Sparrow
Veteran
Sadly, I use my real identity online and do try to be truthful and honest in what I post, I'm sorry if I was judgmental that was not, and is not my intention here.
I don't understand the plumber thing so I made no comment.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Then put me on ignore.
That's what I do when I find people too tiresome to read. There are normally only two or three on my ignore list. It doesn't stop me reading the rest of the thread. All I need is the strength of will not to read the post anyway -- which is normally not hard to find.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stewart,
Truthful? Honest? Real identity?
This IS the internet, you know.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
Taken that post out of context you are of course correct, it doesn't require "the rest of the world" to agree, but would you accept it takes more than the claim of one person
kevin m
Veteran
Well perhaps you should.
"Society," not being an individual capable of action, can't "decide" anything, and it's grammatical nonsense to say so. "Society" in this case is nothing more than an individual's observation about what other individuals seem to be doing: Who's buying what, what's popular, etc., but that has nothing to do art in any case.
FrankS
Registered User
Interesting/weird that after all this time, we still struggle with the defintions of art and artist.
Sparrow
Veteran
Yup ... sad eh
kevin m
Veteran
I don't think so. The artist makes art, that's all. He or she may be delusional for making the claim, but we really do have to take them at their word, as they have no control over whether or not any reception is made.
They do their task, we do ours. That's it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well perhaps you should.
Or perhaps I shouldn't. 'Society' is a collection of norms, perceptions, beliefs, understandings, prejudices and biases. Indeed, it is not an individual capable of action, and it is perfectly possible for 'society' to be divided: for one section to admire, praise and even buy an artist's work, while another denigrates it.
But whether or not a self-proclaimed 'artist' automatically produces 'art' is limited in time and space, even if they are in fact producing art as defined in a particular epoch. There are countless great artists who were discounted or even reviled in their own lifetimes, but whose work as been praised subsequently: consider Whistler's Nocturne in Black and Gold and his lawsuit against Ruskin.
There is however an enormous omitted middle in pretending that if someone is ignored or even reviled, then they are automatically an artist merely because they call themselves one. They may, during their lifetime or afterwards, come to be regarded as an artist. Or they may be dismissed as deluding themselves: as someone who hid behind "I am creating ART" because they needed to believe that they were not wasting their time.
This is what I meant in a earlier post about artists having art thrust upon them. You can create art without claiming to be an artist, and equally, you can claim as stridently as you like to produce art, without anyone agreeing with you.
Cheers,
R.
FrankS
Registered User
I think that if any ONE thinks/believes that something is art, then it is, for them. Like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder (and in the case of art, the eye of the creator as well.) Others may agree or disagree, these are only individual opinions. Time/historical perspective and consensus among those who study and analyse artwork, will define the merit, on a societal level, of the works in question. I think.
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Grammatical nonsense.
"Society" is nothing more than an observation of other individuals made by an individual. Even if 10,000,000 individuals are in complete agreement, it's still 10,000,000 individual decisions that are being made. So "society" can't admire/praise/buy or any such thing, only individuals do that.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,
You are presumably an admirer of Mrs. Thatcher, who famously said that there is no such thing as society.
A society is not merely 10,000,000 people (or any other number) agreeing about anything. It is a lot of people, in a particular time and place, agreeing about quite a lot of things and disagreeing about quite a lot of others. It is the underpinning of how they run their daily lives. Do you disagree with this?
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
There's an unpleasant tone in this thread. Wish topics could be discussed/debated without the slinging of virtual darts and digs.
Jamie123
Veteran
Sure, art requires a certain consensus but not necessarily a consensus of the majority. It does require at the very least that what is produced is judged as an artwork or, to use a presumptuous philosophical term, a 'candidate for aesthetic appreciation''.
If you look at Duchamp's urinal and dismiss it as 'not art' because it doesn't require any skill to produce then you are already applying your criteria for art and aknowledging that it is a candidate for your aesthetic appreciation.
If, however, you look at it and say ''This is rubbish. The flushing doesn't work and there's no privacy.'' then you're not even considering it as a potential artwork.
kevin m
Veteran
The subject of this thread is art, not society. Ms. Thatcher has no place here, either, save for your evident need to muddy the waters with insults.
Whatever society ends up 'doing' with art is society's business, but that's not the concern of the artist or the individual partaking of his/her work.
As to grammatical nonsense, you can't start a sentence agreeing that society isn't capable of action, then later that same sentence list ways in which it acts. Society can't act as "sections" or groups any more than it can act as a whole because society can't act. Individuals make art, individuals take it in. Society is a construct better left as the concern of statisticians and advertisers rather than art.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quite. And you need a society that is open to all kinds of things being 'candidates for aesthetic apprecation'. Would Jackson Pollock's work have been considered 'art' in 1850? 1350? 500BC?
This is why I maintain that society sets the framework for what is 'art'. Note that I have revised my phraseology in the light of your arguments and Kevin's, as I am persuaded that 'society decides...' is an overstatement or oversimplification.
I still maintain, though, that to say "I am an artist" in the sense that "I produce candidates for aesthetic appreciation" is pointless. You produce what you produce. Society then judges (a) whether or not it is art and (b) whether or not it is any good. Those judgements vary with time and place.
Since the mid-to-late 19th century, society has been ever more open about what is admitted to the canon of 'art'. Does this mean that 'art' is now so broad a term as to be meaningless? I'm not saying it does: I'm throwing the question open to debate.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
kevin m
Veteran
Jamie, I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I feel simple recognition of a potential artwork, rather than any faculty of judgement, might be a more accurate way to describe it. I find that judgement impairs my ability to be receptive.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,
Sorry. I just never encountered anyone else who said that society didn't exist.
Grammatically, try reading more closely. I said that society is not an individual capable of action. Nor is a football team. But a football team is capable of taking action that an individual cannot, even though it is composed of indivduals.
Likewise society can take actions that an individual cannot, or that an individual is prevented (often by society!) from taking. An army, a police force, an art school: all are societal constructs. As, I believe, is the definition of art.
You may choose to deny or disregard this viewpoint, but there are, I suspect, others who will find it plausible or even of interest.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I just got back from studying art!....and wonder if some recent posts originate from the address I was at?
Dave
Dave
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
If this is so, how many percent do we need?
And how many percent of what -- the population of a region, a city, a country, the whole world? Some percentage of art critics, of RFF members, of government heads or Nobel prize winners?
Come on, this consensus theory is clearly nonsense. If someone regards something as art you simply cannot prove the opposite. You can only say: well, it's not art to me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.