 |
| |
|
|
FS*
|
|
An individual feels the creative impulse and is moved to create, inspired to make something out of nothing.
If he/she is part of some commercial venture, their work is marketed, in whatever media, given wide exposure, and as far as the ordinary person is concerned, this is art. Little or no consideration is given to it's originality or merit. It works, and the commercial artist knows why it works.
Another individual does the same thing, but is not part of a commercial venture, uses limited means to bring his/her work to into the public eye, where it may or may not be recieved, based on the fact that it may not be 'mainstream' or marketable.
And the third individual (such as Mapplethorpe, insert name) gets enough financial backing to market his/her work as "art", where it is sold to the elite no matter how subjective or inaccessible it may be. Which often results in the dismissal of 'art' by the average person as pretentious and irrrelevant.
So, in the long run, is it not money and popular opinion that determine what 'art' is?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
FS*
|
|
I think that the 'literate' individual- without meaning to sound pretentious- can find something of artistic value in many things that may not immediately lend themselves to the term.
It's the pursuit of elitism that feeds the excessive and overt attempts by a minority to pass themselves off as having an artistic gift of creativity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FS*
|
|
It's entirely subjective. And yet, you just paid money to see/hear/taste it.
So it's objective to someone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FS*
|
|
Art does not have to have a purpose.
If a beautiful woman is seen as a work of art, where is the purpose? She just is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But isn't it still serving an 'elite'? What does it matter if it is the ruling class or the 'liberal-intellectual elite'?
|
OK. We need to look at this through a class struggle perspective. In short, the ruling class wants to instill the belief in the 'end of history' to the lower classes. Through representation (aka 'text'), they create the small-bourgeoisie, a mirror of the greater bourgeoisie, who recognizes itself in the values of the greater. This way, the class struggle ends, history halts- temporarily, of course.
The liberal elite, while also subject to this, is the lesser victim. It has no choice but to be part of it (because it is part of society anyway).
The process by which history is scriptured to become an alleged natural balance is 'mythologification'. The liberal elite knows this, but it strives to reverse the mythologification- it wants it to lean to the left. In other words, the liberal elite is a mythologized revolution, which works within an already mythologized structure to change it. When it is successful, its work is gobbled up by the right, and it just invents a new avant garde that will be available for take in a 20-30 years timeframe.
From a marxist/materialist perspective, art should be the 'text' of the revolution. The liberal elite is the closest thing to this we can be.
quote:
Why is it any part of the answer? Who cares why you made something? |
The dadaists held your position, that anything can be art. They are probably right. However, modern theory will say that analysis of something that was not intended to be art, falls under semiology, while analysis of what intends to be still falls under conventional analysis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monolith94
"Art is ever moving and self-defining."
This is a meaningless, confounding sentence. |
Well, I like your contribution to the debate, but why do you insist on pissing me off? 
I will start from Derrida to further explain this position.
Human culture has been made possible by scripture, i.e. the differentiation process by which mental concepts are associated with perceptions to form a common and descriptible reality.
Any concept or word exists if and only if it belongs to a system, a chain of concepts.
At this point, comes a huge problem: the word 'language', which we use to describe this differanciative system, is part of this same system.
I'm a bit tired, and don't feel like writing a 2,000 words essay, so I'll conclude quickly. Art is a meta-language, one that can only be mastered after language.
It is ever moving and self defining, in that it strives to use something different than language to describe the reality. But since any meaningful system is differanciative, the only way we can define art (in brief) is by saying it is not, everything language is. In other words, it is an attempt to touch parts of the differenciative system that language won't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monolith94
|
 |
New England
Jan 1970
time: 00:34
|
|
I believe that art can be beyond language. Beyond language in the sense that if I draw a beautiful painting (which is not happening any time soon, trust me ) than a Chinese person, or a Turkish person, could appreciate it just as well.
I think I agree with you in a sense, in that I think we both agree that art touches areas that language does not. It's a weird subject.
If we look back in our history, we find that the earliest art (cave paintings, etc.) was naught but imitation, and I think that imitation is the simplest characteristic of art. But then, what of the modern, abstract art? Why, it is an imitation of art! As such, you could almost say it is meta-art. It's a funny thing. I like it, though. Pollock appeals to my senses and my brain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FS*
|
|
But then, what of the modern, abstract art?
Indeed... you can see Mondrian everywhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
I consider art to be the formulation of a new concept or idea. Commercials, movies, books, songs, videogames all art. The person who came up with the idea for plastic would be an artist because it was not there before. The people who make and refine plastic would not be.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2004 08:26
|