RE: [Leica] On making Art - was #$@%$^ art photographers

["Kit McChesney" <kitmc@acmefoto.com>]

Jim--

With all due respect to you, I did not say that art had nothing to do with
emotion; I said that it had to do with more than just emotion. Of course
great art is suffused with feeling. If it weren't, it would not be what it
is. But there is plenty of stuff out there that ain't art that is also full
of feeling, too. There is much more to it than emotion and technique--which
of course I know you know and you know that I know as well--and that was
what I tried to say. 

Art is too all-encompassing an idea to be encapsulated in a pat phrase.

As for the use of the word "artifice," it does indeed affect how we view
what we call "art" today. That is when the concept was born. Prior to that
time, "artists" as we understand them did not exist as we understand them
today. The idea of the artist as a solo operator, expressing himself, began
during the Renaissance. The Neoplatonists at Lorenzo de Medici's court
helped to bring this idea to the fore. 

Yes, I write like an art historian because I am an art historian. My
specialty is the Italian Renaissance, namely Michelangelo. I have also
written on Van Gogh as well. I am also an artist, which came before and
after learning and writing about the history of art. Too many artists do not
know the history of art and about the long tradition of which they are a
part. Too often they are ready to reject someone who "writes like an art
historian" because they often feel that art historians don't know anything
about art. I can speak from both sides of the fence. You might not like what
I have to say, but I can still say it! 

We are probably saying the same thing in the end. Art is a complex problem,
if nothing else. And not easily defined. And not often understood. Just
stand next to someone in a museum sometime who is looking at a Mondrian and
see how many people say "gosh, that'd make great wallpaper." It takes some
education to understand what an artist is doing, how his or her work fits in
an historical and social context. It's not just about pretty pictures. 

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