Now it's time for the second issue of "Art and Theory".
First of all thanks to *Zablocki for his contribution and group-feature and also many thanks to *EricKuns for his comment!
PART ONE
- Reply to *EricKuns and his subjectivistic definition of art -
"For some art is about spirituality, for some it's self-exploration, for others it's political commentary, for others it can be just making something cool, and there are as many different reasons as there are styles. Grandiose definitions of art, or serious art with a capital "A" are just artificial delineations projected one something that's much more fluid and varied."
Just look at the world of music. You can't apply the same standard to pop music, rap, country, prog, classical, qawwali, klezmer, reggae, jazz, electronic, soul, folk, gazals…
I'm a lover of music, so the idea of having one dominant paradigm for music, and ticking off the stuff that didn't fit as inadequate or inconsequential is lame. I don't want any of the styles I enjoy to disappear.I don't see why we should view visual art and related art any differently."
A summary of your arguments (as I understand them):
• Any style has its right to exist. You define art-style in analogy to music
- as cubism, surrealism, realism, hyperrealism, symbolism, etc. (pop, rap, country,...).
• Visual art and other arts should be seen as the same - for example music as art.
• There are infinite numbers of reasons to paint - and this in relation to the infinite number of
(possible) styles.
• Grandiose and exact/scientific (serious?) definition of art is impossible, in the best case
artificial because art is hard/impossible to grasp because of its fluid/manifold nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are absolutely right to point out that every "style" has its right to exist and cubism is not "more artistic" than realism.
We have to be precise here: to have an clear and affirmative theory of art, does not mean to draw the line between "good" and "bad" art between styles, but rather within its borders.
To be more precise "good" and "bad" are not even appropriate concepts to describe art. You only can tell if its art or not, as you only can tell if a chair is a chair or not (sure, there are many kinds of chairs, but I think you could differentiate between a chair and a table).
We have to get rid of the idea that if we do not produce art it has to be crap. There are wonderful works out there I admire, I would buy, which are created very skilled and/or are made with brisk childish honesty, but I never would hang in an art-gallery. Decorativeness is no sufficient definition of art.
Neither is functionality: A carpenter, who has built a beautiful chair out of wonderful wood for our living-room, has surely done a great job, but it's not art per se.
If it's art to make tools, to dress the hair, to be a good manager, to do whatever to whatever purpose, then art is everything and therefore nothing.
True Art
Art and the edge of things
"True" defined as the point where you are faithful to the "event of rap", where you hit the core of the concept "rap", where you bring its inner potential out in the light.
You can promote this till the point of the "minimal difference". The point where your rap-song is just rap, a little bit less and it wouldn't be rap no more, but another concept.
Art is about checking out, to exhaust, to walk along the borders of the concept of art.
It's more a walk on a tightrope than destruction, and it never is walking on safe grounds.
Art and its material
Art can never be reduced to the material (color, style, etc.) used for its creation nor to its creator (his intention and skill, his psyche are not sufficient to describe the result as art). To be art - there has to be an irreducible rest in it, which cannot be explained by the things, which were already there before its creation. To be art - there has to be something new.
To avoid a spiritualistic interpretation: this does not mean, that this irreducible rest is irreducible because of its otherworldly/supernatural characteristics.
But it is irreducible because it provides us with the frame with which we can understand its context.
It's not the context that helps us to understand a work of art. It is the artwork which helps us to understand the context (a historic one, an psychological one, the art-market,...etc.).
Therefore it relates to a perspective, a standpoint, and a point of truth.
Well you could object: isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder - and therefore purely subjective?
You would be right
– But first is beauty all that art is about?
- and second: if beauty is in the eye of the beholder - is art not rather the point of view between them (two beholders), the point of view no one thought of (before the artwork has been created)? The point of view we are now able to take, since the artwork gave us the proper frame?
At this point I would like to conclude:
"Art is in the eye of the beholder."
- Does not mean that - art can only be interpreted (be defined as art) through the eyes of the beholder.
- But rather - you can only proper interpret the beholder (and his context) through the eyes of the artwork.
My version of the arguments of * EricKuns
• Any style has its right to exist. There are different styles of artistic expression and all of them
are of equal value.
• There is art and there is non-art and its border can be defined as being "faithful to a particular
artistic event"
• There are infinite numbers of reasons to paint - but "reasons" are not "art per se", cause art is
not functional (it can be - but it's whether a necessary nor a sufficient definition)
• A grandiose and exact definition of art is not only possible but absolutely necessary (surely not
at the level of styles)
• Art is indeed impossible to grasp – but this doesn't mean that a definition of art is impossible
- on the contrary: this intangible nature lies at the core of the definition of art
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To give a short reply to *Zablocki (a longer one will follow shortly):
If the purpose of a painting is to help us understand the world around us - no explanation is necessary.
Nevertheless an explanation wouldn't contradict a truly artistic work.
Perhaps it would be more precise if we didn't call it an "explanation of the artwork" but rather an "communicative exploration of the artistic event behind it".
The deadlock here for me is this: can an event, a truth be explored through communication? Is truth relational?
I think an artwork does not relate to anything else but itself and therefore should be cherished as an aim in itself.
