|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| tfunk wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| tfunk wrote: |
| magni wrote: |
| people talking about the work is as important as the work itself. |
For what reason? |
My take is Art is meant to evoke some kind of emotion, feeling, or reaction from the viewer. I think true artists can see a piece of work, see how it was created, and understand it.
I don't believe the nonsense that art is whatever you make of it. There is a story behind all art. There is a motive, an inspiration, and a reason for it. |
As a definition, that's generic. You could replace the word 'art' by the words 'uninformed opinion' in your explanation and it would still be semantically valid. The reason that people say "art is whatever you make of it" is often a jaded reaction against vague definitions, like what you've given, rather than a liberal interpretation of art. |
I don't follow what you are saying. So you are saying I should give a more specific definition as to what "art" is? If that is the case, then what type of "Art" are we talking about here? I made a general statement because the topic, in itself, is very general.
I'm not an artist. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know the difference between brush stroke techniques of Picasso and Monet.
I wish I knew more about art. I think its very interesting. I'm more of a music person than visual. And no, I don't consider DJ's and people who mix their own tracks as "artists". I studied music for over a decade and I can hear the subtleties that normal people might not. A key change here. 2 different time signatures within 1 song. Melodies and counter melodies. Horn fifths, arpeggios. I hear things in music that the average person can't pickup.
I think its the same way with Art. I might look at a painting of a plate of fruit and think, "thats a plate of fruit. nice colors". Whereas someone knowledgeable in art can see all the detail and say, "That is magnificent." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Some of the Mothers Said
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't follow what you are saying. So you are saying I should give a more specific definition as to what "art" is? If that is the case, then what type of "Art" are we talking about here? I made a general statement because the topic, in itself, is very general.
I'm not an artist. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know the difference between brush stroke techniques of Picasso and Monet.
I wish I knew more about art. I think its very interesting. I'm more of a music person than visual. And no, I don't consider DJ's and people who mix their own tracks as "artists". I studied music for over a decade and I can hear the subtleties that normal people might not. A key change here. 2 different time signatures within 1 song. Melodies and counter melodies. Horn fifths, arpeggios. I hear things in music that the average person can't pickup.
I think its the same way with Art. I might look at a painting of a plate of fruit and think, "thats a plate of fruit. nice colors". Whereas someone knowledgeable in art can see all the detail and say, "That is magnificent." |
Seems to me that you understand it all pretty well. Before coming to Korea I spent more than a decade working as an artist producing work for Galleries as well as commercial use. (To me both were much the same.)
You're quite correct in pointing out that people have various levels of needing to understand art, or anything else for that matter. In the case of "Fine art" most of the levels lay in art history.
For a quick example, your "plate of fruit" through my eyes may be a throw back to ancient Egypt, or Greek tomb paintings. Where the dead would munch on an apple or grape in the after world. Maybe the "plate of fruit" was arranged or painted in a way to acknowledge one of the amazing Flemish still life artists, or maybe a homage to Caravaggio.
What's important, (and this is where I often had a falling out with some Galleries) is that you can see why you like it, but you shouldn't need to explain it. Good art, like good music, architecture, etc has a hook. This is the craft, quality. Craft left the vocabulary of many "Post Modern" artists from the 1960's. SO you get a lot of stuff that claims to be art, but it's just stuff. The table suspended from the ceiling, an installation of someones bedroom, etc. Your quite correct, it's all a bit of nonsense, the trailing rags of a dying movement.
I think the best example of Gallery art is in Monty Python's "Parrot Sketch"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE
Sums it all up really.
p.s Panda:
| Quote: |
| Buyers are not the propellers of modern art. |
Please read about Robert Skull's 1973 auction of his pop art collection at Sotheby�s in New York. You may also consider watching "The Mona Lisa Curse" by Robert Hughes for a more informed understanding of how the art world revolves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Panda
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Some of the Mothers Said wrote: |
Please read about Robert Skull's 1973 auction of his pop art collection at Sotheby�s in New York. You may also consider watching "The Mona Lisa Curse" by Robert Hughes for a more informed understanding of how the art world revolves. |
Will definitely do...I suppose it is something that will show me the dark side of the moon?
I remember my high school art teacher once said in history, fine arts were always produced by those who had money and power, arts evolved when the rich and the power wanted new things.
When ancient China went into slavery from primitive society, there came a leap of art development...
But modern arts are different from historical arts.
Van Gogh sold only one painting before he died and he is not the only artist that make amazing arts for nothing.
In a society where success equals how much you make, those who want to prove they are the best will definitely work to make as much money as they can, including artists.
But I still (naively and romantically ) believe Steve Jobs as well as many other artists made their products because they wanted to make real arts, not just for money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jfromtheway
Joined: 20 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arts? Alright. I still think you can only apply the "I'm an artist" label, if you make your living off of selling your art. I used to run into a lot of people who answered the "what do you do?" question, with a response of "I'm an artist". Only to find out that they waited tables down the street. It shouldn't be different than any other profession; any garbage man can be an artist in his free time, but he's still a garbage man. I could be the best drummer in Korea, but if I make my money teaching English, I'm not going to tell people that I'm a drummer. It's one of the few remaining hobby professions. "Artist" is one of the only titles that gets that pass. Dopey. I remember going to the Prado museum in 2003 and seeing a painting with around 20 black dots on a white canvas, right next to Picasso's massive Guernica portrait. I looked at it for about 15 minutes and apparently didn't get it. I went back a few years later and it was still there. I spent another 15 minutes looking at it, and still couldn't connect the dots. Very subjective, indeed. But they aren't arts if I can do it in half an hour, that's just my high water mark. And I generally enjoy art quite a bit. It reminds me of the crackpot playwrights I overhear talking at restaurants in HBC, discussing the crappy plays they're writing. It's excruciating to listen to, while hilarious, due to the selfdeluded enthusiasm. But, hey, it's art, I guess. Everything is, and that's why I consider my best pattern piece to be the one that unfortunately happened to end up on some toilet paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I could be the best drummer in Korea, but if I make my money teaching English, I'm not going to tell people that I'm a drummer. |
But (in said hypothetical situation) you are a drummer who just happens to be teaching English to make a living. Is what we are defined by what makes us money?
| Quote: |
| But they aren't arts if I can do it in half an hour |
This is not a good measure. I'm sure there are sketch artists out there who could whip up something pretty fantastic in a few minutes. Not to mention musicians soloing real time. I'm betting a large amount of great music has been written in less time. Is it not art?
Almost a hundred years ago, Duchamp called a urinal a fountain and changed the way people look at and think about art. Sixty years ago, John Cage composed a piece of music that is four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence and there are Internet debates raging about its musicality to this day.
Anyone could do either of those things in almost no time at all. Does that make them any less influential or meaningful?
The only requirement for something to be called art: it must have come from a creative process. The length of that process - or motivation behind it - is not a measure of whether or not the result is "art" (though it does often play a factor in whether or not it's any good.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jfromtheway wrote: |
| Arts? Alright. I still think you can only apply the "I'm an artist" label, if you make your living off of selling your art. |
I agree that the term artist is thrown around too easily. Personally, I don't think anyone should call themselves artists. Just as the saying that a women is not a lady if she has to remind everyone about it, I think an artist should consider himself a craftsman and then let others decide whether he is an artist or not, making it a title which is giving but not taken. As previously mentioned, van Gogh was not able to make much money as an artist, but most people will consider him an artist when they look at his paintings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Some of the Mothers Said
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I remember my high school art teacher once said in history, fine arts were always produced by those who had money and power, arts evolved when the rich and the power wanted new things. |
I hope you didn't listen to your teacher. The fine arts may have been collected and commissioned by the rich and powerful, but generally not produced by them. Up to, and including the time of the Renaissance, artists were seen as very blue collar. For example, Botticelli was apprenticed to Filippo Lippi's "Bottege" (workshop) around the age of 14, although you could be apprenticed a lot younger. He would have spent 8-10 years (I think it was eight for him) working under Lippi. His duties at the start would have been cleaning, cooking, repairing and preparing tools etc.
After a while he would have graduated to grinding colors, and learning how to prepare fresco. Slowly he would have been tutored by one of the older boys in the bottege, and eventually (if thought to have enough talent) by the master of the bottege himself. After this he would have helped prepare the cartoons for the fresco and maybe given a detail to paint. (Like some flowers or leaves) Towards the end of his apprenticeship, he may have worked along side Lippi on large commissions. Eventually Botticelli left Lippi, and began his own workshop.
The concept that the artist is someone special is more of a recent invention. I strongly believe the artists bottege is an excellent way of learning what I still consider a trade.
| Quote: |
But modern arts are different from historical arts.
Van Gogh sold only one painting before he died and he is not the only artist that make amazing arts for nothing |
Nope and Nope. History always plays a part in modern art. They are linked like an umbilical chord. The concept and working practices of artists may have changed, but the images produced are always linked to numerous historical pivots.
As far as Van Gogh is concerned, well, I was lucky enough to get a small grant from my College and study in Amsterdam for 4 months. Specifically, Van Gogh's work. (Although I have to be honest and say a great portion of my time was spent in Amsterdam's wonderful Cafe's and staring at Rembrandt's "Night Watch" at the Rijksmuseum.)
The problem with Van Gogh was that he was a very troubled individual, and to be honest a bit of a dick. Not many people liked him, which didn't help him sell stuff, and believe me, he really wanted to sell his art. His brother Theo was an art dealer, and helped Vincent out financially and emotionally. He also introduced Vincent to many contemporary artists of the time, but to be honest, Van Gogh's work just wasn't good enough to cut it at the time. (Even though Theo stuck some of it up.) Remember, Van Gogh didn't start painting until he was 27. He was dead at 37. Ten years is not very long.
People were taking a closer look at him just before his death, and I'd say given another 5 or ten years, he would have done well.
The image of an artist working alone, poor, and deprived is just not true, and really never has been. Collaboration is almost always needed.
You know, I think you might really enjoy Simon Schama's "Power of Art" I think you can find it on youtube, or you can buy the book. (Check out the part on Cellini. What a great guy!)
| Quote: |
| I still think you can only apply the "I'm an artist" label, if you make your living off of selling your art. |
I agree with you completely. When I was practicing, I would take on anything. From tattoo designs, illustrations, to large commissions, I would try to get as much work I could. I was young when I was involved in the industry, and very naive. However, I am very proud that I could pay my way as an independent artist for the best part of a decade. I don't call myself an artist. Should I? When does a doctor stop being a doctor?
Who cares... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jfromtheway
Joined: 20 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But (in said hypothetical situation) you are a drummer who just happens to be teaching English to make a living. Is what we are defined by what makes us money? |
We certainly shouldn't be defined, or especially, judged (though try avoiding that), in absolute terms by the way in which we make money. But from a day to day reality perspective, I think the answer is generally yes. The "artist" label gets professional loophole treatment, as it is almost all inclusive by its own loose definition. But IMO that racket has run its course. That was my point.
Also (in said hypothetical situation, as I am definitely not the best drummer in Korea), if you and I met at a bar and I asked you "what do you do here?" and you replied, "I teach English". Then, you asked me the same question in return, and I replied, "I'm a drummer," you would probably think I was an idiot once you found out that, yes, I do in fact teach English here. I wasn't necessarily saying it was right or wrong, mostly just that self-proclaimed "artists" are the only people, off the top of my head, who seem to be able to get away with that, err, cop-out?
| Quote: |
| This is not a good measure. I'm sure there are sketch artists out there who could whip up something pretty fantastic in a few minutes. Not to mention musicians soloing real time. I'm betting a large amount of great music has been written in less time. Is it not art? |
Fair point, Bob, I agree. However, what I said was in reference to the art piece (OS) I saw in a world class museum twice. But the second part of my sentence did read, "that's just my high water mark". Personal thing, as long as I suck at painting/drawing and am paying to be there. Both of my parents are successful career writers, meaning, they fall into the loose artist category. But they would scoff at the idea that being a professional writer automatically makes you an artist. I've had articles of mine published, I play multiple instruments, and undertake various so-called "artistic" endeavors; but I would laugh at myself the day I referred to myself as an artist, even if I were to get paid gloriously for such hobbies. I also agree with the music part. I've been a serious jazz fan for over a decade, I'm all about the improvisation. If you back me into a corner, I'll call them artists, but to me they were simply just very skilled (and mostly black) musicians who had mastered their instruments over a long period of time. There was a lot of innovation/creativity involved, obviously, but half those guys were undereducated heroin addicts simply making a living at what they were best at doing. Not overly conscious, artistic interpreters of meaning. But these guys dominated music for years, and invented musical improvisation. I'm not putting words in your mouth or making a direct analogy saying that, though. Some of the most influential guys pawned their instruments for cash and made money doing various other scandalous things. It was only time, and often their deaths, that moved them into the status they now receive among jazz fans.
As SOTM said, who cares... there will be no end to arguing about how one defines art. I take the hard stance because I find your average contemporary "artist" to be a fraudulent, delusional human being, if they're merely going off of the label itself. But this will all be an ambiguous, meaningless waste of discussion time, until we evolve into robots and start viewing artists as the spiritually desperate, paleolithic cave drawing wannabes they really are (joke). I actually enjoy art a lot, and one of my most eye opening experiences was walking around Le Louvre for five hours after getting blazed when I was eighteen. All in all, I think time, postmortem, will tell whether or not you're considered to be an actual artist. I don't buy into the "art is everything"/creative process, point of view. And I never will. We're all artists, whatever. As long as someone likes it and refers to it as "art," then, by loose definition, it's art. But it shouldn't be something most people could do if they cared enough or wanted to, assuming you want to keep the profession alive. Otherwise, it is exactly how I've been describing it: a pseudo, label-based hobby, with little to nothing to support comparative professional sustainability... unless you're really good at it... which is how most real jobs work in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Panda
Joined: 25 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| History always plays a part in modern art |
When I said "But modern arts are different from historical arts. " my point is, arts ( the way how they were made, their purpose, functions, etc) 2000 years ago were different from arts 200 years ago and 20 years ago.
History is of course part of arts of all time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
