April 19th, 2006


Previous Entry Next Entry
12:48 am - on the arts, time and world civilization...

(22 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on the arts, time and world civilization... - graffiti.maverick

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 20th, 2006 - 02:10 am (Link)
so is the transformation strictly necessary? Dadaism frequently featured found art. Does that not count? What about performace pieces and plays? There is nothing tangible to be transformed, or would you argue that the portrayal of the actor as a character is a transformation in a sense?
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: April 20th, 2006 - 02:42 am (Link)
Well, someone has to DO something. So the Dadaist has to at least pick up the found object and move it somewhere. At which point he's transformed the context. If he does so for reasons that aren't strictly functional, then it's art, by my definition. Probably crap as well (see "insult to artists"), if all he's done is picked it up and moved it, though I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a transformed context so clever as to be worthwhile.

Performance pieces and plays are all transformations, of ideas if not of material.

[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 20th, 2006 - 10:48 am (Link)
Ok, to complicate things then... is there accidental art? Below, bryguypgh states that there isn't. But if we follow your reasoning, wouldn't it be arguable that an aesthetic worthwhile transformation occurs through happenstance? And as such, art could occur randomly and spontaeneously?

Of course if that is the case, then couldn't anything be art? And if anything is art, then everything is, and suddenly nothing is.
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: April 20th, 2006 - 05:33 pm (Link)
You're dragging me dangerously close to a precipice beyond which lies massive metaphysical meandering. Trying to stay simple though, art requires an artist and a viewer, and those can be the same person, and if you look at an accident and create an idea of it as "art" in your head, then maybe it is art.

Of course if that is the case, then couldn't anything be art? And if anything is art, then everything is, and suddenly nothing is.

Pretty much. Words are meaningless when you look at 'em too closely.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 20th, 2006 - 08:54 pm (Link)
Mu
[User Picture]From: max1975 Date: April 20th, 2006 - 10:36 pm (Link)
Exactly.
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com