Who needs art today?

[RalphLambrecht]

I assumed that (significance) as a given.
If not significant, why would it (need to) have a proper name?

There is sufficient significance in the highlighted part my definition:

Art is the conscious expression or application of creative human skill and imagination, producing aesthetic work, primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional power by a group of people.

You argued that an unconsciously created product of significance can be called art as well, and I don't call that art but a lucky incident (serendipity). Since that is different, it has it's own proper name (sorry if you don't like the word, I did not make it up).

To me, art is limited to conscious efforts.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Curious if your are excluding something stemming more from the "Subconscious" as well, Ralph?

 

[Q.G.]

There is sufficient significance in the highlighted part my definition:

Art is the conscious expression or application of creative human skill and imagination, producing aesthetic work, primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional power by a group of people.

You argued that an unconsciously created product of significance can be called art as well, and I don't call that art but a lucky incident (serendipity). Since it is different, it has it's own proper name (sorry if you don't like the word, I did not make it up).

Is the word 'conscious' the only part where our definitions of art differ?

I think so, yes.

You seem to treat conscious and unconscious as two things that can't be involved both at the same time. They always are.

And as if what we do is always conscious, if it has any signifance. As if we are such perfect beings that only do things deliberately, or else can't be said to do things at all.
We most certainly are not: most of what we do is largely irrational and unconsciously. Despite us thinking (and we do - which proves the point ) that we are well ordered, deliberate, rational beings.

And there is, i'm sure, a world of difference between a lucky incident and an unconscious act.
Though sometimes things do happen all by themselves (or so it seems), what we do is always what we do.
It is not something that happens all by itself (so not a lucky incident). Even less something we happen upon by accident (so not serendipitous). But part of what we do.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I believe there is vast difference between subconscious and unconscious.... As EW said, (well, paraphrased anyway - The Daybooks are at home) My work is always miles ahead of what I write about it.

I've heard it said that our best work is often a manifestation of that which we are unable to express any other way... and I largely agree.

Shawn

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I think so, yes.

You seem to treat conscious and unconscious as two things that can't be involved both at the same time. They always are...

Looks like we're not that far apart, but more importantly, now I better understand what you mean with 'art'.

I'm with Shawn on the definitions of conscious, unconscious and subconscious. The first and last happen together all the time. The first and second do not.

 

[Alex1994]

The whole point of art is that it's useless, it doesn't feed us, clothe us or enhance our lives in a practical, measurable way. Instead it's the raison d'etre of all the practical, measurable activities.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Curious if your are excluding something stemming more from the "Subconscious" as well, Ralph?

No, I don't. We may not be fully aware of our subconscious mind, but it undeniably influences our actions.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

Thanks for clarifying. I find people's definitions of art (especially those who work hard to create art) fascinating!

All the best.
Shawn

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

The whole point of art is that it's useless, it doesn't feed us, clothe us or enhance our lives in a practical, measurable way. Instead it's the raison d'etre of all the practical, measurable activities.

Useless? Really? =)
s

 

[photoncatcher]

I too shoot for myself. I need the time out with one of my beloved classic old cameras, and I need the time in my darkroom making my prints. It keeps me sane, and sober. I like to share my work with my freinds, and I like to share my knowledge with others. If, some where down this road, I sell one or two pieces, that's great, but I shhot for myself, and my well being.

 

[removed-user-1]

I've heard it said that our best work is often a manifestation of that which we are unable to express any other way.

This is why I make photographs, trying to find that which I can only express with my camera. Sometimes I call it art, most of the time I don't even print it.

 

[keithwms]

I've heard it said that our best work is often a manifestation of that which we are unable to express any other way... and I largely agree.

Shawn

I too agree with this point of view. I think art is a new language that we feel compelled to invent because we're hardwired to communicate. And sometimes the conventional language just doesn't suffice! I think this point of view accounts very well for the relationship between art and social experience, particularly the experiences that really shake us to the core e.g. social upheaval, war, and personal hardship too. However, there is no universal formula for the compulsion to make art, of course.

 

[JBrunner]

I have some of these too, but I consider them serendipity, not art. Art is a conscious process, not a lucky incident. Both can make good photographs, but there is a difference.

I don't consider work of mine that some folks call art serendipitous, what I'm trying to say is that when I set out specifically to "create art" the result is usually something pretentious, or affected, or contrived. OTO when I just do what comes to mind, and go with the flow of my instincts, those seem to be the pieces that generate genuine feeling and reaction in folks that appreciate "art". That could be a short-coming on my part, or perhaps it's just how I roll, but personally I gave up trying to make art, and in doing so so seem to have an easier time actually arriving at it, at least if I judge the reactions of those who consider it so.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Back to the originally posted question:

Who needs photographic art today, fine-art painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.? I mean new pieces of art. Who other than the artists themselves?

We all do, and we would be poorer without it.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

My question is why even cave folk still create art despite barely scratching out an existence? It's one of those human activities that isn't necessary for existence, but it's part of what makes us human. Art makes the difference between existing and living.

 

[lightwisps]

Owning a gallery, I can positively say that art brings a lot of pleasure to those who care to look for it. We have many people that come to enjoy the art. While they might not be able to afford to buy it that is fine with us. in my mind the true value of art is seeing people enjoy it.

 

[benjiboy]

Don't confuse me any more than I am already, I don't want to waste time contemplating my navel, I Just shoot pictures.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ben

There are at least two things that make us human. One is to create art, the other is to ask questions.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Owning a gallery, I can positively say that art brings a lot of pleasure to those who care to look for it. We have many people that come to enjoy the art. While they might not be able to afford to buy it that is fine with us. in my mind the true value of art is seeing people enjoy it.

Then let me ask you the question, I really need the answer to:

Is it true, in your experience as a gallery owner, that some artist can be perfectly happy, creating art purely for themselves?

 

[michaelbsc]

You might as well tie a paint brush to a donkey's tale then. ...

Didn't Pollock use a tree instead?

(BTW, I've never been impressed with Pollock.)

 

[michaelbsc]

Don't confuse me any more than I am already, I don't want to waste time contemplating my navel, I Just shoot pictures.

In my mind, photography is kind of like contemplating my navel. I'm contemplating my world through images.

 

[sun of sand]

art is junk

thread over

 

[SuzanneR]

Pretty hostile responses toward something that feeds us. I don't consider art making/viewing/listening/consuming to be either navel gazing, or junk. It's as basic a need as food.

 

[michaelbsc]

In answer to Ralph, but actually directed to everyone

Then let me ask you the question, I really need the answer to:

Is it true, in your experience as a gallery owner, that some artist can be perfectly happy, creating art purely for themselves?

I am not a gallery owner, but I am the child of an avid oil painter.

Was my mother successful? She won many regional awards at shows, and she had quite a number of people beg pictures from her. And she gave quite a few paintings to family and friends. And she had more than one regional write up in news papers. Locally she was considered quite an excellent artist. You can decide if that's "successful" of not.

My mother did one - and only one - paid portrait setting for a customer. Afterward she swore that she would never take another dime for a painting. She wasn't happy with the customer being in charge, so she refused customers.

So, yes, my mother created art purely for herself, and she supported herself working in a government office. Her art was self expression exactly like cave paintings. They had no customers either. They just "had to do it."

My images are basically the same philosophy, although they're silver based rather than oil painting. True, I try to make pictures of family gatherings that make my family members happy, but I don't sell artwork. (I don't win awards either! Drat!)

But further critical thinking on your question makes me wonder; if the observers weren't there, would the artist still do the work? Can you reevaluate the concept of "customer" to include the emotional satisfaction derived from some other person's appreciation of the work. Specifically, would the artist still create the work if it was never to see the light of day, remaining forever unobserved and not exhibited?

I think the answer is yes, but the level of detail and finish in the works will suffer. The prospect of exhibition compels most artists to put more effort into the details than they would be likely to do once the concept has been presented.

Specifically, my perception of the "artistic" personality is that the compulsion is to express a concept, and once that concept is expressed the artistic "spark" is satisfied. And without the prospect of exhibition the work would be finished at this point.

But the prospect of exhibition to other observers compels the artist to put more work into the details of the "fit and finish" so to speak. Which, in fact, improves the quality of the work.

MB

 

[michaelbsc]

Pretty hostile responses toward something that feeds us. I don't consider art making/viewing/listening/consuming to be either navel gazing, or junk. It's as basic a need as food.

Suzanne, I don't think the sentiment that art is junk bears much examination.

But I truly *DO* believe that art is the same thing as navel gazing. Art is a medium of critical self reflection, pure and simple.