What is art? Cause we need some debate around here.

[Longgrain]

Huh? What is it?

Social? Political? Religious?

What!?!

You tell me.

[mopinko]

1. do you think that modern art

was a hoax perpetrated by some drunken rich people, made deliberately abstruse and obscenely expensive, so that the cliche could sit around and pat themselves on the back for taking art out of the hands of the puny common people?

[Longgrain]

2. Has art ever been in the hands of the common people?

If it was, I'd be a millionaire!

[mopinko]

3. i guess it depends on the definition of art

but the idea of artists as genius, extraordinary, special person is not a universal. in many cultures art has been a far more ordinary pursuit, and being able to paint well was something that any cultured person was expected to do. in many monasteries, back in the day, beautiful works were created by an accidental cross section of people. the sung dynasty potters were some of the best in human history. but they were usually the "surplus" children of large families, and other refugees from tough lives.
i really do think that a lot of mystique was deliberately built up around the mods, and the prices paid for the paintings was no small part of that. obtuse gobbledy gook writing was meant to further discourage the ordinary folk from questioning why a lot of random and serendipitous work was, nonetheless, worth more than a lot of gold.

[icymist]

4. My private art teacher said similar things.

He was, what he termed, a 'realist' artist. For many hours our little group was subjected to lectures while we painted about how all the abstract artists "painted that way because they didn't know how to paint". When I started college at Youngstown State, I had an instructor who liked ugly paintings. He praised artists that my private teacher condemned. I could never please this man at YSU because, since I was nine, I never properly gained appreciation for abstract art. Not until many years later did find the worth for these artists. This came after reading from the book The Natural Way To Draw by Nicolaides. Then I began to appreciate what artists like Picasso and Matisse were doing. These were break-through pieces that changed the way we in the West viewed art, what art is. I don't believe these artists were elitists pushing some agenda to create a very pricey grouping of only their works. They actually took what art's meaning is to another step. The fact that these people came from rich family's or not would only help in this type of endeavor for most artists starve by selling such advanced works. BTW, I'm beginning to see art done by working with light, a prediction of Matisse so long ago.

[marions ghost]

5. I would agree with you

that most people can learn to draw and paint, sculpt, whatever--to a certain extent. Just like a lot of people can write or sing or play an instrument, etc. As a culture, we have not encouraged this in visual art enough, because of the bias towards "exact representation" or realism, IMO. Now that cameras do that so well, hopefully people will learn to trust the power of the direct art experience, and not need to worry about replication of what they see. They can be more expressive and trust their own instincts, and some really fascinating art can be the result. I like the encouragement of community-oriented art shows, where lots of people have a chance to show.

However after that, you lose me. You seem to be saying that any other approach is a sham, that a lot of modern art is for snobs and elitists. This is a superficial but not uncommon view. There are some artists who DO rise to the level of genius IMO (they are not all taught in art schools, and they are not all collected by museums). These artists are as "special" as any excellent writer, actor, singer, athlete--it's the same thing.

Yes the ridiculous prices paid for some art in the major art world are obviously driven by the market demand for unique commodities to trade. Agreed. However, when you're talking about the typical prices for "local" or regional art, these are usually justified (not always). The materials are expensive, it's time-consuming as most lower-tech craft seems to be, and gallery space is one of the most expensive kinds of retail space there is... In our current economic system, everybody's time is worth a lot. An artist who is a painter for example, should get at least as much as a house painter for the time and effort (that's if the painting is worth buying--if not, well, it makes good gifts for friends and relatives). Most artists aren't in it for the money. If they're actually making a good living with it, that's about the best to hope for. Are you aware that most galleries take 50% of the selling price, and many galleries take more than that?

Your lumping of all modern art in some kind of negative frame I don't quite understand. I could write more on that if I really understood where you were coming from. Personally I will be glad to see the day when modern art is recognized for it's great contributions, rather than (ho hum) put down once again. So I'm biased, but certainly receptive to any reasonable arguments about the merits of the art (as opposed to whether the usual promoters/predators have the right to get rich off of it). I find the money thing boring in this world of maximal profits and hype--but if you want to talk about the merits of modern art, OK, I can do that, no problem. :)

[mopinko]

11. the new york school

their success was the work of clement greenburg, peggy guggenheim, et al., a bunch of drinking buddies who promoted each other and got rich. lots of really great art was made by people not in the clique, and they went nowhere. personally, i think jackson pollack was shit. his paintings are the random firings of a diseased mind. a crazy drunk who got lucky, and was picked up out of the gutter, and supported because he was ownable. a jerk. a needy mess, who could be rescued and made a pet for a rich and powerful woman.
my big problem is that when art becomes a high priced commodity, it becomes about something else. the question becomes- is the object worth a lot of money? not should this artist, or artists in general, be supported. art becomes property of the rich, not part of the culture. the "little people" get left with a lot of drek.

[NashVegas]

15. Art is Always in the Hands of the Common People

The trouble is, it's not always in our heads.

[marions ghost]

6. Art is communication

from one mind and heart to another. Certainly one can do visual art as a completely private activity, but usually artists like for others to see it eventually.

Art is translation of an inner vision into the outer world. I think the best artists view this as an exploration, rather than producing a commodity item. They are looking for something, rather than showing off. The experience of making art is a dialogue with the unseen, the coalescing of a certain kind of magic, as is any creative activity, including scientific research. It's a certain kind of active meditation.

Art is many other things, anything you want it to be. It's even a brain developer. Studies have shown that artistic pursuits stimulate the brain in ways that carry over into other cognitive areas. IMO it teaches disciplined flexibility in thinking. Visual artists tend to be observers, like scientists. They experience the world in visual terms. What seems ordinary to others may fascinate the visually-oriented.

[icymist]

7. I like that thought of art as an active meditation.

Often, I have dreamed of art in motion. A kind of one time experience that is, after the experience, destroyed. Then another experience is created, sometimes subtle, sometimes direct. Strange as it may seem, a kind of 'living'art. Frankly, I can see a 'brain developer' in many things, not just art.... an accountant for one small example. Yes! What do 'artists' see that 'normal' people don't see? Excellent question.

[marions ghost]

8. oh yes

so many things are brain developers--not to imply anything exclusive there. It's just that art is often NOT seen as a brain developer, or useful in a practical sense. It's the first thing to be cut from schools, tho some educators are now revising that if they can. So I'm just taking up for Art the Underdog, not putting any other activity down. We need to exercise both right and left brain--I just think there needs to be a balance, esp when young.

Maybe we should put up the question, "What do artists see that others don't?" as a separate thread? Otherwise it might get lost here? Just a thought...what's your thought, icymist?

[icymist]

9. Yes. Good idea. But then, this is supposed to be the debate thread...

about art. Even if longgrain started it! Where are you longgrain?
Good question, that: What do artists see that others don't? There are so many different things and ways that we don't know of the brain. Who's to say that math isn't art? I say it could be one day.

[Longgrain]

12. I've been away for a few days taking care of a few things.

I'm still here tho...:popcorn:

[Dover]

10. Good book on this subject: What Is Art For? by Ellen Dissanayake

Great Art, is like our dreams , playing a similar function for the 'artist/dreamer' as well as the collective. They both connect us to one another and to our souls journey.

[Beam Me Up]

13. Sounds interesting. I'm of the opinion that 'artists' are 'shamans'

I have to put those words in quotes because obviously there are different kinds of art and different kinds of artists. Perhaps the same can be said of shamans, too. It depends on what you want. If you want merely to be titillated or entertained or distracted or have your illusions about yourself and your world reinforced, one kind of artist / shaman will do. But if what you want is to swallow the red pill, to go deeper into the nature of yourself and the world in which you seem to exist, then another kind of artist / shaman is called for.

Haven't read the book but sounds good.

http://www.rawpaint.com

[NashVegas]

14. Expression

No more, no less.