reply to post by ArMaP
In cases like this, yes. In the same way a tool that exists only in thought doesn't have any use, art that only exists in thought doesn't have
any use either, unless there's a way for the artist to "publish" his/her thoughts.
a tool has a purpose – past thinking about the best way to make the tool (nothing more beautiful than functional art sometimes)
what is the purpose of art?
to me discussing art is a perfect example of when it’s OK to put the cart before the horse – why it might be necessary to do so in order for us to
even have this discussion
the cart might be an exceptional cart – but without a horse it’s meaningless
the horse will still be what it is with or without a cart – it’s always going to be a pretty good horse all on it’s own
I think we value the message by our interpretation, but there's always the possibility that the vehicle, for some reason, distracts us from
the message and we are influenced by it.
yes - please see the previous babbling and nonsense about carts and horses :-)
I think so, at least the original message, as the artist thought it, is lost, but possibly we create our own message, based on out perceptions
the original message is often lost I think – I agree. In fact, I think sometimes the message is a mystery even to the artist. So, when you say we
create our own message – I think that might be the most accurate statement. We bring ourselves to the work – I see trying to understand what the
artist intended as the beginning of a conversation
a conversation the artist originally might have been having with himself :-)
That's the problem, I don't have any idea of how we do that.
I once had a friend tell me she didn’t know diddly squat about art – whether it was good or bad – whether she even liked it or not. But she did
say that if she had the money, she would invest in art – if it was a good investment and it’s value was likely going to increase over time. I
think we were discussing the recent sale of a Van Gogh at the time
I asked her if after she bought it – could I pretty please come over and look at it? :-)
value is different things to different people – some people prefer red to blue
I don't think there's such thing as bad art; there's art that we can understand, art we can't understand and art technically well or badly
produced, but I don't think there's bad art, like there isn't a "bad temperature". All relative and subjective things cannot be bad or
exactly – and when it comes to valuing art, we appreciate technical excellence because it’s something we recognize and understand. We sometimes
think that good art is art that looks like something. It’s all we have to go by.
What value can there possibly be in something that doesn’t look like anything?
What value is there in an idea – a thought – a fleeting emotion that can’t be described with words?
I think those people are just unsure of their own perceptions, so they need someone else's opinion first to have something to use as a
"standard" from which they can create their own presentation of their opinion.
They have an opinion, they just do not want other people to think that they do not know how to express it.
wait – not enough said...
what if those people finally began to see...it’s not just them
none of us really knows what we’re looking at – none of us is sure what any of it means – but some of us enjoy the mystery, the beauty – the
implied meaning. Then we are moved to try and understand it and then try and explain what we understand
value might shift around for them – a little
edit on 9/27/2010 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)