From: Karen McCall Pengra (mcpeng@bitstream.net)
Date: 04/22/02-01:11:41 PM Z
art functions spiritually...
>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