Why do photographers wonder about the question of 'art' and 'talent' -- a tip from Marshall McLuhan

Marshall Mcluhan gave the best definition of art I know of. Not necessarily one

I like, but one that seems the most accurate. It helps bypass all the drivel

one finds ranging from internet discussions to Kant's Critique of Judgment. And

it is appropriate to the discussion of art and photography as this medium seems

particuarly rampant with various views on the matter. The definition is simply

as follows: "Art is anything you can get away with." Does anyone disagree?

Alan-- Thanks for the quote. I guess giving definitions of many terms is tough (e.g.,

reality,

truth, beauty, love, art). Maybe these concepts are best thought about

using a synthesis of definitions. Context will dictate which definitions are appropriate at

what

times. In my mind, how we use these words is more important than how we define them

and we use all of them in a lot of different ways. Mcluhan's

definition communicates an irony about art as well as skepticism and

practicality. Throw in some Kant and Aristotle, some Chomsky and Rorty, some Jung and

Langer, some men on the street and museum curators, some painters and

musicians,

some patrons and critics and purchasers, and you'll have an idea (difficult to articulate in

one quote

or

statement) of what art is.

Why do they worry? Because some of them seek/strive/<i>need</i> to sell their work, and it turns out that it's only as valuable, as art-ful, and as talent-derived as someone with a non-bouncing check <i>perceives</i> it to be. In other words: it's in the eye of the beholder/buyer. Photographers who want/need to attract beholders (with money!) may not <i>worry</i> about it, but they have good reason to take it into account when they think about how to market and sell their work. It's OK to have your own standards and definition of art, but it's also OK to recognize that some of your customers' standards - while perhaps seeming off base - are valuable too. Especially if the check clears. Yes, yes, it's a mercenarial perspective, I suppose... but I don't have to actually produce something that falls outside of my own bounds, even if someone else likes it for the "wrong" reasons. I can live with that! Besides, my D3 funding requirements have me feeling <i>very</i> pragmatic just now!

McLuhan's take on art is too cynical and simplistic in my opinion. It implies that he really doesn't understand the motivations needed on the part of someone trying to make art.

 

How about this as an alternative: Art is thought made visible via the cycle of inspiration, imagination, execution, and admiration.

McLuhan was a firm believer in pithy, tongue-in-cheek acknowledgements of the operations of capitalist society. He is sorely missed by many of us, being decades ahead of his time.

 

His reference quoted here relates to the commoditisation of work [or output in a more utilitarian sense] known or, more accurately, characterised and popularised as, 'art'. And the hegemony of the decision-makers who elevate work to the lofty status.

 

Maris, he is not commenting on the artistic impulse but on the arbitrariness of work so described.

 

One of my favourite lines on the subject, from King Crimson: "And, if Warhol's a genius, what am I - a speck of lint on the wing of a fly?"

Art is what you think art is. It is only a word...a very short one at that. Then there is fart.

 

Under the right conditions ..both can make us smile or cry ..and dramatically effect the space in which we live.

For commercial art, I think Mcluhan is right. But I agree it is too cynical.

 

There are events, people, environments, things, that have the ability to reveal to us the "connectedness" of the universe to which our cultural paradigms blind us. We are, through metaphor, analogy, juxtaposition of images, movement, whatever the "art form", reconnected for at least a moment with our true nature. Art is anything man made that has that ability.

Mcluhan's view is cynical, but like much cynicism it has a germ of truth. However, if one wants to understand art, rather than just 'identify' it, there are better places to go. As a behavioral scientist whose career was spent on some investigations of this subject, I recommend three books to those who are interested in a "scientific" or at least scholarly understanding of its place in life.

 

The first is Benedetto Croce's 1922 _Aesthetic_.

 

The second is a popular book, Susanne Langer's 1951 _Philosophy in a New Key_

 

The final work is even available on DVD and is Leonard Berstein's 1973 Norton Lectures: _The Unanswered Question: Six Talks at Harvard_.

 

The last is an indication of the penetration of linguistic analytical methods into the arts, but it holds up well despite carping by persons who seem not to understand what "Lenny" was trying to do.

 

In any case, the key issues are, I would suggest, that art is human behavior, that it is amenable to analysis in a scholarly fashion (just as speech can be), and that it can best be judged aesthetically in terms of the degree to which it satisfies the goals of the creator and communicates with the participant observer.

"Art is anything you can get away with." and "Art is what you think art is."

 

The above defintions are narrow uninformed views of art, what art is and means in civilised

society for now and how it was perceived hundreds of years ago.

If the above definitions are "narrow uninformed views of art" what is your broad and informed view of it? You obviously have more to say on the matter and I'm curious to hear it. Thanks, MP.

I can't speak for Marc, but obviously the braod and informed view would take up too much space in this forum and might only be of interest o those educated in art. As far as McLuhan's comment: it;s bullshit. Think Michelangelo and then go to your home decorating stores and see what people are putting on their walls. Even a twit should be able to make the distinction.

"The above defintions are narrow uninformed views of art, what art is and means in civilised society for now and how it was perceived hundreds of years ago."

 

Proving the point, art is what you think it is.

An extremely wealthy and eccentric Texan, Stanley Marsh 3, is a great supporter of artists and "the arts". He has the only inarguable definition of art that I have ever heard.

 

On his ranch, leaning against a barn, are three large plywood letters, an "A", an "R", and a "T". When anyone asks him, "What is art?", he points to his barn and says, "It's those letters leaning against my barn."

Art, if considered alive, is, then, by this definition alone, animated by a force, like life itself, that on its journey to complete consciousness, draws unto itself others who would also, and in tandem, develop greater consciousness of themselves and the time in which they live.

 

Art, as an act of self awareness, then, seeks to move culture forward, to a fuller, greater awareness, and acceptance of itself and the viewer as partner. It follows that Art can be identified by the consequences in the viewer - if somehow we are moved by what we see it could be said we've had an aesthetic experience, life moving forward. If on the other hand our experience is lifeless and easily dismissed as so-much-more-of-the-same-old-thing, one could say the artifact is merely decoration.

 

How do we know if we are artists? Simply ask yourself: Does my work move consciousness forward, my own and others, as if by a force with a mind of its own? Then perhaps you have somehow insinuated yourself into a relationship with Life itself, a co-creator of ART.

 

From time to time each of has been fortunate enough to be surprised by this experience. It is, however, a relationship, a coupling with something other-worldly to which we must dedicate ourselves if we are to deepen our connection and intimacy. From time to time each of us, by a simple act of love, could be considered, rightly, an Artist.

In my opinion, every generation has its own way of living. We shouldn't overlook a nature of evolution. Our consciousness is changing, our lives, so the art too. Definition of art is changeable, too.

Art is a presentation of a life and it is a matter of counsciousness degree. In what way a mind of an artist works and how/what he feels about the object/subject. And the way he execute, depends on his own conscious mind and open heart - a degree of a talent.

Generally, art has always been an aesthetic value. The beauty of form and content has been in the artist alone and that feeling pervades his consciousness.

And in the end, to what degree we perceive art truly depends on our own extent of consciousness and the soul.

Perhaps using the word "art" as a verb gives it a bit different perspective, with the emphasis on the act rather than the product.

 

Of course, we could risk a misinterpretation such as, "Romeo, wherefore art thou?"

 

"In the darkroom, dear."

PN members know all there is to know and most call themelves artists. One lonely dissenter

won't change anything, Samuel Johnson knew that all those years ago. Knowledge is easily

attainable es[ecially with the advent of modern technology. Research this topic yourself.

 

"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be

easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little

trouble to acquire it."

Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784), quoted in Boswell's Life of Johnson

What is art? I think it's easier to say what art is not. I think the term 'art' has been usurped by hapless morons who believe coloring outside of the lines is art regardless of the fact that they lack the ability first to color inside the lines.

 

What art is not: One more disaffected, spoiled teenager stating, "My pictures are blurry because that's the way the world looks through my tears." Evocative only to other mental weaklings who expect praise for lackluster performance and who seek not only to elevate the mundane but to discredit true achievement. For, along this line of reasoning, if we are all mediocre then nobody is truly outstanding. Thus the mediocre become as outstanding as anyone else by comparison.

 

I find the greatest artists are those who are not constantly trying to be called artists.

To "get away" with something implies to hide it from the audience. If this is what McLuhan meant by the quote, I can't agree with him.

 

Simply put, art should not deceive but rather reveal that which is usually hidden or not so obvious--which, unfortunately, is quite the opposite of McLuhan's quote.

Peter, I agree with a lot of you say especially about the revelatory qualities of art.

 

But, "art should not deceive"? Haven't got a copy of that rulebook.

 

Photographs deceive all the time (while admittedly they may be revealing a lot

simultaneously). A photograph can make the viewer believe there was a person sitting alone

on the park bench feeling lonely when in fact her lover was sitting right there beside her.

That photo may reveal a lot about human emotion and expression but, on another level, may

be extremely deceptive.

I like Picasso's definition, "art is what is unacceptable to the institutions."

I agree Terence, institutions want people to think the same way and follow their rules. If you think too much you are an artist and you are unconfortably dangerous to the power (see John Lennon). Today we are like sheeps: one leeds, all the other follow. One guy makes money shooting weddings, everybody wants to do weddings. Very few human beings have the courage to stand up for themselves and what they believe in. These people are artists to me, and what they do is art.

A simpler way to understand what art is. Get a book about Michelangelo's life, go to the Vatican, enter S. Peter church and look to your right. There is the "Pieta'". I believe by looking at this "piece of marble" you will understand what art is.