The real question is what makes art - art ?

[Munch]

I am for sure going to burn in hell for loving Bob ....

a reason
a season
a lifetime


bob wasn't here to create meaningful art .... he was here to demonstrate to everyone that they have a hidden artists inside .... and that art doesn't have to be this agonizing ... anxiety ridden masterpiece that not many understand .. and even less like ....

no he was here to tell us if we want to paint happy little clouds in our sky that only take two seconds and may or may not have a political commentary attached

we can !

now as an INTP I only value art that has a darker .... more political commentary to it .... but i think that leads into the question of

what is art ? ... what makes art art? .... is it just a drawing of a picture perfect rose? ..... or is it a chaotic collage of computer images to represent a rose ?

if it's just about meaning ... then that picture perfect rose doesn't stand up

if it's just about symmetry then the collage doesn't

M

[YHWH]

intention makes it art. what makes a work of art valuable? is the question.

[JazzTulip]

What makes it art? Not like there aren't hundreds of books written about that subject. You could try reading Noel Carroll's Philosophy of Art. It's sort of an undergrad. text but it makes for reasonably good, light reading on the subject (although I have to say I find it a bit tortuous at points, it's not aimed at people who think a lot). It works it's way through various theories of art. Is it art because it represents something? Or because it stands for something? Or because it has meaning? Or because it expresses something? You get the idea.

You won't be able to answer the question any better but you'll be able to talk about the questions with more certainty.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I like the description given by neuropathologist V.S. Ramachandran based on the studies he worked on concerning brain function. Art is a sort of pattern recognition of exaggerated differences or patterns. How off standard something is. Which is why boob jobs resonate well. Exaggerated differences indeed.

[asperger]

I think it is worth considering Duchamp's view of an essential aspect of art. As a would-be composer I find myself very sympathetic to it.


The Bride & the Bachelors (Viking Press, 1965) "One day in 1957, speaking as a "mere artist" before a learned seminar on contemporary aesthetics in Houston, Texas, Marcel Duchamp proposed a somewhat surprising definition of the spectator's role in that mysterious process known as the creative act. The artist, Duchamp said, is a "mediumistic being" who does not really know what he is doing or why he is doing it. It is the spectator who, through a kind of "inner osmosis", deciphers and interprets the work's inner qualifications, relates them to the external world, and thus completes the creative cycle. The spectator's contribution is consequently equal in importance to the artist's, and perhaps in the long run even greater, for as Duchamp remarked in another context, "it is posterity that makes the masterpiece." Like so many of the ideas put forward by Duchamp, who has for years been the most enigmatic presence in contemporary art, this theory tends to make a great many artists uncomfortable. Artists, as a rule, do not like to think of themselves as mediumistic beings who blindly perform only one part of the creative act, and their attitude toward the spectator is not always one of respectful collaboration.

[CoHo]

Art is what it always is and will be what it always was; a constant that solicits emotion, causation or climax. It is an action that builds momentum or a response to a reaction. It is the fall of creation and the destruction of decay. It is a has, a was, a will be and a never.

http://www.nerdgranny.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/ascii-goatse.gif

[Cervus]

I think it is worth considering Duchamp's view of an essential aspect of art. As a would-be composer I find myself very sympathetic to it.

Very interesting read. I've never been a huge fan of Duchamp, but agree with his view of what artist is.


Artists, as a rule, do not like to think of themselves as mediumistic beings who blindly perform only one part of the creative act, and their attitude toward the spectator is not always one of respectful collaboration.

Artist as a medium really is an apt name. I think when the " inner osmosis" happens, it will happen between the artwork and the spectator ( at least by the time when the spectator is encountering the artwork in a gallery). And at that stage, artist is no longer involved in the equation any longer as product of his/her output as a "mediumistic being" is already out in the world displayed in the gallery. Although, with commercial climate of art/art as an investment, highly prized artists would carry their own " branding" power which carries certain hyperreality to the inherent value of the art itself which at times clouds/or gets fused with the "inner osmosis" of the spectator somewhat(?)

I think that's why I like it when I encounter a work of an artist that I've never heard of before ( served cold). The experience feels more pure somehow. Last time that happened was when I saw photographer Graciela Iturbide's exhibition by chance at the museum. I didn't know who she was when I entered the room displaying her photographs, but I knew something definitely happened/" inner osmosis" by the time I walked out of there. There was a connection & relatedness that took place in me that somehow connected me to her photographs.

[MuseedesBeauxArts]

Somehow this struck me as particularly apt: "If it moves you to attentiveness, it is art." http://bigthink.com/ideas/16180

[durentu]

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art teaches man how to use his consciousness. It conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence." - Ayn Rand, Romantic Manifesto

[Cervus]

Somehow this struck me as particularly apt: "If it moves you to attentiveness, it is art."

Very interesting video. I enjoyed viewing it- thanks!


But if you look at a work of art, you can re-engage reality once again, and you see the distinction between what you thought things were and what they actually are. Because of that, it is a mechanism for the species to survive. And because of that, it is terribly important in human consciousness.

I find this part very interesting.

Ability to distinguish between :

what you thought things were/ What it ought to be

V.

what they actually are/ What is

= mechanism for species to survive.

That resonated with me.


"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art teaches man how to use his consciousness. It conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence." - Ayn Rand, Romantic Manifesto

I like the term selective re-creation. Great quote.

[euterpenc]

Something created through skill or craft, or, the skill or craft itself. I.e. "the art of..."

Or, art as artifice, a human creation.

But that's dry. I like to think of art as something alive, dynamic - its being something renewed by each viewing/hearing/etc. Something like poetry, from the Greek poieo (how to input Greek characters?), to make. A making, a revelation. A bringing to the light, into the light of the sun, creation, illumination. Faust's reading of Logos - "the deed," the doing?

[starjots]

We humans are great sponges. We are always soaking up whatever our environment throws our way and squirreling it away like an acorn in the recesses of our mind in case we have need of it someday. But is is more dynamic than that, our mind is constantly being reorganized, pruned, added to and so forth, and almost all of this is pretty much invisible and hardly accessible to the veneer of consciousness that we have.

Art, be it poetry, painting, sculpture, music etc., is a masterful and unique skeleton key that unlocks and brings out some of these hidden treasures already inside us - things that we could not easily access through simple recall, reason or emotion. In so doing, these hidden parts are now partially accessible to us on a regular basis - we only need recall the key that first opened them up.

[noxeternae]

First of all, art is art because it's not utilitarian. Art exists to be art, its cause is to be existent, above the down to earth reality. It's timeless and admirable just because it exists.
Art has a reality of its own, which makes it different from regular things. Artists are global people, and they can detach from the everyday simplicity into a creation of their own mind.
One can define art as a result of inspiration which brings out the valuable experience an artist has, while being absorbed in his thoughts and traveling in that different reality.

[Xyk]

I usually define it as "Something that uses a medium to get an idea or feeling across in a more powerful way than simple description."

That's worked pretty well for me so far.

[euterpenc]

Perhaps the observer is what makes art art. If one is looking through the eyes of a dog, is the Mona Lisa a work of art, is it even recognized as a painting at all?

[deathwarmedup]

May as well hear it from an artist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aedXnLpKBCw&feature=related

[puzzled-observer]

Are you asking us to provide the common thread among all self proclaimed (or things commonly held as) works of art?

I don't think there's one unique definition. The definition of art as it relates to a specific work of art is defined by the artist who made it. To the common public, something is art if someone of sufficient standing or popularity says so. This seems like a pointless quest to me.

[YHWH]

I found this description of music by John Cage to define all art: "a purposeless play, an affirmation of life – not an attempt to bring order out of chaos nor to suggest improvements in creation, but simply a way of waking up to the very life we're living".

[kuranes]

This seems like a pointless quest to me.Well, it does help solidify your status as a "puzzled observer".

[asperger]

Kuranes, I was wondering if you would be willing to comment on the Duchamp quote back on page one?

[YHWH]

Duchamp's last work Étant donnés (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etant_donn%C3%A9s) makes me think that Duchamp was rationalizing (not without reason) rather than being fully convinced by his theories on art.

as for the merit of the quote itself, it's a valuable theory, as are many that contradict it.

[asperger]

...as for the merit of the quote itself, it's a valuable theory, as are many that contradict it.

I think I would call it a perspective rather than a theory so its nature as one of many possible valid constructs emerges more naturally from the core idea.

[YHWH]

perspective is more correct, though I see at more as a necessity to set rules to work within for creative means*, but duchamp's perspective did develop into being the leading theory for all visual arts and there was no way around it for him but to fake hiatus. (maybe the last bit is just my NF tragispeculation)

*the clearest example would be lars von trier's dogma95 manifesto, but lars managed to move on when the field seemed exhausted (1 film later) to something completely different, with new rules to work within.

edit: i'm describing based on my view of duchamp as whole. i sound nonsensical I know.

[kuranes]

Kuranes, I was wondering if you would be willing to comment on the Duchamp quote back on page one?

I would mostly agree with what Duchamp said on the function of the observer* being a mostly underrated aspect.

I read somewhere that a work of art may be opaque / inaccessible in its own time but seem extremely relevant or inspirational, mood-creating / enhancing etc. years later**. Or perhaps like Captain Picard's remark ( re: the newfound fun of riding a horse on the holodeck ) that it "met a need that he hadn't even known existed up until then".

The idea of the spectator being "more important" than the artist seems like a judgement duct-taped on to this basic approach, however - that adds a "God's opinion" flavor to it which I wouldn't use, myself. "Important" - Yes. "More important"- No.

* - interesting how the "function of the observer" is also being talked about a lot more now in conjunction with quantum physics, although this was not a "new" discovery per se.

** - the artist will typically not have pre-visioned / crystal-balled the future applicability, but instead simply presented something from his "muse" .

[asperger]

Thanks for the replies.

[proverbs6:13]

Check this out.

One evening, when I was a newly arrived immigrant at the Cedar Bar, Elaine and Willem De Kooning casually took my arm as they passed and said, “Come over to Clem Greenberg’s.” …After a while I found myself listening to Greenberg who was talking about Cézanne. De kooning showed signs of impatience and seemed to be controlling his anger. He finally broke out with “One more word about Cézanne and I’ll punch you in the nose!” Greenberg, very startled had been saying only very intelligent and perceptive things. It was hard for him to understand that what de Kooning resented was his having ideas on the matter at all. “You have no right to talk about Cézanne,” de Kooning snapped. “Only I have the right to talk about Cézanne.” …As I left that night I knew who de Kooning was. I didn’t feel he was arrogant. I didn’t feel he was rude. For me, coming from a background where the emotional life was buried discourse, this kind of vulnerability was like my introduction not only to the art world, but to reality itself. It took me out of my romantic dream of what it was to be an artist, into the reality of it. It also showed me, through Greenberg, that the real philistines are those that most “understand you.”
Feldman is a real idiot with the conclusion but you should still get the point. What does that explain about Duchamp?
Artists make things, audiences watch. They can't make anything, just look, like some feeble child, "me like, me no like."
The smarter the audience the more they think they are involved. Duchamp solves the problem, give me money and I'll tell you how involved you are meanwhile I'll make the work and posterity will record my name. Every artist has their own angle, some are so good that most people never understand anything about them.