RE: [Leica] On making Art

[Peterson Arthur G NSSC <PetersonAG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>]

		Reading Phong's comment ("Art is an expression of our
feelings, among other things") and Jim's reply ("Art is the expression of an
emotion through a technique"), one might at first prefer to say, "Art is the
expression of emotion through a form"---whether that form were an
arrangement of words in a poem or a novel, an arrangement of light and color
in a picture, or an arrangement of sounds in a symphony or a sonata.  But
perhaps that definition should be carried a step further, addressing
strictly what art is, without reference to what it (supposedly) expresses.
Archibald MacLeish ended his poem "Ars Poetica" with the apt lines, "A poem
should not mean / But be" [emphasis added]; and as Igor Stravinsky once
explained, "Music can express nothing---that is my conviction---it can
express only itself."  So one might say, "A work of art is an object that
expresses itself through its form."

		Art Peterson
		Alexandria, Virginia


		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Jim Hemenway [mailto:Jim@hemenway.com]
		Sent:	Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:16 AM
		To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
		Subject:	[Leica] On making Art

		Hi Phong:

		 > Art is an expression of our feelings, among other things.
<

		Okay so far as it goes, but consider this definition:

		Art is the expression of an emotion through a technique.

		Most would say, -through a valid technique.  But what is
valid to one 
		person may not be to another.  The oil coloring described in
Tina's post 
		must have been valid to the instructor but surely wasn't to
Tina.

		The technique can be drawing and painting, sculpture,
photography, etc., 
		but it can also be things such as dance, poetry, weaving and
in some 
		cases being silly... as in a "live" installation.

		What makes any of it great art is acceptance as such, by a
broad range 
		of people.

		Art is really "a la carte", pick what you like, try
something new, 
		and/or complain about everything else... which is what we've
been doing.

		Jim - http://www.hemenway.com



		Phong wrote:
		> 
		> Art is an expression of our feelings, among other things.
The only 
		> thing I ask is that such expression be genuine (Nan
Goldin, e.g.). 
		> If such feelings is about our libido, ego,
self-indulgence, etc. 
		> should there be no place for them in art ?  Should art be
only 
		> about "good", acceptable feelings ?  And I expect much of
art,
		> genuine art, to be incoherent, sometimes even
incomprehensible.
		> 
		> There is art, and there is the business of art.  If the
public is
		> stupid enough to pay for the art, don't blame only the
artist.  
		> And I don't think artists would treat you as ignorant
Philistine 
		> just because you don't like their art.  Just don't put
down something 
		> you don't understand.  You put them down, or they think
you might put
		> them down, and they'll treat you as ignorant Philistine.
		> 
		> In any case, I am always suspect of successful
professional artists,
		> going back to da Vinci.   I can respect and admire their
talent,
		> but their art, as an genuine expression, is suspect.
Whose art 
		> is it anyway ?  But hey, one has to make a living, a good
one if 
		> possible. 
		> 
		> Just my narrow view on art,
		> 
		> - Phong
		> 
		> Whose art is it anyway ?  Of course, at some point, the
viewer
		> assumes the work of art as an expression of his or her
feelings too.
		> 
		> 

		--
		To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html