Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: When is it graphic art?  (Read 28494 times)
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2333


« Reply #40 on: October 11, 2012, 03:36:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe not, but she surely said it in your excerpt.
Margaret Davidson is not an art historian, and  did not say "There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists." in my excerpt.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2333


« Reply #41 on: October 11, 2012, 03:38:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Not meaning to be rude, but IMO, art is something that springs from within, not something that conforms to some external standard.  Lacking that inspiration from the soul, it cannot be art by definition.

I suspect your argument may be self-defeating -- you've both set-up an external standard "art by definition" "something that springs from within" and claimed that art is "not something that conforms to some external standard" :-)
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5726



WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 11, 2012, 03:47:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh good heavens. Evidently this thread really is going to try again to define art. Have at it folks.

Bye.
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2333


« Reply #43 on: October 11, 2012, 04:45:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Running away from the question or nit-picking about non-visual arts, just don't seem like helpful responses to an innocent question.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5726



WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 11, 2012, 05:13:45 PM »
ReplyReply

There's nothing innocent about that question.

Go back to 2009 or 2010 and check the endless threads on this subject. You're spinning your wheels my friend. Give it up.
Logged

whiteheat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #45 on: October 11, 2012, 05:25:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh dear!  What have I done?  From the responses gleaned so far, I seemd to have committed some enormous transgression on the scale rivalling some heinous crime or other.

Very sorry for creating such a storm.  I hadn't realised the enormitty of the furore and controversy I would stir up.  Sorry, I was just ignorant about 'art' and what constitutes 'art'.

Ok, I get the impression that art by its very nature can't be defined, at least in any meaningful and empirical way, as to do so would then preclude anything so produced from being classified as art.  Ok, I get it now.  Just one thing now occurs to me as a result.  How do you recognise something as art when you see it and how can any value then be attributed to any piece of art?  How in some instances, can a general concensus be formed on certain art creations that are recognised as "great" art, whilst the majority of art is never acknowledged as such?  How can creation A be widely recognised and be valued financially in stratospheric dollar amounts whilst creation B is valued financially in junk dollar amounts?  Both creations may be individually unique and yet one is highly prized and the other not.  I assume any value or worth of art is subjective, yet there must be something about certain pieces that can be defined so as to create a recognised concensus amongst the cognoscenti.

If by asking or posing this I'm going to cause another storm, then please do not feel the need to reply and just ignore my post, thanks to everyone who has replied so far and to those who have the interest to educate me by replying to my current post.  (Now where would we be without a little controversy every now and then?).
Logged

Nothing is as it first appears.
WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #46 on: October 11, 2012, 05:48:51 PM »
ReplyReply

How can creation A be widely recognised and be valued financially in stratospheric dollar amounts whilst creation B is valued financially in junk dollar amounts?  Both creations may be individually unique and yet one is highly prized and the other not.

Whiteheat,

As soon as dollar value comes into the equation I begin to sense the salesmanship of gallery owners rising to the fore.  Particularly in the photography end of art it is easy to see there are some clubs in the mix also.

Cheers,

Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2333


« Reply #47 on: October 11, 2012, 06:33:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I was just ignorant about 'art' and what constitutes 'art'.

There's no reason for you to apologize -- you asked a perfectly sensible question, and it isn't your fault that there isn't a nice neat answer ;-)

Said widely respected art historian -- "There is no harm in calling all these activities art as long as we keep in mind that such a word may mean very different things in different times and places, and as long as we realize that Art with a capital A has no existence. ... Actually I do not think that there are any wrong reasons for liking a statue or painting. ... There are wrong reasons for disliking a work of art."


valued financially in stratospheric dollar amounts

You might find this article interesting -- ART VALUES OR MONEY VALUES?
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5004



WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 11, 2012, 06:42:35 PM »
ReplyReply

... How in some instances, can a general concensus be formed on certain art creations that are recognised as "great" art, whilst the majority of art is never acknowledged as such?...

Ok, I'll bite. I'll rehash something I wrote in an earlier thread, on the subject loosely defined as "are you turned on (moved) by Turner":

"...if someone thinks it is and someone thinks it isn't (art), on an individual and obviously subjective level, how do we come up with an objective definition (which seems to be what are you driving at)?

Well... we can not. It remains deeply subjective. What humanity "objectively" considers art is a historic and group consensus of those who subjectively think it is. In other words, if there are enough people, across social groups and time, that consider Turner an artist, then he is."
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5004



WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 11, 2012, 06:51:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh dear!  What have I done?  From the responses gleaned so far, I seemd to have committed some enormous transgression on the scale rivalling some heinous crime or other...

It is not that.

It is just that humanity is pondering the same issue for millennia, and individuals are spending their lifetime studying it and trying to answer it. I bet that you can easily fill the biggest library on Earth just with books and articles on the subject. Thus, trying to get a quick answer in an internet forum is futile at best, and mildly annoying at worst, hence the reaction.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 11, 2012, 07:08:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Go back to 2009 or 2010 and check the endless threads on this subject. You're spinning your wheels my friend. Give it up.
Russ and Slobodan, LuLa gets new members all the time who may not have had this conversation, and having it is a different and more useful activity than reading an old thread. Leave them to it. There are plenty of other threads that would benefit from your wise attention. And who knows, the new guys might just find the answer Wink.
Logged

whiteheat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #51 on: October 11, 2012, 07:10:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Mr Isaac.  Very interesting reading.  Things are a little less confused.
Logged

Nothing is as it first appears.
whiteheat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #52 on: October 11, 2012, 07:15:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok, I'll bite. I'll rehash something I wrote in an earlier thread, on the subject loosely defined as "are you turned on (moved) by Turner":

"...if someone thinks it is and someone thinks it isn't (art), on an individual and obviously subjective level, how do we come up with an objective definition (which seems to be what are you driving at)?

Well... we can not. It remains deeply subjective. What humanity "objectively" considers art is a historic and group consensus of those who subjectively think it is. In other words, if there are enough people, across social groups and time, that consider Turner an artist, then he is."

Excellent.  So if a lot of people all publicly agree that something is "great" art, then it becomes de facto great art.  Oh how simple.  OK, that clears that up.  Thanks for that Slobodan, much appreciated.
Logged

Nothing is as it first appears.
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5004



WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 11, 2012, 08:04:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Russ and Slobodan...

I was just trying to explain the reaction, not to drive him away. As you can see, I actually contributed an answer. But I guess any occasion is a good one for a little sarcasm ("your wise attention"). Not that I shouldn't be the last person to complain, right?  Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #54 on: October 11, 2012, 08:56:52 PM »
ReplyReply

... a little sarcasm ("your wise attention")...
Was I being sarcastic there? Doesn't seem quite right. I get a lot from your posts. Ironic, maybe.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5004



WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 11, 2012, 10:21:41 PM »
ReplyReply

... LuLa gets new members all the time who may not have had this conversation, and having it is a different and more useful activity than reading an old thread...

These are very good points, Ken. Thanks for reminding us.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #56 on: October 12, 2012, 03:25:50 AM »
ReplyReply

These are very good points, Ken. Thanks for reminding us.




LuLa permits the study of an enormous backlog of posts on all these topics; I think it prudent to read them before digging up mummies yet again. It's just another case of FAQs.

Rob C
Logged

stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2391


« Reply #57 on: October 12, 2012, 04:12:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I think life is TOO short to go back looking for subjects that has been done to death. Sometimes after Michael has posted something there can be three threads running simultaneously with very similar headings that obviously the posters haven't bothered to look at before posting. I think it all boils down to the intent of the poster that an old issue is regurgitated?
Logged

whiteheat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #58 on: October 12, 2012, 05:24:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I think life is TOO short to go back looking for subjects that has been done to death. Sometimes after Michael has posted something there can be three threads running simultaneously with very similar headings that obviously the posters haven't bothered to look at before posting. I think it all boils down to the intent of the poster that an old issue is regurgitated?
Yes and no.  Life is TOO short to go back looking for subjects previously discussed, possibly to death.  However, on most sites and this one is no exception, have you ever tried to find even a close, let alone exact match, to the subject a poster wants/needs to know about?  I suggest it is nigh on impossible and so your first assertion is spot on, life is too short for searching for previous posts on required subjects.  The only way to remediate this is to have a well ordered, indexed, linked hierarchical structure that is coupled to an advanced search engine, however, this requires a lot design thought, implementation and continual maintenance to be viable, which is beyond most hobbyist sites.

The result is that it is much, much easier to ask on the forum and remember, most new people to a site will have no idea what's already been discussed and how far back that may have been.  Still, a fresh pair of eyes and mind may contribute some new angle or point of view that may have not been discussed previously.  You just never know.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 05:29:10 AM by whiteheat » Logged

Nothing is as it first appears.
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 12, 2012, 06:29:26 AM »
ReplyReply

LuLa permits the study of an enormous backlog of posts on all these topics; I think it prudent to read them before digging up mummies yet again. It's just another case of FAQs.
Rob C
I would argue that "what is art" is something we all need to spend some, but not too much, time thinking about, that we are all at different points on that continuum, and that looking up a FAQ is not a substitute for thought or, in this case, much more than a modestly useful starting point. FAQs usefully provide information but not answers to any of the real questions on this or any other subject. On "what is art" a FAQ might provide you with an overview of the usual answers, but to then you need to pay attention to your own experience as a viewer (listener, etc) and/or creator. People do this all the time on this forum and I think that their willingness to do it is a sign of its health and their frequent clumsiness in doing it is an indication of the difficulty of the subject. I think that describing this activity as "digging up mummies" does it less than justice.
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad