#86400
11/10/2002 4:55 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 261
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
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 ph enomenon. If the world doesn't suck, we'd all fall off.
|
|
|
#86401
11/10/2002 5:17 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear bonzaialsatian: De gustibus non est, and all that.......
|
|
|
#86402
11/11/2002 8:56 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
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
11/11/2002 1:27 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
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
11/11/2002 1:33 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
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?]
|
|
|
#86406
11/11/2002 9:32 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
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
11/12/2002 12:57 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
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
11/12/2002 10:54 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
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
11/12/2002 1:10 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
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.
|
|
|
#86410
11/12/2002 4:00 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 261
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 261 |
"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.Both the furniture and the boxes [...]are meant to be pleasing to the eye.I also don't agree that all art should have no other use other than decoration, however, what both of these statements seem to agree on is that art should be 'pleasing to the eye,' or at least move us in some way. It is true that there is no accounting for taste, but I fail to see how anyone can be move by a lightbulb turning on and off every few seconds... I sure some will disagree with me on this one! If the world doesn't suck, we'd all fall off.
|
|
|
#86411
11/12/2002 6:06 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
The Light Bulb:
First, we'd have to see this work of art to make any kind of judgment.
Perhaps the bulb turns on and off eratically;or perhaps in regularly-timed intervals; or spells out something in Morse code; or simply causes us to look at it and really see its details.
I haven't seen the work of art, so I can't judge, but, if it won some kind of award, I'd hope that the artist did something interesting or enlightening with the light bulb. I hope it just isn't a light bulb that comes on at regular intervals--that would sound more like a science project. To win an award, there was probably something creative in how this bulb was presented. Could there be something missing to your story? Maybe the critical element?
|
|
|
#86412
11/12/2002 6:39 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
if it won some kind of award, I'd hope that the artist did something interesting or enlightening with the light bulb.
Hmm . . .I haven't seen it either, but I doubt he did. A big thing in modern art is to break stuff down to its base elements to really look at them. Now, I'm not sure what you get out of watching a light go on and off, or looking at a canvas painted one, solid, primary color, but that's the point. Modern art is reflective, you get out of it what you put in.
|
|
|
#86413
11/12/2002 7:02 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 261
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 261 |
Nope, it's just a regular bulb in an empty room, going on and off at regularly timed intervals. (En lightening and de lighting to some, though I was rather put out!  ) If the world doesn't suck, we'd all fall off.
|
|
|
#86414
11/13/2002 7:53 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
It was a year ago, and I didn;t pay all that much attention at the time, but so far as I remember, the piece of "art" was not the light bulb, but the whole room being plunged into darkness then filled with light at regular intervals. The light bulb was, of course, an essential elemant of the piece, but was not intended as the main focus.
I believe that the artist was making some sort of "statement" that word again with the alternation of light and darkness.
Personally, I considered it to be pretentious drivel, but that is my own, subjective view and I will defend to my last breath the right for any one to make an arrangement of that sort, with some "artistic" purpose in mind and to declare it as art.
I will also defend the right od all of us to say that it doesn't appeal to us and to totally disagree with the judges of the Turner Prize.
|
|
|
#86415
11/13/2002 7:55 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
.... and when public money is involved, we certainly have every right to demand that it is spent on "worthwhile" projects - the problem is, who is to judge *that ???
|
|
|
#86416
11/13/2002 10:12 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Seeing Georgia O'Keefe's work for the first time:
I'd read a biography, looked through two collected volumes of her work, had been interested in her denial that her work was primarily sexual, if sexual at all.
But it wasn't until I saw her paintings in person that my appreciation for what she was doing leapt high--high as a salmon leaping up falls.
She didn't just paint. She painted with precision. She painted in such a way that I could see how each stroke had been applied with a kind of perfected, even unearthly skill. What she did was comparable, in my mind, to a master violinist performing one of the most demanding concertos seemingly flawlessly. A Midori at the Beethoven. A Milstein at the Tchaikovsky. O'Keefe did with paint what Heifetz did with the Brahms.
I agree that whatever art is lies out there on many levels. And I wouldn't want anyone to stop the creative impulse in anyone, no matter what the level and no matter what the subject or the medium.
Babatunde Olatunji told a group of children learning African drumming that the orchestra didn't have the spirit of drummers drumming about the god spirit of Iron. But I knew he was wrong, though I greatly admire him and hold his own skills high in my estimation. Sometimes it's too easy to criticize what you haven't tried yourself--too easy to miss excellence because of lack of understanding.
But at my own level of lack of understanding of this light bulb, taking a room from darkness to light and back to darkness again...well, it seems to be a statement at best. Just something to make us think. But not prize-worthy. Where's that element of a human doing something godlike? Where's the heart-stopping moment that makes us (or me) sense something of greatness? It seems to me we should give prizes to great, successful effort... something that somehow humbles us.
|
|
|
#86417
11/13/2002 10:53 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
She painted in such a way that I could see how each stroke had been applied with a kind of perfected, even unearthly skill.
To me, art should go beyond that. The technique should be transparent. I've heared music that was played with the most exacting technique that didn't have the spirit of a bunch of mental hospital patients banging on kitchen pans. And the latter is easily at least as enjoyable as the former. Granted it's best when there is both spirit and technique, but, in general, I would prefer the spirit to the technique. And, if the technique is there, I, for one, don't want it shoved in my face.
|
|
|
#86418
11/13/2002 11:40 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
the heart-stopping moment that makes us (or me) sense something of greatnessI think this captures something of my own feelings on art. To me, a work of art points beyond itself, and often takes me beyond myself, enhancing my sense of wonder. It's an extremely valid function of art to take something supposedly mundane and make the audience look at it again with new eyes. The distinction is that phart often tries to do so too hard and too consciously. We shouldn't take enlightenment too seriously. Awe and laughter are surprisingly close.
|
|
|
#86419
11/13/2002 12:04 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,692 |
Here is Website on the Turner prize. It doesn't explain why the wierd and wonderful should be so strongly featured. http://www.tate.org.uk/home/faqs/turner.htm
|
|
|
#86420
11/13/2002 12:27 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
She painted in such a way that I could see how each stroke had been applied with a kind of
perfected, even unearthly skill. In reply to:
To me, art should go beyond that.
And to me, too. The point I make about O'Keefe's work is her art included great technical skill.
I heard a competition of young violinists once. Some played with heart; a few with skill. The winner played poorly, but performed a work by far more difficult than the other contestants'. He managed the technique and intonation in a few sections, but the work was well beyond his level. I think the judges gave him first prize just because he could labor through the work. And I thought there was a poor lesson there. He played poorly. He played out-of-tune most of the time. Forget spirit. He was laboring too hard to get through the movement. And one cellist who played well, but more simply, moved me, at least, with his performance. He showed a lot of potential and the technical elements were in place. He just wasn't show-boating.
And what I'm getting at here is in the arts, when I look for great art, I do want to have the chance to be impressed by technical skill. No, I don't want it to "hit me in the face" so that the technique obliterates the message. The message is the thing of heart or mind that is the point of creativity. And it's wonderful when Pound's edict to "make it new" occurs. But I love being overcome in how the whole work unfolds. The organic unity of the work and also the complexity of a great work. I like thinking, "I cannot do this. I cannot reproduce this. This experience is overwhelming. Even if I could technically do what is being done here, I can't pull off the elements that cause my emotional reaction."
It has something to do with form and function. It has something to do with mind and heart. And to be great, it has to have both the intellectual and the emotional or spiritual. I can be amused and delighted by balloons of color shot out at a blank canvas and seeing the serendipitous results there. But I don't think my level of delight will begin to approach that of sensing I'm in the presence of greatness. I can become excited to hear Faldage's room of banging musicians playing out of great spirit, but I won't ever put that happening on the same level as hearing Jessica Lee in recital at Curtis and hearing her Beethoven sonata that caused me to cry the next day to remember, so strong was her spirit, so great was her skill.
Aren't we, finally, spiritual beings? But isn't it spirit informed by intelligence? And can't we tell, really, when the Emperor is wearing no clothes?
I'd like to break that light bulb--at least where it resides in my brain--and say: "Accept this bulb turning on and off as great art? Well, step into this pit of darkness I just created with it."
|
|
|
#86421
11/13/2002 5:04 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
We need a definition of "Art", here, I think.How 'bout this? The two most engaging powers of an author are to make new things familiar, and familiar things new. - Samuel Johnson("author" here being taken to mean "creator") The "problem" with art and its definition, is that everyone, but EVERYONE, gets something different out of what they see. I remember discussing Voice of Fire with an instructor I worked with. Can't remember the name of the artist at the moment but the work is HUGE - I don't remember the dimensions but it's nearly floor-to-ceiling in Canada's National Gallery in Ottawa. And what is it? A vertical blue stripe. A vertical orange stripe. Another vertical blue stripe. The National Gallery paid something like $1.2 million for it. (That's about fifty cents US these days. ) Great public outcry; someone painted the same thing on his barn door; just about every Regular Joe was incensed by it. I asked this instructor, an artist some of whose work is also owned by the National Gallery (but they didn't pay him $1.2 mil. for it!), what he thought of Voice of Fire (Barnett Newman was the artist, I think). Not having seen it, he said he thought it was an important work in that artist's development and that it was fine that the Nat. Gal. spent that much on it. I spoke with him again, when working for him on a subsequent occasion, when he'd seen Voice of Fire. He seemed to have changed his mind. I asked him about it and he said, unhappily, "Well, I always like to say that art is a mansion that has many rooms." (Crib from the Bible!) Well, if art is a mansion that has many rooms, all I can say is, I've been in the toilet and the broom cupboard more often than I care to remember. In the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, I saw a room with about a dozen long, narrow sticks in it. Each stick had a hinge at one end. Most of the time they lay on the floor, but every now and then, one or more of them would rise up from the hinge and then fall to the floor again. The piece was called "Slapstick." That's not art - that's a pun. In Sydney's Modern Art Gallery (can't remember its official name, sorry), there was a room filled with smog/smoke/dry ice - not sure how they created the effect. On a wall near the room, and separate from it, was a cash register receipt taped to the wall. And there was a platform in another room, onto which you climbed. You lay flat on your back and a security guard strapped you down and rolled you out the window to look up the building. That was a point-of-view thing. In Canberra, at Australia's National Gallery, I saw a large canvas with two types of paint on it: a band of matte black and a band of slighty glossy black. I got discussing it with a security guard, who told me that some people found it very powerful and absolutely loved it. I've also looked through modern art books, and in one, there was a photograph of a room in a gallery and the floor sloped up at one end. The text accompanying the photo explained that the artist hid under the floor and he had a microphone there, the amplifier/speaker for which was above the floor in the room. The artist lay there and masturbated and told the visitors to the room about it. Sorry, that's not art - that's porn. Now it irritates me that these are the things I remember, because I consider them foolish and stupid. To my mind, art is something that illuminates, reveals, makes new, and/or provokes thought - and is also something that not just anyone could do. Granted, not just anyone WOULD lie under a floor and wank and tell people about it, but anyone COULD do that. Puns aren't art. Porn isn't art. Some things that are very clever are, nevertheless, not art. And yet, I also remember taking a course called Modern Poetry at university. I complained to the prof one day about how silly some of it seemed to me. He got down from the shelf in his office a box of poems. One was a sheet with two alternating symbols on it; I asked him, "What the hell is that?" and he said, triumphantly, "It's what print looks like to someone who doesn't know how to read." He pointed out to me that the word "poetry" comes from the Greek "poeos" (I probably spelled that wrong) and that it means, quite simply, "to make." Anything made is a poem (someone has already made that point/poem here!). At lunch that day I was telling a friend who was also in the Modern Poetry course, what our prof had said. I had an exceptionally large potato chip and I took it and put it on my side plate, made a fist and crushed it with one blow, and said, "According to Gordon, that's a poem." Similarly, I remember my mother complaining to someone about a piece of "art" that consisted of a few rows of coloured squares. She said, "I could've done that." And the friend said, "Yes, but you didn't." I think art should be way more than just that which we could have done, but didn't. But partly I think that because I'm pissed off at all these artists who get grant money and win substantial prizes for doing things any of us could have done. How do I get on that gravy train?!  But seriously - I can't agree with 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.However we get to it, art MUST contain SOMETHING of meaning. Even "decoration" gives us pleasure (or, ideally it does, sez she, quickly qualifying). Where the modern artists often fall down, is in creating "art" (or phart, which somehow seems a perfect term!) that is obscure and impenetrable to a vast proportion of their viewers. by's example of the tampon in a teacup is a perfect illustration of this. At this point, you start getting into that whole thorny issue of the artists' artist. I can't remember who said it, but someone once pointed out that self-referential art or art that only speaks to a very narrow segment of the population is pointless and might just as well not have been made (something to that effect), since it has no reference in most people's understanding and therefore is of no help to most people in terms of being an enlightening or even merely beautifying influence in their lives. [/rant]
|
|
|
#86422
11/14/2002 8:18 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Good Morning Boys and Girls.
Katie bar the door and Frank close the windows. Those of you with short short-term memories get out your slate and chalk, and those of you with short long-term memories fetch a chisel and grab some granite because today, class, even the smallest of your pumpkin heads is going to fully understand the answer to the question that drove Socrates to drink and Nietzsche to dementia, which is...
What is Art?
And so, without further ado, here is the answer...
Art is communication between human beings without word/symbols, about mutually shared conditions of being alive.
OK, that's it, Katie go unbar the door, Frank go open the win...What? You don't understand? (Why me Lord?)...OK, sit back down and I'll explain...
When we use the term "Art", it has an essence. An essence akin to the Socratic belief that the purpose of, for example, a hammer, is in its function, that is, to hammer. The purpose of the word "Art" is to identify and delimit this sub-conscious to sub-conscious communication and therein lies the word's essence. All other applications of the word are really entirely different words but the english language has unhappily evolved such carefree confusions.
Now wait just one cotton picking minute, you might say, What about that certain knowing glance across a room between two lovers, no words are said, yet shared information passes...Excuse me...SIT BACK DOWN WO'N, STOP STARING AT ALL THE LADIES!...now where was I? Oh yes...No, that is not Art, that is merely a visual symbol of mutual understanding without words, like a handshake. Now I will take some of your questions...
Bright boy in the back: Uh, Mister Milum, is Art the object or is Art the sub-conscious communication? And what happens if the object doesn't provoke an unspoken and unspeakable feeling in me, is it Art?
Milum: No. It only becomes Art when it speaks to your sub-conscious. If the object evokes a feeling that can be put into words it is not Art. Art, as we all know, is very subjective. No example of Art can be said to be universal, at least none that we know of.
Cute pert blonde in short skirt on the front row: Hello Mister Milum, first I'd like to say what a pleasure it is to have a man of your high reputation around here to help us learn about all these important things. Ahem...My question might be a little silly but I'd like to know if once an object becomes a work of Art by the transfer of non-verbal information, does it stay a work of Art or not? I'll sit down and listen to your answer.
Milum: Well I'll say this, I don't think your question was silly. I think it was a good question. No! It was a brilliant question. Thank you for your question. Ahem...Let me cite the Campbell Soup Can Pop Art of Andy Warhol as an example; In his pop screen prints he caused others to focus on the beauty and form of everyday manufactured objects around us. But once this was realized his silk screens and paintings have only worth as collector items, such as baseball cards, with maybe a minor value as artifacts for psychological historians of the future.
Class dismissed.
Milum.
|
|
|
#86423
11/15/2002 12:01 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
In reply to:
Art is communication between human beings without word/symbols, about mutually shared conditions of being alive.
Well, Mr. Milum, what about literature? Literature ain't art or somethin'?
Or are we just talkin' about the visual arts here?
Best regards,
WordsWorth
|
|
|
#86424
11/15/2002 9:44 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
Art is communication between human beings without word/symbols, about mutually shared conditions of being alive.
what about literature? Literature ain't art or somethin'?
- and what about theatre? Theatre ain't art, huh?
- and what are "words", anyway? Communication using sounds of a more or less conventional nature?
Music, other than singing, isn't exactly words, but it ain't far short of it, either. please don't say music isn't art - not while dub-dub is listening!
Mind you, milum, I agree with much of what you teach, and one person's art is another person's phart - or vice versa.
Isn't it strange that olfactory art has never really been developed, other than commercially.
|
|
|
#86425
11/15/2002 10:43 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
well, there was Septimus Piesse: The Odophone.—The most important element in the perfumer’s art is the blending of the odorous principles to form a mixture which gratifies the sense of smell. Experience is the only guide. It is impossible to foretell the odour of a mixture from the odours of its components. Septimus Piesse endeavoured to show that a certain scale or gamut existed amongst odours as amongst sounds, taking the sharp smells to correspond with h:gh notes and the heavy smells with low. He illustrated the idea by classifying some fifty odours in this manner, mal:ing each to correspond with a certain note, one-half in each clef, and extending above and below the lines. For example, treble clef note E (4th space) corresponds with Portugal (orange), note D (1st space below clef) with violet, note F (4th space above clef) with ambergris. It is readily noticed in practice that ambergris is much sharper in smell (higher) than violet, while Portugal is intermediate. He asserted that properly to constitute a bouquet the odours to be taken should correspond in the gamut like the notes of a musical chord—one false note among the odours as among the music destroying the harmony. Thus on his odophone, santa!, geranium, acacia, orange-flower, camphor, corresponding with C (bass 2nd line below), C (bass 2nd space), E (treble 1st line), G (treble 2nd line), C (treble 3rd space), constitute the bouquet of chord C.from: http://6.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/PERGOLA.htmand here: http://www.deadmedia.org/notes/6/069.html
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
#86427
11/22/2002 8:08 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
"Show me"
"Show you"
...Kick, oh, man! i.e., Kikoman--far be it from me to mention a product name
What's with the fish head?
And what's with pouring sauce over the boy who didn't seem to mind having sauce poured over his head by the fish head?
And with the little girl the fish head took to bed?
And stealing Superman's cape and stockings?
And with the Pyramids?
This art tells us it's one of the Seven Wonders of Advertising?
Best part, however, in this truly amazing bit of Japanese borrowed creativity art was how my mind's eye immediately translated the tofu cubes into sugar cubes. I had to keep hitting myself on the shoulder and saying to myself, "Think Japan. Don't think pony barn."
Still, what's with the fish head? To obviousize: Is it nothing more than fish being a staple of the Japanese diet? If so, why not a rice head? Of course, a fish head is funnier, so I suppose the Japanese creative-borrower artists were attempting to get their audiences loosened up and laughing outrageously out-of-control.
Most important honorable question, ayleur-sans:
Is this art more thought-provoking and enlightening than a light bulb turning on and off at regular intervals?
Second most important honorable question:
Is this thread destined to become a food thread?
Third most important honorable question:
Don't we all know bits of apple are better for ponies than sugar cubes?
|
|
|
#86428
11/22/2002 8:33 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
This is Art...
... but not as we know it.
|
|
|
#86429
11/22/2002 10:22 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
and the cat hanging? what's up with that?
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
#86430
11/22/2002 7:39 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 261
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 261 |
...errk... (maybe this sort of advertising art should be called mart? Just to add to the confusion!  )
|
|
|
#86431
11/25/2002 6:40 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
|
|
|
#86432
11/26/2002 1:15 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Nice, Alex, but no real continuity, Art! Tell me?
|
|
|
#86433
11/26/2002 1:27 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
Hokusai groks life. Hokusai has painted one moment of extreme intensity; energy that permeates all existence; an archtypal moment of time. a pinpoint of the fundamental is-ness; existing both as macro and microscopic simultaneously. thought. love. be.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
#86434
11/26/2002 1:40 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
|
|
|
#86435
11/26/2002 10:30 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
Ain't it the truth. ... but not as we know it!
|
|
|
#86436
11/28/2002 4:21 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
... but not as we know it!
Forgive me friends, I'm slow but eventually I figure out what you people are saying. Embedded within Rhuby's seemingly innocent, cast-off-remark above was a koan, a cry for help, an otherworldly wailing moan/scream with grotesque echoes that reverberated throughout time to the beginnings of mankind and of life itself. Rhuby was asking...
What is meant by the term "to know" ?
I'm glad you asked. It is important to know what we mean by "knowing" in order to understand the absolute meaning of Art.
1,000,000 YEARS B.C.
Before language life was pretty well straightforward. If a hungry tiger was chasing you you pretty well knew he wasn't chasing you for a conversation about the aesthetics of his stripes.
Or, if you pinched the tail of the Big Guy's favorite chick you pretty well knew that pretty soon you were gonna be knocked off your rock.
(Hence the term knocked off your rocker but I digress.)
Anyway, before language the information that we extracted and abstracted from the environment for selfish survival reasons was directly consensequated by the harsh reality of nature, and as far as that went, that was the truth.
100,000 YEARS B.C.
Language was a pretty good invention. Like television and the computer it held the potential to offer mankind much. But along with the ease of effective transfer of valuable information came the rise of self interest groups like shamans, bankers, and aluminum siding salesmen, who by the necessity of staying in business, lied loud and long to all who would listen.
But yet lying worked. If a leader couldn't rabble rouse his troops to effective battle that particular entity couldn't stand. So more and more an interacting culture was constructed based on all kind of lies. And one of these self perpetuating lies is what today we call Art.
(Please excuse me. They are calling me to Thanksgiving dinner, and I kid you not.)
To be continued...
|
|
|
#86437
11/28/2002 6:16 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
Please, Mr Milum, what does consensequated mean?
|
|
|
#86438
11/28/2002 9:09 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Art is, as the man said, very much in the eye of the beholder. Trying to define exactly what art is, never mind what constitutes artistic merit, is so much drivel doomed to an eternity as dried saliva on the floor of civilisation. And someone will frame it and flog it to the Tate Modern for a six-figure sum.
One person's art is another person's load of bollocks, and I should know. I find an awful lot of what is passed off as art - and from all periods, I might add - to be just that. Bollocks.
The panel which judges the Turner prize has an eye for pure twaddle, that's for real. The idea of passing off a room with a light turning on and off in it as having artistic merit, never mind its being awarded anything but the booby prize, just tells me that people have too much money and too little taste.
BUT, and that was obviously a big but, I am very much aware that I have set tight boundaries around what I am prepared to accept as art and that my narrow view is not shared by everyone. Therefore, display what you like. Call it what you like. If YOU appreciate it as art, then I guess it's art - to you. Just don't expect me to agree with your analysis ...
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#86439
11/28/2002 9:10 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,067 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,067 Likes: 2 |
Please, Mr Milum, what does consensequated mean?
...precisely you want it to, no more and no less.
|
|
|
|
|
