Quote:
Originally posted by King's Indian
Hello, JP!
Thanks for the counterexamples (not least the considerate way in which you raised them).
|
Sure. Thank you. Consideration, is, in my view, generally one good behavior trait to display and emulate.
Quote:
I was trying to be inclusive: I was trying to see if I could find some common ground between things like Duchamp's "Fountain" and, say, "Las Meninas". This is based on the fact that they're described by the same word. I know which I'd prefer to spend an afternoon gawping at, but I was trying to discount my personal taste as a criterion (impeccable though it be hem hem). Nevertheless, the points you raised do suggest over-enthusiasm on my part.
|
Well, I didn't mean to suggest that your definition and your assessment of it were wrong. On the contrary, it seems to be a step in the right direction. In fact, I would now say (after reading your posts) that culture is definitely a consideration in the definition of art, though it might not be the only one. More analysis of this consideration is needed in order to determine whether it is indeed the only one that is necessary.
Quote:
Funnily enough, we used to do that too. Although as I went to Art School, these tended to be more drawings in the style of Gary Panter, showing scenes from well-loved films. I remember a whole cubicle wall covered with scenes from "Easy Rider". Eheu fugaces and so on. Anyway, your point reminded me of Jenny Holzer's Stuff. It doesn't seem a world away to flash up "protect me from what I want" on a Times Square billboard from what you used to get up to (although I'll allow that your stuff had a bit more depth to it).
|
Thanks. Panter, eh? It seems that you guys had more fun than we had with graffiti. I finally stopped being a graffiti poster because I got tired of endless arguments involving me being criticized by other graffiti writers for being an "ethical" person who writes graffiti, and me arguing that they are being ("ethically") inconsistent in their criticism of me!
Quote:
I do not offer the following as a rebuttal, but as an example of how sneaky I can be: I did state at first that art was a cultural product etc. etc. In this case, it would be the writing & speaking that could fall under my definition. Slippery, eh?
|
No, fair enough, my error. Again, your definition seems right on track. But it may still help to see if the definition leaves out anything that is acceptable as art or includes something that "clearly" isn't.
Quote:
On the one hand, I think that there are examples to bolster my case: On the one hand, when Picasso saw the African masks in the Museum, he was inspired along lines which (along with other considerations) eventually helped him to co-invent cubism. What he was taking from them must have been different from their original cultural use. Perhaps Aboriginal sand paintings, used as objects to transmit cultural traditions but fated to end up treated and hanging on gallery walls would be something else to consider.
|
This seems to raise the issue that perhaps it would be the culture of the dominant group, among other cultures, that gets to determine what constitutes art. But this again, of course, assumes that culture is the only determining factor in what constitutes "art".
Quote:
On the other hand, your point goes deeper: that "art" as I have been using it is a culturally specific term. Not all cultures use it in the ways we've come to know it, but use things we translate as "art" in ways that are more religious, or as vehicles to transmit understanding across generations.
|
Of course, if it is the case that it is the dominant culture that gets to determine what things are to be considered art, it is only our view of those things (as being objects of art) that matters, since our ("western") culture is now dominant.
Quote:
Not even Western culture has relied on "art" as we understand it: from Lascaux to Byzantine portrayals of Christus Patiens, at least, it has viewed its art more on the way just described. If my definition has any legs, I'll have to incorporate its specficity, and would have to include such socio-economic aspects as the gallery, the collector, and the market amongst others.
|
If I'm understanding you correctly, I think you are right on this point. Since it may be argued that even those socio-economic considerations might be culturally determined, or at least, influenced by culture, it does seem difficult to get around the idea that culture is a significant consideration in the definition of art.
Quote:
Again, much thanks. If I think of anything remarkable, I'll be back (maybe a new thread to incorporate all this). Until then, I'll leave you and Philechat to get on with it (particularly on the questions of value and also "is/ought", which I follow with interest).
Take care,
KI.
|
Thanks. And thank you for your input, KI. Your comments have certainly given me something on which to meditate in the meantime.
03-15-2003, 04:39 PM
I should really be asleep, but...
