One of the things I have pondered most of my life (beyond "what do women want") is "what is the essential different between something that is Art and something that is not?"
This essay was published in an early volume of the SF anthology series Writers Of The Future around twenty years ago. Back then I thought I understood it perfectly. But now I'm less sure. It seems to me the definitions of "two-way communication" and of "contribution from the viewer" have to be awfully broad for this to work. What do you think?
14 comments:
One thing is that whether someone involves the viewer depends on the person. One person could look at a painting and get nothing from it, but it could really speak to someone else. There are people who are incapable of having any kind of emotional response to music.
The article seemed to me just a long-winded version of the old "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" saying.
I admit that it is next to impossible to say definitively what is and isn't art. There are a few people out there who seem to decide for their fellow art critics what is and isn't art, and art teachers like the ones I had in high school take this as the Word of God and preach it to us.
I've always found the question of "what is art?" to be rather pointless. My definition of art has always been any expression of creativity. If my niece drew me a picture of a smiley face, I would consider it art.
So while I don't really agree with this essay on that point, I do see it as helpful advice on how to create good art. I do think that artists should try to get a response from their audience. But then, as Joe just mentioned, you're not gonna connect with everyone everywhere.
Art is communication from the subjective within the objective.
See this.
Art is communication from the subjective within the objective.
Hm... Not really. I mean, not if we want to elevate it beyond the kindergarten level.
The absurdly simplistic way of looking at it that you and jes have really gets us nowhere.
I really intended that definition to be an accurate all-encompassing definition for the concept known as art. I personally believe it fully holds water, lacks nothing, covers everything and is equally applicable to every type of art and artist in all times -- past, present and future. I have never seen a better definition anywhere.
With that said, I would be interested in hearing what it is in your opinion that causes this definition to stop being valid "beyond the kindergarten level"?
Haha, gets us nowhere? And where is it we're trying to get exactly? What if the artist doesn't want to elevate his art beyond the kindergarten level? He has a right to do that, don't you think?
I mean, when you get right down to it, art's just a concept that humans invented. You said yourself that it's impossible to say what is or isn't art, so to me, an absurdly simple definition is the only thing that works.
Art - man-made artifact which inspires thoughts or emotes feelings intentionally.
Not art - man-made artifact which serves a purpose.
Consider a piece of paper. Average white laser printer paper - not art. Rough cut hand pressed paper for note writing - craft, possibly art.
Consider a vehicle. Oshkosh or E-One crash tender - functional design. American LaFrance open cab aerial - art
"Art - man-made artifact ..."
So performances are not art?
Speaking of L. Ron Hubbard, the recently surfaced Tom Cruise indoctrination video is one of the most bizarre videos I've ever seen.
A performance is man made. It is choreographed, directed, performed.
All these are deliberate human actions, and count as man made as
opposed to natural.
Sure, but a performance is not an artifact.
With that said, I would be interested in hearing what it is in your opinion that causes this definition to stop being valid "beyond the kindergarten level"?
I was just messing with you. A little trolling. I'm not proud of it. :)
In reference to the Tom Cruise indoctrination video mentioned above, MTV.com has now published Tom Cruise Scientology-Video Glossary: What Is He Talking About?
Isn't Internet wonderful? :-)
I'd say this discussion elevated the discipline of hair splitting to a fine art.
The Capillotomist Movement is born, praised be the Internet!
:-D
Joe Dick bravely confessed...
"I was just messing with you. A little trolling. I'm not proud of it. :)"
See? Trolling can ALSO be considered as art.
Once we get rid of the talentless dilettantes, of course.
Hmm... I wonder what abstract trolling would be like? I might give it a try.
Post a Comment