[bybee]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

A man takes a blender and smears it with a streak of blood. He has an idea. He places it in a collection at a gallery. Someone bombs the gallery and surrounding buildings. Combing through the rubble later another man sees the art. He thinks, "Some poor devil must have died near that blender."

Whatever it was to the artist, it's a blood smeared blender to the rubble comber.

I can as readily say art resides in me and in its interaction with me as a matter of value, but in genesis you have something. The creation of art rests with the artist or we might be wondering after every smeared blender we see. Art must first have intention.

Agreed. Sometimes, the artist creates not from intent but from inspiration. Once created it becomes something personally to the beholder, or not. I'm not sure that an artist really exists outside of his/her inspiration.

[Cracked]

So, you would argue that art isn't required to be representational in order to be intrinsically good, is this correct?

Correct.

If so, to what degree does it matter that a piece of non-representational, that is abstract, art must, by definition, be non-objective, that is subjective?

Because the value of art is in the relationship it has with the viewer(s), it is inherently subjective--non-representational or representative art share the same fate here. However, some very good art strikes at the root of our humanity (as they say). Thus, it has inherent value the same way anything is valuable to humankind.

And, if that is indeed the case, then can such art be intrinsically valuable?

Without an audience, art has no value at all. If you play Bach where no one can hear it, it may have well never existed. However, most (probably all) "things" suffer that same fate. What value does a screwdriver have if there is no one there to utilize it in some way? So, I guess the definition we use for "intrinsic value" becomes our discussion.

We can create, because we have been created. That is why art is so very primal. That is why we are fascinated by it. That is why it has intrinsic value.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

A man takes a blender and smears it with a streak of blood. He has an idea. He places it in a collection at a gallery. Someone bombs the gallery and surrounding buildings. Combing through the rubble later another man sees the art. He thinks, "Some poor devil must have died near that blender."

Whatever it was to the artist, it's a blood smeared blender to the rubble comber.

I can as readily say art resides in me and in its interaction with me as a matter of value, but in genesis you have something. The creation of art rests with the artist or we might be wondering after every smeared blender we see. Art must first have intention.

--And in this case, that would have come from 'artworks' context.--

All man-made objects and activities have intent. But art has a specific intent: the intent of expressing the human experience to others.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by PureX

--And in this case, that would have come from 'artworks' context.--

All man-made objects and activities have intent. But art has a specific intent: the intent of expressing the human experience to others.

I'm not arguing intent, at lest the intent of the creator to create is inarguable. Communication is found between the piece and the observer. It may not bear any relation to the intent of the creator except in that relation. So the value of art remains a personal, singular and subjective thing.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I'm not arguing intent, at lest the intent of the creator to create is inarguable. Communication is found between the piece and the observer. It may not bear any relation to the intent of the creator except in that relation. So the value of art remains a personal and singular thing.

I agree.

Relating 'value' and art is mostly a waste of time. Art is about the experience, not value.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by PureX

I agree.

Relating 'value' and art is mostly a waste of time. Art is about the experience, not value.

I suspected we were closing on one another.

Enjoyed the conversation.

[PureX]

Hel-lo! ..... The two values of art, did you say?

QUOTE: Art is the endeavor to express whatever it is inside the artist that he needs to share with others.

Strefanash: speaking as a former classically trained symphony orchestral musician I must say that the above quote is not true for all art. It is definitely a romantic notion. Before the 18th century (and the 19th in music for music always lags behind the other arts) this notion was foreign to musicians at least, who were artisans and tradesmen. Viewed as servants who ate with the servants down stairs it was not till Beethoven insisted he was a genius that the modern view of art started to arose. Note that the view that the artist was a prophet was post enlightenment, when organized religion started its decline in the West

For myself the best music is an experience of cruelty. It evokes the most powerful longings that cannot possibly be satisfied. This is the original ,meaning of being tantalized. It is hell. When I was young, and relied on ferocious nervous energy to play bass in the symphony orchestra, I thought it better to long rather than not, so I sawed away at my Beethoven with passion and was well respected by my peers there.

But youthful zeal cannot last

So as I would now rather drink than thirst, and as the source of living waters is not music or art, music has less of a place in my life than it did

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by bybee

I have thought there is a grid or framework programmed into the mind which responds involuntarily to extermal stimuli.
Children respond to beauty and ugliness quite naturally without any preconceived critical sense.
Carl Sagan in his "The Dragon's of Eden" stated that our fear and revulsion of snakes has an evolutionary component related to survival.
I think of "Guernica". I had an intense revulsion to this painting upon first viewing. Once I researched the artist's intent I felt the immense pain contained therin. Still, it is hideous to view yet has intrinsic value in it's intent. I still can't bear to look at "The Scream". It depresses me.

The only problem with bringing children's reactions into the equation is the lack of sufficient development to appreciate that which can come with the years. There's pieces of art/music I adore now which I wouldn't (and didn't) when I was 5.

Where it comes to 'value' in art then it can often still be restricted by what comes down to subjective taste (IMO). What is 'ugly' for one can be 'beautiful' to another. I don't need an emotional reaction to necessarily see value in a piece even if I'm unmoved by or indifferent to it as some have commented.

Ironically enough 'The Scream' is an art work I see value in but wouldn't have on my wall as personally I don't find it that pleasant to look at, but I can't deny the power of the piece. Funnily enough a friend from a college course absolutely loved the piece and had it in her bedroom. She saw it as dark but vibrant so there we go....

My 0.02$....

[zoo22]

Originally Posted by PureX

--And in this case, that would have come from 'artworks' context.--

All man-made objects and activities have intent. But art has a specific intent: the intent of expressing the human experience to others.

Art is just language. Most of us just aren't very versed in it, as most of us aren't versed in math. It can be a very complicated language, and it can be difficult to learn. It's often self-referencing, which can make it more difficult.

But I think we generally consider visual art as something more separated from us than it is or should be.

It's a way to communicate. Sometimes communication is simple and straightforward, sometimes not.

I haven't watched the video, but I will.

[chrysostom]

art is beauty

in many different forms

[zoo22]

Originally Posted by chrysostom

art is beauty

in many different forms

No. It can be. Art is language. Sometimes it expresses beauty, sometimes not.

[bybee]

Originally Posted by zoo22

No. It can be. Art is language. Sometimes it expresses beauty, sometimes not.

I love this. Art as language. I have also thought of artists as being one of the vanguard's of society. Artist's may pull us out of our comfort zone and into a new awareness of our selve's and our surroundings and our interactions with others.
The first time I saw a Jackson Pollock painting I was outraged! Facinated but outraged. But then, logistics aside, he portrayed (I believe) the angst of his generation and I was able to relate.
It made David look like a photographer! I'm joking of course.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by zoo22

Art is just language. Most of us just aren't very versed in it, as most of us aren't versed in math. It can be a very complicated language, and it can be difficult to learn. It's often self-referencing, which can make it more difficult.

But I think we generally consider visual art as something more separated from us than it is or should be.

It's a way to communicate. Sometimes communication is simple and straightforward, sometimes not.

I haven't watched the video, but I will.

I agree that art is a form of communication, but if that's all it were, it would be of little use relative to language, and textbooks would be works of art. Which they are not.

It's what art communicates that sets it apart from other instances of communication. And it's what art is communicating that enables us to 'interpret' it as if it were some other sort of language. It's our shared experience of being human that creates the commonality that artists rely on as they express their own individual experiences of life, to the rest of us.

Art isn't just a form of communication. Art is our endeavor to share our individual human experiences with each other.

[zoo22]

Originally Posted by bybee

I love this. Art as language. I have also thought of artists as being one of the vanguard's of society. Artist's may pull us out of our comfort zone and into a new awareness of our selve's and our surroundings and our interactions with others.
The first time I saw a Jackson Pollock painting I was outraged! Facinated but outraged. But then, logistics aside, he portrayed (I believe) the angst of his generation and I was able to relate.
It made David look like a photographer! I'm joking of course.

I understand.

Pollock made a lot of people very angry. Other artists included. I think his paintings still make many people angry... But for the most part, now his art just seems par for the course.

It's strange how groundbreaking, crazy art can become "normal." Matisse's paintings were a big ugly mess to people, even people in the artworld then. Now they're so accepted that they've almost become trite (even as beautiful as they are).