Is it art just because it makes me FEEL?
Kay Kane
SereneBabe wrote in message <7d1u3n$l6p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>
>I've had an ongoing discussion in my mind every time I go to an exhibit
where
>I see art that pisses me off.
>
>When I see art that makes me feel like the artist is jerking my chain and
>mocking me...
>
>Sometimes I just see art and think, "this jerk is trying to get us to think
>this is art just by being cryptic..."
>
>But, with all these emotional responses, does it therefore inherently
become
>art?
>Heather
>********************
I vote yes. No one here is in agreement as to what "art" actually is and I
have disliked art (but it stayed in my mind) which I later developed a
liking to. I really don't think anyone tries to pull anything over on us.
I meet a lot of artists like you are describing and they take themselves
VERY SERIOUSLY (even if they really, really stink at what they do).
Kay
carmen
I don't really understand how the type of "artists like you are describing"
is.
The only thing you say is that something pisses you off, jerks your chain,
mocks you, and is cryptic.
Trying to figure out what you mean with the description, I can't help to
think of my grandmother:
she pisses me off, jerks my chain, mocks me and she is cryptic
god, she is really cryptic
but
is she art?
I think we should be a little more serious about those who, according to
you, take themselves very seriously.
What are we speaking about?
surrealism, conceptual art, visual poetry, minimalism, still lifes?
carmen
SereneBabe
I've had an ongoing discussion in my mind every time I go to an exhibit where
I see art that pisses me off.
When I see art that makes me feel like the artist is jerking my chain and
mocking me...
Sometimes I just see art and think, "this jerk is trying to get us to think
this is art just by being cryptic..."
But, with all these emotional responses, does it therefore inherently become
art?
Heather
**********************
newsgroup of FUN: alt.support.nutty.as.a.fruitcake
or, news:alt.support.nutty.as.a.fruitcake
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Blue Moon
says...
>I really don't think anyone tries to pull anything over on us.
On the other hand, isn't that exactly what ANY art worth
it's salt does to us? In performances it's referred to as
suspension of disbelief. Something similar happens when we
view visual art that has any sort of impact upon us, donchathink?
The best visual art from my perspective is that which indeed
DOES put something over on me. It's like that suitcase I spoke
of once that I saw in a gallery in Tucson. It was in a glass
cased sculpture pedestal, ignored by all in the gallery until
I loudly told my pardner that it was all ceramic -- not at
all what it appeared to be. You should have seen the sudden
interest in it at that point.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
good.
I remember many years ago I went to a Jacques Lipshitz retrospective at
SFMOMA. A wonderful show of cubist sculpture. I was viewing one piece,
standing next to two elderly gentlman, when one of them uttered "Herschel, I
think we're being duped!" The other nodded in agreement. I was about 17
years old with an uncritical mind, and I couldn't how such a thing could have
happened -- I mean that SFMOMA could have allowed a 'fraud' on it's gallery
floors. To me, the authority of the museum itself was enough to convince me
that 'it is art.'
But look at the converse of the statement of the original post of this
thread. If art that pisses one off, pulls chains, or speaks of 'fraud' in any
way disqualified it as art, then we would not have any art at all, I think.
I mean that guy who attacked Michalangelo's Pieta several years ago must have
been pissed off, etc. Isn't it imaginable that someone, somewhere is pissed
off at every example we might think of?
But this has to be an important question, seeing how often it crops-up on
threads on this ng, and how often it is implied indirectly on many other
threads. Can everyone agree that it is an important question?
After earning a BA in Art Studio, I elected to do graduate level studies in
the History of Art rather than Art Studio, largely because of the perversity
of this question, which was important to me. It came to me in an AH course
in contemporary art, when the Professor raised this question (without
attempting to answer it) about 'performance art' of the seventies. "Is it
art."
In my first AH seminar, the professor explained that it wasn't the art
historian's charge to answer such a question. Can you imagine how
disappointed I was -- which eventually led me to study Art Theory &
Criticism, since my orientation was as an artist in the first place -- I
wanted to answer the question.
So here's an analogous situation -- in my studies I had to face the question
of 'what is a comic book (or comic strip)?' How do you define it? As soon
as you get a handle of a set of criteria with which you can define a 'comic,'
if you are being fair, you can begin to produce several examples that are
obviously comics, yet don't fit the criteria. It's very frustrating, and it
seems that everything is just 'grey mayonaise' and nothing is clear, and it's
all counterfeit anyway.
Until you begin to look at the object in context, that is. In this case a
'comic book' becomes much more than the physicality of a quarter-fold tabloid
4 color newsprint production. It becomes more than a narrative fiction built
of social stereotypes, cliches, low-brow entertainment etc. Instead, it
becomes an object that exists within a larger process which can be described
as mass media and its function in culture, its social circulation,
consumption and all that. From this perspective when you refocus on the
'object itself' you can see clearly that the criteria 'comic book' is in fact
self-defining and requires that the object is able to exist within this broad
social production to qualify. Thus Mickey Mouse, Mr. Natural, Long John
Silver (Classic Comics), Popeye, X- rated Eight-pagers, Maus, Asterix, The
Story of O, and so forth, can coexist in the category called 'comics' even
though their formal qualities show a great divergence.
So I don't see why this question about art keeps popping up. Isn't everyone
getting the message? It's been shown over and over again that any object
that reaches the gallery or museum becomes 'art.' A soup can, Hokusai's
chicken foot prints, a urinal, a pile of fat, series of documents, a box, and
on and on. Is there really any question about this?
What also is apparent, on its face, is that each of us, on an individual
basis, enters the exhibit with our idea of what 'art' is -- call it an
expectation. When the expectation is not fullfilled, the question 'what is
art' becomes important.
What would it mean if at all times and all places this expectation is
'filled'? I think it would be, among other things, the end of art history
itself, since the institution of 'art' would take on stasis, and become an
infinite reflection of itself in a hall of mirrors. It may be that the most
important attribute of the institution of art is its ability to always raise
that question - 'is it art?'
So my point is that if you only look at the object itself, isolated without
context, there is no possibility of answering the question 'is it art' in any
meaningful way. If you want (and many do enjoy this) to be duped, have your
chain pulled, be defrauded, be pissed off, be a 'subject' of a culture
industry- -then you only need to persist to belive, on the level of blind
faith, in the illusion of an object existing 'out of context' with its
enviromnet. In otherwords, cultivate and cherish the uncritical view. In
this sense looking at art is no different than looking at TV--it is very
entertaining, even spectacular.
Erik Mattila
Bob C
>
> I've had an ongoing discussion in my mind every time I go to an exhibit where
> I see art that pisses me off.
>
> When I see art that makes me feel like the artist is jerking my chain and
> mocking me...
>
> Sometimes I just see art and think, "this jerk is trying to get us to think
> this is art just by being cryptic..."
>
> But, with all these emotional responses, does it therefore inherently become
> art?
>
> Heather
In Chemistry we learned about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Put
simply, it states that you can't measure something without in some way
changing the thing you are measuring. I think it applies equally to art.
Asking the question "is it art?" immediately changes the way I look at
it and think about it, and therefore changes the art status of that
object.
What makes some object a work of art? Is it the intended or actual use
to which the object is put? Is it something about the way it was
created? Or is it some property of the object itself? Furthermore, is
calling something art a value-neutral designation or is it the
recognition of some existing qualities?
Try answering these and you should see that agreeing on the definition
of art goes way beyond trying to answer simple questions like these. And
even with these simple questions, how is there any possible way of
determining what is a correct or incorrect answer?
The point of all this being that any time a person asks "is it art" or
"what is art", it means that they aren't working hard enough to find the
real questions that they want answered. Any time someone complains about
the word "art" being misused, it means they aren't working hard enough
to understand what it is that's really bugging them.
- bob c.
Andrew Werby
> But this has to be an important question, seeing how often it crops-up on
> threads on this ng, and how often it is implied indirectly on many other
> threads. Can everyone agree that it is an important question?
[Okay, I agree.]
>
> After earning a BA in Art Studio, I elected to do graduate level studies in
> the History of Art rather than Art Studio, largely because of the perversity
> of this question, which was important to me. It came to me in an AH course
> in contemporary art, when the Professor raised this question (without
> attempting to answer it) about 'performance art' of the seventies. "Is it
> art."
>
> In my first AH seminar, the professor explained that it wasn't the art
> historian's charge to answer such a question. Can you imagine how
> disappointed I was -- which eventually led me to study Art Theory &
> Criticism, since my orientation was as an artist in the first place -- I
> wanted to answer the question.
[I'm having a hard time following this progression, Erik. The Art History
professor asks the class what art is, so you decide to take the class to
find out. Then it turns out they don't want to even deal with this question.
So this makes you want to take yet more Art History classes, and blow off
making art altogether, because you can't make it until you can figure out
what the heck it is, even though the professors won't tell you, or even
address the question. Have I got this right?]
>
> So here's an analogous situation -- in my studies I had to face the question
> of 'what is a comic book (or comic strip)?' How do you define it? As soon
> as you get a handle of a set of criteria with which you can define a 'comic,'
> if you are being fair, you can begin to produce several examples that are
> obviously comics, yet don't fit the criteria. It's very frustrating, and it
> seems that everything is just 'grey mayonaise' and nothing is clear, and it's
> all counterfeit anyway.
>
> Until you begin to look at the object in context, that is. In this case a
> 'comic book' becomes much more than the physicality of a quarter-fold tabloid
> 4 color newsprint production. It becomes more than a narrative fiction built
> of social stereotypes, cliches, low-brow entertainment etc. Instead, it
> becomes an object that exists within a larger process which can be described
> as mass media and its function in culture, its social circulation,
> consumption and all that. From this perspective when you refocus on the
> 'object itself' you can see clearly that the criteria 'comic book' is in fact
> self-defining and requires that the object is able to exist within this broad
> social production to qualify. Thus Mickey Mouse, Mr. Natural, Long John
> Silver (Classic Comics), Popeye, X- rated Eight-pagers, Maus, Asterix, The
> Story of O, and so forth, can coexist in the category called 'comics' even
> though their formal qualities show a great divergence.
[Did you ever come to a definition of what a "comic book" is, after all this?
Could you share it with us? Or did you decide it was essentially unknowable? ]
> So I don't see why this question about art keeps popping up. Isn't everyone
> getting the message? It's been shown over and over again that any object
> that reaches the gallery or museum becomes 'art.' A soup can, Hokusai's
> chicken foot prints, a urinal, a pile of fat, series of documents, a box, and
> on and on. Is there really any question about this?
[Apparently there is, although I'm content with the "anything goes" answer.
People persistently want to think of art as a good thing, apparently, so when
confronted with art that seems rotten to them, they want to exclude it
from their
definitions.]
>
> What also is apparent, on its face, is that each of us, on an individual
> basis, enters the exhibit with our idea of what 'art' is -- call it an
> expectation. When the expectation is not fullfilled, the question 'what is
> art' becomes important.
[Even when a person enters who has few illusions left about what "art" is, it
doesn't make it any easier to face that pile of fat. One can still be hopeful
one might see something entertaining, thought-provoking (and not just of the
thought "why would anybody want to do this?") or (fainter now) even beautiful.
One can admit that it is art, without losing the feeling that one has wasted
ones time yet again.]
>
> What would it mean if at all times and all places this expectation is
> 'filled'? I think it would be, among other things, the end of art history
> itself, since the institution of 'art' would take on stasis, and become an
> infinite reflection of itself in a hall of mirrors. It may be that the most
> important attribute of the institution of art is its ability to always raise
> that question - 'is it art?'
[It may be that this is its least important attribute. As you pointed out
above,
if it's in an art museum, it's art- I'm fine with that. Now that almost
anything
imaginable has been admitted, can't we say we're done with this silly
game? Does
this really mean the "end of art history", or just this particular chapter,
dedicated to broadening the definition of art so it includes everything
that can
possibly be called "art". Perhaps the next chapter might be dedicated to
narrowing
it again.]
>
> So my point is that if you only look at the object itself, isolated without
> context, there is no possibility of answering the question 'is it art' in any
> meaningful way.
[Meaningful to whom? If we can each define "art" for ourselves, can't we
likewise
define "meaningfulness"?]
If you want (and many do enjoy this) to be duped, have your
> chain pulled, be defrauded, be pissed off, be a 'subject' of a culture
> industry- -then you only need to persist to belive, on the level of blind
> faith, in the illusion of an object existing 'out of context' with its
> enviromnet.
[Now you can't even believe that any object, art or not, exists unless you
understand
its "context"? This is getting positively Buddhistic. Are you conversely
claiming that
when one has attained this mystic knowledge of "context" that one will be
free from the
toils of the Culture Industry, and will no longer be duped, defrauded,
PO'd etc.?
Sounds like Nirvana in semiotic clothing.]
In otherwords, cultivate and cherish the uncritical view. In
> this sense looking at art is no different than looking at TV--it is very
> entertaining, even spectacular.
>
> Erik Mattila
[Isn't TV an artform? Being entertained was better than being bored, last
I checked....]
>
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools
-N.
<seren...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> I've had an ongoing discussion in my mind every time I go to an exhibit where
> I see art that pisses me off.
>
> When I see art that makes me feel like the artist is jerking my chain and
> mocking me...
>
> Sometimes I just see art and think, "this jerk is trying to get us to think
> this is art just by being cryptic..."
>
> But, with all these emotional responses, does it therefore inherently become
> art?
Understand that also, in the cast of players in the world, there are
viewers who have made a vocation out of being outraged and scandalized by
art. Think certain religious groups, or closer to home, think of some
fellow members of this esteemed newsgroup who have made it their mission
to be scandalized and rankeled with a large amount of art that is made.
Cheers,
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
mdeli
>
>SereneBabe wrote
>>I've had an ongoing discussion in my mind every time I go to an exhibit
>where I see art that pisses me off.
>>When I see art that makes me feel like the artist is jerking my chain and
>>mocking me...
>>Sometimes I just see art and think, "this jerk is trying to get us to think
>>this is art just by being cryptic..."
>>
>>But, with all these emotional responses, does it therefore inherently
>become
>>art?
>>Heather
>>********************
If it looks like bullshit its the artist's fault not the viewers.
>
>I vote yes. No one here is in agreement as to what "art" actually is and I
>have disliked art (but it stayed in my mind) which I later developed a
>liking to.
> I really don't think anyone tries to pull anything over on us.
Touching isn't it?
>I meet a lot of artists like you are describing and they take themselves
>VERY SERIOUSLY (even if they really, really stink at what they do).
Doesn't mean I have to take them seriously does it?
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>In article <36f50...@oracle.zianet.com>,
> nom...@aintnonesuch.com (Blue Moon) wrote:
>. It's like that suitcase I spoke
>> of once that I saw in a gallery in Tucson. It was in a glass
>> cased sculpture pedestal, ignored by all in the gallery until
>> I loudly told my pardner that it was all ceramic -- not at
>> all what it appeared to be. You should have seen the sudden
>> interest in it at that point
Amazing.
I wonder how this aesthete feels about rubber vomit and plastic
doo-doos.
>
>This response I really like, Bluemoon, i.e. 'ANY are worth its salt..."--very
>good.
Superb.
Gas snipped
> Isn't it imaginable that someone, somewhere is pissed
>off at every example we might think of?
>
>But this has to be an important question, seeing how often it crops-up on
>threads on this ng, and how often it is implied indirectly on many other
>threads. Can everyone agree that it is an important question?
Its of no importance whatever. Its a cop-out which avoids the real
question. Is it any good?
snip
> It came to me in an AH course
>in contemporary art, when the Professor raised this question (without
>attempting to answer it) about 'performance art' of the seventies. "Is it
>art."
>
snipI
>I wanted to answer the question.
snip
>So I don't see why this question about art keeps popping up. Isn't everyone
>getting the message? It's been shown over and over again that any object
>that reaches the gallery or museum becomes 'art.' A soup can, Hokusai's
>chicken foot prints, a urinal, a pile of fat, series of documents, a box, and
>on and on. Is there really any question about this?
Not at all. Erik, just one question.
Is the men's room at that gallery ART? Or are the galleries you are
referring to so cheap that its patrons have to go next door to
McDonalds to take a piss?
>What also is apparent, on its face, is that each of us, on an individual
>basis, enters the exhibit with our idea of what 'art' is -- call it an
>expectation. When the expectation is not fulfilled, the question 'what is
>art' becomes important.
You know Eric I always consider whether I liked something or not. I
deeply suspect you do the same. The rest is for pedants like you to
gas over forever instead of doing anything meaningful.
>What would it mean if at all times and all places this expectation is
>'filled'? I think it would be, among other things, the end of art history
>itself, since the institution of 'art' would take on stasis, and become an
>infinite reflection of itself in a hall of mirrors. It may be that the most
>important attribute of the institution of art is its ability to always raise
>that question - 'is it art?'
Now that's a PoMo muddled mouthful. Apply for a job at Artforum right
away.
>
>So my point is that if you only look at the object itself, isolated without
>context, there is no possibility of answering the question 'is it art' in any
>meaningful way.
In fact there really is no reason at all to try to answer such a
stupid question.
> The If you want (and many do enjoy this) to be duped, have your
>chain pulled, be defrauded, be pissed off, be a 'subject' of a culture
>industry- -then you only need to persist to belive, on the level of blind
>faith, in the illusion of an object existing 'out of context' with its
>enviromnet.
The dupe is you because you can't tell the difference between
something remotely worthwhile and a piece of crap elevated by your
pretensions.
> In otherwords, cultivate and cherish the uncritical view. In
>this sense looking at art is no different than looking at TV--it is very
>entertaining, even spectacular.
?
mdeli
large snip
> Any time someone complains about
>the word "art" being misused, it means they aren't working hard enough
>to understand what it is that's really bugging them.
Any time someone feels it necessary to ask that question of something
posing as art its most probable that he's up against a modern put-on.
Can you imagine an artist telling you that the reason you don't like
his work is because you "aren't working hard enough."
Weber, if I worked harder (whatever that means) would I actually get
to like your work better?
emat...@tomatoweb.com
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> In article <7d3frb$s7l$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> [I'm having a hard time following this progression, Erik. The Art History
> professor asks the class what art is, so you decide to take the class to
> find out. Then it turns out they don't want to even deal with this question.
> So this makes you want to take yet more Art History classes, and blow off
> making art altogether, because you can't make it until you can figure out
> what the heck it is, even though the professors won't tell you, or even
> address the question. Have I got this right?]
1. Prof. 1 sez: Is Performance art art?
2. Prof. 2 sez: Art Historian's do not concern themselves with that question.
3. I look elsewhere for answer. Art Theory & Criticism is not Art History.
4. I did not blow off making art. One can make art w/o knowing answer.
5. Art Historians couldn't answer question 'what is art' (professionally).
6. What's the mystery?
you can see clearly that the criteria 'comic book' is in fact
> > self-defining and requires that the object is able to exist within this broad
> > social production to qualify. Thus Mickey Mouse, Mr. Natural, Long John
> > Silver (Classic Comics), Popeye, X- rated Eight-pagers, Maus, Asterix, The
> > Story of O, and so forth, can coexist in the category called 'comics' even
> > though their formal qualities show a great divergence.
>
> [Did you ever come to a definition of what a "comic book" is, after all this?
> Could you share it with us? Or did you decide it was essentially unknowable? ]
I did share it -- I left the above in tact from my previous post. It's self-
defining. Of course there are formal qualties -- like printing, binding,
distribution, etc. Read Martin Baker's "Comic Ideology' as he more or less
comes to the same conclusion about self-definition. If a thing declares
itself a comic book, it is a comic book. (of course there are some formal
criteria -- I mean a fire hydrant wouldn't be a comic book even it was
declared to be a comic book. We're talking here about whether Mickey Mouse
and the Classic Comics, like Treasure Island, are both comic books. If you
analyzer the narrative structure of a Mickey Mouse story, and the illustrated
Treasure Island, important differences emerge--as you would expect since
Treasure Island is a reduced pictorial representation of a novel that only
resembles a Mickey Mouse story superficially. So you might want to exclude
"Treasure Island" from the category "comic book" on that basis. But if you
look at how Classic Comics are produced, manufactured, distributed and read,
it is the same as Mickey Mouse. So what do you do. You try to find a
broader criteria that defines a comic book, other than narrative analysis.
You keep doing this and eventually you see that its impossible, since there
is always some other object that looks like a comic book that destroys the
integrity of the category (like a manual form the Employment Department that
teaches one how to apply for a job, produced in the comic book format) so you
go on and on and eventually realize that you have to consider every form that
describes itself as a comic book. That't the supercategory. From there you
can go about constructing a typology, much like the Linnean Taxonomy. Types
of comic books. Since comic books are the largest form of mass print
publication in the world today, with the broadest audiance, it is a
formidible task. But it is where serious academic study begins, and in fact
the study of this media is crippled because no one has successfully created
this typological system. You can imagine--if I published a scholarly paper
making claims that, for example, that particular narrative sturcture of
Donald Duck was key to comic books in general, I would be jumped, and my
critics would produce all sorts of examples where this wasn't true. However,
if my clam was limited to a particular sub-species of comics, it would hold.
Without the grand typology, it is impossible to define a subspecies. So
there it is, what needs to be considered is everything that is considered a
comic book, which happes to be anything that looks like a comic book and
defines itself as such.
I actually did write a pretty good paper which asked if "Underground Comix"
was a distinct category from the general field of comics. When I began the
research, I was certain it was, and I was going to try to make a scholarly
argument to back up my certainty. But I came up with the opposite
conclusion, based on the analytical scheme I used. Underground comics are
not distinct from comics generally, except by their own claim to being
'Underground.' In other words there was not way to define any singularly
unique characteristic that you couldn't find in other comics that were not
self-defined as "underground comics."
>
Is there really any question about this?
>
> [Apparently there is, although I'm content with the "anything goes" answer.
> People persistently want to think of art as a good thing, apparently, so when
> confronted with art that seems rotten to them, they want to exclude it
> from their
> definitions.]
I don't know if you realize you are paraphrasing the words of the linguist
Edmund Sapir. I think you and Edmund are right on about this. Sapir's
comment was in a late fifties paper called "Culture: Genuine and Spurrious."
He was writng about the term 'culture,' which he classified as a member of a
group of terms we use that have no explicit meaning, and only define hazy and
often ambiguous conceptuals territories. He used the term 'art' to
illustrate this type of language. He did say that most people agree on the
idea that 'art is something that we like." So when we go to a gallery or
museum, he continues, and see works that we don't like, we don't say "Then, I
don't like art!" Instead we say "That isn't art." Have you reinvented Sapir?
Very good.
> >
>
> [Even when a person enters who has few illusions left about what "art" is, it
> doesn't make it any easier to face that pile of fat. One can still be hopeful
> one might see something entertaining, thought-provoking (and not just of the
> thought "why would anybody want to do this?") or (fainter now) even beautiful.
> One can admit that it is art, without losing the feeling that one has wasted
> ones time yet again.]
Yes, I agree with you about that. But I think it's two different things --
one to talk about this subject from the standpoint of an individual's
appreciation of whatever art she/he is keen on, and the other is the question
"what is art." In the first case we can't get very far beyond the idea of
individual values, taste, and preference (unless we want to get into the
relationship of the individual and culture, which is a different discussion).
The second case begs for a broader discussion, how 'art' can exist in the
social world, it's institutions, its hype, its virtue and all that. I think
this is were a lot of the discussions on this on this ng get out of kilter,
when the individual (a concept that is never really defined) gets mixed in
with a question that can only be answered on a broader basis -- a social
basis.
> >
> > What would it mean if at all times and all places this expectation is
> > 'filled'? I think it would be, among other things, the end of art history
> > itself, since the institution of 'art' would take on stasis, and become an
> > infinite reflection of itself in a hall of mirrors. It may be that the most
> > important attribute of the institution of art is its ability to always raise
> > that question - 'is it art?'
>
> [It may be that this is its least important attribute. As you pointed out
> above,
> if it's in an art museum, it's art- I'm fine with that. Now that almost
> anything
> imaginable has been admitted, can't we say we're done with this silly
> game? Does
> this really mean the "end of art history", or just this particular chapter,
> dedicated to broadening the definition of art so it includes everything
> that can
> possibly be called "art". Perhaps the next chapter might be dedicated to
> narrowing
> it again.]
I was making a very hypothetical statement, one which probably could not
exist except in the realm of logically considering some implications. A real
world example I can think of is this. I taught a course called "Native
American Art Appreication" and my students were Native Americans. The first
hurdle I had to deal with was the consesus among these students was that
'traditional art' meant that each form was replicated -- almost
'cloned'--from the past example, according to carefully regulated criteria
that was managed by the 'Elders' or other sources of traditional wisdom. I
told them that if there were true, then there would be no Native American Art
History -- which was something that I could easily demonstrate to be the
truth-- i.e. that traditional forms, historically, did change, mutate,
synthesize, develop over historical periods. In fact, the study of this type
of art yields tremendous historical sequences of real 'art' activity by
artists. In the US alone there were outstanding examples, like the
introduction of Caucausus textiles into the Great Plains in the early
Sixteenth Century that virtually transformed Plains Indian art into the
geometric designs we see today. The same with Eastern European glass beads.
But the list can go on and on, and includes also the synthesizing of one
Tribes motifs by another.
So I was just trying to paint a picture of an art world where all there was
in art museums and galleries were what viewers expected to be there. Since
art history is really the interpretation of a record of change, I think of
this type of a situation as the 'end of art history'--kind of a figurative
idea at best.
> >
If you want (and many do enjoy this) to be duped, have your
> chain pulled, be defrauded, be pissed off, be a 'subject' of a culture
> industry- -then you only need to persist to belive, on the level of blind
> faith, in the illusion of an object existing 'out of context' with its
> enviromnet.
>
> [Now you can't even believe that any object, art or not, exists unless you
> understand
> its "context"? This is getting positively Buddhistic. Are you conversely
> claiming that
> when one has attained this mystic knowledge of "context" that one will be
> free from the
> toils of the Culture Industry, and will no longer be duped, defrauded,
> PO'd etc.?
> Sounds like Nirvana in semiotic clothing.]
I wrote: "So my point is that if you only look at the object itself, isolated
without context, there is no possibility of answering the question 'is it art'
in any meaningful way. If you want (and many do enjoy this) to be duped, have
your chain pulled, be defrauded, be pissed off, be a 'subject' of a culture
industry- -then you only need to persist to belive, on the level of blind
faith, in the illusion of an object existing 'out of context' with its
enviromnet. In otherwords, cultivate and cherish the uncritical view. In
this sense looking at art is no different than looking at TV--it is very
entertaining, even spectacular.
I don't think that this is saying what you wrote: "Now you can't even
believe that any object, art or not, exists unless you understand its
"context"? This is getting positively Buddhistic."
You must be suffering from 'end of post weariness'--I really don't see how
you are reading that from my paragraph, Andrew. There's such a great
difference between what I actually wrote, and what you read, that I don't
really know how to address your paragraph. But one thing I can comment on,
at the expense of semiotic shamanism, is that if you understand a work of art
in its context you will not be duped, pissed off, etc. I just don't think
this is mystical at all -- rather the converse, its a very 'rational' thing.
Geez, how can understanding 'context' be construed as something 'mystical?'
It's a matter of learning about museums, criticism, art history, society,
economies -- all those things that are pretty straightforward cognitive
exercises that don't require much parapsychological administrations.
> In otherwords, cultivate and cherish the uncritical view. In
> > this sense looking at art is no different than looking at TV--it is very
> > entertaining, even spectacular.
> >
> > Erik Mattila
>
> [Isn't TV an artform? Being entertained was better than being bored, last
> I checked....]
> >
> Andrew Werby
>
It depends what perspective you have. TV can be argued to be an art form, but
if you look at it from the standpoint of empty spectacle it probably isn't.
It's a moot point anyway. I could just as well written "In that sense looking
ar art is no different than eating a hotdog." Well, of course, a hotdog is an
art form to. Maybe the next logical thread is "Is art entertainment?"
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
SereneBabe <seren...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've had an ongoing discussion in my mind every time I go to an exhibit where
> I see art that pisses me off.
>
> When I see art that makes me feel like the artist is jerking my chain and
> mocking me...
>
> Sometimes I just see art and think, "this jerk is trying to get us to think
> this is art just by being cryptic..."
>
> But, with all these emotional responses, does it therefore inherently become
> art?
It doesn't take a lot of thought to refute this argument.
If you feel an "emotional response" is all that is required for art,
a cross burning on someone's lawn is "art" and therefore a protected
act under the constitution.
Last time I checked, it wasn't.
peter nelson
where
>I see art that pisses me off.
>
>When I see art that makes me feel like the artist is jerking my chain and
>mocking me...
>
>Sometimes I just see art and think, "this jerk is trying to get us to think
>this is art just by being cryptic..."
>
>But, with all these emotional responses, does it therefore inherently
become
>art?
Does that mean that anything which provokes an emotional
reaction in you is art? (say a car crash, a starry sky, and argument
with your lover, etc)
I think a basic requirement for "art", regardless of the style, is that it
be deliberate on the part of the artist.
If an artist manages to get a painting of a single green stripe on
a white gesso'd canvas hung at the MoMA, as I saw a few years ago,
and manages to provoke me into feeling that that he is jerking our
chains, that doesn't mean that he's not an artist. He "art" may
consist not so much in applying paint to canvas or designing a
visual experience, as it is in convincing critics and museum
curators that his art is worthwhile to occupy such a major museum.
Thus we might think of such artists as performance artists rather
than painters.
Ever since realizing this I don't get so provoked anymore. When
I see such works I feel like I'm sharing a private joke with the
artist. We both understand that, as art, the painting is worthless.
The real art was getting it hung there in the first place, and getting
paid to make it.
Recently I was looking at a book of photographs by Brassai, a
French-Hungarian photographer who included many photos
of Matisse in his book. Most of the photos were in the artist's
studio and almost all of them included a nude model posing for
Matisse. Now Matisse did do a lot of figurative work but most
of it was rather abstract and probably didn't need a live model
all the time. And all I could think as I was looking at these photos
was that both Brassai and Matisse were thinking, "Oh what the
hell - we don't *really* need a nude model for this, but it's pleasant
to have an attractive nude woman around so we'll just hire her
to hang out here for the day, and people will just chalk it up
to 'art'". (and if you think this is far-fetched I suggest reading
a good biography of Man Ray.)
I do figure and portrait painting and drawing. So I've attended many
life studios, and most of them have a variety of models of different
shapes, ages, and genders, which is good for a serious artists.
I recently began attending one for its convenience close to
home and have been struck by how the organizer only seems to
hire young, pretty women for models.
So my point is that I think there's a lot of winkety-wink, nudge-nudge
going on in art at a lot of levels.
---peter
Vi...@ordinaire.com
> I've had an ongoing discussion in my mind every time I go to an exhibit
> where I see art that pisses me off.
>
> When I see art that makes me feel like the artist is jerking my chain and
> mocking me...
>
> Sometimes I just see art and think, "this jerk is trying to get us to
> think this is art just by being cryptic..."
>
> But, with all these emotional responses, does it therefore inherently
> become art?
Heather -
I'm not sure. But I always think that some response to my art is better
than none. Some years ago I agreed to show my work (AbEx)in a couple of
very conservative Boston galleries. Why they wanted it, and why I agreed, I
can't imagine. But the director of one of the galleries called me two weeks
later and asked me to remove my work. She said that people were getting mad
at it. I thought this was at least some comfort.
The other gallery was in an L-shaped space. The director did okay with it,
but told me a funny story: one woman entered the gallery, traversed the
L-shaped space, and then walked back quickly to the door, her head down and
her eyes shielded by her hands.
But my favorite story like this comes from the oral biography of Jackson
Pollak. Pollak befriended some of the country folk in Long Island, where he
had his studio. (He was a nice guy when not shitfaced.) He gave one couple
a painting. The woman related this story: She said, *After a week I said to
my husband, Harold, we've got to get rid of that painting. I can't sleep
knowing it's in the house.*
Hope you find these storie amusing.
Regards,
Vinny
--
-
Vi...@ordinaire.com
> SereneBabe wrote in message <7d1u3n$l6p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> Recently I was looking at a book of photographs by Brassai, a
> French-Hungarian photographer who included many photos
> of Matisse in his book. Most of the photos were in the artist's
> studio and almost all of them included a nude model posing for
> Matisse. Now Matisse did do a lot of figurative work but most
> of it was rather abstract and probably didn't need a live model
> all the time. And all I could think as I was looking at these photos
> was that both Brassai and Matisse were thinking, "Oh what the
> hell - we don't *really* need a nude model for this, but it's pleasant
> to have an attractive nude woman around so we'll just hire her
> to hang out here for the day, and people will just chalk it up
> to 'art'". (and if you think this is far-fetched I suggest reading
> a good biography of Man Ray.)
I must point out that Matisse used live models exclusively. Picasso seldom
did. (This is not to disparage looking at beautiful naked women!)
Vinny
<snip>
> ---peter
Marilyn
I did. There was an ex of abstract landscapes at one of two
contemporary galleries in my city, the artist Norman Bates
is a well-established artist from the Canadian prairies
(Big Sky Country).
To me the
work was overwhelming & unbelievably beautiful. When I discussed
it with the owner/curator she told me that after opening night,
it was not well received. She claimed that most people refused to
take the time to understand it and left the gallery angry.
Their expectation of what they knew to be painting was not met.
No landscape/still-life/portrait/wildlife representation, therefore no
art. Unquote
and the beat goes on...
Marilyn
emat...@tomatoweb.com
I do -- they're hilarious. I don't feel alone anymore. thanks. I did a
painting once that was strange...it was interesting, but sort of repulsive.
It was just some shapes wrapped up in a carpet sort of affair. In some way
it reminded me of a Pieta, or mother and child. so it hung around for a
while, being considered. A friend of mine bought it -- can you imagine. She
really liked it. Then she volunteered to house-sit for a month or so for
Robert Crumb and his wife, Ailene, when they went to France. When the
Crumb's returned, my friend had the painting hanging on their wall. Ailene
regarded it (I was told) and finally said "whoever painted that has got to be
pretty wierd!" Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, eh? Well, a few
months later my friend finally couldn't stand the painting anymore, and
returned it, telling me to just keep the money. Then another friend came by
and saw it leaning against my living room wall, and confessed that he was
really pissed off when I sold it, because he was just about to make me an
offer for it. Naturally, I just gave it to him. I thought it was wierd,
even sick--threatening!
Erik Mattila
yogi R. Lund
society gives them only a chance to compete for the title and not a way to
find out what art is. (The competition is about the usual proportion of
preparation time to productivity/taxable income time, while in fact art is
the one thing one can not prepare adequately for in a small or even sizable
fraction of a lifetime; the one product that by definition should be excepted
from this practice of measure, a sort of appendage of religion, since both
require the impossible or unfindable: inspiration, a sort of holy spirit that
decends upon whom it chooses, and not upon those who choose it.) This means
that what they do as "art" is actually the expression of a frustrated self,
covered carefully with a rather translucent veneer of respectability. And
this in turn means that the object can impress, just as any veneer of
respectability, but once one becomes familiar with it it only enrages or
frustrates. The plot, of course, is to get paid before the impression wears
off, like a Cassanovas' plot to get laid before the impression wears off. The
best art is the art that is so expensive only a handful of people have ever
become familiar with it (sick of owning it).
It is an amusing counterplot to become so famous that one can present anything
as art, trifling with the spectator. But there is another aspect of the same
culture: advertising has shown us that what the few people who try to
communicate in the world will not be taken in by, is exactly what sells best
and most. It may be a very good plan for success to do things one absolutely
abhors. When a pretty girl reaches 18 or whatever age it is and tries to cash
in on everyones fascination with her body, she may imagine that they want to
see how lovely she is in the nude, but what the majority want to see is how
grotesquely she can be presented. They want to deform beauty, by their control
over its behavior (prostitution) in order to feel superior to it. And this is
what they will pay for. Pretty naked girl pictures sell in large quantities
only if bizarr pictures are denied, leaving the bizarr aspect to the
imagination, and hence the merely nude pictures the closest thing available to
rape.
Many artists say they refuse to be prostituted, but the longer it takes to
court inspiration the more impossible it proves not to be prostituted, or
compromised, and then art becomes an expression of pique. Who is going to
start life with egotistical parents and teachers and roll-models and then
succeed in this courtship? So the search for a life that is not prostitution
or compromise is a hopeless search, a search that frustrates both society
which knows it is hopeless and wants the student to get a job, and the
student who doesn't consider it proven hopeless until he has retired of old
age; and it is optimistic (bound to prove regrettable) to set out on this
search, especially as an artist, someone persuing the product, rather than as
a devout seeker of truth or illumination.
Finally I hope you will ask this q. with me is: can anyone see art who has
not done it? Someone mentioned a streak of green on a canvas in the series of
replies to this q. But was he mistaken to recognize this green and this
stroke? Is it a tube green, a green he has seen before? Or is it a composed
green? Is the single slash an inspired such, or just a practiced stroke? Who
would see if it was art? Who would see if it was alone on the canvas because
the artist found it a sanctified moment and did not dare add to it? What is a
species, but something that is not in between, where there is room for
experiment but not room for other species. How would one see if one were
looking at the experiment or the eternal flame?
In article <7d1u3n$l6p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
SereneBabe <seren...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've had an ongoing discussion in my mind every time I go to an exhibit where
> I see art that pisses me off.
>
> When I see art that makes me feel like the artist is jerking my chain and
> mocking me...
>
> Sometimes I just see art and think, "this jerk is trying to get us to think
> this is art just by being cryptic..."
>
> But, with all these emotional responses, does it therefore inherently become
> art?
>
> Heather
> **********************
> newsgroup of FUN: alt.support.nutty.as.a.fruitcake
> or, news:alt.support.nutty.as.a.fruitcake
>
mdeli
huge snip
>I don't think that this is saying what you wrote: "Now you can't even
>believe that any object, art or not, exists unless you understand its
>"context"? This is getting positively Buddhistic."
Boobistic?
snip
> But one thing I can comment on,
>at the expense of semiotic shamanism, is that if you understand a work of art
>in its context you will not be duped, pissed off, etc. I just don't think
>this is mystical at all -- rather the converse, its a very 'rational' thing.
>Geez, how can understanding 'context' be construed as something 'mystical?'
>It's a matter of learning about museums, criticism, art history, society,
>economies -- all those things that are pretty straightforward cognitive
>exercises that don't require much parapsychological administrations.
snip
>It depends what perspective you have. TV can be argued to be an art form, but
>if you look at it from the standpoint of empty spectacle it probably isn't.
>It's a moot point anyway. I could just as well written "In that sense looking
>ar art is no different than eating a hotdog." Well, of course, a hotdog is an
>art form to. Maybe the next logical thread is "Is art entertainment?"
Notice how well this conforms to the rules for Artspeak
doug L.
> >What also is apparent, on its face, is that each of us, on an individual
> >basis, enters the exhibit with our idea of what 'art' is -- call it an
> >art' becomes important.
>
> You know Eric I always consider whether I liked something or not. I
> deeply suspect you do the same. The rest is for pedants like you to
> gas over forever instead of doing anything meaningful.
>
> >'filled'? I think it would be, among other things, the end of art history
> >itself, since the institution of 'art' would take on stasis, and become an
> >infinite reflection of itself in a hall of mirrors. It may be that the most
> >important attribute of the institution of art is its ability to always raise
> >that question - 'is it art?'
>
> away.
>
> >
> >context, there is no possibility of answering the question 'is it art' in any
> >meaningful way.
>
> stupid question.
This exchange really cracked me up. I laughed. I cried.
The exchange was quite artful. Eric has isolated the
analytical section of his brain, resulting in the creation
of an esoteric world without firm ground. - doug
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"doug L." <dug...@primenet.com> wrote:
> This exchange really cracked me up. I laughed. I cried.
> The exchange was quite artful. Eric has isolated the
> analytical section of his brain, resulting in the creation
> of an esoteric world without firm ground. - doug
>
As you were contemplating 'firm ground' did it occur to you that there was no
'exchange' at all, Doug?
For example, if I copy the Gettysburg Address and post my quips after each
paragraph, are Abe and I having an exchange? It seems to me that making a
statement based on a counterfeit idea is, by definition, shakey ground. Do
you agree?
Mothe...@orion.com
If Erik's posts are gas, all I got to say is, OPEN THE VALVE! Really enjoy
reading a clear, interesting mind.
Mother Night
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <36FBBBCF...@primenet.com>,
> "doug L." <dug...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > This exchange really cracked me up. I laughed. I cried.
> > The exchange was quite artful. Eric has isolated the
> > analytical section of his brain, resulting in the creation
> > of an esoteric world without firm ground. - doug
> >
> As you were contemplating 'firm ground' did it occur to you that there
> was no 'exchange' at all, Doug?
>
> For example, if I copy the Gettysburg Address and post my quips after
> each paragraph, are Abe and I having an exchange? It seems to me that
> making a statement based on a counterfeit idea is, by definition, shakey
> ground. Do you agree?
>