| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2011 11:31:03 PM · #101 |
So... is the 'art object' the essence that distinguishes human art. Or do all animals, once their stomachs are full, comprehend 'the object'. And, if so, do they dare discuss 'it'.
|
|
|
|
09/15/2011 11:37:18 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
So... is the 'art object' the essence that distinguishes human art. Or do all animals, once their stomachs are full, comprehend 'the object'. And, if so, do they dare discuss 'it'. |
Some of us try very hard to be apes. I once met a very hairy Surrealist... but that's a story for another time. (#4 fooled me) |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 11:43:03 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I've seen him in person, experienced the statue in the context of the story.... |
Me as well. I saw it in 2007 in Florence and was quite overcome. I didn't know then that it was originally supposed to top some building, and so I was floored by just how massive and commanding it is for all the wrong reasons I suppose. But yes, David is quite godless -- unless the god is Zeus and he's Ganymede. |
|
|
|
09/15/2011 11:59:01 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
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... |
Yes, I know. The point with the Pieta was not that it is realism, but that it was meant to invoke positive emotions rather than "in your face" ones. Michaelangelo deliberately reduced the more gruesome aspects of Christ's crucifixion and chose instead to focus on the mother/son dynamic. It's one of those caveats to ubique's statement that art cannot be "comforting and familiar".
Originally posted by posthumous:
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. |
But the direct question is, do you feel that the statue of David fails to remain art if we remove the Biblical context? If believe it still to be artistic, what merits remain to make it art other than the sculpter's masterly skills at representing the human form? (And, yes, I've seen it too, although, like Louis, I did not know it was meant for a rooftop before the wiki today.
For the sake of the conversation, you could ignore that question (though I hope you don't), and explain yourself better concerning the statement that got me involved in the first place:
"If you're a documenter of things and people, and all your efforts are based on showing these things and people in the sharpest detail possible, then you're not creating art."
What do you mean by "documenter of things"? Were you limiting yourself to the most glaring examples like product photography? or were you expanding to the documentation of landscape or of life (ie. the snapshot)? I don't really have a problem with the first idea. I don't think product photography is art either (though someone else might), but I do think art can exist where the artist is documenting the natural world. Maybe you don't disagree with that. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 12:15:30 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"If you're a documenter of things and people, and all your efforts are based on showing these things and people in the sharpest detail possible, then you're not creating art."
What do you mean by "documenter of things"? Were you limiting yourself to the most glaring examples like product photography? or were you expanding to the documentation of landscape or of life (ie. the snapshot)? I don't really have a problem with the first idea. I don't think product photography is art either (though someone else might), but I do think art can exist where the artist is documenting the natural world. Maybe you don't disagree with that. |
I missed a good conversation today.
I actually would like to hear some view points on this as well. When I read documentation...I think product photography, landscapes of all sorts, and photojournalism, but there are landscapes and photojournalism that I would consider art. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 12:19:29 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think product photography is art either (though someone else might... |
Andy Warhol, soup cans? Claes Oldenburg, giant erasers and clothespins? Jeff Koons, stainless-steel balloon dachshunds? Presumably you'd agree that these all are "art" at some level, despite that they reasonably faithfully render banal, mundane objects?
Photo-realist painters, then? Is that "art"? And if it is, why isn't the snapshot so rendered also art in and of itself? Is it the element of intent?
It's possible to make the argument that the most faithful possible photographic rendering of utterly mundane, uninspiring object is, in itself, a transcendence of sorts, and qualifies as "art"... Not that I'm making that argument... oh, no, not me... I'd never dream of doing that...
R.
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 00:20:31.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 12:30:19 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's possible to make the argument that the most faithful possible photographic rendering of utterly mundane, uninspiring object is, in itself, a transcendence of sorts, and qualifies as "art"... Not that I'm making that argument... oh, no, not me... I'd never dream of doing that...
R. |
This comes to mind. I doubt many people would enjoy this image, and reflects back to Paul's  ubique comment earlier about feeling uncomfortable. This subject is quite mundane, some may even be annoyed that they were asked to look at it. They may cringe and ask, "Why? Why make me look at this? It's just a parking space." It's more than that, although what, I'm not entirely sure to be honest. However, Z sure did give it life, and I have not forgotten the image.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 12:33:32 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
So... is the 'art object' the essence that distinguishes human art. Or do all animals, once their stomachs are full, comprehend 'the object'. And, if so, do they dare discuss 'it'. |
or calmly disdain to do so. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 01:10:15 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems to me the artistic merits of a piece are inexorably bound with the motive of the artist. |
This is my position and I'm sticking to it. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 02:11:46 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems to me the artistic merits of a piece are inexorably bound with the motive of the artist. |
This is my position and I'm sticking to it. |
Hmmmm, well you're entitled to take that stance, but what of the artist who is intent on creating something great, but just turns out crap. Or the person the creates the accidental masterpiece? |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 10:28:18 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
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. |
So, the Impressionists ruined art? And the Salon was run by populists? Interesting view of history you have.
My view is that nothing much has changed. There is still an elite deciding what is art, as you have so aptly described, and there are still artists who do their own thing and hopefully will be recognized by future generations.
The reason I post threads like this is precisely to defy the "circle jerk" you are describing. I myself will decide what is art, and I will encourage everyone else to decide it for themselves. And because of this some people (not you) will call me an elitist. Such is life! |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 10:34:52 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by bspurgeon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"If you're a documenter of things and people, and all your efforts are based on showing these things and people in the sharpest detail possible, then you're not creating art."
What do you mean by "documenter of things"? Were you limiting yourself to the most glaring examples like product photography? or were you expanding to the documentation of landscape or of life (ie. the snapshot)? I don't really have a problem with the first idea. I don't think product photography is art either (though someone else might), but I do think art can exist where the artist is documenting the natural world. Maybe you don't disagree with that. |
I missed a good conversation today.
I actually would like to hear some view points on this as well. When I read documentation...I think product photography, landscapes of all sorts, and photojournalism, but there are landscapes and photojournalism that I would consider art. |
I didn't think this was going to be the most controversial part of my post, but I should have realized it, since this is a photography site! hahahaha
I am not at all including landscape! I'm talking about product photography, standing in front of the statue of liberty and smiling. The stuff I'm saying is not art is pretty well agreed not to be art.
I'm more interested in expanding the notion of what can be art, rather than limiting it, but at the same time offering possibilities for judging and critiquing art. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 10:41:32 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But the direct question is, do you feel that the statue of David fails to remain art if we remove the Biblical context? If believe it still to be artistic, what merits remain to make it art other than the sculpter's masterly skills at representing the human form? |
I have two answers to your first question.
1. No. Art cannot exist without context. It's like walking without friction.
2. Yes. Michaelangelo is not simply documenting the human form. He had complete control over the pose, the clothes (or lack thereof). There are all sorts of aesthetic considerations as part of "masterly skills." Nowhere are "masterly skills" for a sculptor (or painter) defined as "create an exact representation of whatever happens to be in front of you."
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 10:58:54 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm talking about product photography, standing in front of the statue of liberty and smiling. The stuff I'm saying is not art is pretty well agreed not to be art. |
I have done some product photography and what I have done is not art. However, my efforts to create art with my photography has also enabled me to use light and perspective to create more appealing and interesting product shots.
Then, there is some product photography that does qualify as art to me. When the purpose of the product photography is to appeal to the purchaser emotionally, I feel you are crossing the line into art.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 11:13:48 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems to me the artistic merits of a piece are inexorably bound with the motive of the artist. |
This is my position and I'm sticking to it. |
Hmmmm, well you're entitled to take that stance, but what of the artist who is intent on creating something great, but just turns out crap. Or the person the creates the accidental masterpiece? |
The first person is a bad artist, but an artist nonetheless. The second is a serendipitous artist and sometimes serendipity is exactly the quality that makes the work a masterpiece a la Bresson. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 11:15:52 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
"If you're a documenter of things and people, and all your efforts are based on showing these things and people in the sharpest detail possible, then you're not creating art." |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm more interested in expanding the notion of what can be art, rather than limiting it, but at the same time offering possibilities for judging and critiquing art. |
Your original quote looked more limiting than expanding, but I understand what you are saying and hail your effort. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 12:16:02 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems to me the artistic merits of a piece are inexorably bound with the motive of the artist. |
This is my position and I'm sticking to it. |
Hmmmm, well you're entitled to take that stance, but what of the artist who is intent on creating something great, but just turns out crap. Or the person the creates the accidental masterpiece? |
The first person is a bad artist, but an artist nonetheless. The second is a serendipitous artist and sometimes serendipity is exactly the quality that makes the work a masterpiece a la Bresson. |
As an example, you consider the crazy doll lady an artist?
But HCB went about his work with specific intent. He worked very hard at being a photographer. His images and his success were not simply the result of happenstance. True, his images required that he be in the right place at the right time, but he wasn't wandering about with his camera blindly snapping photos. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 12:16:40 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Then, there is some product photography that does qualify as art to me. When the purpose of the product photography is to appeal to the purchaser emotionally, I feel you are crossing the line into art. |
hey, I'm all for examining and re-examining where the lines are!
the lessons of art have often moved over into the realm of the commercial. one classic example is Surrealism being used in commercials.
Many Magritte paintings look like advertisements that are mysteriously missing a product. That's not Magritte's fault. He came first. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 01:23:53 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems to me the artistic merits of a piece are inexorably bound with the motive of the artist. |
This is my position and I'm sticking to it. |
Hmmmm, well you're entitled to take that stance, but what of the artist who is intent on creating something great, but just turns out crap. Or the person the creates the accidental masterpiece? |
The first person is a bad artist, but an artist nonetheless. The second is a serendipitous artist and sometimes serendipity is exactly the quality that makes the work a masterpiece a la Bresson. |
As an example, you consider the crazy doll lady an artist?
But HCB went about his work with specific intent. He worked very hard at being a photographer. His images and his success were not simply the result of happenstance. True, his images required that he be in the right place at the right time, but he wasn't wandering about with his camera blindly snapping photos. |
I may or may not consider the doll lady an artist (I know who you are talking about), but that's not important. I'm not the arbiter of who is or isn't one. I certainly don't think of her as a good artist. :)
As far as HCB, "luck favors the prepared". It's still luck. I doubt HCB could often have described a picture to you the day before he took it. It certainly doesn't mean he's not an artist. I was just pointing out that sometimes the "masterpiece" quality of the artwork is its serendipity. Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez is another excellent example. Photography as art is probably most able to take advantage of this. There probably aren't a lot of accidental sculpture masterpieces.
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 13:25:47. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 01:42:18 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems to me the artistic merits of a piece are inexorably bound with the motive of the artist. |
This is my position and I'm sticking to it. |
Hmmmm, well you're entitled to take that stance, but what of the artist who is intent on creating something great, but just turns out crap. Or the person the creates the accidental masterpiece? |
The first person is a bad artist, but an artist nonetheless. The second is a serendipitous artist and sometimes serendipity is exactly the quality that makes the work a masterpiece a la Bresson. |
As an example, you consider the crazy doll lady an artist?
But HCB went about his work with specific intent. He worked very hard at being a photographer. His images and his success were not simply the result of happenstance. True, his images required that he be in the right place at the right time, but he wasn't wandering about with his camera blindly snapping photos. |
I may or may not consider the doll lady an artist (I know who you are talking about), but that's not important. I'm not the arbiter of who is or isn't one. I certainly don't think of her as a good artist. :)
As far as HCB, "luck favors the prepared". It's still luck. I doubt HCB could often have described a picture to you the day before he took it. It certainly doesn't mean he's not an artist. I was just pointing out that sometimes the "masterpiece" quality of the artwork is its serendipity. Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez is another excellent example. Photography as art is probably most able to take advantage of this. There probably aren't a lot of accidental sculpture masterpieces. |
But in no way is HCB's work an accident even the random occurrences are captured with his intent in the moment he captured them.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2011 01:53:58 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Nowhere are "masterly skills" for a sculptor (or painter) defined as "create an exact representation of whatever happens to be in front of you." |
Not so sure about nowhere. I think "recreate accurately that which you see before you" is, if only by implication, an exercise in mastery of skills for sculptors and painters. True, the new centre for arts 'education' around here - all huge and very up-to-date refurbishment of industrial buildings by the river - does not include an arena for drawing. This may be because they are noisily barking up a gum tree. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 02:07:08 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
But in no way is HCB's work an accident even the random occurrences are captured with his intent in the moment he captured them. |
Meh. That's a very strong statement bordering on mythos and would be difficult to prove. Let's just say I think HCB was "lucky" at times and that I don't think that detracts from his work at all. In fact, I think it strengthens it.
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 14:11:20. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 02:14:22 PM · #123 |
Here's an interesting extension of the conversation. A few months back someone posted a link about a cat who would walk around with a camera on its neck which took automatic pictures. Some of the pictures were very aesthetic. Would this count as art and, if so, who is the artist? The cat? or the person who put the camera around its neck?
Link for Fritz, the cat although I think this is a copycat site (no pun intended)...
Maybe I originally saw this in the Seattle Times?
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 14:18:43. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 03:15:32 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
1. No. Art cannot exist without context. It's like walking without friction.
|
It's so hard to make sweeping generalizations about art without finding the exception to break it. What about an abstract photograph entered anonymously in a free study with no title? Is this now not art? If we declare it to have context, I'd like to see an example of something that doesn't. Context would then be a quality of everything and the generalization becomes useless.
Message edited by author 2011-09-16 15:16:21. |
|
|
|
09/16/2011 03:42:01 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
1. No. Art cannot exist without context. It's like walking without friction.
|
I also believe this to be true, but it is equally true for anything else. Nothing can be judged without context. Big, small, light, dark; it is all relative.
The issue of contexturalization gets thorny in a great deal of modern art when to grasp an artist's point requires a great deal of understanding of an individual's intellectual journey and a wide understanding of the specialized concerns of that particular artistic movement.
Joseph Beuys use of felt and fat as a medium made sense if you knew what they meant to him, but without that understanding his work made no intrinsic sense. Much of modern art exists as personal journey or commentary on other pieces of modern art, and to follow the game you have to keep up and read the right magazines and attend all the right shows. It rapidly becomes art for other artist. The more clever the commentary on a previous piece, the more contextural it becomes, the more alien it becomes to the average person. If you are only singing to the choir, it may sound lovely to you, but you have stopped getting your point across. |
|
