WHAT YOU CONSIDER ART- a poll?
Mr Morbid
i love this question. every time i come up with an answer, i always end up
changing it, because some one points something out i had missed, or i go back
and compare some abstract expressionist to...oh...let's say Leonardo.
anyway...what is your definition of art and/or what do you consider "true" art?
i think i spotted Rozz Williams at a mcdonalds,
joshua
iamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrollia
mnotatrolliamnotat
"Every record our fans buy brings me another notch closer to becoming a...brain
surgeon."
A.S.F.
MOTION SELLS
a...@b.c.d
Mr Morbid <mrmo...@aol.com> wrote:
: iamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrollia
: mnotatrolliamnotat
you're a troll allrightythen.
Mr Morbid
i didn't know that this was part of the question. if that was confusing you,
then i shall delete that part of the signature immediately.
joshua
iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?
MOTION SELLS
Kelly H Watts
On 24 Apr 1998, Mr Morbid wrote:
!i love this question. every time i come up with an answer, i always end up
!changing it, because some one points something out i had missed, or i go back
!and compare some abstract expressionist to...oh...let's say Leonardo.
!anyway...what is your definition of art and/or what do you consider "true" art?
!
OK, preliminary warning: I am very biased. I was an art major for I
semister and still like to think of myself as an artist, or, at the very
least, artsy. Hell, I spent the time to scan most of my portfolio and
post it on my page. With that in mind, continue.
That is one of those questions that will have everyone up in arms,
judging by the reactions I get when it comes up.
Honestly, I would like to say that if someone is attempting to create art
and that's what they say it is, than that's that. However, that would be
in a perfect world. I have trouble agreeing with the people in the art
department here who present blank canvases as a representation of
"nothingness and a spiritual void" (Yeah, don't ask...it wasn't me), and
expect a grade.
however, how can you justify anything as art if you can dismiss other
works. I may love the pre-raphilites. Someone else may call them fossils
that would not give in to the direction art was moving in at the time. I
think that Jackson Polluck is an artist, but another person may look at it
as a dropcloth. It is so subjective that for everything you may dismiss
as trash, there is someone waiting around the corner who will call it a
work of genius.
Upon reflection, I think the blank canvas example was a poor choice, since
in all honesty I'm fairly sure it was an attempt to bullshit though not
doing the assignment in time.
So, as to what I think is art, I'm going to say everything. If someone
put time and work into something and believes it to be an expression of
their creativity, than who am I to judge. What I find apealing and
unapealing are simply expressions of my own tastes. Hell, the stuff *I*
paint is nothing like the prints I would buy to hang in my room.
I just hope someone out there thinks what I do is art.
Kelly
*********************************************** ICQ# 6206391
The Road of Excess leads to the Palace of Wisdom [William Blake]
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Arena/8894
Ryan Faust
What you consider art? Art is that which I consider (since if I consider it
then to me, it is considerably artistic). Ever consider art to be subjective?
Not unless you like one thing and not another - personal importance or
technical merit; a perfect painting and horrible feelings or second-grade
spittle and epiphanaic rapture -- art depends on who's doin' the lookin'.
Of course, some stuff just sucks shit.[1]
-Dave
[1] Take this post . . . [2]
[2] (not my opinion, however)
Hemlock
"Anything is art if an artist says it is."
-- Marcel Duchamp
Hemlock
Follow the Black Valley Trail of Death,
Into the Beautiful Sunshine...
hemlock(at)kontrol.com
ICQ # 2629119 goth.code available if you ask really nicely.
<note: replace .gov with .com in the From: address to e-mail>
Fallen Angel
Mr Morbid <mrmo...@aol.com> scribbled
>i love this question. every time i come up with an answer, i always end up
it's all art to the artist.
The Smiling One, Deviant Prince of Biggleswade, Part-Time God (weekends only)
---------------
Does an agnostic, insomniac, dyslexic philosopher sit up all night wondering if
there is a Dog?
dev...@damnation.demon.co.uk
http://come.to/sorrows OR http://travel.to/tourniquet
---------------
Dr. Pain
On 24 Apr 1998 04:51:14 GMT, mrmo...@aol.com (Mr Morbid) wrote:
>i love this question. every time i come up with an answer, i always end up
>changing it, because some one points something out i had missed, or i go back
>and compare some abstract expressionist to...oh...let's say Leonardo.
>anyway...what is your definition of art and/or what do you consider "true" art?
>
"It's Art as soon as the Artist calls it so."
-Andy Warhol
"Functionless Art is simply tolarated Vandalism. We are the Vandales."
-Pete Steel
Dr. Pain who loves that quotes.
--
To work is to die
to die is to have fun.
Goth.Code 3.0 GoCS5$DJ5$ZZ2$ TNrMZ90 PSaNiPr
B/30Bk!]2"1@ cWBY8 V6s M3p4wgS ZGoExClMez C8o a20(26)
n2M b66T H182 g7!??90A mEa2@Z6# w7! v3M r3EIs p52965Zz
D66~ h5(PSaNi) sM9M SrN k7Z N0693JSNH HzM LdeRe5
m@il: Dr_...@Geocities.com
home: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/church/48/
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/9037/
Vampire
>On 24 Apr 1998 04:51:14 GMT, mrmo...@aol.com (Mr Morbid) wrote:
>
>>i love this question. every time i come up with an answer, i always end up
>>changing it, because some one points something out i had missed, or i go
back
>>and compare some abstract expressionist to...oh...let's say Leonardo.
>>anyway...what is your definition of art and/or what do you consider "true"
art?
everything and nothing, it is an absolute of an abstract.
it exist but is not there for everyone and no one all at the same time.
a better question is, what is pornography?
Vampi
Individuation
On 24 Apr 1998 a...@b.c.d wrote:
> Mr Morbid <mrmo...@aol.com> wrote:
> : iamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrolliamnotatrollia
> : mnotatrolliamnotat
> you're a troll allrightythen.
Try to know what you're talking about before you post.
Eileen
-----
"It's not fate. It's just circumstance. I don't fool myself with
romance. I just live phone number to phone number..dusting them against my
thighs in the warmth of my pockets." -Ani D.
orz...@students.uiuc.edu //www.students.uiuc.edu/~orzoff
Darksyde
My definition of art: functionable vandalism.
and yes, I am an artist.
--
By demons be driven. Beckon the call.
>Darksyde<
wSecga3baScacaaaHbaa75NfZRLSuz4-oafifuft
3B9tWb7c1aGHZGamqaBWcebj#gaIcIiznk4Kkl
sEbejRftHbaiacaeusTX (Gothcode98)
WiIIowMoon
>anyway...what is your definition of art and/or what do you consider >"true"
art?
Hmm..."true" art to me is a painting/sketching/sculpture, etc. that gives a
strong message which isn't quite easy to recognize. When I went to the Louvre
in Paris I saw so many things that I really didn't like...they were too easy to
look at. Patintings with swirls of colors and illusions of objects just
intrigue me more than paintings that tell you what they were meant to express.
*shrugs* I guess that's about it...I know that I wasn't very clear, but there's
really no other way to describe it. :)
~WilloW~
Ren The Cat
dada is art, and nothing else. >:)
Spook1385
>>anyway...what is your definition of art and/or what do you consider "true"
>art?
Anything that is aesthetically pleasing to the eye..
While I personally find most abstract artwork to be nothing but shit, I can
look at one of Salvador Dali's works (one of my favorites) and think "By
GOD!!!! This guy is one incredible artist..". And so forth, and so forth.. .
I suppose when you get into things like songs, or stories, that too is a type
of art, but I tend to call that poetry...
Rogue
Smile you fucker!
Happiness is a temporary chemical imbalance of the true state of mind...
The world would be a better place without people..go kill yourself please.
One of Papa Pan's black clad lil children *adjusts halo*
Tape Me Up
anything that doesn't reflect the artist's inner chaos
numb
Mr Morbid wrote:
>
> i love this question. every time i come up with an answer, i always end up
> changing it, because some one points something out i had missed, or i go back
> and compare some abstract expressionist to...oh...let's say Leonardo.
>
My simple answer: An expression of self.
-numb
esc
OK, I've never really sorted this out in my own mind so what follows might be
a bit incomprehensible:
On one level: Art is everything the artist intends. Art is everything you
believe(want) it to be.
BUT...
On another level: Do I think a canvas painted black with bits of newspaper
headlines glued to it by John Doe hanging in the "Modern Art" section of the
Art Institute of Chicago is art in the same way that Claude Monet is? NO!....
Why? because (and this is where I get opinionated) no one will give a f#@$
about 99% of modern art in 200 years... but they will still be flocking to see
Monet.
-esc-
Tune in tomorrow for more irritating opinions.
Mr Morbid
>"Anything is art if an artist says it is."
>
>
bullshit.
iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?
MOTION SELLS
Mr Morbid
>everything and nothing, it is an absolute of an abstract.
>it exist but is not there for everyone and no one all at the same time.
>a better question is, what is pornography?
>Vampi
>
>
pornography is art, if you're following the trend of saying that just about
everything is art, once the word "Art" is applied to it.
porn is actually more of an art form than painting, i think AND les perverse.
iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?
MOTION SELLS
Mr Morbid
>"Anything is art if an artist says it is."
>
>
>
bullshit.
iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?
MOTION SELLS
HELLBOURN
this post has to be one of the dumbest posts i've ever seen! who the hell cares
what art is? or what I consider art? i don't consider art. i never have.
this is a fucking generic poll that will constantly be asked. if you go to art
school or something, then go pose this question to the students of said school
or go to an ART Newsgroup where some one can be just as full of shit as you
are.
whatever,
HELLBOURN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
"One's split personalities are invaluable when one gets bored."
LORDOFPORN
WiIIowMoon
>this post has to be one of the dumbest posts i've ever seen! who the >hell
cares what art is? or what I consider art? i don't consider art. i >never
have.
*wince* Geez...what's your problem? You didn't have to read it if you didn't
want to...art is a beautiful thing that expresses so many emotions, feelings,
thoughts. There are many forms of art...you can't hate them all...what about
literature? That's an art. Theater? It's art too. So, unless you're a
particularly sour and cynical person, then you must like _some_ kind of
art...but who knows...anyway....
~Willow~
(who is a passionate ART lover)
XloreleiX
esc wrote:
>On one level: Art is everything the artist intends. Art is everything you
>believe(want) it to be.
>BUT...
>On another level: Do I think a canvas painted black with bits of newspaper
>headlines glued to it by John Doe hanging in the "Modern Art" section of the
>Art Institute of Chicago is art in the same way that Claude Monet is? NO!....
>Why? because (and this is where I get opinionated) no one will give a f#@$
>about 99% of modern art in 200 years... but they will still be flocking to
>see
>Monet.
Umm...I disagree. There are plenty of examples of art from the past that were
considered "crap" in their time, often due to the revolutionary or unsettling
nature of the work. I find that people who condemn art that isn't pretty to
look at and easy to understand--a la Monet--are almost exclusively people whose
interest in art is shallow and uninformed. Sorry, esc, I'm not referring to you
specifically, but this is what I've experienced.
Readily accessible art can be compared to pop music. It doesn't take much
commitment, emotionally or intellectually. I'm sure the average Joe Sixpack
would consider a Nurse With Wound or Psychic TV album to be complete crap--does
that mean it's not valid?
"Art" is just as pointlessly vague a term as "music." Nobody ever asks "what do
you consider music?" I personally think it's irresponsible to try to define
"art," particularly when those trying to define it aren't interested in
understanding anything abstract or that isn't "aesthetically pleasing to the
eye." I also think that if art were so easily defined, it would no longer be
interesting.
One of my favourite artists, Anselm Kiefer, does incredibly bleak work
(photography, painting, multimedia) reflecting post-WWII Germany. It's not at
all pretty and the messages aren't readily obvious if you don't read the little
card provided by the museum. But I can't imagine anyone looking at his work and
not being affected--disturbed, at least--by it. There *are* people who give a
fuck about modern art, and find Monet rather dull. Perhaps they're not the
majority, but I, for one, don't think majority opinion determines validity.
X Lorelei X
"Hello, this is Moleman in the morning. Good
Moleman to you. Today, part 4 of our series on
the agonizing pain in which I live every daaay..."
just me
ART is......
1) An individualistic interpretation on the part of
the artist...
2) Another interpretation on the part of the
viewer...
and
3) 9,182,736,450 different opinions on what the
artist was attempting to relay to the viewer.
Just me...
XloreleiX
HELLBOURN wrote:
>this post has to be one of the dumbest posts i've ever seen! who the hell
>cares
>what art is? or what I consider art? i don't consider art. i never have.
You're right. Art isn't goth. Goths don't like art. Ever hear of "gothic art"
(or proper capitalization)?
Actually, you're correct only in that I don't care what *you* consider art.
>
>this is a fucking generic poll that will constantly be asked. if you go to
>art
>school or something, then go pose this question to the students of said
>school
>or go to an ART Newsgroup where some one can be just as full of shit as you
>are.
>
>whatever,
>HELLBOURN
LOL...Thank you for exposing the stupidity of this poll. I wouldn't have
figured it out without your fine intellectual observation.
Who are you, anyway? I haven't seen *you* contribute anything of value. You go
now, you been here four hour...}:)
Vampire
XloreleiX wrote in message
>HELLBOURN wrote: clipped :)
>Who are you, anyway? I haven't seen *you* contribute anything of value. You
go
>now, you been here four hour...}:)
>X Lorelei X
you make hellbourn cry :) he a big boy :)
Vampi
Hemlock
So this Mr Morbid character tells us...
>
> >"Anything is art if an artist says it is."
> >
> > -- Marcel Duchamp
>
> bullshit.
Who are you to judge?
Matthew M Mckeon
mrmo...@aol.com (Mr Morbid) writes:
[kersnip]
> anyway...what is your definition of
> art and/or what do you consider "true" art?
>
Art is the condensation of perception
into a form that others may understand.
I think the goal of any human being
should be to create a work of art
such that something of themselves
is left behind, whether it be in the form
of what is traditionally thought of as art
(painting, documented performance, sculpture, writing)
or the simple incarnation of abstraction
(e.g. a really sweet hack).
>
> i think i spotted Rozz Williams at a mcdonalds,
Sharing fries with Roy Orbison, I hope.
> joshua
+
| Xthlc
+--+--+ http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~mmm/
| Meallan muilte De' go mall ach meallan siad go mion
| ___ + Haven Magazine Online +
| \h/ http://haven.res.cmu.edu
+ V
Axel
Mr Morbid wrote in message <199804250222...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>
>pornography is art, if you're following the trend of saying that just about
>everything is art, once the word "Art" is applied to it.
>porn is actually more of an art form than painting, i think AND les perverse.
Why?
Please justify that opinion.
Axel (intersted not challenging)
Everything is True, Even False Things
- Malaclypse the Younger
<axelmaya@SPAM_IS_NOT_NICEglobalserve.net>
Axel
Mr Morbid wrote in message <199804250214...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Hemlock wrote:
>>"Anything is art if an artist says it is."
>
>bullshit.
Not a very useful response.
Art is a subjective thing.
It is impossible to set objective criteria as to whether something is art or
not because if that is done, an artist will hold up something that appears to
be art but defues the definition.
What you can hold is a valid opinion on is whether it is good or bad.
Actually, an invalid, unsubstantiate opinion is also possible but I would like
to hope that you are above such things.
Axel
Sleepycat
In article <8l%%.820$ub.10...@news.internetMCI.com>, "Vampire"
<vam...@MCIONE.com> wrote:
> everything and nothing, it is an absolute of an abstract.
> it exist but is not there for everyone and no one all at the same time.
> a better question is, what is pornography?
It is an album by the Cure.
And _that_ is the only answer I will ever, ever give.
As for the "what is art" question:
I just had a little seance thingy with Wittgenstein. [1]
He muttered something about "category resemblance".
He snorted derisively about attempts to correlate a word used in very
different ways by different people with a concrete set of things.
Or something like that.
So perish all definers of art.
[1] I suppose some people would believe that if it didn't have a footnote.
--
+ Kevin J. Bonham (Sleepycat) + CaffinGothCode98:AUiKba5baWaaaaaaHbaa87NwA
WYLPj_fobyhjsi11deaGa2e7fab5aaeaNtnemgqDaaGcbjAbb4GObrNbSbYLzFaaaaablauTAS
-------- "I have nothing against your Christ. I am sure his blood --------
-------- tasted as sweet as anyone else's." - Poppy Z. Brite. ------------
Grimalkin
Something that can bring an emotional reaction from deep inside, whether
it be anger, sadness, or joy. Something that sends a chill down your
spine or makes you shiver or look over your shoulder in fear. Emotional
reactions are what the artist intends to share. When a person can look
at your work and shrug and walk away from it you've failed, but when
they look upon what you've done and it makes them really feel something
then they carry that away with them and it never dies.
Bev
(Who's still a newbie here but can't resist replying to some things...)
Mr Morbid
>>porn is actually more of an art form than painting, i think AND les
>perverse.
>
>
>Why?
>Please justify that opinion.
actually, i'm starting to believe that painting can't appeal to everyone, like
in the good old days. people look at a painting and kind of toss it by the
wayside. it's not that people can't appreciate art- it's just that in fast
paced times such as these, movement is the only thing that can sell- the only
thing that people will notice and appreciate.
as for pornography and not just "movies" in general being less perverse than a
painting...well, there's no symbolism. people watch porn and it is what it is.
fake, glossy, fast and just sex. painting, on the other hand- it represents too
much. people who don't study art don't think that the deeper meanings are worth
too much. i think the majority of the people don't want abstraction, which is
just about every painting. no one has enough time to sit and think about what
they're looking at. we're totally an INSTANT society. just look at Marilyn
Manson, and the shock DJ's on the radio. no thought as to what they're saying-
quick answers to questions. they're totally up front. i find them distasteful,
but look at their ratings.
people want "in your face". people don't want to think about what somebody's
saying- what's the deeper meaning. we want "blunt", because we don't want to go
any farther than that.
i shouldn't have said porn is more of an art form than painting. bad phrase. i
don't think that, but i do think society (american society) cannot appreciate
an abstract expressionist or any artist who doesn't deal in "kinetic" art.
painting's (as i've said before) is just to much work for the old brain.
did i make much sense,
joshua
iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?
MOTION SELLS
Kali Nichta
Must... resist... being.... smartass...
ARGH!
Grimalkin wrote:
>
> Something that can bring an emotional reaction from deep inside, whether
> it be anger, sadness, or joy.
Does that mean Jenny Jones is art?
I'm weak! Weak, I tell ya!
(This is certainly not intended to take away from Grimalkin's post; I'm
just playing.)
(oO-----------------------------------------------Oo)
Kali Nichta --- Cauldron of Wickedness <tm Andrew>
http://members.tripod.com/~KaliNichta
"Ever try -n- have sex in the backseat of a bad poet?"
-Lupo LeBoucher
Grimalkin
Kali Nichta wrote:
> Does that mean Jenny Jones is art?
Jenny is one of the new masters. She's my idol, really. I look at her
and see what we should all aspire to be: blonde and perky. I see a
civilization filled with blonde, perky, mentos clones... they're all
alike... smiling... they... they...
<screams & jerks awake>
Oh man... thanks a lot, Kali, you gave me a nightmare. :)
Bev
(Now let's discuss Jerry Springer as art...:))
Tape Me Up
fuck..i'm tired of all this "art is this and that which stirs emotions blah
blah blah" what the hell do such emotions mean to me?...what the hell do the
emotions of the artists mean to me? i don't care and find it offensive that
people do. if i find one more piece of art saying "this is the reflections of
the artist's emotions" i'm going to burn it. as for stirring emotions in the
viewer, what a bunch of crap. that isn't the artist's fault, it's
yours..pretty much you're having a responce to something you already know..big
fucking deal. give me art that says something, some sort of intellectual
morsel, something that will make me think, some sort of concept to add my
bucket of equations. not stuff created to mimic an emotion or to stir it...i
can get that from beating my cat (which i don't, btw). if you want to call that
art, then you're messed up. i'm just sick of seeing the world littered w/ such
art and too little of the other kind.
as for "art can be anything"...DIE! that's the second thing i'm so sick about.
i'm not saying art has to have rules..but by recognizing the whole farce that
anything/everything is art devalues it--which is one reason i believe you all
don't truly hold to this idea, only a moron would (no offense, seriously). you
might go around parading in your whole field of open-mindedness and say "la la
la anything can be art" but what the hell???..do you open a door and
immediately think "performance art at its best!"..?!?! god, i hope not! do
you go around and think this and that is art everytime you see it or consider
it?..i highly doubt it...but when you pass by a piece of ceramics, or painting,
or drawing, or drama, or porn (as mrmorbid would have it) THEN what comes to
your mind? "what a nice/horrible ART piece"...that sort of art has a value to
you that MAKES it art! of course art is relative, but it's relative according
to YOU, and do you go around seeing everything as art? if you did, then i'd
put down my pencil and paintbrush right now to shoot you (yes i AM an artist).
sorry if i offended anyone, i just decided to make this a semi-angry reply
purely for the fun of it. and NO I'M NOT A TROLL!
~tape
"shit...everything shits until it dies."--bukowski
"it is better to be beautiful than to be good, yet it is better to be good than
to be ugly."--wilde
esc
Grimalkin wrote:
> Jenny is one of the new masters. She's my idol, really.
yourself even dare to comment about art! You are a worthless tasteless
dilettante. If you were to die tomorrow, the world would breath a sigh of
relief; secure in the knowledge that they would no longer be subject to your
inane views about "art"! Your obvious lack of culture has led you to blindly
follow the masses to worship at the feet of a mere amateur... Jenny Jones is
mere fecal finger painting when compared to the likes of the true master of
form and structure: Jerry Springer.... AND NO, Your sniveling mention of Jerry
Springer does not make your asinine commentary acceptable. Your halfhearted
"Now let's discuss Jerry Springer as art..." comment hidden at the end of your
article belies your cowardice! You don't even have the courage to say you
like or dislike Jerry Springer. You expect us to make up your mind for you!
You want us to tell you what our opinion is about Jerry Springer so you can
quickly jump on the bandwagon!?!?! Well I'll tell you what we thing of Jerry
Springer: HE IS A GOD! A god that you are not fit to look at! A god whose art
you will never comprehend! A god your pathetic Jenny Jones can never compare
to! Scurry away from this newsgroup like the vermin you are and never return.
Blisteringly yours,
-esc-
Albatross
Mr Morbid wrote:
>what is your definition of art and/or what do you consider "true" art?
Art is the form given to an imaginative moment, or internal invisible,
that allows it to be expereinced with the senses.
Good art is art which more fully explores the imaginative event. Even
an art from like photography, which might seem to lack an imaginative
phase, is only good art when it reveals the invisible contained in its
subject as imagined by the artist.
Poets wrap seemly words about invisibles. When a poem fails to reveal
the invisible, it is a bad poem. When a poem, or any other piece of art,
is good, we say, "this is how it truly is. There is the hidden reality."
This is all fully Platonic, of course. I wish Ron was here to scold me
for it.
Realism tends to produce mediocre art, because realistic art to reduces
its subjects to their sensually observable facts. Paint by numbers. But
this is not an indictment of artists who do not... invent new artisitic
languages, ala Dali. A writer or painter can be quite plain in their
language, colors, whatever, and still succeed in revealing an invisible.
Look at Ayn Rand: She writes in a very straitforward way; yet she is
successful in revealing an invisible as she has imagined it,- the
invisible being her ideas of politics and art. Or Rembrandt: he is
simply painting portraits, he is only showing the regular play of light
across ordinary faces; yet he is very successful at revealing invisibles
contained in the characters of his subjects.
I could go on and on and on.
Albatross
--
++++++++++++++++++++
Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are
corrupt without being charming.- Oscar Wilde
http://www.drizzle.com/~tparkin/gateway.html
Grimalkin
esc wrote:
>
> Grimalkin wrote:
> > Jenny is one of the new masters. She's my idol, really.
> You make me want to vomit. How can someone as pathetic and uneducated > as yourself even dare to comment about art! You are a worthless > tasteless dilettante.
If you'd bothered to read my first post at all you'd see my opinion on
art. I don't watch talk shows at all because I have so little time.
That was a response to another post and meant as a joke. Since you
missed it or ignored it I'll say it again. I think art is anything that
produces an emotional reaction (i.e. anger, fear, sadness). If you can
look at a piece of art and shrug and forget it instantly then the artist
has failed, but if they remember it, then it continues to live on.
I was asked if that made Jenny Jones art. It does not. I'll answer
seriously here since you seem to have taken my second post so seriously.
I said in my first post that "anything" that causes deep emotion is art
(which would make your flame art, btw). I should have said that any
painting/drawing/sculpture/manuscript, any serious piece of work that an
artist puts his/her soul into that causes emotion _to me personally_ is
what I _personally_ consider art. And that's what it is to me. For me.
This is a poll[1], right? It asked for my opinion and that's what I
gave.
Talk shows are not art to me. To me they are sensational displays
showcasing people and events in order to make money and I really don't
care one way or another if the hosts take another breath. It means
nothing to me, just as I'm sure whether I take another breath matters
little to you.
*shrug*
> Scurry away from this newsgroup like the vermin you are and never > return.
Whatever.
Bev
:: Who turns and leaves with dignity tattered but still intact, mourning
might have beens with this group of exceptional people she never really
got to know too well. The door shuts behind her. ::
[1] In the A.G. FAQ one of the things it suggests to help you learn the
group and be able to function within it is to answer a poll. I think
I've learned a lot through this one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I walk the streets alone
On feeble bones I ride
My sins are etched in stone
I got no place to hide
Well, I was unshakable
In what I did believe
I feel so breakable
But have I been deceived
-- Alice Cooper
(Who probably isn't "Goth" but this one doesn't give a rat's ass...)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Albatross
Grimalkin wrote:
> Bev
> :: Who turns and leaves with dignity tattered but still intact, mourning
> might have beens with this group of exceptional people she never really
> got to know too well. The door shuts behind her. ::
Dont give up so quickly.
Many regulars were flamed hard when they arrived here.
Just weather it. You're at least as bright as the people doing the
flaming. You have to be a bit thick skinned at times, but this group
will pay off for you if you hang on long enough.
A
Ren BlackBane
O.k. Then art is what the fashionable oligarchy says it is.
Grimalkin
Albatross wrote:
> but this group will pay off for you if you hang on long enough.
Thanks. I think I will... :)
Bev
:: Pulling her new and improved flame-proof skin around her like a cloak
and preparing to enter the fray... ::
esc
Stop. Don't leave. I'M SORRY!!! My "Jenny Jones sucks/Jerry Springer Rules"
post was a joke - I totally saw the humor in your "JJ is art" post and just
decided to play along.... I wasn't really "flaming" your post, I was
"joke-flaming" your "joke-post"...
I'm totally sorry if my "jokeflame" was too harsh - I just thought the harsher
the fake response to your fake "JJ is art" the funnier it would be... just go
back and reread my "Jenny Jones sucks/Jerry Springer Rules" post with that in
mind - I wasn't trying to be a %$*&
-esc- who is way bummed out right now-
PS... unless of course your angry/hurt "I'm leaving" response is also meant to
be a joke.... hmmmm.... that would be truly devious ...
Grimalkin
esc wrote:
> Stop. Don't leave. I'M SORRY!!! My "Jenny Jones sucks/Jerry Springer > Rules" post was a joke - I totally saw the humor in your "JJ is art" > post and just decided to play along.... I wasn't really "flaming" your > post, I was "joke-flaming" your "joke-post"...
Ohhhh, gawd... I kept thinking that while I was writing my response,
thinking maybe I should just email you first and ask if you were joking
but I was afraid of the response I'd get. :)
> just go back and reread my "Jenny Jones sucks/Jerry Springer Rules"
> post with that in mind - I wasn't trying to be a %$*&
*blush* I'm really sorry I took that so seriously...
> -esc- who is way bummed out right now-
Don't be bummed any more... :)
Bev
:: Who was bummed but isn't anymore and hopes esc can forgive her for
being a gimp... ::
> PS... unless of course your angry/hurt "I'm leaving" response is also > meant to be a joke.... hmmmm.... that would be truly devious ...
OHHH, uh, yeah! That's it! *devious laugh*
(Saving face for both of us... <g>)
Kali Nichta
esc wrote:
>
> Stop. Don't leave. I'M SORRY!!! My "Jenny Jones sucks/Jerry Springer Rules"
> post was a joke - I totally saw the humor in your "JJ is art" post and just
> decided to play along.... I wasn't really "flaming" your post, I was
> "joke-flaming" your "joke-post"...
>
> back and reread my "Jenny Jones sucks/Jerry Springer Rules" post with that in
> mind - I wasn't trying to be a %$*&
This is too fab. I admit, I nearly fell for it until I got to the part
where you began talking about Springer. Gah, and you even got Albatross
with that one (assuming Albatross read the original jokeflame). That
was brilliant. Bravo.
esc
Thank God.
Other random thoughts:
1)No need for to ask for any forgiveness for any perceived gimpiness.
2)I was actually considering emailing you in case you really did let "The door
shut" immediately.
3)Actually, now that I go back and re-read my "flame", I guess it was a "bit"
overbearing especially considering that Albatross seems fooled as well.
4)I just assumed (yes I know what they say and in this case it's clearly
appropriate) that any and all discussions of JJ or JS as art would be
immediately "non-serious" ...and I didn't want to ruin the joke by letting up
for even a moment with the "flame-thrower".
-esc- who is feeling oh so much better now
esc
XloreleiX wrote (chopped up a bit):
> esc wrote:
> >On one level: Art is everything the artist intends. Art is everything you
> >believe(want) it to be.
> >BUT...
> >about 99% of modern art in 200 years... but they will still be flocking to
> >see Monet.
> Umm...I disagree. There are plenty of examples of art from the past that were
> considered "crap" in their time, often due to the revolutionary or unsettling
> nature of the work. I find that people who condemn art that isn't pretty to
> look at and easy to understand--a la Monet--are almost exclusively people whose
> interest in art is shallow and uninformed. Sorry, esc, I'm not referring to you
> specifically, but this is what I've experienced.
OK, to start with: I was a bit unclear in my initial post and consequently I
don't think you fully understood my point: You are quite correct that many
great artists were considered crap at the time... Monet happens to be a prime
example of that... (and I'm not the authority here so if I get a detail wrong,
feel free to correct) Monet was considered crap through most of his early
career (essentially he was his era's "modern art"). The Paris "Salon"
(essentially THE center of the art world) made up of the most influential
artists and critics of the time viewed him as a sick joke; as far as they were
concerned he WASN'T even an artist. He was not admitted to the Salon, his
works were never shown at the Salon, he never won a Salon prize (I'm hazy on
the details but he may have been admitted to the Salon later in his long
career). All this because his work was revolutionary and unsettling for his
day (hard for us to believe but consider that no one had ever even considered
using "blotches of color" and not painting realistically).
> Readily accessible art can be compared to pop music. It doesn't take much
> commitment, emotionally or intellectually. <snip snip>--does
> that mean it's not valid?
Essentially, I agree here. My only comment (and I assume you agree) is that
"inaccessible" art is not valid by default.
> "Art" is just as pointlessly vague a term as "music." Nobody ever asks "what do
> you consider music?" I personally think it's irresponsible to try to define
> "art," particularly when those trying to define it aren't interested in
Irresponsible? Yes... I mean really, the whole idea that this poll will decide
anything is silly but it makes for great discussions/arguements. It's one of
the few subjects I can think of that can incite such a wide variety of people
to give opinions/argue/prove their point/get riled up/etc... all while not
getting anything decided.
> One of my favourite artists, Anselm Kiefer, does incredibly bleak work
> (photography, painting, multimedia) reflecting post-WWII Germany. It's not at
> all pretty and the messages aren't readily obvious ....<clipped>
Unfortunately, I've never seen Anselm Kiefer's work... but let's say for a
moment that I have and that I really like it (and your "shallow" jibe aside, I
think there is a good chance I would appreciate his work). That makes it art
in my eyes (my first point of my initial article)...
...However, I think there is another definition of art and that is what my
second point addresses: Will it stand the test of time? Monet did even
though his art was initially considered "inaccessible and not aesthetically
pleasing" Incidentally, my point was not to argue that meeting this second
definition makes a work of art more "important" or "better".... It just means
that it will be more likely to show up in a museum in 200 years.
> There *are* people who give a
> fuck about modern art, and find Monet rather dull. <clipped>
Yes, by my first "definition" much of modern art is "valid" (poor choice of
words but I'm getting tired and the brain is slowing down so I can't think of
the right word).
However, by my second definition, most of it isn't great art... yes, some of
it will stand the test of time and wind up in college textbooks but most of it
will eventually be thrown away... we just won't know what is "great" and what
is "bad" for a long time... I imagine that there were literally 100s of
thousands if not millions of painting that were painted during Monet's era yet
most of those paintings were eventually discarded and did not stand the test
of time...
I think the real question is: What makes art stand the test of time? I think
that this may actually make for a better poll question.... Suppose I make some
sketches in my spare time. They are crap that will be thrown away as far as
most people are concerned. But suppose I decide to become a full time artist
a few years from now and eventually become a world famous artist... suddenly
those sketches I made all those years ago will be worth money - people will
examine them as if they are art... pondering my thoughts and emotions ...
trying to grasp the meaning or marveling at the technique.... WHY?
OK, the more I think about this the more I begin to suspect that most art from
the past is crap and doesn't deserve "most" of the admiration it gets... Maybe
Monet was no better than a "John Doe" from Monet's era and is only thought of
as a master because of luck.... Well, this requires a bit more thought before
I put my foot in my mouth in a big way.
-esc-
Grimalkin
esc wrote:
>
> Thank God.
I have it on high authority that JS says you're welcome... :)
> I was actually considering emailing you in case you really did let
> "The door shut" immediately.
I did... for about 30 seconds. :) I find that A.G. is somewhat
addictive.
> that any and all discussions of JJ or JS as art would be
> immediately "non-serious" ...and I didn't want to ruin the joke by
> letting up for even a moment with the "flame-thrower".
:: Who knows that now and will keep it in mind in the future... ::
> -esc- who is feeling oh so much better now
Bev
(Who is feeling so much better that she shows esc her brand new
Albatross-recommended thicker skin for his approval -- "It's flame-
retardent, too." :) )
Albatross
Kali Nichta wrote:
>
> esc wrote:
> This is too fab. I admit, I nearly fell for it until I got to the part
> where you began talking about Springer. Gah, and you even got Albatross
> with that one (assuming Albatross read the original jokeflame). That
> was brilliant. Bravo.
Hmmm... Im going to have to read things more closely.
But my advice to bev stands. :)
I've been going through a _keep alt'gothic to a bare minimum_
phase.
A
Mr Morbid
>"Good" art is art which the artist enjoys making, or -needs- to make,
>or at least that has been my experience.
i'm not too sure about that. Going back to "painting by numbers", which
albatross pointed out, is enjoyed by many, but it isn't considered art. why
isn't it? because the majority of people who look at a painting by numbers
don't think it is. the majority rules, as always, and i hate it. i still don't
even want to believe it's true.
desire SHOULD be what makes great art. one of my old teachers should be
famous right now because ART is what drives him, but it doesn't work like that.
he pushes and pushes his art. sometimes he'll get a gallery show, but no one
ever buys his stuff.
unfortunately/fortunately, majority does not rule my work, which means i am
totally destined to starve and work someplace as a graphic designer.
feedback, please,
joshua
iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?
MOTION SELLS
Mr Morbid
>those sketches I made all those years ago will be worth money - people will
>examine them as if they are art... pondering my thoughts and emotions ...
>trying to grasp the meaning or marveling at the technique.... WHY?
IF you became a famous artist, the sketches you made years before would
probably still be thought of as crap. still, people will look at those sketches
and say , "WHY, LOOK! You can see he's playing around with this use of line
that is so pronounced in his later work."
i don't know...delacroix's sketches were shit when he started out and no one
mentions those. Picasso had some fixation with oral sex that he constantly
sketched out. Ever see any of those flying around for the public to consume?
just curious,
joshua
iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?iamnotatroll?
MOTION SELLS
Ryan Faust
<complete uselessness and fluff and doggerel, hit NEXT, thank you>
Mr Morbid:
>Picasso had some fixation with oral sex...
>...flying around for the public to consume?
Heehee!![1]
-Dave
[1] - they say you should find the child inside and let it run free . . . well,
ever read Lord of the Flies?
Kali Nichta
Albatross wrote:
>
> Kali Nichta wrote:
> >
> > esc wrote:
>
> > This is too fab. I admit, I nearly fell for it until I got to the part
> > where you began talking about Springer. Gah, and you even got Albatross
> > with that one (assuming Albatross read the original jokeflame). That
> > was brilliant. Bravo.
>
> Hmmm... Im going to have to read things more closely.
> But my advice to bev stands. :)
It is good advice.
> I've been going through a _keep alt'gothic to a bare minimum_
> phase.
As is that. Phew.
Kali Nichta
esc wrote:
> OK, the more I think about this the more I begin to suspect that most art from
> the past is crap and doesn't deserve "most" of the admiration it gets... Maybe
> Monet was no better than a "John Doe" from Monet's era and is only thought of
> as a master because of luck....
Damnit, get out of my head. I've been wondering the same thing lately.
I leafed through some books of "masters" recently and just shrugged. I
look at the Mona Lisa and think "What? What!? What am I not getting
here?" When I see the Mona Lisa, I don't think "Oh what a masterpiece,
look at the emotion." I think "Oh gawd, there's that woman again." I
look at Bruegel's work and notice that all the faces look alike; what's
so fabulous about that?
Don't get me wrong, I *love* art. I can spend hours pouring over art
books or gazing at works in a museum, but most of the work we hail as
the best of the best just leaves me cold. What am I missing?
XloreleiX
esc wrote:
>OK, to start with: I was a bit unclear in my initial post and consequently I
>don't think you fully understood my point: You are quite correct that many
>great artists were considered crap at the time... Monet happens to be a prime
>example of that... (and I'm not the authority here so if I get a detail
>wrong,
>feel free to correct) Monet was considered crap through most of his early
>career (essentially he was his era's "modern art"). The Paris "Salon"
>(essentially THE center of the art world) made up of the most influential
>artists and critics of the time viewed him as a sick joke; as far as they
>were
>concerned he WASN'T even an artist. He was not admitted to the Salon, his
>works were never shown at the Salon, he never won a Salon prize (I'm hazy on
>the details but he may have been admitted to the Salon later in his long
>career). All this because his work was revolutionary and unsettling for his
>day (hard for us to believe but consider that no one had ever even considered
>using "blotches of color" and not painting realistically).
Well, I don't know about the Salon business, but you're right, he *was*
criticized.
>> Readily accessible art can be compared to pop music. It doesn't take much
>> commitment, emotionally or intellectually. <snip snip>--does
>> that mean it's not valid?
>
>Essentially, I agree here. My only comment (and I assume you agree) is that
>"unaccessible" art is not valid by default.
Well, I can agree that accessibility or the lack thereof doesn't automatically
make a work of art more or less valid than any other. But I think it *all*
qualifies as art, just as a Mentos jingle is music and the Ring Cycle is
music. Some of it can be appreciated on several levels, some of it can't.
>> "Art" is just as pointlessly vague a term as "music." Nobody ever asks
>"what do
>> you consider music?" I personally think it's irresponsible to try to
>define
>> "art," particularly when those trying to define it aren't interested in
>
>Irresponsible? Yes... I mean really, the whole idea that this poll will
>decide
>anything is silly but it makes for great discussions/arguements. It's one of
>the few subjects I can think of that can encite such a wide variety of people
>to give opinions/argue/prove their point/get riled up/etc... all while not
>getting anything decided.
I didn't phrase that as well as I should have. The poll itself is interesting,
or I wouldn't be reading it. I'm just disappointed that the vast majority of
people responding answered without giving their response any thought (you,
OTOH, did, which is why I thought it worth a reply) and/or simply dismiss
"abstract" or "modern" art. This implies to me that they haven't bothered to
study it at all.
>> One of my favourite artists, Anselm Kiefer, does incredibly bleak work
>> (photography, painting, multimedia) reflecting post-WWII Germany. It's not
>at
>> all pretty and the messages aren't readily obvious ....<clipped>
>
>Unfortunately, I've never seen Anselm Kiefer's work... but let's say for a
>moment that I have and that I really like it (and your "shallow" jibe aside,
>I
>think there is a good chance I would appreciate his work). That makes it art
>in my eyes (my first point of my initial article)...
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that *you* are shallow. I've just seen a very
high correlation between superficial "art-lovers" and a total lack of interest
or understanding of anything that isn't famous or accessible.
>...However, I think there is another definition of art and that is what my
>second point addresses: Will it stand the test of time? Monet did even
>though his art was initially considered "inaccessible and not aesthetically
>pleasing" Incidentally, my point was not to argue that meeting this second
>definition makes a work of art more "important" or "better".... It just
>means
>that it will be more likely to show up in a museum in 200 years.
But why does it matter? Why can't something be appreciated for what it means
*now*? I'd hate to think about all the brilliant art from the past that was
lost or destroyed because of this attitude.
>> There *are* people who give a
>> fuck about modern art, and find Monet rather dull. <clipped>
>
>Yes, by my first "definition" much of modern art is "valid" (poor choice of
>words but I'm getting tired and the brain is slowing down so I can't think of
>the right word).
>
>However, by my second definition, most of it isn't great art... yes, some of
>it will stand the test of time and wind up in college textbooks but most of
>it
>will eventually be thrown away... we just won't know what is "great" and what
>is "bad" for a long time...
Aaaargh...I don't understand this. Something has to be popular, or at least not
"thrown away," for hundreds of years before it qualifies as "great"?
> I imagine that there were literally 100s of
>thousands if not millions of painting that were painted during Monet's era
>yet
>most of those paintings were eventually discarded and did not stand the test
>of time...
Sadly, some of them might have been far more challenging, complex, and
provoking than anything by Monet. Who knows?
>I think the real question is: What makes art stand the test of time? I
>think
>that this may actually make for a better poll question.... Suppose I make
>some
>sketches in my spare time. They are crap that will be thrown away as far as
>most people are concerned. But suppose I decide to become a full time artist
>a few years from now and eventually become a world famous artist... suddenly
>those sketches I made all those years ago will be worth money - people will
>examine them as if they are art... pondering my thoughts and emotions ...
>trying to grasp the meaning or marveling at the technique.... WHY?
Why? Because they'll think you had something unique to say or a unique way of
expressing it? These things might or might not be relevant to the time in which
you did the sketches, or the time in which they're discovered. And whether
they're relevant or not will likely be the ultimate test of whether the
sketches are kept or destroyed. I don't equate relevancy with greatness,
though--it's only one determining factor.
>OK, the more I think about this the more I begin to suspect that most art
>from
>the past is crap and doesn't deserve "most" of the admiration it gets...
>Maybe
>Monet was no better than a "John Doe" from Monet's era and is only thought of
>as a master because of luck.... Well, this requires a bit more thought before
>I put my foot in my mouth in a big way.
No, I understand your point, but someone obviously finds both Monet *and* John
Doe appealing in some way, and I don't see anything wrong with that. However, I
also think it's gravely insulting to *every* artist when someone says "most art
is crap and doesn't deserve most of the admiration it gets." Even if you think
it sucks, you're talking about someone's self-expression...if someone else
finds meaning in it, do you think that's wrong?
X Lorelei X
"Hello, this is Moleman in the morning. Good
Moleman to you. Today, part 4 of our series on
the agonizing pain in which I live every daaay..."
Ren The Cat
To the private emailer, dAdA is art! Yes it is. DaDa
expounds on the dark beauty within this cold industrial age.
DaDa is a political statement and a social commentary. DAda
is quite chimerical in that it forces those who view the
work to consider that anything "we" the precious few "we"
say is art, really is. And if you don't like it, then you
are uncivilized. Perhaps those who do not enjoy daDa should
tour Europe for a season. :P
rogue2
> Kali Nichta wrote:
> Damnit, get out of my head. I've been wondering the same thing lately.
> I leafed through some books of "masters" recently and just shrugged. I
> look at the Mona Lisa and think "What? What!? What am I not getting
> here?" When I see the Mona Lisa, I don't think "Oh what a masterpiece,
> look at the emotion." I think "Oh gawd, there's that woman again." I
> look at Bruegel's work and notice that all the faces look alike; what's
> so fabulous about that?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I *love* art. I can spend hours pouring over art
> books or gazing at works in a museum, but most of the work we hail as
> the best of the best just leaves me cold. What am I missing?
I've done much the same, looking at art from the past.. I think I finally found a
conclusion to many of those artists.
They were originators. Without many of the early techniques and styles they used,
we wouldn't have a lot of the images in art that exist today. Any artist who's
worth their salt directly, or indirectly, takes one or two of their influences from
one of those dead old artists. Be it Michaelangelo, DaVinci, VanGogh, or Salvador
Dali (who I personally take influence from in my work). They may not have been the
greatest artists on earth in appearance, but look at what artists have today.. Many
of them have access to finer paint and supplies. Many artists use computer
enhancement, different imagery to observe and take into creative thought. Artists
back then often had only a brush, some paint, and easel, and imagination..
-Rogue
CJS
Wow.
Some one's bit to big for
their midnight black britches.
esc wrote:
>
> Grimalkin wrote:
> > Jenny is one of the new masters. She's my idol, really.
> You make me want to vomit. How can someone as pathetic and uneducated as
> yourself even dare to comment about art!
Okay.
1st mistake.
She was replying to someone elses post (kali nichta) in a joking way.
Since you didn't get the joke, you became one.
2nd mistake.
Plenty of pathetic and uneducated people are aritists. Even more are
art critics. Neither removes a person from either group.
> You are a worthless tasteless
> dilettante.
Are you COMPLETELY sure you know what hate means?
I mean,
I'd hate to think you were talking out your ass.
That would be pretty, I dunno....
uneducated and pathetic?
> If you were to die tomorrow, the world would breath a sigh of
> relief; secure in the knowledge that they would no longer be subject to your
> inane views about "art"!
*snip rest*
Look, you tried to be sarcastic and funny.
You failed, and need to learn
the fine line, and how not to cross it.
Take all the time you want,
and then a little more.
'kay?
Jealousy
CJS
Jealousy ambles up.
Tape Me Up wrote:
> sorry if i offended anyone, i just decided to make this a semi-angry reply
> purely for the fun of it. and NO I'M NOT A TROLL!
*ziiiip*
*thump*
Piiiiiiiiisssssssssss
*flush*
Jealousy( you are in a word, plonked.)
Lurch
I could give you the highbrow textbook definition, or I could give you
the pretentious coffee-house critic snobbery...but I'm sure someone has
beaten me to both several times over by now. So...
"Art is whatever someone else is willing to pay good money for."
--
Lurch
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/5586
"Sic gorgiamus allo subjectatus nunc"
GoZZ1 TJtSpPAn3 PLGR B1/35Bk cBr-s7G V6s M3 ZGoPuMeh C6 a29= n5F b46TD
H191 g5T1086A m@Z3 w6! v5 r6BIS p3Z555Zz D78! h5(JtSp) sM10M SmNn k5Z
N0595CNEw RfmS2p2 LusIL5
Grimm
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 03:46:39 -0700, Kali Nichta
<kalin...@geocities.com> did decree:
>look at the Mona Lisa and think "What? What!? What am I not getting
>here?" When I see the Mona Lisa, I don't think "Oh what a masterpiece,
>look at the emotion." I think "Oh gawd, there's that woman again." I
>look at Bruegel's work and notice that all the faces look alike; what's
>so fabulous about that?
Well, I have to call you on this one :). I mean, it's not my
favourite peice at all, and I think it pretty boring. But you have to
realize that when Da Vinci painted it, that was the first time
anything had been done so realistically. It was an amazing feat. Now
adays, we can just buy a photograph.... :)
>Don't get me wrong, I *love* art. I can spend hours pouring over art
>books or gazing at works in a museum, but most of the work we hail as
>the best of the best just leaves me cold. What am I missing?
I'm the same. I like art with passion (and I've already talked at
length about this one :)). My favourite stuff is the bizzare. I like
things like the mannerists, the surrealists, expressionists, cubists,
etc.
Oh, and I didn't answer the thread originally because I don't really
know how to explain it. I know art when I see it. Basically,
anything that was created from the heart, or to challange existing art
(junk sculpture and the like) I would consider art.
----
"April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain" - T.S. Eliot, the Wasteland
One of Papa Pans babygoths
esc
OK, that does it... I've suspected it for a while but this is proof. My
newsfeed officially bites. I am seeing Albatross' post but I don't see the
Kali Nichta post he refers to... Time to switch providers...
-esc-
Albatross wrote:
> Kali Nichta wrote:
> > esc wrote:
> > This is too fab. I admit, I nearly fell for it until I got to the part
> > where you began talking about Springer. Gah, and you even got Albatross
> > with that one (assuming Albatross read the original jokeflame). That
> > was brilliant. Bravo.
> Hmmm... Im going to have to read things more closely.
> But my advice to bev stands. :)
eric campbell
arg.....<grumbles to self and prepares to write yet another "I wasn't
trying to be a *^&#" response>
I'm guessing you thought I didn't get the joke of her "JJ is art" post
and responded with a hate-filled sarcastic post (and now that I go back
and look at what I wrote, I can see why you might think that... and boy
I look like a right bastard in that light).
In fact I thought her "JJ is art" post was hysterical and decided to
respond with a (in my mind) obviously fake flame ... I guess my attitude
was "OK, let's all pretend to discuss JJ and JS as really important
artists and PRETEND to get extremely pretentious, snobby and angry at
each other" - I meant it all in good fun.
-esc-
PS I didn't get around to posting until now because I have just
discovered my newsfeed is shorting me every once in a while and have
logged in with a friends account (separate (ISP).
Pariah
Hemlock wrote in message ...
>"Anything is art if an artist says it is."
>
> -- Marcel Duchamp
"Just because no one understands you, it doesn't mean you're an artist."
"Devil Bunnies!... www.primenet.com/~bkern
I snort the nose, Lucifer!... ICQ: 879171
Banana! Banana!"
-=Pariah=-
esc
I'm in a big rush so this will be quick but I wanted to get it in before the
thread disappeared
XloreleiX wrote:
> esc wrote:
> >Essentially, I agree here. My only comment (and I assume you agree) is that
> >"unaccessible" art is not valid by default.
> Well, I can agree that accessibility or the lack thereof doesn't automatically
> make a work of art more or less valid than any other. But I think it *all*
> qualifies as art, just as a Mentos jingle is music and the Ring Cycle is
> music. Some of it can be appreciated on several levels, some of it can't.
True, although I think it can be convenient *at times* to dismiss Mentos
jingles and their like when discussing art for the sake of simplifying the
discussion.... of course I realize "simplifying things is not generally a good
thing, but as long as all parties to the discussion are aware of the
"simplification", I don't really think it hurts too much....
> >(and your "shallow" jibe aside,
> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that *you* are shallow. I've just seen a very
> high correlation between superficial "art-lovers" and a total lack of interest
> or understanding of anything that isn't famous or accessible.
1)I was mostly kidding so no need to apologize
2)Unfortunately, I think superficial "art-lovers" make up a big percentage of
the population (which of course leads to the "dumbing down" of art (witness
Hollywood movies)).
> >...However, I think there is another definition of art and that is what my
> >second point addresses: Will it stand the test of time? Monet did even
> >though his art was initially considered "inaccessible and not aesthetically
> >pleasing" Incidentally, my point was not to argue that meeting this second
> >definition makes a work of art more "important" or "better".... It just
> >means
> >that it will be more likely to show up in a museum in 200 years.
> But why does it matter? Why can't something be appreciated for what it means
> *now*? I'd hate to think about all the brilliant art from the past that was
> lost or destroyed because of this attitude.
Of course you can appreciate current art (or any art for that matter) now...
Getting into the history books doesn't really matter for what someone
personally thinks of as art, but when you are trying to get a consensus as to
what is "good" art that needs to be preserved, the rules change a bit.....
ummmm... read on to my next point as it kind of ties in with this one...
> >> There *are* people who give a
> >> fuck about modern art, and find Monet rather dull. <clipped>
> >Yes, by my first "definition" much of modern art is "valid" (poor choice of
> >words but I'm getting tired and the brain is slowing down so I can't think of
> >the right word).
> >However, by my second definition, most of it isn't great art... yes, some of
> >it will stand the test of time and wind up in college textbooks but most of
> >it
> >will eventually be thrown away... we just won't know what is "great" and what
> >is "bad" for a long time...
> Aaaargh...I don't understand this. Something has to be popular, or at least not
> "thrown away," for hundreds of years before it qualifies as "great"?
....maybe it would be easier if we defined "Art" as "whatever the artist
intends/observer sees" but create another term called "Classic Art" or "Art
for the Masses" or something equally as silly... the definition being
something along the lines of "enough people love this work to want to keep it
for 100's of years and pay millions of dollars for it" (admittedly my def. is
a bit cynical but you know what I mean).
> >OK, the more I think about this the more I begin to suspect that most art
> >from
> >the past is crap and doesn't deserve "most" of the admiration it gets...
<snip snip chop chop>
> I also think it's gravely insulting to *every* artist when someone says "most art
> is crap and doesn't deserve most of the admiration it gets." Even if you think
> it sucks, you're talking about someone's self-expression...if someone else
> finds meaning in it, do you think that's wrong?
Totally correct... I was tossing terms around a bit loosely and didn't mean to
imply that art "I" don't like is "crap"... I guess what I really meant to say
was that part of the "art scene" with people flocking to see a famous artist
only because the artist is famous is wrong... Essentially they are the
"masses" of superficial art lovers you refer to ... people that don't bother
to even look at the works of art they pass on the way to the "Monet Gallery"
and who more than likely don't even understand Monet but are in fact only
there to tell their friends that they saw Monet when they were in Chicago....
(again, a bit cynical and rambling but I think you get my point)...
esc
Mr Morbid wrote:
> >those sketches I made all those years ago will be worth money - people will
> >examine them as if they are art... pondering my thoughts and emotions ...
> >trying to grasp the meaning or marveling at the technique.... WHY?
> probably still be thought of as crap. still, people will look at those sketches
> and say , "WHY, LOOK! You can see he's playing around with this use of line
> that is so pronounced in his later work."
Good point about the sketches, but maybe "earlier works that I did when I was
an unknown artist and no one paid attention to me" would have been a better
term than "sketches".
> i don't know...delacroix's sketches were shit when he started out and no one
> mentions those. Picasso had some fixation with oral sex that he constantly
> sketched out. Ever see any of those flying around for the public to consume?
1) This rocks
2) Why isn't this on the net... I mean every other topic under the sun is why
not a "crappy early work by famous artists" site.... hmmmm.... <dim lightbulb
appears over head and begins to glow brighter>
-esc-
Spurious
*bows down to that one.*
David Gerard
On 24 Apr 98 14:17:21 GMT, "Darksyde" <to...@nettexas.net> wrote:
:My definition of art: functionable vandalism.
:and yes, I am an artist.
Art is a mirror with which to shape the world. The data *is* the program.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"God, you have pissed me off to the point where I really wanna cut off your
face and bitch slap your skull." - Individuation