The meaning of Art

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by geordief, Apr 13, 2017.

  1. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    495
    You don't think you are over generalizing? How likely is it that artists' visions are going to be routinely subverted in the way it seems this one has?

    This is a kind of a one off ,isn't it? The artist is not boxed in either . He has made his point. Nothing lasts forever and he lives to fight (create) again.

    Does he imagine that his bull will outlast NYC if only he gets a fair shake?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,837
    Well here is the thing, if it was all about artistic expression, he shouldn't have sold it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,573
    No and no. It happens all the time: people improving things; feeling entitled to improve things. Sometimes the work of long-dead artists is restored in a quite different way; sometimes it's fig-leafing or sanitizing by prudes. Most of the time it's not done to the original, so no legal case to be made, but copies of some famous work adapted to some commercial use or mockery.

    I don't care about the stupid bull or its maker or who lasts longer or whether the point's been made.
    I do care, in general, about respect for the integrity of original art. I seem to be one of the last.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,573
    No more novels published, paintings in galleries, symphonies performed in concert halls?
    Every artist keeps their product to themselves, because, once they sell it, it's fair game? I'm pretty sure that's not how it was supposed to work.
     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,837
    Why? Life is all about change. Now, if someone told me they were going to improve upon the Mona Lisa or Michelangelo's David, I'd have some issues with it based not on artistic expression but rather historical significance. I don't see a similar historical significance in this case.

    While I like the Bull; I also like the little girl. I don't think one detracts from or enhances the other; though there is an interesting contrast between the physical strengths of each subject, and I find that appealing.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,837
    What makes you think no more novels will be published, or paintings displayed in galleries or symphonies performed in concert halls? Artists have been selling their work for eons and novels are still published, paintings are displayed in galleries, and symphonies performed in concert halls. It has been fair game for a very long time, and life goes on.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,320
    "Natura artis magistra"

    My personal definitin of Art (in its purest form) can be found below.
    *Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response leading to thoughts of the noblest kind*
     
  11. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    495
    I see what you mean but that is very much pie in the sky.

    I do set value to authorship but do not set it on a pedestal. It is a tremendous trade. It appears almost godlike but they walk among us thanks to their own set of privileges and have to follow the same laws as the rest of us-and accept ridicule when appropriate.

    Perhaps your point of view is what leads some to embrace performance art?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,689
    So would you react similarly to that girl moved next to those other works I mentioned? (Hiroshima, the photo of tank confrontation at Tiananman Square?)

    How about the Vietnam Memorial? The front gate memorial at Auschwitz? The fountain pool of the Taj Mahal? A depiction of the tsunami coming in to Japan? One of the cannon memorials to the Civil War - say, the one at Gettysburg? The slave trade memorial in Benin?

    Is there a limit, in other words.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  13. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    495
    Even reprehensible people can "do art".Your examples are odious but are within the realm of artistic expression.Context could not lift them from the mire but a depraved vision would find them appealing and would justify them.

    The observer of a work of art has a responsibility to use his or her filters diligently if he wants to appraise it in a worthwhile way.

    (the artist does not have carte blanche to pollute the communal sensibilities, obviously and S.Hussein's statues were quickly dismantled)
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The Bull is a strong animal that has immense power and can charge and knock over even a large opponent. The little girl does not have the physical capacity to engage the bull in terms of its natural strength. The little girl's strength lies in her naive resolve. She is not afraid of the danger because she is clueless of the danger. The bull is perplexed because he does not sense fear, since she is naive to his threatening body language. Her lack of understanding of the danger, undermines the resolve of the bull, making him uncertain how to act. He can't charge, as normal, but is trying to figure her out. Now they are on quasi-equal terms.

    The original intent of the little girl statue, added near the bull statue was a feminists statement about glass ceilings in Wall Street. The little girl would symbolize women being protected by law and government. The law takes way the power of the men, to act within their masculine natures (bull), allowing the women to appear on quasi-equal terms. This female thinking stems from the dynamics of husband and wife and sex/happiness.

    Men will trade away things to maximize the availability of sex in marriage. The rate of sex can drop off quickly, a few years, after the honeymoon if certain concession are not made. For example, not all husbands will not use his full capacity in arguments, if they see that winning causes further limitations in sex and happiness. Women understand this sex math, so they are not afraid to approach their bullish husband, with a naive resolve to win the argument. He will not use any TKO moves in arguments. The husband or bull also knows the math, and allows things, that may not be rationally additive, but are based on the trade-off and the hidden wild card.

    Although this works in marriage and intimate relationships, this does not extrapolate well to the larger scale; culture. Men will not give the same level of hidden wild card concessions, to all women, like they will for their wife. They are not trying to maintain sex with all women. Women would like all men to give all concession to all women, as they do with their wife, so they can socially get what they want with the naive resolve. Government becomes sort of the surrogate social husband, who will make the math add up, not with reward, but with punishment, allowing the double standard which makes sense to the naive.

    The little girl is too young for sex, but has little girl charms that allow her to get concessions from her father; votes. She learns this behavior by copying her mother (wife) not knowing yet that the effectiveness of her naive resolve, has a basis in bedroom trade and profit. What is called sexual harassment in the work place, is the equation becoming conscious in the workplace, to justify the bull having to concede, by law, like at home. The little girl does not wish sex in the work place, but she is naive and does no t know the underlying basis for the quasi-equality of the double standard stems from women and not girls.The result is there is tension and separation.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    That bull probably won't charge if you think about it.
    Alex
     
    joepistole likes this.
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,573
    No, there used to be both a written rule and an unwritten agreement that War and Peace wouldn't be updated every ten years and moustaches wouldn't be painted out of 19th century portraits when the fashion changed and the difficult notes wouldn't be erased from operas when singers didn't feel like doing scales anymore.

    As you say, things change. As I said, I can't prove that artistic integrity was worth preserving anyway. I miss it, that's all.
     
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Have I missed something?

    Are we talking about statues?

    They are inanimate.

    With respect I believe you over think things and then stop...thinking that is.

    The statue of the little girl won't be thinking of anything because it is a statue and, you may find this hard to believe but, statues don't think...it, not she, is a statue.

    You remind me of the man who got on his horse and rode off in all directions at once.

    However I like reading your posts they are entertaining so keep up the good work.

    If you are trying to be funny you do a fantastic job.
    Alex
     
  18. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    495
    That is the point of works of art . They are supposed to make you think. But Wellwisher's thoughts do not coincide with mine although they may complement or contradict them (based on the same statues)

    They are much more worked through than mine I have to say (although a bit "top heavy" ,perhaps)
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
    Yes it could be said of art that it should make you think. It could also be said it is to make you feel and not think.
    Perhaps wellwisher could approach it along the lines of "I feel this statue represents whatever"...so we know he recognises inanimate objects do not think or form opinions.

    He may well be taking the micky out of art appreciation.

    Alex
     
  20. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    495
    Yes ,I tend to agree. You have to feel first . If it causes you to cogitate that is fine but it should not be a subterfuge for introducing preconceptions .
     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    That would be practically impossible. How could you foresee every alteration in the landscape that might change the "meaning"?

     
  22. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    There are situations where outrage is appropriate and situations where it is not.
     
  23. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,573
    You wouldn't have to foresee all of the possible changes in landscape just say: No deliberate alteration of meaning through placement.
    And this is an obvious example of alteration of meaning through placement.
    Plus, of course, it's still a lie. If new York wanted to empower children and defang Wall Street, it would take more definitive action than plunking down a stupid statue.
    And it's a double lie: rather than create an original art-work to depict that "hope about what should be", they've suborned an existing one depicting what it.
     

Share This Page