BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

ART= LIFE= PEOPLE= EVENTS= LIFE= ART

  
 
_pin
08:31 / 25.03.02
Art isn’t sacrosant. And I’m not saying art isn’t good, I’m not the cretinous. It’s just not that good. Frankly, I doubt much is, but art deffinatly isn’t one of them.

Maybe I should explain a few things:
Art, as I’m talking about itis a lot of things: I’m talking Renaisance architecture, Britart sculptures, the works of Mozart, old Gothic cathedrals, Warhol originals and the Roman Catholic Chruch’s tradtitions here. I’m not saying protcting them is a bad thing: I can see why people aren’t aloud to fondle the Mona Lisa- just because I don’t think it’s a great historical nodal point doesn’t mean I want to see it crumble to bits. Our history should be kept intact, yes, but it shouldn’t be elevated to a point of importance far beyound our own lives.

I am not propsing razing the past. No cultural Kristallnacht with our own Wink Media-designed SA in nice stark lines and minimalist brown shirts. But nor am I condoning hiding behind it. Sure, preserve the originals, but realise that they’re not the only sort of art you can make. They’re just one kind. And they’re not special, too. OK, so maybe Michalangelo was a better painter then you. He still wasn’t blessed and his work still wasn’t mesianic. He didn’t even do it from some great drive, some burning, tortured need to make religious art. It just paid well. Hardly of nobel intentions now, is it?

Art isn’t supposed to make you fel like you wish you could do that. It’s supposed to shout “You can do this too!”. It’s just a self-perpetuating circle- EVENT inspires PEOPLE, PEOPLE make ART, ART inspies PEOPLE, PEOPLE make EVENT, EVENT inspires PEOPLE, PEOPLE PEOPLE ART ART EVENT EVENT ARTPEOPLEARTEVENTARTPEOPLEART. And why even have three distinct catagories? They’re not nessessary. EVENTs and ART can easily be considered as the same thing as soon as people stop thinking of “art event” as “bad art student performance art mastorbatory shit”. Reclaim The Streets’ temporary autonomous zone’s= ART. The start of spring= ART. And why stop there? Art (we’re back on the deffinition at the start now) is made by PEOPLE, and PEOPLE are just a string of EVENTS: a perpeutal cacophany of walking, talking, shitting, fucking, filling, crying, shouting, jumping, sitting, lying, hoping, failing, winning, loosing, dying. And we all know what EVENTS are now, don’t we...

But I’m not proposing a lack of excelence. This isn’t some “I [heart] lo-fi amateurism” polemic (though it must be said that I do) People should hone their talents to a level people who don’t have those talents can’t reach. Then we can all go “Ooh, pretty” at it. The point is, it’s ordinary people perfect that which they are good at. They’re not special and they don’t need preserving in favour of “modern” art, and that doesn’t need preserving in favour modern “trash”.

ART=LIFE=PEOPLE=EVENTS=LIFE=ART


Discuss, using sources A, B, C, D and F, and own own knowledge.
 
 
_pin
18:50 / 28.03.02
... please?
 
 
Persephone
00:38 / 29.03.02
Okay, yes. I didn't say anything at first because I basically wholly agree with what you said above. I especially like the nods to both professionalism and amateurism... I think that a vital system of art has to have both of these working for it. I'm not sure if that's obvious or not? But I think it's really important to have both of these in mind simultaneously and to hold them in balance, and to correct this balance as necessary. My theater company works in this way, very few of us are theater-trained & in some ways it shows. But on the one hand, I think the stuff we do has a lot of vitality... and on the other hand, I think we're actually getting good at it. But the part that I think is getting good is what I'd call "craft." The part that I think has always been good is what I'd call "art," and the word "vitality" keeps popping up in my mind in association with the word art... so I quite like the word LIFE in your equation.
 
 
lentil
10:26 / 04.04.02
Thing is, I’m not entirely sure what the point you’re making is – there are any number of discussions that could spring off from this post. Or are you just making a series of related observations? Nowt wrong with that.

The Michaelangelo thing – you’re utterly correct in pointing out that he was well paid and motivated, at least in part, by that. The history of the influence of wealth and patronage on art to my mind goes hand in hand with the history of art itself. And debunking the myth of genius is definitely a good thing. But I don’t think you should ascribe the entirety of the work’s existence to it. Not only because I believe that any truly good piece of art has to have some investment on the part of the artist beyond simply paying the bills, but also because Christianity was the dominant mindset in Michaelangelo’s time, and while I don’t know anything about how strongly held his religious convictions were, painting the Entombment (say) wouldn’t have been just illustration. Look at El Greco, for example, for some crazy religious fervour – there’s definitely some need to make religious art there, whether it was burning or tortured I couldn’t say.

And when I see some stunning art, I do feel “I wish I could do that”, but I suppose it’s also balanced with “I can do that, if I work hard and smart enough.”

There should be criteria for distinguishing ‘art’ from ‘non-art’. Not all events are art events, not all people are artists. Art is a special form of activity (I’m not going to say that the artist is a special type of person), I’m not quite sure what it is, more intelligent people than myself have been arguing this one out since Duchamp. Maybe it’s simply a matter of intention; if you say that what you’re doing is art then it is art. Reclaim the Streets – yes, definitely, creation of a spectacle for the purposes of communication. The start of spring – no. It’s beautiful, it’s a process which changes our environment, but it’s not art because there’s no communicative intent, and because it’s not the work of human beings. Of course you could argue that it is a greater and more beautiful work of art than anything humans have ever produced because it’s a product of [insert whatever concept of the Divine you may have], and the only reason I can’t see the intent is because of my limited consciousness. But that’s slightly beyond the scope of this thread, so I’m going to stick to talking about art made by humans.

“The point is, it’s ordinary people perfect that which they are good at”. This I agree with entirely. I just don’t think you should completely debunk artistic acheivement; anybody who achieves anything exceptional (whether it be art, music, human rights campaigning, or being really fucking shit hot in the sack) deserves praise, and recognition that, in that area of their life at least, they are special. Or are you arguing more against the idea of a hierarchy of artistic forms which elevates a particular canon at the expense of others? If so, then add my voice to yours.
 
  
Add Your Reply