Art

[Guest]

(i'm home now..I hate dial up)

 

[CharleyH]

There better be something MORE to it than that. I know too many "artists" who cannot explain their own work incontext in story in technique....they have no "artist's statement"......"it's what i feel"..well big fucking deal. TELL me what you feel..show me what you feel....I believe the artist should be able to articulate it and if not be able to SHOW it clearly...hopefiully both. I find most "artists" today...to be lazy egotist.

Ocasionally there is an artists craftsman whose work shines. Pre 20th century "modern art"...an artist need only be a craftsperson....that is what they WERE....NOW...to be a "fine ARtist"...you better have a concept as well.

Well, herein lies a problem. One the one hand, without an artist being able to articulate an understanding of his own creation, how is anyone else to take the work as art or understand the meaning of it?

Hm, and yet artists do come to mind here, as well as countless others, including myself and my finger painting, which I quite imagined as art at the age of 5, because, well, it is, it was, which my Mother displayed as fridge culture. Yet it has no value except to her and to me.

If as an adult, I charcoal a figure because I felt like it, I don’t know why, but certainly there is an element of craftsmanship, is it more or less art than had I shit on a canvass, called it "Burnt Velvet" and then told you it is a reflection of my concept that the world has become nothing but blank, dull space filled by excrement. There is context here, explanation, and yes, my technique – my media, and how I focus my strokes on the canvass. Does the former represent a finer art than the latter? Is the latter art or simply statement.

High art/low art? Erotic/porn? Classical/popular music. Is the difference in the test of time. What is the criterion for artistic genius, a masterpiece, because I can think of many modern pieces of art where, while the art is renowned, is not considered a masterpiece. Warhol is one that comes to mind, and this, on a Sunday, brings my mind to Marilyn Manson as a post-modern master, perhaps even masterpiece . . . seemingly silly - at first glance . . . and yet, not.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Raphael's School of Athens.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

Call me a letch, but lately anything by Sorayama or Luiz Royo are what turns my head.

 

[CharleyH]

shoot...i have to get going....but this IS fascinating.
the way I see it:
The child's "art" is a form of Human expression..and to THAT extent IS "art", but not "Fine Art". To ME to be "fine art" there also has to be (in addition to expression)...craftsmanship, and meaning, a story and context. I

as for the burnt velvet example....that is intellectual bullshitting (or more precisiely HUMAN SHITTING)...There is argueably MEANIng, the is shock "value" (and by that i d not mean value i mean shock content)...and the context in HISTORY is negligable, because basically THAT has been done and (although it is a hypothetical work...i think)...it brings nothing NEW....we had our "piss Christ"..and others. as for Manson...I do not know his work..But i am sceptical enough to question wether he brings anything more to music tha Alice COoper has already....just a bit more extreme and with some more contemporary trappings. (i can't really say...music is not my speciality and i am ignorant of Marylin, obviously).

LOL – yes, hypothetical to me since it doesn’t even fall into my definition of art, nonetheless it is, if I take personal opinion to the side: art, albeit REAL low. Low art itself is wishy washy as a term, since it encompasses anything in contemporary culture, and yet everything currently artistic (that is falling under the heading of fine art) has the ability to transcend time and become high art. Of course, what we value today, here and now, is not necessarily what people will value in 200 years. For all we know the definitive test of time aspect of high art may have little more than archaeological/anthropological value in the future.

Are the objects contained in a museum different than those contained in a gallery? Or is it all art - I don't know, my mind asked the question suddenly, so I thought I'd say it out loud. Neither venue holds all art or artifact, nor strictly high or low art.

But it does bring to mind the perhaps expansive yet narrow dichotomy of high/low anything. Like beauty, art is defined by the ardent few, and most definately not blue collar. The hypothetical “Burnt Velvet” will no doubt, never be high art for a variety of reasons - and like the finger painting, this is not to say it's not art in a different way.

Can popular art of any kind only make statements, can music, can film fit into such categories now - will they ever? Do they have the ability to transcend that definition of low?

I think so.

Classical music is considered a high art. At one time it was popular music.

Marilyn Manson is by no means a creature of high art as currently defined, though it does raise the question whether 20th/21st century icons/films etc. might one day be considered in that category, certainly some of the music will, or won't it?

I don’t own an album, however since “Anti-christ Superstar,” I have considered Manson an artist much beyond that of many other popular culture icons, and would in fact place him on the plane of post-modern poet and then icon in a much more advanced way than say, Madonna. I don't know enough about Coopers lyrics/albums etc. to make a comparison. All I remember is 'school's out forever' but it always returned.

 

[Guest]

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Marylin Manson as art... *shudder*

 

[minsue]

Marylin Manson as art... *shudder*

Eye of the beholder, Joe

 

[Guest]

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by minsue
Eye of the beholder, Joe

I know, I know.

 

[minsue]

I know, I know.

To me this is art, but then again I used to use black liquid eyeliner for lipgloss and wear a dog chain around my neck, too.

edited coz I forgot to add the pic

http://www.bruxinhamandy.blogger.com.br/marilyn%20manson%202.JPG

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by minsue
To me this is art, but then again I used to use black liquid eyeliner for lipgloss and wear a dog chain around my neck, too.

To me its not... but granted, I'm more of a blazer and slacks kind of guy.

 

[Belegon]

To me its not... but granted, I'm more of a blazer and slacks kind of guy.

who likes to strap girls to the wall with "yards of velcro"

not at all complicated, are ya Joe?

 

[Liar]

who likes to strap girls to the wall with "yards of velcro"

not at all complicated, are ya Joe?

I do belive that was suede.

And hey, who doesn't?

#L

 

[Belegon]

I do belive that was suede.

And hey, who doesn't?

#L

right, it was suede...my bad.

 

[minsue]

right, it was suede...my bad.

And now you must be punished. What's your poison, velcro or suede?

 

[Belegon]

And now you must be punished. What's your poison, velcro or suede?

your wish is my command Min-stress.

be careful, I bite...

 

[minsue]

Min-stress.

Oooh, now that I like

 

[Belegon]

Oooh, now that I like

hmmm, lemme think...I am sure I can come up with some other things that you will like, my dear Min-stress...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
who likes to strap girls to the wall with "yards of velcro"

not at all complicated, are ya Joe?

Complicated? Not at all.

I'm just a normal American, unexceptional and average... who happens to like strapping women to things and playing a little rough.

Normal.

Yup.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... I'm just a normal American ... who happens to like ... playing a little rough...

Something new ....

Flannel
http://www.comedy-zone.net/pictures/images/naughty/rude010.jpg
Bondage.

 

[Guest]

Classical music is considered a high art. At one time it was popular music.

No, it wasn't, Charlus - not the way we think of popular music. Outside of church the populi did not hear Mozart or Beethoven except in passing. Concerts were given by and for the nobility. Classical music really did not become 'popular' until the invention of the gramophone and radio.

The peasantry in the time the classics were created had 'folk' music. Composers like Tchaikovsky and Mahler innovatively used some popular music in their work, but the originators of those melodies certainly weren't at concerts of it.

Perdita

 

[CharleyH]

Perdita

Wrong choice of words P, “contemporary” at one point and popular among the aristocracy of the time, nonetheless popular among the handful of elite who . . . continue to define - art of sorts. Thank you for pointing to it, though. I had hoped by mentioning other arts, (and I was that close to mentioning Shakespeare or film), one such as yourself might say a word, and a wider dialogue would ensue.

Rhinoguy (BTW the way i HOPE it did not feel that I as arguing with you)

LOL, No – I like to talk about things that interest me, art is among those interests, and it’s always refreshing to me to have a conversation with others who have an interest as well. I wanted to stretch out the dialogue by raising other arts/artists, and questions. Often when one uses the word art, people automatically think of the fine arts, and neglect the popular (in context) ones. Perdita has raised even more questions for me, particularly whether or not it is low art that brings forth the innovation making possible . . . high art. It stimulates ideas for articles, and questions about erotic art, and in that context, I like to be stimulated

As for subjectivity, isn't everything?

It's true that often celebrity is mistaken for quality, particularly evident in Hollywood film. I still believe that Manson is underrated as an artist, and that his play with the post-modern is lost on most. Not so much his music that interests me, as his play with the post-modern. Quite frankly, I'd have never noticed him if it weren't for the protests of the American Family Association, who often bring my attention to a lot of things. Controversy, not marketing technique, never ceases to amaze me.

Is it celebrity that forms quality? Or has the quality of art or artist become dependant upon the amount of money that can be drawn by the artist? Perhaps its always been this way? That, I don't know.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Bumping so I can catch up.