From: Halvor (halvorb@mac.com)
Date: 04/19/02-10:31:43 PM Z
Took some time that did, sorry Judy.
Now, the problem with art and it's definition is that it usually get
confused either with taste, or with the various artists personal opinion
about what they are doing. A lot of discussions in this area ends up with an
agreement on disagrement because what has been discussed isn't art, but
taste.
I am not shure excactly when art was invented, or to what purpose.. :) but
the "modern" / current version of it has become increasingly slippery.
Myself beeing a product of the modern art education (bA Photgraphy Universe
of Derby 92-95 (are however currently doing a master of engineering on
platinum printing, due to lifes intricasies and the Japanese ministry of
education,- photography has not reached the status of art education in this
country yet)).
During 3 yrs of photographic art studies I can not remember the question
"What is Art" beeing raised once. We are talking about quiet a lot of
students, with a degree in art, probably unable to give a simple definition
on what the A in their degree means.
I spent a fair bit of time on the question "what is photography", reaching
the brilliant conclusion that it is a : "technique for making pictures",
with various specific attributes. The question instead became "what can make
art out of photography" or to simplify it "what is art".
A few years ago an Israeli art student (Bezalel Academy, Jerusaleem)
mentioned the words ; Roland Barthes, Dialectics and pictures in the same
sentence, I was however quite busy studying beer at that time and have
forgotten the point with that conversation. (If anybody know where and if
Roland Barthes write about dialectics in pictures, please contact me.) It
has hovewer led me to this theory :
If we take a "sensory input" (to cover everything), or a picture to keep it
simple, and put it in the first corner of Hegel's dialectical triangle. The
position of the "thesis". Then put the observer / wiever in the second
corner, the antithesis, art appear as the synthesis. (Top third corner)
The conflict between what is presented and the viewer, with internal
preferences and knowledge, meets and produce an idea, feeling or
understanding.
In other words, art is the understanding or the reaction on seeing a
picture. One could say art is intelligence.
Again; art does not excist as a physical thing, but is a "state of mind".
Physical objects can carry the potential for art, but is dependent on beeing
seen and understood to reach a "state of art".
In it's simplest form any picture is art. The dialectical conflict between a
two dimensional paper (sign) giving of an impression of a three dimensional
reality, or otherwise, (the signified) is enough to produce an understanding
- art. Of course this simple procedure does not make it *good* art.
One can go on for a long time discussing levels of art, from great to
stupid, add concepts as skill, quality and historical value in the judgment
of it, but here one tends to get into the slippery tangle of taste.
So :
A : Art does not excist.
B : Everything is art.
enough for a rainy sunday afternoon
Halvor Bjoerngaard
Tokyo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:30 AM Z CST