From: Natasha V. More (fka Nancie Clark) (flexeon@primenet.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 1997 - 19:20:36 MST
At 10:12 PM 3/18/97 +0000, Sarah Marr wrote:
>>T0Morrow@aol.com wrote:
>>> (Enough of this sort of silliness! In the name of Newton, I want to
>discuss
>>> definitions of "definition" even less than I want to discuss defintions of
>>> art.)
>I heartily agree with TOMorrow on this one!
Art is an abstract, a fuzzy concept both for the author as well as the
observer, and putting concrete definitions on "art" can be rather difficult.
Defining a specific artistic concept is more approachable because it is less
difficult to explain an idea, per se. It seems quite appropriate that the
author of an art piece (artefact or non-form) would want to explain what it
is he is doing.
Defining art genres, art forms, art movements, art styles, etc., is not such
a problem and people make a career out of it. Art historians and theorists
are much in demand for not only educational reasons but for observers of art
as well. Defining art has been done for centuries and will continue to be
done as long as new ideas are generated, or old idea rehashed.
Cubism is defined. Abstract Expressionism is defined. Op Art is defined.
Baroque music is defined. Techno music is defined.Modern dance is
defined.The Tango is defined. Method acting is defined, performance art is
defined. A play, novel and prose are defined.
These examples meet certain criteria. There is also art that does not meet
specific criteria, and many artists who enjoy exploring the fuzzy realms.
This in itself can be very creative, and adventuresome. An artist can also
explain an idea of work by writing about it theoretically, or express it
through a feeling. Another example is an artist who is adept at psychology
and/or symbolism using an archetypical language to get the meaning across
subliminally.
I appreciate anyone who does not want to boundaries, signs and labels on the
general concept of "art." For me, art is such a great experience, both
feeling and producing, that I want it to be what it is for me. Yet art is
also objective and definable.
I don't think anyone who has participated in this debate is wrong. Let each
pursue and experience life as he will. But when art as a term, as a
profession, as a means of living is pigeonholed incorrectly, it draws my
attention quite profoundly.
My suggestion is that if anyone wants to debate art, let's take it to a new
level. Let's discuss major issues about creativity and art. Sarah had
initiated a thread that I did not place the focus I could have on it because
of time constraints. Shall we return to that?
Natasha Vita More [fka Nancie Clark]
http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon
Extropic Art Manifesto!: http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon/extropic.htm
* * * * * * * * * *
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:17 MST