Isn't it Art?new thread
Peter H.M. Brooks
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
>
> The bottom line is that I doubt there
> will ever be general agreement as to
> what is or isn't art.
>
That may be the 'bottom line' (surely apologies to panty makers), but
what has that to do with art?
General agreement is generally wrong, the majority is notorious for
getting it wrong.
So, how could a 'general agreement' about what is, or isn't, art be of
any help?
To my mind, if the general agreement is that something is art, then the
fact is likely to be that it isn't art and vica versa.
--
"My own opinion - which I may as well indicate at the outset - is
that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which
society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible.."
- Bertrand Russell
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
continuing discussion as to what art is
or is not is due to the emotional
inability of the fundamentalists to
sub-classify art
People tend to fight over their idea of
what objects will be assigned the title
"art". The traditionalists (they
usually present Bougeureau as their
example of what art really is) argue
that the abstractionist painters etc.,
should not use the word "art" to
describe their work.
Even if we sub-classifed art into
religious, fine-art, commercial,
romantic, erotic, abstract, etc., there
would be arguments as to what
sub-catagory one's hero was to be
assigned. You can imagine the arguments
as to whether Bougeureau should be
assigned to fine-art or erotic art,
maybe even fine-erotic-art - I would put
him in fine-tastefull-erotic-art mainly
because when I hang some of his nudes
beside an early playboy conservative
centrefold I can't tell the difference -
of course in my grandfather's day a
female covered in a body sock was a big
deal.
The bottom line is that I doubt there
will ever be general agreement as to
what is or isn't art.
Let the debate continue
have fun: keith
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
I can see from your response that you
have spent many years giving this
subject your best thoughts. I hope that
you continue to do so as it is plain for
(I won't say all) to see, that you
express yourself with the utmost
efficiency and clarity. Straight to the
point, no going in circles for you.
your humble servant: keith
John Ng
> People tend to fight over their idea of
> what objects will be assigned the title
> "art"
That is what I been trying to say as well. The word "Art" is as vague
as "Thing". However, if one group is to keep the word then
Traditionalist is the one only for the reason that they have kept it
for 500. The modern art is along a different branch (oriental I dare
say) and should go under a different term like "Modern Art".
Lauri Levanto
of your sober words.
Among all those subcategories, what puzzles me
is the "contemporary art".
Lexically everything made in this century is contemporary.
Like Marilyn pointed out, however, the art world
uses the word as referring to certain type of art which does not
follow or extend traditions of classical academic art.
Copyrighting the word contemporary refers everything
else as outdated or old-fashioned.
It isn't fair
-lauri
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9vb7ku$mpp$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
[snip]
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
Very stimulating words - reminds me of
one time when we were going to the U.S.
Passing though a small Eastern Ontario
town we were slowed down behind a local
Canada day parade. A horse in front of
us dropped his load in a nice steaming
pile in the center of the road. An on
looker ran out and stuck a Canada flag
into it. I wished I'd had a camera with
me but such is life.
Thanks for the horseshit Bill
take care: keith
William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote
in message
news:u1k8d9f...@corp.supernews.com...
Peter H.M. Brooks
the
> > fact is likely to be that it isn't art and vica versa.
>
>
I do so love a reasoned, considered and intelligent insight!
--
'Say "pounds", :"sovereigns", "Bradburies" - almost
anything you choose,' said Raisley, 'but not "quid", Let us not have
proletarian usage.'
Simon Raven 'In the image of god'
mdeli
>People tend to fight over their idea of
>what objects will be assigned the title
>"art". The traditionalists (they
>usually present Bougeureau as their
>example of what art really is)
Nobody including you knows "what art really is."
> argue
>that the abstractionist painters etc.,
>should not use the word "art" to
>describe their work.
>
>Even if we sub-classifed art into
>religious, fine-art, commercial,
>romantic, erotic, abstract, etc., there
>would be arguments as to what
>sub-catagory one's hero was to be
>assigned. You can imagine the arguments
>as to whether Bougeureau should be
>assigned to fine-art or erotic art,
>maybe even fine-erotic-art - I would put
>him in fine-tastefull-erotic-art mainly
>because when I hang some of his nudes
>beside an early playboy conservative
>centrefold I can't tell the difference -
>of course in my grandfather's day a
>female covered in a body sock was a big
>deal.
I'm sure your problem with Bouguereau stems from the fact that he
gives you a very large hard-on. Try Dali in order to soften matters.
>The bottom line is that I doubt there
>will ever be general agreement as to
>what is or isn't art.
The argument is about whether some modern artwork passed off as
masterpeices isn't really crap.
>Let the debate continue
>
>have fun: keith
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Bob & Dale Ford
mdeli wrote:
I guess we will know in another fifty to a hundred years. Before a
person is recognized for greatness they are always seen full of shit by
the "crowd". Innovation is not for the faint of heart. It is very easy
to tear apart the new, the different. Even Monet, who had his major own
critics, said Van Gogh couldn't paint. History has proven him quite
wrong.
Some modern art will be discarded, and some will be accepted as way a
head of it's time. Until then maybe you might want to give the
innovators a break.
Dale
mdeli
I wrote:
>> The argument is about whether some modern artwork passed off as
>> masterpeices isn't really crap.
>
>I guess we will know in another fifty to a hundred years. Before a
>person is recognized for greatness they are always seen full of shit by
>the "crowd".
This is the nonsense you learn College Modern Academic bullshit art
history along with the popular starving artist myth. With very few
exceptions great artists were well off and honored in their lifetimes
and afterwards. Anyone who reads art history with any care will
recognize this.
>Innovation is not for the faint of heart. It is very easy
>to tear apart the new, the different.
The new and different as you call it is totally accepted and totally
fills museums at the moment. Most Modern Academics are rich and
famous. Their innovation is indeed not for the faint of heart as the
thousands of artists who do just about the same thing do spend their
lives complaining that no one is interested; with good reason.
> Even Monet, who had his major own critics, said Van Gogh couldn't paint. History has proven him quite
>wrong.
Monet was rich and was totally accepted and still is. I suspect Van
Gogh had he not been a sicky mess would have been the same.
>Some modern art will be discarded, and some will be accepted as way a
>head of it's time.
>Until then maybe you might want to give the
>innovators a break.
>
Gee give em a break guys. Blow them all kisses. Any innovation in the
artwork you call modern was done by 1923. Much fine artwork is neither
innovative or original.
Homework for artzy fartzies history buffs:
Name ten recognized starving artists who died in poverty who have only
been recognized as great for the last 100 years.
I'm looking forward to a quaint aphorism Dale.
Bob & Dale Ford
mdeli wrote:
> Bob & Dale Ford wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> >> The argument is about whether some modern artwork passed off as
> >> masterpeices isn't really crap.
> >
> >I guess we will know in another fifty to a hundred years. Before a
> >person is recognized for greatness they are always seen full of shit by
> >the "crowd".
>
> This is the nonsense you learn College Modern Academic bullshit art
> history along with the popular starving artist myth. With very few
> exceptions great artists were well off and honored in their lifetimes
> and afterwards. Anyone who reads art history with any care will
> recognize this.
>
> >Innovation is not for the faint of heart. It is very easy
> >to tear apart the new, the different.
>
> The new and different as you call it is totally accepted and totally
> fills museums at the moment. Most Modern Academics are rich and
> famous. Their innovation is indeed not for the faint of heart as the
> thousands of artists who do just about the same thing do spend their
> lives complaining that no one is interested; with good reason.
Modern Academic artist are for the most part older now so yeah they probably are accepted. Or are you just
lumping every contemporary artist that isn't bending over on the alter of Bouguereau "Modern".
The other side of the coin is that public galleries and museums could not afford to buy anything but art
that was done in the past hundred years because of the expense. They had to fill their walls but did not
have the budgets to buy all the accepted masters so yes they made some "controversial choices". If the
galleries and museums had unlimited funds some of the art on the walls would be bigger name and/or better
quality. But really the major buyers of art are the corporations who get a nice tax write off so the
museums can't afford to buy that Rubes. They have to wait until some one donates it to them for another tax
write off.
>
>
> > Even Monet, who had his major own critics, said Van Gogh couldn't paint. History has proven him quite
> >wrong.
>
> Monet was rich and was totally accepted and still is.
Not always totally accepted. You forget he did live a very long time and the money existed before the art
did.
> I suspect Van
> Gogh had he not been a sicky mess would have been the same.
>
> >Some modern art will be discarded, and some will be accepted as way a
> >head of it's time.
>
> >Until then maybe you might want to give the
> >innovators a break.
> >
> Gee give em a break guys. Blow them all kisses. Any innovation in the
> artwork you call modern was done by 1923. Much fine artwork is neither
> innovative or original.
Err.... Ok your bias I can't change that, I have tried. All I can say is boy did you miss a lot. Can I
insert a quaint saying here about old dogs and new tricks????........Oh better not you might think me too
"provincial".
>
>
> Homework for artzy fartzies history buffs:
> Name ten recognized starving artists who died in poverty who have only
> been recognized as great for the last 100 years.
Gee you would have to define poverty, great, recognized etc....
1. Many artists have another source of income so even though they could not eat from the proceeds of their
art they had other means of survival. So they don't die in poverty. I.E. Cezanne, Van Gogh.
2. Many artists who were innovative are eventually accepted in their later careers, therefor they do not
die in poverty, or unacceptance. Poverty is not a good measure of success in the visual arts. Many very
wealthy artists (in their life time) are thrown out by history as good business people who could draw, but
not artists. Some artists lived a good part of their early careers in a state of rejection which some times
included poverty, if they had to rely on their art for survival. Ensor lived long enough to become a
national hero, even made a Baron in the 20's but it took many years before any one would exhibit his "ugly"
paintings, let alone buy them. But you probably don't like Ensor.
3. I can think of a couple who died in absolute poverty i.e. Sautine but they died to young (often by their
own hand so you would think those examples unfair.)
4. Modern examples you would toss out as not great to begin with.
5. Rembrant died penniless but that doesn't fall with in the last 100 years does it.
>
>
> I'm looking forward to a quaint aphorism Dale.
Can I repeat the pearls before swine argument again? It does rather hit the nail on the head. Oh look at
that two clichés for the price of one. Oh no I can't stop.....Oh well shit happens.
Dale
RBrac53660
>gives you a very large hard-on. Try Dali in order to soften matters.
>
So then Mr. deli would you please tell me all about Salvi Dali as a non mdern?
I'm curious how Salvi Dali could be compared to a french academic artist?
?????????????????????????
RBrac53660
Sorry I meant Salvador Dali
and you spell my name Winston in any incarnation
Zoe Beit
>The argument is about whether some modern artwork passed off as
>masterpeices isn't really crap.
Mani, what you have never been able to
grasp - too complicated for your simple mind
perhaps - is that, "One person's crap is
another's ambrosia!"
Peter H.M. Brooks
Zoe Beit <zo...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
whisky, but yeast crap.
--
"I became tuned in on the network of neurological signals and cellular
wisdoms that radiate
hundreds and millions per second" - Timothy Leary