Blackmail!
Gotta catch you all!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 3,020
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- 7w8
Bless be Coleridge.
For me, an interesting idea in the form of visual commentary isn't enough to be considered art. I think art must appeal to the emotions because otherwise it creates a slippery slope where too many other forms of communication can be included. A news article may be written with beautiful and elegant prose; it might convince us to see the world differently and make us question what we think of ourselves those around us. But it's not art. It's primarily appealing to the intellect. It's informative and/or persuasive (although most journalists would disapprove of the use of persuasion, as they are expected to relate objective truth, free from partiality - problematic as that idea is).
I see Conceptual Art as not remarkably different from an article or essay; like you said, "the transmission of ideas". Of course, great art often contains an element of that as well, but it takes a backseat to the immediate aesthetic response.
As for intention, effort and skill, I remember an 'artwork' that won an award in NZ a few years back. Each year the winner of this award would then go on to represent NZ in an international art exhibition and every year something very controversial won. This one year, a pile of rubbish won - literally. Someone had taken a bin and turned it upside down and emptied out the contents. While the contents could potentially be of interest (they could reflect modern life and people's choices etc), it's still just a pile of upturned rubbish. The 'artist' made no effort to create it. It didn't require skill or intention. It had no aesthetic quality. It's only value was in what you choose to see in it. There was an outcry among the public and more significantly, by the art community. I remember one artist on the news basically saying, "if this is considered art, I don't know why I the hell I bother spending endless hours toiling away at my own work".
The point is, if you make art appreciation too subjective (which as you say, is, in part, the goal of Conceptual Art) you risk undermining the value of art altogether. If it is acceptable for the idea to take precedence over the aesthetics, where does that leave artwork that requires real skill to accomplish? - something that has been rendered over time with love and attention. In doing so, you even undermine the value of Beauty itself.
To me, idea based art is a cold, hard thing - like concrete and steel. It's like designing and constructing a building purely for practicality. It might achieve it's goal, but you can't delight in basic functionality. That would be like celebrating mediocrity. And you certainly can't hold that building in the same esteem as those that are both functional and aesthetically pleasing - buildings that inspire awe and wonder, intrigue and surprise, that move and impact you.
Conceptual Art might tell me something, but generally my response is, "who cares?". The idea itself isn't sufficient; I need to care about it too. I need to feel something to appreciate it.
Basically My question would be why do you care about non-conceptual art? How do the sensory impressions become important if not by some how attaching themselves to ideas about say purity, loss, closeness, beauty, freedom ect.
And yes, conceptual art can be a less emotional, but I also think people sometimes don't allow themselves to "feel" conceptual art because its presented in a way the find off putting. For instance marina abromovic did a piece where she just sat with another artists and they screamed into each others faces for 10 minutes. It's off putting. But if you watch in all the way through I found it very emotive. For me when their voices begin to break, and there both struggling to continue with this little process they've designed, when there screaming is intermingling it's very interesting and emotionally powerful.
Art includes (but perhaps is not limited to) sights, sounds or conditions created by humans for sensory experience.
Judging means evaluating a piece of art as either good/bad or evaluating it in comparison to other works of art as better or worse.
Do are there objective, universal criteria or is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
Aesthetic preferences are (for many people, anyway) based on a rich trove of subconscious links between meaning/emotion and sensory information. These connections are extremely personal and unique to the individual. For me, what's provoked by art goes beyond ideas about "purity, loss, closeness, etc." That's the beauty of it and this is why I don't really enjoy a lot of conceptual art: it's often meant to evoke something specific and archetypal. Again, in non-conceptual art, the purpose is infinitely nebulous and a viewer is free to experience a more pure and personal reaction.
(I feel like I've read about this subject before, and I wish I could remember what, because I think it communicates what I'm trying to say much more clearly and concisely. I'll add it if I find it.)
I wouldn't enjoy the piece by Marina Abromovic because stuff like that just feels too forced/staged to me. My guard is up to it, so I can't really have the "emotionally powerful" reaction you and others might have.
It doesn't have to be adjectives I've listed. What ever your subconscious links are they are still relating the sensory to some other concept that makes them pleasurable or not pleasurable. It could be warmth or light or positive/negative.
I'd have to disagree that there is such a thing as non-conceptual art. I understand that you meant art that isn't part of the Conceptual art movement, however it still think all art work has concept.
To me there is more freedom as move away from cultural indicators. For instance, color field painun seems a lot more open to personal response than a naturalistic Madonna and child painting.
My whole point about a robins peice was that people do have that emotional gaurd because of the different form but thy it still has emotional content. I'm not say you need to like or feel it. I was jut making a point to another poster that some conceptual art does touch on emotion.
but all emotions are related to concepts. the "conceptual art" label is meant to draw a line based on what this relationship looks like. in my mind, the way I differentiate between conceptual and non-conceptual art is whether the artist's intention was to overtly use concepts to evoke emotion. and I do actually love some conceptual art - when I first read this thread I was thinking more along the lines of artworks created solely to serve as a metaphor or make intellectual commentary. "Ceci n'est pas une pipe," for example.
I
Color field painting is considered Conceptual Art? I know hardly anything about art history, but to me it seems like that would be the opposite.
as for the Madonna thing - I guess it just depends on your relationship to your culture. you can still have a very personal response to cultural indicators, even if it's different than the artist intended.
that's a good point. sorry, I was just rambling.
I judge art, I judge everything and I judge beauty. I make the judgements because I live to honour and revere the good, the true, the beautiful.
I judge art, I judge everything and I judge beauty. I make the judgements because I live to honour and revere the good, the true, the beautiful.
Is beauty necessarily true and/or good?