Subject:
|
Art and Property ZRights
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:34:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2086 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 05:05:06 GMT, John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> > > Appeal to laws? Do the laws of men define art?
> >
> > Because it is _bad_ art. Not because it's not art.
>
> How does that help? Who decides what's bad? Aren't you still in the mode
> of not having an objective standard? Now, this whole thing may be
> futile, I tend to come down on the side of "there isn't an easy way to
> define what art is, it is based on each person's value system to make
> the determination", which is not the view that John Neal has. But you've
> just traded the "is it art?" question for a similar one "is it bad art?"
> which is just as dependent on internal values of the observer.
I'm going to step out on a limb here, and try and weave something
together from the two debates we have going on.
ASSERTIONS:
1. Art is something that is created with intent to evoke an emotional
response.
2. The VALUE of art is something which can only be determined by the
viewer OR the entity displaying the art (which could be the artist).
3. "Public" funding of art is wrong because of both 1 and 2.
DEFENCE:
I don't think I've seen anyone really disagree with the first assertion.
I'm at a loss as to how to completely defend this. I added the "created"
bit, because the root of the word "art" clearly includes human creation
as opposed to natural creation. Thus, a tree in the woods is not art. A
garden could be art since a human has molded nature into a creation
unique to that individual. There is possibility for debate if I go
search a beach for just the right piece of driftwood to evoke some
emotional response. There certainly is human effort involved, and
probably the piece of driftwood will only evoke the response when set in
a context, which is then a human creation.
Most people have been stating that art is in the eye of the beholder.
What they are actually asserting is that the value of the art is in the
eye of the beholder. Assuming that we accept the first assertion, this
is supportable. If I like the the emotional response a given creation,
then I will be pre-disposed to pay for that creation (either buy it
outright to display on my property, or pay to visit someone elses
property where it is displayed).
Where this fails to cover all the bases is that there is clearly value
in a display which has the purpose of making others see your viewpoint.
In this instance, we can see a value, but the value is determined by the
entity displaying the creation. This works for me. Newspapers and
magazines have editorial cartoons and essays, both of which have value
to the publisher of evoking a response in the reader.
The third assertion goes back to our property rights. We should not be
forced to pay for something. If we value something, we should have the
freedom to pay for it (subject to the something infringing on someone
elses rights, thus, we do not have the right to buy a snuff film unless
the participants have agreed to what will happen to them - in which case
we have no right to intefere with their right to dispose of their life
as they see fit - however, in practice, it may be almost impossible to
prove total willingness on the part of the participants, so if you're
going to make snuff films, you better have a lot of money for legal
defence).
Given these assertions, we don't have to be able agree to a definition
of what art is. A common definition is almost irrelevant because there
is no practical use for one, other than for the purpose of discussion of
a particular work. In that case, our discussion is only going to be
fruitfull if our views on what constitutes art are sufficiently similar
as to be able to find a common ground to discuss on. Note that this not
require those involved in the discussion to hold the same final opinion
on the work. If we are discussing a play, and we agree that certain
acting qualities are important, but don't agree on the relative values
of each quality, we can still constructively discuss the play. My final
opinion may be different because I value costuming differently, but if
we both agree that costuming is relevant, you can understand that I like
the play because the costumes are so perfect, but you hate the play
because despite the excellent costuming, you don't like tradgedies. If
we discuss enough plays, I will probably be able to predict your
reaction to a play based on the comparisons of the values we place on
different components.
I don't know if that gets us anywheres, but hopefully this is some food
for thought.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
| Frank said it, better than I've had time to say. Very nicely done. What a great running dog lackey I've created here... (go back to very early in the history of this group and read some of Frank's stuff and you'll find he wasn't nearly as right as (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art and Property ZRights
|
| (...) Some art is intended to create an intellectual response, not emotional, or as an aid to meditation (Mark Rothko's "glowing squares"), or.... (...) Each will assign their own unique value. (...) When Libertarians are the majority party, I'll (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) How does that help? Who decides what's bad? Aren't you still in the mode of not having an objective standard? Now, this whole thing may be futile, I tend to come down on the side of "there isn't an easy way to define what art is, it is based (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
