Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The word "art" came from a word that was used and understood widely during the Renaissance. Artifice. The idea that art is an expression of emotions through technique is a bit simplistic. Artists are not just bubbling pots of emotion looking for a way to channel those feeling through a medium. This is an idea that took root among folks who could not understand what artists were doing when the work did not "look like something." The audience figured the images they were seeing were the outpourings of people gripped by emotional instability. Sure, we have feelings when we make images, but that is only a small part of the actual process. Kit - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jim Hemenway Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 9:16 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