Ask Me About Art - I Know Everything (that matters)

[Revoltingest]

....art is not created to perform a function, but rather to fulfill a purpose.

What a narrow view.
It prevents one from enjoying art not fitting this
absurd ad hoc definition. I like art that exists in
things performing a function.

 

[PureX]

What a narrow view.
It prevents one from enjoying art not fitting this
absurd ad hoc definition. I like art that exists in
things performing a function.

One is free to enjoy anything they wish, any time they wish, for any reason they wish. Enjoyment is not defined by the word "art", and art is not defined by one's enjoyment. And I'd be very interested to know why you think it must be.

 

[Revoltingest]

One is free to enjoy anything they wish, any time they wish, for any reason they wish. Enjoyment is not defined by the word "art", and art is not defined by one's enjoyment. And I'd be very interested to know why you think it must be.

I never made the underlined claim.

 

[PureX]

I never made the underlined claim.

What you said was that if art was not created to serve a function, that this would somehow deny functional creations the ability to be enjoyed. Which is silly on several levels, as it presumes that enjoyment is limited to 'art', and that 'art' is whatever we enjoy.

I understand that you really like functional objects (machines) and that to express your appreciation of them you want to call some of them 'art'. But there is no logical reason that the term 'art' should be presumed upon to convey your appreciation for excellent design and craftsmanship. Because excellent design and craftsmanship are not art, per se, and art is not always or ever defined by excellent design and craftsmanship and functionality. Nor, of course, does practical functionality have anything to do with art. So there's really no logical reason to equate those characteristics with art. All it does is mislead and confuse.

 

[Revoltingest]

What you said was that if art was not created to serve a function, that this would somehow deny functional creations the ability to be enjoyed.

Not what I said.
Consider that useful things can also embody art.

 

[PureX]

Not what I said.
Consider that useful things can also embody art.

Art isn't "embodied", exactly. But you aren't far off. It's ... documented.

Understand that art is primarily an activity perpetrated by an artist as he/she engages and interacts with the world through some chosen medium. Every action, then, gets documented by the medium. Every typed word, every brushstroke, every musical note, every movement of the body, every ... whatever. The artwork documents all of those choices, and by extrapolation, the people that encounter that artwork later on can then "read back through" all those details and intuit, through empathy and their own imagination, the state of the artists mind, emotions, etc., as he/she was creating it. The primary purpose of an artwork is to allow us to share in that experience. To experience the world as the artist did, through the 'document' the artist left to us via the medium.

Your use of the word "embody" is not far off, but it needs the clarification that what it presents to us is not something that's "in the artwork", so much as the artwork is just a medium for connection. The real content was within the artist's eyes and mind and heart. The artwork just enables us to connect to it.

And this is why I'm such a purist when it comes to term 'art'. The medium can be many, many things. Anything, really. It could even be a motorcycle. But whatever the medium is, it's PRIMARY PURPOSE (if it is a work of art) is to act as a document for the artist's experience of it. NOT to fulfill it's mechanical function (even though it may be capable of that).

Think of a really big book. You may be able to sit down on it, but that's not it's purpose. Which is why it's a book and not a chair. Now think of a chair. Is it a chair or is it a work of art? The answer to that depends on it's PRIMARY PURPOSE. You may be able to sit down on it, but if in examining it you find that it primarily exists as a document of someone's view/experience of the world, then it's a work of art, even if it is also a chair and you could still sit down on it. The difference is in the primary purpose of it's creation (and remember that creation includes presentation).

 

[PureX]

How can you not love this glimpse into the artist's head ... ?

H. C. Westerman - "H. C. Westerman Run Over By A Death Ship"

 

[PureX]

The artist himself ... A WW2 vet, left art school to become a sailor in the Pacific that saw a lot of desperate action. Later, he witnessed nuclear test explosions and the "death ships" left in their wake. After the war, he became a traveling acrobat with another guy and spent some years touring all around Asia. Came home, married, and began making sculptures, but then re-upped for the Korean war. Came back from that war and became a moderately well know sculptor. He lived in Chicago, L.A., and finally in the northeast. His 'style' is considered tangential to the Chicago Imagists. But really, he's in a league of his own.

 

[PureX]

I like this guys artwork a lot, too. Also a 'Chicago Imagist', named Roger Brown. I was never a painter and I probably like this guys work because he paints the way a sculptor would paint; as if creating an object instead of an "illusion".

 

[PureX]

Artist unknown ... You'd be surprised how easy it would have been to screw this up. It's more precise than it looks. But whomever made it did an excellent job.