Originally Posted by Taz's Master (Post 5510006)

DARSIC, you are the one who told me that what I believe to be form of performance art is not.

Can you quote me? I can't recall what I said to you re that.

Is it because of an arbitrary standard you hold to be true, or is it because there is a true standard for art?

I don't believe that I hold any "arbitrary standard" to be true (I'm really not clear on that to which you're referring).

A "true standard for art"? We're still at step one until there's a mutual agreement on the definition of the meaning of "art" - don't know how to move forward with this until there is. I asked you what art is "in your mind" (as I believe you put it), hoping to be able to respond more specifically than I'm able to now. Did you read my tendered categorization of various types of art a few posts back? It's meant to provide a possible form to refer to in this discussion.


I find that sports communicate same messages of emotion, the human condition and the state of society that art strives for, and sports do so with a grace, beauty and ferocity that is also often the goal of art.

Again, hard to discuss the "goals" of art without first defining "art".

To me sports are a performance art and often sporting events are more meaningful than any other form of performance art I have experienced.

Art and music are communication.

nostatic, I will agree with you, but when the subject of a work of art is an athelete engaged in competition, is not the same communication taking place at the event?

Originally Posted by enzo1 (Post 5510080)

Music, art is a private matter for me. I either like it or I don't.

Not something you care to discuss because it's a private matter; nothing wrong with that. The end. :)

There is no right or wrong.

Oops! Maybe not. Care to discuss what you mean by "right or wrong", re art?

I like Caravaggio and can certainly see why others may not. I get the chance to go to Rome I'm gone.

In the mean time, if you haven't already, you could visit the Kimbell Art Museum in Texas or the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC or Princeton, Cleveland, Detroit or Kansas.

Regarding liking Caravaggio, you "can certainly see why others may not." Interesting; what's not to like about Caravaggio?

Originally Posted by Crowbob (Post 5510085)

Without art we are animals.

Originally Posted by Gogar (Post 5436081)

Art and music have the same function as non-procreative sex.

Originally Posted by Crowbob (Post 5510085)

With or Without art we are animals.

Originally Posted by DARISC (Post 5509278)

Sports are competitive, art is expressive.

Originally Posted by Taz's Master (Post 5510517)

If your intent was not to be exclusive in this post, I missed what you were trying to say.

Originally Posted by DARISC (Post 5509827)

I agree with you 100%.

On a recent thread on this topic I got involved in a pm session with several other posters who wanted to discuss just what "art"really is. It was impossible to do that on the thread without an incessant barrage of "That POS ain't art!", "Artists are worthless, lazy sleazebags", etc., so we had an enjoyable discussion privately.

In one of my PMs I wrote this about that, in an attempt at a generally accepted categorization within which it might be easier to discuss the question, "what is ART?":

Graphic/commercial art - conveying info that promotes a product, event, etc.

Crafts - ceramics, weaving, glass blowing, etc. Objects made primarily to serve a purpose or function.

Decoration - eye candy.

Design - applicable to all the above and judged by how effectively/elegantly/aesthetically it is embodied in the product.

The area of crafts is problematic for some who might say, "That's a tapestry to hang on the wall to look at, it has no other function, it is art". Yes, but its essence is that of craft; it's a weaving. The artist/craftsman (as opposed to the basic craftsman, whose basic focus is on his craft as utilitarian) chooses to be constrained by the medium of his choice and when judging his work the aesthetic/artistic aspects of the work are penultimate to the quality of the craft.

A fine artist may in fact be a lousy craftsman and the choice of medium is dictated by the statement he wants to make. I've never heard or read reference to the quality of the "craft" in Van Gogh's paintings for example. Truth is, he was driven by images which he attempted to put on canvas as quickly as he could, even at one point when he was institutionalized, rapidly making a painting then immediately scraping off the paint and making another and another. His focus was on his visions, not so much with the craft involved in realizing them.

Fine art, whatever the medium - serves no purpose or function other than to make whatever statement the artist wishes to make. It, by definition, has no utilitarian value. And, it is cutting edge, pushing the envelope, avant garde, however one wants to describe it. Most often it is not possible to judge its historical importance immediately. Some is not, as is generally realized, able to be judged until varying amounts of time has passed, after which great/historically significant art can be recognized in the greater context that only accumulates over time.

What most people stumble over is the differentiation between the avant garde and the academic. They tend not to recognize that "creativity" is not the ability to paint like Rembrandt, Renoir, Picasso or Pollock - that ability is a craft. The creative work was done by Pollock - to repeat what he did is craft and one who may be able to do it well is an "artist" craftsman, an academician, because that which has been done, become recognized as creative and important is thereafter academic - creative art moves on.

Originally Posted by milt (Post 5510834)

There is a lot of "craft" in oil painting and watercolors. I guess the artists call it technique.

I absolutely agree. And there is a lot of art being produced today that won't stand the test of time in terms of durability because the artist doesn't give a damn about the quality of the craft involved or the art isn't intended to last. The "statements" these works make may range from banal trash to profoundly interesting. "New" art always generates controversy and over time the wheat is always separated from the chaff.

I would submit that "fine art" is not necessarily art at all.

Will you elaborate on that? All fine art? What's an example of "fine art" that's not necessarily art at all?

I never understood why artists studied under other artists so long and so hard. What they got was a long line of evolution in that mode. They developed their craft.

That was way back when and then, yes, there was a long line of evolution in a given mode. But that was then, when artists were dictated to by the church, then later by the aristocracy (and of course governments that demanded propagandistic works) until the birth of modernism when artists shucked all those bonds and began making "art for art's sake" as it were. Today there is no longer the apprenticeship system there once was.

Of course there certainly are some greats that used that craft to produce some great art. Show me an impressionist landscape and I'll yawn.

I once fell asleep at a symphony performance - but that says much about me, not the music. :)

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77 (Post 5510903)

Short of your own sexuality or religion, there may be nothing more personal than ones own taste in music or art - that means something. Say what you want but that sort of passion isn't wasted on something meaningless. Maybe it is the thing that makes us so very different than the rest of the animal world?

Originally Posted by DARISC (Post 5510808)

MINI I.Q. TEST
Select which word is out of context:
a) painter
b) composer
c) novelist
d) dancer
e) batter
f) poet
g) sculptor
h) pianist

Originally Posted by john70t (Post 5511454)

d) dancer? Every other could require use of a tool.

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera (Post 5511477)

I would say the batter because it is a sport or game. The rest are judged as good or not. The batter is measured performance.

Originally Posted by imcarthur (Post 5511510)

Or it could be argued that a, b, c, f, g are the only real artists i.e. they create art.

d & h perform art. But if they improvise along the way they could be classed as artists per above.

Mmm...mebbe the question should have been "Which of the following is not included under the definition of "the arts". d & h are and are generally considered performing artists, eh?

e is just sport. A participant in a war game.

Agreed (though some will be miffed at "just" a sport :)).

Ian

Originally Posted by DARISC (Post 5511656)

d & h are and are generally considered performing artists, eh?

Originally Posted by imcarthur (Post 5511800)

Yes. But to me, there is a difference between a performing artist & an artist. Rembrandt didn't perform but he was an artist. A bass player in a bar band is a performing artist but is he an artist à la Rembrandt? Beethoven was both, of course so the line is fuzzy & personal. ;)

Ian

Originally Posted by wcc (Post 5512021)

Without music life would B-flat....... Sorry!

Originally Posted by The Gaijin (Post 5510911)

I feel bad for those would have been musicians in this modern world.

They sit around playing nothing - as their customer base is listening to iPods, watching MTV and surrounded by music in their cars, offices and everyplace else.

A hundred years ago these people had a natural audience, and now they don't.:(

The same could be said for performance artists..

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77 (Post 5435805)

I love art and music but why do we have it? Is there a purpose? A function? Is it the manifestation of our soul? Is it God speaking to us? Aside from the commercial aspects, Humans seem to be the only animals that really pursue art and music for the fancy of it.

Originally Posted by DARISC (Post 5511506)

Not a finger painter. :)



Yes, yes and yes.

Now 'splain pleeze to Taz's master? :)

Originally Posted by Taz's Master (Post 5512137)

DARSIC, now do you understand why I said you have denied that what I consider to be performance art to be art?

Uhh...nooo... "Now"? After what?

Since you are judging, what standard are you using?

I'm judging? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

An objective definition of true art, or your own arbitrary standard?

"True art"? What's that (in your mind - which you've not clarified after several requests that you do so, so that a discussion about "What is art" can ensue).

And just to be clear, while you can measure the effectiveness of a batter, can you measure the beauty of Ted William's or Ken Griffey Jr's swings?

You tell me. Define the scale of batter beauty that you're applying to make the measurement.

When the subject of a work of art is a performing athelete,

When is that?

can the subject convey the same messages or emotions that the artist is attempting to capture?

I give up. I can only conclude that you can't/won't differentiate between sports and the arts. And I'm really not interested in your stubbornness/inability to make that distinction (you didn't even bother to take the mini I.Q. test that I posted to try to get you to see the light). Buh bye SmileWavy

Originally Posted by Taz's Master (Post 5512224)

I give up.

I accept your surrender.