But is it "Art"? (part II)

[CJ Swartz]

In creating art you are not representing a flower or a tree. You are representing yourself, seen through the lens provided by said flower or tree. If the subject is the flower/tree/whatever, you have failed. The subject is yourself.

So, when when we view MICHELANGELO's "David", we should see Michelangelo rather than David -- if it is to qualify as art? Or is it simply excellent craftmanship? Or aesthetically pleasing?

Web Gallery of Art

I do not intend to reduce the discussion of a concept into specifics, but specifics can often help to clarify the overall concept.

I come from a liberal arts education, with only a sprinkling of general art appreciation teachings rather than an art background. I admit to leaning towards the belief that Art, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, although that might include works that would bother me personally. I believe that the viewer can attach significance which may or may not have been intended by the creator, and that significance may truly "move their soul". A pretty picture may certainly communicate "I am pretty", but it may also communicate "love the Earth - protect her", or "the universe is magnificent in its beauty and diversity". Or is this simply an example, Doug, of what you meant when you said "The easiest way to inspire or move someone is to show them exactly what they want to see, with no "communication" involved."

[Doug Nelson]

If someone creates something with a specific message in mind, that's not art it's propaganda. Or at least manipulation. There's no more art involved in something that says "save the earth" than there is if it says "buy Cheetos".

[G. Couch]

Originally posted by Doug Nelson
There's no more art involved in something that says "save the earth" than there is if it says "buy Cheetos".

...unless "buy Cheetos" is presented in a suitably ironic and/or sardonic manner! (Campbell's Soup cans? )

CJ - You stated, "I believe that the viewer can attach significance which may or may not have been intended by the creator, and that significance may truly "move their soul". " ...that's an excellent point. I think at a certain point most artists realize that their well thought out intentions are not always interpreted as they would wish by the audience. The viewer brings as much to an image as the artist does and interpretations are filtered through each person's unique cultural, political, philosophical, etc... views.

[roger_ele]

My two cents,

Art = creation, whether you are solving a problem or creating an interpretation.

The state of mind when the right and left side of the brain dance, that is art. Total involvement - the zen moment. It is what I think draws some people to religion, the prayer that centers can be addictive. When the piece is felt or visualized to the point where words can't describe it, that is when the whole mind is involved. When Einstien first figured out something, that creative process was art. It may be interpreted by the person experiencing this as euphoria, an emotional charge, hairs raising on the back of the neck, etc.

Whether you are on the creating or receiving end, if this happens for you, it is art. If it doesn't it's not art, at least not for you ...

What triggers this resonse in the viewer is either the viewer being sensitive or surprised. What triggers this in the creator is the process of working through (whatever it is) until it happens.

This might be a little off the beaton' track, but in my opinion it is the experience that is the art part. Talking about whether a particuar object is art won't make it true ar false for anyone else - in the eye of the beholder and all...

Roger

[Doug Nelson]

Yesterday I watched "The Stone Reader", a documentary about the search for a forgotton author. In his search, the filmmaker interviewed many leading critics and authorities on literature. He was puzzled about why, if this author's work was so great, why was it forgotten? Why didn't more people like it? One pithy answer to his question was "just because it's great doesn't mean you have to like it".

A little lightbulb went off over my head, and I remembered this thread. So many confuse entertainment with art, equating the success of one with the success of the other. When in fact, the old cliche "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" is not the mild put-down of arty pretense it so often is intended as, but rather it's an ironic confession of self-ignorance.

Another interviewee in the movie said "when you're reading a great writer it's like the author is sitting right next to you, like he's a long-lost brother you just discovered and he's right there, whispering into your ear". I wonder if many feel the Disney corporation sitting next to them, whispering into their ear while they're experiencing what passes for 'art' today? Does Eminem or John Grisham whisper to you?

And, of course, the important question: what are YOU whispering when you create art?

[G. Couch]

The opposite is also true...there are many artists and critics who turn their nose up at something upon the first indication that it might have popular appeal. Sort of the "art snob" effect! I have recently noticed a pretty good example of this when Norah Jones released her new CD a few days ago. No one even noticed her when her first CD was released until she started to get a little play on public radio...then a few critics began to praise her work as "best Jazz album of the year", etc... Before you know it, she wins a bunch of Grammys and has become a hugely popular artist. Now everyone knows who she is and with the release of her new album, I get the sense that some critics are angry that she is no longer their little secret...she has become too popular to be any good!

[Duv]

I, for one, hear the whispering in my ear when watching a Disney movie, listening to Emimem or reading Grisham. Perhaps we've all come to define art too narrowly. If you've gone to art school you may remember these words:
"TO EVOKE IN ONESELF A FEELING ONE HAS ONCE EXPERIENCED, AND HAVING EVOKED IT IN ONESELF, THEN, BY MEANS OF MOVEMENTS, LINES, COLORS, SOUNDS, OR FORMS EXPRESSED IN WORDS, SO TO TRANSMIT THAT FEELING THAT OTHERS MAY EXPERIENCE THE SAME FEELING...THIS IS THE ACTIVITY OF ART. ART IS A HUMAN ACTIVITY CONSISTING OF THIS, THAT ONE MAN CONSCIOUSLY, BY MEANS OF CERTAIN EXTERNAL SIGNS, HANDS ON TO OTHERS FEELINGS HE HAS LIVED THROUGH, AND THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE INFECTED BY THESE FEELINGS AND ALSO EXPERIENCE THEM."

Cheers
Duv

[Ed_L]

I've been following this thread, and find it interesting. But does art really need to be defined? I think Roger hit the nail squarely on the head when he said "Whether you are on the creating or receiving end, if this happens for you, it is art. If it doesn't it's not art, at least not for you ".

Following is a portrait from National Geographic, that I thought had a beautiful, mysterious quality to it. It certainly did something to me when I first saw it. Did I see anything in the portrait about the photographer? Maybe he is a very mysterious person. I don't know. If he is, does that make it art, and if he isn't does that disqualify it from being art?

Ed

[Doug Nelson]

No, it doesn't need to be defined, but it needs to be considered. Defining art was never my intent. I see so much created nowadays for the gratification of the creator only. There can be no communication then.

The concept of art, as have so many other things today, has been diluted and compromised.

For inter-soul communication to work, there must be two people that can hear their souls. That is the wonderful thing about art, it can make the soul shout loud enough so that even those that forgot they had one can hear it.

Art is great, and by that I don't just mean "really good". It changes people forever on a molecular level. And therefore it changes the world.