Objective quality in purely subjective things

[Angst]

Your meaning isn't quite clear here. Could you clarify, please?

i miswrote "art" as "hard. did an edit after reading your response here.

~

so here's what i think.

the general point is that art doesn't become less so as multiple people do it. i wrote celtic folk music to try and make it palpable to anglosphere folk. it specifically legitimizes itself in the public sphere by virtue of non-belonging to individual auteurs, instead being appealing through some spirit of a communal practice and being a voice of a community (although yes, numerous celtic singers exist that are popular as individual artists, and specifically listened to as such).

the idea that art is legitimized through particular individuality is just kind of wrong. we tend to attach aesthetic engagement to individuals as origins, and it is often the case that it's a formal structure of the particular engagement to appreciate the individual behind it... but it's not innate to what art is. attachment to a personhood of origin (or heck, even uniqueness) is not necessary to aesthetic experience at all.

my whole appeal is to do away with this genius essentialism thing, and rather look into the experience and materials as the central elements, since they're more applicable in literally all aspects of artistry (including those engagements where the individual's exceptionalism is innate to the experience).

let's put it this way: if some art commissioner said "I need some celtic piece of music", and two artists come up with the exact same piece [improbable thought it would be], then that isn't really art. It'd be unoriginal and bland. A product.

similarly I get a kick looking at modern art, particularly paintings, and sometimes thinking "hey I could've done that". Especially if it's just solid colors with lines or something.
sure you could be snide and say "but you didn't do it, did you!?", and yeah ok, but I think the point of degrading art to the point of layman simplicity is still a valid criticism. I need to be able to think "only Artist XYZ and no one else could have done that."

art isn't a product?

 

[Birdjaguar]

art isn't a product?

A piece of art is likely a product, but isn't "art" an experience, both for the creator and the "viewer"?

 

[Angst]

A piece of art is likely a product, but isn't "art" an experience, both for the creator and the "viewer"?

well, i happened to stumble during language here too. woo english

so: art as in the piece is a product. it's just a material presence in the world. it's a product, as it's made.

and: art as in where the art "happens" is the mode of experience when engaging with material. art is yes literally the experience. and this can happen with any material, really; if we are to generalize what "art is", the matter itself is surprisingly arbitrary in that it has no universal, common ground.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

i miswrote "art" as "hard. did an edit after reading your response here.

~

so here's what i think.

the general point is that art doesn't become less so as multiple people do it. i wrote celtic folk music to try and make it palpable to anglosphere folk. it specifically legitimizes itself in the public sphere by virtue of non-belonging to individual auteurs, instead being appealing through some spirit of a communal practice and being a voice of a community (although yes, numerous celtic singers exist that are popular as individual artists, and specifically listened to as such).

[/QUOTE]

True. Though I've gotten a few negative reactions when I say I prefer the Irish Rovers' version of Gordon Lightfoot's "Canadian Railroad Trilogy" over that of Lightfoot himself. Of all the versions I've heard, theirs is the best, at least for me.

As for individual artists vs. the group they are/were part of... I only know Clannad by watching Robin of Sherwood. But I've got multiple CDs and favorite videos featuring Enya.

the idea that art is legitimized through particular individuality is just kind of wrong. we tend to attach aesthetic engagement to individuals as origins, and it is often the case that it's a formal structure of the particular engagement to appreciate the individual behind it... but it's not innate to what art is. attachment to a personhood of origin (or heck, even uniqueness) is not necessary to aesthetic experience at all.

my whole appeal is to do away with this genius essentialism thing, and rather look into the experience and materials as the central elements, since they're more applicable in literally all aspects of artistry (including those engagements where the individual's exceptionalism is innate to the experience).


art isn't a product?

Of course art is a product that gets used as functional items, and as items that other people pay for. It's not just to hang on a wall or put on a pedestal or under glass to be admired.

Someone in the SCA once asked me how I could bear to part with my 3-D needlepoint items when I sold them. After all, I'd put in a lot of time and even emotion into them (anger/frustration when some new technique didn't take the first time I tried it, relief when I finally learned how it worked, and generally positive feelings I tried to have when stitching; honestly, it usually makes it go easier and faster that way).

The answer was easy. I have the patterns, whether commercial patterns or the ones I'd created myself that were sketched out on graph paper. Or by that point there were some things I'd made so many times that I no longer need patterns because it's all memorized. I could make more of them any time I wanted. So for that reason, the easy ones don't have any particular emotional hold on me. They're easily replaceable.

I prefer to make things that will be used, btw. Even if it's just once a year on the Christmas tree, it's still a functional item.

 

[Kyriakos]

well, i happened to stumble during language here too. woo english

so: art as in the piece is a product. it's just a material presence in the world. it's a product, as it's made.

and: art as in where the art "happens" is the mode of experience when engaging with material. art is yes literally the experience. and this can happen with any material, really; if we are to generalize what "art is", the matter itself is surprisingly arbitrary in that it has no universal, common ground.

Even in the case of unintentional art (object/state/other impressing the audience despite no creator behind it), I think one needs to factor in the particular reach. Eg I might notice that an old dog that barked at me has disappeared, after a time infer it died, and think of stuff, but typically the event has little artistic merit or a different one due to prevailing other archetypes in it that don't promote the event itself as a main symbol for much.
So while triggering an experience is the obvious prerequisite for something to function as art, it's not enough on its own for the something to be commonly regarded as artistic.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why would it not be art?

Must art not be the opposite of social entropy? A sort of emotional or experiential synchronization? If we really pare it down. I like to think of it in terms of a resonance, the more I think about it.

I'm struggling with if something can be unintentional art. Snowflakes are beautiful. Mountain ranges, too. But a mountain range isn't art except in the divine sense, whereas a particular framing photograph of the mountain might be, despite being ultimately a pale recreation. What's behind the lens seems to be the thing at point there, moreso than the viewer.

 

[Kyriakos]

A good example of unintentional art is - paradoxically - scene photography. The photographer notices that the event can evoke emotions/thoughts, so takes the photo, but the scene already existed by itself.
The photographer realized the existent event could work as art, but was not the creator.

 

[Farm Boy]

The art is the photo, not the scene that existed?

 

[Kyriakos]

The photo is supposed to be what you would see if you were there irl. Can't claim the photographer created it, imo, anymore than claiming you created a standalone quote.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Framed it. And that's a big part of the art of photography, framing.

There is supposedly "found poetry," but I myself have never found any of it worthy of the name.

I don't know how we can be futzing around with all of these small asides when THE GREATEST RAP BATTLE OF ALL TIME IS HAPPENING EVEN AS WE DEBATE THESE ISSUES.

 

[Farm Boy]

I might want to see art of a scene of horror. I do not hope the artist is hoping to actually physically drop me into imminent fear of death and despair. Is to resonate to actually be the thing resonate'd?

I'm not sure artists ever truly create their work entire, some of what they're depicting surely must already be in the viewer, or close enough, that it bridges the gap of chaos? Tugs two systems closer into synchrony?

 

[Kyriakos]

Framed it.

This is my art now, then:

 

[Gori the Grey]

Odd photo. Doesn't do much for me.

As part of a work of literature, the snippet of text depicted in the photo might have merit.

 

[Kyriakos]

The point is the general case, not the specific. Much like the event is there irl so it was picked up by the photographer, a standalone quote can also work outside its context. You are still reacting to the single quote, and to the taken out event.

Besides, the ability to isolate a memorable quote is the analogue to isolating stuff irl for a photo.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's not though. Photos are of things we look at.

You can do this once, as a avant garde artwork. The way Warhol painted Campbell's soup cans.

"See, one can take photos of things we read, not look at." Yes, one can.

 

[Kyriakos]

You can also isolate a detail in a painting, you know

By your definition, this is mine:

The original, after all, has a lot more stuff and this isn't front and center there.

Framing (in all its forms, including the above, quotes and photos) obviously requires an eye for art. But you are not meaningfully the creator of what is shown.
When the framing is of something irl (random or natural scene etc), the art was unintentional since there was no creator. The framing was clearly intentional, but not the art.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I do know that. And that isolation can be, in a word, artistic.

Can be the point of that painting.

In photography precisely because the content is something visible in the world, framing is of the essence of that art, isolating.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes, but you are isolating from something which you did not create.
Take this other analogue: an ai program writes a story using random (not by you) prompts, you then ask it to produce 10 variations and choose the best in your view. This is framing as well.
Framing, again, does require an eye for art (accounts for why, obviously, not everyone can be a good photographer). It's just different to creating.

 

[Farm Boy]

One creates frames. Quite literally. Some are very pretty.

Yet we give the craftsman of the wood less artistic credit than the architect that designed the view through the glass it holds.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But you are not meaningfully the creator of what is shown.

Yes, you are. In the art of photography, you are. What you have created is that framing.

That is what that art gives you the power to create: a framing of otherwise visible material.

You have to stop thinking so much about the items captured in the photograph and the fact that they are visible independently of the photograph.