Subject:
|
Re: Swearing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 02:17:09 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWEST.NETspamless
|
Viewed:
|
1844 times
|
| |
|
|
craig hamilton wrote:
>
> ok, you guys have drawn me in...
Welcome! The more opinions, the better, IMO
> as an artist and drawing teacher, i do feel somewhat qualified to define
> some terms here. ;-)
Ahh. I was an art major in college.
> my favorite definition of art (which is like trying to define "love", or
> "god", anyway) comes from my art teacher from the age of twelve. he used to
> say, "i know it when i see it!" it's not as flippant as it sounds.
>
> art, both in it's creation and appreciation is a series of value
> judgements, and thus very personal.
>
> art as been dead ever since the end of the abstract expressionist movement
> ofthe forties and probably died with the great mattisse. then there was a
> very horrible thing that happened in the late seventies and early eighties
> called "warhol-ism". it filled the void left by art's passing with, for
> lack of a better word, CRAPP. much like the loathed juniorization of lego
> systems, "warhol-ism" juniorized art. there is a subjective nature to art,
> but interpretted irresponsibly, becomes the whole "it's art if i say it's
> art" line of CRAPP.
Interesting. Although I think that a lot of beautiful things have been created since
the end of the abstract expressionists, perhaps the concept of "art movement" itself
is dead. So many artists started creating art for art's sake, which got very
"cerebral" and very boring.
Phone conversation overheard the night before a Minimalist Art Exhibit:
Minimalist Artist: "Hello, is this Foogenstein Art Gallery?"
Curator: "Yes, it is. May I help you?"
MA: "Yeah, I'm showing a piece at tomorrow's opening. Here's what I want. You go
into the corner where my piece is to be displayed and take a crap on the floor. Put a
cherry on top of it and label it 'The demise of Mankind.'"
Curator: "VERY good, sir! And might I say it's an honor to have you show at our
exhibit!"
> michaelangelo's sistene chappel was deemed obsene! sargent's madame x was
> deemed obscene! imho, anyone who deems any sculpture, painting or drawing
> obscene, can't be trusted. art is not capable of being obscene: only people
> are!
What if the artist is obscene?
> we as a society have neglected art for so long, it's no wonder there are
> people passing off lithographed soupcans and urine suspende crucifixes as art.
I think you hit upon an important aspect of defining art-- the artist's intentions.
Art created to be controversial or iconoclastic would be defined by me as political
expression. Art as I would define it cannot be used to forward an agenda.
Illustration or free speech can.
-John
> one fundamental distinction that shold be made is between art and
> illustration. i've done both in my day. it's a subtle gray line (value
> judgements, again) but it's there.
>
> to use lego examples:
>
> the notorious nazi death camp made of lego (which has sparked this art
> debate before) is not a piece of art. ( and boy do i get steamed when i see
> it reffered to as such!) it's a low craft, in-bad-taste illustration. yes,
> it has some artistic value, but not much. it was created to illustrate text,
> and not to express the artist's soul.
Good delineation.
> i call eric harshbarger's alice in wonderland sculpture an elegant piece
> of art. eric says no, it's just craftsmanship. but that craftsmanship is
> exactly what makes it have so great an artistic value. it is obviously a
> piece of work that was truly inspired both in concept and execution.
> sculpture by definition is one of mankind's primal artforms.
>
> subject matter has nothing to do with it. if it was a boy scout camp just
> as poorly built as the concentration camp and alice was nude and just as
> well sculpted, things would'nt change. (well, except no one would notice
> the boy scout camp, and people would be screaming "child pornography" every
> time they saw alice.)
>
> to end, i'd like to state for the record, that the only diffrence between
> pornography and art is....
>
> .... the lighting!
>
> late ~ craig~
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) That's pretty good, but I think a real Minimalist would've called it "Cherry on Crap #7" or something similar. 8^) (...) Oh no! You've opened a whole new lithographed soupcan of worms with this one! If the artist has to stand beside the work (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) ok, you guys have drawn me in... as an artist and drawing teacher, i do feel somewhat qualified to define some terms here. ;-) my favorite definition of art (which is like trying to define "love", or "god", anyway) comes from my art teacher (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
