Re: mass culture and art

[nd603@soton.ac.uk]

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


ok firstly a matter of definition, which i hope you'll all agree with.as is
the standard for aesthetics, when we refer to 'art', we are referring to
the arts in general, that is music, literature, poetry, painting, film etc
etc unless we specifically mention otherwise.if we stick to this it'll make
things a bit clearer.

so going on from that: in my view it is important to understand the
intentions of an artist in most cases, but not in all, and it is not the
defining feature of art.if, as alice suggested, we define art as 'an
arrangement of natural features which would not be that way without the
intentions of the artist, who is trying to provoke thought or convey a
message' (hope that paraphrasing does justice!) then this definition would
include anything written at all(including this email), me stirring up some
sand on the beach into
a shape, trees being felled, and loads of others.its too broad
essentially.although i am curious as to why you don't think books count as
art, but you think paintings and music do.i always assumed literature was.

not to say that that i agree with david (mitchell)'s strict dichotomy
either.this view strikes me as being horribly elitist, not to mention
impractical.it makes no mention whatsoever of the actual quality of the
work (surely an important consideration)and instead stakes everthing on the
ability of the artwork to challenge our beliefs, and be unique.to add to
alice's very valid criticism about some things being beautiful for beautys
own sake (which i think was actually the aim of many a school of painting)
i question the extent to which it can change your perception on
anything.i'm not saying that art cannot change your perceptions here, i
just don't think it is a valid way to judge something.surely it depends on
your perspective in the first place? to use a current example, lets take
poverty
in africa. say that i was already aware of the issue, concerned and trying
to help, and a friend of mine wasn't at all.we both see an incredible piece
of visual art, a photo or painting or something that brilliantly conveys the
suffering there, and the emergency of the situation. this is no news to me,
it simply explains beautifully what i already knew, but my friend is
shocked into a complete reversal of opinion, exactly as david described the
kind of reaction we should get to art.so my friend would see it as art, and
i presumably wouldn't.

as for art not being able to come out of randomness - why not?beauty
certainly can, if you accept anything natural to be beautiful, especially
things like a waterfall.and what about photographic art? this usually
captures a moment, and although the way the scene is set by the
photographer's position etc there will probably be a large amount of
randomness in what actually gets shot (except where they are photographing
static landscapes obviously) but anything involving water.....

i'm not sure the analogy with morality really works either.it seems to rest
on the fact that both have areas that appear black and white, and a vast
swathe of grey in the middle.but i don't really agree with that, especially
with art.morality is founded on universal principles, the idea that some
things are always wrong (like child molestation) and others inherenty good,
but art is based on far more contingent values of taste and opinion, and
although we seem to expect our opinions to hold a universal value
(necessary if i ever expect anyone to agree with me that something is a
good song etc) we are far more ready to relinquish ground and accept
someone else's opinion than in moral issues.art is a matter of personal
expression and interpretation - a painting may mean something entirely
different to me than you, and both of us could be seeing it differently to
the artist.but we all appreciate it equally.i spose you could draw a
parrallel with a condemned man and the feelings of his family, the state,
and the families of his victim (i'm assuming he's deserving of this, not
that we should get onto debating the death penalty, which, incidentally, i
don't agree with)but this assumes there to be standard of right and wrong to
adhere to, similar only to a convention that an artist should work within(if
we want art to challenge, this clearly wouldn't work) and our opinions
should not be biased in the way the families would be.

oh and david, not everything that has mass appeal is bad. take 'good
vibrations' by the beach boys - a massive pop hit, yet musically brilliant,
and i actually challenge anybody to not like it.nobody i have ever met can
withstand the allure of that song.

other david - interesting stuff.i think that actually very little changed in
your friend's perception of rothko - at first he saw it as pretty lines and
shapes, but not what fitted the paradigm of art that he had in mind.he
didn't understand it, and was outraged (as people often are when they can't
seem to grasp something), possibly also at what he saw as an abuse of the
notion of art as he understood it.when he next saw them, it was just as
something to hang on the wall.without thinking about whether they art or
not, he simply appreciated the beauty of them, in a kind of direct an
unintellectual (is that a word?) manner.in failing to look at them in a way
which considered their worth as art, he actually appreciated them
objectively, and became aware of their beauty and worth.which is how rothko
intended them to be viewed,outside of intellectual conventions(i think.
correct me if
thats wrong)i'm aware that i am ascribing a lot of thoughts and feelings to
your friend here, which could be entirely wrong, but this seemed to kind of
explain the change in perceptions to me.if thats entirely wrong though, i'd
be very interested to know what the actual explanation is.

i do think this kind of art can appeal to different people though, cos i
found the rothko pictures dull, repetitive and uninteresting, yet i really
like the rusty peters stuff, which stylistically is very similar.a curious
reaction that i can't really explain.


oh and if there is one book you should all read its 'straw dogs' by john
gray. a work of contemporary philosophy that is extremely easy to read, and
very thought provoking.i found myself in turns entranced and enraged.i
disagree with most everything he said, but how much philosophy do we ever
read and agree with?classic stuff


on the vegetarianism note, i was actually going to ask you veggies what your
opinion on animal testing is, given the emotions it usually provokes.as a
pretty carnivorous meat eater, even i'm not sure what i make of it!which is
probably a contradictory position, but there you go.


as usual i appear to have gone on forever. oh well. apologies.

nick





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