The Point Of Art
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
The metal cube, the way the 2nd woman describes it, is laced with the group-think value generating talk.
this illustrates an insufferable haughtiness I've seen all too often. it is a look at the pseudo-sophisticated "adult" methods of people saying to other people [in other words], "I'm smarter than you." it is not even confined to the art world but to culture in general. I could do without the whole deal. why do people have to behave like this?
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Preferring to leave the interpretation of the works to his viewers, Rauschenberg allowed chance to determine the placement and combination of the different found images and objects in his artwork such that there were no predetermined arrangements or meanings embedded within the works.
thank you Grebels that was educational in a way that I could grok
an artist who is personable is a unique and valuable person indeed, in my limited experience, one who makes the world of art worthwhile in a unique and uniquely accessible way. your world-of-art explanations are succinct and illustrative.
The Point of Art varies if you are doing it, living it, or just observing others who do.
I drove five hours to meet a famous mechanic. In my world an artist. He makes ninety year old motorcycles run like new. There are lots of mechanics, a few good ones, the greats are rare.
There are arts beyond image and words.
He showed me a 1923 BMW, it started first kick. A customer of his also had one. Of sixteen known, eleven in museums, they had two, so they raced them on back country roads at 75mph. He lives the art.
Many things can be raised to the level of an art. Only art it's self allows entry level work to claim to be art.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
I especially hate abstract.
In my philistinic opinion, if I have to have what I'm seeing in a painting explained to me then that artist has failed to produce anything worthy of being called art.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Explaining a work of art is like explaining a joke - if the person doesn't "get it" right from the start, then any explanation will only make the experience worse.
Being told what to think is an insult.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
I'd much rather have the joke explained to me, than to 1] totally miss out on the humor, and 2] be totally written off by the jokester as not being able to get it or not worthy of the effort, just because they are too lazy/haughty to bother trying to explain it to me. if I tell a joke that nobody else understands, at least I will give my audience the benefit of the doubt and try to convey my meaning to them as best I can, they are worth it by default, unless they later prove themselves not worthy [like if they throw rotten vegetables at me]. same for any quasi-artistic creation of mine, I will gladly describe my philosophy/creative process to anybody willing to listen.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,697
Location: the island of defective toy santas
Art is merely expression.
No purpose but that.
Ha! merely an expression.
Yes, ART IS an expression;
but that is
what
human
life
is all
about;
expression;
Far, FAr, FAR
from 'merely'.
"Loneliness doesn't come from having no one around you,
but from being unable to communicate the things that are important to you."
-Carl Jung
Without art; human being is less than human being; history shows this truth
over and over and over again. And truly mechanical cognition leaning ways of
life takes away human soul in mind and body balance with the rest of nature;
human heArt in terms of feeling a full range of nuanced emotion;
and human spirit in terms of communicating emotional and
sensory feelings to other human beings; and the rest of
Nature aka God. More or less this interconnecting
purpose of ART is reflective of the creating
Force that is one and same AS Nature
aka
GOD.
To put it in
'layman's terms'
ART is GOD Now, As Is,
as total connecting Force
of All that is; again aka GOD.
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
nerdygirl
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,645
Location: In the land of abstractions and ideas.
There is no ONE point or purpose to art.
Art, in its various mediums, is a form a communication.
Why do people communicate? The reasons are endless.
The further art gets from words and representational pictures, the more abstract it becomes because it is further from standard forms of communication. I personally find that an explanation of abstract art is sometimes helpful. As a composer, I *want* to explain certain of my pieces.
I think three questions arise when considering art:
1) What is it about?
2) What does it mean?
3) How was it made?
Question #1 is fair, and it is reasonable for an artist to explain this or for a viewer/listener to ask. Sometimes, this answer is obvious (ie. representational art). Sometimes, this is not obvious (abstract art). It is helpful to know what it is ABOUT. Who would read a book without knowing the topic? Knowing what the piece of art is about allows us to form a frame of reference to be able to view or listen to the art, which may help our ability to understand it. Without a basic understanding of what the art is about, we cannot judge whether or not the artist effectively communicated. The answer to this question should come only from the artist, not some critic.
Question #2 is a bit subjective, so it probably isn't a fair question. The artist might explain what the art means to him/her, but it is not right to expect that the art will mean the same thing to the viewer/listener. Any explanation here might help the viewer/listener to understand the *artist*, but perhaps not the artwork.
Question #3 is superfluous. Ultimately, the artist either did or did not effectively communicate. One does not need to know HOW the artist did the work in order to know whether or not the communication was effective. I also do not believe that knowing the technique behind the creation of the art increases one's enjoyment of it. Only if someone is particularly interested in an artist's technique would this be an interesting question. Some might argue that an artist's technique helped or hindered the communication of the idea, but that is a discussion best left to art critics and art appreciation classes. Most people don't care about these nitty-gritty details.
Fred you have said this far better than I could have done. Thanks.
You are welcome, Mike; my pleasure;
only part of a mind and body, out of balance
is a horrible state of being human
aka human being
in my humble
opinion.
I aim to help
others get whole...
It's not always easy...
Smiles..
_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI
Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !
http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Do you struggle to get your point across sometimes? |
25 Feb 2024, 8:40 pm |
Jupiter May Have Been Flat At One Point, Not Spherical |
20 Feb 2024, 3:37 am |
worst jobs in US (I am number one [exclamation point]) |
06 Feb 2024, 11:00 pm |