An Artist's Dilemma

[Bernard]

The Mona Lisa of itself is not art. Its a painting or just a bunch of atoms stuck together. Art is a conscious act that reveals the consciousness involved in creating the act. For instance, in viewing the Mona Lisa as art we are viewing clues in a physical object in regard to processes of consciousness that Leonardo was aware exist within us in the same way they did for him.

I think its possible to turn each thing one does into an art, but in the end thats a personal attitude that serves to help you live a better life. Everything can be seen as art, but again that remains a subjective personal event. What is everything anyway? I don't believe it exists. I see the term (everything) as a secular replacement for God. No one thinks to examine what it means. What is it? The universe? I don't think so, as we tend to acknowledge that there is more beyond the universe - well, we can't discount that as a possibility anyway. 'Everything' tends to stand for everything that we know about and some stuff that we don't know about yet. We like to confine our environment and regard that confine as the totality of existence. Maybe art is simply an acknowledgement of the unknowable nature of life.

I remember the good old days when Hare Krsnas still danced around the city. They were big on the Krsna Consciousness thing: basically; everything is love and love is everything. I could sort of run with that as a positive attitude that may just as well be true as any other way you want to look at everything. It was this 'everything' that bugged the hell out of me. Because of this everything in religion - be it God, Brahma, love, whatever - I would warm so0mewhat to plain old inane capitalist drives: here there are just things; things to be achieved, to be had, squandered, etcetera - there is never this overarching 'everything' in capitalism, or so it seems until you come to realise that ME ME ME is everything in capitalism.

[artisticsolution]

We can say all is art. Because the eye of the beholder (the artist) holds aesthetics to a certain judgment, which may or may not be shared. To tell someone they are not an artist is a slap in the face of their humanity. That is why I say all are artists. There are skilled artists...and there are unskilled artists....just as there are the educated and the uneducated.

The same cannot be said about math. All is not math. An orange is not math. A sunset is not math. An ugly monster is not math. But to the eye of the beholder they may be art.

[artisticsolution]

C:No I don't! I said anyone can do it.

AS:Then we agree. If anyone can do it...then all are artists.


C:I've studied anatomy so I am way ahead of you.

AS: I've studied anatomy too. What does that have to do with sculpting anatomically correctly? If studying anatomy makes one able to sculpt with perfect anatomical proportions, then all people who know anatomy should have the skill to sculpt like Michelangelo. Why can't they then?

Do you think your bust is up to that standard of anatomically correctness? Why then...does it not look perfect...like Michelangelo's? Could it be that he has more artistic skill than you? That does not mean, however, he is an artist and you are not, though. As far as skill he is more advanced. as far as being an artist....he is not you...and you are not him. You both have a unique art. And perhaps...to some...yours would be more aesthetically pleasing and valuable. It depends on the eye of the beholder (the artist.)

[artisticsolution]

I'm not sure what your education system is like but since we have been aping it for the past couple of decades I expect it to be failing many of our working class kids in much the same way as ours. You'll get no argument from me that a higher education is for not for all and it is exactly the destruction of the humanities and arts and a concentration upon economic value that is partly at fault, that and a rigid curriculum and a one-size fits all model. But if you take a look at our prisons you'll find that the bulk are illiterate and innumerate and I think this no weak correlation. Its not pity that drives me but fear of a society of youth that under-values education, the kids I've taught all think that they are artists of one form or another and yet cannot achieve what they wish because they do not have the basic skills needed in a modern society. I have no doubt we should be teaching them to value an education and the belief that they can achieve at least a basic level of understanding in all the subjects. On the whole schooling is being used as a baby-sitting service so that the parents can work, its also, with its concentration upon academic league tables to achieve funding, currently only benefiting the children of the middle-classes with the working-class just being managed until they can be foisted upon society with little or no education or skills. I think its also, with this academy status, reverting to an older model where those schools in the poorer areas can drop any attempt to provide an academic education to the poor with the ethos that I think you display, i.e. what need do they have for it?

For myself, I left school with no qualifications and obtained what I have through the adult education system but was assisted at the time by a social system that allowed me that second chance. Now-a-days the system is pretty much pricing the kids out of this opportunity.

Well said arising, and I agree with you here. I like your ideas for improvement and I do think we should properly fund education. But I believe there is also another problem here...and that is the lack of respect by society towards the uneducated. I believe that even if we gave all a free education...some would still not want it. They may also get into a life of crime. But not because of being "uneducated per se...but because of coming from a society where they get no respect....where they are not valued.

It is being devalued as a human by society when you know you have something to offer, other than the mainstream ideal of being perfectly educated or being of a certain "class". It is being told you are stupid, when you know you are not that is my main concern for these people. I know that just because a person does not want to learn...or even if they are mentally handicapped and cannot learn...that they are still valuable to society.

[Arising_uk]

The same cannot be said about math. All is not math. An orange is not math. A sunset is not math. An ugly monster is not math. But to the eye of the beholder they may be art.

And yet all these things can be describe with maths and the mathematician can behold them as such. As can they all be viewed with the philosophers eye.

[artisticsolution]

And yet all these things can be describe with maths and the mathematician can behold them as such. As can they all be viewed with the philosophers eye.

Describing something is completed different than finding something aesthetically pleasing or not. All can find something aesthetically pleasing or not. Not all can describe it through the means of math or philosophy.

[chaz wyman]

C:No I don't! I said anyone can do it.

AS:Then we agree. If anyone can do it...then all are artists.


C:I've studied anatomy so I am way ahead of you.

AS: I've studied anatomy too. What does that have to do with sculpting anatomically correctly? If studying anatomy makes one able to sculpt with perfect anatomical proportions, then all people who know anatomy should have the skill to sculpt like Michelangelo. Why can't they then?

Do you think your bust is up to that standard of anatomically correctness? Why then...does it not look perfect...like Michelangelo's? Could it be that he has more artistic skill than you? That does not mean, however, he is an artist and you are not, though. As far as skill he is more advanced. as far as being an artist....he is not you...and you are not him. You both have a unique art. And perhaps...to some...yours would be more aesthetically pleasing and valuable. It depends on the eye of the beholder (the artist.)

You brought up anatomy. My busts bear no relevance to it. Caricature plays with anatomy.

I'll take that your ignoring all the other points I make means that you have no answers for them.

[artisticsolution]

You brought up anatomy. My busts bear no relevance to it. Caricature plays with anatomy.

I'll take that your ignoring all the other points I make means that you have no answers for them.

I was referring to this statement of yours:

"I think the Marx is anatomically accurate, where the Nietzsche is intentionally a caricature."

And I am not ignoring all your other points, I just couldn't find any points in all the insults. I wish you would just stick to the points without being so sensitive and emotional. It gets boring after a while.

[artisticsolution]

No you do not. You said that it is only the "ARTIST" who knew what was art. If you meant everyone, then you render that sentence meaningless.

Perhaps we should start with a definition, because I think you are making the mistake of thinking my definition is the same as yours?

I have said repeatedly that I think all is art and all are artists. My definition of artist is anyone who can think. All who can think are "beholders". This goes for the blind as well.By "beholders" I mean thinking people of all walks of life who can make a personal judgement of aesthetics.

I think this is where you become confused. You want the word "artist" to mean a certain type of person who paints or sculpts. I simply go further to include thinking as an art form...albeit a personal art form.

What perplexes me is your contradiction of saying this:


"No I don't! I said anyone can do it."

and then this:

If you meant everyone, then you render that sentence meaningless.

I will admit I think aesthetics are "meaningless"...that does not necessarily mean I think they are Valueless. But what did you mean?




There is an artful manner about us from the time we begin to think. All thinking humans see things in terms of aesthetics. To what degree depends on their intelligence.

That is unvbelievably high minded of you, and completely wrong!



How is it wrong? Do you disagree that all humans see things in terms of aesthetics? Obviously, you don't...or you would not have said, "Anyone can do it." Please tell me of one thinking individual that does not make a personal judgment of aesthetic beauty or ugliness.


You are new to art and you have a lot to learn.

Not at all. I started to do art 48 years ago. You are a bucket load of contradictions.

I was referring to this statement of yours:


"At age nearly 52 I never imagined I had an untapped skill."

But do you disagree you have a lot to learn? That would make you arrogant not me, as I feel I have alot to learn. I do not think I am perfect by any means. The words "you have a lot to learn" are just a statement of fact...as I don't believe there is a person on earth who does not have "alot to learn." Now, do I think I have better sculpting skills than you? Yes. But that is just because I have more skill in that area. That doesn't mean I think I am the most skilled of all or have nothing left to learn or that my art is better...that is for the "beholder" to decide. It is just a statement of fact, I am more skilled in sculpting (probably too art in general but I haven't seen your other work). But that doesn't mean everyone likes skill artwork. It can be dull and boring to some...again...the "beholder" is the one who decides. Just like saying you are a more skilled educator than I am.

[artisticsolution]

A: I was just puzzled that you can then quote anatomical rules and techniques to 'improve' chazs art?

AS:Because "rules" and "skills" have 2 different meanings. Rules imply that some one can DO art incorrectly. Skills imply someone can be better or worse. In our epic conversation, I said over and over that Lance could have his rules...but that if we applied those rules across the board we stand dangerously close to taking away a person's humanity and value.

Here you say what I said all along in our epic conversation:

"I'm also puzzled that you think critique can be part of art given what you've said before, as much of what was said before was about you disagreeing that art can be critiqued, as to have this you need some kind of agreed categories?"

AS: You can look back through all our conversations and you will hear me time and time again say lance can have his rules...but I thought they were too limiting for humanity. I suggested categories...and lance got upset. He wanted 3 rules...remember? I said there should be categories and never any limits. I also said that aesthetics were meaningless...remember when I said...

Ah...okay good stuff. And you are right...Launt's rules are not wrong...I have never said that they were. They are just the first step and boring to some. Here Newton would be more like launt's rules....meaning they have purpose and intent and still can be art. Einstein in this case would be art on a more abstract level...maybe not as understood...but who the fuck cares when calculating being blown to bits is exciting as hell to some people but at the same time meaningless if your dead.

A:I hope you'll find I give very little advice from the perspective of how one should write ones thoughts upon a philosophy forum, although I can think of one major exception.

AS:Yes, I notice that....but here is what I find interesting. Do you remember Lance saying, that he was trying to help people discuss art without having to say something like, "I like it." Well, this is what I am trying to do. Granted, people are hugely emotional when it comes to their art. I don't know why that is...but most everyone becomes very defensive. I believe that is exactly why most pay lip service and say "I like it." It is precisely because anything they say could be taken the wrong way and then they and their ideas could be devalued. You seemed to agree with Lance that it would be nice for people to be able to talk about art intelligently. But how does one do that when if they say anything other than "I like it" they are accused of being arrogant. I did not say I did not like Chaz's sculptures...I said I liked them. Only I went further and admitted to other thoughts I was having truthfully. I don't even know if I intended it as advice to anyone other than myself.

It's sort of like when you tried to help kayla....I think her mistakes in grammar where apparent to you because you are an educator...so they stand out. It is the same for me....but here is the difference. I don't think chaz is wrong if that is the way he wishes his sculpture to look like. I would say nothing of his skill based on his art and humanity. However, it is clear to me he is wrong when he thinks one is anatomically correct and the other is a caricature. According to the visual of what anatomy looks like in a real life human....his "anatomically correct" (by his own words) sculpture...does not look like a real human head. It also looks like a caricature. Albeit not as exaggerated. But that does not mean it isn't art. Or that is is meaningful.

[chaz wyman]

PLEASE SEE BOLD IN BLUE

No you do not. You said that it is only the "ARTIST" who knew what was art. If you meant everyone, then you render that sentence meaningless.

Perhaps we should start with a definition, because I think you are making the mistake of thinking my definition is the same as yours?

I have said repeatedly that I think all is art and all are artists.

How ridiculous! If Jupiter is art then who is the artist? If a dog is an artist then what is the art that it produces; it's turd?.

My definition of artist is anyone who can think. All who can think are "beholders". This goes for the blind as well.By "beholders" I mean thinking people of all walks of life who can make a personal judgement of aesthetics.

I think this is where you become confused.
I'm not confused. I am amused.

You want the word "artist" to mean a certain type of person who paints or sculpts.

No, I would suggest that any human can do art, but that not everything they do is art.
To suggest otherwise is palpably ridiculous. WHy don't you get orf the horse you rode in on and use your noddle for a while?

I simply go further to include thinking as an art form...albeit a personal art form.

If art is only recognised in the expression then the thinking is not always art, not until another can see the results and evidence of that thinking. Maybe you should try a little, because there is precious little evidence so far.

What perplexes me is your contradiction of saying this:[/color]


"No I don't! I said anyone can do it."

and then this:

If you meant everyone, then you render that sentence meaningless.

I will admit I think aesthetics are "meaningless"...that does not necessarily mean I think they are Valueless. But what did you mean?


See above!



There is an artful manner about us from the time we begin to think. All thinking humans see things in terms of aesthetics. To what degree depends on their intelligence.

That is unvbelievably high minded of you, and completely wrong!



How is it wrong? Do you disagree that all humans see things in terms of aesthetics? Obviously, you don't...or you would not have said, "Anyone can do it." Please tell me of one thinking individual that does not make a personal judgment of aesthetic beauty or ugliness.

No you moron. It's the connection with intelligence that I objected to. If you had read what I said properly and used your artistically defined thinking, you would not be so hysterical now!

[/color]

You are new to art and you have a lot to learn.

Not at all. I started to do art 48 years ago. You are a bucket load of contradictions.

I was referring to this statement of yours:


"At age nearly 52 I never imagined I had an untapped skill."


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. And that is why your idea is a piece of shit too.

<snip - self righteous advice>

[artisticsolution]

[quote="chaz wyman"]
C:How ridiculous! If Jupiter is art then who is the artist?

AS: Isn't it obvious....the artist is the thinking human who views, paints, photographs, etc and takes notice of a subjective visual (jupiter in this case) he/she has cropped into a composition. Jupiter is just a thing until an artist makes it art. In fact, without a human to notice and wonder about it...Jupiter is meaningless and valueless. You seem to think the art begins on paper...I believe the art begins in the artists thoughts and mind. It is entirely possible for art to never be shared.

Here is why: I don't think many would deny that photography is indeed an art. The photograph that is taken by the artist is simply what he/she see's in the viewfinder. It is a visual representation of a composition that is shared. What I am trying to get at is that just because there is a machine which facilitates the sharing of information between 2 parties does not mean that if the artist did not have the camera or anyone to show the picture too, it would not be art. It is art to the artist. The same artist...could take a picture of his family for his photo album and it might not be considered art by him. But then imagine this scenario...suppose ansel adams takes a photograph of his family...for his photo album. Suppose he doesn't think of the photo as a work of art...in this case it is not a work of art. However, lets suppose further that when he dies, someone happened upon the same photos and thought the phote was art. it is then that the photo, would become art. There is a very subtle difference here I am trying to convey...Which is...all is art....but not all the time or to everyone at the same time...it is only art when the beholder(the artist) says it is.

C:If a dog is an artist then what is the art that it produces; it's turd?.

AS: You know very well I clarified my statement many times to mean all *thinking humans*. You are deliberately trying to misrepresent my argument in order to come out ahead. THAT is something I would never do...that is deliberately lie and slander someone in order to win. Obviously, a dog is not an artist but a dog can be art to an artist. Some artists like to do taxidermy as art...or use elements of various bones, fur and such in order to create art. And yes, I have even heard of artists sculpting shit.

C:No, I would suggest that any human can do art, but that not everything they do is art.

AS: Okay good...we can agree here. Like my ansel adams scenario above. But just because all they do is not art to them...doesn't mean that it is not art to another.

C:If art is only recognised in the expression then the thinking is not always art, not until another can see the results and evidence of that thinking.

AS:WHere did I say it was ONLY recognised in the "expression"? You generalize too much...you should work on that...


C: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.

AS:Okay...there is a problem here that I don't think you can see. With your line of thinking where is the cut off from "first crap" to full fledged artist? Do you think you have crossed over into the area of being able to produce a work of art yet? How would you know? WHat I am getting at is what imaginary line do you draw that this is art and this is not and why? Let's suppose we can all agree that Michelangelo's work is "good" enough to be considered art...do you think your sculpture would be "art" under those "rules" or do you think compared to his art...what you do is a pile of crap? I am sure some would say the latter if they had to choose. So your art could be on the pile heap of trash...how's that for meaningless? Why even bother.

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?

[chaz wyman]

C:How ridiculous! If Jupiter is art then who is the artist?

AS: Isn't it obvious....the artist is the thinking human who views, paints, photographs, etc and takes notice of a subjective visual (jupiter in this case) he/she has cropped into a composition.

I said Jupiter, not a picture of Jupiter; a painting of Jupiter; anything else.
Ceci N'est pas une planet.
You said EVRETHING is art; that is still ridiculous. If an object is not represented or witnessed it cannot be art, fool.



C:If a dog is an artist then what is the art that it produces; it's turd?.

AS: You know very well I clarified my statement many times to mean all *thinking humans*.

Fine. Then you are saying my shit is art! ALL of it! Event the stuff I don't look at.
"EVERYTHING IS ART" remember


C:No, I would suggest that any human can do art, but that not everything they do is art.

AS: Okay good...we can agree here.


OH FOR FUCK"S SAKE!! WHy don't you ever think about what you type?

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



C:If art is only recognised in the expression then the thinking is not always art, not until another can see the results and evidence of that thinking.

AS:WHere did I say it was ONLY recognised in the "expression"? You generalize too much...you should work on that...

DUH!! Donkey!


C: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.

AS:Okay...there is a problem here that I don't think you can see.
The problem is that you do not think before you write!



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?

I never said anything to the contrary. You said it was directly related to intelligence; it is not. The most intelligent people are not always artists and sometimes people with low IQ can do great art.

[artisticsolution]

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

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.

AS:As usual, you think you know what I mean but you have no idea. 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.

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...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?

[..nameless..]

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'!