Two questions regarding art

[Fade to Black]

sure, but you miss the point

[Fuuma]

it's not a "problem" it's human nature

Prove it. That human nature shit is getting so old the fly are buzzing all around it.

[zamb]

it's not a "problem" it's human nature

Well, Maybe I am not Human then........
I've always believed myself to be a semi-divine being..........this kinda proves it because I like people whose beliefs are different from my own,
I enjoy their company................I was even listening to a lecture by the "Art" known as Richard Dawkins last night........................

[Fade to Black]

you are all validating what i said

[Faust]

I think this is a major problem that extends further than Art, it extends into the wider society, where many people only want to see and hear from people that are in agreement with them................

not exactly that, i would say - more like they are looking for people who would understand them. of course, understanding usually leads to agreement.

[Fuuma]

you are all validating what i said

No. You are saying there is a universal rule that applies to human beings and that it precedes socialization. Consequently, demonstrating it applies to us would, in no way, mean you've proven your point.

Have you lost your war with the obvious?

[zamb]

not exactly that, i would say - more like they are looking for people who would understand them. of course, understanding usually leads to agreement.

Well, not exactly, there are al ot of things I understand but dont agree with, hence my respect for variety and diversity in some things......
Bit also, understanding leads to agreement if we presuppose that men in general are by nature good, and have just intentions..............unfortunately, I dont see the world like that.

But on the subject of art though, the artist cannot and should never divorce himself from the public, to me such an artists isnt even worth paying any kind of attention to, regardless of how gifted he is. there has to be a dialogue, where the world around the artist informs his creative output, and this output is then appreciated by those who can appreciate and relate to it. if this is not the case, then such an artist can go on and do his work, then worship it and make love to it by himself

[mesko]

But on the subject of art though, the artist cannot and should never divorce himself from the public, to me such an artists isnt even worth paying any kind of attention to, regardless of how gifted he is. there has to be a dialogue, where the world around the artist informs his creative output, and this output is then appreciated by those who can appreciate and relate to it. if this is not the case, then such an artist can go on and do his work, then worship it and make love to it by himself

But society is changing. Some artists were terribly underrated and/or disliked when they were active, only to be rediscovered and praised a decade or century later. There is little chance for such a dialogue you mentioned to take place in their cases.

[orphée]

Indeed, it is very fashionable to go to MoMa.

Fashionable....MoMa....perhaps. But don't think for an instant that all those tourists in Moscow's State Tretyakov Gallery, for instance, are there for the art. I'd say that more than 95% of the non-Russians in that museum are simply there for the ride...part of a package tour. Perhaps that is part of the aversion felt here, at least within the museum context: imagine trying to enjoy oneself or 'connect' with a piece of art (for all that's worth) with the whole world and his wife there yawning at the paintings (if they can tear themselves away from their chatter long enough to bother looking) and checking their watch to see whether they can finally head back to the bus for some complimentary bad coffee. That is, at any rate, my latest impression of art within - and often even beyond - museums.

[Faust]

Essentially what I was saying about moma.

[viv1984viv]

ask pnod. he's an artist.

I have to say though, I think literature is really far from visual arts - personally, I would be very uncomfortable lumping them together.

I am not sure I get the first part - I suppose your friend says that if a work of art does not have a certain complexity and virtuosity, it's not a work of art? If so, this and his second point go against one of the central tenets of high modernist art, which is to be cerebral and difficult to understand, rather than emotional and readily discernible.

Theres actually a book I've heard about -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bartleby-Co-Enrique-Vila-Matas/dp/1843430525

thats mostly footnotes to an invisible text, also things like house of leaves ( less conceptual perhaps ) -but literature will always be a language but art is not always something to stare at.

Personally I feel that asking 'what is art' is almost as bad as asking 'if god exists', because what art is essentially boils down to what you believe art is, for me I have no problem believing that arts value is in its context, cultural significance as well as conceptual poignancy - but some people still want the essence of art to be making something beautiful.......

I do feel that too many people judge through secondary exposure, I dont read a secondary text about dostoevsky before spouting an opinion on it but so many people see an article about conceptual art and feel totally secure in dismissing it as art - despite the piece in question being reported as art and being made as art and being sold as art......

ironic in this thread, but there was a whole school of philosophers ( cyberpunkian, internet theory, bataille obsessed etc ) who thought that blogospherical modes of enquiry were where things happened, after a decade or so many of the biggest and most influential abandoned forums they instigated because they felt sure it was simply a format that encouraged like minded people to pool together and re-confirm existing beliefs rather than stretch the philosophies or test the arguments - many forums are homogenizing, thankfully SZ bucks the trend somewhat.....