Death for art is sick

[Kai]

You realize, I am just ribbing you.

The word "Art" can be taken many ways, and many claims for it being a "fraud" can be made.

For example, a painting of a sunset is not a real sunset.  It is a fraud.

[Aufenthatt]

Ceci N'est Pas Muhammed

[hooplala]

You realize, I am just ribbing you.

The word "Art" can be taken many ways, and many claims for it being a "fraud" can be made.

For example, a painting of a sunset is not a real sunset.  It is a fraud.

This piece should have effectively ended art.  Everything after it was superfluous.

[Kai]

Oh, I don't think it should have ended art. Humans are predisposed to making art.

What it should have been an end to is high art, museum art, the idea that art is something apart from the general human experience. To most people, art is something that someone else does that you look at (or listen to, or taste, if you broaden that enough) which someone else decides for you; they don't take part in it. I take the broader idea, that art is anything that humans create or manifest that is greater than just simple use for survival and reproduction. Everyones an artist, not just someone who does it for a living. If you aren't creating art, then you're missing out. For goddsakes, make some food thats more than just caloric intake, draw something, write something, make some joyful noise, act some shit out, dance, sing, sew clothing, design, whatever. Do it. Quit waiting.

Not that I need to tell you people that. Ya'all are one of the most artistically inclined groups I have ever come in contact with.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Oh, I don't think it should have ended art. Humans are predisposed to making art.

What it should have been an end to is high art, museum art, the idea that art is something apart from the general human experience. To most people, art is something that someone else does that you look at (or listen to, or taste, if you broaden that enough) which someone else decides for you; they don't take part in it. I take the broader idea, that art is anything that humans create or manifest that is greater than just simple use for survival and reproduction. Everyones an artist, not just someone who does it for a living. If you aren't creating art, then you're missing out. For goddsakes, make some food thats more than just caloric intake, draw something, write something, make some joyful noise, act some shit out, dance, sing, sew clothing, design, whatever. Do it. Quit waiting.

Not that I need to tell you people that. Ya'all are one of the most artistically inclined groups I have ever come in contact with.

Um, that's not what Magritte was trying to do with that piece and I don't see how that follows.

[Kai]

What follows is that I was replying to Hoopla and riding my own thought wave. The great thing about art is that its not locked away in some historical context, I can choose (fancy that!) to interpret things differently, and to ride a thought train from one idea to the next, and furthermore, I can come here and post about it, and luckily for me I haven't been kicked out yet.

It follows like this: the treachery of images is about how we are deceived by representation through symbols, and how that representation does not equal the real thing, or the real experience. You can take that one step further, in a meta-sense, that observing art in a museum is just a representation of art, whereas the real art is in the process. Something that all people should share in.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It's an interesting perspective, actually, and I can see how you could take Magritte's subversive message to museums now.

I was entirely too kneejerky in my response. My bad.

I definitely agree with you about the experience of creating art being one of the most important things about it, and that everyone should get in on it.

It seems to me that people's expectations and mental schemas about what art is and where to find it plays a powerful role in their perception and experience of it. Most people expect to see it in museums and galleries so that's where they give themselves the okay to go into that headspace. The authority of the gallery directors also seems to help people shift their perception, unfortunately.

[Kai]

It's an interesting perspective, actually, and I can see how you could take Magritte's subversive message to museums now.

I was entirely too kneejerky in my response. My bad.

I definitely agree with you about the experience of creating art being one of the most important things about it, and that everyone should get in on it.

It seems to me that people's expectations and mental schemas about what art is and where to find it plays a powerful role in their perception and experience of it. Most people expect to see it in museums and galleries so that's where they give themselves the okay to go into that headspace. The authority of the gallery directors also seems to help people shift their perception, unfortunately.

And professional artists who want to sell their art.  Not only for sale too. Theres so much bullshit mystique and prestige hypnosis surrounding artistic pursuits. Its in the interest of artistis to make museums special, so that museums = art = power and money. It seems that way less with classical art and more with modern visual arts these days. Be the first person to paint an entire canvas red and give it a back story and something special to it and suddenly its a museum. How is that more special and artistic than me painting my walls? If people figured that out, who would go to a modern art exibit with canvases of solid color? Its in the interest of the few to keep the many thinking that art is something out there in a special place. If anyone can create art, why should someone get payed for doing something anyone could do?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Actually, Rothko's color field paintings are more than just solid color. But if you only see them in a book they appear to be that way. There is incredible subtlety in his work which requires you to see the original, not tiny reproductions that are halftoned to pieces..

I suppose some people get paid for it because artists also like to eat. Why shouldn't people find some art more desirable and valuable than others? Anybody can make lots of things but that doesn't mean that anybody can make things that are remarkable, insightful, and valuable.

I don't think it's necessarily in the interest of the few to keep art exclusive. Like I mentioned before, people defer to authorities for many things in life, so why should it be any different when it comes to art? Is it even possible to not be influenced by people you respect in terms of aesthetic choices?

I also wouldn't call the mystique that surrounds art "bullshit." It IS mysterious. No one seems able to pin it down and define it, even for themselves. Once you think you have it nailed, it spurts out a hole you failed to consider. The only thing most can heartily agree about art is that it is a very nebulous idea. It shouldn't be surprising that most people outright defer to authorities and elites in the face of such a confusing and inscrutable concept. Knowledgeable art people can help put art pieces in historical context so that viewers can apprehend it in a way that goes beyond their initial reaction.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I've found that many art experts I've had as teachers have given me entirely new dimensions to look at art. It's when people start shutting themselves off from the multitude of perspectives, regardless of the group, that art suffers.

[Kai]

I don't think art is...wait, never mind.

I totally agree with you.

PM incoming.

[potato]

I also wouldn't call the mystique that surrounds art "bullshit." It IS mysterious. No one seems able to pin it down and define it, even for themselves. Once you think you have it nailed, it spurts out a hole you failed to consider. The only thing most can heartily agree about art is that it is a very nebulous idea. It shouldn't be surprising that most people outright defer to authorities and elites in the face of such a confusing and inscrutable concept. Knowledgeable art people can help put art pieces in historical context so that viewers can apprehend it in a way that goes beyond their initial reaction.

this is exactly why I hate the word "artist" and think the whole elitist "artist" system is pretentious bullshit. knowledgeable art people (gag) take the fun out of art.

now if you're talking about cultural historians, yeah they have their place but a lot of them aren't as smart as they think they are. art history is stupid. it's cultural history, people. set the so-called artistic achievements of a culture within its own context, then you can analyze it. otherwise stfu about it because it's art for fuck's sake.

[LMNO]

i dunno.

Think about the Beastie Boy's Paul's Boutique.  Sure, it can be listened to with the blind ear of the musically ignorant, and it can be enjoyed.

But it would seem to me that someone who knew that there were stacks of samples five deep of classic and incongruous samples (beatles/curtis mayfield/mountain/yes), seamlessly integrated, would have a more broad appreciation of the music.

Knowledge of art doesn't necessarily detract the appreciation of art.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The bone of contention for me is when someone would feel superior because of the "breadth of appreciation" they have. That's where the whole "pretentious art critic" stereotype comes into play. Maybe it is a case of pearls before swine but if the little piggies like playing with the pretty little shiny balls why should it be a problem?

The "artist" creates but his creation is not the art. The art is human reaction to that creation, however broad the level of appreciation.

[LMNO]

So again, it's a smug attitude, and not what they're being smug about.






Protip: FIX THE CAUSE, NOT THE SYMPTOM.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Catch 22 - the Smug, self satisfied art establishment makes you think you can't be an artist.

Solution: Hunt down people in cravats and set fire to them, in the name of art?