The nature of art
Daniel Sjöblom
The first distinction we can safely make is that a piece of art has to
be an artifact, something created by humans. Therefore a sunrise cannot
be considered art, but a painting or a photography of a sunrise can be
considered art.
Further we need to distinguish between art as object and art as action.
Art as object is an artifact (a piece of art), art as action is a
reference to skill, like when we speak of the art of war or the art of
cooking. I will here speak of art as object.
Threading on thinner ice, not all artifacts are considered to be art.
For example, few people would consider an everyday object like a spoon
to be art. But then again, if an accomplished artist like Duchamp took a
spoon and exhibited it as art, quite a few connoisseurs would consider
it art. Where is the line drawn then between art and not art?
Or consider that you would probably have a hard time convincing the
general public that those photos you took on your last vacation in
Hawaii are art, while a professional (art) photographer would not have
the same problem.
This naturally leads to the conclusion that art must bear evidence of
skill. But it is quite problematic, since many (modern) artists
intentionally choose to downplay skill, making pieces of art that appear
to be within the technical reach of anyone, even a little child. Should
these modern artists then actually be considered anti-artists or even
posers?
While on thin ice, I'll venture to say that what distinguishes art from
non-art is the purpose of it. I would say that art is that which does
not serve a rational, functional purpose. For example a microwave oven
is obviously designed for a functional purpose. But what purpose does
Durer's Melencolia engraving serve? It clearly is not meaningless, since
it has had a profound effect on myself and thousands (millions?) of
others. But why I find it meaningful, or why Durer engraved it in the
first place is a mystery. It also cannot be explained as some sort of
personality worship that might explain the Duchamp case, since I had
never heard of Durer when I saw the engraving for the first time as a
little child.
So, art clearly is meaningful in itself. But it is not meaningful in the
material, functional sense like the products of science are. Perhaps we
should view art as the highest form of communication, communication that
is unrestrained by the logic of reason. Art basically communicates
fundamental truth's about the nature of human existence. Art is an
escape from the material world into spiritual world. Perhaps art, like
religion is an attempt to reach transcendental knowledge.
Perhaps the confusion concerning what art is, is a result of this
20th/21st century Zeitgeist, where everything must be rational and
everything must have a productive function like an ant in an antcolony.
If something does not have a material function it is considered obsolete
and disposable and *strange*. I say : Man still can't live on bread
alone, and to think otherwise is foolish.
So, comments and critique are welcome.
Sir Frederick
>
> What is art and what is it's purpose?
>
> So, comments and critique are welcome.
The only way you or anyone can understand art in any
definitive way is through neurology. Simply put, the
purpose of human art is to activate the normal human
brain in various common ways. Human art "plays" the
human brain. ET art "plays" the ET brain. If brain
structure and function is not central to any art
analysis, that analysis is BS. It may be descriptive
of the art and of the analysts subjective experiences,
but it is not analysis. Folk lore theories on what it
is to be a human being are no longer acceptable except
for folk tales.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrases of the week :
"It is because science is sure of nothing that it is always
advancing." -- Emile Duclaux (1840-1904)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
Miller
"Daniel Sjöblom" <baatez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DB80C9F...@hotmail.com...
You make some great observations. For one comment, I would say that some of
your points emphasize the idea that for starters, one cannot always
effectively separate art as an object-artifact from art as an action-skill.
The significance of any art-as-object is that is, indeed, an
artifact--meaning it was made--the result of some action with artistic
intent. Likewise art-as-action is going to result in something new, even if
it is as fleeting as a sand-painting or a chalk-drawing. It seems to me
that actions and objects here, are intimately related by your concept of an
"artistic artifact".
Scott
Miller
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3DB8040A...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com...
> Daniel Sjöblom wrote:
> >
> > What is art and what is it's purpose?
> >
>
> > So, comments and critique are welcome.
>
> The only way you or anyone can understand art in any
> definitive way is through neurology. Simply put, the
> purpose of human art is to activate the normal human
> brain in various common ways. Human art "plays" the
> human brain. ET art "plays" the ET brain. If brain
> structure and function is not central to any art
> analysis, that analysis is BS. It may be descriptive
> of the art and of the analysts subjective experiences,
> but it is not analysis. Folk lore theories on what it
> is to be a human being are no longer acceptable except
> for folk tales.
>
> --
> Best,
> Frederick Martin McNeill
What's wrong with folk tales? Aren't they stories too?
Scott
Sir Frederick
>
> I dont see the relevance of brain structure to any
> human activity at all.
> If someone said 'when you do this your brain does
> this', would we be any the wiser if instead they said
> 'when you do this your brain does that'. The ability of
> a topic to address differences does not enable
> understanding here. Brain neorology and human activity
> both register differences, but their mutual
> understanding pass each other by, they have no common
> ground.
>
> JJ
A fairy tale.
John Jones
human activity at all.
If someone said 'when you do this your brain does
this', would we be any the wiser if instead they said
'when you do this your brain does that'. The ability of
a topic to address differences does not enable
understanding here. Brain neorology and human activity
both register differences, but their mutual
understanding pass each other by, they have no common
ground.
JJ
Sir Frederick <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in
message news:3DB8040A...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com...
Gea Jones
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Daniel Sjöblom" <baatez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DB80C9F...@hotmail.com...
ok , how about this,
women are naturally the most creative by the nature of the act of
having children.
This is the most creative thing that mankind ever achieves.
The ultimate act of creativity.
Any other form of creativity is a substitute, for this,
so there are more creative/ artists who are men,
and women who possibly enjoy having children
but have had less than they wanted, or none,
best wishes
Gea
>
Pax Vitae
a group "educated" (and I use that word loosely) people choosing one type
more artistic then another.
"Daniel Sjöblom" <baatez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DB80C9F...@hotmail.com...
Sir Frederick
For me to know and you to find out.
> Aren't they stories too?
Yes, also.
>
> Scott
Science is my religion, hence describes my experienced reality.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Wordsmith
Some say women, lacking the power men wield, have "penis envy", but
could men secretly nurse a "womb envy"? I wouldn't rule it out.
Wombsmith :)
Wordsmith
Do you genuflect to an icon of Einstein every morning? (Kidding!)
Wordsmith ;)
Sir Frederick
Haven't started reading yet.
Daniel Sjöblom
>
> Daniel Sjöblom wrote:
> >
> > What is art and what is it's purpose?
> >
>
> > So, comments and critique are welcome.
>
> The only way you or anyone can understand art in any
> definitive way is through neurology. Simply put, the
> purpose of human art is to activate the normal human
> brain in various common ways.
> Human art "plays" the
> human brain. ET art "plays" the ET brain.
> If brain
> structure and function is not central to any art
> analysis, that analysis is BS. It may be descriptive
> of the art and of the analysts subjective experiences,
> but it is not analysis. Folk lore theories on what it
> is to be a human being are no longer acceptable except
> for folk tales.
All valid points that shed light upon the issue from another angle.
Thank you. But I was mostly thinking of art as concept, what art means
linguistically and culturally. I was thinking of what assumptions and
biases lie behind the concept of 'art'. I was thinking of how we can
speak of art in a meaningful way.
Besides, how could you study art through neurology if you don't even
have a clear idea of what art is? But I do agree, if I had the proper
equipment I would surely view art from different angles (including
neurology) and from these different viewpoints assemble a 'real' theory
(my post was just stream of consciousness stuff).
Lorenzmcleod
is the main purpose of the action.
nick
People who teach art will often suggest that one should identify
oneself by discipline--- I am a painter, a sculptor, whatever--- and
let others decide if one is "an artist". If you refer to intent, you
are then invoking context.
If you eliminate context (Duchamp or an idiot who has heard of Duchamp
puts a spoon in a gallery, or other forms of contextual expression),
you can characterize objects as art by their characteristics of
design. Look to nature. There is nothing in nature which is not art. A
characteristic of art (necessary, I don't know if sufficient) is that
every element is necessary (or no element is unnecessary.) But, in the
act of creation, you can't determine sufficiency for any given piece.
Because you can add more trees until you have a forest, more fields to
make a landscape, more mountains to make a continent. The viewer
decides if you stopped at the right point.
Well, this is a tough subject for a short answer. Try making some art.
-nick
Daniel Sjöblom
>
> ok , how about this,
> women are naturally the most creative by the nature of the act of
> having children.
Hmm. Last I checked it takes two to tango, yes?
> This is the most creative thing that mankind ever achieves.
> The ultimate act of creativity.
> Any other form of creativity is a substitute, for this,
> so there are more creative/ artists who are men,
> and women who possibly enjoy having children
> but have had less than they wanted, or none,
It's an interesting point you make. But I think that the fact that more
artists are male is a cultural phenomena. Until quite recently it was
not possible for women to get the kind of artistic training that men
could get. And it was also far harder for women to get recognition in
the arts, which traditionally has been a male profession.
> best wishes
> Gea
Daniel Sjöblom
>
>
> You make some great observations. For one comment, I would say that some of
> your points emphasize the idea that for starters, one cannot always
> effectively separate art as an object-artifact from art as an action-skill.
>
> The significance of any art-as-object is that is, indeed, an
> artifact--meaning it was made--the result of some action with artistic
> intent. Likewise art-as-action is going to result in something new, even if
> it is as fleeting as a sand-painting or a chalk-drawing. It seems to me
> that actions and objects here, are intimately related by your concept of an
> "artistic artifact".
Yes, the art-object and art-action are very intimately related. I would
say that an artifact goes through two action phases. First there is the
creation, but then there is also the important recreation "after the
fact". So when I view a painting I'm recreating it in my head, and it
takes on the meaning it takes.
What is interesting is that the creation and recreation are not
separated in a non-fuzzy way. The artist himself goes through the
creation/recreation stages in the making of the artifact, until he
reaches a stage where he feels it is 'done'.
What one might gather from this is that viewing and experiencing art
also requires skill, the art of recreation. One might also conclude that
the art-object is ephemeral, and the true art lies in the action.
What is the art as action then?
I'm becoming more and more confused :)
Daniel Sjöblom
>
>
> People who teach art will often suggest that one should identify
> oneself by discipline--- I am a painter, a sculptor, whatever--- and
> let others decide if one is "an artist". If you refer to intent, you
> are then invoking context.
>
> If you eliminate context (Duchamp or an idiot who has heard of Duchamp
> puts a spoon in a gallery, or other forms of contextual expression),
> you can characterize objects as art by their characteristics of
> design. Look to nature. There is nothing in nature which is not art. A
> characteristic of art (necessary, I don't know if sufficient) is that
> every element is necessary (or no element is unnecessary.) But, in the
> act of creation, you can't determine sufficiency for any given piece.
> Because you can add more trees until you have a forest, more fields to
> make a landscape, more mountains to make a continent. The viewer
> decides if you stopped at the right point.
>
> Well, this is a tough subject for a short answer. Try making some art.
>
Great post. I do draw and paint in various media, but I'm not sure if it
is 'art' ;)
I agree with the characteristic of art you presented. That is basically
how I put a value on my own stuff. If it seems to be all it can be, I
call it done. Most often I'm never 'done' :)
Contextuality. I guess I want art to stand on its own because I find
this postmodern sense of 'anything goes if I say so' to be an extremely
stupid attitude. But also, I can't say I don't find Duchamp to be a
genius in his own field.
I'll think this over and maybe post something else later. It truly is a
tough subject.