Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2 - Page 1196  

post #17926 of 21761
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalFreak View Post

I remember in the early days Metallica seemed to buck the trend of videos. They never released an official video until the single One from Justice For All. Some early bands saw videos as merely infomercials and were against using it as a medium because they deemed it no commercial. Interesting how perspectives change over time.

lol - do you blame them for not wanting Hetfield's face to be shown on every TV in North America?


Edited by billybob_jcv - 9/2/13 at 12:13pm
post #17927 of 21761
Master of Mullets! biggrin.gif
post #17928 of 21761
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by drez View Post

Interesting discussion re art and communication, I think it's interesting that art can exist for it's own sake, even when it would typically be considered to be complimentary to some thing else. The art can take on a direction of its own and stray wildly from the brief or intention. Somehow I feel though that a confrontational art could be either a contrivance ie deliberately seeking to evoke a certain reaction, trying to be compelling etc or just confrontational because of the subject or content.

I can also though see the contradiction in my previous post, if an artwork has a particular political intention, I cannot criticise it for being political, as long as it isnt overly blunt or preachy. I guess in a way I don't like the idea of having my buttons pressed in an uncomfortable way, but this is more than likely going to be a different experience for somebody else. I mean maybe somebody would love to have Marc Quins blood head in their living room. Maybe this is one of those things where the artwork itself is an empty vessel and it is whatever you bring to it that gives it meaning.

 

 

There's been an ongoing debate in art criticism as to whether the artist should be a factor in considering a particular work. Do we consider the intentions of the artist? Do we see the work as standing completely on its own, as completely autonomous?

 

When one involves politics, it gets even trickier. Take a film by someone in a communist country in the early 20th century. When we see the film, often times we see what appears to be communist propaganda, yet knowing the individual who made it we know that person to actually be critical of much of the country's politics. The only way the film would be allowed past censors was to hide much of the artist's true intentions. When it comes to "artistic protestations," I think one has to inevitably ask who is wielding the hammer. In other cases, I think individual's intentions were less overtly political in wanting to simply realize their artistic vision, to express themselves, to make art. This in itself is no less radical in a time where everything is politicized I think. It's still a type of protestation just by intent to my thinking.

 

Really, I bring this up because I personally disagree with the "ignore the artist" stance that has been popular in criticism during the 20th century. Tying this back to what we were talking about before, I think it's hard to really appreciate the subtlety of art with such a stance. My thinking in this respect was rekindled today when I was reading Kierkegaard, and individual with numerous personas and alter-egos who really lives his art I feel. Can a life lived be a form of artistic expression?

 

Speaking of Kierkegaard, his Practice In Christianity is somewhat relevant here, because it largely deals with notions of going against establish orders. I mean, if we're talking about getting one's message across while shocking people, is Jesus not one of the best examples we have? Even then, Jesus still submitted to the status quo and conformed to many of the customs and laws of the society in which he lived.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Coq de Combat View Post

Now I'm pretty emptied on what I know about this law and the changing of it, which admittedly isn't a lot.

 

I really appreciate you sharing your perspective either way since you have first hand experience of the cultural climate there. 

 

The controversy over these policies really seems to have been rekindled in recent years thanks to the Internet, specifically bloggers who started documenting their stories and remorse. It caused quite a stir across portions of the 'blogosphere' (or whatever ridiculous nomenclatue it goes by now), and I think it's safe to assume it was the first time many folks outside of the EU heard about it.

 

 

post #17929 of 21761
Thread Starter 

Also it goes both ways. Just as interesting as how a life influences art for me, maybe more so, is how art influences a life. How the artist is changed by his or her own work. Sometimes the illusion is the reality.

post #17930 of 21761
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

 

There's been an ongoing debate in art criticism as to whether the artist should be a factor in considering a particular work. Do we consider the intentions of the artist? Do we see the work as standing completely on its own, as completely autonomous?

 

When one involves politics, it gets even trickier. Take a film by someone in a communist country in the early 20th century. When we see the film, often times we see what appears to be communist propaganda, yet knowing the individual who made it we know that person to actually be critical of much of the country's politics. The only way the film would be allowed past censors was to hide much of the artist's true intentions. When it comes to "artistic protestations," I think one has to inevitably ask who is wielding the hammer. In other cases, I think individual's intentions were less overtly political in wanting to simply realize their artistic vision, to express themselves, to make art. This in itself is no less radical in a time where everything is politicized I think. It's still a type of protestation just by intent to my thinking.

 

Really, I bring this up because I personally disagree with the "ignore the artist" stance that has been popular in criticism during the 20th century. Tying this back to what we were talking about before, I think it's hard to really appreciate the subtlety of art with such a stance. My thinking in this respect was rekindled today when I was reading Kierkegaard, and individual with numerous personas and alter-egos who really lives his art I feel. Can a life lived be a form of artistic expression?

 

Speaking of Kierkegaard, his Practice In Christianity is somewhat relevant here, because it largely deals with notions of going against establish orders. I mean, if we're talking about getting one's message across while shocking people, is Jesus not one of the best examples we have? Even then, Jesus still submitted to the status quo and conformed to many of the customs and laws of the society in which he lived.

 

 


 

Politics is always involved. The political climate is no more than a cultural expression of a populace and therefore has no more or less bearing than the culture of which it is in fact a subset. Your example of a communist country is perfect in that it forms an extreme example (in our western eyes) and allows us to see the artist as a persecuted soul not allowed to express their true intent overtly.

 

 The truth in fact is that any country is chock filled with examples of that same persecution and or censorship. The US in particular and Canada the home of 'cough' liberalism no less.

 

 The term "body politic" was coined for a very good reason. To attempt to evaluate art without considering any political climate makes as much sense as eliminating the artist from the evaluation.

 

Now when you start bringing up Kierkegaard and Jesus in the same breath, I see lockdown potential herebiggrin.gif

post #17931 of 21761
Can't there also simply be art as art - without the politics? In addition, I think something can be *important* without being *art*. I guess I see all the permutations as possible - art with/without a message and messages with/without art.
post #17932 of 21761

 Yes, the whole 'Death of the Author' idea is interesting, but silly, because its ultimately not how people naturally think about any kind of work. We have a natural inclination to want to find out "WHY DID THIS GET MADE?" whether its the Mona Lisa or The Room. Even if we had procedurally generated art created by computer, the programmers own agenda becomes the narrative. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

Can't there also simply be art as art - without the politics? In addition, I think something can be *important* without being *art*. I guess I see all the permutations as possible - art with/without a message and messages with/without art.

 

Art without politics is impossible. Even being apolitical is taking a political stance. Art invariably makes a statement about something, though sometimes the statement may be so broad or so personal that it is not easily recognised. Even a pretty painting of a landscape says something - why don't you make pretty paintings about cities? Is urbanisation ugly? etc etc.

 

I tend to go the other way, in thinking that everything is art. There are so many bugbears once you start delineating art from literature from design from entertainment etc.

 

The only useful practical distinction that makes any sort of sense to me is "Art is entertainment which does not pay for itself". Lol. As we move into an age of crowdfunding and direct payments for cultural goods, that distinction will one day be null too. And good riddance, because the whole "I CAN"T BELIEVE MY TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING TO THIS" kind of model of institutional art I suspect puts all kinds of undue pressures on the artists while empowering a clique of insular apparatchiks to decide what lives or dies.

 

If it sounds like I have some kind of chip on my shoulder because I didn't get a grant or something, it's not that. It's just that I get sad by the current state of affairs when the current model of institutional art puts it quite literally on a pedestal that seems to alienate the general public. I think this is sad because most artists that I know would love to have their work seen by more people. I don't know how things are over in the states or in Europe, but art is almost a bit of a punch line here and artist is almost a dirty word.

 

I feel like it would make for a more honest and accessible culture if artists were funded directly by the people who consume their works, in the same way that any other content creator gets their meal ticket.

 

I think the counter-argument - that the artist's vision should be unhindered by commercial interest - is incredibly reductionist because it makes the insinuation that anyone else who works for a wage doesn't actually care about their job. There is plenty of art, innovation and creativity in the work many people do in their daily lives when given half a chance. (Aside: I think it would probably lead to world peace if everyone was in a job they actually enjoyed and cared about, except for the pyschopaths who we should make hedge fund managers to keep them out of, say, the army).

 

That's my whole art-rant whenever the topic comes up anyway.

 

Here is my favourite song about artists:

 

 

 

I'm painting, I'm painting again.
I'm painting, I'm painting again.
I'm cleaning, I'm cleaning again.
I'm cleaning, I'm cleaning my brain.

Pretty soon now, I will be bitter.
Pretty soon now, will be a quitter.
Pretty soon now, I will be bitter.
You can't see it 'til it's finished

I don't have to prove...that I am creative!
I dont' have to prove...that I am creative!
All my pictures are confused
And now I'm going to take me to you.
post #17933 of 21761
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

Can't there also simply be art as art - without the politics? In addition, I think something can be *important* without being *art*. I guess I see all the permutations as possible - art with/without a message and messages with/without art.


I think that would presume the artist grew up in a vacuum.wink_face.gif Much as we go through life carrying the context of our upbringing artists carry the cultural (and that is inclusive of politics) upbringing to their art. Before anyone comes to the conclusion that I am presenting this as a negative thing, I would like to clarify that my opinion is just the opposite. I find it rather fascinating that right now there is a rediscovery of Soviet Union propaganda art and some considerable work done into interpreting new meanings into some of it.

 

 I think it is utterly important that the environment in which the artist worked be considered, it is a bookmark of climate, time and place. It is a hallmark of what we call masterpiece, that the era and climate in which it was produced is immediately discernible, while current relevance is to be found.

 

All art has a message. Even if that message is simply "Look at me".

post #17934 of 21761
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post

 Yes, the whole 'Death of the Author' idea is interesting, but silly, because its ultimately not how people naturally think about any kind of work. We have a natural inclination to want to find out "WHY DID THIS GET MADE?" whether its the Mona Lisa or The Room. Even if we had procedurally generated art created by computer, the programmers own agenda becomes the narrative. 

 

 

Art without politics is impossible. Even being apolitical is taking a political stance. Art invariably makes a statement about something, though sometimes the statement may be so broad or so personal that it is not easily recognised. Even a pretty painting of a landscape says something - why don't you make pretty paintings about cities? Is urbanisation ugly? etc etc.

 

I tend to go the other way, in thinking that everything is art. There are so many bugbears once you start delineating art from literature from design from entertainment etc.

 

The only useful practical distinction that makes any sort of sense to me is "Art is entertainment which does not pay for itself". Lol. As we move into an age of crowdfunding and direct payments for cultural goods, that distinction will one day be null too. And good riddance, because the whole "I CAN"T BELIEVE MY TAX DOLLARS ARE GOING TO THIS" kind of model of institutional art I suspect puts all kinds of undue pressures on the artists while empowering a clique of insular apparatchiks to decide what lives or dies.

 

If it sounds like I have some kind of chip on my shoulder because I didn't get a grant or something, it's not that. It's just that I get sad by the current state of affairs when the current model of institutional art puts it quite literally on a pedestal that seems to alienate the general public. I think this is sad because most artists that I know would love to have their work seen by more people. I don't know how things are over in the states or in Europe, but art is almost a bit of a punch line here and artist is almost a dirty word.

 

I feel like it would make for a more honest and accessible culture if artists were funded directly by the people who consume their works, in the same way that any other content creator gets their meal ticket.

 

I think the counter-argument - that the artist's vision should be unhindered by commercial interest - is incredibly reductionist because it makes the insinuation that anyone else who works for a wage doesn't actually care about their job. There is plenty of art, innovation and creativity in the work many people do in their daily lives when given half a chance. (Aside: I think it would probably lead to world peace if everyone was in a job they actually enjoyed and cared about, except for the pyschopaths who we should make hedge fund managers to keep them out of, say, the army).

 

This is really good stuff.

 

You are right in believing art can happen in any work. When the state of expertise becomes ingrained to being a component of the person the next step, beyond measure, and accepted logic, is invariably art or genius. Most of it goes unsung to all but those working in close proximity.

 

Artist is not really a dirty word here. It just somehow carries the stigma of being a flake or someone who cannot get a real job. This is compounded by the artistic community themselves, at least here in Canada where an artist cannot get at the government grants unless they are already recognized as such by the "real artists" no political influence there at allwink.gif

 

Maybe we should just stop trying to manage art and let it happen..

post #17935 of 21761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post

Maybe we should just stop trying to manage art and let it happen..

 

Well, we do have that. It's what we find in the film industry, or literature, or advertising, or graphic design, or etc. As far as art goes, I think the closest thing we have to a direct funding model for the arts is Youtube and Etsy. It's not always been possible for artists to attract enough attention for their work in the past, and perhaps that is why it needs a subsidy. But today the mechanisms exist for a lot of work to be appreciated by a diverse audience around the world who would probably be willing to pay to support the artist if they were asked.

 

There's some work that probably doesn't lend itself all too well to this model. Installation work, for instance, is pretty localised. That said, I tend to think of video games as one natural form of installation art, because it provides the opportunity for the audience to experience new meanings through interactivity. There have been some pretty abortive efforts to get these to gel - some of the art installations in Second Life I visited were pretty cool, as well as something like Dear Esther. In the end though I think they fell flat because it didn't make real use of the interactive potential of the medium. 

 

I do encourage anyone who hasn't to play The Stanley Parable mod for Half Life 2 though.

post #17936 of 21761
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post

 

Well, we do have that. It's what we find in the film industry, or literature, or advertising, or graphic design, or etc. As far as art goes, I think the closest thing we have to a direct funding model for the arts is Youtube and Etsy. It's not always been possible for artists to attract enough attention for their work in the past, and perhaps that is why it needs a subsidy. But today the mechanisms exist for a lot of work to be appreciated by a diverse audience around the world who would probably be willing to pay to support the artist if they were asked.

 

There's some work that probably doesn't lend itself all too well to this model. Installation work, for instance, is pretty localised. That said, I tend to think of video games as one natural form of installation art, because it provides the opportunity for the audience to experience new meanings through interactivity. There have been some pretty abortive efforts to get these to gel - some of the art installations in Second Life I visited were pretty cool, as well as something like Dear Esther. In the end though I think they fell flat because it didn't make real use of the interactive potential of the medium. 

 

I do encourage anyone who hasn't to play The Stanley Parable mod for Half Life 2 though.


You actually think film isn't "managed". Man look at the crap coming out of America now. I have no issue with art being subsidized. I do have a huge issue when that subsidy is used as a tool to manipulate the art community.

 

Then there is always Deviantart.....................

post #17937 of 21761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post


You actually think film isn't "managed". Man look at the crap coming out of America now. I have no issue with art being subsidized. I do have a huge issue when that subsidy is used as a tool to manipulate the art community.

 

Then there is always Deviantart.....................

 

All subsidies are manipulative, because they act as incentives. Subsidies make people do things they otherwise couldn't or wouldn't. There will always be strings attached depending on where the money is coming from. I personally think it's better when the money comes because because you are making interesting and engaging work (which translates into people paying for it because they think it is worthwhile) rather than the money coming because you convinced a board member somewhere to spend someone else's money.

 

Again, the direct payment model I am talking about WOULD NOT have worked in an age before Radiohead can put up an album online and ask people to pay what they want, or before Bandcamp or Kickstarter or Indiegogo or Etsy or Youtube or Deviantart or any other similar model. Before these models it was either, get a government grant or find a wealthy patron. But now that these models exist I think artists have a responsibility to pursue these avenues because I think it would make them better artists who are more connected with their audience and the people they are trying to speak to.

post #17938 of 21761
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post

 

All subsidies are manipulative, because they act as incentives. Subsidies make people do things they otherwise couldn't or wouldn't. There will always be strings attached depending on where the money is coming from. I personally think it's better when the money comes because because you are making interesting and engaging work (which translates into people paying for it because they think it is worthwhile) rather than the money coming because you convinced a board member somewhere to spend someone else's money.

 

Again, the direct payment model I am talking about WOULD NOT have worked in an age before Radiohead can put up an album online and ask people to pay what they want, or before Bandcamp or Kickstarter or Indiegogo or Etsy or Youtube or Deviantart or any other similar model. Before these models it was either, get a government grant or find a wealthy patron. But now that these models exist I think artists have a responsibility to pursue these avenues because I think it would make them better artists who are more connected with their audience and the people they are trying to speak to.

Man you should be making videos about this!wink_face.gif

 

I wonder if there is an art's community on linkedin??

post #17939 of 21761
We have a couple of artist's studios/enclaves in my area, and this area is considered fairly "artist friendly"
http://wavartists.com/about.html
http://westsideartwalk.org/art-venues/

Have you ever been to a street fair and watched an artist pick-up a piece of driftwood, study it, and then begin lovingly shaping it into a seagull or dolphin? I'm having a hard time seeing a political or cultural message in that - I think it could be that he just likes wood and dolphins...
Edited by billybob_jcv - 9/2/13 at 7:29pm
post #17940 of 21761
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

We have a couple of artist's studios/enclaves in my area, and this area is considered fairly "artist friendly"
http://wavartists.com/about.html
http://westsideartwalk.org/art-venues/

Have you ever been to a street fair and watched an artist pick-up a piece of driftwood, study it, and then begin lovingly shaping it into a seagull or dolphin? I'm having a hard time seeing a political or cultural message in that - I think it could be that he just likes wood and dolphins...


There's that damn cigar againbiggrin.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › The diary entries of a little girl in her 30s! ~ Part 2