Pompous PureX Pontificates ...

[PureX]

How about this one?

You're leaving out the context, and showing only the content. Why?

From just the content, I would say this is a work of art. This is a specific selection of imagery based on the relationships they provide the artist for rendering them. For example, the sharp lines of the building on the left that lead the eye right to the center of the work like railroad tracks, juxtaposed with the freeform lines of the tree and vegetation on the right, and sitting in the middle is a building that is very symmetrical. and then the eye can "pass under" that building through the arch (pointing up) and then up to the tall structure behind. The arrangement of this overall image has a plan, a flow, and that flow corresponds to the different textures inferred by the lines and colors. There is a deliberateness to the way these harmonize that I believe is the result of a conscious intent on the part of the artist. This is not just an illustration, and it's not just decorative. There is a real exploration of shapes and texture and juxtapositions going on in this meant to take our eyes on a little journey.

Also, if it were an illustration, what would it be illustrating? What purpose could it serve as an illustration? The "kitchen" illustration could be from an old advertisement, or it could be an illustration from a story book, or from a home magazine. But if this work were an illustration, what would it illustrate? Archways? Trees? Towers?

 

[doppelganger]

I think he's asking if you see the artist in the piece.

Correct. And what of the artist do you see in either of those two pieces? Do you see more of the artist in the second painting I posted than you see of Duchamp in a photograph of a shovel or a toilet on a pedestal?

 

[doppelganger]

You're leaving out the context, and showing only the content. Why?

Because there is a claim that "art" is recognizing the artist in the work. If you have the context then you are taking your own knowledge about the artist (the "Image of the artist") and projecting it into the work. But if art is recognizing the artist in the artwork, then the context should be unnecessary. You should be able to tell me about the artist from what you recognize in this painting.

Also, if it were an illustration, what would it be illustrating? What purpose could it serve as an illustration? The "kitchen" illustration could be from an old advertisement, or it could be an illustration from a story book, or from a home magazine. But if this work were an illustration, what would it illustrate? Archways? Trees? Towers?

What if it were illustrating soup cans? The fact that a picture of soup cans is in an art gallery makes it "art" today, but if the same picture is in soup ad in Harper's the next day, then it's not "art"?

 

[Willamena]

Wait just a minute here bucko.....what difference does that make in labeling something art?

Because it's a statement of intent...? Assuming, of course, that the author of the works knows what art is.

 

[doppelganger]

Galleries are just a place to show off works, nothing more.

That's not what I'm reading in this thread, though. Context is what matters apparently and not content. If Duchamp's photograph was used for a Home Depot ad for a big shovel sale, would it be "art"?

 

[Buttercup]

Galleries are just a place to show off works, nothing more.

Hehe....ok, we'll stop now. You can call the shovel art. I'll say it's not.

To me it's art if you know the creator. If you don't know the creator, it's not art. It's simply a shovel with a humourous caption, nothing more. Duchamp was trying to make a point...I'm not sure he was creating what we call "art".

One of the parameters for what I personally call art is that the item in question must stand alone 1,000 years from now and humans will understand it for the most part.

Let's say 1,000 years from now every written account of Warhol was lost and all we had left were his original silk screen of cans. Would people consider that art? It's hard to say but the meaning would be lost without the explanation behind the work. To me, that's not art. Art should need no explantion.

 

[Willamena]

Correct. And what of the artist do you see in either of those two pieces? Do you see more of the artist in the second painting I posted than you see of Duchamp in a photograph of a shovel or a toilet on a pedestal?

Why would you expect art happen on demand? They're just paintings to me. However, if you've read my blog (and I know you have) you can see how I've seen some of the artist in a certain reggae musician's work, where listening to others leaves me cold.

 

[Willamena]

That's not what I'm reading in this thread, though. Context is what matters apparently and not content. If Duchamp's photograph was used for a Home Depot ad for a big shovel sale, would it be "art"?

The context does not equate to venue, although the venue can be context. The context is the circumstances under which the work came into being as an expression of a human being.

 

[PureX]

Wait just a minute here bucko.....what difference does that make in labeling something art?

It makes a lot of difference because it tells us at least what the artist thought he was doing. That doesn't necessarily mean he was doing what he thought he was doing, but it's a pretty big clue. Also, it happens with artists that after they die, their relatives get greedy and start searching through their effects for any kind of image they can sell. The artist may have done an illustration for some magazine to make a few bucks, or a sketch for his own personal reasons, but did not consider that illustration or sketch a work of art. But then after he dies, the estate-keepers start framing up everything he laid his hands on and selling it off as "art": postcards, letters, doodles, everything. This has happened to a number of artist, and that's why the artist's intent matters to me.

And besides that, we are living in the "post-modern" era. All sorts of things that we would not have otherwise thought of as art has been used to become art, and so just looking at a picture without the context is a rather silly way of judging, now days. Lots of modern/post-modern art depends upon it's context.

 

[Buttercup]

It makes a lot of difference because it tells us at least what the artist thought he was doing. That doesn't necessarily mean he was doing what he thought he was doing, but it's a pretty big clue. Also, it happens with artists that after they die, their relatives get greedy and start searching through their effects for any kind of image they can sell. The artist may have done an illustration for some magazine to make a few bucks, or a sketch for his own personal reasons, but did not consider that illustration or sketch a work of art. But then after he dies, the estate-keepers start framing up everything he laid his hands on and selling it off as "art": postcards, letters, doodles, everything. This has happened to a number of artist, and that's why the artist's intent matters to me.

And besides that, we are living in the "post-modern" era. All sorts of things that we would not have otherwise thought of as art has been used to become art, and so just looking at a picture without the context is a rather silly way of judging, now days. Lots of modern/post-modern art depends upon it's context.

I thought that was an odd response because I'm sure Neiman would consider his work art. Does that matter to you? What Neiman thinks?

 

[doppelganger]

Why would you expect art happen on demand?

I don't. If you see nothing of the artist in either painting then you don't, right?

However, if you've read my blog (and I know you have) you can see how I've seen some of the artist in a certain reggae musician's work, where listening to others leaves me cold.

I've read your posts about that and enjoyed them very much. Can you expound on this idea though? When you "see the artist" in a reggae song, what are you seeing? If someone else "sees the artist" is a song that leaves you cold, does that mean they don't know what "art" is? I ask because the OP and numerous posts in this thread are about precisely the idea that there is an objective measure for what is and is not "art".

What you wrote here simply sounds like a statement about whether a song catches your attention or not. Have you ever heard a song several times and not really had it do anything for you, but fallen in love with it on the sixth or seventh hearing?

 

[doppelganger]

The context does not equate to venue, although the venue can be context. The context is the circumstances under which the work came into being as an expression of a human being.

So if Duchamp were inspired to express his humanness by taking a photo of a shovel, it would not matter that the first time you saw it was in a Home Depot ad for a big shovel sale, it would still be art?

Let's say every motive he had was exactly the same, except in our alternate scenario, the gallery refused to show it so he sells it to an ad agency to use in their Home Depot ad. "Art" or not?

 

[PureX]

Let's say 1,000 years from now every written account of Warhol was lost and all we had left were his original silk screen of cans. Would people consider that art? It's hard to say but the meaning would be lost without the explanation behind the work. To me, that's not art. Art should need no explanation.

Dichamp and Warhol were making art about art. That's why they're a poor example to use in this discussion. Making and defining art was the subject of their artworks, which leads us into a whole other level of conceptual abstraction that mostly is only going to confuse things. I think it would be a good idea to leave conceptual anomalies like Warhol and Duchamp out of this.

They are legitimate artists, but they are also especially difficult for people who are not educated in some art theory and history to grasp. They're exploring the art endeavor, itself, and if one doesn't understand that endeavor in the first place, they aren't likely to recognize how, why, or when someone else is exploring the nature of that endeavor, through it. Art is difficult enough to talk about without getting into these double-entendre abstractions. And I do agree with you that this is the essential flaw in artists making "art about making art". It gets so convoluted that it becomes just silly and meaningless. Frankly, I think of the whole Andy Warhol Show as silly and meaningless a lot of the time. But I have to give him credit where credit is due. He was an artist, he did make art, and some of it is truly great. Same goes for Marcel Duchamp.

 

[PureX]

Because there is a claim that "art" is recognizing the artist in the work. If you have the context then you are taking your own knowledge about the artist (the "Image of the artist") and projecting it into the work.

But the context IS PART OF THE WORK. This is what modern and post-modern art has shown us.

But if art is recognizing the artist in the artwork, then the context should be unnecessary.

I don't see why. We recognize the artist's spirit in their work by empathizing with their decision-making as they created and showed the artwork, and the context in which a work is shown is certainly a part of those artistic decisions. That's especially true of modern art.

 

[Buttercup]

Frankly, I think of the whole Andy Warhol Show as silly and meaningless a lot of the time. But I have to give him credit where credit is due. He was an artist, he did make art, and some of it is truly great. Same goes for Marcel Duchamp.

Ok, we can agree on this paragraph. I can easily call Warhol and Duchamp artists even if I cannot call all of their work art. However, I still contend that a great artist (I'll qualify it )creates works that need no explanation or further outside clues as to the general idea or "feel" of his or her work, post modern or not. If an artist's motivation is to share (one of your definitions of art).....the sharing should be universally understood. No explanation needed.

 

[PureX]

I thought that was an odd response because I'm sure Neiman would consider his work art. Does that matter to you? What Neiman thinks?

Yes. But in Neiman's case, I think he's wrong. I also doubt that he cares. He's making lots of money, by making pretty decorations, and I think that's his 'dream job'. So he doesn't care that most of the art world thinks he's a hack and a huckster. If I were him, I probably wouldn't care, either.

 

[PureX]

Ok, we can agree on this paragraph. I can easily call Warhol and Duchamp artists even if I cannot call all of their work art. However, I still contend that a great artist (I'll qualify it )creates works that need no explanation or further outside clues as to the general idea or "feel" of his or her work, post modern or not. If an artist's motivation is to share (one of your definitions of art).....the sharing should be universally understood. No explanation needed.

Well, I think we are beginning to slide into personal taste a little bit, here, but I mostly agree. Art that I consider truly great does not rely on some time/place/idea-specific context. And I'll give you an example:

Michelangelo's "David"​

In this sculpture, Michelangelo set out to try and capture the ideal image of a young man. And he did it so well, and so magnificently, that for centuries, anyone who looks at this sculpture knows immediately what he was trying to do, and knows immediately that he has succeeded, to near perfection. We don't have to know what "David" Michelangelo was referring to. We don't have to have some art professor tell us what Michelangelo was trying to do when he made this sculpture, because he did it, and it's right there for all the world to see. I consider this a great work of art because it is timeless, and culture-less. All we have to be, to appreciate this sculpture, is human.

And as to "seeing the artist in the artwork", to stand in front of this sculpture, and take in it's details, and it's perfect proportions, and it's flawless surface, and to empathize with what it would take to create this object, is to begin to get a sense of the man who made it. Michelangelo had a special vision, that enabled him to see the human body not only amazingly accurately and realistically, but also ideally, as well. And he spent a lifetime perfecting that vision, and perfecting the means through which he tried to share that vision with the rest of us. That's what he did with his time on Earth, and he chose to do that. I think that tells us a lot about the kind of man he was. I think he was driven by a passion for "perfection", not just perfection like being able to realistically depict a human body, but perfection as an ideal. Perfection as in the perfection of God. I think Michelangelo's "David" is an attempt at capturing the perfection of God, as it was expressed in human form, through the character of "David". I think all of his work has this same theme running through it. And what little we know of Michelangelo, historically, tends to bear this out.

Perfection is a terrible goal to pursue. Because it's unattainable. And the closer we get the more difficult the task becomes, and the more frustrating. And we will always fail. Always. This was Michelangelo's life. It's not one I would want to live. But then look what he left us! He can say "I made that"!

 

[Buttercup]

Perfection is a terrible goal to pursue. Because it's unattainable. And the closer we get the more difficult the task becomes, and the more frustrating. And we will always fail. Always. This was Michelangelo's life. It's not one I would want to live. But then look what he left us! He can say "I made that"!

Very good points, especially about the perfection aspect. However, in Mikey's case...his goal of personal perfection has the residual result in that his expression, his sharing of himself perfectly expressed his motivation and intentions. So much so that as you point out...we still "get" his work centuries later. I hope wherever he is now he sees that his perfectionistic tendencies had lasting results in quality. Hopefully he's relaxing now. Perfectionists are some of the most difficult people to get along with or live with.

 

[PureX]

I hope wherever he is now he sees that his perfectionistic tendencies had lasting results in quality. Hopefully he's relaxing now.

From your computer to God's ears. *smile*

And even before he died, I hope he was able to stop and stand and look and enjoy what he'd done. I will say that as an artist, for me, there was no more amazing and wonderful feeling than to finally reach the point where I knew the sculpture was finished, and I could just stand there and look at it, and be completely and thoroughly astonished by it - that it came out of me?!

 

[Buttercup]

I will say that as an artist, for me, there was no more amazing and wonderful feeling than to finally reach the point where I knew the sculpture was finished, and I could just stand there and look at it, and be completely and thoroughly astonished by it - that it came out of me?!

Yes, I can fully understand. Leaves you feeling satisfied and fullfilled for days or weeks. It's confirmation that the need you have inside to create is not frivolous, shallow or fleeting. You have enough love to see it through to it's natural end. And the result pleases you. If it pleases others.....that is delicious icing.

For me...since I am now a decorator/designer (self titled btw) of jewelry, my most rewarding times are when others view my work as good enough to buy. I know, sounds crass but these days I'm all about making money with my craft. Ten years from now I may return to more noble motivations. When I had a national company pick up my spring and summer lines to sell in their 105 stores in the US and Canada, that was satisfaction to me.