27 Feb 08
1 edit
In the "Culture is Ordinary" thread, I posted some ideas on what constitutes "Art". I thought it might be an interesting topic in and of itself. Here's what I posted:
Here are some things to consider:
1) Depth of subject. Some subjects are innately more complex than others. For example, chess is a deeper subject than checkers.
2) Depth of understanding of a subject. Some demonstrate a deeper understanding of a given subject. Also, the deeper one's understanding, the greater the appreciation one can have for such a demonstration. For example, you can look at a game played by two Grandmasters vs. a game played by two patzers. In the Grandmaster game the level of play demonstrates a depth of understanding the won't be found in the game played by two patzers. The greater the depth of understanding you have for chess, the greater the appreciation you can have for the differences between the level of play of the two games.
"Art" is a demonstration of an extremely deep level of understanding of a subject. The deeper the subject and the deeper the demonstration of understanding of the subject, the more superior the work of art. The deeper the understanding that you have, the greater the appreciation you can have for the work of art.
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNot just me. The artist defines what art is. No one but the artist is even entitled to have an opinion as to what constitutes art.
Sorry, I inadvertently hit 'enter' before filling out my post. It's there now.
I think that goes without saying. It seems to me that you believe EVERYTHING is what YOU say it is 🙂
27 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThat's an interesting way of looking at it. I don't know if I could disagree more, but it's interesting. So do you see "art" as an exercise in self promotion (both internal and external)? It seems to make any public exhibition of art pointless.
Art in general. The artist, with each new piece of artwork, re-defines the definition of art. It is a process that mere spectators simply cannot comment upon.
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSelf promotion? Why would it be an exercise in self promotion? Why would public exhibitions become worthless?
That's an interesting way of looking at it. I don't know if I could disagree more, but it's interesting. So do you see "art" as an exercise in self promotion (both internal and external)? It seems to make any public exhibition of art pointless.
27 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI believe that looking at or listening to art is in itself a creative process (or it should be; of course it's possible to look at or listen to art without putting any thought or feelings into it). The spectator or listener creates xyr own connections and interpretations that may or may not coincide with what the artist intended, sometimes re-creating it, sometimes turning it into something completely different, sometimes enhancing it (personally I find it quite fascinating and enriching when people tell me what they hear or see in my music, especially if it's very far from what I intended). I don't believe that an artist "owns" xyr work in the sense that xe is the only one who can tell how it should be interpreted.
Art in general. The artist, with each new piece of artwork, re-defines the definition of art. It is a process that mere spectators simply cannot comment upon.
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingettMaybe I'm missing your intent, but the following seem to be extremely self-centered and self-serving:
Self promotion? Why would it be an exercise in self promotion? Why would public exhibitions become worthless?
"Art is what I say it is"
"No one but the artist is even entitled to have an opinion as to what constitutes art."
"It is a process that mere spectators simply cannot comment upon."
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by NordlysThe discussion is not about interpretations. It is about what gets to be considered art in the first place. I agree that the audience does play an integral part in interpretation of artwork, but it is the artist alone who determines what the audience will ultimately get to view.
I believe that looking at or listening to art is in itself a creative process (or it should be; of course it's possible to look at or listen to art without putting any thought or feelings into it). The spectator or listener creates xyr own connections and interpretations that may or may not coincide with what the artist intended, sometimes re-creating it, so ...[text shortened]... s" xyr work in the sense that xe is the only one who can tell how it should be interpreted.
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou are confusing the nature of art with my self-centered and self-serving writing style.
Maybe I'm missing your intent, but the following seem to be extremely self-centered and self-serving:
"Art is what I say it is"
"No one but the artist is even entitled to have an opinion as to what constitutes art."
"It is a process that mere spectators simply cannot comment upon."
My point is that no one can impose any definition of art upon the artist. It is the artist, in the act of creating, who determines what art is. Can a urinal be art? It is if Marcel Duchamp says it is. No one has a right to tell the artist that 'x' cannot be considered artwork. How much would the progress of art have been stunted if artists listened to people's opinions on what the proper definition of art is?
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingettI still disagree. I believe that interpretation also includes the decision whether something is considered art. Sometimes the creator of the artwork may not consider it art xymself. Does that mean that I am not allowed to see it as art?
The discussion is not about interpretations. It is about what gets to be considered art in the first place. I agree that the audience does play an integral part in interpretation of artwork, but it is the artist alone who determines what the audience will ultimately get to view.
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by NordlysWhat artist ever considers his work not to be art?
I still disagree. I believe that interpretation also includes the decision whether something is considered art. Sometimes the creator of the artwork may not consider it art xymself. Does that mean that I am not allowed to see it as art?
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by rwingettA child for example. Or an amateur artist (who wouldn't think of xymself as an artist either, of course) who may consider xyr art as just playing around a bit, maybe without any intentions to share it with others.
What artist ever considers his work not to be art?