But you still seem to overlook the key point: namely, that it's the difference in mode of production that separates artwork like easel painting from a piece of architecture. The former is usually fully controlled by the artist/painter and the latter is almost never fully controlled by the artist/architect. When we change the mode of production in either case, or in any case, we alter the range of relevant questions about them. A painting could be collaborative and a building could be designed and erected by one person. That's why I think your question regarding sacredness of, say, painting versus architecture is in error.
I don't mind being on the receiving end of tough accusations or implications, deserved or not. In response I will insist on rock hard, informed thinking and won't coddle misinformation or its defenses such as Cheerskep's campaign against muddiness in aesthetic issues. (My claim is that muddiness is ambiguity -- the poetic sort -- and ambiguity lies at the heart of the aesthetic). But I've been sent to the dunce's corner many times by Master Cheerskep. This wonderful, goofy forum is a backyard ring for academic fisticuffs, sometimes polite and courtly, sometimes foolishly comic, sometimes just messy and punky. No harm intended. No apologies required for me. Swing away. Hard. I'm ready, and I'll cower and run when necessary. Miller is a special case. He and I have been street fighting for years. It's the ongoing comedy of the list. He represents the grass-roots taste and insight of the bystander artworld. He's "Joe, the Art Lover". Without him to keep us firmly mud-bound we'd all swirl into the heights of airy theory. WC --- On Fri, 10/17/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Is art sacred? > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 17, 2008, 8:16 AM > Wiliam: You infer, I imply. I assure you I intended no, > utterly no, > implication of condescension toward you in particular or > artists in general, > around either a specific quality or any general tendency. > I do cringe at times at responses to Chris' postings > but that is a different > matter. > Your comments are helpful in my refining what for me was an > appearance that > certain art forms (plays, architecture) are more vulnerable > to coercive > intervention. I DO understand now that all art forms may be > subject to > coercive efforts but I continue to believe that larger > scale works > (particularly architecture) are particularly vulnerable. It > is that > vulnerability and any implications it might have that was > in the "back of my > mind". I have been clear that artists have benefitted > for centuries by their > exposure to the works of other artists and techniques and > even scientific > and mathematic developments, keeping in mind that there may > sometimes be > adoption of tested approaches and at other times, clear > rejection of or > rebellion against techniques or perspectives. > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Is art sacred? > >Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:02:13 -0700 (PDT) > > > > > I do recognize the position you and Mando have > taken that > > > you are not > > > interested/willing to have your work altered. > What did I > > > miss? > > > Geoff C > > > > > >Your statement has an unintended condescending odor. I > excuse it as the > >commonplace opinion to presume that artists are unable > to compete in > >serious discourse. It implies that artists cannot > think outside of their > >self-interest. Allow me to boldly announce my eagerness > for a variety of > >intellectual exercises and am in fact wishing for a > informed layman's > >discussion of psychology, evolutionary biology, > neurology, the main > >philosophical problems related to art and aesthetics, > and the history of > >art. I am also awaiting Cheerskep's take on > Dickinson and Whitman > >regarding the mind-body problem. And for true adventure > I'd be happy to > >explore ideas of aesthetics reflecting the American > (now global) mass > >culture mythology of frontier, utopia, even Goshen and > "puritanism". > > > >I think you miss the most important point in comparing > the arts and it led > >you to use a misleading term in trying to identify the > uniqueness of some > >artworks. Again, some artworks, for instance some > paintings and some > >sculpture, are made by individuals who control most or > all the whole > >production process. Some other artwork, like > architecture and plays or > >movies, or large scale public art, are made by groups > or investors in > >collaboration and all of them might affect the > production. Neither of both > >categories of artworks may or may not be > "sacred" both in the "hands off" > >sense you mean and in the more literal sense of > holiness, secular or > >otherwise. > > > >The point is that while all artworks may share some > attributes, even those > >that qualify them as artworks, they do not all share > the same modes of > >production. And the mode of production is never a > stand-alone qualifying > >feature of art. Your question regarding the > "sacredness" assumes a false > >privileging of one mode of production that is not > essential to art. > > > >However, there are more subtle ways by which artists > are subject to others' > >affecting their work. In that regard, we might say the > scale ranges from > >coercion to influence. A coercive effect would be when > a person of power > >(control over production) urges the artist to change an > artwork or create a > >specified image, etc. An influential effect would be > one that causes the > >artist to become aware of some likely improvement to > the artwork. > >Generally, artists resist coercion and accept influence > whether or not they > >work collaboratively. > > > >In fact, most good artists are always open to influence > and sometimes seek > >critical opinion. I have been influenced by many > others and have sometimes > >deliberately changed my work in response -- and an > artist's work is always > >evolving through influence of all sorts, a new idea or > way of seeing. > >Edward Albee once came to my studio and suggested > something I might do to a > >painting I was working on. I didn't follow his > suggestion but his idea > >continued to work on me, partly because I respected his > insight. Since > >then I have thought of his suggestion many times and it > has probably > >affected me even if I never implemented it directly. I > could say the same > >about hundreds of other incidents, from my viewing > artwork in museums, > >other studios, to responding to intelligent criticism > and to arguing with > >myself. I do most certainly believe that artmaking is > a "sacred" activity > >because it is a process of urges and hunches, guessing > and giving up > >self-interest for > > the sake of being one with something ineffable, > incomprehensible, > >meaningless, and mysterious. Any true artist will > understand that. Call > >it the aesthetic experience. It is shared through the > artwork. > >WC
