Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Author Topic: Art and the plasticity of its forms  (Read 5529 times)

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1305
    • 500px
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #120 on: March 07, 2017, 08:07:08 AM »

Lets say, I have a wedding album containing 50 photographs. I like one so I take it out of the album, mount it and put it on the wall. By your definition it is now a work of art. Correct?

ergo the remaining 49 pics in the album are not art. 

Please explain "ergo". I can't see how declaring one element of a set as art implies that the other elements are not art.

Then, please obtain a dictionary and look up "loose" and "lose".
Logged

paulgrundy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
    • Paul Grundy
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #121 on: March 07, 2017, 08:26:36 AM »


 I can't see how declaring one element of a set as art implies that the other elements are not art.


Which is exactly my point.

[/quote]
Then, please obtain a dictionary and look up "loose" and "lose".
[/quote]

Very pretty, sorry petty.
Logged

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1240
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #122 on: March 07, 2017, 09:05:36 AM »

Oscar, I have been thinking about your example/definition. Is this a good example of what you are saying?

(Leaving aside that I think utilitarian art means something that has a practical use like, say, a vase a lamp or a chair.)

I intended the use of "utilitarian" as "decorative". It served as an example that for "decorative" art it probably is a personal and individual assessment, but that what is usually considered true art, has a larger significance (beyond the individual). 

So, even when stating the obvious that "art is a product of the artist", however succinct it may seem, it will still leave us with the hard questions as mentioned above. Especially so, when you add that art is not about aesthetics or degrees of difficulty.


Logged
Regards,
Oscar

paulgrundy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
    • Paul Grundy
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #123 on: March 07, 2017, 09:42:28 AM »

Especially so, when you add that art is not about aesthetics or degrees of difficulty.

Actually what I wrote was that art is not defined by aesthetics or degrees of difficulty. I posted 3 examples that I hope illustrate that point.

At the other end of this particular scale I could post as an example an image of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Truly beautiful, amazingly skilful and a degree of difficulty that is massively impressive.

But is it more a work of art that Duchamp's urinal?

Logged

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1240
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #124 on: March 07, 2017, 10:02:53 AM »

Actually what I wrote was that art is not defined by aesthetics or degrees of difficulty. I posted 3 examples that I hope illustrate that point.

At the other end of this particular scale I could post as an example an image of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Truly beautiful, amazingly skilful and a degree of difficulty that is massively impressive.

But is it more a work of art that Duchamp's urinal?

Okay, does that mean that for you the classification of art is a binary proposition?

(for the record: I'm more of a proponent of "Art = Communication", so for me personally, degree of difficulty or aesthetics, however impressive, is not the defining qualifier.)

Logged
Regards,
Oscar

paulgrundy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
    • Paul Grundy
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #125 on: March 07, 2017, 10:42:08 AM »

At the risk of  banging the same old drum, I believe that art is what is produced by an artist. So if you can define "artist" by default you define art.

Jeff Koons is an artist so when he arranges flowers it is a sculpture.

Ros Harrison is a florist so when she arranges flowers it is a floral arrangement.

Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1305
    • 500px
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #126 on: March 07, 2017, 10:51:19 AM »

Who decides who is, or is not, an artist?

If it is something about having been shown in a gallery, or selling through some other means, that would pre-suppose that the person had created art before she became an artist by virtue of having exhibited it, no? Or is it anything created by a person who will one day be acknowledged as being an artist?

Or am I at liberty to declare unilaterally that I'm an artist?


Logged

paulgrundy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
    • Paul Grundy
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #127 on: March 07, 2017, 11:07:51 AM »

?

Or am I at liberty to declare unilaterally that I'm an artist?

Why not? It worked for Keith Arnatt.
Logged

paulgrundy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
    • Paul Grundy
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #128 on: March 07, 2017, 11:30:06 AM »

Who decides who is, or is not, an artist?

The individual decides. I don't think you need anybody's permission to be an artist.

I'm sure most artists enjoy the recognition and rewards that come with critical success. But if this never happens to someone this does not in itself mean he/she is any less of an artist.
Logged

opgr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1240
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #129 on: March 07, 2017, 12:26:40 PM »

The individual decides. I don't think you need anybody's permission to be an artist.

Unless of course you are a terrorist and decide that you're an artist with murder is your chosen medium...
Logged
Regards,
Oscar

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16183
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #130 on: March 07, 2017, 03:02:00 PM »

Reverting for a sec to the OP: was any question actually asked, or is it just an assumption here that there was, and if so, that it was: what's photographic art?

If so, we do seem to have drifted into the Sargasso Sea instead.

It has been mooted by Jeanloup Sieff, amongst others, that there is no art, there are just artists.

And even within the definition (?) of what that might mean, some things that artists produce are art and some not, so one can't define art as strictly the product of artists, either.

Perhaps as close as we can get is to believe that folks who are good at drawing, painting, making photographs, playing musical instruments, singing and so forth are artists. The stress is on the two words, good at. Because one does any of those things badly would, I suggest, preclude that person from being considered an artist in that specific medium. I struggle to accept the concept of a bad artist. I would judge the bad artist a wannabe artist. If, indeed, he had such pretensions at all.

Galleries also exhibit stuff that I could never accpet as art. Now, was that infamous urinal actually meant to be 'art' or was it simply, as some suggest, a joke and a dig at the established order of things? You can never tell: people do all manner of stuff in promoting thenselves. Many show their naked curves, and so perhaps the Duchamp urinal was his attempt to show something else, and he never quite got round to doing that? Where the artists hang out, then. Would Duchamp's member have been a work of art? Who knows, who remembers? How temporary the full flush of manhood.

This is the second most shocking post anyone has read on LuLa. Absolutely not a nice place to be.

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 03:05:32 PM by Rob C »
Logged

marton

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
Re: Art and the plasticity of its forms
« Reply #131 on: March 23, 2017, 06:38:49 PM »

For anyone who is interested in photography and philosophy, an interesting and informative article here - https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23916-photography-and-philosophy-essays-on-the-pencil-of-nature/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up