Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 9 10
#86400 11/10/02 04:55 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 261
B
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
B
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 261
Since the shortlist for the Turner Prize had been announced, many questions have been asked as to whether many of the shortlisted pieces could really be called art (these pieces included a perspex cieling and, from last year, a light that flashed on and off).
It's been suggested that these works should be classified as 'phart' - an alternative spin off of art. Phartists whould create works of phart that would be judged in phart competitions, displayed in phart galleries and assesed by phart critics. This new classification would go a long way to solving the many diputes that arise in the art/phart world. Then of course, as phart progresses, we will see the emergence of classical phart, modern phart, figurative phart... the list will be endless, and a new and wonderful art- sorry phart form will be born!

EDIT:
By the way:
Phart - a word derived from the words phonomonum and art - describing a phonomonum that has arisen from art...
No prejudices implied.
EDIT(2): Oops, I meant phenomenon.

If the world doesn't suck, we'd all fall off.

#86401 11/10/02 05:17 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Dear bonzaialsatian: De gustibus non est, and all that.......


#86402 11/11/02 08:56 AM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
R
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
R
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
We need a definition of "Art", here, I think.

At base level, anything that isn't "Natural" - i.e., produced by nature - is "Art".
If you accept that proposition, then the Turner Prize entries all qualify - as do the clothes I'm wearing, the chair I sit on, the desk I work at etc ad infinitum.

So, we need a more useful and usable definition.

How about this?

"Art" is the arrangement or re-arrangement of articles, natural or made, into a form that has no intrinsic use or purpose other than as decoration.

Judgement of the success of a piece of "Art" is, and always will be, subjective. HOwever, from society's point of view, some degree of consensus on the matter is, at the very least, desirable.
How many people have to agree that a piece of "Art" is good before it is acceptable for public display?


#86403 11/11/02 01:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
B
old hand
Offline
old hand
B
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
> "Art" is the arrangement or re-arrangement of articles, natural or made, into a form that has no intrinsic use or purpose other than as decoration.

This definition would please the exponents of 'found art' - those who will take (usually) utilitartian objects and place them in odd (even provocative) ways to evoke thoughts in the viewer. In my eyes though putting, for example, a tampon in a teacup is neither a great idea, an achievement, or a deep way to look at the repression of women.

> How many people have to agree that a piece of "Art" is good before it is acceptable for public display?

The idea of a 'Canon of visual art' is flimsy to say the least. The practice, often by excellent artists of 'creating' such ridiculous works as 'An empty margarine container' seems to be their way of sticking their finger up at the ego oriented 'artistic community'; for there are too many critics and too little art. Mind you I can think of a few living artists I like - not surprisingly they're all women - the rest shouldn't be dubbed 'phart', but simply 'wank'. I think institutionalized modern visual art has, per se, lost any credibility among the general population except in its most direct and anonymous forms like that of graffiti and crop circles.


#86404 11/11/02 01:33 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
W
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
I like going through the modern art wing of our local museum because I know I'm going to be surprised. Rarely, an artist's idea might seem a bit too easy--not much imagination--but more often than not I'm blown away by the artists' imaginations.

wwh is correct to point out the taste issue. Probably what I find offensive, a good body of other people would find to be liberating. Heaven knows we're not going to find anything on earth that we all can agree about other than the basest animal instincts and needs...and even then some people try to cross the line.

But I do like this idea of Phart! At least I'd have a mental term for that art that I find to be trivial and offensive. I'd have Art and Phart in my little Hall of Gustibus. [Didn't you mean phenomenon?]


#86405 11/11/02 09:21 PM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
J
old hand
Offline
old hand
J
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
Ok, let's see if I can come up with something coherent. . .

Art is a hard thing to nail down with one definition because its purpose has changed over the ages. It has transformed from primarily descriptive to interpretive. Cave paintings tell a story of a great kill (http://www.minervatech.u-net.com/illos/lasc2.jpg). Greek temples depict (architecturally) the traits of the god or goddess (http://www.ludvigsen.hiof.no/webdoc/inet93/cyberspace.ill/parthenon.gif). Stained glass windows and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (http://sun.science.wayne.edu/~mcogan/Humanities/Sistine/Ceiling/Ceiling.2.jpg) tell Biblical tales. The Mona Lisa (which really is in no way a phenomenal painting) is simply a portrait of a client (http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ltk/Photos/mona-lisa.jpg).

Along the way painters started to put symbols into their works or alter proportions to show hierarchy. 'Round about the 19th century they began to experiment with new techniques and really look at the relationships of light and colors (http://library.thinkquest.org/27356/media/paintings/caravaggio.conversionofsaintpaul.jpg). Impressionism gives the painter's simple impressions of a subject. It's not intended to look real (http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr/img/monet.jpg). Those abstract impressions developed into an art more focused on the study of color theory. Mondrian's primary colored squares are more graphic design compositions than pure art, but they have the purpose of causing people to look at color and composition differently (http://titan.glo.be/~gd30144/mondrian.jpg). Most modern art is intended to interpret something and change the viewers perpective of it. It's like the students in Dead Poets Society standing up on their desk to look at the room differently (http://www10.pair.com/crazydv/weir/dps/pics/assorted1.jpg). Duchamp's Fountain (which is a urinal) is supposed to make you think about what really makes a fountain (http://www.thespoon.com/art/about/images/duchamp-fountain.jpg). Whether this is a useful paradigm shift is is up to you.

One of the most universal definitions of art is something that responds to your emotions. Michelangelo's Pieta (Mary sitting with dead Jesus draped over her http://www.christusrex.org/www1/citta/0-Pieta.jpg) surely responds to a Christian's emotions. The blended rectangles of Rothko (http://www.poster.net/rothko-marc/rothko-marc-orange-and-yellow-2102369.jpg) can also evoke emotions though. Colors have been shown to have a psychological effect on people, Rothko and others are exploring that. Many contemporary works are psychological. Putting fish in a blender is a way of looking at the morals of humanity.

So I don't have a definition for you, but I think one of the major points of modern art is to remain open minded. And remember, most progressive artists were hated by their contemporaries. Michelangelo was criticized for making his sculptures look too scarily real. Monet's works were shunned as trivial.


#86406 11/11/02 09:32 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
wow. as long as there isn't a quiz at the end, I'm ok.

thanks, zocto!





formerly known as etaoin...
#86407 11/12/02 12:57 AM
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
"Art" is the arrangement or re-arrangement of articles, natural or made, into a form that has no intrinsic use or purpose other than as decoration.

With all due respect I must disagree. The furniture I make I consider art, and definitely the boxes I make ARE an art form (not that I am yet particularly good at it, but I'm certainly striving to blend the esthetic with the useful.) Both the furniture and the boxes (and a few lamps along the way) are used, but are meant to be pleasing to the eye.

Peggy j8ust wandered by and siad, "Whoa! Tell him about the quilts I make."

I rest my case :)

TEd




TEd
#86408 11/12/02 10:54 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
I agree with TEd. But, if I must rise to my reputation, I'll state that the aspects of the creation of a chair that do not contribute to its funcionality as a chair may be considered art. One could make a perfectly functioning chair without a lick of artwork. That it may be more pleasing to have a chair that is also a work of art is irrelevant to the chairness of the artless work.


#86409 11/12/02 01:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
R
Pooh-Bah
Offline
Pooh-Bah
R
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Beautifully put, Faldage.
I agree with TEd that there is a cross over between arts and crafts - certainly, design is an accepted area of art and is taught in art colleges throughout Britain, at least.


Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 9 10

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,283
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 444 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,510
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5