Photography: Is it Art?

[m_stephens]

<p>Q.G.,<br>

Regarding your last post. You haven't answered the question - <em>are you an artist? </em>At this point after asking a few times I will assume "no" by virtue of the content of your posts.</p>

<p><br />You have spent most of the post once more complaining about my character, and not my position. Simplistic assertions that it can't be that way don't add anything. <em>Tackle the ball, not the man.</em> You haven't done a thing to explain why your position is correct.</p>

<p><br />But, the serious confusion is your use of the word "divinity" to describe any part of my position. Don't use divinity as a synonym for a non-supernatural god. The god I claimed identity with is the god of the fabric of the universe. There is no "supernatural powers." I believe I said directly not to confuse this idea of god with super heroes with super powers. It is not therefore, some supernatural power or "decree" I use to make my "fart into art" as you say, but simple <em>identity - "I am." </em>I was not claiming to be YAWEH, or Christ, or any other divine God of the popular religions, because that is not my view of god, and I did explain that rather clearly.</p>

<p>What you'd like to describe is that artists make stuff, and some form of external agency (individual or collective) will decide if it is merely stuff, or if it should be magically transformed into art. The logic being, "critics transform stuff into art." All you have to do now is demonstrate what the transform entails. If a baker transforms grain into bread, and we ask him how, does he have an explanation? Can that explanation be used by anyone to do the same? Yes, and yes. Which means his transform is rational, objective and consistent. Grain can be made into bread by the following steps, A, B, C, etc. Put grain in, use the transform and voila! bread comes out.</p>

<p>What is the transform for making stuff into art? That explanation is how you would advance your argument, not by repeatedly saying you can't get through to me with your unsupported assertions. You see how an argument should actually proceed without needing to attack my character?</p>

<p>Now, this transform of stuff to art can be one of two things. First, it can be some objective and repeatable process like baking bread. Second, it will involve nothing but subjective, personal measurements (opinions), which are unavailable to others, or not agreed upon by all. That is actually referred to as a "blessing." If your answer is going to be that some agency blesses the stuff, and it becomes art, then you are describing a religion of artiness complete with supplicants and priests and rituals of blessing. YES! There is such a religion, and it is operating rather floridly all over the world. I am not a part of any religion, I do not believe in supernatural gods or blessings by priests either as a ticket to an after life, or as a transformation of my "fart stuff into art stuff" I am an atheist - I don't believe in deities. And therefore I don't believe in priests, and I don't validate or accept any of their blessings.</p>

<p>What that leaves me is the universe as it is, in which I can say, I breathe, or I art, and it needs no permission, confirmation or validation from supernatural deities and their priests. I am free. It's amazing how people fight that idea, isn't it? Isn't this thread an incredible lesson in the hatred of freedom? Above all else, art is the freedom to express and create and as it turns out it is the one thing to be fought tooth and nail. If there is no freedom to art, just imagine how hard it is to be truly free?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>QG hasn't declared his credentials to speak and M hasn't shown any supposed art. Consider it even and continue discussing. Whether or not QG considers himself an artist is completely irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not photography is art and what we mean when we call someone an artist. You don't have to be a baseball player to know they run around the bases and adjust their crotches.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>A self-fullfilling exercise you have going there. You don't find validation in the Big Bad World, so renounce that in favour of your inner world, declare that Master of the Universe, and find confirmation in the fact that that Big Bad World frowns over so much other-wordlyness. You can snap out of that circular prison, m, by taking a while to think about your farts, about the many ways in which even your godliness not just relates to or depends on, but is part of that Big Bad World outside.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.C.,<br>

There is a useful aside represented by that paragraph which has nothing to do with art, and everything to do with philosophy. I know it is a diversion, but I think it is useful to reply. </p>

<p>Your paragraph represents an almost perfect view of cosmology as created by Western Religion. It features a Master of the Universe deity, good and evil, and an inside and outside world of dimensions. This is the cosmology of the Bronze Age, in other words. So, I don't operate in superstitious beliefs of 6,000 years ago. Which means your analysis doesn't apply to me. </p>

<p>Your attempted insult that I am "not finding validation in the Big Bad World" is another of those character assaults which are always applied when you can't think of any way to support your argument. Just make the other into a less virtuous person to reduce his argument. </p>

<p>Frankly, if I turned the chessboard around, I could find dozens of ways to support your argument better than you are arguing it. And, none of them would involve criticizing your character, or lessening your humanity. </p>

<p> </p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>QG hasn't declared his credentials to speak and M hasn't shown any supposed art. Consider it even and continue discussing. Whether or not QG considers himself an artist is completely irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not photography is art and what we mean when we call someone an artist. You don't have to be a baseball player to know they run around the bases and adjust their crotches.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, <br>

The course went like this:<br>

<strong>Q</strong>: Is photography art?<br>

<strong>Answer from M</strong>: It is if the artist says it is. <br>

<strong>Rebuttal from Q.G.</strong>: The artist can't make that declaration, external agency determines if farts are art.</p>

<p>From there, a rather long argument has ensued which is still about whether or not the artist can make that claim. That argument is obviously crucial to the first question. </p>

<p>No, Q.G. doesn't have to declare if he is an artist. The question was asked by me so I could better understand his position. Suppose he is a professional member of the art establishment, but not an artist? That would rather obviously influence his position. It was a sincere inquiry, in other words. </p>

<p>My presenting art? Now that has nothing whatever to do with the subject at hand. The subject here isn't "does m stephens make art?" So, lets not get that far off track, and way in to the weeds. Is photography art, depends entirely on the artists involved. THAT is relevant to the subject of the thread. </p>

 

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred G: <em>You don't have to be a baseball player to know they run around the bases and adjust their crotches.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about those Giants, eh!? 2 down, 2 to go. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, indeed. They are amazing! Now baseball, THERE'S an art! The only thing that worries me is that they've gotten us so used to their coming back from behind that a lead might be deadly. Nah. They've got it.</p>

<p>________________________</p>

<p>M, your response to me reads like a rationalization. QG can't be trusted not to be part of the "art establishment" (or at least might be getting his point of view from being so) because he hasn't declared himself to be an artist or not (a blatant question-begging trap you're setting since the very topic is whether or not one can be an artist by declaring it to be so). But M has every right to declare himself an artist regardless of the work being produced since M has already accepted the answer to the question under discussion that declarations (and not art) makes one an artist. M, you're beggin your own question by not showing the art, therefore assuming the art is irrelevant to the question of whether the artist is an artist or not.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Mind you, I'm not asking whether anyone here is an artist or to see M's work, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and you're being a goose about this.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>QG can't be trusted not to be part of the "art establishment"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred,<br>

I need go no further than that to see that you have not understood the reason for my question to Q.G.. I never used the word trust, nor did I imply any mistrust. My question was about relating to his position. There is enormous field of criticism with volumes of philosophical underpinnings. There is an enormous field about creativity and freedom of expression with its own underpinnings. Those ideas clash at many points. I was trying to get a look at what his foundation was for his argument. I don't think he presents it well. He mainly wants to write about my psychological failings, and assign many negative values to my character. Of course, that's not a legitimate argument. I was really in all honesty trying to help him from making any more of those foolish comments. </p>

<p>There is no goose and gander aphorism applicable here, sorry.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>OK, if the goose and gander doesn't float your boat, try this. Look at your many statements to the rest of us and then look at QG's supposedly foolish statements to you. It's a case of . . . you can dish it out, but not take it.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Q.G.,</p>

<p>If you want to have this discussion with me, I'd like to ask you politely to refrain from making value judgments about my character. Some people are so unfamiliar with this idea, they don't recognize it after they write. Let me point it out for you. You said...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>You</strong> don't find validation in the Big Bad World,....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't know me, and you know even less about my validation in any world. To say someone finds no validation is a psychological assessment and it is a negation of my character. Its tantamount to saying, "you are unsuccessful." That's an ad hominem if you want to review that form of commentary.</p>

<p>There's no call for it. It's rude and it devalues everything you might have to say after it. And, it has not a single bearing of any kind on my argument. It's not the first time you have resorted to those arguments. Your posts are full of direct and veiled examples of similar claims about my character. Please argue the position, and avoid making claims about my character. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>If you don't know you're an artist, maybe you are not one yet. When you are, you will know it with absolute conviction and certainty. You would need no external approval.</em>>>></p>

<p>Here, you have told a roomful of people who are peers and photographers that if they don't consider themselves artists and, as you said in other posts, don't declare themselves to be artists, they are not. You have told them their identity. So not only do you get to declare yourself an artist. You seem to think you get to declare others to be non-artists. But this, I suppose, is not an <em>ad hominem</em> attack in the world of M. There are too many examples of this kind of condescending crap to enumerate. As I said, I suggest you re-read your own posts before casting stones.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred,<br>

See if maybe this example and demonstration helps. </p>

<p><strong>Example of Universal "You" - which is a variation of the royal "we."</strong><br>

The 'you' pertaining to everyone in general, usually paired with a suggestion.<br />Such as, "You should always dress better than the rest."<br>

<br />George: You should always have 3 helpings of vegetable a day<br />Leonard: Me? why me?<br />George: No Len, not you 'YOU', I was merely using the universal you.</p>

<p>Does that help? My remarks about artists knowing they are artists were not confined in any way to these readers. It was a universal comment about all artists. And, it contained just a simple positive truth that one will know they are an artist when they are an artist. A basic rhetorical device. </p>

<p>However, in deference to your extreme sensitivity at being insulted by a universal statement, I sincerely apologize for offending you Fred. And, if anyone else was offended by that statement, I apologize to you too. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>M, you are as snarky as I can be, and as snarky as many on the Internet. The tone of voice of your last post shows that. And you've used that tone of voice throughout the thread. We are not stupid enough to miss what's implicit in your posts when you use the "general" you and the royal "we". So, for instance, when you tell us that "we" are prone to some nonsense about meritocracy, which sounds like a naive poly sci student's thesis, we know you are excluding yourself, the holier-than-thou artist, from that "we." So, whether it's direct ad hominem hits or a more subtle but every bit as condescending an attitude to others, you really must take stock of some of the things you say and some of the ways you say it. I <em>know</em> I can be an a••hole. What confounds me are other similarly-endowed folks who have no clue how they are coming across.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred,<br>

So, in other words, you don't have anything to say about the question that was under discussion - can artists declare their own work art?</p>

<p>I enjoy an intense debate about an interesting issue. I never fail to learn something new. But, extended and elongated arguments over such subjective things as "tone of voice," bore me to death. I believe everyone knows where that argument ends up, don't they? I pass, Fred.</p>

<p>The following comments are not directed to individuals, and shouldn't be taken as such.</p>

<p>Now, back to the central argument. Art is a human process resulting from the profound development of consciousness, and it is different than craft and manufacture. The difference is fundamental, not subtle. Art is a tool of liberation. It frees the soul. Art is one of the means by which Man finds redemption, salvation and ultimately liberty. Craft and manufacture are outgrowths of economic behavior only. Other tools used for human redemption might be service to a supreme master, for example. Each is making a subjective claim to the rest of the world - "I am saved." Such claims can't be proved empirically, but are only felt in the soul of the person making the claim. Neither can have that taken away by external authorities. To deny one's art is on a par with denying one's faith. What agency has such rights? That's the counter-argument I'd like to hear about.</p>

<p>At times, some of the ideas expressed here sound as though "art" is nothing more than the slice of bread from the baker. That the importance to humanity is the artifact, and not the process. I'd would say that an artifact with no meaningful process is just crafting and manufacture. If one can't find a "tickle" of some kind in the soul when doing this thing called making art, that person may want to wonder if they are really just crafting. Of course, it is always an internal decision and judgement - as per my argument. In my own case, I have certainly had long periods of crafting and then shorter punctuations of arting. After many years, I learned the difference, which was rather difficult at first. Now I know it as that internal sense of liberation. Thus, if I am engaged in arting, the product of that engagement is then art. The idea that some external agency could deny that for me is of course as absurd as someone telling another, "God doesn't believe you are faithful."</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

M<br><br><i>"But, extended and elongated arguments over such subjective things as "tone of voice", bore me to death."</i><br><br>Not just you. So why did you try to turn it into such a thing?<br><br>Your position does not make any sense. And yes, we have been 'attacking' - if you so wish - your position. Challenged you to explain it (more to yourself than to us). But to no avail.<br>And how could it have had any effect, with you believing that everyone trying to talk to you is just another representative of that <i>"external agency"</i> trying to put you in chains (you apparently know nothing about me - and why should you? - yet i must have been a statist, an art-critic, a non-artist, philosopher, and what else that would disqualify me from knowing what i talk about and show me to be an "external agent"? As long as there was an excuse not to take my objections and explanations seriously)?<br>And yes, finding out that some of our believes are questionable, perhaps even nonsensical, does take what away from you. It does rob you of your freedom to believe at least that. So what?<br><br><i>"After many years [you] have learned"</i> not to engage in anything that could make you doubt anything you believe, finding the perfect justification why it would be wrong to listen to what other people think, why it would be wrong to look at things from more than just your "position".<br><br>You present art as a religious creed. You can indeed believe what you want.<br>But do know that it is the same as willing something to be: that (still, after all these, wasted, words) doesn't make it so.<br><br>Do you see that? And if you do, will you associate that (your) way of thinking with some outlandish, outdated and prepostorous cultural phenomenon, dismiss that as being outlandish, outdated and preposterous, hoping, no, believing that thus the way of thinking is rescued, save from the criticism?

[m_stephens]

<p>Q.G.,</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />So why did you try to turn it into such a thing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't. It was Fred. Read back a post or two and you will see it was Fred who said, "M, you are as snarky as I can be, and as snarky as many on the Internet. The<strong> tone of voice</strong> of your last post shows that." All I said to you was please find a more legitimate argument than ad hominems. Objecting to ad hominems and objecting to someone's tone of voice are hardly equivalent complaints.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And how could it have had any effect, with you believing that everyone trying to talk to you is just another representative of that <em>"external agency"</em> trying to put you in chains...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my comments, "external agency" doesn't mean a person, such as you. Here is the meaning of agency as used:<br>

Agency: the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power <strong>: </strong>operation<br>

<br>

If art can't be declared art by the artist, than apparently there is some "external source of power to declare something art." Are you now saying that's not your argument? I call that external source <em>agency</em> - meaning some operative power. I say it that way, because you have yet to supply any details as to how the artists work gets declared "art." If you'd like to define that, I'll change "agency" to a more detailed description. <br /><br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You present art as a religious creed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I do not. What religion do you claim I am using? Judaism? Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? I have never made any such claim. Quite to the contrary I have claimed art as a <em>spiritual experience</em>. No religion, and no creed involved. If you can find a place where I claimed a religious creed, please quote it. An example of a religious creed is the Nicene Creed. <br /><br>

<br>

A spiritual experience (one which connects your spirit to the ground of the universe) is about the most distant thing from "religious creed" that I can envision. They are poles apart. Religion depends on authority whereas spirit depends on self. So, this tells me you don't have an understanding of my argument. And that's fine. Some people might understand it, others might not. But because you don't understand it, doesn't make it invalid. <br /><br>

<br>

The rest of your argument is a kind of denial of mine. Fine. But, what you have still yet to accomplish is to make any support for your argument. You have not said a single word yet about why external agency must decide what is art. You have made not a single claim as to why that is right, why it is necessary, or why it is more beneficial than having the artist make his own declaration. In fact, the entirely of your rebuttal against my position has been: "<em>You are wrong and you just won't listen.</em>" That's all you have said - not a single thing more. <br /><br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you see that? And if you do, will you associate that (your) way of thinking with some outlandish, outdated and prepostorous cultural phenomenon, dismiss that as being outlandish, outdated and preposterous, hoping, no, believing that thus the way of thinking is rescued, save from the criticism?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That paragraph is a generic denial of some position. It could be a denial of string theory, evolution, the Holy Trinity, the awarding of Oscars, libertarianism, Marxism, Occam's Razor, or really any idea that any person presented. It's an utterly empty denial. It is empty and without calories because it consists of nothing but negative words. There is NO CONTENT in that denial. There is no reasoning in that denial. There is no logic, there is no rational argument which refutes my position. Try it your self. Let's pretend my position was for "the Big Bang theory." Now, read your generic denial paragraph. Works perfectly. Let's try "evolution" as my position. Read your generic denial paragraph - again, it fits perfectly. Well, you get the point. A rebuttal of value needs more than a long laundry list of negative words strung together. <br /><br>

<br>

If you want to refute a position you don't agree with, find the flaw in the argument, or present an argument that has superior merit, or benefit. You are doing neither. You first tried to impune my character with ad hominems for having this position. I wouldn't allow that, so now you are tossing up the generic, "Preposterous! Outmoded! Outlandish! Outdated!" kind of negation, which you think represents an effective rebuttal. It doesn't. <br /><br>

<br>

I'll provide you some hints of how I would argue <em>your</em> point of view. First, show how your view is better for society as a whole, or better for artists as a whole. Contrast how my view will lead to something specifically terrible, and your view will lead to something specifically wonderful. Second, demonstrate some essential flaw in my position. A flaw would be an inconsistency, or contradiction, or impossibility (like dividing my zero). Neither of those suggestions needs the whole parade of Preposterous! Outmoded! Outlandish! Outdated! sorts of words. They need specific ideas. <br /><br>

<br>

You will notice that I many times explained the benefits to humanity of my position. That benefit being that making art provides a means of liberating, redeeming and saving the soul. Imagine how much "wellness" that provides to Man. You will also notice how I have provided a rationale for why your position is bad. e.g. When external agency (that doesn't mean a person) is required to declare an artists work art, the artist is not free. To be "not free" is a negative position. e.g. slavery. Why should anyone, let alone artists, desire to be slaves to some external agency?<br /><br>

<br>

I think it would be very interesting for someone to make the reasoned case why external agency (not meaning an individual person here) is better to decide what is art than the artist, but I can't see that you are making that case yet. <br /><br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I have said countless times that your dichotomy is false. It's not a matter of <em>either</em> the artist or some "external" agency, as if the artist is an "in" and everything else is an "out." I told you that sort of dichotomy dates back to the now very outmoded kind of thinking of Descartes (whose philosophy I happen to love even with its now widely accepted flaws). You haven't once responded to the idea that your dichotomy may be problematic, instead just repeating your assertions about the artist.</p>

<p>I don't know if you've encountered this kind of thinking before. Perhaps not. If not, it can be difficult to accept when first exposed to it, as it was for me when I was first exposed to it a couple of decades ago, since Western thought is so steeped in these sorts of dichotomies. Perhaps reading some Wittgenstein, Rorty, and Dennett will at least allow you to consider a world that doesn't divide up into "in here" and "out there." Once we get to that point, we can move on to approaching art as a multi-faceted, and not a simplistic, phenomenon. It doesn't fit neatly into categories. Not all art and not all artists are determined to be so in the same way, especially over long periods of time in which cultural norms and ideas evolve and change.</p>

<p>Some art is found, and so there is no artist involved. Just an audience who discovers it. I often find people, especially on PN, looking for forumulas. What makes a good photo? What makes this photo better than that? What makes an artist? As if, by discovering the secret sauce, they can do it or be it. It doesn't work that way. I find that calling any Tom, Dick, and Harry who says they're an artist is incredibly abusive of artists like Monet, Picasso, and Van Gogh who studied, struggled, learned, sweated, and lived what they were doing. Sorry, I refuse to belittle art in this way, by saying it takes no work, no craft, no technique, no historical perspective, just the ability to say a couple of words . . . "Let there be light."</p>

<p>It takes a whole lot of factors to be an artist and <em>recognition</em> as such <em>does not</em> necessarily apply in every single case but it certainly does in a lot of cases. Young children RARELY declare themselves to be artists, yet when people see their work and appreciate it in a certain way, their pictures are viewed as art. And yet, the child was just drawing, not consciously creating art and with no sense or even ability to declare anything of the sort you're alleging.</p>

<p>Like most things, art is often context-driven, and different contexts will allow for different things to be art and different people to be considered artists. I don't think we can make up a set of rules for this and and I surely don't think ONE rule (like "if you declare yourself an artist, you are one") will apply for every instance. Art is not a "one size fits all" kind of game.</p>

[absent]

<blockquote>

<p>Your paragraph represents an almost perfect view of cosmology as created by Western Religion. It features a Master of the Universe deity, good and evil, and an inside and outside world of dimensions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the three great montheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) share a common Middle Eastern origin. Truly Western religions (ancient Greek, Roman, and pre-Christian European such as Druidism and Wicca) were very much polytheistic.<br>

　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Religion depends on authority whereas spirit depends on self.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think many religious people, from many different traditions, would disagree with this as well.<br>

　<br>

No one here is asking you to accept "Religion" or a particular faith, M; but that is not license to misrepresent them.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>I think many religious people, from many different traditions, would disagree with this as well.<br /><br /> No one here is asking you to accept "Religion" or a particular faith, M; but that is not license to misrepresent them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jim,<br>

I would ask then, how does religion <em>not</em> depend on authority? I'll start with evidence of how it does depend on authority. </p>

<p>The three religions you mentioned - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - feature a creator God which demands worship and obedience as a part of a covenant with the believers. The manner of obedience is the subject of much scripture, and much religious doctrine and practice. The believer submits to this authority including God and in some cases, the earthly representatives. I think that is a fair general statement of the principle of religious authority. Correct me where it is inaccurate in substance. </p>

<p>By contrast a spiritual experience may be private, individual, and specifically outside the bounds of any authority. When one has such an experience with the universe, I think it is fair to say it is outside any authority. Again, correct what you think is inaccurate in substance. </p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Fred, <br /><br />You have made these arguments:<br /> <br />1) I am representing a false dichotomy (based on some philosophers you enjoy reading)</p>

<p><br />2) You find it belittling to art for any Tom, Dick, and Harry to proclaim there work as art without due respect to Monet, Picasso, and Van Gogh who studied, struggled, learned, sweated, and lived what they were doing.</p>

<p><br />3) It takes a whole lot of factors to be an artist and recognition as such does not necessarily apply in every single case but it certainly does in a lot of cases.</p>

<p><br />4)Like most things, art is often context-driven, and different contexts will allow for different things to be art and different people to be considered artists. I don't think we can make up a set of rules for this and and I surely don't think ONE rule (like "if you declare yourself an artist, you are one") will apply for every instance.</p>

<p>I'll take them one at a time.<br /> 1) Dichotomies<br /> A dichotomy defines mutually exclusive or contradictory phenomena. When two phenomena are compared, it is possible that they are part of a continuum of values, and it is also possible they are discreet and contradictory - a dichotomy. An example of a true dichotomy is the state of an on/off light switch. An example of a false dichotomy is the state of a human condition like happy or sad.</p>

<p>My case is that the artist can declare his work art. The argument against has said that it can be declared non-art by some external agency. The phenomena being compared then is "art to non-art." That is a dichotomy. If not, what is the range of continuous values that fall between "art and non-art" which would make it a false dichotomy?</p>

<p>2) The belittling effect of an artist's claim of art.<br /> The basis of your argument is that "Monet, Picasso, and Van Gogh who studied, struggled, learned, sweated, and lived what they were doing." And that if Tom, Dick or Harry claim they made art, their claim is A) an insult to Monet, Picasso and van Gogh; and B) since their path may or may not have been different than Monet, Picasso and van Gogh, they have no right to make the claim.</p>

<p>The first flaw is that you don't know the minds of Monet, Picasso and van Gogh at the point they made their art. You don't know, do you, if they were screaming inside, "I have created art!" (or equivalent words). You are simply assuming with many years of hindsight that it was some path (study, struggle, sweat) that accounts for the art. How do you know that same path isn't the path of Tom, Dick and Harry, whom you also know nothing about? Since you don't actually know the mind of Monet, Picasso, van Gogh, Tom, Dick, or Harry, this is a specious argument. I can just as easily say, "Monet, Picasso and van Gogh all declared unto themselves their art, just as Tom, Dick and Harry have done."</p>

<p>The second flaw is the suggestion that new art belittles old. I don't even think the art establishment believes that one. If it were true, we simply wouldn't except art that doesn't conform to known territory.</p>

<p>3) It takes a lot of factors to make an artist.</p>

<p>Well, please list the ones you know about, and explain how an artist who self declares his art doesn't possess these factors.</p>

<p>4) Like most things, art is often context-driven, and different contexts will allow for different things to be art and different people to be considered artists. I don't think we can make up a set of rules for this and and I surely don't think ONE rule (like "if you declare yourself an artist, you are one") will apply for every instance.</p>

<p>This sounds like a circular argument. Art has different contexts meaning different things will be art (by rules?), and different people will be artists. You don't think there is one rule for all, and you don't think there are any rules that can be stated. But even though there are no rules, you are sure that Tom, Dick or Harry can't claim their work is art.</p>

<p>In spite of that diffuse reasoning, and in spite of the many struggles of making art, I don't see how that impinges on the right of the artist - the freedom if you will - to make his declaration as he chooses. What is at stake here is the right and freedom of the artist to say he had that experience. I think what is confusing some here is the issue of quality. Bad art and mediocre art and great art, are all none the less art. I think what you were arguing above is that Monet was good art, and Dick was bad art that shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath. And you might be right, or you might be very wrong. But either way, Dick still retains the right to declare his art. The same right Monet had. No rules needed.</p>

<p>Finally, let me be clear that I am not speaking for every individual artist. That would be n absurdity. When Lew Rockwell gives his views on libertarianism, or Chomsky on liberalism, they don't in their wildest dreams expect listeners to assume they're giving rules for every individual libertarian or liberal, right? Let's at least drop that incorrect notion that keeps rising here.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

M,<br><br><i>"I didn't. It was Fred."</i><br><br>No, it wasn't. It is part of your reasoning, ever since your first post's <i>"The only ones I see slaving to this ambiguity"</i> really (though not obvious yet), which is one long protestation that artists know, and non-artists, those "external" forces out to rob artists (you) from your freedom to create by decree are not just suspect, but <i>"rude"</i> because they persist in challenging that belief that you can create by decree as a somewhat untenable belief.<br>You identified with your position, equate an analysis and critique of it with <i>"a negation of your character"</i>. And so on.<br>It is an inevitable part of any belief that the individual is autonomous and souvereign, the creator and master of The Truth.<br><br>Which brings us to:<br><br><i>"In my comments, "external agency" doesn't mean a person, such as you"</i><br><br>Does it not... Thanks for the definition. I guess <i>"a person such as"</i> me needed that. You had no trouble naming the agents up to now. What's more, trying to present those "institutions" etc. as an impersonal force would make your position even stranger than it already is.<br><br><i>"If art can't be declared art by the artist, than apparently there is some "external source of power to declare something art." Are you now saying that's not your argument"</i><br><br>I never said that was my position. You still (again, after so many words. Wasted) haven't understood that it is not a matter of declaration. Things, art included, are not what they are by force of decree, no matter who it would be declaring it so. It has been pointed out to you several times that your position's major failing lies in its extreme individualistic nature, in which there only is a 'you' opposed to 'them'. But no 'us'. Only 'internal' vs 'external', but no 'common'.<br><br><i>"What religion do you claim I am using"</i><br><br>If only you would 'claim', it could then perhaps be expected that you would be aware of the nature of your position. No such awareness, instead again that deafening "tone" in your <i>"an example of a creed is"</i><br>What religion? Your religion, in which you, the Individual Master of the Universe, can make something be by mere power of You saying so. I can readily believe that thinking about such god-like powers would be a "spiritual experience" to you, yes.<br>But once again (it is really getting tiresome having to point out the obvious to you): can you put one and one together, see what that makes? <i>"Relegion depends on authority"</i>, the authority, perhaps (and again, the question is rethorical. Maybe it will help you understand) of the <i>"self"</i> that can make something be by power of it willing and saying it so?<br>But you don't want to hear that, rather dismiss it all.<br><br><i>"There is no content in that denial"</i> and all that nonsense.<br><br>Not, m, if you don't want it to be, right?<br>Granted, that "will you associate that (your) way of thinking with some outlandish [etc.]" was rather vacuous. It was a direct account of your 'i am a believer. Other believers wore animal hides and used bronze tools. I don't wear animal hides and do not use bronze tools. So i am not a believer' fallacy. Glad to see you too find that rather empty.<br><br>Etcetera, etcetera.<br>What is quite remarkable is your extreme individualistic point of view, dissociating yourself (or your self) from anything the rest of the world might be and have to offer. We have proceeded not even a fraction of a millimeter since Fred's conclusion that you are a solipsist. Evey word since has been wasted. And not, m, because we did not win you over. But because it was not a discussion, or argument. We knew it wasn't ever since your <i>"sacred by nature"</i> declaration.<br>Ah well. Hope, Pandora's most cruel gift, had us all. ;-)

[absent]

<p>M, the statement I took issue with was:<br>

　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Religion depends on authority whereas spirit depends on self.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This appears to set up a dichotomy between religion and spirituality, between God and "spirit". It overlooks the fact that in the monotheistic understanding God IS Spirit. He is not some mean old man hiding in the clouds throwing lightning bolts; he is the life force that pervades the entire Universe, and created the Universe. I suppose one could have spiritual experiences without God (if one believes in other spirits) but one cannot conceive of God with no spirit. Likewise in polytheistic traditions the gods are understood to be spirits, beings not of the physical world.</p>

<p>I do think this has digressed far enough from the subject of the thread that if you are genuinely interested in my views on this sidebar (which I respectfully doubt) we should continue this exchange in private.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>You identified with your position, equate an analysis and critique of it with <em>"a negation of your character"</em>. And so on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G.,<br>

I'm disappointed that you don't recognize ad hominems when you use them.</p>

<p>Other than that, I did read through your post above. I didn't see any explanation or support for your previous argument. I didn't see anything that would explain the proposed benefit to society or artists that would be a result of your position. I also didn't see anything that logically or rationally rebuts any part of my position, although there was plenty of complaints about me as a person. Therefore there's nothing for me to respond to.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>This appears to set up a dichotomy between religion and spirituality, between God and "spirit".....(etc)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jim,<br>

Look at the context of my remark once more. The exchange began with Q.G. saying, "Y<em>ou present art as a religious creed</em>. " My answer in that post was the next few paragraphs in which I explained some of the differences between a religious creed, and a human spiritual experience. The latter I emphasized needed no religion, or religious doctrines, or deities, or supernatural elements. As a part of the comparison, I said religion depends on authority, where spirit depends on self. I typed <em>spirit</em>, and maybe should have typed <em>spirituality</em>.</p>

<p>It was not intended as a dichotomy. Just a part of a comparison. Q.G.'s assertion about religious creed was a major mis-reading of my position. I may have a strong connection to my spirit, but I have no religion of any kind. I feel it is important to clarify the difference because of my usage. When I say, <em>arting as an artist can liberate and redeem the soul as a spiritual process</em>, I am not in any conceivable way connecting art to religion, religious creeds and doctrines, religious faith and dogma, or supernatural deities. I am only referring to the individual human soul connecting to the nature of the universe.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>I am representing a false dichotomy (based on some philosophers you enjoy reading)</em>><em>>></em></p>

<p>I'm just going to tackle this one. I have similar things to say about the rest of your arguments, so I'll let you extrapolate and apply my current arguments to Numbers 2, 3, and 4.</p>

<p>Bad start. I gave you the names of philosophers hoping you'd look into them so you could understand a position other than your own relative to dichotomies. You belittle that by saying I've based my theories on philosophers I "enjoy" reading. Snarky, not substantive. Read them, then get back to me. But you won't. No way in hell.</p>

<p><<<<em>The argument against has said that it can be declared non-art by some external agency. The phenomena being compared then is "art to non-art." That is a dichotomy.</em>>>></p>

<p>Except if you had bothered to read what I said, that's not the phenomenon I was talking about. What I said was: "It's not a matter of <em>either</em> the artist or some "external" agency, as if the artist is an "in" and everything else is an "out." So, clearly I was talking about your internal/external dichotomy, which is false, not your art-non/art dichotomy. I said similar things in previous posts which you also missed. I didn't say all dichotomies, such as light switches being on or off, were problematic. I said the internal/external dichotomy was problematic. That you see yourself as internal and not part of the external you seem to think is trying to force itself on the artist is problematic. Because you are part of the external you think you have excluded yourself from.</p>

<p><<<<em>The argument against has said that it can be declared non-art by some external agency.</em>>>></p>

<p>No. For the umteenth time, it hasn't said that. Your listening is as "diffuse" as you think my reasoning is, I suppose . . . <em>ad what? hominem</em>?</p>

<p>The argument against has said that it can't simply be a matter of being declared art by someone. That doesn't imply or even suggest that it can be declared non-art as easily. What's at issue, for me, is the notion of an "external" agency which excludes the artist doing the so-called declaring, again the false dichotomy of the artist's supposed internal world with some external world that is opposed to that internal one. And, as QG has said more times than I'd care to count, the determinations of what is art are NOT about declarations. Or certainly these determinations are about much more than declarations.</p>

<p>I don't have the energy or inclination right now to take on your misreading of many of my other points. But, as I said, you can apply much of what I said here to those other points, loosely. </p>

<p>Deleted my few final thoughts, which were superfluous and snarky. I'm trying. Baby steps! :-)</p>