LOL! Puts it into a framework, it does. Did you notice that the only thing I said was essential to art was the artist's intent that it be art? On the other hand intent has nothing to do with physics, despite what some ignoramuses may have said. I think that is distinction enough.
OTOH, What I, you, or anyone else, think about something does not have much to do with the price of fish; and that includes what we think of the price of fish. Bob W wrote: >> I hope you don't really believe this. > > Why would you hope that? > > In fact, I do believe it, with reservations. > > First of all, in my view the art status of an object (or performance > or whatever) is irrelevant. It makes no difference to my enjoyment or > otherwise of the object. This neatly avoids having to define 'art', > which is impossible and a waste of good living time. On the other > hand, I do spend a lot of time looking at stuff that people call art, > and I get a lot of pleasure out of looking at conceptual and modern > art, thinking about it and discussing it. (I also get the same from > classical art.) > > This idea that art status is irrelevant is in contrast to most people > who've commented in this thread, who seem to think that the art status > of an object matters, and makes the object significant in some special > way. However, there are many different, and difficult to reconcile, > definitions of art in this thread at least. They all seem to fall > within one or other of the major theories of art, which are (in > roughly chronological order): > > - representational: pictures should look like what they're 'of' > > - significant form: certain forms give rise in us to an 'aesthetic > emotion' > > - expression of emotion: art is the clarification of some ill-defined > emotion within the artist, successfully conveyed to the viewer > > - family resemblances: an object is art if it is in a line of descent > from some other art objects > > - institutionalism: an object is art if the art establishment says it > is > > - why do we need a definition? > > All of these are problematical, otherwise there'd be no argument, and > each has largely overturned the other. As a result, recent art (ie > over the last 150 or so years) has been about art itself, and tends to > be a reaction to the prevailing popular theory - someone produces > something which refutes the current top theory, but is undeniably (!) > a work of art. The most successful of these make a contribution to the > continuing discussion about art, and advances it in some way, just as > the most successful physicists advance the state of the art. These > successful pieces are the ones that, as a by-product of their success, > typically shock the bourgeoisie and get Ron & Doris Neasden > tut-tutting over their Daily Mail, and taking refuge in the > certainties of Ansel Adams and Trisha Romance. It is this type of Art > that I am comparing vaguely to particle physics. Tricia and Ansel have > done nothing to advance the state of the art discussion. This is not > to say they haven't advanced the state of landscape photography or > naff painting, but that's a different question. > > Most people take no more interest in the details of avant-garde art > than they do in the details of leading-edge physics. The difference > seems to be that the same people who feel justified in expressing an > opinion about leading-edge art, wouldn't feel the same about physics. > It's (almost) impossible to imagine someone saying "I don't know much > about physics, but I know what I like. You can keep your Bohr and your > 'awking, give me the angle of incidence every time, guv'nor. At least > you knew where you were with old Newton. Can't say the same at all > about Schrodinger, can you? I 'ad that 'eisenberg in the back of my > cab once. I think. All that modern stuff, I don't understand it, that > ain't physics.". > > But when you say things like "art should speak to human emotions", > you're saying exactly the equivalent of "physics stopped with Newton", > and my reaction to your statement is "why?". Why should it speak to > human emotion? Why _should_ it do anything at all? > > Why shouldn't it appeal to a limited audience who have cultivated 20 > years of art history? If I've invested 20 years studying art history, > what gives anyone the right to say that nobody should make a work that > appeals to my investment and excludes the casual viewer? > > -- > Bob > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Bob Sullivan >> Sent: 22 August 2007 02:11 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Conceptual photography (was - Corner Kick) >> >> Bob, >> I hope you don't really believe this. >> My point of view is that art should speak to human emotions within > us. >> If you must cultivate 20 years of art history study to 'understand' >> the work, the work itself has limited appeal and audience. I would >> suggest that art should be something that stirs feelings we can all >> experience and understand. >> This doesn't mean that an artist is less valuable, or less studied, > or >> less accomplished than a particle physicist. Simply, his/her >> accomplishments are in a different realm, orthogonal to the > dimensions >> of particle physics or any engineering field. >> Particle physics demands 10+ years of rigorous study of mathematics >> and the properties of elementary particles. I don't expect many >> people to actually understand it. They only understand the >> consequences when they experience them in their lives. >> I expect art to stir in people some feelings that they were not >> conscious of at the time. >> I don't expect Particle Physics to be as accessible as Art. >> Regards, Bob S. (reformed physicist) >> >> On 8/21/07, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Same here. I tend to think that most art, photography or >> whatever, >>>> should be accessible to the masses. >>> It is. Just as particle physics is accessible to the masses. >>> >>>> If I don't get it I'm >>>> not going to >>>> spend much time with it. >>> Then how can it be made 'accessible' to you? If you're not >> prepared to >>> put the effort into getting it, why should the people who >> made it have >>> to make it easy just to suit you? >>> >>> Why do people expect artists, who have devoted years of >> their lives to >>> understanding their subject and producing whatever it is >> they produce, >>> to be instantly 'accessible', when they don't expect the same > from, >>> for example, particle physicists? Why should 21st century >> art be less >>> difficult than 21st century physics? >>> >>> -- >>> Bob > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
