From: Peter Howey (stimpy@freedomdrivingaids.com)
Date: 04/22/02-01:11:52 PM Z
Arguably, all of the Michael Graves "creations" at Target could be
considered utilitarian art.
www.target.com
Cheers,
Peter M. Howey
Manager of Information Systems
http://www.freedomdrivingaids.com
Freedom Group, LLC
901 Salzburg Ave.
Bay City, MI 48706
989-895-9743 x12
989-895-9722 FAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walton, Mary E" <mary.e.walton@Boeing.com>
To: "'alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca'"
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: RE: The 29 or possibly 30 forms of Art.
My morning juice glass is about 6 inches tall, clear with colors for eyes,
eyebrows, mouth and nose. It is hand blown and signed. But it is also my
morning juice glass and others are not.
-----Original Message-----
From: epona [mailto:acolyta@napc.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 12:29 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
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