It is more then just an opinion or taste or high and low. I agree that nothing is excluded. Yes Aesthetic experience from the tea cup design could be stronger than from the bad painting or music.
I think it is mistake to separate pretended or imagined from the real world. We should not forget that metaphor plays larger part and has more sophisticated form in fine art, than in any applied. This what makes a difference- completely new real imagined world as a must component of humanity. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Facture Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:58:07 -0700 (PDT) This is where the bid cultural divide is revealed between art as limited to certain processes, objects, and supposed intents and art as an experiential condition resulting from a relationship between something in the real world (or pretended to be in the real world) and the perceiver (or his/her surrogate, such as received cultural opinion). Let me make that last phrase shorter: or as a result of the experience of something in the world, real or imagined. We can most certainly put the design of tea or a teacup into a category of things in the world and thus they are eligible for eliciting the appellation as art object if they occasion the aesthetic experience. Nothing is excluded. How can we say that some things can never, ever be the occasion of art? Here we are again, at the old high-low argument and it seems so plainly obvious to me that assignments of high-low are purely utilitarian and subject to instant change. Grandma's old teacup may have its counterpart in a museum or in Proust. You and I may prefer the old class-based distinctions between high art and craft or low art and junk, and so on --a list we'd never exhaust -- but it's an opinion that can't be justified by facts, art history, and logic. So admit your preference and also admit it has no authority with respect to a general (universal) definition of art. It's just an opinion of taste and nothing more. wc ________________________________ From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:13:52 AM Subject: Re: Facture I think, we have to distinguish art, in general, from fine art in our discussions. We can't put design of tea put in the same category as painted tea put by Chardin. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Facture Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Folk expressions aside, there's no reason why a completely machine made object cannot be termed an artwork. Actually, many are, from furniture to coffee pots to readymades, to appropriated imagery to types of collage to typography to digitally sprayed paintings, billboard, textiles -- on and on. Machines have been used for artmaking for centuries. The intention and claims of the maker are never sufficient to establish something as art. A claim is a claim and in the case of art, all claims are equal. You're just expressing your opinion, in fact you are making a claim and it is not universally validated by history, art, or practice, despite the reference to a single piece (by Michelangelo) and to a class of art objects (hand wrought 'realist' art). wc ________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:26:42 PM Subject: Re: Facture By hand work,I mean what ever one individual does with his personal skill art- music,poetry,etc.. I'm not referring to machine made objects that are designed and rigidly controlled by the designers. And it's not the medium or concept approach that I'm concerned about. that william refers to, i do both at times, but I have not placed a Michael Angelo upside down,and call it "my art " , not yet anyway. Im referring to the fairness of those who do very realistic work without any skill in the doing of it, and selling it "as their work' to serious buyers who lack awareness. In spanish we call it, Venta de "Gato por Liebre",, selling a "cat for a hare". mando On Sep 29, 2009, at 2:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 9/29/09 4:41:55 PM, [email protected] writes: > > >> If you say the quality is in the object and if you require handiwork to >> produce that quality then your judgment is justified. >> > > If you require handwork to produce an object which you can then call art, > then you are justified in your judgment inasmuch as your judgment is > confirmed by your culture. Handwork is not an attribute of all art-music, > plays, > poetry - therefore it is not a universal attribute of art.I agree with mando > about the computer generated sculpture but not that anything machine made is > not art. > KAte Sullivan ____________________________________________________________ Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYSwrFD9qpBjrLwdw38jcAYJ6 yhO8RiSidwT2hcBvr3FmXlRTFTpVu/
