Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] On making Art - was #$@%$^ art photographers
From: Jim Hemenway <Jim@hemenway.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:28:30 -0500
References: <200312091700.hB9H0hX20333@perch.serverhost.net>

Kit:

 >>> The word "art" came from a word that was used and understood widely 
during the Renaissance. Artifice. <<<

You have introduced a red herring. Where the word comes from is not the 
point. It is what the word means now that is the partial subject of this 
thread.

 > The idea that art is an expression of emotions through technique is a 
bit simplistic. <

It has to be simple, that is, of the lowest common denominator if it is 
to cover all or most of art.

 >>> Artists are not just bubbling pots of emotion looking for a way to 
channel those feeling through a medium. <<<

Where did I write "bubbling pots of emotion"?  I'm an artist and I 
certainly don't fit that appellation. I used the word emotion instead of 
feelings as I think it's more apropos.

 >>> 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." <<<

Are you not being a bit elitist and/or patronizing?

 >>> The audience figured the images they were seeing were the 
outpourings of people gripped by emotional instability. <<<

This is pure conjecture on your part and is too broad a generalization.

I've seen too much junk art where the "artists" couldn't express 
themselves through any reasonable technique, artists who had no training 
even in how to draw.  And, I've seen a lot of soulless "art" wherein the 
technique was great but where the artist didn't have anything to "say".

On a basic level, and that's all that I was conveying, you need both 
emotion and technique to make art.

You write like an art historian rather than as an artist.

Jim - http://www.hemenway.com



Kit McChesney wrote:

> 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

In reply to: Message from "Kit McChesney" <kitmc@acmefoto.com> (RE: [Leica] On making Art)