1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    11 Apr '09 22:08
    Originally posted by StTito
    spreading butter on toast is art
    really, how so?
  2. Standard memberStTito
    The Mullverine
    Little Beirut
    Joined
    13 May '05
    Moves
    8481
    12 Apr '09 02:29
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    really, how so?
    Anything done with passion and precision is art. Only the pretentious need to hold it above and categorize it. Oh and art critics cause they got to get paid.
  3. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    13 Apr '09 00:563 edits
    Originally posted by StTito
    Anything done with passion and precision is art. Only the pretentious need to hold it above and categorize it. Oh and art critics cause they got to get paid.
    yes but who butters their toast passionately or with precision? for many it is done in a spontaneous manner and almost subconsciously! never the less, it is an interesting point, but let us think on it for a moment, for example, structural engineering requires skill and precision and the adherent may apply his knowledge in a passionate manner, are we to understand this as art? if so then the infra-structure of a building, by definition must be considered artistic! is it really so? Also it would seem that in the visual arts, painting for example, for many years, precision was seen as a virtue, that was until the the fauves and the impressionist movement which it spawned, redefined this type of thinking, giving colour and spontaneity much higher precedence over form and precision! it would seem that there are more elements to this than passion or precision, for one may indeed butter ones toast passionately and precisely, but is it truly artistic?
  4. Joined
    26 Nov '07
    Moves
    1085
    13 Apr '09 08:22
    Originally posted by StTito
    Anything done with passion and precision is art. Only the pretentious need to hold it above and categorize it. Oh and art critics cause they got to get paid.
    I wouldn't call myself pretentious when it comes to art - but I can be picky. I like art to tell me a story, or to make me "feel" something. I was recently at a Modern Art gallery in Edinburgh, and in one of the rooms the artwork consisted of some photographs...but what really got me was that they required an explanation, and the explanation was not part of the art. Art shouldn't need explaining - it should make you feel something at all levels (although, of course, an explanation may make you understand it better).

    In contrast, I was at the same gallery (I don't actually spend all my time in art galleries, there's just a nice cafe there and it's close to my wife's grandmothers house...) and there was a phenomenal collection of work there by Charles Avery called "The Islanders". It was amazing, spanning quite a few rooms and every piece was part of the greater piece of artwork - the exhibition itself. Further, every piece of text was written by the artist, and was part of the exhibition. Really, I can't explain it, you should all go and see it for yourself...
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    13 Apr '09 11:286 edits
    this raises some excellent points, does an artist, indeed need to explain his work? if not why not? secondly, the work of art should at ALL LEVELS be able to 'awaken', something within the viewer, what this 'something', is, is as yet, undefined, however, it seems that it is present, although subconsciously in everyone, and the role of the artist, through his own experience and perceptions, is able to form that 'collective subconscious element, bring it to the fore, crystallize it in a way that is readily acceptable and comprehensible to everyone.

    For example. we have Scotland's national poet, Robert Burns, in his great work, Tam O'Shanter, he observes snow falling momentarily on a river, thus noting its transient quality, now you and I may have observed snow falling on a river many times, but to use it in such a way, so that it is instantly recongnisable, to all persons , on every level, in every culture, is truly something special, its not that we were unaware of it, it just needed crystalising and bringing to the fore, thus he writes,

    'pleasures are like poppies spread,
    you seize the bloom, the flower is shed,
    or a snowflake on the river,
    a moment white, then melts forever'.

    thirdly we must ask, is an explanation entirely necessary? Take for example the words of an artist like Bob Dylan, very famously he has refused any attempt at an explanation or a definitive definition? (does this phrase make sense?) of his work, anyhow, the reason being, as far as i can tell, and this is also quite interesting, that his art, is intended to be a vehicle for the recipients own imagination, so rather than spelling it out, as it were, its left to each individual, to do what he will, with the archetypical imagery which he presents, through their own imaginative process.

    This latter process, as a consequence, must have its share of charlatans, 'i do not need to explain my work', 'its for the initiated only', which probably accounts for why there is so much obscene drivel masquerading as art, simply because something sits in a museum, does not make it artistic, otherwise, the coffee tables and chairs, could be construed to be just as artistic as the paintings which hang on the walls!

    there has, in my own mind, been quite a confusion as to whether art is for the eye, for the mind, or both! for example we may see a pleasing picture of say a fantasy landscape, painted with skill and dexterity, however it seems to us contrived, fit for the front bonnet of my Mitsubishi, but nothing much else, every thing has been imagined for us, unicorns, fantastic castle, faires, elfs, dragons etc etc it is intellectually bereft! on the other hand, when one visits, say the degree exhibition at one of our 'art' schools, and one visits the conceptual art displays, one is left to wondering what some of the persons were thinking, have they really made the connection, or is there work so subjective as to be useless to anyone but themselves?

    for example there was a chap, not far from where i live, who won a national conceptual art contest, his work was a piece of blue tack stuck to a bare wall, now, while one must admire the concept, (its another one of those things whence we are supposed to apply our own picture from our own imagination), would one really like to come home and look at a piece of blue tack stuck to our living room wall, it may be better than one of those awful Jack Vitriani paintings which depict violinists on beaches while a couple dines, (i am convinced that only women buy these prints), but not much better, surely there must be a happy medium somewhere?
  6. Standard memberStTito
    The Mullverine
    Little Beirut
    Joined
    13 May '05
    Moves
    8481
    13 Apr '09 21:24
    I guess my whole point is art can not be defined. We all see things differently, literally. Some people have stigmas, some can't hear certain frequencies. when you say "that is blue" imagine how many different shades we all see. I'm not trying to get all hippie on ya'll. My favorite saying is: "I don't know art but I know what I like." Good! If you want to study it and get all deep and philosophical go ahead, if you like a picture of five dogs playing poker(or a blue tack on a white wall) fine. I guess this all comes from being a musician and despising the critic, even if is a positive critic, because your never going to completely understand the artist. but if it moves you who cares? and yes the infastructure of a building can move me if the building is beautiful and Yes when I am hungry enough buttering my toast is an art form. and I can eat it!(that's why chefs are so pretentious, but don't get me started on that)
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    14 Apr '09 10:001 edit
    Originally posted by StTito
    I guess my whole point is art can not be defined. We all see things differently, literally. Some people have stigmas, some can't hear certain frequencies. when you say "that is blue" imagine how many different shades we all see. I'm not trying to get all hippie on ya'll. My favorite saying is: "I don't know art but I know what I like." Good! If you want to st ...[text shortened]... d I can eat it!(that's why chefs are so pretentious, but don't get me started on that)
    mmmm, i think what you are saying is quite correct, however, its not so much that it cannot be defined, for already we have established that it has certain characteristics, its simply seems that there are simply different levels. for example, the little ol lady who likes her Monet print above her mantelpiece, surrounded by peach and beige walls, to her it seems perfectly acceptable, but to someone else. versed in the latest fashions of fine art, it seems sterile, even crass, lacking in taste etc etc. then there are those who seem mesmerized by labored attention to detail, we may think of fantasy art, every brick rendered and every scale of the dragon highlighted, and when they are exposed to something done spontaneously they turn the picture upside down and wonder what it is supposed to be and exclaim, this is not art, this person cannot even draw or paint! thus like you say it means different things to different persons on different levels, to be sure!

    funnily enough, i was going to mention cooking in the context of a skill and a craft, and try to determine whether it was an art form or not, i think perhaps you have some thoughts on this yourself?
  8. Standard memberStTito
    The Mullverine
    Little Beirut
    Joined
    13 May '05
    Moves
    8481
    14 Apr '09 21:18
    well since music does not provide much of an income yet I cooked for close to 10 years. Trained under a chef in the Caribbean and worked under a couple in the states. Chef's have no doubt in their mind that they are artists and I tend to agree, but again I can see a mac n' cheese dish a work of art if it was made with love.
  9. Joined
    26 Nov '07
    Moves
    1085
    15 Apr '09 08:07
    Originally posted by StTito
    well since music does not provide much of an income yet I cooked for close to 10 years. Trained under a chef in the Caribbean and worked under a couple in the states. Chef's have no doubt in their mind that they are artists and I tend to agree, but again I can see a mac n' cheese dish a work of art if it was made with love.
    Out of interest, would you say that food must taste good to be considered art?
  10. Standard memberStTito
    The Mullverine
    Little Beirut
    Joined
    13 May '05
    Moves
    8481
    15 Apr '09 21:241 edit
    Originally posted by Swlabr
    Out of interest, would you say that food must taste good to be considered art?
    Some schools say that presentation is 60%-80% of the foods taste. And I admit that many people taste with there eyes before there nose and toungue. And on the other hand some foods(like any art) are an aquired taste. But to answer your question, for food to be a complete art form it has to taste good to YOU.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree