Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Isaac on January 29, 2015, 12:44:42 pm
-
"At one end of the spectrum (http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article01201501.aspx) are major arts, defined not in terms of cultural superiority but in terms of large audiences. At the other extreme are crafts like making carrot carnations. These are arts that have no audience, other than practitioners of the art itself. … In between the major arts and the crafts or hobbies are minor arts, which have a small audience whose members do not themselves aspire to practice the art."
-
"I don’t care about the word ‘art’ because it has been so discredited. So I want to get rid of it. There is an unnecessary adoration of ‘art’ today."
— Marcel DuChamp, 1966
-
That guy Lind lost me when he cited political punditry as a major art.
-
"This is a horizontal ranking based on audience, not a vertical ranking based on quality or importance."
-
That guy Lind lost me when he cited political punditry as a major art.
Indeed. And no mention of the plastic arts at all.
-
The same people who sing in community choruses and church choirs (hobbyists, in other words) also attend professional performances of Beethoven's 9th symphony, Bach's St. Matthew Passion, operas, and lieder/art song recitals. The presence of hobbyist practitioners does not mean that an art is "minor".
As for radish carnations and carrot roses, I see them at local restaurants - never seen them at potlucks or home-cooked dinners. So there's a minor art practiced by professionals (cooks).
-
The same people who sing in community choruses and church choirs (hobbyists, in other words) also attend professional performances of Beethoven's 9th symphony, Bach's St. Matthew Passion, operas, and lieder/art song recitals. The presence of hobbyist practitioners does not mean that an art is "minor".
Different roles: performer, audience.
-
Is it still "art" (yuck - hate that word, too!) if the work is not seen or heard but anyone but the artist?
At first, I thought, "well, no, it can't be" - performers and audience are interdependent. But after thinking about it, the only conclusion I come to is "yes" - art can and does exist without an audience. What I or anyone else produces as a creative act is completely independent of one set of eyes or a million. Even the judgement of "good art" or "bad art", appealing or not, doesn't change the original creative act. How often have new movements in art or musical compositions been trashed at first, only to be later praised?
Perhaps performers and audience are indeed interdependent, but only in a commercial sense.
Thanks for posting this thought-provoking piece, Isaac.
-
Is it still "art" (yuck - hate that word, too!) if the work is not seen or heard but anyone but the artist?
Reminds me of the old philosophical saw that asks if there is a sound of a tree falling in the woods if there's no one is around to hear it?
-
Is it still "art" ...if the work is not seen or heard but anyone but the artist?
If there's no audience, there ain't no show.
Canadian band "Chilliwack"
-
I didn't read much of the article in the link but the difference between art and craft is the amount of money someone is willing to pay for it.