In most cases it's more like making nothing out of something. The something being the materials, and the nothing being the art empty of meaning and purpose.
That's how I felt always: "real art" is pointing at something which can't be said, but can be made aware of, using some kind of form, e.g. a poem, a painting, a piece of music, whatever. Essentially, "art" is always rooted in the formless spirit beyond its form.
And its function (as far as that can be said) is to be an "eye-opener", to enhance your consciousness somehow.
As opposed to "decoration", which is not bad either ;-)
Anyway, it's just how I see it. Naturally it happens that sometimes I see something as art, which other people don't, and vice versa ...
Part of the problem is that no one will ever agree on what "real art" is. Some commercial art falls into this category while some doesn't. If neeraj had any feeling for that stuff he or she would know that. Many things which were done for money are considered great. Michelangelo's work was all done for money, yet Van Gogh made next to nothing off his. Whether it's commercial or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.
does not say if it is commercial or not. It does not matter.
Zappa's definition includes commercial-ness into art.
That's why Neeraj's definiton is so much better. :)
And the funny thing is... Neeraj, I am happy you have explained what you meant in your comment... but actually it was all there in that one sentence. That's why it is a really good definition. :)
6 comments:
My own "definition" or aphorismus about art:
Art is a bridge between form and formlessness.
(That does not point especially to the aspects of the market.)
In most cases it's more like making nothing out of something. The something being the materials, and the nothing being the art empty of meaning and purpose.
I like neeraj's definition!
And I think Zappa's definition has to do only with commercial art, and nothing with real art.
Zappa's definition is about marketing stuff (anything).
Neeraj has the feeling for art :)
Thanks ... I do my best ;-)
That's how I felt always: "real art" is pointing at something which can't be said, but can be made aware of, using some kind of form, e.g. a poem, a painting, a piece of music, whatever. Essentially, "art" is always rooted in the formless spirit beyond its form.
And its function (as far as that can be said) is to be an "eye-opener", to enhance your consciousness somehow.
As opposed to "decoration", which is not bad either ;-)
Anyway, it's just how I see it. Naturally it happens that sometimes I see something as art, which other people don't, and vice versa ...
Part of the problem is that no one will ever agree on what "real art" is. Some commercial art falls into this category while some doesn't. If neeraj had any feeling for that stuff he or she would know that. Many things which were done for money are considered great. Michelangelo's work was all done for money, yet Van Gogh made next to nothing off his. Whether it's commercial or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.
To Anonymous:
"Art is a bridge between form and formlessness."
does not say if it is commercial or not. It does not matter.
Zappa's definition includes commercial-ness into art.
That's why Neeraj's definiton is so much better. :)
And the funny thing is... Neeraj, I am happy you have explained what you meant in your comment... but actually it was all there in that one sentence. That's why it is a really good definition. :)
Post a Comment