Genuine Art

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Sanctimonious prigs like myself never were offended by Impressionists . I rest my case. If you have the audacity to compare Renoir, Monet, Manet, Pisarro et al with pissart you must be fairly impressed by such garbage, but in your polluted mind such things merit comparison. I daresay 100 years from now pissart will not merit a blip in art history wherea ...[text shortened]... ontroversy alone and contempt. I do no recall Impressionism stirring contempt or being reviled.

I never said that YOU were offended by the Impressionists. The fact remains, though, that at the time a vast majority of the art establishment and the general public were outraged and scandalized by the Impressionists. Why do you think Van Gogh only sold one painting during his lifetime? It took a while for public tastes to catch up with what the Impressionists were doing. And today we laugh at such uninformed stupidity. In exactly the same way that future generations will laugh at yours.

Originally posted by rwingett
I disagree with this as well. Generally, art is whatever the artist says it is. The artist is the sole determinant of what constitutes art.

I also disagree that nature is art. While you can feasibly draw certain comparisons between them, nature is nature and art is art. While one can certainly find spiritual satisfaction is observing nature, it is the intentional altering (or representation) of it in some way by the artist that makes it art.

The artist can behold his/her work and experience it to be art, just like anybody else. So I can't disagree with that part. Experiencing a work as art is IMO available to anyone without special privilege to the person who "made" it. Certainly their experiences of it will differ from each others. By your criterion it can be difficult to identify who is the artist, in, say, a composed performance. I think anyone involved, including an audience member, is involved in its being art. Consideration of the audience enters into the creative process, too. I have seen over 100 plays over the past 15 years at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and have spoken with the creators at all levels, and have been told time and again that we the audience are an essential part of what makes the performance what it is. I believe that audience members can make a play art, or not, depending on what they put into their "role." Perhaps the audience at the OSF is uncommonly committed to the art of theater, so much so that they count as part of the creative process.

Originally posted by JS357
The artist can behold his/her work and experience it to be art, just like anybody else. So I can't disagree with that part. Experiencing a work as art is IMO available to anyone without special privilege to the person who "made" it. Certainly their experiences of it will differ from each others. By your criterion it can be difficult to identify who is t ...[text shortened]... ommitted to the art of theater, so much so that they count as part of the creative process.

I don't deny any of that. The audience is a critical part of any artwork. But that does not alter the fact that it is the artist alone who determines what gets to be counted as art in the first place.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't deny any of that. The audience is a critical part of any artwork. But that does not alter the fact that it is the artist alone who determines what gets to be counted as art in the first place.

I thought our difference might be one of perspective, not of substance. You, or some group audience of the artist, or art dealers, or society in general may legitimately view it to be the artist's perogative to determine what works of his/her to be "counted" as art. I don't argue with this. I wasn't talking about what "counts" as art. I was talking about what is experienced as art. It seems to me that what is experienced as art has to be up to the person having the experience.

I wonder what comes with being "counted" as art? But I'm a little vague on what it means for something to be experienced as art, so I can't criticize. Our local art critic Kenneth Baker says (more or less) that art is what makes you think. I think this is a step in the right direction, but I would add "or feel" and that art triggers thoughts and feelings that exceed in meaning and significance, those elicited by the materials of the art themselves. It is the arrangement and setting of the materials, that does this. You might say the artist is the person who chooses the materials and creates the arrangement and setting, and so is entitled to be the judge of its success. This makes art an exercise in communication, whereupon I would say the audience's opinion matters too. The artist counts as an audience member, so an artist that creates something without intending others to be the audience, can be judge and jury, no sweat.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't deny any of that. The audience is a critical part of any artwork. But that does not alter the fact that it is the artist alone who determines what gets to be counted as art in the first place.

By the way, do you consider your image of Ming the Merciless to be art? What about your having chosen to use it? Does it convey something you want to convey? If so, what?

Originally posted by JS357
I thought our difference might be one of perspective, not of substance. You, or some group audience of the artist, or art dealers, or society in general may legitimately view it to be the artist's perogative to determine what works of his/her to be "counted" as art. I don't argue with this. I wasn't talking about what "counts" as art. I was talking about what ...[text shortened]... hing without intending others to be the audience, can be judge and jury, no sweat.

The title of this thread is "Genuine Art." Grampy Bobby implies that there are works which do not qualify as being genuine art. Scacchipazzo directly states that there are works that are not "genuine", and thus not art. The point I am making is that neither Grampy Bobby nor Scacchipazzo are entitled to declare what counts as art and what does not. The artist is the only one entitled to say what art is. Once he has made that declaration, then Grampy Bobby and Scacchipazzo are entitled to chime in as to whether they think it is good art or bad art, but at no time are they entitled to declare that it is not art.

Originally posted by JS357
By the way, do you consider your image of Ming the Merciless to be art? What about your having chosen to use it? Does it convey something you want to convey? If so, what?

It is meant to convey my utter disdain for the foolish opinions of other people on this site. I do not consider it to be art.

Originally posted by rwingett
The title of this thread is "Genuine Art." Grampy Bobby implies that there are works which do not qualify as being genuine art. Scacchipazzo directly states that there are works that are not "genuine", and thus not art. The point I am making is that neither Grampy Bobby nor Scacchipazzo are entitled to declare what counts as art and what does not. The artis ...[text shortened]... k it is good art or bad art, but at no time are they entitled to declare that it is not art.

The term "Genuine Art" does seem to be pushing a point of view.

I am listening to an adagio right now that I used as background for part of a DVD I made based on photos I took at the US cemetery at Normandy. I experience what I put together on that DVD as art, and good art at that. All I need do now is hear the music and I am there at Normandy. Some might say it's not art, or not good art, I don't care. I would consider it good art even if someone else made it and they don't consider it to be art at all. That may be an example of how you and I differ on this, but we don't differ on the idea that GB or Scach have not (yet) shown themselves to be entitled or deserving to make declarations on what is art or what is good art.

Originally posted by rwingett

The title of this thread is "Genuine Art." Grampy Bobby implies that there are works which do not qualify as being genuine art. Scacchipazzo directly states that there are works that are not "genuine", and thus not art. The point I am making is that neither Grampy Bobby nor Scacchipazzo are entitled to declare what counts as art and what does not. The ...[text shortened]... think it is good art or bad art, but at no time are they entitled to declare that it is not art.

"Genuine Art, in any genre, subliminally succeeds in capturing new tiers of pain and pleasure, restraint and abandon. If you agree, how about a few internet links to examples. If not, why?" gb

Of course some works range from mediocrity to trash. Which qualify as genuine is a matter of taste. What the artist thinks is subjective and, therefore, inconsequential. Nobody here has the right to pass judgement on another RHP Member's personal taste. Am I wrong? If not, your own thinking regarding the thread's topic is seriously flawed.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
Sanctimonious prigs like myself never were offended by Impressionists . I rest my case. If you have the audacity to compare Renoir, Monet, Manet, Pisarro et al with pissart you must be fairly impressed by such garbage, but in your polluted mind such things merit comparison. I daresay 100 years from now pissart will not merit a blip in art history wherea ...[text shortened]... ontroversy alone and contempt. I do no recall Impressionism stirring contempt or being reviled.

It will help if people here can answer this:

Is Vladimir Tretchikoff's work good art, bad art, or not art, and why?

He did "The Green Lady."

http://www.vladimirtretchikoff.com/gallery.htm

Do you have other examples of good art, bad art, and human made works that are not-art?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Genuine Art, in any genre, subliminally succeeds in capturing new tiers of pain and pleasure, restraint and abandon. If you agree, how about a few internet links to examples. If not, why?" gb

Of course some works range from mediocrity to trash. Which qualify as genuine is a matter of taste. What the artist thinks is subjective and, therefore, incons ...[text shortened]... ste. Am I wrong? If not, your own thinking regarding the thread's topic is seriously flawed.

I think you should avoid claiming that art that does not appeal to you is bad art. I do not like Renoir, for example, but I do not claim that his work is bad art. Renoir is a significant artist whose work just doesn't appeal to me.

Originally posted by rwingett
I think you should avoid claiming that art that does not appeal to you is bad art. I do not like Renoir, for example, but I do not claim that his work is bad art. Renoir is a significant artist whose work just doesn't appeal to me.

You're misquoting me. rwing. Never made any such claim. What appeals to me (which is quite eclectic, by the way) is strictly a matter of my personal taste. Surprises me that you're attempt to grind away at the selfsame subjective axe you continue to grind daily in the RHP Spirituality Forum. Sadly, you seem continually uncertain and unhappy.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Genuine Art, in any genre, subliminally succeeds in capturing new tiers of pain and pleasure, restraint and abandon. If you agree, how about a few internet links to examples. If not, why?" gb

Of course some works range from mediocrity to trash. Which qualify as genuine is a matter of taste. What the artist thinks is subjective and, therefore, incons ...[text shortened]... ste. Am I wrong? If not, your own thinking regarding the thread's topic is seriously flawed.

" Which qualify as genuine is a matter of taste. What the artist thinks is subjective and, therefore, inconsequential."

Then what anyone thinks about whether a work qualifies as genuine, is subjective and therefore inconsequential, no?

Besides, I would think there can be consequences of thinking that is subjective.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
You're misquoting me. rwing. Never made any such claim. What appeals to me (which is quite eclectic, by the way) is strictly a matter of my personal taste. Surprises me that you're attempt to grind away at the selfsame subjective axe you continue to grind daily in the RHP Spirituality Forum. Sadly, you seem continually uncertain and unhappy.

If I seem unhappy it's because I tire of having to talk to idiots like you.

Originally posted by rwingett
I think that was Andy Warhol, not Jackson Pollock. And the answer is 'yes', I think they would go for more than $20 at auction.

Oh thats right , Pollock put some of his blood on his.
My point is there is literally thousands of people doing stuff as good as that these days/
It was just new at the time.