From: Lisa Reddig (lisa@julianrichards.com)
Date: 04/22/02-12:12:32 PM Z
Isn't that what the Bauhaus folk did? They made functional art, furniture
and architecture mostly. There whole idea was that it was meaningless
unless it was utilitarian & usable.
----- Original Message -----
From: "epona" <acolyta@napc.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: The 29 or possibly 30 forms of Art.
> Right now I am trying to refute a colleague's statement that "art is
something
> without function". Ex, you can't drive it. You have a car with toy
soldiers
> glued all over it. The art is separate from the function, ie. the car,
because
> it is not the toy soldiers that makes the object driveable. I cannot
think of
> an argument, but that could just be the lack of coffee. Can someone here
think
> of something someone made once that was functional art? I know its been
> done....
>
> Cheers,
> Christine
>
> "Christina Z. Anderson" wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
> It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this
> emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and
> stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed."
> -Albert Einstein
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:30 AM Z CST