| Author |
Topic: Does art HAVE to have a good spirit? |
P Gleespen
From:
Toledo, OH USA
|
Posted 3 Apr 2008 6:20 am |
|
In the loud louder and really loud thread, Bill Hatcher raised an interesting point that I think would make an interesting conversation.
He said
| Quote: |
| How can you even remotely insinuate ANY art form that has at its' core a message of hate and violence and street mojo and racism is indeed art? No form of anything deserves to be called art that does that. |
I don’t think I’d ever really thought about it like that, and I understand what he’s saying, but I’m not sure I agree. Then again, I’m also not sure I disagree.
So I was wondering if any of you had thoughts on this particular idea. Does it apply to books? Film? Painting? Photography?
Is this analogous to the Art vs. Pornography debate?
I can think of a few things off the top of my head that fit into this discussion:
Leni Riefenstahl’s film “Triumph of the Will” which is at it’s core a piece of Nazi propaganda, but is also considered by many to be one of the greatest films in history.
Also, Bret Easton Ellis book “American Psycho” which is about a fictional serial killer, with very graphic violent and sexual content.
And of course, the thing that sparked the whole idea, Rap. I’m NOT asking if anyone thinks rap is MUSIC, but does it’s often negative spirit mean it’s not art?
What do you folks think?
_________________
Patrick |
|
|
|
Gary Cosden
From:
Florida, USA
|
Posted 3 Apr 2008 6:40 am
|
|
I think that art has to be about expressing YOURSELF and in the process we all have free and total access to ALL of human experience - the good, the bad, and the ugly.
If you disagree we me sir, then you are worse than Hitler.' ' |
|
|
|
Barry Blackwood
|
Posted 3 Apr 2008 7:17 am
|
|
"I’m NOT asking if anyone thinks rap is MUSIC, but does it’s often negative spirit mean it’s not ART?"
Can it be one without being the other?  |
|
|
|
David Mason
From:
Cambridge, MD, USA
|
Posted 3 Apr 2008 8:36 am
|
|
Francisco de Goya's "Disasters of War" series of etchings are considered to be on of the strongest anti-war statements in history:
http://www.napoleonguide.com/goyaind.htm
There are some seriously depressing "great" Russian novels all about murder, madness, treachery, and hatred, none of which I've ever been able to finish. The Greek playwrights were deeply into murder, madness, treachery, hatred, and added incest, suicide, doomed love and cursed existence... Shakespeare got his licks in too. I'm a big fan of dark, disturbing classical music like Tchaikovsky & Sibelius, and even smiley Mahavishunu John McLaughlin in his white jammies got in some pretty sick licks. So, no, art's not always pretty. |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 3 Apr 2008 8:46 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| I’m NOT asking if anyone thinks rap is MUSIC |
Rap is poetry.
| Quote: |
| No form of anything deserves to be called art that does that. |
The implication here is, unless its "happy face" and "feel good", it's not art. At what point of provocative, does it cross the line?
| Quote: |
| I think that art has to be about expressing YOURSELF |
I don't think it's limited to being a personal expression, it could also be about making a statement or a comment about something else. A good example might be Maya Lin's Memorial for the Vietnam Veterans.
| Quote: |
| If you disagree we me sir, then you are worse than Hitler. |
Hitler, Adolph Shickelgruber (sp?) went to art school and dropped out. Maybe if he had been encouraged to stay and be an artist, history would be different. |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 3 Apr 2008 1:19 pm
|
|
Here's what we are talking about: Aesthetics
The whole history of 20th century art has shown that any attempt to define art is a selfish authoritarian attempt to control and limit it to ones own self-serving criteria and purposes, and is thereby illegitimate. The verdict of artists, as opposed to politicians, self-proclaimed art critics, and the fleeting, superficial tastes of the public, is that anything humans create is art. Furthermore, things not made by humans can be elevated to art by the mere pointing out or framing of the subject by humans. This is the essence of photography, documentation, and “found art.” There is message art, and art for art’s sake. Primitive art, and "fine" art.
There are no lower thresholds in terms of effort and skill involved, subject matter, public acceptance or popularity. There are no meaningful and workable differences between work, craft and art, or pornography and art, or pop art and fine art. Art can be worthless or valuable, insignificant or great, completely lacking in skill and execution, or the culmination of genius and awesome skill. It’s all art. Each person’s every day activities are all art. Human relationships are art. A person’s whole life is a work of art. Human history is a work of art. Civilization is a work of art in progress. It’s all art, all the time.
There is beneficent art and evil art. But who judges? There is good art and bad art. But who judges?
Do animals create art? Yes, I think they create animal art. All of life creates art. The entire universe is a work of art in progress.
 |
|
|
|
Ben Jones
From:
Seattle, Washington, USA
|
Posted 3 Apr 2008 2:33 pm
|
|
Rut-roh.
I have an MFA and over twenty years of exhibiting, curating, teaching and just plain old artsy fartsy experience ...more actually, as pops was a career artiste as well.
Guess that disqualifies me from this discussion 
I think you know what the artists position is gonna be, and David summed it up reasonably well.
Is Skrewdrivers skinhead nazi hate music art?
HOw bout the off color stuff hateful stuff attributed to david Allen Coe?
How bout the guy whos art was to cut off bits of his penis and display them? art? (he eventually died for his "art" btw)
yep, sorry, all art...maybe not GOOD art...but undeniably art.
I dont wanna speak for BIll, but I think even he conceded that rap was art, just not good art.
some people wanna make declarations like "that aint art!"...or "that aint music!"..and you know? who is to say I am right and they are wrong?
art has forged for itself a somewhat antagonistic relationship with the public over the past 50 years or so and the artists themselves are to blame in my opinion. then they scream and cry when thier public funding is cut. hey man, you throw poo at people for your art...dont expect an NEA (rip) grant for that. In fact, your poo throwing has pretty much ruined anyone elses chance at getting that grant...thanks alot arty mcfarty! so of course you get poepl saying "your poo throwing aint art! and I dont want my tax dollars paying for your poo throwing" and rightly so.
I am a fine artists myself...and sometimes I wanna kick my own fellow artists in the nads. There is alot of really bad , pretentious and just plain old conceited "art" out there .."oh the public is just too ignorant to understand my vastly superior intellect and sophisticated artistic expression!They wouldnt know art from a fart"..well yes..and no...mostly no.
this topic could really keep the philosophy department busy for years...its a tough nut. |
|
|
|
Cliff Kane
From:
the late great golden state
|
Posted 3 Apr 2008 6:07 pm
|
|
| Well, some people think Thomas Kinkade is a great artist. Personally, that stuff creeps me out, and I find his work to present a twisted and unhealthy view of the world. Go figure. |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 3 Apr 2008 7:41 pm
|
|
Why should human art not run the full range of human experience? Is anger and even rage somehow not a legitimate emotion to express in art? I would find it pretty claustrophobic to declare that off-limits. There's some pretty powerful music that speaks to this.
I think one needs to distinguish between entertainment and art. Sometimes there's a large intersection, and sometimes there isn't. My opinion, of course. |
|
|
|
Barry Blackwood
|
|
|
|
Eric West
From:
Portland, Oregon, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 7:25 am
|
|
Here's what I think. Maybe an idea that came to me from something I read:
The whole history of 20th century art has shown that any attempt to define art is a selfish authoritarian attempt to control and limit it to ones own self-serving criteria and purposes, and is thereby illegitimate. The verdict of artists, as opposed to politicians, self-proclaimed art critics, and the fleeting, superficial tastes of the public, is that anything humans create is art. Furthermore, things not made by humans can be elevated to art by the mere pointing out or framing of the subject by humans. This is the essence of photography, documentation, and “found art.” There is message art, and art for art’s sake. Primitive art, and "fine" art.
There are no lower thresholds in terms of effort and skill involved, subject matter, public acceptance or popularity. There are no meaningful and workable differences between work, craft and art, or pornography and art, or pop art and fine art. Art can be worthless or valuable, insignificant or great, completely lacking in skill and execution, or the culmination of genius and awesome skill. It’s all art. Each person’s every day activities are all art. Human relationships are art. A person’s whole life is a work of art. Human history is a work of art. Civilization is a work of art in progress. It’s all art, all the time.
There is beneficent art and evil art. But who judges? There is good art and bad art. But who judges?
Do animals create art? Yes, I think they create animal art. All of life creates art. The entire universe is a work of art in progress.
Seems like I read something like that...
JUST KIDDING MR DOGGETT.
You did get it right on though.
Like you do once in a while..
EJL/HFLE |
|
|
|
Mark Lind-Hanson
From:
Menlo Park, California, USA
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 10:22 am
|
|
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.... |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 11:28 am
|
|
The line that I draw for art isn't between "beautiful" and "ugly". To me it's between "original" and "imitative". I see art as an original expression of the artist's ideas. If a work isn't at least partly original, I consider it to be "craft", not "art".
Maybe my definition is wrong. The question "What is art?" has stymied experts.
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 11:44 am
|
|
Can't argue with what Mark says.
Bob, what about Andy Warhol's Brillo Box, or his Campbell soup cans? I know what you are saying, just don't know if it would always be easy to place the threshold for originality. |
|
|
|
Ben Jones
From:
Seattle, Washington, USA
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 12:32 pm
|
|
| David Doggett wrote: |
Can't argue with what Mark says.
Bob, what about Andy Warhol's Brillo Box, or his Campbell soup cans? I know what you are saying, just don't know if it would always be easy to place the threshold for originality. |
originality and ownership are interesting questions that artists have been dealing with for at least a century and in much more extreme ways than warhol.
I wont bore you with too many examples.
Marcel Duchamps "in advance of a broken arm" 1914
you may or may not be aware that ALOT of modern art isnt actually made by the artist. Many paintings are not painted by the artists these days. Some of you might remember Mark Kostabi who became quite famous for employing a manhattan loft full of minimum wage art students to paint his paintings for him which he then sold for 6 figures. Almost every large bronze sculpture you see , the artists had very little to do with the actual construction. Those things are often done by large foundries like Tallus from cocktail napkin drawings just like Spinal Tap's stonehendge, I kid you not.
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
Its a deep philosophical pit...Im not sure we wanna go too far down it here on the steel guitar forum where people are fond of making their own declarations as to what art and music are and are not based solely on wether or not they like it. hope I havent bored you all too much.
Last edited by Ben Jones on 4 Apr 2008 1:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 12:43 pm
|
|
| David Doggett wrote: |
Can't argue with what Mark says.
Bob, what about Andy Warhol's Brillo Box, or his Campbell soup cans? I know what you are saying, just don't know if it would always be easy to place the threshold for originality. |
Warhol's Brillo Box wasn't a Brillo Box. His Campbell's Soup Cans weren't Campbell's Soup Cans. His idea, that commerce can be re-packaged as art, is a valid original idea.
Now if *I* were to do Campbell Soup Cans today, it would be craft, not art. The original idea wasn't mine.
Again, this is only my definition. YMMV.
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video |
|
|
|
Ben Jones
From:
Seattle, Washington, USA
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 1:13 pm
|
|
what about Duchamps shovel.? It IS a shovel. I also hope it is ART because it is displayed in a major museum and Duchamp is generally reknowned as one of our greatest modern artists.
the answer bOb might say (forgive me for assuming yu might say this) is that the IDEA was the art. and i and most artists would agree with that. duchamp certainly would have.
now we get into intent and content being more important than form...something I am an enthusiastic beleiver in, but something i get the impression most people on this forum are not. If the IDEA is enough to qualify something as "art"....then wether or not it is executed with incredible skill and musicianship (or any at all) becomes less relevant to it being art than the IDEA. Sooooo, and now we are finally getting somewhere albeit it an roundabout fashion....
rap(A) = art(B)
music(C) = art(B)
therefor (A) must be equal to (C)
therefor rap = music 
good or bad music, thats the part where you get to decide for yourself..that part is subjective.
how bout a note for note rendition of "A Way to Survive"? art or craft? |
|
|
|
Marc Jenkins
From:
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 2:05 pm
|
|
| Ben Jones wrote: |
Sooooo, and now we are finally getting somewhere albeit it an roundabout fashion....
rap(A) = art(B)
music(C) = art(B)
therefor (A) must be equal to (C)
therefor rap = music
good or bad music, thats the part where you get to decide for yourself..that part is subjective.
how bout a note for note rendition of "A Way to Survive"? art or craft? |
Delicious, Mr. Jones. |
|
|
|
Theresa Galbraith
From:
Goodlettsville,Tn. USA
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 2:10 pm
|
|
| It's subjective! |
|
|
|
Jack Francis
From:
Queen Creek, Arizona, USA
|
Posted 4 Apr 2008 2:28 pm
|
|
If an artist has to 'splain it...it ain't worth anything to me....if it makes someone else happy, you can call it what you want.  |
|
|
|
Bill Hatcher
From:
Atlanta Ga. USA
|
Posted 5 Apr 2008 3:40 am
|
|
| Ben Jones wrote: |
I wont bore you with too many examples.
Marcel Duchamps "in advance of a broken arm" 1914
|
And here is a REAL piece of art.
I don't need to say any more. |
|
|
|
Jon Light (deceased)
From:
Saugerties, NY
|
Posted 5 Apr 2008 3:46 am
|
|
| Bill Hatcher wrote: |
I don't need to say any more. |
But you didn't say anything. You showed one piece that apparently you do not respect and you showed another piece that apparently you do respect. And?
The right to have these opinions is supreme and absolute but the day that these opinions matter, art is over. |
|
|
|
Bill Hatcher
From:
Atlanta Ga. USA
|
Posted 5 Apr 2008 5:33 am
|
|
| Jon Light wrote: |
| Bill Hatcher wrote: |
I don't need to say any more. |
But you didn't say anything. |
You did not hear it. |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 5 Apr 2008 7:55 am
|
|
She looks like she is having nasty thoughts. The shovel is thinking about helping elderly people shovel snow off their walks. Now where's the good art and the non-art?  |
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 5 Apr 2008 8:21 am
|
|
| David Doggett wrote: |
| She looks like she is having nasty thoughts. The shovel is thinking about helping elderly people shovel snow off their walks. |
Nah.... I think she looks like she's happy she don't have to shovel snow for Leonardo.....
Steinar
_________________
"Play to express, not to impress"
Website - YouTube |
|
|
|
