The meaning of Art

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

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Oh, assumed by whom? I it isn't assumed by law.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    I didn't say anything about consideration. I said he's the only one who absolutely knows his intention. If he's good, he can communicate that intention through the art - at least to such viewers as are open to it.
    Considerations are something different altogether.
    What is to be considered in the installation of a piece of art is the curator's job to know. One of those considerations that good curator takes into account is the reaction of receptive viewers; whether they are given the original as intended by the artist, or whether the context and setting will change it meaning.
    In this case, the sympathetic viewer (i.e. such as myself) is also insulted by the juxtaposition with a work of very different intent.
    Of course. But an uninformed or derisive interpretation doesn't affect the work itself; it's personal to the viewer. That's not a matter of rights.
    As to display, several rights may be in conflict.
    Of course: I stated my opinion. How it's trivialized is making a joke out of it, which the artist did not intend.
    They changed the context and meaning, but left his name on it - which is falsifying the intent and demeaning his reputation.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DrKrettin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    169
    As ever, it's the detail which determines the actual situation. I did not know they had left his name on it, and you are quite right, it is falsifying his intention and thus wrong. But oddly, I can't see a joke, I only see a defiant child facing a bull. And the publicity is bound to be for his benefit, even if his annoyance is justified. An artist's ego needs a lot of feeding.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,042
    It improves his work.
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,530
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,530

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    figure sculpture LYNN torso in the clay

    OK
    I sculpt what I wanna see>
    Is there a meaning in that that goes beyond my aesthetic desires?
     
  10. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    It didn't need "improving". If it had needed improving, the artist would have done it; nobody else is qualified.
    Maybe this would be better colourized, but I'd really rather you leave it alone.
    http://totallyhistory.com/guernica/
    You don't have to like a person's work to respect their integrity. It's common courtesy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    You're the only one who knows. If a viewer brings their own aesthetic sensibility to bear on it, they'll make their own experience that much richer.
    I happen to find your female figures quite pleasing, don't need or want them to be any more than that ---
    but I certainly would not plop them in a tub of Jello or under another sculptor's depiction of a bus.
     
  12. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,042
    The Model T didn't "need" improving either.

    Nonsense. The artist did the best he could. That doesn't mean it can't be improved - and it was.[/quote]
     
  13. DrKrettin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    169
    You are representing an ancient Egyptian myth, so the interpretation could be wide-ranging. Very impressive, by the way.
     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    It falls under copyright law. You can't just add to a sculpture, that changes the work. The argument against that would be that it's an entirely separate sculpture only shown in the same space, but the artist could argue that it's an unwanted addition to the original, and I think he would have a good case.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,878
    Oh, and where in the copyright law does it say that?
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    And it wasn't improved. It was supplanted by newer models.
    If the city is dissatisfied with a piece of public art, they are well within their legal and moral right to remove it and put something different in its place.
    Once it's paid in full, they can sell or destroy it, if they so desire.
    They are not within their rights to change it.

    As to placement, it's a matter of discretion.
    Whether the insensitive jerk who made that decision had the right to, and how many other insensitive jerks approve of the decision
    are immaterial to the fact of his being an insensitive jerk.
     
  17. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,806
    Like fig-leaf additions and screenplay edits during overmodest eras, the prescriptions of social engineering still outflank the primacy of the artist's intent.
     
  18. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    The Visual Artist's Rights Act of 1990 exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following rights

    • right to claim authorship
    • right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
    • right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
    • right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,530
    OK
    What if
    I did not have the description/title?
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,530
    (IMHO) The best positioning of one sculpture/statue in relation to another is/was and will most likely always be.
    Cellini's Perseus with the Head of Medusa within the line of sight of the marble Statue of Hercules and Cacus by Bandinelli.
    (Cellini didn't like bandinelli.)

    ...............................
    OK, fearless girl does the same with the bull. She gains by the placement.
    However, (imho)Kristen Visbal ain't nowhere near the artist that Cellini was.
    .............................
    First, you have to like the artwork per se, if that ain't there then the placement is a cheap shot.
    But, then again, I ain't really a fan of Arturo Di Modica's work, and think him nowhere near the artist that Bandinelli was.
    So.............................................Does mediocrity gain from or lose to proximate mediocrity?
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2017
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Oh, that's cute!
    Impugn the artist's motivation; interpret it as misogyny - and that makes him and pride in his work irrelevant.
    You've got to admire spin-doctory.
     
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Exactly. While I admire the juxtaposition and meaning inherent in confronting the power of big money, the girl is a derivative piece that would not exist but for the bull. It changes the original intent, which was obviously to capture the power and vitality of capitalism. Now the bull is the villain. Which makes the artist of the bull seem like a villain.
     
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,377
    Thank you for your help I really appreciate it.
    Happy holidays.
    Alex
     

Share This Page