| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/06/2004 03:17:26 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
...My belief is that the artist has a unique viewpoint and selects a medium to display his ideas. It all rests on the viewer to make the final determination. For example, I consider many of the works of Bach and Mozarts to be masterpieces. Others have an opposing view. Does this mean that we define art and the creator does not know what he is doing?... |
God, I hope when you say creator [here] you mean the artist? (No, let's make that a period).
This is, indeed, often the case. An artist may produce, as you say, something only to find that is surprises him. This, to me, is a very interesting phenomenon, which often inspires me.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2004 03:22:46 PM · #52 |
You see: it is not wise to define art because the definition is directly tied to the definers shortcomings. That is his personal views may be less or more than the next persons. We all claim to have a grasp on this thing called life but the diligent individual is constantly updating. We are not able to grasp the collective conscience into ourselves and so every individual speaks from withing the shackles that bind them. Not to imply the blind leading the blind, but that topics such as art that touch the deepest part of our soul remain undefinable because there are feelings and yearnings that language can not define and one of these is art. We can say we are moved and touched, but this does not define art, rather what it does to our aesthetic senses.
Message edited by author 2004-10-06 15:28:00. |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 03:25:53 PM · #53 |
Graphicfunk, your post works for me.
We can define, write about, compare and analyze the sunset...or we can take a deep breath and enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2004 03:27:54 PM · #54 |
Art is the idea.
Art is the message.
Sometimes art is the journey.
And sometimes art is the medium.
John
Message edited by author 2004-10-06 15:29:28. |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 03:33:07 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Graphicfunk, your post works for me.
We can define, write about, compare and analyze the sunset...or we can take a deep breath and enjoy it. |
Your thought here is very appreciated because it flushes all pretentions while retaining the essence. |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 03:34:56 PM · #56 |
No-one can agree on the meaning of challenge definitions!
How are we supposed to agree on whether photography is art or not?
I reckon it is an art, it is also a creative art, there is an art to taking photos well. Holding modern digicams without getting camera shake is also an art. Persuading the wife that the new DSLR is necessary is a true art!
So, yes, photography is an art to all people...except for those who are opposed to anything using modern technology to produce ART. |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 03:35:48 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Wolfie:
How are we supposed to agree on whether photography is art or not?
|
You aren't supposed to agree :)
|
|
|
|
10/06/2004 03:37:30 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
You see: it is not wise to define art because the definition is directly tied to the definers shortcomings. That is his personal views may be less or more than the next persons. We all claim to have a grasp on this thing called life but the diligent individual is constantly updating. We are not able to grasp the collective conscience into outselves and so every individual speaks from withing the shackles that bind them. Not to imply the blind leading the blind, but that topics such as art that touch the deepest part of our soul remain undefinable because there are feelings and yearnings that language can not define and one of these is art. We can say we are moved and touched, but this does not define art, rather what it does to our aesthetic senses. |
Yes, as John (Setzler) has already said, it's impossible to arrive at a definition. It's impossibly futile, too. We can, however, struggle with our, invariably, differing sense of what art means to us, we can debate and, perhaps, look for perceptions (in the unique views of others) we share.
One of the characteristics of art we agree upon is its universality. If you feel it, if you have ever cried, laughed or grieved, chances are, I have too. The fact that we differ in so many ways is also something that unites us.
The way I see it, it's a discovery tour we're on, not a dead end.
Message edited by author 2004-10-06 15:38:00.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2004 03:41:24 PM · #59 |
Zeuszen, you're the Comma-King!
:0)
I say, that, with, fondness... |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 06:03:26 PM · #60 |
Well, so far everyone that has posted here is trying to define "art," but maybe what we should really be defining is "esthetic value." Art is something that art dealers deal with. It's a commercial undertaking that requires categorization. It is also a construction that has a structure with meaning (communication) applied/implied. Communication as such can be a simple verbal conversation or a master's painting. So what is the difference?
Esthetic value to me is where the difference lies. It is the essence of what makes us appreciate the construction, from either the artisitic or viewers point of view. It is the making one of opposites, suggesting both in the expressed construction. One cannot feel the pain in a tragic play if one does not also see the happiness. A photo of a sunset shows both the available light and impending darkness. Music has both meter and coda. There are many levels of opposites in a given work of art and the higher the degree of value we attribute to the construction, the more levels there are to discern.
I think the definition of an esthetic only gets us so far, though, but rather, we should be asking to what degree is the artistic construction effective in conveying the esthetic message. Art construction is a language like any other. We define the rules regarding that language, but not the esthetic, and set up ideals and standards so that all have equal footing in understanding the language. Just like the human body art is both anatomical and functional, so too is an artistic construction both inseperably the craft and the esthetic value. You really can't seperate them.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2004 06:47:59 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Well, so far everyone that has posted here is trying to define "art," but maybe what we should really be defining is "esthetic value." Art is something that art dealers deal with. It's a commercial undertaking that requires categorization. It is also a construction that has a structure with meaning (communication) applied/implied. Communication as such can be a simple verbal conversation or a master's painting. So what is the difference?
Esthetic value to me is where the difference lies. It is the essence of what makes us appreciate the construction, from either the artisitic or viewers point of view. It is the making one of opposites, suggesting both in the expressed construction. One cannot feel the pain in a tragic play if one does not also see the happiness. A photo of a sunset shows both the available light and impending darkness. Music has both meter and coda. There are many levels of opposites in a given work of art and the higher the degree of value we attribute to the construction, the more levels there are to discern.
I think the definition of an esthetic only gets us so far, though, but rather, we should be asking to what degree is the artistic construction effective in conveying the esthetic message. Art construction is a language like any other. We define the rules regarding that language, but not the esthetic, and set up ideals and standards so that all have equal footing in understanding the language. Just like the human body art is both anatomical and functional, so too is an artistic construction both inseperably the craft and the esthetic value. You really can't seperate them. |
Well, I hope, Oly, you're wearing your skates. I may be infinitely more difficult to have this discussion than the preceding one. The old venerable term (trying to avoid unnecessary commas now) has acquired a dubious reputation. Some feel that aesthetics are a pompous relic of an aristocratic frame of mind, which should have no relevance to today's (allegedly) democratic aspirations. Others insist with objectivist arguments on an order of universally accepted taste which is either akin to any other natural order or to one poised for an ethical argument (aesthetecism).
On DPC, as we know, everything is always immediately subjective, of course, even sausages and pancakes. ;-)
I don't remember who it was (Pound most likely, bless his soul) who said: "Beauty is aptness to purpose." This makes perfect, subjective sense to me, truth being beauty.
In light of this, no, we shouldn't separate, as you rightly say, two things which are, essentially, the same.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:20:32 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Well, so far everyone that has posted here is trying to define "art," but maybe what we should really be defining is "esthetic value." ... |
No, not trying to define art, just talk about it in a photographic sense. But I do agree about aesthetics being more interesting subject to discuss -- as I did in my previous post.
As far as art is concerned -- I am not concerned. I view setting out with the intention to create art akin to talking just to hear the sound of your voice. The value of art is that it communicates the perspective of the creator (artist is meant, but staying away from that word for the moment). If a person truly has something to say, their intention will be on saying it -- not on making sure they say it in such and such a way as to be technically precise. But that kind of relaxed, confident use of the medium (photography, paint and canvas, music, etc) only comes about after they have mastered that medium. But even the technical excellence gained from mastering a medium is not going to having anything to say on its own. The great masters of the past all had something they wanted to say -- a view of the world they wanted to express. We don't remember them for their thousands of failed attempts to say it -- only the final works.
David
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 05:11:58 AM · #63 |
I'm sorry but to me Art and Aesthetics are seperate (but not mutually exclusive) things.
John |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 05:19:21 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by floyd:
I'm sorry but to me Art and Aesthetics are seperate (but not mutually exclusive) things.
John |
Care to elaborate?
David
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 05:51:31 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Well, so far everyone that has posted here is trying to define "art," but maybe what we should really be defining is "esthetic value." ... |
No, not trying to define art, just talk about it in a photographic sense. But I do agree about aesthetics being more interesting subject to discuss -- as I did in my previous post.
As far as art is concerned -- I am not concerned. I view setting out with the intention to create art akin to talking just to hear the sound of your voice. The value of art is that it communicates the perspective of the creator (artist is meant, but staying away from that word for the moment). If a person truly has something to say, their intention will be on saying it -- not on making sure they say it in such and such a way as to be technically precise. But that kind of relaxed, confident use of the medium (photography, paint and canvas, music, etc) only comes about after they have mastered that medium. But even the technical excellence gained from mastering a medium is not going to having anything to say on its own. The great masters of the past all had something they wanted to say -- a view of the world they wanted to express. We don't remember them for their thousands of failed attempts to say it -- only the final works.
David |
Where does the communicated technical message deviate from a mere piece of information into something we might call beautiful? Is there a universal aesthetic definition/standard, as Zeuszen has suggested above, that we can hold a work of art up to, and discover, as viewers, that in fact, that the work in question does have elements in it that make it beautiful? |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 06:36:17 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Where does the communicated technical message deviate from a mere piece of information into something we might call beautiful? |
In my opinion, when it is communicates so well the medium steps into the background and vanishes from needing active attention. An example of this is a book that is so well written the pages 'turn themselves' as the saying goes, the medium of the book disappears from concious thought and the communication of the story is left to flow freely. Many images on this sight have had that same impact on me -- the fact that it is a collection of colored dots of light on my monitor becomes less than irrelevant, it becomes unknown. When I look at them, I don't see an image with something to say if I want to reach out and take it. Instead I simply the communicated message -- sometimes even if I am not particularly wanting to receive it.
I have managed to come close to this once in a challenge entry -- and it took me by surprise when I stopped working on it long enough to look at it. My intent was not to create art, and I am not certain I would call it such, but I did intend to communicate a certain message -- and in that I was largely successful. I was rewarded with my highest ranking in a challenge and high praise from some of those who's work I admire for my effort. Well worth it.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Is there a universal aesthetic definition/standard, as Zeuszen has suggested above, that we can hold a work of art up to, and discover, as viewers, that in fact, that the work in question does have elements in it that make it beautiful? |
I personally hope not. There are perhaps, on a very primal basis, some commonality, but once it is placed into some context it takes on a certain perspective from which it views the world. Aesthetics does not have to be beautiful, and not all things are beautiful to all people. It is our perspectives that make us unique; and so it is with aesthetic creations -- they each have a persepctive of the world to show. To answer your question directly, and from my own perspective -- the perspective I have determines who I want to be around, what I like to do and in short what I consider to be aesthetically pleasing. If the perspective of a creation resonates with my own, it will communicate an affect to me.
For me the test of art lies with the audience. If the message is not communicated, the reason lies squarely on the creator -- he failed to communicate in a way the audience can understand. For example, yelling 'fire' into a burning building does not have the same effect if the residents of that building do not speak the language it is yelled in. It is the audience, and the audience alone, that determines if the creation is worthy of the title 'art'.
Boy is it getting late (5:30am here) and I am rambling more than normal -- I'm off to bed.
David
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 08:17:30 AM · #67 |
Photography is art if it's created by an artist or perceived as art by someone artistic. If you don't consider yourself an artist and have no perception of art then it's just photography.
By the way, (John Setzler) I think religion can be defined - it's man's insurance policy against the uncertainty and seeming pointlessness of existence and death. And that's pretty much it in my view, just expanded into many different guises and interpretations.
: ) |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 08:36:36 AM · #68 |
There are musicians and there are composers.
There are photographers- adn there are those who attempt photographic art.
Most fitting here are two phrases. first, to poorly paraphrase Zappa
"talking about music is like dancing about architecture"
and secondly- "if you have to ask- you'll never know."think about that phrase and then ask yourself what is art. Its the great equalizer in my opinion. The ability to create art- more specifically the ability to hold a brush or take a picture or play the guitar or piano- does not make you an "artist" all by itself. The fact that you can technically create apicture makes you a "studio musician" if you will... the ability to be clever and do all sorts of fancy technique with shadows and light and bullshit doesn't make you an artist either. It make you a "studio musician" with a good deal of chops.
The ability to somehow inspire challenge or harness the "heat" emotion fire passion and creativity that is magical... that turns you from a "studio musician" or "stock photographer" into an artist.
Oh, and a muse wouldn't hurt too much either. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 09:26:35 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by floyd:
I'm sorry but to me Art and Aesthetics are seperate (but not mutually exclusive) things.
John |
Care to elaborate?
David |
Certainly,
Aesthetics is about how pleasing or otherwise something is. Something can be aesthetically pleasing without it being a work of art.
Art is about the idea and the message. Art isn't always aesthetically pleasing or even especially nice. But art does convey something to the observer, intentionally or otherwise.
Of course art that is also aesthetically pleasing is bound to be more accessable and popular than art that is not. Likewise art that doesn't demand too much of its audience is more accessable. So if you want to appeal to a wide audience (for the purpose of sales or recognition) then you would be wise to produce undemanding art with strong aesthetics.
John |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 09:39:46 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
By the way, (John Setzler) I think religion can be defined - it's man's insurance policy against the uncertainty and seeming pointlessness of existence and death. And that's pretty much it in my view, just expanded into many different guises and interpretations.
: ) |
hehe...I better leave that one alone.
It's sort of like saying that dancing is just a way of dealing with music that seems to be playing for no reason... |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 09:42:04 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by floyd:
Certainly,
Aesthetics is about how pleasing or otherwise something is. Something can be aesthetically pleasing without it being a work of art.
Art is about the idea and the message. Art isn't always aesthetically pleasing or even especially nice. But art does convey something to the observer, intentionally or otherwise.
Of course art that is also aesthetically pleasing is bound to be more accessable and popular than art that is not. Likewise art that doesn't demand too much of its audience is more accessable. So if you want to appeal to a wide audience (for the purpose of sales or recognition) then you would be wise to produce undemanding art with strong aesthetics.
John |
I agree with you wholeheartedly here...that's why I believe that 'accidental art' is a silly notion. Things can be aesthetically pleasing without being art, as art (according to my 'definition') requires intention/communication/purpose...
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 11:45:13 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by floyd:
...if you want to appeal to a wide audience (for the purpose of sales or recognition) then you would be wise to produce undemanding art with strong aesthetics... |
Although... I cannot, for the life of me, reconcile self-centred motivations like the ones you mention (above) with wisdom...
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 11:48:00 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by floyd:
...if you want to appeal to a wide audience (for the purpose of sales or recognition) then you would be wise to produce undemanding art with strong aesthetics... |
Although... I cannot, for the life of me, reconcile self-centred motivations like the ones you mention (above) with wisdom... |
Unless it's a career and you have a family to feed. I would love to take simple marketing photos for a living. It would improve my technical skills in photography which I would then apply to the photos I really love taking. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 11:55:34 AM · #74 |
Lets just say yes, it can be.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 05:30:42 PM · #75 |
I think accidental art is possible if the viewer sees something in it that wasn't intended by the artist. That makes it "art to the viewer". These things are, by their nature, subjective and so in the viewer's frame of reference the work is art, even if it wasn't art to the artist.
Heck this is starting to sound like special relativity.
John |
|
