Art: what the bugger is it?

["Alice Evans" <apyyae@nottingham.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


** For Your Eyes Only **

is art not 

1) an arrangement/ composition of features of the natural world that would not exist if it were not for the intentions of the orchestrator?

ok, but then that includes clothes.

so what about if we add in, (2)"for the purpose of provoking thought and reflection"

or (2b) to present a message, of some kind, perhaps the more an arrangement tries to present a message the more it qualifies? 

but then, according to this criterion "mein kampf" is a form of high art.

hmm... how do u exclude books? i dont think books are art.

ok, quite simply add (3) a visual piece, but then that kind of excludes music.

hmmm...

and furthermore, some paintings, going along the traditional lines of art here, aren't really about sending a message, i think sometimes they are just beautiful pieces, with no instrumental value about making us think about the human form etc. take degas stuff on the ballerinas, maybe u could argue that it shows us what these women get up to etc. and his style reflects the message he attempts to convey i suppose. but does something become a higher art because of aesthetic quality? (if so is it in terms of accuracy? in terms of way the medium aids the message, eg. with the impressionist stuff or german expressionism) or is it because of its ability to provoke, in the case of one Turner prize nominee, Simon Starling, whose stuff isnt aesethetically pleasing (nor is it unpleasant thats just not the main focus) but it does make one think etc etc. "Simon Starling transforms and reframes existing objects through a rigorous process of research. In his complex sculptural installations he creates poetic narratives by drawing together disparate cultural and historical references." (taken from the tate website)

and david, less of the "human voice" stuff, eh? very speciest.... (jokes) i know its just a natural thing to say, but id argue for using the features of humans that we pride, rather than the species itself. (dont deprive ET the right to give Vermeer a run for his money...)

alice

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm