I painted a picture

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by tabs

You flatter me....

Good! I gave it my best shot.

...He Missed my point that he so loved what he was doing and was so good at it that he raised the mere practice of law to an art form...

Well, that's whut ya get for using the term "artist" so loosely...dumbass!

The same can be said of the guy who restored my Mustang..in that genre...

Yes, in the case of mustang guy - fits into my category, "artist/craftsman.

By the way, kudos to your attorney. He apparently heard "artist" in the strictest definition of the word - one who's output has nothing to do with "dollars in and dollars out". Or maybe he has no use for artists and took out his umbrage to shield himself from you raining down on him with damnation by faint praise...oh, wait a minute - you said "umbrage", not "umbrella".

..

[Taz's Master]

"If the intent is to visually represent the objects in a way that expresses an idea, emotion, mood or whatever, that goes beyond simply representing a three dimensional image as accurately as possible in two dimensions, it's an "artistic" representation

If the intention is to express beauty?

If the artist's intent is to express/communicate/show the beauty (or ugliness) of an object or setting, is the subject itself art? Can observing a heron be an artistic appreciation, or can the art only be perceived by Audubon and conveyed in his work?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

...If the intention is to express beauty?

If the artist's intent is to express/communicate/show the beauty (or ugliness) of an object or setting, is the subject itself art?

Again, an object or setting is what it is. If an individual percieves the object or setting and is moved, motivated, struck by an idea, etc. which motivates them to express whichever it is in a visual manner, i.e., to make a visual statement to "express/communicate/show the beauty (or ugliness) of an object or setting", it is that output, whether it be a painting, photo, drawing...that is the art object. The object or setting that the art object is based on is the subject of the object.

Can observing a heron be an artistic appreciation, or can the art only be perceived by Audubon and conveyed in his work?

Certainly we all observe various things which give rise to an admiration of them that is based on artistic sensibilities that we all possess to one degree or another. And it's not unreasonable to view a sunset and think of it as one of nature's works of art - I do. But I'm limiting myself in this discussion to works of art in the generally accepted sense, art created by humans.

How 'bout some feedback on my responses to your questions so far? I've been putting in some earnest thought and time in trying to adress them as I understand them. Do they strike you as reasonable or art snob BS?

..

[Taz's Master]

If I was firm in my understanding of what I believed art was, I'd either tell you what it is and explain how wrong you are (where we disagree), or more likely keep my comments to myself. Quantifying the subjective is difficult, if not impossible (which is why I think educating yourself about art to better appreciate it is both useful and pointless). If I felt you were not putting thought into your responses I wouldn't continue asking questions. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, this discussion can certainly impact the way I think about art, and I'm greatful for the consideration you are giving my questions.

I'm not sure whether I agree with your response: it is that output, whether it be a painting, photo, drawing...that is the art object. The object or setting that the art object is based on is the subject of the object. I kind of agree with what you are saying, but I cannot keep from thinking: "If that is so, then the only way to appreciate the art in an object/setting is to reproduce it" which I cannot agree with.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

...If I felt you were not putting thought into your responses I wouldn't continue asking questions. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, this discussion can certainly impact the way I think about art, and I'm greatful for the consideration you are giving my questions.

Great. And I'm greatful to discuss an interest of mine with another interested individual (and I'm certainly not trying to prove you wrong either).

I'm not sure whether I agree with your response: it is that output, whether it be a painting, photo, drawing...that is the art object. The object or setting that the art object is based on is the subject of the object. I kind of agree with what you are saying, but I cannot keep from thinking: "If that is so, then the only way to appreciate the art in an object/setting is to reproduce it" which I cannot agree with.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm referring to "art" as that which is man-made. When you say "the art in an object/setting", my tendency, if I'm understanding what you are saying (and there's a strong possibility that I may not be) is to respond by saying that the "art" is not an intrinsic element that an object/setting "contains". As you say, our perceptions are subjective and where one might see beauty, another might see ugliness and yet another might be completely indifferent. In any case, what many don't realize is that much art is not about beauty nor ugliness.

That old cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" applies to ugliness and indifference also. I maintain that art, in the scenario you present, is the result of an individual's perception of the object/setting and that the art "object" is the resultant manifestation, in the form of a painting or sculpture, of the individual's response to the "subject" that motivated them.

As I agreed, sure, a sunset can be looked at as a work of art by nature. And a pile of beer bottles in a rainy alley can be looked at as art by somebody also - hell, anybody can look at anything and appreciate it as art if they're moved to.

But my interests lie within the realm of art produced by humans: paintings, drawings, sculpture - looking at it, touching it, walking around/through it, sometimes wondering what the hell the artist was thinking and learning something about that artist and gaining an appreciation of his work - or not , other times turning away in boredom or disgust, completely uninterested.

In any case, I have no more interest in convincing anyone to become more interested in and knowledgeable about art than I am with informing a person's taste in music, literature, whaaat evuh. And, truth be told, it is very unlike me to even discuss art much less get caught up in a pissing match with those who have nothing to say but that modern art is crap.

So thanks for participating in this "rational" exchange of opinions and ideas- sure as hell beats name calling, insults and categorical condemnation.

..

[Taz's Master]

that art, in the scenario you present, is the result of an individual's perception of the object/setting and that the art "object" is the resultant manifestation, in the form of a painting or sculpture, of the individual's response to the "subject" that motivated them.

Why would the art in a setting/object be the result of an individual's perception, but the art in a work be inherant?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

that art, in the scenario you present, is the result of an individual's perception of the object/setting and that the art "object" is the resultant manifestation, in the form of a painting or sculpture, of the individual's response to the "subject" that motivated them.

Why would the art in a setting/object be the result of an individual's perception, but the art in a work be inherant?

Because, as I said, for the purposes of this discussion I'm considering art to be the physical manifestation, in the form of a painting or sculpture, of an artist's response to their perception of something. As I also said, I guess one could look at anything and declare that art is inherant in it. But what does that have to do with experiencing paintings, sculpture, etc. made by humans? That's what art historians, critics, artists and, I think, most people think of when they think of art.

Your postulate that art is inherant in all objects and settings may be totally valid. I don't know. I've never come across that line of thought and don't lnow how to deal with it in terms of my concept of the world of art. But hey! I don't know how to deal with a lot of things.

[DARISC]

Deleted - inadvertent double post

[Taz's Master]

Your postulate that art is inherant in all objects and settings may be totally valid. I don't know. I've never come across that line of thought and don't lnow how to deal with it in terms of my concept of the world of art. But hey! I don't know how to deal with a lot of things.


No, I'm suggesting that art might be the result of the individual's perception, and not inherant in a work regardless of what an artist was trying to express.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

Your postulate that art is inherant in all objects and settings may be totally valid. I don't know. I've never come across that line of thought and don't lnow how to deal with it in terms of my concept of the world of art. But hey! I don't know how to deal with a lot of things.


No, I'm suggesting that art might be the result of the individual's perception, and not inherant in a work regardless of what an artist was trying to express.

I guess I really wasn't understanding what you said. I agree with you in that I'm saying that art IS the result of the artist's perception. What you seem to me to be saying above gets us back to the same old question - is it art or isn't it art? No?

As far as I'm concerned art is, to an individual, whatever that individual deems to be art. That's totally subjective. But to consider a particular piece of art in the broader context of all other art is not totally subjective. If it were, there would be no interest in trying to define art history because it's not possible to categorize that which is totally subjective. There's no defineable structure to work within if everything is totally subjective, right? Unless the evaluation of art was decided by popular opinion polls, maybe. I'm sure that there are some who would say, yeah! That's the way to do it! Of course then that should apply to literature and music as well, no? So we'd end up with an ongoing history of what is popular at any given time with a horizontal audience.

Well, we do have that now in terms of knowing what is popular, what sells, what constitutes the current rage or fad, etc. And it changes from day to day, based on the whims of the consumers.

But there's another audience that the horizontal audience isn't much interested in and that's the vertical audience, which is the audience that exists ongoing into the future, that continue to be interested in, appreciate, view and read that which, over time, has proven to have a worth and life far surpassing that of the temporally popular. And it is this audience that historians and critics in all fields of artistic endeavour concern themselves with.

So no, the value and appreciation of art is not at all totally subjective. And historians and critics are involved in matters which transcend popularity and saleability.

Gettin' finger cramps here. Are ya with me so far? Am I out in keft field spouting nonsense?

[Taz's Master]

That's what I was talking about when I said defining art is an attempt at quantifying the subjective. When you set your boundaries, there are always things that qualify but fall outside the boundaries, and when you have no boundaries then nothing can be disqualified.

Even our own subjective evaluations often don't hold up. For example: I enjoy music, and as with most other things I have pretty accessible taste. I like Rock n Roll, and mostly Classic Rock. Now the way I define how good a song is, is by how much I like it. That allows me to enjoy some pretty crappy stuff, and that is what I prefer. If I put together my favorite 25 tracks, by my definition that would be what I figured was the best music. But it isn't, I know Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, and their ilk are much better. I don't want to listen to them like I do G'nR, Queen, AC/DC, or Aerosmith, I really don't like them as much, but it is pretty easy for me to see that they are better. So a subjective rating is insufficient, however once you start setting objective standards, you box yourself in.

On the whole I am lined up pretty much in complete agreement with you and Sniper as to how to appreciate art. Who's in left field now?

[DARISC]

[QUOTE=Taz's Master;5169889]That's what I was talking about when I said defining art is an attempt at quantifying the subjective.

Yes...and no. I said art can be subjectively defined anyway an individual wants to define it. In that sense, whatever anyone defines as art is art and thus there is no single definition. Yes, that is always the case in the present.

When you set your boundaries, there are always things that qualify but fall outside the boundaries, and when you have no boundaries then nothing can be disqualified.

I'm not sure what it means to qualify (according to who?) and what (who's) boundaries they fall outside of. Again, yes, nothing can be absolutely disqualified - in the present.

Recall that I used the terms vertical and horizontal audience. The horizontal aufience is that of the present and what ocurs in the present is judged by those experiencing it in the present. That includes art critics, historians, patrons of the arts, artists and the man on the street.

There is always much disagreement about what qualifies for even being considered to be art and about the quality of that which is. Critics make their proclamations, gallery owners (often in cahoots with the critics) hype what they hope will make them money and art historians speculate and make guesses about what in the present will prove to be significant throughout history.

Historians deal with looking back and trying to put what happened in the past in context with what that which happened before what they are dealing with and this really can't be done in the present - no more than can be seen now how Bush will be seen in the eyes of history. It takes time.

As time passes, events fall into place for historians (and yes I know, historians can be looked at skeptically as those who fictionalize the past) and they put that which is significant in their analyses into their history books. What ends up in history books is that which has a vertical audience, the audience which continues through time, constantly being renewed as imembers die and new members enter.

This is a very different audience than the horizontal audience which is ephemeral, always changing in the very short term when compared with the vertical audience. How many members of art's, or music's, current horizontal audience can name any artist or musician who was wildly popular and hugely successful 150years ago? I'm guessing you'll agree, not many. Ask anyone who has an interest in art or music that goes beyond what is popular and accepted in the present, one who's interest is deep enough to have made them read history, and maybe take a course or two and you'll probably get some responses. And ask just about anybody who Michaelangelo was and they'll know - because art history is a valid and valuable discipline. The vertical audience of those who have an in depth understanding and appreciation of art, music, et al, surpasses any given horizontal audience by a factor of thousands in number of members.

Also, consider how many artists were scorned, laughed at and ridiculed by their horizontal audience and are now universally accepted as masters; the list is long.

As far as your saying that classical music is "better" than rock and roll, I'd say they are different as opposed ot one being qualitatively better than the other. While both are music, comparing the two outside of their context in the music world seems to me like comparing apples and oranges - they're both fruits, but...

And, as far as, "On the whole I am lined up pretty much in complete agreement with you and Sniper as to how to appreciate art.", I actually have nothing to advocate to anyone on how they should appreciate art. I do make a distinction between, oh, my neighbor, my doctor, the guy at the liquor store, Sniper, et al, who, unfortunately, may have nothing more to say about art than "I know what I like, I know what art is and most modern art is clearly crap!" and people like yourself who have an interest in what others think and have to say and can carry on a worthwhile discussion.

Thanks.

Oh yeah, back to one of the things you said about music,

Brahms may rock me right to sleep,
but Styx and Stones rock my bones.

[m21sniper]