Corto
Well-known
If you think about art, you are not making it.
Sparrow
Veteran
... you don't think Duchamp intended to display that urinal? ... or he hadn't anticipated the publics' reaction to it?
Richard G
Veteran
I would have agreed with Stewart regarding intent. Except that he thinks the M5 is not beautiful.
mdarnton
Well-known
Responding to what I think was the intent of the original question: if your five year-old stole your car and managed to get it two blocks to the store to buy candy , without killing anyone or wrecking the car (which I gather a child does once in a while and then makes the news), is he a "driver"?
Sparrow
Veteran
... now, I thought that was the one thing we had settled on here! ... we have general agreement that the M5 is big and ugly
isoterica
Established
In photographic terms, by the young French boy's desire to capture a moment suggests he saw it as something valuable, ie, art. Is there accidental or unplanned art?
You know if I go to a gallery and see a canvas all in black with one swish of red paint on it and it's deemed as art, I have to wonder about man's interpretations. I mean I think that is just plain stupid. But given that, if an intentional sweep of red paint on a black canvas can be called art and the artist held in high esteem, why can't an accidental footprint on a canvas be the same. It's all a matter of perspective.
NaChase
Well-known
While "art" can certainly be created without intent, it is this intent to make art that differentiates people from, say, animals who may weave a beautiful web or build a beautiful nest. Their art is derived from their basic functions, whereas ours stems from a conscious decision to make it. To narrow the context to photography, a person picking up a camera and taking hundreds of photos without any thought to the end result may very well wind up with one or more excellent photos. While the manner of its taking doesn't detract from the beauty of said photo, it nevertheless detracts from the artistic process, which is, in my mind, what separates "artists" from those who make art.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
NickTrop
Veteran
The argument proposed by Frank is a non-starter because it presupposed that photography is an art. It is not. Thus "that young French boy who photographed his nanny jumping down some outdoor steps" did not create "art" as an unintended consequence. Rather, he took a compelling picture that, by accident, resulted in some notoriety. It is what it is.
TXForester
Well-known
Sparrow
Veteran
... if only it was taken with a digital point-and-shoot, eh?
Oh, and photoshopped; I forgot that bit
paulfish4570
Veteran
iirc, hcb called serendipitous photos "happy accidents ..."
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stewart,
That was actually my point. I don't think I understand your interpretation.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I was trying to make the distinction between the work and the performance of the work. Duchamp's "readymades" are not art in themselves, the art (if there is any) is in their conception or performance. The art, such as it is, therefore resides in the artist's ego and era not in the urinal itself, no matter how well crafted it may be.
A bit like a dancers shoes, no more than necessary for the performance, not themselves the art
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hmmmmm.... Possibly. I see your point (which I didn't before). But another interpretation (towards which I lean) is that the urinal was/(is) art, a fine piece of 'found' sculpture. The analogy would be with photographic composition: the photographer selects a part of what is already there.
Cheers,
R.
Richard G
Veteran
The found object is nothing much until the decision to put it in a context. The artistic merits of a Campbell's Soup can were nothing in comparison to Warhol's agglomeration of 200 hundred of them. In Australia we had a wonderful Artist, Roaslie Gasocigne, an astronomer's wife, who made intricate montages of splintered slats of weathered Schweppes drink crates, and other syntheses of bush detritus. An agent choosing with intent is surely a sine qua non of art.
Sparrow
Veteran
Yes, but that ignores the major theme of Dada, the intention was to produce art as anti-art as a sort of subversion or sacrilege of the prevailing aesthetic, more of a philosophy than anything else. The urinal was just taking the piss, even at the time
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Originally Posted by pggunn
I think Randy is on to something here. I believe intuition and the subconscious play a very important role in art. In fact, I think they are essential to art. Art formed by intention and formal rules alone most likely will be cold and sterile and lacking something, maybe soul is the word I'm looking for.
I agree with this. Found objects can look like art, but intending them to be art is not the same as transforming them in some new way. Picasso's "banana seat" with "ape hanger" handle bar antlers is a stroke of genious the artist transformed from pieces of a contemporary child's bicycle, cast in bronze. DuChamp's toilet seat is an intellectual statement about art. Tom Wolf said in best in "The Painted Word," much of Modern Art exists to illustrate it's theory. A lot of what is considered art in our time is art that looks like what art is supposed to look like.
What separates artists from non-artists is that artists actually see the world they look at instead of what they are told to expect to see in it. They have shed the filters that others have imposed on them, society, family, friends, so that they see with their own unique filters. Seeing what is actually there allows intuition to operate freely. Intuition trumps reason for me every time.
A teaching assistant i had in a workshop in Rockport, ME told me a teacher of his once described the difference like this. When an artist begins with an idea, the idea eventually exausts itself. When the artist begins with unique personal vision, the vision just keeps expanding. Both approaches are valid, but I personally have a preference for intuition. I made a chart for my students on this subject that can be downloaded on the ZoneSimple section of my web site.
Serendipity is something to be courted in art making. It constantly makes available what we could never conceive of ourselves. if this is perceived as art, then it must be and credit should be given to the Universe, as well as the artist, for the result of this splendid collaboration.
I think Randy is on to something here. I believe intuition and the subconscious play a very important role in art. In fact, I think they are essential to art. Art formed by intention and formal rules alone most likely will be cold and sterile and lacking something, maybe soul is the word I'm looking for.
I agree with this. Found objects can look like art, but intending them to be art is not the same as transforming them in some new way. Picasso's "banana seat" with "ape hanger" handle bar antlers is a stroke of genious the artist transformed from pieces of a contemporary child's bicycle, cast in bronze. DuChamp's toilet seat is an intellectual statement about art. Tom Wolf said in best in "The Painted Word," much of Modern Art exists to illustrate it's theory. A lot of what is considered art in our time is art that looks like what art is supposed to look like.
What separates artists from non-artists is that artists actually see the world they look at instead of what they are told to expect to see in it. They have shed the filters that others have imposed on them, society, family, friends, so that they see with their own unique filters. Seeing what is actually there allows intuition to operate freely. Intuition trumps reason for me every time.
A teaching assistant i had in a workshop in Rockport, ME told me a teacher of his once described the difference like this. When an artist begins with an idea, the idea eventually exausts itself. When the artist begins with unique personal vision, the vision just keeps expanding. Both approaches are valid, but I personally have a preference for intuition. I made a chart for my students on this subject that can be downloaded on the ZoneSimple section of my web site.
Serendipity is something to be courted in art making. It constantly makes available what we could never conceive of ourselves. if this is perceived as art, then it must be and credit should be given to the Universe, as well as the artist, for the result of this splendid collaboration.
Steve M.
Veteran
I think the art stands on it's own, which is possibly contrary to art gallery thinking. Meaning it can be created in any manner under the sun, by anyone. Let's say that our cat, Sissy, scratches around in her litter box and, accidentally (or on purpose, who knows?) makes a nice likeness of one of the US presidents (the Chicken McNugget phenomena). Why would it have less value than if I did it, accidentally or on purpose? Duchamp took a different angle. He said it's the artist that decides (chooses) to call something art or not, and by it's inclusion into a gallery or museum, that seals the deal. If it's in those places, mustn't it therefore be art?
On the other hand, galleries desire to sell art to stay in business. So a big name artist has her or his work labeled as art whether or not it is, because it will sell. Whether it's good art, bad art, banal art, worthless art etc is a different story.
On the other hand, galleries desire to sell art to stay in business. So a big name artist has her or his work labeled as art whether or not it is, because it will sell. Whether it's good art, bad art, banal art, worthless art etc is a different story.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Except, of course, that as soon as you admit the Dadaist philosophy, you have an infinite regression. To quote from a Cath Milne song based on one of my poems, "Looking for the lie behind/The truth behind/The lie behind/The truth behind/The lie...ie..ie."
Or, alternatively, the old Buddhist argument that the only perfect opposite of a thing is, in fact, the thing itself. As soon as you remove every single aspect or attribute of a single thing, but leave everything else, all that is left is a negative image or cast of the thing, which can only be filled by the thing itself.
Cheers,
R.