james jwm-art net a écrit : > i'm getting upset now. > > > can you then just clarify for me this statement: > > "art is not communication". > > art is not just communication? > art is not the act of communication? > art is not communicating? > art does not communicate? > > ****?????____WHY____?????***** > > why is art not communication? > > simple case: artist has idea. artist make art about idea. someone sees > art and understands idea about it. > > so therefor has not the art communicated the idea?
this simple case is a good example, and yes in this case, art is similar to communication. but i consider this process is one of the less creative process, one of the less able to produce artistic outputs. it's probably more efficient when you have an idea to communicate it with words, write a paper, make a poster or something like that. On the other side, you don't need to have ideas to make art. You can write, draw, paint, make installations or write code without having a special idea to share, you can simply make things, and see then if these things give you ideas. surely they will, and they will give other ideas to other people. art is not communication because you can not reduce the artefact to a message, despite what's happening today in many exhibition. you can often hear or read 'the artist in this piece wanted to say ... blah blah...', so we can ask: if the artist wanted to say that, why didn't he just say it ? why did he a piece of art instead ? why was he so silly to confuse the message to transmit with, for example, a such polysemic installation ? because for many people, as for many artists, art is communication, art is a media, like another one, and sometimes a piece of art should be a demonstration? why not, but when you have science and communication, why should you still need art ? _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
