Untitled Art
This is a diptych, two acrylics on canvas, 12" x 12" each, "Untitled Art."
posted by Marty Rudoy at 12:03 AM
Wednesday, July 13
This is a diptych, two acrylics on canvas, 12" x 12" each, "Untitled Art."
This is a diptych, two acrylics on canvas, 12" x 12" each, "Untitled Art."
13 Comments:
I feel this is one of those subjects where we can walk around the circumference to see various pointsof view but never find an all embracing definition. Read's definition has a ring of truth for me. I like the idea of an artist sharing their personal view of things with me, to connet and allow me into their experience. However, I might not want to connect, or simply be quite unable to do so. Obviously it would be true to say that my own cognition, ot outlook on life has nothing to do with what art is.
Duchamp wanted artists to be magicians, heaven help us, and what did he mean by that. I could take it to mean art should have a presence, or intangible feel, so Morandi would be one of the all time greats.
I think we will agree that technique is only a tool with which we may acheive our ends. It may enable us morso to express some kind of vision, yet at the same time stifle creative expression. Technique is the craft of painting, yet at the same time the brush moving freely, influenced by the artist own creativity can be making profound statements.
So many of the arguments put forward seem to suggest that what was art in previous times is no longer. That would mean much of what is produced today will not be art even next week. We simply do not have the body of knowledge to fully connect with van Eyk, yet even now when the image is becoming all it would see that only the elite have that visual ability.
Perhaps the biggest problem wwith deciding what is and what is not art will be the imposition of boundaries. Of this we may be certain: art is always i a state of flux and is all about crossing boundaries. It will be a sad day if the question is answered.
So here's my own stab at a definition. The artist will pour some of his or her life into creating an object which has no other purpose than to be.
(1) Can a painting not be art?
(2) If it is not art, what is it? (Is there a third category?)
1. I would rather say to what degree is this painting art.
2. It could be a patch for the broken window in the loo.It could be an illustration.
I think there is an argument to say a Ferrari is fine art, although it doesn't quite fall into my definition.
Can a monkey produce art?
And why not!!!
Here's an article about Damien Hirst. I hope you are not offended if I say he seems to me a case of a man with special needs, but does have a remarkable way of knowing how to make money. Now why was one of those sharks art and the other not. Can we ignore Damien's doing it first. Taxidermy is a well established business.
Sheer Genius
Mikey
Well Damiem takes found objects and places them within the context of a gallery whereby they we are told take ion new meaning. That make for art. I think when Duchamp did it then it may well have been witty, but now I wouldn't be so sure. Now take my little pottery boot. It was apparently made by a crafts person with atistic bent. But is it art? Assuming it isn't, would my giving it another title then placing on a pedestal make it art? I suspect if I did so it wouldn't, but if Damien did it would. I can of course paint it, putting some of my own feeling into the work and then we might be able to say it was art of a very minor sort, or hey hey I might be surprised and become famous overnight.
Mikey
I love the article about the shark.
I personally have a very broad definition of art. For me, art is whatever anybody says it is.
In that manner, to me: a shark hanging in a fish store is not art. The same shark hanging in an art gallery (or an artist's loft) is art.
The definition of "art" is not intrinsic to the piece; it relates to either the context in which the piece is shown or in which it was created.
Brillo boxes, same thing.
That being said, there is no context in which a painting is *not* art. However, there are contexts in which sharks and human bodies are not art.
I like your view of what may be art, if only because of my reason in the conclusion above. It allows freedom to create. But what about that bed? I think we have to say it is art, although in a 100 years time it may well only be a museum artifact. Anyway our Trace did well by it.
Mikey
One guy was a journalist who decided to be homeless for a year, on the street without his usual means. He wanted to report first hand what it was really like. The other guy coincidentally decided to do the same as a work of art. It was apparently the act of living that way which had to be the art, not any prose he might have written later.
In a sense, what the guy who intentionally became homeless did is an example of performace art.
Mikey said:
So here's my own stab at a definition. The artist will pour some of his or her life into creating an object which has no other purpose than to be.
I would agree, if you added the words "experienced by another" at the end of the sentence.
The artist will pour some of his or her life into creating an object which has no other purpose than to be experienced by another.
I agree, in the same that a synphony should have musicians and an audience and a book has to be read to be complete.
Then Gombrich wrote "There is really no such things as Art. There are only artists."
Maybe Gombrich had it right. That ends all the distinctions, as long as you assume an artist is anyone who calls himself one.
I'm a bit befuddled with the logic, here if there is any. I mean artists are people who do art presumably. It's almost like I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it.
The reason no one can exactly define what art is these days is because it used to mean simply "craft/technique/skill/etc." which basically was anyone making something. If you made a sword you were an artist (artisan/craftsman/etc.). If you made a weird thing just because ... well, at that time it would not have been called "art". It has flip-flopped so that now, people have forgotten the original meaning of the word. Now, a plumber is not an artist (craftsman using skill and technique) but anyone slinging pigment without regard to skill is called an artist. Sad.
Just my take on it!
Tim
Post a Comment
<< Home