|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 14:25:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Originally posted by bngbuck
What size audience, Dave?
At least one. |
In the Humor forum recently, I posted a controversial image of Karl Rove which started as a Google file photo and which I transformed with several hours of intensive pixel manipulation, into a caricature of Karl with a turd in his hand. I then published it in your forum. I define that image as art! Do you agree that it is art?
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 19:27:27 [Permalink]
|
Marf says:| I never said anything like that. Go back and read how I defined art. It hardly defines everything as art. |
I went back and read...| Anything which is creative expression put in the context of art is art. |
I, or anyone, can define anything conceivable as "creative expression" and further define that same anything as "art" and by so doing, put it in "the context of art". Consequently, art is anything (or everything) and anything (or everything) is art, if so defined! | This is why these debates over what is art are useless. |
But, Marf, how can we discuss anything meaningfully if we cannot define it? I certainly wouldn't call myself a "critical thinker" but it seems to me from what I have heard oft-repeated around here, that critical thinking requires the solid definition of concepts, terms, or subject matter to precede using those concepts in declarative or speculative statements. Is it possible to talk about "art" meaningfully if it is not possible to define it?
One of the primary problems in trying to discuss the concept of "God" meaningfully, is the inability of anyone to define "God" in terms that cannot be immediately be reduced to sham! There cannot really be a God, because God cannot be defined in a rational, testable manner.
Is the same true of Art (or 'art', if you like)? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2008 : 19:54:10 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
I would like to request your personal critique of the Turdblossom art piece that I posted in the Humor forum which you moderate. You were unhappy with it, so I feel I am entitled to an wider explanation of that displeasure with the art other than the fact that you saw it as art for four year olds.
I did not intend it as art for four year olds because I did not feel that a large number of four year old children read these forums, and those that do might cause their parents some consternation if they tried to emulate Karl's pose; but I recognize that if a majority of Forum readers saw it as art intended for four year old children, it was posted in the wrong forum. However, that remains to be determined, if in fact it ever can be determined!
But simply as an art piece intended to be seen in a mocking or satirical political commentary context - precisely the same as many political cartoons (such as those of Dwayne Booth and many others) -are: what do you see as the artistic failings of the piece? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2008 : 00:42:12 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
Perhaps to make your task a little easier, offer a comparative critique of the acclaimed Mr. Fish's work with mine:
Dick Cheney offers his latest rationalization for continuing the war in Iraq indefinitely
---irrespective of the cost in human lives and trillions of dollars in American treasure!
 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 03:09:28 [Permalink]
|
I mentioned in an earlier post that I could have done Piss Christ, and I could have, easily, had I thought of it. But such a thing never crossed my mind until Andres Serrano got Jessee Helms' boxers full of turpentine over it. Nothing to it, really; a dime store Jesus, a jar & a quick visit to the head, light it up just so and hit the shutter, zip-pop. There you have it. In both the assembly and the photography, there is no actual art.
Because, you see, the only place art can be found is in the vision of the artist. It cannot be truly comprehended by anyone without that exact vision. All of what we think of as 'art,' be it painting, sculpture, music, poetry & prose or whatever, is no more than mere mechanics. We cannot appreciate art because no one has ever seen anything but the evidence of it; the clumsy artifact.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 08:38:51 [Permalink]
|
Filthy.....
As with "God", perhaps a new and different nomenclature is needed. I pointed out a way back that the word "God" was carrying a load of baggage accumulated over the ages. One hears or reads the word, and immediately a matrix of understanding forms in one's consciousness, a matrix that is formed by the observer's experiences, prejudices, education and worldview. Obviously, these pre-concieved notions of what 'God' is (or isn't) vary tremendously from observer to observer - hence one is almost assured controversy ranging from mild discussion to life-threatening conflict when discussing "God".
It occurs to me that something similar happens when a person encounters something that has been defined as "Art". For a vast majority of perceivers, perception is reality. I see a Piss Christ or a Warhol tomato soup can, and all of the highly trained artists in the world, like Marf, cannot persuade me that what I am seeing is anything but contrived bullshit - contrived either for commercial gain or simply the kind of personal power trip that motivates professional con men to con, even if there is no profit in it!
Your point that "art" only exists in the eye of the creator of the example in question, is well taken, but it fails to take into consideration the absolute fact that it is possible for some art to instantaneously inspire emotions in certain perceivers - ranging from disgust through cynicism into appreciation and extending into rapture!
I have been fortunate enough to have visited many of the great museums of the world - MMA, MOMA, The National Gallery, The Louvre, the British Museum, and many more. I have seen many of the original items that have been defined as "art' by undoubted experts in their genre.
I have no doubt that each and everyone of these revered mechanical constructions was indeed "art" in it's creator's eye and mind; and has become "art" in the minds of many perceivers due to a vast number of reasons. To me, I have see many works that I truly feel are indeed art. I have also seen much that I perceive as horsecrap. And many things that belong somewhere between the two ends of that spectrum!
The point is that "art" truly exists, but as you sagely point out, it cannot be defined, because "art" lies both in the intent of the creator and in the eye and impact on the psyche of the observer!
Thus, there cannot be agreement on the issue. Many are not interested in the slightest. They know not of art! Those who are, even many of the supposed experts, will argue until the final sunset as to what is and isn't art.
About all that can be said with some degree of certainty is that the perceiver knows it when he perceives it, and the creator knows it when he/she has created it, and occasionally the two agree!
And then there is this.....
"By amusing myself with all these games, all this nonsense, all these picture puzzles, I became famous... I am only a public entertainer who has understood his time." (Pablo Picasso) |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 04/20/2008 23:45:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 10:13:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
To me, I have see many works that I truly feel are indeed art. I have also seen much that I perceive as horsecrap. And many things that belong somewhere between the two ends of that spectrum! |
Where on the spectrum does a physics textbook lie?
What I think you're missing is that what you're seeing as horsecrap is, in fact, bad art. I'd bet your spectrum isn't art-vs-not-art, but good-art-vs-bad-art. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2008 : 13:01:09 [Permalink]
|
Interesting surely, but "good art, bad art" are terms describing the same thing and all in the eye of the beholder. One might think of it as "art but poor execution" because, again, no one but the artist can see the inspiration and the form produced in his/her imagination/vision. Thus, as observers we are a bit crippled; only being able to see what our own imaginations allow us. We will never see exactly what the artist saw, not even in something as simple & mundane as Campbell's canned soup, which was more of a statement than a portrait, really. And that too, is art. | Where on the spectrum does a physics textbook lie? |
In the catagory of an instrument of torture to bastinetto the poor bastard that had to edit the fucker before sending it on to confuse the populace! Tech manuals are the same. Yeesh!
But they are an art-form even though they were severely roughed up in the editing, that editor adding a bit of his/her own vision. Because, you see, they were written to the best of their author's ability (yeesh!) and the words and phrases are finally of their and the editor's vision, however narrow those might be. All art does not hang about in museums nor reside in weighty tomes, nor, often, is even realized as such.
Another example: the old Warner Brothers and Tom & Jerry, et al., cartoons, were superb in the smoothness of their motion and their exquisite attention to detail (and the gratuitous & mindless violence was great, too). Modern cartoons are half-assed crap beside them but both are art even though the latter smacks of production line ennui. It's all in the vision even though that be limited and the mechanics poor. Happily, that situation has been improving since The Simpsons got started.
To carry the matter a little farther, Leni Riefenstahl was the premier cinematographer of her generation, and she produced art as well as Nazi propaganda. Even though her vision was morally flawed by the standards of any sane civilization, the artist in her could not be denied.
And finally, here is some of the finest art the vision of our species has ever produced, wonderfully wrought:
Edit: As an admirer of Picasso, I couldn't leave this alone: | "By amusing myself with all these games, all this nonsense, all these picture puzzles, I became famous... I am only a public entertainer who has understood his time." (Pablo Picasso) |
Vain little prick, wasn't he? Well, he earned the right to be so.... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 04/20/2008 14:06:24 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 15:30:14 [Permalink]
|
Dave......
| What I think you're missing is that what you're seeing as horsecrap is, in fact, bad art. I'd bet your spectrum isn't art-vs-not-art, but good-art-vs-bad-art. |
And therein lies the rub! Does it make any more sense to try an define what constitutes good art as differentiated from bad art, than trying to define what is art and what isn't? Art, or perhaps "good" art, cannot be tested or measured other than by popularity polling. And how do that?
Poll Question: Is this (insert example) art or not? immediately opens a can of worms like "what do you mean by art" or "do you mean do I like it?" So change the poll question to: Is this good art? and you get "no, it's not art" or "it may be art but I hate it, so no"
Try: Do you like this art? produces "I like it but it's not art" or "I hate it, of course it's not art" and on and on! Difficult issue to poll.
And what do you have when you finish, granting you have successfully selected a statistically significant sample of the Universe of.......what? Just people? Art Lovers? Art Haters? People unaware of art? I don't have the slightest idea how to construct a meaningful polling study of the subject, and I used to do that kind of thing for a living!
Even if you found a way to make it work, all you have is a representation of public opinion which doesn't address the issues that Marf, Filthy and myself have raised as to what constitutes art, good art, bad art, or is everything and/or anything art?
I still feel definition of the subject is required before the subject can be intelligently discussed - the subject being Art, or art, as is your wont!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 16:44:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I still feel definition of the subject is required before the subject can be intelligently discussed - the subject being Art, or art, as is your wont! |
And I still don't see where the proposed definition is lacking. Does the person who created thing X consider it to be art? No? Then it's not art. Does thing X have a person or group of people who will appreciate thing X as art? No? Then it's not art. Two "yes" answers are required for thing X to be art. Where is the problem? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 17:29:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by bngbuck
I still feel definition of the subject is required before the subject can be intelligently discussed - the subject being Art, or art, as is your wont! |
And I still don't see where the proposed definition is lacking. Does the person who created thing X consider it to be art? No? Then it's not art. Does thing X have a person or group of people who will appreciate thing X as art? No? Then it's not art. Two "yes" answers are required for thing X to be art. Where is the problem?
|
I disagree. Only one "Yes" answer is required.
"X" can be art, even accidently, as long as someone thinks that it is; poor, even horrible execution of lousey vision can be art if the artist thinks so. Neither side needs to have taste nor even be sane.
"I doesn't know much about art, but I knows what I likes." There. Somebody had to say it.... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 18:16:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
"X" can be art, even accidently, as long as someone thinks that it is; |
Precisely my point.| poor, even horrible execution of lousey vision can be art if the artist thinks so. Neither side needs to have taste nor even be sane. |
That is exactly why I used the word "appreciate," and not "like" or "admire." A person can appreciate something as being art while also saying, "that's some really craptacular art right there."
As for the requirement that the artist thinks it's art, too: if we remove that from the equation then sunsets become art. Things can be beautiful without being art.
I maintain that both "yes" answers are needed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2008 : 19:33:11 [Permalink]
|
It only takes the vision of a single mind for something to be art. | As for the requirement that the artist thinks it's art, too: if we remove that from the equation then sunsets become art. Things can be beautiful without being art. |
Let us examine this; are you saying that conciousness is a requirement for art? I think otherwise, and to plunder your sunset example, the most striklng sunsets are often seen through atmospheric smuch caused by ourselves. Inadverent art, or just something that, eh, happened?
More to the point, a couple of decades ago an aquaintence of mine in Vermont taught himself to drill glass and made a cunning, little bong from a pint whiskey bottle. It came out well, but he didn't think of it as an art project nor of himself as an artist, he just wanted to have something to smoke a little weed with. Everyone else who saw it loved it and wanted one, including myself. Now, I've heard, he's actually doing glass art for $$ and has gone far beyond booze bottles. So, was that first Wild Turkey bong art? I maintain that it certainly was even though it was not intended as such at the time of it's creation.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
using abortion as an art medium
