Is Art just a mirror?

davej

Do you think Art is ever truly able to provide a new way in which to look at things or is it just a reaction to the
larger social "system" in which it exists? Is Art just a reflection, albeit sometimes a distorted one?

I suppose in a way this may depend on your view of where inspiration comes from and whether you think Art can be universal or timeless. Does inspiration come from the "divine" (or
whatever you choose to call it) or does everything stem from the environment in which it was created ?
If appreciation of a work of Art is said to be "timeless" then surely it has transcended the society from whence it came? Or is it that the beholder brings his own set of values and norms with him when he looks upon the work, reinterpreting it as a mirror of himself and falsely attaching the tag of "universality" to it ?

If you look at much of Renaissance art (and most other pre 20th Century art) you would think that all artists were certainly inspired by God. But the fact was that painting or sculpting for the church was the only game in town for most artists. The reality of life was that they needed patronage to make a living. So the socio-economic system (where enormous power was wielded by the church) dictated, to a large extent, the type of artistic endeavours they undertook.

davej

millihelen, n.: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship.

Wook

as one famous guy said 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'?
I think what for most people means art is something they read in the media by the so called 'art critics'. Is art a piece made somebody with no technical knowledge ? Or is it something you know you can not do because of the complexity of it ?
Is it something you have a feeling about when you see it even though you can easily recreate the work?

For me personaly art would be something i am really impressed by it. it could be a building, furniture,painting, photograph etc etc.
And i try not to follow the critics too much as it often distort my view of what i like and what not.

My father works in a art museum and they once bought a piece that was just a huge kettle filled with mussels.. they paid over 10million euro for it.. is this art to me ? no it isn't.

Often the background story behind a piece might change your might.. but isn't it just another sales-pitch ?

Monkey

"For me personaly art would be something i am really impressed by it. it could be a building, furniture,painting, photograph etc etc.
And i try not to follow the critics too much as it often distort my view of what i like and what not.

My father works in a art museum and they once bought a piece that was just a huge kettle filled with mussels.. they paid over 10million euro for it.. is this art to me ? no it isn't.

Often the background story behind a piece might change your might.. but isn't it just another sales-pitch ?"

It is art if the person who made considered himself an artist and considered what he made art. Nobody should tell anyone that something they have made isn't art. Don't confuse the question "is it art?" with "do I think it's good art?".

If you see a sofa that you really like, that you think is designed really well it does not become art because you say you consider it art. The intention of the person who made it was to make a piece of furniture not a work of art. Design is not art.

DadaKopf

That post and mussels thing is in the Tate Modern.

Look, as always, people have completely misunderstood the question and are blathering on about what they think art *is* in general, WRIT LARGE. And all that.

The question is more about representation. Does art represent the world (i.e. act as a mirror) as it is?

If you read your Foucault, and accept what he has to say, you'll find that the role or art has changed through history. Until the Renaissance, art was understood as being a gateway to the divine realm so art was based on *RESEMBLANCE* - it was for contemplation because the precious materials art was made of was believed to have been placed there by God and to have divine properties. Then the Renaissance, combined with the new religion, science, shifted the role of art to *REPRESENTATION* so art's role was concerned with attemting to map out reality (surface reality and underlying reality) but also to delight and amaze. Art today has become completely detached from the world, referring more to itself than to the world so 'post-modern' art has become *REFLEXIVE*.

So, basically, the role of art changes FUNDAMENTALLY depending on one's concept of 'reality' which, itself, is shaped by the existence and operations of power through all aspects of human life.

Clearly, the role, runction and shape of art in any given age is dependent on context - where it's made, when it's made and of course on power: what are the dominant codes of culture? who controls knowledge?

While art may no longer resemble or represent reality like it used to, it certainly is shaped by a current state of affairs and often as a reaction "to the larger social "system" in which it exists". Power doesn't flow in one direction, it's composed of parry and riposte.

The philosopher and art theorist, Frederic Jameson has said that the shape and role of art today is dominated by the "cultural logic of late-capitalism" which essentially means that art is no longer a transgressive and challenging meditation on reality which it was at the turn of the century but is a product of our economic system's internal logic. The domination of kitsch for example is a clear illustration of where post-modern art has found itself: a sickly sweet, ironic world of blandness invented and reinvented for the soul purpose of giving fleeting moments of pleasure for the purpose of social climbing. Ironically, another critic, Matei Calinescu, noted that kitsch is actually a bastardisation of Romantic Art because the Romantics turned art away from dealing with beauty by pointing towards the divine realm towards seeing art as objects which were beautiful and desirable in themselves.

So, in answer to your question: I think today art is the outpouring of our world's underlying cultural trends and, by consequence, our underlying and dominant economic system.

As a result, a lot of art has become frivolous and superficial, dealing only in novelty and there only for ornamentation. New art which is political and conceptually forceful has taken a back seat; art has, since the 60s (though perhaps ever since Marcel Duchamp) become political against itself (arguing over what we're arguing about) but has almost been too coy about reclaiming the realm it once occupied: to speak out about crap stuff that's going on and to give it a voice.

This is probably because it's unfashionable. It sounds too much like propaganda. This is probably because of WWII, the Cold War and the Bildeberg Group who made the decision after Rockefeller destroyed Diego Rivera's mural, that they would prevent political art from gaining a foothold in America or Europe.

There are hopeful artists out there, though. Josef Beuys was a true Romantic; some America black artists are very eloquently political; Leon Golub, an American expressionist painter, never gave up on being political; and social photographers like Richard Billingham and Andreas Gursky are really pushing the boat.

Wook

now where did you copy and paste that txt from ?

DadaKopf

It came from my brain-machine. :rolleyes:

Wook

btw i dont think art is an reflection on what makes the world spin.
I dont think it HAS to be a mirror. It just can be.

DadaKopf

Oh, and as for Universality...

Humans are meaning-giving creatures so we tend to make meaning out of our existence. The term "universality", I think, is a word we use to describe realities of our existence in more meaningful terms in a way that we may all feel connected to each other.

What universality really means is that we're finite beings with the same biological design so, evidently, we all share the same feelings and are generally faced with the same challenges in life: birth, striving, mortality, love, hate, optimism. Art gives a level of repesentation to that but where it fits into the grander scheme of things, as I've said, changes over time.

Wook: you're going to have to offer a better argument there than to offer a sincere, yet glib, comment like that. [no offence]

But that's what I said: it doesn't *HAVE* to be a mirror, it once was a mirror, but nowadays, it (1) tends to refer mainly to itself and (2) is shaped largely by our economic system - the present modes of production, but within that system there's a diversity of approaches, some of which merely make shallow entertainment while others remain on the fringe challenging norms. That's why I like to just think of art as an outpouring (articulation) of a particular culture's or context's overall concerns, worries, preoccupations and loves rather than a direct reflection. Art is much more capable of mutation than the systems which underlie its articulation through art.

It must be said, though, this is a *VERY* Westerncentric interpretation. Art clearly has different roles in other areas of the world.

Wook

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Wook: you're going to have to offer a better argument there than to offer a sincere, yet glib, comment like that. [no offence]
none taken

But that's what I said: it doesn't *HAVE* to be a mirror, it once was a mirror, but nowadays, it (1) tends to refer mainly to itself and (2) is shaped largely by our economic system - the present modes of production, but within that system there's a diversity of approaches, some of which merely make shallow entertainment while others remain on the fringe challenging norms. That's why I like to just think of art as an outpouring (articulation) of a particular culture's or context's overall concerns, worries, preoccupations and loves rather than a direct reflection. Art is much more capable of mutation than the systems which underlie its articulation through art.

That's why I like to just think of art as an outpouring (articulation) of a particular culture's or context's overall concerns, worries, preoccupations and loves rather than a direct reflection Hasn't it always been like this ? Since the dark ages till now ? Maybe even more so in the old age , as art made out of somebody's feelings wasn't meant to be installed into a gallery and sold ?

davej

Thanks for your replies guys..

I suppose one of the biggest political events ever to take place was the separation of church and state. This decline in the power of the church had a parallel impact on the relationship between Art and the State. Art has lost a lot of its prestige having been in many cases reduced to a commodity with a particular dollar value attached to it.

Art is much more capable of mutation than the systems which underlie its articulation through art.

The post modern condition, of which Art is perhaps the chief "sufferer", coupled with the influence of global capitalism, has forced it to become introspective and isoteric. I don't know whether or not I would call this a mutation or not. It seems to me that Art tends to go wherever it is pushed to. Like many other disciplines (music, literature, and even science) it is forced to ever more specialise into new "niche" areas in order for it to survive in the capitalist system. In a way this introspection and isotericism is really Art in denial of the the system in which it exists.

If you see a sofa that you really like, that you think is designed really well it does not become art because you say you consider it art. The intention of the person who made it was to make a piece of furniture not a work of art. Design is not art.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "death of the artist" ? I guess you might equally call a chair that get's redefined as Art as "quickening of the artist". ? :rolleyes:

davej

havok*

Originally posted by Monkey
"For me personaly art would be something i am really impressed by it. it could be a building, furniture,painting, photograph etc etc.
And i try not to follow the critics too much as it often distort my view of what i like and what not.

My father works in a art museum and they once bought a piece that was just a huge kettle filled with mussels.. they paid over 10million euro for it.. is this art to me ? no it isn't.

Often the background story behind a piece might change your might.. but isn't it just another sales-pitch ?"

Amen.


To be honest I dont think "Is art a mirror?" is a fair question for a start. Art is way too diverse to genralise. To some artists it about making the ordinary seem extraordinary, which would facilitate your question. To take an object or subject matter, experiment around with it and finally come to some visual conclusion (the Finished peice)

But to alot, art is just a means of constructing a peice baced on some random idea or conglomeration of ideas which dont necessarily have any relevance to the cultural trends, the social state of the world or any profound statement behind them. It's true that mabye on a subconscious level any peice produced could be unwittingly initiated buy ones present circumstances and surroundings. But that's debatable

Why do any of us partake in this practice? Honestly its probobly just as important as to why anyone would go about creating a work of art, then as to the meaning behind any peice they create.

Originally posted by Monkey
Design is not art.

Being primarily a graphic designer, i find this statement offensive. Theres a fair amount of decent corprate art out there. I dont think because it has a pacific function it stops being art.

my 0.02 euro

DadaKopf

But to alot, art is just a means of constructing a peice baced on some random idea or conglomeration of ideas which dont necessarily have any relevance to the cultural trends, the social state of the world or any profound statement behind them. It's true that mabye on a subconscious level any peice produced could be unwittingly initiated buy ones present circumstances and surroundings. But that's debatable

I dunno. Maybe you have some unique talent from cutting yourself off from the world. Maybe you live in a cave. I certainly can't cut myself off from the world. Probably even if you lived in a cave, your design would be shaped by the only world you know.

havok*

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I dunno. Maybe you have some unique talent from cutting yourself off from the world. Maybe you live in a cave. I certainly can't cut myself off from the world. Probably even if you lived in a cave, your design would be shaped by the only world you know.

Different things intrest different people, not everyone trys to make a statement with what they do. Or trys to give their own version of the world with what they do.
Example: The last peice i did was baced on the random forms created in a finished cup of hot choclate, I just found it intresting. I expeirmented with it alot and incorporated ideas which just came out of the air. The final peice looked nothing remotely like what i started off with, but it still looked intresting.

Nothing profound, nothing political, just intresting. I dont think art has to be governed by social change anymore.

davej

not everyone trys to make a statement with what they do

But just because you don't TRY to make a particular statement doesn't mean you aren't making one. Again this is the concept of death of the artist (or author). This concept was espoused famously by Roland Barthes:

http://www.eiu.edu/~literary/4950/barthes.htm

Example: The last peice i did was baced on the random forms created in a finished cup of hot choclate, I just found it intresting.......Nothing profound, nothing political, just intresting.

One could argue that your piece DOES reflect the social and physical environment in which it was created. You took as your starting point a physical object from the world and incorporated some so called "random ideas" into it. These ideas have been entirely influenced by your experience of the world as you know it. So while the final piece might be in quite an original "configuration", it is still a reflection of the environment in which it was created. In fact Barthes would argue that you are limiting the scope of your piece by attaching the concept of an author to it. You as the artist are are a social being.

Interestingly this leads to the argument that the artist is painted by the painting.

davej

Monkey

"Being primarily a graphic designer, i find this statement offensive. Theres a fair amount of decent corprate art out there. I dont think because it has a pacific function it stops being art."

If design was art you'd be primarily an artist. Nothing against design, its a perfectly respectable discipline that requires skill and ideas but it doesn't fit in with my definition of art. I find it offensive for someone to suggest that a poster designed for a business, or a corporate logo or something like that is art

Monkey

"It is art if the person who made considered himself an artist and considered what he made art. Nobody should tell anyone that something they have made isn't art."

"Design is not art."

I really contradicted myself there. What I really mean is that art should be made for it's own sake. And if someone makes something as a work of art then it is. But I don't buy people making things as commercial design work and then saying but I also consider it art.

havok*

Thats fair enuff.

But to be honest the term "artist" doesn't really just refer to Painters and Sculptors anymore. Photographers, Animators, Fashion designers, Textile designers, Film Directors, Graphic Designers, Musicians ect, ect, often refer to themselfs as Artists.

I can see what you mean with mundane design say a logo or a brochure design. But you just have to look at some CD inlay covers for example, some of which are on a par with any piece produced by a fine artist. Jobs which incorparate near creative freedom (as a fine artist would have) turn out just as good. Many incorpate freehand techniques anyways then scanned and minupulated.

I can see where your coming from, but i think theres more to art then just Fine art (although it is probably considered the most pure form)
Say a painter paints a film poster for star wars. Its art in its own right as well as being design of a corporate nature.


Neil / Hav

Raife

Okay, that was a long and painfull read.

Well DadaKopf hinted at it but I did'nt much more depth put into it, as it seemed as bland as alot of the post modern art which has infested the art society.

What I'm getting too is DadaKopfs statement:That's why I like to just think of art as an outpouring (articulation) of a particular culture's or context's overall concerns, worries, preoccupations and loves rather than a direct reflection.

Art, True Art is the expession of the Artist's emotions, not simple feelings but full expession of their very Essence or Soul.

I'm not an Artist, I say this because I feel the term is thrown around far too easily these days. An Artist is someone who has full control of their abilities to the point in which their work would no longer require the confines of this world, but be free to roam in their imagination. I say that because thats what i am striving for, I know there are alot of things to add but I feel its all I should say, for today anyway.

I would write more but I find myself destroyed by the Academic Literature above.

Graphic design can be art as long as your expessing something, Corporate Logos may look good, but something that looks good is not Art.

I'm sorry if my comments offended anyone as that was not my intent.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by havok*
Different things intrest different people, not everyone trys to make a statement with what they do. Or trys to give their own version of the world with what they do. [...] Nothing profound, nothing political, just intresting. I dont think art has to be governed by social change anymore.

I wasn't talking about politics. I was talking about you being situated within a context that is connected to all things. What made you think that little project you did was interesting in the first place? Context, experience, and your imagination. I was relating everything back to the original question.

Monkey:
If design was art you'd be primarily an artist. Nothing against design, its a perfectly respectable discipline that requires skill and ideas but it doesn't fit in with my definition of art. I find it offensive for someone to suggest that a poster designed for a business, or a corporate logo or something like that is art

Now you're just talking about definitions, which are arbitrary. That doesn't mean they're meaningless, just arbitrary and subject to context/paradigm.

Raife:
Art, True Art is the expession of the Artist's emotions, not simple feelings but full expession of their very Essence or Soul.

I'm not an Artist, I say this because I feel the term is thrown around far too easily these days. An Artist is someone who has full control of their abilities to the point in which their work would no longer require the confines of this world, but be free to roam in their imagination. I say that because thats what i am striving for, I know there are alot of things to add but I feel its all I should say, for today anyway.

I would write more but I find myself destroyed by the Academic Literature above.

Graphic design can be art as long as your expessing something, Corporate Logos may look good, but something that looks good is not Art.

I was going to mention something about this above but I thought it best suited what you said.

Your conception of the artist seems to be based within the Romantic tradition. That is: the human mind/imagination is ultimately free and has the power to transcend nature/reality and therefore present something which is universal and timeless. Romanticism typically deals with the 'sublime' - that which is so awesome that's it's emotionally overwhelming but rationally inexpressible.

This implies, though, that the artist has some special access to reality which most ordinary people don't, in which case artists show them the light. This mode of thinking culminated in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche (and various strains of existentialism) which advocated obeisance to an Overman. This way of seeing things led to a cultural climate that allowed Hitler and Stalin so come to prominence.

The realisation that we haven't been able to find where our 'essence' resides, and other advances by philosophers like Ludwig Wittgenstein who claimed that all philosophical problems were linguistic problems, we came to understand the world more as a construction of signs, the meanings of which arise from their use and, more generally, the long and ever evolving process of history with its overlapping movements and counter-movements. This realisation tended to create a conception of man that wasn't 'special' but animal (and this was clearly helped by Darwin and structural anthropologists like Claude Levi-Strauss). I think this is a much more sensible conception.

The shift from typical Modernism to typical Postmodernism is a political project which has aesthetic ramifications. But art, not being able to exist within a vacuum, needs this project to survive.

So we see art more as something that's created within a context (place in the world) and the creator's (limited) imagination (imagination meaning cognitive faculties but not 'essence'). So, within this, I think more sober account of the world, it's easier to see 'art' or whatever as shaped/structured by deeper underlying narratives, all of which shape our worldviews, motivations, definitions, loves, hates etc. In which case, art is a mirror, but not in the same sense it was 1000 years ago.

Of course people create art out of emotional drive but to view this as the only thing necessary for art, and ignoring all the other more important stuff, is nonsense.

Raife

Seriously DadaKopf, do you believe that well in doing so I feel that true Art will die out and all that will be left is people who can draw what they see without any emotional contact to the subject and inadvertenly destroying the form of which it(the so called Artist) is trying to create.

Romantism? I'm sorry but I feel you thousands of hours of reading modern-day critics and philosophers has done nothing but dilude your view of true Art.

You write so well of what you've read and heard but you do not listen to yourself(meaning an Artists soul is the only muse that truly controls his/her actions).

If I'm being branded as a Romantic so be it, but I'd rather be a romantic than an Academic who's perception of Art has been twisted and manipulated by society at large to become something ugly and vulgar.

Your perception is Art, but a ratherdistorted version, but Art none the less.


If I have made any rash judgements of your character DadaKopf I am sorry but from what I've seen here, my remarks were thus molded. So if I am wrong please specify exactly, without quoting any Academic literature, but quote yourself and what you believe, not what you've been thought to believe.

"Dreaming is for the hopeless, Hopelessness is loss of focus."

davej

Raife,

Phrases like "true art" that you have used suggest a subscription to the belief that humans can aspire to something beyond the apparent confines of the social and physical world in which they exist. This is essence of what the thread is about in the first place. I guess your answer to the question "Is Art just a mirror ?" is no.

Dada has given his point of view and backed it up by the musings of various commentators throughout history. Perhaps you could explain what exactly you mean by this so called "soul" that controls the actions of the artist ? Where does it come from ?

If I'm being branded as a Romantic so be it, but I'd rather be a romantic than an Academic who's perception of Art has been twisted and manipulated by society at large to become something ugly and vulgar.

Why do you think this view of Art is ugly and vulgar ? Many would argue (and it has been at the core of this thread) that Art *itself* is twisted and manipulated by society at large. Again this doesn't mean it makes art ugly or vulgar, on the contrary many would consider this an amazing thing; that art can reflect our society in such weird and wonderful ways.

This has been a very interesting thread by the way and nobody should feel threatened or afraid to express themselves just because they don't think they are as eloquent or learned as other posters..

davej

Raife

The soul which you refer to as "so called" is the thing that drives you create and pushes the artist far beyond the limits put down by those in narrowminded circles.

For instance when I write, my head does not control me nor does my heart, but its my very being, My Soul that expresses me in ways in which would take a thousand lifetimes to learn and therefore I see myself as an "Old Soul", a rather unrespected term due to it putting the person who states it above everyone else but that is not the case.

Yes, I believe that some people have older souls than others, but once someone through reflection of ones own character and being touches this, there is nothing beyond their ability of skill, it may take time in some areas or like me in soem areas it will appear as if by magic.

I cannot express myself very well vocally, but in text I say what I am and what I feel with no hesitation.

I know my remarks are going to come under some speculation, but thats the beauty of being unseen, as people will judge me harshly, and see me with disbelief.

Thats the burden some people have to carry.

"Forgive yourself for the flaws you think you have" 'Sage'

DadaKopf

The soul which you refer to as "so called" is the thing that drives you create and pushes the artist far beyond the limits put down by those in narrowminded circles.

For instance when I write, my head does not control me nor does my heart, but its my very being, My Soul that expresses me in ways in which would take a thousand lifetimes to learn and therefore I see myself as an "Old Soul", a rather unrespected term due to it putting the person who states it above everyone else but that is not the case.

Yes, I say "so called" because you haven't given me a shred of explanation or proof of what a soul is or where it is. It's just a handy way of explaining very complex processes without having to think too much. I suspect that if I really started questioning you on what you actually mean, you'd find yourself stuck fast in a tar pit.

I'm not saying, for instance, that your drive to create doesn't come from the core of your being but that's a very, very different thing to stating that it comes from your soul. I've got the arguments to back this up (in fact, I've already made them) and, believe it or not, I hold my views because they're what I think, not because they're what other people think. By referencing them, I was just acknowledging that I'm not a super-soul who can just will things out of the ether - I'm much smaller than that. Just one element of a much bigger system. Or maybe you think you're much more special than that.

Raife

Okay Dadakopf, I may of gotten ahead of myself and assumed too much about and for that I'm sorry, but I have such strong feelings from my own experience and from what I have witnessed and because of that I sometimes I become a bit too passionate about such things that I feel at my core. But I still stand by my statements through and through.

But you are also assuming alot about me, but I might of drove you to do such a thing and so Its my own fault.

I hope that you do not feel badly towards me, I was just sehowing exactly how I feel and alot of narrowminded people do not understand or think what I say is credible or worth listening too, those people are in the most part Academics and thats why quite harsh(hate using that word) on my statements towards you.

(I think i just repeated myself, oh well!)

Anyway Dadakopf, hope we can talk some time as your discussions are really interesting, whether or not I agree.

"Be not who they want you to be, but who you want you to be."