Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim-- Well, I am an artist first, and an art historian second, actually. 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 1:29 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] On making Art - was #$@%$^ art photographers 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html