Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[amorphos_ii]

If you have to ask the question ‘is this art’, then it is not. i been asking this fro 20 years or more, but feel it is increasingly important to ask...

with a lot of art I feel that an effort to obtain and portray meaning has occurred, but more just that the idea that what I am looking at is art.

Because art [modern especially] does not go by that, I feel somewhat that art has died or that non-art art is the majority.

Equally, there are many great artworks hidden away in gallery basements. This is because the work may be e.g. a Dutch painting which includes a vaguely nude girl aged 12 or what have you. So one has to also ask; if art is limited then is its repertoire stifled, and so, is that a basis for real art?

The latter question seams to contradict my complaint of course, and I think art has for much of history been constrained in some ways.

?

[Gertie]

If you have to ask the question ‘is this art’, then it is not. i been asking this fro 20 years or more, but feel it is increasingly important to ask...

with a lot of art I feel that an effort to obtain and portray meaning has occurred, but more just that the idea that what I am looking at is art.

Because art [modern especially] does not go by that, I feel somewhat that art has died or that non-art art is the majority.

Equally, there are many great artworks hidden away in gallery basements. This is because the work may be e.g. a Dutch painting which includes a vaguely nude girl aged 12 or what have you. So one has to also ask; if art is limited then is its repertoire stifled, and so, is that a basis for real art?

The latter question seams to contradict my complaint of course, and I think art has for much of history been constrained in some ways.

?

Hmm, art is a field where right and wrong answers aren't a good fit. My attitude is let a hundreds flowers bloom, and pick those which resonate with you. At least you don't get to miss out that way. And I'm inclined to seeing art in terms of a shared communication, you bring your life's experiences and aesthetic attitude to a work too, which informs its meaning for you.

Much modern art is art about art, which is understandable. It's hard not to be a self-conscious/ironic artist today. But the best of it imo still communicates or resonates in a way nothing else quite can. That's why it needs to exist, it hits a spot which isn't definable in any other way.

I don't agree with this -

with a lot of art I feel that an effort to obtain and portray meaning has occurred, but more just that the idea that what I am looking at is art.

Because art [modern especially] does not go by that, I feel somewhat that art has died or that non-art art is the majority.

Can you give examples of art (or non-art) which doesn't attempt to portray meaning? What springs to my mind is a kid crayoning in a line picture, but you could say that has meaning beyond learning technique, the kid is discovering something about aesthetics in colour abd shape, and bringing lines to life, what looks pretty or feels right, or just a mess...

[JackDaydream]

If you have to ask the question ‘is this art’, then it is not. i been asking this fro 20 years or more, but feel it is increasingly important to ask...

with a lot of art I feel that an effort to obtain and portray meaning has occurred, but more just that the idea that what I am looking at is art.

Because art [modern especially] does not go by that, I feel somewhat that art has died or that non-art art is the majority.

Equally, there are many great artworks hidden away in gallery basements. This is because the work may be e.g. a Dutch painting which includes a vaguely nude girl aged 12 or what have you. So one has to also ask; if art is limited then is its repertoire stifled, and so, is that a basis for real art?

The latter question seams to contradict my complaint of course, and I think art has for much of history been constrained in some ways.

?

It is about standards and how this fits into norms and expectations. Styles and the understanding of the purposes of art change. Postmodern and abstract art come from a completely different cultural context to that of Leonardo da Vinci and many historically famous artists. This is partly based on the philosophy approach from which the artist comes, whether it is about realism, romanticism or art as experimentation.

I spent some time studying art therapy and I was aware how the angle was so different from my previous experience. Having done 'A' level art, and some illustration, I was inclined to think of technique and 'quality' in art making. I came to realise that I had to lay that aside because in art therapy the emphasis was not about the end product of art but the process and expression of emotions. I had to tune into thinking in a different way and part of that was about not imposing certain standards of judgement.

In thinking of art and being an artist it may involve an emphasis on the art of art as a profession which is entirely separate from art and the creative process itself. To see 'art' simply as that which has a certain 'quality' can be a form of snobbery. Of course, some pursue art to be shown in exhibitions and to make a living but that is different from art as a form of creativity and enjoyment.

Also aesthetic tastes vary. Personally, I prefer detailed art, more in drawing and painting, to the abstract so in that sense I am fairly classical. However, I like a lot of very alternative music and I am aware that some people do not regard some of the music I listen to as great art music. Sensory perception and the human imagination come in various forms and one person's misery may be another person's bliss.

[amorphos_ii]

Gertie

whilst I generally concur with you points, there are exceptions at least in degrees. A lot of people are loosing faith with modern art for similar reasons, that it doesn’t seam like art or at least not very good art.

I saw a guy ‘painting’ by throwing paint onto a large canvas on the floor, and it reminded me of when I done that at primary school. I don’t see how he could have done anything different to a child, maybe there was more guidance or that an adult manifest a different kind of chaos? Either way if I were to attribute a percentage degree of ‘art’ which has gone into it, then I’d say around 1%.

some better art than say a display of an ashtray by an unkempt bed, is out there, but not getting precedence.

- and this is what I meant at the part you disagreed with. I concur that it all has artistic meaning, what doesn’t?

Jackdaydream

hmm art theory sounds good, I always thought it therapeutic at the very least. I too have an eclectic taste in music, and agree art should definitely have that.