Wednesday, April 20, 2005

I Like to Ramble About Art. You?

Oh boy does this post meander. What a mess. It's just that, well, I just got into it (again) over this. Now it was with a work mate. I must be mumbling when I explain myself in these situations, because I always hear the same shit whenever I try to discuss…

What. Is. Art?

Man, I get emotional over this. It's ridiculous.

There is aesthetic shit.
There is technically brilliant shit.
There is naturally occurring/accidental shit.
AND THEN there is artistic shit, which may involve a little of the other three.
Not all shit is artistic shit.

To begin, I would like to say that I am not interested in discussing what makes ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘offensive’, or any other variety of art. That is a total judgment call. Different strokes for different folks. But I firmly believe that there are a limited number of things/ideas/whatever which should even be up for consideration in the matter. So, again, I am not interested in defining what makes a piece of art ‘good’ or ‘bad’. No one really does.

Alrighty then. On with the unpopular topic, which I seem to discuss often.

One always ventures into dangerous territory when trying to define ‘Art’ (I will type it ‘art’ or ‘Art’ or art or Art). There are those who keep it close: “art is in the eye of the beholder”. Which sounds good, but is a complete and utter cop-out. Why, you may ask? Isn’t art really subjective and therefore up to the observer? Right? Huh? Isn’t it?

No. Absolutely not.

Because that makes EVERYTHING that has or ever will exist: art. A pimple becomes potential body art. A bird-dropping falling on the pavement becomes visual art. A punch to the face can be considered a work of performance art. And the laying of fiber-optics over the mid-oceanic ridge suddenly passes for art.

Which is fine by me, I guess. But if everything becomes art, then why the fuck are there classes on it? It's everywhere, all the fucking time, right? If it is all around us, and anything we deem to be pretty, interesting, witty, or technically difficult is suddenly available to be studied as “art”, then why should anyone care? If every footprint made as some douche-balloon staggered from a leaking urinal at Klan rally all of sudden was up for auction as ‘profound’ art, then who fucking cares about the lot of it?

Well. The truth is, the majority of the bull shit people regularly call ‘Art’ is nothing of the sort. Don’t get me wrong. There are many pretty, technically brilliant, difficult-to-do things out there. But not everything that fits into that description falls into the realm of art. Life is tough that way. Don't worry, I cried too.

Of all the things I ever seen referred to as ‘art’, I would safely say that all of it was created by either accident, a true artist, or someone with technical skill.

The accidents are just accidents. Some people try to attribute the 'accidental art' to a higher power of some sort, but then turn right around and expect a 'finder's fee' for it. What? Con artist is more like it. Get a real job and stop screwing things up for the honest, hard working artists. Dick.

An artist, in my mind, is something (maybe something non-human?) that is capable and willing to take in their environment, their existence, an experience, into themselves. Then process it and return it to the world as a unique interpretation, communication, image, whatever. Technical skill can help the artist to achieve their goal, or make their art more aesthetically pleasing.

Someone with technical skill (but no artistic bend to match) is someone who has studied a particular technique or technique set to the point of mastery. But the technique has always been someone else’s, and it has never been used in an artistic way. I always view their works as very aesthetic, or amazingly difficult to do, but not necessarily artistic. There are many, many brilliant painters in the world who fall into this category. They paint wonderful landscapes or life-like portraits using the mastered techniques taught to them in school or by mentors. But for all their technical skill, they are just following directions. No matter how good they are at following directions, they are not doing anything artistic. For every painting artist in the world, I would estimate that there are 1 million painters. Hell, I’ve painted some no-concept shit in my day. I love a perfect photo-esque portrait as much as the next guy, but I like it for the technical skill and aesthetic properties. It is not art to me. No concept.

Ah yes, Concept. A great standard for judgment. Good times.


At an art show. Guy standing next to a brass sculpture of a cube with holes cut out like Swiss cheese. You think it looks cool (aesthetically pleasing), and it seems like crafting metals in such a way would be difficult (technically brilliant).

So you ask, “what is this all about?”

He answers, “well, I don’t really know. I just kind of did it on my driveway. I mean, I just found this big block in my dad’s garage, and started fucking around with a drill. My neighbor was all ‘that’s art’ and I was all ‘word?’ and he was like ‘dude, yes, put it in a show or some shit,’ so here I am. Art.”

Hm. Or, how about:

He answers, “well, what I was trying to say was that, like, when I’m really fucking angry, I see my problem as like this big-ass cube in my brain, and I have to pilot holes through it so I can get it all weak and shit. Then I can see through my problems, the big cubes, floating in my brain. You know what I mean?”


Now, you may not like the concept, but it’s there. Furthermore, the second dude could be completely bullshitting you, telling you the concept existed BEFORE the piece, when in fact he just made that shit up on the spot. But his interpretation is still there, and it is still a concept (post construction concept, so I would find it really weak). If you find that weak, and you don’t trust the artist, then punch him in the mouth. Or don’t. Whatever.

Regardless, we need standards for something as subjective as ‘art’. Concept is the only real standard I use when I deem something to be either Art, NOT Art, or “I don’t really know, it depends.” (for my previous example: first dude = NOT Art as it is more of an accident. Second dude = “I don’t really know” as I would need to see more of his pieces to confirm he is capable of conceptualizing beyond great lies.)

Concept is key. There has to be some kind of idea behind the thing. Accidents are NOT art. Give that up. Stop stressing that shit on me. Some dude is making dinner and drops a dollup of corn chowder onto the recipe sheet and it ends up looking like a skull and crossbones is interesting, but not fucking art. There was no idea, no effort, and no use of innovative technique involved. Nothing. It is as artistic as stepping on a rusty nail, farting while sneezing, or getting t-boned by a Camaro on your way to work. All interesting, all accidental, none of it: art. Go cancel all those ebay bids on that Virgin Mary sammich 'art'.

So. To begin, there needs to be something behind the piece (painting, sculpture, statement, song, whatever). The point can be as definite as “This is what it felt like the first time I got kicked in the balls” down to as vague as “I set up a scenario for myself: dark room, fifty bud lights, two joints, and a strobe. I played my guitar after that to see what I would end up channeling.” Or, “I wanted to have a conversation with your feet using this French horn.” Granted, you may not appreciate the concept, but at least there is a concept present (again, I am not judging quality here). Let me toss out an obvious example.

What is the difference between a pile of dog shit and a pile of dog shit which has been fashioned into the shape of a horse?

Concept. Dog food is said to contain much horse meat. From horse to dog to horse, hello, we have a shitty concept. The dog shit, by itself, has no concept.

What is the difference between a Dali original and a really good (numbered, limited) lithograph of the same? This is where my coworker and I found deep disagreement.

Conceptual technique. The original work contains brilliant and never-seen-before-it-arrived technique. The strokes are the work of a genius in his medium, his texturing through repeated fine-stroked layering of paints was part of the concept, recreating the images in his mind on to canvass. You can’t fuck with his combination of original and well-learned technique.

And the overriding Concept. His concepts were rich and completely unique. He chose to use paints to say something specific, express an emotion, or tell a childhood story. He enlisted his mastery of the technique to fulfill a deeply intelligent concept. He was explaining his goddamn dreams to us.

So what about the lithographer?

The lithograph has neither of those things. Lithographs are old hat (however, the FIRST lithograph ever made might be considered art because the innovative technique itself may have been artistic by design). You don’t need much skill to produce them. Just the equipment, which is lame. And the shoddy Concept of the lithograph is not the original intent of the work. It is to MAKE MORE MONEY by churning out copies of the original (however high quality they may be). Making more money = non-artistic concept = not art.

Now I don’t want to confuse technical skill with artistry. There is a difference. There are Artisans, and there are Artists. Here is where I disagree with the dictionary.

Artisan: A skilled manual worker; a craftsperson.
Artist: One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.

This is a very broad definition, contrary to the naming of “painter, sculptor, or writer”. It must be narrowed to avoid confusion. The half-wit cousin of the guy you contracted to paint your house (the colors you chose), who did a fantastic job, did not create a work of art.

It may be aesthetically pleasing, the colors may be of a very creative or interesting combination, and you may love your house’s new paint job a great deal, but face it. It ain’t art, so let it go. ‘Silly’ is not a concept. Neither is ‘Gothic Temptress of the Night’ paint scheme. The concept was to have an aesthetically pleasing house, just like every other house in existence. To what degree you may find yours, or others homes aesthetically pleasing may vary. But it won’t change the zero-level of artistry involved.

If you lived in Tikrit, and you painted your crib like a big target-bulls-eye, as a political statement, then I would say there was some art happening there. But okra paneling with Ralph Lauren’s newest version of ash-felt grey trim, while very attractive and perhaps even perfect in execution, says nothing. And you meant nothing when you chose it, so just drop it.

This brings me back to my own little categorization/classification system. Sure, it may seem cold and insensitive to try and grade things as ‘art’ or ‘you gots to be kiddin’ me’, but that’s how I choose to roll. And here is where I want to test it.

No doubt I may have said something you deeply disagree with here, and I am tired of having this discussion with people. So I am out to prove or disprove its worth.

All things will fit into one of the following categories:

There is aesthetic shit.
There is technically brilliant shit.
There is naturally occurring/accidental shit.
AND THEN there is artistic shit.

Again, there is a tad of bleed-over between these categories (some things, such as flowers, are both naturally occurring AND aesthetically pleasing, but not art. While the many works done by Picasso during his Blue Period are both aesthetic AND artistic. You get my point.)

Very few things fall into the category of artistic. Feel free to try me. I’m hoping to sharpen and tighten this discussion up.

Word to art.


Anonymous said...

I'm with you on this one. "ART" the meaning itself get lost in translation/definition. I don't believe fifty cell-phones hanging from a ceiling is considered a "brilliant work of art", I see that as someone who was damn bord and had too much fucking time on their hand. Lucky for him, there happend to be a passer-by with shit for brains that said "hey, that's art!". If I placed a lump of shit on a silver platter, would that be considered art? you betcha, it's called symbolic meaning! You know what, forget all the symbolic meaning in art. To me, symbolism, is your own interpretation or you use that for an excuse because you don't know what the hell you did to make it art.
Yeah, this lump of shit, I don't know what it means, but theres something symbolic about it. I must show the world what I created!

brother nick

one thing that get to me, is peoples definition of a "photo shoot" Damn mother-fuckin sons of bitches.

Anonymous said...

I'm with you on this one. "ART" the meaning itself get lost in translation/definition. I don't believe fifty cell-phones hanging from a ceiling is considered a "brilliant work of art", I see that as someone who was damn bord and had too much fucking time on their hand. Lucky for him, there happend to be a passer-by with shit for brains that said "hey, that's art!". If I placed a lump of shit on a silver platter, would that be considered art? you betcha, it's called symbolic meaning! You know what, forget all the symbolic meaning in art. To me, symbolism, is your own interpretation or you use that for an excuse because you don't know what the hell you did to make it art.
Yeah, this lump of shit, I don't know what it means, but theres something symbolic about it. I must show the world what I created!

brother nick

one thing that get to me, is peoples definition of a "photo shoot" Damn mother-fuckin sons of bitches.


You know i don't know terms and all the technicalities, stroke names ,etc.etc. - BUT i do la la love art, and i know what i like and what i don't like. I like the blending of colors and how the light hits them. I like my ART to be something i could NEVER ever be able to do my self - i know WEIRD! BUT it makes me mad to see something, called ART and it looks like something i did on the computer using my mouse in the PAINTBRUSH thingy. I NEED TO GET PAID FOR MY DOODLES, hahahah.

Another thing I have trouble with is why certain pieces of art are so grrrreat. For example, the Mona Lisa, yes i have seen it up close and personal - it is a portrait, why so great, not so great to me, what makes that dam painting to people so GREAT - tell me Craig.

Some of my favs are Marc Chagall, Tamara De Lempika, Frida, some Dali, some Klimt - what do you think of them - i always like to know who other people like.

well good topic, sorry i am not "IN THE KNOW" about art enought to have a REAL deep convo with you, hehe.

Truecraig said...

Brother – I don’t know if a ‘photo shoot’ is considered to be an artistic endeavor. I suppose it depends on the purpose and/or subject to be photographed. There is definitely technical skill, and some taught/practiced craft in photography. I still believe that the only true art possible, even in photography, lives within concept. No concept = no art.

Misty – I really like Marc Chagall too. “I and the Village” is a really good example of his kaleidoscope-ish style. It tells a story, a story from his life, using a two-dimensional medium. Something he really cared about, and wanted to express using his own mixed perspective. Which is nice, but really, I just like his stuff for the aesthetics (but pretty does not art make). I stared at one of his works, a flying cow of some sort, for almost an hour, admiring how happy he wanted it to be, and how happy it made me. Crazy stuff. Frida was definitely an artist. Almost everything she ever did was done out of extreme emotional or physical trauma. But her stuff, for me, is not very aesthetic. It looks like the work of someone who was never trained in artistic techniques. And it just so happens that she wasn’t trained, and didn’t seem too stressed by that. She just picked up the brush and kicked some ass. She had a shit-load to express, and she did it through her art. And for that, I am impressed with her (rather huge) body of work. Dali is a badass. He’s a bit cliché at this point, but that’s okay. He’s amazing enough to become a cliché. I’m not familiar with Lempika, so I cannot say anything there. Klimt was an artist in my mind for two reasons: he wanted to express things like seduction, affection, and base-level human interaction through his use of wild materials (gold flake and semi-precious stones mixed in with thick-thick-thick paints, very luscious), composition, and subject matter. I believe him to be a fantastic artist, but I think his stuff looks too garish. Too ghetto-fabulous for me. I’m too simple for his stuff.

The Mona Lisa? I’m not convinced of its artistic pedigree, but it is a very impressive piece of technical mastery, of oils mastery (but it’s no Van Der Mees). Kinda dark for my taste though. Art? Who knows. It’s an icon at this point. It has transcended art and has entered the realm of pop culture. I’m sure da Vinci used some semi-revolutionary techniques with oils at the time, but I don’t know what they were. Most people consider it brilliant art because of all the weirdness surrounding the subject itself. Is it actually a portrait of Da Vinci, a self portrait of him as a woman? Who is this person? He kept it all… weird. Maybe that was his concept.

All I know is that the Mona Lisa was not very attractive. I mean, they usually made their subjects look significantly BETTER when painting the portraits. She must have been a pooch.

Girl With An Alibi said...

Wow! That was a fantastic discourse on art. And your categorizations make perfect sense. Seriously you should consider doing an article for one of those high-falutin' Art rags. Kick their butts into shape. Seams like most of the dreck that passes for art is legitimized by self-important, self-designated Art experts.

As for Artists my favorite is Van Gogh. There is so much drama, fear, anger and distress in most of his works. And then there are these post Abysinth moments of glass-fragile calm scattered throughout. It actually scares me how much I empathize with him. So far I still have both my ears though.

Anonymous said...

You are making it waaaayyyy too complicated! And, yes, YOU might not think it art, but if someone does, then it's art to them, thus it IS art.

There is a definition pounded out in a process of many ramblings as a gaggle of mid-youths that I have since found always satisfies me.

ART is a creation that elicits emotion - through act of creation, movement, or justaposition, or the usual "piece" of whatever media. On canvas, sculpture, poetry, dance, stage - beautiful, horrible, hollow.

Be it a creepy Dali or a Fabrage egg. A bunch of macaroni and glue that to a 4 year old sees as an obvious representation of Spot that he proudly displays to anyone. A costumed ballerina being, through movement, the embodiment of a butterfly is art.

"Good" and "bad" is subjective in everything, not just art, from eggplant (yummy to me, not so to some) to S&M (never found the need to go there myself, but some people evidently call it "good").

You may think a pile of shit on a silver platter is what it is, some may call it a statement regarding the upper class, or symbolic of the transient state of greenery that becomes digested to shit then fly food then fertilizer to benefit greenery. But, you will (did) form an opinion.

I've always tried to keep in mind that my opinion is not "right" to someone elses "wrong" - I get a little frustrated on this when it comes to political discussions, though.

To evoke negative emotions - "that load of (figurative) crap" - isn't a bad thing. And everyone has opinions, making the world a lot less boring.

Example - Orange Show in Houston - folk art, or mentally unbalanced kook with too much time on his hands?

Enjoy your opinions, revel in what makes you revel.


p.s. Klimpt, Matisse, Munch and Van Gogh are my masters to ponder, oddly enough their vibrancy and urgency counterpoint my mellow nature.

Truecraig said...

gwaa - Van Gogh is fantastic. I got to see a huge collection of his work at the Van Gogh in Amsterdam. His life story is intriguing as well. I'm a pretty big fan of absinth, so I was relieved to learn that he lopped off an ear from an epileptic-esque fit, rather than an absinthe-fueled fight with himself.

MammaLara – I knew someone would say it. Someone had to. “YOU might not think it art, but if someone does, then it's art to them, thus it IS art.” I disagree with that statement entirely. There needs to be standards, otherwise EVERYTHING is art (déjà vu?), which makes NOTHING artistic in nature. There are only opinions after that. Murder would be art (not ‘could be’ or ‘depends’ because ANYTHING and EVERYTHING would be art in a world where it is in the eye of the beholder. Duchamp was right to poke fun at that perspective on art. It cannot be in the eye of the beholder.) Again, a punch to the face would be art. 1+1=2 would be art. &&&&& would be art. ____ would be. Torture. Hollow point bullets. Rape. A foot of rope. Raw sewage. Humidity. The sound of a goddamn jackhammer. You see where I am going with this? The definition has to have some boundaries, or it means nothing, and nothing is art or artistic.

“ART is a creation that elicits emotion - through act of creation, movement, or justaposition, or the usual "piece" of whatever media. On canvas, sculpture, poetry, dance, stage - beautiful, horrible, hollow.”

Sure. That definition sounds fine, but it sure does leave a-lot to interpretation. And please don’t tell me “well, that’s art!” because that isn’t true. Some things are art (Disney’s Fantasia) and some things are not (a bum urinating on another bum because money is owed between them). Both elicit emotion, both may even be viewed as ‘beautiful, horrible, hollow,” but one lacks completely in concept.

What I am willing to agree with is that anyone’s INTERPRETATION of anything can be artistic. If I crap on a silver platter, because I have no where else to crap, there is no art there. But if you come along, and INTERPRET the abandoned crap on the platter as some sort of deep statement against our current fetishist/bling-bling-consumerist culture, then I am willing to call your INTERPRETATION artistic. But not the poop. The crap on a tray remains just that. Still not art. But your interpretation is certainly conceptual.

Debbie said...

That bit about living in Tikrit and painting your whole crib to look like a bullseye: genuis!

That wasn't blog, that shit was literature.

Girl With An Alibi said...

"ART is a creation that elicits emotion "
When I relieve a full bladder the feeling of pure joy and gratitude that washes over me has been known to practically bring tears to my eyes. And now at last I know that it's because my pee is Art. And it affects me even more profoundly after I eat asparagus. Anybody know where I can get a frame for my toilet?

Truecraig said...

Deb - yep. Sometimes I get longwinded. Even my comments are all kinds of epic here.

Gwaa - Agreed on that. Nice example too! But I do not want to discount what I believe to be lbm’s perspective on it. I like the whole "ART is a creation that elicits emotion" definition, actually. I really do. It embodies what we all WANT to think of when we define art. We want emotion = art. But it just isn't complete. A square is a rhombus, but a rhombus is not a square. Art does elicit emotion, but not all things that elicit emotion are art.

Sean said...

To me, art expresses something I've felt and understood (maybe at a pre-linguistic level) but not been able to communicate or create on my own.

You know you hear a song that sounds familiar, like it's been in your head for years but you've never heard it before. Then somebody actually makes it, like they read your mind.

For example, I had recurring nightmares as a kid that revolved around being lost in my grandparents' back yard. There was a huge thistle in my hand, and the wind would blow all the seeds off at once. My surroundings would start to dissolve so that only the bad things remained. The soft green grass, the ripe vegetables in the garden, my brother and sister, all dissolved away leaving only the dirt, bits of metal and insects.

When I was in college, I ran across this painting by Pavel Tchelitchew.

In the lower left there's even a thistle. I was like, "holy shit, that's art"

dungsta said...

im not going to argue your point, though i strongly disagree. But i did read a few lines that may interest you.

1)art as a perfect replication (photograph) of reality was called memesis in Plato's time. (he liked memesis, socrates thought he was full of dung)
2) there is a modern Art philosopher with the last name of Danto that formulated a similar theory of what makes art Art. You should pick some up, you'd both agree.
3)talk about art as much as you can, if you care about it, and ferk anyone who bugs out cause its an unpopular topic.
4)make art everyday, im begging you!!!
5)saying something is aesthetic is like saying god is godlike.
6)ignore everything ive said about art here or anywhere else and have fun on your own artistic journey.

Truecraig said...

Sean – I know that feeling. It is a sort of déjà vu thing (that’s French, by the way, and I’ve typed it twice today). As if my mind had created this thing (song, painting, scene for a photo, conversation, whatever) and I had lost it before I was born. And then I stumble upon it in a different life or some shit. What a great feeling.

And I really like that familiar yet awkward feeling. But I don’t consider that art. I consider it shared consciousness, fate, mildly amusing, fucking crazy, or proof that I should seek some good therapy. Coincidence or looping existence is not art to me. Nature, maybe, but not art.

But that painting you linked to there is absolutely breathtaking. Hide and seek? What a GREAT title for it too! On top of that, it is aesthetically pleasing. You can tell that he was well trained, which appears to be a bonus in the art world.

Dungmeister – well put my friend. Well put. I know this is a heated topic. And I know you have very strong opinions on the matter. I like #4, a-lot.

By “aesthetic” I mean “pleasing aesthetic”, in an almost academic sense. Some combination of the following:

The colors are complimentary.
The composition has good symmetry.
The subject matter is personal to the viewer (pretty girl, a portrait of your dog, photo of bunnies, whatever).

You are right though. Anything and everything has “aesthetics” associated with it.

Sara said...

As a person who always considered myself artistic and never gave two craps about LEARNING about art, I have to thank you for making me think about it. When I form an opinion for myself, I’ll let you know what I come up with. But the reason I am commenting, is because of your artisan/artist comments. I am pretty much in agreement with you there. My boyfriend used to own a faux finishing business. His resume says “owner/artisan”. Some of the work he did may have been considered art to some people, especially his grateful customers, but the fact is that most of it was just him doing the same damn finishes over and over so it was mostly old hack. But every now and then, he would get a job where he was given complete artistic control and freedom. That is where there may have been some art involved, there was definitely concept. He learned the trade from his brother in law and I have seen some of the work that guy has done and I would ABSOLUTELY consider it art.

dungsta said...

c- i guess i was making an aristocratic point about the use of the word aesthetic. something can be aesthetically pleasing but not pleasing aesthetically. at least from your syntaxical use of the word in the sentence where you mention it. Unless you were making a direct translation from a romantic language where adjectives always appear before the noun they are describing.

My opinions about Art are all fundamentally flawed though i may hold volatile positions im usually just playing devil's advocate. I think the whole thing about "Art" is that i can't figure it out so the fun doesn't come from the "knowing" or "understanding" what art is or is not but rather in "attempting to". But this is flawed thinking as well.

so to be accurate i know nothing, not the *nothing* your bro was trying to tie me down to but this nothing; **. So in truth and in fact i have no opinion about art.

Bartelby; "I prefer not to"

Truecraig said...

Sara – I look forward to your interpretation of what ‘art’ is. Again, I am not interested in anyone’s opinion on what is ‘good’ art, or not. That is forever arguable. But I look forward to your insights.

Dungmeister – I feel so lost. I want to clear up my word usage. I use the word ‘aesthetic’ in what I consider to be, an academic sense:

As aesthetic refers to [visual] beauty and/or taste. I break that down into its simplest parts: geometrics, color, and the baggage of the viewer. Again, none of these things are necessary for something to be art or artistic.

By geometrics, I mean: symmetry and use of easily recognized lines/shapes. This, whether anyone admits it or not, appeals to vast majority of people AESTHETICALLY, not necessarily artistically. People like shapes, forms, delineation of some sort. Whether it be painted forms, the ‘rule of threes’ in photographic layout (zzzzzzz) or a standard rhyming scheme. People are drawn to patterns, but that does not make them art. It simply gives them a pleasing aesthetic.

By color, I mean: consult a color wheel. Whether it be a movie set, a sculpture, or an oil painting. The majority of people respond to visually complimentary color schemes. But just because the colors coordinate really well, and it looks fabulous above your couch, does not make it art. It is aesthetic, but it is not necessarily art (it may also be art, but not by default).

By baggage, I mean: you had a wonderful chocolate lab when you were a kid. You loved that dog. Later in life, you come across a standard ‘starving artist’ paint-by-the-numbers watercolor of a chocolate lab, and you shit yourself because it ‘looks exactly like Puddles, I LOVED her!’. You buy it, and insist on calling it art. But really, you are in love with its aesthetic. You think it is art because of your baggage, not because it actually is.

Or, maybe you have a fetish for still life paintings (many people do). You don’t know why, but you just do. Instead of admitting you have an odd fetish, you simply call yourself an ‘art collector’ instead. The truth is, most still life paintings are test pieces. Testing and practicing techniques. Lighting techniques. Shading. Texturing. How to make a water droplet LOOK like a water droplet. That is what they are for. They are an exercise. No concept. Training is not a concept.

But, because of your baggage, because you just like to look at (and purchase) still life paintings, you demand that they be called art. Because otherwise, you’d be just weird.

That’s what I mean by aesthetic. I don’t know anything about the aristocratic definition.

dungsta said...

by aristocratic i meant to say that i was being a pompus prick by calling out someone on their use of a word- i use words incorrectly all the time so i thought i was being a chump for being a stickler about your use of the word aesthetic.

i know what aesthetic means, what i guess i was misinterpretating was my own insistance that the word aesthetic was fixed to the "being" tense that would sort of make the sentence you used it in funny sounding. But apparently i was wrong and you have enlightened me to the fact that there is another tense the word can accurately be used as you have; a noun.

the point is i was being a symantical jerk and i got your point anyways so whatevas. i mean really, i can't freakin spell so what makes me think i know how to use a word like aesthetic anyhoos??

itd probably do us both some good if you learnt to ignore my ramblins .... "i make less sense than i try to"

Truecraig said...

Dungsta - I will forever, try and interpret whatever you say/type to me. I respect your opinions, regardless of spelling mistakes or aristocratic perspective.

Respect. Word.