|
"Doodle"
The philosopher Kant suggests: We must “find a mode of expression which allows a viewer not just to ‘understand’ the work conceptually, but to reach something like the same excited yet harmonious state of mind that the artist had in creating it.”
I do not agree that the creation of art is always a "harmonious" endeavor, but I do believe Kant is right in suggesting that you need to share passion in your work. -- M
Source:Immanuel Kant
In defense of art that stinks
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
Its true, and as long as I’m dropping cliché phrases on you, I’ll add this one:
I could spend hours finding 1,023 examples to prove these points, but I’m going to give you more credit than that. I mean, everyone has had one of those moments… when you overhear someone explaining why they think your favorite music “sucks.”
Pieces of art are not for everyone. Doesn’t matter if we’re talking about music, paintings or movies- whatever. The reasons why someone likes a given piece of art are the exact same reasons someone else hates it. That’s the true beauty of art- It makes us think.
Even when you hate something, at least it makes you think something along the lines of “what the hell was he/she/they thinking?” You may not realize it, but that decorated dog-poop art ( by “Sprinkle Brigade”) makes you think more than you may want to admit.
Source: Arts Quest
Book Recommendation:
"Elephant Standing on Mini Cooper "
Oyonale: 3D by
Gilles Tran
“Random Is?” (Part II)
If something is unobservable, unmeasurable or can't be reasoned, it doesn't necessarily mean it is random. Nor does unpredictable automatically mean random. Yet, random is always unpredictable. One can define Unpredictable as: Incapable of being determined in advance whether by observation, experience or reason.
In February of this year we touched on this topic here on “Mary’s Page:” “Random Is As Random Does“ a commentary by JD Jarvis. It sparked a bit of a debate, but then came to rest… until now. Interest in this topic has resurfaced with this interesting contribution from Kaki Ettinger:
“The idea of randomness as a creative choice--and one which therein allows a personal, active investment of self in digitally created works, is an approach to the concept of chance and uncertainty that struck me as particularly compelling. The necessary associations between self, humanity and the computer generated aesthetic seemed to emerge repeatedly as a theme in the literature I encountered on the subject while researching my thesis this past semester. The degree to which randomness is illustrative of, or, in contrast, an imprecise model of literal, subjective scientific reality is a fascinating question which, though it will likely never be answered definitively, seems to me to provide an extremely compelling foundation for discussion.
One particularly interesting article on the subject I came across while researching, entitled "Programmed Graphics in Computer Art and Animation" (by Mike King) seemed to suggest that randomness was to some extent merely representative of a level of complexity beyond the limits of our subjective human ability to perceive the world around us:
“The end results are only unpredictable because of the complexity of the process, although the degree of unpredictability varies with the level of human experience and the degree to which the computer program or algorithm can be said to be “chaotic”. Put simply, a chaotic function or algorithm results in an unpredictability that is a degree greater (in the subjective human sense) than the unpredictability of a non-chaotic one. Its outcome will still be entirely deterministic, however.” (King, 114)
So to some extent, this perhaps supports the suggestion at the end of the "Animals and Art" article that the concept of so-called randomness, and its corresponding relationship to reality, is very much related to and mediated by aspects of our consciousness and perception. (“Mary’s Page” discussion March 2010)
A particularly interesting case example of the random aesthetic in practice might be Christa Sommerer and Laurent Mignonneau's virtual reality installation A-Volve, in which participants are invited to impact the creation of three-dimensional projections representing evolving computer-generated life forms. Oliver Grau, in an article titled Into the Belly of the Image: Historical Aspects of Virtual Reality, explains how in this installation:
“Evolution removes conceptual control from the artists, making them passive witnesses to random changes which the user can select like a breeder.” (Grau, p. 369)
Can random variables be subjective -- what is a random occurrence to one individual may not be to another depending on the depth of understanding and knowledge? If an artist approaches his/her work with no preconceived notion - and is able to sustain that motivation - is that not random? -- M
IN-BOX:
Submitted by:
Comment: From what I am reading in this article, people are perpetually trying to keep up with the Jones’s, following the fad of the moment and blindly bowing to the dictates of the Galleries and Museum who are supposed to be in the know. It paints collectors as idiots who have no minds of their own.
This dictatorship has long been part of my assumption of the art world in general for a long time and to me it is sad. It reminds me of teens who seek to be different and individual, yet turn to the latest fad to make their statement of individuality. All the while they are simply performing the very act of conformity they sought to escape. It’s a never ending story. I am glad I prefer to embrace things I find appealing to me and very seldom bite into the morays of the mass. I cannot say I have not been influenced by others dictates of art but most times I find it frustrating and confusing as an artist.
Artists are held hostage by their need to survive by selling their art. Art suffers in my estimation by this follow the crowd mentality. Why does art always have to be new and innovative. I sometimes feel we throw out the baby with the bath water. I feel that art should encompass all things old and new. To me the only thing that has changed, is the tools I use. I constantly have to battle the urge to present a piece of work as fine art instead of a study of a new tool I found. The tools are invaluable but they are not the art. Art is what is created using tools, old and new. Fine art comes from the heart. Not the dictates of the powers that be.
Submitted by:
Comment: After reading this I recalled the furor over Tom Wolfe’s “The Painted Word” back in the mid 70s. Like this work, much of what he wrote was true, though exaggerated, but it begged the real question of the basis for the theory of aesthetics for modern art espoused by Greenberg and other critics. Most of what modern critics write about aesthetics lacks common sense, like any dogma. For instance, take Greenberg’s claim that cubism derives its quality from the tension between the bas relief illusion of depth and awareness of the flatness and texture of the painted surface. Even if this tension did dominate perception of the paintings, which is arguable, why would anyone care about it? What significance does such tension have for us, that we should flock to the galleries to look at cubist paintings? Other critics have argued, especially for the color field paintings, that the effects induce a sense of sublimity. OK, why is this better, or very much different, than looking at the sky? And if it isn’t any better than looking at the sky, why bother with the galleries and modern art museums?
Wolfe claimed that the modern art critics not only provided the basis for judging art quality, and hence setting its price, but led artists by the nose into the act of creation. This assertion especially drove the art world into frenzy, which I did not understand because it was a ridiculous. No one who read such abstracted criticism, could possibly believe it could be translated into paintings. One might as well believe that you could design modern buildings by reading Ayn Rand. Also, there is nothing new about groups of critics having an influence on what sells in art or fashion. In the history of European art since the Renaissance, that is more the rule than the exception. By human nature what people want and buy is heavily influenced by the perceived status it brings them. This should not be a revelation to anyone, even in the art world.
And thus the connection between Wolfe and Bloom, the assertion that when it comes to modern art, what people like is driven by a sense of snobbery, of belonging to an elite herd steeped in the vagaries of modern art dogma. Even if this is true for many, so what? You could say the same about any brand of aesthetics that has some following. More importantly, Bloom’s assertion that perception of art quality, modern or not, is based completely on snobbery and status, is not true. People told that they are sick will feel worse than people told that they are not. That doesn’t mean that people can’t distinguish feeling sick from viral or bacterial infection, and someone else’s assertion that they are sick when they are not.
Certainly what we are told influences perception, but that doesn’t mean we can not perceive independently of something we are told. We do learn aesthetics like we learn almost everything else we know. Our appreciation of art or music does change as we perceive more. This does not mean that aesthetic theories are arbitrary. Bloom’s implication that there is no theory of aesthetics that can account for the breadth of our appreciation of art, including modern art, is shallow and cynical. His implication that the existence of such theories contradicts the way our minds are built, is nonsense. I suggest reading Phillip Rawson’s book on “Drawing.”
Submitted by:
Comment: Gee, that's insightful. I guess I came to the right place for insightful insight. No mere pretentious babble about art, no sireee.! It's insight! It's comments and commentary and apparently insightful comments with an occasional bit of insight in the commentary. I wish I had it, that's a fact. If you want us mere mortals to be impressed, rest assured we are.
Submitted by:
Comment: This article is interesting to me as a visual artist and digital artist. My first reaction to any work of art is "visual" and I hardly ever wonder how it is done.
Children judge the same. If I want to know something about my art I would ask a child.
Equating “contemporary art” with unrest and civil disobedience is often not a far stretch of the imagination. The attempt to be different and unique pushes boundaries which can be appealing.
It is a need to satisfy personal desire that motivates the art purchaser/collector. Whether the desire is for self-expression, a belief in the process, a need to obtain the unobtainable, or to balance one’s portfolio. Whatever the motivation, the desire is keen. -- M
"Art"
by Bogdan Zwir
This page posted July 5 2010
|
