Art - Help me out here, what is it?
Time for another little survey. Don’t shoot me for going all cliché on you, but I’ve been walking around trying to figure this one out for a while now. The more I think about it the more confused I get, so…
- And what makes a great artist?
To be perfectly honest I’ve had my annual Art-Brussel-morning-after-depression, having witnessed such a huge amount of so-called art… But of course, I don’t mean to force my opinion upon you, maybe some sketches àre worth thousands of euros, and was Zappa right when he said:
“Art is making something out of nothing and selling it”
As always, Frank was making sense, dead-on.
I think he got point, unfortunatly.
Still, help me out here, when you’re looking at art, what do you trust, the mind or the guts?
Did you ever had to rely on some connoisseur’s guidance to make you appreciate the next man’s work?
Thinking about it I start wondering what my first memory of art would be and I think it was Keith Haring, printed on glasses that came with a special kiddie hamburger menu. A couple of years later I discovered the works of Permeke to be quite killer to me. Which obviously makes the question even harder to answer: What makes great art?
Permeke was featured on the old 1000 Belgian Francs bills so I guess the circle is round after all, and Zappa was right.
Or not?
Then again, a man called Niko Stumpo once spoke wise words when he said:
“Art has never been made while thinking of art.”
On-Point Podcast
I tried to define “great art” for minutes, but I noticed every definition has its exceptions, which are even greater art.
Comment by Pieter — May 7, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Wat is kunst? Noordkaap was je al voor met zijn nummer. Kunst is maar net wat je kunst wilt noemen. Soms vind ik een kunstig geboetseerde babybelwaxomhulsel al een vorm van kunst, terwijl gesigneerde werken evengoed kunst zijn.
Ik denk dat goede kunst vooral in de boodschap zit. Net zoals de pispot van Duchamps laatst werd ‘vernield’ door een fan, gewoon om het punt van Duchamps up te daten aan hedendaagse kunst.
Of de boodschap van Banksy: anti-kapitalistisch en anti-establissement-gericht.
Kunst moet vooral iets losmaken bij de belever ervan, of terug vasthechten. Een verrijking voor de zintuigen en een prikkeling van de ervaring…?
Comment by Leen — May 7, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
Nice turn there Pieter!can’t really disagree with that, makes perfectly sense!
Leen, what are we to do with “l’art pour l’art” then? If art is in the message rather than in the works itself? Just wondering, not saying I’m disagreeing
Actually do you remember yuor first encounters with art? Or am I the only one out there that has a stupid hamburger story? I might… lol
Comment by =lloyd= — May 7, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Mijn eerste kunst-herinnering is Folon, een Belgische schilder die het nogal hoog op had met zonsondergang, mannen met hoeden, bomen en ‘flou artistic’. We hebben daar thuis een reproductie van hangen waar ik vaak naar gekeken heb. Als wij thuis naar een mooie zonsondergang kijken zegt mijn ma altijd “kijk, net een Folon”.
Later maakte ik met mijn moeder bekende schilderijen na. We schilderden de zonnebloemen van Van Gogh, gekke figuren van Miro, dat soort dingen. We werden ook om de haverklap meegesleurd naar allerhande musea, waar ik me nu niet veel meer van herinner. Ik denk dat mijn moeder stilletjes hoopte dat ik zou uitgroeien tot een penseel hanterend wereldwonder. Het is dan toch plan B geworden. De Keith Haring glazen hebben bij ons ook lang in de kast gestaan, ik was verzot op die grappige ventjes. In het eerste middelbaar heb ik ooit een spreekbeurt en een zelfgemaakt kunstwerk aan hem gewijd.
Comment by Jill — May 8, 2007 @ 8:43 am
For me, good art is orgasmic. Whether I’m creating it or looking at it, I sometimes get a rush of lightheadedness and a sensation of heat comes over me. At that point, my spirit has been quickened and my soul springs to life. I’ve loved art since I was 3 years old. My mom taught me and my brother how to draw, and always kept coloring books, crayons and oil pastels in the house. I was destined to become an artist.
Comment by Evelyn Hargrove — May 9, 2007 @ 1:56 am
Hmmmmmmmm, that’s one of those “knock your head against the door” questions
well that’s not what I’m planning to do, altough here’s my idea on the subject:
1. It’s subjective anyway…
some people call my polaroid pictures art, others say I should leave the work to a “real” photographer who can make standard boring pictures (I already show my sensible side when it comes to my own work hèhè)
2. Art is not about skills to me… but about feel… BUT some people can draw a simple line and I don’t feel shit while other people draw a simple line altough just a bit different and it’ll freak me out… (skills ?) so for me (subjective) I need to feel something, an emotion… it can be anything, horror, thrill, scary, love, etc… it doesn’t mean that I like it necessarely, altough it’ll fit easily the category art…
2.1 Just to be annoying, I’ll contradict myself: there is art that doesn’t make me feel something but the technique itself is more then enough to amaze me, when I think of “de primitieven” I cannot deny these pieces are masterworks and at the same time I found them boring as hell
3. I think it’s sometimes necessary to know the background of the artist to understand choices he/she made in his/her work. It gives a certain value. You can’t cut the link between the work and the artist altough some pieces really need that link while others can be appreciated and seen as art without knowing any history at all.
4. Art-Money is also a bit of a cliché subject when it comes down to art I guess, right ? For me it’s simple, they have nothing to do with each other, at least they shouldn’t ! When making art it comes from inside… when the making is over, it’s your choice, try to get some bang for the buck or keeping it low-profile, I don’t care… but I don’t believe you can make something without feeling what you’re doing at the point of creation.
In the end, I woudn’t bother that much, altough it’s the kind of subject I could talk about for hours but then on the “after drinking 5 duvels” kinda level so not that interesting I guess.
Anyway I don’t think it’s interesting nor necessary to judge if something is art or not… even in general I’m trying to judge less in my life and just let things come over me, it’s lovely really! not always easy… and sometimes you need to judge but anyway, back to the program. If someone asks me to judge I will, and I’ll give my personal view on the whole thing… which I kinda like I admit.
fiew… enough, gotta work to do… stopping my big monologue here…
Comment by Billy Palmier — May 9, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Nice résumé, dear Billy Palmier!
Wat is ‘kunst’? Wat is goeie ‘kunst’?
Waarom blijft men in het ‘antwoord’ op deze vraag zich beperken tot ‘het beeld’, de beeldende kunst, schilderkunst? Wat met de vertelkunst, de letterkunst, de dichtkunst, de bewegingskunst, de kookkunst, … Behoort dit ook tot ‘de kunst’?
Wie maakt ‘iets’ tot ‘kunst’? De kunstenaar, de toeschouwer of het museum die dat ‘iets’ tentoonstelt?
Is scheel fluiten kunst? Maken kinderen kunst? Is een muur vol oude rommel (van kapotte computers tot oude schoenen) achter in mijn tuin, is dit ‘kunst’? Een rommelmuur die niemand anders ooit kon ‘bewonderen’ dan mezelve, is dit ‘kunst’? Is een reusachtige tekening op een gebouw dat op instorten staat, is dit dan ‘kunst’?
Wat heeft men nodig om ‘kunst’ te begrijpen? Heeft men ûberhaupt iets nodig om ‘kunst’ te begrijpen?
Is alles dan ‘kunst’?
Kunst beoordelen, het is een taal die ik belange nog niet meester ben, zoveel is duidelijk!
Vraag mij deze vraag nog es binnen 50 jaar. Veel kans dat ik het nog niet weet.
Ohja, wat mijn vroegste kunstherinnering is? Mijn Barbies.
Comment by de flora lisa — May 9, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Thanks for your contributions, some of you actually helped me define this art thing.
For those of you who felt this was a bridge too far, just know the topic is part of a bigger plan, more on that in a couple of months, if all goes well.
Comment by =lloyd= — May 17, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Hello!
We can read everywhere comments like art is not anymore what it was, art is dead, no way for new art… those typical apocalyptic expressions. That we will hear always, maybe we just have to get used to it. But the real point is that Art is more alive than ever, or better said, is as alive as always. The only answer is: the artistic paradigm has changed dramatically in the last years. That’s a fact, and computers and internet have a lot to do with that.
During last century, art has been getting more and more distant from the concept of Aura, concept impressively described in Walter Banjamin’s The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction ( please check here)
The mass media reproduction systems: videos, printings, CDs, DVD… the “democratization” or “popularization” of the image have changed incredibly our world and the concept we have of it. Thanks to images we changed our “image of reality”: cinema showed us how to kiss, how to be rebel or how to have breakfast in front of a jewelry shop. Art, as a mirror of our reality, has used all this new ways of reproduction from the beginning and POP Art is just a clear example.
So the uniqueness of the object has started not to be the main challenge of an artwork. For plenty of artists, Aura is not relevant anymore and Galleries have tried to adapt as soon as possible to this new paradigm. Solutions like creating limited and special editions of DVDs, CDs, etc. looked more like a way of filling a hole than fixing it.
At the 80s, globalization and Postmodernism also showed us that other cultures apart of the occidental had the right to be called contemporary. They got out from their impossed “etnic” status and opened widely the concept of what art was.
In this line, internet became the next step: art could be reproduced globally and infinitely. So, Art is not dead, the entire contrary: it is approaching a great challenge. Furthermore, it is little by little implementing a new element: interactivity.
Web 2.0 opens new doors not only for artistic creation, but also for market and art reviews. Art phenomenon is not longer unidirectional, let’s get up to date!
Comment by Jesús Azogue — May 18, 2007 @ 6:57 pm