An Artist's Dilemma

[chaz wyman]

C:You said EVRETHING is art; that is still ridiculous. If an object is not represented or witnessed it cannot be art, fool.

AS:Okay, the reason I say everything is art because we cannot know who is thinking artistically at any moment. So if you want to split hairs then we can say everything can be art....but I still think that statement is meaningless.
You have to do more than observe a thing to be doing art. In some way you have to manipulate the object. I'm looking out the window and can see a new flower on my winter Jasmine - that is not art by itself. If I represent it, take it an put in in a bowl or present it AS art; or just crush it - then it is art otherwise using the word art as you do is meaningless
My point is, under your rules...stephen hawkings could not "do art"

Not so. He writes; when he uses an adjective he is expressing himself beyond scientific interpretation. That is enough under my 'rules'.

and thus could not be called an artist, since he cannot create art physically. I am saying that you take away his humanity when you tell him he is not capable of making art. In my mind he is capable of making very fine art. His thoughts alone that he speaks are artistic at its finest core. Imagination is not always witnessed or shared or represented.


C:Everything is art" is false, because as humans NOT EVERYTHING THEY DO IS ART

AS: I never said everything humans did was art...how many times do I have to repeat myself?
No it was much worse than THAT, you said EVERYTHING was art.
Read the ansel adams scenario again. All is art because at some point....all humans will take value in an aesthetic . They will say to themselves, "I like it". They may not know why because of lack of skill...but that need not matter. Unrefined art is still art. We call it art in society as well. We call child's art "Art" (you even did yourself) We call cooking an art. We call loving an art...etc.

What cracks me up is the fact that you would post wonderful art from a artist you admire but he has not sculpted a thing. He has made a mold and painted it. And yet...you would look down on a similar sculpture made from shit that some one else actually sculpted by hand...how hypocritical.
I don't know what the fuck you are talking about here. Are you on drugs?
If a painted fiberglass mold can be art...then why not a sculpted turd or a sculpture of a turd? Not YOUR turds necessarily mind you...but a turd. You snob.
You are the snob. Re: intelligence.

Doesn't it make more sense to say even a child's work is art (the way we do now btw) but the skill level is not as advanced?

c:I never said anything to the contrary. You said it was directly related to intelligence; it is not.
[/color[
AS:As usual, you think you know what I mean but you have no idea.
I am repeating what you said. You said everything was art and that intelligent people make better art.
The problem here is not my lack of understanding, but your lack of expression. Think about it!
You are merely attributing your own unimaginative understanding to my words. That is dishonest. I simply meant that a brain dead person could not be an artist. You have to be able to think to be an artist. A child can think. A child does art. Some do it better than others. QED you are a snob.(A person who believes that their tastes in a particular area are superior to those of other people:)

You said:
"When i was old enough to hold a pen, I did some art. Remember what you yourself said;" EVERYTHING IS ART". by that rubric my first crap was the act of an artist."

You admit here that you "did some art" as a child. You call it crap..

NO, no, no. The first sentence means that I am not 'new to art'. Which you snobbishly accused me of, and is a contradiction of everything you have said so far- a person can NEVER be new to art as soon as they move their first poo. And the second sentences relates to the fact that 'EVERYTHING is art' and thus my first crap is literally ART.

I did not same my first bit of art was crap; I said my first bit of crap was art to refute your idiotic statement that EVERYTHING IS ART. Please keep up with the conversation.

.are you going to contradict your first statement and disagree it was art or that you were an artist? Do you see a problem with your reasoning here?
No I see a basic problem with your ability to read.

[artisticsolution]

c:
You have to do more than observe a thing to be doing art. In some way you have to manipulate the object. I'm looking out the window and can see a new flower on my winter Jasmine - that is not art by itself. If I represent it, take it an put in in a bowl or present it AS art; or just crush it - then it is art otherwise using the word art as you do is meaningless

AS: Okay then...please answer one question for me then....what meaning does art have?

My point is, under your rules...stephen hawkings could not "do art"

C:Not so. He writes; when he uses an adjective he is expressing himself beyond scientific interpretation. That is enough under my 'rules'.

AS: Ah...okay...we are getting somewhere now. So to you....using adjectives means to "do art" but you don't exactly say so...you weasel around it by saying "expressed himself beyond scientific interpretation"...but I challenge that interpretation of what is art and what is not by saying, if using an adjective is expressing oneself artistically, then why do you think one cannot "think" adjectives to themselves to artistically describe what they see? Bottom line...either you believe stephen hawking can "do" art or you believe he can't. If you believe he can...then all is art and does not necessarily have to be a manipulation of a thing. If you don't then you have denied stephen hawkings humanity.

C:No it was much worse than THAT, you said EVERYTHING was art.[/color]

AS: If stephen hawkings can "make" art by merely speaking an adjective, then everyone who can think can "make" art. No manipulation required. All they have to do is think an adjective. Thus, everything would be art...because anyone who looks upon something and thinks a thought with an adjective, would then be making art. Not art to be shared mind you...but personal art for themselves.

c:I never said anything to the

C:You said everything was art and that intelligent people make better art.

AS: I said everything was art but I did not say that intelligent people make better art. Show me where I said this cause this is the exact opposite of my argument. I said, "ALL thinking people do art." Meaning literally...brain dead people who are vegetables do not do art. Any body...be it idiot or genius who has a thought in their head...does art.

C:NO, no, no. The first sentence means that I am not 'new to art'. Which you snobbishly accused me of, and is a contradiction of everything you have said so far- a person can NEVER be new to art as soon as they move their first poo. And the second sentences relates to the fact that 'EVERYTHING is art' and thus my first crap is literally ART.

AS: My mistake. I did misread you. Sorry.

[artisticsolution]

Granted, people are hugely emotional when it comes to their art. I don't know why that is..

Perhaps if you peeked at my thread on the definition of art?
'Art' seems to be a 'union' between the Heart (feelings/emotions/ego...) and the Head (tangible, explorable, knowable...), a means to Heal.
Art is a personal expression of both, and to 'criticize' the art is often seen as a criticism of 'self', and it is!
It is brutal displaying such intense honesty, such vulnerability to 'others' who make comments like, ewww that's ugly, or he must be nuts, or beautiful, or it's crap...!!
The artist has, now, to deal with all these 'features' of who he is that has been hidden, deep, unresolved issues.
It takes great courage to face yourself in the mirror eyes of 'others'!

Yes, I agree. But I still don't understand why that should be. It is quite obvious that not everyone will like us 100% of the time. Even if the critic all hail our art as the best on earth....there will be some who think it's crap. So why should we take it personally? I would think we would be indifferent as it is a given that some will "like" us and others will not.

[chaz wyman]

New response in BLUE

c:
You have to do more than observe a thing to be doing art. In some way you have to manipulate the object. I'm looking out the window and can see a new flower on my winter Jasmine - that is not art by itself. If I represent it, take it an put in in a bowl or present it AS art; or just crush it - then it is art otherwise using the word art as you do is meaningless

AS: Okay then...please answer one question for me then....what meaning does art have?

That would depend on the art, the artist, and the observer. There is no single meaning to art , nor a single meaning to a piece of art.

My point is, under your rules...stephen hawkings could not "do art"

C:Not so. He writes; when he uses an adjective he is expressing himself beyond scientific interpretation. That is enough under my 'rules'.

AS: Ah...okay...we are getting somewhere now. So to you....using adjectives means to "do art"
Not especially.
but you don't exactly say so...you weasel around it by saying "expressed himself beyond scientific interpretation"...but I challenge that interpretation of what is art and what is not by saying, if using an adjective is expressing oneself artistically, then why do you think one cannot "think" adjectives to themselves to artistically describe what they see?

Because the art is not in the thought alone. It has to be available for others. A sunset is never art. Seeing a sunset is not art, eventhough you can appreciate artistic elements. Even if the sunset is the result of human pollution - there is no intention here. When you capture the sunset on film, photo, painting then that is where the art is. It has to do with the act - a human act of intention.

Bottom line...either you believe stephen hawking can "do" art or you believe he can't. If you believe he can...then all is art
That is what is called bollocks - or if you prefer the philosophical definition a non sequitur.
I do not know why you are so flaky on this point. ALL IS ART is rubbish. It is beyond stupid. One minute you seem to let go of it and then again it is back like a bad penny.
If everything is art , then art is without any meaning.
and does not necessarily have to be a manipulation of a thing. If you don't then you have denied stephen hawkings humanity.

That is just stupid. SH manipulates an idea, the word processor, the adjective. By you 'rule' the dribble running off his chin is art - how facile is that?

C:No it was much worse than THAT, you said EVERYTHING was art.[/color]

AS: If stephen hawkings can "make" art by merely speaking an adjective, then everyone who can think can "make" art. No manipulation required. All they have to do is think an adjective. Thus, everything would be art...because anyone who looks upon something and thinks a thought with an adjective, would then be making art. Not art to be shared mind you...but personal art for themselves.

Writing is art. Get over it. Not all writing is art. Writing does not equal art. There is art IN writing, not all writing but much of it. Saying square on the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides IS NOT ART.
I just looked up some of his lectures. There is precious little art in his style. However he does write and I'm usre he can be artistic sometimes. But writing is an art and I'm sure he could write a sonnet is he tried.
Here is an example of literary art.

When forty winters shall beseige thy brow,
And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field,
Thy youth's proud livery, so gazed on now,
Will be a tatter'd weed, of small worth held:
Then being ask'd where all thy beauty lies,
Where all the treasure of thy lusty days,
To say, within thine own deep-sunken eyes,
Were an all-eating shame and thriftless praise.
How much more praise deserved thy beauty's use,
If thou couldst answer 'This fair child of mine
Shall sum my count and make my old excuse,'
Proving his beauty by succession thine!
This were to be new made when thou art old,
And see thy blood warm when thou feel'st it cold.

c:I never said anything to the

C:You said everything was art and that intelligent people make better art.

AS: I said everything was art but I did not say that intelligent people make better art. Show me where I said this cause this is the exact opposite of my argument. I said, "ALL thinking people do art." Meaning literally...brain dead people who are vegetables do not do art. Any body...be it idiot or genius who has a thought in their head...does art.

You are squirming. Look back yourself

C:NO, no, no. The first sentence means that I am not 'new to art'. Which you snobbishly accused me of, and is a contradiction of everything you have said so far- a person can NEVER be new to art as soon as they move their first poo. And the second sentences relates to the fact that 'EVERYTHING is art' and thus my first crap is literally ART.

AS: My mistake. I did misread you. Sorry.

No problem glad that you had the patience to re-read it, Thanks.

[..nameless..]

Perhaps we are putting the cart before the jackass?
Perhaps art must be defined by who is performing this art, the 'artist'!
It is, of course, true that art is what an artist does. It is who he is.
I have a meaningful definition of artist (to me, anyway);
(From my def of art thread);
As I see it, an 'artist', someone who I would call an artist, is a 'master'! It doesn't matter, whatsoever, the subject of his 'mastery' (if there 'must' be a subject), be it swordsmanship or calligraphy, if it is performed by a 'master', it is performed by an 'artist'! One and the same!
No, as much as the ego loves it, there is a sincere probability that we are not all 'master'! Are we?
So art is whatever a 'master' does.
It might be easier to define a 'master' than 'art'.