I don't know why people get so caught up on visual art being "pretty" or "entertaining". It is what it is, just another form of communication.

Ace said:

No.

Number23 said:

Care to elaborate?

Tom said:

Oh, I don't know about that... A lot of so-called "art" is not about communication at all; it's about makin' cheddar and/or pretension.

Ace said:

Opiate for the masses? Maybe advertisements and other forms of mass media, but not the majority of work you find in museums or galleries. Fashion photography's main purpose it marketing, selling fantasy and escapism. People like Avedon later crossed over into fine art. A de Kooning painting isn't necessarily a flattering representation of someone, for example.

Tom said:

If I can get all Devil's advocate-y, what purpose does "the majority of work you find in museums or galleries" serve?

Ace said:

Well, firstly we'd have to clarify your own personal definiton and perception of the word 'art'. Hollywood movies? Paintings? Music? A practised smile? A dance? Art is the fruit of imagination and imagination is what differentiates human beings from animals - we can comprehend the inevitibility of our own demise and therefore from the moment we are born the race is on to communicate or define the mould of ourselves through whatever conduit we chose, whether it be hairstyles, make-up, dress-sense, guitar solos, painting, orating, fucking, - 'art', my personal definition and perspective of the terminology, is the the nucleus of self-conciousness, the Pandora's Box of physical existence and, ultimately, the key to the lock of the invisible door.

Ace said:

Because reaching for an unattainable dream is supposed to make us happy Its a form of escapism. Its commercial claptrap, aimed at numbing us and giving us a false sense of security. Mainly so we buy a particular product or watch a certain show. We are consumers after all

entertainment.

Number23 said:

For the purposes of our discussion, it would include all of the above (with the exception of a "practised smile").


I am arguing that the majority of art is not, in fact about communication, but about creating fairy tales with which to acquire notoriety and/or wealth.

Lleena said:

Exactly. We are being sold escapism, when we should be supporting art that actually examines life for what it is (rather than diverts us from it).

Ace said:

I'll use James Turrell as an example. If you wander into a gallery and see one of his shows, most of it is nothing more than a glowing square or triangle on the wall. That's it.

But if you read up on him a bit before checking out the show, much of his work are experiments in how we see things. He gets into the psychological effects of light and a little bit of optical illlusion. What might look like a flat square on the wall, is actually a doorway to an entirely seperate room. The lights are so carefully placed that it looks completely flat.

Sometimes artists (such as minimalists) like to focus on one specific aspect, be it light, color, gesture, the surface, whatever, and explore what can be done with that specifically, rather than make some big grand illustrative painting that has a little bit of everything in it.

Alot of classical paintings that many people appreciate, also have more careful consideration of abtract elements as well - the basic shapes occuring in the painting, how colors appear next to eachother, etc...

The other day, I was driving home and listening to a syndicated American humour talk show. The hosts talked for a good fifteen minutes about what had happened the previous night on 24. They were so invested in this made-up show that it blew my mind. I mean, sorry 24-watchers - I don't get how anyone could give a rat's ass about this kind of show.

Tom said:

Well, that sounds interesting. By why should you have to read up on him before checking-out the show? I mean, why can't the dude just spell it out right there?

Ace said:

thats what writers are for.

Tom said:

If the artist wants to make a statement about how we see things, why wouldn't he just say, "This is a piece that looks at the way we see things. If you'll look at..."?

perhaps check out Barbara Krueger or Ed Ruscha...

Ace said:

Artists do that sometimes. Especially when museums have guest artists do lectures about their work.

But when you look at work, there's a dialogue going on between you and the artists, even if they are not physically there, what they are implying vs what you are interpereting or seeing. If they just spell everything out for you and explain everything in detail, there's not much interaction on your part.

Ace said:

Because he's a conceptual artist. the actual art work may be very simple but its what it represents that we are suppposed to focus on, i.e the meaning behind it is more important than the actual object. It engages our brains in a way that other visual art doesn't.

Tom said:

Why does there need to be "interaction"? If they are trying to communicate something, why obscure it?

Lleena said:

I prefer art that is not a puzzle.

Ace said:

well from my own personal perspective a movie is what I go to for escapism.. comedy, drama etc...

I see films for the cinematography, the symbolism the depth of the characters. Not to escape, but to be drawn in, to experience to learn. It is more of a feeling I get during the process I guess. For instance, Beauty Shop was a good movie, Chocolat was a good film. I didn't go to see one with the same expectations I had seeing the other. I really don't know how to explain it other than it is my perspective that hinges on my belief of the difference between to two. Sometimes I am suprised and I get a film when I am expecting a movie, funny, I never really analyzed it before

all i can say is...
2 each his own.

Ace said:

it would be the recording of the gallery the day i go there

IveRepliedLikeAnMFerToday said:

I understand what you're saying, but if art is to examine life for what it is, there have to be shades of Grey along with Black and White.

Lleena said:

Ain't that the truth. And the older we get the more grey appears (not only in our hair ), almost eliminating the black and the white. I feel comfortable with that though. There's enough black and white in the world to form a spine in our lives. The grey is what makes it interesting.

Ace said:

tomato, toh-mah-to
I could give a rat's ass about ANTM, but it seems you could go on for hours about it. Wouldn't you say you're quite invested in it? And isn't that just as much escapism?

retina said:

agreed

I like not being spoon fed.

Ace said:

Well, that's the "art" isn't it?

I LOVE that kind of artwork, to be honest. When I'm all up in something to see if I can figure out what's going on and if I'm seeing everything and figuring out how it makes me feel and what makes it tick and how it works and then reading the artists perspective to see what their intent may have been and how different or alike my perception was... I can spend hours on one piece if it interests me just so.

"The still must tease with the promise of a story the viewer of it itches to be told." - Cindy Sherman

Lleena said:

Life is all about shades of grey (as a songwriter I like very much wrote, on the subject of growing-up, "What once seemed black & white/Turns to so many shades of grey"). I just find it somewhat pretentious when the intended meaning of a work is obscured. I mean, if that's your thing, why not just become a puzzle-maker, rather than an "artist"?