News: Deutsche Börse photography prize 2012

[Mark Hampton]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Mark,

While it's a thing of beauty to have one's own valuations of matters, the word "Art" has defined meanings in the public domain. As such, it's generally accepted by the public, artists, collectors and museums that an artist makes art and appreciates his or her own work and then the rest of us buy into that art value and experience.


Your definitions of the dynamics of art are not being used anywhere else of importance that I can discover. Nowhere do I see any suggestion that it's the "readers who make art" and the artist just makes [the] "work"!


I cannot find any reference to this idea of yours in the American Journal of aesthetics or anywhere else.... so far! However, all would agree that the reader does bring to the work of art his or own culture, personal history and values in generating a fuller sensory experience and appreciation before, during and after "musing" on the artwork. These personal dynamics help us get the most out of art, but we have not created the work itself.


We have merely translated it for ourselves this instance and next time it will be processed somewhat differently as we ourselves grow and change in time.


So what you say, that "artist make work - readers make art" is not an accepted definition, rather an assertion by a few people. I must admit I like the thrust of your claim, although it's generally not applicable to most art. I can, however, some trace of the "sense" of what you are claiming just in "found" art, but that's the extent of it.


Asher

Asher,

"Art is a finger up the bourgeoisie ass" - Pablo Picasso

that should help !

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Mark Hampton

Asher,

"Art is a finger up the bourgeoisie ass" - Pablo Picasso

that should help !

Yes, he has a sense of humor, but he could say whatever he liked, being an accomplished classical artist, visionary and modern artist. But did he give the bourgeoisie the finger? I really don't think do. After all, he himself was more than royalty. He could also have farted, collected the gas and sold it off as perfume!

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Yes, he has a sense of humor, but he could say whatever he liked, being an accomplished classical artist, visionary and modern artist. But did he give the bourgeoisie the finger? I really don't think do. After all, he himself was more than royalty. He could also have farted, collected the gas and sold it off as perfume!

Asher

Asher,

can you re write this so it makes sense please?

cheers

[Asher Kelman]

Originally Posted by Mark Hampton

Asher,

can you re write this so it makes sense please?

cheers

Sure, Mark, tell me what part is giving you a problem!

When a man reaches the brilliance and accomplishments of a Pablo Picasso, he's free to be unrestrained in his humor. He, in fact, did not poke his finger at the bourgeoisie or up their collective arse! He in fact was himself a privileged man of his time and spoiled by attention, respect and adoration he earned and deserved.

Asher

[Mark Hampton]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Sure, Mark, tell me what part is giving you a problem!

When a man reaches the brilliance and accomplishments of a Pablo Picasso, he's free to be unrestrained in his humor. He, in fact, did not poke his finger at the bourgeoisie or up their collective arse! He in fact was himself a privileged man of his time and spoiled by attention, respect and adoration he earned and deserved.

Asher

Asher,


I really don't think do. - was it a slip ? what does it mean ?

to me it was ART - well made !

[Mark Hampton]

Originally Posted by Asher Kelman

Mark,

While it's a thing of beauty to have one's own valuations of matters, the word "Art" has defined meanings in the public domain. As such, it's generally accepted by the public, artists, collectors and museums that an artist makes art and appreciates his or her own work and then the rest of us buy into that art value and experience.


Your definitions of the dynamics of art are not being used anywhere else of importance that I can discover. Nowhere do I see any suggestion that it's the "readers who make art" and the artist just makes [the] "work"!


I cannot find any reference to this idea of yours in the American Journal of aesthetics or anywhere else.... so far! However, all would agree that the reader does bring to the work of art his or own culture, personal history and values in generating a fuller sensory experience and appreciation before, during and after "musing" on the artwork. These personal dynamics help us get the most out of art, but we have not created the work itself.


We have merely translated it for ourselves this instance and next time it will be processed somewhat differently as we ourselves grow and change in time.


So what you say, that "artist make work - readers make art" is not an accepted definition, rather an assertion by a few people. I must admit I like the thrust of your claim, although it's generally not applicable to most art. I can, however, some trace of the "sense" of what you are claiming just in "found" art, but that's the extent of it.


Asher

as for accepted definitions - they change and evolve....

some bloke wrote this -

“And if they could talk to one another, don’t you think they’d suppose that the names they used applied to the things they see passing before them?”