Art and Popularity

[jovan]

*Originally posted by chorus *
As far as I’m concerned, if it isn’t made with some kind of intent, it isn’t art.

Regardless of how broad or narrow your definition of art is, intent is always going to be there. Art starts when someone decides to make something. You’re right.

Does the artist demonstrate skill?

Ah, you’ve fallen in the good art / bad art trap. A two year-old kid’s drawing may not show much skill, because of that, to some, it’s bad art, but it’s art nonetheless. If something engages the mind but did not require much skill in its creation, is it still valuable?

To me it means that art should at least be understandable by the public even though they may not like it. Art should never be so elitist as to exclude most people. Hence it could be popular or it might not be, but it should at least be understandable by the masses.

• Kuro kami no chi suji no kami no midaregami katsu omoi midare omoi midaruru*

Did you get that? It’s one of my favourite poems, it’s by Akiko Yosano. Can you even tell why I like it? Probably not. And if you can, most people on this board can’t. In the context of the SDMB, this poem is inaccessible. Does it mean it’s bad? Does it mean it’s not art? Does it mean you’re dumb? No, no, and certainly not. It just means you don’t understand classical Japanese. The problem with your statement is that it’s hard to figure out who those masses are. I’m surrounded by fellow art snobs, to me this is my mass.

The second problem I have with your statement is that you can’t learn anything if an artwork is too easy to understand. IMHO, if art doesn’t change you or the way you view the world a little bit, it has failed. This ususally requires some sort of effort on the part of the viewer.

I also think Stephen King is (usually) art. “Jurassic Park” (the first movie, certainly not any of the others). Tolkein.

But I don’t think “Mulholland Drive” is art. Or “Eyes Wide Shut”. Or the book “Pilgrim”.

Why is that? Because you liked the formers whereas the latters left you cold? Again, you seem to say “if it’s not good, it’s not art.” As much as it really pains me to say this [sub]yes, the Backstreet Boys do art.[/sub]

I hope I don’t sound like I’m coming down too hard on you. In a previous life I was making fun of people staring at monochrome paintings after all so I understand how you feel.

Please don’t give in to your gut reactions, because when you do you usually miss an opportunity to learn something. You might have to study Japanese for a few years to understand Yosano’s poem, but figuring out why some people like to stare at a big red pannel isn’t that hard, and you know what? if you do make the honest effort, I guarantee you it’ll make your world an itsy bit more interesting.

[chorus]

Regardless of how broad or narrow your definition of art is, intent is always going to be

there. Art starts when someone decides to make something. You’re right.

I think you’re taking me too literally. I’ll clarify: by having intent I mean the intent of

meaning. They say that any person can take a different meaning from any piece of art.

However, the TRUE meaning is the meaning that the artist intended when he went to go make

the work.

If your standing in front of a piece of work with the artist and ask "What did you intend

when you made this?" the artist should be able to give you a decent answer and not "Well,

what do you think I meant?"

If the artist paints a bunch of squares and calls it art but it doesn’t mean anything to

him, then it isn’t art (by my standards)

A two year-old kid’s drawing may not show much skill, because of that, to some, it’s bad

art, but it’s art nonetheless.

So… doodling is art? I don’t think so. Sure, any parent is gonna be like "Wow! That’s

great!" but in reality it isn’t art.

Kuro kami no chi suji no kami no midaregami katsu omoi midare omoi midaruru

Watashi no nihongo-ga warui desu ne. Otearai ni iitemoidesu ka?

Inaccessability is not the same as failing to communicate properly. Your example is

unreadable, sure. That isn’t a failing of the artist, but the audience. As far as I’m

concerned, the artist did his job.

Did I overlook the language barrier? Sure. But it doesn’t really change what I mean by “the masses”. It’s the same as the “teeming millions” i.e., general public.

The second problem I have with your statement is that you can’t learn anything if an artwork is too easy to understand.

That’s entirely incorrect. You can’t learn anything if an artwork is too hard to understand. To say that people don’t learn when what they’re taught is easy is quite frankly, ridiculous.

Why is that? Because you liked the formers whereas the latters left you cold?

The first examples satisfy my definitions of art. The latter do not (specifically, they fail to communicate anything but that people will pay their hard-earned money on pretentious movies).

As much as it really pains me to say this yes, the Backstreet Boys do art.

I don’t know enough about the backstreet boys honestly to say whether they do or not. From what I understand, they have little to do with the creative process of their music. They don’t write lyrics, play instruments, or even choreograph themselves. They sing and dance and are told what to do. That doesn’t qualify as art for me either. (If I’m wrong, then I apologize).

I hope I don’t sound like I’m coming down too hard on you. In a previous life I was making fun of people staring at monochrome paintings after all so I understand how you feel.

Don’t worry about me. A discussion (argument, debate…) without objections would be pointless.

Please don’t give in to your gut reactions, because when you do you usually miss an opportunity to learn something.

I assure you, I’ve considered it many times before making this post. The fact of the matter is this: not everything is art. Doodles by children are not art. Even elaborate movies may not be art. They may simply be just that. Elaborate productions and doodles.

Not to say that I don’t believe in “bad” art. Ex. I would consider Eminem art, but it’s bad. I wouldn’t go as far to say that it isn’t art at all.

–Chorus

[MisterThyristor]

*Originally posted by chorus *
**

I think you’re taking me too literally. I’ll clarify: by having intent I mean the intent of meaning. They say that any person can take a different meaning from any piece of art.

However, the TRUE meaning is the meaning that the artist intended when he went to go make the work.

If your standing in front of a piece of work with the artist and ask “What did you intend when you made this?” the artist should be able to give you a decent answer and not “Well, what do you think I meant?”

If the artist paints a bunch of squares and calls it art but it doesn’t mean anything to him, then it isn’t art (by my standards)

**

I really have to disagree with you here. To say that the “TRUE meaning is the meaning that the artist intended when he went to go make the work” is ridiculous.

First of all, I’m not so sure that there is a “TRUE” meaning.
Secondly, that if there is one, that it is the meaning that the artist had in mind when he created the work of art.

I think that really great works of art resonate at different levels depending on the background of the viewer.

Isaac Asimov once attended a college lecture at which his works were being analyzed. When the professor said that one of his works was about this or that, Dr. Asimov spoke up and said, “Oh, no, it definitely isn’t about that”, to which the professor said “And how do you know that?” Dr. Asimov replied, “Because I am the author!” To which the professor answered, “What makes you think that just because you are the author that you know what your story is all about?”

Now, there is a degree of pretensiousness in the professor’s remarks, but there is a great deal of truth there also. I am sure that all artists have something in mind that they are communicating. (Although they may not always be able to put the message into words – that is what the work of art is for.) But just because the artist has one meaning does not mean that it is the only meaning or the most important one. His conscious mind may have intended one thing, but his subconscious may have been communicating something more deep and universal.

**

That’s entirely incorrect. You can’t learn anything if an artwork is too hard to understand. To say that people don’t learn when what they’re taught is easy is quite frankly, ridiculous.

**

I would say that you don’t learn much if it’s too easy. You look at it, say “Oh, that’s cool, that fits into my worldview completely.” What have you learned?

If, on the other hand, it disturbs you, causing you to think about how it challenges what you already know, or think you know, then you learn more.

It may be, that after repeated viewing and thought, that you totally reject the message that the artist was trying to convey. But even if the message is rejected, it made you think and express yourself as to why you disagree.

[jovan]

Did I overlook the language barrier? Sure. But it doesn’t really change what I mean by “the masses”. It’s the same as the “teeming millions” i.e., general public.

But I still don’t get who that “general public” is. David Lynch is one of my favourite film directors. Where does that put me? Who gets to decide what’s general and what’s not? You? Me?

The Special Theory of Relativity is jibberish to your common Joe, does it mean it’s worthless? The great Zen master Ikkyu wrote poems that still leave just about everyone going: “what in the hell did he mean?” It’s not understanding the poem that’s important, it’s what you learn by trying.

You can’t overlook the language barrier because it’s all about language. I have linguistic skills that allow me to understand Yosano’s poem and form an opinion as to its worth. However, I can’t do the same for something say, Goethe wrote. I have the cultural background and musical education to form an opinion about the tracks on this record label’s site, however I lack the knowledge and experience to fully appreciate country music.

If your standing in front of a piece of work with the artist and ask “What did you intend when you made this?” the artist should be able to give you a decent answer and not “Well, what do you think I meant?”

If you can express an idea using words, what’s the point of making a picture? All artists that I know, that I heard of, will talk about their intentions and the underlying ideas behind their work. However, their true message is the one that is contained (and often hidden) within their work and can only be expressed through their work itself.

As an aside, I am of the opinion that child doodling is one of the greatest forms of art. Why? Because:
a) There is a pure intent to create. Kids are doodling for doodling’s sake.
b) Kids are expressing through their drawing things they could never say using another medium. Just ask child psychologists.
c) At a very early age, at least, their work is relatively free of cultural pressure relative to what’s “right” and “acceptable” and “good”.
d) They have to work within the very strict boundaries imposed by their lack of dexterity. Absolutely free art is often bad art in my experience.

You’re wrong about inaccessible artists not talking about their work; it’s the opposite: the more difficult, the more they seem to talk about it, often too much IMV. Sometimes I get the feeling that you have to produce a 50-page paper with each new work. (I’m exagerating of course…)

Cheers.

[lissener]

I like this, too:

*Originally posted by jovan *
**. . . It’s not understanding the poem that’s important, it’s what you learn by trying. . . . **

[CMC]

lissener, in your response to my original statement you mentioned Russell Hoban. I had never heard of him, so I went and looked him up. Sounds fascinating. I am making a trip to the bookstore today and have place him and Paul Auster at the top of my list. Thanks.

[chorus]

MisterThyristor

I really have to disagree with you here.

The more the merrier I’ll tackle this first:

Secondly, that if there is one, that it is the meaning that the artist had in mind when he created the work of art.

Isn’t that exactly what I said?? How can you disagree with the same thing!??! Here it is for completeness:

However, the TRUE meaning is the meaning that the artist intended when he went to go make the work

Now, there’s this:

First of all, I’m not so sure that there is a “TRUE” meaning.

Why aren’t you so sure? I’m sure, because I define it as aforementioned. Therefore, it must exist unless the artist had no intention whatsoever (in which case, I would not consider it art)

I think that really great works of art resonate at different levels depending on the background of the viewer.

Let me ask you this: When nobody is looking at a piece of art, does it still exist? Of course it does (don’t anybody pull some Quantum Mechanics out…). The piece of art exists entirely without an audience. Sure, the meaning of the art for any given person can change, but the art is above needing an observer. It exists (and has meaning) solely on it’s own.

“What makes you think that just because you are the author that you know what your story is all about?”

He should have said “What makes you think that just because you are the author that you know what meaning I take from it” Then it would be true. Otherwise, the guy is just trying to not look like an idiot in front of someone more important than him (Aasimov)

I would say that you don’t learn much if it’s too easy

That’s not true either. Consider Descarte’s Evil Genius (not a work of art, btw). It’s easy to communicate, and it is profound. Now, I don’t mean the meaning should be trivial, but it should be clearly communicated. I also don’t mean that you can’t learn something from hard material either. It just takes more effort, and I believe that a good artist should be able to make the understanding and appreciation of his work effortless. Don’t forget that usually art has entertainment value. But what kind of entertainment value is there if you don’t know what the heck is happening?

Jovan,

But I still don’t get who that “general public” is

Yes you do. You just refuse to accept my definition, pointing out that other definitions exist. Here’s a definition for you: “The general public is what the general public thinks you mean by the general public”

The Special Theory of Relativity is jibberish to your common Joe, does it mean it’s worthless?

No, of course it doesn’t. You’re imposing the language barrier again (this time, mathematics) which I have already admitted to overlooking. Of interesting note, however, is that you can explain Special Relativity to someone in plain English without the mathematics. You don’t need to know the math to understand the implications in the same sense that you don’t need to paint to appreciate Michaelangelo.

I lack the knowledge and experience to fully appreciate country music.

This is exactly what I said before. That such barriers are not a shortcoming of the artist, but of the audience.

If you can express an idea using words, what’s the point of making a picture?

I don’t know. Enjoyment? Be careful about the statement, cause what you’re really saying is that any picture that can be expressed in words, is pointless. Is “The Last Supper” pointless? Well, you just said that it is.

As for your child doodling, I’ll let you believe that it is great art, but I can’t say I agree. To address your points:
a) True. They are exercising the learning centers in their brain. They are developing eye-hand coordination, and learning how colours are mixed and shapes are formed. This isn’t any more artistic then practicing in a batting cage.
b) Ask child psychologists? Why not pick somebody with a more skewed sense of children’s art? Oh wait, cause there isn’t. Child psychologists deal with children that need… well… psychologists. These children tend to have problems in their lives. It is no more out of the ordinary for them to express this in their drawings than an adult. The only difference: Adults don’t tend to draw very often.
c) How does ignorance of “right” or “good” or “acceptable” make something art?
d) Point being…? And as far as I recall, I had far better dexterity as a child, but I wasn’t coordinated enough to produce anything to hang in a museum.

Anyways, enough about that.

Before you mentioned the Backstreet Boys as being artists. I claimed that since they have little or no creative role, then they are not. What do people here think? What about Britney Spears, etc? Does performing make you an artist?

PS you never answered my Japanese question… maybe I’m a bit rusty… but I really have to go.

–Chorus

[Ukulele_Ike]

*Originally posted by CMC *
…Russell Hoban. I had never heard of him, so I went and looked him up. Sounds fascinating. I am making a trip to the bookstore…

Start with Bread and Jam for Frances.

Now that’s great art!
– Ukulele “How do you know what I’ll like if you don’t even TRY me?” Ike

[lissener]

Great, CMC! (And Paul Auster is another one of my favorite authors.)

As Uke Ike indicated, Hoban wrote the Frances series thirty some odd years ago, but in case Uke Ike pointed that out to pooh-pooh Hoban as a serious artist (apologies, Uke, if not), I do hope you’ll look into him. His adult novels are some of the most important fiction written in English since Joyce, IMHO, and of course as the product of such a writer, his children’s books are nothing to be sneezed at either.

But you won’t have much luck at most bookstores: Hoban’s about fifty years ahead of his time, if you ask me; all but one of his novels is out of print, and that one–Riddley Walker, his masterpiece–had to be picked up by a University press because no commercial publisher was interested in his small but solid following. The same publisher, University of Indiana Press, has also put out The Russell Hoban Omnibus, which includes four novels, short stories essays poems, and some children’s writing (of which, The Marzipan Pig is about the most amazing thing I’ve ever read).

Here’s a bit that your post reminded me of, and that is relevant to the debate at hand:

The real reality, the flickering of seen and unseen actualities, the moment under the moment, can’t be put into words: the most that a writer can do–and this is only rarely achieved–is to write in such a way that the reader finds himself in a place where the unwordable happens off the page.

[Ukulele_Ike]

*Originally posted by lissener *
**in case Uke Ike pointed that out to pooh-pooh Hoban as a serious artist **

No way.

I’ve read his adult novels, which I respect mightily. And I LOVE his children’s books! I don’t fuck around when I recommend Bread and Jam for Frances.

Best god damn book for five year olds I’ve ever come across, and it makes me crave a Cucumber and Tomato with Cream Cheese on Rye EVERY time I read it out loud.

Joyce never did THAT.

[CMC]

Ukulele and lissener Well, lissener, you were right. Couldn’t find an Hoban at the bookstore except for his very latest (still in hardcover). So I guess i will have to research it and order some. I did however get New York Trilogy and I have to say. BRILLIANT. I have only read the first of the three, so perhaps in a couple of days I will start a thread and we and some others can discuss it. Right now, I am still in shock to similarities between his and Siri’s work. Especially in relation to the first section of the trilogy and that of the Blindfold.

Ukulele, when I order I will be sure to look for the children’s book you mentioned as well.

Thanks.

(Sorry for the detour). Return to Art and Popularity.

[Miller]

I assure you, I’ve considered it many times before making this post. The fact of the matter is this: not everything is art. Doodles by children are not art. Even elaborate movies may not be art. They may simply be just that. Elaborate productions and doodles.

Well, you’re wrong. Everything is art. Some of it is good, some of it is bad, but all of it is art. Scott McCloud, while arguing for comic books as a valid artform, defined art as “everything not directly related to survival or procreation,” which is wonderful because it completely neuters pointless discussions about “what is art?”, which is, of course, unanswerable. Or rather, it rephrases these discussions in a manner that makes more sense: not, “what is art?”, but “what is good art?”

You hold up Eyes Wide Shut as “not art.” Why? Because you didn’t like it? Using your two “absolute” definitions of art, (neither of which I agree with, btw) I can “prove” it’s art as easily as you can “prove” it’s not:

1) Did the artist have a decent idea when he made the piece of art? Eyes Wide Shut had a number of ideas in it, some great, some merely “decent.” To me, the primary point of this movie was a single, simple, rather crude joke: Tom Cruise can’t get laid. To me, that’s just sublimely hilarious. Of course, that’s not all that goes on in this movie. There are some really fascinating questions raised about fidelity, for example. Nicole Kidman confesses to fantasizing about another man. Cruise, insulted, decides to get revenge by cheating on her. Despite his best efforts, he fails. Was he cheating on his wife, because he wanted to be unfaithful, but failed? Was his wife unfaithful, because she wanted to be with another man, but never acted on her desire? Since neither of them actually did anything, should anyone care? The movie itself tells us, “no.”

2) Does the artist demonstrate skill? I challenge you to find a single shot in EWS that doesn’t demonstrate Kubrick’s total mastery of film. It is, if nothing else, a beautiful thing to look at.

Now, you’ll probably disagree with all of that. You’ll likely argue that “Tom Cruise’s blue balls” isn’t a strong enough idea to carry a feature length film. But now we’re getting all subjective. I think it is a strong enough idea. So we end up arguing about the subjective quality of the idea behind the movie to decide wether or not the movie is art, when we could just as easily cut out the middle step, agree that the movie is art, and spend or time arguing about wether or not it is good art.

And, saying that art should appeal to the “general public” is largely meaningless, because the “general public” is far, far too fractious and diverse to ever agree on the relative merits of one film/book/song/whatever over another. Titanic made more money than any other film in history, and yet it seems that for every one person who loved this film to pieces, there are two that thought it sucked like hard vacuum. Even Eyes Wide Shut, strange and inaccesible though it might be, earned about 160 million world wide. (site) Of course, a lot of those ticket buyers probably hated the movie. And a lot of those sales were for people who liked the movie well enough to see it twice. Which of these two groups do we consider authoritative when we decide if Eyes Wide Shut is art? And can you state as fact that more than half the people who saw EWS disliked it? Regardless, I’m sure that, world wide, I could find an easy five million people who liked the movie. Five million. Is that popular enough to consider EWS art?

Oh, and, Ike, “I don’t fuck around when I recommend Bread and Jam for Frances.” is my new sig. (Too bad I never use sigs…)

[MisterThyristor]

*Originally posted by chorus *
**

I’ll tackle this first:

Secondly, that if there is one, that it is the meaning that the artist had in mind when he created the work of art.

Isn’t that exactly what I said?? How can you disagree with the same thing!??!

**

No, because you took it out of context – I intended it to be a sub-clause of the first part. To write it out in full:

I’m not sure that if there is one, that it is the meaning that the artist had in mind when he created the work of art.

**

Why aren’t you so sure? I’m sure, because I define it as aforementioned. Therefore, it must exist unless the artist had no intention whatsoever (in which case, I would not consider it art)

**

And who says you get to define it?

Isn’t that what we are discussing?

And you are ignoring what I said about the possibility of the artist communicating at the subconscious level, and perhaps not be able to tell you in words what he had in mind when he created the work of art. If he asks you “What does it mean to you?”, he may be trying to find out how well he is communicating. If you give an answer that is different than what he had in his conscious mind, he may very well acknowledge the logic and meaning that you found in it.

(I will re-arrange the order of your comments in order to bring related discussions together.)

**
He should have said “What makes you think that just because you are the author that you know what meaning I take from it” Then it would be true. Otherwise, the guy is just trying to not look like an idiot in front of someone more important than him (Aasimov)
**

No, this is the whole point. Who is to say that the author (or artist) has a lock on the “true” meaning? And just for the record, after Dr. Asimov thought about it, he agreed with the professor.

**
Let me ask you this: When nobody is looking at a piece of art, does it still exist? Of course it does (don’t anybody pull some Quantum Mechanics out…). The piece of art exists entirely without an audience. Sure, the meaning of the art for any given person can change, but the art is above needing an observer. It exists (and has meaning) solely on it’s own.
**

Of course it exists physically, but does it exist as art without an observer? If art is something that communicates, it has to communicate to a recipient, or it isn’t communicating.

**
That’s not true either. Consider Descarte’s Evil Genius (not a work of art, btw). It’s easy to communicate, and it is profound. Now, I don’t mean the meaning should be trivial, but it should be clearly communicated. I also don’t mean that you can’t learn something from hard material either. It just takes more effort, and I believe that a good artist should be able to make the understanding and appreciation of his work effortless. Don’t forget that usually art has entertainment value. But what kind of entertainment value is there if you don’t know what the heck is happening?
**

Why should “a good artist … be able to make the understanding and appreciation of his work effortless”? Because someone is too mentally lazy to make the effort? (Not attacking you personally.) Yes, art has entertainment value, but art is not solely about entertainment. If you have to work a little to get it, does that make it any less art? If you don’t know “what the heck is happening”, but someone else who has the background does, does it make it any less art? I don’t particularly like jazz in the form of be-bop, but people who have more education in music than I do tell me that the listener has to have a little background in the musical language being used.

Sometimes, if a work of art makes you put out a little effort, you get that “aha” moment when you understand what the artist was trying to say. And that makes the comprehension all the sweeter.

[lissener]

*Originally posted by CMC *
**Ukulele and lissener Well, lissener, you were right. Couldn’t find an Hoban at the bookstore except for his very latest (still in hardcover). So I guess i will have to research it and order some. I did however get New York Trilogy and I have to say. BRILLIANT. I have only read the first of the three, so perhaps in a couple of days I will start a thread and we and some others can discuss it. Right now, I am still in shock to similarities between his and Siri’s work. Especially in relation to the first section of the trilogy and that of the Blindfold.

Ukulele, when I order I will be sure to look for the children’s book you mentioned as well.

Thanks.

(Sorry for the detour). Return to Art and Popularity. **

Back to “The Thread Under the Thread”: I don’t know Siri; it goes on my library list. I saw mostly postmodern Beckett in the Trilogy.

Meanwhile, what was the Hoban title you saw? I’m thrilled to think he’s finally being published in the US again (are you in the US, CMC?).

[lissener]

And now back again to “Art and Popularity.”

People, PLEASE/.

If you don’t see anything in the work under consideration, or if you don’t like, it’s preposterously arrogant for you to announce that it’s NOT ART. It might be bad art from your perspective, or it may be art that you don’t like, but it’s obnoxious to say it’s “not art.” To call something “art” doesn’t imply a judgment value. I see about 300-400 movies a year, and most of them are bad art, by bad artists. But I’m sure they must speak to somebody somewhere, so I’d never say they were “not art.” I have no right to make that determination, and neither does any of you.

So please, can we, at least for clarity’s sake, speak of bad art and good art, and not pompously declare that something is “not art” simply because we don’t like it?

[CMC]

lissener Siri Hustvedt is Paul Auster’s wife, which is how I came across his name. She has two incredible novels, The Blindfold and The Enchantment of Lily Dahl. She also has a collection of art essays, Yonder.

The title of Hoban’s book seemed to be a new one, Angelica’s Grotto. It sounded wonderful. Just didn’t have enough cash on me at the time.

And yes, I am in the US, N’awlins, to be exact. How is the dreary Pacific NW these days? (Got my MFA from UW)

[chorus]

I don’t have a lot of time right now, but I’d like to address a couple of quick things:

Well, you’re wrong. Everything is art.

That’s great. In fact I’m relieved to hear you say that. Now putting on my pants is art. So is typing this post. Anyone wanna buy it??
Seriously though, how can everything (not related to procreation or survival) be art? Does anybody truly believe this? Or is this something your art teacher told you and you regurgitated? It sounds pretty cosmic, I’ll give you that, but I must say I believe it can’t possibly be true. Why don’t you set up a “Child Pornography Art Museum” and see how many people agree with your theory that everything is art.

preposterously arrogant for you to announce that it’s NOT ART

Ah yes, let the name calling begin. No discussion is complete without the guy that willing to start pointing fingers at the idiots and the megalomaniacs. And how dare I try to come up with a definition for what is art in a thread about the definition of art. The OP asked if popularity can define art. This begs the question: Is there a definition of art, and if so, what is it?

I don’t think I will respond to any other posts because apparently having an opinion is arrogant. Sorry for the trouble.

–Chorus

[chorus]

[Despite better judgement, I make one more post:]

MisterThristor,
sorry, didn’t mean to take your point out of context. I read it as two separate points. I

still maintain that art has a true meaning, and that it is what the artist gives to it. To

me, that is his right as the creator. Perhaps there can be exception for when an artist

forfiets this right, as in the case of Aasimov. But when I draw something, it means what I

say it means. If somebody reads more or less into it, fine. But it’s my creation, I think I

know. To me, it’s arrogant of the audience to go "No, it doesn’t mean that. You don’t know

what your talking about. You just made it."

And who says you get to define it?

See lissener’s post.

And you are ignoring what I said about the possibility of the artist communicating at the

subconscious level, and perhaps not be able to tell you in words what he had in mind when he

created the work of art.

Sorry, I meant to address it, but it got overlooked in my last post. Personally, I don’t

think I’ve ever come across a work of art that was so abstract, it couldn’t be put into

words. However, I will concede that this isn’t necessarily the same as experiencing the

piece of art. Ex. Being told “This piece of art is meant to be frightening” is not the same

as being scared.

Who is to say that the author (or artist) has a lock on the “true” meaning?

I think they do. You think they don’t. Maybe the artist can say whether they do or not, and

we have to consider case by case. Meh.

Of course it exists physically, but does it exist as art without an observer?

Again, I am saying that it does. The peice of art does not change because somebody observes

it. But the observer does. My argument is this: If it’s art when someone’s looking at it,

and it hasn’t changed since not being looked at, then it must be art when no one is looking.

Art is not so special that it defies reason or the laws of physics.

Why should "a good artist … be able to make the understanding and appreciation of his work

effortless"?

Because he’s good. It sounds like circular reasoning and maybe it is, but consider this

example (I hope I spell this right): “Veni, vidi, vici” which should translate to "I came. I

saw. I conquered." This is one of my favourite quotes. It’s so simple and so incredibly

powerful. It is art. This however (which communicates the same idea) is not IMHO: "Yeah

well, I came over here on this really nice horse. Then I looked around. Then I killed

everybody and took their land."
Again, I don’t think a piece of art should be trivial to understand, but the artist should be able to communicate the idea effectively. I enjoy a good “aha” as much as anybody else. What I don’t enjoy is a “What the ****!??!”

As to address Miller’s points quickly:

1. crude jokes aren’t art. They are crude jokes.
2. You say Eyes Wide Shut had good ideas. This is true. You even communicated them in rougly 1 minutes worth of reading or less. It took Kubrik (sp?) nearly 3 hours (or more… can’t remember the minute count right now). Did he demonstrate skill in photography? Yes. But the movie isn’t simply a series of great pictures. IMHO, he failed to demonstrate skill in communicating his idea. The movie was bloated by the irrelevant orgy and murder mystery. If he hadn’t done that, I would most certainly agree with you.

BTW, is everybody here of the opinion that if an established artist (ex. David Lynch and Stanley Kubrik) makes something, then it MUST be art? It seems so. Can’t an artist make something that doesn’t qualify as art? I like those directors too. But I didn’t think the movies in question are art. I like to think that I’m objective enough to set aside personal biases about artists, directors, musicians and decide if something is a piece of art on it’s own merit.
–Chorus

[jovan]

*Originally posted by chorus *It exists (and has meaning) solely on it’s own.

[PHIL 101]In the time of the dinosaurs did 2+2=4?[/PHIL 101]

You just refuse to accept my definition, pointing out that other definitions exist. Here’s a definition for you: “The general public is what the general public thinks you mean by the general public”

I hope to the Lord Buddha that you’re not in the business of writing dictionaries.

Main Entry: chair
Pronunciation: 'cher, 'char
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English chaiere, from Old French, from Latin cathedra, from Greek kathedra, from kata- cata- + hedra seat – more at SIT
Date: 13th century
Definition: 1a A chair. 1b A chair is what English speakers mean when they use the word chair. 1c A chair is a chair is a chair.

I have managed to come up with a definition of “general public”, though and it goes: “people who think like me.” Tell me, and this is not merely a rethorical question, how many people over 65 get Eminem? Don’t you think the millions of Americans past retirement age form a public that is large enough to be considered general? I will ask you again, and I expect an answer, how large does a public need to be to be considered general? Can you be both in and out of the general public?

No, of course it doesn’t. You’re imposing the language barrier again (this time, mathematics) which I have already admitted to overlooking.

And I told you that it’s all about language. You can’t overlook it. As soon as anything conveys meaning, language (in the greater sense) is involved. You contradict yourself when you state that “the ability of the artist to communicate his intention” is a prime factor in determining whether a work is art or not and then say that language doesn’t matter.

This is exactly what I said before. That such barriers are not a shortcoming of the artist, but of the audience.

Of course, I’m ripping your statement out of context here, but you’ve just said what I’ve been arguing. If you don’t understand Riopelle and I don’t understand Patsy Cline, is it their fault or ours?

Be careful about the statement, cause what you’re really saying is that any picture that can be expressed in words, is pointless. Is “The Last Supper” pointless? Well, you just said that it is.

No, I most certainly did not. Can you convey everything, everything conveyed by “The Last Supper” using only words? If you say yes, you have a very shallow understanding of the work and communication in general.

Before you mentioned the Backstreet Boys as being artists. I claimed that since they have little or no creative role, then they are not. What do people here think? What about Britney Spears, etc? Does performing make you an artist?

Performing makes you an artist even by your very (however mistaken) definition. 1) Intent to convey meaning. Compare Oistrakh and Heifetz playing Tchaikovsky’s violin concerto; or Glenn Gould and Keith Jarrett playing Bach’s Goldberg variations. 2) Display of skill. 'Nuff said.

Of course, the BB, IMV, fail miserably at both, which is why they are worthless frauds. Surely, greater credit should be given to songwriters and choreographers than to the poster boys. However, the end product, regardless of what abominable hellhole of agony it was unleashed from, is nevertheless a work of art.

As for the question, I will answer what I usually do: "Honja, mo kikaretakunai’n ya! Shoben yaritai’n yattara, yatte mo ee’n ya kedo, ore to nan no kankei mo arehen de.

Originally posted by Miller
Everything is art.

I was going to post something along those line but I’ll say it differently:

Master Lin Chi ( 810 - 867 ) said:
If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha.

If the concept of “art” becomes a hurdle to your understanding of the world around you, then kill art, forget about that concept.

Did you know that no word accurately translates “art” into Japanese. In the late 19th c. the word geijutsu was coined as a translation, and often nowadays the term aato surfaces. The point is, however, that prior to the Meiji restoration (1867) there was no such thing as “art” in the Japanese mind. Did it keep countless painters, poets, musicians etc. from creating? And people from seeing, listening?

For a while in college I was really into minimalist painting. One day, when I was waiting to start playing squash, I set out to look at the red line on the wall as though it were a Molinari painting. What I felt then wasn’t quite satori but it was pretty darn intense. A red line on a white wall. No one ever intended it to have any deep meaning and yet, it almost changed my life.

Cheers.

[lissener]

*Originally posted by CMC *
**lissener Siri Hustvedt is Paul Auster’s wife, which is how I came across his name. She has two incredible novels, The Blindfold and The Enchantment of Lily Dahl. She also has a collection of art essays, Yonder.

The title of Hoban’s book seemed to be a new one, Angelica’s Grotto. It sounded wonderful. Just didn’t have enough cash on me at the time.

And yes, I am in the US, N’awlins, to be exact. How is the dreary Pacific NW these days? (Got my MFA from UW) **

Ah; I bought Angelica’s Grotto online, when it was only available in Britain. Good to know it’s been published here. It’s not my favorite of his, but it’s notable, I think, that the protagonist is a very old man. This is new for Hoban, and it reminds me that he’s in his late seventies. I do hope his importance is recognized during his lifetime.

And I knew Auster was married, mostly because I caught him picking up a starry-eyed coed after a reading he did a bookstore where I was working, but I didn’t know she was a novelist. I’ll have to invesigate.