3 ms·

Although "Art as communication" has some truth that some kind of communication must happen, it seems to miss something, as there's lots of communication that is

by platz 13y ago

Although "Art as communication" has some truth that some kind of communication must happen, it seems to miss something, as there's lots of communication that isn't art.

moron4hire 13y ago
Isn't it?
- platz 13y ago
  You would really refuse to even draw a line? Telephone directories, traffic control signals, TCP/IP packets? If truly everything is art, then at that point no one would care. Similar to how Leibniz and other pantheists said God was everywhere, but this meant God had a different denotation that what everyone else thought when they heard the word 'God'. Also, if I create a work that I immediately destroy and not tell anyone about, or give a private performance no one sees, did art not happen?
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    What purpose does drawing a line serve? "Over here, this is art, over there, not, so now you know and can't be confused by what is and isn't art." Your examples of a telephone book, a traffic signal, a TCP/IP packet, are interesting, because these are all things that, in their specific form are not made by a person, which fails on my first criteria. They're made by machines. However, the infrastructure in place to provide them was made by a person. And I would absolutely call the telephone system, the highway system, or the Internet a work of art. I don't think that's even controversial. I had a friend that literally this is what he wanted. He wanted to to be told what was and wasn't art, what was good and what was bad art, so he could know what he should be spending his time and money on. Emphasis on had a friend, he was a dolt in a lot of other ways, we don't hang out anymore. "Not everything can be art!" He would say. Why not? Really, who gives a shit? Why did he care that some things should not be art? Art is fundamentally in the personal reaction, just as much as it is in the delivery. The two are inextricable. A rainbow is not art if you don't believe in God, but it is if you do. I consider art appreciation to be an important step in becoming a well-adjusted, tolerant human being. You have to learn to know what you like, and why, and you have to learn that others won't agree with you. THAT'S why people refuse to define art, because they don't want others defining it for them and don't want to be found guilty of the same sin. Because it's in the personal reaction as much as the delivery. So by that measure, no you can't (and I don't mean shouldn't, I mean it is physically impossible) to call something you've kept to yourself "art". The word "art" is itself a communication of an idea. To call a painting you burn before you let anyone see it, a dance you do in the mirror, a song you sing in the shower, is to attach meaning to it, and meaning is for the purpose of communication. At that point, if you do communicate it, you've performed it in some form. Perhaps the art is your retelling of how skillfully you masterbate. Or perhaps the person you are communicating to through your journal is your future self--who is himself of a different, more experienced, though shared cultural background, as present day you. Its artness is made in the transmission of the idea, and immediately so.
    - platz 13y ago
      I can definitely appreciate this line of thought. You might be familiar with the Fluxus movement in art; if not, you might find some of their ideas interesting too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus

by platz 13y ago

Although "Art as communication" has some truth that some kind of communication must happen, it seems to miss something, as there's lots of communication that isn't art.

moron4hire 13y ago

Isn't it?

platz 13y ago
You would really refuse to even draw a line? Telephone directories, traffic control signals, TCP/IP packets? If truly everything is art, then at that point no one would care. Similar to how Leibniz and other pantheists said God was everywhere, but this meant God had a different denotation that what everyone else thought when they heard the word 'God'. Also, if I create a work that I immediately destroy and not tell anyone about, or give a private performance no one sees, did art not happen?
- moron4hire 13y ago
  What purpose does drawing a line serve? "Over here, this is art, over there, not, so now you know and can't be confused by what is and isn't art." Your examples of a telephone book, a traffic signal, a TCP/IP packet, are interesting, because these are all things that, in their specific form are not made by a person, which fails on my first criteria. They're made by machines. However, the infrastructure in place to provide them was made by a person. And I would absolutely call the telephone system, the highway system, or the Internet a work of art. I don't think that's even controversial. I had a friend that literally this is what he wanted. He wanted to to be told what was and wasn't art, what was good and what was bad art, so he could know what he should be spending his time and money on. Emphasis on had a friend, he was a dolt in a lot of other ways, we don't hang out anymore. "Not everything can be art!" He would say. Why not? Really, who gives a shit? Why did he care that some things should not be art? Art is fundamentally in the personal reaction, just as much as it is in the delivery. The two are inextricable. A rainbow is not art if you don't believe in God, but it is if you do. I consider art appreciation to be an important step in becoming a well-adjusted, tolerant human being. You have to learn to know what you like, and why, and you have to learn that others won't agree with you. THAT'S why people refuse to define art, because they don't want others defining it for them and don't want to be found guilty of the same sin. Because it's in the personal reaction as much as the delivery. So by that measure, no you can't (and I don't mean shouldn't, I mean it is physically impossible) to call something you've kept to yourself "art". The word "art" is itself a communication of an idea. To call a painting you burn before you let anyone see it, a dance you do in the mirror, a song you sing in the shower, is to attach meaning to it, and meaning is for the purpose of communication. At that point, if you do communicate it, you've performed it in some form. Perhaps the art is your retelling of how skillfully you masterbate. Or perhaps the person you are communicating to through your journal is your future self--who is himself of a different, more experienced, though shared cultural background, as present day you. Its artness is made in the transmission of the idea, and immediately so.
  - platz 13y ago
    I can definitely appreciate this line of thought. You might be familiar with the Fluxus movement in art; if not, you might find some of their ideas interesting too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus