Field Theory: A post about art (sort of)
503 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
Your wanting it to be art does not make it art.
-
Art allows an escape from practicality.
Yeah, we can sit in our decorated chairs and drink our brandy, smoke our cigars and admire the work of the peasants because.
Craft requires skill but not intellect.
No amount of decoration will make that a chair I would gladly sit on, it would be uncomfortable.
its beauty is not necessary but applied.
Its beauty is in its comfort, the way it fits with you, whether you are sitting in it or looking at it.
An aesthetic purpose is considered more noble and pure than a practical one.
Not by this Monkey.
-
Your wanting it to be art does not make it art.
Maybe not. But Gio's looking at it as art probably would- at least according to a fairly common reading of Dickie.
Art is a social phenomenon and activity, according to the "institutional theory" but it's not especially hierarchical or exclusive- not like a sort of artistic acadamie francais dictated by an elite. No special uniforms or entry fees.
You become a part of 'the artworld' by taking part in it: as observer, helper, viewer, appreciator, or creator. There's no reason for it to exclude anyone.
On the other hand, like most areas of human endeavour, there are people who are just beginning their involvement, and people with a great deal of accumulated knowledge; people who take it very seriously and devote their lives to art, and people who regard it as frivolous; those who regard it as a collection of sacred traditions, and complete iconoclasts... -
Indeed, and there are those in the art world who think of crafts as art. But still, what is wrong with the word 'craft?'
-
Your wanting it to be art does not make it art.
Yes, so long as we all comply with your narrow definition of art. I get that, believe it or not.
-
It is not my definition.
-
Still, you seem pretty fond of it.
-
It describes a state of affairs that has existed as long as art. It allowed Quattrocento artists to liberate themselves from the guild system and to be regarded as individuals capable of achievements equal to the poets. And yes, I like it because there are intrinsic differences between things made primarily for their aesthetic qualities and those which are made for practical reasons.
If you decide everything that is decorated or beautiful is art, then you make the term meaningless. The Aston Martin DB6 is beautiful; Holland and Holland shotguns are decorated (in much the same way as your working man's spade). They are not art. They are not intended to be art.
Beauty is not something that is confined to art: sunsets, aubergines and Tilda Swinton are all beautiful, in my opinion at least; but none of them are art (although Tilda Swinton has made performance art). Beauty is not a necessary condition of art. Works of art can have other aesthetic qualities, and they can have intellectual qualities. Nor must they be well-made, as works of craft must. Nor must they serve a useful purpose.
-
Holland and Holland shotguns are decorated (in much the same way as your working man's spade). They are not art. They are not intended to be art.
Says you. The specific tools I'm thinking of - and the handles of spades and the blades that I've seen - weren't carved by craftsmen based on a repetivive design. They were unique pieces, and reflected a profound need to behold beautiful objects in the life of people in my family who didn't have the luxury of idle time or disposable income. They may not be of supreme artistic quality, but they are in fact the very definition of what art is.
-
My Grandfather had a gun like that he showed it to me once.
"Look at that boy" he said "Now that's a work of Art"
And while we talk about Whales.
Scrimshaw Mr Litterick, scrimshaw, is that Art? -
I have several old edged weapons. They're made of poenamu (nephrite jade) and bone (whale-bone.)They are elegant killing instruments: they are works of art. (O, certified as such.)
I have a bowl made of glass. It is intensely blue. It holds, occaisionally, lemons or limes or tangerines. It is a work of art. (Certified as such.)
For 3 of my edged weapons, I dont have the creators' names. For one, I do (he is part of my whakapapa. Artist & warrior both.)
For my fruit bowl, I know Ann Robinson: I love her work.
Now, Paul Litterick, which one of these items would you call craft? Which one would you call 'art'?
-
They are works of craft, and there is no shame in that.
-
Scrimshaw is a form of folk art, objects made for aesthetic pleasure but made outside the art world. The decoration given to their spades by Giovanni's forebears would seem to be the same (I assume they did not make the spades or, if they did, the decoration was not integral to them; they applied decoration to make the spades beautiful).
This sort of practice is outside the discourse of art, because of the social status of its makers as much as anything else, but it has value to its makers and to others. People strive to make their environments beautiful, by such activities others like gardening and home decoration, but there is no need to call these activities art.
-
Did Maori art like the Te Maori exhibition make any impact on your assessment, Paul?
-
I think there was a time before art. Larry Shiner argues that art was invented in the 18th Century, a part of the great enlightenment project of classification.
Man. Michelangelo, Leonardo, Leonardo, and the other teenage mutant turtle are going to be pissed that you brought that up.
Art is a European invention, a word that describes particular non-utile activities.
I'd like to point out, since no one else has seemed to do so, that this is crap. Lots of non-European societies have done non-utile art type activities.
-
I'd like to point out, since no one else has seemed to do so, that this is crap. Lots of non-European societies have done non-utile art type activities.
I took Paul to mean that our idea of Art is European in origin. Which is also crap, but hey.
-
Man. Michelangelo, Leonardo, Leonardo, and the other teenage mutant turtle are going to be pissed that you brought that up.
Yes; I don't think he is right. I think art was invented in the 15th Century.
Lots of non-European societies have done non-utile art type activities
I said particular activities. Some of the non-European activities are now considered as art by many, but generally art refers to the European traditions.
-
I took Paul to mean that our idea of Art is European in origin. Which is also crap, but hey.
Pray, continue.
-
but generally art refers to the European traditions.
Yes, the figures on cave walls and the sculptures and paintings and drawings and etchings and the ceramics and the pottery fashioned by peoples all around the world for thousands of years are only Art if an art historian trained in the European tradition says so. And that is the only useful definition and conception of Art, to be applied now and forever to all cultures.
You really are quite something, Paul.
-
Pray, continue.
Why? How? You seem to think that Art as we know it (as opposed to as you know it, which is quite obviously the case) started in the Quattrocento. Therefore, quite aside form all the non-European art that had been made until that point, it rules out the ancient Greeks.
Phydias was not an artist. And I should waste my time arguing with this why exactly?
-
You really are quite something, Paul.
He does debate well, I agree :)
-
Giovanni, you are ranting. Greek art was unknown to the rest of Europe before the 18th Century. Yes it is art, but it had to be rediscovered. Europe only knew its influence through Roman art, which was largely rediscovered in the Quattrocento and Cinquecentro. That was also the period when the conception of art developed, which did so in the light of this rediscovery. You are doing a disservice to history if you pretend that things which were not regarded as art at the time of they making are art in retrospect.
Equally, trying to reclassify objects that were not made for artistic purposes as art is folly. You are the revisionist, not me.
-
You are doing a disservice to history if you pretend that things which were not regarded as art at the time of they making are art in retrospect.
You are saying that Phydias and Praxiteles weren't considered artists in a meaningful sense in their own time? You're nuts.
-
This entire debate is IMO stupid, and what's worse, it was triggered by philipmatthews quoting Andrew Paul Wood, and ignoring the real issue
unimaginative pseudo-Fascist tat
which is that the proposed work is unquestionably precisely that ("unimaginative pseudo-Fascist tat" I mean) and utterly horrid.
I don't care who works at Weta and who thinks they're artists or not; the one that they made of the little girl reading is awful, and this rugby bollocks is a wretched disgrace*.
Surely we can agree on that?
*not least because, as has been noted by more than one other, it closely resembles a woman's genitals: a vulva, with labia, clitorus, introitus, some hair, and even the hint of an anus.
-
Of course not. I said they were rediscovered. I was referring to the craftsmen of the Middle Ages, who were not regarded as artists because there was no conception of art at that time.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.