The meaning of Art

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by geordief, Apr 13, 2017.

  1. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    447
    Over the course of my life my poor understanding of artistic work has been effectively rubbed in by the repeated assertions of artists that the meaning is "whatever the viewer of the work thinks it is"(often it is "no clue,guv")

    This is a dogma,it seems to me and is trotted out when no one can understand why something "deserves" the description of "art" in the first place.

    So I am amused at this artist's reaction to the installation of a rival art work in close proximity to his . He says it changes the meaning of his existing work (a bull).

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...arless-girl-violates-rights-article-1.3048487

    Ironic ,isn't it? Now the artist "knows best"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (am I trolling artists in general?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Yes but I say trolling artists is indeed an art form.
    Just don't do it when another troll trolls artists.
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    447
    "Oh what a tangled web we weave
    When first we practice to deceive."
    (Walter Scott.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DrKrettin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    Surely if NY has bought the bull from the artist, they can do what they like with it, can't they?. I think the little girl is rather good. The thing is, all artists need attention, so making a fuss is bound to be good publicity, even when unjustified.

    It is hard for me to identify a piece of modern art which I don't find total crap. I much prefer the Mona Lisa..........
     
  8. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    447
    Actually ,despite my scoff I do admire all artists who see things I cannot . It is frustrating for sure and of course a little arcane knowledge (and perception) can be fertile ground for con artistry. My life would be incomparably diminished were it not for the efforts of all sorts of artists who are in the "gutter looking at the sky"(Wilde) no matter how pathetic this may appear.

    I think Picasso' s merit is said to be that he learned his craft before branching out into (what is to me) incomprehensible.
     
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    As a kid I was not bad at painting.
    I would send three painting to each of the country shows and, because names were not displayed when judged, I would take out first second and third. Five Bob for first, three shillings for second and two and sic pence for third.

    So around seventeen I tried my hand at abstract which was just throwing on paint until there was no canvas showing (a golden rule back then) and I would stand back and ask what does that remind me of...and so the work got its name...City at night for example. I would then show prospective buyers ,folk at work mainly, setting up the work and having them look...City at night yes yes I can see it..sold.

    I was able to cover my costs.

    I wonder if any survived.

    So my take on art is to look at what you produce and call it via the hint you may find there.

    I found less was more as from the title folk seemed to fill in the gaps and that really makes them happy.

    Alex
     
  10. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    447
    Not sure if this is related but the holy beggars of India (if I recall correctly ) believe that they are doing the donors a service by deigning to accept their alms.

    I believe the "alms givers" view the transaction in the same way.

    It is win /win.
     
  11. wellwisher

    Messages:
    5,111
    Art reflects reality, in various ways, and has the ability to move people emotionally.

    I consider myself a science artist. I have a strong background in science and know how to paint and sculpture with this medium. Rather than photograph the known, I attempt to represent reality with my science art. Some of this science art is like a photo, some is impressionistic and some is abstract. But in many cases, this art can move people in some emotional way. My art has been known to enrage some people leading all the way to censor and exile. I am not allowed to post art in the science sections since it makes people unhinged. This impact should be considered good art, but its mojo is too much for many to handle.

    Art can also anticipate the future. For example, the Impressionist art of the mid 1800's, paralleled the migration from the farm into the cities and factories during the industrial revolution. The long standing natural clarity of farm living, became fuzzier in the crowed cities that changed quickly with technology. The abstract art movement of the early 1900's anticipated changes in perception that would stem from physics and relativity, where there was no absolute reference. The odd became possible because no absolutes means there is only subjective choice.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    That is most interesting but could you explain how you see or use science as a medium.
    Can you post one of your works perhaps.
    Alex
     
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Thanks I learn a new word.
    Deigning have never heard it.

    What the heck are they begging for in the first place.
    Please give me something.
    You dog you dare to give me something ... A curse on you, thank you, bless you, miserable dog, come again now bugger off.

    Alex
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,948
    arf arf
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    On the radio, BBC, talk of something in London a five day thing, art and technology...Convergence...

    Well for fifteen minutes or more I listened and honestly I could not work out what they were talking about.
    Creativity dance lap tops?
    Anyone know about it and able to explain what it is about?

    Alex
     
  16. DrKrettin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    Science is not an artistic medium - how on earth can you sculpt in it?

    I think that you are grossly overestimating the effect of art in a science section - since when did any work of art make anybody unhinged? As far as I can see, the only effect would be for the reader to attach that adjective to the artist himself.
     
  17. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    447
    It is a podcast you may be able to download here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04yxsfs

    as well as here (eventually perhaps) :https://www.youtube.com/user/ClickBBC

    I don't have the time to listen to it but the normal format of the program is to showcase various people of interest in the field of digital technology .On this occasion I guess they are allowing people involved in art to present their efforts using modern technology as a medium .

    But ,as I say I have not watched the program . It may be available on the BBC World Service or 24 hours New service but its may have been discontinued as I see it less frequently these last few weeks,

    Perhaps it has been relocated from television to radio as I cannot find it on the listings.
     
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,549
    The artist is the only one who can absolutely know his intention, but the viewer often does know it, too; if the artist is very good, the viewer has no doubt.
    Whoever told you that only the viewer's response matters was bullshitting to make art-blind, image-overloaded moderns feel better about their lack of understanding.
    In this case, the installation is site-specific. The other sculpture is not a rival, and not merely "in proximity", but in a very obvious relation -
    whether it's also good is irrelevant: it should be somewhere else.
    The curator (public works maven, whatever) has made a cutesy joke of both works by juxtaposing them.
    The artist has every reason to be incensed: his work is being trivialized.

    Artists, pay attention!! You can't trust a Philistine.
    Make them sign a contract specifying how the work is to be displayed!
    If you've sold the city a memorial to fallen soldiers, maybe next month, they'll commission a kindergarten class to finger-paint pretty flowers on it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  19. DrKrettin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    Sorry, but I just do not see why the artist's intention is the only consideration. A work of art can be interpreted in any way the viewer chooses to see it - what gives anybody the right to determine anything else?

    That is also a matter of opinion - in this particular case, I can't see how.
     
  20. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,023
    He's absolutely correct. When you buy a piece of art, you don't necessarily buy all the rights to it's use. The artist still controls aspects of the work because it's critical to their reputation and artistic intent.
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    I prefer art which requires some degree of talent. Unfortunately in the art world the bizarre has become a substitute for talent and substance. I think much of it is nonsense and snobby as revealed by Paul Jordan-Smith and his Disumbrationism.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disumbrationism


    It use to be worse. Back in my college days, I remember walking across campus one fine day to discover a pile of trash on the perfectly maintained lawn. A few day later more trash dumps appeared. It was puzzling. A few days later the school news paper revealed the trash dumps were actually art exhibits from the art department.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    That's only true if it's part of the sale contract and even then it's a bit dubious. The artist isn't the only one entitled to freedom of expression. And it's difficult to see and prove any damages here. This is a publicity stunt.
     
  23. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,023
    It's assumed unless otherwise specified by a sale contract. The only way the artist might not have a case is if an entirely separate bull and girl were made in a different place. Then you can argue that it's a parody on the original and thus a unique work.
     

Share This Page