Derivative Works

One didn’t negate the other.

Well ultimately it did in a way and over time. The question would be did Rock and Roll and other artistic movements save the world? Maybe the jury is out on that one, but the ability of mass society to incorporate and assimilate any denouncement of it prevents real change of it to occur. To Marcuse that meant capitalism, and I think Duchamp would not have disagreed with him.

Well ultimately it did in a way and over time. The question would be did Rock and Roll and other artistic movements save the world? Maybe the jury is out on that one, but the ability of mass society to incorporate and assimilate any denouncement of it prevents real change of it to occur. To Marcuse that meant capitalism, and I think Duchamp would not have disagreed with him.

That art revolutions get "bought" by the public is often the result of the revolution, otherwise the revolution would fail. One art revolution doesn't save the world. It just does its job until the next revolution comes along.

That the American Revolution led to parades and barbecues on the 4th of July doesn't negate the Revolution. Those parades and barbecues mean the revolution worked. The revolution did not have to keep going on and keep being revolutionary. It does its job and the world moves on ... because of it and from it.

Yes, Duchamp knew what he was doing. Though no artist can know precisely where his art will take him or the world. Duchamp's genius may have been in changing art more than the consumerist/capitalist art world. While the art business continued doing its thing, as you note, that same art world was forced to buy into new languages and vocabularies to which Duchamp and some of his contemporaries led the way. Curators and museum owners were forced to now include stuff in their galleries and writings they would never even have thought of including before. That they managed to make money off of it is consistent and what they do, yes. But what they were making money off of changed drastically.

Art. And, no, I'm not saying it's central concept or defining idea is that it can't be boxed in. I'm saying you can't coherently state in 7 words what art is.

Ah! Not in 7 words... Who would have thought you could?

But that is completely different from the assertion that you cannot define art. Which, of course, you can.

I'm not talking about a verbal dialog. No, I don't think Picasso was literally discussing something with the crafters of ancient artifacts but I do think he was engaged in a historical dialog with them.

 

A literal reading of the word "dialog" leads to this misunderstanding/fabrication.

What misunderstanding are you aiming at? Nobody suggested that it would be a verbal dialogue, Sam.

You define art (put it in a box), as a dialogue. Which you said could not be done.

A dialogue, an exchange, is the combination of a medium (or several) used to convey thingies between (usually) people. Is art the medium or the 'message'? Or both? Let's refine that definition, make it clear what box art dwells in. Find that encapsulating central concept (if we can make sense of the combination of central and encapsulating - some more meta-thought needed here) that would not exist.

You know, meta-thought is quite o.k. It separates the naive from the (what should we call it?).

An absurd regress would of course be absurd. But where and when does it begin to become absurd? Not in what Arthur wrote. If anything, your bit in reply to that is somewhat absurd.

What misunderstanding are you aiming at? Nobody suggested that it would be a verbal dialogue, Sam.

You followed my mention of dialog by talking about discussion. That was the misunderstanding. You took dialog literally by thinking it entailed discussion.

You define art (put it in a box), as a dialogue.

I did not define art as dialog. I said art comes to us as a dialog. I could have said history or culture or politics or philosophy come to us as dialogs and that would not be to define them all the same way. It’s a way to talk about ... how they come to us (how we approach them, how they’re accessed). If I say, those potatoes came fried, I’m describing how those potatoes were cooked. I’m not defining potato.

You know, meta-thought is quite o.k.

Yes. Just what I said. Arthur said what Duchamp thinks of his great idea doesn’t matter. I said it does, especially if he wants to make Duchamp’s central concept into what art is ... which I don’t.

Duchamp really did capture the central concept: Art is the idea coupled with sensibility.

—Arthur

Ah! Not in 7 words... Who would have thought you could?

Arthur. To repeat:

Art is the idea coupled with sensibility.

—Arthur

But that is completely different from the assertion that you cannot define art. Which, of course, you can.

Please do so. Here’s your great opportunity. A place where you’re not being asked to critique what others have said but to form a decisive and independent thought. Take as many words as you like and do what you claim can be done. Define art!

O.K. We're getting ever close to a definition, the box art lives in.

Discussion and dialogue are one and the same.

Art "comes to us" as a dialogue. So the art we know is a 'transsubstantiation' of what exactly? Or, if not, dialogue is the vehicle of what?

And - to answer your last question - why isn't art a dialogue?

Define art!

You said you could define art. I won’t say a word more to you, on any subject, until you carry through with your claim. My guess is that you won’t and I’ll be able to ignore you from here. I’ve tried in the past but this time, I’ll use the software’s ignore function to block you out completely.

SS: I didn't say that Duchamp didn't know what he was doing. I said that it didn't matter. What did matter is what he did, not what he thought about it. "Intention" is not the issue.

And I didn't say you said Duchamp didn't know what he was doing. I talked about exactly what you said, that what he thought didn't matter. The trouble is you prefaced that by saying, "Duchamp really did capture the central concept: Art is the idea coupled with sensibility." According to you, the central concept of art is the idea coupled with sensibility and, according to you, Duchamp captured that. It's hard to imagine how his own thoughts on that matter wouldn't be relevant. If art is the idea coupled with sensibility (which I believe art can be but is not limited to), then how can the ideas Duchamp is putting forth which accompany his coupling them with sensibility not matter?

I think it's somewhat treacherous to assume that ideas are the single mechanism through which or by which art is generated. Limit a definition by talking only of ideas (and bringing those ideas to sensibility) and you exclude a lot of key elements that can be* part of the process of art, such as emotion, accident, surprise, instinct, creativity, ambiguity, passion, and inspiration.

*can be, not are

Why do you need such a concise definition? It will always fail you.

You said you could define art. I won’t say a word more to you, on any subject, until you carry through with your claim. My guess is that you won’t and I’ll be able to ignore you from here. I’ve tried in the past but this time, I’ll use the software’s ignore function to block you out completely.

Classical syllogism. Tallies with experience of Sam and (understanding of) art.

And I didn't say you said Duchamp didn't know what he was doing. I talked about exactly what you said, that what he thought didn't matter. The trouble is you prefaced that by saying, "Duchamp really did capture the central concept: Art is the idea coupled with sensibility." According to you, the central concept of art is the idea coupled with sensibility and, according to you, Duchamp captured that. It's hard to imagine how his own thoughts on that matter wouldn't be relevant. If art is the idea coupled with sensibility (which I believe art can be but is not limited to), then how can the ideas Duchamp is putting forth which accompany his coupling them with sensibility not matter?

 

I think it's somewhat treacherous to assume that ideas are the single mechanism through which or by which art is generated. Limit a definition by talking only of ideas (and bringing those ideas to sensibility) and you exclude a lot of key elements that can be* part of the process of art, such as emotion, accident, surprise, instinct, creativity, ambiguity, passion, and inspiration.

 

*can be, not are

 

Why do you need such a concise definition? It will always fail you.

Looks like you, Sam, are the one holding 'narrow views'. What an exclusive understanding of "ideas" you display!

And we haven't had opportunity to enter into a dialogue about what art is in "Duchamp is anti-art" and what that means about the art of Duchamp. Something i think you also do not grasp yet.

"That art revolutions get "bought" by the public is often the result of the revolution, otherwise the revolution would fail. One art revolution doesn't save the world. It just does its job until the next revolution comes along."

Its not that the revolutions get "bought" by the public, its that mass culture which is not necessarily conscious or controlled, trivializes the meaning then incorporates them as a product, a commodity with basically no meaning attached. Sort of a collective unconscious defense mechanism.

But I have to say your other points make sense :) I suppose we'd still be living in caves if it was otherwise.

I think the world would become a better place if some people would stop believing that art is something esoteric, something exalted, something that inhabits a world of its own way above the mundane world we live in. Sam is a proponent of that transcedental art , that defies all definition (and hence does not understand that Duchamp's work, Duchamp's contribution to the dialogue, was directed towards him). Art does not occupy a privileged or otherwise special place in all of what we humans get up to. It's just another one of those things. And that also means there is no special sort of gap between art and the public. Just as little as there is between, say, house cleaning and the public. Art (nor artists) is not some higher order leadership towards something above our world.

Art is a conversation. That dialogue Sam stumbled upon (though not necessarily as Sam understands it). What is exchanged is (as mentioned above) not of a special, higher, order.What sets it apart from other discourse is the form. And that's the only thing that sets it apart as something a bit hermetic: you have to learn and know the language that is allowed by the particular form used. And to get it, to understand art, you have to be up to speed with what is going on. No different, that, from being able to join in the bar talk about the latest episode of a popular television sitcom.

So why art? Because it was and is a way to convey things that are perhaps more difficult to convey using a different form of expression (that age old "a picture tells a thousand words". It began with recreations of that which is not immediately present. Just like we still use photos to show how cute your latest grandchild is, etc.) No more than that.

Art (as in: the collection of such utterances) is full of stuff we need not be 'told' yet again. Irrelevant. And full of stuff that has been 'told' very badly. And some art did forget to 'tell' anything at all, focuses on form exclusively.

A lot of it is hyped, made into something more special than it is. And "special" then usually is expressed in dollars.

Can art convey 'the sublime', provide a hint of something of 'a higher order', etc.? Sure. Sometimes better or more direct than, say, an essay written on the same subject. But that is neither exclusive nor an essential quality of art.

I didn't say that he didn't know what he was doing. I said, or meant to say, that it didn't matter what he thought. Obviously he knew he was making a statement. But he did in fact create something that is with us today. Did he know that statement would be immortalized as "fine art"? Maybe not.

It (Duchamp's work) is art. Not fine art.

It (Duchamp's work) is art. Not fine art.

If you say so.

OMG, now citing Herbert Marcuse.

Not hard to figure out why I did not finish my sociology dissertation.

One Dimensional Man. Apropos...

Carry on, and kudos to Q.E.D., err, I mean Q.G.D. Hitting the nail on the head many times...

Still trying to figure out what in the hell all this fluffy filosophie has to to with a contemporary photographer modifying another work to his or her or them (whatever pronoun you want) personal vision.

Reminds me of algae on a pond... :rolleyes:

OMG, now citing Herbert Marcuse.

 

Not hard to figure out why I did not finish my sociology dissertation.

 

One Dimensional Man. Apropos...

 

Carry on, and kudos to Q.E.D., err, I mean Q.G.D. Hitting the nail on the head many times...

 

Still trying to figure out what in the hell all this fluffy filosophie has to to with a contemporary photographer modifying another work to his or her or them (whatever pronoun you want) personal vision.

 

Reminds me of algae on a pond... :rolleyes:

Noyce.

"Art does not occupy a privileged or otherwise special place in all of what we humans get up to. It's just another one" q.g

Well, it does. It takes human expression/ imagination, to another place, beyond the mundane of existence.

"So why art? Because it was and is a way to convey things that are perhaps more difficult to convey using a different form of expression"q.c

You contradict yourself.

Read your own thoughts.

You are a essay in banality without rhyme or reason.