Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Isaac on June 26, 2014, 03:48:32 pm
-
"Can these paintings properly be designated works of art? Does art imply beauty in some manner? Is it not necessary that there be beauty either of form or of thought expressed in masterly fashion? … The only element of beauty that could possibly be involved must be supplied by the spectator's own mental images, as conjured by the title of the -- the work, and not, by means, in the production itself. … The efforts of the 'sensationalists' may be interesting and ingenious, but are these artists not mistaken as to the real significance of their works?"
"Sensationalism in Art (http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1913-03-11/ed-1/seq-8/#)" New-York tribune., March 11, 1913
"American art … is getting too pallid, nerveless, coldly correct, photographic. … Better the most remote and mysterious symbolism than a cameralike fidelity to appearances."
"Cubist art a protest against narrow conservatism. (http://www.artic.edu/aic/resources/resource/2778?search_id=1&index=0)" Harriet Monroe. Chicago Daily Tribune, April 6, 1913.
"…the Readymade can be seen as a sort of irony, or an attempt at showing the futility of trying to define art … I didn't even make it myself; as we know, art means to make, to hand make, to make by hand. It's a hand made product of man, and there instead of making, I take it ready made, even though it was made in a factory. But it is not made by hand, so it's a form of denying the possibility of defining art (http://books.google.com/books?id=rt-BCXnPokUC&lpg=PP1&dq=Drawing%20on%20Art%3A%20Duchamp%20and%20Company&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22denying%20the%20possibility%20of%20defining%20art%22&f=false)."
-
IMHO many people, even among art critics of the last century, equates beauty and value (which is as childish as thinking that beauty is good and ugly is bad).
Is often said the "Good photos are like good jokes. If you have to explain it, it just isn’t that good.", but think it would be extremly difficult to understand "a good joke" if it's based on a cultural background very different from yours.
This means, imho, that art is much more a product of interaction between the work of art and the viewer, rather than something intrinsic in the work of art itself.
In 1915 painted his "Black Square", which is, well... a black square painted on a canvas.
And it remains a black square on a canvas until you read that that painting was hanged in a upper corner of the room, a place traditionally reserved (in russian homes) to Jesus's icon.
With this information the painting acquires (in the viewer mind) a much greater meaming.
In conclusion, art is like a dialogue: if you don't understand what is said to you there is no dialogue and therefore no art, but this doesn't means that the work of art's is somehow flawed of valueless.
-
…if you don't understand what is said to you there is no dialogue and therefore no art, but this doesn't means that the work of art's is somehow flawed of valueless.
What if the only person who understands what is said is the artist?
Art, and being called an artist, are social terms.You don't create art by deciding that's what you are going to do today, and you don't become an artist by proclaiming yourself as one. In my eyes, nothing I do is art. For me, it's expression. It becomes art when other people call it so. In the moment that "art" happens for the viewer of my work, I am an artist. (http://books.google.com/books?id=rakXWudn_JMC&lpg=PP1&dq=welcome%20to%20oz&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22Art,%20and%20being%20called%20an%20artist%22&f=false)
-
What if the only person who understands what is said is the artist?
That's an interesting question.
I think that, in that case, art would exists only in the artist's mind.
-
Conceptual art, like jokes, only finds currency as commentary on the cultural and intellectual milieu that spawned it. A painting of a black square that was hung in a particular corner of a room may have had a metaphorical poignancy in 1915, when it was painted, but today the best it can hope for is to be regarded as a historical curiosity, because the "concept" on which it depends no longer carries much weight.
On the other hand, we have no problem appreciating vintage works of art such as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling or Matisse's haystacks or Brancusi's sculptures, because the genius of such art lies in the execution of the work itself, which requires no explanation in order to move us.
-
...
On the other hand, we have no problem appreciating vintage works of art such as Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling or Matisse's haystacks or Brancusi's sculptures, because the genius of such art lies in the execution of the work itself, which requires no explanation in order to move us.
While I agree that "we have no problem appreciating vintage works of art", imho I think that we probably have problem to fully appreciate vintage works of art exactly because we lack the cultural backgroud those works of art where created in and based on and, therefore, we cannot understand the meaning of the symbols in the painting/sculpure/art/etc.etc.
-
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
-
I think that, in that case, art would exists only in the artist's mind.
No audience is required for self-expression; but I think it does make sense to accept that -- "Art, and being called an artist, are social terms" and "It becomes art when other people call it so."
-
…we probably have problem to fully appreciate vintage works of art…
We don't appreciate them in the same way: our appreciation is anachronistic.
-
Art, and being called an artist, are social terms.You don't create art by deciding that's what you are going to do today, and you don't become an artist by proclaiming yourself as one. In my eyes, nothing I do is art. For me, it's expression. It becomes art when other people call it so. In the moment that "art" happens for the viewer of my work, I am an artist.
Vincent has it correct, except for one thing... it depends on who "the other people" are. If John and Jean Smith call it art, is it? Shouldn't it need to e called art by a collector t make it real art?
-
If John and Jean Smith call it art, is it? Shouldn't it need to e called art by a collector t make it real art?
That speech savors mildly of disappointment (http://books.google.com/books?id=s1gVAAAAYAAJ&dq=pride%20and%20prejudice&pg=PA159#v=onepage&q=that%20speech%20savors%20strongly&f=false) :-)
Vincent has it better than "become an artist by proclaiming yourself as one", but that still doesn't make whatever is meant by art a one-size-fits-all kind-of-thing.
-
Don't know. does not matter to me. If I like it, want to keep it, like to look at it once in awhile and maybe hang it up...it is art to me. Whether it is art of design, art of creativity or art of reporting.
-
From where I sit and consider these sort of questions I am weighing up the difference between an example of "human expression " and the experience of the person/people who interact with the manifestation of this expression (dance, music, photography etc).
My preference is for the experienced response rather than the expert accredited "this is art" categorisation.
The question I am yet to feel completely clear about, is how to define that experience to my own satisfaction.
I am quite happy for others to see this question how they will - for after all that is how they experience life, ideas and the expression of their fellow beings.
And to add a bit of colour, after all it is a photo forum - yes a picture.
Mal
(http://www.getdpi.com/forum/members/malmac/albums/sample-our-work/7058-img-4522.jpg)
-
IMHO many people, even among art critics of the last century, equates beauty and value (which is as childish as thinking that beauty is good and ugly is bad).
Is often said the "Good photos are like good jokes. If you have to explain it, it just isn’t that good.", but think it would be extremly difficult to understand "a good joke" if it's based on a cultural background very different from yours.
This means, imho, that art is much more a product of interaction between the work of art and the viewer, rather than something intrinsic in the work of art itself.
In 1915 painted his "Black Square", which is, well... a black square painted on a canvas.
And it remains a black square on a canvas until you read that that painting was hanged in a upper corner of the room, a place traditionally reserved (in russian homes) to Jesus's icon.
With this information the painting acquires (in the viewer mind) a much greater meaming.
In conclusion, art is like a dialogue: if you don't understand what is said to you there is no dialogue and therefore no art, but this doesn't means that the work of art's is somehow flawed of valueless.
Sometimes you need some backstory, esp for doc work.
-
Sometimes you need some backstory, esp for doc work.
Well, I would go as far as to say that you always need a backstory to fully appreciate something.
-
Don't know. does not matter to me.
Congratulations! That's the best quotation from one of Isaac's posts that I've yet seen.
Jeremy
-
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Jitterbug or foxtrot?
-
Isaac
Quote
"Can these paintings properly be designated works of art? Does art imply beauty in some manner? Is it not necessary that there be beauty either of form or of thought expressed in masterly fashion? … The only element of beauty that could possibly be involved must be supplied by the spectator's own mental images, as conjured by the title of the -- the work, and not, by means, in the production itself. … The efforts of the 'sensationalists' may be interesting and ingenious, but are these artists not mistaken as to the real significance of their works?"
"Sensationalism in Art" New-York tribune., March 11, 1913
What was interesting about the Tribune's letters to the editor were they seemed to be written by people who knew how to write sentences back then that were learned, something we lost in modern times. Second that the letter writers are all dead and their letters were captured in perpetuity just like a photograph captures an image that creates art if the viewers so deem it.
-
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Isaac: Please Google this question (above) then post the answers here, complete with links.
-
Isaac: Please Google this question (above) then post the answers here, complete with links.
Shame - because it seems to be an interesting conversation so far - let's keep it that way.
-
Those interested in an interesting conversation will have their interesting conversation; meanwhile trolls will troll.
Feed conversation; don't feed trolls.
-
"I can’t tell you what art does and how it does it, but I know that art has often judged the judges, pleaded revenge to the innocent and shown to the future what the past has suffered, so that it has never been forgotten...I know too that the powerful fear art, whatever its form, when it does this, and that amongst the people such art sometimes runs like a rumour and a legend because it makes sense of what life’s brutalities cannot, a sense that unites us, for it is inseparable from a justice at last. Art, when it functions like this, becomes a meeting-place of the invisible, the irreducible, the enduring, guts and honour."
— John Berger, Ways of Seeing
http://youtu.be/0pDE4VX_9Kk