|
|
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
BlackEye New user 9 Posts |
Simple question:
What is art? And why is magic an art? I'm looking forward to hearing interesting answers... |
|||||||||
BarryFernelius Inner circle Still learning, even though I've made 2537 Posts |
What is art?
Answer #1: "I don't know. And I'm not sure that I want to argue about it." -Barry Answer #2: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…” –Potter Stewart, Supreme Court Justice Substitute “art” for “hard-core pornography” and you have a nice ambiguous definition that might hold up in court. Answer #3: “We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth, at least the truth that is given to us to understand.” –Pablo Picasso, noted 20th century artist. (And not a bad definition in many ways.) Why is magic an art? Well, magic is not always art. (Some might say that the performance of magic is not very often an art.) But to the extent that we can use our lies to help people realize some larger truth, it certainly has the potential to be art. --- Blackeye, I don't like to carry on discussions with those who insist on being anonymous. I'd recommend that you let us know who you are. If you're not interested in doing so, I'm not sure that I have much of an interest in interacting with you. (Sorry about that.)
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."
-Leonard Bernstein |
|||||||||
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16543 Posts |
Well I think the best answer to this question in contained in "Our Magic" the book that is, which you can read here, sort of:
http://www.magiczilla.com/magic/lib/ourm......rets.php
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
HerbLarry Special user Poof! 731 Posts |
Quote:
I feel the same way about those that make hay about a guys name. Now about that Art guy... Art is that which makes one have an emotion. Yes a kiss is art. Magic can be artful or not.
You know why don't act naive.
|
|||||||||
HerbLarry Special user Poof! 731 Posts |
How to feel miserable as an Artist:
1. Constantly compare yourself to other Artists. 2. Talk to your family about what you do and expect them to cheer you on. 3. Base the success of your entire career on one project. 4. Stick with what you know. 5. Undervalue your expertise. 6. Let money dictate what you do. 7. Bow to societal pressures. 8. Only do work that your family will love. 9. Do whatever the client/customer/gallery owner/patron/investor asks. 10. Set unachievable overwhelming goals. To be accomplished by tomorrow.
You know why don't act naive.
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
That was good for a chuckle or two HerbL!
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-09 15:13, BlackEye wrote: Yeah right. Quote:
What is art? My two cents: If something (either a physical thing or an event that is witnessed) is created by somebody, and that somebody calls it art, then it's art. Doesn't mean it's any good, of course, but if something is intended to be seen as art, then it's art. Quote:
And why is magic an art? Well, we've got to beg the question here (I think I'm using the phrase correctly?), since your premise assumes that magic is an art.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
Michael Baker Eternal Order Near a river in the Midwest 11172 Posts |
~michael baker
The Magic Company |
|||||||||
Alan Wheeler Inner circle Posting since 2002 with 2038 Posts |
Tennessee Williams writes (in the opening lines of _The Glass Menagerie_) that the stage magician gives illusion in the guise of truth while a dramatic performer gives truth in the pleasant guise of illusion. I think Williams is making the assumption that the stage magician provides a lesser or lower art form than the dramatist.
The views and comments expressed on this post may be mere speculation and are not necessarily the opinions, values, or beliefs of Alan Wheeler.
A BLENDED PATH Christian Reflections on Tarot Word Crimes Technology and Faith........Bad Religion |
|||||||||
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
Logically if anything can be art, then nothing can be art. That's why I prefer the noun 'craft' and the adjective 'artistic'.
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
Steve_Mollett Inner circle Eh, so I've made 3006 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-09 15:13, BlackEye wrote: I give up--what's the answer?
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth. - Albert Camus |
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-14 21:34, Brad Burt wrote: Well put. |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-14 21:34, Brad Burt wrote: If you're playing semantic games, then a better way to put it would be "Logically, if anything can be art, then 'art' is meaningless." Otherwise, what you said is the equivalent of "If everything exists, then nothing exists." which is faux-profound nonsense. Quote:
That's why I prefer the noun 'craft' and the adjective 'artistic'. ...which means you've got to give a definition for the adjective instead of the noun. We're still no further along.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
stoneunhinged Inner circle 3067 Posts |
Andrew, the problem is that "art" has had a remarkably fluid definition over the last couple of centuries. I agreed with Brad about preferring the noun "craft", but perhaps you are right about the word "artistic" being problematic.
I got into this once before, and don't want to bore people by getting into it again, but the fluidity of the definition has to do with philosophy and culture rather than dictionaries. If we go back to the Greeks, the word for "art" was "techne", which is the same word which lies at the root of the word "technology". "Art" simply meant craft, and every craftsman applied his or her "techne" to make things. The Greeks distinguished between things that nature produced, and things "made" by human beings. A word closer to our modern understanding of the "artist" would be "poet." The word "poet" actually meant "maker". But someone like Homer was a a great craftsman who "made" something beautiful for human beings to appreciate. Eventually, with poets who created great tragedies to make them feel extreme fear and pity, this notion of "beautiful" just meant something like "aesthetically stirring". If you put all this together, you see that the roots of the understanding of an artist in western civilization goes something like: Craftsman > poet > artist > a maker of something beautiful > a maker of something aesthetically interesting for human beings And that's basically how things stood for a few thousand years. But the relative importance of the "artist" changed as modernity set in. In the old world, there really was no distinction made between the "artist" and the "craftsman". It all meant "craft", even if the art was in no way functional or useful. Even the greats like Da Vinci or Botticelli or Michaelangelo were master craftsmen, members of guilds with masters and apprentices and such. And of course they were working in the service of the rich and powerful, just like other craftsmen. This notion began to change primarily with Nietzsche, who in addition to being a philosopher was a composer as well, and who philosophized about as much about Wagner as he did about Hegel or Marx or whatever. And the change was something like this: in a world in which God is dead, and in which the Christian moral Weltanschauung was one of decadence and decay (and which refused to disappear in spite of God's death), the greatest ethical/moral stance is Will to Power. And Will to Power means something like, ACT! Make your own rules! Be a creative FORCE in whatever you do (but especially in ethics). The ARTIST becomes a new sort of ideal, because rather than simply crafting beautiful objects, the artist becomes a creator. In a world which is essentially meaningless, the most wonderful act is to create meaning. Who is set to do this better than the craftsman of aesthetic experiences? (Think of the video game maker, as an extreme example: he or she can create a completely strange reality with its own laws, rules, and moral codes.) I'm having difficulty here simplifying this, but perhaps discussion could bring a bit more clarity. Anyhow, onward: the ARTIST then becomes a sort of metaphor for the metaphysical act of infusing meaning into the essentially meaningless. Thus any of us could be artists in a sense. But obviously those who create aesthetic experiences have the most opportunity to create new forms of experience. Thus in the visual arts there was a move away from realism toward impressionism and cubism and Jackson Pollockism, and in music we got Schoenberg and free jazz and whatnot. In literature we got James Joyce (and it is not insignificant that he wrote "Portrait of the Artist" rather than "Portrait of the Writer") and Faulkner and T.S. Eliot. I don't need to go on, do I? The "higher" arts became infected with the goal of escaping any traditional modes, norms, or ideals. Artists became "creators" rather than master craftsmen. We might call all of this the "elevation of the artist". Of course, with this elevation there is a sort of built-in absurdity as well, since if the ARTIST is a creator, than anything original can be called ART. All standards are dropped. "Art" is whatever the artist chooses it to be. In fact, if someone is particularly creative in re-defining what art is, then we ought to celebrate them as a particularly good artist. What is shocking becomes a sophisticated statement, even if it is entirely devoid of any technical mastery we might call "craft". The message becomes the medium, even if there is no message whatsoever. Art for art's sake becomes little more than the self-pleasuring of the self-proclaimed "artist". So the "elevation" of art is accompanied by a lowering of art. Who can steer through such murky waters? Only other artists. Now, for magic--a very ancient and traditional craft--to be called an "art" in this newer sense is quite problematic. What is new about deception as entertainment? Where are the Jackson Pollocks of magic? And should there even be Jackson Pollacks in magic? I personally do not think so, and I also think it is a mistake to elevate the artist in the way that our modern culture has done. Don't get me wrong: I have spent literally dozens of hours gazing at a couple of Pollock's paintings, and I have read T.S. Eliot with great delight, and I thoroughly enjoy experimental approaches to everything aesthetic from food to clothes to architecture to interior decorating. But our great mistake is to think that these "artists" are creating meaning rather than aesthetic experiences. They are not. To whatever extent an artist attempts to philosophize, it is usually a great failure. It creates absurd pieces of drivel that are paraded before Congress whenever there is a debate about funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I just wrote this morning that I don't think I will ever become a performing magician. And this saddens me, but not because I will fail to have succeeded in "art", but because I have failed to live up to the very high standards of an ancient and interesting craft which can be--at it's very best--astonishingly entertaining. So my short answer to the original question is this: 1. Art is, traditionally, a craft which produces aesthetic experiences for human beings. 2. Art was, sometime in the 19th century, elevated in status to mean a craft which creates meaning in a nihilistic world. 3. Magic belongs to #1, and not to #2. Now that I've bored 99% of you, I'll go away to fetch another cup of coffee. Posted: May 22, 2011 7:55am ------------------------------------- It occurs to me that one of the things I left out is how the "poet" (maker) differs from the modern artist (creator). The difference lies primarily in that the poet was guided by his or her perception of reality. What the poet "makes" is stories of the gods and of human beings--stories which move human beings to wonderment. What moves us are the stories of how the gods and human beings endure great hardships, or exhibit courage, or love deeply, and so on. But the gods and human beings are known to exist, or the wonderment wouldn't work. The standard for those stories is the real-life trials, dangers, hopes, fears, ambitions, and desires of real human beings. It was precisely this that led to philosophers noticing that the gods were simply anthropomorphic. Why, those gods are just like us! (Or how we would like to be.) All great art reflects some kind of real and permanent humanness. For us to feel fear and pity watching a play, what happens on stage must somehow affect us as human beings. Even fantasy art has this element in it: what are hobbits other than beings whom human beings as human beings have great sympathy for? We do not leave our humanness behind in being fascinated by hobbits. But with the elevation of the artist, this grounding in real human experience is discarded by the artist. Either the art becomes so abstract that it is essentially void of any inherent meaning, or it becomes ideological or propaganda-like. For magic, this attention to the real is absolutely necessary if one wants to perform acts of astonishment. Which is basically what Whit has been saying with his dilemma. But again, modern art is based on the rejection of the notion of anything like a real and permanent human condition. Whatever human beings might be, they are confined to their culture and society and historical era. Art becomes elevated because it leaves the constraints which bound it previously. Art becomes limitless and godlike. The artist becomes...well...remember that Madonna calls herself an artist.... Where is the art in what she does? Now y'all know why I occasionally gag when I hear someone call themselves an artist. |
|||||||||
Michael Kamen Inner circle Oakland, CA 1315 Posts |
Thank you Stony. Fascinating perspective and much appreciated.
Michael Kamen
|
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Stoneunhinged-
I guess there are some basic fundamental differences of opinion that I've got with the way discussions like these tend to go, starting with the implied idea that a work of craft must meet some level of quality before being considered art -- it seems inherent to the thought process when people are using words like "elevated" and "status". This is a line of thinking that I feel is fruitless for several reasons. I think we can take it as a given that not all works of art are of the same quality. If quality is to be a determiner as to something's art-ness, then what we're suggesting is almost like a hierarchy of works, with everything above an arbitrary line being considered art, and everything below it being considered not art. The problem with this is, who gets to draw that line? Do we vote? What if we don't agree upon the qualifications of the person chosen? What if we have a body of people who get to draw that line, but there's no unanimity? Which leads us to the problem of the nature of the thing itself being open to interpretation. A given work may be "art" in the eyes of one person who judges it one way, and "not art" in the eyes of another person who judges it another way. How can a thing be both X and not X? If this is allowable, then at this point the designation X truly does become meaningless, and there's no sense in pursuing X as a way of evaluating a thing. This again means that an arbiter of some kind is required, which invokes the earlier problems, as well as a couple of new ones. First, let's say we take an accepted work of art -- for argument's sake, let's designate Van Gogh's Starry Night (if you disagree on this one, I'll concede and we can use whatever traditional example you wish, it's no matter). Let's say that the moment Van Gogh paints his Starry Night it's shown to somebody who kind of likes painting but isn't an expert on art or anything like that. What is the painting at that point? Is it art, or just paint on a canvas? Let's say that later on an accepted arbiter shows up, applauds and then pins the ribbon of "Art!" on it. What is it now that it wasn't before? Was it not yet art, and now it is art? Nothing changed about the work itself, which means that either (a) whether or not something is or isn't art can't rely upon the audience, or (b) something can be "not art" at one point, and then "art" at another point, even though nothing about it changed, which makes no sense. Second, let's assume that there are two people, one of whom writes songs, and the other of whom listens to them. Song-writer comes up with a song, which he plays for the listener, and the listener is moved either emotionally or intellectually by the content and its style. Unfortunately, there's no arbiter nearby to pin the "Art!" ribbon upon it. What word do we have for that song at that point in time, if not art? If the arbiter never gets around to listening to the song to give it his blessing, what other thing do we call it while it's sitting there waiting in its definitional purgatory? If we're looking for a definition, or some means of designating a creation as "art" or "not art", we need to realize that the only constant here really is the intent of the creator for a given piece. That's honestly all we've got. If the creator wants it to be viewed as art, what choice do we have but to do that? And, the moment we do that, doesn't it now become included? Thankfully, part of the previous altruism (I'd argue that it's altruistic, anyway) that not all works of art are of equal quality is the right of the viewer to tell the artist whether or not they think it's any good. "In fact, if someone is particularly creative in re-defining what art is, then we ought to celebrate them as a particularly good artist." This is another point upon which I differ. We don't need to celebrate a thing if we don't want to. Duchamp gets to plant a toilet in the middle of a room and call it Fountain and challenge us to rethink our conception of form, found items, reframing what we look at, aesthetics, whatever. We are allowed to turn around and tell him to shove it. "But our great mistake is to think that these "artists" are creating meaning rather than aesthetic experiences. They are not." So? Is it not possible for the aesthetic experience itself to be the meaning? Is that not noble enough as a goal? Part of the problem I'd say with modern attempts at teaching art is that works are presented as puzzles to be solved. "Now y'all know why I occasionally gag when I hear someone call themselves an artist." I know what you mean. By my personal definition, anyways, anybody can be an artist, since you become one the moment you create something and say "I want you to look at this as art." In other words, the barrier of entry is ridiculously low. When people start calling somebody an artist simply because several of his works have been lauded as being great works of art, it creates problems, not the least of which is the idea that he could at this point pump out a stinker and people would still be inclined to elevate it in their minds because of some irrelevant association with other works of higher quality. It's the art that comes first, and only then the artist. To look at it any other way leads us to embrace junk, or dismiss beauty. So yeah, not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing, but whatever. Best I could do with this hangover.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
My quick definitions, YMMV
Craft: technical mastery. Art: a communication about the world/human experience that can only be communicated through that form. Artist: someone who consistently produces art. Art can sometimes be produced without craft. However, only very rarely can someone be an artist without craft.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Brad Burt Inner circle 2675 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-22 05:12, Andrew Musgrave wrote: I disagree. Let's say that person or persons define 'art' in the widest possible manner. Cross in Jar of Urine is 'art'. Who died and made them king? They say it is and I say it's not. Maybe I could have stated it better, but I am not sure of that. If the definition of what is or is not 'art' is purely subjective and person relative then it comes down to competing world views negating each other. Which is fine as long as it's understood that one persons freedom to declare "X" as art is just as valid as another persons freedom to declare that it's not. If there is no absolute standard by which to judge then it's just whatever floats your particular boat. And, the obverse stands against it...whatever it is. My point of phrasing my post the way I did was to show that here as elsewhere World Views are in collision. IF...everything....can be art...(as declared by person or persons 'x') then.....nothing can be art if so declared by others. My other point was that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If reality is simply person relative and by personal fiat, then anything is true. That's why I tend away from the modern definition of 'artist' as 'religious gnostic' and cleave more to the idea that 'producers' are craftsfolk of one kind or another and that there are bad, good, great, really, really great crafts persons and that it's pretty easy to tell the difference between an excellently executed basket and a so-so one. That it's not that hard to say that 'THAT' magical presentation was in fact MUCH greater than that one over there. Saying that something is 'art' tells us nothing. By that definition the murder of 7-15 million of my ancestors in the Ukraine by Stalin could be declared 'art'. If anything can be declared 'art' then that is exactly what you are left with. Best,
Brad Burt
|
|||||||||
Alan Wheeler Inner circle Posting since 2002 with 2038 Posts |
High art: classical genres (such as painting) by recognized artists (such as Rembrandt) as experienced by cultured audiences who have the knowledge or training to appreciate them.
Popular art: all kinds and even mixed genres, often distributed by mass media (such as commercial films), by skilled craftspeople (such as George Lucas) as experienced by mass audiences. Folk art: traditional genres (such as quilting or storytelling) usually by common people (sometimes among a regional or ethnic group) as experienced live or as a primary source rather than through mass duplication. There are some overlaps among these categories, for example, the folk-style song (folk art) adapted from the poem "Richard Cory" (high art) and recorded by Paul Simon on a record album in 1967(pop art). You may notice, however, that the definitions that I provide above do NOT speak to the quality or value of any category, genre, or particular piece. Magic is often categorized as a minor art, popular art, or folk art--not because of its quality, necessarily, but because of its standing as a type and its recognized position in the culture.
The views and comments expressed on this post may be mere speculation and are not necessarily the opinions, values, or beliefs of Alan Wheeler.
A BLENDED PATH Christian Reflections on Tarot Word Crimes Technology and Faith........Bad Religion |
|||||||||
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3158 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-05-22 18:56, Brad Burt wrote: The idea is to create a basic distinction between the way things are appreciated. It's not so much as to open a door to things like mass murder, but to make sure the door isn't closed to things like video games, which are a new form that brings with it factors that weren't relevant or in existence back when philosophy started tackling art. If you want it to be appreciated as art, then alright, I'll look at it and analyze it as I would any piece of art -- drawing comparison to other works of the form, looking for creativity and honesty in terms of style and content, try to interpret it and seek metaphorical truths, trying to figure out what can be learned from the creator, whatever. Either we have something that's too permissive or else we end up with something that's ultimately unanswerable. I prefer permissive, since it allows us to get to the more interesting discussion anyway, which is whether or not the work in question is any good.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Food for thought » » Art? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |