the Purpose of Art...

The23rdman

The23rdman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13,582
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
10450519_862113613807932_8754462923341234686_n.jpg
 
Noted!
 
Problem is with the word 'thinking'

Too much effort for the haters.
 
I was listening to here Come The Warm Jets, the other day.
 
Steve said:
Problem is with the word 'thinking'

Too much effort for the haters.
Click to expand...

Having both watched and partaken a little in the debates, it's not a lack of thought that makes art have negative connotations, but often the polarisation between the 'art' and 'observation' camps. Both sides also have many years of training and experience that are difficult to overcome in order to enjoy each others work and perspective, or to even accept that they may have validity and be worth respecting.

The debates here have been useful as an aid to developing an understanding.
 
I spent many years of my working life running "training" companies at a highish level and am still involved on a part time basis in a project helping to retain engineering skills in the UK….. UK Plc is going to need over 1 million trained engineers at all levels by 2020 if it is to remain competitive

A few years ago I met a guy who "sold" and made a living from giving training courses to improve "management" through the appreciation of art ……….. although I appreciated his skills I never "got it" and we did not take up his offer
 
But to be a trigger for experience art has to exist in the mind of the artist and experiencer and if the art is a part of a visual trigger for experience then it also has to be an object and therefore requires some thought to be given to its physical form. It's therefore essential that physical art is viewed at least in part as an object by both the artist and the viewer and if not both the artists intention and the viewers experience may be far from that which was originally envisaged.

For example if the artist envisaged Mona Lisa but produced a slightly rusty fire bucket I may just pass on by without appreciating it. My bad I'm sure.
 
Well pretty much everything can be a trigger for an experience, so does that mean pretty much everything is art?

If so, that means my bug shots MUST be art. YAY :)
 
TimmyG said:
Well pretty much everything can be a trigger for an experience, so does that mean pretty much everything is art?

If so, that means my bug shots MUST be art. YAY :)
Click to expand...
It's all about intent.
 
simon ess said:
Did anyone else see Grayson Perry creating portraits on C4 last night?

It was a fantastic insight into the artistic thought process and the intent behind it.
Click to expand...
Not me. This is a tv free house, but I'll check it out on 4Od. :)
 
Back when Tiger Mountain was released Eno introduced all the tracks one by one on the John Peel show. Along the way he mentioned something Morse Peckham had said; "Perception and not art is ordered". It's stuck in my mind all these years.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Back when Tiger Mountain was released Eno introduced all the tracks one by one on the John Peel show. Along the way he mentioned something Morse Peckham had said; "Perception and not art is ordered". It's stuck in my mind all these years.
Click to expand...
Perception is ordered? What did he mean by that?
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
Ordered - required, demanded. Along those lines, I've always thought.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if he meant that, but perhaps he did.

I'll take a risk and suggest he meant that perception is ordered in the sense that it follows rules and patterns, probably defined by the culture we live in and our experiences.

Or something like that.:)
 
Tim leary called that reality tunnels - consensually agreed versions of reality.
 
I can see where this will end up - so I will "unwatch" to keep sane
 
This is pretty much the sort of w***y b*****ks which makes people think that an unmade bed is art if someone says it is (if it is i'm a forger every morning ;) ) , or an empty plinth is art because it could be a sculpture of anything.

I can never decide if these 'artists' really believe their own hype of if they are cynically having the keks off the gullible.

I think i'm going to start doing painting with my own urine .... I'll be renowed accross the world as a massive p*** artist
 
Why do people who think a lot of art is complete [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER], and they're perfectly entitled to that view, insist on joining discussions about art just to p*** on it?

Beats me.
 
simon ess said:
Why do people who think a lot of art is complete [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER], and they're perfectly entitled to that view, insist on joining discussions about art just to p*** on it?

Beats me.
Click to expand...
Just ignore them.
 
BillN_33 said:
I spent many years of my working life running "training" companies at a highish level and am still involved on a part time basis in a project helping to retain engineering skills in the UK….. UK Plc is going to need over 1 million trained engineers at all levels by 2020 if it is to remain competitive

A few years ago I met a guy who "sold" and made a living from giving training courses to improve "management" through the appreciation of art ……….. although I appreciated his skills I never "got it" and we did not take up his offer
Click to expand...


Cool story bro'

Not sure what it means though.
ancient_mariner said:
Having both watched and partaken a little in the debates, it's not a lack of thought that makes art have negative connotations, but often the polarisation between the 'art' and 'observation' camps. Both sides also have many years of training and experience that are difficult to overcome in order to enjoy each others work and perspective, or to even accept that they may have validity and be worth respecting.

The debates here have been useful as an aid to developing an understanding.
Click to expand...


That may be part of it. Appreciating art DOES require thought, and work on behalf of the viewer, and those that have no inclination to do that, will always struggle with art. Just the way it is. Where it breaks down is the dismissal of art as rubbish BECAUSE they won't/can't engage with art at that level. If it' snot for you, just say so, and move along - why bother trashing it?

Likewise, the opposite is true: Artists should not be so fast to dismiss work that is not art. I like visually impressive imagery as much as the next person. That's because such imagery has a universal appeal, but only because it requires no thought, and doesn't need to viewer to commit to any deeper analysis. It's easier to look at.

So in a way, I can relate to Eno's words there. Stop treating the image as an object in itself.. for it's formal qualities alone.

At risk of repeating myself, art has nothing do with whether you "like" it It doesn't mean you can't "like" something that's art... it's just not necessary. However, to appreciate an image for it's formal qualities ALONE... you HAVE to like it usually, because the aesthetic appeal is all there is.

Eno's music is a great example of this. The album Music for Airports... not something you'd listen to CASUALLY.. it demands your full attention. You really have to work at it a bit, but it rewards you if you do.. but anyone not willing to put the effort in, will listen to the first 30 seconds and just say "This is sh1t" and put Radio 1 on..... assuming it's daytime, as night time Radio 1 can be pretty cool :) It's the same with visual art. Not prepared, or enjoy being challenged.... then you'll not really get it.


big soft moose said:
This is pretty much the sort of w***y b*****ks which makes people think that an unmade bed is art if someone says it is (if it is i'm a forger every morning ;) ) , or an empty plinth is art because it could be a sculpture of anything.

I can never decide if these 'artists' really believe their own hype of if they are cynically having the keks off the gullible.

I think i'm going to start doing painting with my own urine .... I'll be renowed accross the world as a massive p*** artist
Click to expand...


And there ladies and gentleman is exactly what I'm talking about. Either A) that's a troll, or B) it's someone who just can't be arsed thinking, or can't understand... so like many people who are challenged... react in a violent way.

Why not just accept that you don't get it, and ignore such threads? I'm not sure of the purpose of your comment here. It does nothing to change my mind, and does everything to convince me you're just a philistine. Surely it's just to cause trouble, as there's absolutely nothing constructive being added to the thread.
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
Why do people who think a lot of art is complete [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER], and they're perfectly entitled to that view, insist on joining discussions about art just to p*** on it?

Beats me.
Click to expand...

Maybe they enjoy having people think they're thick.
 
simon ess said:
I'd be surprised if he meant that, but perhaps he did.

I'll take a risk and suggest he meant that perception is ordered in the sense that it follows rules and patterns, probably defined by the culture we live in and our experiences.

Or something like that.:)
Click to expand...

My reading of the statement has always been that it is necessary to understand that what we perceive isn't what we think we perceive, and by concerning ourselves with perception rather than the making copies we make art. That is at the root of drawing - draw what is actually there not what you are accustomed to see. :confused:
 
Ed Sutton said:
My reading of the statement has always been that it is necessary to understand that what we perceive isn't what we think we perceive, and by concerning ourselves with perception rather than the making copies we make art. That is at the root of drawing - draw what is actually there not what you are accustomed to see. :confused:
Click to expand...
You always see through perceptual filters though.
 
Yeah, I agree with all of that Dave.
I do a lot of drawing, and learning to draw what was actually there is an important first step.

But....there has to be a but:)

It's when an artist is able to play with perceptions to make something appear more real than it is that the fun starts. Aubrey Beardsley springs to mind with drawing. I have a Mucha on my wall. No woman ever looked like that, but it's perfect, as is my Dali nude. (Prints BTW. I'm not a wealthy collector.)

A friend has a bronze statuette of a stretching cat. It's wonderful, but quite wrong.
 
I had the privilege to see a Mark Rothko recently and I stood quite close, I think Rothko said to stand 6 inches away, which I did and from further back. I stood there for about 20 minutes and felt like I was almost falling into the painting. I think his art is stunning. Some think it's bo**ocks. I care not.

I don't recall ever saying X, Y or Z piece of art was crap. Some I'm not keen on, much I don't understand so I read about it and sometimes something clicks.

I like Tracy Emin's bed

I Marcel Duchamp's Fountain

I saw one of Dali's Lobster Phones at the Dali Museum in St Petersburg recently and I must have looked like a right loon with my beaming smile :)

I like loads of different art.

It gives me real pleasure, and sometimes pain.

Long live Art :thumbs:

Cheers.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Cool story bro'

Not sure what it means though.
Click to expand...

He believed that by understanding and appreciating art, particularly paintings, managers would become better managers …….. he was quite successful in selling his services to "City Banks" and financial Institutions, it was in the early 1990's…….. quite a lot have walls full of "art" so they may as well do something with them to help justify the purchase other than for purely financial investment reasons.

Maybe he was exploring the different "uses" of art in modern life ……. or maybe he wasn't?
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
Why do people who think a lot of art is complete [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER], and they're perfectly entitled to that view, insist on joining discussions about art just to p*** on it?
Click to expand...

Surely you need all sorts of opinions to debate something. Not much point if everyone agrees.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Surely you need all sorts of opinions to debate something. Not much point if everyone agrees.


Steve.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point Steve and normally I'd totally agree.

But there's a difference between debate and dismissal....over and over again.
 
I don't think anyone is dismissing all art is crap though. It obviously isn't.

Everything has it's fair share of good, bad, fantastically excellent and downright terrible.

e.g. In literature, The Davinci Code has got to be one of the biggest wastes of paper and printers' ink ever (my opinion) but that doesn't mean that I think all literature is terrible.

And there will be parallels in all artistic pursuits such as music, poetry, acting, etc.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top