What good is art without intention?

I have a simple philosophical question, and I am interested in hearing

people's opinions. I was actually going to substitute the word

"meaning" for "intention", but I think that makes the question too

broad.

<p>

<ol>

<li>Do you think art should be made with a purpose; to edify,

document, entertain, etc.

<li>If so, how would you feel if you could not distinguish an artwork

with intent from one without; e.g. you mistook a computer generated

landscape for a real photograph?

<li>If not, then how do you create such artworks; purely by intuition?

Does it not follow that a random creation can be an artwork? Would you

invest time to comtemplate this artwork, when you could be investing

your time on something with an intent?

</ol>

...and when I say "computer generated", I do not mean "computer assisted", but really "generated by a heuristic algorithm with minimal human intervention".

i create things that my mind leads me to. the intent to create, makes art, not the specifics of the intent.

A shorter question is: Must art communicate? timber borcherding timberborcherding

Art exists for art's sake. Why does it have to have a purpose? How about just for fun?

 

As far as #2 goes, why would this matter - ART IS ART. You didn't specify only photography until now. Smells like that "purity" argument to me.

 

And of course ANY random thing can be art. It goes back to eye of the beholder.

 

Seems to me all you're trying to do is deinf what is art - something that no one in history has been properly able to do.

Art imitates life.

Art can be "found".

1. No. Art should be made when the artist wants, sometimes with the only purpose to express himself. Buy I think this is not one of the purposes you were considering.

 

2.I wouldn't care that much. I would try to identify the technique and think if it pleases me, or not.

 

3. "...purely by intuition?" Sometimes with a previous background and experience with certain kinds of art, you will have the technique to do so. So technique + intuition. And random creations are done very constantly, and of course are artworks and are appreciated.

 

So, artwork doesn't need to have a specific purpouse other than to express the artists feelings. Some random artworks are beautiful without a purpouse at all.

Allow me to me steer the discussion based on the responses...

<p>

I deliberately did not specify photography, for I am an artist; not a photographer. Among the art forms I know, I will pick the one suited to my intentions (I tried to avoid using the word, but what can I do!) As I am typing this, I realize that I consider the goal before I choose my tools. I may not end up where I initially decided, nevertheless I do not walk randomly.

<p>

Can one become a great artist--hope to create art of lasting interesting--without direction? Does it make sense to devote your time and energy on an artwork if the only outcome is that you may have fun creating it? What if that artwork takes a significant share of your lifetime? If one were immortal, it would not matter, but since this is not the case...

Art can't be 'found'. Beauty can be 'found' but that doesn't make it art. The artist can take the grotesque and make it 'art' and it is in the act of creation that difference between the 'art' and 'discovery'. If there is no creation then there is no art.

"I have nothing to say, and I am saying it." - John Cage

Art does not exist without intent and purpose. Whether a landscape, or any other subject is computer generated, a traditional photograph or a painting is of no importance, it is the intent and purpose of the artist and the artwork that is key.<p><a href=http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a>

Art is whatever I say is art, art is whatever you say is art, art is whatever he, she or it says is art.

 

Wondering too much about it will lead to failing eyesight...

Well, first off, I don't think there is such a thing as a "simple" philosophical question -- or at least no simple answer. If there was, it wouldn't really be philosophical, I think :)

 

So then, in some sort of order:

1) Should art be made with a purpose?

 

I think all art has a purpose, whether its conscious or not. It may be to express a specific sentiment or it may just to be a conduit for some percieved beauty. My photography, if it can be called art, tends to be the latter. I mostly focus on nature photography, where the point is simple: show beauty. When I see something I percieve to be beautiful in the woods, I want to be able to capture it on film (well, bits) and make it permanent, so I can see it again and share it with others -- and hopefully pass on that perception of beauty with it.

 

The simple act of picking up a camera, or a brush, or whatever -- that is intent. It may not be seen as intent by the person doing it, but there it is. The mere act of intermediating nature (or whatever your subject of choice is) gives it a purpose, whether its purely an excercise in using the tools, or to document, or to edify, or whatever.

 

After answering 1), I'm not sure 2) really has an answer, but I will say this: A completely computer generated landscape is still intentional artwork. The artist (in this case the programmer -- believe me, software _is_ an art form) has an intent, even if it's just to test out some slick new algorithms.

 

I think the answer I'm coming up with (slowly :) is that any time you express a vision through some form of intermediation (camera, paintbrush, or CPU), you have an intent. Trying to infuse it with a Message is another layer on top of it -- it's artwork either way, but it may not have been assigned a specific meaning by the artist. Bob Dylan generally infuses his work with specific meaning, but Aphex Twin doesn't generally seem to -- but both Bobby Zimmerman and Richard D. James are musical artists.

Photojournalists "find" their art. Cartier Bressan walks and "finds" art in the juxtaposition of people and the architecture around him. I believe his "intent" is to open his subconscious to the "symbols" and order around him. He then xeroxes the moment with his Leica. Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

What is "key" is that the artwork convey or communicate. That communication may use "public symbols" which communicate to many. Or, it may use "personally representative" symbols which only a psychotic person reacts to. There must be at least one personwho can "get it". If what the psychotic person "got" is different than what you and I "got", then it is still art. Art is not a classification. Art is not an intellectualism. Art is an experience. The intent of the person is not important.

If there are no life to feel the heat of our Sun, is the Sun still "hot"? The whole of the "intent" issue here is to make the creator of the "artwork" here an "artist". This is a trophy pass and a handshake. True, many pro artists in advertising have the intent to communicate a message or experience, but this is control. They are artists. Amteurs often do not have the experience with symbols of the art world to be "produces". Yet, they still want to be called "artists". The argument here of "intent" is for amateur craftsmem. When "control" or "intent" happens for them, they get "raised up" a notch to "artist".

Art is not a recreation, is more than representation and has nothing to do with decoration. But this is just the opinion of a self opinionated bastard and artist and is the easy bit, the what it is not bit. Who am I to argue if someone thinks that representation, beauty and decoration is enough? There are more definitions of art than there are artists. Each to his own.

No object becomes recognised as art unless someone presents it as art. If someone

finds a piece of trash and they call it art, it is they who transform it from trash to art.

 

Art doesn't need to be made for a specific purpose to be considered art. Art is quite

often divorced from the intentions and efforts of its creator. Someone creates

something along a certain line of thought and presents it to an audience who has no

connection to this line of though.

 

A random creation can be considered art but it is the person who selects the item as

art that converts the item from a typical object into art. People might show computers

that generated an image, but who selected the image? Who programmed the

computer? All intent comes from humans.

 

Everyone's method of arriving at a piece of art is different. That doesn't mean that its

purely intention that creates art, its just different for everyone.

 

I think you need to read up on Marcel Duchamp.

I think there's too much damn angst around here again . . .

<i>"True, many pro artists in advertising have the intent to communicate a message or experience, but this is control. They are artists".</i><p>As an aside, having worked in advertising as an "artist" for more years than I care to remember, I would not describe any of the "artwork" I produced or any of my peers "artwork" as art. Art and advertising do not mix well.

"for I am an artist; not a photographer"

 

 

what in the hell is this supposed to mean?!

 

I , for one, consider myself an artist who happens to be a photographer.

i think the separation between artists and photographers has to do with their

functions in society.

 

many photographers are not artists. i think this is what the artsy photographers want

to separate themselves from.

Emre

 

Well done for getting this thread into the Archived Forum. I and several others have started threads which have included the dreaded "A Word" and yet more often than not they have been shunted into the general sidings.

 

Perhaps the icon is more than just a symbol after all!

I don't think that humans create anything without 'intention' whether that is highly personal and not inuitively obvious to another person or not.

 

What you suggest is that 'creation' of art happens randonmly... nothing via human behavior is 'random' in that sense...

 

There is an oft quoted saying that goes something like "give a 1000 monkeys typewriters, eventually one of them will type Hamlet" which tries to make the point that given enough oportunity anyone can create something of beauty and long lasting worth... This notion was recently tested in a study in whic typewriters were put in the habitats of some chimps... the results? One of the researchers commented to the effect of "Well, the lead ape banged the hell out of the typewriter with some rocks and sticks... And they were really interested in defecating and urinating on the keyboards"...

 

There's the difference between humans and those lower hominids even though they are very closely related to humans at a genetic level.