OrbWeaver on 27/4/2006 at 17:41
Quote Posted by Kolya
Our premise: The appropiate execution of art can only be measured by the impact a piece of art has on the audience.
That's exactly how I would define it. Bringing the artists "true feelings" (insofar as they may be defined) into the equation is not only arbitrary, because it is never considered relevant to the quality or effectiveness of other forms of communication such as factual speech, but would also exclude vast swathes of art which is never intended to express the emotions of the artist (such as the majority of films, classical poetry such as Homer, sculpture, fictional writing and so on).
Naartjie on 27/4/2006 at 18:19
Quote:
Originally posted by OrbWeaverThe distinction between art and entertainment is not only blurry, but entirely artificial - based mainly on whether money is involved or not. It seems very elitist to consider art created for money to be in some fundamentally different category to "authentic" art created by artists in the pits of despair, ectasy or some other emotional state.
Of course, it may so happen that art created for money is ON AVERAGE lower quality than the latter type (because it has to be done to spec and on-time by paid professionals, rather than completely freely), but this is a separate issue.
Don't forget that art for art's sake is a relatively new way of doing things, and that your perspective on what constitutes art is a very modern one. The Sistine chapel ceiling wasn't painted for fun :)
OrbWeaver on 27/4/2006 at 19:36
Quote Posted by Naartjie
Don't forget that art for art's sake is a relatively new way of doing things, and that your perspective on what constitutes art is a very modern one. The Sistine chapel ceiling wasn't painted for fun :)
My perspective is that there is no fundamental difference between commercial art (or "entertainment") and recreational art. The Sistine chapel is a good supporting example, as a piece of work that was created on request but is widely considered high-quality art.
Aja on 27/4/2006 at 20:25
This is a difficult question to answer.
Listening to gritty blues like Muddy Waters or Robert Johnson, you're aware of the kind of lives they had to lead to make them want to create this kind of music. Guys like Johnny Lang can cop the style, but you know he hasn't endured the hardships that any of his influences have, and as such, his music somehow seems less valuable.
On the other hand, I don't see why someone couldn't hear a Johnny Lang song and be moved more than any Muddy Waters tune, regardless of whether or not they knew his origins. Some people probably don't care, in their cases the art speaks for itself.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules here. It's possible for background information (true or not) to diminish the quality of art in some cases, and in others it could have no impact at all.
Naartjie on 27/4/2006 at 23:13
Quote:
Originally posted by OrbWeaverMy perspective is that there is no fundamental difference between commercial art (or "entertainment") and recreational art. The Sistine chapel is a good supporting example, as a piece of work that was created on request but is widely considered high-quality art.
I don't quite see what you mean by 'recreational' art. From what I've experienced (and my experience extends to my grandfather, who's been painting landscape for the last 50 years) artists do what they do
because they just gotta. No worhwhile artist would describe what they do as some sort of hobby.
TheGreatGodPan on 28/4/2006 at 01:59
I am so glad I'll never be required to read a poem again.
I think we should judge works apart from their creators, but we can judge their creators by all of their actions.
Ko0K on 28/4/2006 at 02:56
If an amateur accidentally captures a moment in a picture without intending to capture the beauty of it, and the picture is appreciated by millions, should it be considered art? What matters is the mind of the observer, but I would value the effort to achieve beauty as well as the end result. If an artist paints, writes, or sings from an imagined experience, as opposed to an actual one, should his work be considered a fraud? To me the effort to make it beautiful has to count for something, so long as the work itself appeals to the others. So, in so many words I guess what I am trying to say is whether work was put into it or not is what separates art from whatever it is not.
Kolya on 28/4/2006 at 06:31
The effort = art equation doesn't apply to a lot of pieces of modern art. And a lot of things are created with much effort being put in without anyone ever considering it art. So art is really created by the viewer's opinion I think.
(
http://www.centrepompidou.fr/images/oeuvres/XL/3I01505.jpg)
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
I think we should judge works apart from their creators
But why? Isn't it perfectly natural to do so? Sure, a piece of art can take a life of it's own, sometimes even against the will or intentions of it's author. Like Ghislain the starwars kid or that random snapshot. But even in such cases the mindset it was created in plays a role on how we perceive it and evaluate it.
tungsten on 28/4/2006 at 06:48
But art isn't supposed to display the true emotion of the artist, it is supposed to express the emotion of the audience (who is incapable of expressing it).
Or: Art is. And only because of the interaction with the mind of the audience something new and beautiful is generated (and that may be different for each observer/reader). Art itself is nothing. Only the art plus the audience make the wonderful thing.
And all that background bullshit is for either art-critics (you don't want to know my opinion of those that try to tell "us" what is precious and what not) or for those that have no connection (communication channel) to the piece of art, or for those that'd like to imitate that art.
theBlackman on 28/4/2006 at 07:20
Quote Posted by tungsten
[...]And all that background bullshit is for either art-critics (you don't want to know my opinion of those that try to tell "us" what is precious and what not) or for those that have no connection (communication channel) to the piece of art, or for those that'd like to imitate that art.
To call Jackson Pollack an artist is to defame the word and everyone who engages in an artful project. Only one example of the critics screwups.
Critics, especially those who judge (badly), paintings are just people who have no ability themselves.
If a picture, painting, or musical piece evokes the audience to experience an emotion intended by the artist, it is definitely art, but the failure of a piece to do that is not an idication of a lack of art. Rather a failure of the "artiste" to craft the item sucessfully.
The artists experience, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the validity of the work, as long as the intended emotion is experienced by the audience.
