|
|
Post by isaacs on Apr 29, 2007 11:17:59 GMT 10
As a late modicication : what is your definition of art? Not quite sure if you are addressing your question to me or the one you dub "CoM". I'll answer anyway. Broadly speaking I would define art as the non-living (in the biological sense) creations of biological life. The purported "value" of the art is an entirely different - and often very individual - question. As the biological progeny of living things can be good or evil, belligerent or calm, attractive or ugly (whether this is universally agreed [likely impossible] or not [more or less subjectively asserted]) so too is it with their non-biological children (art). |
|
|
|
Post by andrewh on Apr 29, 2007 11:26:03 GMT 10
It's good to see post modernism raise its head via the dismissal of the so called 'intentianalist fallacy'. Given that I was educated during the ascendancy of post modernism within the academy I am often surprised that, Foucault apart, I quickly found it so repugnant and stupid. Sorry to make a point that probably seems highly irrelevant, but the "intentional fallacy" - coined by Wimsatt and Beardsley - is a product of the "new criticism" of the early 1950s. As such it predates the coining of the term "postmodernism" by about 10 years, and the works of the major postmodern theorists - Derrida, Foucault and Lyotard - by some 20 to 30 years. |
|
|
|
Post by freddy on Apr 29, 2007 14:01:26 GMT 10
It's good to see post modernism raise its head via the dismissal of the so called 'intentianalist fallacy'. Given that I was educated during the ascendancy of post modernism within the academy I am often surprised that, Foucault apart, I quickly found it so repugnant and stupid. Sorry to make a point that probably seems highly irrelevant, but the "intentional fallacy" - coined by Wimsatt and Beardsley - is a product of the "new criticism" of the early 1950s. As such it predates the coining of the term "postmodernism" by about 10 years, and the works of the major postmodern theorists - Derrida, Foucault and Lyotard - by some 20 to 30 years. You're correct there but, in the context of the discussion that had developed here, it was deployed not as part of an objection based on the principles of new criticism. The 'death of the author' which is a prerequisite for post-modernism assumes the intentional fallacy. New criticism wanted the critic to concern him or herself with the art work and nothing but the art work and to ignore anything outside it. It was opposed to Marxist theories of art as well as Freudian/psychoanalytical criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by alimcg on Apr 29, 2007 15:12:16 GMT 10
My brain hurts. Less talk, more music. Did you go to the VCA freddy?!?!
And Mark, I saw in Readings today a book just for you - Music and Manipulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewh on Apr 29, 2007 20:03:40 GMT 10
My point being that this kind of thinking is not especially post-modern. The new criticism stemmed directly from the fundamentally modernist criticism of Eliot and his contemporaries, and for all that Barthes in his Death of the Author (1967) - or even your friend Foucault in What Is An Author (1969) - rehash Wimsatt and Beardsley for the post-structuralist age there is little in their work on this topic that wasn't presaged in the new criticism. Barthes anyway is about as post-modern as my mum.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddy on Apr 30, 2007 12:44:23 GMT 10
My point being that this kind of thinking is not especially post-modern. The new criticism stemmed directly from the fundamentally modernist criticism of Eliot and his contemporaries, and for all that Barthes in his Death of the Author (1967) - or even your friend Foucault in What Is An Author (1969) - rehash Wimsatt and Beardsley for the post-structuralist age there is little in their work on this topic that wasn't presaged in the new criticism. Barthes anyway is about as post-modern as my mum. I agreed with that. However, read any cultural studies texts and they all presuppose and accept that idea as apart of their theoretical approach. They would accept advertising as art (something that few 'new critics' would). My point in first bringing up post-modernism was based on the context of the discussion and previous post. post-modernism, now in at least its third decade isn't exactly new and has run out of steam. As has, I think, this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by freddy on May 1, 2007 7:30:40 GMT 10
As a late modicication : what is your definition of art? Not quite sure if you are addressing your question to me or the one you dub "CoM". I'll answer anyway. Broadly speaking I would define art as the non-living (in the biological sense) creations of biological life. The purported "value" of the art is an entirely different - and often very individual - question. As the biological progeny of living things can be good or evil, belligerent or calm, attractive or ugly (whether this is universally agreed [likely impossible] or not [more or less subjectively asserted]) so too is it with their non-biological children (art). Vegemite? Napalm? |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on May 1, 2007 8:45:53 GMT 10
Not a bad and quite durable manifestation of the culinary arts. An utterly horrendous manifestation of the art of war I think we're all tired of this game. I'm interested in exploring words and unloading assumed connotations. I want a definition of art that doesn't include assumptions about its nature, quality or morality. The above definitions were based on my opinions which are subjective. A more snobbish gourmand than I might consider Vegemite a horrendous manifestation of the culinary arts. And a despicably sadistic general might consider napalm a useful tool in the art of war. |
|
|
|
Post by freddy on May 1, 2007 10:34:47 GMT 10
Not a bad and quite durable manifestation of the culinary arts. An utterly horrendous manifestation of the art of war I think we're all tired of this game. I'm interested in exploring words and unloading assumed connotations. I want a definition of art that doesn't include assumptions about its nature, quality or morality. The above definitions were based on my opinions which are subjective. A more snobbish gourmand than I might consider Vegemite a horrendous manifestation of the culinary arts. And a despicably sadistic general might consider napalm a useful tool in the art of war. I said the thread had run out of steam before but judging by the number of 'views', forum members are looking at what's going on here. It could be just curiosity as to how silly or worthwhile it could get. Now to your counter: on your definition, vegemite and napalm go through as art. Howewever, clearly they are not art. That's a problem with your definition - it's too wide. Further, it may not be possible to arrive at a definition of the sort that you want. |
|
|
|
Post by freddy on May 1, 2007 10:38:35 GMT 10
My brain hurts. Less talk, more music. Did you go to the VCA freddy?!?! And Mark, I saw in Readings today a book just for you - Music and Manipulation. Let's talk more about manipulation in music.What is the difference between manipulation and seeking a response or effect? Alimcg, I didn't go to the VCA. I'm from Sydney, though my work at present moves me around a lot, and university was my go. |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on May 1, 2007 11:49:10 GMT 10
Now to your counter: on your definition, vegemite and napalm go through as art. Howewever, clearly they are not art. That's a problem with your definition - it's too wide. Further, it may not be possible to arrive at a definition of the sort that you want. It's only "too wide" if you insist that the definition of art must have a qualitative and moral scope. I don't necessarily insist on this. It seems to me art is simply the process of creating. Value judgements can come later in the adjectives used to qualify it: crappy art, despicable art, great art. No-one's going to agree on these as they're subjective judgements. So it seems to me that the definition of art should best signify what we can at least agree on objectively. That art involves creation, for better or for worse. However, I'll concede that my definition is largely theoretical. I don't really posit it in order to let vegemite and napalm through. I can't see the practical use of that. But my wider terms do have a use in letting, for example, thriller movies and ads through in principle, two things you have categorically stated in this thread cannot be art by definition. I would say (and many would agree) that thrillers and ads have at least the potential to be art and are not automatically stymied by their origins, complexion or upbringing (it's amazing how unfortunately redolent of a kind of aesthetic racism certain sweeping critical judgements can be). So I do concede a parallel usage of "art" that connotes quality. This is art, this is crap. Rather than crap art. I suppose the difference again comes down to the alleged intentionalist fallacy. If I set out to create art, and it's crap, then it's still art but crap art. If I don't set out to create art in the first place it's just crap. I suspect this is where you are coming from freddy and as I have said I'm not entirely comfortable with it as I tend to support the notion of the intentionalist fallacy. This all comes down to semantics. But you seem to want to use semantics to exclude in a different way to me. As I've said, I'm comfortable to have a parallel, more narrow and more practical definition of art that connotes quality. (Though it's possible that if I was hungry enough, a Vegemite sandwich could still seem a work of art). But I'm not comfortable with using semantics to put certain forms and genres automatically in the "non art" (meaning "low quality") bin. |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on May 1, 2007 12:08:14 GMT 10
Let's talk more about manipulation in music.What is the difference between manipulation and seeking a response or effect? Semantics. |
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on May 1, 2007 12:36:26 GMT 10
Art? Creating?
What about re-creating, is that Art or Craft. Making a nice ceramic pot for the local market stall? Some nicely knitted scarves? Playing Oleo at 300bpm using the best be-bop licks you know?
Does playing music make you an Artist or a Craftsperson ( for the pc people)?
Kenny G, shithouse Art or shithouse craft?? Mmmm, nasty.
But seriously, there is a difference. Good advertising is not Art to me, it's a skill or craft, but Art??
James Morrison, sure great skill/craft, entertaining to some, but Art??
Is Art then simply subjective and we're wasting our time talking about it?
Please answer all these questions in order.
|
|
|
|
Post by vickibonet on May 1, 2007 12:53:48 GMT 10
Not a bad and quite durable manifestation of the culinary arts. An utterly horrendous manifestation of the art of war I think we're all tired of this game. I'm interested in exploring words and unloading assumed connotations. I want a definition of art that doesn't include assumptions about its nature, quality or morality. The above definitions were based on my opinions which are subjective. A more snobbish gourmand than I might consider Vegemite a horrendous manifestation of the culinary arts. And a despicably sadistic general might consider napalm a useful tool in the art of war. Napalm is currently being used in Australia's forrests by logging companies. Cheery thought eh? |
|
|
|
Post by isaacs on May 1, 2007 12:55:23 GMT 10
Art? Creating? What about re-creating, is that Art or Craft. Making a nice ceramic pot for the local market stall? Some nicely knitted scarves? Playing Oleo at 300bpm using the best be-bop licks you know? Does playing music make you an Artist or a Craftsperson ( for the pc people)? Kenny G, shithouse Art or shithouse craft?? Mmmm, nasty. But seriously, there is a difference. Good advertising is not Art to me, it's a skill or craft, but Art?? James Morrison, sure great skill/craft, entertaining to some, but Art?? Is Art then simply subjective and we're wasting our time talking about it? Please answer all these questions in order. These are my answers: I don't think the creating/recreating thing amounts to much in the end. If only "creating" is art, then a classical player can never be an artist. And a standards band could never be art. It seems to me that the re-creative arts are a subset of art. But still art. Perhaps all art is re-creative ultimately. I could make a good case for that, but don't have time. I need to get stuck into a Vegemite sandwich. I think all people playing music are artists. Including Kenny G. Whose art I find horrible. But not the most horrible of all. On the alternative definition of art - automatically connoting quality - I don't think Kenny G is art. So to my mind it's either horrible art or not art. Take your pick. James Morrison is - at least - an artist, both in factual and qualitative sense. So is Dave Wekl to quote another bogeyman in our circles. That's just my opinion. Good advertising could be art when viewed from a suitable vantage point. Read my Grock and Zandor story. Just my opinion. Regarding this question: "Is Art then simply subjective and we're wasting our time talking about it?" I'm going to answer it with a question. Even if it was subjective, why would it be wasting our time talking about it? That implies that unless we can all agree, it's a waste of time. That'd make Life itself a waste of time. |
|
