Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - What is Art ["Non-Artists" encouraged to respond]

vanblah · 06-02-2009, 07:13 AM

I think I may have a bias here because for the last seven years my band rented practice space in an art gallery/studio space (if only we could be the Velvet Underground). I have seen a LOT of visual artists come and go. Some were good; some were bad (in my opinion). However, they were all very passionate about what they were doing. Some of it was derivative (like Lindy's Jackson Pollack statement) some of it seemed wholly unoriginal ... but some of it seemed incredibly original (although I'm sure someone could deconstruct it).

Here's the thing though, originality doesn't have a whole lot to do with it. It's like the people who say that DJs can't be artists because they use other people's work--that's BS. Artists consistently borrow from each other. Painters go to a gallery ... see work by other artist ... and if it moves them they go back to their studios inspired and create something that has been altered by the viewing. Musicians hear a band or a symphony and if it moves them they go back to their studio (or work area) and write music that has been altered by their listening.

Case in point: I was watching the Sigur Ros film "Heima" and was so inspired that I took a song that my current band was working on and wrote a quartet arrangement for it (along with some other instrumentation). It doesn't "sound like" Sigur Ros, but those elements are there.

So, if you intended your 10-15 seconds of clarinet noodling to be art (it's not a symphony by definition) then YES it IS art. I may not like it but it's your art. If you're just bullshitting me with your "art" then that's your problem not mine.

Art IS self-indulgent; almost to a fault. Some people can see through the bullshit ... but I'd be willing to bet that if you spent any time with the so-called bullshitter you'd find that they really believe what they are doing is art. Of course, there are always posers. They're usually fairly easy to spot. They spend a lot of time talking about doing something grandiose and transcendent but usually produce mediocre and uninspiring work. (Sometimes I feel like a poser).

Of course, we're talking about a certain level of art here. I think most people get hung up on the whole "high art" vs. "decorative art." It's all art, in that it was created by someone with the intention of being art. There's spill over between the two. There's a pottery maker/sculptor here in town who creates some of the most phenomenal tea sets I've ever seen. When I see them I think high art ... but they are also decorative art. They are made to be looked at without making a statement. We have a couple of these sets (the more affordable ones).

06-02-2009, 07:13 AM	#36 (permalink)
vanblah Junkie	I think I may have a bias here because for the last seven years my band rented practice space in an art gallery/studio space (if only we could be the Velvet Underground). I have seen a LOT of visual artists come and go. Some were good; some were bad (in my opinion). However, they were all very passionate about what they were doing. Some of it was derivative (like Lindy's Jackson Pollack statement) some of it seemed wholly unoriginal ... but some of it seemed incredibly original (although I'm sure someone could deconstruct it). Here's the thing though, originality doesn't have a whole lot to do with it. It's like the people who say that DJs can't be artists because they use other people's work--that's BS. Artists consistently borrow from each other. Painters go to a gallery ... see work by other artist ... and if it moves them they go back to their studios inspired and create something that has been altered by the viewing. Musicians hear a band or a symphony and if it moves them they go back to their studio (or work area) and write music that has been altered by their listening. Case in point: I was watching the Sigur Ros film "Heima" and was so inspired that I took a song that my current band was working on and wrote a quartet arrangement for it (along with some other instrumentation). It doesn't "sound like" Sigur Ros, but those elements are there. So, if you intended your 10-15 seconds of clarinet noodling to be art (it's not a symphony by definition) then YES it IS art. I may not like it but it's your art. If you're just bullshitting me with your "art" then that's your problem not mine. Art IS self-indulgent; almost to a fault. Some people can see through the bullshit ... but I'd be willing to bet that if you spent any time with the so-called bullshitter you'd find that they really believe what they are doing is art. Of course, there are always posers. They're usually fairly easy to spot. They spend a lot of time talking about doing something grandiose and transcendent but usually produce mediocre and uninspiring work. (Sometimes I feel like a poser). Of course, we're talking about a certain level of art here. I think most people get hung up on the whole "high art" vs. "decorative art." It's all art, in that it was created by someone with the intention of being art. There's spill over between the two. There's a pottery maker/sculptor here in town who creates some of the most phenomenal tea sets I've ever seen. When I see them I think high art ... but they are also decorative art. They are made to be looked at without making a statement. We have a couple of these sets (the more affordable ones).