Field Theory: A post about art (sort of)
503 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
But the quality of the idea? Come on.
Yeah but you can say that about umpteen pieces of art. Lots of statues and portraits are faithful representations of various kings and queens sitting. Busts are even worse. Royal artists often faithfully recreated the members of the royal family (some adjusted their artworks to make them look better). The only expression involved was the lack of one on the model's face. They're certainly artists producing artworks, some very famous ones.
-
I'm saying that that the tripod is pedestrian if competent in its execution and utterly unimaginative in its conception. I don't think you'd say the same of Piero's portrait of Federico Da Montefeltro, or Rembrandt's portrait of his mother. The idea there may be somewhat obvious - here's my boss! here's Mum! - but the execution is something else entirely, and what is extraordinary about the two paintings is not the likeness in itself.
-
Without a clear definition of the "Art World" I'm not buying this, as the definition is clearly ciircular in the context used here.
Art is identified by the Art World; that is not circular. The Art World is everybody involved in art: curators, critics, dealers, the interested public.
-
I'm saying that that the tripod is pedestrian if competent in its execution and utterly unimaginative in its conception.
I'm not sure if I've seen it, so OK, sure.
But that doesn't make something 'not art'. There's plenty of unimaginatively concepted art out there.
-
Agree, I'm not saying it's not art. I'm just saying it's the kind of art I'd happily take a blowtorch to.
-
Art is identified by the Art World; that is not circular. The Art World is everybody involved in art: curators, critics, dealers, the interested public.
You may want to try googling 'institutional theory of art circular'.
-
I'm just saying it's the kind of art I'd happily take a blowtorch to.
Upcoming performance piece by Giovanni Tiso: "Artworks I don't like melting before your eyes."
-
You may want to try googling 'institutional theory of art circular'.
Why? I am a busy man. Besides, I have heard the circularity argument before, and I am not convinced by it. You tell me why you think it circular and I will tell you why I think it not so.
-
But that doesn't make something 'not art'. There's plenty of unimaginatively concepted art out there.
And, by what I've read here about Wellington, they certainly have their fair share. I do like Kinetic Art for arts sake, in public spaces. It draws the public in,(not literally) and allows personal contemplation without the need for positive consensus. A " Wellywood" sign will only become kinetic when one of the letters is flying in the wind.Then I suppose the Tripod could be used to hold it back in place, or at least to hold the Troll up beside the Graffiti? As you may tell I haven't been there for some time. :)
-
As you may tell I haven't been there for some time.
Or here. I think I am mixing two threads but I dunno. Is that art (ful)?
-
It's not precisely circular but it seems like a first instance of art wouldn't be logically possible.
Around this point in the debate I tend to say (or agree) the question isn't normally significant anyway; I think when people ask whether something's art they normally want to know if it's, as art, too crappy to bother with.
-
Okay, make that 'practically' possible.
-
Here's an example of an artwork that is objectively crappy.
-
Agree, I'm not saying it's not art. I'm just saying it's the kind of art I'd happily take a blowtorch to.
How about something more maniacally mechanical, rather than mechanistic, to give you that Tinguely feeling...
Bet this blowtorched beauty by Wacko Giaco would give the Tripod a run for its money...
...though having seen the Courtenay Pl Tripod for the first time today (on the web) I'm surprised there hasn't been a cheapo District Nein with the Tripod being animated and cutting a swathe thru wellington, perhaps with closing shots atop the Beehive, Rodney Hide clutched in its mandibles... -
Circularity within the round
Well, I only had to read the first couple of paragraphs of that Dickey argument to disagree with the writer, BondBloke (sounds like a guy who has fantasies about James Bond being Gay if you ask me... but you didn't) He claims that one of the failures of Dickey's theory is...(iii) its failure to distinguish good from bad art;
And that, in itself, is a fail. His example of found art fails to address the juxtaposition and surrealist part of the equation and relies, instead, on the work done in transporting found art to the gallery as its defining quality.
Poppycock!!!! -
“Art is identified by the Art World; that is not circular. The Art World is everybody involved in art: curators, critics, dealers, the interested public.”
Art is identified by the Art World.
Art = Art world.
Circular, as Art appears on both sides of the equation.
The Art world as you put it, has a presumed knowledge of what Art is, where has this come from ?
Who gets to define; curators, critics, dealers, the interested public ? And does this require community agreement ?
For example if I decide I am interested and decide I am an Artist does that make what I produce Art ?
If my wife is interested in my drawings does that make them Art ?
If the Art world changes does the definition of Art change with it ?
Oh, and then there’s this guy
-
Bet this blowtorched beauty by Wacko Giaco would give the Tripod a run for its money...
A run for our money you mean surely?
-
A run for our money you mean surely?
Ha, not "our" money, we live in Auckland ha ha ha... ooops. yes our money is. your money down in Wellington. Thanks Rodders.
;-) -
Art = Art world.
Circular, as Art appears on both sides of the equation.
Your equation, not mine: Art and the Art World are not the same thing.
The Art world as you put it, has a presumed knowledge of what Art is, where has this come from ?
Art is not a substance, like gin or couscous. It is a term given to artistic practices. The 'first instance' argument mentioned by Lyndon also falls on this part. The practices we regard as art (painting, dancing, acting, etc) existed long before they were recognised as art
Who gets to define; curators, critics, dealers, the interested public ? And does this require community agreement ?
Everyone; it requires consensus, but not agreement.
For example if I decide I am interested and decide I am an Artist does that make what I produce Art ?
If my wife is interested in my drawings does that make them Art ?
No: you need to be accepted, by people more disinterested than your wife.
If the Art world changes does the definition of Art change with it ?
It is all in flux.
Oh, and then there’s this guy
Mine, I think: Vetriano is admired by many but not by the Art World. He is not represented in public musuems. He is an artist - what else could he be? He is just not a very good artist.
-
He claims that one of the failures of Dickey's theory is...
(iii) its failure to distinguish good from bad art;
Aye, there's the rub. It is not the business of philosophical aesthetics to make that distinction.
-
I keep hearing these judgement calls , good Art V bad Art. I can't agree.
If something is done as a form of expression and fails to express that expression it is not bad Art it is merely a failure of expression. I would go as far as to say attempt of expression and its failure in itself classifies as Art, not so much a large tent as a marquee. Art for Arts sake, on the other hand is but an interpretation of expression rather than an expression in and of itself.
One of the arguments I'm hearing is like "If you wear a beret and a smock all you need is a canvas and a brush then you are an artist". -
Everyone; it requires consensus, but not agreement.
If there is consensus, surely everyone agrees?
-
Should have put that better: general agreement, but with room to disagree on specifics.
Aesthetic conservatives often claim that non-representational works are not art. But what else can they be? Some may dislike them, but as works of art. If they were anything else, the question would not arise.
-
And then you have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox The Abiline Paradox
Trouble maker? Moi? -
For example if I decide I am interested and decide I am an Artist does that make what I produce Art ?
If my wife is interested in my drawings does that make them Art ?
No: you need to be accepted, by people more disinterested than your wife.
I don't think this 'small-tent' interpretation is Dickie's. I seem to recall his position being wider: pretty much anyone can be a member of the 'art-world'. And as a 'member' can confer the status/role of art on what they produce.
But maybe that was the intrepretation of my lecturer... who was a paid-up subscriber :)
The institutional theory of art seemed a little like democracy: y'know- the worst possible theory of art, except for all the others :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.