Content vs. Form

[Fender5388]

look at Marcel Duchamp

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Oh please, do tell us about Duchamp!

 

[The_Traveler]

Duchamp is not an example of the aide memoire kind of piece.
He set out specifically to create or find art, meaningful as much to others as himself - if they tried.
He tried to break convention and see the 'art' in non-art; the traditional creation of art was dead and that we should embrace other ways of creation or fiscovery that didn't originate from personal connection but from the coincidental appearance of things in life.

 

[Fender5388]

his Art was meant to question what art was exactly.
Marcel Duchamps readymade sculptures were often massed produced, and he put them out there to be viewed as something other then what they originally were. he was interested in the ideas of the pieces and not necessarily the appearance.

The art has a meaning to him, but he leaves it to the viewer of the piece to come up with their own interpretation.
A lot of people felt as if he was trying "kill art" by his use of mass produced items.

his found object sculptures are not my thing really, but i can respect his ideas and what he did for art.
but i feel like to many, his art could be an example to "So anything is art if the maker says it is meaningful?"

 

[Onion]

Its not "too" bad your school pushes it. You should be pushed to think conceptually. Just like your school should teach you the difference between 'to' and 'too'.
No art doesn't have to make a political or social statement. But art can evoke simple reaction, such as soothing, sensual, calm, excitement, apprehension...art can pull emotional strings like fear, loneliness, love, etc., etc. Thinking conceptually, understanding, and using the visual language of design elements helps you achieve this.

Please, do not correct my grammar. It's off topic and doesn't contribute anything to this thread, and was just a typo on my end. We aren't writing novels here.
...

S-HBAMB* - Grammar is important even though it is obvious you are not writing a novel. Duchamp probably should have been euthanised. Man Ray would have been a better, apples-to-apples, example. What in the Hell do you mean, "content vs form"? Something like composition vs meaning? I'm having a terrible time following this thread, and piss-poor grammar and a "half-asked" attitude doesn't help.

"Penis".
~ "Marcel Duchamp

* You'll have to specifically ask, and you may regret your decision.

 

[unpopular]

^^ modernist baloney! just because an experience is limited to the artist does not invalidate the art which is created from it; art should not be confined to the conventions and sensibilities of the audience.

So anything is art if the maker says it is meaningful?

No. Aything is art so long that it *has* meaning. Whom it has meaning to, artist or audience, is unimportant.

 

[The_Traveler]

No. Aything is art so long that it *has* meaning. Whom it has meaning to, artist or audience, is unimportant.

My grandchildren were thrilled by the poops when they first got toilet trained.
If I only had your wise counsel then I could have told them it was art.

But then, as they got older, they would think that I was being foolish.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Is a photo that uses the elements and principles or art weaker if it lacks content? How can it lack content unless it is a blank piece of photo paper?

Can a photo that lacks form still be strong if it has a strong meaning? Yes of course. It may lack form to you but not to me since we don't all see the same thing. But it may still have meaning.

One thing however is that I don't see content and meaning as the same thing at all.

 

[unpopular]

Why do you modernists have to be so condescending? Besides fecal art has been done

 

[Forkie]

I don't agree that art needs to have a meaning. If a photo must have a meaning, must it mean the same thing to everyone or should you be free to interpret the image in your own way, even if your interpretation is miles off from what the photographer/artist originally intended and/or miles off from everybody else?

I have a photo here of an escalator:


Tate Modern by Forkie, on Flickr

At the risk of blowing my own trumpet I consider it, and myself, artful. But I didn't conceive of any metaphorical meaning before I took it, or before I edited it in the way I did. If someone else wants to interpret some sort of meaning into it such as, I don't know, "We're all climbing the escalator of life" or some other whimsical crap then that's great for them, but it's not what I intended for it. I intended it purely as visually appealing composition of lines and shades. Does that make it non-art? I hope not!

I'd even go so far as to say, it's better to take a shot without meaning than with. Because if you take a shot and attach your own particular meaning to it, but someone else takes a different meaning from yours, surely, you must have done it wrong?

However, if you take a shot without any such meanings then, whether people add their own meaning to it or not, you can only have done it right!

 

[The_Traveler]

I don't agree that art needs to have a meaning. If a photo must have a meaning, must it mean the same thing to everyone or should you be free to interpret the image in your own way, even if your interpretation is miles off from what the photographer/artist originally intended and/or miles off from everybody else?

No art doesn't have to make a political or social statement. But art can evoke simple reaction, such as soothing, sensual, calm, excitement, apprehension...art can pull emotional strings like fear, loneliness, love, etc., etc. Thinking conceptually, understanding, and using the visual language of design elements helps you achieve this.

Asked and answered.

 

[unpopular]

I don't agree that art needs to have a meaning. If a photo must have a meaning, must it mean the same thing to everyone or should you be free to interpret the image in your own way, even if your interpretation is miles off from what the photographer/artist originally intended and/or miles off from everybody else? Tate Modern by Forkie, on FlickrAt the risk of blowing my own trumpet I consider it, and myself, artful. But I didn't conceive of any metaphorical meaning before I took it, or before I edited it in the way I did. If someone else wants to interpret some sort of meaning into it such as, I don't know, "We're all climbing the escalator of life" or some other whimsical crap then that's great for them, but it's not what I intended for it. I intended it purely as visually appealing composition of lines and shades. Does that make it non-art? I hope not!

Well, I think art does need meaning to have value, but that doesn't meaner all have to agree with absolute clarity, this is kind of what I was saying. We all have world views that define the meaning of things, art is no different. When we try to reach some kind of universal aesthetic, we end up with stale academic studies of some congenital understanding that we all can agree on, seeking such a goal limits art to specific intentions.But meaning does not have to be obtuse, and can relate to relatively objectiveorvisual themes as well. I think it'd be pretty hard to create something that ant art, compelling or thought provoking artis another matter.

 

[skieur]

...They don't always have meaning, but i find them visually pleasing still...

Is not visual appeal a form of meaning? Personally, I find terribly pretentious when people talk about "what the artist meant" or "what the artist is trying to say". They weren't there, they don't know what he or she intended. Personally, I think that most of the time photographers, painters, etc are just trying to produce work that they like.

"What the artist is trying to say" is irrelevant. It is a matter of what the work of art "says" to the viewer that is important.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

...They don't always have meaning, but i find them visually pleasing still...

Is not visual appeal a form of meaning? Personally, I find terribly pretentious when people talk about "what the artist meant" or "what the artist is trying to say". They weren't there, they don't know what he or she intended. Personally, I think that most of the time photographers, painters, etc are just trying to produce work that they like.

"What the artist is trying to say" is irrelevant. It is a matter of what the work of art "says" to the viewer that is important.skieur

Why is the artists' opinion any less valuable than the audience; how can you objectively defend the sentiment that the individual audience member has a more valid opinion than that of the artist?Maybe a piece that is only valuable or valid to the artist might not sell well, but what does that have to do with artistic merit?

 

[skieur]

Is not visual appeal a form of meaning? Personally, I find terribly pretentious when people talk about "what the artist meant" or "what the artist is trying to say". They weren't there, they don't know what he or she intended. Personally, I think that most of the time photographers, painters, etc are just trying to produce work that they like.

"What the artist is trying to say" is irrelevant. It is a matter of what the work of art "says" to the viewer that is important.skieur

Why is the artists' opinion any less valuable than the audience; how can you objectively defend the sentiment that the individual audience member has a more valid opinion than that of the artist?Maybe a piece that is only valuable or valid to the artist might not sell well, but what does that have to do with artistic merit?

The artist view is less valuable than that of the audience because the audience view IS an indication of whether he/she(the artist) COMMUNICATED their view/emotion SUCCESSFULLY through their work. If they did NOT, then there is a WEAKNESS in the work and the efforts of the artist or to put it even more bluntly the artist FAILED.

ART IS A FAILURE, if the artist is talking to himself/herself and communicating absolutely nothing to viewers. After all, why put art in any gallery if the objective is NOT to communicate something to viewers.

skieur