"Art" (rant)

read the thread, most of what I was gonna say has already been mentioned, so I won't bother. but, just wondering if anyone's heard of "readymade art" and what they thought of it. in an incredibly basic explanation, readymade art is pretty much an artist sumbitting an object, any object to a gallery and calling it art. one artist that did this quite frequently was marcel duchamp, and his most famous work was called "fountain". he went to a hardware store a few days before his gallery show and bought a urinal. then he signed it with "R. Mutt" and said that was his art. here's a site talking about his work.

http://www.understandingduchamp.com/
 
No offence Quinny... I mean you after all fellow PPP, but that was shit.

The "Art Community" is not a consciousl nor malicious unified body. To precieve it as you do is simply infantine and reactionary. This precieved co-ordinated body of conscious evil (ala "The Evil Empire", the "The Axis of Evil") is simplily ridiculous. That being, lets move on the other points.

You wrote the following:

"Truly great art, however, is recognized and appreciated by most people from all walks of life. When I think of great art, names like di Vinci, van Gogh, Mozart, John Lennon, Hemingway, and Shakespeare for example. It is works by these people, and many others, that define what is great art. Its works like their's that can withstand time and live on through the ages."

I rebuke that whole notion of art as accessible without education as an imposibility. Have you not read about the study done in amongst indigenous people of various areas in which they where shown images of themselves and animals (pictures and drawings) and where not able to understand what was held in front of them for lack of any exposure to two dimensional imagery ever in their lives? Without ever seeing a picture before, they did not know how to interpret it. Much like a feral child cannot speak the native human language of the nation they where raised in for lack of exposure to it.

The ability to understand language, dance, sclupture, imagery, all art as defined as the following: "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature," that is all that is the product of human life is directly related to how much one studies or is immersed in it.

Modern art is built upon ALL past art, and as time goes on and the body of work increases in size, the education required to understand most pieces becomes accessible only to those who seek to educate themselves. And while this my seem elitist on the part of artists, it has a created a body of work, more intricate, diverse, sublime, and beautiful that was previously unimaginable.

A reactionary "Slave Morality" against art, well difficult to give up as it can produce creativity through intoxication, is simpily barbaric philistinism, and like depression can be self-supporting and equally destructive.

---------------------------------

Now, about the author:

I, TAK, am a high-school graduate. I have no formal art education. I've read only one book about art, ever. And it was a study of Canadian photography. And that was about two years ago. I plan on going a Art school in one year. I'm 20. Recently, after spending all winter in Whistler, I wondered around the city looking for book to study to prepare my self for school, as I'll be spending a year in Golden, away from any good learning resources.

Well looking for stuff, I became increasingly frustrated to the point of nearly giving up on "Art" all together. It really does seem quite self-indulgent. However, several weeks later, a couple of nights ago, I began to get back into it. I started where I had left off, years ago; with the area of photography that interested me the most. Instead of tackling all of "Art" in it enormity, I focused and what interested, and if you will, 'aroused' me, artistically speaking. All of a sudden I felt great about the all the possiblities that lay ahead of me.

I even want to go back to the Vancouver Art Gallery, a very large and well funded gallery that I first fell in love with art at. I used to go, and at first everything seemed strange and completely incomprehensible, but then things began to make sense. As I had a year's long pass (only $30 canadian for a student) I could come and go as I please. Sometimes, I just go to relax, away from home, a cramped city condo, and away from the muggy squalor of the city. And sometimes, I'd go for just fifteen minutes, until I chuckled at on piece, at its beauty, and then left, revived, lightened, energized. Was I enducated? No, not in the least. But I did go in thinking that there HAD to be something in all these works. And with a blank and accepting mind (almost 'the uncarved block' of The Toa of Pooh) I found my experiences thrilling. Perhaps this sounds foolish and weak, submiting so fully to something which may or may not be there, but it is no doubt better than the anger that results from being unwilling to put trust in those with more experience and education in the field of art and therefore in life.

And so, make of it what you will, but remember one of the rules of "writing", or graffiti, as written by Mark Surface... "Keep your fat head to a resonable swell."

------------------------------------

That being said... I had my wisdom teeth taken out yesterday and I'm doped up a wee bit some narcotic pain meds. I don't usually write like above, so belive me when I say, it ain't elitism... it's about 2.1 grams of acetaminophen over 8 hours.

And I refuse to proof read the last three paragraphs. I haven't slept in 19 hours. I need to smoke, but I can't, I dip big enough because of the surgery and I got the shakes on account of all the above.

-TAK, 5:01am, Oct 28th
 
Duchamp's fountain and "L.H.O.O.Q." (Which is a picture of the Mona Lisa with a moustache and goatee drawn on it, and the letters "L.H.O.O.Q." at the bottom) are two of the most widely used supporting examples for the Argument from Indiscernibles (Danto):

Argument from Indiscernibles

1. 'Art' can be defined in terms of perceptible features of works only if there are no two indiscernibles where one is art and the other is not

2. Warhol's "Brillo Boxes" is indiscernible from Brillo Boxes from the factory

3. "Brillo Boxes" is art and Brillo Boxes from the factory are not art

4. So, 'art' cannot be defined in terms of perceptible properties of works

Which creates a whole new category of what Shelley calls "Non-Perceptual" art, but which I'd prefer to term non-perceptual-supervenience art, where the aesthetic properties of the art work don't supervene on its perceptual ones... in other words, we don't look at how the goatee on the mona lisa is drawn; it doesn't matter how it looks, it matters that it's there. Basically, a category of art the appreciation of which doesn't really require that we see the art ourselves to appreciate it provided we have a comprehensive description of it.
 
And Josh, I was talking about an aesthetics class, since I'm treating this whole subject as an argument about the identification of art works which is pretty well necessarily philosophical in nature.
 
just to add something little... the school i went to had a large fine arts population which quite frankly, I didn't get. I would always curse at the fact that I'd be stuck in the lab while the fine arts kids got to play with rocks and paint and at the end of it all, we'd both get a piece of paper that said we graduated. cool, i didn't hold any grudge. but, there was one performance from before I went to the school that I though would fit into this conversation.

a couple made a performance art piece to basically make everyone here go "what the fuck" and that was the point of it. they openly said it was bullshit (i think).. started smearing raw eggs on eachother, got naked, more smearing.. you get the picture. it was in the art gallery and I think they might have been arrested, but i'm not sure.

what's the point of this post?? you decide.
 
^well, think about it this way... when you've got a job that may eventually get you a 6figure salary, those fine arts kids are going to be on the street, smelling like rotten eggs.

I know because I'm graduating with a fine arts degree in history in art, and there are NOT many jobs for me that I'd actually want to do.
 
Trust me, if you've been in the system this long you already are. That doesn't mean you can stand others of your ilk. I know I can't. I'm right-er than them!
 
^TRUE its so hard to be a artist but once u get a big nameu can do the line drawins and stuff....plus the answer is 21
 
The answer isn't 21. I think it's 42.

In terms of being an artist these days, you have to be pretty special to make a decent name for yourself. Think Andy Warhol, Chuck Close, Frida Kahlo, Hundertwasser etc.
 
I totally agree with you. That should be considered architecture not art. I mean come onnn its wood and cloth how artistic is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top