perfect record

[justme]

Usage defines language.

And I challenge anyone to read Cicero (in Latin) and tell me that's not art. (Jesse Jackson, or any repectable Southern Baptist Preacher on a good day works, too).

I am not going to be so dumb as to offer a definition for art, but when you talk about Cicero, you're talking about someone that was very much aware of the aestetic nature of prose. He wrote speeches so that they sounded beautiful, almost poetic. His arguments were real, but his rhetoric was designed to elicit raw emotional, rather than analytical responses. His speeches (I'm thinking of, maybe ironically, his defense of the fine arts) stir the soul as much as any concerto.

 

[justme]

And I agree that there is more to art than craft. But I think anything can transcend craft and become art.

Thats why I said elegantly delivered, not well delivered. Oratories are judged in many ways, there elegance is only one. I have heard effective arguments that were made in cold, analytical, logical progressions. They did the job and were well delivered, but they were hardly art.

 

[RufusMoses]

OK...allow me to turn the tables then...

People also say things like "he's turned Pokemon card collecting into a science" or "he made pizza dough throwing a science"...

But surely there is a difference between collecting Pokemon cards or making pizzas and real science...I mean no matter how organized the guys cards are or how thin the pizza crust is they haven't somehow "risen" to the level of science right?

Science and art should be viewed as specific, and different, kinds of activity, not simply the (same?) end point on the generic all purpose value scale...

 

[elliot16]

JM,

While I normally find your arguments to be cogent, I am having problems following both the meat and the matter of this one perhaps because, for you, this is a concept in evolution.

You first say that anything can be art. This statement is so broad as to be just about useless in defining either what art is or even more importantly what art is to you. A cub can be a tiger, but it also can be a lion, a bear, a leopard, a cheetah, a member of a baseball team, or a scout. That something or anything can be something doesn't make it that thing. Saying that anything can be art is akin to saying that nothing can be art.

You then make an attempt to define your concept by saying "I'm much more inclined to call an elegantly delivered oratory 'art' then I am a third grader's collage." So, in this statement you suggest that elegance or refinement is art and that craft is art. But this merely reflects an aspect of the mode of expression and not it's essence or meaning. One might say that the presentation was artfully delivered without calling the speech itself art.

You defend the previous statement by describing the written works of Cicero "you're talking about someone that was very much aware of the aestetic nature of prose. He wrote speeches so that they sounded beautiful, almost poetic. His arguments were real, but his rhetoric was designed to elicit raw emotional, rather than analytical responses. His speeches (I'm thinking of, maybe ironically, his defense of the fine arts) stir the soul as much as any concerto."

Now, you're truly on to something. Now you are talking about the written word and not the elegance of the orator's delivery or the passion or coldness of his presentation. An idea is transformed by the skill of the artist into a thing of beauty which can move the emotions and stir the souls of the audience whether, that be in the theater, movies, museum, concert hall, or auditorium. No, not anything can do this, but something which is created to purposefully express something of meaning, beauty, and feeling can.

 

[oddfellow4870]

Art is a 3 letter word beginning with A and ending with t. It is a symbol. The word is not the thing.

I consider this word to be a symbol that is used at a high level of generality and so, according to usage, it has little,concrete meaning.

Art and the production of Art tend to require skills which are more inutitive than analytical and more expressive than organizational in nature. Art is less likely to be reduced to formula than it is to be subject to refined skills, which require special talent, insight or inspiration to execute.

To me Art is (currently) is an exquisite Mandolin riff From Chris T.

But many would consider Hendrix to be more of an artist.

Better definitions are welcomed. It's more useful to analyze specifics than to try and define generalities. Which is why the current drift on this thread is not very useful, not to me any way.

So, to return to topic, what recordings define Art, for you?

 

[elliot16]

Originally posted by oddfellow4870
Art is a 3 letter word beginning with A and ending with t. It is a symbol. The word is not the thing.

I consider this word to be a symbol that is used at a high level of generality and so, according to usage, it has little,concrete meaning.

Art and the production of Art tend to require skills which are more inutitive than analytical and more expressive than organizational in nature. Art is less likely to be reduced to formula than it is to be subject to refined skills, which require special talent, insight or inspiration to execute.

I must disagree with the idea that because people are loose in the usage of language that a word shouldn't have a specific or clear meaning. It is important to define terms because that aids in precision of communication. If I understand how you think about art then it becomes clearer to me what your aesthetic sense is and thus why you may like one piece of art and not another.

Your concept of art appears to be more romantic than mine. While I agree that intuition, talent, and insight are integral to the creation of art, the old saw remains true that "art is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration." While the impulse may arise in the emotions, it is through a mastery of the form that its effects can become manifest.

The greatest of artists can hide the hard work they have put into the structure of their creation and make it all appear as if it has arisen full blown (like Athena from the head of Zeus) and give the feeling of all being fresh and extemporaneous. Technique and structure are essential to any piece of art and when an artist ignores these element it hurts the quality of his product. Without these building blocks precise and meaningful expression is impossible.

Take any great play whether it be by Shakespeare, Ibsen, or Pinter and you will find that the seeds the action, the tone, the essential conflict will all be there in the very first scene. This is not an example of mechanical foreshadowing but instead of structure inextricably bound to content of the play. The same may be said of great symphonies by Beethoven, Mozart or Prokofiev. Material which is explored in the first movement becomes the basis for later ones. Thus, an artist may work to achieve a not only perception of integrity while using of a wide palette of textures but even more a quality of inexorable inevitability. While instinct and inspiration may guide him, it is through attention to structure that the sense of something awesome and monumental is achieved.

I do agree with the idea of analyzing specifics. However, unless you can discuss music in terms of its structure (I certainly don't have the training to do so) in essence all you will be saying is what it makes you feel and whether it pleases you or not and as such the discussion will decline again into generalities. This is true, unless you can establish a definition of your aesthetic view and then discussion can follow within that context.

 

[h. von bingen]

et and never been kissed . . .

u2 mixing the signifier with the signified. the word is always only an approximation of the thing (overlain with cultural, psychological blah blah blah implications). but hey it's what we've got. what if we could communicate with out language . . . o i guess we can, we do (& some of us 4 money).

smells like kenny scharf,
hvb

 

[oddfellow4870]

Re: et and never been kissed . . .

Originally posted by h. von bingen
u2 mixing the signifier with the signified. the word is always only an approximation of the thing (overlain with cultural, psychological blah blah blah implications). but hey it's what we've got. what if we could communicate with out language . . . o i guess we can, we do (& some of us 4 money).

smells like kenny scharf,
hvb

Hayakawa, the great semanticist (and republican pol I might add and a minority as well ) said the lowest level of generality is put your hand over your mouth and point. Once you use language, you begin to ascend the ladder of generalities. The higher you go, the less meaning there is.

Point > Art = ?

So what would you point at ???? and imply "Art"

 

[elliot16]

Re: Re: et and never been kissed . . .

Originally posted by oddfellow4870


So what would you point at ???? and imply "Art"

Not to be too flip about this, but since we are on a message board, the only tool we have to communicate ideas and thoughts and feelings are words (whatever their inherent limitation may be). You cannot point to anything here and communicate to anyone without at least adding a word or graphic as a reference. So if we are to discuss this issue we must use the medium at hand and that is the printed word (plus image or sound bite or film clip if you have them at your disposal).

 

[justme]

RM - I don't know about your pizza thrower, but perhaps he could develop a scientiffic throw. I know a chef that knows a baker. Anyway, everyday for a few months she monitered the kitchen temperature and humidity. She then baked her bread and (admittedly, subjectively) recorded the results. She analysed the numbers and now is very particular about her kitchen conditions. I would say that her methods were fairly scientific (if there is bad art, then certainly there is not so great science). At the same time, she is a professional baker and she's pretty damned good (I've never met her, but I have eaten at her restaraunt). I've never met a baker that stuck to a recipe. Knowing how to vary ingredients to get the correct balance of flavor. But there's more to culinary arts than just balancing flavor of one piece. There is balancing of presentation, color, texture, and synthesis. So there is an art to cooking as much as there is a science (try telling an accomplished chef he's not an artist... but wait for him to put down any cleaver he might be holding).

I'm not saying that applying artistic thought to something makes it an art any more than I'm saying that applying scientific thought to anything makes it a science. Rather, my point would be more along the lines that under extreme applications of these two modes of thought manifested 'correctly' the creations of people you see the art and science of any discipline.

 

[justme]

Elliot, my ideas aren't evolving, I'm just being less terse.

Now, you're truly on to something. Now you are talking about the written word and not the elegance of the orator's delivery or the passion or coldness of his presentation.

So would you agree that Cicero is art?

But I think the presentation is art, too. Beethoven was surely an artist, but so was Karajan. So if Cicero is an artist writing his speeches, he has room to be an artist delivering his speaches (I'll note that in preparation for his career in politics, Cicero studied at at least one of the most famous Greek schools of drama, beating Reagan to the punch by almost two millenia). Unfortunately, we only have written record.

But we have more than this for the oratories of Southern Baptist African American ministers. The best among them word craft with amazing poetic and lyrical ability. They also deliver these speeches with all the passion and skill of a broadway thespian.

(If anyone's ever bored on a Sunday, attending a Baptist service is a great cheap show. Brilliant oratory, fantastic music, and often a great dinner. Every reverend that I've talked to has been happy to have anyone, regardless of their intentions in going)

 

[justlooking]

Still Not Involved

Note that in the cases of oratory you mention (Cicero and the Baptist ministers) what you seem to admire is that they do things to make their oratory esthetically interesting that are unnecessary to, and apart from, the strict purpose of communicating their message. (And the proof of that is how much I love black Baptist preaching, even though I have about zero sympathy with most of the content. Or how you can enjoy reading Cicero even when his content must be irrelevant to you.)

 

[h. von bingen]

re: even though I have about zero sympathy with most of the content

overstatement.

goodness, love, blah blah blah,
neo-covenantal,
hvb

 

[oddfellow4870]

Re: Re: Re: et and never been kissed . . .

Originally posted by elliot16


So if we are to discuss this issue we must use the medium at hand and that is the printed word (plus image or sound bite or film clip if you have them at your disposal).

So, give me examples of things you think are Art. These would be examples of just pointing at it rather than generalizing about the concept. You can infer generalizations from my (and it's just my list ) list, but it is not the place to start.

I'll do my own:

Bonnie Raitt's phrasing in "I can't make you love me" is Art

Manufactured black velvet pictures of Elvis are not Art

A campbell's soup can is not Art

Harrison Ford's simulation of pain and distress in the Movie, "Witness" is Art

Photography is not Art

Music based on synthesizers are not Art

Most paintings are Art

So give me some of yours.....

 

[h. von bingen]

re: Photography is not Art

steiglitz muybridge hombre some dayz.

every picture tells a story,
hvb

and moving pictures certainly r art:

gf i & ii
vivre sa vie
goodbye mr. chips (donat)
mean streets
5 ez pieces
paisan
jules et jim
wild strawberries
potemkin
citta aperta
the producers

i lost it at the movies (did did did),
the kingsway,
hvb

 

[justlooking]

Re: Re: Re: Re: et and never been kissed . . .

Originally posted by oddfellow4870
A campbell's soup can is not Art

But it is when Andy Warhol recreates it (he didn't buy them -- he made them) and displays it in a gallery.

You may think it's bad, stupid art. But it's art.

And it isn't "not art" just because you think it's bad and stupid.

 

[justlooking]

Re: Re: Re: Re: et and never been kissed . . .

Originally posted by oddfellow4870
Harrison Ford's simulation of pain and distress in the Movie, "Witness" is Art

Photography is not Art

Music based on synthesizers are not Art

Most paintings are Art

This is bizarre.

 

[h. von bingen]

plus i think . . .

manufactured black velvet paintings are art esp. in a doublewide.

the mystique of the foreign,
hvb

 

[justlooking]

And that's bullshit.

 

[h. von bingen]

not bullshit

what's wrong with that aesthetic any more than nana's proclivity for madam butterfly?

both cheesy, both great.

sour puss,
or broaden your horizons son,
hvb