to be both right and wrong about the same
> thing. To be honest, I quite admire this :)
>
> However, you can get round the problem by rewording your definition as
> "Art is what Samuel Vriezen considers to be Art", if you wish :)
>
> > Perhaps: "Art is what I need to be art for the purpose of the
> > discussion I'm engaged in at that moment"
>
> If "the purpose of the discussion" is to define art, then there's a
> paradox. Your definition of art will then be what you need to be art in
> order to define art; but you don't need to define art, because you've
> already defined it.
>
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
Samuel Vriezen
alain
> How about, "Art is anything that is considered to be art"?
Won't do. Most people don't consider, say, Marcel Duchamp's urinal to be art.
Art is whatever the artist says it is. The difficult question isn't what is
art, but what is good art. But I guess maybe that is the question you were
trying to answer all along.
Alain
David
Samuel Vriezen
>David wrote:
>
>> How about, "Art is anything that is considered to be art"?
>
>Won't do. Most people don't consider, say, Marcel Duchamp's urinal to be art.
>Art is whatever the artist says it is. The difficult question isn't what is
>art, but what is good art.
No, the difficult question is not 'what is good art?' but 'what do I
need art to be?'
Samuel
David
sapp...@cix.co.uk (David) wrote:
Correctio:
There is no reason to suppose that art has the attribute of being itself,
so therefore:
Art is.
And as there is no reason to suppose that art exists in any definable
manner, my last word on the subject is:
Art.
David
PS Thus the answer to the question "What is art?" is "No, it isn't".
Samuel Vriezen
>Correctio:
>There is no reason to suppose that art has the attribute of being itself,
>so therefore:
>
>Art is.
>
>And as there is no reason to suppose that art exists in any definable
>manner, my last word on the subject is:
>
>Art.
May I venture,
Is
or, put more succinctly,
=
Samuel
AJ Wilkes
: Art is whatever the artist says it is. The difficult question isn't what
: is art, but what is good art.
Frank Zappa (n'est ce pas, Monsieur Porter?) once talked about the most
important part of art being the frame - you can do whatever the hell you
want, but if you put a frame around it it's art because you said it is.
Without a frame, it's just spilling out into the world like an open bag of
garbage.
BUT - if I pile up some bricks in my garden to build a wall, and someone
comes along and says "My God! That's fantastic! That is ART!" and I said,
well no it's not, it's a pile of bricks, and he said "No, it's art and I
think it's great."... who is right? And who is the artist?
The key point about art is intention - if you can justify tying a pregnant
woman to a tree with bungee cord and slapping her across the belly with a
wet fish, then it's art. If you were just doing it for the hell of it, it's
merely entertainment.
-jk-
David
Vriezen) wrote:
> alain <al...@bic.mni.mcgill.ca>:
>
> >David wrote:
> >
> >> How about, "Art is anything that is considered to be art"?
> >
> >Won't do.
I agree. I've ditched this definition, but not because of your point.
> Most people don't consider, say, Marcel Duchamp's urinal to be art.
The definition isn't concerned with how many people do the considering, or
what's considered. If there's only one person on the planet who considers
a certain thing to be art, then it's art as far as he or she is concerned.
> >Art is whatever the artist says it is.
So if the artist says Art is socks, then it is.
> The difficult question isn't what is art, but what is good art.
What anyone thinks is good art is good art; so the question is easy.
> No, the difficult question is not 'what is good art?' but 'what do I
> need art to be?'
Only you can answer that one.
David
David
David
Wilkes) wrote:
> alain just transcondrified:
>
> : Art is whatever the artist says it is. The difficult question isn't
> what
> : is art, but what is good art.
>
> Frank Zappa (n'est ce pas, Monsieur Porter?) once talked about the most
> important part of art being the frame - you can do whatever the hell you
> want, but if you put a frame around it it's art because you said it is.
> Without a frame, it's just spilling out into the world like an open bag
> of
> garbage.
>
> BUT - if I pile up some bricks in my garden to build a wall, and someone
> comes along and says "My God! That's fantastic! That is ART!" and I
> said,
> well no it's not, it's a pile of bricks, and he said "No, it's art and I
> think it's great."... who is right? And who is the artist?
>
> The key point about art is intention -
Is it? What's your definition of art?
> if you can justify tying a pregnant
> woman to a tree with bungee cord and slapping her across the belly with
> a wet fish, then it's art.
> If you were just doing it for the hell of it,
> it's merely entertainment.
So it's art if you can justify tying a pregnant woman to a tree, etc.
Presumably you'll be trying to justify the act as being art - but if you
can't define art you won't be able to justify what you are doing.
David
David
Wilkes) wrote:
>
>
>
>
That sums it up :)
AJ Wilkes
: > The key point about art is intention -
: Is it? What's your definition of art?
No idea. My art (if you can call it that) is whatever I feel like doing at
the time and/or whatever results from sitting down and making a conscious
effort to do something - music more than visual art - and this has little
intention or motivation other than "Let's see what I can write tonight."
But many people's art is driven by a need to express something that's inside
them - make a statement, prove a point. In this case, the intent is more
important than whatever it manifests itself in. Look at the list below:
From David Cope's 'New Music Composition', chapter named Antimusic:
'Example 283 is of a self-destructing work which its composer completes with
full knowledge of its impending end. In fact, as the page shows, the
composer must work with incredible speed to beat the consequences of the
completely disappearing ink.'
'Assignment 2: Construct an instrument which in some way plays itself (by
wind, fire, rain etc). Place the instrument in the most remote area
accessible to you and never return to its location.'
'Assignment 5: In a verbal score of quite extended length (to be read to an
audience), suggest potential actions in a believable way so that no member
of the audience is capable of staying in the hall. Boredom should not be an
available factor (the work should not last over twelve minutes).'
Works for analysis:
'Acconci, Vito Hannibal: 'Works' (much of the work of this
poet-artist-composer deals with self-destruction of not only the work but of
audience and/or performers, though to date no one work has actually been so
consumated)'
'Ashley, Robert: 'Wolfman' (a work which - when on record - gives program
notes to turn on as loud as possible; since the original performance was
equally loud, damage to ears can be potentially quite extensive)'
'Higgins, Dick: 'One Antipersonnel Type CBU Bomb Will Be Thrown Into The
Audience' (needs little discussion as to its antimusic concept)'
'Paik, Nam June: 'Danger Music for Dick Higgins' (a work which in short
verbal language suggests a performance the completion of which would surely
destroy the performer)'
With art such as this, it seems the idea and intent behind it is more
important than actually realising the composition. Once the discussion
starts on whether it is valid or not, the product itself is almost
incidental.
: So it's art if you can justify tying a pregnant woman to a tree, etc.
: Presumably you'll be trying to justify the act as being art - but if you
: can't define art you won't be able to justify what you are doing.
If I put a hypothetical frame around it all by saying 'I am about to create
art, slap-slap-slap, I am creating art, slap-slap-slap, end of slapping. I
have just created art.' then it's art.
Arbritrary fish-slapping attacks, however, are a crime.
Unless the person is a performance-criminal-artist.
Perhaps everyone has their own view of art which combine with the views of
others to form the one TRUE art.
Did I mention I have a dog???
-jk-
'Is this post art? Indeed 'tis, for I decree it.'
-
David
Wilkes) wrote:
> David just transcondrified:
>
> : > The key point about art is intention -
>
> : Is it? What's your definition of art?
>
>
> No idea.
If you don't have a definition of art, you can't determine what its
attributes are. So you are expressing a personal opinion, and that's fine
by me.
I think all views on art are equally valid, because equally unprovable. So
the key point of art can be anything one wishes. Or art might not have a
key point at all.
.....
> If I put a hypothetical frame around it all by saying 'I am about to
> create
> art, slap-slap-slap, I am creating art, slap-slap-slap, end of
> slapping. I have just created art.' then it's art.
I agree with you: if someone calls something art then it's art, as far as
that person is concerned.
......
> Perhaps everyone has their own view of art which combine with the views
> of others to form the one TRUE art.
What about all the people who've ever lived who had an opinion about art?
Is it fair to leave them out? And what about all the elephants who paint
these days? I'm sure they have an opinion too.
> Did I mention I have a dog???
You just did. Can it paint?
David
AJ Wilkes
: So you are expressing a personal opinion, and that's fine by me.
Similar kind of situation - everyone has personal opinions about
reality/what's true, and these are all different aspects of the REAL truth
that is so big no single person can comprehend it at one time.
: What about all the people who've ever lived who had an opinion about art?
: Is it fair to leave them out?
Their opinions are either built upon by the current populace, increasing the
wealth of knowledge over time; or their opinions die with them, and art is
in fact a continuously morphing nano-entity created by the beings that
involved themselves with it.
Without people, there would be no art.
Elephants excepted, obviously.
-jk-
Dr.Matt
David <sapp...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36f0091...@news.xs4all.nl>, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel
>Vriezen) wrote:
>
>> sapp...@cix.co.uk (David):
>>
>> >Erratum:
>> >Art is Art.
>>
>> That's right. Generally.
>
>Specifically :)
He's thinking of Arthur The Friendly Gnome.
--
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
David
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
> In article <memo.19990318...@sapphire.compulink.co.uk>,
> David <sapp...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <36f0091...@news.xs4all.nl>, s...@xs4all.nl (Samuel
> >Vriezen) wrote:
> >
> >> sapp...@cix.co.uk (David):
> >>
> >> >Erratum:
> >> >Art is Art.
> >>
> >> That's right. Generally.
> >
> >Specifically :)
>
> He's thinking of Arthur The Friendly Gnome.
I don't have any gnomes to think of.
David
Wilkes) wrote:
> David just transcondrified:
>
> : So you are expressing a personal opinion, and that's fine by me.
>
> Similar kind of situation - everyone has personal opinions about
> reality/what's true, and these are all different aspects of the REAL
> truth that is so big no single person can comprehend it at one time.
I'm impressed that you have been able to come to the conclusion that no
single person is able to comprehend the real truth at one time. Do I take
it you're not single?
> : What about all the people who've ever lived who had an opinion about
> art?
> : Is it fair to leave them out?
>
> Their opinions are either built upon by the current populace,
> increasing the
> wealth of knowledge over time; or their opinions die with them, and art
> is
> in fact a continuously morphing nano-entity created by the beings that
> involved themselves with it.
I'm happy with the view that art is a continuously morphing nano-entity.
And I'm also happy with the view that art is intention; or boiled fish; or
the Queen Mother; or "I'm afraid we're fresh out of Red Leicester, sir";
or annexing the Sudetenland. If art is indefinable, one can attribute to
art anything one likes.
> Without people, there would be no art.
It all depends what your definition of art is; and as you've said you have
no idea, I don't see how you can say what art needs. It's just as likely
that Without prejudice, there would be no art; or, Without the city wall,
there would be no art.
David
Samuel Vriezen
>Without people, there would be no art.
>
>
>Elephants excepted, obviously.
"Which is more avant-garde - a giraffe or an elephant?"
"A giraffe is more avant-garde, but an elephant in more surreal."
-Kenneth Koch
Samuel Vriezen
>I think all views on art are equally valid, because equally unprovable.
Only if you take validity to be a merely logical value, of course.
Myself, I prefer stimulating views and am perfectly happy considering
all boring views less valid: even if the boring views are generally
just as unprovable as the stimulating ones.
No wait, the boring views often are proved all too easily that's what
makes them boring.
Incidentally, the really stimulating views mostly take the form of art
works, profound criticism or good theories of aesthetics rather than
long Usenet threads mostly. Sometimes they take the form of a snappy
maxim... please, everybody, throw us a few...
Samuel
JHenry1975
>attributes are.
Socrates, Plato, and Wittgenstein would disagree with you on that. You know
art when you see it. Just ask yourself: what attributes do these things
called "art" have in common? That will go at least partly towards being able
to define "art."
Of course, you still end up with the problem of a plucked chicken qualifying
for manhood.
Joseph Henry
alain
> In article <7crbnr$lo3$1...@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk>, u6...@keele.ac.uk (AJ
> Wilkes) wrote:
>
> If you don't have a definition of art, you can't determine what its
> attributes are.
If a 12-year old can't give a definition of "heat", does that mean he/she
can't feel hot or cold?
alain
David
Vriezen) wrote:
> sapp...@cix.co.uk (David):
>
> >> Perhaps: "Art is what I need to be art for the purpose of the
> >> discussion I'm engaged in at that moment"
> >
> >If "the purpose of the discussion" is to define art, then there's a
> >paradox. Your definition of art will then be what you need to be art in
> >order to define art; but you don't need to define art, because you've
> >already defined it.
>
> Now I'm a trained paradox-spotter, but this was a good eyeopener for
> me. It sums up the whole pointlessness of the present discussion very
> well.
The present discussion hasn't been pointless for me: it's made me think
hard to try and clarify my thoughts on the subject.
Maybe another discussion will be pointful for you...
> BTW, Art is what is Made to Move People Profoundly and Made Well such
> that it can be seen by Virtue of Good Craftsmanship as Exemplified by
> Great Masters and by Virtue of It Moving People Profoundly in the Way
> Desired by the Creative Individual or the Creative Observer or in any
> unexpected Profound Way which then may be attributed to the Creative
> Character's 'Intuition' and so that the Movement caused in the
> Beholder of the Art will teach this Subject something about Himself or
> about the Timeless and General Thing Tying him to the Creative
> Individual and Creative (in this Context) means that
Bravo!
David
>
> Samuel
>
Samuel Vriezen
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.
>
Carl Tait
>a certain thing to be art, then it's art as far as he or she is concerned.
Right -- and similarly, if there's only one person who thinks it *isn't*
art, then it's not art for that person regardless of what anyone else
might say (the alleged artist included).
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
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$s...@catapult.gatech.edu..
> >there.
> >
> >Alex
> >
> >--
> >"Nous voulons, tant ce feu nous brule le cerveau,
> > Plonger au fond du gouffre, Enfer ou Ciel, qu'importe?
> > Au fond de l'Inconnu pour trouver du NOUVEAU!"
> > --Charles Baudelaire "Les fleurs du Mal"
This tired simplistic question keeps rearing its ugly head.
It is a simplistic question dealing with a complex subject.
To make the interpretation whether something is ART in
Western culture, here & now, one needs an art background
consisting in knowledge of art history up to this point.
One also needs some concept of art theory. This background
is not difficult to achieve, you just go to your local
library. The librarian will help you. Then you start looking
at art, preferably not on the net alone. Go to galleries
and museums, ask questions. Go to contemporary galleries
where you can meet artists, ask them about their work and
what they want to achieve. Most are only too glad to talk.
Would you ask "what is brain surgery" and expect a casual answer?
Marilyn
Kay Kane
Marilyn wrote in message <36F308...@bc.ca>...
Hi Marilyn,
Clearly & intelligently put. Have you read "Spending" by Mary Gordon?
(Light fiction but fun). She uses a brain surgery analogy re: artists being
asked to do art for free so much. I believe that if one follows the sound
advice you posted, then they can BEGIN to search for this answer, which
should continue throughout their lives.
Kay
David
(alain) wrote:
> David wrote:
>
> > In article <7crbnr$lo3$1...@cfs2.kis.keele.ac.uk>, u6...@keele.ac.uk (AJ
> > Wilkes) wrote:
> >
> > If you don't have a definition of art, you can't determine what its
> > attributes are.
>
> If a 12-year old can't give a definition of "heat", does that mean
> he/she can't feel hot or cold?
>
> alain
No. If a 12-year old can't give a definition of "heat", it means that a
12-year old can't determine what the attributes of "heat" are.
David
David
jhenr...@aol.com (JHenry1975) wrote:
> >If you don't have a definition of art, you can't determine what its
> >attributes are.
>
> Socrates, Plato, and Wittgenstein would disagree with you on that.
Those gentlemen are not participating in this discussion; and I worry
about you speaking on their behalf.
> You know art when you see it.
Yes, it's a personal opinion.
> Just ask yourself: what attributes do these things
> called "art" have in common?
They are all called "art".
> That will go at least partly towards being able to define "art."
How will knowing that all things called "art" have the common attribute of
being called "art" help us define "art"?
> Of course, you still end up with the problem of a plucked chicken
> qualifying for manhood.
You seem to have undercut your argument :)
David
>
> Joseph Henry
>
David
(Carl Tait) wrote:
> In article <memo.19990318...@sapphire.compulink.co.uk>,
> David <sapp...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >If there's only one person on the planet who considers
> >a certain thing to be art, then it's art as far as he or she is
> concerned.
>
> Right -- and similarly, if there's only one person who thinks it *isn't*
> art, then it's not art for that person regardless of what anyone else
> might say (the alleged artist included).
I completely agree.
David
David
Vriezen) wrote:
> sapp...@cix.co.uk (David):
>
> >I think all views on art are equally valid, because equally unprovable.
>
> Only if you take validity to be a merely logical value, of course.
I was going to write, I think all views on art are equally invalid,
because equally unprovable; but someone told me to think positive. Maybe I
need another description entirely... How about, I think all views on art
are equally anything you like.
> Myself, I prefer stimulating views and am perfectly happy considering
> all boring views less valid: even if the boring views are generally
> just as unprovable as the stimulating ones.
I like stimulating views as well; mainly because I like what I like.
>
> No wait, the boring views often are proved all too easily that's what
> makes them boring.
I wish I could come up with a boring view on art, then. How about: "Art is
boring". Now all I have to do is work out how to prove it easily...
> Incidentally, the really stimulating views mostly take the form of art
> works,
What are art works?
> profound criticism
When it comes to art, I think profound criticism is as pointless as
shallow criticism; but hopefully the latter is shorter and sweeter.
> or good theories of aesthetics rather than
> long Usenet threads mostly. Sometimes they take the form of a snappy
> maxim... please, everybody, throw us a few...
The art of an arty joke is but a source of delight.
David
> Samuel
>
David
Other tired simplistic questions like What is Truth, What is Knowledge,
and What is Existence also keep rearing their ugly heads. I don't know why
philosophers keep bothering, I really don't.
> It is a simplistic question dealing with a complex subject.
In my opinion it's a simple question not a simplistic one, dealing with a
subject that may be complex or simple or anything you like.
> 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.
So the question now isn't What is Art, but What is Art in Western Culture?
Given your background and knowledge of this subject, can you kindly tell
me What is Art in Western Culture? Or can you give me a fact about Art in
Western Culture which you consider important?
> 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.
How many different opinions does one need to get before one knows what Art
in Western Culture is? One may well get a concensus of opinion, but it all
depends who one asks.
> Would you ask "what is brain surgery" and expect a casual answer?
Brain surgery isn't an abstract concept as far as I know, so I think the
analogy with art is unhelpful.
David
>
> Marilyn
>
Samuel Vriezen
>> No wait, the boring views often are proved all too easily that's what
>> makes them boring.
>
>I wish I could come up with a boring view on art, then. How about: "Art is
>boring". Now all I have to do is work out how to prove it easily...
David, I sure hope your relativistic sympathies have not lead you to
lose your capacity for boredom?
>> Incidentally, the really stimulating views mostly take the form of art
>> works,
>
>What are art works?
Well, some art works.
>> profound criticism
>
>When it comes to art, I think profound criticism is as pointless as
>shallow criticism; but hopefully the latter is shorter and sweeter.
Mostly, it's more boring.
Samuel
David
(alain) wrote:
> David wrote:
I think I'm trapped in a time loop: I'm sure I answered this posting two
weeks ago...
>
> > How about, "Art is anything that is considered to be art"?
>
> Won't do.
Quite right! And I don't think anything will. I should like to say that
art is indefinable, but until I define it I can't say that it has the
attribute of being indefinable. Things have come to a pretty pass.
It seems nothing will do, apart from personal opinion; and the opinion
that "Art is anything that is considered to be art" is as good or bad as
any other.
> Most people don't consider, say, Marcel Duchamp's urinal to be art.
You've held a referendum? Anyway, what most people think is irrelevant to
my statement: if only one person considers something to be art, then it's
art.
> Art is whatever the artist says it is.
Fine: his or her opinion is as good as any other.
> The difficult question isn't what is art,
> but what is good art. But I guess maybe that is the question you
> were trying to answer all along.
No it wasn't. But the answer is easy: "Good art is anything that is
considered to be good art".
David
>
> Alain
David
Vriezen) wrote:
> sapp...@cix.co.uk (David):
>
> >> No wait, the boring views often are proved all too easily that's what
> >> makes them boring.
> >
> >I wish I could come up with a boring view on art, then. How about:
> "Art is
> >boring". Now all I have to do is work out how to prove it easily...
>
> David, I sure hope your relativistic sympathies have not lead you to
> lose your capacity for boredom?
I rarely get bored. There are always interesting things to consider like
What is Art? or What is For Dinner? So I'm not bored before dinner,
although I'm fed up after it.
> >> Incidentally, the really stimulating views mostly take the form of
> > art
> >> works,
> >
> >What are art works?
>
> Well, some art works.
Is it wise to get some art?
David
David_U
>
> The 19th and 20th centuries have witnessed so many changes in style and intent,
> that critics and audiences have been nonplussed. Try as they might to have come
> to some satisfactory definition for 'art', none could be found.
I wish that I had started reading this thread sooner but I
was unable to do so. I probably have missed some of the
more salient points.
However, this raises several questions.
If something can not be defined then how can you make any
judgements about it?
Art is some_thing (but what). If something does in fact
exist then it must be something in particular. If it is
something in particular then it can be defined.
Perhaps it is
> analogous to religion. I believe in something, but I deny anyone to write down
> in a book a conception of God that will mean all things to all people.
Well if it is nothing in particular then it is nothing. Now
I really do not believe that most here would say that there
is no such thing as ar, but that is what it becomes if it is
all things to all people.
'God'
> and 'art' are subjective. You might as well try to define what 'is' is.
>
> Merriam Webster....ART
> 1: skill aquired by experience, study or observation. 2: a branch of learning
> ..... 3. an occupation requiring knowledge or skill. 4. the conscious use of
> skill or creative imagination. 5. a skillful plan. 6. decorative or
> illustrative elements in a printed manner.
So this sort of leaves out Science and Engineering. I do
not rcall many people referring to the art of Science, or
the art of Engineering. However where does that leave the
Architect?
Is an architect an Engineer or an artist? Or is that where
the term Artisan might come in?
Also the term art is used in another way, i.e. "the art of
teaching" for instance, but I get the feeling here that the
discussion really is trying to focus on "The Arts" such as
in the Performing Arts, The visual Arts, etc.
Is this kind of art a selective view of the world about him
as the artist sees it?
**************************************
* 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
>
> David wrote:
>
> > How about, "Art is anything that is considered to be art"?
>
Yet the L.A. Times review a few days ago extolled the
virtues of this particular photograph. That leads one to
ask, Why is a photograph by one person art and by another
not art? Why are Ansel Adams photographs of the Sierra
Nevada art but my pictures of the high country just (in some
cases) good pictures? Why is a photo of a commode by one
person art, and by another just a waste of film?
> Art is whatever the artist says it is. The difficult question isn't what is> art, but what is good art. But I guess maybe that is the question you were> trying to answer all along.>
> Alain
But if you are going to decide what is good art and not so
good art, that is rate art then there has to be some sort of
standard. But, if you can not define it then how can you
have a sstandard. Then you have to ask, what are the
standards? I have read many articles by reviewers of
"Renown Critics" that extolled the virtues of certain
compositions, paintings and other forms of (what I consider
to be art) and I could not understand how they came to their
conclusions. Example is a series of paintings that are
simply one color on a canvas. I also seems that some people
are willing to pay great sums of money for such objects.
why is a canvas painted one color "art" but the wall of my
domicile which is also painted in one color not art?
--
David_U
>
> This tired simplistic question keeps rearing its ugly head.>
> 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.
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.
David_U
>
>
> BUT - if I pile up some bricks in my garden to build a wall, and someone
> comes along and says "My God! That's fantastic! That is ART!" and I said,
> well no it's not, it's a pile of bricks, and he said "No, it's art and I
> think it's great."... who is right? And who is the artist?
Maybe it is artistic and the builder is an Artisan. Some
people seem to have a flair for putting things together that
are pleasing to look at. What about an interior decorator.
does that person say no its not art it's just a collection
of furniture.
How about a cabinet maker, wht is a Chippendale chair worth
so much.
>
> The key point about art is intention - if you can justify tying a pregnant
> woman to a tree with bungee cord and slapping her across the belly with a
> wet fish, then it's art. If you were just doing it for the hell of it, it's
> merely entertainment.>
> -jk-
Well were the early american furniture makers tring to
design works of art or were they just making functional
furniture? Why do so many people think that such things are
works of art?
--
David_U
>
>
> I am inclined to agree. Does anyone know of any examples of more or less
> generally recognized (or classic) works of art that appear to violate the
> requirement of craftsmanship?>
> Roland van Gaalen
> Amsterdam
Personal opinion of course but ther is this series of
paintings that are just a single color on canvas. I fail to
see the craftsmanship in them.
Samuel Vriezen
>> >> No wait, the boring views often are proved all too easily that's what
>> >> makes them boring.
>> >
>> >I wish I could come up with a boring view on art, then. How about:
>> "Art is
>> >boring". Now all I have to do is work out how to prove it easily...
>>
>> David, I sure hope your relativistic sympathies have not lead you to
>> lose your capacity for boredom?
>
>I rarely get bored. There are always interesting things to consider like
>What is Art? or What is For Dinner? So I'm not bored before dinner,
>although I'm fed up after it.
Just curious. Do you spend your life in permanent excitement? Could
you keep that up? Or does excitement happen just as much as boredom?
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
>why is a canvas painted one color "art" but the wall of my
>domicile which is also painted in one color not art?
If I would know either I might have a suggestion. As it is, I could
only guess. My first guess is, your wall is not on display in a
museum, there is no copyright on your wall, no art critic has ever
considered your wall. My second guess is, this monochromatic painting
happens to be very beautifully rendered. In my experience, two
paintings of exactly the same colour can look totally different
because of differences in the technique for paint application. See
Robert Ryman, who has painted many different completely white
paintings.
In painting, what it _is_ is often only step one. If you see a
painting of a cow, are you going to say, 'it's a cow!' and feel you
have then understood the artist's intention or experiences something
aesthetical? No! You look at how the cow was rendered. Same with a
1-colour canvas.
Samuel
Kip & Cathy
>In painting, what it _is_ is often only step one. If you see a
>painting of a cow, are you going to say, 'it's a cow!' and feel you
>have then understood the artist's intention or experiences something
>aesthetical? No! You look at how the cow was rendered. Same with a
>1-colour canvas.
I see what you're saying, but when confronted with a 1-color canvas, I am
more likely to go look for a picture of a cow. Then I will look at how the
cow was rendered.
Maybe we should ask WHY is art? Is it for the viewer? Is it for the creator?
Is it for both? I think Art started for the creator, as a hopeful means of
creating magic. Later, art was for the viewer, as rich people essentially
bought artists to make pretty things for amusement. Yet some artists also
made Art for themselves, as a satisfying means of self-expression. Now we
exist in a commercial society with an art industry based on pleasing the
customers, and an art Art based on pleasing the artists. These Arts hate one
another.
Why paint a cow? What do we gain from seeing it? Why not just go look at a
cow? Possible answer: because we'd only see a cow, and not what that cow
meant to the artist. I don't know. Let's call it unanswered.
Why paint a solid field of color? To see what paint means to the artist? To
see what color means? To see his statement: "I can apply color unevenly to
the canvas!"? (That's a pro-active way of saying "I can't paint without
lumps!") I don't know, but my feet seem to have an opinion, and I usually
let them take me on to something else.
To put it in musical terms, why write a piece which is nothing but a simple
triad repeated over and over, with only such variation as occurs when the
artist's hand slips, or the artist is distracted, or the artist puckishly
changes the chord one time? I'd write the thing myself, if someone would
give me money for it. I'm not sure I'd listen to it for money though.
It beats me. The people who can intellectualize their feelings all have
patiently explained to me why it's the viewer's job to come to the artist,
but that's not what they taught me in art school. There it was my job to
make something people would want to pay for (it was a community college).
I know this would be easier for me to decide if it was a hundred years from
now, and the wheat and chaff had been sorted out, just as it has from past
generations. Woe is me: living in the present tense is always harder than
living in the past. All those decisions.
--Kip Williams (no doubt I should just trash this, as I do so many of the
posts I write on 'hot' topics...a sensible practice)
Kip & Cathy
>Just curious. Do you spend your life in permanent excitement? Could
>you keep that up?
Just a fleeting image that comes to mind at the "permanent excitement"
phrase.
A "Far Side" cartoon by Gary Larson. It's dinnertime, and one dog says to
another dog "Oh boy! Dog food again!"
(This suggests that permanent excitement might be accompanied by a lot of
sleeping on the floor, and occasionally hanging around the table looking
hopeful.)
--Kip Williams
Samuel Vriezen
the monochromes, or some music by Cage or Feldman) I find to be very
hard to appreciate on a purely intellectual level. I often like such
art, when it excites me, and this is an (often rather abstract)
aesthetic experience. I keep finding it strange that in experimental,
or in minimal music, or in 'concept' art or minimal art or whatever
might seem most cerebral (in need of explanation) to you, I actually
have a very sure and instinctive taste. For some reason, I like Cage
and Feldman and only few of their followers.
Samuel
"Kip & Cathy" <cdo...@visi.net>:
David
Vriezen) wrote:
> sapp...@cix.co.uk (David):
>
> >> >> No wait, the boring views often are proved all too easily that's
> > > what
> >> >> makes them boring.
> >> >
> >> >I wish I could come up with a boring view on art, then. How about:
> >> "Art is
> >> >boring". Now all I have to do is work out how to prove it easily...
> >>
> >> David, I sure hope your relativistic sympathies have not lead you to
> >> lose your capacity for boredom?
> >
> >I rarely get bored. There are always interesting things to consider
> like
> >What is Art? or What is For Dinner? So I'm not bored before dinner,
> >although I'm fed up after it.
>
> Just curious. Do you spend your life in permanent excitement?
No.
>Could
> you keep that up? Or does excitement happen just as much as boredom?
I only get bored when it's enforced on me, such as when I'm stuck in a
theatre watching a dire play and am too polite to walk out.
Let's say I'm generally calmly excited.
David
>
> Samuel
>
David
& Cathy) wrote:
> Samuel Vriezen said:
> >In painting, what it _is_ is often only step one. If you see a
> >painting of a cow, are you going to say, 'it's a cow!' and feel you
> >have then understood the artist's intention or experiences something
> >aesthetical? No! You look at how the cow was rendered. Same with a
> >1-colour canvas.
>
> I see what you're saying, but when confronted with a 1-color canvas, I
> am
> more likely to go look for a picture of a cow. Then I will look at how
> the cow was rendered.
>
> Maybe we should ask WHY is art? Is it for the viewer? Is it for the
> creator? Is it for both? I think Art started for the creator,
In the Beginning was Art...
> as a hopeful means of
> creating magic. Later, art was for the viewer, as rich people
> essentially
> bought artists to make pretty things for amusement. Yet some artists
> also
> made Art for themselves, as a satisfying means of self-expression. Now
> we
> exist in a commercial society with an art industry based on pleasing the
> customers, and an art Art based on pleasing the artists. These Arts
> hate one another.
>
> Why paint a cow?
Especially if you've got a camera.
I'm glad you didn't: I enjoyed reading it.
David
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
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
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
David
As reported in the Guardian newspaper, Sir Nicholas Goodison, chairman of
the National Art Collection Fund, was asked for his definition of art by
the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, during its
investigation into how Lottery money should be used to fund the arts.
Sir Nicholas said: "A work of art is an artefact produced by an artist."
Since "work of art" is the term to be defined, I'll call it X for short;
so Sir Nicholas has defined X as something X-like that is produced by
someone who produces X.
Substitute anything you like for X to find out what a work of art is.
David
David Cleary
: AJ Wilkes wrote:
:> The key point about art is intention - if you can justify tying a pregnant
:> woman to a tree with bungee cord and slapping her across the belly with a
:> wet fish, then it's art. If you were just doing it for the hell of it, it's
:> merely entertainment.>
: Well were the early american furniture makers tring to
: design works of art or were they just making functional
: furniture? Why do so many people think that such things are
: works of art?
Here are three potential possibilities:
1. the original creator of the chair did not consider it art, and folks
who later think chairs are works of art are wrong. Just because something
is displayed in a museum, does that necessarily make it "art?"
2. the original creator of the chair did not consider it art, but the
definition of art may be flexible enough to admit something formerly not
considered art, as art. In other words, The Art formerly known as Chair...
:)
3. the original creator considered his chair to be both art and a
commodity. One might wonder if someone like Wassily believed this of the
chairs he designed.
Can't say I know if any of these are correct, but they might be possible.
As may other explanations.
Dave
David Cleary
: Roland van Gaalen - Amsterdam - NL wrote:
:> I am inclined to agree. Does anyone know of any examples of more or less
:> generally recognized (or classic) works of art that appear to violate the
:> requirement of craftsmanship?>
: Personal opinion of course but ther is this series of
: paintings that are just a single color on canvas. I fail to
: see the craftsmanship in them.
Doesn't this depend on how one defines "craftmanship?" On the monochrome
paintings described, one might argue that there's some measure of
"craftsmanship" involved. One after all has to apply paint to canvas in a
certain way so as to produce the desired effect.
One might wonder whether craftsmanship isn't ultimately meant to serve
(i.e. produce successfully) the work of art being created.
Dave
Kip & Cathy
An object found and selected and declared to be art is art. Okay.
An object made as 'craft' is later declared by others to be art. Okay.
An inscrutable act of obscurantism is declared to be art. Okay, what the
hell.
Anyway, the trend is clear.
Soon, everything will be Art.
We'll have to invent a new name for Art that we like.
--Kip Williams
Samuel Vriezen
So, when I fill out a tax form, it's art!
Boy! I should start selling my collected agendas, my used toilet paper
etc.
Samuel
Samuel Vriezen
Why? There has always been art that we didn't like, right? Some people
just want to define away what they dislike. I can't see why one should
indulge in taste politics though.