you know, i keep hearing everyone (including myself) talk about what is art, what is art. i don't really think i care. i know what paintings are, i know what sculptures are, i know what collages and ceramic vessels and 3D cgi's are. all these and more are art, you know what it is, you know what it isn't. you can identify art as compared to everything else and with few problems (except when you get into weirdos like duchamp who just thought that people needed to be a little more confused). why do we keep asking what art is? because we want to have a formula to make our next painting or sculpture or whatever. we want a tree of art to eat from, we are artistic adams and eves. it is a form of weakness, of backing down, of clinging to a cliche question that reeks of pretension / lazy wonder.

i was reading a thread called "top ten most overrated artists" from like page 10, and half of those dozens of replies were a couple of people trying to apply theories to real-world problems...jung this and that, collective unconscious, subconscious influences, blah. just step out your door and look for jung's theories...they aren't there. it's all trees and sky and people and cars and gravel and grass and asphalt. it's interactions and memories and preparations and stuff like that. that's what people react to and that's why people make art.

i'm getting sick of pretension.

Mcvay art is what you think art is it is eternal just like saying what is God,you can,t comprehend it.It is larger than picasso larger than rembrandt larger than Micheal Angelo larger all of them combine they are just a speck of dust from a mountain.Enough of my gibberish let us all follow our mind.

what in the world does that mean? it doesn't mean anything, it is a cop-out. 'art is bigger than anything'...eeehhh??? i am not trying to be an ass...i am just trying to point out that most of us feel so good about claiming that art is this intangible idea. obviously, art is tangible. if not, then there would be no art galleries, nor displays nor exhibitions. do you seriously think that artists just pluck their 'art' out of this nebulous 'bigger thing'? i think that it is very naive and self-indulging to think this way about art.

i am not going to get into the whole what is God thing...but i understand perfectly well what art is, even though i haven't the literary efficacy or succintness to peg it in a forum posting. bring back robert frost, maybe that king of simplification could do it for you.

anyway, i'd like to hear some replies from people with both feet on the ground and no head in the clouds...

You are absolutely right . Some of us just know what Art is. Isn’t that great.

The art that can be told is not the true art. (The Toa of Art)

There is only good art and bad art. You need bad art to define good art.

Remember art is everywhere enjoy it. Art makes life better.

again...eehhh? i guess i dredged up all the new age people with that one.

[Frank: Did you ever uncover the 6th Artist?]

CMcV, let's try this.

DEFINITION for "what is art":	I.E.: IT DOESN'T QUALIFY
Something experiential in essence	IF it can be understood by explanation rather than experience
constructed with intent by a human,	IF it's solely accidental or occurs without the awareness of the individual (e.g., discarded remnants from a manufacturing process which were not made to the purpose of being art)
the primacy of which isn't in the utilitarian,	IF it's function is more important than its artistry (e.g., a sharpened stick intended as a spear; most items labeled as crafts)
that communicates, through purposeful engagement of the senses,	IF sensory perception is incidental to the communicative function (e.g., a technical manual)
a reflection of human consciousness	IF a gorilla paints a horse. (It's not art. Let them come up with their own term for their constructs.)
- conceptually / emotionally / intellectually -	IF only one of the three states is involved; two or more must be in play
which would not occur without the action of the artist.	IF the artist's involvement doesn't effect the outcome (e.g. displaying a rotting carcass).
As for GREAT ART, the further removed from	I.E.: IT DOESN'T QUALIFY
the banal, the cliched, the obvious,	IF it is so commonplace practically everyone does it that way
the uncrafted,	IF it requires minimal skill or technique
the purely organic or geological,	IF nature's interdiction is more important than the artist's.
while foregoing intrusive artifice/excessive sentiment,	IF the display of artistic craft, or attempt to affect emotions, detracts from the construct's ability to forge communication in its own right (e.g., a Fragonard idyll)
but referencing human development,	IF it fails to be relational in some manner to its culture of origin
still, without need of extensive exegesis,	IF it cannot be understood or experienced in a significant manner without an extensive explanation or justification
managing to captivate and inspire others,	IF it serves merely to shock
the more it qualifies.

mea...this is great. where did you get this? it seems very concise, i will impressed if it is yours.
if you combine this with the original posting i made, that would make said posting complete.

CMcVay
I assure you I'm not even close to new age thinking,but I still search for the sound of one hand clapping. Don't assume that truth doesn't appear there.

mea
No, the saerch continues.

CMcV - I'm humbled you're impressed. That's makes all two of us. *VBG* It is my synthesis of things pondered about art over the years. I was hoping to see more reaction before posting again. I would welcome dialogue on any or all of it if for no other reason than to help me further distill what art really is.

I want a reclamation of art from charlatans. I want to enter galleries and museums and be awed, amazed, inspired not repulsed, bored or browbeaten. I want to read an art review where the artist isn't being praised for the visionary audacity of practicing haruspication or sharing the content of their bedpan with us.

How is it that any action produced by a human, any inchoate thought, any self-involved human impulse acted out in certain parameters, if declared "art" by the producer/thinker/actor with enough mystical-psuedo-intellectual-tantrism, became accepted as "art"? The question isn't one of the innocent eye but one of the honest mind.

Art isn't me perceiving significance in something you don't and telling you of my perception. It is communicating that existence by creating something which carries the message in such an intrinsic and seductive manner that were you to encounter it lurking alone in an alley you'd embrace it as art.

i blame marcel duchamp in his late period for the decline of the art world...well, him, dadaists, etc.

it is disgusting, because whereas before one could hardly break into the 'art scene' because of the level of talent and dedication to that talent required to survive therein, now one can hardly elbow his way through the piles of trash that are cluttering up galleries. i saw the duchamp urinal on display in california, i had to fight down my hot irish blood and the urge to smash it to pieces.

that 'found object' crap and the endless ammounts of 'primitive' "art" that try to uphold the idea of the noble savage...these things are taking up our gallery space. i dunno, when i sit back and think about it though, it's almost like McDonald's. sure, it's bad for you, but it's quick and its easy, and it's only dangerous to the individual who becomes lazy (unfortunately the individuals are en masse). and i really have no problem with that...the people who choose to will rise above.

what i do have a problem with is people actually believing it is good and that it is equivalent to real art in intellectual emotional or technical value. how stupid would we consider someone who compared mcdonald's to applebee's (bad example, but you know what i mean)? although we tolerate the existence of mcdonalds-level art, we can't tolerate its propaganda.

lol, i feel like i am in high school, right back on the anarchist underground newsletter staff.

CMcV - I don't blame the artists, I look to consumers and critics who ask nothing more from artists or art. A despot who is never challenged or criticized truly believes what he is doing is the right thing.

Much of what Duchamp and the dadaists did was significant and valid for the time. I am very partial to much of Man Ray's imagery even though he proposed exactly the opposite of that I define as art. "His objects, he said, were always 'designed to amuse, annoy, bewilder, mystify, inspire reflection, but not to arouse admiration for any technical excellence usually sought or valued in objects classified as works of art.' Much of his work was developed for its shock value." It is ironic that much of it is so visually and technically beautiful.

These movements brought into the open questions about art and meaning which were ripe for examination. But why do we stagnate there? They presented a viewpoint, not the only viewpoint. Their point made, it was an interesting aside. Still too many can't get past it in their art today. Isn't Hockney only doing cubism?

The other phenomenon is the cult of celebrity in which we as a society invest too much. I went to a Jasper Johns retrospective which contained not only his visually significant work but the garbage from his stagnation in the 70s (the cheap linoleum/hatchmark paintings). If Johns hadn't the objectivity to destroy this work, the critics should have excoriated it so that no major collector would dare purchase it or at least pointed out the buffoonery. But how does one attack an icon of American art, even when he's obviously off-kilter? The same way one attacks any inanity - vociferously.

mcvay and mea both of you are confused you can never know what art is try stating the whole definition you could steal anywhere you cant because you what to comprehend it and is beyond that.both of you try this little assignment close your eyes and paint a landscape and see the result is it art or not .Once more i advise, follow your mind what apply to one doesnt apply to all,different undestanding different experience. Dont impose.

"Posted by: Alimi (bushmaneng@yahoo.com) on Thu, Dec 19, 02 at 9:41 - 'Mcvay art is what you think art is'..." Alimi, how can Mcvay and I be confused if art is what we think it is? We both explain our thoughts. And don't impose what? Our own standards, judgments, feelings, opinions, in the appreciation of, or creation of, art?

If a dead cattle carcass is deposited in my living room, and I find it repulsive (not to mention hazardous because of the effluences and processes of decay), if I see it as rotting carrion, am I obligated to praise it and endure it if you call it sculpture? No thank you. Don't impose on me to accept the offal of the abattoir as art.

It is telling that you urge us into an act of painting to test our perception of art. Why not say "try this little assignment close your eyes and defecate and see the result is it art or not." Is it because painting has a historic place in the pantheon of art and, other than artist debates and Chris Ofili, feces do not? If so, are you not discriminating, making judgments, setting parameters as to what art is?

And why does anything need to issue from a person at all to do this test of art if art is everything? Why not say, "try this little assignment close your eyes and open them and see the result is it art or not."

Somewhere within yourself Alimi, just by what you've written, you have a set of criteria that defines art whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not.

I've articulated mine and when I come to view what you produce, it is part of the dialogue I'll have with your art. And it is part of the criteria for whether I'll return again to see your art. And it is the foundation from which I'll draw if anyone else asks me if your art is worth going to see or worth paying for. Like the child in the Emperor's New Clothes, if I see/think the emperor is naked, I will say it out loud.

Of course, it doesn't matter what you make or what you call it as long as you don't expect de facto that anyone else owes you anything for it. Those who demand funding or approval for things others think don't deserve it are the ones with the problem. Now that we think patronage of the arts are a function of government, we take umbrage if we believe our patron is censorious. Well all that is being said is, you may say it is art but I'm not willing to put my money where you mouth is. If you want my support, produce that which makes me say, oh, now, that is art! It has been the arbitrator down the ages, why should it change now?

There is another poster on this forum who said she didn't care about Art, she cared about painting - which seems to indicate drawings, sculptures, prints and photographs are of no interest to her - for this person, that which is art is even more restrictive than any definition above.

Mea, would that " another poster " be me ? I certainly posted something like that. Please note, I didn´t write that I consider paintings to be the only valid art form. I get a kick from some paintings and I don´t get a kick from most of what is presented as Art, that´s all...

The reason I wrote that I don´t care much about Art is precisely what you and C are writing about: The whole art-scene and the concerns about this years fashions etc. I´ve gotten too old for that, I couldn´t care less.

And that, by the way, is rather nice.
Kim

Ps.: I´m a man. I live in Denmark and here Kim is a man´s name.

alimi...don't impose? maybe i should rephrase that: alimi, don't impose. we are trying to *use* our minds to conceive of a possible explanation for art. you are telling us not to try to understand it? you are telling us not to think.

i have tried several assignments like the one you suggested...in preschool. when i didn't yet know how to think rationally. sure, it is interesting to see the result of abandon. i close my eyes and throw wads of paper at my trash can, and i am slightly amused to see the results. but is that also art?

i think that you are trying to fight against your own brain...you want to be creative, but you don't want to have to think. you want to be able to make a mark with a paintbrush and sell it for thousands while claiming that it is isn't money that matters, it's the art. i know the type of person that makes that type of comments because i was that type of person until i realized that i was just being lazy and infantile and i had to get my sh** together.

There are mystics and there are philosophers at this forum.

Mystics speak of the Tao of Art. Mystics attribute art to impulses, urges, emotions and divinity. They speak of feeling art and experiencing art because they regard the production of art as an unintelligible and incomprehensible process. Therefore, mystics regard art as indefinable and pooh-pooh raising the question “what is art?” as naivety.

Mystics bring to this forum a high regard for art but little understanding of its epistemological significance.

Philosophers approach art as a phenomenon expressing human thought. Philosophers view art as expressions of knowledge and conceptualizations. Therefore, philosophers regard art as epistemologically significant, open to discussion and within the realm of human understanding.

mea, your rubric is brilliant. I don’t understand why it hasn’t elicited comment; it is a bold philosophical stand in what is a mystic’s forum! Let me be the first to comment:

Item three, “…the primacy of which isn't in the utilitarian,” would seem to preclude architecture from that which can be called art. Buildings are, fundamentally, utilitarian; even those buildings to which we ascribe great beauty. Do you think architecture appropriately falls outside that which should be considered art?

Item four, ”… that communicates, through purposeful engagement of the senses.” Can you elaborate upon what you mean by “purposeful engagement?” What is purposeful engagement? How does one know one’s senses are being purposely engaged or does the art itself possess the attribute of purposeful engagement? How is my vision any less engaged by a technical manual then from a poem by Robert Frost?

Item six, “- conceptually / emotionally / intellectually –“… “It doesn’t qualify if only one of the three states is involved; two or more must be in play.” Why must at least two of these states be involved? Why not only one? Why not all three? What is the significance of these states of human consciousness to art?

C McVay, Good question!

Love,

Pinky

First, Kim, an apology for my deception - I was aware it was you who posted about painting and from your biographical statements that you are male. I baited you for commentary as some other things you've written have been intriguing reading. Mea culpa.

Pinky:

Item three,... Art and architecture do pose a problem and perhaps that is why they are so often mentioned side by side instead of the latter subsumed under the former. Architecture succeeds most times in meeting the other criteria, with failure to purposefully engage the senses being the one most often missed (think of a concrete bunker). I struggle with compartmentalizing architecture under art when I consider the range of "architectural" purpose: structures for mechanical function without regard to aesthetics (a lean-to, a warehouse, a concrete highway expansion bridge) through those whose aesthetics overshadow their utility: a cathedral, a museum, the Brooklyn Bridge. When they exceed mere function, are they more similar in nature to 'arts and crafts' (beautiful objects of utility) than to art? Are they, even in their most decorative/most aesthetic/most conceptually transcendent, more properly aligned with containers (ie, a frame, a vessel) than with sculpture, painting, poetry, literature, music? A test: if they fail to serve their utilitarian purpose, are they considered good architecture or bad architecture? What does it mean to architecture to say a structure is beautiful to look at but underengineered and can't be used? So in assessing architecture we run the gamut from the science of engineering through the aesthetics of form. Architecture deserves a classification of its own with its own criteria.

Item four,... "The art itself possesses the attribute of purposeful engagement". Yes, very well said!

"How is my vision any less engaged by a technical manual than from a poem by Robert Frost?" Your vision may be more engaged by the technical manual, especially if it has diagrams. To cull the importance of that technical manual is to grasp the instructions it imparts so if blind, braille would serve the function of assertaining the information. But poetry originates in the auricular, not the visual sphere. Before it was written, poetry was spoken and is best spoken still. That is why rhythm, meter, assonance, alliteration, rhyme are discussed in poetics. How beautiful that poetry through its metaphor and descriptions also: invokes imagery, touch, smell, taste; speaks to our deepest psyche; evokes thought and feeling (purposefully). If technical manuals were written with this skill, this purpose, diagrams might not be needed and we all might be more proficient in a number of areas. Of course, a technical manual is utilitarian in primacy.

Item six, ... conceptually / emotionally / intellectually

By definition of being constructed with intent, concept is inherent in art. Yet many would tell me that no concept exists when an artist creates with the purpose of conveying emotion. They emote their vision. Yet, what is the idea that one can externalize one's emotions in a medium that conveys that emotion to others if not conceptual? Then conceptualism proposes to negate the object, giving primacy to the idea as intellectual function. Still, if the idea is never externalized, never engages anyone else's senses on any level, it cannot be art. And historically, intellectual processes are/were brought to bear to create art that stirs the emotions through concepts (and in this instance, all three do coexist). None can exist in art singularly - at least two must combine.

With appreciation for your reemergence, the challenge, and the anticipation of further stimulating discussion,

Mea.

P.S.: Can one channel divinity through philosophy?

LOL, Mea, your plan worked...

O.K., here goes: I once posted here that " art " is just a word. I didn´t claim that the study of ideas, history and artefacts is worthless, as a matter of fact I find it extremely fascinating and I don´t think, I contradict myself espousing these views.

" Art ", as a word that carries vaguely the same meaning as it does nowadays, is a fairly new phenomenon. From ancient Greece, through medieval times, right up to the late renaissance the word " art " was connected to " the art of doing this or that ". Artefacts were simply better or poorer made than other artefacts; there wasn´t a dividing line, making some paintings " art " and other paintings " not art ". In medieval times you had to be a member of a painters guild in order to be eligible for the well-paid official commissions. Your acceptance into these guild´s were made by the guild-members and while all sorts of irrelevant motifs played a part in their decision-making, at least you were judged " by a jury of your peers ".

The 17. and 18. century saw the establishment of the national academies all over Europe and the distinction between good and bad artefacts evolved into a discussion of " art " versus " not art ". The academies were composed of all sorts of people: writers, philosophers, scientists etc. Not very many painters or sculptors, though. Painting and sculpting was in fact looked down upon as mere mechanical feats and the painters and sculptors weren´t very good at ( or even interested in ) speaking up for themselves. In those days, to rebel against these institutions, would have been robbing yourself or your livelihood.

It didn´t take very long before the study and definition of everything within the esthetic realm was the business of people not actually producing esthetic phenomena themselves. Philosophers, theologians, politicians, merchants; everybody wanted to tell the artists what to do and what to make. " Art " as we know it was born, a term as slippery as a piece of soap in the bathtub; a term useful for justifying whatever you want in the ever-continuing fight for the power and the glory.

Feh...all I´m trying to say is that there is no set of fixed definitions, that will ensure a fault-free distinction between bad or good artefacts. What are the touchstone by which we can demonstrate that Beethoven´s opus 111 has qualities that Christina Aguilera´s " Dirrty " doesn´t have ? And where in the universe is it written that this distinction is of any importance ? I propose that even if we´re unable to pinpoint why, we still know the answers to questions such as these...

I´m not trying to be a mystic, I just know ( dammit ! ) that if we shut up and actually experience what there is, outside ourselves as well as inside ourselves, it´s not that hard to set our priorities straight.

I realise that this is more an explanation of why I don´t adress your diagram than an entering into what it states. However this is my answer to the challenge it proposes. I´ll get back to it in a couple of days.

SY,
Kim

Arguing about this subject is like arguing when and how much water a human should drink. Some will say people should drink in the morning, some will say it's better at night, others think one should drink 8 cups, while another says 1 glass every hour. And they all have scientific proof of their theories. But why can't we just go back to nature and simplify everything. Why not just drink when you're thirsty. Same with art, why not just like what you like and don't what you don't. No matter what anyone classifies as good art or bad art, it won't keep the bad art from getting made and it won't make people wake-up and create only good art all of a sudden. Only time will sort it out. The good art will stay, because people will always think about it, the bad art will dissapear, because people will forget it ever existed.

I like this topic now we can say we have a forum going on here, serious people, intelligent contributions let us continue with this trend.

Part 2 of my response to C´s question and Mea´s diagram.

The reason for my historical sketch above was to point out that the struggle between the " mystics " and the " philosophers " is intimately connected with the development of the term " Art ". It´s not a schism that originated in this forum:-)

There are different reasons for why this debate sometimes gets heated. The main reason is that for many of us this schism and the debate about it, is not just a fun way to use our free-time. I´m a painter and it bugs me, that my livelihood, my everyday life is dependent upon the whims of whoever has managed to wiggle their way into the driving seat of the artbusiness. Over and over again, I find decisions that are vital to my life being taken by people, who have no understanding of what they´re dealing with, just a lot of fancy words and connections with which they can back up their doings. Now, such people ( critics, curators etc. ) naturally have a deep dislike for people like me ( ie. artists, not sucking up to them ). The " art managers " of course have their position, their job, their vanity etc., to protect in the same way I have to protect my life, my ego etc.
Whew, did that rant give you an idea of how heated I can get on this subject? At least, if you think my tone get´s a little exalted here and there, think of me as a frustrated painter, not as a new-age mystic.

Trying to put my prejudices aside: All of us approach life in our own way and that also applies to our approaching works of art. Some experience them mostly as carriers of a certain message; phenomena useful for their philosophizing on history, humanity, society etc. Some experiences them mostly as artefacts, that has a tremendous emotional impact on the beholder ( I have had laughing fits from pure joy, when seeing great paintings at Louvre, National Gallery etc. ) These experiences have had ( and still has a profound effect ) on me; when my sense of wonder is heightened by the experience of great paintings, it stays heighthened vis-a-vis life in general. Is this what you mean by divination, Mea ? BTW, the philosopher, whose writings have affected me the most is Spinoza; his philosophy is beautiful. ( Uh-oh, long rambling discussion about beauty and truth just around the corner, beware ).

Mea, your diagram is rather good; in fact, I haven´t seen such clarity in a long time. However, in the end, aren´t you still forced to rely on your own personal feelings and convictions, if challenged on the different statements you make there ? Be that as it may, it is an excellent starting-point for any discussion of art.

SY,
Kim

Happy New Year!

I just have a question. Isn’t art about doing. We seem to discuss art like it is a “thing”, a product, a commodity. Aren’t the books, the plays, the paintings, the sculptures, etc, just the leftover by-products of the acts of artists who chose to do things that follow a path of knowledge that they themselves hold as truth. The truths they see and their acts of doing in response to these truths, constitute a life of living and searching a knowledge that challenges us to see the moment differently. They live a life that produces left overs which those who are not artists seem to hold dear. Non-artists really are interested in how and why artists live, think and produce what they do, because they are awed (when art is at its best) by the by-products of this search.

Definition:
I don,t believe the Greeks had a word for art.
I believe the Latin word artis which was define as “to skillfully arrange or place” is the origin for the modern word art.

It seems skillfully arranging things still holds as a strong starting point for a definition of art. An artist is someone who skillfully arranges his/her life and things around them so that he/she may observe and respond to these monetary truths that help human beings to see life's challenges. (divergent problem: E.F. Schumacher “A Guide to the Perplexed ” problem that becomes more complex as you study them, example Freedom vs responsibility) from more than one point of view. This helps humankind to progress with more humaneness.

So what is art? It’s way or path to to knowledge of the moment. It,s a belief in the(“Art Spirit” by Robert Henri)

what you are refering to is not art, it is the life of the artist. unless of course picasso's waking up, scratching his arse and getting some from marie-therese is art, in which case i will put down my brushes & pencils and gracefully bow out.

you know, some people just live and record those experiences, or the nuances they have observed. not every artist is interested in "help[ing] human beings to see life's challenges." i sure as heck am not. i sit in the back rows, draw the actors and laugh about the drawings with my buddies sitting back there drawing with me. in an allegorical sense, of course.

you can't pigeon-hole all artists into the role of village shamans, trying to teach a mystical lesson and lead. i won't have it ;-)

Happy New Year, everyone!
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it." - Goethe
ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc\

Part I.

Well, in one day so much had been said here! Kim, I felt you were man enough to appreciate my artfulness. Alimi, the style of my typed words is often so much stronger than the manner of delivery when spoken. All I wrote would be said more musingly were we face to face and I am relieved you did not shy away from further discussion. Olga, is it argument or examination that happens in these exchanges?

Historically there are different camps of opinion along dividing lines, many caused by intellectuals whose interpretation of art is iconoclastic. Where do intellectuals who think they've got it wrong give voice? For all who would say this discussion is irrelevent because of decades of debate, I humbly demur. For although non-artists may have sat the 18. and 19. Century academies, it was artists who displayed works at the salons - Academy or ex-Academy. These artists had annealed visions, and a passion for their positions, that spoke through their art. Their voices came from themselves, from interaction with art, and although technology, philosophy, commerce, whatever, may have had influence, their preoccupation was with, their identity was in, the object. It was in the object that they lived, it was through the object they communicated and life had meaning.

One factor that repeats in all statements here are tangibles - artefacts as Kim says - that one grasps to craft definitions pro, con, indifferent, autre. How can the good art always stay if it leaves nothing tangible to survive the generation who lived to think about it? This is why the dance is taught from generation to generation. To be seen. To be experienced. To only talk about it would be useless.

Frank, I find your personal philosophy of producing your art beautiful to read, and problematic to apply in a general manner. CMcV gave an immediate example of why many brilliant artists' lives might belie it. For myself, I wonder "what makes it the sole province of the artist?" Do not any number of people dedicated to following "a path of knowledge that they themselves hold as truth, skillfully arranging their lives to observe and respond to ... [momentary] truths that help human beings to see life's challenges from more than one point of view ... producing left overs which those who are not artists seem to hold dear," ultimately fit your definition? If so, it is only the products they produce that differentiate them. I shudder to think it, but by uneditted application of your statement, Osama bin Laden (or any of a number of ideologues who have perpetrated mass murder) is no more than a performance artist. > I won't have it ;-) - To avoid THIS, an artist is defined by his products.

By the way, the Greek word for art is/was techne, ie, craft, skill, art; a derivative, technikos, means skillful, professional, expertise, artificial. The application was much broader as anyone who practised a skill was an artist in his field. The least useful citizens were those who made "imitative" art, that which was thrice removed from an ideal: painters, sculptors, poets.

CMcV
I don’t think you quite understood what I am saying. I really believe this is more my inability to convey my thoughts in words than your lack of insightfulness to understand.

Let me begin again. First, yes what I’m referring to is the life of the artist, the “way” he lives. How about this “Anything an artist does is not art, but an artist can do anything artfully”. I don’t know about “scratching his arse “, but making love (getting some) to Marie Theresa can be done artfully or crude.
When you say, “record those experiences or nuances” you probably mean what I say when I speak of recording those momentary truths. It’s probably semantics. When you and your friend sit and draw those actors a lot of forces are put into action. First you choose to be there as opposed to somewhere else. A lifestyle choice. Second, you choose to practice drawing so your skill is not limited. Third, you are observing human beings in the hope of seeing that one moment or nuance or now experience which helps define the larger body of knowledge called art. This is important, it is this body of knowledge, NOT THE ARTIST, that help human beings in their quest to answer life’s divergent choice in a humane manner.

How you position yourself with skill,education, passion, understanding, and a sense of right or good is what I call the “art way of doing” I believe it is necessary if you are to be blessed with a vision that sees the now, the moment, the nuances of a universal experience that moves art forward. An “attempt” to move this knowledge forward should be your goal, anything less is a compromise.

Artists as shaman is probably another discussion.

Mea “Art as Object”:
“How can good art always stay if it leaves nothing tangible to survive.. . “ Art has been bombed in dust it is the ideas, thoughts, and stories that survive.

Problematic to apply Read above for application:

“An artist is defined by his products.” Wow! So art is now product?

I really find the work you have done to be thought provoking. Some question that might help me to understand.
1. Can these objects exist without art to define them? They did for most of man’s existence.*

2. Is there a universal thread that connects all humans despite culture that drives them to produce these objects that are relative to their culture.

3. Do the objects have purpose, if so, what is it?

*The Greek language is divided into modern and ancient. Techne is from the modern Greek, There is no word for art in ancient Greek.

Mea's Part 2 in response and discussion, the more problematic section, which will only begin to address Kim's second and frank's further comments and may contain rants.

Kim, believe me, I share your pain regarding control of art commerce. It is as full of manipulation, deceit, vanity, nepotism, pettiness, greed and politics as is most "employment" in life. I despise that we collectively have managed to make life so difficult to just live. But unless we are able to restructure society so that "a livelihood" isn't required we can't solve this problem.

Defining art doesn't come easily to me. The definition here is a work in progress which explains the delayed response. It is a coming to terms with making (my) art. A little over a decade ago I was adrift. Like Alice in Wonderland, the size didn't fit, the mallets morphed into flamingos, the cards ran around the playing field, fashions played havoc with my mind. How could so much slough be garnering such critical approval? How did a visual medium become the milieu of the visually boring, downright ugly, pretentious and offensive? Why was this more authentic and noble than producing accessibly enticing work? Why was it my duty as an artist to alienate the majority of those who would want to view my art? A novitiate being hazed into an insane cult, I ran before brainwashing took hold. (A thread on delusional art is taking form here somewhere...)

You almost got me falling back into rhetoric that has pervaded arguments this past century. That is not what I want to do here. I want to break free of that convention, strip it back to its essence. Yes, if the history we read is a correct reflection of the history that occurred, ART with a capital "A" is a relatively recent concept but from the time of Romanticism (and with Goya, maybe a little before), the ARTIST had as much complicity in its development as the academy. We can call it an action/reaction response but truly it is an enigma deciding who is in each position and why is it necessary to be so reductionist? The glass is half-empty, the glass is half-full, the glass is lead-crystal, Venetian, short-stemmed, bulbous, it is a brandy snifter - let's have a drink!

For most of this time the artist has been playing keep-away with the academy or its travelling companion, the amorphous decadent bourgeoisie also known as "the public." Each time the public came to terms with an art movement, finding a way to see an artistic vision through definition, the artist said "stop following me" "you cannot possibly understand" "I defy convention, compartmentalization" "time to move on." (eg, Picasso: "I have contented these people with all the many bizarre things that have come into my head. And the less they understand, the more they admire..." "I who have been involved with all styles of painting can assure you that the only things that fluctuate are the waves of fashion which carry the snobs and speculators; the number of true connoisseurs remains more or less the same." That last is a pretty snobby statement.)

Around about this same time the public began the murmuring: "I could do better than that," the equivalence of telling the shamans, "my magic is more potent than yours," the visionaries, "my eye is more acute than yours," and the intellectuals, "I think better than you do." Whether or not they could.

There were other ironies happening, such as the rant about people not supporting art, how the artist is alienated, not accepted by society. Starving. He was also the champion of the underdog, the poor, the disenfranchised (as Dali counted the money made from signing 100 blank print sheets everyday before breakfast). Then we artists went and did it. We literally broke the mold by refusing to make artefacts that could be bought (conceptualism). Aha! Take that you speculators! You cannot buy my soul! Well, we're right. Why should they even try anymore?

Art is dead. Noone is an artist. Art is subjective. Forget your body of knowledge Frank, everyone is his own artist, noone is any better than anyone else. Everything is homogenized pastiche. There is no empirical criteria. Now that we've killed art, where do we go from here? It is time for artists to resurrect it, in a beautiful, passionate, mind-engaging manner. Since all art from the Enlightenment to present was designed to defy reason or insult sensibility, maybe embracing reason while seducing sensibility deserves exploration. Spinoza would approve.

Eh, do I even believe what I wrote just above? An attack on myself may be necessary.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC\
Frank, your second post is much less mysticism but still indefinite. You appear to believe there is no art and no artist, that these terms are labels which are misnomers. That they who were previously so called are really scientists of humanities with specialization in the visual, auricular, tactile or literary areas. If this is so, we may be writing the same book, different chapters.

The word product: I really meant nothing by it other than to play off your by-products. Nothing deeper than that which is produced by humans who happen to be artists. No connotative baggage attached. Even ideas are products, an unfortunate recognition of which launched the despicable intellectual property laws. Ugh - can't buy our souls but have a lifetime lease of our minds...

Techne: I do not read Greek and read the classics in translation. I believed the footnotes that gave this as the term used for art, especially by Aristotle; perhaps I need reeducation.

1. We can all decide to agree no words have relevence to any thing anymore and to kill all words. There. It is done. Read no more for the words no longer exist.

2. Yes, existence. If we stop existing we will no longer produce.

3. To communicate, through purposeful engagement of the senses, a reflection of human consciousness. If they are very good, they reference human development and without need of extensive exegesis, manage to captivate and inspire others.

>> "How can good art always stay if it leaves nothing tangible to survive..."
>>>> Art has been bombed in dust it is the ideas, thoughts, and stories that survive.
>>>>>> Playing the semantics game then, good art doesn't survive. Ideas, thoughts and stories are not art. Art is still irrelevent.

I cannot resist tying in this question with our discussion of Rudyard Kipling over at the Reading Forum:

THE CONUNDRUM OF THE WORKSHOPS
By Rudyard Kipling

When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty, but is it Art?"

Wherefore he called to his wife, and fled to fashion his work anew --
The first of his race who cared a fig for the first, most dread review;
And he left his lore to the use of his sons -- and that was a glorious gain
When the Devil chuckled "Is it Art?" in the ear of the branded Cain.

They fought and they talked in the North and the South,
they talked and they fought in the West,
Till the waters rose on the pitiful land, and the poor Red Clay had rest --
Had rest till that dank blank-canvas dawn when the dove was preened to start,
And the Devil bubbled below the keel: "It's human, but is it Art?"

They builded a tower to shiver the sky and wrench the stars apart,
Till the Devil grunted behind the bricks: "It's striking, but is it Art?"
The stone was dropped at the quarry-side and the idle derrick swung,
While each man talked of the aims of Art, and each in an alien tongue.

The tale is as old as the Eden Tree -- and new as the new-cut tooth --
For each man knows ere his lip-thatch grows he is master of Art and Truth;
And each man hears as the twilight nears, to the beat of his dying heart,
The Devil drum on the darkened pane: "You did it, but was it Art?"

We have learned to whittle the Eden Tree to the shape of a surplice-peg,
We have learned to bottle our parents twain in the yelk of an addled egg,
We know that the tail must wag the dog, for the horse is drawn by the cart;
But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: "It's clever, but is it Art?"

When the flicker of London sun falls faint on the Club-room's green and gold,
The sons of Adam sit them down and scratch with their pens in the mould --
They scratch with their pens in the mould of their graves,
and the ink and the anguish start,
For the Devil mutters behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"

Now, if we could win to the Eden Tree where the Four Great Rivers flow,
And the Wreath of Eve is red on the turf as she left it long ago,
And if we could come when the sentry slept and softly scurry through,
By the favour of God we might know as much -- as our father Adam knew!

"Very amusing, but is it Art?"

Precisely.

Ah ~ another fine example:

Tate Gallery buys canned crap
Last Updated 2002-07-08

Arts Now
merda d'artista - 'seminal' work
London - The Tate Gallery has paid £22,300 ($52,000) for 30 grams of the feces of Piero Manzoni, a 20th-century Italian concept artist.

Can 004 is one of a series of 90 cans, called merda d'artista, that Manzoni created in 1961. Manzoni, who died in 1963 at age 29, said he canned his own excrement and sold it for the price of gold at the same weight as a statement on the art market.

In fact, the Tate paid about $1,700 per gram for the feces, more than a hundred times the going rate for gold.

However, a spokeswoman for the gallery told the London Telegraph that the Manzoni piece was a bargain at that price. She called Manzoni an incredibly important artist and his Can 004 "a seminal work."

The Tate bought the work some time ago, but the price became public only last week.

The Pompidou Museum in Paris and the Museum of Modern Art in New York also have samples of Manzoni's merda.

The cans should increase in value, too, as they are becoming more rare. At least 45 of the original 90 cans have exploded.

The irony would not be lost on Manzoni. In a letter to a friend explaining merda d'artista, Manzoni said his motivation for canning and selling his own feces was to expose gullible art buyers.

"I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints (he did, on hard-boiled eggs), or else stage a competition to see who can draw the longest line (his longest was 7.2 km) or sell their s--- in tins," he wrote.

"If collectors really want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own s---," wrote Manzoni.

Say it brother

I've been away from this forum for a little while and see the thread has not progressed much although this gnat causes quite a buzz. Manzoni's piece is amusing too, a nose-thumbing at the would-be art owners but it would fail my criteria for art in that both the biological act involved and the act of canning have primacy in the utilitarian; also his dependency on the purely biological, the sterile singular-thought, the banality of that thought degrades whatever pretention for greatness he may have presumed. Just proves that not everything embraced by the critics is art. Some of it is plain s... well, you know.

Is this statement only subjective?

Art is made by artists and artists are artmakers.

Surgery is made by surgeons and surgeons are surgery-makers.
Chemistry is made by chemists and chemists are chemistry-makers.
General practice is done by general practitioners and general practitioners practice generally.

What have I told you about any of these people or what they do? Nothing. "Art is made by artists and artists are artmakers" is just as empty.

Surgery is made by surgeons. I declare I am a surgeon. From now on I am a surgery-maker, my studio is my operating theater. Why not? Generally surgeons are paid better than artists and since no expectations apply, let me make surgery. I have drills and knives, clamps, staples, thread; I am certain I can find gas of some type for anesthesia; I have knowledge of anatomy (although all that is extraneous - I keep forgetting no criteria apply!). Care to lie on the table?

¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤

Mea, Your analogy of being a surgeon was excellent.

I just hopped in and scanned these posting, which are highly entertaining. I was amused that people still argue the point "what is art".

As if we don't all know that art is everywhere and in everything. That it is an expression of self and truely the only lasting form of communication. That is if people take care of the artworks and they are documented in time so that the history is intacked.

By viewing art across the ages we can definitely see that we have been expressing ourselves forever, we will continue to do so as long as we enjoy the means and media inwhich we create the art.

Words, sounds, images will continue on indefinitly. Find peace with in yourself that you are a part of the "big picture" art in the 21 century. What are the "new" ways of creating art that express the moods, ideas and concepts of today. That is what is important and that is what people in 30, 50 and 100's of years will want to know about US.

And so C McVay, do you have an answer yet?

nice to see a few of you back here :-)

mea, i've abandoned the question for the time being. i contradict myself here; i said in the original posting that i knew what is art...now i am pretty sure that i don't. the further i get into various answers, the less there seems to be an answer. it's like chasing a rainbow. if i catch it, i'll let you know.

btw...Frank, i understand now what you meant in your first reply.

this world is full of intangibles...i am sitting here looking over at my bed. the harsh afternoon light is difused by translucent off-white blinds, so the whole room is sort of glowing. i got up to put my hand on the bed, because i could...but as soon as i sat back down the "having done" of touching the bed was gone, as if i had never touched it, and the room is still glowing. there was a girl in that bed not more than 4 hours ago. even with as much emotional & physical energy as was expended there, now there is nothing there again but the bed, glowing and intangible. i'm sure a few of you will get what i'm saying :-)

Ah, C McV, the ethereal and ephemeral that evanesces. It is a strange phenomenon, that awareness we have of temporal occurrence. Your example is sweetly poignant. Have you ever read Thomas Wolfe's "Look Homeward, Angel?" How well he captures the there that is there which is not the there that was. Heartbreakingly so if you can endure reading it.

it'll be the next book i read, if i can find it.

i've been thinking about absence a lot lately...it's a great tool for the artist. think romeo & juliet. the "meat" of the story is made more touching by it's removal. same with 'freak the mighty'. but i find that it's used more in literature than in say, painting...maybe that's why i like rothko so much, when i generally don't like most modern art, rothko uses absence extremely well.

i've also been trying to work this "ethereal and ephemeral that evanesces" as you so eloquently put it into my preference for figurative art. any thoughts on this?

C McV, you have much faith in me! LOL. But I can offer this insight, for what it is worth. Your question brought to my mind the Mona Lisa, which I have never seen in person but, according to that I have read, the presence of the smile is illusory. It fluctuates according to the focal point of the viewer. Is she, or isn't she smiling? Was it there or imagined? If I see it again, was I imagining it wasn't there? This offers intriguing possibilities when one is dealing with an inanimate object. How might you parlay that into something more encompassing?

This monograph gives an interesting experiment done with computer graphic representation of the Mona Lisa and the effect of "noise" on people's perception of the smile.

http://www.ski.org/CWTyler_lab/CWTyler/PrePublications/ReverseCorrelationMona/LaGioconda.html

And this is a book I keep promising myself to read by Harvard University neurobiologist Margaret Livingstone:

Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing
by Margaret Livingstone, David H. Hubel

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0810904063/ref=pd_sxp_f/103-7313094-1895057

the mona lisa thing is very interesting. i wonder if they tested any other painting, or some photographs? it seems a bit odd that they would draw these conclusions from only testing the mona lisa, especially since their research was not specifically aimed at the mona lisa but "to study the ability of humans to read subtle changes in facial expression".

but as far as this concerns the mona lisa, it's really cool. i wonder if it is just dumb luck or if there is something to it. i saw the painting in person, from about 30 feet away though, over a room-full of heads and through the glare of the bullet-proof glass, so you might as well say i hadn't seen it.

Ugh, that doesn't sound like prime viewing anyway. Wouldn't it be nice to be amongst the privileged few who could see her as she was painted? I think it interesting that in all standard reproductions she is unquestionably smiling, a product perhaps of the flattening effects of photography. I've read that it is the glazing process, and how it refracts the light, that causes the mystifying change. It would seem the noise experiment imitates that in pixelation. I found it fascinating as it does explain for me the difficulties of controlling subtleties in the electronic media. How easily one can skew an effect! Remember the artist producing glice's of women from photographs? How I felt that while very much of it was beautiful, he did not command his object well, leaving a flat emotive affect? This phenomenon might have contributed. Light filtering through layers in glazing gives a depth that light reflecting off the flat surface or suffusing from the flat surface can never.

that last sentence...i never thought about that. thanks to you and hockney i'm getting into optical physics, ugh, lol. this is really amazing stuff, i'm learning all these little things that make the world around me make a little more sense.

my painting teacher refuses to teach us how to glaze beyond saying "thin transparent layers". how do you do it? i've had a little success with just applying as many layers as the assignment deadlines allow time for...more with acrylics than with oils, but i'd like to switch back to oils soon.

HEY MC GAY!!!! WHAT'S UP? You seem to see it fit to come in and criticize our forum because you think we'll leave so, I'll return the favor.

What is art? Art is something inanimate created for entertaining mindless geeks.

What is this thread? BOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGG!!!!!

What am I gonna do now?

I KNOW!!!!! I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!I'm Mc Vay! Listen to my endless whining!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i guess it takes such a great mind as this to understand harry potter. wanker.

C and Mea, nice to see you again. Neopyro, STFU.

C, about glazing: The most important thing is to use transparent colours; pigments such as ( most ) earths, rose madder, quinacridone, ultramarine, most azo´s will work. For white, choose zinc or lead, but NOT titanium; it´ll dull anything. All opaque pigments, such as cadmium, are to be avoided.
Use medium liberally. Lots of pre-mixed formulas are available, but I prefer to mix my own: 10 parts linseed oil, 10 parts french turpentine and 2 parts resin ( dammar or synthetic ). Do not use sunflower or any other non-yellowing oil, as it will cause you problems with prolonged drying-times and/or cracking. Real deep and colurful shadows can be produced by working with glazes in colours complementary to the underpainting. Try fooling around with glazes on your own and then visit a museum with some decent old masters-paintings. You´ll be able to literally deconstruct the working-process of the artist and that´s quite a thrill.

I don´t use glazes very much anymore; I´ve become rather enamored of the flat and luminous surface of opaque colours.

See you,
Kim

Kim, it is always good to see you too, especially when you add such technical depth to my asides. ;-) How might you approach C McV's problem of expressing the transient in paint?

Well, I am sorry to see the demise of this thread . . .

McVay

I think you know too much. You're getting into that point when your intelligence became your worst enemie.
Art is not real is just the fruit of someone else imagination. Sometimes you can touch, smell, pee on it but still not "real".
Dream on and have fun.

Ps I don't work for Disney

kim...thanks. i would like to hear your answer to mea's question, if you have one.

falcao...art for me has always been bound to knowledge. i've never been satisfied with mindless, drivelling output the nature of which i can only guess about. i like to know what i'm doing, or at the very least try to understand it.

umm...please explain what this means: "Art is not real is just the fruit of someone else imagination."

Ugh, C, that´s a tough one...I´m working on it, but it´s difficult to write about.
Will.Post.Later.