Subject:
|
Re: Art! or Not Art!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:22:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2044 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> Well, generally speaking, a nude is not pornographic *because* it is nude.
Not everyone agrees with you on that, and the proportions that do or don't will
change dramatically from culture to culture.
> *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
> adults upon children.
> I am after something which is so deviant that it acts
> as a
> benchmark from which we can all say, Yeah, that's not art, it is something • else
> (in this case child pornography).
A reasonable desire, but again, "child pornography" means different things to
different people. For arguments sake, let's say everyone agrees this is a
reasonable definition. Finally, a hard and fast definition, anyone under
18...ah....oops! We have to go fuzzy again because not every culture is going
to agree on that age, and further, that exact same culture may change its
collective mind a 100 years down the road. Manet painted a nude of a
well-known prostitute that stared back at the viewer in what was deemed a very
provacotive manner. It was...it was...postively pornographic! She wasn't a
nude (ah, the glory of humanity), she was naked (oh hey, I can see all her
naughty bits)!
>
> What I find interesting is the reluctance to try and attempt to pin down a
> definition of art. Why is everyone so eager to accept a definition that art • is
> completely subjective? Every generation in the past decided what they thought • art
> was or wasn't. Today we are afraid to label anything and so we include
> everything. How odd, and how destructive. I think the current art scene • today is
> evident of that.
People are reluctant for a variety of reasons, primarily because everyone makes
their own judgements on art, what it is, and what is good or bad. My example
about the impressionist (perhaps the best known example, but certainly not the
only one) not being accepted as art when they began painting is another reason:
artists, historians, and dealers don't want to be so quick to make judgements.
Most figure time will tell. Andy Warhol's Campbell soup cans: art? Seems to
be leaning that way. Roy Lichtenstein's benday dot enlarged comic-book panels:
leaned against at the time and still looking that way, but he has his
defenders. Are we afraid to label things, or is the other side too anxious to
apply one? Applying the label of Not Art to the Impressionists was
destructive.
> > 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.
>
> When I hear people not being willing to define art and thus in essence say art • is
> everything,
> I try and provide things that I think art isn't.
> If some moron
> artist
> actually thinks this is some sort of performance art, _on what basis_ can we
> respond "You are an idiot and a charlatan" if we concede that art is
everything?
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.
I repeat that because you basically ignored it so you could set up a
non-existent scenario. Let me add that you have to find the people who are
saying "art is everything" too. NO convoluted "proofs". I can just as easily
take the statement "people are not willing to define art" as a statement that
NOTHING is art. Don't put words into their mouths and then complain about what
you put there.
<snipping out my long analysis of the impressionist movement>
> I like your analysis. I think you are on to something here. Artists of the • late
> 20th century climbed on the backs of their predecessors without taking the • effort
> of achieving their positions. So I agree that to produce art one must possess
> certain knowledge and skill in order to earn the right to produce art. I can • put
> a band-aid on an ouchie, but does that make me a nurse? Anyone can • argle-bargle,
> but does that make them an artist and thus their work art?
Actually, my point was that artists are trying to get their argle-bargle
rubber-stamped as Art because they have been to the current-day Academy (which
perversely, isn't accepted as Art). Why? So that we are sure that they simply
aren't some charleton. So, the exact same painting arrived independently by
some guy who can't draw a straight line but who has a master's degree is Art,
but the self-taught old guard guy has produced Not Art.
Further, you DON'T need to go through the touchie-feelie art school process to
be an artist or make art. That was the point of the Impressionists. However,
you do need to understand what you are doing, as you note. You can arrive at
that through a school, but you don't HAVE to (but good luck getting a gallery
to display your work). Which is all an argument that, yup, you CAN go too far
with an unwillingness to define art (but good luck trying to define it). Too
many people are trying to substitute a master's degree for a definition of art.
I hope you see that I don't wholly disagree with you, but you are beating your
head not against a brick wall, but a wall that dodges your blows and is dancing
around elusively. There's a lot of drek out there. If Sturgeon was right that
90% of everything is garbage (this was his 10% contribution, by the way <g>),
perhaps it is better just to say something is garbage instead of chasing the
will'o'wisp of an iron-clad definition of art.
>
> Perhaps you are right that art is whatever I can convince you is art. And • what
> I'm saying is that everything shouldn't be considered art. Certain skills,
> credentials, etc. should be present in an artist before we deem their work • art.
> Every other generation did it, so why are we so against doing it?
If everyone agrees that something isn't art, it isn't art, so not everything is
art. But be aware everyone may change their minds tomorrow.
I know that's gotta be annoying, because I wrote it and it annoys me, but
reality isn't always what you want it to be.
This is simply an admission that we don't have a convenient iron-clad
definition of art, and even if we did, tomorrow's society may toss it out for
their own. It's easier to look back with some historical perspective and make
judgements - and certainly the art world does. People are less willing to make
judgements about *current* art (what you may be condemning as Not Art may be
the Impressionism of the 21st century), but it DOES happen.
> Am I crazy for trying to distinguish that statement thusly: "Hey that • painting
> stinks; it's not a work of art."
>
> -John
Yes and no. Bad art is usually consigned to Not Art eventually. But everyone
else may simply consign your opinion to the trash heap instead. Worse, you may
change your mind ("I didn't like it at first, but it kinda grew on me") and
place your opinion on the trash heap yourself.
Yes, my brain hurts. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
