Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Mark Rothko says:
I belong to a photography message board, and this same discussion takes place there on a regular basis. It gets quite heated at times between those that believe the final image is everything and those that believe that the final image means less or nothing if what they consider to be the correct ‘process’ has not been followed to the letter.(And then of course there are the discussions about whether photographs can be called ‘images’ and yadah yadah yadah...) It gets downright silly at times, but people are very passionate about their point of view. And then someone will open up the can of worms regarding whether photography is Art or Science. Then some members will melodramatically state that they are leaving the group, and go away and sulk for a few days/weeks. It’s interesting to be made aware that the same discussion of technical mastery versus pure, unadulterated artistic expression takes place in the world of painting, as that is the one that photography gets lumped with for comparison/arguement’s sake. For my part, I say Art, whatever the medium, should produce a response other than a yawn, and that the process one uses to arrive at the final piece of work, while important, is only important to the artist and his/her personal growth and should have no bearing on anyone elses enjoyment of or response to said piece. As our own St. Ansel Adams said, “There’s nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept.”
Posted by Rev Joe on from 01/13 at 11:49 AMWise words, Rev Joe: “...I say Art, whatever the medium, should produce a response other than a yawn, and that the process one uses to arrive at the final piece of work, while important, is only important to the artist and his/her personal growth and should have no bearing on anyone elses enjoyment of or response to said piece. As our own St. Ansel Adams said, ‘There’s nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy concept.’”
Quibble: I yawn at Warhol’s celebrated Campbell’s cans, his iconic Marilyn and Mao silkscreens, and Rothko’s color fields and Lichtenstein’s cartoon cartoons; I don’t, however, deny them the status of Art. I don’t like them. I do believe they represent a fresh vision. I think that’s an essential component of Art, versus artifice (my examples there would be Bouguereau, Millais, de Kooning, Jeff Koons, among others).
So where does personal taste fall in the defining of Art?
Posted by Richard on from The great Red State of Texas, blech 01/13 at 01:08 PMI remember during one of our periodic religious art brouhahas here in NYC, I was turned off by the art...not because it mocked religion (a favorite pastime of mine) but rather because I thought the art sucked.
Also, I’m less a purist than Rothko seemed to have been. My definition of “nothing” is more flexible. A painting needn’t be “Guernica” to be about “something.”
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 01/13 at 01:21 PM“Guernica” is something more than art, IMHO, it’s a cultural force, a new meme, something that, when created, cannot be overlooked/dismissed/ignored/belittled. It’s just starkly and powerfully IS.
Art isn’t about “something” since everyone (for the most part) defines “something” as a matter of taste: I think the damn soup cans are as much nothing as anything material can be; that statue of Michael Jackson and the chimp is totally nothing; both of these things are accepted as Art.
So Art is in the eye of the beholder? Myself, I go with Cezanne when it comes to novelty: “Someday there will come a revolution in art begun by a carrot, freshly observed.”
Posted by Richard on from The great Red State of Texas, blech 01/13 at 01:34 PM“Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.” Edgar Degas
Or maybe, “I don’t know Art, but I know what I like.” Anyway, I feel that Art, like all the really important things in life, resists definition. Nothing makes anything that resides beneath that huge umbrella term “Art” (and don’t get me started on Christo and his umbrellas) more uninteresting than than the work of the Academics. I think Lenny Bruce had it right when he said that Comedy was the only true art form, because it was the only one to which a response could not be faked - not effectively, at any rate.
So anyway, Art certainly exists without an audience/viewer, but it is the audience/viewer that gives Art its meaning. Validity, on the other hand, is a whole other messy subject…
Posted by Rev Joe on from 01/13 at 01:53 PMI make my living as an artist. Animating for 3D games of all things. Among my peers I’m considered a talented artist because I’m able to translate someone else’s concept to the screen in a visually pleasing manner. Even though this does take creativity on my part, a written description is a long way from a full animation. I don’t consider myself a good artist because of my difficulty in translating my own concepts and idea’s to the screen.
So in essence I can make my living as an artist doing good artwork about essentially nothing. A much better position then I was in back in my teens when I wanted to make my living as an “artist” but essentially not as satisfying as making a living doing my own art.
IMO it’s not about the art you personally do, it’s about the act of creating something that means something to you personally.
Posted by Luna_C on from Vanc you very much. 01/13 at 01:57 PMAlso wise, Rev Joe: “Anyway, I feel that Art, like all the really important things in life, resists definition.” But being animals impelled by our flawed, broken consciousness (Julian Jaynes be my witness) to the task of taxonomy, can we really resist defining things? Categorizing them, starting with “edible/inedible” and running on to “good/not good” and all permutations between and beyond these?
And Luna_C, I quibble with this: “So in essence I can make my living as an artist doing good artwork about essentially nothing.” It’s something to create anything, and it’s not nothing to do so for an appreciative audience. Why else does Jeff Koons’s crap sell for megabucks? (Since I know zip about your artwork, please don’t read that as a talent comparison...just a subject analogy.)
Posted by Richard on from The great Red State of Texas, blech 01/13 at 02:44 PM“My recommended approach would be this: You can bet everything will come to an end. It’s going to be ugly and it’s going to be a mess, and it’s going to be something somebody did in the name of God, okay? Whether it’s us saying that God’s on our side because we’re tremendous Christians and we’re protecting our religion and our flag, or whether it’s a Moslem saying the infidels must die, or whether it’s a communist saying there is no god and we’re doing this for the people, the point is they’re going to do it in the name of something greater than themselves, but you can bet your ass they’re going to do it… So the question is, what do you do with your spare time until you’re a cinder? And the answer is, you do whatever you can that makes your particular life more beautiful, and you get involved in art. ‘Cause that’s what makes things beautiful.” - Frank Zappa (quoted ‘cause he says it better than I can)
Posted by Rev Joe on from 01/13 at 03:22 PMI’ve made this my signature line on my email account, I love it so much. Thanks!
“So the question is, what do you do with your spare time until you’re a cinder? And the answer is, you do whatever you can that makes your particular life more beautiful, and you get involved in art. ‘Cause that’s what makes things beautiful.” - Frank Zappa”Amazing how vigorous this discussion got and yet how little dissent it evoked. What are Bill O’Reilly and Tucker Carlson doing wrong? What makes MZ fun to follow around (something I’ve been doing for 12 years now)is that very quality. Thanks, MZ, and keep up the good work. No one else I disagree with so thoroughly educates me the way you do!
Posted by Richard on from The great Red State of Texas, blech 01/13 at 03:31 PMWell, Richard...you just have given me a new signature line: “No one else I disagree with so thoroughly educates me the way you do!”
Posted by Mickey Z. on from 01/13 at 03:37 PMWell, it’s true, you silly vegan; I learn something new about my dinner every time you carry on about the evils of meat/dairy/animal products. And I regard Socialism with one indulgent eye, the other aimed Heavenward..such a great idea, so similar to the other Great Religions in its aims, equally unlikely to survive translation to the material plane. And absolutely necessary to the mental health of the world, may I add, without its hectoring voice what would chivvy the apathetic and slothful to any sort of intellectual effort?
Posted by Richard on from The great Red State of Texas, blech 01/13 at 03:46 PM
Next entry: Coming Soon: Death Squads in Iraq
Previous entry: Yet another man-made disaster
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
