The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Mentalism 'and' Mental Magic (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
Corona Smith
View Profile
Inner circle
Airstrip One
1689 Posts

Profile of Corona Smith
In defence of Duchamp's urinal I will say that it was actually hung upside down, giving it a certain, shall we say, femininity.

It was also entered under a pseudonym, 'R. Mutt', to an open gallery competition. The exhibition organisers, however, neglected to display it.

Corona.
gabelson
View Profile
Inner circle
conscientious observer
2124 Posts

Profile of gabelson
Quote:
On 2007-11-20 15:16, lumberjohn wrote:
Quote:
On 2007-11-20 14:36, entity wrote:

Re: Elephant paintings, garbage bin flower pots and things that please ourselves only, Id say that people sometimes confuse novelty and craftwork with Art.

- entity


Entity,

How do you distinguish these "novelt[ies] and craftwork" from Art? How much skill and competence is required before the piece rises to the level of Art? Is something else necessary?



Exactly. Your statement that mere home craftwork is not art because there is no one other than the creator to "judge" it, implies that art can be judged objectively. I don't believe that to be true. Find me an art critic who loves Duchamp's urinal, and I'll find you another who doesn't.
Stephen Long
View Profile
Inner circle
1481 Posts

Profile of Stephen Long
Quote:
On 2007-11-20 14:36, entity wrote:
Stephen: In an earlier post I defined art as the communication of the artist's imagination with that of his audience. For the artist to create a work and display it shows some sort of intent, doesn't it? Whatever the audience takes from his work is a measure of his intent in some ways, filtered through his imagination and then theirs. To say that the artist's intent has nothing to do with defining art seems illogical to me. Without the artist, his deciding to create the work, his desire to communicate the work to others, there would be nothing to define. Could you give an example of a work of art that isn't partly defined by the artist's intent?


Sure. Let's imagine I have a pen that isn't very reliable. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't. I'm fond of the pen though, so I'm not just going to throw it out. Instead, I keep a sheet of paper on my desk so that whenever it stops working I can scribble on the paper until the pen writes again. I've been using the same sheet of paper for some time now and it's covered from top to bottom with various different scribbles in varying textures and intensities. I, however, am a philistine and not at all creative. I take no joy in my scribbling and do it for purely practical purposes. One particularly sunny day, I leave the window by my desk open. A gust of wind catches that sheet of paper and it blows out the window and far, far away.

On another street in another town, a bohemian is sitting on a bench. The sheet of paper covered in scribbles, still carried by the wind, happens to land not too far from where he is sat. Curious, he walks over to it and picks it up. He is instantly moved. Something about this sheet of paper speaks to him about life and all it's wonderful joys and complications. Delighted, he keeps the sheet of paper, gets it framed, and places it on a wall in his flat where he and his lover appreciate it daily.

I, the 'artist', have no knowledge of any of this. The sheet of paper would not exist without my intent - that's a given. But in this case my intent was nothing more than to get my pen working again. I had no desire to communicate anything to anyone. And yet my 'masterpiece' is now happily framed and appreciated as art whenever the bohemian couple look upon it. Are they wrong to do so?

Perhaps my definition of art is far too liberal, but I believe that art can be found and appreciated in a wide variety of different places and circumstances - not only where it is displayed with intent. Of course I acknowledge that somewhere along the line there must be intent of sorts for art to exist, but the intention of the artist, whilst often important, means nothing when compared to the interpretation of the person who would experience it. That's what I think anyway.
Hello.
entity
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
5060 Posts

Profile of entity
I meant a real example, not a hypothetical one.

Very artfully done, though.

- entity
entity
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
5060 Posts

Profile of entity
Quote:
On 2007-11-20 19:22, gabelson wrote:
Your statement that mere home craftwork is not art because there is no one other than the creator to "judge" it, implies that art can be judged objectively. I don't believe that to be true. Find me an art critic who loves Duchamp's urinal, and I'll find you another who doesn't.


Art critics and judges in art competitions, dance and theater critics, teachers in arts schools, etc., use objective criteria to judge art every day.

- entity
gabelson
View Profile
Inner circle
conscientious observer
2124 Posts

Profile of gabelson
Quote:
On 2007-11-20 10:38, entity wrote:
Some of you seem to think that anything that anyone creates and calls art, IS Art.
Is that true?


No. If you spill a cup of coffee on the carpet accidentally, and it forms the face of The Virgin Mary, that's not art. Some may believe in accidental art, I myself, do not. This is where intent comes in: If the creation was born from the artist's intent to "express" something... anything, it can be considered art, whether or not the only audience is the artist himself. The flowers in the garbage can is an example. No one else need see it but the person who created it, to make it art.

Quote:
Is it so subjective?


Yes. Can even music or film be judged objectively? Sitting through "The English Patient" was torture for me, and although it won several Oscars, I'm sure you'll find a lot of other people who feel the same way I did- (see "Seinfeld" episode).


Quote:

Part of the reason that I believe that Art (all art) needs to be shared with an audience and responded to before it can be confirmed as Art, is that Art is a form of communication.


I think this is the crux of the issue, Entity. At least in my opinion, art isn't about communication, it's about expression. It doesn't need "confirmation" to be art. If the creator of the piece has expressed something of need or importance to them; if they have carved a piece of wood into an abstract form, and it makes just THEM happy, or moves them, it is art. Art is EXTERNALIZING the INTERNAL. (Which by the way, is Richard Busch's justification for writing down information to be used in a peek or centre tear-- brilliant, IMHO)
[/quote]


Quote:
Therefore there is an objective way to determine if it works. If the audience gets it, if there are some objectively discernible qualities that speak to others, it is Art.

If it was never shown to anyone else, and burned in the fire with the Artist, it might have been just chimps typing. We'll never know, because it wasn't shared.
- entity


But it wasn't chimps typing. There was intent. It had a discernible quality AND spoke to the person who created it. It requires no validation from the outside world at that point. Look, the artist is usually their own harshest critic. Particularly the greats. If it moves only them, it is art.
gabelson
View Profile
Inner circle
conscientious observer
2124 Posts

Profile of gabelson
Quote:
Art critics and judges in art competitions, dance and theater critics, teachers in arts schools, etc., use objective criteria to judge art every day.

- entity


Yes, and they're often wrong. lol. How many times have you disagreed with a movie review? Let's take your example of how critics use "objective criteria" to judge. The judges on "American Idol" are frequently reminding performers that the show is "a SINGING competition". Well, despite their backgrounds in the music business, even THEY often disagree on the execution based on their "objectivity". They may have more experience in the music business than we do, but at the end of the day, their opinions are still subjective.
entity
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
5060 Posts

Profile of entity
Expression means to "send out, convey or articulate". To me, all of these mean to communicate to someone else.

I've shown you examples of where art, music, film are judged based upon objective criteria every day. Yet you insist it can't be done. Although I'd hesitate to use American Idol as a stellar example of judging Art, I'd point out that even there they comment upon things such as pitch and "being in the groove" etc., which are objective criteria. I don't think that you can honestly say that there are no objective criteria for judging art, anywhere, in any circumstance. There are too many examples of it being done every day.


Re: The artist and the fire... I'll ask the same question I asked before, but that hasn't been answered: What if the artist is delusional? What if his coffee grounds move him? Is it art? How do we know his art has a "discernable quality" if no one but him has seen it? Can every artist judge their own work honestly? It may be art, but if the artist is the only one saying so, and he's the only one who's seen it, I'd reserve judgement.

- entity
Dr Spektor
View Profile
Eternal Order
Carcanis
10777 Posts

Profile of Dr Spektor
You should see the garbage bins I design... with no flowers!
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
gabelson
View Profile
Inner circle
conscientious observer
2124 Posts

Profile of gabelson
Quote:
On 2007-11-20 20:37, entity wrote:
Expression means to "send out".


Not so. Webster's definitions of "expression":
1: 'an act, process, or instance of representing in a medium- (paint, clay, etc)
2: 'something that manifests, embodies, or symbolizes something else'

-NEITHER of these definitions imply communication with others is necessary. You state that I am not listening to you, Entity. That is not the case, and I find your posts stimulating and thought-provoking, as I do others on this thread. That doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

Quote:
I've shown you examples of where art, music, film are judged based upon objective criteria every day. Yet you insist it can't be done. Although I'd hesitate to use American Idol as an example of judging Art, I'd point out that even there they comment upon things such as pitch and "being in the groove" etc., which are objective criteria.


But they're not "objective", Entity. These "experts" HAVE argued over pitch, presentation, and the one thing you've brought up several times: Whether or not they've connected with the audience. You know what you can judge objectively? Whether or not your transmission was properly repaired. I know less than nothing about cars, but my transmission was "fixed", only to be problematic two days later. The mechanic admitted an oversight. I can therefore say OBJECTIVELY that his "art" was not properly executed. Can a lightbulb be judged objectively? Yes. It works, or it doesn't.

Quote:
I don't think that you can honestly say that there are no objective criteria for judging art, anywhere, in any circumstance. There are too many examples of it being done every day.


People may fancy themselves "objective" judges of art, but as long as there are those who disagree, it further proves subjectivity.

Quote:
Re: The artist and the fire... I'll ask the same question I asked before, but that hasn't been answered: What if the artist is delusional? What if his coffee grounds move him? Is it art? How do we know his art has a "discernable quality" if no one but him has seen it? Can every artist judge their own work honestly?

- entity


Many people who have listened to me play piano have said, "Wow, you're really good!" I thank them, but inside I'm thinking, "What, are they fu**ing NUTS? I suck!" I've been playing for 40 years, but only as a hobby. I can improvise and sight read, but I'm really not very good as compared to "legit" pianists. Yet there are those who appreciate my playing. I believe that artists by and large are aware of their own limitations, and are their own harshest critics. But when you say...

Quote:
What if the artist is delusional? What if his coffee grounds move him? Is it art?

That is quibbling, Entity. Who decides that he's delusional? You? Me? I'm sure there were those who thought Pollack was delusional, swinging leaky paint cans over a canvas.
burst
View Profile
Veteran user
Memphis, TN
308 Posts

Profile of burst
Even with entity's definition of expression, it still fits with creating art for yourself. We communicate with ourselves more than we communicate with anyone else. Art, even if you create it with someone else in mind, is communicating with yourself first and foremost.

To the topic of what the art means to different people, I share the same sentiment that all of the various meanings are valid and correct. As with all artists, much of what I create is interpreted differently than what I projected. Some people get what I intended, some people do not. Some people dig it, some people want it to be buried. Every single opinion is dead right.

Art cannot be subjective just as it can never be truly defined. You define it, you define the soul. You define the soul, you define love. You define love, you transcend.

Or you win some type of prize and get a really neat gift basket.

I'm not really sure which.

/paul.f
gabelson
View Profile
Inner circle
conscientious observer
2124 Posts

Profile of gabelson
Quote:
On 2007-11-20 21:23, burst wrote:
...Some people dig it, some people want it to be buried. Every single opinion is dead right.

Art cannot be subjective just as it can never be truly defined.
/paul.f


Paul, doesn't what you're saying here suggest that art MUST be subjective?
entity
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
5060 Posts

Profile of entity
Gableson:

As I said earlier, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, including you.

Re: definitions-- I was looking at the Latin root of express. Ex = Out
Press = to push or move or send.

Re: Your definitive stance that art can't be judged with any objective criteria, you'd better tell all of the art schools, film and theater critics, dance schools, etc. They do it every day. In dance, there are form, lines, steps, etc. These are all aspects that can be judged objectively. Like a light bulb being on or off, if the foot alignment is incorrect, it the body travels during a rand de jambe (sp?) etc., there is an objective way to see that.

The same is true in literature, music, painting and -- dare I say -- Mentalism. If we ana=lyze things specifically, there ARE criteria that can be looked at objectively that influence the artistic value of the presentation.

I suspect that in comedy, you can judge when someone's timing is not right on a joke, or when a word is out of place that might ruin the set-up of a joke. That's an objective way to look at a performance.

I'm not quibbling about the artist being delusional. Look at the people who come into American Idol thinking they have super-star talent. Pollock shared his work, so others could judge. If he'd kept it to himself we'd never know, nor would he, perhaps, if he was delusional in his approach.

- entity

- entity
John Nesbit
View Profile
Inner circle
United States
1421 Posts

Profile of John Nesbit
(Gabe), Sounds paradoxical. That also is true.
Has it ever occurred to anyone as of late. That although all of our perspectives are unique on this subject, we are still on the "same page" (4).
Something else to think about ?
(And yet again, there's still that Corona Smith anomaly. Which I'm not really sure about either.) Smile

John
Dr Spektor
View Profile
Eternal Order
Carcanis
10777 Posts

Profile of Dr Spektor
According to some philosophers, we are all the same person too
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
entity
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
5060 Posts

Profile of entity
In the end, despite my feelings that an informed individual CAN judge aspects of art objectively, I know that the vast majority of people in an audience don't. They look at it subjectively, because they aren't equipped to see it any other way.

Which brings me back to one of my initial points in this thread, that we lead the audience to think what they do. If we do it artfully and skillfully and they respond willingly and positively, then what we do can be seen as an artistic success.

Do we tell them what they want to hear? Well, we can, but that's the easy way out. More challenging and therefore more rewarding when it succeeds, is to tell them what we want them to hear and think, and find compelling and artistic ways to make them willingly believe. (Which brings us to a completely new can of worms -- my contention that there's no such thing as suspension of disbelief in Mentalism. Hmmm....)

- entity
gabelson
View Profile
Inner circle
conscientious observer
2124 Posts

Profile of gabelson
Quote:
On 2007-11-20 22:01, entity wrote:
Gableson:

Re: definitions-- I was looking at the Latin root of express. Ex = Out
Press = to push or move or send.


"Ex" - move or send? . -As in "Fed-Ex"? I don't believe in Latin definitions. They're un-American, G-d ***it! I'll go with Webster's definitions of "expression":
1: 'an act, process, or instance of representing in a medium- (paint, clay, etc)
2: 'something that manifests, embodies, or symbolizes something else'


Quote:
Re: Your definitive stance that art can't be judged with any objective criteria, you'd better tell all of the art schools, film and theater critics, dance schools, etc. They do it every day. In dance, there are form, lines, steps, etc. These are all aspects that can be judged objectively. Like a light bulb being on or off, if the foot alignment is incorrect, it the body travels during a rand de jambe (sp?) etc., there is an objective way to see that.


Uhhh, no. A light bulb is not Jackson Pollack. A light bulb works, or it doesn't. A transmission works, or it doesn't. I don't care for ballet, others live for it. It is subjective. I don't care how many self-professed "experts" there are. And yes, in dance there is proper form, steps, etc., such as in comedy there is proper timing, even placement of words. Many joke writers (and tellers) don't understand that the punch "word" must come at the end of the final sentence to get maximum inpact out of the joke. But ALL of this, has nothing to do with CONTENT. Carrot Top is not for me, but many people find him hilarious. There's a good reason he was the #1 college act in the country for many years. I think Seinfeld is an incredible monologist; I appreciate how "fat-free" his act is; what a brilliant technician. How he can completely exhaust a premise, even when you think there is nothing left to be said. Do I understand more about the process than most? Yes. I understand that even though some have come close, there is no other monologist who can craft a joke like Seinfed. One could say that as an "expert", I am judging his talent "objectively". But I am not. There are many people who do not care for Jerry's style; who find it rather sterile, and don't think he connects on a personal enough level. There are many who prefer the less joke-driven and more "performance-oriented" comics, like Carlos Mencia and Dane Cook. My preference of Seinfeld as a comedian based on my own experience and "expertise" as a comic, writer, monologue writer, and even teacher of comedy STILL does not mean that my assessment of Seinfeld's art is objective. Like the ballet teacher (or Idol judge) I am basing my judgement on specific comedy criteria: How far has this person taken a premise? Have they followed the first rule of Strunk & White: Economy of words. How well have they painted the word picture? Have they found heretofore unexplored shared experiences to which we can all relate? Broken new ground? All the criteria I am taking into account based on my "professional experience" means nothing at the end of the day. There are a lot more people in this country who would rather pay to see Dane Cook perform live than Larry David. Who would I rather pay to see? 'Nuff said. In fact, I've watched Larry perform for 27 years. There's not one- not ONE comic I've ever met who has had as many disastrous sets as Larry had, often getting booed, and UNABLE to get a paying "road" gig after all the time he put in. If you were to judge him as a comic based on the "professional criteria" (even though all the other comics would run into the room to see him perform), he would fail the test. He was dis-jointed. Unlikeable. He'd legitimately get angry with the audience (and once that happens you can never get them back). He was obtuse. Eclectic. That's my PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVE OPINION.

Entity, you said:
If we analyze things specifically, there ARE criteria that can be looked at objectively that influence the artistic value of the presentation.


The artistic value of Larry's old stand-up act cannot be compared to the artistic value (or lack thereof) of Dane Cook's- that's my professional OBJECTIVE opinion, which clearly means NOTHING. So much for your "experts" at film schools, ballet classes, etc. Dane Cook was playing stadiums and had his own TV specials. Larry, as a comic, couldn't book a $50 gig after YEARS of performing. And let us not forget, Einstein failed math. So much for objectivity.

Quote:
Pollock shared his work, so others could judge. If he'd kept it to himself we'd never know, nor would he, perhaps, if he was delusional in his approach.


Hey, even though he did share it, some would STILL say he was delusional, as some would say about Duchamp. WE DON'T MATTER. Had Pollack and Duchamp kept their work to themselves, the art would remain just as meaningful. Or not.

Larry David shared his work as a stand-up. Comics loved him, audiences hated him. But even though comedians appreciated him way back when, us "objective comedy experts" STILL believed that Larry was delusional if he ever thought he could achieve mainstream success.

Now here we are, three-quarters of a billion dollars later. Who's laughing now?
Roth
View Profile
Inner circle
The 18
5091 Posts

Profile of Roth
ZZZzzzzzzz
2015 ECSS Alumnus

PANDORA

Deadwood
entity
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
5060 Posts

Profile of entity
Quote:
On 2007-11-21 00:04, gabelson wrote:
All the criteria I am taking into account based on my "professional experience" means nothing at the end of the day. There are a lot more people in this country who would rather pay to see Dane Cook perform live than Larry David.

Entity, you said:
If we analyze things specifically, there ARE criteria that can be looked at objectively that influence the artistic value of the presentation.


The artistic value of Larry's old stand-up act cannot be compared to the artistic value (or lack thereof) of Dane Cook's- that's my professional OBJECTIVE opinion, which clearly means NOTHING. So much for your "experts" at film schools, ballet classes, etc. Dane Cook was playing stadiums and had his own TV specials. Larry, as a comic, couldn't book a $50 gig after YEARS of performing. And let us not forget, Einstein failed math. So much for objectivity.

Larry David shared his work as a stand-up. Comics loved him, audiences hated him. But even though comedians appreciated him way back when, us "objective comedy experts" STILL believed that Larry was delusional if he ever thought he could achieve mainstream success.

Now here we are, three-quarters of a billion dollars later. Who's laughing now?



Well, first of all, I don't equate financial success with artistic success. Think Criss Angel. But at least we're now agreeing that objective criteria exist and can be used to help define the artist's work.

I don't agree that the assessment of experts using objective criteria means "nothing". It might not make any difference to the artist's financial success or popularity, but it's a useful way to assess artistic talent and skills, and to define those skills in order to pass those skills along to others.

As I said in my previous post, most audiences won't see those things, because they're not trained to see them. They relate viscerally or subjectively to the performer. But I think that some artists have these objectively discernable skills and incorporate them so that the untrained audience responds to them without realizing it, almost subliminally. If such an artist also has something that the audience responds to subjectively, then, to me, that's an enormous artistic success, whether that person gets rich doing it or not. In the type of cases I'm talking about (perhaps Seinfeld is an example) it's been useful for them to be able to define the skills and learn them.

I also think that there are discriminating audiences and pop audiences. Since there are more pop audiences than discriminating ones, financial success might come more quickly to those who pander to pop tastes. I tend to respect someone who is talented, skilled and popular more than those who are just popular.

In the case of you and your "expert" friends objectively deciding that Larry David would never be a mainstream success, you were right, so far as making it through the comedy club circuit is concerned.

- entity
gabelson
View Profile
Inner circle
conscientious observer
2124 Posts

Profile of gabelson
On 2007-11-21 00:50, entity wrote:
Quote:

Well, first of all, I don't equate financial success with artistic success. Think Criss Angel. But at least we're now agreeing that objective criteria exist and can be used to help define the artist's work.



Larry has achieved financial AND critical success. He has over 10 Emmys. Criss has...???

On 2007-11-21 00:50, entity wrote:
Quote:
I don't agree that the assessment of experts using objective criteria means "nothing". It might not make any difference to the artist's financial success or popularity, but it's a useful way to assess artistic talent and skills, and to define those skills in order to pass those skills along to others.



If artists listened to the opinions of experts who "assessed" they didn't have the skills, we wouldn't have a Danny DeVito (4'10", told by every acting teacher to get real and look in the mirror), Jay Leno (who was told by the network for YEARS that he would never get a show, because his jaw "frightened little children" - (absolutely true), Phil Rizzuto, who was "assessed" by the experts, and told he was too short and too weak to make it in the majors, Stephen King, whose magazine submissions were rejected for years after the "assessment" of editors, and, of course, Larry David, who was told by many not just to stop doing stand-up, but to get out of comedy. According to you, assessing these skills is "useful". Thank goodness Phil Rizzuto never listened to those assessers.

Quote:
As I said in my previous post, most audiences won't see those things, because they're not trained to see them. They relate viscerally or subjectively to the performer. But I think that some artists have these objectively discernable skills and incorporate them so that the untrained audience responds to them without realizing it, almost subliminally. If such an artist also has something that the audience responds to subjectively, then, to me, that's an enormous artistic success, whether that person gets rich doing it or not. In the type of cases I'm talking about (perhaps Seinfeld is an example) it's been useful for them to be able to define the skills and learn them.


I'm in complete agreement that if an audience subjectively embraces an artist and their work, that artist has achieved success; their work is recognized.
But it's a reach to say, "the audience subjectively responds to objectively discernable skills" One is not dependent on the other. I have just given you some (not particularly good) examples of artists who did NOT exhibit objectively discernable skills, not to the "expert assessors". Assessing these skills, or lack of skills, means nothing, except perhaps to give the artist or athlete a better chance to enter an educational institution, or meet with an agent. It will have no bearing on their eventual success, financial OR creative, as evidenced by all the crappy artists out there, and the talented ones who still toil in obscurity. For every multi-millionaire comedian or actor, I can give you the name of 100 others who are respected more by their peers; who's work is considered superior by the "experts". The audience, the PUBLIC, makes or breaks you, WHATEVER the "assessment of experts". Madonna and Cyndi Lauper hit the music scene at the same time. The "experts", who knew music, predicted Lauper would be the bigger star.


Quote:
I also think that there are discriminating audiences and pop audiences. Since there are more pop audiences than discriminating ones, financial success might come more quickly to those who pander to pop tastes. I tend to respect someone who is talented, skilled and popular more than those who are just popular.


That suggests that the assessments of those "experts" you claimed was so USEFUL, in the end, means nothing. And that, I would agree with.



And as to you, Roth- no need to chime in. If you're bored, go somewhere else. On second thought, I'm feeling a little sleepy, myself. Zzzzzzzz.....
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Mentalism 'and' Mental Magic (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2023 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.11 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL