The obligation of the artist

Cianos

The obligation of the artist is to produce "art". Unlike the practices of musicians who make music, actors who act, writers who write, the artist must produce "art". Music, theatre and writing are all forms of art, but they are predefined mediums in which the practitioner can produce for the sake of producing, and is accepted as such so long as it falls within that medium. On the other hand, the doesn't just produce, but is obliged to produce 'art'...something that is (wrongly) by definition one step beyond that which can be interpreted as art.

So if music is "art", a musician makes music, which is in turn interpreted as a piece of art. Or if a writer scripts a play, the play is a play, but also belongs as a piece of art. An artist must work in the other direction. Their productions are not belonging to a particular practice but the practice of art, and it is on that ambiguous level on which they need to produce and find audience.

In my opinion, this is a great hindrance to the artist in that they are always looking for proof of acceptance for why to produce. A musician just writes a song because they want to write a song. There is no question of context or medium or materials, it is just a straightforward and acute artistic expression. The song is accepted for what it was meant to be - a song. For the musician, there is no equivalent of the question "Is this art?"...they wrote a song...of course it's a song. And because it's a song, it's art.

But for the artist, the "Is this art?" question is something constantly niggling at the creative process. For the artist, a drive to create becomes a drive to appease that abstract question, which I believe can only block the more pure creative impulses a musician has when there is no questioning of whether their song is a song. Of course it's a song.

Thus a lot of art, or debate around art, becomes a debate around why it is or isn't worthy. Because there is no encapsulating medium around which the piece can be presented, the interpretation has no base on which to rely on when the audience is occupied more in the "Is this art?" questioning. It becomes a social assessment of the validity of the piece, and this condition blocks a pure communicative creative process in most cases, as the piece in question can't just be accepted like a song can be accepted. One listens to a song and enjoys the pure aesthetics...a condition that isn't possible (at least not now) for most people when it comes to viewing art. A song is a song, and is art. Art is...?

nyarlothothep

Would a painting not be in a pre defined medium?

If you're talking about Tracy Emin style stuff or running around a gallery and calling it art, then yes there is a breakdown in communication as to whether its art or not. Maybe its just spectacle, and therefore the art is in attracting enough attention to it. In this case would it not also be pre defined, given that the artist is creating a spectacle, whose artistry depends on attracting the attention of people, in effect living art?

Joycey

Im not sure I see the distinction your making between "art" and any one example of this art. You outline several different media through which a work is realised but I dont see where there is room in your analysis for something which is "art" and yet distinct from some medium such as music, painting, poetry, engineering etc. (or even spectacle as Nyarlo says)

I think your misconceiving of what happens in (at least some forms of) artistic creation. An artist doesnt sit down and worry about if what they are doing is "art" or not (although the majority of Hollywood/MTV probably should), usually when some piece, the creator of which says is art, gets attacked on the basis of it not being art, its due to someone's narrowminded preconception of what art is being violated by someone pushing some kind of boundary.

What if we take a really loose definition of "art", hopefully in order to eliminate all these debates about whether such and such lives up to the criteria. Something like "a process whereby the drive towards creative expression is fulfilled". Under such a definition it makes no difference what you conceive of as an artists "obligations"; art is such due to the process which was undertaken in order to produce it.

If I create something and you try to tell me its not art then you can **** off, its art because I say it is.

The reason this isnt the basis upon which art or non-art is categorised is because there are too many art critics in whose interest it is to draw boundaries and create controversy and who, though claiming to be "experts" or "conoseurs" (i have no idea how to spell that word), instead rigidly impose their smallminded worldview on others.

Cianos

Joycey wrote: »

Im not sure I see the distinction your making between "art" and any one example of this art. You outline several different media through which a work is realised but I dont see where there is room in your analysis for something which is "art" and yet distinct from some medium such as music, painting, poetry, engineering etc. (or even spectacle as Nyarlo says)

Contemporary art is often, and often expected to be, without strict confines of medium. Years ago a painter was more seen as craftsman, who like the blacksmith or carpenter worked at their trade to master technique and ability.

Today a painting can burst out from the frames and in to the gallery space. A piece of sculpture doesn't have to be a tangible object. Thus contemporary artists work without the confines of an expected particular medium...so what they produce is no longer a painting, or a piece of sculpture...they work to produce "art". This is my main distinction between the practice of an artist and the practice of someone who produces that which can also then be called art (a song, literature etc). I'm not saying one is greater than the other, simply that the definitions in (expected) practice are different.

What if we take a really loose definition of "art", hopefully in order to eliminate all these debates about whether such and such lives up to the criteria. Something like "a process whereby the drive towards creative expression is fulfilled". Under such a definition it makes no difference what you conceive of as an artists "obligations"; art is such due to the process which was undertaken in order to produce it.

I don't think I made my point clear enough in the OP. I don't wish to critique the extremities of expression and experimentation that artists employ through their practice. On the contrary, I believe the "Is this art?" question is almost always an irrelevant question.

But something that let's that question be relevant for some people creates problems for the artist that get in the way of the delivery of pure aesthetic appreciation that never comes in to question when someone listens to a song for example. I can go to a concert and never question or even think of the medium of music...the composition and execution of the sounds are communicated to achieve a purity of aesthetic deliverance. On the other hand, for the contemporary artist, there is too much questioning of the medium required, that gets in the way of aesthetic appreciation. And this is intrinsic and a requirement of the practice itself, unless we want art to revert to a more conservative practice confined within particular pre-defined mediums.

Joe1919

There is an argument from Schopenhauer/Wagner/Hanslick/Scruton that music (instrumental) is pure aesthetic in that it does not represent anything outside of itself. If this is the case then it could be argued that there is nothing really substantial to talk about (in terms of critique of music) because music contains no propositions or knowledge or truths.

"Music also occupies a privileged place in Schopenhauer's aesthetics, as he believed it to have a special relationship to the will. Where other forms of art are imitations of things perceived in the world, music is a direct copy of the will."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation

"*Scruton argues that music cannot represent things in the way painting, for example can, because music fails to meet criterion 3 (that whatever is represented must be expressible in propositions) According to Scruton, in order for an element in a work to be representational it must "characterize" its subject."
http://www.philosophy.ubc.ca/prolegom/backissues/papers/Groll.htm
(this author does not agree)

Joycey

Joe1919 wrote: »

There is an argument from Schopenhauer/Wagner/Hanslick/Scruton that music (instrumental) is pure aesthetic in that it does not represent anything outside of itself. If this is the case then it could be argued that there is nothing really substantial to talk about because music contains no propositions or knowledge or truths.

While this is an interesting view of music, I feel that it breaks down when pushed to extremes because of the lack of any meaningful distinction between "music" and "non-music". If you accept the supposition that there is no objective category of "music", and that it is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder that such and such is musical, then it would be quite easy to encode propositions or claims in a musical piece.

For instance I can envision some kind of steve reichesque piece which uses different sentences converted into morse code in a kind of a phasing pattern or something. There have been various musical pieces (one by bach?) that used the golden ratio as a means of creating a structure within which the "non representative" elements of the music operate, while the golden ratio itself is not representative of anything real in the world, my representation of the golden ratio through music is.

Likewise, you qualify Schopenhauer + co's claim with a distinction between instrumental and vocal, however I dont see how this is worthwhile. Nowadays I could sample your voice and take a tiny tiny fragment of it and repeat it without your recognising that it is a voice. Were I to make a piece long enough, I could once again encode entire sentences in such a way without your being conscious of their presence. Nevertheless I have created a musical piece which contains a proposition.

Contemporary art is often, and often expected to be, without strict confines of medium. Years ago a painter was more seen as craftsman, who like the blacksmith or carpenter worked at their trade to master technique and ability.

It may be claimed that contemporary art no longer is confined to one medium, however I dont think its conceivable that a piece of art not be contained in any medium, be it in a human action (such as dance etc) or in a material object.

A piece of sculpture does not have to be a tangible object

It most definitely does. I cant think of any way of "sculpting" something which was not tangible.

On the other hand, for the contemporary artist, there is too much questioning of the medium required, that gets in the way of aesthetic appreciation.

I agree with you that excessive, or more accurately, gratuitous use of overt self-reflexivity does nothing to necessarily boost the good qualities of an artwork.

I would also make the case, however, that if we understand art as "a process whereby the drive toward creative expression is fulfilled", and as an extension of this that something which is a purported "artwork" yet is not entirely a product of the creators own expression, but instead affected by actions mediated by a desire to conform to some abstract principle in the mind of the creator, then it is not..... authentic? fully art? (im not sure if im phrasing this whole paragraph right).

So gratuitous self-reflexivity done for the purposes of creating something which "questions the boundaries of art" for the sake of "questioning the boundaries of art", under my understanding of the term is not really art.

Im working this out as i go along but this contradicts my earlier assertion that art is what the creator says it is but I think i like this version of my beliefs better

Joe1919

Joycey wrote: »

Likewise, you qualify Schopenhauer + co's claim with a distinction between instrumental and vocal, however I dont see how this is worthwhile. Nowadays I could sample your voice and take a tiny tiny fragment of it and repeat it without your recognising that it is a voice.

It could be argued that we usaully combine other art forms (e.g. poetry, drama and dance) with music and hence only instrumental music, without a suggestive title(e.g. *** in C major) or strong beat or likeness to other music (in which case we may get ideas through association) is non-representital and therefore is purely aesthetic.

The voice could be considered as pure aesthetics only in the case where the language is foreign to us and hence we are not distracted by any meaning or representations in the words.(e.g. Opera sung in Italian).

Interestingly, many forms of meditations and buddhist chants are non-representation in that the words have no particular meaning,(or perhaps only a trivial meaning) i.e. they act like pure music. My own (perhaps primative) theory is that meditation chants works on the brain in a similar but stronger way than music and succeeds in 'bringing us out of ourselves'.(loss of self consciousness and changes in patterns of awareness)

The idea is to focus on the sound and not on the meaning.

nobodythere

Cianos, your definition of art (whatever that is) is very... artsy fartsy

It's only a word, it doesn't have any ACTUAL meaning, only the meaning that you prescribe it. We could talk about this at length, but since you haven't given a concrete definition of what you consider to be art, we'd be talking about different things (much like religious conversations...)

That being said there is certainly something which can be quantified (subjectively) as art, and that is the absolute value (in the mathematical kind of sense) of expression. Not whether the things expressed are "negative" or "positive", but how deeply it is expressed.

The issue in our times is that art is primarily economic, not mythological. Its approach is systematic and industrialised due to the technology involved (I'm particularly discussing music here), and much of it does not extend beyond a superficial level.

Joe1919

Cianos wrote: »

Thus a lot of art, or debate around art, becomes a debate around why it is or isn't worthy. Because there is no encapsulating medium around which the piece can be presented, the interpretation has no base on which to rely on when the audience is occupied more in the "Is this art?" questioning. It becomes a social assessment of the validity of the piece, and this condition blocks a pure communicative creative process in most cases, as the piece in question can't just be accepted like a song can be accepted. One listens to a song and enjoys the pure aesthetics...a condition that isn't possible (at least not now) for most people when it comes to viewing art. A song is a song, and is art. Art is...?

Of course, people often buy art as an investment or to impress other people and hence they question the value of the piece and what other people think.

This is probably not the case with music. People just listen to (or buy copies of) what they like.

JacquesD'Ladd

For me it has always been a useful working definition that 'art is the portrayal of truth'. Historically, art - as painting, sketching or sculpting - has always been about the representation of reality, through one or other specific medium. Oils, watercolours, paper, lithograph, canvas and so on. The fact that art now uses a lot more media than previously, and the fact that art from the 19th/20th century moved away from an interpretative to a more creative stance (the movement from the impressionist to the expressionist movement is a good example), makes little difference to this truth (of a truth).

Art is fundamentally concerned with portraying truths in the world. This is the case even if we are making copies of faces, termed portraits: 'a material likeness is a truth'.
And I am not convinced that it is all a subjective experience, as the medium itself is objective (unless we are talking about idealism or phenomenalism here). Again, if the artist only wishes to convey a subjective thought, or nothing very much at all, still there is the creative expression of a moment, put 'out there'. As soon as it is externalised it is no longer strictly in the domain of the producer, and then becomes open to question. Truth is the stuff of questioning: questions seek answers.

Like the OP, I think the question is possibly a hindrance. It is a useful philosophical question, but has nothing to offer art.

Joycey wrote:

If I create something and you try to tell me its not art then you can **** off, its art because I say it is

It is not a good definition of art 'because the artist says it is'. The artwork must convey itself as art without any outside prompting, even from the artist concerned.

Joe1919 wrote: »

There is an argument from Schopenhauer/Wagner/Hanslick/Scruton that music (instrumental) is pure aesthetic in that it does not represent anything outside of itself. If this is the case then it could be argued that there is nothing really substantial to talk about (in terms of critique of music) because music contains no propositions or knowledge or truths.

If music represents nothing outside of itself then this in itself is a truth.

The same can be said for art defined simply as a sensory or aesthetic experience: the act of looking, regarding, and nothing more. This is an attempt to limit all things to a materialistic sense only. But this is 'still a truth about things', even if I disgree with it. And I can argue that the artist or critic who advocates this (I am thinking of Susan Sontag and her essay, 'Against Interpretation'), is making a truth-statement without wanting to. She pushed art criticism as the need to look at things only, to forget about what they mean as such, just regard and feel. Even if this were possible, and I'm not sure it is, I would consider this a moment of truth, in that aesthetic experience is conveyed perfectly. As she herself said "our task is to cut back content so we can see the thing at all", but once the thing is perfectly seen is to make the Perfect explicit.

Art can also be a play on truth, or a falsification or masquerade of reality, but this soon becomes theatre, and therefore is not 'art' in the direction the OP was looking for. There is still a veil placed on truth-reality, and therefore an acknowledgement of truth, however much concealed. As soon as the reality it plays on is denied, it becomes itself a truth-statement. Eg. lies are attempts at truth statements, even though we know they aren't truths.

This concept of art affords the discipline very high value, and much higher than Plato saw it. (He considered art simply as the imitation of 'the good' for eg, and therefore second order to 'the good' itself). That said however, he did make allowances for the fact art could be the stuff of inspiration, not just mimetic.

af_thefragile

Being an artist myself, I think the obligation of an artist is to express himself.
This could be through any way he likes. But i think ultimately art is a form of expression of an idea or an emotion.

An artist feels the need to express his views, emotions and ideas - which is why he became an artist in the first place, cuz he was driven by this need to express himself.
And so the artists creates artwork by which he expresses himself.
He writes a song or a poem or he tells a story or paints a picture or creates a sculpture or captures an image.
All of this out of the need of the artist to express himself.

Hence art is not definite. Its merely just an expression.

JacquesD'Ladd

af_thefragile wrote: »

Being an artist myself, I think the obligation of an artist is to express himself.
This could be through any way he likes. But i think ultimately art is a form of expression of an idea or an emotion.

An artist feels the need to express his views, emotions and ideas - which is why he became an artist in the first place, cuz he was driven by this need to express himself.
And so the artists creates artwork by which he expresses himself.
He writes a song or a poem or he tells a story or paints a picture or creates a sculpture or captures an image.
All of this out of the need of the artist to express himself.

Hence art is not definite. Its merely just an expression.

That really doesn't satisfy as a full answer, I'm afraid.

When we speak we express ourselves, when we put on our clothes we express ourselves. But that's not art, it's life. Saying it is is reductio ad absurdem. I admire the humility contained but I still think it's inadequate as an explanation.

And what about the thing expressed? All it's meant to be is just an expression of the artist? That's the sum-content of it's raison d'etre? So all the Greek Christian icon paintings, say, were simply the artist's will to express himself somehow and the subject-matter, God, is secondary to that fact? I'm not saying this second point is wrong, but I feel it does need to be clarified.

af_thefragile

JacquesD'Ladd wrote: »

That really doesn't satisfy as a full answer, I'm afraid.

When we speak we express ourselves, when we put on our clothes we express ourselves. But that's not art, it's life. Saying it is is reductio ad absurdem. I admire the humility contained but I still think it's inadequate as an explanation.

And what about the thing expressed? All it's meant to be is just an expression of the artist? That's the sum-content of it's raison d'etre? So all the Greek Christian icon paintings, say, were simply the artist's will to express himself somehow and the subject-matter, God, is secondary to that fact? I'm not saying this second point is wrong, but I feel it does need to be clarified.

I don't think its that absurd.
I've always had a liking for the more experimental and surreal art. Here's what Rene Magritte said about his surreal art:
"My painting is visible images which conceal nothing... they evoke mystery and indeed when one sees one of my pictures, one asks oneself this simple question 'What does that mean'? It does not mean anything, because mystery means nothing either, it is unknowable."

Art doesn't need to have any meaning. Its main purpose is to create an emotion.
Whether it be Michael Angelo's painting of The creation of Adam or a street performer wearing a certain costume to entertain people. A lot of those Greek and Christian icon paintings were the artists expressing themselves. It was the feelings and emotions the artists felt towards the events/God(s) etc. which caused them to paint or sculpt the artwork in that specific shape and form.

Damien Hirst put a shark in a tank and called it art.

I admire a lot of Gyrogy Ligeti's music too. A lot of people on first listening to him ask "Is that music?!". Well, i suppose it is! All music doesn't need to be a soothing symphony. It creates an emotion of tension, mystery, fear... Main point, the artist expressed himself through notes and rhythms (or the lack of it!) and it created an emotion in you so its art.

The point is behind every piece of artwork, there's the artists expression that created the artwork. Hence art is created, not random.
If someone accidently knocks over a can of paint and spills it over the floor. Then he realises he likes the patterns created by the paint spill on the floor. Can he call that art?



To add a response to this:
"When we speak we express ourselves, when we put on our clothes we express ourselves. But that's not art, it's life."
Guess it depends on how you see life. Life could be a form of art too. We have tons of books and movies tracing the life of certain individuals. Thats art. I could write a book or make a movie on the life of me, you or the guy down the street. That could become art.
Also a performer puts on clothes to express himself, its a part of his artwork.

JacquesD'Ladd

af_thefragile wrote: »

Art doesn't need to have any meaning. Its main purpose is to create an emotion.

That's a self-contradiction. If art has any purpose, then it has meaning: they are synonyms for the same thing.

And to elicit emotion in another is to do more than simply express oneself. If we want to draw a response, we are doing more than making art for the sake of art, or expression for the sake of expression.

I don't dispute that expression is a large part of the discipline, but I think meaning is inescapable.

Even post-modernist or post-structuralist art and literature cannot escape meaning. These theories have run their course, yet they still allow for difference and deferral of meaning. And the same goes for a Dali, or any surrealist painting, which although often ingenious, are ingenious because they offer a retake on the familiar. A drooping timepiece or heads that look like trees play on what we already recognise, but extend their meanings: they don't remove meaning.

And, a single artistic 'utterence', such as a uniform blue square I saw at a gallery recently, does well at excluding much, but it doesn't stop me from making multiple inferences, right or wrong, or even irrelevant. Meaning is inescapable in art, truth-content is its mainstay, and art is authentic when it is inspired.

So an accident-incident or a take on a life may be inspired, but I'm not sure it is expressible as art unless it is framed as communication, and some responsibility is taken for it and seen in it. Who takes responsibility for an accident? An accident by definition has no personal intent, even from higher powers, so art taken as 'responsible' must exclude this as inauthentic.

And art as implying a hidden responsibility ultimately means enlightening the moment for something more than it first appears.

Joycey

JacquesD'Ladd wrote: »

That's a self-contradiction. If art has any purpose, then it has meaning: they are synonyms for the same thing.

No theyr not, one implies the other. And its not a self-contradiction, its a contradiction in terms (according to you). And "for the same thing" is redundant in that sentence.

Sorry, I couldnt resist

And to elicit emotion in another is to do more than simply express oneself. If we want to draw a response, we are doing more than making art for the sake of art, or expression for the sake of expression.

But this takes the definition away from being within the object itself, which I took to be the message of what you were saying earlier. Now what we call "art" is some amalgamation(sp?) of the artist's expression, the meaning that is reliant on a interpretive entity to evoke, and something within the object itself. All of which is just another way of saying: its extremely hard to define what art is. Is it necessary that all three of the above criteria be met for art to be such? What if the object is deemed "art" before it has been interpreted (perceived) and the artist has expressed themselves in creating the object, but no entity has had any aesthetic interaction with it? Is it still art?

In fact all three of the above criteria must have been met simply by the artist expressing themselves and deeming what they have done as art: they have done it through some medium; and they will have gleamed some kind of aesthetic pleasure from perceiving it (why would they call it art otherwise?).

JacquesD'Ladd

Joycey wrote: »

No theyr not, one implies the other. And its not a self-contradiction, its a contradiction in terms (according to you). And "for the same thing" is redundant in that sentence.

Sorry, I dont know why I do this

yes, i don't know why either - bizarre really. I was well aware of the redundancy of the phrase, however I left it in for emphasis. Thank you very much for pointing it out, though.
And I'm afraid it is a self-contradiction. Would you like to expand? As i said, purpose is a synonym for meaning. You can't say the same thing has a purpose on the one hand, yet has no meaning on the other, without contradicting yourself.

PS. I've just seen your edited, fuller post. I will get back to you on the rest .

JacquesD'Ladd

Joycey wrote: »

But this takes the definition away from being within the object itself, which I took to be the message of what you were saying earlier.

Not necessarily - see below:

Joycey wrote: »

Now what we call "art" is some amalgamation(sp?) of the artist's expression, the meaning that is reliant on a interpretive entity to evoke, and something within the object itself.

I consider that the first and third of these, the artist's work, and the artist taking responsibility (which is implied in the object), is as you say 'something within the object'. These two are enough to ensure the second. I feel a responsible expression qualifies as art, at least as authentic art. Therefore the obligation of the artist is responsibility.

Joycey wrote: »

Is it necessary that all three of the above criteria be met for art to be such? What if the object is deemed "art" before it has been interpreted (perceived) and the artist has expressed themselves in creating the object, but no entity has had any aesthetic interaction with it? Is it still art?

In fact all three of the above criteria must have been met simply by the artist expressing themselves and deeming what they have done as art: they have done it through some medium; and they will have gleamed some kind of aesthetic pleasure from perceiving it (why would they call it art otherwise?).

Again, I feel that the persons 'signature' in the work is the rubber-stamp of the artist that ensures the emotion and the interpretation already. Responsibility - in a moral, philosophical or artistic sense -conveyed through technique makes for authenticity.
Therefore technique on it's own is not enough, for the same reasons as 'accidental art', mentioned above. It is the intent or principle implicit in the technique that counts.

af_thefragile

JacquesD'Ladd wrote: »

That's a self-contradiction. If art has any purpose, then it has meaning: they are synonyms for the same thing.

And to elicit emotion in another is to do more than simply express oneself. If we want to draw a response, we are doing more than making art for the sake of art, or expression for the sake of expression.

Just to post a response to this one bit for now...

A lot of people look at a piece of art and admire it for its aesthetic beauty alone. A lot of people don't understand art, even me being an artist myself, am not able to comprehend the meaning behind a lot of artistic pieces out there. But i still admire them cuz of the emotions they create in me and i appreciate their aesthetic beauty.

A Lamborghini has the same purpose as a bicycle. It gets you from a to b. But it can also be considered a piece of art. The art behind the car has not much purpose or meaning to it apart from being aesthetically appealing. Now if you wanna say aesthetics alone can serve the purpose and meaning of art, then maybe all art does have a meaning!

Here's a photograph i took and processed to add to my compilation of abstract photos:

If you ask me what that means?, i can't give you an answer to that question.
I just did it cuz it felt and looked cool and exciting!
Would you call it art?

Joe1919

JacquesD'Ladd wrote: »

That's a self-contradiction. If art has any purpose, then it has meaning: they are synonyms for the same thing.

.

Some (e.g. Scruton, Schopenhauer) argue that pure music (e.g. instrumental music) has no meaning as such i.e. It does not represent anything over and above its own sound.
They would argue that music is intentional in the sense of the artist playing a piece with the 'intent' of provoking a particular response.
Abstract art could have similar qualities. The Art piece 'in itself' has no objective meaning but it can perhaps mean something to the viewer. i.e. Its meaning can only be subjective and is created in the imagination of the viewer.
The Art piece may (or may not )be intentional in the sense that the particular response of the viewer may be similar to that which the Artist may (or may not) have intended the piece to have.

JacquesD'Ladd

Joe1919 wrote: »

The Art piece 'in itself' has no objective meaning but it can perhaps mean something to the viewer. i.e. Its meaning can only be subjective and is created in the imagination of the viewer.

An art piece has no objective meaning? This can only be advocated if you say there are no external objects in the world at all, or to a lesser extent, if you say we can have no knowledge of such objects.

Joe1919 wrote: »

The Art piece may (or may not )be intentional in the sense that the particular response of the viewer may be similar to that which the Artist may (or may not) have intended the piece to have.

I consider that 'wonder' as such is an always-inevitable aspect, and is endemic in any object. We all have a deep childlike wonder at all things.

Wonder is a good word, as it doesn't suggest there is a definite meaning attached to any object, but neither does it preclude the possibility of meaning per se. Suggestivity, as such. I challenge any artist to say that his piece will not at the very least elicit some wonder (which is innate in the human), and this even in himself, whether or not he intended any meaning at all.

af_thefragile wrote:

The art behind the car has not much purpose or meaning to it apart from being aesthetically appealing.... If you ask me what that means?, i can't give you an answer to that question.
I just did it cuz it felt and looked cool and exciting!

The same response applies. My opinion is there is a deep wonderment that always goes on, and which is inescapable. It is in us since we stared wide-eyed at the toys hanging from our pram. I have dabbled a good deal in art myself, and I too have done things sometimes that were spontaneous or by chance - possibly better than anything I could have consciously prepared. But there is a question-point for both artist and critic when any such art becomes more or less conscious. Even if that consciousness never goes beyond innocent wonder.

And if we wonder, we ultimately look for meaning.

Joe1919

JacquesD'Ladd wrote: »

An art piece has no objective meaning? This can only be advocated if you say there are no external objects in the world at all, or to a lesser extent, if you say we can have no knowledge of such objects.
.

In my view, there are objects in the world and we do sense these objects with our senses. In sensing these objects, we do intuitively give these objects a value and meaning but this comes about through our imagination that fills the gap between the sensed object (e.g. the artpiece) and the meaning or impression we get from that piece. Its our imagination (phantasia) that ultimately gives meaning to all objects that we sense.(except perhaps in the case of pleasure or pain that is purely sensual).

JacquesD'Ladd

Joe1919 wrote: »

In my view, there are objects in the world and we do sense these objects with our senses. In sensing these objects, we do intuitively give these objects a value and meaning but this comes about through our imagination that fills the gap between the sensed object (e.g. the artpiece) and the meaning or impression we get from that piece. Its our imagination (phantasia) that ultimately gives meaning to all objects that we sense.(except perhaps in the case of pleasure or pain that is purely sensual).

To a large extent I wouldn't disagree with this. However, I consider things do have objective meaning. A circle, triangle, square or any geometrical shape at all has mathematical properties which are self-referential. By extension, the same applies to all artistic objects and shapes.
This is more than an imaginative property, unless you mean something like the transcendental imagination of Kant, or similar.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Joe1919

JacquesD'Ladd wrote: »

This is more than an imaginative property, unless you mean something like the transcendental imagination of Kant, or similar.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

The medievals (e.g. Aquinas) had the idea (that I like) of the transcendental properties of Unity, Truth, Goodness & Beauty. This was a sort of mid-way (via media) between idealism and realism, (subjectivism and objectivism) a moderate realism.
Beauty, then, is something that has objective qualities, that causes delight in the beholder. Beauty is both subjective and objective, a fusion of both. A thing is beautiful (or good) because it has objective qualities that match or correspond to those qualities that I seek and cause delight in me.
This fusion or matching of qualities takes place in the intellect of imagination. The piece of Art ontologically does not have beauty, this quality is what I attribute or give to the piece.

This idea of objectivity makes no normative statements. It does not state 'this artwork ought to be liked'. It is these 'normative' value statements and this idea of objectivity that some post-moderns object to.
Making Artwork too objective in this sense is objectionable in that if I say 'this piece of art is objectively beautiful', this can be interpretated as me really saying 'you ought to find this peace of art beautiful'. I am moraling about art and saying 'you are a defective human being as you ought to find this art beautiful'.
This is not recognising your individuality, your subjectivity and your entitlement to have your individual taste.

Nostradamus

Very interesting.

Check this out:

http://thomassheridanartist.blogspot.com/2009/06/artist-as-collective-man.html

sells

Art doesnt have to mean anything, art is anything and everything....its only people that make it out to be what it is. like this thread.........ART IS ART.that is all