tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5160223.post7817669473300370217..comments2024-01-02T12:25:23.102+09:00Comments on Kyklops: Art for Art's SakeRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02630742048605089548noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5160223.post-8063673528096567442008-12-29T10:17:00.000+09:002008-12-29T10:17:00.000+09:00Rob,I take your point: even "bad" art (however def...Rob,<BR/>I take your point: even "bad" art (however defined) would still seem to be "art," the same way bad music is still music, etc.<BR/><BR/>ArtSparker,<BR/>I consider myself to be a bit "old school" on this topic myself. I find Keats to be rather helpful: if it's true, it's beautiful, and vice versa. Of course Keats isn't talking about "factual" truth (like on the news or something); he's referring (I think) to some kind of human truth that art can make known to us (and that e.g. science can't--although I would never for a second dismiss the truths of the universe that science illuminates for us).<BR/><BR/>AV,<BR/>Huh? ;-)<BR/>Heh, for the "art" part, see the above comment to ArtSparker. For the "philosophy" part--that's a whole 'nother discussion!<BR/><BR/>Grrl,<BR/>Thanks for dropping by and commenting.<BR/>If I'd known that skirts were being "uplifted" at art schools I might have reconsidered my own educational choices! ;-)Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02630742048605089548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5160223.post-91017709995376730862008-12-29T08:58:00.000+09:002008-12-29T08:58:00.000+09:00I suppose you cant get your BFA with a thesis that...I suppose you cant get your BFA with a thesis that says,<BR/><BR/>"Art is what blows your skirt up"<BR/><BR/>Thanks ArtSparker for the cool link. Great to see some ...meaty.... discussion with the cheerleading pom poms left in the cupboard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5160223.post-46243044189032552042008-12-28T14:43:00.000+09:002008-12-28T14:43:00.000+09:00"until someone puts it on" - and becomes a lion's ..."until someone puts it on" - and becomes a lion's dinner. And let's face it, a lion eating the person in the coat of meat, would be considered to be "art" by some too.<BR/>It's all perspective, all in the eye of the beholder - that's the wonderful thing about "art" - you can construct and deconstruct at will. Everything and nothing is as it seems. Eye of the beholder and all that stuff and, of course, the "reality" that all is illusion anyway.<BR/>Now, whaddayasay to that?! ;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04871239587214383387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5160223.post-88066221745223162302008-12-28T10:39:00.000+09:002008-12-28T10:39:00.000+09:00Thank you, Rick. I'm sort of going with the old sc...Thank you, Rick. I'm sort of going with the old school "uplifting" for art (which is very unfashionable now). The other stuff, as far as I am intolerantly concerned, is just a lot of posing.<BR/><BR/>Good point about Duchamp, though - the thing is, people seem to be doing nothing but REPEAT the point over and over again these days, esp. Messrs. Hirst and Koons. We get it, already.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I find I'm burned out on art in its form of social criticism, because the horse, if not deceased, is in a deep coma. <BR/><BR/>Hope this is not too disjointed.ArtSparkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04875996639432864367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5160223.post-25968538545376317212008-12-27T14:29:00.000+09:002008-12-27T14:29:00.000+09:00People spend too much time trying to decide what i...People spend too much time trying to decide what is art and what isn't. If someone creates something, anything, with the intention of it being art, it's art, I figure. I've never understood how a piece needs to be of a certain quality before it can be considered art. There's such a thing as stupid, ugly art, but it's still art if they want it to be.<BR/><BR/>Though I love your urinal response, hilarious.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10225859948546847678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5160223.post-39689930441350993372008-12-27T10:10:00.000+09:002008-12-27T10:10:00.000+09:00Dave,Thanks for your informed comment. And serious...Dave,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your informed comment. And seriously, I was only half-serious about "these people" (I had a lot of art school friends when I was still in Canada). <BR/><BR/>I really have no beef (heh) with anyone who's trying to create something they believe is beautiful and/or stimulating (or even *useful*). Sometimes, though, I think too many words are spent trying to *define* what is beautiful and/or stimulating. What works for me might not work for you, etc. <BR/><BR/>Of course I have my own (somewhat half-formed and mostly uninformed!) ideas about art, however awkwardly expressed. I'll likely post more in the hope that you and others will comment and I can learn!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02630742048605089548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5160223.post-23607250061165369962008-12-27T00:16:00.000+09:002008-12-27T00:16:00.000+09:00...or ate it, I suppose.But seriously, the whole p......or ate it, I suppose.<BR/><BR/>But seriously, the whole point of the "urinal as art" thing (which was done, incidentally, almost 100 years ago now) was to ask and answer the very same questions you are asking now. Can anything be art? If so, does that also mean nothing is art? I think the answer Marcel Duchamp's urinal was trying to send the pretentious art world was, simply, "shut up already." Which is why I think Marcel Duchamp was pretty awesome.<BR/><BR/>(Sorry, in a former life I held a degree in Fine Arts with a minor in Art History, and it still pops to the surface every now and then.)Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07674432241457514235noreply@blogger.com