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
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 16:00:35 -0500

If everyone here can agree on a definition of what is art, the
definition is probably not worth the 0s and 1s with which it's written.
;-)

- -----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 3:46 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] On making Art


You're right!

Form, method, technique...   all the same to me.

Jim - http://www.hemenway.com


Peterson Arthur G NSSC wrote:

> 		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



- --
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

Replies: Reply from "Steve Barbour" <kididdoc@cox.net> (Re: [Leica] On making Art)