Art.......

[Norma Desmond]

I also think it's a mistake to keep talking about art's "evoking" of emotion. That is limiting it

to the side of the viewer. The artist "expresses" emotion. What gets expressed by the artist

through symbolic and significant means results in an evocation in the viewer. There is a

dynamic that's important. As an artist or photographer, you are expressing. The evoking is a

related but different matter. Too much concern with what you're evoking could hamper the

expression.

[charlesheckel]

My philosophy of aesthetics class was a mort of years ago, but I'll take a swing at this.<p>Art is not history, business, or economics, so museum pieces and high-priced objects are not in and of themselves art. We don't call any naturally occurring <u>unselected</u> object art, so there is no art without an artist, as there is no artifice without an artificer. Contrariwise, art does not require an audience or viewer--an artwork locked in an attic for a century is still art, though it is not experienced and engenders no responses (Sorry, Rachel!). Art can be good art or bad art, so merit is not part of the definition, either (kitschy-koo!). Artists often have special training, but we accept folk artists and primitive artists as just that--artists--and we seem to have a difficult time distinguishing the works produced by chimpanzees and elephants from the works produced by human artists fondly referred to as mature. We don't seem to require any manipulation as part of the artwork--found objects can be juxtaposed or simply selected. We don't require physical objects, either, as we accept musical, dramatic, and dance performances as kinds of art, and "performance art" that establishes transient actions as artworks.<p>Thus by a process of elimination, we infer that, number one, art is a work or performance identified by an artist as art, and number two, an artist is someone who identifies one or more works or performances as art. Q.E.D.<p>If anyone is dissatisfied with the definition above and charges that I am not taking the subject seriously, I reply blandly, "Is art?"

[AJHingel]

Fred I understand what you want to express by the twitched sentence "art is what it is not"

but this, in my mind, tells you only about reactions to any art concept. It still does not

define what art is, before it is not (sic!).

 

I believe that the whole question is a cul-de-sac for us here on Photonet. It does not help

us better to understand the difference between good photos and very, very good photos. I

believe that we will never reach an understanding of why a specific photo becomes

something that the art establishment points at and declares as ART. The interesting thing

is that such photos might get, if they passed by here, their ordinary dose of 3/3s without

comments and end up outside the shiny "top photos".

[iliafarniev]

Hi. Ability to generate emotion is not a token of art. Humans are permanently multiemotional all the time and the flow of emotions is permanently affected both from outside and inside.

 

The phenomena of art, seen from true artists and true consumers point of view is all apparent and does not need any deffinition.

 

The art is not the only undefined basic categoria in our world. In much better chartered watters of phisics for example, we live comfortably without universal deffinitions of time, mass or energy.

 

The term art is not definitive and in rational speach can only be used as loosely descriptive. It does not prevent us from building usefull theoies and practics utilizing it as actual factor.

 

Art is very simple thing actually.

[Norma Desmond]

Anders, I think we are very much on the same wavelength. I was trying to move the

discussion with Rachel toward making better photos by distinguishing between expressing

and evoking. I think my photos are better when I am true to expressing myself and not overly

concerned with what I evoke.

 

I may get in trouble for this next part, but it wouldn't be the first time. I think more photos

on PN are about representing something seen or presenting something seen than they are

about expressing something.

[iliafarniev]

I just came to think that we all are seating writing sort of like each knows a thing or two about the art and stuff and clever too.

 

Is here anybody who can stand up and say loud: "Yes, I am an acting, full blown artist and the art I do is.." ??

 

Might be interesting to hear form a practitioner, wouldn't it?

[iliafarniev]

Come on up, Fred. Tell us damn thing..

[Norma Desmond]

I consider that I am beginning to make art, yes. I have not yet had any public showings and

have never sold a photograph.

 

I'm afraid a lot of "practitioners" wouldn't impress me just because they were "practitioners,"

either as artists or as definers of terms.

 

I'm not sure an artist would be any better at defining art than a philosopher, psychologist or

layman. Just like I don't think a plumber would be better able to define art than a lexicologist.

[Norma Desmond]

I meant: Just like I don't think a plumber would be better able to define PLUMBING than a

lexicologist.

[iliafarniev]

Hiding still, forget plumber, tell us how YOU DO ART.

[Norma Desmond]

First tell me why you are being so accusatory, so I know what I'm up against.

[iliafarniev]

All right. I will help. Now we are not talking definition. We are talking matter of art. The MATTER, Fred.

[iliafarniev]

I am not acusatory at all and there is nothing up against. It is all good and kind ment. May sounds a little provocative and more dynamic then some are used to. Spring straight forward, have no fear. What's Art, now?

[Norma Desmond]

Actually, Ilia, I invite you to head over to my portfolio. It's got examples (my photos) and

many comments, many of which are my own. Most of what's on view are

fairly recent images. I have said a lot in response to various comments from a lot of people

about how, conceptually, I go about creating my images and have included a few opening

artist's

statements on my work. It would be hard to distill it down here into a couple of

paragraphs,

to be honest. Perhaps you will find some issues worth discussing. There are many topics

I'd like to discuss in depth. I'm not sure what more you would want right here. That's

how I've been using PN. To show and talk about creating photographs. It's in my work and

in many of

my dialogues.

[iliafarniev]

There is one big chase. I keep the door open..

[Norma Desmond]

What I can say is that I bellieve I am starting to find and assert a voice, that comes from and

appears to me as I look at my photos. I also believe there to be an intentionality to my work. I

think those are two important aspects of art. Judging from my own feelings and some of the

resonses of others, there are some meaningful accidents that happen, which seems to be

something happening in most art. There's a beginning.

[Norma Desmond]

"There is one big chase."

 

That's exactly what it feels like! LOL

[iliafarniev]

Chance, i mean. Right now i am not interested in discurssions. I want you to recognise your self as THE ARTIST, better immidiatelly.

[Norma Desmond]

I already have.

[rachelfoster]

Yes, Fred creates art, no question.

 

But, Fred, what makes your work art? Dismissing EVOKING emotion (I'm not going to give you expressing but I'll come back to that)as trivial I think misses the point.

 

That's perhaps the main value of art. I say (opinion, not based on data) that the reason art has existed throughout humankind's history is that it is adaptive. How? Well, we as humans naturally try to avoid painful things. So, we "push away" painful emotion. However, those unresolved, unprocessed emotions are a drain on us psychologically and over time can wreak havoc on our adjustment and general well being. So, this is where art comes into play. If it EVOKES emotion (sorry Fred, couldn't resist) it helps us to face/forces us to process those emotions we've tried to sidestep. Once processed and perhaps even a little resolved, we can go on without the immense weight of that useless baggage. In other words, I see art as a sort of environmental shrink. It helps us process feelings.

 

So . . . .

 

I'll see what responses there are to this and then say more.

[iliafarniev]

Plumbing, eh? Ain't much of pioneering, I guess. Well, enough for today.. Best regards.

[Norma Desmond]

I think the evoking of emotion is trivial because so many other human endeavors evoke

emotion. I can't think of any that don't. So, "evocation of emotion" doesn't say anything

informative about art specifically.

 

What you are talking about just above is catharsis, which is a different matter than simply

evoking emotion. And I think there's a great deal in what you have to say. It's profound

and important. It was Aristotle's whole point, in the Poetics, about art, still studied today

by philosophers, artists, writers. But catharsis is more akin to symbolism and significance

in that what results from seeing something tragic is not a tragedy (according to Aristotle

and to me), it transcends tragedy and therefore, at least for Aristotle, positively effects the

human spirit.

 

I'd probably quibble with the "positively" part of it because I think good art can be a

downer and that's ok. But I think the main point of talking about emotions as you now are

and catharsis in general and Aristotle in particular as that it's not about the specific

emotions but about what art DOES with those emotions.

[rachelfoster]

Don't know if I can agree to that, Fred. Catharsis is more of a watershed sort of thing, to my mind, and processing can occur bit by bit, no?

 

True that many things evoke emotion, so perhaps we should say significant or important emotions? I'd even allow emotion connected to certain events/situations. Hmmmmm...

[Norma Desmond]

I don't think the suddenness commonly associated with catharsis was intended by Aristotle

but the rest of it was, and you make a good point, it can occur bit by bit.

 

No I don't think it's about the kind or quality of the emotions. What is of significance is not

the emotions but what's in the art that evokes them. By means of significance (and symbols),

art evokes emotions. I think the artist tends to be more involved with things of significance in

his work than with what emotions get evoked.

[rachelfoster]

Not sure I follow the last sentence.

 

Anyway, I'm willing to stipulate emotions are necessary but not sufficient. What else is necessary?