David Hendley on wed 30 sep 98
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>If either the creator of an object or the viewer of an object considers it to
>be art.....it is art.
>Comments?? Arguments????
>
This definiton is so inclusive that it becomes meaningless,
but I'm not sure how to qualify or narrow it.
In fact, for the last several decades, many artists have had
streching the boundries of "art" as their goal.
This is one reason why modern art is meaningful to a amaller
and smaller audience; the general population intutively knows
that much of what is presented as "art" is not "art" to them.
Some questions:
I like the look of the load of gravel that was dumped on my driveway
so much that I'm leaving it for a while instead of spreading it out.
The truck driver couldn't care less how it looks; he just wanted to
dump it.
Is this art? Is the truck driver an artist?
When I crush my aluminum cans for recycling, I like to try crushing
them from different angles, and I enjoy looking at the ones I find
pleasing. No one else ever sees them.
Is that art? Am I an artist?
I love the drawing of our dog that my 3-year-old made for me
today, and she likes it too. I'm sure there are similar drawings
on half the refrigerators in the free world.
Is this art? Is she an artist?
As the viewer and/or maker in the above descriptions, I consider
them all to be art.
According to your definition, they ARE art.
Are you comfortable with that?
There is no "right" answer here, but it would seem that, according
to this criteria, there is much more that IS art than IS NOT art.
Let me leave you with the lyrics of one of my favorite
David Wilcox songs:
LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS
Now when the paint jar tipped
Off of the table
You watched as it started to fall
Glass popped, shattered and splattered
And paint spray hit the wall
Bright, blue glossy enamel
Across the kitchen floor
You said, "Good God, look at that pattern
I've never seen that before"
Chorus
Leave it like it is
Never mind the turpentine
Leave it like it is
Its fine
Now when the paint dried
You gave it a title
You called it "Kitchen Blue"
A white frame painted around it
And gallery lighting too
Rich folks come over to dinner
They all want one of their own
They say "How much? Who's the artist"
And, "My what a beautiful home"
Chorus
Now most folks suffer in sorrow
Thinking they're just no good
They don't match the magazine model
As close as they think they should
They live just like the "paint by numbers"
The teacher would be impressed
A life-time of follow the lines
So it's just like all of the rest
Chorus
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
Gavin Stairs on thu 1 oct 98
At 11:38 AM 9/30/98 EDT, the discussion proceeded:
....
>>If either the creator of an object or the viewer of an object considers
it to
>>be art.....it is art.
....
>This definiton is so inclusive that it becomes meaningless,
>but I'm not sure how to qualify or narrow it.
....
>Some questions:
>I like the look of the load of gravel that was dumped on my driveway
>so much that I'm leaving it for a while instead of spreading it out.
>The truck driver couldn't care less how it looks; he just wanted to
>dump it.
>Is this art? Is the truck driver an artist?
....
Well, according to Marcel Duchamps, and others of his ilk, it is art if the
artist defines it so. He "created" a series of what he called "ready
mades", the most famous of which is probably "Fountain", by R. Mutt. This
was a commercially made urinal, mounted on its back on a pedestal, and
signed "R. Mutt". It was a scandal when it was exhibited in the Arsenal
Show, I think, I forget the year. Prewar. The original has been lost, but
a few reproductions exist, I believe.
So, by this accounting, the pile of gravel can be an artwork, but the
artist is not the truck driver, it is you, if you say so. This is what we
mean by the term conceptual art, or at least where its origins lie. The
impulse comes from Dada. Marcel Duchamp is at least one of its godfathers,
if not its dada.
Thus, at least half of the young woman's definition is on honored, if
somewhat tricky, historical ground. There is a clear (at least clear to
me) link with such later things as color field painting, and pop art.
Photography can be considered a found art medium. Consider the theory of
photography propounded by Alfred Eisenstat in "The Decisive Moment." He
declares that the art lies in the choice of time and subject. etc. It is
but a small step from this to the choice of calling a piece art or not art.
Study the semioticians (if you can) to see how thoroughly confusing this
can all get. I suppose academics have to deal with all this, but surely
the rest of us don't. Surely what Duchamp and Dada are saying is that it
is all arbitrary, and we must all make up our own minds.
Gavin
Gavin Stairs
Stairs Small Systems (S3)
921 College St., # 1-A
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6H 1A1
(416)530-0419 stairs@stairs.on.ca
Cynthia Spencer on thu 1 oct 98
I won't be the judge of whether a pile of gravel, 3-yr old's drawing or
your crushed cans are ART or not, but some thoughts on who we, as artists
are:
Observers. We notice the subtle designs our crunched cans end up in. We
sometimes marvel on the 300th mug that has just a little bit different
personality than all the rest. We can get caught up watching the
streaking lines our sponge has just made go from wet to dry. We notice
these things, and take note of them, and get enjoyment, pleasure,
satisfaction, feeling of being a part of greater humanity, etc., from
them.
Makers. We have an urge--not unlike other trade, craft and artisan
practitioners--to make things with our hands. Many of us spend lifetimes
honing our crafts. Others of us have ideas that drive us crazy until we
can execute them in the material world somehow--sometimes this is
stacking a pile of gravel in a room just to see how it looks. Go for very
long without getting your hands onto something, and you start to feel
weird.
Historians/Commentators. Whether or not we chose to create artworks that
get right in people's face or not, ala Richard Serra, we have made a
decision that there is value in our making of things. We are saying that
handmade objects are a human endeavor that is worthy of our time, and
will be worthy to someone else. The things we make will be a mark of our
time here on earth. Sometimes what we make is directly a comment on an
event.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've felt like an artist since I
was a little kid. It just took some time trying to find a medium that
worked, and could be a positive career (rather than one that would just
be hitting my head against the wall, not showing/selling). The audience
thing turned out to important to me in what I want to make, but that
isn't important to some people, and that should be fine with us.
So, if we're artists, what we do is art? Is it not?!!! I think it's up to
the creator.
Cynthia
(This ended up being more serious sounding than I'd intended)
cynthia.spencer@cmug.com
541-753-4606
Corvallis, OR
Gavin Stairs on fri 2 oct 98
At 02:07 PM 30/09/98 -0400, I wrote:
....
>Well, according to Marcel Duchamps, ...
Oh, someone's going to ding me for this one. The famous artist in question
is, of course, Marcel Duchamp, no s.
> ... It was a scandal when it was exhibited in the Arsenal
>Show, I think, I forget the year.
From Marcel Duchamp, eds. Anne d'Harnoncourt and Kynaston McShine (I swear,
sic), The Museum of Modern Art and the Philadelphia Museam/Prestel, 1973,
reissued 1989. p283,
caption to photograph of artwork on facing page:
"120. Fountain, 1917 (New York)
Original lost; 2nd version: Sidney Janis, New York, 1951; 3rd version:
Galeria Schwartz, Milan, edition of 8 signed and numbered replicas, 1964
Readymade: porcelain urinal on its back
Inscribed on upper edge, in black paint: R. MUTT/1917
Cat: L 132, S 244
Sydney Janis Gallery, New York
The urinal, purchased from "Mott Works" company in New York and signed "R.
Mutt," was submitted to the jury-free 1917 Independents exhibition but was
suppressed by the hanging committee. The photograph reproduced here was
taken by Alfred Stieglitz shortly after Fountain was rejected, and it
illustrated an anonymous article in the second edition of the Blind Man
(published in May 1917 by Duchamp, Beatrice Wood and H.-P. Roche) which
came to the defence:
"Now Mr. Mutt's fountain is not immoral, that is absurd, no more than a
bathtub is immoral. It is a fixture that you see every day in plumbers'
show windows.
"Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no
importance. He CHOSE it. (sic) He took and ordinary article of life,
placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title
and point of view -- created a new thought for that object."
Clearly this ceramic pot, if I may so describe it, made quite an impression
on the art world of 1917.
See also M. Duchamp's many other found and altered works: L.H.O.O.Q.,
Trebuchet, Hat Rack, etc.
Hope this atones in some measure for renaming on of the greats.
Gavin
===============================================
Gavin Stairs
Stairs Small Systems (S3)
921 College Street, # 1-A
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6H 1A1
(416)530-0419
the Gallagher's on fri 2 oct 98
I asked for arguments or comments.......
David,
I would have to add to this concept that if the art in question speaks to both
the viewer and the creator, and they agree that it is art...it is. The
controversy lies in whether a greater population considers it to be art, and
the object is accepted into the world at large as art. But then we go
completely back to another definition of what and who defines an object as
"Art".
By my definition, your pile of gravel would not be art, the aluminun cans
could be art if you mounted them in some way as to display your efforts. Your
3-year olds drawing certainly would be art, although by a young and
inexperienced artist.
Michelle
(Who is suffeing with a cold at the moment, and I know that's not art!!)
the Gallagher's on fri 2 oct 98
Let's add the concept of originality to this definition.
Art is a way of seeing things differently. And the ability to express the
thought through a visual medium.
Michelle
Cindy on fri 2 oct 98
David,
I liked your post. And I agree with you--I think--if I understand you.
These are just a few musings of my own, and I'm not sure even I will agree
with them by tomorrow morning, but here goes . . .
Art is as much the responsibility of the observer as of the artist.
Life is art, and art is life.
The beauty of simple things often goes unappreciated because we are so
accustomed to them that we no longer see them.
Wherever you are, be there. Appreciating the simple beauty around us is an
art in itself.
Cindy Strnad
Earthen Vessels
Custer, SD
USA http://blackhills-info.com/a/cindys/menu.htm
----------
> From: David Hendley
> To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
> Subject: What is Art? (was Unknown Craftsman)
> Date: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 9:38 AM
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >If either the creator of an object or the viewer of an object considers
it to
> >be art.....it is art.
> >Comments?? Arguments????
> >
> This definiton is so inclusive that it becomes meaningless,
> but I'm not sure how to qualify or narrow it.
> In fact, for the last several decades, many artists have had
> streching the boundries of "art" as their goal.
> This is one reason why modern art is meaningful to a amaller
> and smaller audience; the general population intutively knows
> that much of what is presented as "art" is not "art" to them.
>
> Some questions:
> I like the look of the load of gravel that was dumped on my driveway
> so much that I'm leaving it for a while instead of spreading it out.
> The truck driver couldn't care less how it looks; he just wanted to
> dump it.
> Is this art? Is the truck driver an artist?
>
> When I crush my aluminum cans for recycling, I like to try crushing
> them from different angles, and I enjoy looking at the ones I find
> pleasing. No one else ever sees them.
> Is that art? Am I an artist?
>
> I love the drawing of our dog that my 3-year-old made for me
> today, and she likes it too. I'm sure there are similar drawings
> on half the refrigerators in the free world.
> Is this art? Is she an artist?
>
> As the viewer and/or maker in the above descriptions, I consider
> them all to be art.
> According to your definition, they ARE art.
> Are you comfortable with that?
> There is no "right" answer here, but it would seem that, according
> to this criteria, there is much more that IS art than IS NOT art.
>
> Let me leave you with the lyrics of one of my favorite
> David Wilcox songs:
>
> LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS
>
> Now when the paint jar tipped
> Off of the table
> You watched as it started to fall
> Glass popped, shattered and splattered
> And paint spray hit the wall
>
> Bright, blue glossy enamel
> Across the kitchen floor
> You said, "Good God, look at that pattern
> I've never seen that before"
>
> Chorus
> Leave it like it is
> Never mind the turpentine
> Leave it like it is
> Its fine
>
> Now when the paint dried
> You gave it a title
> You called it "Kitchen Blue"
> A white frame painted around it
> And gallery lighting too
>
> Rich folks come over to dinner
> They all want one of their own
> They say "How much? Who's the artist"
> And, "My what a beautiful home"
>
> Chorus
>
> Now most folks suffer in sorrow
> Thinking they're just no good
> They don't match the magazine model
> As close as they think they should
>
> They live just like the "paint by numbers"
> The teacher would be impressed
> A life-time of follow the lines
> So it's just like all of the rest
>
> Chorus
>
> David Hendley
> Maydelle, Texas
>
Cheryl L Litman on sat 3 oct 98
>Observers. We notice the subtle designs our crunched cans end up in.
>We sometimes marvel on the 300th mug that has just a little bit
different
>personality than all the rest. We can get caught up watching the
>streaking lines our sponge has just made go from wet to dry. We notice
>these things, and take note of them, and get enjoyment, pleasure,
>satisfaction, feeling of being a part of greater humanity, etc., from
>them.
This is a great paragraph and expresses something I wasn't able to put in
words before. I think I went from being a craftsman to an artist at the
time I began observing much more closely. My husband laughs at me when I
stop transfixed by patterns on bark, the roots on trees, the colors and
positioning of lichen on tree trunks, shadow/light interactions....
Cheryl Litman
Somerset, NJ
email: cheryllitman@juno.com
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 10:06:26 EDT Cynthia Spencer
writes:
>----------------------------Original
>message----------------------------
>I won't be the judge of whether a pile of gravel, 3-yr old's drawing
>or
>your crushed cans are ART or not, but some thoughts on who we, as
>artists
>are:
>
>Observers. We notice the subtle designs our crunched cans end up in.
>We
>sometimes marvel on the 300th mug that has just a little bit different
>personality than all the rest. We can get caught up watching the
>streaking lines our sponge has just made go from wet to dry. We notice
>these things, and take note of them, and get enjoyment, pleasure,
>satisfaction, feeling of being a part of greater humanity, etc., from
>them.
>
>Makers. We have an urge--not unlike other trade, craft and artisan
>practitioners--to make things with our hands. Many of us spend
>lifetimes
>honing our crafts. Others of us have ideas that drive us crazy until
>we
>can execute them in the material world somehow--sometimes this is
>stacking a pile of gravel in a room just to see how it looks. Go for
>very
>long without getting your hands onto something, and you start to feel
>weird.
>
>Historians/Commentators. Whether or not we chose to create artworks
>that
>get right in people's face or not, ala Richard Serra, we have made a
>decision that there is value in our making of things. We are saying
>that
>handmade objects are a human endeavor that is worthy of our time, and
>will be worthy to someone else. The things we make will be a mark of
>our
>time here on earth. Sometimes what we make is directly a comment on an
>event.
>
>I don't know about the rest of you, but I've felt like an artist since
>I
>was a little kid. It just took some time trying to find a medium that
>worked, and could be a positive career (rather than one that would
>just
>be hitting my head against the wall, not showing/selling). The
>audience
>thing turned out to important to me in what I want to make, but that
>isn't important to some people, and that should be fine with us.
>
>So, if we're artists, what we do is art? Is it not?!!! I think it's up
>to
>the creator.
>Cynthia
>(This ended up being more serious sounding than I'd intended)
>
>
>
>cynthia.spencer@cmug.com
>541-753-4606
>Corvallis, OR
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Don Goodrich on sun 4 oct 98
Michelle,
>Art is a way of seeing things differently. And the ability to express the
>thought through a visual medium.
This doesn't go quite far enough. The arts of the musician, the chef and
the perfumier (possibly that of the masseur, too) are as valid, although not
visual. To my thinking, the important aspect of art is the realization of that
which we have imagined. If our imaginations run toward shaping and decorating
clay, so be it. Creativity IMO is fostered in any medium in which we have
sufficient experience that our brains come up with new ideas about it. So I
agree with you, but on a broader scale.
* * * * * * *
Cindy,
>Art is as much the responsibility of the observer as of the artist.
This would imply that the artist who wants to be appreciated would do well
to take the observer into account during creation of the artwork. Empathize
with the observer. Certainly a good idea when designing useful art. On the
other hand, this might compromise the artist's ability to make a creative
personal statement. I guess the best we can hope for in our creative work is
that it resonates with at least some kindred spirits. Everything we make,
then, becomes a test of how our work is meaningful to anyone else.
Don Goodrich getting way too deep on a Saturday night
goodrichdn@aol.com
S.K. Tesar on wed 7 oct 98
My speculative two cents....in the book, The Mother Tongue, by Bill
Bryson he traces language on the planet down to the first sounds that
took definition.... now on this computer I cannot supply oomlats, nor
verify spellings as I listen to audio books as I travel to shows, but in
my best efforts with a strong leaning to phonetic pronunciation....the
first words of any univeral consequence amongst the multitudinous tribes
multi thousands of years ago....were... artee artay reta retay
and they all defined with one, two or both words "One" and "Ritual".
In the article " The Pleasure and Meaning of Making" by Ellen
Dissanayke in the American Craft Magazine in April/May 95 she sites the
making of special things of primitive tribes and cultures as ritual
making of things that celebrate "oneness" for "rituals" in pattern.
Somehow these two things connect and I suspect that artee, artay, reta (
with an oomlat) and retay figure in to all that we identify as art - that
which we make special through the ritual of our time and attention for
whatever purpose.
Sandra on Keel Mountain
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Fabienne Cassman on wed 7 oct 98
------------------
Hello clayarters,
I was just asked to read a book about the making of art, which I was unable
to finish (got a bit repetitive imho)=3B however, here is what I gathered
from what I read:
Art is another view of the world that is represented for the first time,
firsthand, and that is filtered through the artist's uniqueness. Art does
not have to be beautiful (the first impression would not be that it's
=22pretty=22), but bears a meaning. That meaning may not even be clear to =
the
artist while working on or upon completion of the piece, nor may it ever be
understood by him/her. It does not preclude that an outsider may bring
his/her =5Fown=5F experiences and through those find a meaning for =
him/herself
(which may not be that of the artist=3B it would be preposterous to actually
believe we might feel/see the same as the artist, although possible).
Here is something that bothers me about what the author writes. He seems
to imply that each piece is unique because it is a =5Ffirst=5F time =
witnessing
of a world event through the =22eyes=22 of the artist=3B thus, there can be =
no
duplicate pieces. Where does that put artists who accept orders to
duplicate a piece they have produced? Are they still labeled artists or do
they become something else? It is art? Can the two be reconciled? Any
thoughts?
The book is =5FNo More Second Hand Art -- Awakening the Artist Within=5F by
Peter London. Anyone read it?
=A4=BA=B0=60=B0=BA=A4=F8,=B8=B8,=F8=A4=BA=B0=60=B0=BA=A4=F8,=B8=B8,=F8=A4=BA=
=B0=60=B0=BA=A4=F8,=B8=B8,=F8=A4=BA=B0=60=B0=BA=A4=F8,=B8=B8,=F8=A4=BA=B0=60
Fabienne
Yes, I have learned from my mistakes...
I can reproduce them exactly.
Tom Wirt on thu 8 oct 98
>>>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>Art is another view of the world that is represented for the first time,
firsthand, and that is filtered through the artist's uniqueness. Art does
not have to be beautiful (the first impression would not be that it's
"pretty"), but bears a meaning. That meaning may not even be clear to the
art<<<
I really hesitate to put this in, but the thing about this whole discussion that
continues to bother me is, at what point do you factor in technical (quality)
and philosophical (moral judgement) values into this whole art discussion. If
any thing goes, then anything's art and I definitely do not want to be an artist
because there is no requirement for quality or value.
Thanks for letting mer get that off my chest.
Tom Wirt
Clay Coyote Pottery
17614 240th St.
Hutchinson, MN 55350
320-587-2599
claypot@hutchtel.net
Vince Pitelka on thu 8 oct 98
>Here is something that bothers me about what the author writes. He seems
>to imply that each piece is unique because it is a _first_ time witnessing
>of a world event through the "eyes" of the artist; thus, there can be no
>duplicate pieces. Where does that put artists who accept orders to
>duplicate a piece they have produced? Are they still labeled artists or do
>they become something else? It is art? Can the two be reconciled? Any
>thoughts?
Fabienne -
This was an interesting post, and I thank you for it. You make a very good
point. This is how I see it. When we "reproduce" a handcrafted item many
times, ideally we get better and better at it, which means that it keeps
changing and improving, thus it is still art. Over time, it continues to be
"new." But If we preclude the possibility of evolution and improvement by
locking ourselves into an absolute copy, then I would say it is not art.
This gets into semantic technicalities. You can copy someone else's work,
and create something which is very well "crafted" but definitely is not art.
So, if you copy your own work EXACTLY, with no change at all over time . . .
.. . well, you get the idea.
There's a lot to think about here . . . . .
- Vince
Vince Pitelka - vpitelka@DeKalb.net
Home 615/597-5376, work 615/597-6801, fax 615/597-6803
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Lee Love on fri 9 oct 98
-----Original Message-----
From: Cheryl L Litman :
<...>
>My husband laughs at me when I stop transfixed by
>patterns on bark, the roots on trees, the colors and
>positioning of lichen on tree trunks, shadow/light
>interactions....
Nature has always been my greatest inspiration. Nothing ARTificial about
it. ;^) Creativity is natural: we are either creating and living or
consuming and dying.
As a kid, my prefered sunday worship was to stuff a knapsack
with books and peanut butter & jelly sandwiches and disappear into the
woods with my dog Gypsie. We had a favorite pine tree by a pond. When
she died one winter, I left her under that pine tree.
/(o\' Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA
\o)/' mailto:Ikiru@Kami.com ICQ# 20586182
' http://www.millcomm.com/~leelove/ikiru.html
Cheryl Litman
Somerset, NJ
email: cheryllitman@juno.com
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 10:06:26 EDT Cynthia Spencer
writes:
>----------------------------Original
>message----------------------------
>I won't be the judge of whether a pile of gravel, 3-yr old's drawing
>or
>your crushed cans are ART or not, but some thoughts on who we, as
>artists
>are:
>
>Observers. We notice the subtle designs our crunched cans end up in.
>We
>sometimes marvel on the 300th mug that has just a little bit different
>personality than all the rest. We can get caught up watching the
>streaking lines our sponge has just made go from wet to dry. We notice
>these things, and take note of them, and get enjoyment, pleasure,
>satisfaction, feeling of being a part of greater humanity, etc., from
>them.
>
>Makers. We have an urge--not unlike other trade, craft and artisan
>practitioners--to make things with our hands. Many of us spend
>lifetimes
>honing our crafts. Others of us have ideas that drive us crazy until
>we
>can execute them in the material world somehow--sometimes this is
>stacking a pile of gravel in a room just to see how it looks. Go for
>very
>long without getting your hands onto something, and you start to feel
>weird.
>
>Historians/Commentators. Whether or not we chose to create artworks
>that
>get right in people's face or not, ala Richard Serra, we have made a
>decision that there is value in our making of things. We are saying
>that
>handmade objects are a human endeavor that is worthy of our time, and
>will be worthy to someone else. The things we make will be a mark of
>our
>time here on earth. Sometimes what we make is directly a comment on an
>event.
>
>I don't know about the rest of you, but I've felt like an artist since
>I
>was a little kid. It just took some time trying to find a medium that
>worked, and could be a positive career (rather than one that would
>just
>be hitting my head against the wall, not showing/selling). The
>audience
>thing turned out to important to me in what I want to make, but that
>isn't important to some people, and that should be fine with us.
>
>So, if we're artists, what we do is art? Is it not?!!! I think it's up
>to
>the creator.
>Cynthia
>(This ended up being more serious sounding than I'd intended)
>
>
>
>cynthia.spencer@cmug.com
>541-753-4606
>Corvallis, OR
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Fabienne Cassman on fri 9 oct 98
At 09:34 AM 10/8/98 EDT, you wrote :
>continues to bother me is, at what point do you factor in technical (quality)
>and philosophical (moral judgement) values into this whole art discussion.
If
>any thing goes, then anything's art and I definitely do not want to be an
artist
>because there is no requirement for quality or value.
>Tom Wirt
Hello Tom :)
Since you quoted part of my message I feel I have to mention that the
technical issue is a premise of London's book. Before the artist can
express his/her views, the author assumes that the reader has gone through
some kind of training in whatever medium s/he is using. Still, I would not
expect that to make anyone proficient in the creation of art; there is much
to learn as one walks the creative path and expressing one's views is not
exactly that easy. I can't think of an art that can be expressed without
some practice/training -- composing music, painting a landscape, welding an
abstract sculpture together, etc.
Then, there is technique and technique. There seem to be controversy in
everything and technique is another battle ground; which school do you
follow, who was your teacher?... Occasionally, we're so busy with
"fighting" that we lose sight of the issue. Arguing can be good if it
brings about new views, new advances we can build upon; otherwise, it's can
be a waste of time. I wonder why Sleeping Beauty comes to mind. :)
Now, values... I struggle with this point everyday. What are they really?
IMHO, they are but a set of imposed rules by an interest group? - going for
cover ;) - Perhaps we should have another thread: "What Are Values?" :)
All these abstract terms are enough to drive anyone crazy. Anyway, one
chooses, if possible, whichever value(s) they agree with or are taught to
uphold. But as I mentioned, depending on the frame of reference one brings
with him/herself, including values, art may have a different meaning from
one viewer to the next. Now, whether or not the values of the viewer are
someone else's values, that's another story. I can see how the David can
appear obscene to some, but to others it's breath taking; it was for me :)
Trying to answer to "anything goes" and "requirements"
Assuming we are _sufficiently_ trained to express ourselves efficiently
with the medium at hand, shouldn't we be free to express that which we can,
but especially, which we cannot express in words no matter what values we
may infuse into the piece? If then it turns up to be upheld as art, so be
it. Not everyone agrees on what piece should be art and what piece should
not. Many _now_ considered artists died poor and shunned. So, in that
sense, I suppose that yes, anything goes.
Without extensive training one can probably only express him/herself at
best primitively; nonetheless, it is expression and really it could even be
considered art by some. I recall that being touched upon by considering a
child's drawing. In fact, here is the classic analysis of a child's
drawing of their home: does the house have a door, are there curtains, is
the mother bigger than the father, etc. etc. Was the child aware of it?
Was it what the child really meant to portray anyway? Is it the world
experienced firsthand? Is there copying involved? Is it art?
I'll stop here; I have to get back to my lambs.
Cheers,
Fabienne - Life is a puzzle. Give me another piece and I will view it
differently. (someone probably already said that ?)
(Linda Mueller) on tue 13 oct 98
I know that I'm coming into this discussion a little late but I've allways
felt that Art was the "Ah hah!" part of what each person wants to communicate,
the essence of the message. Just like in advertising, a designer starts out
by asking himself, who is the audience, what idea do I want the audience to
understand, and how best can I convey that idea to them. I really feel that
"not all art is for all people" but that each is made for a specific audience.
And that the if you are trying to communicate with a wide audience, the best
route would be to take a direct path that presents visual or verbal ideas that
are least offensive and most desired by the people who you art is made for
(using good craftsmanship so that your audience doesn't have to guess what it
is you are trying to say).
I understand what Tom is saying about not wanting to be sloppy in technique,
but I really feel that some art is not made to last forever, (making sculpture
out of leaves and stones and piles of dirt and then taking a photo of it that
conveys the artists meaning is not the same as making a tea pot that looks
perfect but doesn't pour tea very well) There are so many meaning of what art
is it gets back to the "what is the meaning of life" question. Like in the
movie "City Slicker" Curly tells Michy that the meaning of life is "just one
thing" and that one thing is what ever you want it to be.
Mary Donehue
Shiva D. Pottery
985 Sora Rd.
Tallahassee, FL
32310
shivamary@aol.com
| |
|
