Re: The Not Art Art (Was Art)

[Warm Worm]

>>> [e-mail] >>> > >>> > Warm Worm wrote: >>> >> [e-mail] wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >> Free it from the "elite". >>> >> > >>> >> > The elite (whoever they are) don't judge the artistic merits of a >>> >> > work >>> >> > for me. >>> >> >>> >> Actually, they "create" the work that you end up judging, as well as >>> >> influence how you or others do! >>> >> Yes, historically, they (and we do know who they are, and so should >>> >> you) >>> >> have been largely responsible for the works we now call art. >>> >> If you have an Italian background, Marcello, here's one from your own >>> >> backyard: >>> >> >> >> Never mind the link, you should recognize the name. >>> > >>> > I have never spoken to a Medici, and never read their 15th century >>> > commentary (if it exists) on any artistic works they may or may not >>> > have commissioned. That artistic works get commissioned by people or >>> > organizations (the church being the biggest commissioner of all, in >>> > historical terms) is a fact. >>> >>> I found it cute that a hegemony might provide a work that one would >>> claim to >>> judge outside of their influence, since the very act of judging it in >>> the >>> first place would seem to say something about their influence. >>> But I think I undestand what you mean. >>> Here's to hoping we judge art "accordingly", and to proper influence in >>> that >>> regard. ;) >> >> By judging, I have meaning all throughout this discussion appraisal of >> aesthetic qualities, as opposed to many characteristics of meaning.

I thought we were talking about art.

>> > But just because they commissioned it >>> > doesn't really mean much in terms of the artistic qualities of the >>> > object itself. >>> >>> I hear you, but feel that the artistic qualities of the object won't >>> mean as >>> much if we divorce the object from its contexts, such as whether it was >>> commissioned and why, or what the artist had to say about it. >> >> If one judges a work based on its aesthetic merits, meaning and context >> don't come into play (much like appraising flowers or a sunset or >> landscape).

Well, 3 paragraphs above, you wrote 'artistic qualities', which is what I responded to, but now it seems to have "devolved" into 'aesthetic merits'. Changing one's mind or shifting the focus is fair enough, but I'm starting to feel like I might need some crampons. ;)

>> While I appreciate it, I've never really liked the Mona Lisa, or >>> Beethoven. >>> ...We have examples from Italy and one from Germany... How about >>> something >>> from Laos, Tajikistan, or Paraguay? >> >> I have some nice looking stamps from Laos and Paraguay. Can't say I've >> seen anything from Tajikistan.

Do you collect stamps? I've never really cared for geography as a kid, but as an adult am quite taking to it. Perhaps we will visit Tajikistan someday.

>> > The fact that some artists are poor judgers of their own works goes at >>> > odds with your claim that the artists' claim of a work as art should >>> > be >>> > the only defining criteria of a work as art. >>> >>> If we accept one or more particular definitions of art that ostensibly >>> hinge >>> especially on the artist's internal states in some ways, then how can we >>> conclude definitively or absolutely that their claim to their work as >>> art is >>> false? >> >> By looking at the work itself. >

Not if the crux of the matter is an internal state. Doubt must be with the artist. I suggest it may be metaphorically akin to the idea of *innocent until proven guilty*, with the qualification that, even if "found guilty" by jury, there will nonetheless, and perhaps always be, that *absolute element of doubt*. Judgements are distinctly different from truth. If you wish to talk about artistic judgements, and confuse judgments with truth, that's your prerogative of course, but the burden of proof is with you, and while you may be right in the final analysis, you may still be wrong.

OJ Simpson was acquitted, but he'll take the truth to his grave.

>> > A work may be artistic even if the artist doesn't believe so. And, >>> > vice >>> > versa, a work may >>> > have little artistic merit even though the artist may claim that it's >>> > a >>> > masterpiece. >>> >>> How about if we accept a work that is both art and not art? >>> Agree to disagree. >> >> That's not a helpful way of speciying anything.

Why not? Support your contention.

>> >> "Steal" the work if you must, and make it your own, but that's part >>> >> of >>> >> the context of their art, and the original remains, if only in >>> >> memory. >>> >> >>> >> - A little poetry for you. >>> > >>> > I've written some poetry myself. >>> >>> I'd like to read some sometime. >> >> But it's nothing to write home about.

Then we'll just read it and leave it at that. :)

>> >> > What anyone labels it is really immaterial to the aesthetic >>> >> > experience >>> >> > as such. >>> >> >>> >> Exactly. So take ownership, then, of your own aesthetic experiences. >>> > >>> > !!!!! >>> >>> What's that supposed to mean? :) >> >> It means that taking 'ownership of aesthetic experiences' is what I've >> been talking about all along, rather than having some else (artist or >> critic) decide for me. >> >>> I imagine there have been many of such responses to many forms and works >>> of >>> art. >>> I'm in good company. ;p >>> >>> >> > To me there is no 'of course'. It is not obvious that culture >>> >> > (meaning >>> >> > a common social organization) per se can produce art. >>> >> >>> >> Fair enough. Is there a culture without art? >>> > >>> > Sure. It is fairly easy to imagine a culture so thoroughly enamored >>> > with technology and science that all artistic pursuit has been >>> > abandoned. Only utility counts. >>> >>> You previously wrote: >>> "None of your cases above are pertinent to normal everyday experience... >>> What ifs of the extreme kind you propose don't interest me, and aren't >>> pertinent." >>> >>> Make up your mind. ;) >> >> You asked a what if. I provided one that, by the way, is rather common >> in science fiction. >>> >>> > Wikipedia is a good source, but you must be careful about citing their >>> > articles on topics like art- particularly because many of their >>> > articles are still a work in progress (and you can see this in reading >>> > both articles you cite.) You're better off going to Encyclopedia >>> > Britannica, >>> >>> Perhaps, but I've read that Wiki comes pretty close: >>>

>>

>> Neverthess-- although while there are apparently more accurate, etc., >>> sources than Britannica-- when one considers how the Wiki works, it >>> seems >>> remarkable that it even compares at all. >>> >>> > or reading Feeling and Form by Susanne Langer, if you're >>> > truly interested in aesthetic philosophy. >>> >>> Fair enough. >>> >>> >> > Individuals with certain capacities produce art. >>> >> >>> >> Maybe we all have a capacity to produce art and it's this kind of >>> >> thinking that holds us back. >>> > >>> > Can you sketch well? What's stopping you from trying? >>> >>> Psychiatric problems stemming from my childhood when I was caught in >>> class >>> sketching a nude? >>> >>> > Can you compose a symphony? >>> >>> I may yet compose an electronic symphony. >>> >>> > The acknowledgement that we have different capacities is based on >>> > reality and 'doesn't hold people back'. People have different talents >>> > and enjoy different pursuits. Whether they choose to pursue them may >>> > simply be a matter of practicality. I for instance would like to learn >>> > to play the piano, but don't have time. >>> >>> The piano's probably my favourite acoustic instrument. >>> If you're short on time but not compositional desire, you can always >>> compose >>> using electronic piano sounds, which are unbeleivably realistic-sounding >>> these days. >> >> I've composed snippets in MIDI. Without basic knowledge it's just >> bumbling though. >>> >>> > In addition not all of us can be great artists or great architects or >>> > great writers. If that were truly the case, if art were truly that >>> > easy, there would be no merit to art at all. >>> >>> There'd still be merit if only in the satisfaction of engaging in >>> something >>> you enjoy. >>> Besides, what does great mean anyway? >> >> The Sistine Chapel, the Pyramids of Giza, the Colosseum, Beethoven's >> 9th, Ca d'Oro in Venice, Debussy's La Mer, Mozart's Requiem, Picasso's >> Guernica, Michaelangelo's David, etc. etc. etc. >> >>> Is a great writer one who writes award-winning novels and then drives >>> home >>> drunk and neglects family? >>> Is a great athlete one who runs the fastest by in part taking banned, >>> perfomance-enhancers in a new, undetectable way before the race. >>> Is great an illusion sometimes? >>> >>> >> > These individuals may or may not be influenced by their culture, >>> >> > background, social norms, etc. >>> >> >>> >> We're all influenced by our cultures, backgounds, social norms, etc.. >>> > >>> > And artists can choose to eschew their culture completely. Gauguin is >>> > an extreme example. >>> >>> Gauguin's culture was in him and he was also a part of it, as we all >>> are. >>> The very attempt at insightful eschewal would also seem to force that >>> kind >>> of acknowledgement. >> >> But an artist can willfully reject it, ignore it, etc., just as anyone >> could, if they were of the mind to do so.

Just because you are choosing to attempt to willfully do something, doesn't mean you are or will be successful-- at least not completely... And you did mention 'completely' above.

The flouride in your local water is in your bones.

[marcenmoni]

Yes. By 'aesthetic qualities', or 'artistic merit', I mean those qualities of harmony, balance and execution present in the art work itself, such as, for instance, the choice of instruments, the craft of the melody, the harmonic sequences, the tone and tempo of an excerpt of Faure's Requiem. This independantly of the text song in Faure's Requiem (meaning). In architecture, the aesthetic qualities (and so the artistic merit) are much more 'pronounced' than meaning since the aesthetic appreciation of architecture is more about the visual perception of the building and its spaces, than about, for instance, the inscription of quote's in a building's frieze, for its use as a temple, etc.

For me it always goes back to the art work. The intent of the artist is icing on the cake, as far as a work's classification, its merit as a work, or its appreciation in terms of its meaning.

Yes. It's not a valuable collection- I just like good looknig stamps. It's maybe 100,000 stamps, but hasn't been properly organized in sheets yet. Little by little.....

The 'truth' lies in the reality of the work of art, which under normal circumstances of everyday perception people can agree upon as to its characteristics. An artist's calling a work art won't change the characteristics of the work, its aesthetic qualities or its merit as a work of art. The aesthetic qualities can be discussed and judged, and possibly agreed upon, or possibly not, depending on people's capacities to perceive. Of course the judgments aren't truths.

I never did confuse judgments with truth. I wasn't talking about truth anyway. Your thesis was, as I understood it, that the artist's claim of a work as art should be the defining criteria of that work as art. I believe the work itself is where the art lies, since the perception of positive qualities (the aesthetic experience of art) can only come from perceiving and contemplating the art work, not from what the artist has to say about it.

Tomorrow I start calling pencils 'fludduderruns'. Everybody else who speaks English will still call it a pencil, while in Italy, they'll call it 'matita'. None of this changes the merit of a given pencil as a writing instrument. Some pencils will still 6b, some 2F, some 3H, some will have red lead, some cobalt blue, some will have a No.2 stenciled on them, some will have an eraser nib, some will have a better grip, others less so, etc.

Marcello

[Warm Worm]

"There is no consensus about what constitutes 'art' or who is, or is not, an 'artist' "

-- Wikipedia

"Faced with the condemnation of photography as inherently inartistic because of its mechanical and chemical nature, a burgeoning class of photographer, the amateur, vitalizes the impulse to place photography within the pantheon of the traditional arts."

In an abstract and/or absolute sense, yes. With reference to the above; in the absence of a consensus, or with condemnation or opposition, and/or for a thorough investigation/inquiry, etc., consult the artist.

You can believe what you will. I believe that *part* of the work, itself, is where the art lies. But, sure, we can experience it and judge it on our own terms and its own merits, and maybe make inferences about what the artist was going for and getting at, and that's fine.

But where someone, such as one removed from the work's original context, contests it as art, I look to the artist for the answers.

Hear hear.

Richard