Does art HAVE to have a good spirit?

[Edward Meisse]

Actually, I liked both of those pieces. Each had its own merits. What art intends is to express a feeling or attitude that other people get. And I think it wants to talk to the right side of the brain. Expressing it by, "I hate shoveling snow," gets the point across. But it is a left brainish and dry and lifeless way of saying it. It would not get a visceral response. Any Canadians or Scandanavians care to comment? (Last sentence was art, I think).

[P Gleespen]

Lots of interesting replies everybody, thanks!

The question I asked isn't really about ugly vs pretty, traditional vs modern, or even good vs bad. It's really about the motivation behind the art. Is good motivation required for art to be art. I don't think it is, but I DO think it's an interesting idea.

Goya's depictions of war, the Greek tragedies...the end result, the art is brutal, sometimes ugly, but the motivation is not. "Naked Lunch" is a tough read at times, but Wild Bill's intentions weren't (I believe) bad.

I don't think its particularly true in art (painting, sculpture) per se,
But I DO feel that it's very true for music.
"Music if it be the food of love then play on..."
I feel you get back what you put into it.
If your mental antenna is broadcasting hate & bad vibes, don't be shocked if hate and bad vibes get reflected back your way.
Conversely as well....

I think that's right. It really IS a bit different for music, particularly vocal music. However, I still think that music, even music written from a hateful place IS music. The question is then, IS music always art? I don't know if I can really say.
Maybe the answer is partly here:

I think one needs to distinguish between entertainment and art. Sometimes there's a large intersection, and sometimes there isn't.

But then again, what's entertainment for one person could very well be art to another. And b0b's art vs craft idea is also very interesting. Another angle I hadn't considered before.

Is "in advance of a broken arm" art? Of course it is. So is the Mona Lisa. Is one better than the other? I might have an opinion (and I do), but no one can really say that one is better than the other.

Ben's example of Skrewdriver is a great example. Personally, I find them unlistenable, but I can't say it's not music. It's vile and reprehensible stuff, sure. It's music though. And to the guys IN Skrewdriver, it may well be art.

John Wayne Gacy's artwork probably came from what we would all agree is a "dark" place. Does that make HIS art something other than art? It makes it extra -creepy, that's for sure.

I hope some more of you will contribute to this thread. I'm very happy to hear what everyone has to say.

[P Gleespen]

But what about music? How bout a really faithful cover song? art? Is the art the performance? Is it the subtle difference if any added to the original?
I am sure there are much more extreme examples in music. I have a friend, a Julliard graduate and brilliant musician and composer...his last project was to take commerically available cd's from mainstream artists, copy the cd, faithfully reproduce the artwork, repackage and sell them. You buying the cd completed the artwork. This was his "music" and his "art"...he considered it a commentary on and a challenge to questions of ownership, distribution and more importantly a subverting of the music industries attempts to regulate those things (least i think that was his intent). I beleive he is now in the middle of some rather nasty lawsuits as you might imagine. I can no longer find his myspace page with the examples of his "work"...i think they pulled the plug on him.

That is hilarious, except the (not exactly shocking) lawsuits part. Given the pirate nature of his work, I'd have to say he's an "Arrrrtist". Does he have a peg-leg? Maybe a parrot? Maybe even a parrot with a peg-leg?

[P Gleespen]

I don't need to say any more.

But you didn't say anything.

You did not hear it.

Could you rephrase it?

I really would like to hear more about what YOU think Bill. It was your idea that got me thinking about this in the first place.

[Jack Francis]

UUUMMM, Covering a song art??

I play in a band doing mostly cover songs...I don't think that I've EVER considered it to be art...

I make a part of my living drawing T-Shirt designs for folks and selling them T-Shirts...I don't consider what I do artistic...it's merely a way to make a buck.

[Steinar Gregertsen]

Andres Segovia only played "covers" as far as I know. Was he not an artist?

Steinar

[Edward Meisse]

Billy Strayhorn wrote:

It ain't what ya do. It's the way that ya do it.

And Segovia wasn't alone. There was a player of a more modern instrument who played alot of backup on other people's compositions and alot of cover stuff. Very few original compositions. His name was Jerry something or other..... .

As for Rap and other youth culture. Adolescents tend to like to express what it is forbidden to express. In our day it was sex and drugs and criticism of authority. So guess what all our lyrics were about. Today the forbidden thing is anger. So....... Red Skelton once said,

If you want anything done right, you either have to do it yourself or forbid your teenaged children to do it.

Let's forbid the next generation to be kind, polite and generous.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

I am sure there are much more extreme examples in music. I have a friend, a Julliard graduate and brilliant musician and composer...his last project was to take commerically available cd's from mainstream artists, copy the cd, faithfully reproduce the artwork, repackage and sell them. You buying the cd completed the artwork. This was his "music" and his "art"...he considered it a commentary on and a challenge to questions of ownership, distribution and more importantly a subverting of the music industries attempts to regulate those things (least i think that was his intent).

This is appropriation, a valid art form that has been around for a while and one that I personally despise. Some of the other examples are photographing another artist's photographs, reproducing them in large scale and selling them for large prices. If I was the original photographer, I would want to chop off their hands.

ALOT of modern art isnt actually made by the artist.

Good thing because that's what pays my bills. At a show, in Munich at the Haus der Kunst, I was assembling a big piece (size of a 2-story house)that I had designed, engineered and fabricated for the artist. It was part of a very large show and at one point, a writer for a Czech magazine, who was covering the show, approached me and was infuriated that I wasn't getting the credit for the sculpture, instead of the artist.

I told her, that left to my own devices, I never would have made such a thing. Historically, the artist might "manipulate" a paint brush or a hammer and chisel to make a piece of art. Here, the artist "manipulates" a group of people to make art. What's the difference? He gives me a foam core model that has the shapes and their relationship to each other, describes what he wants them to do and then employs my art and skills to make it happen. By the same token, a composer might want me to play on his tune. He is employing my art and skills for his piece, and it's his piece, not mine.

Years ago, I worked for a famous film composer that would sometimes compose using different players and what they would "bring to the table." His composition, not ours.

Is good motivation required for art to be art.

What is "good" motivation? Anger, fear, or personal validation all come to mind as effective motivators.

My view is the art is the relationship between the artist and his or her materials, which isn't meant to detract from the object or "residue" of that relationship.

I also brought this up, somewhere in an earlier thread, that if you agree that work, not labor, which empowers you and validates your skills and abilities, is the only thing of value, to do in this life time. Then this is a powerful motivation to make art.

[Bill Hatcher]

I really would like to hear more about what YOU think Bill. It was your idea that got me thinking about this in the first place.

PG. A picture of a kitchen utensil is supposed to be a work of art?

A picture of the Mona Lisa IS art.
Just look at it. Think about what it took to make it as opposed to a utensil. Think about how far in the depths of the most feeble thought could anyone ever pass a utensil or even a picture of it as some kind of REAL art.

Think of Buddy Emmons playing and then think of the worst beginner steel player you ever heard. Are both of them artists??

[Edward Meisse]

Yes. But one of them is a beginner. I'm an artist, too. But I'm not nearly as good as Emmons.

C'mon, is a newborn baby a human? Of course. But it takes a fully grown and mature adult to really live a human life. It's the same with artists. Some are beginners, some are hacks and some are fully developed.

[Charles Davidson]

Sure am glad I'm not educated and sophisticated enough to be a connoisseur of fine art,I'm just a simple guy,I perfer Norman Rockwell over Picasso,At least Norman had a better perspective of the human anatomy,he KNEW where the lips,eyes,nose,and ears where supposed to be,And that Michelangelo fellow,man he liked to let it all hang out,Mr. Rockwell was way too conservative to get that racy.DYKBC.

[Richard Sevigny]

I like Norman Rockwell too. But I also like Picasso. Jackson Pollock not so much. But that's my opinion. That doens't make any of those artist's work more or less art.

I guess we can force art to be representational. Pictures have to look exactly like a photo. All poetry must rhyme. All music has to follow the European rules for harmony and melody.

With all due respect to those agree with the above sentiments, we have to realize that art is about the artist's interpretation of the world, not necessarily the listening/viewing/reading public opinion of the work.

That's not to say there aren't rules and techniques that an artist has to learn to craft his or her work. But artists have to also take risks and sometimes break those rules. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

For my own taste though, velvet pictures of Elvis should hang in the Louvre

[Bill McCloskey]

Actually I think Duchamp would disagree he was an artist. I think he would have preferred to be called a chess player. Which I think was the whole point of his "work" ( I hesitate to call it art, as I think Duchamp would have).

Everything Duchamp did was designed to be the opposite of art. It was a mirror he threw up to the art world he grew up in. That is one of the reasons, I believe, that he "retired" from the art world as early and for as long as he did.

I'm sure Duchamp's urinal that was art because Duchamp said it was art, and then was perceived and written about as art was probably the great joke Duchamp ever pulled and one I'm sure he got great amusement from.

[Charles Davidson]

Richard,I would perfer a Velvet Elvis over a Picasso[except for the monetary value of course]With a velvet Elvis,you KNOW who the subject matter is.Anyway I'm not hard to please,My idea of a dream home would be a new TRILEVEL Double Wide with a twenty foot bar and a dance floor,with pink flamingos on the front lawn,anr a huge BBQ grill on the side,never learned to play the stock market,consider a two dollar lotto ticket as an investment,That's artsey enough for me.DYKBC.

[Edward Meisse]

Bill, Duchamp was an artist. Just not the kind most people wanted to think he was.

[chas smith R.I.P.]

Duchamp was part of the original DADA group.

[Randy Phelps]

Think of Buddy Emmons playing and then think of the worst beginner steel player you ever heard. Are both of them artists??

Ben put it well that this topic if it drifts to 'what is art?' will be endless and only an interesting exercise in tortured rhetoric.

Now, to the question. All art is not holy. There are many great art pieces that were not made with love, but with hate. There are art pieces that were made cynically (some say the Kinkade stuff is very cynical and calculated.) and with commerce only in mind. It is a commonly held belief that if all human emotion and motivating factors were dots on a wheel, that love and hate, evil and good would not be diametrically opposed but would be next door neighbors.

A friend of mine does the giant art that cities have in parks and town squares and such... He put these godawful balls... giant things all over santa cruz and soquel in some parks... I asked him... geez, whatever happened to staid things? and his answer--> so, it got you to react and to be interested and to form an opinion and you know why you don't like the balls? and I said, "yes." and he said, "well, good. the purpose of the art is to make you think about your surroundings and consider where you are and what you are doing and what you are thinking and the thoughts don't have to be 'I love the balls' but they might be 'this is a great park, what the heck is up with the balls?'

So, I learned something about art that day... it is in some ways about causing the receiver to think and emote, not necessarily see beauty.

The Emmons solo will be art because it will have intention and style and execution. The beginner may have one of those but not in great enough measure to consistently do something interesting artistically. But, I have heard beginning musicians occasionally do amazing things quite by the fact that they didn't know what they were doing... so, it pays to keep ones ears and eyes open to the possibilities.

[P Gleespen]

Bill, Duchamp was an artist. Just not the kind most people wanted to think he was.

A hunger artist?

I am a big fan of Duchamp. He might have gone "too far out" for the mainstream but many of his ideas were great. ...and he certainly had the skills that more "traditional" artist had/have. What's the painting, "Nude Descending a Staircase" or something like that. There's no denying that he COULD paint.

The comparison between Mona Lisa and Duchamp's work is particularly entertaining given Duchamp's piece "L.H.O.O.Q" in which he took a postcard of Mona Lisa and drew a mustache on it.

I'm not looking to define art. There have been plenty of people way more qualified than me who have tried!

What is "good" motivation?

That's just me being inarticulate. What I mean is "positive" motivation, or maybe more accurately "positive intent".

My personal feeling is that it is emphatically NOT a requirement. In fact, I was very surprised when Bill introduced the idea that intent/motivation had any bearing on the value of the end result. It was a concept that had never occurred to me. I thought it was interesting enough to bring up for discussion.

[b0b]

I play in a band doing mostly cover songs...I don't think that I've EVER considered it to be art...

I make a part of my living drawing T-Shirt designs for folks and selling them T-Shirts...I don't consider what I do artistic...it's merely a way to make a buck.

I agree with you about the cover band, Jack, but I've always considered you to be one of my favorite artists.

My Mom paints and sells her paintings. They aren't real original, but they aren't copies of anything either. Landscapes mostly. They are very good paintings and people really enjoy them. I have no problem calling them "art".

[chas smith R.I.P.]

...I don't consider what I do artistic...it's merely a way to make a buck.

There is a multitude of ways to make a buck that are far less artistic than what you're doing. If you don't consider yourself to be an artist, I hope you, at least, consider yourself to be highly skilled.

[Edward Meisse]

Making money IS an art. Just ask Bill Gates.

[Ben Jones]

when we first started this discussion, i was of the opinion that value judgements such as good or bad were appropriate, but declarations such as "that aint art!" were not. After considering it for a while, my opnion has been changed (someone call Al Gore, thats gotta be an internet first)

at first i thought, "good or bad" is up to you, "art or not" is not up to you to decide. BUT....given that the definition of art is so subjective and that even the so called experts cannot come up with a definiton or to a consensus as to what is art and what is not....I now feel that a declaration such as "that aint art!" is as equally valid as someone else declaring "that is art!".
You may now feel free to denounce everything as not being art or not being music to your hearts content, if you didnt feel free to do that already

Back to original question. Does art have to have a good spirit or good intent to be art? too broad...what if the art is ambivalent? okay then...can art with bad intent still be art? IMHO yes absolutely...fluxus stuff, propoganda, and even just plain old hateful music like Skrewdriver, in my opinion ARE art. i beleive art can cover the entire range of human expereince and intent be it benevolent or malevolent.

as always...wash it down with a big ole YMMV.

[b0b]

Okay, let's look at it this way: If an artist betrays his own feelings and instincts to produce a work for hire, is that work still art?

[Steinar Gregertsen]

Okay, let's look at it this way: If an artist betrays his own feelings and instincts to produce a work for hire, is that work still art?

Not that I would ever dream of calling myself an artist, but I have done quite a few jobs for TV commercials, including stuff that I couldn't stand listening to myself. It's a job, nothing else, but it beats working at a gas station and has made me more money in a couple of days work than one month worth of teaching. Sometimes you just got to make a living and forget about the 'art' stuff......

Steinar

[Ben Jones]

Okay, let's look at it this way: If an artist betrays his own feelings and instincts to produce a work for hire, is that work still art?

I think this question needs to be more specific to be answered, if it can even be answered at all. But I will generalize and take a stab at it, from the point of view that the idea is more integral to the "art" than the form.

IMHO, the "art" is now the intellectual property of the sponsor commissioning the work. This person bears the resposibility for the content, be it benevolent, malevolent, or neither. So in my opinion, the sponsor IS the artist and he has merely commissioned a "craftsman" to realize his artistic vision. If the craftsman is given input into the content or even the formal design of the work...he then becomes an artist as well and the work is now a collaboration. Both of these scenarios are actually VERY common as Steinar's example illustrates. Think of the foundry workers who cast large bronzes with NO input into either the content or the formal aspects of the peice. How bout the photo developer who develops and prints objectionable material for a photographer? etc etc.......