From: Christina Z. Anderson (zphoto@montana.net)
Date: 04/22/02-10:27:56 AM Z
Halvor,
When pursuing my first degree from the University of Minnesota as an
art major, we had a whole quarter class called "What is Art?" which was in
seminar format, several hundred students, where we argued this question--the
ENTIRE quarter. Then we wrote a huge paper on it at the end. I would love
to know where that paper is and see if I agree with my opinions from back
then. I doubt it. Here at Montana State University they have a somewhat
similar course entitled Aesthetics which seeks to do the same. The problem
with the question is that there are always exceptions to every statement you
make.
When I teach Beginning Photography at MSU I ask them to write a paper
on What is Art and in there discuss how photography relates. I don't make
them research, I just ask for their opinions. This semester I got some
wonderful tidbits. A Japanese student said it was "ancestors' souls left on
canvas". I like that. One said it "was a form of representation". I'm
trying to think if I can argue that one and I don't think so--we do
re-present. A "form of communication"--I agree here, too. "Art takes us to
another place". A "journey into the artist's mind". And so forth. And
then I wrote on the board the different opinions and we argued each
one--e.g.art is nature at its best (not always), art is beauty (not always),
photography is a form of art where we cannot deny the truth (not anymore),
etc. Art is personal (hmm, still working on this one). One of my fave
students says, "Art is what I say it is". I like that, too.
My 2 cents on this monday morning, where it better get warm here in MT
or I'm moving :)
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Halvor <halvorb@mac.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 10:31 PM
Subject: The 29 or possibly 30 forms of Art.
> 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