Art

[Clem is Me]

I have long held the belief that any art is valid as long as anyone says it is. If one songle peson sees art in something, then art it is.

More importantly, perhaps, I believe artists are tools only. Things that make art. Once they display their art it is no longer theirs, but whoever experiences it. The physical manifestation of the art can be traded, given, bought or sold but the art itself, which is the experincer's reaction to the piece, is the only part of the piece that really mattered.

I see this with bulletin board posts, as well. A lot of times people get frustrated that their beloved posts are not responded to the way the writer thinks they ought to be, and they get all whiny. But I think that's an ego problem more than anything else. What's more I can gather a good amount of relevant thought from just about any post I see. Because, like art, I own those thoughts now. If the other people really wanted to keep their thoughts pristine they should not have shared.

Discuss...

 

[Johnnz]

One of our modern fallacies is that art cannot be confined to normal categories of judgement and morality. That fails to recognise that all artists express themselves and their beliefs through their art. Indeed, many artists have been at the leading edges of change and new philosophies.

That artistic judgements are subjective arises from the modern rational mentality - if it's cant be seen, measured, weighed and quantified in some way it is thereby something less than 'objective' and knowable in that sense. We hav etended to emphasise rationality to the extent that we are often suspicious of anything that falls outside of that process. Sadly, most of life comes under that category.

Whereas artistic criteria are difficult to define and therefore evaluate, we must question the belief that we cannot attach moral and intellectual factors that are expressions of the artist him/herself to any work of art. Or to art itself. After all, can there be good art and bad art?

John
NZ

 

[Anjinsan]

Actually, can we ever have something beyond good-art-someone's-opinion or bad-art-in-someone's-opinion?

 

[Eve_Sundancer]

If you try your hardest to be clear in your posts, then people usually can understand what you mean. And really, this is just the internet. People shouldn't get too offended by people they will most likely never meet.

 

[Subordinationist]

"Art is I; Science is we."
--Claude Bernard

Art is a reflection of an individual. To say, "This isn't art!" is like saying, "This is not a real person!" Or, "This does not represent you!" Therefore, I agree with Chem, in that anything that someone calls art, is art. Now, is it good art? We can designate anything we want with moral or immoral qualities, and we can obviously see the artistic abilities (realism) of some art outweigh those of others (Modern vs. Classical). But can we say, "Thats not music!"? No.



.