Machine learning creates professional level photographs

[Supriyo]

I think, sometimes, like when nature seems to be imitating art, which actually does happen, I would consider nature to be art even though there's no artist's intent. I don't think an artist's intent is necessary for art. This is where I think art can come into play through a way of seeing and not only through the material production of something. Akin to conceptual art. I see a church in the fog in muted colors and I get a certain kind of feeling from it and I relate it to Monet's Rouen Cathedral in the fog. I think there's art in that. I think there's art in nature. I think there's art in nature even when we don't relate it to already existing art. I think we frame nature artfully in our perceptions all the time. I think there's also art in the buzz and hum and lights and life of the city. I think art can be in the combination of stimulus and response and not just in the combination of intention, creation, and response.

 

Fred, thanks for the thought. I also don't believe, intent is necessary to create art. Expression is the word I would use instead, and the expression can be a form of seeing and reflecting, rather than creating anything physical. I share your view on this.

 

After reading your comment, I have come to realize that the expression may not be just the artist's, it can be of any viewer or artist who sees and appreciates. Thats something I would change in my original comment.

 

Consider Steve's suggested experiment. Giving cameras to blind people or chimpanzees, randomly printing a few images and displaying in the museum, none of these actions involve seeing, so no art. Now if visitors are invited to view the images, and they connect to one or more of the photos, thats when art is born in my opinion. Displaying the images in the museum is an automated process, and so is AI driven photography, but I feel somewhere there is a difference between the two. The AI driven photos would follow rules, whereas Steve's experiment will produce photos that have no rules (except if auto focus/exposure are used). Thats why some photos from Steve's experiment might surprise (or even impress) us, whereas the AI photos are likely to be too predictable, like the photos in a landscape calendar.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Supriyo

[Norma Desmond]

I think someone with blindness and a camera can be a photographic artist and make art. I've actually read about such a person and was quite impressed. I'm on the road right now and can't look it up but you might be able to google. A person with blindness and a camera can use their other senses to guide them in making pictures and I don't see why seeing would be necessary to producing art with a camera. As to process, Jackson Pollock radically altered process and the results were art. I don't think the process you suggest means the result isn't art, just as it would be with any traditional process. It might actually be more significant art with the change in process, depending on the results. I think it's fine for art to result from a random process.

[Supriyo]

I think someone with blindness and a camera can be a photographic artist and make art. I've actually read about such a person and was quite impressed. I'm on the road right now and can't look it up but you might be able to google. A person with blindness and a camera can use their other senses to guide them in making pictures and I don't see why seeing would be necessary to producing art with a camera.

 

Thanks Fred for the information about the blind photographers and their works. Its an eye opening experience. Here is one link I found:

The work of blind photographers – in pictures

 

I agree now, it is possible to create photographic art without seeing, although I used 'seeing' in a more figurative way with feeling and perceiving (expression) in mind. Steve's experiment referred to blindness in the context of not sensing though, which is different from what these photographers are doing, using their other senses to create the images.

 

I don't think the process you suggest means the result isn't art, just as it would be with any traditional process. It might actually be more significant art with the change in process, depending on the results. I think it's fine for art to result from a random process.

 

I agree that art can result from a random process, but would you say that the results need to be curated or seen by someone who connects with them, to call them art? Thats why in my previous comment, I suggested that art is born when the photos (created by seemingly random process) are viewed and appreciated.

 

When I first read Steve's comment, I didn't think the results were art, because he did not mention selecting or inviting viewers (although displaying in a museum should imply so). I was only thinking about the random process, not the viewing part at the end. After reading your further comments and thinking through, I would say, the random process can definitely produce art, but a conscious selection (not compulsory) or viewing at the end is still involved in my opinion.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Supriyo

[Norma Desmond]

Supriyo, I thought you were drawing a distinction between this sort of blind, random art and more traditional art, like a Monet painting. That's one question and I answered that I think blind, random art can be art just as sure as Monet's paintings can be art.

 

I see it as a separate question, relative to ANY kind of art, AI or random or traditional, whether art needs an audience. To me, that's a much more theoretical question and almost at the level of "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a noise?" Obviously, that's not a precise analogy. But, NO, I don't think art only becomes art when viewed by an audience. Art is art when it's alone in the studio siting there on the easel. How can I be sure the painting is on the easel if I or someone else is not there looking at it? The same way a child slowly goes from being a baby to being a little more mature and comes to know that when she closes her eyes the world doesn't really stop existing.

 

Though I'm a big fan of the shared aspects of art, I don't think art has to be shared to be art. Many artists will never get to show their work to others but are making art alone in their studios. But, regardless of how we answer this more theoretical question about whether a viewer is needed for art, I don't see why that would relate more to blind, random, AI art than to any other art.

[Norma Desmond]

To add, something is only going to be called art by a person who can name and classify things. So, obviously a person will be needed to call anything art. But I guess your point is that AI doesn't have senses and doesn't feel, like an artist alone in a studio does. So, the AI would need the viewer to supply the sensing and feeling. But, I think one has to shift paradigms some and recognize that we're simply dealing with different input qualities with AI art. I mean,sure, we could arbitrarily limit things and say art is something that only humans can produce. But I think that's restrictive in today's world. While AI might not feel, emote, or express in the same way as humans do or even at all, there will be comparable components in AI to all those things. We could arbitrarily restrict intelligence only to humans, thereby disallowing the term "Artificial Intelligence" altogether. But that ship has already sailed. By the same reasoning that we call what programmed machines do a kind of intelligence, we can call what those same programmed machines can do a kind of art. I was thinking we'd call it artificial art but that would be redundant and, on some level, because of the added degree of artificiality, art produced by AI may actually be even MORE artlike because of its extra layer of artificiality!

[Supriyo]

Fred, let me clarify. By viewing, I also include the artist. An emotional connection with a human being, be it the artist, or a viewer, that's what I think is involved in making art. I make many photos that I alone view. I think others also do the same. I think those photos can also be considered art.

 

In case of random or AI produced images, there is no concept of an artist behind those images, so I think, the connection with the viewer becomes more important. Otherwise, if no one ever sees these images, I can't think of a way to call them art (unless I am missing something). It actually seems to be closer to the analogy with the tree falling in the forest.

[Norma Desmond]

Right, but the analogy with the tree falling in the forest is meant to show the silliness of it, because there is no good answer to the tree falling question because it's a badly framed question, a kind of trick question if you will. So, I think, is the question of AI needing an artist in order to be called art until a human comes along to see it. Well, that's the only way it's going to get called art, by a human coming along, so of course a human will be involved in the calling of it as art. As I said in my second post, though, the important thing is the artificial part. You're suggesting that, until a human is involved, it can't be called art. So, the same goes for "artificial intelligence." It's only that when a human comes along to call it that. Before that, it's a machine doing something. Then a human gives it a name. But we seem willing to accept the name "Intelligence" for something done by machines. And those machines are programmed by . . . HUMANS. So why not accept "art" for what the machines can do, even before the humans come along to view it?

 

Again, when you say "if no one ever sees these images, (because there was no artist involved) I don't see how we can call them art" makes about as much sense to me as saying, "If no one ever sees those trees, (because there was no human involved) I don't see how we can call them trees?" It's kind of a mixed up ontology/epistemology, IMO.

 

In artificial intelligence, machine is substituting for man. So, to, in art produced by machine. I think you're without meaning to, pulling a fast one. You're saying art needs to be created by a sensing, feeling being in order to be called before someone sees it. But that's just another way of saying art needs to be created by a human being in order to be called art before a human being sees it. This is a classic example of begging the question. You're not actually giving a REASON why machine art shouldn't be considered art. You're just supplying another way of saying "only humans can produce art" by saying only sensing, feeling beings can create art. But the question you need to answer is WHY only sensing, feeling beings can create art (that's art before a human sees it)?

 

If a machine created it, and I view it as art, I don't hear any rationale given for why I can't say that yesterday, before anyone stumbled on it, it was art. Because I think if it's art today, now that I'm viewing it, it was art yesterday, the day before I viewed it.

 

Was the urinal art only when Duchamp placed it in the museum or did his placing it in the museum simply alert us to the fact that it was art? I'd say the latter. Same with machine-made art. It's art as soon as it's made. And then, at some point, I become aware of it. I don't think Duchamp was telling us that only urinals an artist puts in a museum are art. I think he's telling us all urinals are. Whether they were or not the day before we realized all this would probably get a quizzical laugh out of Duchamp.

[Supriyo]

To add, something is only going to be called art by a person who can name and classify things. So, obviously a person will be needed to call anything art. But I guess your point is that AI doesn't have senses and doesn't feel, like an artist alone in a studio does. So, the AI would need the viewer to supply the sensing and feeling. But, I think one has to shift paradigms some and recognize that we're simply dealing with different input qualities with AI art. I mean,sure, we could arbitrarily limit things and say art is something that only humans can produce. But I think that's restrictive in today's world. While AI might not feel, emote, or express in the same way as humans do or even at all, there will be comparable components in AI to all those things. We could arbitrarily restrict intelligence only to humans, thereby disallowing the term "Artificial Intelligence" altogether. But that ship has already sailed. By the same reasoning that we call what programmed machines do a kind of intelligence, we can call what those same programmed machines can do a kind of art. I was thinking we'd call it artificial art but that would be redundant and, on some level, because of the added degree of artificiality, art produced by AI may actually be even MORE artlike because of its extra layer of artificiality!

 

 

Sorry, I missed your last comment before responding. Your idea is noteworthy, to bring AI created images in the purview of art, because such art very well can have special qualities due to the layer of artificiality. I am not against AI created art, although I may have given that vibe unintentionally. I just think, the viewer's emotional connection to such art is going to be important, because otherwise it seems like a array of pixels in a sterile world.

 

Fred, I am a little curious, what you meant by more art like because of the layer of artificiality?

[Supriyo]

You're saying art needs to be created by a sensing, feeling being in order to be called before someone sees it.

 

I am not saying that. Many aesthetically pleasing things can be produced by non-feeling beings or processes, and many of those can be art, if a sensing feeling being establishes an emotional connection with such objects. That's my position. I understand, you don't agree with it. In my view, art exists because we make sense of an otherwise inanimate universe with our own emotions and imaginations. I think, that emotional connection is what imparts the magical quality of art to any artifact, whether natural or human made. Without that, it would just be a scientific phenomenon, same way as a AI produced image would be an array of pixels.

 

I can't agree, things become art as soon as they are produced. That way anything and everything that ever existed (even before humans existed) can be called art, because one day, (given the human population integrated over time) someone might find aesthetics hidden in almost anything.

 

I think, the urinal became art when Duchamp felt an emotional connection with it. I don't think, by giving the urinal example, Duchamp is saying, all urinals are art, rather all urinals (and by analogy, other unconventional artifacts) have the potential to be art if viewed with an open mind. That's my feeling, I may be wrong.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Supriyo

[Supriyo]

Again, when you say "if no one ever sees these images, (because there was no artist involved) I don't see how we can call them art" makes about as much sense to me as saying, "If no one ever sees those trees, (because there was no human involved) I don't see how we can call them trees?" It's kind of a mixed up ontology/epistemology, IMO.

 

A tree remains a tree even if no one sees it, because a tree's physical existence is not dependent on human perception, its dependent on physical laws. I don't think it's a good analogy to the existence of art, which is a product of human perception.

[Julie H]

I don't think it's a good analogy to the existence of art, which is a product of human perception.

 

Art is communication. It requires an expected viewer.

[Norma Desmond]

Supriyo, I would look at Duchamp as paving the way for some products of artificial intelligence to be accepted as art, in their existence and not just in their being attended to as art.

It's not the visual question of the readymade that counts. It's the fact that it exists." --Duchamp

I think you're right that Duchamp, AT THE TIME, would have said a urinal is elevated to art by the choice of an artist, but he thrust us forward in what we would accept as art and artist, and we've kept moving forward from there.

You have to accept [a readymade] with indifference, as if you had no aesthetic emotion" --Duchamp

So, I think it's not quite right to say, as you did, ". . . the urinal became art when Duchamp made an emotional connection to it." No, it became art when he picked it as he maintained emotional indifference toward it, which I think is akin to what the AI machine is doing. AI may be the epitome of the artist who chooses with indifference. Duchamp was trying to undermine the possibility of defining art, so our very conversation might be laughable to him to begin with. But I'd suggest the "randomness" you (or Steve) brought up is one of the things he would not just allow but actually encourage in the world of art. You talked about needing a viewer's emotional connection or else you'd just have "an array of pixels in a sterile world" but I sense the latter was just what Duchamp was moving toward. This idea of "aesthetic indifference" was very important to him. What could be more aesthetically indifferent than a machine? (I suspect in a few more decades, we may find out, at which point we may move on to yet another new iteration of art!) In any case, I see no reason to believe he wouldn't allow the AI machine to stand in for the artist. If you agree that a painting by a painter is art when it's made, I think he would simply invite us to consider the machine as we do the painter. That's what I'm suggesting anyway, even if we don't leave it up to Duchamp to decide.

 

Supriyo said:

Fred, I am curios what you meant by more art like because of the layer of artificiality?"

Art is artifice. It is made. Plato put it down as a cheap imitation of reality, but today we herald it precisely as an apex of human endeavor, as opposed to "natural" occurrence. The "made-ness" of AI (perhaps "ready-made-ness" in Duchamp's terms) seems suited to art. Products of AI have a double layer of artificiality . . . They are made, not naturally-occurring, and they are made by an artificial entity. So, maybe that double layer makes these things made by AI MORE like art rather than less like it!

[Norma Desmond]

Art is communication. It requires an expected viewer.

I don't think so. Art often communicates but I don't think it has to. If there were one woman left on Earth and she spent her day gathering food, cooking it, building a shelter for herself and then at night spent an hour pouring her heart out with paint on a canvas, even knowing no one would ever see it, I think she'd be making art.

Anything that's placed in an art context, like for example a presentation in a gallery, is art. This is separate from the question of what is good art and what is bad art.

I think there's a lot to be said for this idea and it's important but I don't think it's the whole story. It gives too much power to the powers that be and existing institutions if it's made the only thing that determines art. I think there have to be other determining factors allowed to be sufficient at times in the absence of such an art context presentation. I think there has to be room for an individual to make art regardless of context and another person to view it.

[Norma Desmond]

Art doesn't have to be placed in an art context for it to be art (though making art without it being seen would also constitute an art context). What I mean is that something that wasn't even made as art when placed in an art context or when intentionally presented to be seen and considered as such will be art. I think the intent is important though. I don't mean that only the things that are presented in an art context like a museum or gallery are art.

Got it! Makes sense.

 

I agree that intention is important, too, in many cases. But probably not all. I'm not one for fully subjective answers for anything, and would probably find, at least in some cases, more objective characteristics of art than intention to help determine if something is art.

[Julie H]

[Supriyo]

Supriyo, I would look at Duchamp as paving the way for some products of artificial intelligence to be accepted as art, in their existence and not just in their being attended to as art.

 

Fred, I respect the contributions of Duchamp and others in revolutionizing the way we approach and going to approach art. I think you make a very good point in referring to Duchamp while discussing machine made art. As I said before, I have difficulties in accepting that art lies in the mere existence of objects, because to me thats opening up a huge floodgate, where anything that ever existed might suddenly qualify as art, the distant galaxy, the planet Saturn with its exquisite rings. I may not be able to open my mind to that concept. May be I am just not yet ready for it.

 

So, I think it's not quite right to say, as you did, ". . . the urinal became art when Duchamp made an emotional connection to it." No, it became art when he picked it as he maintained emotional indifference toward it, which I think is akin to what the AI machine is doing. AI may be the epitome of the artist who chooses with indifference.

 

Duchamp picked objects with aesthetic indifference, aesthetics that was already defined by the establishment, because doing so he thought would lead to more of the same stuff, repetition. I think what he was suggesting was to approach objects without the extra baggage that traps our minds. Taste, he said is the enemy of art. I think this taste is bias that he was recommending not falling for while looking at artifacts. Also, he suggested not to become attached to those objects and love or hate them. But I don't see him asking not to make emotional connections to those objects. Emotional connection doesn't have to be liking or dislike or attachment, it can be a reflection. I think Duchamp showed a lot of emotional connection to his subjects in the form of revolt, irony, sarcasm, humor, metaphor. He famously hanged a math book from the balcony so that the theorems get used to the facts of life. He also cared for his 'readymades'. He inquired about some of them for months to his sister, who had actually thrown them away. All these tell me that Duchamp was far from not establishing emotional connection with his art. What he didn't want to do was look at them with preconceived aesthetics and the associated emotions/biases.

 

You talked about needing a viewer's emotional connection or else you'd just have "an array of pixels in a sterile world" but I sense the latter was just what Duchamp was moving toward. This idea of "aesthetic indifference" was very important to him.

 

Its intriguing, you see it that way. I see Duchamp's notion of 'aesthetic indifference' as to be free of biases or preconceived notions. He was against both bias in selecting the object and later on being biased by it, as in 'I like it, so lets find or create more of it'. He never asked us not to reflect or make a statement with those objects, all of which are emotional connections to me.

 

What could be more aesthetically indifferent than a machine?

 

Fred, if you are referring to the AI machine, it produces images based on very well defined rules, that are gleaned from the training photos fed to it. The training photos are selected by a human with personal aesthetic biases, so the photos produced by the AI machine reflect those biases. I would not call it 'aesthetic indifference'. On the other hand, there are machine made art like the Electric Sheep Project, that are produced purely from algorithms that are allowed to evolve in a computer, without much human input. I think, 'aesthetic indifference' might apply to them during creating the works, not selecting the ones for viewing though.

 

In any case, I see no reason to believe he wouldn't allow the AI machine to stand in for the artist. If you agree that a painting by a painter is art when it's made, I think he would simply invite us to consider the machine as we do the painter.

 

I am very much open to that idea, but I still think the machine is not producing the art, the viewer is, by virtue of his/her emotional connection to the works, and the machine which produced them. Such a viewer needs to have an open mind in treating those works as art, which aligns with your reference to 'aesthetic indifference'.

 

I am very much open to paradigm shifts in any field, including art. But I also like to define what I am studying in it's present form, because it is a way for me to understand what is what. I like to establish boundaries, because only then I know when I have crossed them into a new paradigm.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Supriyo

[Norma Desmond]

Supriyo, we've covered a lot of ground and I think I'll leave things pretty much where they are with some agreements and some disagreements between us, which is probably as it should be. Leaving the conversation a bit open-ended gives room for thought and mulling over the various ideas. Just one thing I wanted to address.

As I said before, I have difficulties in accepting that art lies in the mere existence of objects, because to me thats opening up a huge floodgate, where anything that ever existed might suddenly qualify as art, the distant galaxy, the planet Saturn with its exquisite rings. I may not be able to open my mind to that concept.

I'm not sure why allowing art to lie in the objects opens more floodgates than allowing it to lie in the emotional connection to a viewer. Can't the viewer be aesthetically connected to anything she chooses, the distant galaxy, the planet Saturn with its exquisite rings? I think there are floodgates either way, and I think not just Duchamp but many more modern and contemporary artists are constantly trying to open up those floodgates. I, too, am not interested in "reducing" art to "It's EVERYTHING!" But I'm not sure it's wise to reign it in only by emotional connection to a viewer. I think there has to be, or at least I'd like there to be, a multiplicity of ways to contain art from losing its meaning. That keeps art on its toes, and it keeps it from being able to be defined by a single criterion, which I think is important. The fact that it can't be limited by a single criterion like "connection to a viewer" shouldn't mean it's everything. It should simply mean we don't outright reject the connection to the viewer, and that we also don't make connection to a viewer the sole factor. There are so many different types of art that I think there probably have to be a variety of criterion. That means that things that are art don't have a singular kind of identity, but are rather in a situation much like family resemblances: differing, but overlapping and loosely defined similarities that can't be judged by a single feature.

[Supriyo]

Can't the viewer be aesthetically connected to anything she chooses, the distant galaxy, the planet Saturn with its exquisite rings?

 

They can, and then such objects could be seen as art from that point onwards. What I find hard to accept is that those objects (planets or galaxies) always existed as art, as you posited in one of your previous comments. Accepting that in my view would be akin to opening a floodgate, wherein anything can be proactively called art, because someday someone might find it as so. I respect your views on this, and will leave it at that.

 

I think there has to be, or at least I'd like there to be, a multiplicity of ways to contain art from losing its meaning. That keeps art on its toes, and it keeps it from being able to be defined by a single criterion, which I think is important. The fact that it can't be limited by a single criterion like "connection to a viewer" shouldn't mean it's everything.

 

This is where I would bother you, because you sometimes come up with alternative views which may have missed me. What other ways can something be meaningful as art, if the emotional connection aspect is completely absent? In AI art, there is no emotional connection between the art and the creator, but there is connection with the viewer.

 

I also think disagreements are fine, they are far better than misunderstanding and going round and round. I think I have succeeded in identifying the points of our disagreements, which I consider a success for me. These discussions challenged me and made me think, which is always a welcome exercise for me. Thank you for that.

[Norma Desmond]

What other ways can something be meaningful as art, if the emotional connection aspect is completely absent?

It seems to me it has to be more than emotional attachment. I am emotionally attached to my children. That doesn't make them art. What is the additional ingredient that makes a painting art? Why is a sculpture art, which I am emotionally attached to, but not my bronze baby shoes, which I'm also emotionally attached to? What is it that makes me attach emotionally as art to one thing vs. another?

 

I think the answers to these questions often lie in a series or amalgam of all the traditional answers that have been given throughout history: Declaration by the art world or, as Phil said, an object being put into an art context. Beauty. Symbolic form. Expressiveness. A lie that makes us realize truth, according to Picasso, etc. In other words, in defining ways something can be considered art, I'd use a variety of criteria that sometimes don't and sometimes do overlap in various works of art throughout history and according to various definitions throughout the history of art, art theory, and art criticism. I'd include lots of artist's definitions or metaphors, lots of Philosophers' theses, and lots of art historians' and critics' viewpoints. I would not narrow it down to a singular criterion. I think some of the criteria will reside in the objects, some in the viewers, some with the establishment, some in the artists themselves. Not all works of art would have all these criteria. Some would have a singular criterion. Some would have a few, some many, some would have them all, maybe. We would come away with a loose idea of what art is rather than a fixed definition.

[Supriyo]

Fred, thank you for your response. I really appreciate it.

 

It seems to me it has to be more than emotional attachment. I am emotionally attached to my children. That doesn't make them art. What is the additional ingredient that makes a painting art? Why is a sculpture art, which I am emotionally attached to, but not my bronze baby shoes, which I'm also emotionally attached to? What is it that makes me attach emotionally as art to one thing vs. another?

 

Experiencing an artwork triggers our imagination and allows us to emotionally connect to the subject of the art. I think that may be different from attachment that we feel for our loved ones or belongings, which are not that much associated with imagination. Yes, one can imagine a story with one's loved one, and that can lead to art, but the original person is not considered art in that case. Nevertheless, I didn't preclude things other than art to not have emotional connection. My question was, if the emotional aspect is completely absent, can such an artifact or object be considered art. In that light, I was proposing the emotional connection as a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for art.

 

I don't like to define things via singular criteria either, but I believe it is possible to have a fundamental essence of many different criteria. For example, all the different aspects of art that you so nicely brought out do result in emotional feelings. I can't think of a single one of them that doesn't. So, the emotional response or expression seems to be a common essence to all those criteria, when applied to art. However I would like to keep my mind open, because I want to know and understand.

[Sandy Vongries]

It seems to me it has to be more than emotional attachment. I am emotionally attached to my children. That doesn't make them art.

IMO -- Children are the only Art that the majority of the world's people leave behind. All else pales to insignificance beside them.

[Norma Desmond]

Supriyo, a quick response before meeting a friend for dinner. Some of the people I know with mental and emotional disabilities respond in very unique ways to art, especially music. I think there can be some pretty strictly intellectual responses on the part of some people to art and I've seen some very instinctual but not necessarily emotional reactions to music. For myself, though perhaps not as extreme, I react much more intellectually than emotionally to MC Escher, more along the lines of how I react to a good Philosophy book than how I react to a painting of Van Gogh. Yet I consider Escher's prints art and don't consider Philosophy books art. That's why I'm hesitant to put too much emphasis on reaction in trying to figure out the art thing. There's a similarity in how I react to Escher and Bach, who's a good musical counterpart to Escher. But much less similarity between Escher and Van Gogh or Escher and Tchaikovsky in terms of reaction for me. So I keep thinking there's something about the work itself of Escher and Tchaikovsky that is more similar and telling of art than my very varied reactions. What is that? No answer here right now. My answer, seriously is to go out and take some pictures and forget about it. Art is the answer to questions about art!

[Supriyo]

My answer, seriously is to go out and take some pictures and forget about it. Art is the answer to questions about art!

 

:)

[Norma Desmond]

IMO -- Children are the only Art that the majority of the world's people leave behind. All else pales to insignificance beside them.

I think children are more significant than art on a great many levels though usually don't care to rate things in order of significance as if life were a Top Ten list. I don't feel the need or desire to classify something as art in order to emphasize its degree of significance. Children are children and at the peak of significance for many people if not most people. They aren't art and they don't need to be seen as art in order to show how significant they are. Just call them children or family and they are plenty significant enough and of more value to most parents than a painting hanging in a museum.

[PapaTango]

Art doesn't have to be placed in an art context for it to be art (though making art without it being seen would also constitute an art context). What I mean is that something that wasn't even made as art when placed in an art context or when intentionally presented to be seen and considered as such will be art. I think the intent is important though. I don't mean that only the things that are presented in an art context like a museum or gallery are art.

 

I have found some of the most emotional 'art' installed on the walls of abandoned buildings. Going far and above the typical graffiti sort of illustration--at the level of Banksy and an urban Escher. All in supreme isolation from the public, often in places that are not even visited anymore by any sort of urban crawler. A statement to the transitory also, as eventually these places are demolished by neglect or purpose. Ephemeral and eloquent.

 

Here I am reminded of the Tibetan Buddhism practice of the 'sand mandala.'

 

I have to say that this has become a most engaging conversation--when we can post. I had incredible thoughts yesterday--thinking that had the incisiveness of Sartre, the wit of Voltaire, and a healthy twist of Kafka. Could not post due to PN problems. Now swept away, like digital dust in an ethereal wind. So I am left with simple brain farts that I will not belabor except to say that art is art as long as one person appreciates it--even if it is only the artist themselves.