|
Post by Supertramp78 on Sept 30, 2014 22:42:41 GMT -5
Cameron quote from this weekend....
"Sometimes I feel like artists are really bad comedians. They show their stuff and then have to ask, "Do you get it?" And then the audience is compelled to say "yes" because they want to feel smart and feel included in the joke that is art."
|
|
|
Art
Sept 30, 2014 22:48:13 GMT -5
Post by Cornflake on Sept 30, 2014 22:48:13 GMT -5
Hmm. Reminds me of why I avoid using the word a--.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Art
Sept 30, 2014 22:54:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 22:54:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by frazer on Sept 30, 2014 23:34:45 GMT -5
I don't really see the point, and apologies if I've missed the point altogether.
If people claim they understand something when in fact they don't, it's their problem, not the artist's, regardless of the standard of the art.
This notion persists that artists are hoaxers, but my experience after knowing and working with a great many of them is that they really are not. I don't know of any who ask the audience if they 'get it' either. What they make is art to them. The audience's opinion - which is entirely valid - is another matter entirely.
BTW, James - KV sounded like a nice guy.
|
|
|
Art
Oct 1, 2014 5:33:52 GMT -5
Post by jdd2 on Oct 1, 2014 5:33:52 GMT -5
<deleted due to unintelligent content>
|
|
|
Art
Oct 1, 2014 5:43:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by coachdoc on Oct 1, 2014 5:43:35 GMT -5
I always knew I liked Vonnegut.
|
|
|
Art
Oct 1, 2014 7:54:39 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Oct 1, 2014 7:54:39 GMT -5
Some artists are good comedians.
|
|
|
Art
Oct 1, 2014 8:32:37 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Oct 1, 2014 8:32:37 GMT -5
Sitting Ducks.
|
|
|
Art
Oct 2, 2014 8:39:28 GMT -5
Post by RickW on Oct 2, 2014 8:39:28 GMT -5
Always loved that last one, Marshall.
I don't think it's a comment about artists, so much as people in general. Unless an artist hangs an explanation on a work, who knows what it means to them? You look at an old painting of an old woman. For all anyone knows, it's the artist's mother. Or maybe it was just a great detail painting of an old woman. Most modern songs are about something, perhaps it was just the artist string words together, or perhaps it's Joni Mitchell's Blue album, about her breakup with Graham Nash.
And once the artist has tossed their work into the world, it's pretty much up to everyone else to get what they want out of it. It's not really the artist's thing anymore. And if the artist really want to make a statement that everyone understands, they pretty much have to paint Guernica, which is pretty damned clear.
|
|
|
Art
Oct 2, 2014 9:21:09 GMT -5
Post by Cornflake on Oct 2, 2014 9:21:09 GMT -5
Rick, you reminded me of a comment by my creative writing professor in college. He was disdaining the idea that literature should have a message. "Messages are for Western Union," he said. The reference shows how long ago I was in college.
|
|
|
Art
Oct 2, 2014 12:25:16 GMT -5
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 2, 2014 12:25:16 GMT -5
Ah, but literature is made of words, and words are all about meaning, and meaning is what you put into messages. Now, a message doesn't have to be simple or unambiguous, which is what I take to be the point of the Western Union line (which is generally credited to Louis B. Mayer). One of my touchstone comments is from Damon Knight, who said that the answer to "what's this story about?" is "life's like that," with "that" indicating the entire text, not some reduction of it to a one-liner.
If you want art without lexical content, try instrumental music or pictures. (But then, representative pictures start as, well, representations, which implies a kind of "meaning," or at least a relationship between two things seen.) The closest-to-the-bare-metal explanation of art I can come up with is that it starts with the rearrangement of the materials of sensory perception. After that, it's up for grabs.
|
|