This touches a nerve with me. Folks on this list get justifiably huffy when someone states opinion as fact, but, like the rest of the 'educated' world, we also seem to accept the subjective, non-defined perceptions of what "art" is as something amorphous, a work that somehow trancends description. I know I'm a rube, but I say "Phooey!" If I objectively want to know what art is, I go to the dictionary. The definition varies, depending on the age of the dictionary, but a couple of the definitions in Encarta are:
1. creation of beautiful things: the creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works, for example, in painting, music, or writing 2. beautiful objects: beautiful or thought-provoking works produced through creative activity
and here are a few more...
4. artistic skill: the skill and technique involved in producing visual representations 5. study of art: the study of a branch of the visual arts 6. creation by humans: creation by human endeavor rather than by nature 7. techniques or craft: the techniques used by somebody in a particular field, or the use of those techniques the art of the typographer 8. ability: the skill or ability to do something well
Now, I realize we've got art as a noun, and art as a verb, but I think that a great deal of what we currently call art is really expression of mental illness, and it is thought provoking only to others who are also mentally ill, or who don't want to shout out that the Emporer is naked. As an example, I'll really take the dark glasses off and say that Jackson Pollack was no artist. He was a distrubed human who hit the right idea at the right time, and successfully parried it into an avocation.. He was certainly no genius. Yes, you can fit his work into the above descriptions, but no more so than the work of eRichie, or BB, both of whom who have refined their craft to a much higher plane than Pollack ever did. Society reveres Pollack only because society reveres Pollack, and there are not enough obnoxious jerks like me out there to say "Phooey!"
BTW, I seem to recall that there is a bicycle at MOMA, but I can't remember what it is.
Steve Barner, who always cleans up his paint spatters when he's done, in Bolton, Vermont.
question Message-ID: <20030309194658.48511.qmail@web20506.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <12a.24e904b4.2b9ca7cc@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: list Message: 5
THIS IS THE WAY IT IS: ART is a thougth-provoking intellectual achievement, no matter what the medium. CRAFT is something you hang on your wall because it goes nicely with the kitchen counter top. Joe Starck, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin Wornoutguy@aol.com wrote:First: Who knows when Scheeren Weltmeister rims were on bikes and what hubs are appropriate? Those rims are sooo light are there any modern rims that light? Second: Who said bikes are a work of art - an ugly bike can be just as functional as a beautiful bike - bikes as far as I know don't hang in any art museums so if someone is building them to ride them then a few file marks don't amount to a hill of beans.
Hey frame builders do any of you do this for the recognition in the art community or do you do this to pay the bills?
Just my two cents
Sam DiBartolomeo
Riverside CA