How Necessary is Art?

Hereandnow · Post by **Hereandnow** » July 25th, 2012, 6:43 am

Some conceptual art may not be exactly profound but for the most part there is not the intent to deceive.

Frankly I could not care less whether they want to exploit the art world. They are not the offending party. The art world is. It is the experts, the critics who make the determination something is valuable. The art world treats art like speculation treats investment: Say "BUY" and people buy. Little more than this. Ugh! Another case of the emperor's new clothes. i do not care what Duchamp did with that toilet! I abide by the likes of Clive Bell and John Dewey. They understood art as being intrinsically connected to aesthetics. (Very controvertial, yes. So what! Tell me I am wrong and why.)

HANDSON · Post by **HANDSON** » July 25th, 2012, 9:49 am

Hereandnow wrote:
Frankly I could not care less whether they want to exploit the art world. They are not the offending party. The art world is. It is the experts, the critics who make the determination something is valuable. The art world treats art like speculation treats investment: Say "BUY" and people buy. Little more than this. Ugh! Another case of the emperor's new clothes. i do not care what Duchamp did with that toilet! I abide by the likes of Clive Bell and John Dewey. They understood art as being intrinsically connected to aesthetics. (Very controvertial, yes. So what! Tell me I am wrong and why.)

I'm not sure what you refer to as the 'art world'. There are, on the one hand art critics who make their living developing (convoluted) discourse for the art mags; there are wealthy individuals who see art as an investment opportunity; There are those who enjoy museums for the historical aspects of artistic development as well as the aesthetic appeal of art.

I don't disagree: aesthetics is a concept that always comes into play when something is viewed in art art context. Most people who enjoy art do so because of its aesthetic appeal. There often is other content, conceptual meaning which can be significant to full art appreciation.

I understand you feel strongly about art; there's art you really appreciate. I suggest you go with what you like and ignore the rest.

PaulNZ · Post by **PaulNZ** » July 25th, 2012, 3:45 pm

To me art is about conveying meaning and feeling. Something which is difficult to convey in plain language. It is use of symbol, be it in picture or language form to convey meaning or sometimes "truths". It is subjective in nature and the best art is something which others can identify with personally - by which I mean it generates feelings in them. Art be it pictorial, abstract in nature, myth, story, poetry, music etc is about conveying meaning, which often cannot be conveyed in plain language.

Hereandnow · Post by **Hereandnow** » July 25th, 2012, 10:19 pm

To me art is about conveying meaning and feeling. Something which is difficult to convey in plain language.

Perhaps you would find Clive Bell's "Art" to your taste. It is a short but very influential book. He says art is aesthetic rapture that arises form significant form and started a movement called formalism.

PaulNZ · Post by **PaulNZ** » July 26th, 2012, 12:22 am

Hereandnow wrote: Perhaps you would find Clive Bell's "Art" to your taste. It is a short but very influential book. He says art is aesthetic rapture that arises form significant form and started a movement called formalism.

I'll look into that Hereandnow thanks.

Wandering_Man · Post by **Wandering_Man** » July 26th, 2012, 4:39 am

Existence wrote:Albert Camus quote:

Of all the schools of patience and lucidity, creation is the most effective. It is also the staggering evidence of man's sole dignity:

It has also been said that destruction is the purest form of creation. A mason "destroys" a pile of bricks by building a wall. A painter "destroys" a canvas by staining it with paint. I am not a believer in this concept; I can, however, see the reasoning behind it. I have learned much from counter arguments, so have fun.