Pompous PureX Pontificates ...

[Willamena]

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?

I see things that I recognize as the artist's expression of his or her "self". PureX listed intent, which is directly an expression of will/self; other things that can shine through are things like love and an understanding of what it is to be spirit. Art is not the interpretation, though; it is the fact that there is a human being behind each and every one of those interpreted things, that those things are being non-verbally communicated to you, and the recognition of that. Art happens in the moment.

The definition also requires an artist. These things are placed in the works with deliberation for any to see, hence when I see them I see the artist and I know him by them. If it's not deliberately done for art, then the author of them isn't an artist, and hence we are not discussing art but objects, attractive as they may be. If a painting were carefully hung, for instance, in an anomalous place where it obviously didn't belong, I would know it was done with deliberation, and that says "intent". It causes me to wonder what that intent may be. We don't have to know what the intent is to recognize that there is intent; still, it's not art unless it communicates to us something of that intent (otherwise art is indistinguishable from anything else we do in life, all of which require intent).

As a measure, "the artist in the art" is subjective; but I imagine some may make an argument for an objective measure if it were generalized so as to be subjective to the group, the whole of humanity: "humanity recognizing human identity in human works"? I think we'd properly have to give it a new name, though, other than "art." Art is personal.

It doesn't matter one iota what anyone else sees or calls "art", because I am the one interpreting input from the world around me, and both structuring my world and being structured by it. I am the one who does recognition of the artist --self to self.

Yes, I have often loved a song only after having heard it many times. Art, though, like omen, happens in the moment; it could happen on the first audience or the 101st.

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?

I'm stuck on trying to imagine an expression of "humanness" in a shovel... To me, what makes us all "human" is that we build these identities and live through them all our lives, so on hearing that Duchamp was expressing "humanness," I could probably justify it as art, with a stretch. It's placement as an ad is not relevant to that motive; the reason PureX has a problem with such placement is because it clearly and directly speaks to another motive, one that's not artistic. Without the prior motive being stated, the latter would, and properly should, be assumed.

When you ask, "Is this art? Is that art?" then the answer will (and should) always be "no" until a human being has looked at it and, if appropriate, recognized "the artist in the art."

Thanks, for making me think through and refine my ideas.

 

[PureX]

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.

I can understand. I got burned out as an artist. It's too hard in this culture to do art, seriously, at least for me. So I'm now semi-retired. But I can't wait until I can finally get my shop set up and start making things, again. This time, though, I'm not going to think about making art, I'm just going to make things for people, and sell them, and enjoy myself. What, exactly, those things will be, I'm not sure. I'm going to let whim dictate that. I love making stuff. And I find that it's just as creative an endeavor to build a boat as it is to build a sculpture. But this culture understands building a boat, while it does not understand building sculptures. And I can go fishing with the boat when I'm done. *haha*

However, I could see the day when I decide to maybe do some drawing, or some small art object of some kind, and then I'll be right back to the races.

 

[Willamena]

And as to "seeing the artist in the artwork"...

Oh! that's better-worded. I'll start using that; then I don't have to keep switching contexts.

 

[PureX]

I'm stuck on trying to imagine an expression of "humanness" in a shovel... To me, what makes us all "human" is that we build these identities and live through them all our lives, so on hearing that Duchamp was expressing "humanness," I could probably justify it as art, with a stretch. It's placement as an ad is not relevant to that motive; the reason PureX has a problem with such placement is because it clearly and directly speaks to another motive, one that's not artistic. Without the prior motive being stated, the latter would, and properly should, be assumed.

When you ask, "Is this art? Is that art?" then the answer will (and should) always be "no" until a human being has looked at it and, if appropriate, recognized "the artist in the art."

Thanks, for making me think through and refine my ideas.

I see Duchamp the human in the set of decisions made in presenting the shovel to us, and in the context he gave it. Keep in mind that no one at that time had ever done anything like that. It was amazingly bold, most people thought it was incredibly insulting to the whole art endeavor, and most people at that time (and still today) couldn't grasp that Duchamp wasn't just commenting on modernism, he was also legitimately exploring the boundaries of art-making and looking for some new direction to move in besides modernism, which he perceived as a pursuit of novelty through deconstruction. So on the one hand he was "deconstructing" the art endeavor to it's fewest components, partly to show his contemporaries that this would be the inevitable end of the path they were currently on, but he was also seriously doing these pieces as experiments, for himself, to try and find some new direction to work into.

I don't see Duchamp in the shovel, because he didn't make it. And I don't see Duchamp in the choice of shovel, because the style of snow shovel he chose didn't matter. But I do see him in the act of choosing it, and titling it, and in exhibiting it. I see both a very intelligent man, and a man with a sense of humor, but also a caring and concerned man who loved art and was worried over the direction it had taken.

And oddly enough, I think we could say some of these same things about Andy Warhol and his artwork.

 

[doppelganger]

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.

BTW, this painting was by Adolf Hitler. Knowing that, do you see more of the artist in the painting than you did before?
Here it is again (and, yes, it sold for a lot of money):

 

[PureX]

As an artist, I would say that the person who made this was rather timid and self-involved. As the artwork is not bold or risky in any way. The colors and lines are laid down kind of thin. And the images are a little clustered. It's a better drawing than I would have given Hitler credit for. I was told he was a lousy artist and that it was partly his frustration with himself as a failed artist that led him to become a fascist. I was also told that he suffered from untreated syphilis, so who knows what really motivated him to become what he did.

We know very little of Hitler as a young man, or as an intimate man. Yet he was those things, too.

 

[cardero]

I can understand. I got burned out as an artist. It's too hard in this culture to do art, seriously, at least for me. So I'm now semi-retired. But I can't wait until I can finally get my shop set up and start making things, again. This time, though, I'm not going to think about making art, I'm just going to make things for people, and sell them, and enjoy myself. What, exactly, those things will be, I'm not sure. I'm going to let whim dictate that. I love making stuff. And I find that it's just as creative an endeavor to build a boat as it is to build a sculpture.
However, I could see the day when I decide to maybe do some drawing, or some small art object of some kind, and then I'll be right back to the races.

I noticed that this was posted two years ago. I was just wondering, are you now involved in the plan outlined above?

PureX writes: But this culture understands building a boat, while it does not understand building sculptures. And I can go fishing with the boat when I'm done. *haha*

HaHa but then I can paint a picture of you out on your boat and go everyday with you whether you are there are not, so na, na-na, na, na.

 

[PureX]

I noticed that this was posted two years ago. I was just wondering, are you now involved in the plan outlined above?

I'm still trying to get myself set up for it, but it is still my plan. I've gotten delayed by a project of buying and fixing up to resell some mobile homes. I've had trouble getting titles for two of them, and I can't sell them without titles. Once I get these two sold, there is a place I want to buy that has enough room for me to set up a shop.