@ Jochen: Uh... the fellow with the lead shtick... that was Anselm Kiefer!
@ Felix:
"It's all about art."
In fact, I am beginning to feel uncomfortable with commonplace statements like that.
What a r e we talking about?
What is our claim?
I am talking about the u s e of the little word!
It should come with a question mark.
It should come with quotation marks.
Thou shalt shun the little word!
I feel we' re operating in a vacuum, kind of aesthetic limbo.
Everyone of us at artdoxa has a certain idea of what is art and what is not.
Everyone of us at artdoxa is trying to exemplify his or her idea of art by means of criticism, indifference or, well, his or her works.
That's exciting.
That's the magic of artdoxa.
Oh well... this is probably a commonplace statement.
I am an agnostic and a relativist.
My very own idea of art is a visceral thing, a deeply emotional and idiosyncratic affair.
With a lot of subliminals at work.
A matter of taste, education and genetic disposition.
BUT!
Speaking as an agnostic, I know that I know not.
When it comes to art, I'm speechless, initially.
To tell you the truth, I haven't the faintest idea of what art "is".
(Yeah, I know... you've probably suspected as much...)
I wish I could, like Felix, speak of art with as much confidence and optimism.
Then again, I have a strong idealistic conviction of what art could be.
Or should be.
@peter: exactly! when i say 'it's all about art' i'm not speaking of MY way of perceiving or defining art, (contemporary) art is so simple and difficult to define. There is not a universal definition, nor are there objective indications to answer this question. So when i speak about art, all i CAN mean is what i or you or anyone else perceives as art. What i was referring to with the above statement was something else:
Whatever art is, let it be. And don't worry too much about HOW art is made and whether 'pushing a button' is 'enough'. I was specifically talking about the standing of 'art photography' opposed to 'commercial' photography.
The question of WHAT IS ART will never be answered universally as it has to be asked over and over, with any new work emerging into this world. I would not dare to touch this subject in such a general way - BUT: I do have confidence in judging what's art to me - next to technique, message, blablabla it's also about taste, isn't it? What is art? Well -- What's good music? What's a beautiful woman? What's good food? What's a good live?
Lucky man who finds the answers - at least for himself.
Poor man who searches for universally valid values - there are none. Illusions, if any.
Fine.
Your statement wasn't as unspecific as I thought, then.
According to your own definition, I should be a lucky man.
I've found one or two answers for myself.
But if there are no universals in art, how does the great art of art history ultimately get chosen, and how could we even communicate with each other through visual art, music, literature...? Why do hundreds of thousands of people flock to certain blockbuster museum exhibitions? Good marketing?
Good marketing yes. A lucky break? Yes! As a fourth generation artist I have seen many ideologies applied to art. I will not pretend to speak for anyone else but here are some things that I have observed. Artists are generally introverted yet (those honest enough) bare their souls to the public time and again sometimes to accolades and sometimes to derision. This does not stop most of them. All people want to be heard artists do so visually and aurally, Some of us are better at getting people to listen to us by hook or by crook. Art, I believe can only be tested over time. Beauty (no matter what definition you give that) is replicated and accepted or rejected based on the presentation of the artist in his work. Etienne Gilson and Elaine Scarry have both touched on that idea. In The Arts of the Beautiful, Gilson writes, "For the philosopher, these various points of view constitute a dangerous temptation, in that they make him forget the specificity of art as a making activity and cause him to overlook its true nature." As artists we are perhaps always the internal philosopher about our own work but become confused and confusing of others work simply because of our subjective point of view. The only way we can determine reality is by an appraisal of common responses. I know what I want my work to say, if I achieve the common response about my work that I wanted then I can view my creativity as effective. This in no way allows me to denigrate the effort of making art by pronouncing it art or not art. I read many books they are all books but they are not all good books to me. For me there is never a question of whether or not something is art. The only question is does it communicate well to me in the genre it is done in.
Does it communicate?
Yes, I feel it basically amounts to that question.
"Berührt es mich?" - Does it touch me?
Yes or no.
Then I may ask myself, is it art?
And then, is it good art? Is it bad art?
I hate to admit it, but yes, I know, I can be affected by bad art.
It has happened before.
It's when I realize that this particular piece of bad art is capable of fulfilling a need.
Of course, we've learned that good art can do this much more effectively.
A matter of intensity.
On the other hand, there's good art that's leaving me cold, indifferent.
It depends on what's ready to respond inside of me, there and then, here and now.
Oh dear! I'm walking on thin ice here... baring my soul, indeed...
Comments 7 | Follow this thread Comment
Jochen Hein wrote on 19. November 2007, 14:44:30:
I smell lead. "Collective Conscience" is heavy stuff.
peter bies wrote on 03. December 2007, 17:58:29:
@ Jochen: Uh... the fellow with the lead shtick... that was Anselm Kiefer!
@ Felix:
"It's all about art."
In fact, I am beginning to feel uncomfortable with commonplace statements like that.
What a r e we talking about?
What is our claim?
I am talking about the u s e of the little word!
It should come with a question mark.
It should come with quotation marks.
Thou shalt shun the little word!
I feel we' re operating in a vacuum, kind of aesthetic limbo.
Everyone of us at artdoxa has a certain idea of what is art and what is not.
Everyone of us at artdoxa is trying to exemplify his or her idea of art by means of criticism, indifference or, well, his or her works.
That's exciting.
That's the magic of artdoxa.
Oh well... this is probably a commonplace statement.
I am an agnostic and a relativist.
My very own idea of art is a visceral thing, a deeply emotional and idiosyncratic affair.
With a lot of subliminals at work.
A matter of taste, education and genetic disposition.
BUT!
Speaking as an agnostic, I know that I know not.
When it comes to art, I'm speechless, initially.
To tell you the truth, I haven't the faintest idea of what art "is".
(Yeah, I know... you've probably suspected as much...)
I wish I could, like Felix, speak of art with as much confidence and optimism.
Then again, I have a strong idealistic conviction of what art could be.
Or should be.
What is it to you?
Felix Adelmann wrote on 03. December 2007, 19:33:23:
@peter: exactly! when i say 'it's all about art' i'm not speaking of MY way of perceiving or defining art, (contemporary) art is so simple and difficult to define. There is not a universal definition, nor are there objective indications to answer this question. So when i speak about art, all i CAN mean is what i or you or anyone else perceives as art. What i was referring to with the above statement was something else:
Whatever art is, let it be. And don't worry too much about HOW art is made and whether 'pushing a button' is 'enough'. I was specifically talking about the standing of 'art photography' opposed to 'commercial' photography.
The question of WHAT IS ART will never be answered universally as it has to be asked over and over, with any new work emerging into this world. I would not dare to touch this subject in such a general way - BUT: I do have confidence in judging what's art to me - next to technique, message, blablabla it's also about taste, isn't it? What is art? Well -- What's good music? What's a beautiful woman? What's good food? What's a good live?
Lucky man who finds the answers - at least for himself.
Poor man who searches for universally valid values - there are none. Illusions, if any.
peter bies wrote on 03. December 2007, 23:36:47:
Fine.
Your statement wasn't as unspecific as I thought, then.
According to your own definition, I should be a lucky man.
I've found one or two answers for myself.
Heather Accurso wrote on 03. December 2007, 23:58:25:
But if there are no universals in art, how does the great art of art history ultimately get chosen, and how could we even communicate with each other through visual art, music, literature...? Why do hundreds of thousands of people flock to certain blockbuster museum exhibitions? Good marketing?
Michael Pointer wrote on 04. December 2007, 04:21:43:
Good marketing yes. A lucky break? Yes! As a fourth generation artist I have seen many ideologies applied to art. I will not pretend to speak for anyone else but here are some things that I have observed. Artists are generally introverted yet (those honest enough) bare their souls to the public time and again sometimes to accolades and sometimes to derision. This does not stop most of them. All people want to be heard artists do so visually and aurally, Some of us are better at getting people to listen to us by hook or by crook. Art, I believe can only be tested over time. Beauty (no matter what definition you give that) is replicated and accepted or rejected based on the presentation of the artist in his work. Etienne Gilson and Elaine Scarry have both touched on that idea. In The Arts of the Beautiful, Gilson writes, "For the philosopher, these various points of view constitute a dangerous temptation, in that they make him forget the specificity of art as a making activity and cause him to overlook its true nature." As artists we are perhaps always the internal philosopher about our own work but become confused and confusing of others work simply because of our subjective point of view. The only way we can determine reality is by an appraisal of common responses. I know what I want my work to say, if I achieve the common response about my work that I wanted then I can view my creativity as effective. This in no way allows me to denigrate the effort of making art by pronouncing it art or not art. I read many books they are all books but they are not all good books to me. For me there is never a question of whether or not something is art. The only question is does it communicate well to me in the genre it is done in.
peter bies wrote on 04. December 2007, 22:54:45:
Does it communicate?
Yes, I feel it basically amounts to that question.
"Berührt es mich?" - Does it touch me?
Yes or no.
Then I may ask myself, is it art?
And then, is it good art? Is it bad art?
I hate to admit it, but yes, I know, I can be affected by bad art.
It has happened before.
It's when I realize that this particular piece of bad art is capable of fulfilling a need.
Of course, we've learned that good art can do this much more effectively.
A matter of intensity.
On the other hand, there's good art that's leaving me cold, indifferent.
It depends on what's ready to respond inside of me, there and then, here and now.
Oh dear! I'm walking on thin ice here... baring my soul, indeed...