01 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MexicoWell I tried. I'm at a loss as to how to explain it to you.
Don't get me wrong here, you seem to think I place little value on art. The point I making here is that an artist is simply expressing themselves, thus any value, aesthetic or otherwise, that we place on it is false because you cannot value someones expressions. Thus the only value art has is in the eyes of the individual who will either identify with that ex ...[text shortened]... nce is based in testable reproducible, phenomena. There is no ambiguity or expression involved.
Like I said earlier, "Spoken like someone who has little appreciation for great artists."
You're kidding yourself if you believe that what I paraphrased doesn't apply to science as well as it does to art. Though I must say that it sells both scientists and artists short.
Maybe if you have time to think about it.
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou haven't really tried to explain it. You've just repeated yourself. And I was interested in your opinion. But that superiority attitude of yours makes having a discussion difficult.
Well I tried. I'm at a loss as to how to explain it to you.
Like I said earlier, "Spoken like someone who has little appreciation for great artists."
You're kidding yourself if you believe that what I paraphrased doesn't apply to science as well as it does to art. Though I must say that it sells both scientists and artists short.
Maybe if you have time to think about it.
You seem to be of the opinion that your thoughts on the matter are the only ones that are correct. and quoting yourself at someone is a sign of a very true arrogance.
In my lifetime I have probably seen and appreciated as much art, if not more, as you so what exactly makes your opinion more valid than mine?
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but superior attitudes and arrogance rarely make for pleasant conversation....
Also please clarify what your saying about science as I don't see what your saying. The aesthetic qualities that can be seen in science generally come after the work has been done. One doesn't set out to produce great research and become renounced. Science is a search for answers through empirical evidence and logic. Thus the aesthetics that it generates come from the parsimony and elegance of the solutions it generates. Not from the scientist himself.
01 Mar 08
Originally posted by rwingettThat's exactly the problem with modern art.
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.
Now everyone thinks he/she can be a good artists just by pouring feeling into it. And then you see those lousy pieces of !"#$ everywhere... Some eclectics even say it is good.
I'm more into ThinkofOne's opinion. For it to be good art, there must be a very deep understanding of the subject and trying to communicate it some (non-evident) way.
01 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by MexicoI tried a couple of different ways to explain that your comment sells art and artists short and was then at a loss as to how to go about it. If you see that as "arrogant", then so be it. However you might want to consider the level of ignorance and arrogance that is shown by starting a one sentence summary with, "All [fill in a discipline here] is, is...". The fact that you keep repeating it even after it's pointed out to you makes it all the more so. By substituting your discipline, I was hoping that you'd be able to see this, but it was to no avail.
You haven't really tried to explain it. You've just repeated yourself. And I was interested in your opinion. But that superiority attitude of yours makes having a discussion difficult.
You seem to be of the opinion that your thoughts on the matter are the only ones that are correct. and quoting yourself at someone is a sign of a very true arrogance.
In my m the parsimony and elegance of the solutions it generates. Not from the scientist himself.
By the way, I hope you didn't really mean the following:
"Great works are works that a greater number of people Identify with."
Using that criteria, you have to give the nod to John Grisham over Samuel Beckett or even worse Britney Spears over John Coltrane.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI agree with your entire post except for the first sentence. I absolutely reject the notion that any piece of artwork is "innately great." That is a complete fallacy. Artwork, and art appreciation, is this game we play with ourselves as a species. The rules of that game are completely arbitrary rules of our own subjective creation, situated within our own particular culture. But that game does have rules that it is incumbent upon the participants to learn in order to participate in any meaningful way. What many people mistakenly assume is that because those rules are invented internally, instead of being revealed from some external source, that they don't really count.
I believe that great works of art are innately great. If an individual cannot see the greatness, it's because he doesn't have the background to be able to appreciate it. It's because the viewer is limited, not the work. So many people don't seem to realize that it's incumbent on them to familiarize themselves with the idiom. So many people seem to believe ...[text shortened]... they were innately born with sufficient understanding to be able to judge all forms of art.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by MexicoI take exception to that. EVERY artist sets out to generate great works. If that isn't the passion that drives them then they have no business calling themselves an artist in the first place. Without that they are merely craftsmen.
How am I selling an artist short, thats exactly what they do, why else would they do it. All art is, is expression of thought through whatever the artist chooses as a medium.
Artists don't set out to generate great works, they simply express themselves, then other people for some reason, assign a moral, aesthetic or other value to these expressions.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by Mexico"You cannot value someone's expressions???" I fail to see how you can seriously put forward this sentiment. The viewer will interpret a particular piece of artwork within certain parameters, but to say that the artist has no input into this process borders on the absurd. As if expressing oneself is somehow devoid of any content. The artist cannot explicitly spell out what should be gleaned from his work, but he gently leads the viewer in a particular direction. There should always be a great deal of interplay between a good artist and a receptive audience.
Don't get me wrong here, you seem to think I place little value on art. The point I making here is that an artist is simply expressing themselves, thus any value, aesthetic or otherwise, that we place on it is false because you cannot value someones expressions. Thus the only value art has is in the eyes of the individual who will either identify with that ex ...[text shortened]... nce is based in testable reproducible, phenomena. There is no ambiguity or expression involved.
The public may, or may not, be quick to recognize the greatness of a particular piece of art, but it's greatness is NEVER determined by popular vote. NEVER!!!
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by rwingettI don't agree. There are works that outpace a given culture and are great within that culture. Of those, there is a subset that transcend any given time and place (culture). These are the truly great works.
I agree with your entire post except for the first sentence. I absolutely reject the notion that any piece of artwork is "innately great." That is a complete fallacy. Artwork, and art appreciation, is this game we play with ourselves as a species. The rules of that game are completely arbitrary rules of our own subjective creation, situated within our own p ...[text shortened]... nternally, instead of being revealed from some external source, that they don't really count.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBecause they have cross-cultural appeal doesn't mean they have any innate greatness. Any greatness an artwork may have is a purely human attribution.
I don't agree. There are works that outpace a given culture and are great within that culture. Of those, there is a subset that transcend any given time and place (culture). These are the truly great works.
02 Mar 08
Originally posted by rwingettHere's your original assertion:
Because they have cross-cultural appeal doesn't mean they have any innate greatness. Any greatness an artwork may have is a purely human attribution.
"The rules of that game are completely arbitrary rules of our own subjective creation, situated within our own particular culture."
"...completely arbitrary..."? "...within our own particular culture"?
While many "rules" are undoubtedly culturally influenced, I think that it's quite a stretch to say that they all are. There are attributes of sound for example that are fundamental building blocks for music. Demonstration of an understanding of the relationships amongst these building blocks is not "completely arbitrary".
07 Mar 08
Marcel Duchamp (who later in life became an obsessive chess player) exhibited ordinary objects including a urinal as art in an institutional setting. i think he was trying to make the point that if you place any object within the institutional framework of art, it can become art. 'art' therefore isn't inherent in objects.
07 Mar 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI addressed Duchamp earlier in the thread. Did you see it? I think that plus my earlier posts on "what art is" and "what great art is" address your point here.
Marcel Duchamp (who later in life became an obsessive chess player) exhibited ordinary objects including a urinal as art in an institutional setting. i think he was trying to make the point that if you place any object within the institutional framework of art, it can become art. 'art' therefore isn't inherent in objects.
If you don't think it does, then can you let me know where you think it doesn't?