| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > So what you are saying is that everything is art?
>
> > What gave you that impression? I most certainly did not.
>
> Well, potentially, depends upon how convincing I am;-)
An amusing answer, but I ain't convinced, so you are outta luck. Nyahh! :-P
> >
> >
> > Would you call child
> > > pornography art?
> > That's a crime, no matter how artistically put. Someone from France might • have
> > a whole different definition of what constitutes "child pornography". Some
> > people in this country (USA) believe a simple nude constitutes child
> > pornography.
>
> ??? A nude "child pornography"? You need a child in there somewhere!
I thought it obvious that is what I was refering to, but perhaps I'm being too
clever for my own good. Yes, a nude picture of a child is considered "child
pornography" by some.
>
> > How about performance art where the artist kills an animal--
> > or
> > > a human? I can think of many things I (and most others) wouldn't consider
> > art.
> >
> > These are crimes also. It would make for a very short art career. Good • luck
> > qualifying under my definition of art in any case.
>
> It would qualify under many people's definition.
>
> 1. Art is subjective....check
> 2. Art is thought provoking.....check
> 3. Art is controversial.....check
> 4. Art is the expression of an artist....check
> 5. Art is blah blah blah....
Go find these people who are claiming murder is art and get back to me. They
actually have to say murder is art. No convoluted "proofs" please: Straw men
are always easy to knock down.
> >
> >
> > > Why is that? What is it about certain things that make them not art?
> >
> > And what is my definition of art? If people are not convinced that • something
> > is art, it isn't!
>
> Too subjective for me.
I'm not arguing what I feel the definition of art should *be*, just what it
works out to be in practice.
> >
> >
> > I think
>
> > > there is a working definition somewhere.
> >
> > Yes. There is. Trouble is, there are a LOT of definitions, none of them • the
> > same. Mine is simply one that is designed to challenge art historians.
> >
> > And instead of calling *everything*
> > art,
> > > let's call some things what they are-- Pornography, Murder, Racism, • Bigotry,
> > > Misogyny, Sadism, etc.
> > >
> > > -John
> >
> > Whoa there. Let's not burst a blood vessel! Straw men are easy to knock • down,
> > especially ones you set up yourself, not me.
>
> lol I guess it may *seem* that I'm getting all worked up, but I'm really just
> trying to learn:-)
>
> -John
And working out a certain amount of annoyance at the whole
silly system (understandable but futile).
Okay, why do I say art is whatever you can convince people is art? During the
1800's, if you graduated from the French Academy of Art (by doing your "master"
piece, demonstarting you have mastered art), what you did was art (as long as
you stuck to their style)! Conversely, if you hadn't gone through that process
and forced down the academy's definition of art, it wasn't art. Their opinion
on what art was and what wasn't art was pretty much followed by the public.
Along came the Impressionists. What they did Was Not Art! The public agreed:
Impressionism Wasn't Art! You want Real Art: see the Academic paintings. That
was Art!
Now, of course, Impressionism is the most loved and sought after Art on the
face of the planet. Critics love it. The public loves it. Academic
paintings? Vapid, empty, sterile, vacuous: Not Art!
Conclusions? Were the people in the 19th century that unknowledgable? Are we
really that much more clever today? I don't believe so.
Or were they simply too close to the art in the 19th century? Was it too new
and challenging and just plain different? I think this is closer to the truth.
But then, won't our opinions on art be judged 100 years down the line, and
won't that generation's opinion become the standard for what is and isn't art?
Art is this wiggily little beast that is extremely difficult to pin down. The
lesson learned from the Impressionism movement is not to be quite so quick on
claiming something is or isn't art.
The trouble is we have come to something of a full circle. The abstracts of
the 20th century were done by classically trained artists: this was the way
they wanted to paint - they could have done a traditional landscape if they
wanted to. As the century wore on, too many artists couldn't. ALL they could
do was argle-bargle. But ANYONE could do argle-bargle ("My kid can paint
better'n that!"). So what did galleries require? Why, a Master's Degree to
prove that the work was done by a Certified Artist! The skill of the artist
was often in convincing people that what he/she did was Art! and what the other
person did was unoriginal, hackneyed, and Not Art! Why? Because (all together
now): Art is what ever you can convince people is art!
I TOLD you it was a cynical definition aimed at art historians (drives 'em
nuts, too). To fill out the definition properly:
Art is whatever you can convince people is art, but tastes may change. What is
art today, may not be tomorrow. Conversly, what is not art today may be
accepted as art tomorrow.
Yes, I KNOW it isn't a satisfying definition and is entirely subjective. My
solution is not to argue whether something is art or not, but to simply say,
"Hey, it may be art, but it still stinks!"
Not that that doesn't have its dangers, since it comes close to saying, "I may
not know what art is, but I know what I like." Trouble is, you only THINK you
know what you like (I'm just as guilty of this as the next guy), and you may
find out that you have changed your mind - and your definition of art -
tomorrow.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Well, generally speaking, a nude is not pornographic *because* it is nude. *What* the nude is doing or how it's being portrayed are important considerations. When I refer to child pornography, I am referring to portrayals of sexual acts by (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) Well, potentially, depends upon how convincing I am;-) (...) ??? A nude "child pornography"? You need a child in there somewhere! (...) It would qualify under many people's definition. 1. Art is subjective....check 2. Art is thought (...) (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
|
|
|
|
