Sorry people, I had a lot more to say about this question which I DO find fascinating but I had an emergency to attend to (am part of a group that helps abused kids, if you're interested), only got back a short while ago and am dead tired so I'll do it tomorrow.
And my original post will make more sense when you read what else I had to say. Well, I think
Before I log out, though, I want to say that I find it a bit confusing to see someone wonder about the point of this thread (the original question) but spend a lot of time and many posts on it.
I get the point personally, but think that some things are undefinable, and best left undefined and unsolved, if you will.
Some ambiguity and mystery is good.
Actually, I quite agree but our brains do not and the human animal just tries and tries to figure things out. Does God exist? What is the meaning of life? Are both very old questions that are similar to trying to define art and you will see that, in the end, I will not really define anything much.
I mean, look at my definition of the artist. It even made someone laugh because
it was too simple.
The other thing I wondered about with your first post is: what do you talk about with your friends? Some people are good at just talking about the weather. Im not and I talk about things like this thread. Not that it is anymore important than the weather, it is not, but it makes for livelier discussions and evenings, imo. And to be honest, I dont think this type of discussion kills either ambiguity or mystery. And if it happened to for one subject, Im quite sure we would find more ambiguity and mystery in another.
Anyway, lets get back to the subject. Ill start by finishing with the artist. I stand by my definition. Even though Moglex has a point as to what my definition of art could be, it would be like going in circle and I dont particularly like going in circles.
I found the sub questions in manaheims original post even more interesting. What makes artists? What makes them tick? How do you become one?
Absolutely no idea. Which is why I mentioned philosophy and psychiatry. Members of those two branches of human study are the professionals when it comes to figure things out but they are nowhere near figuring out what makes a person be that person. If you dont believe me, read transcripts of trials where psychiatrists were involved. When they are not obviously biased to their side, they usually make very good points for their side even though they are saying totally opposite things. Ive even seen them say the exact same thing but make it sound like totally opposite viewpoints.
As regards artists, we throw into the mix something that is so subjective that I just dont see how we could ever answer those three questions.
I have boys who are identical twins. Although they are both musicians, one of them makes his living now as a mechanic and the other in politics. Why? They were raised the same and are clones of each other. I also have cousins who are identical twins. One is an artist (photographer) and the other one was a banker. Those two were so in tune with each other that when one was in pain, the other felt it. Yet, there were so different.
What is ART? I like Wikis definition offered by icassell as much as the one from the Merriam-Webster: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects and maybe even more because I am not so sure about the conscious part of Merriams. Most honest artists will readily admit that they dont always know why they did something except: it looked good.
One thing that bothers me about both of those definitions is the fact that neither mentions the lack of commercial interest and, to me, that is a big part of art. Think of someone like Michelangelo, world famous artist even though the only works we know are commissioned work. Anyone whos done commercial photography knows that the purpose (or usage) of the image has more control over the photo then the photographer. Although I admire Michelangelos technique, I can not talk of him as an artist. I just dont know what this man would have painted had he painted for his sole pleasure.
And that was the case with most artists back then who had to take commissioned work to survive. In todays world (our western countries anyway,) it is much easier to be able to live with little because todays little is quite a bit more than yesteryears. And that has opened the doors for art in the sense that we can truly work on our personal visions.
We have way more true art today then they did in the time of Michelangelo and, as a result, we have a much larger palette of styles.
Thats all folks!!! About art anyway.
A few random thoughts about things that have been said in this thread:
I dont quite agree with icassells example with Pollock. His elements were, to some degree, controlled accidents but I dont think that the arrangement of the elements was.
Arkanjel Imaging mentions art vs. craft. I tend to see craft as a derogatory way of looking at what we consider second class art. The person who creates a million dollar necklace is an artist but the one who sells his stuff for $25 is a craftsperson. Why?
More than one person mentions the fact that art is subjective. How true. Just like in any other aspect of life, someones trash may be someone elses gold. Look at Michael Jackson. The word genius is all over the place since he died but, sorry, I may not change the station when one of his songs comes on the radio but I dont see the genius. And lets not forget how big a part Quincy Jones played in the art of MJ.
Nature is a powerful creator. How else do you explain that a photo of a single seashell on a medium gray background with nothing else in the frame, can hang in a museum? The photographers technique is good. OK. But the photo is the shell and that shell is a product of natures creativity. Why too are so many artists studying Phi or the divine proportion? It comes to us from nature.
Sorry to be so long. Time to take a breath.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/36/36135-6594fe1d58af0053c3e939665e543ce4.jpg?1734168245)
