NationStates Jolt Archive

A simple question, but hard to answer.

In the eye of the beholder.

I don't consider a can of beans, painted, in a sculpture, or otherwise presented to be art.

In the eye of the beholder.

I don't consider a can of beans, painted, in a sculpture, or otherwise presented to be art.
But Tomato Soup....

I actually published an article where I called being able to decide what is and isn't art, since everyone was being wishy washy on the subject...

An expression of the space between the words.

that's pretty lame, huh? couldn't even use that to get chicks....

Art--a dimunitive of Arthur, as in Art Carney.

Yeah, I'm a smartass.

Art= a work of varying subject matter, intended to portray, or evoke emotional responses from the veiwer.

I may not know art...but I know what I like.

Art= a work of varying subject matter, intended to portray, or evoke emotional responses from the veiwer.

I may not know art...but I know what I like.

I like that definition. I'm been looking recently at some other options and some anti-artist-artists (if that makes any sense). There is a group that holds that anything called art is art. They aren't very well respected by the traditional art community, but they've got some interesting semantic arguments to support their claims. Plus their art is a lot more fun than most.

In all seriousness, though, I think art has to involve a certain measure of craft. I got into a big argument with my Art history professor while I was an undergrad over whether Marcel Duchamp's "In Advance of a Broken Arm" was a work of art. I argued it wasn't because it didn't involve any real craft--just a bit of sardonic wit. Had Duchamp actually made the snow shovel rather than having bought it at a hardware store and signed it, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt

I'm a poet, and I take a lot of pride in that and in the amont of time I devote to the craft side of my work. That's a major reason I think the idea of "found poetry" is utter bullshit. If someone else writes it, it's their work--not yours simply because you broke it into lines. But that's another beef entirely.

In all seriousness, though, I think art has to involve a certain measure of craft. I got into a big argument with my Art history professor while I was an undergrad over whether Marcel Duchamp's "In Advance of a Broken Arm" was a work of art. I argued it wasn't because it didn't involve any real craft--just a bit of sardonic wit. Had Duchamp actually made the snow shovel rather than having bought it at a hardware store and signed it, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt

I'm a poet, and I take a lot of pride in that and in the amont of time I devote to the craft side of my work. That's a major reason I think the idea of "found poetry" is utter bullshit. If someone else writes it, it's their work--not yours simply because you broke it into lines. But that's another beef entirely.
Wow, I actually (in a small way) disagree with you on something!!! I like the contribution of Duchamp and the Dadaist/surealists...

Unfortunately I'm a little too high to make my case without trying to use the word 'dude' coercively. ("Du-ude...")

In all seriousness, though, I think art has to involve a certain measure of craft. I got into a big argument with my Art history professor while I was an undergrad over whether Marcel Duchamp's "In Advance of a Broken Arm" was a work of art. I argued it wasn't because it didn't involve any real craft--just a bit of sardonic wit. Had Duchamp actually made the snow shovel rather than having bought it at a hardware store and signed it, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt

I'm a poet, and I take a lot of pride in that and in the amont of time I devote to the craft side of my work. That's a major reason I think the idea of "found poetry" is utter bullshit. If someone else writes it, it's their work--not yours simply because you broke it into lines. But that's another beef entirely.

As a fellow poet I understand what you're saying about the necessity of craft in art, but based simply on the idea of art as a form of communication intended to evoke a response, found art, even "In Advance of a Broken Arm" could be considered real art. Duchamp, I think, is a bit easier to accept because he at least modifies what he finds before presenting it. The modification is the aspect of craft. You might argue that it is poorly crafted, or low art because of the minimal effort needed to create it, but the choice of craft is still there and as such I feel such works deserve consideration.

In all seriousness, though, I think art has to involve a certain measure of craft. I got into a big argument with my Art history professor while I was an undergrad over whether Marcel Duchamp's "In Advance of a Broken Arm" was a work of art. I argued it wasn't because it didn't involve any real craft--just a bit of sardonic wit. Had Duchamp actually made the snow shovel rather than having bought it at a hardware store and signed it, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt

I'm a poet, and I take a lot of pride in that and in the amont of time I devote to the craft side of my work. That's a major reason I think the idea of "found poetry" is utter bullshit. If someone else writes it, it's their work--not yours simply because you broke it into lines. But that's another beef entirely.

As a fellow poet I understand what you're saying about the necessity of craft in art, but based simply on the idea of art as a form of communication intended to evoke a response, found art, even "In Advance of a Broken Arm" could be considered real art. Duchamp, I think, is a bit easier to accept because he at least modifies what he finds before presenting it. The modification is the aspect of craft. You might argue that it is poorly crafted, or low art because of the minimal effort needed to create it, but the choice of craft is still there and as such I feel such works deserve consideration.
Du-ude....

I also like the contribution of the Dadaists and the Surrealists--I think it shed some light on the phoniness of the world of visual art, much like the modernists did the same in the world of late Victorian poetry. I just had issues with that piece--and the urinal--because I felt there wasn't any real work involved. I actually told my art history teacher that I could toss a desk in the corner, title it "Memoir of a Non-Traditional College Student" and accomplish as much. That was an exaggeration, of course, because I'd be responding to Duchamp's original statement with one of my own, but I think the point was still valid--there was imagination present, but not craft.

But surrealist painting is still one of my favorites. I'm planning on seeing the Dali exhibit while it's in San Francisco (along with the art deco and the pop art exhibitions--just have to schedule them.)

I'm planning on seeing the Dali exhibit while it's in San Francisco (along with the art deco and the pop art exhibitions--just have to schedule them.)

Let me know when you're gonna go and I'll show up, pass you in a hall, and be none-the-wiser.

I'm planning on seeing the Dali exhibit while it's in San Francisco (along with the art deco and the pop art exhibitions--just have to schedule them.)

Let me know when you're gonna go and I'll show up, pass you in a hall, and be none-the-wiser.Deal--are you in the Bay too?

I also like the contribution of the Dadaists and the Surrealists--I think it shed some light on the phoniness of the world of visual art, much like the modernists did the same in the world of late Victorian poetry. I just had issues with that piece--and the urinal--because I felt there wasn't any real work involved. I actually told my art history teacher that I could toss a desk in the corner, title it "Memoir of a Non-Traditional College Student" and accomplish as much. That was an exaggeration, of course, because I'd be responding to Duchamp's original statement with one of my own, but I think the point was still valid--there was imagination present, but not craft.

But surrealist painting is still one of my favorites. I'm planning on seeing the Dali exhibit while it's in San Francisco (along with the art deco and the pop art exhibitions--just have to schedule them.)
When does that happen? I want to see that.

I like the chair art, actually. I would have went to your showing.... :lol:

damn, I used a smiley.

I have "Fountain" (at least one of them) on my wallpaper collage. I also have the bicycle wheel on a chair and iron with nails, whatever those are called.

Some of the verte, autuer theory and early film theory along with 20th composition and free jazz makes me prone to giving art a wide pass, specially with something I can't do myself (paint, sculpture, the lot).

I'm planning on seeing the Dali exhibit while it's in San Francisco (along with the art deco and the pop art exhibitions--just have to schedule them.)

Let me know when you're gonna go and I'll show up, pass you in a hall, and be none-the-wiser.Deal--are you in the Bay too?
Dude! All three of us go on the same day and spend the rest of the time trying to figure out who was who!!!

Except I've seen Incertonia on his weblog...and I stand out like a sore thumb....but I wouldn't have clue who Our Earth was...

Dali is in San Francisco May 12-30. The info is here. (http://sanfrancisco.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dali100.com/sanfrancisco.html) I'm going--no question.

I'm planning on seeing the Dali exhibit while it's in San Francisco (along with the art deco and the pop art exhibitions--just have to schedule them.)

Let me know when you're gonna go and I'll show up, pass you in a hall, and be none-the-wiser.Deal--are you in the Bay too?

I live about an hour and a half away, but I'm always trying to find excuses to go into the City. I might grab some friends and make a day of it.

I'm planning on seeing the Dali exhibit while it's in San Francisco (along with the art deco and the pop art exhibitions--just have to schedule them.)

Let me know when you're gonna go and I'll show up, pass you in a hall, and be none-the-wiser.Deal--are you in the Bay too?

I live about an hour and a half away, but I'm always trying to find excuses to go into the City. I might grab some friends and make a day of it.You, me and CTOAN ought to tm each other and work out a time and day to go and meet each other.

Although we all love to say Art is subjective, I think that's the proof that there must be some universal feature to the genre. Becasue of Art was just subjective, then why must Art exist out of the mind. For if everyone has their own idea of art, why do people even bother in sharing it in the first place if everyone has a diffrent view of what Art? That the artist "did no work in creating the peice" is always the argument people use when they try to disprove the said peice as a work of Art.

Another question that could be asked is what seperates a mystery novel from Shakspear. Both can entertain, however, the mysteral novel with deliver diminshing returns at best. Shakspear and other so called "great" books are supposed to never loose their value no mater how mnay years pass or how many times red. So it can be said that we as humans expect Art to have a timless quality to it. Now that seems to contradict what I just said beofre, but it dosn't.

For I think Art is humanity's attempt to express the mental construct of Beauty that rests inside the human nature of us all. Only by sharing with others can the artist find out if his vision if truly Beaut, instead of the stark ravings of an overblown ego. This is also why its not a contradiction to say that while not everybody can create Art, everyone can appreciate it. Real Art can last forever as long as humanity is there to appreciate it.

Although we all love to say Art is subjective, I think that's the proof that there must be some universal feature to the genre. Becasue of Art was just subjective, then why must Art exist out of the mind. For if everyone has their own idea of art, why do people even bother in sharing it in the first place if everyone has a diffrent view of what Art? That the artist "did no work in creating the peice" is always the argument people use when they try to disprove the said peice as a work of Art.

Another question that could be asked is what seperates a mystery novel from Shakspear. Both can entertain, however, the mysteral novel with deliver diminshing returns at best. Shakspear and other so called "great" books are supposed to never loose their value no mater how mnay years pass or how many times red. So it can be said that we as humans expect Art to have a timless quality to it. Now that seems to contradict what I just said beofre, but it dosn't.

For I think Art is humanity's attempt to express the mental construct of Beauty that rests inside the human nature of us all. Only by sharing with others can the artist find out if his vision if truly Beaut, instead of the stark ravings of an overblown ego. This is also why its not a contradiction to say that while not everybody can create Art, everyone can appreciate it. Real Art can last forever as long as humanity is there to appreciate it.

I'm trying to remember a quote from T.S. Eliot that goes something like "If you come upon a work which at first you do not understand, perhaps the artist is attempting to convey a message which cannot be said in any other way and is deserving of greater thought." The quote is both an expression of Eliot's elitism and the idea that art can be an expression of abstractions within the mind of the artist that cannot be expressed in any other way. No two people view any one thing the same way, but communication and understanding are still possible because people take the time and make the effort to understand each other. Art can be viewed as merely a specific form of communication, less strictly ruled than language, but equally powerful as a means of explaining the abstractions that manifest themselves in the human mind.

Now see...
An expression of the space between the words.

and then

a quote from T.S. Eliot that goes something like "If you come upon a work which at first you do not understand, perhaps the artist is attempting to convey a message which cannot be said in any other way and is deserving of greater thought."

That's why everyone knows T.S. Elliot's name, and I can't even think of one for myself...

Now see...
An expression of the space between the words.

and then

a quote from T.S. Eliot that goes something like "If you come upon a work which at first you do not understand, perhaps the artist is attempting to convey a message which cannot be said in any other way and is deserving of greater thought."

That's why everyone knows T.S. Elliot's name, and I can't even think of one for myself...

I'm using my fifth choice name. I can't even remember what my first four choices were now.

I know how you feel though, sometimes when reading the work of geniuses of the past I feel really stupid.

Hell, if I ever write anything a tenth as good as "Prufrock," I'll be satisfied with my work as a poet.

Right now I'll settle for an audience I'm not likely to meet. Once I get that, I'll move to my next goal.

Art as in drawing/painting - I find most people look at the value of the picture rather than looking at the picture itself. But to me, [drawing] art is a piece of work that catches my eye. I prefer the ones that look realistic, unique and shows that the artist obviously put a lot of effort in it rather than the canvas boards that are plainly painted white. That said, I once saw a painting by a fellow named Barnett Newman going for millions that was merely some painted stripes. He named these stripes "zips". It looked more like a bar graph to me. :?

http://www.exporevue.com/images/magazine/710newman_adam.jpg Barnett Newman's bar graphs?

Art as in music - This type of art really is an enigma to me. When I hear a good classical piece, I feel moved and I get this tingling sensation in me. The music makes me think about things when I close my eyes. For example, Vivaldi's Autumn really does make me think of the season Autumn. It's like I can actually see the leaves falling off trees.

...Blah, I can't really explain this. Sorry.

You've got an understanding audience here CTOAN, if you're brave enough to post anything here.

Art as in drawing/painting - I find most people look at the value of the picture rather than looking at the picture itself. But to me, [drawing] art is a piece of work that catches my eye. I prefer the ones that look realistic, unique and shows that the artist obviously put a lot of effort in it rather than the canvas boards that are plainly painted white. That said, I once saw a painting by a fellow named Barnett Newman going for millions that was merely some painted stripes. He named these stripes "zips". It looked more like a bar graph to me. :?

http://www.exporevue.com/images/magazine/710newman_adam.jpg Barnett Newman's bar graphs?

Art as in music - This type of art really is an enigma to me. When I hear a good classical piece, I feel moved and I get this tingling sensation in me. The music makes me think about things when I close my eyes. For example, Vivaldi's Autumn really does make me think of the season Autumn. It's like I can actually see the leaves falling off trees.

...Blah, I can't really explain this. Sorry.See, this is a common misconception. Art is the expression of emotion, events and the senses. One can see an image anywhere, but it is only in art one can see a soul.

Art is (IMO) the invention of the human mind in a physical or verbal form.

See, this is a common misconception. Art is the expression of emotion, events and the senses. One can see an image anywhere, but it is only in art one can see a soul.

You seem pretty confident of your definition.

Art as in music - This type of art really is an enigma to me. When I hear a good classical piece, I feel moved and I get this tingling sensation in me. The music makes me think about things when I close my eyes. For example, Vivaldi's Autumn really does make me think of the season Autumn. It's like I can actually see the leaves falling off trees.

...Blah, I can't really explain this. Sorry.
So much of that is simple manipulation, lydian mode makes you feel one way, this progression of chords lean you another, it really does get close to math. Just like anything, though, it's all in how you use it.

If you like that style, you should check out Pines of Rome by Respigi...oh, man did I spell that wrong. I think there is an h in there somewhere. In Pines of the Apian Way the listener is ment to envision dawn looking down the Apian way from Rome waiting for the army to return. You actually hear the moment that the sun rises up behind you and reflects off the shields of the soldiers. It's pretty sweet. Though it's a pretty well known piece, so it's likely you already know that...forgive me if I've just Ruebined.

Rotovia, do you see a soul in those "zips"?

Art as in music - This type of art really is an enigma to me. When I hear a good classical piece, I feel moved and I get this tingling sensation in me. The music makes me think about things when I close my eyes. For example, Vivaldi's Autumn really does make me think of the season Autumn. It's like I can actually see the leaves falling off trees.

...Blah, I can't really explain this. Sorry.
So much of that is simple manipulation, lydian mode makes you feel one way, this progression of chords lean you another, it really does get close to math. Just like anything, though, it's all in how you use it.

If you like that style, you should check out Pines of Rome by Respigi...oh, man did I spell that wrong. I think there is an h in there somewhere. In Pines of the Apian Way the listener is ment to envision dawn looking down the Apian way from Rome waiting for the army to return. You actually hear the moment that the sun rises up behind you and reflects off the shields of the soldiers. It's pretty sweet. Though it's a pretty well known piece, so it's likely you already know that...forgive me if I've just Ruebined.

A quick Google search led me to Respighi. I'm downloading...erm...borrowing his works right this minute. :wink:

Rotovia, do you see a soul in those "zips"?No, but what I do see is the complexities of humanity stripped down to basics. It's passion shown alone, of course that's just my opinion and based on the Veiwer/Reader Centered Approach. Which serves my point, a simple image cannot hold that meaning, but art can.

You've got an understanding audience here CTOAN, if you're brave enough to post anything here.
I would, except I'm a playwright (and my degree says filmmaker, though really that's just a damn lie I'm trying to correct by getting work) so the stuff is a bit long to post here.

I may have a reading at a theater in SF coming up (if I get off my ass) that might get me closer to my goal. I've had productions (eight), but I've been to all of them (I didn't go to all of one of them, so technically there was an audience I didn't meet, but the production was so horrible I don't count that. The director asked me about the script and I told her it was all about the pacing and she took it to mean 'do the play as fast as possible...' She's f'ing up my theory that the best directors for my work are women. The plays that where directed by women, with that one exception (which wasn't the worst, though) where the best of the bunch. Maybe they balance out my dudeness...

See, this is a common misconception. Art is the expression of emotion, events and the senses. One can see an image anywhere, but it is only in art one can see a soul.

You seem pretty confident of your definition.It helps when you believe it.

See, this is a common misconception. Art is the expression of emotion, events and the senses. One can see an image anywhere, but it is only in art one can see a soul.

You seem pretty confident of your definition.It helps when you believe it.

I can imagine. I'm cursed with not believing anything. Makes life a bit more complicated.

Rotovia, do you see a soul in those "zips"?No, but what I do see is the complexities of humanity stripped down to basics. It's passion shown alone, of course that's just my opinion and based on the Veiwer/Reader Centered Approach. Which serves my point, a simple image cannot hold that meaning, but art can.

I suppose. Art is a strange thing indeed. One may think an image looks like crap, but on the other hand, another may feel touched by it. :shock:

Rotovia, do you see a soul in those "zips"?No, but what I do see is the complexities of humanity stripped down to basics. It's passion shown alone, of course that's just my opinion and based on the Veiwer/Reader Centered Approach. Which serves my point, a simple image cannot hold that meaning, but art can.

I suppose. Art is a strange thing indeed. One may think an image looks like crap, but on the other hand, another may feel touched by it. :shock: see you believe in the Reader(Veiwer) Centered Approcah, whereby art or litreture is what the person veiws it as. I'm a little the same

Rotovia, do you see a soul in those "zips"?No, but what I do see is the complexities of humanity stripped down to basics. It's passion shown alone, of course that's just my opinion and based on the Veiwer/Reader Centered Approach. Which serves my point, a simple image cannot hold that meaning, but art can.

I suppose. Art is a strange thing indeed. One may think an image looks like crap, but on the other hand, another may feel touched by it. :shock: see you believe in the Reader(Veiwer) Centered Approcah, whereby art or litreture is what the person veiws it as. I'm a little the same

I'm the same way for art apreciation, but exactly the opposite for art anaylsis.

Rotovia, do you see a soul in those "zips"?No, but what I do see is the complexities of humanity stripped down to basics. It's passion shown alone, of course that's just my opinion and based on the Veiwer/Reader Centered Approach. Which serves my point, a simple image cannot hold that meaning, but art can.

I suppose. Art is a strange thing indeed. One may think an image looks like crap, but on the other hand, another may feel touched by it. :shock: see you believe in the Reader(Veiwer) Centered Approcah, whereby art or litreture is what the person veiws it as. I'm a little the same

I'm the same way for art apreciation, but exactly the opposite for art anaylsis.I believe in analysing art one must consider the Author Centered, World Centerd, Reader Centered and Text Centered(more litreture) approaches equally. Generally if the author and reader centers are apposing an intentional falicy has occured.

Well anyway, I have the urge to post a poem, if only as an experiment.

For I have loved and lost

[code:1:62e20e0246]I want nothing more
Than to feel the sweet caress
Of her finger, her palm, her lip.
Shakespeare could not write her equal.

There is music in her walk,
grace in her voice,
tenderness in her smile,
diamonds in her eyes.

The language of her hips is
More elegant than poets,
More powerful than preachers,
More learned than pundits.

While her long locks
And curving cheek grace
The pillow of my bed
May I forever lie in peace.

And yet a lifetime's walk separates
My comfort and her mind.
The day is young and the sun may yet rise
But I will not see it.

Locked in a dungeon of my own creation
I sit and contemplate
The infinity of beauty and
Infinity of loss which is my own.

The light from this prism
Of memory and mind
Is all I have now
To remind me of her radiance
For I have loved and lost.[/code:1:62e20e0246]

Had to put it in the code markers to preserve the formatting.

Well it looks like I succeeded in killing this thread. :D :x :(

Something which represents something. Not abstract art though.....I'm not a big fan at all. I would say that I am a realist.

Well it looks like I succeeded in killing this thread. :D :x :(

I'm not the poetic type. :P

Well it looks like I succeeded in killing this thread. :D :x :(

well, seeing as how the death penalty is rightfully alive and well in the U.S. here. You obviously need to pay back society for your crimes...in BLOOD!

If thought and passion has gone into something and it isn't purely created with the goal of making money, then it's art. The other day, I was puzzled when I saw a sculpture of a steel girder shoved through a concrete slab at my university. How could that be art?

But then I realised, someone must have been pretty pissed off to figure out a way to ram (and bend at a 90 degree angle!) a large girder like that and penetrate 3 inches or so of solid concrete. That was the defining moment for me when I realised that abstract art wasn't all crap...and all I could do was stare at it and go "whoa..." (And surprisingly i wasn't stoned)

The physical embodiment of anger. Okay, it reminds me of that Simpsons episode where Homer becomes an abstract artist...call me weird but now that makes sense to me.

I'm going to go ram a crucifix through a guitar now. :lol:

a simple answer with wich many might dissaggree as it makes no
judgement of 'quality', is that
art is the gratification of the natural inate sentient desire to express ourselves creatively.

personaly i do not feel it requires any other or greater deffinician.

if you are a sentient, spiritual, being, art is what you do. it is not a spectator sport, not something to 'collect', but simply as much a part of living and life as eating and breathing.

it is what it means to be created in the immage of a creator. it is being the little gods we all are.

=^^=
.../\...

Communication