| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2011 01:36:06 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by bvy:
When did "art" and "document" become mutually exclusive? |
... I'm not convinced that a thing can start out as being both art and document simultaneously. |
How about illuminated manuscripts from the "Middle Ages" or all the highly stylized Arabic calligraphy which decorates many buildings throughout the Middle East ... and the Taj Mahal seems to me to be both "documentary" and artistically done ... |
Hmmm, 'nother damned caveat. But in this case I can still wriggle and say that decoration, even 'artful' decoration, and art are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 01:40:49 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by bvy:
When did "art" and "document" become mutually exclusive? |
... I'm not convinced that a thing can start out as being both art and document simultaneously. |
How about illuminated manuscripts from the "Middle Ages" or all the highly stylized Arabic calligraphy which decorates many buildings throughout the Middle East ... and the Taj Mahal seems to me to be both "documentary" and artistically done ... |
Hmmm, 'nother damned caveat. But in this case I can still wriggle and say that decoration, even 'artful' decoration, and art are not the same thing. |
Wriggle all you want ... a "rule" with ten thousand exceptions isn't much use as a rule.
Originally posted by posthumous:
When is a yam a sweet potato? |
When it comes from a plant native to the Americas, rather than a similar but unrelated plant from Africa. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 02:56:23 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by bvy:
When did "art" and "document" become mutually exclusive? |
... I'm not convinced that a thing can start out as being both art and document simultaneously. |
How about illuminated manuscripts from the "Middle Ages" or all the highly stylized Arabic calligraphy which decorates many buildings throughout the Middle East ... and the Taj Mahal seems to me to be both "documentary" and artistically done ... |
There is not "one" art. there is a distinction between fine art and craftsmanship. A fine saddle, for use on a horse, is not, per se, fine art- nor a chair, for use to sit, or a Stradivarius. However, depiction or documentation is not the "usefulness" that would bring David out of the realm of fine art.
Many times, there are technical photos- on this site(gasp!) that are closer to craftsmanship than fine art. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 03:12:00 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
but the Greeks and Romans weren't really interested in accuracy either. |
I'm going to have to challenge you on this. What purposeful inaccuracies were being introduced by the Greeks and Romans in their sculpture to what purpose?
It's one thing to be inaccurate because of skill or material. It's another to be inaccurate on purpose. |
It wasn't until the Hellenistic period (4th century) that Greek sculpture moved away from idealized representations of the human form. Previously, most sculptures were supposed to represent Gods, not real people. Even in the Hellenistic period, when the posing of the figures became more natural, and statues began to portray mortal people many of the still idealized human forms and it wasn't until the near end of the Greek era that statues showing people with the kind of physical "imperfections" that real people have was acceptable.
Much of the Roman sculpture is copied from the Greeks along with its idealized forms. Their religious art showed figures engaged in scenes from Greek and/or Roman mythology or various "personal" religions.
The exception to this would be the Roman "portraiture", which was very concerned with representing real people, warts and all, at least during the Republican era. The portraits of Gods and mythological characters were still idealized. The emperors were deified and thus in their "portraits" their imperfections are glossed over.
The source for this realism is probably due to the practice of making wax death masks
Message edited by author 2011-09-15 15:26:02. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 03:31:38 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by ubique:
I can still wriggle and say that decoration, even 'artful' decoration, and art are not the same thing. |
I believe that art for art's sake is a modern invention and a sad one. Art, from the first cave drawings until the invention of photography always served a purpose, be it spiritual, commercial, civic, or instructive. When photography arrived on the scene "true" artists moved away from depiction and began to strive for a purer form of art to distance themselves form their horrid cousins the photographers. As artists have become more abstract they have also lost contact with the average person. In the Salon de Paris before the impressionists, the crowds were huge and diverse and what was on display was the subject of common interest. It was discussed in the papers and on the street. It was relevant. Artists occupied the space that movie stars occupy today.
Today "fine art" is discussed in magazines like Artforum, largely as a circle jerk of hot artist, cool galleries, famous collectors and the the money loop that they enjoy. The pieces strive to be shocking and tend to be huge, and they are totally removed from the interests and concerns of the average person. So hooray for pure art, which is now appealing to an elite of monied tastemakers and specialized notion of what art is that Jeff Koons can document having carnal relations with an Italian porn star and they are "fine art". It has to do with cunning satire of the banality of the commercialization of sexuality, blah blah blah blah.
Art divorced from a desire to do something, anything, has come adrift. Art spits upon the Rockwells because they are popular, and loved by common people. When you measure success by how much you can get people to hate what you are doing, well you might as well be a troll on the internet. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 03:34:57 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
but the Greeks and Romans weren't really interested in accuracy either. |
I'm going to have to challenge you on this. What purposeful inaccuracies were being introduced by the Greeks and Romans in their sculpture to what purpose?
It's one thing to be inaccurate because of skill or material. It's another to be inaccurate on purpose. |
It wasn't until the Hellenistic period (4th century) that Greek sculpture moved away from idealized representations of the human form. Previously, most sculptures were supposed to represent Gods, not real people. Even in the Hellenistic period, when the posing of the figures became more natural, and statues began to portray mortal people many of the still idealized human forms and it wasn't until the near end of the Greek era that statues showing people with the kind of physical "imperfections" that real people have was acceptable.
Much of the Roman sculpture is copied from the Greeks along with its idealized forms. Their religious art showed figures engaged in scenes from Greek and/or Roman mythology or various "personal" religions.
The exception to this would be the Roman "portraiture", which was very concerned with representing real people, warts and all, at least during the Republican era. The portraits of Gods and mythological characters were still idealized. The emperors were deified and thus in their "portraits" their imperfections are glossed over.
The source for this realism is probably due to the practice of making wax death masks |
A common hypothesis, but probably difficult to prove not having access to any of the models the sculpters used. :) Plus, "idealized" and "accurate" can be synonymous when dealing with a generic representation (though they don't have to be). Graphic novels with their enormously ripped muscles, melon breasts, and mousy waists may be "idealized" but are not "accurate". Classical statues, I think, are both "idealized" and "accurate". |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 03:38:45 PM · #82 |
I'm reminded, yet again, of the Danish philosopher, Piet Hein, so I'll quote him once more:
There is one art,
no more, no less:
to do all things
with Artlessness.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2011 04:01:06 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
but the Greeks and Romans weren't really interested in accuracy either. |
I'm going to have to challenge you on this. What purposeful inaccuracies were being introduced by the Greeks and Romans in their sculpture to what purpose?
It's one thing to be inaccurate because of skill or material. It's another to be inaccurate on purpose. |
It wasn't until the Hellenistic period (4th century) that Greek sculpture moved away from idealized representations of the human form. Previously, most sculptures were supposed to represent Gods, not real people. Even in the Hellenistic period, when the posing of the figures became more natural, and statues began to portray mortal people many of the still idealized human forms and it wasn't until the near end of the Greek era that statues showing people with the kind of physical "imperfections" that real people have was acceptable.
Much of the Roman sculpture is copied from the Greeks along with its idealized forms. Their religious art showed figures engaged in scenes from Greek and/or Roman mythology or various "personal" religions.
The exception to this would be the Roman "portraiture", which was very concerned with representing real people, warts and all, at least during the Republican era. The portraits of Gods and mythological characters were still idealized. The emperors were deified and thus in their "portraits" their imperfections are glossed over.
The source for this realism is probably due to the practice of making wax death masks |
A common hypothesis, but probably difficult to prove not having access to any of the models the sculpters used. :) Plus, "idealized" and "accurate" can be synonymous when dealing with a generic representation (though they don't have to be). Graphic novels with their enormously ripped muscles, melon breasts, and mousy waists may be "idealized" but are not "accurate". Classical statues, I think, are both "idealized" and "accurate". |
Not really, since the models would have been real people and far more asymmetric and imperfect than the statues in their form. Also, consider that most of the statues were of Gods or mythical heroes. Subjects that were above mortal status and by definition more perfect than any real person. To represent human physical imperfections in the representations of deities would be to insult to the Gods. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 04:14:06 PM · #84 |
I dunno...
From www.ancient-greece.org: The Kore statues dominate votive sculpture on the Acropolis during the early archaic period.
The preoccupation with accurate depiction of the human figure however is well represented in a number of male statues.
From wiki on classical sculpture:
The Classical period saw changes in both the style and function of sculpture. Poses became more naturalistic (see the Charioteer of Delphi for an example of the transition to more naturalistic sculpture), and the technical skill of Greek sculptors in depicting the human form in a variety of poses greatly increased. From about 500 BC statues began to depict real people. The statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton set up in Athens to mark the overthrow of the tyranny were said to be the first public monuments to actual people.
For Hellenistic period: Realistic portraits of men and women of all ages were produced, and sculptors no longer felt obliged to depict people as ideals of beauty or physical perfection. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 04:15:17 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
..... Art spits upon the Rockwells because they are popular, and loved by common people. When you measure success by how much you can get people to hate what you are doing, well you might as well be a troll on the internet. |
If more than ten percent of the public likes a painting, it should be burned.
— George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
|
09/15/2011 04:17:53 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
..... Art spits upon the Rockwells because they are popular, and loved by common people. When you measure success by how much you can get people to hate what you are doing, well you might as well be a troll on the internet. |
If more than ten percent of the public likes a painting, it should be burned.
— George Bernard Shaw |
It's this attitude that I have no time for. I'll confess and apologize that sometimes I read this position into things written on DPC at times when it probably isn't really there.
Message edited by author 2011-09-15 16:52:51. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 04:32:50 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by ubique:
If more than ten percent of the public likes a painting, it should be burned.
— George Bernard Shaw |
Its the same attitude that I used to have as a teenager towards cool bands. I loved the band no one else had heard of, but if they became popular I quit following them.
Once I quit caring about being cool, that just because others liked the same music I did, I didn't have to stop liking it. Popularity does not change the worth of a thing and people who stop liking a thing because it is popular are as shallow and vapid as those who begin liking a thing because it is popular. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 04:36:28 PM · #88 |
| Usually, when something becomes popular, it has been diluted enough to be common. There's a grain of truth in the Shaw quote. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 04:49:17 PM · #89 |
The let us burn the Mona Lisa. Its popularity has diluted it's impact, yet it as an object has not changed.
If you shift your opinion of a thing based on the opinion of others, then you are no longer free to choose what you like, you have joined the herd mentality, even if your choices are predicated on going anywhere but where the herd is going.
Message edited by author 2011-09-15 16:50:17. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 04:54:17 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Usually, when something becomes popular, it has been diluted enough to be common. There's a grain of truth in the Shaw quote. |
Phew. OK, I'm back to disagreeing with you... :) |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 04:57:37 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Usually, when something becomes popular, it has been diluted enough to be common. There's a grain of truth in the Shaw quote. |
Phew. OK, I'm back to disagreeing with you... :) |
Haha! I like that. I don't agree with the GBS quote myself.
10% is far too generous. Sorry ... kidding. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 05:09:46 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Usually, when something becomes popular, it has been diluted enough to be common. There's a grain of truth in the Shaw quote. |
For the speed readers. No funeral pyres required. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 05:18:29 PM · #93 |
| So when a thing is "common" or "popular", that is agreed upon by the majority of the population or perhaps a sufficiently large minority, then you believe it is required to not like that thing, but not necessarily destroy it the way GBS recommends? Or did i misread again? |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 05:27:11 PM · #94 |
Daresay GBS would have been disappointed to have more than ten percent agree with his statement.
There should be a dpc parallel digital soundbite challenge, where presidential candidates can have their utterances approved by committee.
Artisans/craftsmen strove and still strive to eliminate evidence of the craftsman's hand on the finished article. Industry produced/produces stuff that might have been the envy of ye olde craftsman. R. Mutt, for example.
Also photography enabled the documentation of whatever would stay in front of the camera without skills of draftsmanship.
So Art was then released and able to concentrate on whatever-it-is-on-which-we-can't-agree, rather than devoting itself entirely to the faithful recording of that which stood before the easel, which is what it had done before.
Then that stuff at Altamira sort of blew that idea out of the water.
In very general terms, alost certain to be slightly wrong in one or two specific cases, I'¨d say that anyone who thinks they're competing with that doesn't know they've been born. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 05:27:44 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So when a thing is "common" or "popular", that is agreed upon by the majority of the population or perhaps a sufficiently large minority, then you believe it is required to not like that thing, but not necessarily destroy it the way GBS recommends? Or did i misread again? |
He's saying he reserves the right to reject something because it's popular, but he won't do it if we're looking. :) (I'm just joking here...) |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 06:01:56 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So when a thing is "common" or "popular", that is agreed upon by the majority of the population or perhaps a sufficiently large minority, then you believe it is required to not like that thing, but not necessarily destroy it the way GBS recommends? Or did i misread again? |
He's saying he reserves the right to reject something because it's popular, but he won't do it if we're looking. :) (I'm just joking here...) |
Doc, while I don't agree with Shaw's observation as a categorical statement, I do agree with Louis that there's some validity to it. And I really don't see why it should be a cause of offence to take that anti-populist view.
My own view of art is that it is supposed to be uncomfortable, ambitious, audacious, and most certainly not comforting and familiar. I truly believe that; that for a thing to be of real artistic consequence to me, it must be disquieting or at least unexpected on some level. And it is simply impossible for that standard to be satisfied by a thing that is popular. That's just a function of human nature; most people will recoil from the unfamiliar or the uncomfortable.
It's pretty well agreed in these threads that each person must ultimately see art by their own lights. Those are mine. But I'm not offended by those who prefer the more benign personal definitions of art. I am offended by those who think my position is merely elitist, and so dismiss it entirely on that basis. I may think that the art that such folks prefer is rubbish, but I do not think they are personally diminished by liking it. Well, actually I do, but I'm not going to say so here. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 06:17:35 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So when a thing is "common" or "popular", that is agreed upon by the majority of the population or perhaps a sufficiently large minority, then you believe it is required to not like that thing, but not necessarily destroy it the way GBS recommends? Or did i misread again? |
He's saying he reserves the right to reject something because it's popular, but he won't do it if we're looking. :) (I'm just joking here...) |
Doc, while I don't agree with Shaw's observation as a categorical statement, I do agree with Louis that there's some validity to it. And I really don't see why it should be a cause of offence to take that anti-populist view.
My own view of art is that it is supposed to be uncomfortable, ambitious, audacious, and most certainly not comforting and familiar. I truly believe that; that for a thing to be of real artistic consequence to me, it must be disquieting or at least unexpected on some level. And it is simply impossible for that standard to be satisfied by a thing that is popular. That's just a function of human nature; most people will recoil from the unfamiliar or the uncomfortable.
It's pretty well agreed in these threads that each person must ultimately see art by their own lights. Those are mine. But I'm not offended by those who prefer the more benign personal definitions of art. I am offended by those who think my position is merely elitist, and so dismiss it entirely on that basis. I may think that the art that such folks prefer is rubbish, but I do not think they are personally diminished by liking it. Well, actually I do, but I'm not going to say so here. |
Elitist. :D
I don't disagree with you, but rather just have a wider definition for art. I think you are right that art can be uncomfortable, ambitious, audacious, but I disagree that it can't be comforting and familiar. One of my favorite sculptures is the Pieta which, to me, resonates deeply with feelings of peace, gratitude, and love. My own photography, which I will boldly declare to be artistic (since I have that right as much as the next person), strives to invoke awe, curiosity, and appreciation for beauty and nature. This type of art, I sometimes feel plays second fiddle to the type of art you (or Shaw) describe. Shaw seems to be of the opinion that the piece must stick its finger in your eye to keep its moniker of "art". That is where I disagree. Art can come alongside you like an old friend and show you things about yourself you never knew, but do it with whispered words and gentle caresses.
So to summarize...don't disagree, just see more. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 07:52:22 PM · #98 |
.
Message edited by author 2011-09-15 22:26:59. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 11:16:46 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One of my favorite sculptures is the Pieta which, to me, resonates deeply with feelings of peace, gratitude, and love. |
Do you mean the statue by Michelangelo? In which the Blessed Mother is about two feet taller than Jesus? Good old documentation...
p.s. I apologize about my ignorance of the statue of David, especially since my larger point is still valid, that the Biblical story is essential to a full appreciation of the art. I've seen him in person, experienced the statue in the context of the story, just failed to remember the details properly. It's funny to see DrAchoo and Louis on the same side, trying to deny the religiosity of Renaissance artists. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 11:18:06 PM · #100 |
| Okay, one more thing. Some people, especially the Doc, are confusing "documentation" with "representation." I'm not arguing for blur and abstraction. |
|
