artists
HILL JANET SWAN
SloGait <slo...@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>On 31 May 1998 23:47:16 GMT, tea...@aol.com (Teavil) wrote:
>
>>I dunno Joell, I believe that anyone that can make
>>you feel something in the spirit, whether it be
>>tradgedy, despair, happiness or joy, is an artist
>>to me. It doesn't have to be traditionally
>>"beautiful" or "uplifting".
>
>I think the point would be spiritual expansion. If you come to have
>compassion that you didnt have, that would be art, too.
I think that all we are doing is proving the impossibility of defining
"artist" in a way that all can either comprehend or agree on. which goes
a long way to explain why "artistry" is not among those things judged in
eligible skating competition ..... it would be impossible to judge
consistently, fairly, or explicably.
This entire thread began with a discussion of Oxana Baiul, and someone's
declaration that she is an artist. If a very broad and inclusive
definition of "artist" is used, I can agree, because a very broad
definition would include essentially all skaters at a high level. If,
however, a narrow or exclusive definition is used, I just don't see it.
I fully recognize that there are those who find Baiul's skating to be
sublime and inspired and who believe that it is so because of some
"inspiration" (in the sense of spriritual, or divinely guided), but this
is clearly a matter of taste, and really not susceptible to argument.
It's for these reasons that I find discussions of what constitutes "art"
or and "artist" or "artistry" to be academic and non-compelling. This is
not to discourage those of you who want to discuss it ...... just to note
that even if you finally arrive at a definition or understanding that
satisfies YOU, it will probably be a highly personal and
idiosyncratic success, and will probably never be particularly "useful".
Then again, "usefulness" is probably irrelevant .......
janet
--
Revjoelle
Janet:
>It's for these reasons that I find discussions of what constitutes "art" or
and "artist" or "artistry" to be academic and non-compelling.
Me too. This is the first time I've tried to put my finger on what I think art
is--and even for myself it's not totally satisifying, not to mention no one
else is going to be real happy about it.
I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps that is
what makes it art?
Joelle
"God must have a sense of humor." Kitty Carruthers.
Vespertine
Joelle writes:
<<I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps that
is what makes it art?
>>
Of course it can be defined. One just has to read the appropriate books. Two
that come to mind are Kant's "Analytical of the Beautiful" and Tolstoy's "What
is Art".
Benjamin Smith
On Mon, Jun 1, 1998 3:40 PM, Vespertine <mailto:vespe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Of course it can be defined. One just has to read the appropriate books.
>Two
>that come to mind are Kant's "Analytical of the Beautiful" and Tolstoy's
>"What
>is Art".
>
The definition of words keep changing. I'm fine with these two examples,
also what was discussed in the Oksana thread. I hate to think that there
will be a "high" art and a "common" art, but that is where the definition
of art may be going.
For me, calling some people artists today, like, say, Janet Jackson, is
like calling Steven King's or Jackie Collin's output literature.
Ben S.
Revjoelle
> Of course it can be defined. One just has to read the appropriate books. Two
that come to mind are Kant's "Analytical of the Beautiful" and Tolstoy's "What
is Art".
And you will get their opinion of what art is.
Joelle
"Whoever you like is the best skater in the world."
Scott Hamilton
Virginia Blalock
On 01 Jun 1998 15:04:01 GMT, revj...@aol.com (Revjoelle) wrote:
>I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps that is
>what makes it art?
Well, art is like porn.. you may not know exactly what it is, but you
know it when you see it! :)
Virginia
Visit my skating page:
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/9508
Blenda
In <6kudbp$j...@peabody.colorado.edu>, hil...@spot.colorado.edu (HILL
JANET SWAN) wrote:
>I think that all we are doing is proving the impossibility of defining
>"artist" in a way that all can either comprehend or agree on. which goes
>a long way to explain why "artistry" is not among those things judged in
>eligible skating competition ..... it would be impossible to judge
>consistently, fairly, or explicably.
I agree that "artistry" shouldn't be judged in a skating competition,
since it is so subjective. And I think it would be sad to have
something so complex reduced to a single number (or a component of a
single number).
>It's for these reasons that I find discussions of what constitutes "art"
>or and "artist" or "artistry" to be academic and non-compelling. This is
>not to discourage those of you who want to discuss it ...... just to note
>that even if you finally arrive at a definition or understanding that
>satisfies YOU, it will probably be a highly personal and
>idiosyncratic success, and will probably never be particularly "useful".
>Then again, "usefulness" is probably irrelevant .......
This is one of those "journey" vs. "destination" things, I think. As
you say, arriving at THE definition of "artist" (assuming that's at
all possible) might not be very useful. However, seeing all the
different points of view about artistry is interesting and
thought-provoking, as long as it doesn't degenerate into
"Oksana is an artist" "Is not!" "Is too!" or a laundry list of
"favourite artistic skaters". I was particularly touched by Donna's
account of what her art meant to her. I didn't find that academic or
non-compelling at all...
--------------------------------------------------------------
~ blenda ~
blen...@hotmail.com
Vespertine
Ben Smith writes:
<<For me, calling some people artists today, like, say, Janet Jackson, is like
calling Steven King's or Jackie Collin's output literature.
>>
Exactly, Ben. Popular appeal does not art make.
Vespertine
To my suggestion to read a few books on art, Joelle writes:
<<And you will get their opinion of what art is.>>
No, you get philosophical discussions and musings on art. But obviously
that eludes you or does not interest you.
Revjoelle
>To my suggestion to read a few books on art, Joelle writes:
>
><<And you will get their opinion of what art is.>>
No actually you were suggesting that those authors had defined art. I was
simply pointing out that --philosophical discussions and musings are
opinions--and in the end you can agree or disagree but there still is no
objective definition of art on which everyone can agree.
>But obviously
>that eludes you or does not interest you.
So sorry--my mistake. It is obvious that you are only interested in those who
agree with you and you insult anyone else. I should have figured that out
along time ago --but I keep thinking people can change.
I really wish AOL had killfiles.
DesertRoaz
>
>I think that all we are doing is proving the impossibility of defining
>"artist" in a way that all can either comprehend or agree on. which goes
>a long way to explain why "artistry" is not among those things judged in
>eligible skating competition ..... it would be impossible to judge
>consistently, fairly, or explicably.
>
>declaration that she is an artist. If a very broad and inclusive
>definition of "artist" is used, I can agree, because a very broad
>definition would include essentially all skaters at a high level. If,
>however, a narrow or exclusive definition is used, I just don't see it.
>
>I fully recognize that there are those who find Baiul's skating to be
>sublime and inspired and who believe that it is so because of some
>"inspiration" (in the sense of spriritual, or divinely guided), but this
>is clearly a matter of taste, and really not susceptible to argument.
>
I believe Oksana Bauil is an artist but that isn't because I think she is the
best. I won't go on and on about WHY I think she is an artist, as I've done
that before and i don't want to bore people <g> but I wanted to clarify that in
my mind being an artist doesn't make you a better skater than the others,
necessarily. I think Bonaly is an artist, too, and she doesn't have nearly as
good skating technique as many other skaters.
PosterBoy
Revjoelle wrote in message
<199806012100...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> Of course it can be defined. One just has to read the appropriate books.
Two
>that come to mind are Kant's "Analytical of the Beautiful" and Tolstoy's
"What
>is Art".
>
>And you will get their opinion of what art is.
>
Right on, Rev!!
While I've got you on the line, may I ask a favor? You almost always
quote the
post you are commenting on, for which I am grateful. May I ask that you
also
attribute the quote?
Many thanks. It will ease the burden of connecting your view to that
of the
"original" poster.
Cheers.
Vespertine
Joelle writes:
<<So sorry--my mistake. It is obvious that you are only interested in those
who agree with you and you insult anyone else. I should have figured that out
along time ago --but I keep thinking people can change.
>>
Actually, I only laugh at (or as you put it, "insult") people who I think are
illogical, ridiculously biased, self-important, or who pontificate at length
over things like conspiracies. You occasionally fall into one of these
categories. As for changing, what? I'm supposed to want to be like *you*??? I
don't think so!!! BTW, you do some of your *finest* work on Sundays. don't you
ever take a day of rest?
Stephen Ylvisaker
In article <6kudbp$j...@peabody.colorado.edu>, hil...@spot.colorado.edu
(HILL JANET SWAN) wrote:
> I think that all we are doing is proving the impossibility of defining
> "artist" in a way that all can either comprehend or agree on. which goes
> a long way to explain why "artistry" is not among those things judged in
> eligible skating competition ..... it would be impossible to judge
> consistently, fairly, or explicably.
>
> This entire thread began with a discussion of Oxana Baiul, and someone's
> declaration that she is an artist. If a very broad and inclusive
> definition of "artist" is used, I can agree, because a very broad
> definition would include essentially all skaters at a high level. If,
> however, a narrow or exclusive definition is used, I just don't see it.
>
> I fully recognize that there are those who find Baiul's skating to be
> sublime and inspired and who believe that it is so because of some
> "inspiration" (in the sense of spriritual, or divinely guided), but this
> is clearly a matter of taste, and really not susceptible to argument.
>
> It's for these reasons that I find discussions of what constitutes "art"
> or and "artist" or "artistry" to be academic and non-compelling. This is
> not to discourage those of you who want to discuss it ...... just to note
> that even if you finally arrive at a definition or understanding that
> satisfies YOU, it will probably be a highly personal and
> idiosyncratic success, and will probably never be particularly "useful".
> Then again, "usefulness" is probably irrelevant .......
My apologies for quoting all of Janet's text. I'm not responding to
particular points of her message, but rather to concepts she has
justifiably brought up.
I'm going to attempt to limit myself to the broad definition of artist that
Janet mentioned, and I'm going to use expressions from jazz, and other,
music. An individual that can somewhat consistently perform, or reproduce,
a work has, IMO, earned most basic definition of artist, but, again, that
is only at the most basic level. However, at this point, in all likelihood,
the artist either has no particular style or pretty much mimics the style
of his/her role model. In jazz, we would say they have no "voice", yet. As
the artist matures, he/she begins to develop a style of his/her own. When
you see that person skate, or hear that person sing/play, or see their
sketch/print/painting/sculpture, you say that is such & such person, even
without seeing a face. That is when we would say they have found their
"voice". But, that's still not the highest level of artistry. How often
have we said on this forum something like "I liked their moves, but I
didn't get their program." The heights that the artist strives to attain
are when they can tell a/the story, in their own "voice", that the observer
(visual or auditory) is able to understand.
This final stage, is when we usually say the work is "ART", but in the
broad sense it has all been art, but now we call it "art" in the narrow
sense. The trouble with this is when it is art in the broad sense we are
able to be somewhat objective about it, however, when it reaches the narrow
sense it becomes personal and very subjective. This "ART" touches each of
us differently, and gives us varying messages. No two people will receive
it exactly the same way. And, each person may receive it differently on
different occasions. This is exactly how it should be, but that's also why
it's virtually impossible to make a definition, contained in words, that
will fit everybody's experience.
Using these concepts, I, and I'm sure most of you, can say that Oksana
Baiul, Peggy Fleming, Scott Hamilton and Brian Boitano (to name only a few)
are artists because they have their own voice and they are able to tell a
story. But it's also why some question whether Tara was ready to go pro.
She definitely has a voice of her own, but some question if she can
consistently tell a story.
This is my two pence, and I have my flame suit ready.
Stephen
--
Stephen Ylvisaker
reverse domain name in return address to reply
"You can have everything in life you want, if you will
help enough other people get what they want." J. Paul Getty
Craig W.
In article <199806011504...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
revj...@aol.com (Revjoelle) wrote:
>Janet:
>
>>It's for these reasons that I find discussions of what constitutes "art" or
>and "artist" or "artistry" to be academic and non-compelling.
>
>Me too. This is the first time I've tried to put my finger on what I think art
>is--and even for myself it's not totally satisifying, not to mention no one
>else is going to be real happy about it.
>
>I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps that is
>what makes it art?
>
>Joelle
>"God must have a sense of humor." Kitty Carruthers.
Hi all, I'm a practitioner of art and a fan of ice skating who does a lot
of thinking about both. Here's my two cents plus on the subject of art as,
I'm sure, it applies to skating.
Way back in art school, my wise old teachers taught me that a true work of
art has "multiple closure". What this means is that the work of art will
not be experienced as a flat, clichéd, easily digested,'one-liner'. The
viewer will have multiple experiences/revelations. The work of art will
keep coming at you from different angles and points of view and context -
it will resonate.
This is because the work of art has 'gaps' left in its construction - gaps
left by the artist (consciously or not), for the viewer to fill in.
Everyone brings their unique experiences and different takes on things and
fills them into these gaps, and in doing so invests him/herself in the art.
A part of the viewer is integrated into the work of art, and a bond is made
between the artist and the viewer.
We process life in much the same way. We have to make meaning out of
life's many mysteries (gaps) in order to survive. Art at its best
immitates life. I think that art is (and has been throughout our evolution)
a way of confronting the mystery of life by immitating it - the artist
attempts to play God.
I don't know if this clears anything up. It may be easier just to be aware
that it is far easier to kill art than to permit it to come to life. By
overrealizing, by overresolving, by working out all the kinks, in being too
conscious, in being too sure... you kill art, you take all the life out of
the thing. It's not really that hard to make art after all. You just have
to let go of yourself and leave a little more to everyone else's
imagination.
--
Craig W.
Revjoelle
For Posterboy:
Vespertine says this:
>Actually, I only laugh at (or as you put it, "insult") people who I >think are
illogical, ridiculously biased, self-important, or who >pontificate at length
over things like conspiracies
And interestingly enough, you always put this label on people you disagree
with. And seem to be totally blind to your own arrogance and pharisee like
pontification.
>You occasionally fall into one of these categories
When I disagree with you.
> As for changing, what? I'm supposed to want to be like *you*???!
No but I do keep thinking that one of these days when you are loosing an
argument or faced with a view different than your own you might do something
other than ridicule the other person or their point of view.
> I don't think so!!!
Apparently not.
>BTW, you do some of your *finest* work on Sundays. don't you
>ever take a day of rest?
You really are obsessed with my profession aren't you? What's that about?
Never mind. I'm not on duty now. I really don't care.
PegLewis
In article <greyfell-ya0240800...@news.jps.net>,
grey...@com.iname (Stephen Ylvisaker) writes:
>The heights that the artist strives to attain
>are when they can tell a/the story, in their own "voice", that the observer
>(visual or auditory) is able to understand.
This is the best definition of the process that I've read, Stephen. No flames
from me. <g>
Peg
(PegL...@aol.com)
Visit The All-Kwan Network at http://members.aol.com/AllKwanNet/index.html
Visit Ljudmillia's text archives (courtesy Don Edwards) at
http://home.swbell.net/icedance/millia.htm
SmallovianNGB site coming soon!
fand...@bigvax.alfred.edu
In article <199806011504...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
revj...@aol.com (Revjoelle) wrote:
>
> Janet:
>
> >It's for these reasons that I find discussions of what constitutes "art" or
> and "artist" or "artistry" to be academic and non-compelling.
>
> I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps that is
I not only teach in an art school where people have to deal with this question
on a daily basis, but teach African art, a field that constantly confronts the
question "Is it art?" This very expression just provoked a lengthy discussion
on an academic list-serve I subscribe to.
If defining art is problematic in our culture, just imagine how difficult it
is in cultures that don't have a term that corresponds to ours. I always
remember what my mentor once said. He found the real question to be "Is it
good art or bad art?" Maybe many disagree about that too, but I can certainly
identify clear examples of both as I walk through the studios in my school.
Martha
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
HILL JANET SWAN
Craig W. <clwa...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Hi all, I'm a practitioner of art and a fan of ice skating who does a lot
>of thinking about both. Here's my two cents plus on the subject of art as,
>I'm sure, it applies to skating.
>
>Way back in art school, my wise old teachers taught me that a true work of
>art has "multiple closure". What this means is that the work of art will
>not be experienced as a flat, clichéd, easily digested,'one-liner'. The
>viewer will have multiple experiences/revelations. The work of art will
>keep coming at you from different angles and points of view and context -
>it will resonate.
>
>This is because the work of art has 'gaps' left in its construction - gaps
>left by the artist (consciously or not), for the viewer to fill in.
>Everyone brings their unique experiences and different takes on things and
>fills them into these gaps, and in doing so invests him/herself in the art.
>A part of the viewer is integrated into the work of art, and a bond is made
>between the artist and the viewer.
CRAIG! Thank you. This is perhaps the first "explanation" of art that I
can actually grok in connection with figure skating.
janet
--
HILL JANET SWAN
Stephen Ylvisaker <grey...@com.iname> wrote:
>In article <6kudbp$j...@peabody.colorado.edu>, hil...@spot.colorado.edu
>(HILL JANET SWAN) wrote:
>
>> I think that all we are doing is proving the impossibility of defining
>> "artist" in a way that all can either comprehend or agree on.
(snipping myself)
>> It's for these reasons that I find discussions of what constitutes "art"
>> or and "artist" or "artistry" to be academic and non-compelling. This is
>> not to discourage those of you who want to discuss it ...... just to note
>> that even if you finally arrive at a definition or understanding that
>> satisfies YOU, it will probably be a highly personal and
>> idiosyncratic success, and will probably never be particularly "useful".
>> Then again, "usefulness" is probably irrelevant .......
(snipping Stephen's message now ....)
>of his/her role model. In jazz, we would say they have no "voice", yet. As
>the artist matures, he/she begins to develop a style of his/her own. When
>you see that person skate, or hear that person sing/play, or see their
>sketch/print/painting/sculpture, you say that is such & such person, even
>without seeing a face. That is when we would say they have found their
>"voice". But, that's still not the highest level of artistry. How often
>have we said on this forum something like "I liked their moves, but I
>didn't get their program." The heights that the artist strives to attain
>are when they can tell a/the story, in their own "voice", that the observer
>(visual or auditory) is able to understand.
>This final stage, is when we usually say the work is "ART", but in the
>broad sense it has all been art, but now we call it "art" in the narrow
>sense. The trouble with this is when it is art in the broad sense we are
>able to be somewhat objective about it, however, when it reaches the narrow
>sense it becomes personal and very subjective. This "ART" touches each of
>us differently, and gives us varying messages. No two people will receive
>it exactly the same way. And, each person may receive it differently on
>different occasions. This is exactly how it should be, but that's also why
>it's virtually impossible to make a definition, contained in words, that
>will fit everybody's experience.
I take it all back. This HAS turned into an exceptional conversation
about art as it relates to figure skating. This is a discussion that
comes up every year or so, but I can't recall any of the previous
incarnations having so many careful people trying to explain the
essentially inexplicable in so many thought-provoking ways. it's been --
after all -- a delight. Perhaps the thing that made the difference this
time is that later contributors separated their comments from particular
skaters, and also managed to explain their thinking on the matter in
non-judgemental and non-condescending terms. thanks.
janet
--
Violina23
<<I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps that
is
Defining art is as impossible as defining truth
*~*~Heather~*~*
Visit my Michelle Kwan Page at:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Lot/3143/michelle.html
Violina23
><<And you will get their opinion of what art is.>>
>
>that eludes you or does not interest you.
I agree with Joelle--- definitions of abstract concepts such as "art" are never
concrete-- all it is is one individual's take on it. All we can do is have
philosophical discussions on what we feel is art
;o)
Vespertine
Joelle writes:
<<And interestingly enough, you always put this label on people you disagree
with. And seem to be totally blind to your own arrogance and pharisee like
pontification>>
Shows how little you know. I disagree with many people on this board. For
example, I think Oksana Baiul should have won the 1994 Olympics, and I think
she's an artist. I don't care much for Ekaterina Gordeeva's solo skating, I
don't think Tara Lipinski is responsible for her mother's actions, I don't like
Scott Hamiltion's skating at all - but I think he's a very nice person and a
great entertainer, and so on. It's just that some people here are interesting
to discuss issues with, and others are condescending and insulting - while
*pretending* to be righteous and "fair". It is this type of hypocrisy (which
you frequently engage in) that irritates and/or amuses me, and to which I will
respond in kind. I don't go on and on with it - you don't see 5 or 6 exchanges
with me and someone. I make my comment and move on.
If someone expressses an interesting thought that I disagree with, then I
debate the matter with them. It's just that I don't have any interest in
debating with people like Chuckg, RJWarbirds, or that Slogait/che/etc person.
There are more interesting people to debate things with. And without
disagreements, this would be a very boring board, now wouldn't it?
Pharisee-like pontification??!! LOL!! what an idiotic and meaningless
phrase!.
Benjamin Smith
On Tue, Jun 2, 1998 4:44 AM, Stephen Ylvisaker <mailto:grey...@com.iname>
wrote:
> But, that's still not the highest level of artistry. How often
>have we said on this forum something like "I liked their moves, but I
>didn't get their program." The heights that the artist strives to attain
>are when they can tell a/the story, in their own "voice", that the
observer
>(visual or auditory) is able to understand.
>This final stage, is when we usually say the work is "ART",
Doesn't depend on the observer, Stephen? I remember in the jazz newsgroup
we discussed the experience of the musician vs. non-musician and how much
the non-musician can appreciate. Also, in many forms of music, or say food
or "exotic" "different" types of art, many obeservers are just not familiar
with the language of the art, and dismiss it as random events. One can not
understand a story if one does not know its language.
Ben S.
Stephen Ylvisaker
In article <B199F16...@209.109.227.250>, "Benjamin Smith"
<be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Hi, Ben!
Yes , the observer is another variable, but the observer doesn't make art,
and that's why I didn't discuss it. OTOH, I think the artist has the
responsibility for teaching the language, because art isn't just for the
artists.
Kandyin
I was just flipping through an old issue of the New Yorker and
came upon an article that I thought I'd like to take a few quotes
and share them with you. I don't think the quotes will make
everyone satisfied, but I found them to be more inclusive, as well
as humorous.
"What is Art"? by Louis Menand...
quotes:
"The triumph of the consensus of no consensus should be gratifying
to Arthur Danto, who has been trying since 1984 to explain why it
is no longer possible, by referring to the way it looks, to distinguish
something that is a work of art from something that is not. His argument,
.... is that after Andy Warhol exhibited simulacra of Brillo boxes
(actually of shipping cartons for Brillo boxes), in 1964, anything could
be art. With "Brillo Box," the history of art came to an end. There
was no longer a master narrative dictating what form works of art should
take next, since having a particular form no longer determined whether
a thing was a work of art."
"...Pluralism is an admirable point of view, but it wouldn't be much use
if it prevented people from judging anything. The way to do the right
pluralist thing today, therefore, seems to involve the following decorum:
(my point of view of the above is that I don't agree with the idea of
a set decorum. But I like the idea that whether you like something or
not it's fruitless to TELL someone else whether the thing is art or not.)
you do not criticize someone else's tastes or values by saying they are
inferior, perverted, uncivilized, or "not art." That kind of talk is invidious,
and suggests that you are applying standards you imagine to be impersonal.
Instead, you say, "I don't happen to like it," and you are absolved of
chauvinism. You are also absolved of attending to any reasons you should
like it. When liking is all, disliking is enough."
And the humorous part:
"One day around 1960, Warhol drops in on his friend Emile de Antonio,
who owns one of Frank Stella's early black paintings, and finds him
distraught. A neighbor had seen the Stella on the wall, de Antonio
recounts, and asked what it was. When he told her it was a painting, she
burst out laughing: THAT was a painting? And she walked over and poured
a bottle of whiskey on it, completely ruining it. Just then, the phone rings
and, coincidentally, it's Stella. De Antonio describes ruefully what has
just happened to his painting. Stella tells him not to worry. He'll make
him another one just like it."
My quotes from the article are a bit long (!) and I hope no one goes
complaining to the New Yorker about it... :)
If you want to read the whole article, it's in the Feb 9, 1998 issue.
Kandy
Louis Epstein
Violina23 (viol...@aol.com) wrote:
: <<I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps that
: is
: what makes it art?>>
:
: Defining art is as impossible as defining truth
:
: *~*~Heather~*~*
Is that true?
Kandyin
And I posted the quotes from the article because I mainly
agree with them. I thought the article speaks more of what
I want to say. So if you disagree with the article you can
think of it as disagreeing with me.
Kandy
Revjoelle
Me:
<<I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps that
is what makes it art?>>
Heather:
>: Defining art is as impossible as defining truth
Louis:
>Is that true?
Well at least he didn't ask "What is truth?" :-)
Louis Epstein
Revjoelle (revj...@aol.com) wrote:
: Me:
:
: <<I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps that
: is what makes it art?>>
:
: Heather:
:
: >: Defining art is as impossible as defining truth
:
: Louis:
:
: >Is that true?
:
: Well at least he didn't ask "What is truth?" :-)
That's for the followup,when truth is ascribed to the statement or not.
PosterBoy
Louis Epstein wrote in message ...
>Violina23 (viol...@aol.com) wrote:
>: <<I know art is real. But I just don't think it can be defined. Perhaps
that
>: is
>: what makes it art?>>
>:
>: Defining art is as impossible as defining truth
>:
>: *~*~Heather~*~*
>
>Is that true?
Is that possible?
Cheers.
Craig W.
In article <199806032251...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kan...@aol.com (Kandyin) wrote:
>I was just flipping through an old issue of the New Yorker and
>came upon an article that I thought I'd like to take a few quotes
>and share them with you. I don't think the quotes will make
>everyone satisfied, but I found them to be more inclusive, as well
>as humorous.
>
>"What is Art"? by Louis Menand...
>quotes:
>"The triumph of the consensus of no consensus should be gratifying
>to Arthur Danto, who has been trying since 1984 to explain why it
>is no longer possible, by referring to the way it looks, to distinguish
>something that is a work of art from something that is not. His argument,
>.... is that after Andy Warhol exhibited simulacra of Brillo boxes
>(actually of shipping cartons for Brillo boxes), in 1964, anything could
>be art. With "Brillo Box," the history of art came to an end. There
>was no longer a master narrative dictating what form works of art should
>take next, since having a particular form no longer determined whether
>a thing was a work of art."
>
>
Yes, Andy Warhol's "Brillo Box" marked the end of the history of art. The
Avant Garde movement of the 20th century had done its magnum opus in
delivering Art to the point of self awareness, before which ignorance could
be claimed as bliss.
But this revelation was one made purely by the mind, leaving body and soul
out in the cold. Agreed, if you place it in the hands of logic and reason
to determine what is art, you will inevitably be delivered the conclusion
that everything is art. You get the same nullifying result when you use
logic to determine the existence of God: inevitably, God can only exist
with the assistance of faith.
The human mind, alone, can only take us so far in our quest for greatness.
Letąs hope that it has thoroughly indulged itself this time so we can all
go on with the show.
--
Craig W.
PegLewis
In article <199806040012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, revj...@aol.com
(Revjoelle) writes:
>
>Heather:
>
>>: Defining art is as impossible as defining truth
>
>Louis:
>
>>Is that true?
>
>Well at least he didn't ask "What is truth?" :-)
"Beauty is Truth; Truth is Beauty."
Now, define "beauty."
Peg ;-P
Revjoelle
Peg:
>"Beauty is Truth; Truth is Beauty."
>Now, define "beauty.
Beauty is Art?
Joelle
Ps--I'm sorry if this is showing up with no hard returns--I'm doing
hard returns and it is showing awful on my newsreader--appears
to be out of my control.
Virginia Blalock
On 4 Jun 1998 13:55:48 GMT, pegl...@aol.com (PegLewis) wrote:
>>Well at least he didn't ask "What is truth?" :-)
>
>"Beauty is Truth; Truth is Beauty."
>
>Now, define "beauty."
>
>Peg ;-P
Hubby would probably say it is Tyra Banks<G>.
Virginia
Visit my skating page:
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/9508
Vespertine
PegLewis quotes:
<<"Beauty is Truth; Truth is Beauty."
>>
Lovely quote, but as a fan of Keats (and particularly of "Ode on a Grecian
Urn"), I feel compelled (yes, compelled!) to desire accuracy when quoting -
" 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' "
(" '---that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.' ")
Are we going back to the Greatest Poets who Never Skated thread??? <g>
Kandyin
Craig wrote:
********
The human mind, alone, can only take us so far in our quest for greatness.
go on with the show.
But then, how well do we know our own minds? How much we
don't know about it and how little we have make full use of it.
We use less than 50 percent of our brain; some people say only
about 5 percent. So many of us have yet explored the extra-
sensory abilities that are contained in our own mind.
What we don't know about our own mind is a little like what we
don't know about art; we judge based on the knowledge we have
gathered. The less we know, the less possibilities we can draw
and make a judgement from.
Kandy
Violina23
Here's another: Define "real"
Louis Epstein
Craig W. (clwa...@concentric.net) wrote:
: In article <199806032251...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: kan...@aol.com (Kandyin) wrote:
:
: >I was just flipping through an old issue of the New Yorker and
: >came upon an article that I thought I'd like to take a few quotes
: >and share them with you. I don't think the quotes will make
: >everyone satisfied, but I found them to be more inclusive, as well
: >as humorous.
: >
: >"What is Art"? by Louis Menand...
: >quotes:
: >"The triumph of the consensus of no consensus should be gratifying
: >to Arthur Danto, who has been trying since 1984 to explain why it
: >is no longer possible, by referring to the way it looks, to distinguish
: >something that is a work of art from something that is not. His argument,
: >.... is that after Andy Warhol exhibited simulacra of Brillo boxes
: >(actually of shipping cartons for Brillo boxes), in 1964, anything could
: >be art. With "Brillo Box," the history of art came to an end. There
: >was no longer a master narrative dictating what form works of art should
: >take next, since having a particular form no longer determined whether
: >a thing was a work of art."
: >
: >
:
:
: Yes, Andy Warhol's "Brillo Box" marked the end of the history of art. The
: Avant Garde movement of the 20th century had done its magnum opus in
: delivering Art to the point of self awareness, before which ignorance could
: be claimed as bliss.
Better to evaluate art in ignorance of the avant garde.
: But this revelation was one made purely by the mind, leaving body and soul
: out in the cold. Agreed, if you place it in the hands of logic and reason
: to determine what is art, you will inevitably be delivered the conclusion
: that everything is art. You get the same nullifying result when you use
: logic to determine the existence of God: inevitably, God can only exist
: with the assistance of faith.
Absurd.It is intrinsic to the idea of God that faith or the lack of it
is unable to have any effect on the existence of God.
Chuckg
Violina23 wrote in message <199806042012...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Here's another: Define "real"
real (n.) -- antonym of "unreal"
(LOL)
--
Chuckg
Craig W.
In article <199806041924...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kan...@aol.com (Kandyin) wrote:
I concede to you, Kandy, that there are parts of our brain yet to be
discovered and more knowledge to be gained. But, ultimately, anything we
learn can only be learned via our own brains, and is, ultimately, bound by
it. In other words, everything that we think exists outside of us (the
Other) really, can only exist inside of us, because, when you think about
it (pun intended), we cannot separate our thoughts from our brains.
Therefore, I think (just a little), that we are better off not thinking
about it too much.;-)
--
Craig W.
PosterBoy
Craig W. wrote in message ...
Very thoughtful!! <g>
Cheers.
PegLewis
In article <199806041922...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
vespe...@aol.com (Vespertine) writes:
>" 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,' "
I thought we weren't keeping score with punctuation, er, punk-chew-a-shun.
Peg
Vespertine
PegLewis writes:
<<I thought we weren't keeping score with punctuation, er, punk-chew-a-shun.>>
We aren't - but misquotes, now - just can't let those go!! Especially by
one of my favorite Romantic poets! (And anyway, think how bereft of posts
this board would be without all the accusations about misquoting, quoting out
of context, and misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting quotes! And not one of
us can claim to have anywhere near the sheer perfection of expression exhibited
by Keats!)
PegLewis
In article <199806061801...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
vespe...@aol.com (Vespertine) writes:
> We aren't - but misquotes, now - just can't let those go!! Especially by
>one of my favorite Romantic poets!
"Beauty is truth, truth is beauty"
Right words, right order, wrong punctuation, and clipped before the end of the
entire phrase but verbatim nonetheless - that's not a mis-quote. That's just
not quoting as much as you wanted to see, and a symptom of someone memorizing
the poem verbally rather than with the written word. Peace, please?
Vespertine
PegLewis writes:
(requoting what she quoted before....
<<"Beauty is truth, truth is beauty"
<<Right words, right order, wrong punctuation, and clipped before the end of
the entire phrase but verbatim nonetheless - that's not a mis-quote.>>
Sorry, Peg - there is no "is" in the second phrase - as I noted in my
"correction", it's
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty "
That's the correction I made (so it isn't the verbatim quote). Sorry you
missed that the first time.