Animations
6 messages in this thread
Martin – Seeing as you choose to fling around credentials, I recieved
my B.A in Radio/Television from the University of Arizona, with a
strong liberal arts background and MIS as my minor. And the golden
rule was and is don't let the production element get in the way of
the message. If you have no message, then its special effects for
their own sake, which is entertaining but not art. A friend of mine
calls it "eye candy". A less generous interpretation is "flash and
trash". And like candy it has no nutritional value. I do not
presuppose the purpose behind your work. While you may keep some of
your work hidden it still expresses meaning on some level. (The
problem with trying to explain this is that it gets metaphysical on a
certain level, I also subscribe to the theory of Choas.) Ana
understands this on an intellectual level as well as on the intuitive
level. (Pardon Mademoiselle). For me its mostly intuitive. You
influence your work, and your work influences you, as do your friends,
the world etc. You are a product of your society, and vice versa, so
it goes. The political message is there, whether you are aware of it
or not, whether it is your intent or not. Notice that artists
typically don't try to explain their art; they are the conduits of
the message who may not even fully understand the message themselves.
I have heard the analogy of a bowel movement before and I suppose for
an undisciplined artist this is an appropriate analogy.
As regards "Metropolis" Fritz Lang had in mind a powerful
message, wherein he chose a metaphor which required the use of
special effects. If you had been working in a sweat shop in the early
1900's you would not have thought his message mediocre and I do not
feel that it was poorly executed, quite the contrary it was ahead of
its time as political propaganda. The acting was poor. You say the
message is a convenience to create the art, I see it the art
expresses the message. Understanding the social conditions of his time
its pretty hard to dispute that the art was used to express the
message. It was an anti-capitalist theme right out of Karl Marx's
(Engles) writings on the effects of capitalism. The one thing we do
agree on is that it is Art but not what makes it so. -JE
John,
> Seeing as you choose to fling around credentials,
I apologize if you felt me background was flung at you. I was merely stating
the basis for my perspective on our discussion. Neither my education nor
experience was intended to intimidate or overwhelm.
> And the golden rule was and is don't let the production element get in the
way of the message.
> If you have no message, then its special effects for their own sake, which is
entertaining but not art.
First, I didn't know art had absolute rules. Who wrote them? I know
you're not refering to temporary rules, since art continously breaks them.
Second, have you ever heard of "art for art's sake"?
I believe I'm starting to understand were your belief originates.
According to you, all art must have a message – no message, no art. Since
having a message can be defined as intending to influence people, and you
define politics as the intent of influnceing people, it follows that to be art,
an object must be political. Likewise, if an object lacks a message, it is not
art.
This would make sense if art did require a message. That requirement,
since art has no absolute rules, is purely subjective. Therefore, whether art
is politics is a mute dicussion, for our fundimental definition of art is
different – I believe "eye candy" can be art, you don't.
…but… (g)
Incidently, Monet dedicate his life to capturing on canvess the effects
of light. No messages, no meanings, all "eye candy". He was into painting for
the pure visuality of it.
> While you may keep some of your work hidden it still expresses meaning on
some level.
Again, you are talking about my art as if you had the vaguest idea about it,
which you don't. A lot of my work is "eye candy" – visually or auditorially
pleasing. The "Golden Section" is purely visual, is used through art, and has
zero meaning too.
> Your work influences you, as do your friends, the world etc. You are a
product of your society,
> and vice versa, so it goes. The political message is there, whether you are
aware of it or not,
> whether it is your intent or not.
It's like a circular argument – art must have meaning to be art, therefore when
you create art, you embeded it with meaning.
> Notice that artists typically don't try to explain their art;
Could that be because there is no explination?
> they are the conduits of the message who may not even fully understand the
message themselves.
Again, psycho analyzing people you don't know. What message was Monet
unconciously conveying with water lilies or hay stacks?
> I have heard the analogy of a bowel movement before and I suppose for an
undisciplined artist this is
> an appropriate analogy.
Maybe an undisciplined artist, but still an artist and therefore the metephor
is applicable – art can be created without meaning. That is where your
arguement fails, John. You talk in absolutes. Any argument which seeks to prove
absolutes is defeated by ong,Z2+'*g38&.2[0x'.3xg2,'f22(6:a7r0xg2 >*7620c&23
*33,&z2(6g
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Some years back I cut up a dropcloth from a painter and put it into a frame and
turned it in for a grade in highschool art class. I got a A! To the painter
it was trash, to my art teacher it had meaning, to me it meant an A.
IMHO people who can't do it become critics (self appointed) of it and attempt
to define and make silly rules for others who can do it to break.
I just wanted to add my 2 cents to this humorous thread.<g>
Don Landis
Martin – I think we are getting closer at least to understanding each others
position but there are a few areas that I can clear up that might further this
communication. I am not psycho analyzing you in the least, and you are correct
I do not know your work. Art for arts sake, still has meaning, and you have
followed my understanding fairly accurately. There is good art and poor art,
and in the final analysis who is to say what is good and poor. This recognition
of art in its many interpretations we have somewhat talked around. This also
opens up another can of worms, because what is art to one person may not be to
another. All art has a message, even art for arts sake. Good art, poor art,
even with the caveat that if it is created or intended to be art it is art.
Lets for arguments sake say that all art falls into this category. It all has
meaning and therefore a message. It may be a circular argument that leads to
Art is Politics as you have stated, but it is a generally valid argument
because alot of art is political in obvious ways. I do not need to know what
kind of work you do to know it has a message, even if it is art for arts sake,
something about it sends a message to your being or senses and illicits some
emotion, some understanding or fulfills some need. You seem to feel that I am
encroaching on your art or somehow taking something from you with this
acknowledgement. We crossed over the line sometime ago from a basic
understanding of Art is politics to a personal kind of politic with ones own
art. There are other ways to describe it. But your art does have an influence
on you. There is no psycho analysis, this is my perception of the world and all
its causes and effects. To me this is a universal truth. I hope I have given
you something, I have no intention to take away something very personal to you
or claim some insight into your work which I simply don't have. -JE
Martin – One more thing, and this goes back to a comment Ana made about Innesco
and his theater of the absurd. He claimed that it had no meaning but it did and
eveyone went to see it. Yes I do have some absolutes but I don't think that my
argument fails because of it. If I was argueing with a Nihilist who said
nothing exists and nothing has meaning, which is the extreme from your
position, I would be argueing from the standpoint that everything has meaning
and everything exists, whether in our minds or in a common reality. Neither
position can be proven indisputably, but both are valid arguments. I believe
that life has meaning, for me that is a fundemental truth, and you can create a
work of art and say it has no meaning, but it may have real meaning for me and
I would tell you so, and if it did not have real meaning for me I would still
argue that it has meaning whether I relate to it or not. This I take on faith
and it cannot be disproven, anymore than the Nihilists arguement that nothing
is real and life has no meaning. Of course you can get a Nihilist together with
an Existentialist and have a wonderful discourse, but it will depend more on
the skill of the debators than on what the truth is. Some truths we accept on
faith. -JE
do you know john your very live discussions just gave me a picture of the
butterflies in that house of spirits book, but also that peom ode to a grecian
urn, you know how it seems to be an ode to aabstract beauty/ ie. beauty is
truth truth is beauty-but while describing the urn (abstract /form/pure) he
starts to describe all the people coming and going depicted on the urn, the
miller and everyone(i can't remeber and get it mixed up with chaucer) but it is
that same art<>life circle that you are describing.