ONCE UPON a        TIME
                                                                                          ezine at l'atelier bonita
                                                     established since december 2002

Talking About Art                   by  Editor & Co. Participant / 11:19 PM: Talking About Art. 1. Where does art rest in society? What, exactly are the functions of art? 2. Is it important for an artist to be a commercial success? If you are an artist, do you wish to be able to earn a good living by selling your work? If you are not involved in the creation of art works, do you think art should be promoted as commodity? 3. Are art brokers necessary? Or, are art dealers really that "evil"? 4. Are museums necessary? And, should access to museums be free to the public? 5. Should art be funded by the governemnt? Your views? Participant / 02:04 AM: Re: Talking About Art 1. Where does art rest in society? What, exactly are the functions of art? Art is an illusion. It's merely another form of expression. It's function is to convey meaning. 2. Is it important for an artist to be a commercial success? If you are an artist, do you wish to be able to earn a good living by selling your work? If you are not involved in the creation of art works, do you think art should be promoted as commodity? Yes. Yes. Yes. 3. Are art brokers necessary? Or, are art dealers really that "evil"? Art brokers are like a translator for the ignorant. They explain the messages. 4. Are museums necessary? And, should access to museums be free to the public? Yes. Yes. 5. Should art be funded by the governemnt? No. Not exactly my views, but they're close enough. Participant / 02:23 AM: 1. Where does art rest in society? What, exactly are the functions of art? Art is notionally there to enrish us all but it is predominantly the preserve of the wealthy and the knowledgable. Most people who have not learned about artistic conventions and ways of looking feel alienated from most art. Some artists (Anthony Gormley springs to mind) are able to transcend that gap but on the whole, the art world is made up of specialists talking to each other. 2. Is it important for an artist to be a commercial success? I'm sure it is for the artists. In terms of their art, no. Most of the art that sells now for silly money made little or no money for the artist. If you are not involved in the creation of art works, do you think art should be promoted as commodity? I don't think it does any favours to a work of art to have a price tag attached to it, It's inevitable but distracting. 3. Are art brokers necessary? Or, are art dealers really that "evil"? Pimps. 4. Are museums necessary? And, should access to museums be free to the public? Museums have become secular cathedrals of our time where visitors flock to worship these icons, usually blindly. It's good that these things are on public display and we can go and see them if we want but there's something unhealthy about it in a way I can't really articulate. 5. Should art be funded by the governemnt? No. Claude Renoir (I think it was) said the need to paint for him was like the need to take a piss. If you want to do this you will find a way. If the government (or corporations) choose to chuck money at artists the likelihood of their sponsoring anything worthwhile is pretty slim. Participant / 02:32 AM: Re: Museums have become secular cathedrals of our time where visitors flock to worship these icons, usually blindly. It's good that these things are on public display and we can go and see them if we want but there's something unhealthy about it in a way I can't really articulate. Hehe. I like that. You may very well find me using that line occasionally. Participant / 02:54 AM: I love art. I breathe art. I make art. It's what I care about. I don't know if I will ever make a living from it. Most artists I know don't make a living purely from selling their art, they teach as well, or they have a partner who supports them. I like OS's answer about the broker. I think the govt should help subsidize art and artists. It is for the betterment of our society. Museums are wonderful, and yes they should be free. I wonder, white rabbit, if it is the presentation of art in a museum that bothers you? I find it somewhat troublesome at times. Participant / 03:12 PM: Thanks for your explanation, peeps. Participant 2 is spot on about many aspects of this topic. As far as museums are concern, I think most of us--whether we are inside or outside the "loop"--are conditioned to look at art with certain restrictions. For instance, small 18-19th Century oil paintings are often connected with dark green walls and gold frames and grey, empty concrete spaces are linked with contemporary objects while anything that predates the Renaissance--and unearthed from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are often crammed in fireproof cases. But it doesn't need to be like that. Why can't museums install Sumerian sculptures the same way they install a Henry Moore or Kiki Smith (in a vast, grey space with little or no other objects along side)? Why must we admire Jenny Saville's paintings in a stuffy upscale gallery? If her works are put up as billboards at busy urban intersections, will it influence the public's perception of art? Just a thought on this partly sunny day Participant / 10:33 PM: I went to Dulwich Picture Gallery a couple of days ago, which is mainly 18th C paintings. It always strikes me going round there that art history is the pictorial history of the ruling classes. As for modern art, I find it interesting but I don't really connect with it. I've never come out of a gallery or an exhibition thinking "wow, I've never seen the world in quite that way before". I'm more of a craftsperson than an artist, I like making everyday things beautiful. That has meaning and purpose to me. There again, craft style probably piggybacks off art movements. Participant / 11:26 PM: Ars longa, vita brevis est Re I love art. I breathe art. I make art. Yes, as do (did) I; whether or not one discovers they can make a living at it (and in very rare instances a very good living), is secondary. A nice addition to the house but distant from the everyday groove that goes on in the kitchen. The best description of art I've ever heard is still Rainer Marie Rilke's (it goes something like this): The artist is a dancer confined to a cell, his or her full free dance broken by the confines of that cell -- and art the unlived lines scratched into the walls by graceful leaps and spinning arms. Art is the product of passionate necessity. Whether or not it makes money is an entirely other matter. (Now, one still needs to eat...two birds, one stone -- great, right? But making money at it is as much a function of marketing as it is of talent). *** I recall when I was a kid and first encountered Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (and, around the same time, One: Number 31) in NY's MOMA. It was uplifting; suddenly off all the walls it was as if all the paintings were shouting at me -- a visual language I previously did not understand now started making sense. It was a quickening, a deep movement of meaning and emotion enhancing my ability to move deeply in other dimensions of life. Am I better off? Hell if I know; all I know is life is more grandas a result! Does this speak to the social role of art? Participant / 02:37 PM: 1. Where does art rest in society? What, exactly are the functions of art? It is an interpretation of something. I agree with James Burke that art is always, at best, a second hand interpretation for the people who didn't create it in the first place. The artist creates an interpretation and then we create another one. To answer the first question, I believe it's useful, but it should only be taken for what it is and nothing more. For instance, I was watching a think on tv about William Wallace and at the end it went over the movie and the inaccuracies in it. The point is that we have to be careful to distinguish universally accepted reality from an interpretation. ...and don't come back with metaphysics. 5. Should art be funded by the governemnt? The problem I have with this is that we waste enough money already. Participant / 03:28 PM: Re 5. Should art be funded by the governemnt? The problem I have with this is that we waste enough money already. so what you're saying here, is that you think the money is wasted if spent on art? I disagree with that, as I think art enhances our lives and improves our society. Participant / 05:48 PM: Re as I think art enhances our lives and improves our society. I think it does too. But art is what people say is art to them. With lots of people and lots of opinions of what art is, we'd need to spend lots of money to satisfy all the forms of art. Participant / 06:01 PM: The artist has always been dependent on patronage. Whether that patron is Cosimo De'Medici or the democratically determined (U.S.) National Endowment for the Arts, the patron enables art to florish. It's untrue that, if we democratically determine to fund the production of art, everything everyone says is "art" must be funded. We can be smart about it and define what it is we'll fund. Now, personally, I'd fund it all. Like, for instance (this comes to mind as an example of art that baffles the many): Joseph Bueys Lard in a Corner. Bueys and his art gallery successfully sued a cleaning company for removing a smear of grease in the corner of the gallery; the grease -- a fairly large piece of congealed animal fat -- was actually one of Bueys' works. You of course would blanch at any federal subsidization of similar productions. I, on the other hand, would say our money opens the doors of creativity, makes work possible -- some of it would be good, some of it will not. But we'd have none of it without patronage. Participant / 06:41 PM: Re It's untrue that, if we democratically determine to fund the production of art, everything everyone says is "art" must be funded. We can be smart about it and define what it is we'll fund. See, if we democratically determine to fund the production of art, we must also democratically determine what art is worthy of being funded and what is not. Why should some art be funded and some go without? Do you determine this by how much effort is put into it or by how many people like it? ..what? Obviously a method of determining which art meets a standard must be used. This could be hierarchic but that would be unfair. Or a method of picking and choosing art the lawmakers like, which would be unfair. Maybe lawmakers could enlist the opinions of the artist elite to determine this, but that would be unfair. Re Now, personally, I'd fund it all. My point exactly. Participant / 08:07 PM: I think we should put it to a vote. Hey, we did! At least, through our representative democracy. And our representatives long ago funded the NEA which serves as a democratic patron of the arts (providing patronage alongside the more Medici-like patronage of the powerful). I am in favor of this alternate (though not perfect) concurrent patronage and, therefore, on this matter, content with the actions of my representatives. Dontcha just love democracy? I would have a problem with it if, for example, the NEA only funded art that shows, say, our political leaders as giants posed in godlike pantheons. I have no problem if, in the population of art that gets funded, some art is so and other art is offensive to other groups. Take the Serrano Piss Christ controversy of a while back. Wonderful photograph! But some took offense of the materials chosen to create it. I think it is an immensely positive thing that the NEA survived this controversy relatively intact. The NEA should (and to a degree it does) fund the creative engine regardless of content -- what this creative engine creates, we can only wait and see. I, for one, wait in glee; sometimes I'm disappointed, sometimes not. But the net is artistic creation exists that otherwise might not have come into the world. Many centuries ago, when I was in school, I lived with an artist (actress, painter, sculpter). She was energized (much more energy than I) by the East Village scene (NY) -- this was in the midwest -- and helped form an artist's cooperative that, amongst other things, served as an art gallery to struggling midwestern artists. Some of the stuff actually sold! It stayed open for a couple of years even though it never made money. It served as a real-life model on how to be a professional artist for a couple of dozen students. The only way it could open, and stay open for as long as it did, was through (indirect) NEA funding. Yay for that! (Where are the 25,000 liters of Anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agents, 29,984 prohibited munitions, and reconstituted nuclear weapons program you spoke of, Mr. Bush?) ??? ??? ??? QuestionW Participant / 10:17 PM: Thank you, but I'm already well aware of the NEA. Now, the problem still stands: which art is worthy of funding and which is not. It doesn't matter that some artists benefit from choices made by panelists when equally worthy art doesn't see a dime. So what does this tell us? If you're naive enough to think that the funding is given out by purely objective minds then you probably also think that there is no politics in the Academy Awards and that what you see on the news is all the news that happened around the world that day. Here is how the money gets targeted: Re Grants are awarded on the basis of artistic excellence and merit, including such factors as the project's potential influences and the applicant's ability to carry out the project. I'm sure all this sounds great to you dave. Who determines excellence, merit, influence and ability? I saw a documentary of the Beatles on tv. In it there is a film of a guy who's in the industry at some level (can't remember I think maybe a DJ), but he's sitting in a chair and he's talking about the future of the Beatles. The guy says that there is nowhere for the Beatles to go. They'd been surpassed. The time was right before the release of Sgt Pepper. He thought they were no longer influential. Well, there's one strike out of four, but you get my drift. And come to think of it, the one who had some level of artisic talent with drawing was legally blind. But tell me what American producer in the 50's would have given four musically illiterate guys who played commercial jingles as if they were songs to the audience and encouraged fighting and weren't even from the US a chance in the first place. Participant / 10:22 PM: And what is up with your questions for Bush at the bottom of your posts in this forum? What handle do you think Bush will use when he responds to your posts? ..the Great Pumpkin? Participant / 10:31 PM: http://www.talion.com/questionw.html (Why did GWB find it necessary to seal the papers of himself, his father, and Ronald Reagan for the next 100 years?) ??? ??? ??? QuestionW (Fight the power! Plant a meme today!!!) Participant / 10:39 PM: ...and to your point, it's a problem. But I would not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Participant / 05:21 PM: Spot on, Participant d. I couldn't help complimenting him for his overall view on an artist's plights and endeavours. Now, another question for everybody. What's your opinion on the following events? Jan Fabre's installation at the Royal Palace in Belgium The Trapholt Museum of Modern Art Participant / 05:47 PM: Participant C, is there any picture of the first piece? It sounds quite interesting. This piece comes under the category of conceptual art , would you say? The process, involving all those people to collect the wings, adds to the piece. The second installation is just silly. The premise behind it does not make sense. The museum director made a poor judgement, both artistically and personally, to allow it. Participant / 03:12 PM: Participant J, unfortunately I don't have any pictures of Fabre's piece. However it was visually attractive and ironically resembled an Ikea promotion ad. The Danish event, on the other hand, actually became art when the court decided that the fish died quickly and therefore were "killed painlessly." Participant / 12:16 AM: Hey, Participant C, just to let you know, I went to the Met on Saturday. I spent a wonderful 2 hours with Manet and Velazquez! The Met had extended the stay of the exhibit thru this w/e. And today, I went to the new DIA Museum in upstate NY. It was incredible. Participant / 06:52 AM: Participant J, Hi. didn't know you were an artist. What do you do? And did you go to school for it? I went to MassArt for 2 years. Personally, I think it's pretty ignorant to say that art will flourish in a capitalist society without funding, especially government funding. I think that without it, you'd find that only the independently wealthy artists, or ones similarly lucky would survive. Nobody can really make art in their "spare time." It doesn't really work like that, especially if you're trying to create something worthwhile. And art museums are like all other museums, they serve to preserve and document the objects of a particular part of our culture. They are not necessarily where art lives. Participant / 07:07 AM: Re 3. Are art brokers necessary? Or, are art dealers really that "evil"? Pimps. I've met a number of good artists with the social and business skills of a turnip. Hence, they continue to work at their day jobs. I'm not expected to do my own accounting: I hire someone who won't fuck it up like I will. Why shouldn't people with a talent for art hire people with a talent for money? Participant / 07:35 AM: Participant JC, I agree with you. Also, you gotta be careful. I've met so many people who got all excited about me for a short time and had all these grand ideas about marketing my stuff. Usually it doesn't pan out. It starts to get almost comical. Everyone says they have 'gallery connections' or whatever. The last one said she could put my paintings in a gallery of African art that she was involved with, which is a very nice gesture on her part, but a bit silly since there is nothing remotely African about my paintings.. On the other hand, the only time I've shown or sold my stuff is when a good friend hooked it up for me. Participant / 01:26 PM: Art is a battleground. The cultural products of a society arise from the material circumstances of the society itself, the economic and social relations that form the society's base. Art is progressive or reactionary to the extent that its aim is the continuation or alteration of the material circumstances that it reflects. Art as a cultural product is inherently performative - the aim of an artwork is ultimately to persuade the audience of something, and that 'something' always has a political significance. Even the production of supposedly 'pure' art with no relation to the world outside is a fundamentally political gesture. The problem with state-sponsored art is that most states will always demand their pound of flesh - i.e. they will only support artworks that either support their own continuation, or present no real threat - hence the popularity of BritShit. I don't really think art needs funding particularly, it's more that the public have been brainwashed into thinking that unless art is immense and monolithic, housed in a yet more immense and monolithic gallery, it's not worth bothering with. In fact most of the art of this type subscribes to 'Participant FLs patented blancmange theory' - that almost anything is impressive and unusual if you throw enough money at it, and the same effect could be acheived by spending £20 million on building a giant blancmange. Participant / 04:04 PM: I'm broadly in agreement with Participant FL but I wanted to just give some general thoughts about art that are mostly off-topic and irrelevant. 1) I take art to mean lots of things. Art can be music, painting, writing, sculpture, graffiti, poetry, architecture, filmaking and a thousand other things. Art is expressing something beyond the conventional ways to create maximum emotional impact. 2) I think anyone can be an artist. Some days I believe everyone is an artist. I don't believe in god-given talent and I hate this idea of an invisible line seperating the artistic and the non-artistic. I hate the idea that the artist's job is to display talent for non-artists to applaud and appreciate. That's not art, it's masturbation. Art should communicate, it should make the audience involved in the art. 3) I don't believe that people can or should be limited to doing only one thing. Artists especially. By assuming that as an artist you shouldn't have to do anything else is as limiting as assuming that as a plumber you can't be an artist. Human beings are capable of all kinds of things, it's our duty to explore them. Specialization is for insects. Participant / 08:29 PM: Re Hi. didn't know you were an artist. What do you do? And did you go to school for it? I went to MassArt for 2 years. Personally, I think it's pretty ignorant to say that art will flourish in a capitalist society without funding, especially government funding. I think that without it, you'd find that only the independently wealthy artists, or ones similarly lucky would survive. Nobody can really make art in their "spare time." It doesn't really work like that, especially if you're trying to create something worthwhile. And art museums are like all other museums, they serve to preserve and document the objects of a particular part of our culture. They are not necessarily where art lives. Well, blow me down! I just scrolled back to find this! I have been studying art history for 5yrs. I trained last year, and am a museum guide at the DeCordova! I started drawing classes a yr ago, and am now taking an acrylics class as well. I really love it. My goal is to apply to MassArt in 2 yrs. I agree with your post above, btw. As to showing your stuff... I know there are a couple of little restaurants on Newbury Street that may show your stuff. I have seen other artist's work there. Perhaps you can hook up w. a community art center, teach a class? They then let the faculty show their work. How about Allston Skirt Gallery? Brickbottom in Somerville just had a show, the artists weren't affliliated with them. It wasn't open studio. Good luck! Participant / 01:12 AM: Yes, it's a small world. I took a portfolio preparation class at DeCordova in '94. I loved it there, the class was great and my teacher (a woman, I forget her name) was quite a character. That must be so nice, peaceful, with the sculpture gardens and everything. I may go back to MassArt. It is an excellent school and so is the Museum school. I'm out in western MA for the time being, and I do little bits here and there. Hmm, Boston. Yeah, I might be back someday soon. Well, I hope Massart works out for you. I'd recommend NOT living in the dorms unless you can handle constant noise and distraction. Jamaica Plain is without a doubt the most convenient and best place to live if you do decide to go to the school. There's a great sense of community out there. And the buses run about every 10 minutes or so. Participant / 03:20 AM: Re 1) I take art to mean lots of things. Art can be music, painting, writing, sculpture, graffiti, poetry, architecture, filmaking and a thousand other things. Art is expressing something beyond the conventional ways to create maximum emotional impact. I agree, "art" can be all those things. Art is, first and foremost, communication, but all communication is not art. Context is everything, I say! I do relegate a special role for the artist: They serve as the "antennae" of our species, feeling out new possibilities for expression, emotion, and awareness. The great artist wanders far out in the dangerous frontier, beyond the borders of the possible, and brings back additions to our humanity. Witness this in paint, in film, in song, in words, in dance, and in life. Was the kid in the seventies/eighties in NYC spraying his feeling in paint on the side of subways making "art"? Yes. How about those kids, way back in 1975, originating break dancing and hip hop? Were they making "art"? Certainly. The best of these were extending possibilities for expression, emotion, and awareness. The fact that both these venues have led to enduring (pop) expression serves as evidence of its soundness. Was that art grounded in an understanding of art history -- part of the "grand dialogue" up to this moment -- which lends a depth and resonancy to the expression? Not the dialogue that hangs on the walls of the Met, but the dialogue of the streets of that day. Which just shows that you don't need a university-sanctioned art education to make great art! I like the distinctions Andre Malraux makes between the "artist" and the "artisan" in the Voices of Silence. Someone encounters great art and is moved by it to participate. They attend to an art education and master the craft, duplicating the quality of the great works around them. Then a special few extend the quality of expression beyond the given. To this special few, only them Malraux calls an "artist". I don't agree with such a constraining definition, but I admire the picture of blossoming, unfolding craft, that this entails. Mastery of the given is step 1, extension beyond is step 2. Both are necessary for great art. The museum/gallery system would limit "the given" to what they officially sanction, but the world is broader than that. "Artist" or "artisan" -- most of the rest of us are "artists-in-the-making", and that covers a broad continuum starting in the first fingerpaint gestures of our childhoods to the greatness of the genius of our age. Labels are unimportant; energy is. Re 2) I think anyone can be an artist. Some days I believe everyone is an artist. I don't believe in god-given talent and I hate this idea of an invisible line seperating the artistic and the non-artistic. I hate the idea that the artist's job is to display talent for non-artists to applaud and appreciate. That's not art, it's masturbation. Art should communicate, it should make the audience involved in the art. I certainly agree. That continuum again, the "artist-in-the-making", our lives themselves our primary project. Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. --- George Bernard Shaw Art. Re 3) I don't believe that people can or should be limited to doing only one thing. Artists especially. By assuming that as an artist you shouldn't have to do anything else is as limiting as assuming that as a plumber you can't be an artist. Human beings are capable of all kinds of things, it's our duty to explore them. Specialization is for insects. A plenum of possibility, all explored. Going back to the idea of Rilke again: Art the unlived lines of our days etched into the walls of our cells. Everything is expressed. The most successful artists break free, achieve possibilities beyond the walls hardly imagined by the stilled and despaired. Not everyone is good at this; the best get to do "art" all the time. The rest of us can revel in their good work; and play at our own as we will. (OK, I turned the BS machine off. The subject just raises passion in me!) Participant / 07:55 AM: Re I agree, "art" can be all those things. Art is, first and foremost, communication, but all communication is not art. Context is everything, I say! I do relegate a special role for the artist: They serve as the "antennae" of our species, feeling out new possibilities for expression, emotion, and awareness. The great artist wanders far out in the dangerous frontier, beyond the borders of the possible, and brings back additions to our humanity. Witness this in paint, in film, in song, in words, in dance, and in life. Was the kid in the seventies/eighties in NYC spraying his feeling in paint on the side of subways making "art"? Yes. How about those kids, way back in 1975, originating break dancing and hip hop? Were they making "art"? Certainly. The best of these were extending possibilities for expression, emotion, and awareness. The fact that both these venues have led to enduring (pop) expression serves as evidence of its soundness. Was that art grounded in an understanding of art history -- part of the "grand dialogue" up to this moment -- which lends a depth and resonancy to the expression? Not the dialogue that hangs on the walls of the Met, but the dialogue of the streets of that day. Which just shows that you don't need a university-sanctioned art education to make great art! Well, the thing is, those forms of expression you mentioned DO fit into the guidelines of art which is recognized as being important. Especially since it makes an important social statement of the times. I think what confuses people is the fact that it simply takes some time to see whether or not certain art/artists stand up to the test of time. It's sometimes too hard to tell from close up, when something is new. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's alot of snobbery and hypocrisy in the art world. And the critics do get things wrong, maybe. But their job, and that of the art historian and the dealer, is to use their knowledge to discern which artists best serve(d) as an "antenna," as you put it, of their time and place in history, and which ones did it with the most style and skill. They also use these guidelines to decide what pieces should be displayed in museums. But there are all kinds of museums, some alot more stuffy than others. As I think we've all said, museum art is definitely not where art begins and ends. I don't think people should blame the art world or museums for their own lack of interest in the arts. After all, if more people had an interest in art, they would find that it truly is all around them. Also, I think there is a lack of understanding about grant money for the arts. Usually, when that money is given (In the states at least) it is given to each individual town, and then the town holds an open meeting about how much money is available and how they are going to break it up, and then people fill out proposal forms and try to prove that they need the money for their project. Usually you have to prove that your project will benefit the community in some way. The money is then given out in small chunks....$500 or so per person. Pariticpant / 10:04 AM: The role of critics is to act as act as guardians of the artistic canon, ensuring that no work is admitted that is doesn't serve the interests of dominant social groups. The art world reflects the collision of two different social currents, the old values of bourgeois culture, and the demands of capitalist markets. The crisis in the modern art world marks a crisis within bourgeis culture itself, that the engine of bourgeois hegemony, i.e. unfettered dominance of capital, is inimical to the bourgeois cultural concept of a 'pure and abstract' art. Participant / 10:17 AM: Re The role of critics is to act as act as guardians of the artistic canon, ensuring that no work is admitted that is doesn't serve the interests of dominant social groups. Re The art world reflects the collision of two different social currents, the old values of bourgeois culture, and the demands of capitalist markets. The crisis in the modern art world marks a crisis within bourgeis culture itself, that the engine of bourgeois hegemony, i.e. unfettered dominance of capital, is inimical to the bourgeois cultural concept of a 'pure and abstract' art. I ve percieve 'art' as being everything 'artificial' -- to include advertising, buildings, even pornography.... with issues of quality being operative. I dont see a crisis in the arts world. Though I think appreciation of the arts should be opened up to a more general audience. Participant / 10:32 AM: Re I don't think people should blame the art world or museums for their own lack of interest in the arts. After all, if more people had an interest in art, they would find that it truly is all around them. TBH I think that some people's narrow definitions of what art can alienate a lot of people from it. Poorer people in particular tend to have less access to art and are not encoureged to participate in it. I think that the lack of interest that you speak of is mostly a reflection on how the world is run. Participant / 10:41 AM: Hmm. In a sense art is mostly artificial or constructed, but I'm not sure this is a sufficient definition, particularly in the 21st C. What about objets trouve (where are the accents?) or conceptual art, that might not have any physical presence at all. I prefer to think of art as a functional, not an ontological category - like Christmas presents. There's no way to tell from the nature of something what it is, only by observing how it's used within a culture can you tell whether it's art or not. If someone urinated in duchamps urinal in a gallery, you could say that they'd understood the ontological, but not the functional aspect of it. Participant C: I think poorer people are alienated from art because it represents a culture inimical to their interests. Although they might not necessarily articulate it in that way, I think a lot of people understand this fact pretty well. Paricipant / 10:48 AM: Re Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's alot of snobbery and hypocrisy in the art world. And the critics do get things wrong, maybe. But their job, and that of the art historian and the dealer, is to use their knowledge to discern which artists best serve(d) as an "antenna," as you put it, of their time and place in history, and which ones did it with the most style and skill How about : But their job, and that of the art historian and the dealer, is to use their knowledge to discern which artists best serve(d) existing power structures, and which ones did it with the most style and skill Paricipant / 01:48 PM: Re Yes, it's a small world. I took a portfolio preparation class at DeCordova in '94. I loved it there, the class was great and my teacher (a woman, I forget her name) was quite a character. That must be so nice, peaceful, with the sculpture gardens and everything. I may go back to MassArt. It is an excellent school and so is the Museum school. I'm out in western MA for the time being, and I do little bits here and there. Hmm, Boston. Yeah, I might be back someday soon. Well, I hope Massart works out for you. I'd recommend NOT living in the dorms unless you can handle constant noise and distraction. Jamaica Plain is without a doubt the most convenient and best place to live if you do decide to go to the school. There's a great sense of community out there. And the buses run about every 10 minutes or so. Yes, it is wonderful at the DeCordova! I haven't as yet made it to MassMoCA, have you? I'm a "mature student" , so living in the dorms isn't an issue. Thanks for all the info! Participant / 02:17 PM: Interesting thread with some good inisghts. [disclaimer]I studied aesthetics and lit theory in my final year and am consequently totally incapable of answering these questions intelligibly. [/disclaimer] TPM recently polled people about the nature and purpose of art. Providing moral guidance/standards ranked at the bottom of the list, but would have ranked at the top of the list in most societies and cultures throughout human history. (You might like to play Shakespeare vs. Britney Spears- What is Art? to check out some of the background.) The most popular response was that of "conveying meaning" given by Participant w r. This may be down to a lack of consideration as to what sort of meaning is being conveyed because it could well be that all the interesting meaning in art is of a moral nature. I notionally reject any claim that starts with "Art is..." or "Art is about..." or "Art should be..." because one can read reams and reams of material on it and talk to acknowledged experts, often with conflicting accounts, and still be none the wiser, I know I'm not. The main factors (in no order) seem to be: meaning as a function of - the artist's intentions - the audience's interpretation both mitigated/filtered by their capabilities (artist's craft, conceptual processing ability, deployment of devices and forms, etc., audience's knowledge of referential context, cultural situatedness, ability to see, etc.) However, most of us would claim that art is still art in spite of the fact that no one has seen it/listened to it/read it and that art is still art in spite of the fact that no one has attributed it to a known artist so this account is weak at best. One thing's for sure, Kim Howells doesn't know his arse from his elbow on this stuff but that doesn't stop him making a dick of himself: Re Culture minister Kim Howells has denounced the modern art up for this year's Turner Prize as "cold, mechanical, conceptual bullshit". Mr Howells left a note at the Tate Britain gallery, where the nominated work is on display, saying British art was "lost" if that was the best it could produce. BBC News Perhaps British art is lost if Kim Howells is representative of the British audience? Particpant / 01:49 AM: Re Well, the thing is, those forms of expression you mentioned DO fit into the guidelines of art which is recognized as being important. Especially since it makes an important social statement of the times. I think what confuses people is the fact that it simply takes some time to see whether or not certain art/artists stand up to the test of time. It's sometimes too hard to tell from close up, when something is new. I certainly agree with that. But you speak to arrival of blessing from (what fruitloop calls) the guardians of the artistic canon. That process is highly political, is it not? That opens the creative life to all sorts of mischief. Those that master the politics (or have someone to master it for them) get to be called "artists" and see their names in ARTFORUM, Artnews, and Art in America; the rest of us teach! (That same political dynamic plays out in the cloistered world of local galleries and small museums in every small city, too.) And what of that "dynamic"? What criteria come in to play? I think a larger part is pure "hard-wired" aesthetics (Gombrich comes to mind), independent of politics. Add to that the extent to which the work participates in the ongoing dialogue of art history. But politics paves the final mile of the road to "legitimacy". "Great art" (note the quotes), the work of living artists that sell for large sums in the galleries and auctions, serve as semiphores of status for the very rich. What matters most, in the final analysis, is the bestowal of status rather than aesthetics. What does that do to any democratic flow of funds? Which artists then get to buy Tribeca lofts and houses in the country? However, I grant you that time culls out all poseurs. Art making goes on, I say, independent of that "system". Sometimes these independent threads of production get noticed -- and then get co-opted into the system (often leaving the originators behind) -- but, as I say on my first post on this thread, whether or not one discovers they can make a living at "art" (and in very rare instances a very good living), is secondary. A nice addition to the house but distant from the everyday groove that goes on in the kitchen. Instead, art is the product of passionate necessity. (WARNING: The author has no special qualifications to make the statements he has. His undergrad is english literature. His last poem written in 1990; his last painting painted in 1988 -- he does "bidness" now of a very different sort, though he longs again to participate in the creative life.) Re Also, I think there is a lack of understanding about grant money for the arts. Usually, when that money is given (In the states at least) it is given to each individual town, and then the town holds an open meeting about how much money is available and how they are going to break it up, and then people fill out proposal forms and try to prove that they need the money for their project. Usually you have to prove that your project will benefit the community in some way. The money is then given out in small chunks....$500 or so per person. Yes. I mention in my first post that my girlfriend proposed and won money indirectly from the NEA, but it was from both the state agency and the city. It was also for substantially more than $500. But that was just prior to Ronald Reagan! Participant / 01:57 AM: Re I don't think people should blame the art world or museums for their own lack of interest in the arts. After all, if more people had an interest in art, they would find that it truly is all around them. There is, I declare, an "art" gene! It is on chromosome number... right next to ... yea, there it is, next to the "left-wing progressive" gene. Liberal and artistic, two genes side by side (so I like to think). Edmund O. Wilson and Jordach Jeans were right, genes do indeed determine how you look ... and where you look ... and at what you look ... and whether or not you make things to look at ... and the range of expression of things made ... and when we determine to stop typin Participant / 02:06 AM: Re The crisis in the modern art world marks a crisis within bourgeis culture itself, that the engine of bourgeois hegemony, i.e. unfettered dominance of capital, is inimical to the bourgeois cultural concept of a 'pure and abstract' art. Yea, yea, but that is furthest from my mind as I slowly walk up to One: Number 31 in the MOMA. Instead I'm thrilled with joy and moved to amazement! At that moment I don't give a hoot how Bliss, Sullivan, and Rockefeller got their money, nor whom Barr served! (Now don't get me wrong, yer not speekin to ????? heere! ) Particpant / 05:52 AM: Re Art as a cultural product is inherently performative - the aim of an artwork is ultimately to persuade the audience of something, and that 'something' always has a political significance. Even the production of supposedly 'pure' art with no relation to the world outside is a fundamentally political gesture. What is this "pure art" you speak of? I've never heard of such a thing. Who would make it? Aliens? Also, I really don't think the aim of most artwork is to persuade the audience of something. That's backwards. Art is made, and then certain people decide whether or not it means something significant or not. Which is what we're taking issue with here, no? Particpant / 06:04 AM: Particpant d, I'd like to respond to your comments but I really am a bit confused by them. I'm also a bit confused by the fact that on this thread where the general consensus is "fight the power of the big bad high art world" and put art back in the hands of the people, the general consensus is also that gov't funding for the arts is a bad idea. ?????? Anyway, what does the fact that I've spent many years studying "art" yet most of the dialogue of this thread is over my head suggest? Particpant / 06:09 AM: Re Yes, it is wonderful at the DeCordova! I haven't as yet made it to MassMoCA, have you? I'm a "mature student" , so living in the dorms isn't an issue. Thanks for all the info! No, I haven't been to MassMoca either, but I've heard that it still seems a bit unfinished at this point. I'm sure I will sometime soon though. Participant / 11:20 AM: Re (OK, I turned the BS machine off. The subject just raises passion in me!) Art is one of those things that it's just better to make wild and unsubstantiated claims about. If you can't get passionate about art then you're there's not much hope for you. Participant / 10:11 PM: when art becomes popular it becomes shite, because quite frankly the opinions of most people on art are crap. my dads an artist and his stuff is powerful and good, hes been painting, performing all his life, and is poor, never got much money out of it. but he loves it, and he doesnt want to 'sell out' so what if he never sells, he likes his stuff and is doing what he loves. the art world is fucking shite, and i hate gallereys as places, they are far to...quiet and..unexpressive? i dunno urm, christ, what am i rambling on about........ Particpant / 12:22 PM: Re What is this "pure art" you speak of? I've never heard of such a thing. Who would make it? Aliens? There was a big debate about 'pure' art in the 19thC, particularly in relation to music, which was seen as the most abstract, and hence pure, of the arts. Eduard Hanslick's championing of Brahms against Berlioz is a case in point. Although it must be said I agree with you that the notion of a pure and abstract art is nonsense. I only mention it because the belief persists that art appeals to some universal values that are somehow beyond the culture and politics of their production and reception. Re Also, I really don't think the aim of most artwork is to persuade the audience of something. That's backwards. Art is made, and then certain people decide whether or not it means something significant or not. I was maybe overstating the case a bit there. My point was that culture reflects economic and social circumstances , and that aesthetics plays a part in reinforcing the socio-economic conditions tha it reflects. Even with art devoid of explicit political reference, the procedure and aesthetic standards are indelibly marked by the production and reception environments. Participant / 06:16 AM: Re There was a big debate about 'pure' art in the 19thC, particularly in relation to music, which was seen as the most abstract, and hence pure, of the arts. Eduard Hanslick's championing of Brahms against Berlioz is a case in point. Although it must be said I agree with you that the notion of a pure and abstract art is nonsense. I only mention it because the belief persists that art appeals to some universal values that are somehow beyond the culture and politics of their production and reception. But of course you realize that art in the 19th C., was such a huge breakthrough in the sense that all boundaries had finally been cast off and artists (well, western artists anyway) were able to portray whatever they wanted to portray without the restrictions of religion, etc......and what could be a more politcal statement than that? Participant / 03:15 PM: Re I'm also a bit confused by the fact that on this thread where the general consensus is "fight the power of the big bad high art world" and put art back in the hands of the people, the general consensus is also that gov't funding for the arts is a bad idea. ?????? Well now I'm confused. I say there are generative threads producing legitimate art outside the museum/gallery/artist thread and you seemingly agree ("Well, the thing is, those forms of expression you mentioned DO fit into the guidelines of art which is recognized as being important..." -- your point, if I understood it, is that legitimate art from outside eventually gets recognized and incorporated inside), then here you say with negative connotation "fight the power of the big bad art world" (the "big bad art world" that you've spent "many years" joining). That's not it at all, MC; I say also, not either/or -- my words were meant mainly to be celebratory, not critical. But since we're on the "critical"... Re Anyway, what does the fact that I've spent many years studying "art" yet most of the dialogue of this thread is over my head suggest? That your PhD or MFA doesn't cover the entire space? That you've specialized to the point where, "It's sometimes too hard to tell from close up, when something is new"? Naw. Respectfully, I defer to you and your study: What are they teaching today about the relationship between high art, the gallery system, and money today? A Leon Golub documentary was just again on the Sundance channel. Got me thinking about mine and your words, MC. Golub as all recall painted many chilling anti-war paintings during the Vietnam War and then even more powerful "protest" paintings during the American Holocaust (our activities in Central America during the eigthies and early nineties). Golub's art, amongst other things, expresses overt political dissent. Yet he has displayed at the MOMA/Whitney/Brooklyn Museum; he has been well represented by top galleries here and in Europe. Very definately legitimate art. So the museum/gallery/artist thread churning out legitimate art turns out art highly critical of the prerogatives of power -- yet still gets consumed (Golub is no "starving artist"). So what's the problem, right? Is it in the system that discovers a Golub and places his works on walls for some of us to see? Not really. Is it with the gallery that offers the work for sale? Again, not really. My discomfit is with the consumer of that art that might buy it to hang on his or her wall in their summer house in the Hamptons or ski chalet in Colorado -- and never really look at it! Where the art serves, again, as a conveyor of status to its owner and, there, fails evermore to communicate. Dissent is rendered impotent; that Hamptons/Colorado consumer continues to turn the other way as power does what power wills, never acknowledging the contradiction (if even aware). My critique on this matter comes to this: To the degree the art world is complicit in the compartmentalization of dissent, rendering it safe and ineffective, to that degree the art world deserves condemnation. Those scratching break-dancing hip-hop artists of the mid-seventies -- a working class art then -- on this account deserve higher praise. Participant / 04:04 PM: Re Also, I really don't think the aim of most artwork is to persuade the audience of something. That's backwards. Art is made, and then certain people decide whether or not it means something significant or not. Which is what we're taking issue with here, no? Again I agree with you (if you are unsure, go back and reread my first post). And your focus does capture what some of us are taking issue with here, yes -- "after art", what happens to the art object after it is made. And I guess to refine my previous post: To the extent that the "after art" system wittingly or unwittingly serves to manufacture status for consumption by the owning class and their high-paid lackeys, to that extent it is open to critique by all progressive-minded individuals. (I think it would be interesting to make art that plays with the negatives in the "after art" system. Anyone remember Kostabi?) I wonder if I'm too soft on the artist, those too willing to "feed the beast"? Art-stars for fame and profit? Those that knowingly play that "final mile" I speak of in a post below? Would we call them "sell-outs"? Is Golub a "sell-out"? (I think not, but how about the rest of you?) The good news is the vast majority of us never get there (the final mile); we produce out of a passionate necessity (we'd do so even when not well-paid -- even when we teach, do carpentry, program computers, etc., to pay the rent). The "art-star" label applies to so few. What really goes on at that level? I speak only from appearances. Particpant / 04:51 PM: Re when art becomes popular it becomes shite, because quite frankly the opinions of most people on art are crap. my dads an artist and his stuff is powerful and good, hes been painting, performing all his life, and is poor, never got much money out of it. but he loves it, and he doesnt want to 'sell out' so what if he never sells, he likes his stuff and is doing what he loves. the art world is fucking shite, and i hate gallereys as places, they are far to...quiet and..unexpressive? i dunno urm, christ, what am i rambling on about........ I'm not so sure that quality is inversely proportional to popularity, but it can be a hit-or-miss kind of thing. I'm curious, though: In your father's case, what would "selling out" mean? (Is anyone, like me, crestfallen when first hearing Iggy Pop's Lust for Life converted into a TV commercial jingle? Does its use de-legitimize the original pop expression?) Participant / 08:57 AM: I'm not quite sure where this fits in to the other stuff here, but..... I was talking to a friend the other day about art galleries. He was doing a mini-tour of europe and was planning on visiting the Louvre and some other big famous galleries. For some reason I got talking about the Mona Lisa and how shite it was. It's some old dead woman! I hate those boring old pictures of boring old aristocrats and their boring old fucking houses painted in landscapes. The only old art I like is the old religious paintings because the artists really liked to go nuts with them. In my mind the big difference is (what I imagine to be) motivation. The religious ones were celebrations of god. The artists were trying to communicate the devine and to use their skills to honour their gods. I think that's noble. Misguided but noble. I think I want the artist to have a clear idea of what it is that (s)he wants to communicate and why. If all the artist wants to communicate is what a great artist they are (look at my brushstrokes), then they should be cheese-gratered to death (or something). There's a great exhibition at the modern art gallery in Glasgow just now. It was organised by Amnesty International to highlight the plight of refugees and political asylum as a subject. For me, it's everything that art should be. It's ballsy, relevant, challenging, inventive, thought-provoking and there's a clear idea of why they are making the art and the ideas that they are trying to communicate. Participant / 06:02 AM: Re Well now I'm confused. I say there are generative threads producing legitimate art outside the museum/gallery/artist thread and you seemingly agree ("Well, the thing is, those forms of expression you mentioned DO fit into the guidelines of art which is recognized as being important..." -- your point, if I understood it, is that legitimate art from outside eventually gets recognized and incorporated inside), then here you say with negative connotation "fight the power of the big bad art world" (the "big bad art world" that you've spent "many years" joining). That's not it at all, MC; I say also, not either/or -- my words were meant mainly to be celebratory, not critical. But since we're on the "critical"... That your PhD or MFA doesn't cover the entire space? That you've specialized to the point where, "It's sometimes too hard to tell from close up, when something is new"? Naw. Respectfully, I defer to you and your study: What are they teaching today about the relationship between high art, the gallery system, and money today? Well, first off, I apologize for not fully explaining that I don't have a PHD, MFA, or even a batchelor's degree.....when I say I've been studying art for years, I mean that I have been studying the craft of art....through studio classes since I was 16, in public schools, private schools, and community ed. classes. The classes I have taken have been very theory-lite and I've only studied early art history. Outside of that, I have educated myself somewhat....but I am by no means an expert. I guess where I'm coming from is that I was always pretty confused about why some art is considered important and others not. But the more I've learned, the more I've realized that the historians and the theorists often make a very compelling and convincing case for the artists they recognize and praise. Of course there are probably thousands of great artists who've gone unrecognized and unappriciated throughout history, but I'm not convinced that there is much anyone can do to change that. For example, when you look at Van Gogh, most people focus on the fact that he never made any money from his paintings. However, you can also look at the fact that he was supported by his brother, an art dealer, throughout his career and he was somewhat recognized in his lifetime. What I'm saying is, he was lucky. He had the connection, and he used it. Had he not had those connections, we'd probably never know he existed. So it's a combination of talent and luck, just like in all the arts. And I think that applies to the art world of today. Think Basquiat. I'll make the assumption that art dealers were on the lookout for some contemporary urban stuff, particularly made by an unknown minority artist from a working class background. And there he was. He knew the right people, and voila! he becomes a supertstar overnight. I guess as much as there is a phoniness about the whole thing, I can't take issue with it all really, because I don't see an alternative solution. I don't see how all good visual artists can really get the recognition they deserve. It's different that anything else: music, theater, writing, film...all of those can be mass produced and reach a much larger audience. Art suffers because it's very nature is that it has to be seen, one person at a time. Does this make any sense? Participant / 06:37 AM: Re The only old art I like is the old religious paintings because the artists really liked to go nuts with them. In my mind the big difference is (what I imagine to be) motivation. The religious ones were celebrations of god. The artists were trying to communicate the devine and to use their skills to honour their gods. I think that's noble. Misguided but noble. Well, you have to keep in mind that artists of that period of time were only allowed to paint religious subjects, so we have no way of knowing if that's truly what the artists wanted to do. So, when you look at those paintings, you may be seeing something else than what it seems. The artist may have been trying to communicate something other than religious fervor. That also is true of the paintings of the boring old aristocrats, which were the next subject to be allowed for artists, as they were the only ones who were able to commission art. There was absolutely no way, in those time periods, that an artists could have dared to make a political statement through their art. So we have to look at them through that filter. In the 19th and 20th century, the walls started to come down and artists finally had freedom to create what they wanted to create. Be that political art, or simply inventing a new way of looking at the world. When you see a Monet or whatever, it may seem boring or pretentious ("look at my brushstrokes") but at the time, it was a shocking and refreshing new way of seeing and interpreting the world, and pretty revolutionary. -(Participant C, defender of the status quo) Participant / 01:36 AM: Re So it's a combination of talent and luck, just like in all the arts. And I think that applies to the art world of today. Think Basquiat. I'll make the assumption that art dealers were on the lookout for some contemporary urban stuff, particularly made by an unknown minority artist from a working class background. And there he was. He knew the right people, and voila! he becomes a supertstar overnight. Not that it matters much, but Basquiat came from middle-class Brooklyn parents. And he's perhaps a bad example, as he played the art world as thoroughly as it played him. And, though Basquiat was intentionally "outsider" and "primitive", he was so in the same art-conscious fashion as a Cy Twombly or Jean DeBuffet. But, yes, he was lucky. He came along at a rare moment of "democratization" in the early eighties, when the East Village art scene saw new galleries open, representing new youthful "art stars" (from Jenny Holzer and Barbara Kruger, to Kenny Scarf and Keith Haring, to Julian Schnabel and Fransisco Clemente). Fun times, then (I was lucky to be just coming to age myself back then and got to enjoy some of the craziness of the time and place). Re But the more I've learned, the more I've realized that the historians and the theorists often make a very compelling and convincing case for the artists they recognize and praise. I agree with this. Note my post above where I said "success" was in large part due to genuine aesthetic factors and the degree to which the artist participates in the "dialogue" of art history. This is why I was surprised by your confusion and implied disagreement. I do add that politics gets many down that final mile to art-star status. Basquiat I think typifies this. He chose his "friends" wisely. First, genuine talent needs to be there. And mastery of craft (though not always, as Basquiat examples). But then non-art factors -- including, as with "success" generally, being in the right place at the right time -- come into play. Hey, in my opinion though, with Art, it's all good! Ars longa, vita brevis est! Participant / 02:22 AM: Re [What is Art?] ... The most popular response was that of "conveying meaning" given by Participant w r. This may be down to a lack of consideration as to what sort of meaning is being conveyed because it could well be that all the interesting meaning in art is of a moral nature. ... The main factors (in no order) seem to be: meaning as a function of - the artist's intentions - the audience's interpretation both mitigated/filtered by their capabilities (artist's craft, conceptual processing ability, deployment of devices and forms, etc., audience's knowledge of referential context, cultural situatedness, ability to see, etc.) Participant I, how did we all miss your post? I do think this is on to it, "meaning", but not 100% there. I can't think of anything that has caught my eye (or ear) that did not lead to a weaving together of layers of meaning (the best work continues to add to it with every encounter). I think the best works deeply rearrange the underpinnings of meaning, thereafter illuminating even the little things in life. What's moved, when we say we are "moved" by an artwork, is these deeper underpinnings. We rearrange the foundations. That is why we are the richer for it. But is that "meaning"? Equally important, to me, would be words like "resonance", "delight", "play", and "marvel". I refer earlier to Pollack's One: Number 31. I'm moved by that. I experience an optical delight that translates into emotional exaltation. It's visceral. A spreading joy through participation and connectedness with fundamental energies. Then up close I marvel at the lines of overlapping paint and areas of bare canvas and appreciate even more the power of the creative act, that pigment and oil and cloth can have that kind of joyful effect on me. I can walk away exhausted. But what does it mean? I can't put that into words, as art does not translate well (the work is its best expression). To get to "moral" meaning, geeze, you ask too much of me! But I bet my morality is based on encounters with great works as much as anything else, though I couldn't tell you exactly how. Participant / 01:53 PM: great thread....was going to start an art thread but no need now. Some very interesting points here, all equally valid IMO. Um from a personal perspective I think art is VERY subjective and I only ever judge a piece on whether or not it is aesthetically pleasing and/or mentally arousing. Art has to be essentially about aesthetics...it is Visual after all, however you can also get sensory experiences of smell, touch, feel. If I find a piece stimulating I like it...pretty simple. However there is obviously an artist cult....you know going to see a certain artist through rep or whatever......people crack me up when they want to go and 'do' everything in the Louvre in a day! Some art is shite, some exquisite...like any other 'art' form I guess. However there is definitely a perception that exists, quite prevalent on these boards that art is somehow pretty wanky, pretentious and up its own arse.....admittedly a lot of shit is written/spoken about it....but that shouldn't detract from the works themselves...... I prefer what is now gratuitously termed modern art as it has more depth (visually) and is for me more stimulating than yer traditional 'hang on the wall, frame' stuff...... Art, love it me (well OK, just the good stuff,) p.s - why do lots of people say I HATE ART? As ignorant as saying I hate music etc, pretty large thing to dismiss out of hand!!!! Particpant / 02:00 PM: Re p.s - why do lots of people say I HATE ART? As ignorant as saying I hate music etc, pretty large thing to dismiss out of hand!!!! Oi and double Oi. I've never ever seen any art that I have really liked. EVER! And yes Participant c before you ask I have been to some art galleries but I was bored senseless. But I'm still waiting for you to educate me. Particpant / 02:05 PM: Re Oi and double Oi. I've never ever seen any art that I have really liked. EVER! And yes before you ask I have been to some art galleries but I was bored senseless. But I'm still waiting for you to educate me. OK challenge dutifully accepted........ fucking hell this may take time! Particpant / 02:24 AM: Re I've never ever seen any art that I have really liked. EVER! And yes before you ask I have been to some art galleries but I was bored senseless. One thing: Most art does not translate well. To look at One: Number 31 in a book or magazine as compared to looking at it on the wall of the MOMA, walking up to it and back from it -- the two experiences are LIGHT YEARS apart. However, I already say, above, that there surely is some kind of "art gene" -- some people like it, others do not, and no amount of persuasive argument will bridge the gap. Participant / 09:05 AM: Dunno if it's an art gene or whether its about having a vocabulary, both linguistically and visually, that's built up over years of exposure. e.g. If I didn't know about the relationship between Cézanne and cubism and the birth of modern painting then his pictures wouldn't have the same resonances for me that they do, I might still think them appealing and attractive but there'd be a whole way of looking at them that I'd be missing out on. Likewise with knowing when a picture was painted and how it fits into an artist's development of style, technique, etc. Participant d - I'm used to my posts disappearing in the middle of a bigger debate, just a result of not having as much time to get involved as I used to or would like to. This has been a great thread to come back to and skim through though. I agree with you about the importance of those words and that meaning is by no means the be-all and end-all of the question. Also agree about Lust for Life and economic materialism's denegration of art in general. Re I bet my morality is based on encounters with great works as much as anything else, though I couldn't tell you exactly how. Absolutely, and neither could I. The only pointer I can give is that morality is about the regulation of human emotional conflict, both internal and external, and that art seems to give us some perculiarly powerful insights into these issues. Philosophers have tried to pretend that ethics is within their domain and a matter for rational enquiry whereas it seems to me that it's just as much about psychology, biology, cognitive theory, sociology, anthropology, etc. etc. Susan (no longer around AFAIK) started some very interesting discussions in this area and one of her questions was along the lines of "why do we speak of good/bad and beautiful/ugly as so distinct when they seem to be so closely related, overlapping to the extent that they are almost interchangable?". I reckon the Athenians had a very subtle appreciation of how tightly integrated ethics and aesthetics are and we seem to miss that more often than not. Particpant / 09:08 AM: Re One thing: Most art does not translate well. To look at One: Number 31 in a book or magazine as compared to looking at it on the wall of the MOMA, walking up to it and back from it -- the two experiences are LIGHT YEARS apart. However, I already say, above, that there surely is some kind of "art gene" -- some people like it, others do not, and no amount of persuasive argument will bridge the gap. Thanks Participant d. Hell I'm waiting to be turned by c though. I'd love that feeling that people have when they see art, but I just feel numb and bored. I am not a philistine Participant c before you say it. Participant / 03:35 PM: Re Participant ij:In my mind the big difference is (what I imagine to be) motivation. The religious ones were celebrations of god. The artists were trying to communicate the devine and to use their skills to honour their gods. I think that's noble. Misguided but noble. The artists were not trying to communicate the "divine", nor use their skills to honour "their gods" They were paid by the Church, to paint the story of Jesus, to help the clergy and the masses visualise and be inspired to pray. It wasn't noble, it was their livelihood. Re I think I want the artist to have a clear idea of what it is that (s)he wants to communicate and why. If all the artist wants to communicate is what a great artist they are (look at my brushstrokes), then they should be cheese-gratered to death (or something). Why? Do you ask the author of a book to insert in the beginning a clear idea of what he/she wants to communicate? Inflatable, with all due respect, I think you need to understand that art, writing, music, are all created because the artist wants to create it. They want you to find it as you may, on whatever level is comfortable for you. And this also addresses SF's dilemma. One does not need to be an "insider" to appreciate a painting, sculpture, or installation. If anything, the more knowledge one has can sometimes get in the way of wholly experiencing the piece! However, as a casual viewer, as opposed to someone with a background in art history and/or art making, one needs to suspend one's previous beliefs about art, and just let the piece work its effect on you. And you may relate to it, or not. Don't forget, whatever the period, the artists and art we now consider the "classics", were often reviled during their lifetime. I can't really think of any one artist who has ever said "look at my brushstrokes", per se. Certainly, the created piece is a testimony to the artist's talent in rendering lifelike objects, creating the illusion of space, fabric. Participant SF: Come to Boston, we'll go look at art! Participant C, where is the Golzius exhibit? Particpant MC, you gotta go to Dia:Beacon, the new museum of the Dia Foundation in Beacon, NY Particpant / 07:14 PM: Re SF: Come to Boston, we'll go look at art! Aww J. you know i'd be there tomorrow if I could. When you FINALLY get over here we can do the same. Participant / 09:58 PM: Many thanks for keeping this thread alive and cooking, everybody Re Not that it matters much, but Basquiat came from middle-class Brooklyn parents. And he's perhaps a bad example, as he played the art world as thoroughly as it played him. And, though Basquiat was intentionally "outsider" and "primitive", he was so in the same art-conscious fashion as a Cy Twombly or Jean DeBuffet. But, yes, he was lucky. He came along at a rare moment of "democratization" in the early eighties, when the East Village art scene saw new galleries open, representing new youthful "art stars" (from Jenny Holzer and Barbara Kruger, to Kenny Scarf and Keith Haring, to Julian Schnabel and Fransisco Clemente). Fun times, then (I was lucky to be just coming to age myself back then and got to enjoy some of the craziness of the time and place). How true, Participant d ... although sometimes in the sullen craft of art, being "intentionally primitive or outsider" is The core of that person's work. Whether he "played" the art world or not, Basquiat, bless his pencil case, was also geniunely gifted. For me, it is more important to be true to your abilities and callings. Take Schnabel for instance, when he realized he could be a flat (and fairly reactionary, I may add) painter or try something that would be more suited for his expression, he went for the latter. And thank god he did. "Basquiat" the movie was evidence. "Before Night Falls" cannot be made by any other director. Art is a funny creature. You may never have anything to do with it. Or you are stuck for life ... as explicated in this essay by our dear Editor. Participant J: the Goltzius show is now at the Met and "American Effect" is at the Whitney - any plans for another NYC trip? Carry on, Peeps. Participant / 10:16 PM: oioi Participant C.....respect however.....with what is termed as art - I have no idea what is meant by that term*literally I have no idea* but why is it so easily dismissed by other people...why is it OK to say art is for wankers....I personally think the Chapman brothers are genuis' working in a terror state...does this make me a pretentious arsehole because I like what they do.... Re ... although sometimes in the sullen craft of art, being "intentionally primitive or outsider" is The core of that person's work. Whether he "played" the art world or not, Basquiat, bless his pencil case, was also geniunely gifted. Saying that Basquiat was "intentionally" outsider and primitive is not a knock. Twombly -- DeBuffet -- Basquait (to restate the linkage) is a pretty awesome grouping. What I mean to convey here is I don't view Basquait as outside the "museum/gallery/artist" traditional silo generating valid art; I mean to distinguish him from the non-traditional such as the scratching break-dancing hip-hop artists of the mid-seventies who were making art in an "art-unconscious" way. Again, in my opinion, it's all good! Re For me, it is more important to be true to your abilities and callings. ...what Joseph Campbell would call 'following your bliss' -- that is the only life worth living! Participant / 01:24 AM: Re The artists were not trying to communicate the "divine", nor use their skills to honour "their gods" They were paid by the Church, to paint the story of Jesus, to help the clergy and the masses visualise and be inspired to pray. It wasn't noble, it was their livelihood. Sure, but I find it difficult to imagine the bob hope giving Michelangelo the specifics of the Sistine Chapel. Sure, they were in it for the money (mostly, sometimes) but I think it's quite obvious how much they put into it. The good stuff anyway. Re Why? Do you ask the author of a book to insert in the beginning a clear idea of what he/she wants to communicate? Inflatable, with all due respect, I think you need to understand that art, writing, music, are all created because the artist wants to create it. They want you to find it as you may, on whatever level is comfortable for you. It wouldn't be any fun if they spelled it out for you, but yes, I think that any writer has to know why they're writing, they have to know what subject they're adressing and what they have to say about it. Otherwise it's just a meaningless pile of words. Saying that art is created because 'the artist wants to create it' is either stating the spectactularly obvious or ignoring the wider motivations involved in the artistic process. When I go to a Modern Art Gallery I generally find a little note next to most pieces containing a description of what the piece means to the artist. If it was true that artists only want you to find your own personal meaning in a work then surely they would object to this? Surely writers or musicians would never explain their art in interviews? But they do, because real artists try to communicate something with their art. Art can be created to communicate a feeling or a mood. It could be created for the simple reason of making something pretty for people to look at or making a tune for people to dance to. There is always a motivation though. To summarise, I don't need to understand shit. I'm happy with my position and as somebody that makes art I don't need some hippy postmodernist explanation for why I make it. Participant / 01:31 AM: Re Sure, but I find it difficult to imagine the bob hope giving Michelangelo the specifics of the Sistine Chapel. Sure, they were in it for the money (mostly, sometimes) but I think it's quite obvious how much they put into it. The good stuff anyway. It wouldn't be any fun if they spelled it out for you, but yes, I think that any writer has to know why they're writing, they have to know what subject they're adressing and what they have to say about it. Otherwise it's just a meaningless pile of words. Saying that art is created because 'the artist wants to create it' is either stating the spectactularly obvious or ignoring the wider motivations involved in the artistic process. When I go to a Modern Art Gallery I generally find a little note next to most pieces containing a description of what the piece means to the artist. If it was true that artists only want you to find your own personal meaning in a work then surely they would object to this? Surely writers or musicians would never explain their art in interviews? But they do, because real artists try to communicate something with their art. Art can be created to communicate a feeling or a mood. It could be created for the simple reason of making something pretty for people to look at or making a tune for people to dance to. There is always a motivation though. To summarise, I don't need to understand shit. I'm happy with my position and as somebody that makes art I don't need some hippy postmodernist explanation for why I make it. I never would have guessed you were an artist. I don't know what you're talking about. Who is making a hippy postmodernist explanation? Is that what you think of my statement? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. And as a matter of fact, many artists do object to "the little note "next to their artwork. Participant / 01:43 AM: Well, basically I just found this a little patronising. Re Participant I, with all due respect, I think you need to understand that art, writing, music, are all created because the artist wants to create it. Although, I have been drinking and had already decided I was being kind of harsh. Hippy and postmodernist are two of the nastiest swear words I can think of. Participant / 02:04 AM: well, I guess I'll take that as an apology. truly, I was not trying to be patronising. I guess I was just trying to answer your questions. Gee, don't use "hippy" as a swear word! Postmodernist, ok. Participant / 02:07 AM: When I was making art I did not start by saying, with clarity and depth of articulation, that I'm making x for purpose y (I wrote poetry and painted). Hardly. Instead, I had a dim feeling at the onset of something I wanted to do, a theme maybe, but the work was a kind of birthing, and the baby grew through the process of working out the poem or painting -- I did not know what it would look like at its conception and often (especially with poems) was surprised by what I had wrought. Afterward I might rationalize why I did this or that, but I couldn't tell you beforehand -- my art was itself an exploration. Always sketching, never composing (never finished). But perhaps that's why I don't make art anymore? I was never really very good at it! (Michaelangelo, I understand, could see his fully articulated David before his first chisel mark; I, like a Chimpanzee typing at a Shakespeare, would have to clumsily find my way to it.) One thing, no matter how clumsy I was, I always had a sense of losing myself to the process, only to return to myself later with joy to discover something new in the world there before me. Quite therapeutic! Particpant / 03:47 AM: Re Dunno if it's an art gene or whether its about having a vocabulary, both linguistically and visually, that's built up over years of exposure. e.g. If I didn't know about the relationship between Cézanne and cubism and the birth of modern painting then his pictures wouldn't have the same resonances for me that they do, I might still think them appealing and attractive but there'd be a whole way of looking at them that I'd be missing out on. Likewise with knowing when a picture was painted and how it fits into an artist's development of style, technique, etc. If one can be tone deaf, another can be art blind. Permanently. So that poster above who says art leaves him numb -- no matter how many galleries and museums we drag him through, nor how many art history lessons we give him, he may never come to see what others see. However, I really like your raising the personal context in which the artwork is experienced -- as I say earlier, "context is everything!". Encountering Cezanne resonates richly with other experiences you've had, with other encounters and other studies. Perhaps the "joy" is the reverberation of cascading associations the artwork stimulates and rearranges, and that joy is deepened by the rich "vocabulary" life circumstances have allowed you to acquire. If that's the case (and I very much think it is), it surely opens up the discussion to class and politics! (I dip my toes in that a bit in my posts above.) Perhaps the "joy" I refer to here is literally the mass action of millions of dendrites groping through brain space driven by the encounter with art to make new connections -- the art encounter a burst of joyous cytoplasmic flow! And perhaps the number of dendrites marshalled up multiplies the richer the associations life circumstances have allowed you to acquire. But I also think there is a hard-wired component underlying all of this, how our particular brains evaluate line and color. Though this oversimplifies and over-supposes, we may have genetically varied susceptibility to art. That "art-numb" poster, again, incurably so. (Understand I'm just playing with these ideas here.) Re ...whereas it seems to me that it's just as much about psychology, biology, cognitive theory, sociology, anthropology, etc. etc. I know from other posts that my erudition falls far short of yours here, but, yes, like ethics, the truths underlying art also touch on all these things. Damn it's just so complex, isn't it? Life? All the more reason to celebrate those moments where it all seems to come together in wonderful expression, be that expression on a canvas, in stone, on film, in words, off a plucked string -- or in the nuanced expression of your coy lover inviting you to bed... (Be there in a minute, babes!) As you can see, I gotta go... Participant / 12:51 AM: Now if you showed me a plate of food.. Well that would be different. Participant / 01:12 AM: Re Now if you showed me a plate of food.. Well that would be different. Think of a tender New Zealand rack of lamb, cooked on the rare side, done up in crunchy bread crumbs with a touch of minty brown sauce just for kicks. Next to it some roasted potatoes with rosemary and garlic, and some steaming fresh brussel sprouts peppered with sesame seeds and butter. Perhaps on the side a fresh artichoke dripping in garlic butter. And a bottle of Bordeaux, perhaps a 1990 Cheval Blanc or La Mission-Haut Brion. And fresh baked bread still steaming. Don't forget that creamy brie, maybe a strong appenzeller, and some sweet green grapes. Just knowing a perfectly cooked chocolate souffle is still in the oven might be enough to make you take one less bite... Gerhard Richter painted candles so real-life that they look hot from real flame. However, I too would rather down the feast above than observe it on a canvas! We each have to take our pleasures how and while we can. (This time I'm outta here to go eat... ) Participant / 09:54 AM: Re Think of a tender New Zealand rack of lamb, cooked on the rare side, done up in crunchy bread crumbs with a touch of minty brown sauce just for kicks. Next to it some roasted potatoes with rosemary and garlic, and some steaming fresh brussel sprouts peppered with sesame seeds and butter. Perhaps on the side a fresh artichoke dripping in garlic butter. And a bottle of Bordeaux, perhaps a 1990 Cheval Blanc or La Mission-Haut Brion. And fresh baked bread still steaming. Don't forget that creamy brie, maybe a strong appenzeller, and some sweet green grapes. Just knowing a perfectly cooked chocolate souffle is still in the oven might be enough to make you take one less bite... Gerhard Richter painted candles so real-life that they look hot from real flame. However, I too would rather down the feast above than observe it on a canvas! We each have to take our pleasures how and while we can. (This time I'm outta here to go eat... ) Hot damn Participant d you've got me going now. I could so visualise all of that. Participant / 03:29 PM: If I have my druthers, I druthers love to have you as the head of the NEA, d. Think about listening to a speech on preparing the perfect rack of lamb on the congressional floor ... mm. In the interim ... talk art. ©2004 Atelier Bonita _______________ Bonita, editor of ONCE UPON A TIME magazine, and company talk about art regularly.

                                                   ONCE UPON      a TIME
                                                                                          ezine at l'atelier bonita
                                                     established since december 2002