To Study Art is to Study Humanness

[coberst]

To Study Art is to Study Humanness

“The study of art is an indispensible part of the study of man.”

“Our experiences and ideas tend to be common but not deep, or deep but not common. We have neglected the gift of comprehending things through our senses.”

Our penchant for the facts (what can be counted or measured for distance, speed, time, or weight) has left us with a paucity of ideas for dealing with images and the meaning of those images; “we seek refuge in the more familiar medium of words…The inborn capacity to understand through the eyes has been put to sleep and must be reawakened…This limitation, however, applies not only to art, but to any object of experience”

Words can and must wait until our minds distill the categories of living that are revealed to us through our body in the process of experience. “Language cannot do the job directly it has no direct avenue for sensory contact with reality; it serves only to name what we have seen or heard or thought.”

“Unchecked self-analysis can be harmful, but so can the artificial primitiveness of the person who refuses to understand how and why he works. Modern man can, and therefore must, live with unprecedented self-awareness.” Many decades ago I asked a professor philosophy ‘what is philosophy about’; he replied that it is about radically critical self-consciousness.

Gestalt psychology has a kinship with art. Gestalt is a common German noun for shape or form derived mainly from experiments in sensory perception. “Artistic vision of reality was needed to remind scientists that most natural phenomena are not described adequately if they are analyzed piece by piece. That a whole cannot be attained by the accretion of isolated parts was not something the artist had to be told.”

“Far from being a mechanical recording of sensory elements, vision proved to be a truly creative apprehension of reality—imaginative, inventive, shrewd, and beautiful…The mind always functions as a whole…all perceiving is also thinking, all reasoning is also intuition, all observation is also invention.”

Gestalt experiments made it clear that an examination of reality requires interplay between the object and the nature of the observing subject. The objective element in experience justifies the distinguishing between what is an adequate and an inadequate conception of reality. Adequate conceptions must contain a common core of truth that will permit the art to be potentially relevant to all individuals.

Quotes from “Art and Visual Perception” by Rudolf Arnheim, Professor Emeritus of Psychological of Art at Harvard University. His books include “Film as Art” 1957, “Visual Thinking” 1969, “The Dynamics of Architectural Form” 1977, and “The Split and the Structure: Twenty Eight Essays” 1996.

[gopman]

Art is meant for entertainment. Anything you try to divine from it is nothing more than a bizarre Rorschach test.

[coberst]

Art is meant for entertainment. Anything you try to divine from it is nothing more than a bizarre Rorschach test.

I suspect you know less about art than even I do. A few months ago I was equally ignorant.

[gopman]

Take Shakespeare for example. I've read or seen a dozen of his plays. They are pointless and stupid. But they were entertaining 20 generations ago, so they're famous now.

[The Big Bog]

I think we should ban art.

[gopman]

I think we should just let the supreme court decide what qualifies.

[AgentM]

I think we should just let the supreme court decide what qualifies.

You want a bunch of lawyers to be able to decide what is art!? ;)

[The Big Bog]

Art is just another mode of communication of ideas, albeit a more intricate one and in a way that elevates us from the more mundane, stoic methods of communicating. When you take the time to actually "figure out the puzzle" and connect with what an artist is trying to say, the reward is much greater; you've gotten to peek into the mind of another human being. For a brief moment, you're seeing the world the way someone else sees it. Connecting with fellow humans in this way can only be a good thing.

[prst31]

Art is meant for entertainment. Anything you try to divine from it is nothing more than a bizarre Rorschach test.Although I wouldn't necessarily use the word divine, I disagree that it's purpose is entertainment. It may be expressed in a manner that holds one's interest (intentionally and systematically), but the purpose of the expression itself, is generally meant to communicate an idea, thought, story, or feeling. Something that one may not have the words to explain or maybe they think it better explained with through physical a medium. And it doesn't have to have a purpose to communicate an idea, thought or feeling. That may be an unintended consequence of an artistic expression.

To study art, architecture, music, and literature of our past, we clearly can see the stories of the times. Compare the music of the 20's, 50's or 90's...and you have a three very different stories of our cultural ideals. Look at the architecture of the Renaissance and compare it to the early 70's and you see the entire mentality of the culture at the time.

No the Supreme Court has no business defining acceptable expressions. There are already laws prohibiting vulgarity, public nudity etc...

[serenity]

Take Shakespeare for example. I've read or seen a dozen of his plays. They are pointless and stupid. But they were entertaining 20 generations ago, so they're famous now.

No. It's one thing to say you don't personally like it, quite another to claim Shakespeare "pointless and stupid."

With all due respect, I said before that your remarks here are more about being proudly contrary than anything else, and that it reminded me of a conversation from "The Family Guy." :) And here it is:



Peter: But, since we’re all going to die, there’s one more secret I feel I have to share with you. I did not care for "The Godfather."

Lois: What!

Peter: Did not care for "The Godfather."

Lois: Oh!

Chris: How can you even say that dad?

Peter: Didn’t like, did not like it.

Lois: Peter, it’s so good, it’s like the perfect movie.

Peter: This is what everyone always says, whenever someone says…

Chris: Robert De Niro, Al Pacino…

Peter: I…

Chris: You never see… ROBERT DUVALL!

Peter: Fine, fine actor. Did not like the movie.

Brian: Why not?

Peter: Did not… couldn’t get into it.

Lois: Explain yourself, what didn’t you like about it?

Peter: It insists upon itself, Lois.

Lois: What?

Peter: It insists upon itself.

Lois: What does that even mean?

Chris: Cause it has a valid point to make, it’s insistent?

Peter: Cause it takes forever getting in, and you spend, you spend like six and a half hours, and then, you - I can’t even get through, I haven’t even seen the ending.

Chris: You’ve never seen the ending?

Stewie: Ah, how can you say you don’t like it if you haven’t even given it a chance?

Lois: I agree with Stewie, it’s not really fair.

Chris: Outrageous.

Peter: I’ve tried on three separate occasions to get through it, and I get to the scene where all the guys are sitting around on the easy chairs…

Lois: Yes, it’s a great scene, I love that scene.

Peter: It’s not a great scene, I have no idea what they’re talking about, it’s like they're speaking a different language. That’s where I lose interest and fade away.

Chris: They’re speaking Italian!

Lois: The language they’re speaking is the language of subtlety, something you don’t understand.

Peter: I love "The Money Pit." That is my answer to that statement.

Lois: Exactly.

Peter: Well, there you go.

:)

[roderic]

"Art is meant for entertainment."

Sometimes it is better not to comment on subjects one knows nothing about, than to expose one's ignorance.

http://www.intmath.com/Numbers/beautyMath/body_sm_ratios.jpg

[gopman]

I know the relationship between the two superimposed lines is 5:8, two sequential numbers in the fibonacci sequence. Various other parts of your body are proportional in the same degree. I don't even think that the Vetruvian Man (sic?) can be qualified as art. It looks more like anatomy to me. Old School is an example of fine art in my opinion. But I suppose it's a free country and everyone is welcome to whatever cerebral self-gratification they need to get by.

[MikeD4o7]

Art is definitely entertainment above all else. It can also be educational or make a point, but its root is entertainment. I wouldn't go as far as to say that art is entirely pointless... but I would say that the vast vast vast vast majority of art that takes itself seriously is stupid.

[roderic]

The content of this drawing extends well beyond anatomy, it is the beauty of a piece of art that it contains a complexity of meaning far beyond entertainment or illustration.

This piece is also a comment on the relationship between the human body, maths, geometry and the cosmos, which can be understood in the context of the concerns of the Renaissance and DaVinci's body of work. The numbers you rightly identified are also the proportions of the Golden Ratio which was regarded as the formula for harmonic proportions in the lay-out of classic painting.

The drawing at first sight is an anatomically correct presentation of a human body relating to geometry; and contains philosophical statements as well as instructions for picture composition, and more.

"...meant for entertainment", "looks more like anatomy..." -hmmm, this gels with your dismissive take on Shakespeare.


Oh, and I do not live in the same country as you, nor do I need any "cerebral self-gratification" to get by. Not sure where you got this peculiar notion from, and frankly, I am surprised to note that you are a staff member, your comments so far fall well short of the qualities I have, perhaps mistakenly, come to expect from posters involved in running this forum.

[roderic]

Art is definitely entertainment above all else. It can also be educational or make a point, but its root is entertainment. I wouldn't go as far as to say that art is entirely pointless... but I would say that the vast vast vast vast majority of art that takes itself seriously is stupid.I have to disagree.
This says more about your attitude than art itself. If its entertainment value is of paramount importance for you is your choice, which you are free to make, of course.

But the 'root' of art is demonstrably not entertainment. Historically it was almost exclusively in the service of religion for a long time, and has only comparatively recently won an existence independent of the sponsorship of religious institutions and ruling families.

[AgentM]

While I'm not really particularly into art, I don't necessarily think it's stupid (although I agree that some artists can take themselves too seriously at times). To each their own I say, I may not find it all that interesting, but I can see how others might...

[gopman]

I agree that some artists can take themselves too seriously at times

I would say that the vast vast vast vast majority of art that takes itself seriously is stupid.


My point exactly.

If I drew a circle around a dog taking a crap in the street, and claimed it represented the beautiful relationship of geometry and dogs crapping in the street, as well as a guideline for drawing dogs crapping in the street, would that be considered art? Where do you draw the line? Would we only acknowledge as intelligent people who realized that it is in fact great art?

When people first began composing music, or painting on walls, did they do it because God would think it was awesome or did they do it because it was fun?

[USViking]

Take Shakespeare for example. I've read or seen a dozen of his plays. They are pointless and stupid.
When we are born we cry, that we are come
to this great stage of fools.

Shakespeare's plays are poems.

I read a lot of his plays, and other poems and poets too
when I was in school, and I never appreciated the art
of a single line.

But I kept on reading after I graduated because I thought
I must be missing something. I thought all those centuries
of literary reputation could not be completely wrong:
there must be something there.

I was 30 before my heart, soul, and mind finally knew
how good the love of a poem can be.

I hope you will consider continuing to read Shakespeare
and other poets. If by the age of 30 they still don't grab you,
then fine. Give up, and never know what you have missed.





But they were entertaining 20 generations ago, so they're famous now.
There were many other entertaining plays of the era
which no one can name so contemporary popularity
has nothing to do with it.

Are you aware of the fact that you, you yourself,
cannot get through a whole day without quoting
Shakespeare?

Take the word "football", for example (King Lear I, IV)

"Football" was first used in print by Shakespeare,
and about 1700 other words were also first used
by him. He did not invent all of them, although he
surely must have invented a lot. And even those
he did not invent he deserves some credit for,
for having appreciated what good words they are.

For the rest of it, Shakespeare's canon may be summed up
of as being tied for the lead of all time in all category of drama:
Comedy, Tragedy, Melodrama, and Farce.

In football parlance Shakespeare was sort of a backfield
of Jim Brown, John Unitas, Gayle Sayers, and Paul Hornung
in their prime.

Or if you prefer defence try Dave "Deacon" Jones, Alex Karras,
Dick "Night Train" Lane, and "Concrete" Charley Bednarik.

Bednarik is especially appropriate to the metaphor, since he was
the last player to go both ways in an NFL Championship game
(Linebacker and Center). The game, a 4-point victory for his team,
ended on his tackle of an opponent in the Red Zone.

Shakespeare was a whole team of NFL All Stars in one man.

[roderic]

If I drew a circle around a dog taking a crap in the street, and claimed it represented the beautiful relationship of geometry and dogs crapping in the street, as well as a guideline for drawing dogs crapping in the street, would that be considered art? Where do you draw the line? Would we only acknowledge as intelligent people who realized that it is in fact great art?I picked the example I posted because it is an easily accessible and well known one. It is representative, instanteneously recognisable as such and the quality of the drawing can be appreciated without effort. Other attributes are not so difficult to discover even without much previous exposure to art.

Your example is (obviously) different, and we can not see it, of course. Where do you draw the line is an important question, and where it is drawn is informed by a number of considerations.
One criterium is authorship, i.e. who is it and what is their track-record, what does his work consist of and what is this particular piece about. It is not dissimilar to other trades in that one needs to establish a reputation, which is intrinsically linked to the recognition of the product, in art much more so than in other areas.
Applied to your query, this would exclude your piece from inclusion, anybody could make such claims and knock something up in their lunchbreak.

Oh well, I stop here. Sorry this is not comprehensive, not sure if this is the kind of response you were looking for either.

Oh, and noone needs to prove their intelligence by recognising a great work of art, it requires familiarity with the subject and training.

When people first began composing music, or painting on walls, did they do it because God would think it was awesome or did they do it because it was fun?I am not sure how developed a sense of either of those concepts would be with cavemen?

[quantumechanic]

My point exactly.

If I drew a circle around a dog taking a crap in the street, and claimed it represented the beautiful relationship of geometry and dogs crapping in the street, as well as a guideline for drawing dogs crapping in the street, would that be considered art? Where do you draw the line? Would we only acknowledge as intelligent people who realized that it is in fact great art?
Why is it so difficult to believe that for some people, art is a method of expressing ideas, feelings and thoughts, of trying to reach others and conveying to them graphically (or in a different manner) what can't be conveyed otherwise?

Sure, a lot of modern art is bollocks. I once went to a modern art exhibition where one of the displays was "The Jeans" which displayed a tattered pair of trousers. I consider that to be absolute crap, but to someone it may mean something more (a doubtful notion, but I like to keep an open mind). But some works of art are undoubtedly (but with varying degrees of success) an attempt by the artist to convey a message.
Take "Lord of the Flies" for example; sure, you might disagree with me that the author is saying something about human nature, about different forms of government, about different human traits, but not many people would say that William Golding's sole purpose in writing this book was entertainment.

When people first began composing music, or painting on walls, did they do it because God would think it was awesome or did they do it because it was fun?
How does this prove your point? Just because art (might have) started off as a form of entertainment doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved into something else.

[Atticus]

My point exactly.

If I drew a circle around a dog taking a crap in the street, and claimed it represented the beautiful relationship of geometry and dogs crapping in the street, as well as a guideline for drawing dogs crapping in the street, would that be considered art? That would depend on whether you could convince anyone else it was. At some level, reaction to art is visceral. It's also subject to taste. Tastes can be educated, but you need a base on which to start.

I can accept that some people are simply not predisposed to be sensitive to such things (in the Romantic period, they called this quality "sensibility"), but the fact that some people are not predisposed doesn't mean no one is.

[roderic]

That would depend on whether you could convince anyone else it was. At some level, reaction to art is visceral. It's also subject to taste. Tastes can be educated, but you need a base on which to start.

That's right.
And with my Da Vinci example, it is quite easy to show that what I claimed is implied and easily deductable from the piece. It is much easier to appreciate 'classic' works of art which have become part of the cultural matrix, though there still is a level of education/additional information required to appreciate it more thoroughly. Much like one might adore a Porsche for its looks, speed and handling, but one would need some knowledge in engineering and car mechanics to fully appreciate it.

But what makes art special is the mentioned visceral dimension, either it 'speaks' to oneself or it doesn't, like or dislike, this is necessarily subjective. On the other hand, with the tools of how to approach and evaluate a piece, I can appreciate its value without actually liking it.

And this is where the OP comes in, the creation as well as appreciation of art is intrinsically linked to the fullness of human nature, the way we perceive, interpret, deduct, get inspired, connect pattern with sound and colour, attach meaning and so forth...

[prst31]

My point exactly.

If I drew a circle around a dog taking a crap in the street, and claimed it represented the beautiful relationship of geometry and dogs crapping in the street, as well as a guideline for drawing dogs crapping in the street, would that be considered art? Where do you draw the line? Would we only acknowledge as intelligent people who realized that it is in fact great art?

When people first began composing music, or painting on walls, did they do it because God would think it was awesome or did they do it because it was fun?The oldest wall paintings are about 35,000 years old on cave walls in France. As I recall, art historians believe the purpose to be more of the story telling nature, or to describe events. http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/new_light_on_the_oldest_art.htm

As far as the circle around the pooping dog...If you, gopman, would actually do that, yes, I'd call it art. And I'd say it represented some deep beliefs about government infrastructure and society's respect for it. :)

[Atticus]

The oldest wall paintings are about 35,000 years old on cave walls in France. As I recall, art historians believe the purpose to be more of the story telling nature, or to describe events. http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/new_light_on_the_oldest_art.htmAs your link indicates, it's difficult to know the motivations of ancient peoples. Another interpretation is that the paintings, which are of game animals, enabled the creators to have power over the animals. By drawing them in a private place, these icons gave these ancient peoples a spiritual power over the animals they hunted and perhaps (in their belief) gave them power over the animals the depended upon. Or it might have been a celebration of a particularly good hunt. The drawings themselves are not particularly narrative in nature.

Art historians have lots of evidence that ancient art was thought to create a special connection between humans and the divine. For example, the oldest sculpture we know is the Venus of Willendorf. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf) This small sculpture of an obviously pregnant woman is clearly a fertility symbol, perhaps a talisman. It can't stand up on a surface (the bottom is rounded) so it was clearly intended to be held--perhaps by a woman praying for fertility.

The ancient epics, like the Illiad and Odyssey, begin with invocations of a Muse, indicating that the poet was not the maker of the tale but only a conduit--the poem itself was composed by the Gods and the poet simply had the privilege of giving it to the people.

So I'd suggest that ancient peoples created art less to please the Gods than to show their connection to them. Art served as the connection between human and the divine.

[roderic]

As far as the circle around the pooping dog...If you, gopman, would actually do that, yes, I'd call it art. And I'd say it represented some deep beliefs about government infrastructure and society's respect for it. :)Even your mockery falls flat in that it fails to address the central theme of that which it mocks: On which basis would you call this "art"? And how would you extract this meaning from the piece?

[serenity]

Art is definitely entertainment above all else. It can also be educational or make a point, but its root is entertainment.

There are several issues raised here.

First of all "mere" entertainment is at bottom an odd way to look at things. What do we mean by "entertainment"? There is a real distinction between "American Idol"--which I would view as the type of entertainment that is "mere" distraction--and the profundity of great poetry or the visual-art masters (or great music, for that matter).

And even as that stands, that doesn't make "American Idol" worthless.

(I personally DO think that it's LESS than worthless, but that's a matter of personal taste, I suppose.)

There is implicit in these "entertainment" criticisms that "entertainment" is nothing serious--unlike, say, what we call "work" or what have you.

But without art, a society would be darker, bleaker. The world of the imagination is one of THE key matters that makes us human. It increases knowledge and understanding. It's surely notable that every single culture, without exception, partakes in art. It is what we ARE, to a significant degree.

And for those who don't take "high art" (a philosophically problematic term, maybe, but there ARE degrees and hierarchies of excellence, whether we all can agree on where the line is drawn or not)...ok, for those who don't take it seriously, I'd ask if you like popular music. Or if you like pulpy adventure novels. Or reading the news. These are trickle-down effects OF high art.

"Cerebral self-gratification" obviously connotes masturbation. Leaving aside the begged question of what, exactly, is so horrible about masturbation (an instrinsic and inevitable component of human sexuality itself), this isn't accurate. While appreciating art (paintings, music, literature) pushes our minds inwards, it simultaneously expands our imaginations outwards. Good art is simultaneously familiar and new, allowing us to recognize truths but also to view them in a different way.

but I would say that the vast vast vast vast majority of art that takes itself seriously is stupid.


That is not an indictment of art itself, but of insufficient artiSTRY.

The "vast vast vast vast majority" of people practicing science have no original thoughts or insights, and recycle what is already done and done.

However, not only does this NOT undermine the magnificent achievements of science--the magnificent achievements cannot occur without multiple and myriad attempts by many who don't appear to be acheiving anything.

The same is true for every human endeavor.

And in fact, science springs FROM art, at least to a degree.


Yes, a lot of art that takes itself "seriously" (because it IS serious, by the way) is stupid; but so is "American Idol" and "Rambo." That they don't take themselves seriously doesn't change the fact that they're stupid.

Watch "300" sometime. That's a stupid movie.

And it doesn't take itself seriously, perhaps--so lo and behold, what we have is a series of cliches and melodrama, offering us nothing of "cerebral" interest but a latent homosexuality which the moviemakers are too uninspired to even recognize in their own film. If they did, they might have done something interesting with this undercurrent--they might have achieved something of worth. Like art.

Only appreciators of art even DO recognize the homosexual subtext.

Because NOT appreciating art makes us stupider.

More to the point, a lot of people working in an artistic field means that there will be great and wonderful art. We just have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Again, this is true of all human endeavors.

[prst31]

As your link indicates, it's difficult to know the motivations of ancient peoples. Another interpretation is that the paintings, which are of game animals, enabled the creators to have power over the animals. By drawing them in a private place, these icons gave these ancient peoples a spiritual power over the animals they hunted and perhaps (in their belief) gave them power over the animals the depended upon. Or it might have been a celebration of a particularly good hunt. The drawings themselves are not particularly narrative in nature.

Art historians have lots of evidence that ancient art was thought to create a special connection between humans and the divine. For example, the oldest sculpture we know is the Venus of Willendorf. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf) This small sculpture of an obviously pregnant woman is clearly a fertility symbol, perhaps a talisman. It can't stand up on a surface (the bottom is rounded) so it was clearly intended to be held--perhaps by a woman praying for fertility.

The ancient epics, like the Illiad and Odyssey, begin with invocations of a Muse, indicating that the poet was not the maker of the tale but only a conduit--the poem itself was composed by the Gods and the poet simply had the privilege of giving it to the people.

So I'd suggest that ancient peoples created art less to please the Gods than to show their connection to them. Art served as the connection between human and the divine.I do agree that some art is thought of as a spiritual conduit and that certainly some had the specific intent of serving as a connection to the divine, but I think art historian's tend to over analyze some things.

While I agree it's a possible scenario to the paintings (and to Venus of Willendorf), I don't know that we have any knowledge of Cro-Magnon's spiritual beliefs. For all we know, the paintings were just wall decoration for the living room. And some have suggested Venus was a pornographic talisman (http://www.pbs.org/howartmadetheworld/episodes/human/venus/#) (Cambridge video), but that's beside the point. I think the bottom line is I think we agree that art isn't purely for fun/God.

[prst31]

Even your mockery falls flat in that it fails to address the central theme of that which it mocks: On which basis would you call this "art"? And how would you extract this meaning from the piece?What mockery? It would be an expression of gopman--something he would be "saying" even if he didn't consciously intend to say anything by the action. I gave my theory on what he might mean by it. That's just my interpretation, my personal perspective. What others may get from it; that's the beauty of art, everyone has a different perspective.

[roderic]

What mockery? It would be an expression of gopman--something he would be "saying" even if he didn't consciously intend to say anything by the action. I gave my theory on what he might mean by it. That's just my interpretation, my personal perspective. What others may get from it; that's the beauty of art, everyone has a different perspective.It is not as if there is an endless array of meaning one could legitimately attach to a piece. You'd need to reason it from the piece itself, the context of its creation and placement - which you have not done, there isn't even a piece. :cool:

Your facetious remarks are quite interesting, in that they present a common misunderstanding regarding evaluation of art.

I do agree that some art is thought of as a spiritual conduit and that certainly some had the specific intent of serving as a connection to the divine, but I think art historian's tend to over analyze some things.I believe you'd find that "some" is a misplaced quantifier for the bulk of the last 2.000 years of occidental art. This is not to say that there weren't traditions concerned with mundane themes and with providing entertainment.

One could argue that art has become increasingly diverse and self-conscious from the renaissance onwards, coinciding with changes in society and a diversifying academia.

Any example of an art historian "over analysing things"?

[prst31]

It is not as if there is an endless array of meaning one could legitimately attach to a piece. You'd need to reason it from the piece itself, the context of its creation and placement - which you have not done, there isn't even a piece. :cool:

Your facetious remarks are quite interesting, in that they present a common misunderstanding regarding evaluation of art.


I believe you'd find that "some" is a misplaced quantifier for the bulk of the last 2.000 years of occidental art. This is not to say that there weren't traditions concerned with mundane themes and with providing entertainment.

One could argue that art has become increasingly diverse and self-conscious from the renaissance onwards, coinciding with changes in society and a diversifying academia.

Any example of an art historian "over analysing things"?First off, no I'm no expert but Art Education was my major. I gave examples of possible over analysis on Venus of Willendorf and the cave paintings of Chauvet. That's my opinion based on how I know artist's create, perceive critics and historians. Not all cases, not even close, but I do think they tend to make too much out of things sometimes because it's human nature to want to understand, and it's historically important that we try, but it doesn't mean we do. Artist's do not always have some major purpose in mind when they create something.

Again, if gopman would perform that act, he would be expressing himself. Consciously or maybe unconsciously, regardless, it would be his expression and it would be art. Art doesn't need an Artist's Statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_statement). Art does not have to seek the approval of critics, or anyone for that matter to be art.

I've given my perception of what I would think he would mean by the act, each and everyone else would probably have a different perception. That kind of expression, it's almost like a Rorschach Test, a Freudian Slip of the artist maybe, and an inkblot for everyone looking at it--like it or hate it.

[gopman]

I've given my perception of what I would think he would mean by the act, each and everyone else would probably have a different perception. That kind of expression, it's almost like a Rorschach Test, a Freudian Slip of the artist maybe, and an inkblot for everyone looking at it--like it or hate it.

Art is meant for entertainment. Anything you try to divine from it is nothing more than a bizarre Rorschach test.

Does this mean I won the debate?

[Atticus]

Does this mean I won the debate?I don't think so. You're arguing that interpretations of art are random and meaningless. That's not what the others are saying.

This is an extension of an argument between the natural sciences and the humanities generally. Some scientists will argue that any information not quantifiable is unworthy of study--that empiricism is the only mode of inquiry worth doing. Since this would invalidate not only my own field of study but all the others even remotely related to it (history, art, rhetoric, political science other than polling, linguistics, any language or expression-based discipline), I take strong exception to this.

Unfortunately, to go much further, I have to accuse you of not seeing something that others can see and agree upon--don't really want to go there.

[roderic]

First off, no I'm no expert but Art Education was my major.Oh really? I gave examples of possible over analysis on Venus of Willendorf and the cave paintings of Chauvet. You gave examples of sources disagreeing with what Atticus said. Concerning pre-historic artefacts.
That's my opinion based on how I know artist's create, perceive critics and historians. Not all cases, not even close, but I do think they tend to make too much out of things sometimes because it's human nature to want to understand, and it's historically important that we try, but it doesn't mean we do. Artist's do not always have some major purpose in mind when they create something.Yes, I agree with this. But this relates to contemporary art, no? It is much easier to analyse and understand what is in the past, not only in the field of Arts.

Again, if gopman would perform that act, he would be expressing himself. Consciously or maybe unconsciously, regardless, it would be his expression and it would be art. Art doesn't need an Artist's Statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_statement). Art does not have to seek the approval of critics, or anyone for that matter to be art. This is one way of looking at it, I am proud of the art my 12 year old daughter produces as well. But it does not address what I repeatedly drew attention to: how to evaluate art. And it certainly is not the definition applied in museums and galleries throughout the world.

I've given my perception of what I would think he would mean by the act, each and everyone else would probably have a different perception. That kind of expression, it's almost like a Rorschach Test, a Freudian Slip of the artist maybe, and an inkblot for everyone looking at it--like it or hate it.It is no good dressing your initial statement in fancy words, it remains non-sensical. Your "perception" of what you "would think he would mean by the act" was a throw-away remark based on little more than connecting your familiarity with his political stance to the image of a dog ****ting as an expression thereof. The first thing which springs to mind is not something to elevate as the meaning one has arrived at.

Sloppy and 'humorous' at best, convincing not at all.
Non-sensical twaddle under the guise of arty-farty subjectivity. :sorry:

[prst31]

Oh really?Yes really.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d64/rojhob/Pictures059_2.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d64/rojhob/Pictures036_2.jpg

You gave examples of sources disagreeing with what Atticus said. Concerning pre-historic artefacts.
Yes, I agree with this. But this relates to contemporary art, no? It is much easier to analyse and understand what is in the past, not only in the field of Arts.

This is one way of looking at it, I am proud of the art my 12 year old daughter produces as well. But it does not address what I repeatedly drew attention to: how to evaluate art. And it certainly is not the definition applied in museums and galleries throughout the world.

It is no good dressing your initial statement in fancy words, it remains non-sensical. Your "perception" of what you "would think he would mean by the act" was a throw-away remark based on little more than connecting your familiarity with his political stance to the image of a dog ****ting as an expression thereof. The first thing which springs to mind is not something to elevate as the meaning one has arrived at.

Sloppy and 'humorous' at best, convincing not at all.
Non-sensical twaddle under the guise of arty-farty subjectivity. :sorry:You must be one of those art historians that reads too much into things. ;)

Seriously, I'm not trying to use any fancy words or twaddle the artsy-fartsy. The expression itself would be the art. My interpretation of it's meaning, or other's interpretations, or his intent is irrelevant, really.

I'm really not sure what you're taking issue with.

[Atticus]

Yes really. That girl's got talent! :)

[roderic]

You must be one of those art historians that reads too much into things. ;) No, but I graduated in Fine Arts and have maintained a selective interest since. I also make my living in a related profession.

Seriously, I'm not trying to use any fancy words or twaddle the artsy-fartsy. The expression itself would be the art. My interpretation of it's meaning, or other's interpretations, or his intent is irrelevant, really.
Irrelevant in what respect? You have gone from claiming any interpretation is valid to stating it is irrelevant. I don't agree with either. I enjoy art more through discovering its meaning and finding out about the background, if I like the piece in the first place, that is. It might have been a response to a historic event, like Picasso's Guernica, have anecdotes about it or the artist, Warhol and his pissing on copper sheets springs to mind, or one may find related work by investigating influences and associates of the artist, and so on.


I'm really not sure what you're taking issue with.I think it is the dismissive attitude most of all.

[gopman]

I have composed a haiku just for this thread:

People discuss art
They think it is so special
I say it is dumb

Discuss.

[prst31]

No, but I graduated in Fine Arts and have maintained a selective interest since. I also make my living in a related profession.

Irrelevant in what respect? You have gone from claiming any interpretation is valid to stating it is irrelevant. I don't agree with either. I enjoy art more through discovering its meaning and finding out about the background, if I like the piece in the first place, that is. It might have been a response to a historic event, like Picasso's Guernica, have anecdotes about it or the artist, Warhol and his pissing on copper sheets springs to mind, or one may find related work by investigating influences and associates of the artist, and so on.

I think it is the dismissive attitude most of all.First, I haven't dismissed a thing and you can quit with the personal pokes.

Yes, it's irrelevant to gopman's act being art. It doesn't matter if an interpretation is valid or not. If he would do it, it would be art. It would THEN be up to us to interpret, enjoy, hate, ignore, discuss or piss on--irrelevant to his expression being art.

You took issue with me originally stating it was art--you asked on what basis. I explained on the basis of expression. Interpretation of expression is irrelevant to it being art or not. Cave paintings can be simple wall decorations, means of communication, or a connection to the spiritual. A pregnant carving can be a tool of prayer, a Cro-Magnon porno magazine, or a door knocker. They're both art, expressions of some kind, regardless of the interpretations.

Yes, I love the meaning behind art as well. I believe most of it has something to say, and throughout time, a great deal of it has a very clear meaning. Some does not. It's still art.

So again, I have no idea what your beef is. I've addressed everything that seems to peeve you. If you don't think it's art, you're welcome to make your case.

[roderic]

First, I haven't dismissed a thing and you can quit with the personal pokes.Eh??? Are you referring to the highlighted text: "Irrelevant in what respect? You have gone from claiming any interpretation is valid to stating it is irrelevant." Where is the "personal poke"?
I have been very polite in the face of your continual mockery and have attempted to make reasoned arguments in return. And I answered your question with sincerity.

I refrain from responding to your or gopman's latest extrapolations, I do not want to cause further offense by insisting there is sense where you claim there is none, or exposing someone's utter 'dumb'ness. I'd be bound to get on the wrong side of two members of staff in one stroke.

[prst31]

Eh??? Are you referring to the highlighted text: "Irrelevant in what respect? You have gone from claiming any interpretation is valid to stating it is irrelevant." Where is the "personal poke"?
I have been very polite in the face of your continual mockery and have attempted to make reasoned arguments in return. And I answered your question with sincerity.No. You stated I'm mocking (I'm not mocking anything or anyone), my comments are "nonsensical", "twaddle", a "guise", "sloppy" and that my attitude is dismissive. Nothing to do with discussing or debating the issue.

I refrain from responding to your or gopman's latest extrapolations, I do not want to cause further offense by insisting there is sense where you claim there is none, or exposing someone's utter 'dumb'ness. I'd be bound to get on the wrong side of two members of staff in one stroke.No, please do respond. Please explain. Enlighten me. Expose the dumbness. Go for it. That's what this is about. Prove your case. Just leave the personal remarks out of it and you'll have no problems with any staff members.

[roderic]

No. You stated I'm mocking (I'm not mocking anything or anyone), my comments are "nonsensical", "twaddle", a "guise", "sloppy" and that my attitude is dismissive. Nothing to do with discussing or debating the issue. This is how I see it, and this judgment does not stand without explanation, a sloppy argument is, eh, sloppy, however else I may chose to point at this. This is different from a "personal poke", I would think. If I called you an idiot (and this is not a roundabout way of doing so), you'd have grounds to complain - but I am not a moderator to assert the boundaries of what is acceptable. If I cannot state that your assertion is 'nonsensical', I'd rather not argue.


I found a number of comments here offensive, gopman's in particular, not against my person, but regarding the subject matter - an insult towards intelligence.

I don't want to come across as a snob, but when I put considerable effort into presenting a position, as I have done here, though it perhaps may not look like it to the casual observer, only to be brushed aside with some clicheed stereotypical responses claiming everything goes and nothing matters, and including the suggestion anyone enjoying art is involved in some form of cerebral masturbation, I do take exception to it and my responses have been civil in my own estimation.

[prst31]

This is how I see it, and this judgment does not stand without explanation, a sloppy argument is, eh, sloppy, however else I may chose to point at this. This is different from a "personal poke", I would think. If I called you an idiot (and this is not a roundabout way of doing so), you'd have grounds to complain - but I am not a moderator to assert the boundaries of what is acceptable. If I cannot state that your assertion is 'nonsensical', I'd rather not argue.
Assert all you want. Problem is, you haven't backed any of it up so you're toeing the line between what is an argument and what is personal.

I found a number of comments here offensive, gopman's in particular, not against my person, but regarding the subject matter - an insult towards intelligence. Fine then. It's your burden to show why you disagree (something I was engaged in BTW). You're finding of things offensive doesn't stand alone as proof that your stance is correct.

I don't want to come across as a snob, but when I put considerable effort into presenting a position, as I have done here, though it perhaps may not look like it to the casual observer, only to be brushed aside with some clicheed stereotypical responses claiming everything goes and nothing matters, and including the suggestion anyone enjoying art is involved in some form of cerebral masturbation, I do take exception to it and my responses have been civil in my own estimation.Where have you put the effort in here? Perhaps you were thinking I was someone else then. Unless accusing me of mockery, et al (including the latest "brushing asides stereotypical cliche's"), is presenting an opinion of the issue with considerable effort, I have yet to understand your problem.

I never said anything goes or nothing matters. Expression goes and it's interpretation isn't relevant to it's existence. Do you seriously have a problem with that statement? If so, bring it!

[roderic]

Oh well, never mind.

I am sure gopman and you are enjoying yourselves. 'Entertainment' is all it is about, after all.

[prst31]

Oh well, never mind.

I am sure gopman and you are enjoying yourselves. 'Entertainment' is all it is about, after all.See the thing is, I was to trying to show/explain/teach gopman how the act of expressing himself that way would be considered art--to counter his claim that art is purely for entertainment. I would go so far as to actually challenge him to go into the streets with a piece of chalk, find a dog, and draw a circle around it. I believe he'd realize then, it's not for entertainment, that there is something within him he would be expressing, and other's interpretation of the act (I gave a hypothetical about mine), would demonstrate how we all see things from our own individual perspectives.

[USViking]

I have composed a haiku just for this thread:

People discuss art
They think it is so special
I say it is dumb

Discuss.

Let me run this by you, Haiku San:

Do you like music?

If not, then OK- you really do have a tin ear for all art,
and there is no getting through to you.

If you do like music, do you like only instrumental music?

If so then at least you have the classical symphonies
(stripped of their choral sections).

But if you like music which includes the human voice
then you enjoy poetry more than you realize.

For example, here is a loose translation of part of
Beethoven's 9th:

Joy is drunk by all God's creatures,
Straight from Earth's adundant breast.
Good and bad, all things are Nature's,
And with blameless Joy are blessed.
Joy brings mirth and wine, Her gladness
Makes the Universe Her zone,
From the worm Who tastes Spring's madness
To the angel near God's throne.


More recently, if not exactly up to date,
are the lyrics of Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind:

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, n how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, n how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before theyre forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind,
The answer is blowin in the wind.

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, n how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, n how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind,
The answer is blowin in the wind.

How many years can a mountain exist
Before its washed to the sea?
Yes, n how many years can some people exist
Before theyre allowed to be free?
Yes, n how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesnt see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind,
The answer is blowin in the wind.


No doubt truly contemporary music has some great lyrics
to offer as well. Let us hope that contemporary economics
do not lead to modern rendition of:

Buddy, can you spare a dime?

[The Big Bog]

I have composed a haiku just for this thread:

People discuss art
They think it is so special
I say it is dumb

Discuss.

What color is your car? Why did you choose that color as opposed to another?

Do you have a particular style of house that you like or do you prefer something more utilitarian like a boxy apartment?

What do you have hanging on your walls in your house? Nothing? If not, what are the criteria you use for choosing one particular poster or picture over another?

What does the ideal lawn look like to you? No trees? Some trees? Maybe some flowers here and there? Why?

Is your TV black and white or color? If color, why do you choose that instead of black and white?

Do you enjoy music? If so, how do you differentiate "pleasing" songs from ones that are not so pleasing?

Are you into sports? Do you ever notice one particular athlete's "style" of play vs. another? Have you ever admired an athlete just for his/her technique? What about coaching styles--are you sometimes able to identify particular styles among coaching and staff? Guess what? There's some art in that too!

Like it or not, art is everywhere. You can't keep humans from producing it and you probably admire it a LOT more than you think you do.

[Riddley]

As usual Ms Bog puts her hoof right on it. Humanity makes Art therefore the study of Art will elucidate some aspects of humanity.
I refuse to sit in judgement on art other than to say "I get it" or "I don't get it" and sometimes not getting it is the point.
I also don't think that one needs to know all that much, formally, about art. You have it in you at birth to be able to appreciate or not what is in front of you. The best stuff, however, will make you think.

Shameless Kiwi Cultural Imperialism (http://www.realartroadshow.co.nz/home.html) Me and the kids went to see this yesterday.

[Sgt Schultz]

When it comes to art, food, music, et cetera I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like. Who is anyone to tell me I'm wrong?

[Riddley]

When it comes to art, food, music, et cetera I like what I like and I don't like what I don't like. Who is anyone to tell me I'm wrong?

Precisely Schultzy.

[roderic]

Assert all you want. Problem is, you haven't backed any of it up so you're toeing the line between what is an argument and what is personal.I thought I had made it clear where I was coming from and addressed the comment, not the person, but anyway I do take on board what you say, maybe I got carried away earlier. See the thing is, I was to trying to show/explain/teach gopman how the act of expressing himself that way would be considered art--to counter his claim that art is purely for entertainment. I would go so far as to actually challenge him to go into the streets with a piece of chalk, find a dog, and draw a circle around it. I believe he'd realize then, it's not for entertainment, that there is something within him he would be expressing, and other's interpretation of the act (I gave a hypothetical about mine), would demonstrate how we all see things from our own individual perspectives.Ok, you disagree that art is not just for entertainment, but you seem to support GOP's claim that "Anything you try to divine from it is nothing more than a bizarre Rorschach test." with your arguments. If I understand you correctly, you have been saying that the act of expressing itself, the creative act is what makes art, art. And that the interpretation of this 'expressing' is irrelevant. Everybody has a different perspective. You said it like this:
Again, if gopman would perform that act, he would be expressing himself. Consciously or maybe unconsciously, regardless, it would be his expression and it would be art. Art doesn't need an Artist's Statement. Art does not have to seek the approval of critics, or anyone for that matter to be art.

I've given my perception of what I would think he would mean by the act, each and everyone else would probably have a different perception. That kind of expression, it's almost like a Rorschach Test, a Freudian Slip of the artist maybe, and an inkblot for everyone looking at it--like it or hate it.

If you extend the definition of art this far, then I do hold that this is an 'anything goes' since there are no tools or criteria available to evaluate quality. It is not the definition applied by galleries and museums across the world.
It may be an enjoyable act to 'lay an egg' in the street and draw a circle around it, and entertaining as well as meaningful to an onlooker, but it does in no way compare to renaissance architecture or a Da Vinci drawing. Maybe that's why I got the impression you were mocking by expanding on this example, which gop brought up as a response to the drawing I presented.

What I, and others, have asserted is that the meaning and possible interpretations of a piece are not endless and subjective, but limited in range and scope, embedded in the piece itself through the artist (including on a subconscious level), and at times the meaning, or an essential part of it, is precise - as in my example of the Da Vinci. Without going further into detail, I'd claim the aim of the artist and the meaning one can extract from the piece itself are congruous in this example, one of the criteria of assessing quality.

Next, which neatly follows:
People discuss art
They think it is so special
I say it is dumbFor it to be 'dumb', it must have no intelligent and identifiable meaning, I already gave an example of the opposite on page one. Perhaps the 'dumbness' of art is the result of an unwillingness or inability to engage with it?

[quantumechanic]

Let me run this by you, Haiku San:

Do you like music?

If not, then OK- you really do have a tin ear for all art,
and there is no getting through to you.

If you do like music, do you like only instrumental music?

If so then at least you have the classical symphonies
(stripped of their choral sections).

But if you like music which includes the human voice
then you enjoy poetry more than you realize.

For example, here is a loose translation of part of
Beethoven's 9th:

Joy is drunk by all God's creatures,
Straight from Earth's adundant breast.
Good and bad, all things are Nature's,
And with blameless Joy are blessed.
Joy brings mirth and wine, Her gladness
Makes the Universe Her zone,
From the worm Who tastes Spring's madness
To the angel near God's throne.


More recently, if not exactly up to date,
are the lyrics of Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind:

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, n how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, n how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before theyre forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind,
The answer is blowin in the wind.

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, n how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, n how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind,
The answer is blowin in the wind.

How many years can a mountain exist
Before its washed to the sea?
Yes, n how many years can some people exist
Before theyre allowed to be free?
Yes, n how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesnt see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin in the wind,
The answer is blowin in the wind.


No doubt truly contemporary music has some great lyrics
to offer as well. Let us hope that contemporary economics
do not lead to modern rendition of:

Buddy, can you spare a dime?
Not taking Gopman's side here, but I don't think that's a good example to argue your point.
After all, we only listen to songs because we like the tunes. I don't recall any song (or it's words) becoming famous if the song wasn't popular and the tune wasn't catchy. A catchy tune is the very definition of entertaining.