|
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 your thoughts Alison - Boston, MA I think you need to define why Bruce Nauman need's to "justify" his art. Is "justify" the same as trying to educate the viewer about his work? Is the artist allowed to attempt to explain his art's complexities to the viewer? It's not a big trick or game...listen to what he is saying with an open mind. R. M. V. Mac Donald - Pasadena, CA Anyone who says "art is anthing I say is art, is art" just another way for a non-artist like Nauman to justify the non-art of a staircase. Alison - Boston, MA What is art is a very difficult and obviously emotional question. Part of what I liked about this series is the directness and honestness with which the artists discuss their work and views on art. Why I am so appreciative of this, is that as an artist/art educator I am constantly running into a public that perceives the art world as playing a joke on the general population, trying to "pull the wool" over ones eyes. I have many theories about where this comes from, and personally would like to blame Clement Greenburg (although I know it's bigger than that). When Bruce Nauman talks about the "intent" of art defining it, he's not talking about the idea of looking at a rock (or urinal) saying "that's art" and laughing away to the bank (which is another myth). He's talking about art and how it fits into society. I disagree with those who have said art is a static thing, the way "furniture" is. The idea of what art is is constantly changing. It is natural for any idea as vast as "art" to be perceived in different ways in different times. How art was defined in the Rennaissance vs. how it is defined today changes. There are certain institutions in our society who help change and expand (or conversely confine) our notions of what art is, and what can be in the museum or gallery. They are defining it in the larger context, they are NOT forcing it down anyones throat, and obviously the individual can think what they will of it. The next point I have, is why is it such a big deal as to what is and isn't art? It's not like artists or art are considered prestigious in this country. Much the opposite we're seen as tricksters who are trying to get away with something. By naming something "art", what is the general public loosing? This has always baaffles me. The word "art" is so hotly disputed you would think it was a prestigious gold medal. If someone says it's art, how is it hurting a viewer if the viewer disagrees? I would highly recommend the book by Mary Anne Staniszewski called Believing is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art". It is very direct and addresses the concept that art is not and never has been a static notion (as I would say furniture is also not a static concept...or anything for that matter). Joshua - North Adams, MA Art is aesthetic decision making, plain and simple. Intended or not (folk are or not), any choice that is made with aesthetics as the primary consideration can be called art. Classification is a different question - is it high art or low art, good art or bad art. Louis Torres - New York, NY Bruce Nauman's statement that "It's the intention that turns a staircase into a staircase as a work of art" makes no sense. The concept "art" is like the concept "furniture." Just as one can't reasonably say "It's my intention that turns a painting into a painting as a chair," one can't validly claim what Nauman does. As Aristotle put it, "A is A," a thing is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks it is or intends it to be. As my co-author and I argue in our recent book "What Art Is" (www.aristos.org) art (like anthing else that exists) can and should be objectively defined--by its essential attributes. Art is art. A staircase is a staircase. Furniture is furniture. What one thinks doesn't count. Seana - Dublin, Ireland Art is Truth articulated. It encompasses everything - it is universal. The artist is the mediator between Reality and mankind. The only way he can be a mediator is by being completely honest and truthful; not to himself but to Reality - he can't use hypotheses or assumptions, only think and work in forms. There is no such thing as 'good' art and 'bad' art - there is simply Art. It is not 'intent' that makes Art but rather a realisation of Reality. Susan Kellogg - Arlington, VA "Intent" is a condition useful in the courts, not necessarily in art. It might be useful in the mind of the viewer as a point on his or her personal viewing matrix. As for the artist, the intent is private, non verbal, and unknown even to the artist. If the artist thinks it is known the artist is probably fooling him/herself. Nicole Cherie Clark - Fort Myers, FL Art...........is a form of self expression. It is not WRONG or RIGHT! It is a creation of a vivid or soothing mind map. Roads, Hills, Bumps, and Curves. Any direction the brain waves take us...........is it art? is it real? The answer.........SIMPLY said ...... Art is REAL. ART......is a vivid mirror image of self-expression! ART.....is REAL,OFFBEAT,never WRONG,nor RIGHT! ART.....is the personality within all souls that carry the influential impact on LIFE, LIVING, and even DEATH! ART is SOFT, LOUD, and very COURAGIOUS! ART....is a door that will open many avenues for all the days to come. Henry N. Kelly - San Antonio, TX Zen and the Art of... What is Art? It is some thing special that is created. It bridges the gap between the subjective process in the artist through his/her work and eventually provides an objective understanding that we all share. Of course, sometimes the art leads to more questions than answers. That's even better! The point of a journey is not to arrive. So ponder life for awhile then jump on a motorcycle and take a chautauqua. Thanx, Phaedrus! Susan Kellogg - Arlington, VA The artist is rewarded as he or she works. The artist alone knows his or her intentions and how well the work works. After that, the experience of art is between the work and the viewer. Art seems to happen where and when an intersection occurs between the work and the viewer...the intersection is a changing space and can be near or far or high or low, depending on the viewer's needs and capabilities for expanding their response. Different people respond differently while looking at the same thing. I think that ultimately art is a device for the individual viewer's mind, it can contain or repel depending on the state of the viewer. One thing is clear, there is an institutional conflict between language and art. Language, if it were friend to art, would have more words available for art and the art process and thus end these silly questions. Pat Daughton - Arlington, VA I think of art as the bridge between our souls and the physical world. As a person trained in both fine arts and art therapy I see art as both an interaction between our psychological existence and our cultural expression of that existence. Thus, this can include challenging and sometimes disturbing imagery as well as the aesthetically pleasing. The artist's conceptual vision and his/her ability to translate this to an audience is what transforms the ordinary experience to a historically and culturally significant event. Beatriz E. Ledesma - Chicago, IL Art is the interplay between the conscious and unconscious part of our being, between what is real and what is an illusion; it is the voice of our soul through color and form in a constant search for connection with something beyond. Sharri Thurber - Louisville, KY I believe art is the communication of an idea, be it visual, musical, physical or other. The achievement of this communication is through intent (because unless you intend to communicate the idea, it doesn't get done). I also believe that the subjective valuation of art is valid, in that it facilitates a dialogue between artist and viewer, stimulating communication. Rote Follower of Duchamp - New York, NY Bruce Nauman is wrong, in addition to being one of the worst and most mindless rote followers of the the feeble clichés of Marcel Duchamp which dominate all cultural and institutional thought in this country. Intention is nothing. Replace Duchamp's urinal with yet another "shocking" object, and thus "challenging" art is made that rocks the souls of the philistine public to the very core! For these artists, "intention" is just a pat explanation of how anything placed in a gallery becomes "art," and those vaporous words are the sole qualifier of its status as such. Besides, aren't all the artists on this show from the bottom-end dregs of the latter 20th century? Isn't it time that something new happened? How many decades if not centuries will the clichéd, "challenging" notions of the university art system endure? Sarah - Owensboro, KY Art is more than intention. Art is more than creation. Art is the abstraction of a idea so that beauty can be recognized by the viewer in a concrete object. The artist sees beauty and represents it in a way that others can see it, too. A contemporary work can seem anything but beautiful at first glance but study of the work with the open and fertile mind of the viewer reveals the artist's view and the beauty of the object. Even the most realistic painting is more than what it seems. It represents rather than depicts the view of the artist. If beauty cannot be seen by anyone, then it may not be art, I think. Amanda - Arkansas Personally I like the diversity and "vastness" of what can be considered as art in the 21st Century. Yes, some works are stronger than others but to be able to even classify the art as good or bad...genius or foolishness...the viewer had to consider the work. The viewer had to *think* then classify. My brain feels pretty good when I engage in the sorting activity. R.C. - Greenfield, MA Artmaking is a journey that a person takes into the depths of their unconscious mind in order to fish out an artifact of truth to share with the world upon return, even if that truth has already been told. It is the substantiation of that artifact into the external world that is the artwork. Whether the art is purely decorative and widely distributed and imitated; a highly personal, single, ephemeral image or event encompassing an idea -- or anything in between -- is of no matter. Whether the journeying happens within the mind of the artist or the mind of the audience/participant is of no consequence, as long as a journey has taken place. It is the artwork that transforms the artist and audience, and even the act/idea of artmaking itself, that can be called genius. Liz Wintriss - Denville, NJ I agree with most of you that art is/should be a mode of communication. The artist and viewer share a common experience, an emotion, or the viewer learns about a side of human nature they never knew about. We should take away a feeling of connectedness or astonishment because of the revelation of the art work. BUT... much of the modern art world has been sullied by not too bright "experts" and crass commercialism. I heard of the creator of a webcam site of pornographic intent being shocked to find it included in the Whitney Biennial. He didn't even realize it was art that he was making!! Check out page 156 of the September "Art in America" There is a picture of a work by Jennifer Reeves entitled "Liberal minded art dealer gets drunk, talks too loud". In the composition are the words: "Beauty is hip art that sells, Who gives a F*** if it means anything". Byron Leemain I think that if want to find out what art is, we first need to stop limiting ourselves to talking about good art over bad art. Frankly, the only thing I think that makes art "good" today is that it is recognized as such by someone with monetary or opinionated clout, and it is made by someone with enough personal drive and motivation to get their work in those someones' faces. There is a lot of "good art" out there, that I personally think is ridiculously amateurish or unnecessarily gruesome, and a lot of unknown art found in neighborhood galleries by untrained artists, or academy-trained amateurs, that is really exceptional and touching. Matthew Steidley - Oceanside, CA Art in its simplest form is a discipline of one's own creativity. Technique, content, and every other aspect of art is simply that, an aspect of art. Art can not be limited to what is acceptable and what is not. One of the truly great sides of art is the differences between the artists work and the people who ask, "what is art". It develops and challenges thinking. Whether an artist works conceptually, traditionally or anything in-between (or outside of), intention is one of the purest forms of art. Some artists use intention only as a stepping stone towards their goal, some believe that intention is the purest form of art because that is where the creative process may be derived from, while others may go as far as to have no intentions but rather keep creating. I have come to the point that it does not matter, it is all about taste. I do not believe in any limitations of what can be art, I just enjoy others creativity. From Caravaggio to Hirst to pictures drawn by two year olds... C. Ritchie In the mind of the Artist it is his/her intention to make Art .... In the act of creating he/she is making his/her own art. Whether the prevailing trend, critics, fellow artists, museum curators view it as Art is not what defines whether or not it is or is not Art. Is it good Art? Does it speak to society's sense of Aesthetics? That is an entirely different question.... MJ Messinger - Palmerton, PA My over simplified perspective: Visual art is communication - a visual language. There is a sender and a receiver. The artist is the originator of a concept or message. The viewer is the receiver of that message. They must both understand the same language for a dialog to take place. Intent is not enough. The artist can have all the intent in the world that what she/he presents is art but if that message (intent) isn't understood by the viewer than that piece isn't art to that viewer. To someone else who understands the artist's language the communication can take place. An understanding of the intent through the visual language is the key to the communication. The viewer must take responsibility to learn the language of artists and not just blame the artist if they don't "get it". I think it was Duchamp's intent with "The Fountain" to pose this very question. "Is this urinal art if I say it is?" Obviously it is because we (some not all) understand his message and are still discussing it now. Welcome to art 101. Meesto - New York City, NY Art is what ever I say it is because I am a brilliant artist and I know. If you wanted some perspective on a painting, whose opinion is more valid, mine or the plumbers? No art is not subjective. There is great art, mediocre and pure sh-t. Duchamp did his urinal thing almost a 100 years ago. It´s boring now. Installation art is for spoiled rich kids who have a little imagination and no real classic artistic talent. I so f-cking sick of ´clever´ art. God forbid someone does a great painting, sculpture or drawing that isn´t an MTV cartoon or wanna be ghetto white boy sh-t. I am an expatriate living in Europe. The greatest artists of the last 20 years are from Eastern Europe and Russia. They mix classical training with modern ideas and execute amazingly. There are great artists in America but their art will not penetrate the small boring circle of Galleries in NYC and LA. I suggest you sell them online like myself. I have had great success on ebay. Art is for the people. It Dan´t do any one any good collecting. Brian Wildeman - Chicago, IL Exploring prehistoric art, I'd like to cite an example that adresses not only Bruce Nauman's coment concerning intention, but also Surendra's coment that art is from the heart and Dale Winkler's question concerning how folk art fits into the equation. It used to be that the history of art started with the Woman of Wilendorf and the cave paintings circa. 30,0000 BCE. However, "Gardener's Art Through the Ages" (2001 edition), sites a pebble from 3,000,000 BCE as possibly being the first example of art. The pebble was found at an archeological dig in Makapansgat South Africa. The pebble, although naturally formed, bears an uncanny human face and had to have been carried at least twenty miles to the site where it was found. This sugests that the Australopithicus individual who found the pebble recognised the pebble as being a miniature portrait. This simple recognition is an act of abstract thought... Dain Olsen - Los Angeles, CA "$" and the whims of fashion now define art. Currently, "high art" is being defined by a cerebrally constipated form of nihilistic rhetoric, proferred by the likes of Artforum magazine. If it's just someone's "intention" that creates art then that's a sad commentary on the criteria for greatness, truth, and beauty that all art should aspire to. Unfortunately, we're much too cynical and jaded to appreciate the pureness of such pursuits. It's a narcissistic time, reflected by the reflection of the reflector, reflecting on the meaninglessness of his self-reflexive mental masturbation. Laurie Spigel - Bronx, NY Intention can only describe the artist's goal. The definition of art is in the eye of the beholder. If the viewer responds emotionally, it is art. If the work provokes thought, humor, passion, compassion, then it is art. A pianist who has mastered technique cannot compare to the pianist whose playing, though flawed, brings the listener to tears. Likewise, Picasso's Guernica will never fail to shock and disturb the viewer, and so remains a cornerstone of this artist's work. Bob Brusky I have not viewed works by the artists included in the art:21 project. I plan to revisit my primary thoughts on art after I enjoy the video and related works. When we identify something as a work of art we are immediately distinguishing it. I don't think an artist's intent is enough to qualify a piece as art; a work of art is the manifestation of intent or inner vision, execution and communication. By inner vision I mean a vision of something that does not exist in our physical world; this may mean a totally novel construct or a juxtaposition of existing objects, etc.. Effective execution is utilizing media and technical skills to best translate this vision to the physical world. When this is successfully executed, the artists intent is communicated powerfully to the viewer. I'm not implying that there are not artistic elements in a piece or that pieces will not pose a challenge to a certain definition of art but I am reluctant to "cheapen" the meaning of art by applying it too broadly. Thank you. Fran Tolan - Shippensburg, PA I very much agree with Bruce Nauman. Art is about idea and the movement of thought. If the artist can bring an insight to a situation, then it can be art. Surendra Chaurasiya - Mumbai, India Art is something..... which comes out of one's heart! Jeff Hall - Richmond, VA Ever since Marcel Duchamp ripped a urinal out of a Paris subway and entered it in an art show titled "The Fountain", intent has been the sole requirement for something to be considered "art". He opened the door wide to unlimited media and changed the art world forever. The question now isn't "Is it art?", the question is "Is it good art?" Just my humble opinion. Mike Bowan - Rhinebeck, NY I intend this e-mail to be an e-mail as a work of art. Sam Sartell - Minnesota The belief that intention is all that dictates the nature of "art" is a rather juvenile position. It betrays a startling lack of introspection and knowledge of one's craft. Pushed to the extreme, it is an overwhelmingly nihilistic view of art that seeks at the core to destroy Art. If that is the goal of these "artists," I would appreciate the honest presentation of their work as such. Art cannot be defined, to do so would be to kill it. But art can be identified by its Quality, the greatness of its vision and execution. No matter how "good" I tell myself or others that my work is, the mere labeling of it as such does not imbue it with the intangible grandeur that true art possesses. Dale Winkler - Algoma, WI Where does self-taught and/or untrained folk art (sometimes referred to as outsider art) fit into the picture as it relates to the overall intent of the artist? Eva Lake What makes a work of art has something to with the viewer and a lot of art today tends to forget about that. It is not always up to us, the artists...or the critics or the dealers. It is also up to the viewer. So in this respect, art can be anything and is completely subjective. For those who want beauty, art can be that. For those who want philosophy, art can be that. But to say it must be one or the other is not correct. If art must be accompanied by a thesis to be "understood" then we obviously don't trust the art to fend for itself. And it should be able to. Barb Doughtery - Westover, MD Art is a vision, a creative passion, that produces a nation of people with shared beliefs and practices. Art is culture. When an artist begins the artist is concerned with technique - with a dream to communicate. In time, if the artist finds success with technique the artist will become obsessed with an idea. An idea becomes a style and a body of work. Those recognizable bodies of work that distinguish the professional artist from the amateur are the hallmarks of our times.. John Clarke - Venice, FL Art assails our perspective of the world forcing reevaluation of our personal values and perceptions. Shae Bieber - Farmington, CT I have not seen the series yet or the artist's work, but I think that the statement about "intention" is too simplistic and open to a limited view of what art can be. One's intention is hardly enough to make good art. Students of art need more info than that, for instance. Ability, experience, knowledge and vision are just a few of the prerequisites for making meaningful and/or pleasing art works. |
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
