Big Mumps, Small Notices
I was driving through a roundabout today, and I noticed something that made me smile on the inside.
Someone had walked into the middle of this big, busy roundabout, and planted an upright 'Big M' (a flavoured milk drink carton, for you yanks) to the left hand side.
It sat with the 'M' peering slightly above the lush green grass. It was deliberate placement.
I wondered whether it was meant as an act of littering. Probably. But for me at that moment, I actually found something very aesthetically pleasing about it. I'm not quite sure I can put my finger on exactly what it was.
And that got me thinking. Because I'm appreciating that milk carton put in that spot, just for its aesthetics, does that make it art? Must art have a deeper meaning? Or can art be justified simply because it looks/sounds/feels/tastes/smells appealing?
My vote is a yes, and I am appreciative of the unintentional (?) artist that put a smile on my inside this afternoon.
The sight was even more ironic, because in the middle of this roundabout is a council-commissioned 'official' art piece that looks like a big, ridiculous green ribbon, or "apple peel" (for those who know it). The Big M was better :)
posted by Dboy @ Monday, April 24, 2006
35 Insightful Contributions
.jpg)
35 Comments:
One heck of a Big M catoon for you tto notice it hooning around THAT busy intersection!!
What flavour was it??
Are you saying that aesthetics are value free- "If It appeals it is art?"
Or " "If it is intented to be art then it is" ... I litter artistically intentionally therefore it is art ... I grafitti therefore i am an artist"
Nah, normal size carton - chocolate I think :)
I'm not sure about the latter... what do you think?
Art is so subjective...
I don't like vulgar art, and I don't like art composed of trash. I prefer art that expresses beauty, but I also know that is in the eye of the beholder.
So... as ludi said, it's all so subjective. I personally don't consider a box of dog poo on display as "art," but I'm sure other people do.
But is it subjective?
Can 'art' really be the only human endeavour that can disengage itself from ethics.
If our worldview speaks to all spheres of life - then surely there is 'good' art ad 'bad art' - Art that legitmately inspires humanity and art that tears down.
Just because I have an emotionally positive reaction to an event or experience doesn't validate it as 'good' It may say more about my jaded or desensitised state of mind. ... or maybe not??
* narrows eyes, purses lips and lifts pinky finger to lips in a knowing fashion*
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
haha - sounds like Rev's had this conversation before.
Socially art has gotten to a bit of a point where in common circles it's really quite hard to criticise without being shot-down. maybe this is a backlash to all the complaining people do/did about new ideas - if it's not photo-realistic, it's not art, if it's not easy to understand, it's not art, if i don't see it's value ($ or otherwise) it's not art.
So on one level there is all this complaining and griping about how "my kid could have painted that, it's just a bunch of stupid lines" and therefor missing the point. Above that there is a bunch of people (i sometimes fall into this group) who feel it is their duty to protect art from such dumb/shallow criticism and so can be a bit accepting of anything as art. And then, finally, above that is the realm of good art criticism which seeks to understand what the artist has done and look at it critically, unafraid to say what is true, and determine whether or no it is 'good art'. But often, for a whole variety of reasons, realm 3 does not filter down to the general public or is very slow in doing so.
*The above veiw is not hole-proof or even fully thought out, but certainly at least some of it is true.
Ah, you computer mediated artists are good for a debate - does everyone realise Wire is actually an artist?
LETS GET HIM!!!!!
I agree that roundabout art can be a speciialty field and does have many loyal supporters. My favorite piece was the art left by Eltham College students last year at the round about in Eltham (adjacent to BlockBuster). For those of you who didnt see it, Billy will fill you in!
I think I recall - Billy? We're waiting interererestededly!
Did you say wire is a WORK of art? or he is an artist?
I already knew he is an artist. We have seen his talents. :-)
The difficult part about this is that what some people find "beautiful," others find repugnant. So therefore, art can't always be about uplifting or elevating people aesthetically. Sometimes, it is an expression of anger or hurt or hatred... but it still has artistic value.
What I think isn't art is when someone decides to be so "expressive," that vulgarity or outright obscenity is displayed for shock value only... in the name of art. Shock value is not art. Shock value is shock value.
So... there's a fine line, right?!
But already, Peebody, you are laying down an informal definition of art ("It's a bit of metal twisted all different ways and painted green. There is no skill in that.") which may or may not be true. Either way your comment does highlight the the biggest problem in this debate which is the need for a definition of what art is which work can then be held to. That said, art, like beauty, is often defined at some level in the eye of the beholder. This is why there is such difficulty in debating whether or not the apple peel is "good art" because none of us really have a definate and agreed upon definition of what good art is. Hello post-modernism.
To my mind, art is not defined by the perceived skill it takes to produce (often just because something looks simple doesn't mean it is. Also for every piece like that which is on pulic display there are probably 50 - 100 or more, others sitting around the artist's workshop or in their sketchbook that form the foundation of that work.) but should be judged more so on what it is aiming to achieve and how well it does so. Art is a form of communication, good art communicates well, bad art is the equivilant of mumbling, shouting, or talking gibberish. So art should probably be judged not on how it makes us feel, or if we like to look at it (after all there are some messages we really don't want to hear) but whether or not it does what it set out to do.
Of course, to be fair to the artist we need to understand his or her language before we can judge on this. Everyday we say things to each other and develop and reinforce a common language, something similar is going on in the art world and if we are not part of that we can hardly expect to be able to walk in off of the street and immediately understand the language. That is why artists produce abstracts (the accompanying essays).
Essays like this one.
can u tell that wire is involved with a missions org.?
a very tantalising point of view about us getting to know the artists point of view, language etc. before harrasing them i believe that is the heart of incarnational ministry *see billy i do read*
on a personal note i took out pencil and paper last night to ponder this argument more. as time rolled by i found myself in artistic bliss as i drew lines upon a page that in turn looked more and more like what i saw in my head. after sheer minutes of artistic influence i finished my masterpiece...andn it was God ordained as awful. if i had ki8ds i'm pretty sure they could have done better! IS THIS ART!!! or just the delusions of an angry man?
Haha... I love this discussion, because I don't know if there's a right answer.
It can be argued that the apple peel isn't art because it lacks meaning, or even aesthetics.
However, it can be argued that it is art, by saying that we need to try and tap into what the artist was intending to do.
So confusing. Nice work there though, Wire! I knew someone who knew stuff would be able to say some stuff :)
It seems that 'art' is all about the intention behind it, rather than the product itself.
Wow, that's a toughie. I'm of the opinion that 90% of the time what idiots claim to be art is just stupid rubbish. But sometimes, just sometimes, the most oddly simple made made thing can strike a sense of awe, even if only for a moment.
I would say more, but coming into deep conversations halfway through is a tricky affair. :P
I think the apple peel is 'homage' (such a cooool word) to the history of N. Templestowe which was once orchard land at the edge of town.
Driving around some of the estates there makes me very grateful they didn't put up a huge marble fountain with naked male cherub peeing!
Go Wire - You ere BORN for such a post as this!!
For those with no idea of what is meant:
See here
Can't find a good pic but...
again it comes back to your definition of "art".
Peebody - would it be right to say that you are holding this sculpture up to the standard that it has to "be something" i.e. it is a person, it has two arms, two legs, is correctly proportioned - it is a person. Also, that it should look like it took a whole lot of skill to make? Pardon me for saying so but that is a very narrow veiw of art and would rule out cubism, surrealism, dadaism and a whole bunch of major art.
FG, your definition seems to revolve around the response a piece evokes in us ("But sometimes, just sometimes, the most oddly simple made made thing can strike a sense of awe...") this is a totally subjective view which, if logically applied, rules out more than %99.99 of all art ever made simply because you haven't seen it yet and therefor have had no reaction. Now that may seem like a silly way of looking at it but if art were only about good feelings then art would just be about consumerism, hedonism and the viewer.
To both of you i think a lot of my lecturers would say something along the lines of:
"it's not about our own personal taste or opinion. Just because i think something sucks, or is great, bears no weight on whether or not it is art. (no offense but)Running arguments like 'So if i just went and got a big bit of metal, twisted it a bit, painted it red, then proclaim it's art, then that makes it art?' totally miss the point. It is not just about creating a product, a lot of cottage art industry doesnt actually produce art, just pretty pictures. Until our general culture can step away from defining art by aesthetics (dboy), by our own reaction (FG and DCMM) or by how difficult it was to create (SOT and PB) we will never be able to meaningfully understand and critique art. This does not mean that anything is permissable under art's banner but instead calls for a more independent definition not coloured by our upbringing, taste and experience. Brought about through informed discussion and viewing lots of art with an open mind."
My lecturers would basically take a broadside at the lot of you, me on the other hand...
Hahaha, nice.
I think that's why I've been so tentative - cos I knew that 'art' is such a difficult concept to define absolutely. Like postmodernity, or carrots.
That's a good question, Peebody, and one I'd like to know the answer to myself!
Can my Big M be defined as art, Wire?
Of they shut you down Dboy, simply sy the following.....
"Don't you oppress me.....HELP HELP i'm being opressed!"
It seems that 'art' is all about the intention behind it, rather than the product itself. Or perhaps it's also about what the viewer of the 'art' perceives.
Hmmmmm, so if Leonardo De Vinci had painted the Mona Lisa as an ad for kentucky Fried - it would not be art....
Or if Miss Mona LISA-crousity had said: " Oh No! Leo! NOT that picture with the carrot! I look so awwwwwwful in that, eghwww, gross! Can't you put a purple box accross it, pleeeease?!"
Then it would become a cheap, unfair bit of work?
Hmmmmmmm!
(I always find an 'Hmmmmmm' adds depth to a comment, don't you?)
I have no opinion.
You forgot to add: "Hmmmmmm!"
I have no opinion.
Hmmmmmm!
Ah! Ha! Peebody you thinker! Hmmmmmmm!
Puffin!! You're alive and being literary!!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hahaha! What did he say? I wanna know!
Puffin - I like it. Nice work. I agree whole heartedly that art can go beyond the intention of the artist - it's the same with poetry, music or any other art form: people can get more out of your work than what you intend it to mean. I think that's the beauty of a good piece of art.
Haha...I just realised on second read that not only was it a mouthful but made me sound full of $#%&!
I interperated it differently, saw the beaty in what you said!. Maybe you are full of art?
Hahahaha!!! Good call!
I think it has to do with aesthetic value, yes, but alot of it has to do with the intention of the artist.
If the art is made to look only aethetically appealling, and it doesn't, then has not the artist failed?
Or if the piece is made to produce a mood or feeling, and does, whether it is pleasing to the eye or not is altogether irrelevant.
Some pieces are created to shock you (take Andres Serrano's 'Piss Christ'), or to demonstate ideas or concepts.
Many of Pro Hart's piece's were made using the oddest of things, namely his Canon and Balloon works. How about using an Elephant to paint on canvas? Or painting with the elephant's dung? Are these factors not interesting when appreciating a piece of art? I think so, not as though it holds alot of deep meaning, but to really understand what you're experiencing you need to have an understanding of the intention behind it. Doing so also makes the piece more pleasurable, and in some cases less pleasurable.
As to whether grafitti is art, well that's a whole new can of worms. We then have to ask the question is vandalism art? Is breaking things and destroying pieces of public property art, or is it just offensive in the fact that the grafitti 'artist' has no respect for other persons property?
That is debatable.
Post a Comment
<< Home