Ko0K on 28/4/2006 at 07:23
Quote Posted by Kolya
The effort = art equation doesn't apply to a lot of pieces of modern art.
If that's the case, then I can only imagine it's because the modern use of the word "art" has changed from the original meaning of the word. The definition of art as I understand is the result of a conscious effort to express beauty, be it visual, aural, both, or otherwise.
I'd have a hard time justifying the need to look any deeper into the artist's character if his work is a one-time deal. Understanding the artist would add to the deeper understanding of his/her art, only if the works reflect a unique style and use of skills. Then again, if any work requires the understanding of the artist to be appreciated, then it would only appeal to the said artists' circle of friends, family, neighbors, etc. If Van Gogh created something that could only be appreciated by those who knew him already, would we even know of him by now? I highly doubt it. Again in so many words, what I am trying to say is that works must be able to stand on their own to warrant any attention to the creators.
Kolya on 28/4/2006 at 12:27
Quote Posted by tungsten
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).
I think it's both. If the artist has never felt himself what he's trying to express he will likely fail to do it in a way that evokes that feeling with the audience.
Quote Posted by tungsten
Art itself is nothing. Only the art plus the audience make the wonderful thing.
That's a bit oversimplified not? It sounds like you're denying even the possibility that an artist might make a statement through art. Artists would just throw random pieces at the viewer, completely oblivious to the reactions they provoke.
Quote Posted by theBlackman
Jackson Pollack
How did Pollack get in here? (The fountain is by Duchamp.)
Quote Posted by theBlackman
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.
Well you say that as if it was a fact, but without backing it up.
Once again: People are frequently very disappointed when they find out, the message an artist's piece transported was different to what he really lives up to. That is a fact that can be proven. Now you tell me why people aren't just satisfied they had their experience as you say?
Ko0K: You just changed your art definition from effort to beauty... Also (lasting) fame just shows that a lot of people liked something. That's a possible indication that something is art, but certainly not an exclusive one. If Kafka's relatives had burned his writings after his death as he intended, only they would have known them, but the texts would still have been art.
OrbWeaver on 28/4/2006 at 12:53
Quote Posted by Kolya
I think it's both. If the artist has never felt himself what he's trying to express he will likely fail to do it in a way that evokes that feeling with the audience.
That is true, but is a pragmatic argument rather than a philosophical principle. If such an artist *does* manage to express his idea well, his own lack of experience does not diminish the value of the work itself.
Quote:
Once again: People are frequently very disappointed when they find out, the message an artist's piece transported was different to what he really lives up to. That is a fact that can be proven. Now you tell me why people aren't just satisfied they had their experience as you say?
That is a problem with human nature unfortunately. People in general are very bad at separating the message from the messenger.
Kolya on 28/4/2006 at 13:05
But an artist isn't a messenger. He's the creator of the message.
tungsten on 28/4/2006 at 15:27
Quote Posted by Kolya
I think it's both. If the artist has never felt himself what he's trying to express he will likely fail to do it in a way that evokes that feeling with the audience.
Of course it's a bit of both. And the art will be easier to make for an artist that actually experienced the feeling he's trying to convey. My statement doesn't exclude that the artist has these true feelings. They're just not absolutely required.
Quote Posted by Kolya
That's a bit oversimplified not? It sounds like you're denying even the possibility that an artist might make a statement through art. Artists would just throw random pieces at the viewer, completely oblivious to the reactions they provoke.
Yes, it is oversimplified, but the art will never just pass a message. Not what you say matters but what the listener understands from your saying. Sadly this is true. This can very often be seen outside of art. For example when scientists talk to journalists. Wasn't there an article about this SETI guy, that said the ETs are already here, or they will come in the next 20 years?
I personally was quite stupid to realise this for my personal life quite late. It doesn't matter if you told your partner the correct place to meet, what matters is what the partner understands. And sadly it's kind of your job as speaker/messenger to pass the message in a way that the receiver can understand it.
But back to artists. Artists may
try to make a statement with their work
If they succeed in passing this message depends again not only on themselves but also on the audience. Quite often they will be misunderstood. And, like some modern art, just throwing random pieces can be art too, if you can generate some feelings/reactions in your audience.
Anyway, this is just my personal way of looking at art, I enjoy what comes into being from the interaction of my "thought-universe" with the (quite one-dimensional) image of the "thought-universe" of the artist. It's not a direct overlap or interaction, but an image of his feelings/thoughts, that interact with the audience to produce something (maybe) new. I simply deny that there is a
correct interpretation of a piece of art. If you can read it like a law-text, it's not art for me because it's just a printout of some thoughts/feelings of the artist, but dead.
But then, I have absolutely no clue about art, I'm from the other end of the spectrum ;)
Ko0K on 28/4/2006 at 16:54
Quote Posted by Kolya
Ko0K: You just changed your art definition from effort to beauty...
Did I? I read what I wrote, and to me it seems that I've consistently said that art is beauty achieved by effort. Anyway, I gave my opinion.
Quote:
If Kafka's relatives had burned his writings after his death as he intended, only they would have known them, but the texts would still have been art.
Yeah. Like a tree falling in the forest when there is no one around to hear it. If its existence is unknown, it's not art or crap. It's simply nothing.
Kolya on 28/4/2006 at 17:20
Quote Posted by tungsten
But then, I have absolutely no clue about art, I'm from the other end of the spectrum ;)
That's the same end from where I look at art. :)
Quote Posted by Ko0K
to me it seems that I've consistently said that art is beauty achieved by effort
Sorry, my mistake. I only referred to the last sentence in (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1445099#post1445099) this post.
Quote Posted by Ko0K
Like a tree falling in the forest when there is no one around to hear it.
I said that his relatives would have known the texts and here I was directly referring to your description of an artist whose art can only be understood with his background in mind.
Ko0K on 28/4/2006 at 18:09
Okay, so it seems to me it's a case of misunderstanding. Would it help if I said "...what separates art from everything else that is also beautiful but is not art"? Nature is also capable of producing beautiful things, but we don't call works of nature "art" because there is no human effort involved, at least not by the same agreed-upon definition.
About the falling tree analogy... Without people other than the creator to observe and appreciate, any work of art would simply be a drawing or a series of notes that may or may not be called art. If nobody else cares to find the meaning of the said "art" because it's not pleasing to their senses, why would they bother finding out what the artist had in mind and try to understand it as art? In other words, for something to be considered art, it would have to appeal to the viewers on one level or another on its own, independent of the artist. If the art reflects the use of style and skills (repeating myself here) then it's only natural that we consider the source of the work. If Van Gogh's paintings were nothing but random dots on white canvas, he may be remembered as an eccentric person, but we wouldn't consider his work art. Same with Kafka or anybody else famous. They didn't go around telling people how eccentric and creative they were to gain fame. It's because their work was appreciated that they became better known. To be perfectly honest, I don't even see what's there to ponder. Seems pretty obvious to me.
