h a l f b a k e r yTastes richer, less filling.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Cars are inevitably finished with highly polished paint (sometimes there is the added adventure of matt or bare metal), but nothing currently exists that offers the Zimmerite, Christo, Yayoi Kusama range of finishes.
If you choose Zimmerite, your car will be returned coated with the same material
used by the Germans in WW2 to smear over their Tiger tanks. If you don't know about it follow the link to see just how mad it is.
The second finish is called the Christo. With this your car is treated as it would have been by "Mr Wrap Everything" artist Christo (RIP) Naturally the doors still open and close and you can see out of the windows, but otherwise the car has now become a mobile Christo.
The third finish is the Yayoi Kusama (aka spotty dotty). Kusama is the wonderful Japanese artist known for her fab colourful dots, and now you can have your car covered in them, using a special extra thick paint that generates an actual tactile lump and not just a coloured spot.
Every car receiving any of the three finishes on offer will be totally unique and a visual sensation. Other finishes are being developed to extend the range.
zimmerite
https://tankmuseum.org/article/zimmerit/
no more need to fear limpet mines [xenzag, Sep 18 2021]
Christo
https://christojean...nd-wrapped-objects/
would you like that gift wrapped? [xenzag, Sep 18 2021]
Yayoi Kusama
https://www.artsy.net/artist/yayoi-kusama
dotty and spotty [xenzag, Sep 18 2021]
Spray-on mud
https://www.theguar.../2005/jun/14/uknews
from 2005 [pocmloc, Sep 19 2021]
Wherein the "modern art is bollocks" argument is put through its paces
Tennis_20racket_20w...ic_20frog_20on_20it
[calum, Sep 19 2021]
Christo
https://christojeanneclaude.net/timeline/
Timeline of L'Arc De Triomphe wrapping [xenzag, Sep 20 2021]
This is what the art world's blessing looks like.
https://www.artsy.n...0More%20items...%20
[Voice, Sep 20 2021]
Weiwei
https://www.theguar...=Share_iOSApp_Other
[xenzag, Sep 22 2021]
Aboriginal study
https://onlinelibra...l/10.1002/ocea.5212
learning to express how you see and represent the world visually in 2D is learned behaviour [xenzag, Sep 25 2021]
Ways Of Seeing
https://www.ways-of-seeing.com/ch1
John Berger [xenzag, Sep 25 2021]
Kusama's Birthday Car
https://sodabred.tu...-kusama-its-an-idea
[xenzag, Mar 23 2022]
Can video games be art?
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/art-2
[Voice, Jun 11 2022]
[link]
|
| |
The Christo thing isn't art if you ask me. He just saw a bundled up thing and called it art. Then a bunch of pretentious tasteless idiots decided to call him an artist, allowing him to do the same thing over and over. |
|
| |
Yayoi Kusama doesn't impress me either. It takes little skill to do that kind of thing. Pick a random one and call it art, I could make a hundred new, unique such things today. Here are some: Smash pencils and make a doodle out of them. Shape electrical wires into the outlines of appliances. Make a coffee mug entirely of chocolate. Paint only the footprints of some fantastic, nonexistent animal. Make a lava flow out of transparent glass. |
|
| |
Maybe one or more has been done before but if it has that only strengthens my point: Arbitrary thing does not equal art, no matter how much money is laundered with it. |
|
| |
If you think all of those make art, then go ahead
and submit them to some galleries or open calls. I
know a lot of curators and taught at several of the
world's leading art colleges and have widely
exhibited my work. It's far from easy to gain
respect and have your work valued. As regards
Christo, getting a place like Paris to agree to an
entire bridge or a monument to be wrapped in the
way he did was, and remains, a simply astounding
achievement of incredible vision and relentless
energy. Christo and his fellow artist wife were two
of greatest artists of the last 100 years. |
|
| |
I couldn't agree less. "large arbitrary thing" also does not equal art. A lot of aesthetic appeal is universal. Art that lacks aesthetic appeal is by definition arbitrary. Arbitrary things are not art. I could spend a thousand hours denting an old refrigerator and making it into a pear shape (or an apple, or a dog), but whether that's considered "art" is PURELY a matter of which way the critics decide to wave their wands today. A bundle of stuff wrapped up in string and cloth is not art no matter how large it is. |
|
| |
My crushed pencil doodle would not be considered art, but not because of any inherent value in the banana nailed to a wall or the golden toilet. Or the whatever wrapped up in cloth and string. My crushed pencil doodle wouldn't be art because the right people haven't nodded in a self-important way and said, "ah yes, the shadows in the lower right quadrant are so clearly evocative of the Picasso/Klimp paradigm, welcoming the old ways into the twenty first century with style. And look at the way the blonde is highlighted by the shadow of the graphite. Yes, this is very new and interesting" |
|
| |
And don't say I'm just ignorant either. There is no great wealth of wisdom behind the rebellion against aesthetic appeal that is modern art. That previous sentence pretty much says the whole thing. "I, too, am art" but yeah no it isn't art. Art has a purpose beyond rich people pretending to know more about X than anyone else. Anyway rich people have wine to do that with. |
|
| |
I suggest that, if you are going to call someone "ignorant", then
you ought to be able to point to some specific fact of which they
are ignorant. Otherwise, "ignorant" becomes a vacuous out-
group designator, like "philistine". |
|
| |
So carry on, call [Voice] ignorant, but back it up. |
|
| |
+ not arguing about art because I agree with both
points of views at different times. |
|
| |
But as the idea is for car paint, I quite like it. |
|
| |
//a rhetorical dismissal is all they deserve// |
|
| |
Mmmkay, so we've pivoted from the epistemological question,
"What</edited> does [Voice] know or not know?" to the ethical
question,
"What does [Voice] deserve or not deserve?" |
|
| |
And on this question, your position seems to be "people who
show signs of insecurity deserve contempt". Would you like to
expand on that? |
|
| |
He's gonna call you on "Whar. |
|
| |
I’ve always thought Range Rover should offer a
“mud splatter” paint option - i.e. to make your
stupidly oversized car look as though you actually
ever take it off-road as opposed to just driving it
to the supermarket |
|
| |
[hippo] spray on mud is (or was) commercially available. <link> |
|
| |
Thank you, [2 fries]; my eyesight's going. |
|
| |
I am of course aware of the Kusama cars, but these
are not realised using the protruding physical
knobs
of colour I propose. |
|
| |
//And don't say I'm just ignorant either.// There’s
no need to defend your lack of understanding of
contemporary art. It's perfectly ok not to like
whatever you don't like, but it clearly challenges
you, and that's a great reaction for any maker of
work. Meanwhile, being specific - have you ever
been in the presence of a Christo piece? |
|
| |
[poc] - I’ve heard of that, but this would be really
nicely done, photorealistic mud splatters, with the
right kind of spray patterns from each wheel up
the side of the vehicle, and wouldn’t need to be
redone every time you wash your car |
|
| |
Right, then use brown spray paint. |
|
| |
//it clearly challenges you// |
|
| |
I seem to have failed to make myself clear. There is nothing I find confusing or challenging about modern art. Modern art consists almost entirely of arbitrary items, misshapen sculpture, and meaningless, often ugly pictures all blessed with snobbery. What aesthetic appeal remains is either purely subjective and therefore pointless or a carry over from when art meant something beautiful. Anyone can put a random thing on a pedestal. Anyone can paint squares, blobs, and even squares and blobs with a little perspective and shadow. Anyone can doodle a misshapen head or a half cow half devil. There is no non-trivial value in what can be trivially reproduced. |
|
| |
And something mundane or ugly does not become aesthetically pleasing just because it was expensive or difficult to make. The value of a 10 kilogram golden toilet is ten kilograms of gold. |
|
| |
//have you ever been in the presence of a Christo piece?// |
|
| |
No, but I've been in the presence of probably thousands of expensive, snob-blessed objects that you wouldn't notice if they didn't have a little card over them. A janitor once left his mop and bucket in an art museum and came back to find a small appreciative crowd admiring them. |
|
| |
Did you know there was an artist who sold pieces for large sums that he made by encouraging some monkeys to splash paint on canvas? Before the matter was divulged people were talking in breathless terms about his clever use of space and perspective. |
|
| |
There’s an awful lot about contemporary art that’s
all about money. Over the last forty years it’s
become seen as an investment market and a place
to store money in assets, in a very different way to
what it was before. Because of this there are
dangerous temptations in the market; gallery
owners and museum curators mentor young artists
and buy their work, and then give them prestigious
solo exhibitions in ‘establishment’ venues which
drive their prices up and signal that they are a
name to invest in. There is some genuinely good
contemporary art but money and snobbery
(establishment artists now have to go to the ‘right’
colleges) distort everything. |
|
| |
//when art meant something beautiful.// When
was that? I notice you also use the term “modern
art” quite often. What does this term mean? It
seems to make you quite animated. Why is that?
Maybe if you learned a bit more about what you
are so animated over, you might be surprised. My
entire life has been immersed in contemporary art
and design. I think you would be humbled by how
hard and dedicated most of those engaged in their
practice really are. Look at the life story of some
of those you despise so much and see where that
takes you. Try looking at Cornelia Parker and see
how you get on. |
|
| |
Completely irrelevant to the merit of what they make |
|
| |
From a quick glance at an image search I see a couple of things which probably have actual meaning. |
|
| |
I said no such thing. I implied no such thing. I don't despise anyone. Although I have a certain degree of contempt for bigots and the willfully ignorant, e.g. feminists. |
|
| |
Think you need to chill. Meanwhile if you look a
little harder at Cornelia Parker, you'll find she
doesn't actually "make" anything, so she fits well
within several of the work types you ridiculed. You
also cannot fully appreciate the work of someone
like Ai Weiwei without knowing his life history.
This applies to numerous artists. Superficial
judgments are the product of lazy thinking. Get
that brain on the treadmill! Ha |
|
| |
Have you read such feminists as Betty Friedan, or Cordelia
Fine, [Voice], or do you remain willfully ignorant of them?
;-) |
|
| |
I don't know about bigotry but Fine is clearly an idiot, as described in her Wikipedia article: |
|
| |
//Her second book, Delusions of Gender, argues that conclusions that science has shown that men's and women's brains are intrinsically different in ways that explain the gender status quo are premature and often based on flawed methods and unexamined assumptions.// |
|
| |
Can't recall anything about her off the top of my head. But just as you can't be a Christian without believing Jesus died for your sins you're not a Feminist unless you believe men have been oppressing women throughout the ages, a proposition that's absolutely laughable. Oh you can call yourself feminist without believing that, but I can call myself Christian whilst burning incense to the glory of my ancestors and dancing for the sun god. |
|
| |
Alternatively feminism is not an ideology but a set of theories, in which case those theories can be trivially crushed under mountains of evidence regardless of the abuse of academia that has allowed feminist articles to chase the weezle round and round a tree building article upon article based ultimately on data like a "ladies home journal" survey where n=50 and there is no collection methodology. Okay, not trivially, it's actually a massive gish gallop to oppose but it can be done. |
|
| |
//she doesn't actually "make" anything// |
|
| |
She does things and then different things come out of it, yes? Whether that's done with knives, explosives, or welding torches doesn't change that. |
|
| |
//You also cannot fully appreciate the work of someone like Ai Weiwei without knowing his life history. // |
|
| |
Balderdash. The work must stand on its own unless a biography is physically attached to it. And in that case you're probably well into "vacuous snob" territory. Sorry [xenzag] but your emperor has no clothes. |
|
| |
So, have you read the arguments she puts forward? Notice
she doesn't say that those conclusions are definitely wrong -
just that they're premature. That's a pretty restrained
conclusion by the usual standards of gender-political
debate, isn't it? |
|
| |
[Voice] Your statement that "The work must stand on its own" without knowing more about the life events of the person who created it is simply laughable, and more evidence of shallow thinking. Some work "stands on its own" but many pieces requires deeper thinking. Don't be so lazy. Look at any piece of Weiwei's work then find out more about it by finding out more about him. This action should be repeated for most contemporay art works. As for your war with feminists..... good luck with that one. You're going to need it. |
|
| |
//she doesn't say that those conclusions are definitely wrong - just that they're premature. That's a pretty restrained conclusion by the usual standards of gender-political debate, isn't it?// |
|
| |
I did notice and appreciate it. But it's like pointing out that the theory of gravity doesn't have it's math settled and we're not even sure of the operative particles yet. True but missing the point. I would have called her willfully ignorant but I was feeling charitable. |
|
| |
//many pieces requires deeper thinking.// |
|
| |
And by "deeper thinking" you mean "inventing arbitrary reasons why that obviously ugly set of blobs is actually something amazing" No thanks, I never lie. Not to anyone else but most especially not to myself. It's trivial to invent arbitrary, subjective excuses for bad "art" and all I need to do is point out that they're arbitrary and subjective. That you can do the same thing regardless of the thing being called art. Give me a coffee mug and I can invent a back story that would make dozens of art critics proud. Your emperor has. no. clothes. |
|
| |
Great. I'll look forward to seeing your coffee mug
in some international open submission show. Go
ahead and submit it and let's see you proving your
point. Most submissions only make a modest
charge. Try EVA as a starter. It's the international
biennial in Ireland. They show 80 pieces out of a
submission counted in thousands but once they see
your 'mug' and read of its backstory how could they
possibly not include it. It's so easy (according to
you) So go for it! |
|
| |
//Go ahead and submit it and let's see you proving your point// |
|
| |
But my point is that my mug will NOT be accepted as art, just for different reasons than you would expect it not to be accepted. If the same mug were submitted with the same backstory by a person who comes pre-blessed (say if I were to give it to you and you were to submit it) it would be accepted. |
|
| |
What does "pre-blessed" mean? Show me an
example of "pre-blessing". |
|
| |
// Show me an example of "pre-blessing".// |
|
| |
linked. If an unknown artist make those Boafo paintings no one would give them a second glance. |
|
| |
Tell you what, if you agree to have someone who has already sold abstract art to present it as an interesting find I'll make the crushed pencil doodle and a backstory with all the right buzzwords for an anonymous artist. If you're right it will receive enormously less attention than other similar work they present. If I'm right you can keep the sales price. |
|
| |
At the same time I'll make a doodle in a different medium and send it to an open submission show. I predict the one I send in with my actual name and backstory will be rejected out of hand, but the one you have presented will sell for a significant sum. |
|
| |
What can you lose but some self-delusion? |
|
| |
What do you know about Amoako Boafo and how
they became so respected? |
|
| |
Don't care. His art has the same value whether it was made by a man rich or poor, educated or not, and with or without name recognition. The sort of person he is is completely irrelevant to the quality of his art. Most especially the challenges and inequities are irrelevant. If the art is beautiful it is beautiful whether it was made with great effort and study or whether some talented fellow whipped it up in an afternoon. |
|
| |
I'm with [Voice]. "Expensive" art is only expensive because
some person is willing to pay more than some other person
to own it. It's like Gucci handbags etc: they get made for
cheap in China, shipped to Europe where the "label" is
attached, & then get sold for heaps. They're not "worth" a
lot, just people are willing to "pay" a lot (often
misguidedly...). |
|
| |
Also the statement the author is attempting to make is irrelevant unless it's clearly part of the art. If you have to read the little card it's not clear. |
|
| |
Price is a different issue to quality. Everthing in
monetary terms is worth what someone is
prepared to pay for it, but that has nothing to do
with critical respect. People pay a lot of money for
trash art, like Damien Hirst now makes, but they
also pay a lot of money for excellence like Weiwei. |
|
| |
I see a mishapen lump, but I also see other work that I think should have universal appeal and meaning. His silver finger is unoriginal and banal, as is his smashed vase. But I think the Coca Cola vase is original and meaningful. Anyway I stand by my declaration that anything intended to make the statement, "it's art if you think it's art" isn't art. |
|
| |
The problem (of course) is that art is completely subjective.
Unfortunately, a lot of "art critics" don't realise this.
So while [xenzag] might think a piece is worthy of time &
expensive, I might think "last time I saw something like that, I
got my panel-beater to fix it". |
|
| |
//His silver finger is unoriginal and banal, as is his
smashed vase.// What do you know about the
smashed vase series? To judge work like this purely
on what you see is to totally fail to understand it.
Do you not want to understand it? That's ok. Just
say "I don't understand this type of work and I can't
be bothered trying to". If you do understand it,
have a go at explaining it and why you don't like it.
After this I give up. I actually don't really care
much what you think or don't think about anything.
Given what you've said, I'd read your dislike of my
own work as a clear compliment. |
|
| |
//To judge work like this purely on what you see is to totally fail to understand it.// |
|
| |
To pretend there can be important parts of a work that aren't actually parts of the work is to misconstrue it. |
|
| |
// If you do understand it, have a go at explaining it and why you don't like it// |
|
| |
I didn't know there's a whole series, I was just talking about the one where he's apparently or supposedly destroying an expensive vase. "Here, watch me destroy expensive thing" doesn't make any kind of statement that hasn't been made thousands of times just as well. Keep saying that stuff about the artist changes the work, but it won't make it so. If there are important parts of the work that aren't actually displayed in the work well, they're not part of the work. It's like writing a novel and then claiming it's actually good because of the author's feelings while he wrote it. Or singing and then saying it was excellent music because of what the singer was feeling at the time. |
|
| |
That which is not in the work is not in the work, not part of the work, and cannot factor into any measurement or understanding of the work. You don't get to point at things that aren't included and say the work should be judged based on those things. |
|
| |
I don't know which of the artists you've discussed are you, but abstract art that doesn't have appeal unless you know the artist has no appeal at all. |
|
| |
As for the silver middle finger, "fuck you, viewer/art critic/world" has been done by every emo teenager to put on black pants and eye shadow. Saying it with a silver finger isn't better than saying it with a golden toilet, which isn't better than saying it by writing the words. |
|
| |
I went to a relative's house and in their shed there was a smashed vase, it was very beautiful, lying on its side on the dirty concrete floor, at the foot of the wobbly woodwormy cabinet where they kept their spare teapots, still with the brittle brown dead flowers and rim of limescale inside where the water had dried out months before. Does that make my relative an artist for owning the smashed vase, or does it make me an artist for finding it and appreciating its decaying beauty? I think I took a photo of it. Maybe I didn't. Is that false memory an artwork? Is this halfbakery post (which may or may not be true) an artwork? Is this letter W an artwork? |
|
| |
I don't know whether the vase was art, but your prose is. In my opinion such a picture would be art if it can stand on its own as meaningful or beautiful. I would have said "and beautiful" but Weiwei's Coca Cola vase changed my belief on that point. |
|
| |
I think that what you are critiqueing here, [voice], is a very transient conceptual and linguistic usage. As soon as we go back a few generations we find the word "art" is connected into its etymological roots and its embedded meaning cross-culture. Consider artisan, artefact, zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, the artful dodger, artificial... |
|
| |
I thin the essence of art is guided human work, skill, technique. In a way art is the same thing as technology, it is a body of embedded information that acts as a recipe for acting on the world. So, the art of wooden-bowl-turning on a pole lathe is a body of technology, a tradition of inherited skill, the artisan knows how to select materials, how to make or choose tools, how to set up the workspace, how to apply the tools to the materials, how to use hand eye co-ordination to effect the material changes desired, to produce the finished result, viz. a wooden bowl. If the bowl leaks, or splits, it is rejected and thrown on the firewood pile. |
|
| |
So from that point of view there is nothing artistic about smashing a vase. Neither is there anything artistic in finding a stone and bringing it home, or sitting looking at the ocean, or giving yourself a funny name. But making a stirling engine, or baking a loaf of bread, or sewing a seam, is art, artifice, artificial, technology, skill. |
|
| |
At a certain point you simply give up trying to
explain
globes to flat earth believers. My final offering to
dispell the disrepectful ignorance about Weiwei is
this Guardian article in the link. |
|
| |
I don't think that's a great metaphor. In the case of
sphere vs. flat earth there is actual evidence which
suggests we live on a sphere. In the case of art, if one
person looks at something and says "That's art" and another
looks at it and says "That's not art", it's a fruitless
debate because there's no objective way to say that one
person is right and the other wrong. |
|
| |
My point remains that mere "looking at" is not
sufficient to enable understanding to fully take
place. What value systems are engaged in the act
of looking? How have these values been informed?
"I know what I like when I see it" is for monkeys
selecting bananas. |
|
| |
Humans are a kind of monkey, and bananas are incredible wonders of evolution and biochemistry. |
|
| |
Perhaps a useful way of analysing this discussion would be from an anthropological point of view. There are groups of humans who ascribe value to objects or behaviours; semantic categories are assigned according to behavioural norms within those groups. Membership of and admittance to these groups could be studied, as could the nature of the behavioural norms and expectations. |
|
| |
There are (and in the past have also been) other groups of humans in the world who use similar terminology or semantic ranges to describe different kinds of behaviour. |
|
| |
From an archaeological point of view, the material traces of human activities persist after the human activity itself has stopped, and indeed after humans have stopped talking or thinking about those activities. This can happen on any timescale from minutes to tens of thousands of years. |
|
| |
In my humble opinion, 'art' should engage and move the observer. Be it awe, or loathing, or beauty, or wonder. |
|
| |
Sorry [xen] I don't want to have to learn about the angst of the artist to appreciate their art. |
|
| |
Art, real art, should speak for itself. |
|
| |
In all of my works of art I have hidden my signature. It's in there somewhere... but it does not stand out. Should my art ever become famous it will not be in my lifetime. |
|
| |
I want no kudos for it.
I'm just a conduit. |
|
| |
That's how you keep your sanity btw.
You don't make art. It makes itself through you. |
|
| |
//In my humble opinion, 'art' should engage and
move the observer// Yet again that’s a learned
process based on a set of learned values. It's
banana hunting. It's similar to saying that a book is
no good because it's been written in a language
you don't understand. We learn what we like
looking at through a process that involves many
moving parts in society. That process can be
deepened and developed, and continually
challenged. Doing so adds other food to the
banana only diet. |
|
| |
I have some books of art history. |
|
| |
Some of the earlier pages show artefacts dug up by
archaeologists. The observer has no knowledge of the life of the
artist, and has had little or no opportunity to learn the values of
the societies that produced them, and yet, to use the words of
[2 fries], they engage and move the observer. |
|
| |
So, [xenzag], are those objects not really art? And is it wrong to
ask of art that it should be able to move an unknown observer
from a different culture, as those objects move us? And, if so,
why is it wrong? |
|
| |
From where did the observer learn to attach these
values to that which they see? All value
judgements are learned behaviour. Extend the
learning and you can expand your experience.
There are equally plenty of unearthed objects that
may only be appreciated when you know more of
their origin and creative background. A rusty nail
that turns out to have been bashed through
someone's hand/wrist can become an object of
awe and beauty once its origin is explained. |
|
| |
My, what an invigorating discussion! |
|
| |
[xenzag] and [Voice], fascinating. It's good to hear both
sides of the argument, so thanks. I understand a little better
than before. |
|
| |
Thanks - now what finish have you selected for you
car? |
|
| |
[xenzag]; counterpoint:
You see a piece of art, & like it; praising the artist credited, &
look for & praise their other works. Later, you learn that the
"credited artist" actually stole that first piece. Does that mean
your initial response of appreciation was wrong? What about
your thoughts on their other works? |
|
| |
//all artistic merit is relative// |
|
| |
then all art is meaningless. But is isn't. QED |
|
| |
It proves my point, as your initial reaction was
based on poor research into the deeper aspects of
the work. Now go find a better banana. My
students do better than this, and I bat them back
like ping pong balls with helium in them. |
|
| |
Ah, I think I see the problem - we have different
understandings of what "looking at art" means. |
|
| |
There are not deeper aspects to the work, as you have pointed out many timed by saying you don't understand the work if you only look at the work. |
|
| |
//what "looking at art" means.// Looking at
anything shows you the exterior surface. If that's
where your judgement stops then you're going to
be eating yellow rocks as well as bananas, and
buying lots of repro art that's churned out by
painting factories in China. These places can
generate exact replicas of any painting, but if your
judgement stops at the door of only looking, then
you will still love the Van Gough replica and not
care about the tough life and anguish of the
original artist. |
|
| |
That's definetly "it". I'm not explaining this
anymore. If you still don't "get it" then good luck
next time you're privileged to be in the presence
of a Christo and think these thoughts "I don't get it,
anyone could do that" |
|
| |
So is this view of "art" related to the cult of relics in some Christian churches? If you have St. Archibald's femur, you can be blessed and healed by being in the presence of it. An exact lifelike replica of St Archibald's femur doesn't have the same supernatural powers no matter how convincingly made. |
|
| |
If the exact convincing replica of Van Gogh's sunflowers doesn't have the same meaning as the original, this seems to be because of some direct connection to //the tough life and anguish of the original artist//. But two possible things spring to mind. Does Van Gogh's penknife or underpants share in this connection? And what about the tough life and anguish of the Chinese production line worker(s) who created the replica? Does their anguish not also attach to the replica artwork? |
|
| |
If the exact replica and the original were put in a pot and tumbled together for a long time, and then taken out, how would anyone be able to tell the difference? Is there a scientific test for the anguish or is it more like water-divining? |
|
| |
Is this connected to homeopathy, where the 10-million-diluted sewage doesn't matter but the 10-million-diluted calendua petal does? |
|
| |
Just asking questions - happy for all of them to be proved wrong or stupid. |
|
| |
Not that I'm qualified in any way, but "I know what I
like..." |
|
| |
Some pieces of art bring pleasure because viewing them,
you feel that you have shared something with the artist -
some idea, thought, some human feeling - has crossed the
void between us, and affected me the viewer. |
|
| |
That applies for other arts too - for me, music
particularly. |
|
| |
That doesn't necessarily require "beauty", (and certainly
has no relation to commercial value) - and my judgement
is purely subjective. For artists that I like, I also want to
know more about them - perhaps to understand some
subtlety or context that I miss otherwise. |
|
| |
There are lots of modern and contemporary artists who's
work I don't like, or don't understand. Some that I have
initially disliked/not understood, once I know more about
the artist and context, I see in a different light. |
|
| |
One of the best things about going to a gallery is finding a
piece you know nothing about, and going "hmm, that's
interesting - I wonder who this artist is - what they're
saying and why?" |
|
| |
Very many (very good) artists never win any prizes, sell
works for '000s or get shown at swanky galleries. That
doesn't devalue what they do or the art they make. |
|
| |
In the same way - if I sometimes pick up a guitar and play
it, you cant say "you're not a musician and that's not
music" - you can tell me you don't like my music, sure,
and you can tell me I'm a poor musician - totally right -
but that doesn't stop it from being music. |
|
| |
//All value judgements are learned behaviour.// |
|
| |
This claim is more interesting than it first appears. |
|
| |
On the one hand it can be shot down with a simple syllogism,
something along these lines:
1. This claim, as applied to art, would imply that no art would be
able to exert any cross-cultural appeal.
2. At least some art does exert at least some cross-cultural
appeal. Therefore
3. This claim is false. |
|
| |
On the other hand, the claim doesn't really belong in the world of
syllogisms, or first-order predicate logic, does it? It belongs to a
quite different epistemological model. |
|
| |
More specifically, it reminds me of this passage in the book
"Introducing Semiotics" by Paul Cobley:
"[…] the real is actually the intersubjective meaning arrived at by
a community in semiosis. One way to think of this community
might be the notion of a research hothouse of semiosis." |
|
| |
Before I go any further, [xenzag], would it be fair to locate your
position somewhere in the region described by this sort of
semiotic theory, or am I just putting up a straw man here? |
|
| |
Will explain it more (for the last time ever ever)
when on my laptop and not on iPhone. Meanwhile
read the link article in the last two links. |
|
| |
John Berger in particular nails it perfectly.
Ways Of Seeing. |
|
| |
The epistemology of relativism is perfect: just ask any relativist. |
|
| |
I asked a relative, but they said they hadn't a clue about beetles. But they told me they knew what they liked, and they liked what they knew. |
|
| |
It was Yayoi Kusama's birthday recently, and guess what? She's a big fan of some of the ideas on the Halfbakery - what a compliment! :-) (see last link) |
|
| |
As well as being nigh impossible to keep clean, any of
these finishes would destroy what fuel economy your
vehicle has. Have you seen the price of fuel lately? This
reminds me of an idea posted many years ago for a large
truck/SUV type vehicle with oil torches burning on the roof. |
|
| |
I must try to be more practical. |
|
| |