Randall Moody on sat 4 sep 10
You only have to read the ""The answer for Danto, is that..." to see that
this is simply Danto's opinion. It is no more or less valid than anyone
else's.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com/home.html
paul gerhold on sat 4 sep 10
Arthur Danto professor emeritus of philosophy at Columbia University and fo=
r
25 years the art critic for the nation has written frequently about the
epiphany he experienced upon his first sighting of Warhol"s Brillo boxes
which posed for him the philosophical question: "What is the difference
between two things , exactly alike, one of which is art and one of which is
not"
The answer for Danto, is that the essence of an artwork lies not in it's
outward appearance but in it's context and its function within a system of
meaning.
This is from a book review in Art in America. in the June/July issue.
Makes a lot of sense to me although I will say that it may take a lot of
years to determine the function of a piece within a system of meaning.
Probably why the impressionists are now recognized as well as Duchamp,
Grandma Moses and others previously mentioned and why a lot of stuff that i=
s
popular in its time is forgotten or judged irrelevant by history
Paul
Vince Pitelka on sat 4 sep 10
Paul Gerhold wrote:
"Arthur Danto professor emeritus of philosophy at Columbia University and
for 25 years the art critic for the nation has written frequently about the
epiphany he experienced upon his first sighting of Warhol"s Brillo boxes
which posed for him the philosophical question: "What is the difference
between two things , exactly alike, one of which is art and one of which is
not." The answer for Danto, is that the essence of an artwork lies not in
it's outward appearance but in it's context and its function within a syste=
m
of meaning.
Paul -
I can relate to this, especially from a personal experience. On one of my
trips to NYC during grad school, I was at MOMA. I had just looked at
Warhol's "100 Cans" from 1962, and had moved off to the side. The painting
is an image of 100 Campbell's soup cans, all different flavors. Another
group of viewers came along and stood in front of the painting, and this
work of art inspired them to discuss which flavors of Campbell's soup they
liked most - "I like 'bean with bacon" - "Oh no, the chicken-noodle is the
best" - "What about the corn chowder?" This was great - Warhol would have
loved it. It was a perfect Marcel Duchamp moment, distilling art to common
everyday object and experience. I guess the message is that art can be so
many things - it can illuminate and celebrate the most heroic act or the
greatest tragedy, or it can depict the most mundane object or circumstance,
and as long as it is original, it is art.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Eva Gallagher on sat 4 sep 10
Interesting, but what does the last part of the sentence below mean?
"The answer for Danto, is that the essence of an artwork lies not in it's
outward appearance but in it's context and its function within a system of
meaning.
Specifically "system of meaning"? How can you have a system in a meaning?
Eva Gallagher
Deep River, Ontario
http://newfoundoutpotter.blogspot.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "paul gerhold"
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2010 12:02 PM
Subject: What Is and Is Not Art-An Answer
> Arthur Danto professor emeritus of philosophy at Columbia University and
> for
> 25 years the art critic for the nation has written frequently about the
> epiphany he experienced upon his first sighting of Warhol"s Brillo boxes
> which posed for him the philosophical question: "What is the difference
> between two things , exactly alike, one of which is art and one of which
> is
> not"
>
> The answer for Danto, is that the essence of an artwork lies not in it's
> outward appearance but in it's context and its function within a system o=
f
> meaning.
>
> This is from a book review in Art in America. in the June/July issue.
> Makes a lot of sense to me although I will say that it may take a lot of
> years to determine the function of a piece within a system of meaning.
> Probably why the impressionists are now recognized as well as Duchamp,
> Grandma Moses and others previously mentioned and why a lot of stuff that
> is
> popular in its time is forgotten or judged irrelevant by history
>
> Paul
>
>
James Freeman on sat 4 sep 10
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
> I guess the message is that art can be so
> many things - ...snip...
> and as long as it is original, it is art.
Vince...
Why does it have to be original? The museums are full of art that
does not seem to be terribly original.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Vince Pitelka on sun 5 sep 10
I wrote:
"I guess the message is that art can be so many things - ...snip... and as
long as it is original, it is art."
James Freeman wrote:
"Why does it have to be original? The museums are full of art that does no=
t
seem to be terribly original."
James -
Of course there are tons of examples of "art" that is not particularly
original. Please note that in my statement above, I never said that art ha=
s
to be original. I said that as long as it is original, it is art. I do
believe that the best art is always original in some way - there is
something in its concept or execution that is new and original. That is wh=
y
it stands out from all the less-original work.
Since people in Western culture are so impressed by well-executed pictorial
realism, whether or not it is at all original, there are plenty of examples
of unoriginal art that have made their way into museums and galleries.
Also, I think that sometimes the originality appears as a whole movement in
art, as in the case of the Hudson River School. People had been painting
landscapes for centuries, and yet there is something in so many of those
paintings that makes them stand out from much previous work of a similar
type. Same with every significant movement in art.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Lis Allison on sun 5 sep 10
On September 4, 2010, Eva Gallagher wrote:
> Interesting, but what does the last part of the sentence below mean?
> "The answer for Danto, is that the essence of an artwork lies not in
> it's outward appearance but in it's context and its function within a
> system of meaning.
> Specifically "system of meaning"? How can you have a system in a
> meaning?
>
Referring to the anecdote about the tour group discussing their favourite
soups after seeing Warhol's 100 Soup Cans explains this beautifuly!
For these people, the image had meaning, they could relate to it's content
and apply it to their lives. For them, with their 'system of meaning', it
said something. Now, if a number of people from some culture that had
never heard of soup in a can had looked at the same painting, would it
have had any meaning? No, because it would not make sense within their
'system of meaning'. It's an awkward phrase, the word 'paradigm' is more
often used, but I think that is what it is getting at.
One can only understand within one's paradigm. Once one does understand,
one's paradigm expands.
Cool, no?
(BTW, the above little phrase would have had no meaning to someone in 18th
century Britain.....but you all understand it....)
Lis
--
Elisabeth Allison
Pine Ridge Studio
website: www.pine-ridge.ca
Pottery blog: www.studio-on-the-ridge.blogspot.com
Garden blog: www.garden-on-the-ridge.blogspot.com
Lee Love on sun 5 sep 10
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Lis Allison wrote:
> One can only understand within one's paradigm. Once one does understand,
> one's paradigm expands.
>
> (BTW, the above little phrase would have had no meaning to someone in 18t=
=3D
h
> century Britain.....but you all understand it....)
Or 20th century Detroit. Where I grew up, a paradigm was a
nickle short of two bits.
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Vince Pitelka on sun 5 sep 10
Lis Allison wrote:
"One can only understand within one's paradigm. Once one does understand,
one's paradigm expands. Cool, no?"
Yes Lis, it's very cool. At NDSU in Fargo in the early 90s I taught art
appreciation, and some time ago in a Clayart post about art I talked about
how I introduced my students to the idea of art appreciation. I said that
appreciating art need not have anything to do with whether or not you like
the work or would want it in your home, and that the only basic requirement=
s
are open eyes and an open mind. Or, to put it another way, don't approach
art with a rigid paradigm. Open eyes and mind to information and tradition=
s
that are unfamiliar, and one's mind and ones potential for appreciating the
unfamiliar will be expanded exponentially.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
phil on sun 5 sep 10
( People pausing before the presence of Mr. Warhol's Soup Can images, in an
Art Museaum...)
I think at that point, they could have just gone to
any Grocery Store, pretending it was an Art Museum, or having been mildly
hypnotised to believe as defining premis, that it were some very droll and
clever and subtle Art Museum, and, had a
vastly more rich and satisfying experience.
Actually, this inspires me to become an Artist.
I would like to do a series of Soup Cans, they could be stacked or tumbles
or whatever, very realistically labeled, where each Soup is made from havin=
g
diced, purreed, simmered, and added Vegetables or Grains to, some famous
latter 20th Century Artist.
One could do worse...
Lol...
Love,
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lis Allison"
> On September 4, 2010, Eva Gallagher wrote:
>> Interesting, but what does the last part of the sentence below mean?
>> "The answer for Danto, is that the essence of an artwork lies not in
>> it's outward appearance but in it's context and its function within a
>> system of meaning.
>> Specifically "system of meaning"? How can you have a system in a
>> meaning?
>>
> Referring to the anecdote about the tour group discussing their favourite
> soups after seeing Warhol's 100 Soup Cans explains this beautifuly!
>
> For these people, the image had meaning, they could relate to it's conten=
t
> and apply it to their lives. For them, with their 'system of meaning', it
> said something. Now, if a number of people from some culture that had
> never heard of soup in a can had looked at the same painting, would it
> have had any meaning? No, because it would not make sense within their
> 'system of meaning'. It's an awkward phrase, the word 'paradigm' is more
> often used, but I think that is what it is getting at.
>
> One can only understand within one's paradigm. Once one does understand,
> one's paradigm expands.
>
> Cool, no?
>
> (BTW, the above little phrase would have had no meaning to someone in 18t=
h
> century Britain.....but you all understand it....)
>
> Lis
Elizabeth Priddy on mon 6 sep 10
Would you consider "Does it match my sofa?" too rigid a paradigm?=3D0A=3D0A=
Caus=3D
e that matters to A LOT of people.=3D0A=3D0A- ePriddy=3D0A=3D0AElizabeth Pr=
iddy=3D0AB=3D
eaufort, NC - USA=3D0A=3D0Ahttp://www.elizabethpriddy.com=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A---=
On Sun, 9=3D
/5/10, Vince Pitelka wrote:=3D0A=3D0A> From: Vince Pi=
telk=3D
a =3D0A>Or, to put it another=3D0A> way, don't approac=
h=3D0A=3D
> art with a rigid paradigm.=3DA0 Open eyes and mind to=3D0A> information a=
nd t=3D
raditions=3D0A> that are unfamiliar, and one's mind and ones potential for=
=3D0A=3D
> appreciating the=3D0A> unfamiliar will be expanded exponentially.=3D0A> -=
Vin=3D
ce=3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
Vince Pitelka on mon 6 sep 10
Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
"Would you consider "Does it match my sofa?" too rigid a paradigm? Cause
that matters to A LOT of people."
Hi Elizabeth. Of course ultimately everyone determines their own paradigm
of aesthetics and design, although I expect that few people think of it
those terms. "Paradigm" is on my list of words to avoid in artist's
statements.
Of course there are plenty of people who really are concerned about whether
the painting on the wall matches the sofa, and personally I think that is
kind of silly. Far more important that everything in the room looks good
together as a total ensemble or effect, regardless of whether colors or
patterns match. My own personal opinion is that when everything matches a
rigidly-defined color palette, it looks like something from the Stepford
Wives. How can people live in that kind of environment? It is so
aesthetically stifling.
So, yeah, if someone wants to buy a painting to match their couch, fine, bu=
t
I would much rather they buy a painting that inspires them, and live with a
little eclecticism in interior design.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft
Tennessee Tech University
vpitelka@dtccom.net; wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka
Lee Love on mon 6 sep 10
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Vince Pitelka wrote:
>
> So, yeah, if someone wants to buy a painting to match their couch, fine, =
=3D
but
> I would much rather they buy a painting that inspires them, and live with=
=3D
a
> little eclecticism in interior design.
There was a Jim Leedy "painting" at a show of his in Rochester,
Minnesota. It was made of tar and included embedded road kill in
it. I could see someone having this in their dining room. ;^)
--
=3DA0Lee, a Mashiko potter in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
=3D93Observe the wonders as they occur around you. Don't claim them. Feel
the artistry moving through and be silent.=3D94 --Rumi
Kathy Forer on tue 7 sep 10
On Sep 7, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Steve Slatin wrote:
> Everyone let out a sign,
> Velazquez wasn't tortured to death, and the principle
> that underlies "matching the sofa" was established
> in Western Civilization.
There's a notion that "matching the sofa" goes along with an approach to =
=3D
art that honors the mundane and everyday. It's not necessary to match =3D
color or interior design to acknowledge the daily life of art.=3D20
It's a respectful approach to the places which take the painting from =3D
the easel, one that Velazquez may not have shared, hence his rebellious =3D
condemnation and subsequent salvation at the hands of the court.=3D20
Many artworks work as well on museum walls as in more intimate settings. =
=3D
Some are fit only for a museum or chapel.=3D20
But nothing wrong with sofa art itself! I seem to recall that the =3D
painter Matisse was said to aspire to it, to the quotidian, to the home =3D
and intimacy of daily life.=3D20
PAINTING: POWERS OF OBSERVATION Giving the Mundane its Beautiful Due
=3D
http://www.powersofobservation.com/2010/01/giving-mundane-its-beautiful-du=
=3D
e.html
Kathy Forer=3D
Steve Slatin on tue 7 sep 10
To: "Elizabeth Priddy" Elizabeth --
I seem to recollect a story about Velazquez delivering
a particularly striking lampoon of the royal family
of Spain to the assembled court ... the fawning
courtiers all fell silent, and then the Queen said
"Very good -- it'll cover that mildew stain on the
wall there just perfectly." Everyone let out a sign,
Velazquez wasn't tortured to death, and the principle
that underlies "matching the sofa" was established
in Western Civilization.
Or maybe it wasn't Velazquez. Still, it's a good
story.
Steve Slatin --
N48.0886450
W123.1420482
--- On Mon, 9/6/10, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> Would you consider "Does it match my
> sofa?" too rigid a paradigm?
>
> Cause that matters to A LOT of people.
>
> - ePriddy
>
James Freeman on wed 8 sep 10
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Kathy Forer wrote:
> There's a notion that "matching the sofa" goes along with an approach to =
=3D
art that honors the mundane and everyday. It's not necessary to match color=
=3D
or interior design to acknowledge the daily life of art.
A good friend of mine is a non-representational painter. He paints
very deep and meaningful work that I will sadly never be able to
understand, being, as I am, completely art-impaired. (his enigmatic
website is www.anthonymiler.com , if you are curious). During one of
our far-reaching discussions of art, I told him that when someone buys
his painting, it likely isn't because they understood his message, but
rather because it matched their sofa.
A short time later, one of my pieces was purchased by an art collector
through an invitational exhibition. I received a letter from the
gentleman saying how much he enjoyed the piece, and how he placed it
into a vignette atop an antique Chinese cabinet, between a bowl by a
famous wood turner whose name escapes me and another ceramic piece by
William Brouillard, all backed by a painting by modernist painter
August Beihle. The closing line was the kicker; he bought my piece
because it matched the painting!
Isn't irony grand?
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
| |
|
