abstractthought: The Nature of Art

ai_paulina (

ai_paulina) wrote in

abstractthought,
@ 2007-12-08 23:05:00

The Nature of Art
I am at the close of my first semester as an art student and feel as though my view of art has become unjustly negative. The last few months have been proved to be intense -- magnified like a pressure-cooker by the startling revelation of Martin Beck, a graduate alumni at my school who stated that, "those for whom art is their life become extremely dull." I'm beginning to question whether art is really the noble pursuit that it appears to be. I began to think that perhaps art is full of the same paradoxes as life. More specifically, that who enter college as artists, only to change their major in the course of time are the ones who preserve the basest form and enjoyment of art. It's the ones who continue in the art profession who ultimately sell out -- not because they're corrupt or even because they're jaded (although that tends to happen anyway) -- but because they're forced to sell themselves to make a living. The once pure and unadulterated passion becomes tarnished, and that is inevitable when you make a living doing what you love.

The following is a conversation I had with a friend over lunch. A little armchair economics minus the economics.

What is Art?
Defining something that doesn't make sense.

Art as a Metaphor

Art is creative bullshit.

Art is aesthetically pleasing crap.

Contemporary art is glorified crap.

Performance art is an excuse for exhibitionists to strip naked.

Art is an inventive channel to express everything that does not belong with common sense.

Miscellaneous Art

Art is like an itch that won’t go away.

Art is like Vaseline. When you put it on, it sticks to everything.

Art is like a black pawn that wants to be white. No matter what color it is, it’s still a pawn and it’s still going to get trashed.

Art as Food

Art is like bread. They can be white, brown, or yellow, but when you put them in the toaster, they all get burned.

Art is like an unkosher dumpling. It’s thin and delicate on the outside, but inside it’s just vulgar.

Art as Sex

Art is like going out at night looking to get laid. Sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you don’t.

Art is like prostitution. The most successful artist has mastered the art of selling herself.

Art is like having sex when your brain has turned to mush. It doesn’t take any intelligence to do.

Art is like a Las Vegas prostitute: a luxury you can't afford.

Art is like a whore that has reached her prime: it becomes cheapened over time.

Art as a Lesson in Futility

Art is like an addict coming out of an ether binge. Any effort to resist is futile.

Contemporary art is like counting the hairs on your head. It’s (f******) pointless.

Real art is like counting the hairs on your head. It’s (f******) impossible.

(Post a new comment)

	lover_of_anime 2007-12-09 06:01 am UTC (link)
	aret (Reply to this)(Thread)

lover_of_anime
2007-12-09 06:11 am UTC (link)

lol, There is art all over and surrounding us. I like it when Nietzsche says that in part, life is only justifiable as an aesthetical phenomenon. It's a part of the nihilions of Xeroxians to really disvalue the truthness that is art, with their reptile tiles of repetition. Everyone is an aretist. Sure, to be an artist, rat her, can be quite a struggle, but it is worth it. Negativity and positivity can be given to anything, it doesn't really matter.

I think you're leading yourself astray. If you question what you want to be so much, then I don't know if that's really you. It's all about growing in your own psyche, in your own self, and expressing that on a page; it's the paint to which to use the colors of your experience. . .Don't force it, it's arebitrary, not arbitrary.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

ai_paulina
2007-12-09 07:49 am UTC (link)

I believe that art is a lot like religion; in order to come closer to the truth (or a personal truth), it is necessary to ask questions, otherwise it is impossible to know whether faith is genuine (or if it has just been conditioned). However, it is ultimately the answer that arises out of the questions that determines a personal truth. For this reason, and not the questioning itself (although this was a vital process), I have changed my major.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lover_of_anime 2007-12-09 04:04 pm UTC (link)
	People in religions typically do not ask any questions at all, and consider that all the answers have already been handed to them. lol. Actually art is a lot like everything, not just one thing. Religion is one of the artistic creations of the exulted apes. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ai_paulina 2007-12-10 11:23 pm UTC (link)
	I was referring to the difference between faith and blind faith. And while generally, all faith is blind, there is one anomaly: when a person is aware of exactly WHY they believe in something, it is no longer blind. (IE: Having faith in a particular religion or the institution of religion because you personally need to believe in the good of humanity.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lover_of_anime 2007-12-11 04:59 am UTC (link)
	Just because someone knows why they believe in something does not turn that faith or that why into any thing true. Personally I prescribe to spirituality, which in the end has nothing to do with religion at all. And I think faith is a useless, superfluous thing. But we're getting off the subject, any way. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ai_paulina 2007-12-11 11:13 am UTC (link)
	By "truth," I mean in the relative, personal sense, not as an absolute. (Reply to this)(Parent)

lover_of_anime
2007-12-09 04:18 pm UTC (link)

Yeah, I think I'd agree with Tabula here, that more or less college ruined your interest in this subject. College is in some ways a Church of Reason, a Programming Citizenry Education Place, it's true. I don't know that I'd want to major in art either, but it doesn't mean I'm not nor don't consider myself an artist. A degree means nothing to me, other than that I will instantly get more respect and ability and freedom in said field, but usually maybe even not, because they'll consider me to have to act "professional." lol.

Anyway, you keep doing art when it strikes your whim, and fuck them for ruining it for you. Also, you need to realize that art is about expression, consideration, perspectivism (trying to find as many perspectives onto reality as possible, which will allow your work to be less focused on just one perspective).

Let's say this. Art is a lot like science. Art is a lot like mythology.

I mean, you can go on and on. Mythology ---> Religion ---> Philosophy ---> Science. Even science is still just a modern mythology, albeit a very powerful one. It's still just exulted ape art, it's our feeble minds trying to understand the unsurpassing, transcendent, etc. etc.

As a human, creation is a big part for you. I don't mean this in a Christian sense at all. I take it when you say "religion" you're really focusing on Christianity and not Eastern religions? You're becoming confused by your negativity, but it's always necessary to take some steps back, and basking in shadows and darkness, before true understanding is borne.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

revolutemind
2007-12-09 07:11 am UTC (link)

Are there men who do not bother with selling themselves? Who have not tweaked their marketing, their packaging, their sell sheet language, their fucking color palette?

It would be interesting to hear from them.

I personally think the negativity is an excellent beginning rather than an end; I like to think that rampaging though doubt first makes discipline all the more sweeter later. And whether art be all-night whore, strung out addict, or unreachable summit, it's all about discipline.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	lover_of_anime 2007-12-09 04:05 pm UTC (link)
	"I like to think that rampaging though doubt first makes discipline all the more sweeter later. And whether art be all-night whore, strung out addict, or unreachable summit, it's all about discipline." Amen, shamen, and awomen, man. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	The Discipline revolutemind 2007-12-09 08:42 pm UTC (link)
	You know, on the second read of that line, it occurs to me that's also an excellent commandment for scientists. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: The Discipline lover_of_anime 2007-12-09 10:48 pm UTC (link)
	O.o. And scientists aren't artists? I mean, you reach a point where these words we use for things reaches an almost incomprehensibility. In the end all comes down to that we're human; not artists, scientists, or the like. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	There are times when one must bow before the demonstration of a superior conclusion. revolutemind 2007-12-11 12:19 am UTC (link)
	Bravo, sir. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: The Discipline nymutehxuron 2007-12-15 09:31 am UTC (link)
	Ah, it might be true that words cannot convey every meaning, but surely you're aware of certain emotions that cannot be conveyed by words, and still felt by being in the presence of something? Why can't that be art? And why can't humans create something that replicates that sort of feeling? In one form or another? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: The Discipline lover_of_anime 2007-12-15 09:55 am UTC (link)
	I really don't follow what you're saying at all. . .what you're stating seems pretty obvious, however, it's not all about emotion. What you feel around something is not just emotion. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: The Discipline nymutehxuron 2007-12-15 11:46 am UTC (link)
	Hm, sorry. I'm just trying to say that even though we are human, we can also be artists and scientists and whatnot, to the highest level. I don't know, whenever I look at things, there's always emotion there, even if it's little, but maybe it's not all emotion. (Reply to this)(Parent)

tabular_rasa
2007-12-09 07:41 am UTC (link)

I'm inclined to argue that it's not art anymore if it becomes about something more than art itself-- money, etc. Which would also make "studying" art impossible, because it's something that just comes (or should come?) naturally. So then naturally disillusionment would be the result when real art-- the basic human instinct to express and create-- becomes hindered by reality (passing a class, making a living, etc). That doesn't really help you as an art student /-: but one thing I've learned in college (and I don't even study art) is that getting a degree in something is completely different from actually knowing, understanding, and loving the subject. So take what you're told and think about it-- then keep what you like, toss out what you don't, and mostly just figure out what it is about art that drew you to it-- and if it's still true, hold on to that.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	lover_of_anime 2007-12-09 04:06 pm UTC (link)
	". . .a degree in something is completely different from actually knowing, understanding, and loving the subject." Yes. Very true in many ways. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	fourstrifes 2007-12-09 04:43 pm UTC (link)
	Art is my love-song. And it is true. I am dull. I only like simple things, or solitary things. I would be hardly interesting to any average person. (Reply to this)(Thread)

I never put much stock in interesting

revolutemind
2007-12-09 06:41 pm UTC (link)

The fortune-cookie curse reads: May you live in Interesting times.

I've been on the cutting edge of it too many times; thrill is my psychotropic.

I don't envy a lot of things in the world, but I come close to envy when I think of the simple sort. You know the ones; the sort who work with their hands, who pay the bills on time, who shoot straight, and who don't ask questions. I'll probably spend the balance of this life in fruitless pursuit of simplification. I'm just not wired for it.

Much respect, then, to the simply complicated.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: I never put much stock in interesting fourstrifes 2007-12-09 06:46 pm UTC (link)
	I just like the rain. And maybe some really good poems and songs. Other than that, the only question I ever really asked is what is important to me. It fills my life. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: I never put much stock in interesting fourstrifes 2007-12-10 03:01 pm UTC (link)
	I don't envy them. I barely see them. Why should I care? The only thing I've cared about is what might be important to me. So for me, to see it, it must be interesting to me. But the things that are interesting to me aren't interesting to everyone. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	miss_scarlet25 2007-12-09 07:11 pm UTC (link)
	"those for whom art is their life become extremely dull." i completly disagree. artists are open to ideas, they think differently and see things unlike other people as well as see things other people miss. artista alway have the most shockingly complicated, dysfunctional, interesting and completly implausible lives (Reply to this)(Thread)

	nymutehxuron 2007-12-15 09:26 am UTC (link)
	I agree with you, those who claim that artists are extremely dull are themselves extremely simple minded, who are unable to comprehend what an artists feels and thinks, and therefore make their claim invalid. (Reply to this)(Parent)

autisticbliss
2007-12-10 12:01 am UTC (link)

After mulling over this topic for the past year, with much of the encouragement from one of my college professors, I've dwindled it down to an explanation that satisfies me: Art is raw communication. Not just in the linguistic sense of communication but in the sense that the world is constantly pouring into our five senses.

This is different from the journey that "the artist" takes in a life devoted to his/her craft. Art, like has been already stated, can be incidental, accidental, and scrupulously intentional; it's a sad expression on a stranger's face, a pleasing perspective of a factory building, and the Sistine Chapel. All of these invoke a response in us humans, not because they are intended to but because we are emotional beings.

Everything is bound up in emotion (if it weren't, we would perceive ourselves as dead), and so everything is art, except some things are in frames, on pedestals, in vibrations, and on book pages.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

lover_of_anime
2007-12-11 05:04 am UTC (link)

I mostly agree with this, though I have to say it isn't wholly about emotion. It's about every thing, every single brim of human awareness, even beyond emotion. Even the words "rationality" and the kind of romantic/ logic split we have breaks down. Like I said before, art, science, I mean, all these concepts just break apart and we're only left with our humanness, and products of it, attempts to ascend it, fix it, change it, meld it, become it, alter it, express it.

I agree with the raw communication part. That's pretty much the essence. Communication, as crude as it is between each other, is what it's ultimately about. If you can get across what's in your head, and how it works, to someone then you change them forever, especially if what you have to say is startling.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

autisticbliss
2007-12-11 08:04 am UTC (link)

As a human, have you ever felt completely emotionless? We all have felt apathetic at one time or another, but even the word and likewise the experience carries negative connotations as I think you'd agree that it's an undesirable state of mind. As for logic itself, I'd say it's a means to an end and always is. It's a tool, but like all tools, it's meaningless (or equally true: it just is) in the scope of human experience unless it's assigned to some function or purpose, and the process along with the end result are emotional ones, whether it is characterized by frustration, satisfaction, boredom, or wonder.

Mathematicians, theorists, scientists, philosophers etc. wouldn't get into the field that they do unless they got some sort of pleasure out of it- that being the reason they value reason, rationality or "the laws of nature." I think it's the aesthetic quality of their work that compels them toward it, not because their duties simply must be performed. That's why it's not unlikely to hear an equation described as beautiful or ugly, theories can be marveled at by the grace with which they are written. No brand of logic is in a vacuum. Those who willingly devote their lives to it see it as a revealer of beautiful truths which give them a genuine connection with reality. Perhaps logic has a reputation for not carrying remarkably powerful emotions because most of it is experienced in the form of numbers and letters that basically describe hypothetical realities, so the whole thing can feel to some merely like your relationship between the numbers and letters on paper, a much less favorable relationship than the one had by the willful veterans.

So unless you can show me a work of art that asks me to feel nothing (I imagine this would be a canvas that shoots you in the face or some kind of dreamless-sleep-inducing mechanism) I don't know of anything in this world that doesn't invoke some sort of response out of us. It terms of subject matter, sure, rationality and unemotional themes can be explored and represented (I suppose this would be concept-art), but there would be a reason why the artist chooses to do what he does. And there's still something inside the frame. As for art being about every facet of human awareness, I totally agree. I just don't think there is any kind of awareness that isn't sought after by some emotive impetus or reward.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

nymutehxuron
2007-12-15 09:24 am UTC (link)

Us as normal human beings may not have never felt emotionless, but you should also account for those who have suffered great tragedies in their lives, who have given up all happiness and sadness, who're just existing.

Even if you look at the people in 'normal' societies (where normal implies an adequate standard of living), we've become so apathetic that we are so indifferent to anything beyond our immediate social circle. True, we do feel emotions, but what good are those emotions if they're restricted only to those who're close to us? Looking at things from a humanity's point of view, those emotions are so insignificant they might well be counted as non existent.

If you're up for a few readings on indifference, see for some works by Elie Wiesel.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

autisticbliss
2007-12-15 06:49 pm UTC (link)

I'm not sure if I can imagine someone being completely indifferent, even if they have experienced great losses because of war or some personal tragedy. I would guess that those people have become less responsive to everything at a certain point as a defense mechanism, but for anyone to be living as a robot that just doesn't have a good reason to kill itself, with no perceived difference between life and death, I find it hard to believe. It may be possible, but why would these people ever go to art galleries? Art can account for them, but don't you think it would take pity on them? Or maybe a really angsty artist would glorify the state of being emotionless.

As for us "normal" people, I don't think emotion's worth is counted by how far one is willing invest his/her emotions. Emotions are still worth a lot to yourself if you have very strong feelings for one or two people, and there'd be a big emotional response if you tried to take them away. I think you're right that "we" have become more apathetic and indifferent in our society (I guess that would go for any english speaking country, wherever you're typing from) but there are more ways someone can be emotional than caring about another person. You can be embarrassed in front a stranger which shows a kind of empathy for him/her, seeing yourself through their eyes. And I imagine these people could easily get angry at a stranger who slaps them across the face for no reason. It seems like I'm getting really hypothetical here though, and I'm sick of typing the word "emotion". What would you recommend by Elie Wiesel?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

nymutehxuron
2007-12-15 11:36 pm UTC (link)

One I found most enlightening/disturbing was "The Accident", you should note that it won't be an easy read, I mean, I considered myself to have known suffering and pain because what I've witnessed during my travels to some Asian countries, but Wiesel takes the definition to a whole new level.

If you read the book though, you'll get an idea of 'no perceived difference between life and death', but I suppose, when it comes right down to it, it could be argued that itself is also a state of emotion.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	nymutehxuron 2007-12-15 09:27 am UTC (link)
	Hm, our five senses eh? I think that art conveys meaning through our spiritual sense, but that's just me. Obviously, I'm speaking of spiritual as our sixth sense, so to speak. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	autisticbliss 2007-12-15 06:27 pm UTC (link)
	I was actually thinking about saying six senses but I was afraid the objectivity police would jump on me. I think art as a whole is very spirit-nurturing. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ART quantumreaper 2007-12-10 04:09 am UTC (link)
	Art is like holding a cold drink on a winter day with no gloves. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: ART zwietracht 2007-12-11 08:15 am UTC (link)
	There is no feeling in art? (Reply to this)(Parent)

anfalicious
2007-12-10 06:52 am UTC (link)

Commodifying your art is the surest way to stop enjoying it. You can either be a starving artist who loves their work (although not the three part time jobs you have to do to live), or a professional artist who doesn't. There's few who do both.

I wrote a poem recently that was a critique on post modernism, the final line was "is this a metaphorical allegory, or just non-sequitor bullshit".

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	intrepidtravler 2007-12-10 12:12 pm UTC (link)
	damn (Reply to this)(Parent)

tonight_23
2007-12-10 09:36 am UTC (link)

Right, I won't define on what is art and its co-relations, neither do I trust any doctor's perscriptions, I'm mental myself to define what is, voluptuous and almost vomiting, subject. In the name of Art, as it so-called, all I need is a' highly intellectual stimulation, never to question unless, to commence. The brains to create, art, are -comparatively- beautiful.
Any Artiste will feel rather, gifted, or in a state of denial.

(Reply to this)

	intrepidtravler 2007-12-10 12:11 pm UTC (link)
	art is a broken reality you can't consume, art is a more of a concept then something you can feel, i begged you to differ but instead you spoke with a deeper voice regressed with truth. My art is a beggars worst nightmare but a dream of kings is love. This question was posed for poise? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	zwietracht 2007-12-11 08:13 am UTC (link)
	You win the "cheap slogans" award with that comment. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	intrepidtravler 2007-12-11 04:43 pm UTC (link)
	i was drunk when i read this post and wrote that, i should not have been typing that is for sure. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	When we hear the word 'Award', we don't wait revolutemind 2007-12-12 06:58 am UTC (link)
	Addendum: I've written my best work and my most shameful when drunk. And both in the span of a few paragraphs. I've always considered poise a virtue. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	autisticbliss 2007-12-10 05:50 pm UTC (link)
	Maybe I'm going in the wrong direction here, although it's hard to recognize any linear line of thought with these comments. So anyway here's a question: How can your art ever belong to you (or anyone)? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	lover_of_anime 2007-12-11 05:05 am UTC (link)
	It certainly belongs to all of us much more than our rampant love of materialism. It's not even about owning, any way. It's all about growing, changing, melding, etc. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lover_of_anime 2007-12-11 05:07 am UTC (link)
	It's all about SHARING. Only if we share do we ever own any thing. Yeah, that's it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

dionysus_hybrid
2007-12-12 06:55 am UTC (link)

I think that art, in whatever media, should be beyond whatever is depicted or heard or written, etc. There should be some sort of meaning that is attached to it such that the art becomes transcendent.

As such, although I have a certain bias towards minimalist and abstract "art", I do not think that it suffices to be art, in the sense that it has a deep meaning or message, because to me, it is just aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Personally, I cannot derive a deep meaning or powerful message when I look at a painting of a black square or a digital rendition of randomized fractals. (Perhaps my mind lacks certain powers of abstraction.) I think those things are pleasing to the eye and can have applications for design, but I do not consider it art.

Guernica by Picasso, I think, is an excellent example of a work of art with a strong message. Not only the symbolism, composition, etc. but also the context, the "why" of the painting make the work a feast for the eye but also turn it into an object of contemplation and a source of strong emotion. Every time I look at that painting I am reminded of Picasso's supposed response to a Nazi asking if he had done the painting: "No, you did it."

As for going to university/college to become an artist? To study art perhaps, but university alone cannot foster creativity. In fact, in most cases it works to suppress creativity and extinguish spirit. University is an institution to manufacture technicians, no longer a playground for the mind and food for the soul. It might be a good place to learn techniques, but what good are techniques if you have no vision?

My two cents.

(Reply to this)

nymutehxuron
2007-12-15 09:14 am UTC (link)

Wow, a bit harsh aren't you? Especially the artists? To me, great artists aren't necessarily the ones who sell themselves the best (I'll include poetry as an art here too), look at people like Plath, she never really got recognized while she was alive, and I think her work is of the highest standard.

As for painters and such, well, there goes the saying that "an artist's work only becomes famous after the artist has died" (or something like that), so, great art work isn't necessarily the one that sells the best.

Lastly, great art is something that triggers deep emotional and mental experiences that other "things" cannot, and IMHO, what the artist wanted the audience to think about is irrelevant. The most important thing is what you get out of a piece of art. So, I suppose, if you think all art is bullshit, that's your response, and we can't really argue with it.

(Reply to this)

	jennyhaskrabbes 2007-12-22 02:07 am UTC (link)
	blink as a soon to be art student at AAU, this does put a damper on my parade. (Reply to this)

	smihl 2007-12-22 11:17 pm UTC (link)
	Art is an attempt to copy reality? (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs