In thinking about electronic music and its principles, I have stumbled upon several things.
When we see a person play a fiddle or piano or a flute - we know the amount of work required to do this. We know the skill required to play the instrument because we observe the movement of fingers and out of our everyday experience we know that this is very difficult. And this knowledge adds to the impression.
It seems that a lot of what we call art depends on how difficult it is to achieve and on the amount of skill displayed.
At the same time in electronic music a listener does not know how much skill was required to create it. In fact, he does not know if any skill was required at all.
This lack of transparency is characteristic to basically any computer activity and it influences greatly the way the audience perceives any computer creations.
So in light of this I decided to ask myself - what is art then? How much of it is skill, how much of it is communication of a feeling (which not always requires any skill that would impress).
I understand that the question is one that people try to answer all their lives, but any constructive discussion would be helpful and interesting to me. Let's just keep to the subject and learn as many opinions as possible.
Do i smell deja vu? :D
We have been through this before, here on central. One does not need a lifetime to realize, art is a totally personal phenomena, just like taste for instance.
And the "art" word istelf is an artificial one, only "creations" exist, by the creators. People who have the same taste and think, that the given creation is quality/abstract/worthwhile/etc enough beyond their chosen border, tend to call it art. What is art for you, doesn't necessary mean its art for me, and vice versa.
That border can even easily change over time, anything can affect it. Example if the tools get easier and easier to use, more and more people will try to create something with them. Take photoshop, average people can make a drawing with a few clicks with it nowdays, a few decades before the same kind of drawings would be called high quality arts, nowdays they are just "meh, another shopped picture" (while they still looks awesome). :)
"art" comes from the audience, not the creator..
usually, but i've seen dozen of times nowdays when the expression came right from the creator. =)
yes, the material comes from the creator, but people turn it into art.. or not..
i've meant that the creator declared his creation as an "art" right away. :)
"behold, this is my great art work"
art is what gets you groupies.
Quoteart is what gets you groupies.
yay! lets gather Sam and the rest of the people and make lots of art, everyone would just love to be surrounded with groupies. ^_^
Quote from: "psishock"i've meant that the creator declared his creation as an "art" right away. :)
"behold, this is my great art work"
oh yes, yes, true indeed :P
Quote from: "uncloned"art is what gets you groupies.
you wish! :P
you'd be surprised how microtonal music makes women swoon :-)
Isn't art something that touches someone else in a unique way?
nah, don't hafta complicate simple things. Art can touch even the creator in "a unique way", so its certainly just a personal phenomena. Everyone reacts differently.
Quote from: "uncloned"you'd be surprised how microtonal music makes women swoon :-)
they might swoon, at first; but when you start to play, they shwoosh away, no? :P
no.... we get the smelling salts.
Web definitions for swoon
faint: pass out from weakness, physical or emotional distress due to a loss of blood supply to the brain
Quote from: "psishock"nah, don't hafta complicate simple things. Art can touch even the creator in "a unique way", so its certainly just a personal phenomena. Everyone reacts differently.
My serious definition is:
Art is that which communicates. So if you create something and no one else experiences it the work isn't art because nothing has been communicated. (For the artist it is a revelation, or a memory, or a memory of a revelation)
LV and I talked about this in google chat many a morning (for me).
I apologize if this has been discussed before (I do not remember). Also, to me this is an ongoing question. I come back to it with new thoughts every now and then.
There were two points raised:
1. Art is personal.
2. Art is that which communicates.
With first I must disagree. It is too vague. Art that is art only for its creator may be, but this is not the art I am talking about.
I am talking about art which is bidirectional, excuse the word. I am talking about art which other people readily recognize as art. The old old old overused example is music of Bach, the great composer whose music is considered to be art by people who even do not like it. They still feel it is something special. Question is - why?
So again, this notion of "I don't care what others think, this is art to me" may be, but this is not the type of art I am talking about. Also, saying that art is a personal phenomena is just trying to simplify a complex question. Everything in our lives is a personal phenomena. Tell me what is not. Even events true for everybody reflect differently in each person's mind.
As for what Chris says, this definition, imho, is way too general. I cannot disagree that art does not communicate - it does, no doubt. But lots of things communicate without being art. Are diary entries art? Usually, we do not consider them to be art, even if they are exceptionally well written.
My new thought on art is the importance of the perception of skill. It should be there.
But, to answer Chris' definition, I would also say that art is not just some generic thing, something good becomes art if it is presented as art. This is a curious point, but the diary example is a very good one to illustrate this.
Quote from: "uncloned"....due to a loss of blood supply to the brain
Until now I always thought that would be a problem that only affects us men. :P
QuoteBut, to answer Chris' definition, I would also say that art is not just some generic thing, something good becomes art if it is presented as art. This is a curious point, but the diary example is a very good one to illustrate this.
Hi LV,
Perhaps you've heard of Duchamp? He presented a urinal as art.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg/220px-Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29
And - some people could consider a diary art just like a novel can be art. In the Chicago Art museum there are many pieces of furniture and a huge collection of paper weights.
QuoteMy new thought on art is the importance of the perception of skill. It should be there.
For me this definition breaks down when you start considering aboriginal / folk / pop art.
QuoteFor me this definition breaks down when you start considering aboriginal / folk / pop art.
1. How come? Folk requires quite a lot of skill.
2. Even if folk requires much less skill, I guess that it is not the fine arts I am thinking about when I say the word "art".
So you see, our discussion already helped me to clarify my own question and perhaps realize that what I am talking often is not just any art, but fine arts.
I read about the Duchamp, but I do not consider it to be art. It is clever, even funny, but not more than that.