Art.......

It this has been damned fine discussion and has given me much to think about.

Art can be anything that has been created by a human, right? But I think the right question is: what is a good art?! I think that's the question. Is art that sells - a good art? I am watching a show about tattoos, is that an art form? People that do them talk about it as an art and they make some impressive stuff.

When we talk about what is art we can look at its roots and its purpose and I think it has a great purpose in our human existence otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. I think art is a search for the truth and we are all trying to find it.

Art is about aesthetics, nothing more.

 

People who can 'do art' usually just get on and do it. Those who cannot just spend a lot of

time waffling about it, presumably to make themselves feel better about it all (that is the

only possible reason I can see for so much pompous and pretentious bleating). It's the

visual equivalent of playing 'air-guitar'.

 

Analysis and dissection is irrelevant unless directly from the artist. In my experience,

anything else is nothing more than supposition based on what the 'critic' wants to see.

 

Why are so many people so desperate for everything to mean something? Why do so many

people talk so much nonsense?

Why do so many spend time reading and responding to what they consider nonsense?

A: In the words of George Leigh Mallory; 'Because it's there'.

 

B: If someone spends all that time writing it, it must be important. No?

"If someone spends all that time writing it, it must be important. No?"

 

Either important or nonsense, I suppose. No such thing as "just doesn't interest me?"

If I take a dump or a leak on a piece of canvas, is that art? I guarantee it would evoke emotion.

Chip--

 

It seemed like thread had already acknowledged that "emotion" alone would not be sufficient.

But you bring up a good question?

 

What makes Duchamp's Urinal art but would make what you're talking about not art? I think

there is a distinction. So, if we could discuss differences, perhaps we'd get somewhere.

I think this is where context and "voice" come in.

 

If someone does something outrageous, we look at the context in which it is done which

helps us develop a sense of his/her intention. We also look for some sort of body of work

which will also help supply the context and give an indication of this person's "voice." Those

seem to me two elements of artistry.

Why do some people "waffle" about art? Because they have intellect and enjoy thinking, maybe.

Urinal. I am impressed with the Duchamp reference. But it appears common. I vote for greater stringency.

I don't know what you mean by "common."

Chip-- Would Serrano's Piss Christ suit you as a better example?

 

Do you accept either one as an example of art? If so, do you agree that context and voice play

a role in the determination that something is a work of art. By context, I mean not only the

particular context in which the work in question is generated but the art historical context in

which it may or may not play a role.

Rachel Foster: "Why do some people "waffle" about art? Because they have intellect and enjoy

thinking, maybe."

 

Thank you for explaining that to me.

I am, of course, quite devoid of intellect. The vacuous sludge that resides within my cranial

wasteland is rarely troubled by cohesive thought. Gosh, you're so clever.

Russell--

 

I don't think it's a matter of your being devoid of intellect. It's just that you chose not to use

your intellect and instead joined a group in progress by making ad hominem attacks

regarding what the group was endeavoring to do. Adding something of substance to the

discussion would have been a more intellectually stimulating way to go. Alternatively,

passing it by for lack of interest might simply have been nicer.

No Russell, that's not what I said. However, your previous comment was quite insulting. I merely pointed out that some people enjoy intellectual stimulation, and that it is not necessarily a case of

 

"People who can 'do art' usually just get on and do it. Those who cannot just spend a lot of time waffling about it, presumably to make themselves feel better about it all (that is the only possible reason I can see for so much pompous and pretentious bleating). It's the visual equivalent of playing 'air-guitar'."

 

Now that I've explained that, I'm through with this particular subtopic. Hopefully you will see what I said as it was meant and not as bait for hostilities (which I do believe your previous post was).

Fred--The Serrano example is a perfect example of why it does not necessarily matter.

"why it does not necessarily matter"

 

Chip--

 

Why what does not necessarily matter? As you're being brief and so obscure, I'm left with the

impression you're not terribly interested in discussing the issues, so I'll leave it at that.

If it ain't based on drawing, it ain't art.

Bruce--

 

Beethoven was an artist.

Art is about aesthetics, nothing more.

 

Idea of beauty.

 

Simplistic view to challenge; let's look in at that statement in a more thoughtful way. Join with me, Russell, to understand. And yes, you have created a rustle on the forum. Just could not resist the word play.

 

Really, you are talking about a pretty picture you have made....but, don't you thing there is a part of Russell in there...sort of a unique special vision. Otherwise, we could be a Russell; don't you think?

 

Nope, i don't think you have a brain similar to cabbage. Methinks you are doing the Devil Ad thing.

 

Have a pause for thought.

If it ain't based on drawing, it ain't art.

 

I always thought it was about a serious arse wipe. Jeez, it might be about having a sticky arse.

 

Gonna give up art....who wants a smelly sticky arse.

Allen...you've left me speechless!

 

Erm.......I can't draw.

Allen...you've left me speechless!

 

Me,too.

Okay, just back from Photo LA for three days and four nights, and you guys are still at it!

Art was all over the place at Photo LA: photography or photographic-based work intended

as art. What was selling that was not art: work by famous dead photojournalists who

captured a moment of history, kept prints in file cabinets for a record, and whose

descendants sold those few remaining prints to galleries. The difference between the two:

INTENT.

 

Yes you have to be an adult and of sound mind to have such intent. And your art may be

great or it may suck. But if you intend it to be art and you shoot it with that intent, it is art

whether it pleases others or just you. Beauty in photography? Read Robert Adams.