Ren Hang... art or not?

[Ysarex]

Art is defined foremost by intention and secondarily by form and purpose. If the author(s) claims her/his intention was to create art then it's art. The author need know or claim nothing more than they wanted to make it because they like how it looks or sounds or feels and they want to show it to you. That it may contain levels of additional meaning or convey a message is a bonus. Creating art is one of the clearest defining characteristics of the human species and as such is the province of all humans with or without special training or degrees etc.. We are all born artists, children's behavior being the irrefutable evidence thereof. When a child gets ahold of a lump of play dough and shapes it into a form that pleases them and then runs to their parent shouting look what I made, that's art -- defined by the intention to create. Recognized as a component of the desire to create is the desire to share the creation. With very rare exception artists share their intentional art.

On the other hand this is not art: a child who want to climb a tree but can't reach the lowest branch solves the problem by constructing a stack of bricks under the tree. That's creating a tool to solve a problem. In this juxtaposition art is often described as frivolous activity; it's not useful to any critical survival task. Architecture then is usually offered to counter that idea, but do our buildings and bridges really have to be visually engaging to be utilitarian? This is art defined by purpose. Art exists to be (useless) art and so much the better when art can embellish the utilitarian.

Defined by form art is physical -- sensual if you like. You have to make it from clay or stone or wood or paint or sounds or dancing or paper or string or etc. And then literature is usually offered to counter that definition. We embrace literature as art even though it seems weak on the physical requirement. So art isn't that simple, that's OK. And you really haven't experienced poetry right until you've heard it. I have a friend who's a poet. A couple months ago we met for dinner and he surprised me with a poem he'd written for me. I had him read it to me. Wow! But it's OK to read poetry too. I've read my poem a couple times since I got it.

So is it Art? Here's a couple lines from a poem by Kipling The Conundrum of the Workshops that graces all of my course syllabi: "And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his (Adam) mighty heart. Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, 'It's pretty, but is it art?'" For those who can't figure it out or can't accept the most inclusive definition that allows us all to revel in the joy of it all like the child artists of our birth the words of Paul Strand offer an appropriate comment. "Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence."

Yes some art is bad. So be it and move on. If you let the bad art start you down the path of arguing about definition exceptions and exclusion clauses and rankings and classifications you've fallen into a trap that ultimately hurts you as you deprive yourself the opportunity to delight in the wonderful experiences that all the arts offer.

Joe

 

[table1349]

Art is defined foremost by intention and secondarily by form and purpose. If the author(s) claims her/his intention was to create art then it's art. The author need know or claim nothing more than they wanted to make it because they like how it looks or sounds or feels and they want to show it to you. That it may contain levels of additional meaning or convey a message is a bonus. Creating art is one of the clearest defining characteristics of the human species and as such is the province of all humans with or without special training or degrees etc.. We are all born artists, children's behavior being the irrefutable evidence thereof. When a child gets ahold of a lump of play dough and shapes it into a form that pleases them and then runs to their parent shouting look what I made, that's art -- defined by the intention to create. Recognized as a component of the desire to create is the desire to share the creation. With very rare exception artists share their intentional art.

On the other hand this is not art: a child who want to climb a tree but can't reach the lowest branch solves the problem by constructing a stack of bricks under the tree. That's creating a tool to solve a problem. In this juxtaposition art is often described as frivolous activity; it's not useful to any critical survival task. Architecture then is usually offered to counter that idea, but do our buildings and bridges really have to be visually engaging to be utilitarian? This is art defined by purpose. Art exists to be (useless) art and so much the better when art can embellish the utilitarian.

Defined by form art is physical -- sensual if you like. You have to make it from clay or stone or wood or paint or sounds or dancing or paper or string or etc. And then literature is usually offered to counter that definition. We embrace literature as art even though it seems weak on the physical requirement. So art isn't that simple, that's OK. And you really haven't experienced poetry right until you've heard it. I have a friend who's a poet. A couple months ago we met for dinner and he surprised me with a poem he'd written for me. I had him read it to me. Wow! But it's OK to read poetry too. I've read my poem a couple times since I got it.

So is it Art? Here's a couple lines from a poem by Kipling The Conundrum of the Workshops that graces all of my course syllabi: "And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his (Adam) mighty heart. Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, 'It's pretty, but is it art?'" For those who can't figure it out or can't accept the most inclusive definition that allows us all to revel in the joy of it all like the child artists of our birth the words of Paul Strand offer an appropriate comment. "Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence."

Yes some art is bad. So be it and move on. If you let the bad art start you down the path of arguing about definition exceptions and exclusion clauses and rankings and classifications you've fallen into a trap that ultimately hurts you as you deprive yourself the opportunity to delight in the wonderful experiences that all the arts offer.

Joe

I've also studied the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because there is a church dedicated to the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't make it a real deity or even a real entity. Art is a human invented concept with no real definable meaning. It is purely individual opinion based on individual likes and dislikes. All the pseudo intellectual chatter in the world doesn't make it so. That is why the "Art World" talks so much about it, they are still trying to convince the world that it actually exists and has real meaning to humanity.

 

[Ysarex]

Art is defined foremost by intention and secondarily by form and purpose. If the author(s) claims her/his intention was to create art then it's art. The author need know or claim nothing more than they wanted to make it because they like how it looks or sounds or feels and they want to show it to you. That it may contain levels of additional meaning or convey a message is a bonus. Creating art is one of the clearest defining characteristics of the human species and as such is the province of all humans with or without special training or degrees etc.. We are all born artists, children's behavior being the irrefutable evidence thereof. When a child gets ahold of a lump of play dough and shapes it into a form that pleases them and then runs to their parent shouting look what I made, that's art -- defined by the intention to create. Recognized as a component of the desire to create is the desire to share the creation. With very rare exception artists share their intentional art.

On the other hand this is not art: a child who want to climb a tree but can't reach the lowest branch solves the problem by constructing a stack of bricks under the tree. That's creating a tool to solve a problem. In this juxtaposition art is often described as frivolous activity; it's not useful to any critical survival task. Architecture then is usually offered to counter that idea, but do our buildings and bridges really have to be visually engaging to be utilitarian? This is art defined by purpose. Art exists to be (useless) art and so much the better when art can embellish the utilitarian.

Defined by form art is physical -- sensual if you like. You have to make it from clay or stone or wood or paint or sounds or dancing or paper or string or etc. And then literature is usually offered to counter that definition. We embrace literature as art even though it seems weak on the physical requirement. So art isn't that simple, that's OK. And you really haven't experienced poetry right until you've heard it. I have a friend who's a poet. A couple months ago we met for dinner and he surprised me with a poem he'd written for me. I had him read it to me. Wow! But it's OK to read poetry too. I've read my poem a couple times since I got it.

So is it Art? Here's a couple lines from a poem by Kipling The Conundrum of the Workshops that graces all of my course syllabi: "And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his (Adam) mighty heart. Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, 'It's pretty, but is it art?'" For those who can't figure it out or can't accept the most inclusive definition that allows us all to revel in the joy of it all like the child artists of our birth the words of Paul Strand offer an appropriate comment. "Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence."

Yes some art is bad. So be it and move on. If you let the bad art start you down the path of arguing about definition exceptions and exclusion clauses and rankings and classifications you've fallen into a trap that ultimately hurts you as you deprive yourself the opportunity to delight in the wonderful experiences that all the arts offer.

Joe

View attachment 135770

I've also studied the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because there is a church dedicated to the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't make it a real deity or even a real entity. Art is a human invented concept with no real definable meaning. It is purely individual opinion based on individual likes and dislikes. All the pseudo intellectual chatter in the world doesn't make it so. That is why the "Art World" talks so much about it, they are still trying to convince the world that it actually exists and has real meaning to humanity.

And to paraphrase Paul Strand (a great artist) your undefended protestations are a clear sign of impotence. I will continue to enjoy and delight in art and value art -- and you have my sympathy.

Joe

 

[runnah]

There is good naked and there is bad naked.

 

[table1349]

Art is defined foremost by intention and secondarily by form and purpose. If the author(s) claims her/his intention was to create art then it's art. The author need know or claim nothing more than they wanted to make it because they like how it looks or sounds or feels and they want to show it to you. That it may contain levels of additional meaning or convey a message is a bonus. Creating art is one of the clearest defining characteristics of the human species and as such is the province of all humans with or without special training or degrees etc.. We are all born artists, children's behavior being the irrefutable evidence thereof. When a child gets ahold of a lump of play dough and shapes it into a form that pleases them and then runs to their parent shouting look what I made, that's art -- defined by the intention to create. Recognized as a component of the desire to create is the desire to share the creation. With very rare exception artists share their intentional art.

On the other hand this is not art: a child who want to climb a tree but can't reach the lowest branch solves the problem by constructing a stack of bricks under the tree. That's creating a tool to solve a problem. In this juxtaposition art is often described as frivolous activity; it's not useful to any critical survival task. Architecture then is usually offered to counter that idea, but do our buildings and bridges really have to be visually engaging to be utilitarian? This is art defined by purpose. Art exists to be (useless) art and so much the better when art can embellish the utilitarian.

Defined by form art is physical -- sensual if you like. You have to make it from clay or stone or wood or paint or sounds or dancing or paper or string or etc. And then literature is usually offered to counter that definition. We embrace literature as art even though it seems weak on the physical requirement. So art isn't that simple, that's OK. And you really haven't experienced poetry right until you've heard it. I have a friend who's a poet. A couple months ago we met for dinner and he surprised me with a poem he'd written for me. I had him read it to me. Wow! But it's OK to read poetry too. I've read my poem a couple times since I got it.

So is it Art? Here's a couple lines from a poem by Kipling The Conundrum of the Workshops that graces all of my course syllabi: "And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his (Adam) mighty heart. Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, 'It's pretty, but is it art?'" For those who can't figure it out or can't accept the most inclusive definition that allows us all to revel in the joy of it all like the child artists of our birth the words of Paul Strand offer an appropriate comment. "Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence."

Yes some art is bad. So be it and move on. If you let the bad art start you down the path of arguing about definition exceptions and exclusion clauses and rankings and classifications you've fallen into a trap that ultimately hurts you as you deprive yourself the opportunity to delight in the wonderful experiences that all the arts offer.

Joe

View attachment 135770

I've also studied the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because there is a church dedicated to the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't make it a real deity or even a real entity. Art is a human invented concept with no real definable meaning. It is purely individual opinion based on individual likes and dislikes. All the pseudo intellectual chatter in the world doesn't make it so. That is why the "Art World" talks so much about it, they are still trying to convince the world that it actually exists and has real meaning to humanity.

And to paraphrase Paul Strand (a great artist) your undefended protestations are a clear sign of impotence. I will continue to enjoy and delight in art and value art -- and you have my sympathy.

Joe

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”-Daniel J. Boorstin.

We can go on all day trading cute little quotes if you wish. You have however failed to answer the simple challenge that was posed. (looks like you are demonstrating your Paul Strand's paraphrased quote.)

Please to provide for us a Universally Accepted definition of Art.

 

[Bill The Lurker]

please provide to us a universally accepted definition of anything whatsoever

rough consensus and running code, it worked for the internet it can work for philosophy if you're not obsessed with being a pedant

 

[Trever1t]

Kinda surprised by some of the replies. Who are we to judge? Art is in the eye of the beholder. You and I may not like it but I'm sure there are plenty that look at what we do with contempt!

The mere fact that that artist's work has generated 3 pages of critique here says a lot to me. The fact that I rarely get 2 pages!

As I see it his camera kills leave much to be desired BUT his creativity is abundant. He (She?) pushes the boundaries of my comfort zone. I like the rocks.

 

[pixmedic]

Kinda surprised by some of the replies. Who are we to judge? Art is in the eye of the beholder. You and I may not like it but I'm sure there are plenty that look at what we do with contempt!

The mere fact that that artist's work has generated 3 pages of critique here says a lot to me. The fact that I rarely get 2 pages!

As I see it his camera kills leave much to be desired BUT his creativity is abundant. He (She?) pushes the boundaries of my comfort zone. I like the rocks.

U mean the guys "rocks"? Or the literal rocks? [emoji38]

Also...
I'm on shift so my time and forum capabilities are limited. If anyone has any pictures posted that they aren't 100% sure they have permission to post, could you please take them down? Or link to them? (Links to pictures are ok)

I'm on my way to a pretty gnarly scene so I might not be able to check back in for a bit.
Please play nice while I'm gone, mm'kay?

Sent via Synchronized Cardioversion

 

[Trever1t]

航 任 (<----FLICKr Link NSFW?)

I actually kind of like some of his work. Though I had not heard of him before (thank you TPF) and didn't know him from anyone else, I'd say yes.

How did he die at 29? Oh, I see, he took his own life... depression,madness.

 

[table1349]

While not a fan of his work, I did find one image that had three models with legs intertwined intriguing. It could have been done with clothed models as well. The way their legs were intertwined reminded me of some of the works of MC Escher.


This image is the on I meant.

 

[Trever1t]

I saw that and also thought Escher, and Dali. Dali was also a weirdo. I'm sure he had his fair share of negative attention. I love Dali.

 

[table1349]

I didn't think Dali at all, but I am not a big fan of Dali's work.

Although when I was buying new furniture for the office my wife did get me a Dali inspired "melted clock" for my office.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I was thinking he was the one I read about that just passed away. I wonder if he'd lived longer if he might have developed his ideas and his art further.

I haven't looked at all of the photos yet but so far some are interesting, some are strange/unusual, some are quite wonderful, and some don't seem much more than a close up of part of a nude body shown in an explicit way. I see inconsistency which to me says he was fairly young and still developing skills and maybe in time he would've begun to edit his work/his portfolio and get better at critiquing his own work and determining what works he'd show.

I'm interested in going back and spending more time looking and find a few in particular to have been somewhat memorable so that to me says something, that there's some artistic and creative ability there.

 

[mmaria]

"Ren Hang was an incredibly talented and brave photographer"
"Sex organs, disco balls, and animals become interchangeable objects in the artist's low-budget, color-blasted fantasies. Even plants and pools of water are charged with lust.
In Ren Hang's imagination, everything is an uninhibited metaphor for desire."
"It's visual poetry. It's without limits."

sorry but I just don't get it... I'm totally indifferent to what he did. It doesn't give me any, I really mean, any reaction, emotion or tought (I must admit that a few of his pictures does, but a few "normal ones" and that's because I tried)

I read some really good answers here ty

 

[table1349]

sorry but I just don't get it... I'm totally indifferent to what he did. It doesn't give me any, I really mean, any reaction, emotion or tought (I must admit that a few of his pictures does, but a few "normal ones" and that's because I tried)

I read some really good answers here ty

Here's the part I don't understand, if you are indifferent to his work and his work provokes no reaction, emotion or thought overall, why the thread in the first place?

Me, overall I am not a fan of his work although as mentioned in a previous a couple of the concepts were intriguing.