Number 94 : November 1998 |
Theo (C92/10) : Humpty Dumpty words. Hmmm !
This phone-call issue. I think it's clear what I'm saying. It’s not possible to draw a line between what communications are or aren't art. You can only make a subjective statement regarding the quality. I'm sure many people don't consider these to be art : sharks in formaldehyde, thirty sanitary towels, the electrocution of fish in a bowl, a couple of hundred bricks or an installation based on the arrangement of the contents of six dustbins. I saw this one : it was rubbish ! These clearly demonstrate that art cannot be confined in terms of medium and some of the above demonstrate in my view that art can be completely without merit !
You mentioned the music of J. S. Bach. Mr. Bach produced a number of works, some of which are considered better than others I'm sure. I bet he composed some mediocre music. I bet he also composed some crap music. Learning is after all part of any artist’s career and the production of less worthy works part of the learning process. Indeed crap work crops up during periods when artists are producing their finest work. Now are these works of art and who is the judge ? If some of his works are considered better than others at what point do they become so crap that they cease to be art ? Who is the judge ? That is the big question. Here's another question. At what point in his life did he become an artist ? I say that from the moment he was born, perhaps earlier, (Dali was always referring to his pre-birth experiences) he was learning things that would contribute to his later works. In fact you could say he started composing at birth. Otherwise tell me when Bach became a composer. The date, the time. Perhaps he was whistling badly on the way to school. Perhaps when his whistling was a little more tuneful. Perhaps when he first hit a piano keyboard. Perhaps a little later or maybe a lot later. Draw that line if you must but it will be your line and open to criticism. When does a writer start a book ? He needs to learn to write. She needs life experiences to draw upon. Ideas formulated years, decades before pen is put to paper contribute to any book. Good ideas, bad ideas and mediocre ones too. If you do draw a line between non-artist/artist it is just your opinion, and that is precisely the problem with non art / art.
You say "A scientist may use art in the delivery of his message, but this then is the medium rather than the message itself". Now were getting to the nitty gritty. I think you are confusing art and medium. Art is in the message. Art is not the medium. Art is an abstract concept. Note what you are saying here the scientist is trying to get his ideas across better. The better the presentation the more artistic you consider the scientist to be.
Its just a quality of transmission issue. Artists frequently use science as a medium but the result is considered to be art. The shark in formaldehyde for instance. This throws up a question. Anyone who has seen a foetus in formaldehyde in a science lab cannot have failed to have asked themselves the same questions about life and death that the pickled shark is meant to invoke. So why is the shark considered to be art ? Well this brings me back to intention. Mr. Hirst intended to communicate these feelings and invoke these questions and does it very well. The foetus was pickled for other reasons. It may be used to communicate to students in a lecture perhaps and this comes back to the quality issue. Mr. Hirst's work is considered to be great art. It is just a quality issue! Great art again. It's an illusive bugger ! Consider this. Mr Hirst could take the foetus, put it in an art gallery and it would be considered to be great art. You see the medium is irrelevant. It’s Mr. Hirst’s message that's art. Not the shark, the formaldehyde or the fish tank. The same with music. It’s the passing from one mind to others’ minds communications (feelings, expressions) which we all understand but which are poorly explained by the written word or other mediums. That is why different mediums are used. Communications about rhythm, feelings, what its like to feel alive can be made more effectively using mediums that appeal to our less rational instincts. We just get it ! But the medium is not the art just the vehicle of transmission.
"Where, thereby, is the difference between the arts and the sciences". Well there are no lines to be drawn here. Clearly both the arts and the sciences attempt to communicate. The sciences are considered to communicate objectively but really they describe the world using abstractions like mathematics. Mathematics is just another medium. It communicates some things extremely well and others extremely badly. Mathematicians speak of the beauty in certain equations. They understand the medium and the message. They Get It ! Just like abstract art or 'modern' art you often need to understand the medium to get the message.
A FEW MORE REPLIES
Valerie Ransford, C93/14 : "Art is for Art. Who disagrees?" Profound. How could I disagree. On reading this I attained instant enlightenment.
Albert Dean, C93/15 : If I fully understood what you’re on about I think there might be some merit in what you’re saying. I think if I understand you correctly that you think Art starts when craftsmanship goes to a higher level. It somehow transcends mere craftsmanship. Oh how this definition appeals. How I would love this to be correct. How right it would be. How just. Of course if you are an expert in a particular medium you are more likely to know how to get your message across, but it's not necessary for an artist to have done the full apprenticeship before he / she can produce a piece of great art. Craftsmanship can get in the way of art ! Art exists in the real world and is a reflection of it. Chance plays its part. Spirit too. For example the punk rock era was born of boredom with long guitar solos and technically intricate music that had existed for about a decade before in popular music. Punk music and fashion wasn't born out of craftsmanship but had a passion and spirit sadly lacking at the time. You see great art isn't just a revered holy cow it can be an old cow too.
Anthony Owens, C93/22 : "Are cave paintings Art ? Undoubtedly, because nowadays they have no purpose. Great art is always 100% useless"
What's useful ? What's purpose ? What is the use and or purpose of you writing such cynical twaddle ? As to your remarks about the use of cave paintings, why not just pick any idea out of thin air ? Perhaps they were just decoration for their equivalent of the local night club ! Perhaps if you used less inspiration and more perspiration you could achieve some insight into the various roles these paintings played. I suggest you might better understand the paintings by observing the role art plays in primitive cultures nowadays and in the recent past. Native American culture might be a good place to start.
John Neary, C93/33 : Good point and no I'm not confusing "an art" with "art". But we are communicating ! Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Its not easy because the word art is commonly used in relation to medium. It’s difficult when writing to make clear when you are using the word art as in art-form, "an art", a discipline using a particular medium, or art as in abstract concept. I'm not prepared to redefine art in order to avoid offending anyone either. The "art of torture" and the "art of war" have their great artists. Alexander the Great (Artist). Violent people express themselves in violent ways, that's how they communicate. The variety of artistic mediums is subject only to the inventiveness of the human mind.
Oh gosh don't I go on.
John Stubbings