This next one’s for you!
January 28th, 2010 by greg
Alright – what should I blog about next? I’m taking suggestions now.
Posted in Uncategorized
22 Responses
Leave a Comment
Archives
- May 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
January 29th, 2010 at 12:08 am
Dear Mr. G
I am going to be an asshole.
…
…
…
…
…
..ok. at your own suspense.
Dear Mr. G
You await responses for your blog and requests for a subject to write about. You have presented this entry on the grounds 1)you just dont know what to write or blog (pictures, videos, etc etc.)about 2) you feel it is a duty to maintain a blog 3) you aren’t getting any responses so you don’t think it is necessary to give attention to the blog. In this regard, the quality of this blog hinges upon the responses you receive from others who view this blog to verify that you do indeed have an audience. In turn, you would blog more. Sir, you have sacrificed your creative expression in cyber format for the validation from others.
If you do not have an audience, your art in cyber space is useless and there is no creative measure placed into the internet. If this was translated into the art that you create out of material, then your paintings would suffer qualitatively if they did not have an audience. What do you think about this?
Is the audience necessary for the quality of art to manifest themselves? Not the enhancement of quality but the qualitative substance of art in and of itself. To put it in comparative terms: what is the difference between the quality of art Van Gough as an unknown until after his death and Gaugain who was known to the art community during his time (i think, if he wasn’t then put an artist who was known at the time of his existence).
And is an audience even relevant for creation?
January 29th, 2010 at 12:14 am
how important is the attitude you put into a creative activity?
January 29th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
JOE,
Usually, for me, it is very important. Would you care to elaborate?
January 29th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
PHILOS-B LOGOS,
In “The Creative Act,” Marcel Duchamp talks about the necessity of an audience for art to exist. Without an audience, there is no art. Who that audience is, I think, varies, depending on the function of that specific artwork and its context. “How good or how bad” will be judged subjectively by this audience, and hopefully the artwork will suggest the criterion it should be judged by, for itself. Value is in the eye of the beholder.
In an absolute black and white perspective, how is there a sacrifice of creative expression for a validation of others? As a blog, the audience is inherently public. When writing a blog post one is aware of this. I think, sir, that utilizing the forum potential that is a part of the function of a blog format and consciously addressing the audience; admitting to this “art form,” is actually pretty opposite from being useless.
And I would not consider this blog to be “in and of itself.”
January 29th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
theres an ancient pondering, more baffling than chickens with eggs in them with chickens inside of them that only lay and hatch simultaneously when they hear the silence of a tree falling alone in the woods: if you dont fuck yourself, how can you love yourself?
January 29th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Gerry,
perhaps the answer lies somewhere here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan
January 31st, 2010 at 4:16 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon
January 31st, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Alison,
…state of mind.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Perhaps a better question is, would artistic quality suffer if there was no audience?
Hypothetically speaking, can we say that Van Gough’s work would have been “better” if there was an immediate audience during his period of work?
And would Picasso’s work not be Picasso if he did not have his audience?
With respect to the blog, if there is no audience then is there no point in writing, or “blogging,” qualitatively in the sense of putting one’s expression into cyber format on the basis that there is no audience? Or does the audience even matter with regard to creative expression?
February 1st, 2010 at 11:13 pm
By attitude, I mean the absorption of self into a piece of art – regardless of any sort of conscientiousness of appealing to an audience (to supplement philos b’s question)?
February 1st, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Would Van Gough’s art be “better” if he had an audience during his time?
Would Picasso not be “Picasso” if he did not have an audience?
It is in this sense that I am referring to the relationship between quality and audience.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Is an audience truly necessary for art?
February 1st, 2010 at 11:19 pm
does an audience make the work of art, “real”? does the audience validate its existence?
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
Philos B,
I interpreted Duchamp’s essay to mean that until somebody experiences the art, the act of creation is incomplete. An audience can range from solely the creator, to the public, to someone in the distant future.
Gerry O’Gabe hit upon something in an earlier comment that may be relevant to this conversation: if a tree falls in the middle of the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise?
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Philos B,
One uproarious thing that Marcel Duchamp did was utilize the ready-made object. His most famous example, I think, is called “fountain,” a toilet turned upside-down, in a gallery context. The ready-made object was used to emphasize the audience’s role in experiencing art. What is art? Do you think that this toilet elevated from the status of common every day object to the status of art?
… would you say that when someone makes something with an expressive intent, the person who is making it becomes the first (and in certain cases, final) audience?
Considering the vast range and variety of who an audience can comprise of – and what an audience even is – an audience is necessary for art… for art to be acknowledged, for art to be beautiful/ugly, for art to be good/bad, all of these questions hinge upon the audience. Vice versa, there would probably be no audience without art. How separate would you consider these two entities: art and audience? Does one encompass the other? Are there works of art where the audience is the art or the art is the audience?
February 3rd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Philos B,
Van Gogh suffered. He manically created all that we know of his artistic career in the short span of 10 years, ending with what is widely accepted as a suicide. Though he was a well-informed painter, I believe that at a certain point in his artistic development he painted largely for the beneficial therapy and comfort and desperation. Maybe his greatest audience was himself, or God, considering his religious views. Though only truly appreciated post humously, he also perhaps reached a timeless audience, in terms of humanistic poetic value, with his work and his romantic legend.
Picasso, on the other hand, had a massive public audience while he was alive. He was also a public figure and a great self-promoter. Picasso probably would not be “Picasso” if he did not have such exposure and involvement in the game. I certainly don’t know if he would have gained post-humous fame and recognition to the degree that his name is associated with as we know it, if he was as rejected as Van Gogh was during his lifetime. Or if he had a more similar personality to Van Gogh. Unlike Van Gogh, Picasso was a prodigy, and developed into a legend before his death. Ironically, Van Gogh was considered too ugly to sell during his lifetime, and Picasso purposefully dealt with notions of beauty and its effectiveness in his work, and made a fortune in his lifetime. What about when Picasso saw some of Van Gogh’s art?
If the audience does not suggest the poetic, commercial, and/or historical quality – i’ll say value instead – of a work of art, where does value lie? How else could one determine the significance of art? If there’s no audience whatsoever, no memory or traceable record of a work of art existing, how can its value or influence be imagined?
If the value of art is indeed related to an audience, and the audience stretches beyond the artist, there is a lot of room for subjectivity. Good to who? Better than what, from which lens? What kind of mood is the viewer in? What is interesting? What about comparisons? Does the Starry Night beat Les Desmoiselles d Avignon in double overtime or does a cubist still-life life kick some sunflower ass?
I would also like to mention the influence of patrons of the arts in determining the course of art history and what is generally deemed as important, great, and valuable.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
JOE,
I like it when the absorption of self is very deep into a piece of art while making it.
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Philos-B,
I apologize if I sound like a broken record: it seems there is always an audience, if it is to be art. Whether or not something is “better” or “worse” depends on which audience is experiencing that art piece. Van Gogh did have an immediate audience. Socially he was very difficult and had problems of his own, but he went to Paris. Gaugin moved in with him. He was eager to share his work, particularly with other artists. He searched for a critical dialogue with his colleagues. He wanted people to see his work, and some did, but overlooked his work. He was supported by his brother Theo, and Theo was an art dealer. He wasn’t a total outsider. Nobody wanted his work. He was considered bad at the time. But attitudes changed after he died, and maybe in another time he would have been riding around in a stretched out hummer drinking champagne with diamonds in the glass. In light of this Van Gogh example, you should take a look at an artist named Henry Darger. His story is also very fascinating. Let’s assume that Picasso is heavily acclaimed because he was a world-wide celebrity. What made Picasso so famous in the first place?
Blogging happens to be more social than private in function. It’s self-publishing.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Good, so we’ve come to the definitional problem of ‘audience.’ And at its broadest construction the term can refer to the artist him or herself and from there on. I agree that the creation of art is not complete until the audience comes into play, which makes it at that point “complete.” And contingent upon that audience a value judgment is made – good, bad, so-so, whatever. And we both agree that that value judgment and recognition in the art world is dependent upon the social elite who say that a work of art is good by whatever gauge they would measure such a judgment. In turn, the judgment spreads and the artist gains recognition and acceptance. And of course, we can’t speak of one work of art being better than another without the subjective relation and hermeneutical nature of the audience. As you so sarcastically put, it would indeed be absurd to say that starry night whoops whatever’s ass, without basing one’s comparison on personal taste.
The creation of art seems both intimately a private enterprise but also a social one in nature; as we have said, the act of creation is incomplete without the audience.
The questions you have posed (How separate would you consider these two entities: art and audience? Does one encompass the other? Are there works of art where the audience is the art or the art is the audience?) are tasty morsels for philosophical reflection but perhaps more important for the artist’s consideration rather than one who is not. The questions are inherent within the act of creation and susceptible to influencing the artist’s absorption into a piece.
And to answer your philosophical inquiry about the tree in the forest and whether its fall would make a noise if no one saw it. Well, for me, the question is absurd in and of itself. We can ask as if it is profound and it speaks to the nature of what we all subjectively call reality. And for the majority, if we do not see nor hear about it, it didn’t happen. Just because nobody heard that genocide was occurring or that the capitalist system is based on a veil of ignorance of the people for their manipulation and exploitation, does that mean that it is not happening? Of course not. The tree fell and it made a noise regardless of whether or not somebody heard or saw it. Phenomenology lies outside the realm of actual occurrence as the discipline focuses on personal experience and states of consciousness.
Similarly, even if a work of art did not have an audience, it does not negate its creation. Creation and the acknowledgment of creation are two separate phenomenal occurrences.
It is easy to revert to the personal. And that is what many do. However, the personal although it is meaningful and potentially filled with purpose. One’s personal life does not encompass all of reality, nor is it possible to be aware of all of reality; which would turn into the question of omniscience, the philosophy of religion and human experience – although this is a different set of issues in itself.
Art is in and of itself a virtue of creation regardless of any form of audience. Art once manifested is in existence, whether or not one chooses to acknowledge it or not. And indeed, the creator artist may be sufficient to constitute an audience. But then the question becomes, who is the art for? And what is the purpose behind creating art in general?
^^
love ya greggy boy. hope the birthday went well. answer your phone muhfugger.
February 5th, 2010 at 12:07 am
Philos,
What makes art different from regular objects/acts/images/sounds etc? Creation and acknowledgment of creation are two separate phenomenal occurences – yes, but isn’t acknowledgment at the root of titling something as art? If a work of art did not have an audience, it could not be called art. It doesn’t make sense to be able to negate the creation of a work of art if there was no audience, because without an audience it isn’t art. Just because I move, doesn’t mean that I am dancing. Duchamp’s toilet is no ordinary toilet. An ordinary object could not be called artistic until it is acknowledged. Sometimes, the creator of an object is not even a part of the audience. Who made the toilet? How many people were involved in the creation of this toilet? Well, it still has an audience. It seems that what we’re referring to as art is losing tangibility; art can be an object, but an object isn’t necessarily art. An object can exist whether or not it is art (plenty of things exist that aren’t art) but only with an audience can it become a subject of artistic contemplation. The object holds part of the secret(?) of art – it can be provocative, but must be activated. Art can be complex, but art is also elusive: perhaps an object could pass in and out of the state of being art.
Who is the art for? What is the purpose behind creating art in general? Blogging is different from Painting. Being online feels like being out in the public. Your identity can get blurry. Any/Everyone can see you. Who do you become?
There is something paradoxical in drawing from one’s personal experiences as inspiration for art. Though very individualistic, it has the potential to speak universally.
http://logosbosco.blogspot.com/
February 5th, 2010 at 3:00 am
Hmm… I just read through this conversation and I realize I’m coming off as pretentious. Damn! Well, I asked for it.
Thanks for emerging from the audience, and thanks for embarassing me on my own show.
http://logosbosco.blogspot.com/
http://boscoocsob.xanga.com/
February 5th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
…updating a blog even though you don’t know if people are visiting the website doesn’t make a blog inferior or superior. How popular a blog is does not discount the integrity that a blogger could put into their blog. Blog on, bloggers! Blog or die.
But because I see a blog as far more immediately social in utility than say, a diary, addressing the audience doesn’t seem like it would discount the integrity of a blog either. This social aspect of blogging helps me determine what to blog about and what not to blog about; I can’t make this blog exclusively for myself because blogs lack privacy. I’m already conscious of the fact that anybody might read this when I create a new post. I carefully look over what I’ve done, before I publish it. An audience besides myself is already in consideration, sometimes more so than other times, this blog post probably being the most extreme by addressing the audience itself.
There are different types of blogs. This is a Hub-Bub AIR blog.