Pike Studios Pottery on sun 26 aug 01
From Bob Pike
Definition: Art is the individual, creative, expression of everyday life.
This definition comes from a musician---- I believe Dizzy Gillespie or Mile=
s
Davis but don=B9t quote me. Simple, but it seems to cover a lot of ground.
When we say =B3Art=B2, paintings come to mind but the definition must cover all
forms of Art. Sculpture, Dance, Music, Poetry, Beginners Art, Professional
Art. What about books like =B3 Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance=B2?
Maybe anyone can take anything to the level of Art if they are creative
enough about it. Creativity is the key word here. If you are creative enoug=
h
about how you do something, it can be Art. This does not mean if you create
something, it is Art. You must bring your own creative interpretation to it
to be Art. A copy of something will not do. The design and conceptualizatio=
n
of it must be your own.
When you are looking into a tide pool at the ocean, is it =B3The Ocean=B2?
Well .......it is the ocean but it is not all of the ocean. The ocean has s=
o
many different depths and parts it=B9s almost impossible to grasp it all at
once. Much like Art.
There is Beginner=B9s Art, Children's Art , Formal Art, Naive Art, Cave Art,
Professional Art, Renaissance Art, Fine Art, Eastern Art, Early Egyptian
Art, Late Italian Art, West Coast Indian Art, and on and on into more
classifications than we can name. Calling anything you make Fine Art may
mean many different things to different people, depending on their level of
understanding, and all of this has nothing to do with whether the =B3Art=B2 is
of any value. There is no such thing as good Art or bad Art, as the
evaluation of same is totally subjective and will change with styles and
times and interpretations by the so called experts of the day.
Marshal Maclewan (sp?) said it best when he said : =B3Art is anything you can
get away with=B2.
If you want to say your pots are Art---------Do it. If you want to know if
your pots are Art--------only you can say. Maybe the most important questio=
n
is, =B3What will happen to me if I tell people my pots are Art=B2?
--=20
Bob and Connie Pike Pike Studios Ltd.
=20
http://www.pikestudios.com
=20
vince pitelka on tue 28 aug 01
> I have a whole lot of problems with your Marshal Mcluan (sp) quote. Art
is
> never something you get away with, I feel strongly that art should be an
> attempt to communicate some specific thing, that is best done in a
specific
> media, any media, and can be judged my how well the communication is
> understood. If the receiver gets impressions not intended by the artist,
> but also understands what the artist meant, all the better.
Robert -
Unfortunately, I think that Marshall McCluhan had it right on, at least in
terms of today's mainstream art world. Much of the most visible directions
in contemporary art have primarily to do with pure innovation and
risk-taking devoid of significant personal content, or to put it another
way, it has to do with the challenge to try something that no one has tried
before, regardless of true significance of personal content and meaning.
Fortunately, a considerable amount of interesting work comes out of all
this.
And art is not primarily informative - it is experiential. Therefore, the
experience which drives the artist may have nothing at all to do with the
viewer's experience, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. If the
artist wants the viewer to get a specific message, then it is up to the
individual artist to be clear enough about his or her message to make sure
it comes across. Altogether too often that art has no depth - it just slaps
you in the face with its meaning, and then you are done with it.
The artist is under no obligation to narrate. The artist is driven to be
creative because of some sort of personal baggage or experience, and the
result is a work of art with experiential content, which may well be
abstracted to the point where every viewer comes away with a different
interpretation based on their own personal baggage or experience. I call
that a very successful work of art.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Robert Dye on tue 28 aug 01
I have a whole lot of problems with your Marshal Mcluan (sp) quote. Art is
never something you get away with, I feel strongly that art should be an
attempt to communicate some specific thing, that is best done in a specific
media, any media, and can be judged my how well the communication is
understood. If the receiver gets impressions not intended by the artist,
but also understands what the artist meant, all the better.
Wesley Rolley on wed 29 aug 01
Vince,
I was not going to enter this discussion until I read your post. The=20=
only thing that I would take exception to is implication that this is a =
"today" problem. Let me only quote from Wassily Kandinsky. (Concerning =
the Spiritual in Art, 1911 trans. Michael T. H. Sadler 1914)
"In search of method the artist goes still further. Art becomes so=20
specialized as to be comprehensible only to artists, and they complain=20=
bitterly of public indifference to their work. For since the artist in =
such times has not need to say much, but only to be notorious for some=20=
small originality and consequently lauded by a small group of patrons an=
d=20
connoisseurs (which incidentally is also a very profitable business for =
him), there arise a crowd of giften and skilled painters, so easy does=20=
the conquest of art appear. In each artistic circle are thousands of=20=
such artists, of whom the majority seek only for some new technical=20
manner, and who produce millions of works of art without enthusiasm, wit=
h=20
cold hearts and souls asleep." =20
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 8/28/01, 8:40:57 PM, vince pitelka wrote regard=
ing=20
Re: Definition of Art:
> Robert -
> Unfortunately, I think that Marshall McCluhan had it right on, at leas=
t=20
in
> terms of today's mainstream art world. Much of the most visible=20
directions
> in contemporary art have primarily to do with pure innovation and
> risk-taking devoid of significant personal content, or to put it anoth=
er
> way, it has to do with the challenge to try something that no one has =
tried
> before, regardless of true significance of personal content and meanin=
g.
> Fortunately, a considerable amount of interesting work comes out of al=
l
> this.
> And art is not primarily informative - it is experiential. Therefore,=
=20
the
> experience which drives the artist may have nothing at all to do with =
the
> viewer's experience, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. If =
the
> artist wants the viewer to get a specific message, then it is up to th=
e
> individual artist to be clear enough about his or her message to make =
sure
> it comes across. Altogether too often that art has no depth - it just=
=20
slaps
> you in the face with its meaning, and then you are done with it.
vince pitelka on thu 30 aug 01
> I stand by my statement. I agree pretty much with what you said, I don't
> agree with your context. This may me what is art today, but I am talking
> about what art should be.
Robert -
What art should be? Is that really what you meant to say? Who decides what
art should be? As soon as you say what art should be, you have limited what
it can be.
> My trip through the Guggenheim in NY was a
> disappointment; it seemed to be full of experiments, not finished work.
> Yes, there were some interesting pieces, but they seemed cold and non-
> communicative. A slashed all Blue canvas, repeated many times with
> different angles of attack. The techniques might work in some context but
> not independently. No, the artist is under no compulsion to explain
> his/her work, but if the work 'worked' he/she wouldn't have to.
I never said that the artist had to explain his/her work. I said the artist
was under no obligation to narrate. In other words, the artist has no
responsibility to relay a message or specific information with the work.
The artist creates an experience with the work, and if the work proves
powerfully experiential for the viewer, then it is a successful work of art,
regardless of whether there is any commonality between the artist's
experience and the viewer's.
> No, all
> people won't get it, but if the work has a message, someone should get it,
> meaning the intent put into the work by the artist. The wider the
> agreement as to the intent, the more successful the work.
Whether or not viewers agree as to the intent of a work of art has
absolutely nothing to do with the success of the work. There have been
times in the history of art when art fit into such narrow and conservative
parameters that intent and content were tightly defined, and it was easy for
the viewer to "get the message." Thankfully we are far past that kind of
regimentation and limitation. As I see it, the only time your concept could
apply is if the artist's specific intent requires a clearly understandable
message. By the artist's own determination, the success of the work depends
on the viewer getting the message. But if the viewer gets an entirely
different message which is experiential powerful for him/her, then it is
still a successful work of art for that viewer.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
Robert Dye on thu 30 aug 01
I stand by my statement. I agree pretty much with what you said, I don't
agree with your context. This may me what is art today, but I am talking
about what art should be. My trip through the Guggenheim in NY was a
disappointment; it seemed to be full of experiments, not finished work.
Yes, there were some interesting pieces, but they seemed cold and non-
communicative. A slashed all Blue canvas, repeated many times with
different angles of attack. The techniques might work in some context but
not independently. No, the artist is under no compulsion to explain
his/her work, but if the work 'worked' he/she wouldn't have to. No, all
people won't get it, but if the work has a message, someone should get it,
meaning the intent put into the work by the artist. The wider the
agreement as to the intent, the more successful the work.
Earl Brunner on fri 31 aug 01
Vince, I know that you are majorally not alone in this view. I also
know that trying to come to consensus on the definition of art "ain't
gonna happen". I do believe that when we talk about an artist
"expressing him/her self" and when we talk about the response of the
viewer that we are talking about elements of communication. I don't
think communication is one sided, and this is why this position makes me
uncomfortable.
Your point in stating that a work of art is successful if the viewer has
a powerful response to the work of art whether or not the intent of the
artist is communicated is an argument that I must confess has always
bothered me. I knew a grad student that did his art philosophy thesis
on the position that the art critic's analysis of a work of art was
always more valid than any position that an artist might take about
their own work, that the artist's attempt to communicate, successful or
not was irrelevant.
I have always thought this to be a very exclusionary attitude. Kind of
"emperor's new clothes" ish. A very egotistical point of view. Ivory
tower stuff. I'm much more comfortable with a mingei approach to art.
I love the sign Walter Gropius had pinned to the wall (per Marguerite
Wildenhain):
"Architects, sculptors, painters, we must all turn to the crafts. Art
is not a profession, there is no essential difference between the artist
and the craftsman. In rare moments of inspiration, moments beyond the
control of his will, the grace of heaven may cause his work to blossom
into art. But proficiency in his craft is essential to every artist.
Therein lies the source of creative imagination."
I like that definition of art. Something rare, that occasionally
happens through some kind of inspiration. When it visits us, it flows
from something greater than us. When we have done it, we have a sense
of it, and know that while it was happening we were tuned into
something that is elusive and hard to have on a daily basis. Something
outside of ourselves, that comes to us when it wants to, we don't
command it, and seldom control it. Proficiency first, inspiration
elusively second. Success? Maybe never.
vince pitelka wrote:
Robert wrote:
>> No, all
>> people won't get it, but if the work has a message, someone should get it,
>> meaning the intent put into the work by the artist. The wider the
>> agreement as to the intent, the more successful the work.
>
Vince wrote:
> Whether or not viewers agree as to the intent of a work of art has
> absolutely nothing to do with the success of the work. There have been
> times in the history of art when art fit into such narrow and conservative
> parameters that intent and content were tightly defined, and it was easy for
> the viewer to "get the message." Thankfully we are far past that kind of
> regimentation and limitation. As I see it, the only time your concept could
> apply is if the artist's specific intent requires a clearly understandable
> message. By the artist's own determination, the success of the work depends
> on the viewer getting the message. But if the viewer gets an entirely
> different message which is experiential powerful for him/her, then it is
> still a successful work of art for that viewer.
> Best wishes -
> - Vince
>
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec/
bruec@anv.net
vince pitelka on sat 1 sep 01
> Your point in stating that a work of art is successful if the viewer has
> a powerful response to the work of art whether or not the intent of the
> artist is communicated is an argument that I must confess has always
> bothered me. I knew a grad student that did his art philosophy thesis
> on the position that the art critic's analysis of a work of art was
> always more valid than any position that an artist might take about
> their own work, that the artist's attempt to communicate, successful or
> not was irrelevant.
> I have always thought this to be a very exclusionary attitude. Kind of
> "emperor's new clothes" ish. A very egotistical point of view. Ivory
> tower stuff.
Earl -
The attitude you describe above certainly is arrogant, ivory tower stuff. I
am glad I did not hint at any such attitude in any of my statements. I have
always been bothered by the idea of deconstruction, where intellectuals sit
around and deconstruct the content and intent of a work of art, with the
clear supposition that their interpretation supercedes the artist's own
stated content and intent. In other words, the "deconstructors" understand
the artist's intent better than the artist does. That seems the height of
arrogance and presumption.
I know that in many cases (perhaps even most cases) something of the
artist's intent does come through in the work, and I believe it is up to the
artist to attempt to orchestrate this possibility to his/her own need and
satisfaction. But as I stated, the reality is that people interpret art in
their own terms, based on their own experience and knowledge, and every
individual will interpret a work of art slightly differently. In many
cases, the individual viewer's interpretation will have nothing at all to do
with the artist's intent, and this is expected and perfectly normal. It is
one of the wonderful thing that makes art so varied in content and meaning.
> "Architects, sculptors, painters, we must all turn to the crafts. Art
> is not a profession, there is no essential difference between the artist
> and the craftsman. In rare moments of inspiration, moments beyond the
> control of his will, the grace of heaven may cause his work to blossom
> into art. But proficiency in his craft is essential to every artist.
> Therein lies the source of creative imagination."
Thanks for this Walter Gropius quote. As a teacher I wholeheartedly agree
that if the artist prepares him/herself thoroughly in terms of mastery of
materials, process, and technique, and gains a knowledge of historical and
contemporary precedent, it maximizes (but never guarantees) the liklihood of
good or great art. It still all comes down to that moment that you so
eloquently described, of "Something rare, that occasionally happens throuugh
some kind of inspiration. When it visits us, it flows from something
greater than us." You stated that very well.
Not meaning to rehash something already well-hashed on Clayart, but what you
and Gropius are describing is the creation of great art, and the reality is
that ALL art is a good thing, whether good or bad art. In my opinion, ANY
art/craft made by an individual artist/artisan is a great improvement over
TV soap operas and situation comedies and so many other trashy spewings of
popular culture (which many would say are also artforms). As individuals
and as a culture we profit greatly from encouraging art in all forms, good
and bad, at every age, at all levels of skill and all levels of society.
Art/craft of every kind always reflects the time and place in which it was
created. It is a barometer of the evolution of civilization. That is why
you cannot apply censorship to art. If you do, you are blocking essential
viceral communication which illuminates what is good AND bad, beautiful AND
ugly, encouraging AND disturbing about contemporary society. We desperately
need that always. What this means to me is that we have much to gain by
minimizing any externally imposed parameters of what art is or what it can
be. By doing so we maximize the possibilities of art.
Best wishes -
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Crafts
Tennessee Technological University
1560 Craft Center Drive, Smithville TN 37166
Home - vpitelka@dtccom.net
615/597-5376
Work - wpitelka@tntech.edu
615/597-6801 ext. 111, fax 615/597-6803
http://www.craftcenter.tntech.edu/
iandol on sun 2 sep 01
Dear Vince,=20
Thank you for taking an axe to the elitist viewpoint.
Best regards,
Ivor.
Nils Lou on mon 19 jul 10
the one I like best:
some time ago a woman did an outdoor mural on a public sanitary building =
=3D
on long island,=3D20
with a large open wall, facing the parking lot. nbc was interviewing =3D
some of the people=3D20
watching the unveiling. one of the workers answered katie couric's =3D
question about what he
thought of it?
his response has stuck with me--"art is to whom likes it".=3D20
i think there is a lot of wisdom in that simple phrase.=3D20
nils=3D20
| |
|
