Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

But is it "Art"? (part II)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Doug Nelson
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ed_L
    replied
    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
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Duv
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • G. Couch
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Nelson
    replied
    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?
    Last edited by Doug Nelson; 02-20-2004, 07:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • roger_ele
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • G. Couch
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Nelson
    replied
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • CJ Swartz
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Nelson
    replied
    The only contraint is assuming any soul-to-soul communication must result in inspiration or movement. The easiest way to inspire or move someone is to show them exactly what they want to see, with no "communication" involved. That's the sign of good craftsmanship.

    Lawrence Olivier once had to deliver a speech he was unprepared for. Ever a trooper, he went on, spoke awhile, had the audience in tears and on their feet at the end. It was only in examining the transcript later that it was discovered he'd simply pasted together odd bits of dialog from previous projects and delivered it in his well-practiced manner. It actually made no sense at all.

    In the words of Gertrude Stein, there was no "there" there.

    Leave a comment:


  • G. Couch
    replied
    Originally posted by photomauler
    To me, everything has a certain artform about it. Everything communicates something to someone, therefore everything does start with some level of artistic quality or form. It is up to us just how high that level is raised.
    I agree with this...although I think the idea that art can be "lifted" to a higher level does not really mesh with "Everything communicates something to someone." How would you define a "higher level" if everyone has a different interpretation of what that is. A velvet Elvis might be kitsch to me but high art to someone else. ...of course, now we are delving into the whole Postmodern thing and I am not sure anyone wants to be bored to death!

    Doug - I'm not really into grand meta-definitions of art...too constraining! I don't think art has to move one's "soul" to be considered art...besides, who's soul are we trying to inspire? I once created a whole series of paintings based upon concepts from physics and astronomy..."intellectual art" at it's finest! ...I would be willing to bet that 95% of the people that walked into the gallery were bored by the work...but I know of several people, including one astronomy professor who loved the images. I'm not sure if it moved any souls, but I think they were inspired by it at least. How would such work fit into such a narrow definition of art? No matter how hard I attempted to communicate, I was only able to reach a small audience...was this my failure as an artist or a failure of the viewers? ....My answer would be neither!

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Nelson
    replied
    Well, there's a bit of a paradox here in that you're asking me to use intellectual tools (words, logic, etc.) to describe a non-intellectual thing.

    To mangle Lao Tsu, "the art that can be described is not the true art"

    But I'm game if you are. 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.

    In viewing art you are trying to view back through that lens. If all you see is the flower/tree/whatever, then someone in the chain has failed. If your response is merely "oooo, pretty!" or "ick" then the communication has failed, and instead of seeing through a transparent lens we are merely seeing a reflection of ourselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • tyeise
    replied
    Originally posted by Doug Nelson
    I shall further deepen the hole I'm digging by asserting that many, perhaps most, confuse art with aesthetics.
    To some extent, I think I understand this. Some art is pretty, some art is not necessarily so.

    So you have defined what art is not... can you give me a definition of what art "is"?

    Is art something that has a purpose? Is art only something that makes you feel something deeply? If so, is it art if it causes one person to react and not another?

    Can you give me a little more help on how you ARE diffining art?

    Tyeise

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Nelson
    replied
    I shall further deepen the hole I'm digging by asserting that many, perhaps most, confuse art with aesthetics. Aesthetics is to art as rhetoric is to truth.

    All pretty pictures communicate the exact same message: "I'm pretty". Just because it looks good over the sofa doesn't make it art. Ditto for sexy, funny, pastoral, etc.

    And on the creation side, I suspect many folk confuse the buzz of craftmanship with artistic inspiration. I know I have.

    But if you just enjoy looking at it or making it, does that make it bad? No, it just doesn't make it art.

    When you have a stimulating conversation you're larger when you finished than when you started. Art also makes you larger, both in the creation and the appreciation. Pretty pictures (or words or music or whatever) may make you smile, but they rarely leave you larger.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doug Nelson
    replied
    LB: I listen for whispers of soul all the time. Occasionally I actually hear it. I find as I grow older and experience more I can hear it more easily. But I'm also more sensitive to the silence.

    I also use the other question, but not in the way you might expect. My art isn't retouching or restoration or even photography. But sometimes, when I'm in a certain mood, and have the proper measures of inspiration and caffiene, my soul sings when I write.

    Sometimes

    Leave a comment:

Related Topics

Collapse

  • Tareq
    Art in Photography.....Discussion
    by Tareq
    Hey all,

    I would like to ask about: What is art in photography?
    How can you define Photography Fine Art?
    When you can say about a photo that it is art?
    What is the standard or qualification for the photo to be an art?
    Who can tell about any photo that it...
    02-03-2009, 04:35 PM
  • Ed_L
    When is "enough" too much?
    by Ed_L
    Blacknight is considering making digital art from photos as a business venture. He is also considering art/craft fairs as a place to sell from. This brings up a question. If someone were to do that, how many different styles of digital art would be a good number to offer? It seems to reason that if...
    06-09-2002, 12:55 PM
  • Doug Nelson
    But is it "Art"?
    by Doug Nelson
    Not a real topic of information or controversy here, just some stuff that's been buzzing around my brain recently and I thought I'd jot it down to see if anyone has any thoughts on the matter.

    This business of inkjet companies listing 200 years as "archival" bugs me. The fact...
    12-18-2001, 02:58 AM
  • Swampy
    Is it really "art"?
    by Swampy
    I see amazing works of art by you folks here in the RTP forums. Some of it truly worthy of giclee printing and framing. I'm talking nice stuff that I would be proud to have hanging on my walls.

    But....

    Is digital "art" yet accepted by the artistic community? Is...
    03-08-2007, 05:34 PM
  • DannyRaphael
    How much should I charge for my art?
    by DannyRaphael
    In another digital art forum a common question popped up again, "How much should I charge for my art?"

    I thought following response by John Shiflet was well written and sought (and received) his permission to reproduce it here at RetouchPRO.

    John has considerable...
    06-08-2005, 06:38 PM
Working...
X