Fun Stuff > MAKE

As abstract as you can stomach

<< < (16/18) > >>

ekmesnz:
The phenomenon of considering a huge variety of made objects "art" is an odd one. Don't you find that this both devalues ready-mades and causes the term "art" to lose meaning? The broader the definition, the less distinct art is from anything else.

Isn't the landscape art? Language?

I hope not. There wouldn't be anything special about it, then.

KharBevNor:
How could the landscape be art? Unless human care was invested in it, in which case yes. Of course landscaping and gardening are art. Language is an evolving system of classification, it's use is art. Brick-laying is art, boat-building is art, computer programming is art, brewing beer is art. At least, they are when they are done with care, when a craftsman or designer has invested himself into his work, that is art. Art is something that exists in all things of quality, art is true quality, ingenuity, imagination, skill, of any sort. This is widely acknowledged. Consider how we divide learning in to the arts and the sciences? Unfortunately, I haven't got a copy of the OED with me here right now, but these definitions of art from dictionary.com are relevant:

7.   the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8.   the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9.   skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
12.   skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.

Artistry isn't just something purely possesed by painting, drawing, sculpture and so forth, but by all forms of human creativity in which the creator invests something of their own subjective vision in the objective created..

salada:
arguing about this sort of thing generally just riles me a lot, so i usually don't bother. it's more or less on par with arguments about politics, religion, and all that: get a couple of people who know their shit quite well but have different views on what's good or worthwhile or right in art (or politics, or whatever), and even after hours/pages of arguments, neither of them are going to have convinced the other of anything because they are both pursuing different arguments that when you pull them apart, don't really have any intersecting points.

in short:

1. pre-raphaelites bore me to tears but are technically excellent.

2. rothko's use of colour to communicate on a primal/emotional level is incredible, and i don't think it needs any background knowledge to be understood, just to be seen in person.

3. art is whatever you want it to be. except stuff with a primarily functional purpose like architecture or typography, which are architecture or typography first, then art second. invoking tiny dictionary definitions in the face of a complicated and ongoing philosophical/artistic question is probably not a terribly good idea. that said, the landscape is not art.

i'm hungry and distracted. might get some lunch. if i write any more i'll get dragged into this and i'm really not a fan of long, drawn-out internet arguments. or long, drawn-out real-life arguments, for that matter. but at least with that kind you're usually at the pub with beer and music instead of at home in front of a screen.

anyway! good day(s) to you all. this is all i've got for this thread, but i might continue to read it.

Lines:

--- Quote from: ekmesnz on 24 Jan 2007, 09:41 ---Dear iamyourpirate,

Of course one man saying something is boring does not absolutely make it so, but I am allowed to express my opinion, right? Additionally, thought I've never been to St. Louis, I can imagine at least two configurations of steel plates that would make an interesting art piece. Now, painters you should check out! They smear oil and minerals on cloth and call it art!

--- End quote ---

i didn't say you weren't. and the plates were arranged in a line across the floor. not that interesting. yes, painting is art. but i prefer prints, installations, sculptures in various mediums, drawings, and whatnot to painting. (maybe because so many people assume when someone says that they are an artist, they are automatically a painter. and painting isn't really my thing. printmaking is where it's at.)

KharBevNor:

--- Quote from: salada on 25 Jan 2007, 07:31 ---3. art is whatever you want it to be. except stuff with a primarily functional purpose like architecture or typography, which are architecture or typography first, then art second. invoking tiny dictionary definitions in the face of a complicated and ongoing philosophical/artistic question is probably not a terribly good idea. that said, the landscape is not art.

--- End quote ---

Go tell a graphics designer that typography isn't art.

Hell, go tell an architect that architecture isn't art.

They probably wouldn't teach them in art colleges otherwise.

I'm not invoking 'tiny dictionary definitions' by the way, I'm laying out a seemingly quite radically broad philosophical definition of art, then pointing out that we use the word art to refer to such things anyway, so in fact such concepts are already part of our semantics, we just create a false partition between fine art and art in general. Functionality has absolutely NOTHING to do with defining art (otherwise ShedBoatShed and Unmade Bed wouldn't have both won Turner Prizes). As I've said with Rothko, all I can do on such a subjective matter is to speak from experience, and say I felt fuck all when I saw his works in the gallery, and that I have met no one to my knowledge who enjoyed his work who wasn't very knowledgeable in the arts. To me, his work doesn't represent a very high degree of quality of ideas, execution or effect.

I loooove printmaking. I'm going to waste a week on it during the time for my self-negotiated brief, even if it has nothing to do with the final outcome.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page