|
techne -> RE: the calling of an artist... (3/24/2008 5:35:55 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
quote:
ORIGINAL: techne
hah! then again, in my experience, a lot of artists in general (regardless of whether they're christians or not) don't "do it very well". it seems that many artists hide behind 2 ideas to avoid maturing as an artist or receiving criticism: 1. it's simply "my expression", or 2. "this is the [insert art form here] the LORD/ G-d/ holy spirit gave me". either way it's impossible to move beyond that because then it's either intensely personal or G-d breathed [;)]. either way, the work is untouchable and sacrosanct. which i think is often rooted in fear (of rejection, probably).
there's a commitee that decides what is "good" art or not? there are biblical guidelines for what "good" art is?
yes -- didn't you get invited to be the arbiter of taste?[;)] the fact is that there are standards for what defines 'good' or 'bad' art. those standards may not be quantifiable (if it does x, it's good, if it doesn't it's bad), but they are discernible. be honest -- are you not able to recognize or determine on some level what is good art or bad art? come on now. and i'm not talking about personal taste - i'm talking about art that marries materials, subject matter and execution to maximum effect i.e. communicating something. and i'm not talking about making excuses for work because someone's heart was in the right place.
we can look at the elements of art (colour, composition, balance, style, material/ media, etc) and determine how well those things are functioning. we can look at the subject matter (whether we agree with it or not) and then see if the art elements are conveying that subject appropriately. this is why i think that the more art you look at and the more you think about art, the more you will be able to make those judgements. in fact, isn't that what we do in any field?
as for biblical guidelines - philippians 4.8 is often bandied about: finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things. those are some pretty good guidelines for content and execution.
however, those biblical guidelines do not cover the technical/ mechanical/ material aspects. looking at those aspects involves thought, analysis and consideration. again, if we look at those passages you don't think apply, they address aspects of the artistic process - knowing techniques and materials and how to best use them to accomplish one's purpose for the work at hand. making art is a holistic activity, involving emotions and intelligence. we need to exercise those aspects when making art and when engaging with it.
anyway, like anything else, in order to protect both maker and audience, i think that more mature artists should mentor younger artists so that they don't put their work "out there" in public until they and the work are ready. until quite recently (the last 200 years or so) that was the case. one apprenticed, practised, copied, assisted before one was released to do their own thing. being an artist was a trade like any other. and really, still is. my point was that artists in all kinds of mediums put their work out before they and the work are "ready", and then, when they can't handle the responses they get, they hide behind the above. so it probably isn't "good" art because it isn't mature or well-realized art.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
i have opinions about art too. but what makes my opinion the right one? when do i get to say, you shouldn't create that it's ugly or substandard or.....? really do we need to police art?
you are welcome to have opinions. and you are welcome to share them. but aren't some opinions more considered (i won't say valid) than others? let's say we're looking at the same painting. we both will have our opinions, but (i hope) we would discuss those opinions. if someone just says "i like it" and, when questioned about why simply says, "because i do" - what use is that? it doesn't reflect any real engagement on the part of the viewer, and i think it dishonours the artist by not engaging with the work. then again, i would hope that the artist also gave the creation and process a lot of thought and investment becasue that honours the viewer. and G-d.
but if someone is able to articulate their response by looking at the work, and discussing what aspects affect them and how, what it makes them think of and why, and what historical ideas and artistic vocabularies it engages - wouldn't that be a more considered (and richer) opinion? would that be an opinion you would pay attention to and that you might want to consider? you're welcome to your own opinion. but if it's not well-considered, why should i give it much credence? and why do we let people get away with this when it comes to the arts, but not medicine or law enforcement?
people (and artists) are free to make any kind of art they want. if they want to make ugly or sub-standard art (and those are not the same thing, btw), they are free to do so. but if they consider themselves artists, they have a responsibility to grow as artists in their skills, the complexity and depth of their subject matter and, most importantly, how they put those aspects together to communicate something to their audience. it's as much about "policing" art as it is about "policing" anything else. i can appreciate a straightforward 'simple' work, but i prefer [conceptual] complexity. there is a beauty in simplicity - it can be quite elegant - but that is not the same as the inability to execute an idea.
anyway, thanks for engaging...
|
|
|
|