Is their any point or purpose to art?

whitetrash

Art as entertainment is fine, but some artists (ie. painters, writers, filmmakers) would have you believe that their work is of vital importance to the survival of the human race.

My question is: does art have a point? Is their a good reason for me to write that book, or paint that picture? Why should I bother? It will ultimately be destroyed, and everyone who has ever read it will ultimatly die.

The only real purpose I have found for my own writing is that it annoys me greatly when I cannot, I often feel compelled just to write something - some idea that I've had.

I'd just like to read other people's thoughts on the matter. Just so maybe I can feel better about doing it.

btw - I'm talking about real art, not - say - those terrible, garishly covered books I see in Eason's about a group of neurotic women finding love while on holiday in Spain. Real art.

---

The present is indefinite, the future has no reality other than as a present hope, the past has no reality other than as a present memory.

[This message has been edited by whitetrash (edited 02-06-2001).]

DadaKopf

Nice topic .

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. Everyone tries to define art in some way or other - ever since the Greeks I suppose - and the concepts and importance of it has changed a lot over say, 5000 years. Recently, there have been so many different art movements claiming to be the one, true, transcendent art that in reality, there probably isn't one but then that's another pseudo-definition.

The only definition of art I can get to is that it's simply a method of communication. About what? That changes all the time. If you view all art as a kind of language, you must assume that art is making some kind of statement (in an existentialist way) even if it's deliberately not making a statement, it's making a statement! And, as language is something which is forever evolving, so to is art.

This brings you to the importance of it: each kind of art isn't necessarily important - that's a question of style or transgression - but so long as the human need/instinct for communication survives, art will survive. And so long as humans keep asking questions about the methods of communication, new kinds of art will always emerge but since the very possibility of true communication is under scrutiny constantly, the need to constantly redefine art will drive it forward.

It's a really simplistic view but it's the best and most succinct definition and explanation I can arrive at at the moment.

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 02-06-2001).]

Paladin

I think art can be defined as anything that is an expression of human life, albeit paintings, football or it might even be a sausage. Of course this is a very loose definition, but so many things can be so close to a stereotypical definition of art (like books and paintings) that they might as well be classified as art of sorts (like football might be an art, or programming at a certain level, and surely music already is)

Without artistic expression whether for entertainment or otherwise then we are merely organisms surviving and not creating.

So art might not make us survive, but without artistic expression, what are we surviving for?

I dont know how to analyse it more that that without the effort of putting some thought into it *shudder*

[This message has been edited by Paladin (edited 02-06-2001).]

Karl Hungus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by whitetrash:
Art as entertainment is fine, but some artists (ie. painters, writers, filmmakers) would have you believe that their work is of vital importance to the survival of the human race.

My question is: does art have a point? Is their a good reason for me to write that book, or paint that picture? Why should I bother? It will ultimately be destroyed, and everyone who has ever read it will ultimatly die.
</font>

I cant understand how anyonw could actualy think this way...

If that's your attitude, why not just go and die?
What is the purpose of YOU being here?
Why bother going on?

It's ridiculous...

whitetrash

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by AngelWhore:
I cant understand how anyonw could actualy think this way...

If that's your attitude, why not just go and die?
What is the purpose of YOU being here?
Why bother going on?

It's ridiculous...</font>

Just because u dont understand it shouldnt give u cause to critasise it. Anyway, I didnt say those were my feelings, I was simply looking for opinions. Thanks for urs.

plz forgive grammer and spelling, Im doing this on my dreamcast and I dont have a keyboard.

and do u (angelwhore) always encourage ppl u (seemingly) take to be suicidal to commit suicide? :-(

---

The present is indefinite, the future has no reality other than as a present hope, the past has no reality other than as a present memory.

Paladin

Well he is a goth <-- joke

yossarin

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius:
Everything material soon disappears in the substance of the whole; and everything formal (causal) is very soon taken back into the universal reason; and the memory of everything is very soon overwhelmed in time.</font>

art is the substance of the whole, but art is not eternal.
or, better still,

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Oscar Wilde:
all art is quite useless.</font>

Stephen

A-House - Endless Art

Listen to that song

"All dead, yet all alive, in endless time - Endless art."

---

- Munch

Gerry

Does art have a point?

Hmm, you might like to create something, which is unique to you, because you made it. You might want to create something that will stay when you are gone, that people can remember you by. Sure, those people will die also, but people will continue to discover your art, if it's any good of course. Perhaps you think that if your art does not set the whole world on a different course, it was all for nothing? The fact that it could slightly affect SOME peoples lives at least must mean something.
Your point seems to be "why bother doing anything, you will just die anyway". A rather negative attitude to life.

As for whether something is art, well if the artist reckons its art, thats good enough for them. You don't have to believe it means anything at all, make up your own mind.

Most art is done by people who just felt compelled to do it, they also realise that they can make a living by selling it or whatever, and/or they think others might enjoy it. There are others who are under pressure to write/draw/whatever, and sometimes their art suffers because of this, sometimes ceasing to be art at all IMHO. Apologies if this is all painfully obvious, just my 2 cents.

Magwitch

Art is expression, regardless of what form it takes. HOWEVER this rather loose definition has led to the abysmal visage of modern art and sculpture being foisted upon us by talentless hacks.

This has alot to do with our new touchy feely culture. "Artists" with the gift of the gab can expound infinitly on how profound their work is (and hence so great) even though it is welded/glued/splashed/20 minute trash. But we are to believe it is art. You cannot say it is not...catch 22.

The National Museaum of modern are spends a fortune of our tax money on complete crud! I am an art fan and on my last visit to that Musueam I through such a fit I was asked to leave by a bunch of ushers, but did not until I had shouted my honest opinion of the pretensious expensive muck on display.

It might sound over the top but all the pictures had the prices attached to them (how much it was bought for). Really disgusting.

In Dublin, as in other places through out the country, modern art (wind) sculptures are spinging up. They cost a fortune! Did you know the Anna-livia statue in O' Connel street cost £85,000 to design? The designer was contacted and asked to do it in 72 hours! Other european cities are noted for their beautiful statues, which are landmarks. What have we got? Answer: in 20 years time alot of scrap metal, and until then expensive eye soars.

The curator of the British national gallery has a pop at modern art a couple of years ago. He put it on the line, as a guy who knows what he is talking about. Hopefully input by people like him (in ireland) will put an end to the gravy train for connected nepotistic twats in this country.

---

Keep your powder dry and your pants moist

Blitzkrieger

imo art is an attempt at communication. Being the complicated beings we are it's difficult to convey to others our precise feelings, emotions or ideas, language often being inadequate. A work of art is an attempt ot communicate these things to other people, and a good work of art succeeds.

I dunno if art can (or should have to) change the world but sometimes art can enrich our lives.

I share Magwitch's view on modern art a bit too - if you have to explain it, it's failed to communicate.

Karl Hungus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by whitetrash:
Just because u dont understand it shouldnt give u cause to critasise it. Anyway, I didnt say those were my feelings, I was simply looking for opinions. Thanks for urs.

plz forgive grammer and spelling, Im doing this on my dreamcast and I dont have a keyboard.

and do u (angelwhore) always encourage ppl u (seemingly) take to be suicidal to commit suicide? :-(

</font>

No... It's the point of taking a concept to it's logical end.

Like the KKK...

They want the blacks out in America.
Yet all so called "Americans" are descendant of settlers.
So even they are not really Americans...
Only the true native americans...

By their logic the KKK should **** off home, right?

Just a way of pointing out how bad that logic is...

I mean, art is useless?
Yeah, it's just a point of view... But if you take that to it's logical end... How much else is useless?
Everything would be useless therefor.
You can't think like that...

DadaKopf

But: what makes 'art' good?

What's the difference between 'art' and things like graphic design, advertising, poo? That's tougher.

Angelwhore=stupid

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
Angelwhore=stupid</font>

Trying to start a flame war?

Anyway, back to the topic. Art is only art if it is an expression of oneself. Art is expression... a painting is not art unless you express yourself in it. If you are paid to do it, that does not take away from the expression... if the primary purpose of the piece is to make money, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not art. However, if the only reason it is done then it is not art, it is profit making. Not expression. Art is expression given substance.

Now, I think I've shown my definition of art, which I think is the universal one. After defining it, I will explain why there is a purpose to art.

There is a purpose to art, as that purpose is expression. Without expression, we trap our emotions too tightly inside. The expression given substance can (and is) used to communicate our emotions.

Karl Hungus

Yes... He is trying to start a flame war...

For some reason DadaKopf doesn't like me...

But, yes... I agree with your definition there JustHalf...
Like music, I feel... Is art. Expressionism.
Stuff like Britney Spears annoys me because it doesn't express anyhting...

JustHalf

Well, what she does is just for money... or for the fun of it, but not to express. When some site said "[Britney Spears talks] about her growth as an artist" I just shook my head and said "no". Other people write her material. Other people express.

Greenbean

To me art is something you want to create. Why do we want to create, I find its to play god - to make an (here comes that word again) expression of ourselves. I find its not worthwhile if it doesn't communicate. Why the hell do I want to communicate? Power, popularity, control and love. If anyone has read Zen and the art of motor cycle maintenance, they may agree with me that art and angel-whore's "logic" are only a foolish division believed for historical reason. I love attemping to create paintings, pictures, 3d models, websites and computer programs. Whatever it is that stirs me to do the traditionally accepted "Artistic" actions is the exact same feelings that make me want to create computer programs. Am I just seeking attention in creating things? Am I totally missing the point of art - I don't think so.

Samba

Well a freind of mine goes to one of the most prestigous art colleges in europe(les Beau s'art)

Now I witnessed "Them in Action" and I was cringing and i mean cringing like i never have before.

Now dont get me wrong some art is wonderful and extreemely creative...but modern art...a lazily placed brush on a piece of canvas with very little or no thought put in to it, which will then eventually be bought by a rich man, in his 50's with a wife of 30 with blonde hair, under his arm, he will buy it in an auction etc. as his wife thinks it to be either "Funky" or "Groovy".(not even having the slightest clue as to what funk is(a style of music) )


and then there is the artists themselves...they go off and study art for a year and come back and they will strike up a conversation with you about art..if you criticise or disagree with anything to be said they will alwasy reply with "You just dont understand"

Well how will we ever understand if they dont explain?


I could go on all night..infact ill help you with that Book

I could even say that i have lost many freinds to art....


How ever this is only one style of art...and alomost every other style art I thouroughly enjoy as i am a musician...hence yes do write that book..but write it about modern art and the giant farsical that it is..I emphasie that my hatred is only towards the majority of really poor half- arsed art which is sold every day for absoloutely ridicolous money.!


[This message has been edited by Samba (edited 04-06-2001).]

WhiteWashMan

i think there are 2 sides to this question.
there are artists, and art-apreciators.
and when i say art, i mean in the traditional sense of the word, ie painters, sculptors etc, the term art is very very very broad. someone tried to tell me that death metal was an art once. i think i laughed. heartily. for a long time
anyway, do artists create fro their own pleasure or fo rthe pleasure of others. to be honest i think anyone who creates art for others is probably doing it for the wrong reasons. if you paint, write, sculpt for your own personal pleasure, or to tell a story or just forwhat you percieve to be the beauty of it, then i say go right ahead and f8k the begrudgers. but something annoys me about people who create for others. (unless you are a scritp writer and get paid for it, at least make a decent script...are you reading george lucas ) and this type of people fall into the catogoriy of many people who appreciate art as far as im concerned.
people who appreciate art. do they really appreciate, or are they just pretentious idiots who know about art and like to pass on this to other less knowing people.
sure, i know plenty of people who like art.
hell i used to listen to classical music so i could say, look at me, i listen to classical music. amnt i cultural. and then i actually enjoyed listening to it..oh the irony
anyway, if you like art for what it is then super. personally i love paintings by monet, but i am in no way artistic. i cant even draw a stick figure without getting it wrong!

but then again, im easily annoyed by people.

so is there a point?
no not really. all i'll say is that art is one subject that cant be commented on with any professional concenses. its a bit like the love thread really. you can like stuff but not like other stuff and at the end of the day, the point behind art is that there is no point. its there. it may make you think, it may maje you smile, it may depress you. theres no real reason, but it does define your culture and that is important.
ireland without art would be pretty boring. no joyce, no o'casey, no yeats and no u2!
mind you, i dont like u2 much, so i wouldnt miss them

amp

 

---

Lunacy Abounds! GLminesweeper RO><ORS!
art is everything and of course nothing and possibly also a sausage

Hendrix_Nighn

Turner prize - blu tack

now that is... art

red_ice

arty farty
seems to be
a big brown dust big thats all smelly
not a point unles infer the influence
or high on life

DadaKopf

AngelWhore: so you assume that art has to be expressive? Valid art is something that transmits emotions from the inside out? Is that it? Because if it is then your objective view of art isn't very accurate. In fact it's completely outmoded and limited. You can say that's the kind of art you prefer but not what you think is objectively art over other kinds.

JustHalf: Same thing. Expression shouldn't be confused with communication. In fact, 'expression' has possibly done more damage to art in its fascism of the late 20th century than any conceptual art or mixed media has ever done. It literally makes the act of art completely untranslatable and self serving. Art is in a rut because too many people have thought it's better for art to refer to nothing but itself rather than relate it to the outside world which is where it's really created.

This post is good because it asks whether art has a point - not what's good or bad because that's just a statement of preference. It's not actually about what art is good or bad but whether it means anything - what's its function? That can be measured. You can have an argument about what art is good art and what art is bad art till the cows come home but nobody will really get anywhere. That said, *ahem*, it's in itself constructive to argue about futile things - people have to stand for someting.

The bottom line is: people communicate and art communicates. Immanuel Kant said that art is something which can express something sublime - something which can be known to people but never intellectually comprehend - which other things cannot. Art is something that does something but the context is forever shifting and so are the definitions. Art used to be about money, power, propaganda as much as it was about pushing boundaries shocking people. I read something today which basically said that because all art is consumable and in this post-modern age, everything is equal in significance, art ceases to be truly shocking like Caravaggio, Gericault, Monet and Duchamp were. Nobody really cares if Damien Hirst's sheep in fishtanks break boundaries because people just see him (and art) largely as an entertainment like Jerry Springer. The problem is there's no boundary to break because the universe is infinite.

Art is certainly a cultural phenomenon and is as intrinsic to civilisation as the concept of a god or higher power is. There's not a single culture which is godless and neither is there one which is artless. But art is so varied. So, like I say, it's purpose and its usefulness is primal - it's instinct. What it does is acts as an arm of a communicational matrix which does things.

DadaKopf

Samba: you just don't understand.

Shiminay

Going back to whitetrash's original statement:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Art as entertainment is fine, but some artists (ie. painters, writers, filmmakers) would have you believe that their work is of vital importance to the survival of the human race.</font>

No single piece of art is essential to the human race, but art is. Sure, there are pieces that everyone knows and loves (Mona Lisa, Michaelangelo's David etc), but we could live without them.

Expressionism (to me) is probably the biggest part of art. Gives it substance and a way to relate to it's creator. It's a way for the creator to release pent up emotion.

I'm a musician and I sometimes write stuff - nothing I'm especially proud of or that I'd consider fantastic - one song got to the final 50 of the 2fm song contest, but it was a group effort, so I can't claim all the kudos. but every time I write something, it's usually about something that's on my mind at that moment and it's always from the heart.

Without that, it's no good.

My 2 cents

---

All the best!
Dav
@B^)
We were all set for a game of Ice Hockey when Frank Williams says "Sorry lads, I've forgotten my skates!"
[honey i] violated [the kids]
Tribes 2 Goodness
The Dawn of the Beefy King approaches...

WhiteWashMan

kharn the artist
ahahahzhahaahahaha,
someone move this thread to the humour board

---

One Of your Imps Does A Good Impersonation Of You
He Can Even Do The Ears.....

Karl Hungus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
AngelWhore: so you assume that art has to be expressive? Valid art is something that transmits emotions from the inside out? Is that it? Because if it is then your objective view of art isn't very accurate. In fact it's completely outmoded and limited. You can say that's the kind of art you prefer but not what you think is objectively art over other kinds.
things.</font>

Yes, I THINK... My views. How *I* look at things.
I'm not going to argue with you on this, it's only how I personaly look at it.
And thats another thing about art, it's open to interpretation.
What I have stated, is simply mine.

DadaKopf

Yeah AngelWhore, but the point of the thread is whether art has a purpose. Whether hrt does anything, not what art you think is good or not. Not what you think is real or not.

I'm happy to debate this, not futile, irresolvable differences.

Shiminay

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by WhiteWashMan:

kharn the artist
ahahahzhahaahahaha,
someone move this thread to the humour board
</font>

WAN EAMO!!! Ya tinker ya!

What (f)Art have you ever produced? Did you express yourself in it?

---

All the best!
Dav
@B^)
So Bob Hoskins was about to roll a spliff when in walks Dana with her 3 foot Bong
[honey i] violated [the kids]
Tribes 2 Goodness
The Dawn of the Beefy King approaches...

WhiteWashMan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kharn:
WAN EAMO!!! Ya tinker ya!

What (f)Art have you ever produced? Did you express yourself in it?

</font>

my instagibbing of you in the UT instagib comp at croke park was perfect art
and my love making has been compared to that of casanova at his best......

---

One Of your Imps Does A Good Impersonation Of You
He Can Even Do The Ears.....

TwoShedsJackson

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by WhiteWashMan:

and my love making has been compared to that of casanova at his best......

</font>

Fu<kin' hell

Karl Hungus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
Yeah AngelWhore, but the point of the thread is whether art has a purpose. Whether hrt does anything, not what art you think is good or not. Not what you think is real or not.

I'm happy to debate this, not futile, irresolvable differences.</font>

...And what I said last post was a response to your comment towards me, not the topic.

Didn't you know that?

DadaKopf

Shut up.

Oh yeah

Art is about communication, as has been previously stated. Someone made the point that the main reason for works of art should be the artist, and that he shouldn't try to create for other people. **** being politically correct, long life to using the male pronoun at every oppertunity! Wah. If an artist does something solely for themselves then what is the point. I have been known (by very few (though increasing) people) to write songs every now and then. Being 16 and not a terribly great guitarist I know and accept that they are pretty ****e. They are apoligies for real music. That's fine. I'll keep writing because I know that I have the capability of creating something good. Some of what I've written I love, but most is just pointless drivel after a few weeks.

My point is that I'm not going to be happy sitting in my room playing away to myself forever. That achieves nothing. Communication - if I'm alone that can't happen. Art has to be for other people, to express to other people, otherwise shut up and get a real job. Of course, it's useful to get things off your chest, but when you put in all that effort you want to get a reaction from people, you want to move them.


Anybody interested in reading anything I've done can **** off and leave me in peace. I'm weird like that .

---

"Thanks for posting your message, Oh yeah! "

- Hehe, that cracks me up. Oh yeah...

Greenbean

Agreed.


I think DadaKopf and WhiteWashMan (in around about way) pointed out something I've missed in what Art means. Its not only an expression of the artist (which might be considered selfish), its not a showing of internal emotions, but its also about reflecting the beauty/ugliness or other aspects of the universe we live in, done in a way that totally disconnects the artist from the beauty or content. Its not about them (what pop art is all about?), its about seeing a beautiful vista and trying to catch the a-priori feelings in it, "look! its truth, look at it, enjoy it! its amazing!" they seem to shout - totally selflessly; not an expression.

"And my aim in my life is to make pictures and drawings, as many and as well as I can; then, at the end of my life, I hope to pass away, looking back with love and tender regret, and thinking, 'Oh, the pictures I might have made!'"
Vincent van Gogh

Some of his stuff:

http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0564.htm

http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0617.htm

http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0778.htm

http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0010.htm

DadaKopf

Oh yeah: actually, I just thought, what about Outsider art or someone like Gregor Schneider ( http://www.postmedia.net/01/schneider.htm ). I still think that art is necessarily about communication but you have to consider people like these.

Schneider has spend the last years altering his house so that it's almost like his own living hell. He lives in this house; getting to bed is an agonising journey through tiny tunnels and rotating rooms. Perhaps he's done this for himself and no one knew of this until someone or other saw his house. Then it became art. Is it communication even when it goes beyond nobody but the creator?

A fair amount of Outsider Art is made by Homer Simpsons but lots of it is made by mental patients, many who are compelled to do it like obsessive compulsive disorder or something. They just have to do it. Is that about communication?

I don't think these examples disprove the fact that all art is communication but it's kinda food for thought.

Greenbean: Yeah you're right - and I like the bit about the necessary and inevitable dissociation between the artist and his work once it's released into the public realm. Who knows how it'll be perceived by the world, outside the artist's control. However, my point is more general; Van Gogh and post-impressionism was a particular dialect of art and in-as-much as self expression was vital to him, the dialect and methods of Pop Art and somebody like Warhol was very different (as it was for someone like Piet Mondrian or the Bauhaus). Both people said things of incredible significance but they diverge so radically on an ideological basis - but it's not as radical as Harry Potter is to Michelangelo or something. What you can safely say is that both are certainly works of communication.

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 09-06-2001).]

Belisarius

After some prodding Ive read the thread fully , It seems to be a matter of perception , maybe its a cliche but "I dont know art but I know what I like" And all this bickering seems to be over the definition of the artist's perception of his art , and a bit superfluous to the more important viewpoint of the consumer and what it represents to them , Thier asthetic parrogative , anything else is surely splitting hairs , dare i utter the word "pretensious" , but anyway


In my own opinion art is projection , that of an Idea or an emotion or whatever , so In that sense i believe it is a medium for communication , but the premise that Art is all about expression is silly , Obviously expression is an inherent component of art but it isnt a Definition of art.As someone said already , Art as plain expressionism is just a little Selfish , and the majority of the modern wave of expressionism displays this , where its simply a vessel of minimum effort for considerable self-absorbtion , a product of the patrons of expressionism ?


Maybe I havent articulated myself that well but you do get the idea , even so i think ill have a big edit to do tomorrow

---

Shrewgar!

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Greenbean:
"look! its truth, look at it, enjoy it! its amazing!" they seem to shout - totally selflessly; not an expression.</font>

Sorry, but I can't help but see this as expression. The emotion there is expressed, no? The wonder, the appreciation, the awe?

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Belisarius:
In my own opinion art is projection , that of an Idea or an emotion or whatever , so In that sense i believe it is a medium for communication , but the premise that Art is all about expression is silly , Obviously expression is an inherent component of art but it isnt a Definition of art. As someone said already , Art as plain expressionism is just a little Selfish , and the majority of the modern wave of expressionism displays this , where its simply a vessel of minimum effort for considerable self-absorbtion , a product of the patrons of expressionism ?</font>

I have to say, this is quite difficult to read, but as you've said you'll edit it soon, so I may or may not be taking from this what you actually mean.

Yes, expression is inherent to art. Without expression, there is no art. And yet, I can't help but feel when I draw a building, a wall, a piece of fruit; it is little more than observation.

But when I write, I express. I express my distaste of modern commercialism, the dollar above the denizen, and the promotion of lust above true love, a love that is not seen to really exist. Yes, I gained these opinions through observation; and I try and communicate these to anyone who reads them, but most important is the expression... the distaste I feel when I see or hear of these things, the confusion I feel in a crowd of people all thinking different things and yet following the same pattern. Obviously I have to communicate this, and I do so through an art form (the novel in one case, the short in others); yet that does not take away from the fact that the art is so closely entwined with the expression that they appear one and the same. Yet art is material, and expression is immaterial. So what is art?

Expression given substance.

Picasso's famous 1937 piece "Guernica" is an expression of his feelings of the bombing... of the terror of that period in Spanish history. True, it communicates these, but that is because art can (and is) used as a tool for communication. Yet if art can exist without communication (and it does, in many unpublished works) then it cannot possibly be communication.

Art cannot exist without expression, because it is so basic to its existence. My statement in another post that art was expression was perhaps misleading, as art has substance (and of course expression does not) - yet once expression is given substance it is no longer just expression... it is art.

Oh yeah

When you draw a building or place or whatnot, you can communicate the atmosphere and general feel of the place, how big or small it is. You can break the rules and put in colours that aren't there, because that's what colour the smell would be. Like in cartoon drawings where you can see greenish smoke over a pile of rubbish. Green smells bad. Simple.


The mental patients mentioned earlier... I see it that they are communicated. Mentally ill people can have enormous difficulty saying what they want to say, and they can want to say it all the more because they can't and so they are compelled to draw or paint or sculpt as an outlet for all their thoughts etc.


And the guy with the house. That's art nowadays? Sounds like just a bad house. Although it could symbolise in real terms the pressures under which we live every day of our lives, yadayada, and thus be considered art but I'm far too going to bed to pursue this train of thought any further.

Goodnight.

---

"Thanks for posting your message, Oh yeah! "

- Hehe, that cracks me up. Oh yeah...

Greenbean

Hmm, ok, my fault for using expression wrong - I implicitly associated it with communication. When I talk about lack of expression, I mean talking about an emotion or feeling without the expression being communicated by the artist. They see something beautiful, they want to capture it, they capture it and recreate it, not by way of wanting to express something about themselves, they just want to reflect the beauty in the Earth, something universal. Its a capturing of beauty, but not for sake of showing the artist can do it, not that the artist wants to say something about themselves, they don't necessarily want to do it for anyone else, they just don't want to loose the beauty. This is possible - would it no longer be considered art because the artist wasn't trying to communicate anything?

I'm sure it could be said that this doesn't matter, this does say something about the artist whether they wanted it or not but I don't accept freudian policies that the artist didn't realise they were trying to communicate something. I respect people enough not to imply they are subconsciously thinking things they didn't want to, its far to easy to wash everyone with such a philosophy - its impossible to argue against, and it would air brush out those genuine cases which may exist.

So what is the point again?? That art isn't necessarily about an artist trying to communicate to people. Why do we want to communicate; there are loads of reasons and unfortunately alot of modern art seems to be alot of the wrong reasons, money, power, respect, greed, fake angst etc.

On the flip side, is a really good to respect art which comes from internal uncontrollable forces? We all look at some of the best art and we find behind the art we have some very very pathetic and self destructive selfless person. I find it sad sometimes. Its not as though they could have helped it. But we look at what they create and its amazing - but is it only the example of what happens to a derranged mind, it gives gimpses into another mind/world. Its their reality but its not our reality, is it worth anything - do we just respect it because we can't understand it?

Maybe more respect should be given to those who create though provoking art from motives which we understand, they at least live in our world and they have created something which just comes naturally. Am I back to popular art again?

DadaKopf

Just-Half: I accept your logic but...

Firstly: what do you mean exactly by "expression"? Just to argree on a definition.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">True, it communicates these, but that is because art can (and is) used as a tool for communication. Yet if art can exist without communication (and it does, in many unpublished works) then it cannot possibly be communication.</font>

It very much depends on whether you take into the equation that an innate feature of art is the end (communication) and its means (the work). I don't believe at all that art can exist without communication but representation can. Of course artists have attempted to break apart this relationship which is why I can only find 'communicative language' as a common thread. That's an old Romantic notion of art which doesn't really hold water anymore (re: Roland Barthes).

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Expression given substance</font>

Actually not quite. Conceptual art is about the idea not the thing it's made of. If you check out the linguist Ferdinand de Sausseure and other structuralists and post-structuralists, artifacts as much as language and writing are merely signs for intellectual concepts. It's all to do with the 'signifier' and the 'signified'; art can be expression/communication given substance as much as it's representation (while always makes a statement) but art can also have a non physical presence too. For example, Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living is about the sublime nature of death and it appears to me that the actual 'substance' of the piece (featuring a shark in a tank of formaldyhide) is the title whereas the tank, shark and the space it occupies is a signifier to the signified (a reversal of Sausseure's model). It's probably a bad example but you get the idea. The concept of art being an unitary creation from the imagination is long dead; it was once believed in the 19th century that the name and the piece and the idea formed a sublime whole and each element was inseparable. Now just ask yourself what the relationship is between a song and its title and you'll probably realise it's quite arbitrary.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">as art has substance (and of course expression does not) - yet once expression is given substance it is no longer just expression... it is art </font>

I don't exactly buy it. Admittedly, there are real problems when it comes to questions like "Was Dalí an artist or a professional idiot?" (a favourite of mine). I don't think he was an artist, or at least a good one but then again, I never said the definitions of art were rigid, only that they must be fought over and they all have communication in common.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Guernica" is an expression of his feelings of the bombing... of the terror of that period in Spanish history</font>

Yeah, but so much more also (I'm nitpicking here). The composition of Guernica closely resembles a print he made in the first decade of the 20th century featuring the bull/Minotaur, gas-lamp, wailing woman at the window and shadowy onlooker. The wonderful thing about Picasso is that he collated all these images throughout his entire life and they each gained a mystical quality with such ambilvalent meanings (which often mirrored his own life) that Guernica isn't just about the bombing of the town but also a universal shriek of terror at the thought of man's inhumanity to man. It's so potent even today that it still has to be kept behind thick glass in the Prado.

Oh yeah

Greenbean - Exactly. The point of the picture of the flower or whatever is to try and keep some of the beauty of the moment and of the object. The painting then is intended to put across this beauty to the person who sees it, ie. to communicate.

---

<A HREF="http://www.thegreensock.com

-Unfinished" TARGET=_blank>www.thegreensock.com

-Unfinished</A> and a bit crap right now, but... *has convenient moment of asphyxiation which allows self to avoid finishing the sentence, wahey*

DadaKopf

What flower? Who says art has to be beautiful. Stop introducing perjorative terms.

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
Firstly: what do you mean exactly by "expression"? Just to argree on a definition.</font>

From Humanities board favourite Dictionary.com:
Lively or vivid representation of meaning, sentiment, or feeling, etc.; significant and impressive indication, whether by language, appearance, or gesture; that manner or style which gives life and suggestive force to ideas and sentiments; as, he reads with expression; her performance on the piano has expression

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
Yeah, but so much more also (I'm nitpicking here).
>snip<
The wonderful thing about Picasso is that he collated all these images throughout his entire life and they each gained a mystical quality with such ambilvalent meanings (which often mirrored his own life) that Guernica isn't just about the bombing of the town but also a universal shriek of terror at the thought of man's inhumanity to man. </font>

So is it not an expression of that?

You also said something about the end of art being communication, therefore communication is inherent to the definition of art. I disagree. Art can, and does, exist without communication. I've written pieces that will never be seen... where is the communication if only one party (the creator)is involved?

Communication is a secondary effect that people do *with* the art.

DadaKopf

But your attempts at creating something 'artistic' is in itself an act of communication if only in essence (before existence, perhaps). The necessary motivation for you to create those pieces is communication even if it is only intended for yourself. And anyway, writing, of all things, is one of the most direct and irrefutable examples of art as communication. Language is one of the purest forms of communication, probably next to facial gestures.

As I've said before, the idea that art as some autonomous, free-floaing 'idea' that drifts in the universe until someone grounds it (the 19th century Romantic view) is bunk and that's what I assume you're inferring. Art has evolved so much since then that to define it as that, or even your cited definition of 'expression' isn't applicable anymore. Art is something which is fractured and undefinable but necessarily has communication (not 'expression') as a common thread. The nature or form this communication takes is what changes constantly and which creates the illusion of a definable definition. There are only styles and definitions.

Your insistence on 'expression' as a birth right of art is just the insistence of a particular style and approach. Jackson Pollock was all about expression (and paint), as was Picasso, Goya, Van Gogh, Rembrandt but expression in itself is a modern idea. But then there are artists like Malevich, Mondrian, Greek sculptors and modern abstract artists like Constantin Brancusi and Carl Andre. Take the latter; he isn't about 'expression', he makes simple, abstract sculptures that predominantly deal with space - making people aware that they occupy space. When you walk through his firlds of huge blocks of cedar wood, you become increasingly aware of your own presence - not this isn't him expressing himself, it's him making a statement, sure, but the experience lies only with those who view the pieces. Abstract art like this is strikingly different to something so self serving as abstract art like Pollock or people like Van Gogh and the same thing applies to all forms of artistic endeavour.

This view is separate from the question of what can be called art and what can't - what's good and what's bad. That's more of a cultural thing than the mere definitions of artistic languages. English is most certainly a language but what makes one Engligh book better than another one? That brings into account insurmountable levels of analyses that no one person could possibly understand. It's a socio-historic and absolutely chaotic realm of perception.

[This message has been edited by DadaKopf (edited 14-06-2001).]

Executive Steve

ok then kids, mc tyranny back on the scene to tell you whats what with a little FAQ.

1. first of all, the best definition of culture i've ever come across [and you cant really separate art from culture, think about it] is from brian eno [musician bloke] "culture is everything you dont have to do"

2. second of all the best exploration of modern art, and this was written a while ago when modern art was a bit more of a novelty than it is now, and also one the most accessible [ie. its very short and written in words that even i could understand, which means you all might have a fair crack at it too] is "the painted word" by tom wolfe.
todays homework is to go read it and see if you see the likes of pollock etc. in a new light or if you think that absract expressionism etc. is just pants or whatever.

3. is all art good? no of course not.

4. is all art art? by definition.

5.is art important? "the artist is reponsible for the provision of the root metaphors of a society" - me, i think

6. does art have to be pretty?of course not. figurative representation hasnt really been a part of the artists repertoire since photography, artists [in the paint and paper, sculpture etc. realm] have been freed from the tyranny of representation by photography etc. since the early twentieth century. when did abstract art start? the early twentieth century. why? the developement of photography.

7. am i stupid if i dont like absract art? no; in the same way youre not deaf if you like heavy metal, though you will be soon. probably.

8. are these artists who make huge canvasses with just a splash of paint in one corner taking the **** or what? no theyre not. they are basically doing their job by creating cultural artefacts that express, occasionally badly i agree, their/our position within our society/cultural milieu.

9. do these funny artists just bang out endless reams of paintings in five seconds flat? errr, no actually, it takes an average of eighteen months to two years for an artist to produce a body of work substantial enough to fill a small gallery, what with the various interruptions of the creative process he/she might suffer. think about it. i dont type vry fast, but if a book took as long to write as it took to type that much text well hey we'd be sending **** off to publishers all the time wouldnt we?

10. is music art? yes it is. the vengaboys are just as much cultural artefacts as the most tortured soul radical feminist lesbian poetess out there. sorry.

11. does that mean you are an artist mc tyranny? yes it does, every thursday night at mono thanks, 4 quid with a flyer.

12. do you express yourself on the mic? no, well hardly ever, i just shout stuff at drugged up ravers over loud music, in order to get them to have even more fun.

13. why are you so clever? genetics.

14. is whitewashman's love making art in the strictest sense of the word? well, theres cases for and against, but the biological urge to create is probably higher on his list of priorities than cultural advancement [unless you've grown a tad more pompous since i saw you last eamo... and you were never pompous to my knowledge]

15. are you saying all this out of pretentiousness or are you being patronising or are you just kind? What do you think?

peace love and unity.

Oh yeah

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by DadaKopf:
What flower? Who says art has to be beautiful. Stop introducing perjorative terms.</font>

The flower in the picture somebody mentioned as being something to do with something...

Art doesn't have to be beautiful, but beauty can be the subject of art.

What in the name of ******** in a perjorative term?

---

<A HREF="http://www.thegreensock.com

-Unfinished" TARGET=_blank>www.thegreensock.com

-Unfinished</A> and a bit crap right now, but... *has convenient moment of asphyxiation which allows self to avoid finishing the sentence, wahey*

TwoShedsJackson

dictionary.com saves us once again!!

perjorative: No entry found for perjorative in the dictionary.

However under Pejorative:

adj.
Tending to make or become worse.
Disparaging; belittling.

n.
A disparaging or belittling word or expression

JustHalf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Castor Troy:
dictionary.com saves us once again!!
</font>

What did I say? Humanities board favourite.

DadaKopf

Please engage brain before posting.

[This message has been edited by Castor Troy (edited 16-06-2001).]