tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21503568.post7078133563571098647..comments2023-11-03T06:32:28.410-04:00Comments on Staring At Empty Pages: Is it art?Barry Leibahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14205294935881991457noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21503568.post-33428880491280761792007-09-12T10:38:00.000-04:002007-09-12T10:38:00.000-04:00Jackson Pollack did not just drip paint on canvas ...Jackson Pollack did not just drip paint on canvas in a willy nilly or random fashion. Go find one and really look at it for awhile (preferrably an original).ninahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05088107884794694660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21503568.post-59322782220933400932007-09-06T01:10:00.000-04:002007-09-06T01:10:00.000-04:00Generally I like art to have a message; I shun art...Generally I like art to have a message; I shun artists who say things like "I have no message - it's all in the eye of the beholder to see what they wish to see". It seems to me that the artist has abdicated their primary responsibility. On the other hand, I also like purely decorative art - pottery and basketry with pleasing patterns. Finally, there are those artists with a message but who leave the dribbles and foo - the purely abstract. I'm afraid that I see so little skill in those that the supposed message is lost.<BR/><BR/>In the end, art has a lot to do with skill. Nature is beautiful, but it is not art until it is rendered through a human vision.scouter573https://www.blogger.com/profile/10617089494446058172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21503568.post-31980151390159567292007-09-03T13:01:00.000-04:002007-09-03T13:01:00.000-04:00I currently hold the opinion that just because an ...I currently hold the opinion that just because an image 'makes a statement,' that does not make said image art. I also would like to have some skill at execution in the definition somewhere...wooddragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09927811908232906210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21503568.post-35794775854807432592007-09-01T21:59:00.000-04:002007-09-01T21:59:00.000-04:00I find I am happiest with a very liberal interpret...I find I am happiest with a very liberal interpretation of what is art. Not appearing on your list was art's effect on the beholder, and whether that is part of what makes it art, or "good" art. And I guess this is at the core of my liberal definition of art.<BR/><BR/>If an object has an emotional relationship with people around it, I see art in that.<BR/><BR/>Why? As I said before, it's simply the definition that makes me feel most comfortable.JP Burkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16796725364997136448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21503568.post-26183552796874987492007-09-01T14:56:00.000-04:002007-09-01T14:56:00.000-04:00As everything with human culture and the definitio...As everything with human culture and the definition of "what is human", art, for me anyway, is what "makes me feel fine" (is there any phrase more subjective than this one?), what brings a smile to my face, what I like...<BR/><BR/>But some "art" I don't quite understand it or even like it (and you provide good examples of it, Dia:Beacon)...<BR/><BR/>The first example, the billboard in Korea, made me think... Hence, art as <I>I</I> know it...<BR/><BR/>By the way, your photos are great!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21503568.post-29994868479156040652007-09-01T10:46:00.000-04:002007-09-01T10:46:00.000-04:00We've had this discussion, too. A friend who was ...We've had this discussion, too. A friend who was a graphic design major insisted that art had to be attractive to her in order to be art.<BR/><BR/>Is art, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?<BR/><BR/>It is not as objective as the question, "is this a bridge?" <BR/><BR/>The docent at the RISD museum told my daughter's sixth grade class that some modern art -- such as the dribbles and boxes you disparage (I don't like them either) -- were only art because they were innovative. If somebody did the same thing now, it wouldn't be art.<BR/><BR/>My gut reaction is that the three pictures you posted at the beginning of your post -- the billboard, the china, and the sandwiches -- are all art. Now I have to figure out why my gut thinks so. I think it's because they're well-executed (made with skill), they say something about society to me, and they're fresh ideas. I think almost anyone would judge them art, with the possible exception of the sandwiches. I think I like them because I have children, and I sometimes see the world through what I think are their eyes.<BR/><BR/>But in my house, what goes on my walls and clutters up my horizontal surfaces are things that have meaning to me. I note that in my cousin's house, he has framed cels of Taz and Roger Rabbit. They're art, and they probably cost in the hundreds or thousands, but I don't like them. He probably wouldn't like my little Edward Gorey pictures from "The Doubtful Guest" (which cost me next to nothing as I photocopied them from a book), but they're art to me.<BR/><BR/>I guess we can answer the question "what is art" for ourselves personally, but the question "what is art for all" is answered by the experts, and sometimes we think they're right, and sometimes we don't.Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16681883169121834569noreply@blogger.com