Purpose of Art
Michele
explanation of the purpose of art is one of the best I've seen.
You can find the whole article here:
http://char.txa.cornell.edu/art/introart.htm
Purposes of Art
Art is created and enjoyed by many people for many reasons. However,
one of the things that art does is extend and expand our shared common
visual language. When new visual ideas are first introduced by the
artist, they are often seen as shocking, and perhaps even as
incomprehensible. However, with time the best and most effective of
these ideas are accepted. There is nothing harder than trying to grasp
what was shocking or illuminating about certain images, or ways of
making images, once the shock is gone, and we have all absorbed this
bit of visual data into our own vocabularies. Artists show us new ways
to see familiar things, and how to interpret new situations and events
through various kinds of visual shorthand. This creation of visual
language may be the artist's intention, or it may be a side effect of
other purposes. So what are some of the purposes that art fulfills?
Probably the oldest purpose of art is as a vehicle for religious
ritual. From the prehistoric cave paintings of France, to the Sistine
Chapel, art has served religion. For centuries the Church was the
primary patron of artists. In traditional societies even today, the
primary purpose of art is religious or ceremonial.
Art may also serve as a commemoration of an important event. The event
may be of major historical importance, such as the coronation of
Josephine by Napoleon as recorded by the artist David, or it may be
important only to the participants, like the image of a wedding or a
baptism.
Art has often served as propaganda or social commentary. Propaganda
images are attempts to persuade us toward particular viewpoints or
actions promoted by public or private institutions such as political
parties, lobbyists, governments, or religious groups. The propaganda
purpose may be one we approve of, such as World War II efforts to get
women behind the war effort, as epitomized in Norman Rockwell's Rosie
the Riveter. It might also be a purpose we disapprove of. In either
case, the power of visual images has frequently been used to persuade
masses of people to accept beliefs, take action, or follow leaders. The
artist as social commentator may simply make us more aware of the human
condition as he/she perceives it, without suggesting particular action.
All societies engage in propaganda, but here are some links to
propaganda art created in China, and by the Allies during World War I.
and during World War II.
Art may be simply a means of recording of visual data-- telling the
"truth" about what we see. After the Renaissance, artists became
preoccupied with new ways of capturing reality such as the use of
linear perspective, and the realism possible through the use of oil
painting technique. In time, artists like Courbet and Cezanne (and many
who followed them) began in various ways to challenge the basic idea of
what it is for an image to be true and real.
Art can also be seen as pleasing the eye- creating beauty. Yet the idea
of beauty, like that of truth, has been challenged in the modern era.
At one time, the artist was expected to portray perfection-- lofty and
noble ideals of beauty. Yet as society became more industrialized and
democratic, many thoughtful people began to broaden their notions of
what could be beautiful. For example, Rembrandt could celebrate the
tactile quality of paint and color in his picture of a side of beef,
and Courbet and Millet could see beauty in the life of ordinary
peasants.
Art is also a powerful means of storytelling. This was a common device
of religious art of the Middle ages, for example in the frescoes by
Giotto from the Church of San Francesco de Assisi , where sequences of
panels were used to tell stories from the Scriptures or lives of
saints. It is also the great gift of Norman Rockwell, who had the
ability to tell powerful and subtle stories about ordinary people and
events, in just one picture. A picture is truly worth a thousand words.
Art can also convey intense emotion.The expressive power of art can be
seen in literal ways in the capturing of facial expression and body
language. Certain religious art, and the works of expressionists such
as Munch or Kirchner are charged with powerful emotions. Picasso, in
works such as Guernica (also an example of powerful social commentary
and storytelling) is able to communicate intense emotions. This is
accomplished variously by use of dramatic or exaggerated color, light,
form, and/or other elements.
In any case, one of the primary functions of art is to interpret the
subject matter at hand. Subject matter does not change all that much
over time. Although new subject matter has evolved, the human
condition, nature, and events still continue to capture the attention
of artists. The media used have changed relatively little; though new
materials have appeared in this century, the conventional media
continue to be used. Nor can we say that the quality or artistic merit
of art works has increased or lessened with time. However, throughout
the course of history as society has changed, so also has the
interpretation of specific subject matter. A portrait executed by
Matisse in 1907 could not be confused with one done by van Dyck in the
1630s.Even landscape is reinterpreted in the context of a changing
world. Each work is an expression of the subject in the context of the
values, culture, and events of its specific era.
Michele
crap troll (tm)
What constitutes 'art' -is it in the realisation, the interpretation or
the act of 'experiencing' it?
Is 'art' valid in today's culture, or has it been superseded as a
method of communication?
When does one's 'work' become 'art' as opposed to a reproduction or
design?
Can an idea alone be 'art'?
Is art in the production or does it need to be rationalised and
interpreted to become so?
If no-one sees a piece of work can it still be termed 'art'?
Does adding a description to a work disrupt the object of the
interpretation of it?
Is the 'Prisoner' art or a well crafted television series - if the
former, what makes it so?
Just a few questions from one who believes the term is used too readily
in modern society, as is 'musician' and ''genius' .
CT (Can I call myself a Doctor, if I have not healed someone?)
Michele
Journal. This is today's entry and speaks why I am an artist.
Why do we have art? Why do artists do art? Why art?
Cornell University in its web page on art focuses on several reasons as
to what the purpose of art is. You can find their article here:
http://char.txa.cornell.edu/art/introart.htm
What does art mean to me as an artist though? Why do I do art? Why do I
spend so many hours working on a picture?
For me art is a way of expressing the thoughts and feelings that are
inside of me. It is a way to create beauty or questions or whatever it
is I am feeling at the time I am creating. When 9/11 hit I used my art
that evening to try and deal with the horror and pain I was feeling. As
a by product of that piece of art I was able to use that picture to
raise money for the charities helping out at the disaster area. I was
told by many people that my picture was a consolation to them at that
terrible time.
My art is a way for me to talk to other people. It is a starting point
in conversations. It is a way to communicate.
Sometimes I create art because I need to see beauty around me. I use my
art especially in times when there is so much ugliness in the world as
a consolation for myself and others. I use it as a reaffirmation that
even during the darkest of times there is still beauty to be found. I
know it is chic to criticize the work of Thomas Kincaid as too
commercial but there is an incredible beauty to his work. I am glad his
work sells so well and that so many people buy it. He is "The Painter
of Light" and "it is better to light one candle then to curse the
darkness." He is bringing light into a dark world and for that I am
grateful.
Art is essentially a very personal thing to each artist. We are drawn
to art for various reasons. I was drawn to it because it allows me to
give solid form to an over active imagination. It helps me understand
myself as a person. I was drawn to it because it allows me to create
beauty. It allows me to share myself with others. To all of the people
through the years that have responded so well to my art I thank each
and everyone of you. You are one of the reasons that I have thrown
myself into my art. You have let me know that it makes you happy to see
my art and the happiness of others is very important to me.
Sometimes I use my art to ask questions. My picture "The Door" asks
if we imprison ourselves? Are we afraid to look at other avenues in our
lives? Are we placing our own barriers?
Sometimes my art is just for fun. Sometimes I get in a silly mood and
just want to play and hope others get a laugh as well.
Most of all my art is a way of sharing the talents that God gave me
with others. I want to be able to bring beauty, or questions, or
conversations, or humor, or solace, or whatever can help a person even
if only briefly in their lives. The purpose of my art is the purpose of
my life. I believe we are on this earth to help others and if my art
can touch even one person in any way for the better then those long
hours I put in on my craft are meaningful to me.
The picture is called "In God's Hands" and it was the picture I did the
evening of 9/11.
Why do we have art? Why do artists do art? Why art?
Cornell University in its web page on art focuses on several reasons as
to what the purpose of art is. You can find their article here:
http://char.txa.cornell.edu/art/introart.htm
What does art mean to me as an artist though? Why do I do art? Why do I
spend so many hours working on a picture?
For me art is a way of expressing the thoughts and feelings that are
inside of me. It is a way to create beauty or questions or whatever it
is I am feeling at the time I am creating. When 9/11 hit I used my art
that evening to try and deal with the horror and pain I was feeling. As
a by product of that piece of art I was able to use that picture to
raise money for the charities helping out at the disaster area. I was
told by many people that my picture was a consolation to them at that
terrible time.
My art is a way for me to talk to other people. It is a starting point
in conversations. It is a way to communicate.
Sometimes I create art because I need to see beauty around me. I use my
art especially in times when there is so much ugliness in the world as
a consolation for myself and others. I use it as a reaffirmation that
even during the darkest of times there is still beauty to be found. I
know it is chic to criticize the work of Thomas Kincaid as too
commercial but there is an incredible beauty to his work. I am glad his
work sells so well and that so many people buy it. He is "The Painter
of Light" and "it is better to light one candle then to curse the
darkness." He is bringing light into a dark world and for that I am
grateful.
Art is essentially a very personal thing to each artist. We are drawn
to art for various reasons. I was drawn to it because it allows me to
give solid form to an over active imagination. It helps me understand
myself as a person. I was drawn to it because it allows me to create
beauty. It allows me to share myself with others. To all of the people
through the years that have responded so well to my art I thank each
and everyone of you. You are one of the reasons that I have thrown
myself into my art. You have let me know that it makes you happy to see
my art and the happiness of others is very important to me.
Sometimes I use my art to ask questions. My picture "The Door" asks
if we imprison ourselves? Are we afraid to look at other avenues in our
lives? Are we placing our own barriers?
Sometimes my art is just for fun. Sometimes I get in a silly mood and
just want to play and hope others get a laugh as well.
Most of all my art is a way of sharing the talents that God gave me
with others. I want to be able to bring beauty, or questions, or
conversations, or humor, or solace, or whatever can help a person even
if only briefly in their lives. The purpose of my art is the purpose of
my life. I believe we are on this earth to help others and if my art
can touch even one person in any way for the better then those long
hours I put in on my craft are meaningful to me.
The picture is called "In God's Hands" and it was the picture I did the
evening of 9/11.
http://members.aol.com/artbymichele/hands.htm
Michele
Rick Davy
"Michele" <Miche...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1160491278.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Conell University has a web page dedicated to art. I think their
> explanation of the purpose of art is one of the best I've seen.
>
If Art needs an explanation or purpose, it is defeated. The best examples of
art are those which are not defined. Should not art be down to an
individuals interpretation?
Rick
Brian Watson
"crap troll (tm)" <crap...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160493413....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Has the computer reduced the creation of 'art' to mere 'collage'?
>
> What constitutes 'art' -is it in the realisation, the interpretation or
> the act of 'experiencing' it?
>
> Is 'art' valid in today's culture, or has it been superseded as a
> method of communication?
>
> When does one's 'work' become 'art' as opposed to a reproduction or
> design?
>
> Can an idea alone be 'art'?
>
> Is art in the production or does it need to be rationalised and
> interpreted to become so?
>
> If no-one sees a piece of work can it still be termed 'art'?
>
> Does adding a description to a work disrupt the object of the
> interpretation of it?
>
> Is the 'Prisoner' art or a well crafted television series - if the
> former, what makes it so?
Questions are a burden to.. him er, her... um, what he said.
--
Brian
Michele
crap troll (tm) wrote:
> Has the computer reduced the creation of 'art' to mere 'collage'?
I think the computer does give one a starting point to talk about
things on a lrager scale then has been done before because we can reach
more people simultaniously then we have even been able to do. In that
way it is a usful tool.
> What constitutes 'art' -is it in the realisation, the interpretation or the act of 'experiencing' >it?
I would say all three are true. What one person sees as art another
person sees as "garbage." A picture or any other form that represents
art will resonate in a different way to each individual because we see
it through our own view of life and with our own beliefs and
prejugdices in place. We all have artists we like or dislike. I like
Claude Monet, Salvador Dali, and Chelsey Bonestall for example. I don't
like Picasso or Boris Vallejo. It doesn't mean that Picasso and Boris
Vallejo aren't artists it just means I don't like them.
> Is 'art' valid in today's culture, or has it been superseded as a method of communication?
I think art is still very important in our culture. I think the
Internet has spread art to wider audiences but the visual is still very
important. The old quote that "a picture is worth a thousand words" is
still true as far as I am concerned. Too many words smetimes can
overwhelm where as soemthing visual can connect.
> When does one's 'work' become 'art' as opposed to a reproduction or design?
My own definition would be that a reproduction is an exact copy of
something someone else has done. I think of design as art because you
are creating something new. I think a broad definition of art would be
the creation of something new. This is a difficult one to answer and I
hope someone else can take a stab at it.
> Can an idea alone be 'art'?
I would say that an idea doesn't become art until it is in a form where
it can be experienced by others.
> Is art in the production or does it need to be rationalised and interpreted to become so?
Again I would say that art needs to be able to be experience before it
can be art. I have ideas for pictures in my head but is it art? I
wouldn't call them art yet because they are in a form where no one
including myself can experience them. Right now they are just ideas and
since no one can read my mind I'm the only one who knows what they are.
Those ideas will probably change and evolve as I start working on them
and what I am "seeing" now is not what they will become once I have
finished creating them.
> If no-one sees a piece of work can it still be termed 'art'?
The artist sees it.
> Does adding a description to a work disrupt the object of the interpretation of it?
I would say no. If one of the purposes of art is communication then art
is meant to be talked about and interpreted. The piece still stands as
the artist created it no matter what others say about it. The reality
of the art doesn't change but the discussion of the piece in no way
invalidates the art. In my mind discussion and interpretation adds to a
piece of art because it means that the work involves others now.
> Is the 'Prisoner' art or a well crafted television series - if the former, what makes it so?
I see it as art because Mr. McGoohan has taken an idea that is still
raising controversy and discussion 30 years later. It still works
visually. It is well crafted that is for certain but I have seen well
crafted shows that are nice to look at once but that have no meaning
later. I think it is the ability to involve others that makes it a work
of art. Sorry but I'm having toruble trying to explain what I mean and
would apprecite others jumping in on this one.
> Just a few questions from one who believes the term is used too readily in modern >
>society, as is 'musician' and ''genius' .
I think they are great questions and I look forward to others answering
these questions. Thank you.
> CT (Can I call myself a Doctor, if I have not healed someone?)
Why not at least ten actors have done so. ;-)
Michele
Steve Dix
Alan Jones
Yes.
Al
Rick Davy
"crap troll (tm)" <crap...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160493413....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> in modern society, as is 'musician' and ''genius' .
>
>
That's a scarily good point.
I can play the guitar, to a fashion. Does this make me a musician? No. I run
a few websites. Does this make me a web designer? No. I write a few bits and
bobs for the sites. Does this make me a writer? No.
So therefore, at what point can someone be described, or describe themselves
as, "a writer" (surely not by just writing something), "an artist" (surely
not by just creating an image), or "a musician" (not by just playing a
tune)?
Rick
Michele
Rick Davy wrote:
> I can play the guitar, to a fashion. Does this make me a musician? No. I run
> a few websites. Does this make me a web designer? No. I write a few bits and
> bobs for the sites. Does this make me a writer? No.
>
I think you are selling yourself and your talents short, Rick. If you
can read music and play an instrument to the point where it can be
recognized as music then yes you are a musician. Are you a professional
musician, no not unless that is how you make your living but it doesn't
mean you are not a musician. Your websites are very well done. You know
how to not only physically set up a site but you set up sites that
people want to see. Are you a web designer? Yes you are and a very good
one at that. Are you a writer? Yes you are. You write things on your
website that people want to read. Are you a professional writer, well
it depends on whether or not you get paid to do it. I think we get
bogged down into degrees. I am a professional artist in the sense that
I have a resale license and that I have been hired to do art work on
commission however I am not professional in the sense of this is how I
make my living. I am an artist in the fact that I am accepted by my
peers in the science fiction/fantasy field as an artist however I am
still an amateur in the fact that I am still learning to be an artist.
I don't know my craft of computer art completely but I am learning
more each day. One of these days I hope to be able to make a living at
art. That is my dream. You are doing something you love with your webs,
your guitar, and your writing and I believe that makes you a web
designer, musician and writer. You don't have to be a professional to
be something you only have to be a professional if that is how you are
going to list yourself on your income tax form.
Michele
roger
news:l66dnYZ-589...@bt.com...
>
> I can play the guitar, to a fashion. Does this make me a musician? No. I
> run a few websites. Does this make me a web designer? No. I write a few
> bits and bobs for the sites. Does this make me a writer? No.
I think you do yourself a bit of disservice in some of those respects, Rick,
especially given the popularity of your site, but I know what you mean and
can see the point you're making. It's a bit like me claiming to be an
interviewer or David Jones, you and me claiming to be convention organisers,
however wonderfully we do it when we do it.
:-).
> So therefore, at what point can someone be described, or describe
> themselves as, "a writer" (surely not by just writing something), "an
> artist" (surely not by just creating an image), or "a musician" (not by
> just playing a tune)?
Two measurable points leap to mind:
i) when you're actually paid for (and preferably earn your living full time
from) your talent, at which point you might consider using the word
"professional";
ii) when more-than-your-peers, for lack of a better description, recognise
you for your talent.
I mess around with the guitar like a lot of people do and I was once, only
once and at short notice because it was an emergency due to sudden illness,
asked if I would play the guitar in a regional production of 'Smike' -
nothing memorable and the chords, apart from the odd Fm without a
capodaster, were not demanding, but I'd never played in a group before and I
thought it was wonderful. That still wouldn't make me a musician but it was
the first tiny step there.
:-)
Rick Davy
But doesn't that denegrate "true" musicians / artists, or whatever, if
someone has a hobby but calls themself one anyway? I think this was the
point crap troll (tm) was trying to make.
If everyone who ever picks up an instrument is a musician, anyone that ever
draws is an artist, anyone that tells a joke is a comedian, I think that
dumbs down "proper" musicians / artists / entertainers, or whatever, who
have a totally recognisable talent.
I'm no Eric Clapton, you're no Dali, etc etc (not that either of us claimed
to be) so should we be calling ourselves musicians or artists? Probably not,
just people who have a keen hobby. :-)
Rick
Wh...@nowhere.org
>I think the computer does give one a starting point to talk about
>things on a lrager scale then has been done before because we can reach
>more people simultaniously then we have even been able to do. In that
>way it is a usful tool.
If I downloaded some old, low resolution clip art from the net and
pasted it all over a page, would that be art? Yes? No?
If I had some modern, high resolution clip art and positioned it
artfully on the page, would that be art? Maybe?
If I bought a box of fuzzy felt shapes and made a picture of a
village, would that be art? Perhaps?
If I had some pre-formed CGI clip art of unicorns and white spheres
and made some simple pictures, would that be art? Hmmm.
If took up a paintbrush, paint and a canvas and painted a picture,
would that be art? Yes.
Would the others? I strongly doubt it.
>> What constitutes 'art' -is it in the realisation, the interpretation or the act of 'experiencing' >it?
That kind of tosh is what got us Tracy Emin FFS!
>> Can an idea alone be 'art'?
>
>I would say that an idea doesn't become art until it is in a form where
>it can be experienced by others.
If I threw a tin of paint out of the window and it splattered on the
road outside, would the resulting splat be art or just a mess? If I
did the same on a canvas, would it be art or just a mess? Someone can
still experience the road, but it wouldn't be art, so what gives the
canvas any elevation of status?
Oh, and WTF has this got to do with The Prisoner anyway?
crap troll (tm)
>
> >> What constitutes 'art' -is it in the realisation, the interpretation or the act of 'experiencing' >it?
>
> That kind of tosh is what got us Tracy Emin FFS!
> Oh, and WTF has this got to do with The Prisoner anyway?
Hey, don't blame me for Tracy Emin, I'm as bemused as you!
roger
>
> anyone that tells a joke is a comedian,
That is a *very* good example and highlights the gulf between the amateur
and the professional. One of the hardest things in the world is to go out
and entertain, sometimes for an hour, sometimes for a whole evening,
sometimes in Ken Dodd's case for the best part of the day, as a stand-up
comedian. You think not? You just try it. You just even contemplate it. And
then make sure you've seen Zoe Lyons' act before you even think you can step
on stage.
roger
When Charles Saatchi's warehouse, containing a number of Tracey Emin pieces,
caught fire two years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3750819.stm
at what point did her art become ashes?
geoffum
Alan Jones
You mean "a man of few words" (for once), methinks, Geoff. ;-))
Al
Steve Dix
wrote:
>"Rick Davy" <Rdav...@NOSPAMbtopenworld.com> wrote in message
>news:XdKdnZRW2vD...@bt.com...
>>
>> anyone that tells a joke is a comedian,
>
>That is a *very* good example and highlights the gulf between the amateur
>and the professional. One of the hardest things in the world is to go out
>and entertain, sometimes for an hour, sometimes for a whole evening,
>sometimes in Ken Dodd's case for the best part of the day, as a stand-up
>comedian. You think not? You just try it. You just even contemplate it.
I have. And I've been paid for it. I wouldn't necessarily say I'm a
professional, though. The same goes for music. I've been paid to
stand up and play and sing, and have sold a reasonable amount of CDs
and downloads based upon that. I wouldn't call myself a professional
there, either.
If I derived a large part of my income from either, I'd say I was a
professional, but I don't.
lewst...@yahoo.co.uk
Regarding what constitutes someone calling
themselves an artist / musician / writer, etc, it has to be the point
where a person reaches a certain standard of craft. In the case of Fine
Art for example (which I think most people were thinking about in this
thread), it's surely dependent on whether the artist can master the
"rules" of producing such work such as anatomy, body language, body
dynamics, shadow, foreshortening, texture, perspective, composition
etc.
Yes, there are other art styles which break these rules but most
of those artists have the knowledge of the basic rules in order to
bend or break them. And even 3-D artists using computer software still
need to appreciate these rules.
In my own professional work (23 years as a full time comic artist)
the requirements are composition, perspective (or an
impression of perspective that doesn't look too awkward), consistency
(keeping a character looking like the same person from panel to panel),
emotion, movement, story flow (having the eye follow the action from
left to right) and most importantly hoping to make it funny, amongst
other things.
I could also add that there's a certain "soul" one puts into one's
work. Embarrassed that this sounds too arty-farty but usually if a
strip makes
me smile when I create it, or I create a new character, alien, monster,
or something that
I'm pleased with, it transfers over to the reader and it's usually a
favourite of theirs too. So there must be some joy and excitement that
somehow carries across. Without such feeling there's no hope of any
emotional transference.
Right. I'll go back in my box now. ;-)
Lew Stringer
http://lewcomix.tripod.com
http://brickmancomics.tripod.com
Michele
Rick Davy wrote:
>
>
> I'm no Eric Clapton, you're no Dali, etc etc (not that either of us claimed
> to be) so should we be calling ourselves musicians or artists? Probably not,
> just people who have a keen hobby. :-)
>
> Rick
I know no matter how hard I try I just can't seem to graw that darn
mustache. ;-)
Michele
crap troll (tm)
> mustache. ;-)
>
> Michele
Could you not download one? };o)
CT
"I tried to be a 'failed artist' once, but I couldn't quite get the
hang of the former..."
Michele
I tried that but unfortunately all I got was a mustache on the screen
as well as kitty paw prints. Pixie is determined to catch the "mouse"
cursor. ;-)
Michele
lewst...@yahoo.co.uk
Moor Larkin wrote:
> The urge to create..... To leave something of oneself.... To be
> immortal. Is that the 'purpose' of art?
Sounds a bit poncey to me. I agree with Roger in that the purpose is to
communicate, and I would say it's to communicate mainly in the here and
now rather than *purposely* for some dreamt of immortality. (In the
case of *commercial* art I would say the purpose is to entertain.)
The fame game certainly isn't the best incentive for creativity. If
there's anything the lowbrow tv show X-Factor has taught us it's that
there are a lot of self-deluded people out there calling themselves
singers. And they're shattered when faced with the reality that they're
Just Not Good Enough.
The same applies to any form of art and entertainment. There have to be
certain standards to reach before one can call oneself an artist.
Although I was makig up comic strips from a very young age I didn't
have the gall to call myself a cartoonist until I was good enough to
make professional sales on a regular basis.
After all, I could throw a few second hand plants, pots, and clumps of
turf around my garden but it wouldn't make me a landscape gardener. ;-)
Lew (Gahh! Got the postin' bug again! ;-))
Big Bill
Moor Larkin wrote:
>
> There are oil paintings available that are mass-produced, by Asian
> people, I believe, on a production-line basis. Each painter daubs a
> certain part of the picture and at the end of the process a reasonably
> effective "original oil" is the result. You can buy them in "Everything
> for a Pound" type shops. They are viewed as trash I suppose, but I
> could never ever reproduce them, no matter how hard I tried.
I think that a worthy question for this thread would be:
"Is the use of the original celluloid print of the The Prisoner
considered to be art; or is it the mass produced dvd box set of the
entire series that you can get for as low as twenty pounds also
considered to be art or just a commodity?"
Maybe it's not just the meaning of particular pieces of art that has
changed over the times but also maybe the meaning of "art" has also
changed.
One poster from another newsgroup referred to Fall Out as being "low
art" or surrealism. A much different style to that of the other eps.
Personnaly, I love religious art, the older the better but I also like
Piet Mondrian (another great monogramsake). Much of Mondrian's work is
a series of primary coloured squares and lines. It doesn't mean
anything to me but I like it visually.
To understand more of the interpretation of art, I recommend John
Berger's book "Ways of Seeing" that was based on the BBC TV
miniseries.
B,C&U
Big Bill
P;'
lewst...@yahoo.co.uk
Big Bill wrote:
> I think that a worthy question for this thread would be:
> "Is the use of the original celluloid print of the The Prisoner
> considered to be art; or is it the mass produced dvd box set of the
> entire series that you can get for as low as twenty pounds also
> considered to be art or just a commodity?"
>
Surely it's neither. Celluloid or a disc are just the "canvas". ;-)
I know what you mean though, but art doesn't cease to be art because
it's mass produced. Okay, a print of a Van Gogh painting would
definitely lose something because you'd lack the texture for example.
But we're in danger of blurring "fine art", "commercial art", and "art
& entertainment" here when each are distinctly different.
IMHO The Prisoner ain't art, it's tv entertainment FOR a mass audience.
That was its remit. GREAT entertainment, and thought-provoking stuff,
but that's all.
Lew
Steve Dix
OK then : What's the difference between "high art" and "low art"?
Lew Stringer
> On 11 Oct 2006 09:57:58 -0700, lewst...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>>
>> I know what you mean though, but art doesn't cease to be art because
>> it's mass produced. Okay, a print of a Van Gogh painting would
>> definitely lose something because you'd lack the texture for example.
>> But we're in danger of blurring "fine art", "commercial art", and "art
>> & entertainment" here when each are distinctly different.
>>
>> IMHO The Prisoner ain't art, it's tv entertainment FOR a mass audience.
>> That was its remit. GREAT entertainment, and thought-provoking stuff,
>> but that's all.
>>
>> Lew
>
>
> OK then : What's the difference between "high art" and "low art"?
>
>
You tell me. Who mentioned them?
Lew
Jill Mills
"Lew Stringer" <lew.st...@BTopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:epednXz9fY5...@bt.com...
I bet you keep *one* of them on a shelf...
Jill
Lew Stringer
My shaving mirror is art? ;-)
Lew
Jill Mills
"Lew Stringer" <lew.st...@BTopenworld.com> wrote in message
I think it only applies to mirrors if you happen to be 'The Rokeby Venus'...
;-)
Jill
Steve Dix
You did. Implicitly. Mass-produced art, such as Film and music, is
usually referred to as low art, whereas high art is generally
considered to be a one-off, such as a sculpture or a painting.
The problem is, where does high art begin and end? It's very easy to
take an example of high art - for example the Mona Lisa - and make
copies to distribute. Does that make it anything less than high art?
Michele
Steve Dix wrote:
>
> The problem is, where does high art begin and end? It's very easy to
> take an example of high art - for example the Mona Lisa - and make
> copies to distribute. Does that make it anything less than high art?
If it weren't for copies most of the world would never see pictures
like the Mona Lisa so while we may not get the full effect of the
paintings or sculptures in high art because we don't see the brush
strokes etc that contibute to it we do get a taste of the high art in
reproductions. When I was very young my Dad bought a set from the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York during one of his many business
trips to the Big Apple. The "books" contained copies of famous art work
that hangs in the museum along with notes on the various artists and
their times. I would spend hours and hours looking at those pictures. I
was and fascinated by the different styles of art and when I finally
got to actually see the real pictures a few years ago I think the time
I spent looking at those reproductions increased my appreciation. I
felt like I was looking at the works of old friends.
Michele
Ivor Jones
> Steve Dix wrote:
> >
> > The problem is, where does high art begin and end?
> > It's very easy to take an example of high art - for
> > example the Mona Lisa - and make copies to distribute.
> > Does that make it anything less than high art?
>
> If it weren't for copies most of the world would never
> see pictures like the Mona Lisa so while we may not get
> the full effect of the paintings or sculptures in high
> art because we don't see the brush strokes etc that
> contibute to it we do get a taste of the high art in
> reproductions.
I went to see the Mona Lisa in the Louvre a few years ago, although I'd
been to Paris a few times I'd never been in there, but some other people
said they wanted to go so I went along.
I was surprised how small the painting was, I can't remember exactly but
it can't be more than 12 inches top to bottom, if that. You couldn't get
right up close to it anyway as the area around the wall it was hanging on
was partitioned off by glass. I believe it's been given (or is about to be
given) its own room now anyway.
Ivor