Arvestaked's Rant on Art...

[dusken]

My personal definition of art is:
That which genuinely separates humans from all other organisms on Earth.
That is why it is imporant to me. I use its mystery, uniqueness, and its implication of potential as a warm blanket from the cold of everything else.

Is historical value important to art? In my opinion, yes. Because art is a creative personal process and a disregard for history puts all the weight on plagiarism. If I copy a Monet stroke for stroke, it does not make me a good artist; it only affirms the importance of Monet, and that is because there is something there beyond the strokes. Sean Scully articulated it well: "It is process and product in relation to the weight and continuum of history. That's a huge burden to take on, but it's a burden that is interesting and can make our culture so interesting. To try to make a culture where people are detached from history is not only unrewarding, but is potentially dangerous." To me, evolution and the potential of evolution, are cornerstones of beauty and they cannot exist without a timeline.

Why is abstract painting and sculpture important?
For one, abstract art is an announcement that a true artistic statement is not dependant on the subject matter. Secondly, and this is related to my first statement, abstract art is like a non-denominational temple that people can walk into and be immersed by, regardless of their religion or culture. See, in creating a figurative work, one must have a subject. The fact that a subject was chosen implies a bias or partiallity that can potentially alienate a viewer from being completely immersed in a work of art. I do not mean that they will not appreciate it as a work of art but there is a different level of identification that cannot be reached. A religious scene by Rembrandt can be appreciated by someone who is Hindu but not to the same degree as a Christian because there is a partiality that cannot be avoided. The abstract is different, if one has accepted abstract art, any work thereof can potentially immerse any viewer. Does that make it more important than figurative? Well, without an understanding of the figurative, there can be no abstract.

Art in an economy:
I like the artistic climate of Socialist countries more than capitalistic or communistic. This is based purely on observation but for some reason it seems that there is a better appreciation for what I consider quality art. I believe this has something to do with Socialism being the middle ground of the other two extremes. It seems that as one deviates from that middlepoint, quality becomes either hindered by money or hindered by the need for control. This is, of course, relative to the world's artistic climate, which I still feel is in a state of decadence.

Bad art:
I said art gives me comfort that I derive from its uniqueness as an aspect of life in general. Does that apply to bad art? In a sense. Bad art still provides me with the hope that there is something better or the comfort that it could not be unless it was bastardizing something better.

More to come if I feel like it.

[anileve]

Did I ever tell you what a beautiful writer you are?

"Because art is a creative personal process and a disregard for history puts all the weight on plagiarism"

"To me, evolution and the potential of evolution, are cornerstones of beauty and they cannot exist without a timeline."

Simply elegant.

[dusken]

Well, thank you very much.

I thought you were gone.

[dusken]

I just realized you happened to choose two lines that had gramatical errors. One is a fragment and the other has an unnecessary comma. I am such a flatus. So is the nature of a rant, I guess.

[Anonymouse]

What a wonderful thread. I have to commend the dusken, for finally I can participate in a thread of his since it isn't either Satanism or Movie's. However, I have a rather different take on art. I know you are an artist and a very unique one at that, and judging by your post here you seem to like abstract art. I too was an "artist", although I don't think I ever made it to that level of "developing my own style", but in any event I did study it, I did immerse myself in it, and my technique was my only strong point.

However, to me, what art we value says alot about who we are in our medieval world of "modernity". I am a believer in objective truths and an objective world and reality. To me, art is not so much about how "I see the world", as many artists like to claim, and it is in fact popular since about 95% of art can be all categorized under "abstract" or "modern" or "subjective" art. I do not believe in subjective art, nor do I like subjective art. I equate subjective art with pouring your own subjectivity on the canvas. Picasso was great, but he was a subjective artist, and entirely overrated. I believe in sharing with people what the world is and how they all want to see it. Many people can see the Mona Lisa, or Michaelangelo's David and all realize something of the beauty of the objective world, but many people can see a Picasso and many people will be bemused.

I worked in the Norton Simon Museum for two years, and I have to say, I saw all the galleries from top to bottom, from the late Medieval to the early Renaissance period, to the Dutch artists of the Reformation, etc., to Impressionism, post-Impression, and on and on. However, arriving at the modern art galleries I became ill and bored. I never liked it. To me, it was never interesting. There was nothing in those subjective paintings that evoked any feeling or emotion or tied me to the beauty of the real world. The only thing I did was watch and try to imagine what the artist supposedly tried to do in his idiocy, such as Picasso, or another abominable moron Kandinsky. I've seen the works of Picasso when he was a student, and I have seen the works of him after when he stole Cubism from the Frenchman he tagged along with for a bit. And I must say, his technical work by far is uncanny and brilliant and it is to the level that I have not seen - so clean, so technical - I revere his technique. Unless one is into escapism and seeking a way out of the real world, akin to intoxication, subjective and abstract art is not for you.

I am sick of society ever since the last 100 years or so, revering paintings that, even my grandmother can do. In this day and age atrocious crap like the ones below are classified as "art" since there is a luctrative market for stuff like these for aging hippies and other unique people.





While people smear and chastize Hitler, the man had a point when he labelled art "degenerate", because that is what it was - degenerate. Art nowadays is too much of "Anything goes". Basically anything is art as long as you feel it is, ( if you feel its good do it as the hippie mentality was ), and children from preschool are encouraged to "express themselves" anyway they can, anything goes and art is anything you want it to be, akin to moral relativists who say any morality goes. I know some will be quick to harp on me for trying to bring in morality in here or "stupid religious views". That is untrue, I am only speaking from the viewpoint of an objective world, not a subjective one. If there are objective morals, then most of us would be immoral people instead of inventing our own moralities to comfort ourselves into thinking that somehow we aren't that bad. If there were objective truths and an objective world, then not everything would be "art" and not every artist would be an artist and not ever writer or poet would be a poet and we would be sore losers and failures, and since most of us would be losers without talent that couldn't handle the failure of the objective world so we had to make up rules to satisfy our own sense of self.

This subjectivity is encouraged in literature, in poetry, in art, in music, basically it is "whatever you want it to be". Subjective art is nauseating precisely because it places the unique outlook of the supposed artist ahead of that what is objective. What matters to him more is what he thinks matters to him than a world of objectivity. And on the contrary it would take an objective painter to have no bias, as opposed to a subjective person, because all it does is smear the canvas with what you think things ought to be. Whether in art, literature, or music or poetry, subjecitivity is encouraged and that is the norm. Most of poetry is done by teenage girls before they discover sexuality and it is usually about anything goes, and you can find this sort of crap online everywhere. Basically subjectivity is encouraged because it is a place where you can be anyone, a person who gives up easily, or is not good at something, or has no confidence, and so they turn to subjects where "they can never be wrong", akin to moral relativists inventing their own moralities so "they can never be wrong", unless they are a Hitler or a Pol Pot or a Bush or a Manson. I know this will piss off the Dusken for bringing back morality into his precious art thread, but that is the way it goes, despite him not liking certain uncomfortable views to be expressed.

I find that it is those rare painters who are still objective artists that don't have anything to throw on their canvas. It is an aura of calmness and cleanliness that allows for the full potential of their creativity to take full bloom, for creativity arises from that need to go beyond mere subjective wants and satisfactions to a place that transcends ones limited existence, not selfish egocentric views of "I'm unique" and "the world doesn't understand me". To be an artist, is to be creative, and to be creative is something you can be, that others cannot, and it only takes full bloom, like the rose petal, when you desire to share that creativity with others, because those around you who cannot experience that what you can and do what you can, want to feel that as well. To me, it is in this little talked about desire to share that then we call creativity, that separates you from those that cannot share that creativity even if they wanted to. Subjective art doesn't allow room for that, and turns that on its head. I have seen in my day alot of idiots pretending to be artists when they could not get down the basics of technique, but given the current situation they were always told "Oh that's good. What is that? ---- Oh a elephant flying in space with a sombrero? Wow that is good keep it up express yourself".

[IvyLipstick]

Did I ever tell you what a beautiful writer you are?

"Because art is a creative personal process and a disregard for history puts all the weight on plagiarism"

"To me, evolution and the potential of evolution, are cornerstones of beauty and they cannot exist without a timeline."

Simply elegant.

Ok I took art for a little while and it is totally different than that of what he says, and it just seems like people who like art often brown-nose others and consider it "right" just because they like hearing what they are saying. In other words, their notions coincide.

[dusken]

Ok I took art for a little while and it is totally different than that of what he says, and it just seems like people who like art often brown-nose others and consider it "right" just because they like hearing what they are saying. In other words, their notions coincide.

I think it is quite obvious from my post that I feel what I wrote is entirely my opinion and not some law.

You act as though people are supposed to agree with people they do not agree with. That is absurd.

Also, she commented on the style more than the content.

But I am glad that your taking art for a little while has qualified you as a sociologist.

[Anonymouse]

I should add that my rant is entirely on art lacking any purposeful matter or subject.

[dusken]

What a wonderful thread. I have to commend the dusken, for finally I can participate in a thread of his since it isn't either Satanism or Movie's. However, I have a rather different take on art. I know you are an artist and a very unique one at that, and judging by your post here you seem to like abstract art. I too was an "artist", although I don't think I ever made it to that level of "developing my own style", but in any event I did study it, I did immerse myself in it, and my technique was my only strong point.

However, to me, what art we value says alot about who we are in our medieval world of "modernity". I am a believer in objective truths and an objective world and reality. To me, art is not so much about how "I see the world", as many artists like to claim, and it is in fact popular since about 95% of art can be all categorized under "abstract" or "modern" or "subjective" art. I do not believe in subjective art, nor do I like subjective art. I equate subjective art with pouring your own subjectivity on the canvas. Picasso was great, but he was a subjective artist, and entirely overrated. I believe in sharing with people what the world is and how they all want to see it. Many people can see the Mona Lisa, or Michaelangelo's David and all realize something of the beauty of the objective world, but many people can see a Picasso and many people will be bemused.

I worked in the Norton Simon Museum for two years, and I have to say, I saw all the galleries from top to bottom, from the late Medieval to the early Renaissance period, to the Dutch artists of the Reformation, etc., to Impressionism, post-Impression, and on and on. However, arriving at the modern art galleries I became ill and bored. I never liked it. To me, it was never interesting. There was nothing in those subjective paintings that evoked any feeling or emotion or tied me to the beauty of the real world. The only thing I did was watch and try to imagine what the artist supposedly tried to do in his idiocy, such as Picasso, or another abominable moron Kandinsky. I've seen the works of Picasso when he was a student, and I have seen the works of him after when he stole Cubism from the Frenchman he tagged along with for a bit. And I must say, his technical work by far is uncanny and brilliant and it is to the level that I have not seen - so clean, so technical - I revere his technique. Unless one is into escapism and seeking a way out of the real world, akin to intoxication, subjective and abstract art is not for you.

I am sick of society ever since the last 100 years or so, revering paintings that, even my grandmother can do. In this day and age atrocious crap like the ones below are classified as "art" since there is a luctrative market for stuff like these for aging hippies and other unique people.

While people smear and chastize Hitler, the man had a point when he labelled art "degenerate", because that is what it was - degenerate. Art nowadays is too much of "Anything goes". Basically anything is art as long as you feel it is, ( if you feel its good do it as the hippie mentality was ), and children from preschool are encouraged to "express themselves" anyway they can, anything goes and art is anything you want it to be, akin to moral relativists who say any morality goes. I know some will be quick to harp on me for trying to bring in morality in here or "stupid religious views". That is untrue, I am only speaking from the viewpoint of an objective world, not a subjective one. If there are objective morals, then most of us would be immoral people instead of inventing our own moralities to comfort ourselves into thinking that somehow we aren't that bad. If there were objective truths and an objective world, then not everything would be "art" and not every artist would be an artist and not ever writer or poet would be a poet and we would be sore losers and failures, and since most of us would be losers without talent that couldn't handle the failure of the objective world so we had to make up rules to satisfy our own sense of self.

This subjectivity is encouraged in literature, in poetry, in art, in music, basically it is "whatever you want it to be". Subjective art is nauseating precisely because it places the unique outlook of the supposed artist ahead of that what is objective. What matters to him more is what he thinks matters to him than a world of objectivity. And on the contrary it would take an objective painter to have no bias, as opposed to a subjective person, because all it does is smear the canvas with what you think things ought to be. Whether in art, literature, or music or poetry, subjecitivity is encouraged and that is the norm. Most of poetry is done by teenage girls before they discover sexuality and it is usually about anything goes, and you can find this sort of crap online everywhere. Basically subjectivity is encouraged because it is a place where you can be anyone, a person who gives up easily, or is not good at something, or has no confidence, and so they turn to subjects where "they can never be wrong", akin to moral relativists inventing their own moralities so "they can never be wrong", unless they are a Hitler or a Pol Pot or a Bush or a Manson. I know this will piss off the Dusken for bringing back morality into his precious art thread, but that is the way it goes, despite him not liking certain uncomfortable views to be expressed.

I find that it is those rare painters who are still objective artists that don't have anything to throw on their canvas. It is an aura of calmness and cleanliness that allows for the full potential of their creativity to take full bloom, for creativity arises from that need to go beyond mere subjective wants and satisfactions to a place that transcends ones limited existence, not selfish egocentric views of "I'm unique" and "the world doesn't understand me". To be an artist, is to be creative, and to be creative is something you can be, that others cannot, and it only takes full bloom, like the rose petal, when you desire to share that creativity with others, because those around you who cannot experience that what you can and do what you can, want to feel that as well. To me, it is in this little talked about desire to share that then we call creativity, that separates you from those that cannot share that creativity even if they wanted to. Subjective art doesn't allow room for that, and turns that on its head. I have seen in my day alot of idiots pretending to be artists when they could not get down the basics of technique, but given the current situation they were always told "Oh that's good. What is that? ---- Oh a elephant flying in space with a sombrero? Wow that is good keep it up express yourself".

Just to start, it does bother me that you mention morality again. Stop it. It is not the only possible analogy. You just cannot come up with any other way of expressing an opinion. It is disconcerting.

I think you need to talk about what makes some art objective because you did not. It was a big rhetorical, political speach with no point to make. Nobody can comment on what you said because you did not show what the opposing possibilities are. So I will comment on subjectivity in addition to objectivity in the way I believe it has a place in your statement.

Art is subjective because it is necessarily an interpretation. That cannot be avoided. If something is filtered through a persons mind it can only end up being an interpretation. A painting of a cup is not a cup; it is the interpretation of a cup through the painter. Therefore, in that sense, it will always be subjective.

I think your reaction to objectivity and subjectivity is confusing art and craft. It is my opinion that you have no respect for art at all. You think you do because some of the people you respect for craft are artists. Craft is the physical creativity of a work. Art is the philosophical creativity of a work. If you do not appreciate the philosophical aspect of a created work then we cannot discuss anything because, as much as it would pain you to accept it, it is entirely subjective. You cannot quantify what everyone looks for in art. If I make a work of art and someone likes it and tells me that it is good art, you cannot tell that person he or she is wrong...not without stating your subjective opinion about what art is. Your opinion is dependant on what you draw from a particular work but if someone else draws something from a peice that you would not and is enriched by it all you can say is, "By my definition, you do not have a right to be enriched by that." Well, tough luck. Oh, and a funny thing is that in you exposition regarding objectivity you used the phrase "To me..." more than once and also referred to the idea of developing your own style all within the first few lines. The does not sound convincingly objective.

It is my opinion that without the subjectivity, the credibility of which you are so adament in defeating, there can be no change or dynamic in art. Everybody would paint to achieve the same painting. Frankly, that is boring and can only be viewed as positive by a person who is excruciatingly boring. That may even be the death of culture altogether. "Alienate him! Ridicule him! He has ventured off the path!" Sounds a lot like art was in communism. You are an artistic communist who is upset at the state of art caused by capitalism but are otherwise supporting capitalism.

The phenomenon of art and the direction it goes in is not dependant entirely on the artist, but also on the buyers and critics and the general audience. That is a lot of people to convince that their opinion is wrong. You said, disparagingly of course, "Basically anything is art as long as you feel it is." Actually, that is inescapably true. Not all art is good but it is art because the intention was to create it as such. You also said, "Art nowadays is too much of 'Anything goes.'" I agree with you. I think art is in a state of decadence and has been for quite a while. That is not a comment on the idea of subjectivity. You seem to think that everything is accepted as long as it is subjective and that is not true. People's freedom to express yeilds crap most of the time but that is the price we pay as humans for the opportunity to experience the good stuff.

For the record, in your last paragraph, starting with "To be an artist...," you did not say anything that would be unique to what you view as objectivism. And those paintings that you posted were terrible.

[Anonymouse]

Hahaha I laffed especially at the part where you called me an "artistic communist". I find that funny, since the only thing I was being was truthful, that some artists, writers, and musicians need to be told they suck, because they really suck. I did specify actually that my rant was on art lacking subject matter or purposeful matter. In the haze I forgot to mention that. I'm glad you see eye to eye on those horrible paintings. However, you trying to speak for me in asserting that I have no respect for art is dumb and unfounded. Our subjective consciousness can get in the way of many things, as we talked about in morality, but that does not overrided objective truths, just like our subjective mind getting in the way of trying to interpret art, doesn't mean that what we interpret subjectively is what matters. The artist ( provided he had a subject matter and purpose in his painting ) does not create something out of thin air, he creates something that exists in the real world, a reflection. When artists try to create things out of thin air, without meaning or purpose, the result are those horrible paintings I posted.

As far as a cup being something other than a cup, I disagree. How can something come to be something other than what it is? An artist may paint a cup differently from another cup, or another artist, yet it does not change the idea of the cup. This goes back to the core of what makes us human, our eternal connection with ideas and symbols. Do you believe ideas are not really ideas, or do you believe ideas are complete, and whole, in other words no idea can mean something other than what it is?

And no where did I attempt to quantify art for everybody, since everyone has differing tastes. That wasn't the rant here, what was the rant is art that lacks meaning, art that lacks subject, that is "abstract", and the subjective mentality that 'anyone is an artist'. I disagree with that mentality of subjectivity because I believe there is a criteria for what we call art, because we do live in a objective world with rules, laws, and criteria and art is simply a reflection of that objective world. There are techniques for drawing and painting, and there are rules. When you bend those rules, you get crap, that is the point. What discerns people who are creative are those who we call 'have talent', because they have a natural and innate ability to draw a cup as it is, to give it the proper contrast and shading, etc., which not everyone can do. To simply focus on the philosphical merits of art, would be ignoring art. To say that it is only philosophy and our interpretation that matters, ignores the rules of art, the beauty of harmony, of criteria and purpose, that guides the natural world all the way down to its mathematical core. To say that anyone can be an artist or anything goes, that invites other morons that paint elephants with sombreros in space to be called "artists" drops the quality and level of creativity. Unfortunately, as truths ( in this case art that has creativity, that has rules, that has purpose ) always become perverted into falsehoods, and are falsehoods when misapplied, they become the gospel of nonsense. The best gift an artist can bestow on mankind, is to show his ability, his creativity, that makes him stand out from the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker - something produced by force, yet acting by rule.