Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Picture without a camera

Subject: [OM] Re: Picture without a camera
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:46:58 -0700
Andrew Fildes wrote:
> The only two universal criteria for 'art' that I've ever seen hold  
> true are -
> 1. It must involve modification, even if only moving it from A to B.
> 2. A substantial number of recognised and influential experts must  
> agree that it is art.
>   
A nice, practical definition for the world of commerce. Codswallop for 
any other purpose.

Art and craft are often shown as synonyms in dictionaries. As  regular 
crossword puzzle worker, I find the clue "craft" and the answer "art" 
quite often. I'm not at all sure I agree with this personally, but it is 
clearly pretty common usage.

My personal definition is something on the order of "something 
made/modified/framed by a person or people that moves me"
**
> Nothing else actually works without exception. That's pretty basic.  
> Nevertheless, it enables a photographer to claim 'art' by extracting  
> an section of a scene, as the process of selection is an artistic  
> decision. A lot of the time we just throw a frame around a bit of  
> reality.
>
> But - Mahler was not writing Musak for lifts.
>   
Brian Eno was, and I am of the firm opinion that he is an artist.
> Van Gogh was not illustrating bicycle advertisements.
>   
*Toulouse Latrec did illustrated ads, that are widely regarded as art.
*
> No-one ever mistook them for craftsmen - they just thought them to be  
> poor artists - but still artists.
>   
Is art glass art, because it says so, or craft because I can put flowers 
in it? I say it's art if it moves me in the way that other examples of 
art move me. If it doesn't move you, it isn't art to you. Are Tiffany's 
windows and lamps art or craft?

I recently went to an exhibit of quilts from a tiny rural backwater of 
the American South. They were, and have traditionally been, made for the 
practical purpose of keeping people warm. And, because of their poverty, 
are often made from scraps of worn clothing, curtains, torn bits of 
cloth found on the roadside, etc. Craft. And yet, I saw them in the fine 
arts museum of San Francisco in a special traveling exhibit of fine arts 
museums around the US.

And, in the accompanying video, it is clear that, although there are 
traditional forms of design, young women growing up in this society were 
strongly encouraged to find their own, individual form(s) of expression, 
within or outside of the traditional forms, in creating their own 
quilts. And there is clear recognition in the community of those who are 
and were masters in the design of their quilts. Art. All of them are 
capable of making functional quilts, the craft, and the larger ones are 
actually put together from the pieces created by individuals, by groups 
working together.

By my own definition, many pieces were art, others not.
> <big snip>
>
>
> I wrote my Honour's Thesis
And I wrote a high school paper on definitions of art as espoused by 
Coleridge and Joyce. No honour's ( nor honor's), but I did get the 
highest mark in the class. Actually an amazing class for HS. The teacher 
would often have a couple of prints of painting or sculpture or a couple 
of pieces of prose or poetry up on the board and ask for an essay on 
which was better and why. 15 minutes to write, 15 more for him to grade 
them, then half an hour of discussion. It was perfectly possible to 
choose the "wrong" item and get an "A". I like to think I may have 
actually changed his opinion once....
> ..on an Australian poet and journalist who drew a distinction between his 
> 'real' poetry and the popular stuff he  
> wrote for the big distribution weekly that he edited between the wars. 
Generally, IMO, the creators of arts and crafts haven't a clue about 
whether what they create is art or not. Opinions, yes - in plenty.

I've seen, and heard, stuff that was less interesting to me than the 
wall on which it was hung or the silence it replaced, clearly art by 
your commercial definition, but not even worthy of the name craft to me.

As an aside, I'm not sure what to do about those things that don't raise 
essentially no response in me, but which I actively dislike. They have 
affected me, so are they then art? Or do I then need yet another term?
> Not that his poems in the paper were poor doggerel - they were  
> actually very good, sometimes brilliant - but they were written for a  
> very different and appreciative audience as well as for weekly  
> income. It's just that his craft sometimes approached the level of art.
> Equally I can think of artists who do both 'proper art' and 'popular  
> illustration' and draw a distinction between the two. 
As can I draw a distinction, but I don't believe that my distinctions, 
yours, or those of the "recognised and influential experts" actually 
"make" anything art or not, except in a commercial sense in a particular 
time and place.

To put it another way, I suppose I'm saying that art is not in the 
object, but in the viewer. As such, it is not possible to define in 
objective terms.
> <'nother big snip>
>
> So anyway,  tell me, is this art? -
> http://www.pbase.com/afildes/image/81047385
>   
Not bad, but on the whole, no. I find my critical facility coming up 
immediately, evaluating it, rather than experiencing some internal 
shift, gut feeling, recognition of something there that affects me 
beyond the "craft", for want of a better word. Pleasing, in some ways, 
but not art for me.

I have the same problem. I think this is art, but most others who see it 
don't have an emotional response to it and just flip quickly on to the 
next print.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Home/Ghost.htm

And this is in most respects just another competent picture of a piece 
of nature, like uncountable pics by me and others. Yet every time it 
shows up on my random screensaver, it has an effect on me. So for me, 
it's art, and I plan to do a big, framed print of it. For me, if no one 
else. http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/Flowers/pages/FL01.htm
>   - and if so, who do I sleep with to get that simple reality recognised?
>   
Obviously not me.

Probably no anyone, without clearer definition. The antecedent of "that 
simple reality" in unclear. One may assume you meant "this is art", but 
cannot be sure as the literal antecedent is "is this art?" :-)

Moose

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz