Here is my definition of Art in one page for my Art Appriciation Class. Please feel free to comment; it was a hard paper... I was wondering about your opinions: Experience is the constant is the equation of life. Consciousness is the ability to recognize the problem, not necessarily to solve it, but merely to know that it exists. With this ability to recognize existence there comes the need to express an understanding of it. Art is a conscience attempt to reproduce experience in a dynamic process that solicits the perception and imagination of its observer. Whatever form it takes, Art remains dependent on audience. Because objects of art are communicative, they are language. The matter out of which art is fashioned belongs to the secular world and yet it represents an inward expression of the self because the self assimilates that matter into a shape and form that is unique. The uniqueness of Art is the manner by which it is expressed. To create something new in the effort to express the essence of life is to be an artist. Language exists only when it is listened to, and a work of Art is not complete unless it is experienced. The audience (whether layman, critic, or artist herself) interprets a familiarity with the artist’s experience and therefore recognizes art as a medium by which the fundamental questions of reality can be better understood. Just as language relies on symbols to translate the human experience, Art depends upon its medium to render an explicable idea. Art should be understood, at the least, by the artist, at the most, by all of humanity. Even the most chaotic expressions of Art, composed with unabashed randomness, represent a feeling that may not be absolute but is nevertheless indicative of an experience. Art is suggestive – it endeavors to mold the observer’s consciousness in such a way that it becomes a mirror that reflects the inner emotions and workings of man’s mind and soul. The enjoyment of Art comes with the recognition the artist’s suggestion, and the ability to interpret it to mean something to the self. There are intangible chasms filled with time and space that separate Art from its observer. Each human being is a product of his own thoughts and ideas, which are the definition of his identity. The artist is no more or less unique than his audience, but he recognizes a communication gap and attempts to close it by bringing separate identities together through shared experience. That experience – the leap over the vast chasm of consciousness – is Art. If the observer makes it to the “other side,” then the artist has succeeded in his efforts. If the observer fails to understand the meaning, he might fall into the chasm and wonder why he ever ventured to leap in the first place. Because art is an experience, it cannot be defined with words. Artwork – an actual objet d’art –exists in the corporeal world, but Art itself does not. A painting represents a form, which can be recognized and understood. It can be defined – colored oil on canvas or human feces on burlap. A sculpture may be made of marble or metal or mayonaisse, but it is only material without spirit. Artwork may be tangible, but Art itself is not. The essence of Art subsists in the dells of human consciousness – in the ability to make sense of the materials. The artist is not responsible for creating an existent object, but for constructing an intangible experience through the object. The artist uses the object as an extension of himself to bridge the gap between separate consciences. To enjoy art is to see the “other side” through the artist’s intention; to know art is to understand the “other side” through the artist’s rendition.
Mmm, there can be essences of other things, not only life. But yes, I'm being picky, you put it very well. A prof of mine got excited and warm after we complimented his work in progress, and he said that to him, to create a picture means to show others the world that exists only in his head. The image does not exist in reality, from material things down to non-tangible matter, until the artist shows that image through whatever medium he chooses. Even after that, the universe depicted in the artwork isn't necessarily part of reality. So, an artist is a creator of god-like magnitude, creating something so elaborate out of nothing (almost nothing). In modern words, art is magic.
Sevenblue: Yeah, so does porn. And this feeling is one of being conned by a fucking charlattan. So Andy Warhol goes sifting through the trash for some Campbell soup. Takes out his camera, camera go snap, and voila! We have art! The only feeling we get here is that of a pompous prick who's intoxicated the world with his name, not his talent. The best art seems to be that unconscious of audiance. It rips through canvas and marble regardless of who it may hurt or offend. Its stands like a gash on a background and people look onto it becuase it disturbs them as its touched a nerve. The grotesque of Bacon's models seem like treason- this is what fascinates you, he says, gore, naked and ugly as opposed to what you hide behind as appropriate. Art that seeks to ~reach~ out to one's psyche and guide you accross some chasm assumes it was its place to do so, for one, and that you could not get across without it, for two.
A professor of mine, an accomplished, very skilled, talented artist himself, quite old, was telling us about how to create images. He compared art to music. And what he said, ran thus: "Do you think that when [some famous composer] was writing his [some very well-known and adored religious piece] thought about god? No! He was an atheist! He just wrote the piece so that it would sound good." So, an artist composes things that primarily have to please the eye. Now, what one calls "beautiful" depends on many things.
Whitewolf: So true. Dante comes off clumsy becuase he reads as if God were standing on his shoulder and Ciacco his inspiration. The boldest hymns, I imagine, were written by men who masturbated to them in sheer, sacrilegieous joy. True, and the audiance would be the last thing to factor the striking. An 'artist' honest with himself first shows in the motive and echos in his art.
i went to art school sos i have had an insight into its training and so on........ i feel art as it is now is pile a personality celeb cult. but for me real art is natrual creativeness. and Duende....the reason i chose my name ..it means spirits of the earth....and is when flameno musicians singers dancers fuse into one raw feeling....duende. that for me is art. you become possessed
Yes, clumsy, and boring. I understand he wrote the poem because he was in a hopeless position but it still makes him sound like a spineless loser. His poem is not a timeless classic in my mind, because it is so deeply rooted in his personal grudge. But that's another story. You like Mozart? I am in my 3rd year of art school, and the point they stress each time they get a chance is that true art has always been made for an audience. Art was commissioned until the impressionists, I think. The pieces most worthy of attention today are those done for a client. A client demands good skills from the artist he hired, and the artist is pushed to perform better than his ability. A free artist (fine artist) makes whatever he can at the moment, thus never advancing, and his skills most often remain poor, the themes are limited within a small range, etc. Interesting Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What kind of art do you do? You become inspired and glide.... An experience that is to die for.
There is a practical problem, that becomes perplexingly aparent when it comes to comparing music from different ages: the technological resources for making instruments. In Mozart's times, for example, the pianos were still rather weak and delicate, because the manufacturing of steel strings was not at a level to make strings that would endure great dynamics, and it was only later that they started to build in steel frames into pianos. The music the compposers of that time wrote had to be playable too. The way Beethoven is played today was not possible back then. Which puts a nice spin on the what is art question: To see and ejnoy art, one must be tuned in to the time period in which that art came about. So what may sound to us as sheer baroque mannerism, an empty pleasing form with little substance -- could indeed be something that was originally written and played in sacrilegious joy. It is just that we nowadays don't think the way the author did back then, as we have the advantage, which is at the same time a disadvantage, of all that technological improvement and knowledge.
Whitewolf ask "what kind of art do you do?" this what i do here. which is communcation art, and painting abstract primitive i dont divide art into what i learnt at art school. art really is creativity, and so is life. life is creation...ongoing creation. we have separted 'artists' from rest of community. people are put down from being kids cause they 'cant do art right' etc...also 'cant sing'. they are put into little boxes. confining boxes where all natrual potential creativity is suked out of them by a mechanistic soulless culture. i regard art as poiting this out and encouraging exploring about it sos the hard crust of indoctrination withers away
Art? sevenblu This is true of art that deals with materials or utilizes strictly sensuous means to express ideas or feeling. This is why this type of art becomes timeless, if it is successful; it speaks directly to the intuition and the instinct. But there is art which deals with the primary medium used to express idea and feeling amongst humans and so speaks also to human reason and logic: language. Here the art is successful only within experiential limits, where the specific type of language used, the imagery projected and the ideas expressed can only be comprehended if there is a commonality of experience between the artist and the audience. The art that depends on language is restricted by linguistic barriers, where a piece can lose vitality and meaning just by being translated, and cultural barriers, where the full breadth of meaning is lost because of obscure references or a difference of experiential pasts. In the first type of art, ambiguity is unavoidable and in fact beneficial to the art itself since it attempts to empirically describe empirical or abstract perspectives. In the second type of art ambiguity is not unavoidable and not always beneficial because it attempts to communicate ideas/feelings directly from the creators mind to the observers with no empirical intermediating help. (I would place music as overlapping both these types of art) In both cases the question arises, when the artwork is too ambiguous or abstract: Did the artist really intend the meanings I project onto it, or did he just paste random objects and words together in the hope that someone will take it seriously enough to give it a second look? Any form, any image, any phrase is seeped with metaphysical symbolism, because it is always the observer interpreting it and drawing from his/her own mind what it needs. If so, then where does the artists ‘talent’ come into play? I would say that much of what passes for art today is simply crap. Not because the past possessed some magical environment or because of some idealization of previous times, but simply because today access to artistic expression is much easier. Through the excess of leisure and the ability to reach mass audiences, anybody, can claim artistic ability and anybody, believing he/she has something relevant to say, can create ‘art’. Furthermore, anybody wishing to make a quick buck can label himself/herself an artist, find a willing collaborator to vouch for them, by placing the ‘art’ in some gallery that is looking for business or to make a name for itself or by finding some ‘art critic’ to praise them as a new Rembrandt and then sell their ‘art’ to unsuspecting, pretentious, simpletons with empty wall spaces and full pockets. Looking backwards we are protected from the mediocre of that time because we are only aware of the cream of the crop. But living in the present we are inundated with information overload where ‘good’ art can be lost within a flood of mediocrity and stupidity.
::cringe: Herd them up, tie them up, shut them up and throw every last one of them into the Grand Canyon. Wanderer and all the women behind her.
Whitewolf: But even if it was a personal grudge, imagine how thrilling it would have been to read it had he not buried all that passion beneath coffins and coffins of mythological bullshit. His inferno is not the boiling cauldron filled with meat that I imagine, or that he imagined. In fact, little Dante didn't imagine anything but only memorized what the Odysseus or Homer did for him. Love Mozart. You like Rossini? I like him- he's naughty. So you feel only commissioned art is noteworthy? In the finished product who do you see in it- the artist or the client? I think the best art is that in which the artist himself has yanked his insides out for him to see. If he is a disciplined, honest self-worshipper it shows in his craft. The best art, too me, is one that can capture the three human worlds: the objective, the subjective and the spiritual. If it is only objective, it bears the dryness of textbooks. If only subjective, it bears the hysteria of the Romance novel or the tabloid. If only spiritual, it bears the sycophancy of Catholicism. I always imagine the best as a hybrid of all three- something like an archangel with a telescope. The closest I’ve ever seen to it has been embodied in people for some reason- Einstein. Or Feynmann.
Yes! My edition of The Divine Comedy is over 50% footnotes, which explain where the characters of the story came from, what the symbols are and where they came from, what are the influences of mythology. The mythological parts are what is meant to excite. This also takes away from the work, because it is not timeless if such scrupulous footnotes are needed to understand what the author meant to say. That poem was good only for a few decades (that is, if it seemed good to contemporaries). I didn't like him before. Recently, I went to one of the Mostly Mozart concerts and got very impressed. I fulfilled my vow to listen with my eyes closed, and his music sounded like a monologue. I understand him as a fellow creator of beautiful things; however, some spots still annoy me. Throughout the music, it was obvious he recognized himself as a genius and took freedom to play around. Requiem was played. Absolutely amazing. I don't know Rossini yet. In a world where classical music cds cost a lot, it's hard to know many things. I feel that only the commission really pushes the artist to go beyond his abilities. Sometimes, in order to explore, the artist has to create a few things he does not like beforehand. In a good finished product, only the product is seen; not the artist, not the client. Art always stands on its own. Most often, it does not need volumes of explanation. Most often, those explanations are read by very few. Ah, I suspect you do not look hard enough. Art is scientific. Even the fluffy Impressionism is scientific, which most of the audience does not know. The science of color is elaborate and complex. Perspective is mathematical. Art is visual communication, and the artist has to be well-skilled to be understood correctly. Here, psychology comes in. A work of art is similar to an essay, similar to music. In the recent threads that try to define good art and bad art, I often see that people think there is no criteria for judging art. But there is, and the judging system is strict! Is the composition stable or unstable? Is there symetry (what effect does that have?) Is the perspective correct? Are the lines beautiful? Is the form handled well? Is the use of negative and positive space intelligent? How do figures relate to each other? Is there intelligent use of color? Pattern? Rhythm? Light and shadow? Texture? Reference? Exageration? Are all of the elements unified, so that the piece works well as a whole to carry the message? There are infinite choices to be made in all of these aspects. The artist makes correct choices to play on the audience's nerves like on a piano.
For it is only a person who can embody all the three you've mentioned. It takes a living system to bring the objective, the subjective and the spiritual together into a viable entity. Yes! We like to be taken by the artwork, we fall back in admiration -- Oh, how wonderful, I am so moved! Or, on the other hand, some see art from a purely scientific perspective. It seems that the "classical approach" to art, meisterhaft, seems to be something very hard to master -- to combine reason, emotion, and everything else into a fulfilling experience. *** Why on earth is "The Divine Comedy" so popular?! (I started reading it, but got so bored, so bored, that I never finshed it.)
Some very good lecturer once said, that The Divine Comedy is something we ALL start Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I started it because I've seen a few literary works refer to it. It is considered a classic, so it is good to at least know what the monster is like.
I have a question on the ambiguity of art. Consider an artist who puts no effort into creating a meaning in his art. He (or she) just slaps paint on a canvas or whatever and allows the audience to instill its own meaning. Is the "artist" a true artist? Is the "art" truly art? Who gets the credit for the art? Is it technically found art? After all, it would be random chance rather than intent by the artist that instills meaning. How important is intent to art? And what does this say about art that is misunderstood? Personally, I would say that it is possible for the art to be considered art, but the artist? No. Not an artist. More of a medium for chaos. But not an artist. How does this relate to the modern art movement? How many artists purposefull instill meaning into their work? How many depend on chance? I've seen some works that almost surely are imbued with intent, but could that just be a transferance? Edit: Almost thought I was in trouble for a minute. I must admit that I only flirted with this thread. I didn't read all the original post and also Wanderer's post until after I had posted. I didn't realize that ambiguity had alread been brought up, both by SevenBlu and by Wanderer. But, none of the active participants of the thread have looked into the area of ambiguity much. They seem more content with speaking of structure and form rather than intent. Any thoughts on intent? You've discussed it in minimal ways, but not the in the truly ambiguous as in Wanderer's post. Where does the artists' talent come in? How important is intent? Is art still art without intent? But the artist is not an artist? Edit again: Gendanken has made her feelings plain. But, is it possible for the art to be art without an artist? Found art? Remember, Gendanken, this question arose in the Philosophy thread in regards to ambiguous philosophies and the bible. I suppose there is a sliding scale of ambiguity? But intent? Gah. I'm confusing myself here, now. But, can you easily tell the difference between an artist who uses skill to make choices and one who just breaks out the ketchup and mustard? Have you seen the cheese guy? The guy that drizzles cheese over an entire house? Is he an artist? I'm guessing that there's no simple answer to the question of intent. Mabye I shouldn't even have asked my question. Bah. Second thought jitters. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Luckily, things are obvious to the untrained eye. Because, if there is no intent, there is no consistency, and the audience always knows. All mistakes are visible. I have seen it. Yes, there is tasteless audience. But there is always someone who sees all, and there are many such people who see all.... Ever seen a piece that just didn't make you happy with it? There was something wrong with something in it, either the colour, or a size, or something was just out of place.... Yes that was it, the thing made by the fake artist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A thing about modern art. Marcel Duchamp was an artist, and his toilet was a piece of art. Those who followed in his direction were lazy asses and what they spit out was crap. Malevich was an artist, and White on White is art. Those who thought they can just paint thingies like that were not artists. It has to be new, it has to have a point. All things are made by someone/thing. Yes, there is a design element in your electrical plug, there was a designer who had to make it pleasing to the eye. A piece of glass was made; it has colour, texture, temperature. Some thing was always molded by another thing, thus it is a creation with some author. The greatest question of all: Is it pleasing to the eye? Art is aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Nature is pleasant, many say it is art. Shit isn't pleasant, thus it is shit, not art. The opinion of majority is always needed. We hate this, but it's the truth.
art, like beauty, is defined by each "beholder" individually. It's 100% subjective so it's impossible to have a definition that encompasses every opinion. Since opinion is all that matters in this case you may as well forget trying to find a definitive meaning. It's either "art" to you or it isn't, that's as close to a true definition as you'll get.
