What do you mean?

They still play the same game. Only difference is that they make their own rules on a different platform. There's no way of escaping it.

How can an artist be also an outsider, then? I don't see the logic in what you're saying.

Why not? Anyway, I have to catch my ferry in 10min.

To be continued.......

Ok, you're just being stupid.

to say that art needs no audience is a LIE

all art needs an audience, and art without an audience is not art.

music without an audience is pointless. art without a viewer is pointless.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to sarramkrop again.

GOOD art has everything to do with talent, process, skill, technique, etc. EVERYTHING.
Art is not just about the image presented, but also about HOW it is presented, how it was made, etc.


ART IS the product. Otherwise everyone is an artist in their own mind, which is BULLSHIT. eve conceptual art was actually the words used to describe the concept, not a thought in someone's head.

NOTHING is beyond praise or criticism. that is naive and childish. In the real world, anything you create is up for criticism and analysis.

tokolosh, art by it's very functiojn, is communication, and one does not attempt communication without at the very least, thinking some about who you are trying to communicate to.
in that very real and urgent sense, art HAS to be made with the viewer/listener/etc somewhat in mind.

Florya, I am sorry to ay this is a very chuildish and naive and completely mis-informed view of art.
art is communication, and someone who has studied art and stufdied artists and music and theorya nd art history will see a work based NOT only on his personal opinions, but how that work fits into the continuity of art as a human endeavor. a person with art history background will see something in an artwork that may not be evident EVER to someone without such a background. Only children see things as naively a syou descirbe and children don;t know jack fucking shit about anything except whether they "like" it or not.

all you end up with if you do this is pure navel-gazing art, which is EASY, boring, and pointless.

this is just NOT true Florya. NOT TRUE AT ALL.
art does not exist outside of life, or history or society. anyone with a basic art history background can SEE quite easily influences, ideas, and references in art, and if they might be guessing slightly then that is allright, for it points out where the vioewer is coming from with his or her own perception.

I think it all depends on what you like. Introspective art can be very interesting. Well at least for me. It's a peek into someones mind.

Also, art obviously needs an audience, but I don't think that an artist necessarily needs to create art with that as the primary intention.

Getting back to Sarra about Outsider art. I have a friend who works at a home with handicapped people, and one of his patients makes very intriguing stuff. From time to time, visitors bring him old jerseys, socks, scarfs etc, and he unknits everything and rolls up the wool into giant 2 meter wide oval shapes. They sometimes take years to finish. He's extremely passionate, obsessive, systematic and determined once he starts. Amazing to see. No pretension whatsoever. No intention to make art and certainly no plan to exhibit it either.
Brut as can be.

I doubt that his work will ever land up in a gallery. Surely it deserves to be credited as art in some way?

they call that "folk art"

Ok, but can it qualify as being good art?

oh hell yeah.

Therefore, by definition it doesn't need an audience to proclaim it being art, right?

nothing needs an audience to be called art, but with no audience the art is irrelevant. if nooone sees it, then it may as well not exist. However, in th case above tokolosh, YOU have seen it, and YOU were moved by it, and therefore YOU are the audience proclaiming it "art" see?

art is the yoga (union) between the work itself, and the viewer's mind. It therefore is different for each viewer.

I think that a lot of people get confused with the quality of art that's made for oneself, and art that's made with the intention of getting it sold. Both can be art, but there's a distinctive difference.

I see no difference whatsoever. whether a work is sold or not is purely up in the air.
some works are created on commission. that does not amke them any less of an art piece. Picasso"s Guernica, possibly the greatest anti-war artwork in the history of man, was created as a commission show piece for the World's Expo.

in my opinion, there are no works of art made by an artist just for themselves. All works are meant for display, whether they are for sale or not. art in a vacuum is pointless and useless. even art made by you just for you will end up on your wall and seen by anyone who enteres that room.

very well said rob.
this thread, which otherwise seems like a circle going nowhere, is given validity with logical (at least it should be logical) explanations like yours.

too much speculation on the meaning of art is so tiring and pointless.
some artists themselves don't think as deeply as some are compelled to think.
just enjoy it, i say. enjoy it and stay logical.
don't overcomplicate.

however, i am impressed and delighted with the level of discussion on this topic.
there are no half-assed explanations and arguments.
it's argument/argument point/point = agreement.
good to see that online, where it's easy for people to become ignorant.

A painting on the wall is 'art', a painting kept locked away in the studio is a 'work in progress'

a painting in one's head, and not yet painted, is just a fart in the wind.

It's been an interesting discussion.
It seems that our opinions on what is art fall into two camps.

1. Those who view art's main value in it's physical manifestation, with all the qualitative judgements that can bring.

and

2. Those who see art more as a philosophical concept in which it is the process of producing the art, from conception to completion, that is more important.

As you may have guessed, I fall loosly into the second category, but I also have a more existential view.
To put it simply, I believe that art is only truly valid in the phase from conception to completion. I believe that once a work of art has reached the stage where it truly expresses the artists inspiration and is judged by the artist to be complete, from that moment on it is dead. A cast off. Like a dried leaf falling from a tree.

I know I'm probably in a minority of one, and I could easily spend many hours in front of this keyboard trying to explain what art means to me. But it would be a pointless excercise, because in my philosophy, what art means to its consumer is irrelevant.

This has really been an eye opener to me. This discussion has forced me to really think hard about one of the most important things in my life, and I feel a lot better for it.

My feelings exactly. They can pack a wild punch, but that doesn't mean they are art.

And as far as Yoko Ono goes, a lot of her "word art" had something else involved, like having to climb a ladder to see a small print of the word "love." But that doesn't mean the word "love" is art: she made something out of it. It goes without saying that if she had painted the word on a canvas, it would carry little weight. Unfortunately now we have a million artists who wants to be like all of the 1070's-New York-Avante Garde-Fluxus artists, but who don't have the same ideas and can't pull it off the same. Art is such a reflection of the artists entire life and background that if your goal was to actually copy another artists style (which, of course, should never be a true artist's goal) then you would essentially have to also live the same life that they have. It can't, and more importantly, shouldn't be done.

it has been good.

The only issue I have with your personal crfiteria for whan art is truly ART is that this view negates the many many people who either cannot make art, do not know how, or do not want to. Those people's experiences with the artwork once it is "complete" are as valid as the artist's, and can collectively become something so much more important and true and real than anything the artist ever conceived. For example, the Arc du Triumph, Taj Mahal, Mona Lisa, the Statue of Liberty, etc. These and many others are far more meaningful in their post-completion life, than in their pre-completion life.

Like I said before ART as opposed to art, exists only when a human mind is contemplating/experiencing the work of art.

i got s to spread the rep before pobrad can get any mkore of fhnvfdhvfdkhv

I'm not doubting that people are affected by the art that they see, and if the artist intends for his work to have an emotional effect on the audience that consumes it, then that is part of the 'concept' and makes the artwork valid, even to my cynical eyes.
But I don't agree that the reaction to a work of art can be more important than than the idea behind the work, and I certainly don't agree that art only exists when it has an audience.
If the artist has no intention of sharing his work with the outside world, then that is part of the concept behind the work, and in no way diminishes it's artistic merit.

Let me use your examples to illustrate my point.

L'arc de Triomphe - basically a war memorial designed to commemorate French soldiers that died during the Napoleonic wars. At the time of it's completion it must have had a huge emotional effect on those that saw it, but that effect has diminished over time as the Napoloeonic Wars slip further into the mists of history. The French government have done their best to retain its emotional effect by adding a 'tomb of the unknown soldier' but it's original purpose, to honor those that died for France, for Napoleon, is fading. The edifice itself is crumbling, having to be patched up and restored every year. Eventually it won't be there any more.
But the idea, the genius, of Jean Chalgrin in designing such a striking memorial will live on. That is where the art lies, in the idea.

Remember, some on this forum will have you believe that because it was based on a previous, Roman design, that it has no artistic merit at all.

The Taj Mahal - A true work of art, built with a single purpose - to reflect forever the love of an Indian Emperor for his favourite wife. Designed by committee, but guided by the emperor's vision, everything about the building, its colour, its location and its domes are designed to trigger an emotional response in whoever sees it, even those who don't know what it is or what it signifies.

The statue of Liberty Enlightening The World - This is a bit more difficult because although I'm sure that Bertholdi designed Liberty to elicit a positive emotional response in those who had made the arduous Atlantic crossing in the late 19th century, I think he would be disappointed to see what emotional effect his statue, as an icon of the USA, has on the majority of people outside the country now, at the beginning of the 21st century.

So I guess it really falls into the same category as L'arc de Triomphe, great concept, innovative construction, and an emotional response that has wained over time.

The Mona Lisa - aahh, that old chestnut. A commission piece, used by da Vinci to perfect his innovative brushwork techniques. Hawked around Europe by da Vinci for a few years to show off these techniques and get more commissions. The modern day equivalent of da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa I guess would be someone like Steven Sasson inventing the digital camera. Remember da Vinci was principally an inventor, and whilst he was without doubt a very good painter, I'm not so sure that he was an artist.
The 'enigma' of the Mona Lisa has little to do with da Vinci's artistic expression and much more to do with his technical abilities in applying paint to canvas.

These are just my own personal opinions, and I have shared them only to try and illustrate my understanding of what ART is.

As I said earlier, it could take hours for me to try and fully explain my philosophy about art, but you're all probably bored to death with my ramblings by now, so if you don't mind I'm going to duck out of this discussion now and go and have a lie down!

It's been educational.

Anything that has any artistic merit should be considered art, of course. The buying, selling and promoting of it is an inevitable consequence of how this society works. This doesn't mean that art that is being sold or bought has to be bad because ' MONEY IS BAD!!!' or such silly things, though. And I would agree that a lot of the critical apparatus in the art world is parassitic and partly detrimental to the quality of what's being produced, but still a critical apparatus is needed to put things into context and make sure that it is working to the best of its capabilities. There are certainly opinion makers in the art world that should be shot, but there are also critics who know what they are talking about. Few and far inbetween, but they are there and are as pissed off as the competent artists who struggle to make it.

[quote=Florya]I'm not doubting that people are affected by the art that they see, and if the artist intends for his work to have an emotional effect on the audience that consumes it, then that is part of the 'concept' and makes the artwork valid, even to my cynical eyes.
But I don't agree that the reaction to a work of art can be more important than than the idea behind the work, and I certainly don't agree that art only exists when it has an audience.
If the artist has no intention of sharing his work with the outside world, then that is part of the concept behind the work, and in no way diminishes it's artistic merit.

[quote]

Not sharing your work with the rest of the world is partly what creates the problem of having individuality going too far as to create a concept of egoistical, negative and obtuse art making. Surely if you are the only person who is 'enjoying' such work, noone is able to tell if it is a work of art in the first place? There is also the problem of a work of art having to develope, and ideas that go into creating a valuable painting or sculpture or whatever, come to the artist often from an outside input (ie Where do you get your inspiration from, then?).

i paint and dont show my stuff to anyone. not really bothered if people see it or not. do i class it as art? sure why not.

Attempts at painting are not exactly what I thought we were discussing here, unless I've missed something.

its not an attempt its really real and everything.

Now you're just being contrary for the sake of it.

jon boy, what you do not see is that UNLESS you destroy all your art, after you die, someone will look at it. people will see it. someone will expeience your art. art is not made in a vacuum.

if people see it like it then nice. i am not really bothered if people see it or not.

not being contrary just merely stating a fact and an opinion.

i hate art with words. i don't know why but i see it as a wall of not being able to express these words into something more, so you're stuck with slapping the words on the art.
this isn't for all art though...like "this is not a pipe" goes in reference to the art. it's what makes the pipe, and the pipe makes the words.
but when the words are the only thing leaving you thinking, it's just bullshit.

I just wanted to post what I just saw was a rep I got, because its funny.

no I'm not another board member. I live in melbourne australia. I'm a 23 year old female who studies and practices fine art ( painting/printmaking/drawing) and yeh I do totally disagree.

I'm only really here on this forum because I have a crush on another board member who I just happen to talk to through this board. I'm usually too busy disagreeing with impressive people like you in my real life art discussions, to be on here and notice you. sorry.

phoenix, which college do you go to in Melbourne?