Hi James 'this is not a pipe' and could be a staple gun, so what is at stake here is, naming. In naming things we approach what it is to think and this painting makes you think that the world could be seen differently. How you think relates to your own life and intellectual/emotional advancement - so it can be appreciated on many levels. For me, art is about thinking. And I hope that my art moves towards making contact through thinking. This does not rule out the idea of consciousness, immanence or transcendental ideas or even sensuosity through feeling. The phrase 'art is communication' I find dangerous because this can lead to the nonsense of 'communication about communication'. The arts council debate's comments on what art is, is mainly gathered from the debate itself. People in this debate seem unaware of the real idea of art, which I find shocking in the extreme. There is also a split between the social and the intangible in art which I find equally shocking. ken
On Aug 20, 2007, at 19:40, james jwm-art net wrote: > Thankyou for your reply to this. > > I agree with much of what you say, especially your second paragraph, > but > I am going to have to spend a little more time to understand... > > My mind just kept getting stuck on the statement "art is not > communication", it is a powerful sentance! > > Rene Magritte's "This Is Not A Pipe" painting came to mind not long > after. > > Thanks. > > > > On 20/8/2007, "ARN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
