tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post6039756384438977804..comments2023-08-08T04:19:26.974-07:00Comments on THE CALLADUS BLOG: Friday in the atelier: " No. 5. 1948" by Jackson PollockCalladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-10842412162515861142007-06-10T00:19:00.000-07:002007-06-10T00:19:00.000-07:00I'd call the Dada movement a complete waste of oth...I'd call the Dada movement a complete waste of otherwise skilled artists. Uh, the ones that actually had skills - there were plenty who did not and just played it off.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-60056458717649478302007-06-09T16:58:00.000-07:002007-06-09T16:58:00.000-07:00I believe if you chose to look into the Dada movem...I believe if you chose to look into the Dada movements of post WWI Germany (and New York) you may change your mind as to what art is and is not. Just a thought...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-2675848140451098482007-05-29T06:46:00.000-07:002007-05-29T06:46:00.000-07:00John,Your definition is what I have been moving to...John,<BR/><BR/>Your definition is what I have been moving toward. My study of David Hardy's atelier has given me a little insight on this. Hardy mentions creating art by a process of "Happy Accident" versus creating art through the process of "Intent". <BR/><BR/>Your definition fits. An artist is able to create that which he or she envisions, exactly. Perhaps we need a different word for someone who creates art through a process of repetition resulting in a "happy accident".<BR/><BR/>Something else that David Hardy said - you can always leave out something that you know, but you can never put into a painting that which you do not know.<BR/><BR/>"Two boards nailed together and plugged into a wall" may be exactly what the artist in question envisioned - this does not make him a great artist, it makes him a poorly skilled artist. He has put all he knows into his masterpiece. He has not demonstrated skill. <BR/><BR/>A carpenter who builds a table that wobbles can still call himself a carpenter - but he would more correctly be known as an amateur, or unskilled carpenter. He has put all his skill and knowledge into his work, and came up lacking.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-19041321718494598642007-05-29T06:11:00.000-07:002007-05-29T06:11:00.000-07:00Art is anything created, performed, or instigated ...<I>Art is anything created, performed, or instigated with artistic intent.</I><BR/><BR/>I like Rudy Guiliani's definition of art "If I can do it, it isn't art."<BR/><BR/>Rather than define art, perhaps it is more helpful to define an artist. At minimum, an artist must be able to create in physical form the image within his mind. So technical skill must play some role in artistic composition. Bouguereau, if he wished, could have created a Pollock. Pollock, however, could not have in his wildest dreams created a Bouguereau. One had the technical skill to replicate the vision in his mind on canvas; the other had to tailor his vision to what he could replicate on canvas.<BR/><BR/>Having then this definition of artist, perhaps we can say that art is what an artist produces.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-30037173657356026832007-04-13T14:51:00.000-07:002007-04-13T14:51:00.000-07:00What IS art? It's a difficult question, and no one...What IS art? It's a difficult question, and no one on the internet has anything approaching a realistic answer, which irritates me. Here's MY definition.<BR/><BR/>Art is anything created, performed, or instigated with artistic intent.<BR/><BR/>Ah, but isn't THIS a bit weasely, you say. What's artistic intent, then? It's the intent to make art. So the definition is cyclic.<BR/><BR/>Cyclic, yes. Tautological, no. I'm not just saying art is art, I'm saying it's anything INTENDED to be art, BY whoever makes it.<BR/><BR/>It's still a fairly useless definition! But that's because it's a fairly useless word. Why do we care about the definition of a word that no one can define?<BR/><BR/>Dean Trembly once said "words are the tools of thought". The word "art" confuses us because it doesn't seem to be good for anything, yet it feels like it must be. But the truth is, it's NOT good for anything.<BR/><BR/>It's just a poorly defined category.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that people think art has some inherent magical value, that by belonging to this category their work should enjoy some special status in the eyes of civilization. But it's just not true.<BR/><BR/>If someone nails two boards together and plugs it into the wall with an extension cord, and they call it "art", it is art. But that doesn't make it worthwhile any more than the fact that it's "technology" or "solid" or "two boards nailed together plugged into the wall with an extension cord".<BR/><BR/>It's kind of like the star bellied sneetches, although I'm too lazy to find a picture.<BR/><BR/>The end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com