William & Susan Schran User on sat 2 jul 11
On 7/1/11 9:53 PM, "James Freeman" wrote:
> No, the original premise, which has not been dissected nor subverted nor
> altered in any way, was that there can be no limits to nor definition of
> what art is; not just by generalities as you state, but by anything.
I tell my students that art is anything they can get away with.
Though I say this tongue-in-cheek, it is somewhat true.
The artist may create,
but the viewer/listener/time must define/accept it as art.
The context in which the art was created helps the viewer/listener
understand intention.
Bill
--
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
James Freeman on sat 2 jul 11
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:22 AM, William & Susan Schran User
wrote:
Result: It=3D92s art if somebody (or a lot of some bodies, or time)
accepts it as such.
During a visit to London a couple years ago I went to the Tate Museum of Ar=
=3D
t.
Many rooms of =3D93stuff=3D94 hanging on the wall or laying on the floor th=
at
I assume was art, but I did not accept as something I cared to spend
my valuable time viewing.
Bill...
A small thought experiment:
You and I walk into a large white room, in the center of which sits an
object.=3DA0 Can that object be art to me, while to you it is not?=3DA0 If
not, who decides? If so, how can a physical object be simultaneously
"art" and "not art"?=3DA0 If it can be simultaneously "art" and "not art",
then the word "art" describes nothing, and is thus without meaning.
If the word "art" does have meaning, does describe something real,
then mustn't the object be "art" to both of us, or neither of us?
It seems to me that "art", like similar concepts such as love and
beauty, are not tangible things at all, they are not measurable
characteristics of an object. I believe they are ALL nothing more
than biochemical or bioelectrical conditions which exist only within
our own unique mind, triggered though they may be by an object or a
person or an experience. If "art", along with it's kin, is a purely
mental construct, then it is foolish to insist that something
universally is or isn't art, as what triggers a certain condition in
your brain may not trigger the same reaction in mine. So, once again
I arrive at the conclusion that "art" is a meaningless term except
within the confines of our own individual minds. We can both look at
the same person, one of us saying he or she is beautiful while the
other saying he or she is ugly, and everyone is fine with that,
difference of opinion and all, but somehow all that goes out the
window when the subject is art? It's a head scratcher.
As an aside, there was a recent study conducted amongst Apple computer
devotees, employing Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). It
was shown that during a discussion of consumer technology, the same
right brain centers were excited in the Apple people as were triggered
in deeply religious people when discussing theology. I would be
willing to bet that if art types were subjected to fMRI while
discussing art, these same religious, emotion-oriented brain centers
would be active.
Perhaps too much thinking for a Saturday morning!
Be well.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness,
too preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"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
James Freeman on sat 2 jul 11
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 7:51 AM, William & Susan Schran User t
> wrote:
The artist may create,
but the viewer/listener/time must define/accept it as art.
Bill...
I agree completely with your thought. The problem, however, is that we are
told that we MUST accept it as art, or we are somehow "limited",
closed-minded, parochial, or a Philistine.
The formula seems to be:
Step 1: Declare yourself to be an artist
Step 2: Make something (or hire someone to make something for you)
Result: That thing is automatically art
The little crumb tossed to us, that we are allowed to decide if it is good
art or bad art, is cold comfort.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"...outsider artists, caught in the bog of their own consciousness, too
preciously idiosyncratic to be taken seriously."
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. 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
William & Susan Schran User on sat 2 jul 11
On 7/2/11 8:51 AM, "James Freeman" wrote:
> I agree completely with your thought.=3DA0 The problem, however, is that =
we a=3D
re
> told that we MUST accept it as art, or we are somehow "limited",
> closed-minded, parochial, or a Philistine.
> The formula seems to be:
> Step 1:=3DA0 Declare yourself to be an artist
> Step 2:=3DA0 Make something (or hire someone to make something for you)
> Result:=3DA0 That thing is automatically art
> The little crumb tossed to us, that we are allowed to decide if it is goo=
=3D
d art
> or bad art, is cold comfort.
>=3D20
> James,
> Step 1: This step could be skipped
> Step 2: Absolutely necessary
> Result: It=3DB9s art if somebody (or a lot of some bodies, or time) accep=
ts i=3D
t as
> such.
>=3D20
> During a visit to London a couple years ago I went to the Tate Museum of =
=3D
Art.
> Many rooms of =3DB3stuff=3DB2 hanging on the wall or laying on the floor =
that I a=3D
ssume
> was art, but I did not accept as something I cared to spend my valuable t=
=3D
ime
> viewing. Some of what I saw intrigued me and I was curious enough to spen=
=3D
d
> some time trying to understand the intention. I never felt that I must
> appreciate or like what I briefly glanced at, but I will accept that a
> decision was made that what was installed was art.
>=3D20
> The argument about whether a creation is art is a debate that began with =
=3D
the
> first time something was created and will continue as long as humans crea=
=3D
te.
>=3D20
> The only thing we all MUST accept is that none of us are getting out of h=
=3D
ere
> alive =3DAD everything else is up for discussion.
>=3D20
> Bill
>=3D20
--=3D20
William "Bill" Schran
wschran@cox.net
wschran@nvcc.edu
http://www.creativecreekartisans.com
>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
>=3D20
| |
|
