Darth Wong wrote:Gil Hamilton wrote:Darth Wong wrote:The fact that a piece of art has more meaning to one cultural group than another is irrelevant to the claim that it has easily discernible meaning. Somebody who doesn't care about the David vs Goliath mythology might simply look at the statue as a celebration of the beauty of the human body (which it was meant in part to be) and in fact, I would guess that the majority of people who look at that statue see precisely that. A lot of modern art, on the other hand, has no discernible intrinsic meaning at all, thus forcing the viewer to invent meaning out of thin air and his own prejudices.
By your expanded definition of art, the shit I just dumped in my toilet bowl is art. I would submit that your definition is so broad that it defeats the purpose of even having a definition.
Mike, when exactly in my post did I even attempt to define "art"? Point to where I did so, please. I'm general very careful not to even try to attempt to define "art", since it's much too hard to do. My point is that
Marina's definition eliminates vast swaths of art because you'd be very hard pressed to find
any art piece in history outside an Ikea instruction manual where it gives an instantly recognizable transcendental message to all people. However, I'm not one of those people who think that Duchamp was right and I don't think anything is "art" by virtue of it being declared so. Seriously, please go over my single paragraph post and emphasize any part of it that even tries to define "art".
The part where you denied Marina's claim that a piece of art must have obvious meaning or symbolism in order to qualify. This obviously means that you think something can be art
without any obvious meaning or symbolism. Don't play the weasely chickenshit "I never admitted to a position" game with me.
Secondly, the David was not meant to be a "celebration of the beauty of the human body".
"Not meant to be?" Prove it. Your entire diatribe relies upon art history, which is an entirely different thing than universal meaning. Universally, everyone will look at the statue and say "oh, it's a depiction of a nude man." Any meaning above and beyond that is beside the point that we have already established the artwork to have some obvious universal meaning.
In short, you're completely missing the point, which is that the artwork itself has an obviously and instantly recognizable meaning to any man, woman, or child on Earth. The fact that you think its creator meant us to see
more than that is irrelevant.
No Mike, I think you’re missing the point. Gil’s objection to Marina’s definition of art is well founded. Let’s look at this again:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Art should convey an explicit message which is instantly recognizeable to all human beings, traversing cultural and societal grounds
Gil rightly points out that under this definition there is a great deal of art, including art that is considered exceptional and worthy of the history books that ceases to be art, because it has a meaning that is understandable either to only a few or only in a certain context.
And speaking of David, not Michelangelo's David, but the work of the French Neo Classical painter, David, his work, like most Neo Classicism was designed to portray a certain moral or lesson or idea through depictions of classical literature. Now if you know the story behind these paintings, the meaning is clear, if you don’t, well, you’re fucked. This means that here are more paintings and another artistic movement invalidated by Marina’s definition.
Now arguing that a work can have a public meaning and a meaning to the artist is fine (not to mention frequently correct), however, Marina’s definition requires an “explicit message”, that is I assume (I’ll accept that I could be wrong here), to say a singular message. As such, a piece of art would have to have a singular clarion message that is understandable to both artist and those who view the work in order to be “art”.
That is an exceptionally high standard, one that is out of the reach of much of the world’s art and that denies the fine arts but architecture and music a play in art as well.
As for the rest of her first paragraph, I would just like how these art forms are have universally understood message?
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Modern "art" does not do this. Period. The form and philosophy of modern "art" has proven itself incapable of conveying transcendental ideas, has no holistic context, and in fact prides itself in being open to "interpretation", a claim which in fact renders it not art at all, as art is something which should be understood, in a sublime and primal (or if you will, holistic) fashion.
This is just wrong. If any art can meet her requirements, it is expressionism and abstract expressionism, both of which are considered “modern art” just might (also Romanticism might as well), as they are designed to elicit an emotional response from a viewer. Such methods are closest thing to a universally understandable message.
Darth Wong wrote: By your expanded definition of art, the shit I just dumped in my toilet bowl is art. I would submit that your definition is so broad that it defeats the purpose of even having a definition.
I think that is a bit of hyperbole, but I understand your concern. Unfortunately art has become an anything goes type of thing and while good has come of this, the acceptance of pop art, graphic design and the like, it has also allowed people to sandwich there own blood and ejaculate in between to piece of plexi-glass (yes, someone did this, it is actually the cover of Metallica’s
Load album] to call that crap “art”
Personally, all I’m trying to say is that art does not need some message; art can be made for the lone purpose of art alone.
As an interesting note, Duchamp felt that art has two pillars, the artist and the viewer. And while the artist may say what he wishes, it is the viewer that ultimately decides value of and gives their own meaning to the work.
On art and entertainment…
Nietzsche’s opinion aside, art and entertainment are inexplicitly tied, some may see a difference here, but is only a cosmetic one.
PrinceofLowLight wrote:As was stated in a thread a few months back, art is an inherently inferior method of communicating an actual idea. It's overly complex when compared to a logical explanation. There's a reason why ideas are exchanged in journals and not art pieces. It's like jigging down a sidewalk: It's a more entertaining, but less useful way of doing something.
I would disagree, and recommend you check out some of the propaganda art from the second world war, also much of David’s art was also propaganda in nature, first for Louise XVI, then for the Revolution and lastly for Napoleon.
Lastly, to the original question…
I would say that “modern art” is not art in the traditional sense; rather it is a redefining of the rules and traditions of art. I said above that modern art is an anything goes type of atmosphere, this encourage a lot of useful and interesting experimentation and breaks down old (even more elitist and wrong headed) rules on what is and what is not art. The down side of this is that as art has become less substantive and becomes more abstract in theme and subject matter, more philosophical and more theoretical; it also becomes less viable and less relevant to most people. Thus leading the majority of the populace to dislike the whole of modern art, and the art world, which is seen as elitist, arrogant, irrelevant and out of touch with most people. This also explains why many people look at the work of Duchamp, Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko and wonder what the fuck and why those same people would buy a painting by Thomas Kincaid.
Well that’s my two bits, sorry for the long windedness.
This is not the Sig you want to read...
Please move on to the next post...