SOAPBOX: What Art IS.
Xjahn
Xjahn empties his glass, and decides to take a stand.
"Mike, pour me a nice frosty mug of Geary's Ale" he says,
dropping a dollar no the bar. He takes the drink and whistles
for a soapbox. An attractive Ivory crate hustles it over, and settles
to the floor. Xjahn steps up on its back.
"Lo these many years past, I took a philosophy course, wherein we
tried to come up with the most workable definition of art in all its many
forms. It's a tough call, as a too broad definition diminishes the artist, but
a too narrow term cuts out worthy practitioners.
My definition is:
"art is any work rendered with the express purpose of changing the
emotional state of the viewer."
While there is no definition that suits *everyone*, my hope is that this
provides a solid "jump off point"."
Xjahn takes a pull of his ale.
"In an earlier posting, I quoted a friend who believes art is a verb. In
other words, art is the PROCESS, not the result. Himself a painter,
he pounds his chest and goes on to say, "If I had any guts at all, I
would use the same canvas over and over again."
He goes on to admit that this would be folly, as he would starve, but
it is an interesting point of view.
Anyway, these are my thoughts on the matter, let the assault begin!!"
}:-) XJahn, Equity Carpenter
{:-( Production Staff, Actor's Playhouse, Miami, FL
"Why don't you try acting, dear boy? It's much simpler!"
Laurence Olivier to Dustin Hoffman during the filming of Marathon Man
William Balko Branson
xj...@aol.com (Xjahn) writes:
>
>"Lo these many years past, I took a philosophy course, wherein we
>tried to come up with the most workable definition of art in all its
>many forms. It's a tough call, as a too broad definition diminishes
>the artist, but a too narrow term cuts out worthy practitioners.
>
>My definition is:
>"art is any work rendered with the express purpose of changing the
>emotional state of the viewer."
>
there's a great book by Scott McCloud, called "Understanding Comics"
in which he defines are as being
"any activity that stems neither from the instinct for survival
nor from the instinct for reproduction"
(despite the quotes, that's a paraphrase)
he illustrates this by a sequence in which a caveman is being chased
by a tiger, and the caveman dodges the tiger, who then falls over a
cliff....and then the caveman, instead of going to find something to
eat, looks over the cliff and sticks his tongue out at the tiger...
Art!
:)
your definition of `art'....does it require a `viewer' seperate from
the `artist'?
ie is Art a social thing?
or can it be done in private (as in McCloud's example)?
great question though.....
--bill
Anne Marie Sereg
xj...@aol.com (Xjahn) wrote:
>Xjahn empties his glass, and decides to take a stand.
>"Mike, pour me a nice frosty mug of Geary's Ale" he says,
>dropping a dollar no the bar. He takes the drink and whistles
>for a soapbox. An attractive Ivory crate hustles it over, and settles
>to the floor. Xjahn steps up on its back.
>
>"Lo these many years past, I took a philosophy course, wherein we
>tried to come up with the most workable definition of art in all its many
>forms. It's a tough call, as a too broad definition diminishes the artist, but
>a too narrow term cuts out worthy practitioners.
>
>My definition is:
>"art is any work rendered with the express purpose of changing the
>emotional state of the viewer."
I feel you have a point in associating art with the faculty of
emotions, but there are folx who seem to appreciate art from a more
intellectual viewpoint in terms of ability to render realistic images
or faithfulness to color or intricacy of design elements. I think art
can exist that does not spring from/ was not inspired by an intent to
change emotional state. The fact that emotional state does change in
its prescence can be perhaps one measure of whether the item is art.
>
>While there is no definition that suits *everyone*, my hope is that this
>provides a solid "jump off point"."
>
>Xjahn takes a pull of his ale.
>
>"In an earlier posting, I quoted a friend who believes art is a verb. In
>other words, art is the PROCESS, not the result. Himself a painter,
>he pounds his chest and goes on to say, "If I had any guts at all, I
>would use the same canvas over and over again."
>
I can confirm that feeling. There is a rush/heightened sensation in
being able to create /replicate one's vision in an artistic medium.
When the piece is finished, there is no more to be done, the rush is
over. If all you value is the rush, you might as well paint over. But
no one but the creator gets that rush. I cannot agree that the rush
*is* the art. The side effect of the rush can be art, by the previous
definition.
<small snip>
>Anyway, these are my thoughts on the matter, let the assault begin!!"
I am certain that what I added is not enough, but it should provide
more targets.
_________________________________________________________
A friend is someone who sees through you
---and still enjoys the view. (Wilma Askinas)
Nature does not hurry,
yet everything is accomplished (Laotzu)
Erick Vermillion-Salsbury
Xjahn wrote:
> My definition is:
> "art is any work rendered with the express purpose of changing the
> emotional state of the viewer."
I'll repeat an opinion I expressed here a few months ago:
Art is anything someone is willing to point at and say,
"That's art".
(And, um, my definition covers some things that weren't done
with my emotional state in mind -- like computer circuitry
and wind-tunnel tests. Also, IMHO, waterfalls and sunsets
aren't art, but photographs of them are).
Regards,
Erick Vermillion-Salsbury (aka Cali4nia)
http://www.concentric.net/~erick
Russ Ault
Erick Vermillion-Salsbury wrote...
>
> Art is anything someone is willing to point at and say,
> "That's art".
Who is this "Art", anyway, and why does life imitate him?
Jesse Linch
On 27 Feb 1998 21:43:57 GMT, "Russ Ault"
probably lives a few doors down <g>
[1] Reference to (IIRC) old Twilight Zone Episode, where a guy's
entire life was on the mythical Channel One on the TV. (For those
outside of the US, there is no Channel One on Broadcast TV in the US.)
Jesse Linch <jli...@one.net>
"Mr. Hat, you have to admit you have a drinking problem.
Bartender, I'll have another Cosmipolitan."
-Mr. Garrison, South Park the Animated Series
brb...@series2000.com
Erick Vermillion-Salsbury wrote...
> >>
> >> Art is anything someone is willing to point at and say,
> >> "That's art".
I would have to disagree strongly with this--As an artist and an apreciator of
art.
My personal definition is: Art is anything which represents an emotion or
emotional state or effects or conveys an emotional response.
To say that Anything is art is to belittle those who put alot of their time,
energy, and spirit into producing something of quality. Now, not all art is
good. And not all quality art is appreciated by everyone (I personally HATE
Piccaso. It sucks. But it's quality work which evokes a response of
thoughtfulness and confusion) Art does not need to be serious. Laughter is
an emotional response.
I see too many people trying to pass of 'craftsmanship' as art.
To loosely quote Heinlein:
"An artist is someone who can see a beautiful woman and portray the old woman
she will become, a good artist can see an old woman and portray the young
woman she once was. A great artist can see an old woman, portray her exactly
as she is, and make the viewer see the young woman she once was."
(references Auguste Rodin's "She who once was the beautiful helmetmaker's
wife" sculpture in bronze.
Side note: Looking through a book on Rodin, I came across a sulpture of a
woman's head. Upon seeing it, I immediately knew that whoever this woman was,
Rodin loved her immensely. I could see it and *feel* it--even from a photo of
the work. I read through the blurb below to find out that it was his wife.
*That's* art.
----
Brother Blaze
The Unintentional Monk
B.G. 2:15
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
FurF...@compuserve.com
[Lost thread in my newsreader disaster -- sorry!]
In article <19980226172...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, xj...@aol.com
says...
(variously snipped)
> "art is any work rendered with the express purpose of changing the
> emotional state of the viewer."
> ... art is the PROCESS, not the result....
** Cartoon cat, who is after all MADE of a *sort* of art, and whose
sister teaches art in public school, grins, unsheathes his Sheffield
stainless-steel reversible Claymore / Scalpel (with built-in pen that
writes underwater; pretty mighty, eh?) and wades on into what is sure to
become a melee. **
Well!
Given these definitions, sneaking up behind someone while your cronies
watched and snickered, then giving the victim a big boot in the rear
might qualify as art... and perhaps it could, if done well enough! Hm.
;-)
And when do you get to use a capital "A," that's what inquiring minds
want to know!
I'm kidding, of course. That is a very good armature of a definition or
art. As one who makes his living by craft, I think the distinction
between art and not-art is in some cases of practical value, but not of
any real use. That is, it can provide us with a convenient mental
shorthand for thinking about art and craft (and just making things),
while not really implying there has to be a distinct dividing line.
Besides, everyone draws the line in a different place!
Oh, and I don't think that too broad a definition necessarily diminishes the
artist... we just have to agree that the "line" has a certain width, and that
it's damned fuzzy anyway.
** Cat holds his long-haired, white tail up and waves it as an example of a
linear object whose outline is at best indistinct and at worst
quantum-mechanical. **
My two dinars' worth...
Jake Katz
FurF...@compuserve.com
In article <34F6AC34...@pop3.concentric.net>,
er...@pop3.concentric.net says...
> Art is anything someone is willing to point at and say,
> "That's art".
>
Huh!
** Toon cat grunts in surprise, noting that he'd recently mentioned (in
another post) that on his wall he has hanging an old core memory plane,
which visitors often mistake for deliberate art, when it is merely
accidentally pleasing as a composition... **
Xjahn
In article <6d4nq1$gns$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, bra...@orion.math.uiuc.edu
(William Balko Branson) writes:
>your definition of `art'....does it require a `viewer' seperate from
the
>`artist'?
ie is Art a social thing?
or can it be done in private (as in
>McCloud's example)?
I didn't put any such delineation in my definition quite on purpose!
Xjahn
In article <34f652e4...@news.mindspring.com>, ann...@mindspring.com (Anne
Marie Sereg) writes:
>but there are folx who seem to appreciate art from a more
intellectual
>viewpoint in terms of ability to render realistic images
or faithfulness to
>color or intricacy of design elements.
That sounds more like "archiving" or "recording" to me!
Another side bar in my class discussion was the fact that advances
in camera design allow any one to take clear pictures - does this
mean that photography is no longer an art?
My reply - an archivist takes pictures that record an event or building
or design: 'this is what it looked like'.
An artist takes a picture that conveys the feeling of being actually
present: 'this is what it FELT like'
It may be a task to paint or sketch, say, an accurate picture of an animal.
It is an art to paint the picture in such a way that you SMELL the animal.
present
Xjahn
>To loosely quote Heinlein:
"An artist is someone who can see a beautiful
>woman and portray the old woman
she will become, a good artist can see an old
>woman and portray the young
woman she once was. A great artist can see an
>old woman, portray her exactly
as she is, and make the viewer see the young
>woman she once was."
I grok, bro'!
Walkaways3
anneams@mindspring said:
>I can confirm that feeling. There is a rush/heightened sensation in
>being able to create /replicate one's vision in an artistic medium.
>When the piece is finished, there is no more to be done, the rush is
>over.
For, me, the rush lasts for hours after I finish a piece. Sometimes days...and
it comes back every time I read it in public. It definitely doesn't end when I
put down my pen.
Linda
"Emily Post is dead, and Miss Manners ain't feelin' too fuckin' good herself."
Michael Hugen
Anne Marie Sereg
walka...@aol.com (Walkaways3) wrote:
>anneams@mindspring said:
>>I can confirm that feeling. There is a rush/heightened sensation in
>>being able to create /replicate one's vision in an artistic medium.
>>When the piece is finished, there is no more to be done, the rush is
>>over.
>
>For, me, the rush lasts for hours after I finish a piece. Sometimes days...and
>it comes back every time I read it in public. It definitely doesn't end when I
>put down my pen.
> Linda
However, the 'performance' of creating a visual piece is more limited.
It ends when the piece is created.
The 'performance' of writing can extend from the actual act of writing
to the reading of the piece outloud by the author, which still retains
a level of original intent being carried forward.
I can't think of an analog for the visual medium.
More on creative rush:
Generally, in my experience, art pieces are created when I stand in a
(mental/emotional) place of creative flow, which may be considered a
natural altered state of heightened consciousness/clarity. Just being
in that state is a rush whether I put brush to canvas or not. If I
choose to commemorate that moment, I engage more into the flow, kinda
like swimming instead of just kicking along in the surf edge. That's
what I refer to in the previous quote, the engaged rush while the
piece is being created.
Does that explain any better?
Anne Marie Sereg
xj...@aol.com (Xjahn) wrote:
>In article <34f652e4...@news.mindspring.com>, ann...@mindspring.com (Anne
>Marie Sereg) writes:
>
>>but there are folx who seem to appreciate art from a more
>intellectual
>>viewpoint in terms of ability to render realistic images
>or faithfulness to
>>color or intricacy of design elements.
>
>That sounds more like "archiving" or "recording" to me!
>Another side bar in my class discussion was the fact that advances
>in camera design allow any one to take clear pictures - does this
>mean that photography is no longer an art?
>My reply - an archivist takes pictures that record an event or building
>or design: 'this is what it looked like'.
> An artist takes a picture that conveys the feeling of being actually
>present: 'this is what it FELT like'
>
>It may be a task to paint or sketch, say, an accurate picture of an animal.
>It is an art to paint the picture in such a way that you SMELL the animal.
But it's a viewer by viewer decision as to whether it's archival or
smelly animals.
It is damn near impossible for any artist to have a real handle on
whether anyone else is going to find their creation to be ART. There
are billions of contrasting individual sensory/emotional arrays in
this world skewed culturally, pyschologically, religiously, etc. To
produce something that that they *all* will agree is art is a
thankless undertaking at best. All you can do is follow your heart
and create; then let the 'audience' sort it out.
Some artists have the gift of producing work that many people consider
art. Some artists aren't recognized until after their death, because
current 'emotional reactions'/taste? doesn't recognize/understand
what is being conveyed.
Abstract art is one of the harder types to universally consider as
art. I may look at an all black acrylic painting and be very moved by
my enjoyment of the particular texture / brushstroke acheived. Another
person will look at it as a waste of paint, time, and canvas. Another
person will not even be attracted enough to look at it, nevermind
criticize it.
My guess, as an artist, is that what I create from my dippings into
the creative flow, is art.
As a viewer, if it catches my attention, it may be art, but I can't
count on anyone else to agree with me.
er...@pop3.concentric.net
In article <6d95lu$fhn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
brb...@series2000.com wrote:
> Erick Vermillion-Salsbury wrote...
> > >> Art is anything someone is willing to point at and say,
> > >> "That's art".
>
> apreciator of art.
I'm an artist also ...but I'm not sure that gives my opinion any more weight
than that of those who view my stuff. By analogy, I don't think a priest's
opinion should count more than a member of the laity when defining
"religion". (But see below -- your mileage may vary).
> My personal definition is: Art is anything which represents an emotion or
> emotional state or effects or conveys an emotional response.
Um, agreed. Perhaps I should clarify my position:
When this question came up a few months back, I had an addendum: I use the
same definition for art that I do for religion. Apparently, if someone is
willing to point at something and call it one of those names, an emotional
response is being generated, whether I personally am moved by the subject or
not.
To borrow an example used by one of my professors -- if I grabbed a brick
from a construction site, put it on a pedestal in a museum and labeled it
"Brick, 1998, E. V-S" ...would that be art? (I think it would be. Bad art,
IMHO, but it would still be generating discussions like this one, and that's
worth something...)
As for the line between craftsmanship and art, I'm inclined to think that
craft becomes art when it exeeds the design specifications ...which would
generate the emotional response that we both feel is important.
I don't see that our positions differ much ...and since your definition seems
to be a subset of mine, I don't expect to disagree with you. (I'll agree
that my definition is pretty all-encompassing -- but if someone tells me,
"I'm deeply moved by such-and-such; it must be art," I just can't see myself
responding, "You're wrong. Is not.")
Regards,
Erick Vermillion-Salsbury (aka Cali4nia)
http://www.concentric.net/~erick
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Xjahn
>but if someone tells me,
"I'm deeply moved by such-and-such; it must be art,"
>I just can't see myself
responding, "You're wrong. Is not.")
I have to agree with you on that one. If they are deeply moved.
If, OTOH, they say "Oh look!! How pretty!" I'd be inclined to discuss
decoration vs. art.
Garrin The Silent
>Xjahn wrote:
>> My definition is:
>> "art is any work rendered with the express purpose of changing the
>> emotional state of the viewer."
>
>I'll repeat an opinion I expressed here a few months ago:
>
>Art is anything someone is willing to point at and say,
>"That's art".
>
>(And, um, my definition covers some things that weren't done
>with my emotional state in mind -- like computer circuitry
>and wind-tunnel tests. Also, IMHO, waterfalls and sunsets
>aren't art, but photographs of them are).
>
YES!!!!! You have my heartfelt agreement good sirrrrrr....
(Slaps four singles on the bar and orders a long island tea....
and a refill for the gentleman....)
>>>---+---<<<
Garrin The Silent
The Dragon of ShadowsDeep Reach
(Lurker Extrodinare)
Gesi Rovario
Xjahn wrote:
> "Lo these many years past, I took a philosophy course, wherein we
> tried to come up with the most workable definition of art in all its many
> forms. It's a tough call, as a too broad definition diminishes the artist, but
> a too narrow term cuts out worthy practitioners.
>
> My definition is:
> "art is any work rendered with the express purpose of changing the
> emotional state of the viewer."
>
> Anyway, these are my thoughts on the matter, let the assault begin!!"
The RedHeaded, GoddessShaped, ComputerHippie GoodWench smiles. "No
assault...though, I don't agree completely with you." She feels something tapping
her ankle, and looks down to see a very eager little soapbox waiting for her. "Oh
cool. I think this is my first *Offical* soapbox." She steps up and thinks for a
moment.
"You say that to be considered Art, a person must sit down and think "I want to
make people <insert Emotion here> with this piece." I don't think that has to be
true. I've been painting and sculpting for years...since I was old enough to hold a
brush and there are only two instances when I think about the emotional state of
the viewer. When I'm making a gift or if I look at a piece and think "<Name> is
going to *love* this when hie sees it." Yeah, I know what I do isn't *ART* in the
classic sense of the word, but it is Art...and it makes me happy. Most of the time
anyway. (No, that doesn't count. I don't think of my happiness when I'm working on
something...working on something makes me happy:)"
"I'm not really sure I can define my definition of art." She takes a long sip and
thinks again. "I'm not actually sure I *have* a definition of art...I've never
needed one...I mean...ok, I might get laughed at for this, but if someone comes up
to me and says "Come, look at my art", and I go look and it turns out to be a
papier mache bumper sticker extolling the virtues of the warthog...if hie considers
it art then I have no reservations about calling it art. (If however he calls it
Harvey, we have a problem.;) I've seen ugly art, stupid art and downright hideous
art, but its still *Art.* Hmm...I guess I know what Art is...I'm just not sure what
Art isn't."
The Wench thanks her soapbox and steps down. "Next?":)
Gesi
--
When the first living thing was created, I was there,
waiting. And when the last living thing shall perish,
my job will be done. I'll put the chairs on the tables,
turn out the lights and lock the universe behind me
when I leave.
-Death
Allan Friedman
> > Anyway, these are my thoughts on the matter, let the assault begin!!"
>
> The RedHeaded, GoddessShaped, ComputerHippie GoodWench smiles. "No
> assault...though, I don't agree completely with you." She feels something tapping
> her ankle, and looks down to see a very eager little soapbox waiting for her. "Oh
> cool. I think this is my first *Offical* soapbox." She steps up and thinks for a
> moment.
>
> "You say that to be considered Art, a person must sit down and think "I want to
> make people <insert Emotion here> with this piece." I don't think that has to be
> true. I've been painting and sculpting for years...since I was old enough to hold a
> brush and there are only two instances when I think about the emotional state of
> the viewer. When I'm making a gift or if I look at a piece and think "<Name> is
> going to *love* this when hie sees it." Yeah, I know what I do isn't *ART* in the
> classic sense of the word, but it is Art...and it makes me happy. Most of the time
> anyway. (No, that doesn't count. I don't think of my happiness when I'm working on
> something...working on something makes me happy:)"
>
> "I'm not really sure I can define my definition of art." She takes a long sip and
> thinks again. "I'm not actually sure I *have* a definition of art...I've never
> needed one...I mean...ok, I might get laughed at for this, but if someone comes up
> to me and says "Come, look at my art", and I go look and it turns out to be a
> papier mache bumper sticker extolling the virtues of the warthog...if hie considers
> it art then I have no reservations about calling it art. (If however he calls it
> Harvey, we have a problem.;) I've seen ugly art, stupid art and downright hideous
> art, but its still *Art.* Hmm...I guess I know what Art is...I'm just not sure what
> Art isn't."
I couldn't agree with you more...I have been tickling the ivories (no,
I'm not an elephant abuser) for nigh on 30 years now, and the only time I
gave thought to the person (people) on the receiving end of my music, was
a)when I had to (ie-exams etc.)
b)when I chose to (ie- a song written for a specific person, the wedding
song I wrote andperformed for my bride etc.)
When I play, I play for myself, and if anyone derives pleasure from it,
that is to their benefit, not mine. I have performed for myself many
times, just to be able to sit back and "see" the music being played,
behind closed eyes. It is a gift that I give myself every time I play.
I believe this allows me to call myself an artist. I hesitate strongly
to play simply to evoke an emotion in others, because somehow it feels
like I am abusing a talent.(Impressing others, or looking for recognition
is *not* where it's at.) My four year old's drawings will not hang in
the Louvre, but damned if it's not pure Art to me.
Sorry for the rant. If the soapbox hasn't dissolved by now, I gladly
relinquish it.
-Keez
WareWolf96
Art's the guy that used to sing with Paul Simon.
Dusty, just a Bridge Over Troubled Waters
Posted and e-mailed(-I hope)
"I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused" -Elvis Costello
"I said 'You know they refused Jesus, too'. He said 'You're not him'. " -Bob
Dylan
Dave--See sig to reply
On 6 Mar 1998 00:33:21 GMT, WareWolf96 wrote:
>Art's the guy that used to sing with Paul Simon.
88888888888
>
> Dusty, just a Bridge Over Troubled Waters
I take it from your reappearance that you've reached the point in your
writing where the Bookends?
--
(Posted and emailed) For a quicker personal response,
change .mailcity.com to wesnet.com.
Xjahn
In article <34FF035A...@san.rr.com>, Gesi Rovario <grov...@san.rr.com>
writes:
>there are only two instances when I think about the emotional state of
>the viewer. When I'm making a gift or if I look at a piece and think "<Name>
>is
>going to *love* this when hie sees it."
Which is an emotional response, so it's art!
Xjahn
> I have performed for myself many
>times, just to be able to sit back and "see" the music being played,
>behind closed eyes. It is a gift that I give myself every time I play.
You perform for yourself, for your enjoyment, so the intent of your playing
is t elicit an emotional reesponse (pleasure) from the viewer (yourself)
It's still art!!
Allan Friedman
Xjahn wrote:
>
> In article <34FF37...@istar.ca>, Allan Friedman <al...@istar.ca> writes:
>
> > I have performed for myself many
> >times, just to be able to sit back and "see" the music being played,
> >behind closed eyes. It is a gift that I give myself every time I play.
>
> You perform for yourself, for your enjoyment, so the intent of your playing
> is t elicit an emotional reesponse (pleasure) from the viewer (yourself)
>
> It's still art!!
> }:-) XJahn, Equity Carpenter
I don't play in order to bring enjoyment to myself, I play because I
play. That it brings me pleasure is an *added* bonus, not the prime
reason.
-Keez
DK
Gesi said... :
>> "You say that to be considered Art, a person must sit down and think "I
want to
>> make people <insert Emotion here> with this piece." I don't think that
has to be
>> true. I've been painting and sculpting for years...since I was old enough
to hold a
>> brush and there are only two instances when I think about the emotional
state of
>> the viewer. When I'm making a gift or if I look at a piece and think
"<Name> is
>> going to *love* this when hie sees it." Yeah, I know what I do isn't
*ART* in the
>> classic sense of the word, but it is Art...and it makes me happy. Most of
the time
>> anyway. (No, that doesn't count. I don't think of my happiness when I'm
working on
>> something...working on something makes me happy:)"
...and Keez said:
>I couldn't agree with you more...I have been tickling the ivories (no,
>I'm not an elephant abuser) for nigh on 30 years now, and the only time I
>gave thought to the person (people) on the receiving end of my music, was
>a)when I had to (ie-exams etc.)
>b)when I chose to (ie- a song written for a specific person, the wedding
>song I wrote andperformed for my bride etc.)
>When I play, I play for myself, and if anyone derives pleasure from it,
>that is to their benefit, not mine. I have performed for myself many
>times, just to be able to sit back and "see" the music being played,
>behind closed eyes. It is a gift that I give myself every time I play.
Ok, ok, I don't have the time for this (I'm only supposed to be lurking
until I get my clients' projects done) but you just can't go having a thread
like this without I'm gonna climb onto the soapbox meself (I'll omit the
numerous IMO's that should follow).
I really have to agree with what the two of you said. Whether it's oil
painting or graphics for the WWW, if *I* get the creative rush from it--it's
art. I think that anything--no matter how bad, amateur, juvenile, or
whatever other faults people might see in it--anything created *as* art,
*is* art. But perhaps we should add the codicil that though it may be art to
the creator, there will always be others who, finding the faults of the
rendering too abhorrent to bear, will insist that, for whatever reason, A is
not A. Not content to say that a work of art is poor for such-and-such a
reason, these people will remove the work entirely from the realm of the
artistic. Therefor I don't personally believe it's possible to generate ANY
definition of art which will apply in all--or even most--cases.
I make my living from my art. Luckily for me I'm not the only person who
looks at my work and is moved in some way. If my work didn't sell at all
that might be an indication that it wasn't very good (or it might not), but
it wouldn't make it any less *art*.
I understand (from other posts) that when Xjahn said "art is any work
rendered with the express purpose of changing the emotional state of the
viewer.", he was including the artist in the group "viewer". Given that, I
would agree with the statement if the word "emotional" were removed.
Different art hits in different places, but when I make art it always
changes my *state* in some way.
Keep the faith,
Painter
Allan Friedman
DK wrote:
>
> Keep the faith,
> Painter
Hey, Painter...I find myself in agreement w/ you.Can I buy you a BOYC?
-Keez (who shows that he's not "'artless")
John Palmer
I'm in this thing WAY too late, but I figured I'd drop my two
cents in. In my mind, art is an attempt to communicate beyond the
medium. If I tell you "any old story", it might not be art if it
doesn't communicate something beyond the actions of the folks
involved, but if you end up feeling it tells you something important
about the actors or, better, about "humanity", it's art. Ditto for
other art forms.
One of the things that bothers me is that it seems as if a lot of
modern art folks seem to think that it's WRONG to communicate clearly
and to lots of people; they think that art should be personal, and
harder to interpret. There's nothing WRONG with 'personal' art, but I
really can't see the point of doing art if you're not saying
something.
--
"Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in
kidnergarten. Like: morality must exist beyond the
purview of a deity if morality is to have a meaning
beyond tyranny.
DK
Allan Friedman wrote in message <35009A...@istar.ca>...
>Hey, Painter...I find myself in agreement w/ you.Can I buy you a BOYC?
>-Keez (who shows that he's not "'artless")
Thanks Keez, I'll have a Guinness. And how about a little sample of your art
next time Fast Eddie takes a break?
Painter
Erick Vermillion-Salsbury
John Palmer wrote:
> In my mind, art is an attempt to communicate beyond the medium.
(Snip. Well put.)
> One of the things that bothers me is that it seems as if a lot of
> modern art folks seem to think that it's WRONG to communicate clearly
Agreed. In visual media -- like, say, a painting -- I tend
to think of a tiered system. The first thing I expect the
viewer to notice is the composition and my color choices --
then subject and brush technique. If I have done a
reasonable job with all those, *then* I might also try to
include a subtext about how the big field of grass I've
painted is really a metaphor for the uniformity of the human
condition, or some such. But it chaps my ass when I see
works by people who try to jump directly to step Z,
expressing disdain for steps A through Y.
Allan Friedman
Erick Vermillion-Salsbury wrote:
>
> John Palmer wrote:
> Well Done, John
-Keez (who's finally starting to wake up)
Allan Friedman
inputted onto the computer.However, you could send me a painting/sketch
or two...
-Keez (a musician who knows the score)
Brice D. Fleckenstein
> I don't play in order to bring enjoyment to myself, I play because I
> play. That it brings me pleasure is an *added* bonus, not the prime
> reason.
In my case, I drum because I enjoy it.
That others have chosed at time to also enjoy it (or the congruence of
myself and other drummers as a group) is a nice added bonus....
8-)
QuintLeo wanders off, remembering WiccaFest '97, the second stop of the
"great West trip/visit/tour" with great fondness....
--
My alt.callahans news server is up and running at 209.100.145.29
"It takes as much courage to try and fail, as it does to try and
succeed." - Anne Lindburg
My opinions are my own, and no others. Please email me copies of any
replies.
Reply-to has been de-spammed. Real email address below.
Brice D. Fleckenstein
EMail: bricef at indy dot net