Art for Art, or Art for Exhibition ?

[amirali]

It's been a long time since I have this question in my mind : Art for Art or Art

for Exhibition ?

 

I think art is a very personal thing and as a matter of fact pop arts cannot be

considered a good art, for every person have his or hers own interests in art,

and since art is very related to one's personality and spirit, it is very

personal. so when we want to produce a pop art we have to cut many parts of it

in order to have something which fits to a lot of people's interests.

 

Also there is another issue here which is what we consider art ? if we consider

art as personal, every thing you made, every painting you draw, every photo you

take which make you feel something could be considered as art. and I think thats

why many people do artistic activities. and I think it has a very tight

relationship with enjoying your work. at least I can enjoy taking photos, when I

forget everything and just trying to evolve, or slide in the time. but whenever

I became strict about taking a good photo, I can no longer enjoy photography

even if I take the best photo I have ever took, and thats when I am thinking of

taking a photo for exhibiting in public or a website or . . .

 

I know there are a lot of rules which we can use or must use to have a good

photo for example , but those rules are (like composition rules) just the

experiences of the people who dedicated their lives to art, and after a long

period of time they develop a great aesthetic view of everything and this rules

are the results of their life's experience. so we can easily break the rules

when we mastered using them and when we develop a good artistic view which is

only gained by practicing during a very long period.

 

In Conclusion, I have to say, everything in art is personal, even the rules. and

we can break the rules when we gained that view. therefor, when we try to create

an art for exhibition, or viewing, or gaining applaud, we are trying to make it

very average. as an example , we can compare the number of Mozart's fans with

Britney Spears fans ! and we can easily see how things are in real life. but Top

arts are always long lasting in the time but low and pop arts are easily forgotten.

[beeman458]

Not sure the point of your post. Is it a question, or an artist's statement?

[amirali]

I said the question at the begining and the rest is my own answer , and I want to see other peoples answer. or you can consider this as an article ;)

[Norma Desmond]

I think the difference is between communicating and pandering. Good art often

communicates. While great art may come from within and be personal, most great artists

understand that they are working with a language and that others will be affected by their

work. Knowing one's audience and the history of one's art or craft, being aware of what will

reach a viewer or listener can be consistent with very personal approaches. Art for art and art

for exhibition aren't mutually exclusive. Mozart was quite popular in his day. Britney Spears

has nothing to

do with art, pop or otherwise. The comparison is one of apples and wax fruit.

[beeman458]

"I said the question at the begining and the rest is my own answer..."

 

Then, no disrespect intended, it's a rhetorical question as you answered your own question.

 

In the simple, the creator of the image has to decide what they're about and then go for it.

 

An aside, Britney is Pop Art, of popular commercial appeal. As she slides from social graces for what ever reasons, so goes her popularity; commercial appeal. There really isn't any difference between Mozart, who liked to entertain the masses (and the royals) and Britney who also, in the beginning, liked to entertain the masses, (before she became a "f'ng celebrity"} and the royals of the Hollywood entertainment society; commercial success.

 

One makes a decision and goes with it.

[Norma Desmond]

Some definitions which may help this discussion along.

<p><p>

From the style book on my bookshelf: <br>

<i>The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other

than

to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely

to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine

request to know. Similarly, when someone responds to a tragic event by saying, "Why me,

God?!" it is more likely to be an accusation or an expression of feeling than a realistic

request for information.</i>

<p><p>

The OP's question was not rhetorical. Giving your opinion on a question you ask does not

make your question rhetorical. It means you are soliciting answers from others, but first

giving your own.

<p><p>

From Wickipedia:<br>

<i>Pop art is a visual artistic movement that emerged in the mid 1950s in Britain and in

parallel in the late 1950s in the United States. The term was used by British art critic/

curator, Lawrence Alloway. Pop art is one of the major art movements of the twentieth

century. Characterized by themes and techniques drawn from popular mass culture, such

as advertising and comic books, pop art is widely interpreted as either a reaction to the

then-dominant ideas of abstract expressionism or an expansion upon them. Pop art, like

pop music, aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art,

emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture. Pop art at times targeted

a broad audience, and often claimed to do so.

Much of pop art is considered very academic, as the unconventional organizational

practices used often make it difficult for some to comprehend. Pop art and minimalism are

considered to be the last modern art movements and thus the precursors to postmodern

art, or some of the earliest examples of postmodern art themselves.</i>

<p><p>

Neither Brittany Spears nor Mozart has anything to do with pop art.

<p><p>

<i>"There really isn't any difference between Mozart . . . and Britney"</i> is a statement I

will leave to stand on its own.

[Norma Desmond]

Amir--

 

Thanks for raising an interesting question. I hope the original response I gave suggested

some things worth thinking about. Are those thoughts germaine to your question?

[ted_fisher]

Hello Amir,

 

While I think creating work for personal reasons and personal pursuits is great, I'm not

sure it fits the definition of Art.

 

That is, the traditional model for Art is a triangle: artist-work-audience. If one reduces

that to just artist-work by avoiding an audience, then one may be doing something

wonderful -- but it's not the practice of "Art." (It could be something great for personal

development, personal growth or the development of skills one might later apply to art.

But without an audience, one is creating in a vacuum -- nothing "happens" to the images

that are made, as no one is allowed to participate.)

 

I disagree, also, with your implication that "art for exhibition" is somehow leading to the

creation of debased art. While the most intriguing art of any time is often not as popular

as more mainstream work, we do live in a time where there is an interested and intelligent

audience awaiting your work. There are fantastic galleries that would be happy to show the

most cutting edge, forward-thinking work you can imagine.

 

Of course, more people will go to a Britney Spears concert than a show of new

photography. But that's fine -- in part, because exhibited art can return and be

reconsidered over time. Pieces that show in a local gallery in one decade may end up in a

museum the next -- and, since the cultural context may shift, they may be seen in a new

way *even if the artist is no longer alive.*

 

And that's the reason "Art for Exhibition" is a real practice, and "Art for Art" is an imaginary

one. There are many artists who create things they cannot get shown -- and others who

are really about the process of creating the work more than showing it. But all visual arts

-- even conceptual art, where we might entirely de-emphasize any object -- implies a

connection to an audience.

 

When you say "Art for Art," do you mean you are making images and not showing anyone?

That's fine -- and an interesting process. But if you are thinking that all work that is

shown is somehow "corrupt" because it is shown, I would suggest doing more research

into the field. Photography has its Popular stars that appeal to the masses and are often

not well regarded by those who know a lot about the field. But there are plenty of great

artists who do show, who present a personal and individual approach, and who actually

make things that others can see and connect with.

 

And that's what the practice of Art is, isn't it?

[beeman458]

"The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks."

 

When one answers their own question, in detail, it becomes rhetoric as the follow-up to the question becomes the thesis and the question, is nothing more (trivializes) than an intro.

 

"Neither Brittany Spears nor Mozart has anything to do with pop art."

 

Nor did I say they did.

 

Pop is nothing more than short for popular. Mozart was popular in his time and Brittany is popular in her time, therefore, she "is" Pop.

 

"...is a statement I will leave to stand on its own."

 

Do you now? :) Most, due to taught bias', are incapable of understanding the brevity of the comment. I won't act surprised at a most predictable of response. :) In the simple, some entertainers are more aggrandized then others cause it serves the aggrandizer's purposes, making them feel better than others; arrogance/ego.

 

I wonder who's more popular among the young, then and now, Brittney or Mozart and I wonder who's pulling down more dough, concert for concert, inflation adjusted; Mozart or Brittney? Brittney ain't hurting for money. Shall we delve into Mozart's finances?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

 

"He earned about 50,000 florins per year,[35] equivalent to at least 142,000 US dollars in 2006, which places him within the top 1% of late 18th century wage earners,[35] but he could not manage his wealth."

 

Today, 2007, one wouldn't qualify for a median priced Silicon Valley home ($805k USD) with that sort of income let alone a Malibu home. The point, entertainment is a money making business which depends upon appeal, not intelligence. :) Intelligence aside, they are, first and foremost, entertainers, unless one chooses to aggrandize. :)

[amirali]

Thank your all for your answers,

 

I was thinking of literally Pop Art not that legendary 20s pop art which was the last movement of modernism.

 

And I do not agree whit hiding our works , what I just said was , We must not take photos in order to be successful in a exhibition, we must take photos for ourselves, and if we develop the knowledge of art, and experience in ourselves, the photos we take will do good either . what I am saying is just about our goal in photography or any other art. I say we must not aim at the market or at getting better ratings or . . . . we must develop our knowledge and do what we think is right, and after a period of time an seeing a lot of good work, and practicing, we can finally understand an art !! but NO HIDING.

[amirali]

Dear Thomas and Fred

 

I did not want to compare Mozart in person with Britney in person ! I just wanted to compare classical music with pop music, and as I am thinking about this, I see that classical music was for exhibition just as pop music. but I am still on my words and I say with no hiding, we should not create art just for exhibition.

[pnital]

There is or was a long debate in the artistic world, to whom the art is created ? "art for art, or art for the people" means is art created for itself or created for exhibiting as a way of communication? I was in that debates before. Well first it is created for itself, meaning that the artist creates because he has the need to express his inside world, he works for a period of time, and than he will want to exhibite it to the people( public), as a way of communication.

 

I think that there are many forms of art or expressions. Britany is one kind of expression, Mozart is another. There will be audience for bot of them, as people have different tastes. Some will enjoy the entertainment, and some will look for a deeper interest or an intellectual stimulation.

[Norma Desmond]

<i>"Most, due to taught bias', are incapable of understanding the brevity of the comment. I

won't act surprised at a most predictable of response. . . . arrogance/ego."</i>

<p><p>

Arrogance/ego. Yes, I see.

[beeman458]

Just to clean up any possible misunderstanding on my choice of words.

 

Most of what we think, do and say is based upon what we've been taught, going back to our first choice of words, in what ever language, we're brought up with; "ma ma" or "da da." From there the race for taught superiority (bias) is on.

 

We're taught that intellectualism is superiority and yet unacknowledged, depend upon the uneducated masses for our daily survival (trash pickup and sewage disposal) which is what I based my comment on in regard to arrogance and ego. Let the intelligentsia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia

 

shovel their own and see how fast they become willing to change their wage structure. Where my comment came up short, it wasn't intended as a personal attack and my apologies for it coming across as such as that wasn't it's intent.

 

When one hears of the likes of Mozart or that of other past musical "greats," we've been taught that these are the epitome of musical superiority. Hero worship. What we're not taught is that these were nothing more than gifted contemporary musical entertainers of their time, no better and no worst than that of any other time. Today it could be a blues creator such as Thelonious Monk or a pop icon such as Marilyn Monroe (marketing), Elvis, Beatles, Stones or Elton John.

 

Due to taught thinking, generally, intellectual society is "taught" (bias) to look down on the likes of Britney Spears, ego, (choose pop icon of one's choice) and worship at the alter of cultural icons; arrogance. So I expect one to hold Mozart and Co. in higher esteem than that of Britney, even though they equally share the same gifted and talented stage; entertainment of the masses, during their contemporary times. One has to admit (unwillingly or otherwise) that Britney can bust a move (last presentation excepted) and sing a tune, far superior to that of Mozart or Beethoven. :)

 

A thought, how often do you find yourself grooving to the sound of a bubble-gum tune (as a simplistic example), a bit embarrassed for others to know that you occasionally like this sort of "intellectually inferior sound." "You like that!?" :) Nobody is immune to this sort of societal condemnation of our guilty pleasures. :)

 

I hope the above helps clarify any offense I might have created.

[mike dixon]

<i> Due to taught thinking, generally, intellectual society is "taught" (bias) to look down on the likes of Britney Spears, ego, (choose pop icon of one's choice) and worship at the alter of cultural icons; arrogance. . . .</i><P>

I don't think you know the first thing about what "intellectual society" is, how varied the educational backgrounds of its "members" are, or what they do or don't worship. In my experience, highly-educated people have a huge range of beliefs and interests. Any disdain they have for Britney Spears' sort of manufactured pop comes not from having anyone teach them what they should like, but from exploring and experiencing many other kinds of (more-original, more-interesting, and more-emotive) types of music, ranging from rap to ska to bluegrass to hardcore to jazz to zydeco to blues (to name a few).<P>

Your "insights" reveal far more about your own ill-informed biases than they do about society.

[beeman458]

Gee Mike, how do you really feel? LOL :)

[beeman458]

Thanks for the morning laugh. :)

[mike dixon]

What was that you were saying about arrogance?

[beeman458]

"What was that you were saying about arrogance?"

 

Wishing you well with your fishing (trolling) expedition Mike. :)

[._._z]

How intellectual, Thomas.

[Norma Desmond]

Thomas--

 

I am able to recognize some similarities in the contexts in which popular artists and

entertainers become popular.

 

I am also able to recognize that popularity does not equalize talent or depth.

 

That Elton John wrote many, many songs (some of which I hum from time to

time), created many, many albums (which I still have in my collection), and has throngs of

adoring

fans will never make him as talented, as culturally significant, or as "good" as the Beatles.

That is, of course, an opinion, but one I am capable of having and arguing despite the fact

that both Elton and John/Paul/George/Ringo are both

popular entities.

 

The cultural phenomenon that leads to the rise of "stars" is a different matter than artistic

substance or significance. That there is cultural and/or educational bias in EVERYTHING,

not just in

determining who past greats were, is an astute (and very intellectual) observation. But to

allow the factor of "bias" not to allow judgments which require degrees and a bit of fine

shading, to see the world of art/entertainment or for that matter the world of morality or

politics or education or intellectualism as black and white instead of levels of gray is to

miss an awful lot.

 

It really does get back to the OPs original and important question. That an artist can gear

his/her work to an audience or an exhibition and also be true to him/herself, allowing a

deeply personal message to emerge are not mutually exclusive possibilities. Not all artists

or entertainers who accomplish this do it with the same degree of effect. Not all artist who

achieve mass appeal are equally talented or equally moving.

 

For me, it's a matter of knowing that context greatly affects substance but they are still

distinguishable.

[beeman458]

"...and has throngs of adoring fans will never make him as talented, as culturally significant, or as "good" as the Beatles."

 

And by who's standard (bias) is this pronouncement made? :) One must remember that Elton John was but a single person as opposed to the collective nature of the Fab Four. How singularly, do each of The Beatles, stack up against the singular talents of Elton John, one at a time as opposed to when their collective efforts rat packs him?

 

The smiley face is because you interject B&W characterization and yet miss the gray of my comments.

 

"Not all artist who achieve mass appeal are equally talented or equally moving."

 

That's sorta like asking the guy's question, Ginger or Genie? :)

 

"Not all artist who achieve mass appeal are equally talented or equally moving."

 

Mozart or Loretta Lynn? Who spoke to whom more and who are you willing to declare the talented Vs not so talented one? :)

 

A snippet in regards to Loretta and the weight she had to bear up under.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Miner's_Daughter

 

One of eight children born to Ted Webb (Levon Helm), a coal miner raising a family despite grinding poverty in Butcher Hollow, KY, Loretta married Doolittle "Mooney" Lynn (Tommy Lee Jones) when she was only 13 years old.

 

Let's see about the gifted and talented Mozart.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

 

"Mozart's father Leopold Mozart (1719?1787) was one of Europe's leading musical teachers.

 

How would Mozart have done if born under the same conditions as Loretta? Hmmmmmm. :)

 

The above are examples of my complicated, mixed up B&W by which I create my unnoticed gray.

 

"For me, it's a matter of knowing that context greatly affects substance but they are still distinguishable."

 

Now the conversation digresses into the question of who's cultural context; more shades of gray. :)

 

Thoughts. Answers will expectedly be guided by taught bias'.

 

Is Jack Kerouac's substance superior to that of Charles Schultz. And in the same vein, is Diane Arbus' substance superior to that of Galen and Barbara Rowell?

 

A thought....

 

I saw a man on the TV the other day, begging for a cup of electricity. So I sent him a light switch. What did he do with this light switch? He built another manufacturing plant. ;)

[Norma Desmond]

We've covered the topic adequately.

 

Yes, opinion and pronouncement are diffferent.

 

That's

why I followed the first quote you selected and responded to with "That is, of course,

an opinion." The fact that you chose not to acknowledge that qualification in your

response (and instead only quoted me in part and then suggested I was making a more

objective pronouncement) reeks of intellectual dishonesty at worst and an intent to flame

and thereby derail the discussion at best.

 

That you are now changing the dynamic,

suggesting that the comparison was between the four Beatles individually instead of the

Beatles as a group and Elton John is another trick I won't fall for.

 

Thanks for

a stimulating dialogue.

[beeman458]

"That's why I followed the first quote you selected and responded to with "That is, of course, an opinion." The fact that you chose not to acknowledge that qualification in your response (and instead only quoted me in part and then suggested I was making a more objective pronouncement) reeks of intellectual dishonesty at worst and an intent to flame and thereby derail the discussion at best."

 

Not at all as I was working with the conversation. You're getting upset because I didn't follow your unstated rules of engagement. Not my intent, just having a conversation here.

 

"That you are now changing the dynamic, suggesting that the comparison was between the four Beatles individually instead of the Beatles as a group and Elton John is another trick I won't fall for."

 

It was your suggestion to compare to the collection of the Fab Four to the singularity of Elton John as I was only listing talented acts that we're all familiar with, not attempting to single anyone group or individual out.

 

Thanks for a stimulating dialogue.

 

Siiiiigh! As I can only wish that you hadn't ended it with discourse. Wishing you a well day.

[pakivotis]

If one is an idealist (in the philosophical sense) then the work of Art does not exist until it is

exhibited. Suppose that you just finished a fine work of Art. Your next move is to store and

never show it. This is Art for Art i.e. Art for nothing.