| |
Rachel Kingston wrote in message ...
> OK fasten your seatbelts, this subject is one which is of tantamount
> importance to me.....
> This is the brilliant thing about art, what is vulgar and obscene to you is
> brilliant social commentary to someone else.
Its nice to find someone new to read, who happens to think (at least in
this instance) a little like I do!
> This kind of art, to me, can be more about the gut reaction it produces in
> the viewer, than anything else. If you have an extreme aversion to an art
> piece, that reaction speaks about who you are, not just who the artist is.
> Thus the reaction *is* the "artwork" often. (and the artists intention,
> though, in my practise, although my work usually shocks and offends some, • this
> is always a surprise,to me. I do the work out of a need to communicate with
> myself, I never consciously think, "if I do that, it will get attention")
My definition of art:
Art is that which man creates.
Creation is a reflection of man's soul, his being. Every man produces
different art, with one (or more) of a multitude of mediums. I think I am
not a great artist, but I do create things, so I am an artist of a sort. I
think there is another thing, that I call artwork, that is made simply to
indulge the senses, the emotions and performs little or no other function.
By that definition of artwork, I must agree with the quoted text above.
There is no out of bounds in art. Maybe you don't like a shocking piece of
artwork, but it is still something that infuses the emotions. Most artwork
I find rather boring, yet I usually react in some way. Some repels me, some
awes me, some inspires, some says common. All of it does something.
> As an adult, (and a fine artist) I am not offended often by an artwork. On
> the rare occasions that it happens, it is a surprise, jolting me out of
> complacency, to examine my reaction. Which is exactly what you guys are • doing
> here. (contemporary fine artists rejoice!)
I must admit I had the same feeling (a repulsive reaction) as a kid, when
I would see skull tattoos, that I have only rarely now when I see something
truly heinous. Its not a feeling I enjoy, but it does take me back to that
innocence I once knew. It humbles me, reminding me I haven't seen
everything, that I can still be surprised, shocked or disgusted. I am sure
after fighting in a war, finding artwork that effects me in such a way would
be an even rarer occurrence, but in a way, art, even hideous, grotesque art,
reminds us who we are, who we were, and who we can (or wanted to) become.
All things we see other men do, not just so called works of art, can do
this. I have a favorite quote, and now is as good a time as any to share
it:
'tis impossible for man and difficult for nature itself to surpass the
riches of my own imagination.
JJ Rousseau
How I wish that was true! But maybe it is... and I do think it is! I
can imagine as good as the rest of them - what is truly great and fun to see
is what others have "made" from their own imaginings! To carry out these
magnificent ideas I have held in my own mind is what I truly wish for.
> It is often the artists intention for you to scrutinize your own response • to
> an artwork, this scrutiny will only happen with strong emotion,thus the • artist
> has succeeded in creating a piece that is pertinent in some way to a • majority,
> not a minority. Art reflects society. In this society it is the amazing, • the
> shocking, the gross, the visceral that gets noticed. Many of us have • become
> immune to everything but the visual slap in the face. Of course art • reflects
> this, how could it not?
> Strong emotion opens a line of communication between the work and the • viewer.
> What does your reaction say about you?
I just read about this in an earlier post in this thread. I definitely
appreciate the self scrutiny and self realization that art induces. At some
points in life the effect is more profound than others, but you never know
when something called art might really hit you. Its one of the joys of
life, the spice of learning whatever you happen to learn, be it good or bad.
I don't think the only art to be appreciated is of the slap in the face
variety; rarely is that type of much use to me. Occasionally it is, and I
don't complain about the excess that isn't. I usually like the amazing, as
in clever, new and never before seen, implementations of art. The great
artists of recent times are often imitated but seldom too well. The
uniqueness of art makes me imbibe it, there are so many different forms, for
so many different people and a complete spectrum of emotions.
Some art, not necessarily artwork, makes me think, "That man thought of
that. I am jealous." In this sense, Bill Gates is even an artist! But I
meant things like the Lugnet logo, I could have thought of that, easily, I
think, but I didn't. Why not? Hopefully I will come up with something else
some time, that will make others think the same thing. Perhaps I already
have.
I love art, it displays man's greatest qualities, our originality, our
cleverness, our ability to foresee and create that which we have foreseen
And sometimes they do it magnificently, so well that nearly all men respect
it and cherish it, honestly spoken, they just love it - I think Van Gogh and
Monet are my personal favorites from this category. One would think if you
spent your whole life painting water lilies and pond bridges you could
become good at it - well Monet certainly did - I love the expertise that men
are capable of, in all unlimited forms of art. I hope I am not wrong in
saying that most love Monet and Van Gogh - what a shame it would be if this
weren't the case.
> Sure, we could be like the millions that go to Kmart and buy a cheesy • sunset
> print, and never actually get off our behinds to watch a real one.
> An extreme reaction to an artwork, will always take you by surprise, and • thus
> forces you into communion with self.
> Art as reflection of society must often be extreme, to reflect the extremes • in
> our society.
True, I don't like the majority of the pieces called art at K-mart, but I
don't like much besides Lego there. I agree that the unusual can cause a
reaction, but so can the beautiful and the unique. Though the film last
Temptation of Christ disenchanted me somewhat, the later Piss Christ had
surprisingly little effect. I can tell that it sure had an effect on some,
though. I don't care for most extremely controversial art, but even if I
don't see it, hearing about the latest gross thing someone has come up with
usually does cause at least a second's self inspection. I take the good
with the bad, and look ahead to the next piece of artwork that does what it
should.
> > > > Yikes! Well, I won't flame you because I expect that neither of us • is
> > > > qualified to define "art." However, you've mounted some ad hominem • attacks
> > > > against prospective artists, and, in the end, these can weaken your own
> > > > credibility and do nothing to discredit their targets.
> > > > I'm concerned, though, that some of your points might be untenable. • Why,
> > > > for instance, can't art be obscene? Does one condition preclude the • other?
> > > > If so, why? Can art not be created intentionally to offend certain • groups?
> > > > Does this, too, preclude a work from being art?
>
> In my opinion, here, an artist shouldn't set out to shock as the only • agenda.
> (and I can't think of one whose sole intention is to shock, an artist • doesn't
> get anywhere without being able to speak intelligently about their own • work,
> there are far too many brilliant art theorists who will shoot an artist • down
> in flames, if their work is gratuitous without rigid theoretical backup ) • The
> work must be meaningful and relevant to the artists own observations and
> experience.
I don't know. I think some Catholics who want to jolt some other
Catholics did just that. I don't think one has to be a full time artist, or
even have education for art to effect people. One merely creates that which
he has set upon creating (and perhaps he had no intentions of what to create
and just came up with something). I have seen my paintings turn from
abstract, to flowers, to buildings. I am not an artist either, by most
people's definition, I suppose, but I am by mine.
> Have I just muddied the waters even further? Its the wee small hours so • please
> forgive the lecture
I appreciated it!
> Oh, and I for one, love Warhol, as social commentator (for that matter Jeff
> Koons is a similar case in point) And I loved Serrano's crucifix in urine. • I
> think it is a beautiful object. Suffusing the figure with this brilliant
> golden glow. So what if it was urine, its a body fluid. Isn't the body the
> temple of the holy spirit? (I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, I • really
> do like Serranos work a lot, sorry if anyone takes offence)
No problem, Warhol is all right with me.
> > > > Guilianni (sp?) made an interesting observation during the whole • obscenity
> > > > debacle last year when he noted that, had the work slandered a Star of • David
> > > > or a rendition of Muhammad, it would likely have been reviled as Hate • Speech,
> > > > followed by public outcry for its removal.
> > > >
> > > > Dave!
> > >
> > > Art is whatever you can convince people is art.
>
> Art is nothing if not subjective.
Well, sorry, I didn't mean to try to convince people of what art is, but
I had fun defining it for myself. Now you know what I think. And I like
it!
> > > Yeah, I know, a provocative and somewhat cynical statement designed to • drive
> > > art historians nuts (it helps to be familiar with the French Academie • and
> the
> > > Impressionist movement).
> > >
> > > There isn't a convenient hard line between "art", "social commentary", • and
> > > "political op/ed". Some art is intended to be provocative. Some may • truly
> be
> > > art, but Really Bad Art, nevertheless. I haven't seen any art as • obscene as
> > > subsidizing cigarettes, but hey, I'm sure it's not for want of trying!
> > >
> > > Bruce
> >
> > So what you are saying is that everything is art?
>
>
> No, here I would be inclined to say that anything can be art, not • everything
> is art.
Cool. Anything can be art. I look at it like that, almost. I can't
discern between art and artwork very well, and I also can't say what is and
isn't artwork, but I am not going to let some expert tell me the difference
either. I wouldn't mind hearing an expert's opinions, though. As I think
we have a right to free speech, I think anyone should be able to call
anything they want art.
> Would you call child
> > pornography art? 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.
> > Why is that? What is it about certain things that make them not art? I • think
> > there is a working definition somewhere. And instead of calling • *everything*
> art,
> > let's call some things what they are-- Pornography, Murder, Racism, • Bigotry,
> > Misogyny, Sadism, etc.
> >
> > -John
>
> Lets not call the *act* of murder, racism, pornography (though this is a • grey
> area) or misogyny - art.
> But there are some brilliant artworks dealing with these issues.
> Lets just say that performance art, isn't art, but becomes abuse, if it is
> directed at an unwilling third party, and emotionally or physically • damaging,
> to that individual. No one, here, I think would be inclined to call these • acts
> art.
> However, I must add here, that a performance involving one's own body, is a
> different case in point. (Rachel ducks and runs for cover)
I don't think I want to get involved with this one this early in the
morning. Well, maybe for a second. If it violates a law, its a pretty
deranged (much more than any shocking painting or sculpture type thing) kind
of art. I think the law should be enforced. I don't think laws should be
allowed to be broken in the name of art, that seems ludicrous before
breakfast. I guess these things actually are art, as they reflect the soul
of the person who made them, but I'd personally be a little more comfortable
knowing folks like that got hit by very large busses.
> I'd have to exclude animals here, though. An art event, where a cow, or a
> pig, or a chicken, is slaughtered, merely points to the millions of animals
> that are killed everyday, in the name of beef stew, pork chops etc. An art
> event such as this, would force every viewer to re-examine thier • predilecton
> for meat. Hey, might've come up with something here!
> Rachel :-)
I'm hungry. Good idea, I think I'd actually have to see that one for it
to work.
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Swearing?
|
| (...) they (...) is "obscene", "vulgar", "profane", (...) that a (...) jar (...) IMHO (...) to (...) minded (...) OK fasten your seatbelts, this subject is one which is of tantamount importance to me..... This is the brilliant thing about art, what (...) (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
|
|
|
|
