As an artist (musician, drums and percussion), this subject is one that is almost always being tossed about. Given my personal relationship with the subject, one would expect me to have rather certain opinions on the matter, but instead I have almost none. Looking at the music I play, most of it is certainly art - you will have a hard time convincing me that the extended Muddy Waters jam I played on last week was anything other than art. But some of it, I do not look at in the same way - that 80's cover band I was in still gives me nightmares. In both cases, the music was good for what it was, the blues was dirty and soulful, the 80's metal loud, and all for show, but the former I considered to be art, the later entertainment.
Similar differences appear in other arts, it seems. Surely there is a difference apart from technique between the paintings of Picaso, and the fingerpaintings of a child.
Someone help me out. How do we discern art from what is not art. How should we define art? Is there ever something that is necessarily art and something which is necessarily not art? Or, is art just a cultural signification. I look forward to any thoughts on the subject.
In both cases, the music was good for what it was, the blues was dirty and soulful, the 80's metal loud, and all for show, but the former I considered to be art, the later entertainment
How about, that which is done well is art?
'Art' does come from 'artifice', the produce of the hands of man...
How about this as a difference: The art(the blues) is engaged in for its own sake - as an end in itelf. The entertainment (80s metal) is played for a reason other than the music itself - eg to earn cash from records and gigs.
Rather, what is good art is how art is measured against all art; and since all art has failed us, then how can art properly condemn all art without standing condemned?
There are two good methods of many to measure art. One is how well it works as a form, and in this it is compared to all methods similar. The other as purely relationship.
No one can portray the hopefulness in the hopeless condition of men with a single work. No man can be faithfully rendered standing firm against an army of fates, furies, and fairies as mankind itself has so often done in the struggle for human progress.
That is kind of a bold stroke is it not, to say all art has failed? Perhaps if this is true then it is because I believe Beauty and truth are both forms of the good, and while execution is very often wonderful in art, the problem is one Aristotle pointed out in poetics, that we find the lives of the powerful fascinating. Some times wealthy and powerful people do live dramatic lives. They can afford to. It is the courage of subject that is missing, and because art is a commodity we do not know for the most part- what want, misery, desperation, and death may have paid for the drama that so often pissed away the lives of the lower classes like so many beers. The rich will not by choice pay twice for the lives of the poor. Would you hang your guilt on the wall for the world to see? No wonder they want to look at anything other as long as it is pretty.
Quote:Art is a form of relationship. Every form of relationship is made of two parts. One is the form, which is the structure of the art, what it is like, Genre, style, or the fact that it is deliberate art. Then there is the relationship, and this is feeling. So art is form and feeling. How do we feel, and is the way we feel as the artist intended? So, you are right that every form is a form of relationship with other forms. Yet, it is also a form for personal relationships. I have something in common with everyone who likes Van Gough. Instant relationship. But in seeing a Van Gough I also get a feeling as well as a perception of his subject. I feel like I know him and can hear his message, personally.
What is the diffences between these two methods? If the first uses a comparison between "all methods similar" and the second is "relationship", then both seem to be relationships. Some help?
Why not? And what is it to be "faithfully" rendered?
Faith is truth. If a person wishes to portray a body, then I would prefer realistic to fantastic. We have to understand that ultimately it is the artist, and, if not the artist, then the audience, and if not the audience or artist, then, humanity that is the subject of the art. If it will communicate as the artist intends then it must be truth, because if it is not truth it is not communication. Truth is a single thing. Not truth is anything else, and so everything else. I try to think now of the sailors story from Moby Dick read so long ago, where the sailor on the slave ship tosses the ball of knots at one of the visiters, and says something to the effect of: You figure it out! This is like the Ghordian Knot with every end tucked neatly into place. And with art, the artist gives the audience the sword to cut this knot of mystery to have understanding.
Reality can be seen outside every window and inside every heart. We do not need artists only to share their angst with us. It is a particular vision of truth we seek that only seekers find. And artists are people of vision. And he does not just give reality, but truth as he sees it, as a special gift for those with the insight to appreciate it.
The reason no man can address the whole condition of humanity is that is is both massive and changing as we speak. I trust those words will give you a clue. What are the fates, the furies, and the fairys? They are the same thing, and the same word morphed by time and distance. There is nothing tiny about a fairy, and nothing friendly about an elf. The Elf king is death, and they serve their master. So, we live in a different world, but more often than you think people feel guided inexorably by fate; and from that feeling they should rebel. Art beyond all things when well done is an act of rebellion.
nameless wrote:How about, that which is done well is art?
'Art' does come from 'artifice', the produce of the hands of man...
But what would we mean by "done well"?
"Done well" with refernece to what? Simple common definitions, as you say, are broad. Done well, with respect to turning a handsome profit? Done well, with respect to the craft (the physical skills)? Done well, with respect to the message of the art?
I was only asking a question, I had nothing to contend.
Art is a human form of expression (artistic expression). Artistic expression must be a manipulation of media, regardless of the media or the motive.
The affect art has on the observer has nothing to do with it being art. It is art if you say it is, and is manipulation of a media.
The affect art has on the observer may or may not be what the artist intended, nor must art be appreciated in order to be art, it is merely an expression. Good art is artistic expression that is appreciated or that has fullfiled the artist desire to express himself.
The art I like is anything that conveyes something to me, either esthetically, emotionally or mentally, it just has to be implicit in some way, on some level.
Does that mean there is nothing of self realization or communication in art?
I believe everything created as art is art. From the Rennaisance masterpeices to ,"Look mommy I painted a pony," to Dual of the Banjos.
I believe that art is capable of the same with a person's emotions and able to produce a quality of emotion the person rarely feels. The artist in this case would know how to produce the intended emotional quality in the person absorbing this art.
Naturally this is very rare so the great majority of what we call art is really expression we accept as art simply because art was intended. There wasn't the conscious attempt to have the work of art produce this precise emotion.
Much of this quality of art is religious art like the Cathedral of Notre Dame. No one really knows who built it but those that did had access to knowledge of producing deep emotions.