.
yes, yes, no, yes 🙂 To reply to slamfoot
Theres just different grades of quality and signifigance, some things or performances are on different branches of the tree, some are fruit bearing and long lived while others drop off, rediscovered and interpreted or re-graded later or are decided to be unworthy by consensus in the long run.
Art and perception is constantly changing isn't it? Thats for the best, we wouldn't want the definitions to remain static, that would reflective of a static culture. We used to be able to read allegory well in painting, now we can't but we've gained other things in the modern age.
Though I'd fight tooth and nail against defining football as art (it happens here, its Australia after all) an anarchic approach might be for the best. Spacepirates observation has a strange and wonderful attraction, though its something of a cul-de-sac.
I'd agree with SDR, some of the most talented I know are remarkably shy, even conservative and pretty critical of their own work, then again I read a while ago that creative people tend to be promiscous.
Its all a very exciting, the way that ideas generate artifacts and vise-versa and good for DA to stretch its wings.
Lets have more left field thoughts!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm
I would say
there is a fundamental flaw in the opening question. I can think of no other large human endeavor where it is reasonable to have various personal definitions that no other field or object for that matter allows, RE; What is art TO YOU. A small example; I can have a personal definition of an orange as ummy yummy goodness, but this in no way helps define what an orange is. For this I might ask a botanist. By the same token if I am looking for a definition of art I might ask some who is actually qualified that question rather than manufacture some personal definition from a lifetime of hearing other personal definitions. To paraphrase Lunchbox; Just because the bulk of people do this, it does not make them right.
Yes, its good to remember...
Yes, its good to remember that we have the power of reason or at least should have ability to bring a bit of folk wisdom, academic or expert opinion, facts and our own thoughts and experiences together into something that could well nail a problem better than one or the other.
Love laurie Anderson
But it is a cheeky comment on my post considering she is a well qualified expert in her field. As an intellectual artist backhanding other intellectual experts it does not make for very convincing commentary. I wish you hadn't linked that. It brought her down a bit in my view.
Although
the thread asks "What is art to you," the discussion so far makes me think that we could do with a dictionary definition -- a place from which to wander off on our own individual paths. Here's a good one, I think, care of Wikipedia:
Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, whereas disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and psychology analyze its relationship with humans and generations.
Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions.
(It may be that, as our culture further encourages individual expression -- "Everybody gets a gold star this week, just for showing up !" -- possibly at the expense of a cohesive set of standards, one's own definition of a term or an idea will assume more importance, and references such as dictionaries, encylopediae, etc, will be retired from duty . . . )
slamfoot
It is exactly the kinds of people you might think. I would ask (in this order) Aestheticians, Art historians, Arts professionals (museum folk and public art board people) and artists. Of course there are libraries that have much on this subject if you want a grounding before you start asking these folks. It is like having to have strong math background and or knowing some scientific terminology to have detailed conversations about some science subject.
Your question as stated (especially with the "Mr." inclusion) sounds a bit like an indignant challenge. If so, I say this; I do not get worked up that I am not qualified to speak meaningfully on particle physics or a an absurdly large range of other subjects. Art is a unique animal in that most people have no problem weighing in on it's finer points regardless of any grounding in the subject, something they would not try to get away with a host of other things they were not grounded in. It seems like many people can not stand the idea that a subject requires study or practice when that subject is art. An oddly illogical exception I think. It is generally an unpleasant experience to suggest some background as an aid in meaningful discourse. I am generally pegged as an intellectual elitist (thanks Heath). If I were a physicist and you wanted to have an in depth conversation about whatever I was working on, I might suggest some background material that will make what I have to say more easily understandable. Would you be indignant? I doubt it. If you did not mean to be indignant with your question and it merely sounded that way by accident, by all means disregard this paragraph.
That is an old saw
and a particularly annoying one as I read it's subtext which is; " I have no interest in learning about this subject, but will claim a certain expertise anyway". Sorry my friend, don't take it personally. I know It is a common expression, but you are speaking on a subject I have devoted a substantial part of my life to, and It is a frustrating thing to hear as it throws up a wall in front of the crazy notion that art is actually worth learning about. Art is like a lot of subjects. It is kind of annoying and frustrating when you know little, but increasingly interesting as you get into it. I hate to see it blocked like that.
yeah glassartist but....
If you only leave it to the "experts" I think that is a formula for what eventually becomes a very static and stale language. It eventually dies if it is only in the academics hands. (Most of the good stuff happens because people don't have a clue that they have no buisiness trying that! LOL Too much awareness of the "rules" drains all the life out of everything.
What about the simple power of all that street art that has had such a bearing on the "establishment art world" now?
Sometimes, the trade off of "learned art language skills" for simple dumb energy is more than worth it.
I think basic energy and hypersensitivity to one's own existence is, in the long run, far more important to sustain artistic investigation than "learned art marks" or learning about what was previously called Art.
(And I say that as a teacher of art on the college level for over 33 years. I have learned what I can give em and what I cant give em)
There is much validity to your points, but man, it just doesn't happen like that. There are no rules. People make stuff. The shit hits the fan, and then it gets sorted out LATER. Not the other way around.
If you spend your whole life learning every skill first, and doing all your assignments and homework (like a good student should)... well then by the time you have all your skills down, you have put aside what you have to say for way too long, so that you cant even find it any more.
I think the URGE has to come first-- and refinements take care of themselves in proper time.
There is no gate keeper.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com