Content Verses Technique

[Norma Desmond]

Mike--

 

It's a little hard to assess Marla Olmstead's situation in light of the fact that there seems to

be controversy over whether she, in fact, is responsible for the work claimed to be hers.

 

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

 

But let's assume the work is, in fact, her own.

 

As for child prodigies, Mozart probably being the most famous, they are an anomaly.

Interestingly, both Olmstead and Mozart had artistic parents (although less recognized

and accomplished than their children). That suggests something unique that each of them

shared: intimate exposure to their respective arts from birth.

 

I'm not sure what you are actually trying to say by bringing up Marla Olmstead.

 

Marla may be genuinely compared to Pollock just as Mozart, in his day, might have been

compared to Haydn. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that every 2-year-old doing

finger painting is creating art any more than it means that every 2-year-old banging on

piano keys is creating a piece of modern music.

[don_e]

"Because it's qualified by "but I'd guess their theorizing was published after they'd gotten a 'chair'," which serves to neutralize the exceptions in the argument, meaning you don't really take those exceptions seriously when addressing the point."

 

Fred, actually, it means I am guessing. You've written something akin to having a 'long association in academia'. If that was in an art-related field, then you likely have an overview of art theory I do not have. I pick up things here and there. Someone recommends a book here in a forum and I may pick it up; someone writes about photographers or a kind of photography or era of photography that interests me, I may read it. But I don't have an overview that encompasses the field -- that is one advantage of education in a field. So, I know enough know that I don't know much.

 

Your comment above: "For me, art is not just about a finished product. It's about a process (both of the artist and the viewer) and a moment or moments in history."

 

is something we both agree on. I'll take that as a foundation for our relationship in these forums.

[antoniobassiphotography]

Technique and content are very much related and feed on each other. There is no valuable

artistic result without a combination of technique and content. The technical skills are the

foundations of the building, there is no possibility of fully expressing ourselves without

mastering the technique. Content is the reflection of our inner self on the world. Each artist

chooses subjects that best reflect his or her inner and personal artistic vision.

[jugenjury]

Fred,

 

My point about Marla Olmstead is simply the fact that, if she really is the one who created those works, we can't really be sure if she is indeed a prodigy or simply mimicking what she sees her father do. It very well may be nothing more than the random dabbling of a child with no rhyme or reason. How could you tell the difference here? Layers? Again, that could be nothing more than mimicking. The fact that other 4 year olds don't do it could be because they didn't see their father doing it that way.

 

On the flip side of that coin, if she indeed did NOT do those works and her father did them, then how did her father go from just an average artist to someone who can create a work of art worth $10,000+? Shouldn't his other current works be worth at least a few thousand dollars? Or is the worth simply because of WHO supposedly painted them instead of what was actually painted?

 

So what's my point here? Is a work of art more valuable because of who creates it or because of what is created? Or, is it a combination of the two? If the name adds value to the work, then talent doesn't necessarily determine worth. Popularity does.

[Norma Desmond]

Mike--

 

I agree with you that dollar amounts and the "worth" of something aren't good indicators

of whether it's art. If it turned out to be the father's work and it suddenly commanded

$10,000, I don't know that it would say much about art. I think it would say a lot about

the gullibility of art collectors and/or people with a lot of money and/or the public in

general, which often allows itself to be duped. Other things such as expressiveness,

intentionality, symbolism, significance, thematics, an artistic voice, historical context,

creativity, and more seem better areas to explore in the determination of art than does

money.

 

As far as it being a mimic of her father's work, I got the impression from what I read that

critics had at least felt that it was different enough from his that it wasn't just mimicry

(although it could have been the father intentionally doing something different to convince

people it was not his).

 

And just this last point about mimicry is why I brought up the importance of process in art

as well as the the importance of the finished product. Someone might mimic Picasso. If I

were only concerned with the finished product, I might call it art (assuming it was a well

done replica). But if I know my art history, etc. then I understand that it may just be an

uncreative copy, not something original, and having that knowledge might tell me that it's

not art. I would only determine that if process, and not just product, was part of it all. So

how something gets created does matter.

[jugenjury]

Thank you once again, Fred,

 

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I'm just trying to understand this whole "good art" and "not good art" idea. I'm glad we agree that what someone pays for a piece does not necessarily determine its artistic value. I can also agree that process plays a part in the artistic value of a piece.

 

I think maybe I need to clarify what I mean by mimic. I don't mean copy. Marla watches her father paint and sees that he paints an area with a color, then later goes back and paints over part of it with another color, etc. She watches his process and then paints her own work in the same manner....the same basic process but it wouldn't be exactly the same just her interpretation of what her father did. Now, this little girl has completed a work that the art community in general considers a good work of art. Can this little girl explain WHY she painted it the way she did? If you ask her, she would probably say because that's how daddy does it or because that's how daddy showed me to do it or something similar. Do you think she understands art history enough to know that each stroke has meaning? To her, it probably is all about how pretty it looks. The process probably means little if nothing to her. You read what I did in that wiki article. When video taped painting another piece, she was coached. I think we can logically assume she would have been coached on the earlier works also, but still they were considered good works of art. Not only by the duped collectors, but by art critics as well. So from this I would conclude that when a piece is on display, the process plays very little role in its artistic value. How do you determine process when you go to a gallery and view a piece? It would appear obvious to me from this Marla story that it really can't be determined for sure. The only other explanation is the art critics who judged Marla's work are not very good art critics. This would include the New York Times.

 

The other explanation is that her father, an admitted amateur artist, actually either did the works himself or greatly influenced the works. If they were judged as good art by the critics, wouldn't this make the father a good artist? So why wouldn't his other works be considered good art?

 

Jackson Pollock is considered the pioneer of action art. Until him, this method had never been used. How do you judge that process? Carrying that forward, how can you judge anyone who uses a slightly different process to create their work? Or does it take radical differences in order to consider it good art? What I get from what you are saying is that if the process isn't similar to other "good artists" then it isn't good art, but if it is similar then it's just a copy and not something original. This seems contradictory to me. If you aren't there to watch the creation process, how do you know? Haven't some of the most respected art critics ever disagreed on a piece?

 

Here is a quiz to see if someone can determine whether something is art or not. I aced this, even without any formal art education. So what do you think that means?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/popup?id=527562

[don_e]

Unfamiliar with Marla's work, I browsed around the web for some images. On this short aquaintance, what first caught my attention was the sophisticated, yet conventional, colors. I see paint in the cadmium scarlet range juxtaposed with the thalo blue range, or a bright green with a magenta, for example.

 

Maybe someone with knowledge of color theory (or perhaps developmental psychology) has analyzed the child's color aesthetic. I'd find that an interesting read.

[cooltpmd]

'Neither intelligence nor skill is required to produce art, and here's why...'

 

Maybe that's the question, along with "can art be seperated from the artist"?.

 

I'll try to elaborate. If a 2 year old's basketball rolls through his Crayola paint and leaves an interesting design on paper, is it art? It is completely unintentional, unrelated to thought and intent.

 

Fred, it almost seems to me you are saying if ... say, Monet ... rolls his basketball purposely through his paint, rolls it purposely onto his paper (creating a very similar image as the 2 year old), and hangs it as his "comment" on art ... it is ART.

 

To me there is a lot of room for the public to be "dooped" by anybody with artistic credentials. They get to say that their work is art ... and we are bumbling idiots for seeing it as a ridiculous whim.

[don_e]

The problematic I find in the definition:

 

"The application of skill and imagination to produce objects or performances of aesthetic value."

 

is the presupposition that art refers to objects or performances -- or to them, solely.

[inoneeye]

"art is love is god" Wallace Berman. <br>

Perhaps less of a definition than a philosophy of connectivity.<br>

Berman inspired me as a young artist to reach outside the box.<br>

'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence', faith.<br><br>

 

There is 'artist', painter who hires others to create his(?) paintings. He sells them under his

name and signature. I cannot remember his name, or how successful he was/is. I

remember hearing that he was indeed showing and selling. statement, performance?

Duped without the deception? Or the art students in Venice that created Modigliani

sculptures that they claimed were found in the canal. The 'art world' fell for it. We have all

been conned at some point, and I hope few would believe this makes you an idiot or your

opinion any less validated.

[Norma Desmond]

I think definitions are often imprecise, they often change and evolve, they often leave gray

areas, and sometimes they are disagreed upon. None of this means, in my mind, you can

reasonably define a word however you want or determine subjectively that anything in the

world falls under a certain definition.

 

"Marriage" is probably a good word to look at. A hundred years ago, and today still, many

people considered marriage to be either a religious ceremony or a social contract between

a man and a woman. Yet, many of my friends in monogamous same-gender relationships

refer to themselves as "married." The word is fairly commonly used that way, especially in

New York and San Francisco, which shows that definitions often become common to

loosely culturally-bound groups of people as well. I'm not sure whether a few hundred

years ago people would have spoken of being married to their job as we do today, but we

all know what we mean when we say that, so it becomes part of the definition. "Definition"

to me is more about usage than about a fixed or stubborn meaning. How a culture uses a

word is what is important about its meaning, not what the dictionary says and not that it

operates within strict bounds.

 

Think of how many words are loosely defined or relative yet we all use them in rational

discussion and know (even if loosely) what we're talking about. We often apply these words

differently. But most of us could pick out if someone were using them incorrectly. Truth,

Reality, God, Love, Pornography, Image, Good, Bad, Pretty, Ugly. If someone were to look

at a house ravaged by a hurricane with a crying family standing outside and call the scene

"pretty" many would assume the meaning of the word "pretty" was not understood and few

would say (even though on a certain level there is some truth to the idea that anything can

be pretty at some time and to some person), at that moment, that this was pretty. We'd

more likely think the person saying it about the family in the hurricane was a nut or not a

native speaker of English.

 

So, I believe that, even if anything can be pretty, not everything IS pretty. Perhaps

anything can be art (as Warhol and Duchamp showed us), but not everything IS art. To me,

"anything can be art" does not translate to "if you think it's art, it's art." The potential in

the first statement has to somehow be realized and I don't think my simply calling

anything I want "art" is enough of a realization.

 

When you bother to make the statement that a 2-year-old's finger painting is art, think

about just what you're really saying. I don't hear it as your simply classifying something. I

hear you giving a certain group of qualities to something that others might think is just a

random but also meaningless series of blots on paper. By calling it art, you are suggesting

that it is infused with certain qualities that you experience upon seeing it. Otherwise you

would toss it out like you do a used soup can. Most soup cans are not art. Andy Warhol's

is. Why?

 

There have been many attempts at definitions of art over the centuries (just as there have

been of God, truth, and reality). I tend to keep most of them in mind when I'm in

discussions about art and when I consider what is art. Plato talked a lot about

representation, Aristotle about catharsis, Kant about disinterested feelings, Hegel tied it to

expressiveness and culture, Nietzsche to a kind of Dionysian subjective strength,

Wittgenstein to symbolism, Langer to significance, Danto to the critic and the art world.

 

All of this goes into the mix for me when I think about art. I think a lot of problems ensue

and a lot of our thinking goes awry when we think about words, and particularly words like

art, in only classificatory terms. We all know what the word "desk" means. Some people

use tables as desks, some have used desks as tables. Meanings are fluid, which does not

mean that anything goes. If we get hung up on the fact that many, many things can be a

desk in particular situations, we are likely to lose sight of how to use the word "desk."

When we call something a desk, we are not necessarily doing it to reclassify it as a desk.

We are doing it to suggest it has certain characteristics or qualities that are desklike.

Same, I would maintain, for art. I'm not as concerned with whether the 2-year-old's finger

painting is classified by you or anyone else as art as much as I am with what

characteristics and qualities you are giving to it when you call it "art."

 

So if, for instance, you said you call it "art" because you like it, I might say there is much

art that I don't like. We might agree then that likability is not necessarily a characteristic of

art. You might say you call it "art" because you want to frame it and hang it on your wall. I

might say all art that I appreciate is not stuff I'd necessarily want hanging on my wall. We'd

have to get to a not-too-superficial place of why you would call this thing "art." When we

arrived there, we'd have more about its meaning and care less about what we would

actually classify under it. To me, art is less about what counts as art and more about WHY

it would count.

 

Yes, art critics may disagree. They may disagree on classification as well as taste. This is

something most of know about the art world. It's part of art's meaning.

 

For me, it's not a matter of how similar the process is or is not to the process of other

artists, it's whether I feel like it's copying or personal. If I feel as if someone has

internalized another's style and given it something of him or herself, then it usually works

for me. There is much overlap of style. Look at all the cubists. Art is something about

which it is often tough to convince people. So I will just say that the relationship between

Braque and Picasso, the similarity of style in some cases, to me, is different than the

relationship of a 2-year-old doing what her father does.

[sobeystudio]

"In my (non-academic) opinion, there are really 3 seperate creative modes to a

photograph, each affecting the aesthetics of a viewer. (a) Content - the subject you

choose. (b) Technique - the capture of the image in camera © Artistic Tweeks - the

manipulation, cropping, and vison created."

- Many times the content isn't up to a photographer, but rather their client. Also-

tweaking in camera versus in post is a BIG technical issue. -The best do the most they can

while shooting and minimal in post. Keep in mind, this is truly the professional world, and

these really are ways some of the best photographs are made. Now photo journalism, or

just plane old taking pics for one's self is a different matter.

" There is a snobbery about art. For example, I'm one of those observers who finds

Picasso's earlier realist work amazing and his later work mundane (... painting like

someone on an LSD trip, simply doesn't appeal to me). So, I'm assuming he didn't forget

how to paint, he was choosing content and technique that I personally don't respond to.

To the artistic set, I am a Neanderthal. I don't appreciate the finer things like a woman

painted blue with their nose on their forehead."

I agree, your a Neanderthal. You don't have to like Picasso's later work, but you had

better appreciate those noses on foreheads. He invented a style called "cubism". It is about

seeing and painting a subject from more that one perspective at a time- like from in front

of a woman, then to the side. It changed art forever, including photography- art or not.

You should cite better examples of why you DON'T like a piece of art, just as much as

when you DO like art. Yep, I'm an art snob. I'm also a photographer and a fine artist, and

everything I put out there these days must be informed and I must understand what I am

making and referencing. I suggest that you research a little more, that way you won't be

considered a neanderthal by others. Also, what does it say about you and your personal

growth as a person, let alone a photographer, if you consider yourself a neanderthal?

Aren't you willing to expand upon your horizons? This is a POST-MODERN world we live

in- just use the computer a little and learn- inform yourself (just like in this forum)

[sobeystudio]

More-

A more specific example comes to mind. The "paint splash" artists. A person who may

or may not be able to draw anything, throws daubs of paint at a canvas ... "where they fall

noone knows". At galleries, you'll hear how "inspired" the work is. To me, the end result

(whether I'm attracted or repelled) is as much chance as inspiration.

 

Art, to me, has no boundaries ... which allows many to hide. If I defecate on a canvas, am I

a genius ... or simply a crazy guy who defecated on a canvas? And, who's crazier, me or

the guy who buys my work?

 

Paint splash guys- like say Jackson Pollock- who also invented a technique called "action

painting" also a part of abstract expressionism- do make a crucial part of the art world.

Once again, it is about them being informed, and making progression in the medium. If

you crap on a canvas (been done) and it is informed and makes valid points in the areas of

"Critical Theory", philosophy and or addresses aesthetic notions of the current art world,

or is just plane old amazing to look, feel, smell, hear- whatever- then you will have art.

Otherwise you just have a large piece of toilet paper, used. Might as well flush it. I see that

you are missing the point- photography and art are informed by all aspects of society-

beautiful or not. The idea is that the medium grows and can be used to illustrate new

ideas, new thinking. By the way, poor artists who have a following are quite commonplace,

in every medium. Its called "fashion" and people just jump on a bandwagon because that

is all they know. The more you know, the less likely you will be acting like a sheep, and

you will know the talent from the trend.

[cooltpmd]

*** "I agree, your a Neanderthal. You don't have to like Picasso's later work, but you had better appreciate those noses on foreheads. He invented a style called "cubism". ***

 

This is where I part ways a bit with your concept of art. Frankly, if I have to study hard about a concept (e.g. cubism), listening to psychologists, philosophers, and other pondering types to be convinced that something that is inherintly unappealing to me is art ... then we come dangerously close to the "Emperors Clothes".

 

I don't want to be an "Art Outcast", and would love for people to think I'm wise and sophisticated, so I may allow your arguments to sway me that Picasso was a real genius, his cubist creations revolutize art, and those who don't get it aren't as wise as I.

 

BUT MAYBE ...

 

Picasso was simply high, depressed, or bored ... he created works that were not under the control of his sober, inspired, or interested higher Cortex ... Picasso in his best state may be suprised that anyone finds this work appealing or meaningful ... and the entire cubist movement may be a group of people convincing themselves and others that this is quintessential ART and GENIUS!!!

 

Honestly, I'm stretching the point a bit. I really don't think everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. But ... I do believe that SOME of what passes and has passed for ART was kept alive and relevent by some group of followers, and peer pressure, and pseudo-intellectualism. It isn't always easy to seperate them.

[Norma Desmond]

Josh--

 

Thanks for the important point you make about people occasionally being duped. That

occurs in many fields and doesn't say much about the field while it says a lot about the

dupers and, possibly, the gullible. Some dupers are good at it. And art critics do have a lot

of influence. I think something important that you are getting at is the distinction (even

though there's a lot of overlap and influence from one to the other) between the art-as-a-

business world and the art as esthetics world. These forum discussions often tend to

conflate the two. We should consider them separately in many situations, even though we

should always understand their influence on each other. Money may have a lot to do with

art as a commercial endeavor, but when considering esthetics not so much.

 

Martin--

 

Very enlightening. I think you've distinguished between liking something and appreciating

something and that's really important. I don't like all art but the more I'm exposed to, the

better educated about it I become, the more artists I meet and talk to, the more museums

I go to, the more I appreciate even what I don't like. As you discuss so adeptly, art is full

of ideas as well as visuals.

[don_e]

Maybe we should have a forum here for folks who have obviously been abused by critical theorists in some brutal Academy off in the deep forests where bad stepmothers sent them.

[sobeystudio]

Don-

Critical Theory is so abusive!! I really don't know who to rebel against- we're all fair

game- no wait that's sounds like a grand narrative...

[mark_sheehan1]

I don't come to this site much, but this is an interesting topic so I figured I'd chime in... I think that technique should always be judged in relation to content, and vise-versa. (also I think what is done in the camera and what is done in/on the darkroom/computer all count as technique) Poor content can ruin an otherwise well done photograph, however the (as above) reverse is also true. Many photographs, as well as other works of art, are often carried by one of these things alone; generally it is the more technical works of art. I guess this is because more technical pieces look good to (many) viewers' eyes, even though they are completely lacking in content. Based solely on first impressions -and soley first impressions, meaning that the viewer has not had enough time to really think about the piece (for me, this can take a while to really breathe in what a work is really getting at, i guess that's why I like books, i can always go back and look...)- my guess is that the more technical pieces will always get a more positive review than pieces that are all content and no technique. It is my opinion, however, that one cannot exist without the other in a work of art. Otherwise you may end up with just a great idea, or a nice picture - but not much more. I do feel, that content is the more important of the two. We could sit here and talk about the technique of any given photo until the cows come home, and we really wouldn't have any more information about what that photograph is about than when we started. Technique really should be discussed in relation to the content, and not just as an entity unto itself. This is not to say that there is only one correct technique, by all means -nooooo. A grainy, out of focus photograph of a given subject might prove to be more effective than a grainless, sharp version of the same subject. Again, this all depends on the content of a given image...

 

In an attempt not to ramble on any further, I'll just say this. I've always tried to take art in for what it is. This includes not only the piece itself (technique and content), but the time and context in which it was created, (They didn't have LSD back when picasso was painting so this really can't be used as a comparison as it is being taken out of it's original context. Many of his ideas bare a close link to the emerging sciences of the time -there are many writings on this so I won't elaborate here - the book "Einstein, Picasso" by Arther I. Miller comes to mind...) as well as the creator of the work and this piece's relationship to the rest of the creator's body of work. But this is just the way I look at things, and I expect no one else to do so. Just figured it was relevant to the topic at hand...

[jugenjury]

Fred, I think your analogies are flawed. Definitions may change over time through usage, but when you refer to marriage or desks, those words are specifically defined today. The examples you supplied meet today's definitions. The funny thing is, the random finger painting of a child also meets today's definition of art as supplied by dictionary.com. If we don't want to go by the strict definition, then we go back to what I said before....art is subjective. You seem to be trying to relegate art to your standards of what constitutes art and not a standard definition. Which should we use? Who ultimately decides what is or is not art? You? Art critics? If so, which critics? The art community in general? Is there some secret voting that goes on? Seriously, what I get out of what you write here is: "If you don't know what art is, you can't appreciate art and if you can't appreciate art, you don't know what art is." It's a catch-22. You claim art should meet strict standards, but your standards are all subjective. Process, history, aesthetics.....they are all subjective. Yes, even art history is subjective. The concept of art and what constitutes art has been argued for centuries. This argument reminds me of the global warming argument. It's more social than scientific because it's "politically correct" to believe that humanity is the main cause of rising temperatures. It's also "politically correct" to consider art as something special that only someone considered by the art community to be an artist can create. No matter who I ask, I never get a real answer as to why art can not be subjective to each individual. What I get are cryptic standards that can't be specifically defined and seem to be one of those "if you knew, you would know" type answers.

 

Martin,

 

Why MUST someone appreciate Picasso's work? That statement sound more "sheeplike" than a statement against Picasso's work. Knowledge does not necessarily exclude the "sheep-like" qualities so many people have. Thinking for oneself and keeping an open mind are the qualities needed for this. Sometimes an education will shut the open mind. It's a well-known fact that teachers greatly influence a student's way of thinking, either positively or negatively. It's a rare student who can get through without being influenced in some way by a teacher. The art community is no different. The basic idea is: "If you don't appreciate what we in the learned art community appreciate, then you don't know what art is." The true test is to look at a piece outside of any formal showing without any prior knowledge of the piece or the person who created it and THEN determining how it makes you feel, what it means to you, etc. The idea that "if it's a Picasso, then you BETTER appreciate it" just tells me that it's all in the name of the person who creates the work and not in the work itself. Ellsworth Kelly is a good example of this. Simple shapes, simple colors, and yet so much is read into these paintings simply because if Ellsworth Kelly painted it, then it MUST mean something. Maybe it does mean something, maybe not. Maybe he just painted something simple that he liked. Maybe each and every line and color has a specific meaning. Only Kelly knows and unless he explains it, it's all just a guess. And the idea that since he's an accomplished artist so everything he does has meaning just plays more into that close-minded sheep-like mentality. Is it art? Sure it is. Why? Because I really think he enjoyed creating his works and he put his emotion into that process. I happen to really like and appreciate his works. However, a child can create something similar that I would like and appreciate just as much.

[Norma Desmond]

Mike--

 

Nothing I said implies that if you don't know what art is you can't appreciate it. What I was

trying to say was that MY appreciation of art sometimes increases when I know things.

 

If you view all my standards as subjective, so be it. I don't see it them all as subjective any

more than I see everything as subjective. Some people think the world, from each of our

points of view, is subjective. I don't. I think there can be objectivity in life and in art.

 

As far as my examples meeting today's definitions, they don't. Marriage is defined as the

union of a man and woman but is commonly used differently.

 

I'm not relegating art to subjective standards. And I don't think it's possible to define art

exactly. I gave examples of the way art has been approached by great minds over the

centuries and said that I (I, as in ME) take them all into consideration when thinking about

what art is. My way of thinking enables me to exclude a lot of things from the

classification of "art." That approach gives "art" a lot of meaning . . . for me.

[cooltpmd]

It seems to me that ART is very subjectively defined as well as appreciated.

 

It isn't hard to understand that we as humans like (find aesthetic) different things. I like different foods than you, find certain women more attractive, have a favorite color, enjoy one perfume more than another, etc... It is a combination and variation of senses that I don't think any of us disagree.

 

It is the intellectual side of ART that causes the issue.

 

FRED: I see that you get greater appreciation for a work, knowing more about the artist, the genre, and art histiory (that is what I am hearing from you).

 

Where I struggle is the lack of any baseline definition, leaving open an ambiguity that makes a subject too etherial to grasp. I mean, if the definition (not just the appreciation) of ART is truly subjective, then everything is possible ART ... and I think that is why the world struggles with the topic.

 

There are people who would rather hear a rap "song" than one of Mozart's finest works ... that is sad in itself. But music used to have a definition that involved some combination of harmony, melody, and rhythm. We have allowed a generation of people who cannot carry a tune, play an instrument, and think harmony/melody are girls at school ... to call themselves musicians ... artists ... stars.

 

Without a baseline definition of MUSIC or ART ... while feeling very liberating, it can allow for the very destruction of the concept it tries to preserve. This is why I think the "liberal" application of words like ART, that appear so liberating and accepting and "advanced", actually are an excuse not to apply intellectual principals.

[Norma Desmond]

Thomas--

 

Good points.

 

First. I find it exhilarating that some like rap more than Mozart. I usually prefer Mozart but

have heard some rap that is awesome. For me, there's a difference between art and taste.

Generally, I appreciate art but I don't like it all.

 

Schoenberg has already rejected the traditional notion of melody. Still, he made music. Rap

would seem to have enough of the basic elements. In his day, some didn't think much of

Dylan as a musician even if they recognized him as a poet. I think that was nonsense.

 

I don't think I could give you a two- or three-paragraph baseline definition of art. But,

using the various ideas posed throughout the decades and centuries, I can discuss it

intelligibly. I can also take various pieces and, using those historical guidelines of various

thinkers, I can explain why I do or don't consider certain things to be art. I've done that to

an extent. I suggested why I think rap is music/art and, above, I suggested why I don't

think most two-year-olds create art when finger painting. I don't think there are hard and

fast rules, but I think there are some good guidelines for meaningful discussion.

[cooltpmd]

Forgive My Crude Analogy:

 

If I flatulate and say that's my artistic statement on "how much life stinks" ... I think that may be a valid, yet depressive statement ... but we should have a baseline that every whimsical statement by a stuggling (or depressed) individual is not ART. Really, if we could agree intellectually on what constitutes the minimal standard of ART, we could then all agree that our issue is with our personal preferences.

 

I'm simply tired of the sexy actress, depressed hippy, or suffering minority who produces a substandard product that ... I must applaud ... or be thought of as a boor.

[Norma Desmond]

"Suffering minority" ?

[cooltpmd]

Anyone who thinks that "suffering against the system" gives them special license ... that their inherent suffering allows them to define art by anything that they spew.

 

I group these together because they are groups that "redefine" the art. A sexy actress sometimes gets work because she is pretty to view, not because she posseses any acting talent ... to call her an artist is stretching that definition.

 

There are rap hits that I can listen to also. I will never consider Rap ... music. It seems to me that we can all agree to disagree on what is aesthetic and what is worthy to be paid for and what works are popular ... but what we should never compromise on is what the definition of music or art is.

 

Then again, I may be wrong ...