Artist???

[Klaus Nordby]

I want to voice a sharply dissenting voice regarding the alleged "subjectivity" of art: that different people have different *emotional responses* to a particular work of art does NOT establish the indisputable truth of such subjectivist banalities as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", etc.

But exactly *why* this is so involves philosophical and psychological discussions which are way outside the scope of this forum. For those who want to look into the matter, I will just recommend you read Ayn Rand's essay collection "The Romantic Manifesto" - it offers a rational antidote to all the subjectivist nonsense we hear all the time on the topic of art.

K

PS: Ross and Quentin - you're both on the right track! :-)

[Ross Macintosh]

Klaus - Is Rand's "The Romantic Manifesto" available anywhere on the web that you know of?

Frank - Generally I do just as you say. I just do what I do without any regard to labels. I do my best to ignore them. That said, I do notice that I get uncomfortable being described as "talented" and and an "artist". It is not the labels themselves that cause me concern but my reaction to them. Similar to not "signing" my work, I have difficulting adding little copyright symbols to my drawings. (I've never had anyone claim my creative works as their own - If I did then perhaps I'd have less dificulty with it).

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[jassony]

I think the cold cut no emotions or asethic value considered the differece between "Fine Art" vs. Illustration or Commercial Art is the latter is hired to fulfill the views or intent of the person he has a contract with.

Re: Norman Rockwell, I think he mostly did his own thing. I'm sure holidays or national events took precedence for subject matter. But I doubt if some editor told him to paint a little boy running away from home sitting at the drugstore counter with a policeman buying him an ice cream cone. Or the pre-teen girl with a fancy dress held up to her looking longingly into a mirror wondering if she will someday transform into a beauty.

Big Frank you said: "I think Damien Hirst's stuff is crap, but other people would say that my reaction to what he does in itself proves that it is art because it generates an emotional reaction from me. Whatever..."

If you are right, you are right, why are you suggesting what "other people" think is more valid than what you think? The pat "it generated an emotional reaction" is a bunch of crap! What you think is based on values you hold dear, what "They" think, "they" being the self appointed critics and experts. Have no values or opinions, therefore pump themselves up in importance by spewing out mindless proclamations, using obscure meaningless words to hide behind in attempt to place themself in authority and demean all who disagree with them.

You should be able to find the Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand at your local library.

Judi

[This message was edited by Judi A on May 07, 2001 at 06:57 PM.]

[Klaus Nordby]

Ross: "Klaus - Is Rand's "The Romantic Manifesto" available anywhere on the web that you know of?"

No, it's copyrighted material. You've got to borrow the book or buy it from Amazon or anywhere else - it's in print and is NOT hard to find! It's in paperback and costs about $7 - so go ahead and treat yourself! :-)


K

[Klaus Nordby]

Norman Rockwell was of course a commercial illustrator. But he had enough freedom in his commercial assignments for his own view of life to come across very clearly, so in that respect some of his work *does* qualify as art. Not very great art, of course, but still in the general domain.

Here is a quite striking quote from Rockwell, showing the connection between his view of life and his paintings:

"I unconsciously decided that, even if it wasn't an ideal world, it should be and so painted only the ideal aspects of it - pictures in which there are no drunken slatterns or self-centered mothers... only foxy grandpas who played baseball with the kids and boys who fished from logs and got up circuses in the backyard."


K

[dk_art]

Interesting discussion. Hmmm, it's a difficult thing to pin down really.

I suppose art is something which has the prime concern of representing a mood, emotion or state of mind for it's own sake ..... rather than representing an object for a more specific agenda that illustration would be more concerned with.

Art has no other function than to be looked at for what one gets from it whereas illustrations such as technical blueprints and ads are made to allow a further function to occur from their existance and are therefore a representative of another object .. (oh man , I know it's too late to start this and when I re-read this post tomorrow it won't make any sense [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] ...)

I guess illustration has the main concern of communicating specifics or a narrow view of a larger entity while art has the concern of communicating generalizations or representing the self contained "system".

One observation I make about the difference between illustration and art is this. I find nice illustrations can impress for the short term and then I can ignore them .... yet great paintings (or other forms) always contain something that can be looked at and then seen again and still contain that something which you never quite can say you've fully seen ... thus you can look at it again and still need to see it once more at a later date [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] .... ok I hope that made sense

Anyway these are my momentary thoughts and could change without warning [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

David K
www.dkingdesign.com

[RTK]

the never ending thread [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I keep is simple:

- Accquire a "piece" that you "suspect" being art [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] and look at it every day for a couple of decades. If it is still warms your heart after all that time, it was for sure created by an artist.

I enjoy all kinds of things, the only "art" that I can't appreciate are "Random Acts Of Madness"; e.g. works created by letting a paint soaked chimp roll around on a canvas or kitchen waste blindly smeared on a dirty piece of plywood.

Duchamp's urinals and toiletbowl are another great example why we should keep our kids out of the museums [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Risto

[Penny O'Rorke]

Yes, I do see this thread cd. run and run, but for what it's worth - for some reason I find that XaraX fills the same part of my life as drawing or painting, whereas Painter Classic, for instance, doesn't - 'tho I do enjoy it. XaraX produces the same unfortunate signs of compulsion as canvas and paint - missed meals, no sense of time etc! Also the same sense of satisfaction. Very odd, but I wouldn't change a thing! - penny

[Clements]

What the hell was Leonardo Da Vinci??? Illustrator or Artist? I can look at his "Study of the Human Shoulder" or his self-portrait and say I'd love to have that piece of "art" on my wall.

My layman's opinion on an "artist" is someone that produces something the pleases the eye, that can in someway create a bit of awe/respect because of its uniqueness of composition, color, portrayal, representation, ....

So, since I'm the expert on the subject, I'd have to say Ross is an artist (You'll just have to accept verdict and live with it [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img]).

P.S. Have you ever wondered what it would be like if Da Vinci were alive today had Xara to play with? Or if Mozart could jam with Winton Marsalis? What would they produce and what would they say about today's digital art or jazz

[dk_art]

Da Vinci was many things .... when he painted the Mona Lisa, he was an artist ... when he drew pictures of war-chariots with blades on the wheels or a design for a helicoptor or an engineering schematic for a water system he was an illustrator (actually more since they were his ideas as well ...which makes him an inventor).

David K
www.dkingdesign.com