Bob, You make a nice arguement, but Particle Physics will never encompass the wide range of interest and appreciation that Art does. I can see that people can be accomplished, knowledgable, and learned in Art History and Appreciation. I can see it as a field of endeavor like Particle Physics, but your average Dick & Jane are never gonna take it to that level. Art will be a simpler, more accessible thing to them. Regards, Bob S.
On 8/22/07, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
