|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] | ||||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
I think that if one other person responds to what an artist creates, he's achieved art.
- entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
burst Veteran user Memphis, TN 308 Posts |
I don't believe that art needs an audience to be called art. For me, art is consciously creating. There have been plenty of things that I have made that I think of as art, yet was destroyed before anyone else witnessed it, or was just never shared. No one will ever be able to argue with me that it wasn't art.
I know it's a far-fetched example as the man could easily be argued as mentally unstable, but I'm using him anyway. It's too fascinating and it illustrates my view well enough, and, in a way, may actually exemplify it more effectively. There is the book, 'The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What is Known as the Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinnian War Storm, Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion,' written by Henry Darger. It's possibly the longest book ever written, yet he never shared it with anyone during his lifetime. He also has some quite extraordinary paintings. The man made no real contact with anyone. No one really knows who the man was. Some people say he wasn't right, other people say otherwise. But he never tried to share any of his artwork. No one saw any of it until he passed and they discovered it. Sure, one can argue that it was eventually found and shared, but, to me, it's moot in the intention was never there. As I already mentioned, I have things that I don't actually intend for anyone to see, and, obviously, being in this craft, I have creations that are brought to fruition with an audience always in mind. Either way, both are equally artistic. And so on and so forth. It doesn't really matter as a clear definition for art really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. /paul.f |
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-19 08:48, entity wrote: Wow, so much to discuss here, so little time... Entity, I think you've answered your own question, as well. You said that if there's not one single person to appreciate a creation, no one there to "get" it, it's not art. Then you mentioned (quite aptly) Van Gough, and said his work wasn't recognized until the audience changed. Well, I don't think that you can argue that what Vincent produced WAS art, whether there was an audience or not, even before anyone SAW the painting, just like you creating beautiful calligraphic splendor at your desk is art. Are you saying that if "Starry Night" never saw the light of day, it wouldn't be art?? Warhol's soup cans WERE art before anyone "got" them. But all this begs the question, "what is art?", and that is a question that cannot be answered objectively. I believe Vincent's paintings to be considered more artful whether there was an audience or not, than a performance "artist" who takes a dump on stage in front of 3,000 people applauding wildly. But that's just me. Perhaps each of the two was expressing their inner feelings. (Or inner stomach cramps) |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Gableson:
In Vincent's lifetime there were a few people who recognized his brilliance. (His brother, for one) That's why so many of his paintings still exist today. I think it's impossible to judge art if it's kept in a vacuum by the artist. (Which may be why so many artists never show their creations -- for fear they'll find out that it's not very good.) How would the artist know if he's just being self-indulgent or delusional with regard to his work unless he shows others and finds out how they respond? For every Vincent there are literally thousands of painters in the world who think they are the next Da Vinci or Rembrandt, but who have in reality little or no artistic talent apart from being perhaps good draftsmen. The world is full of William Hungs who delude themselves, when singing in the shower, that they could rival Bruce Springstein on a concert stage if only given the chance. It's only by sharing what they have created or what they have to show or present that it can be judged as talent, art, etc., or not. I'd suggest that the same audience who appreciates Vincent's work probably wouldn't applaud for the guy taking the dump on stage, and vice versa. You and I are definitely on the Vincent side, there. Burst: The original poster asked about how Mentalism was perceived by the public, and made a statement that only the audience's opinion matters, not the performer's. The discussion has evolved to issues which might lay at the root of the question. I personally feel that it has EVERYTHING to do with the subject at hand. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-19 15:49, entity wrote: Yes, I'm on Vincent's side, as well. But Entity, this is exactly my point. Employing your logic, if the audience is the ultimate judge as to "what is" art, and the guy taking the dump on stage is getting 3,000 people who are "into" that kind of performance art to applaud, they have then validated that act as "art"; that performer as an "artist", as by your rules, they have acheived what they have set out to do, and are appreciated by many. So let's say Vincent DID work in a vacuum, and Sunflowers or Starry Night were never seen by others. According to your definition, it makes the guy defecating on stage the artist, as he is getting the response, and Vincent, not. When you say: "For every Vincent there are literally thousands of painters in the world who think they are the next Da Vinci or Rembrandt, but who have in reality little or no artistic talent apart from being perhaps good draftsmen," -You are making a value judgement as to what constitutes art. Suppose there are many people who appreciate their work, even if you don't? By your own definition, they are artists. To take it a step further: You mentioned William Hung. Hung is a naive soul who wasn't being self-indulgent when he auditioned for "Idol". (I'm embarrassed to even know this). He was very humble and gracious to the judges, even though they tore him apart. Well, lo and behold, America (at least for awhile) fell in love with the guy, and suddenly he was ubiquitous, seemingly showcased in every theater and every television station around the country. With all the failed auditioners on "Idol", there was something about William Hung that moved people. Something to which they could relate. He was compelling to watch. He was us. Sure, he was funny to watch, but he was EARNEST. Committed. Everyone in America was imitating his dancing, something usually reserved for the Fred Astaires and Michael Jacksons of this world. Again, by your definition of art as something to which we must respond and appreciate, Hung is an artist. There are plenty of untalented (subjectively) failures who never get the forum Hung did. Why? He was appreciated. Talented, or not, he resonated with people. He was kitsch, like Roger Corman movies. Sure, I prefer Van Gogh's art, but you know what? At the end of the day, watching and listening to that kid, William Hung, makes me just as happy. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Perhaps I can make my position more clear. It's not that the audience is the ultimate judge as to what is art and what is not. It that sharing your creation is the only way to really find out. You might THINK that what you've done is art, or even BELIEVE that what you've done is art, but until you share it with someone else, and they respond, you'll never really know.
And yes, although you and I might not agree, the guy taking the dump on stage (if that has ever actually happened) who gets the large response from a crowd is an artist. The one who works in a vacuum (luckily for us Vincent did not) MAY have created art, but we wouldn't know. That's my point. If may be great Art. It may be crap. The only real way for us to know, and indeed for the artist himself to know for sure, is to share it with others. Re: Hung -- Yes, he was a lovely guy, but I think that people enjoyed laughing at him because he was so bad and so oblivious to his own lack of talent. We felt sorry for him, but a part of us enjoyed laughing at him. He was the classic underdog in the Charlie Chaplin/Jerry Lewis/Forest Gump sort of way, but in Hung's case, it wasn't an act. He became sort of a hero for all of those untalented souls in the world who never achieved fame. It's nice that he made you feel happy, although I'd classify his success as popularity and notoriety rather than art, purely because it was the person, rather than the performance that people responded to. It wasn't an intentional character he'd created or an act he had set out to achieve. He was being Hung, if you'll pardon the expression. That's a great lesson in and of itself, I suppose. I referred to this in an earlier post. As a Mentalist, if the audience responds to me as a person, then they will accept what I do by way of effects, so long as it's entertaining and mystifying. If they believe/care about me as the mentalist, then all that I do will be seen as mentalism, if I choose to say that's what it is. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-19 19:44, entity wrote: Your position was clear, Entity, but I respectfully disagree. I still maintain that whether we ever saw Van Gogh's work or not, it would be art. In fact, that's the very thing that DISTINGUISHES "art" from "work". In order for work to even be relevant, it must be judged, and eventually implemented. Only then can we know if this "work" is any good. The beauty of art is that it is completely subjective. It doesn't require affirmation. I know several wonderful artists who don't show their work. It's purely for themselves. Photographers, as well. But they are certainly artists. I understand your point- you're saying that without a subject to respond to the art, it remains in a vacuum, and is therefore not yet art. And one could say that since I viewed my friends' work, and valued it, it then became art. But I believe it was such before ANYONE saw it. It really is akin to the question: "If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Well, in my opinion, the answer is clearly "yes". Whether we are in the forest or not, is immaterial. Quote:
This last paragraph is in contradiction to what you had just said about William Hung. You said, "If the audience responds to (me) as a person, then they will accept what I do by way of effects as long as it's entertaining". Or, one could argue, ANY sort of performing. The reason Hung was an instant hit, was because people RESPONDED to him as a person. And he was entertaining. None of the other hundreds (or thousands) of rejects had the success Hung had. We were NOT just enjoying him for being bad and oblivious to his own talent. There were plenty others who were bad and oblivious. But we RESPONDED to William Hung. Like his dancing or not, he believed in it, and put it forth to the world. You said of Hung, "It wasn't an act he set out to achieve". Sure it was. That's why he auditioned! He wanted to achieve recognition through the art of performing, and he achieved it. So by your criteria, that's art. He may not have acheived it through admiration of any strong skills, but certainly a large part of it was due to his endearing personality. I could say the same thing about many so-so mentalists who've achieved success through their likeability. You also said: "If they believe/care about me as the mentalist, then all that I do will be seen as mentalism, if I choose to say that's what it is." In the exact same way, America cared about William Hung (my kids and wife love him), therefore all he did was seen as entertainment, as that is what he claimed it to be- (even IF it was bad). People DID recognize his singing and dancing- even if they were enjoying it because he was funny- so unlike the other "Idol" rejects, he achieved what he set out to do. A weird and unconventional form of art, to be sure, but nevertheless, art. |
|||||||||
DT3 Inner circle Hill Valley 1920 Posts |
I like Starry Night by Vincent yet while we are on the topic of art have you chaps ever checked out "May Night" by Willard Metcalf?
Beautiful image. D. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Gableson: Once again, I don't believe that I said that something can't be art until the audience responds to it. I said that we don't know until then. It may be, it might not be. But even the artist doesn't know for sure until he shares it.
When I said that it wasn't an act that he set out to achieve I meant his personality. I don't think it was a conscious decision to create the character that we saw, it was just him. The dancing and singing was only enjoyable because we liked him, not because the performance was any good. I think that if we step back from our fondness of the individual, we can see that his performance (the crafted part of his presentation) was not artfully done. Hence my contention that he was popular and notorious rather than artistic. In my last paragraph of my previous post, I was rambling on in an attempt to bring the discussion back to the subject of the thread. Again, it's a balance, with artistic intent, taste, connection with the audience, likability, etc., all combining to make the performer a success and his goals as an artist a reality. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-19 19:44, entity wrote: Entity, I respect you, but your argument about what constitutes "art", IMHO, is contradictory. Again, like his "art" or not, Hung fulfilled your requirements as an "artist" by your statement above. The audience responded to him as a person, they accepted him not ONLY for him, but because they found what he did to be "entertaining", no matter the reason. They cared about him, and therefore they accepted everything from him, even what he called "singing". The same holds true of any entertainer. Which is why I believe Mike Super is going to win "Phenomenon". Is he the best mentalist out there? Of course not. In fact, just like Hung with his singing and dancing, you'd be hard-pressed to call Super's act, "Mentalism". But the audience LIKES him; he's the only one of the performers who's CONNECTING, and therefore they'll appreciate him for whatever he decides to calls himself, or his "art". She bang, she bang.... |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
Gableson:
I don't believe what I'm saying is contradictory, but the nuances of what I'm getting at are very subtle and sometimes difficult to articulate. A lot has to do with the INTENT of the artist. In Hung's case, his intention (an artistic display of superior singing and dancing) wasn't what the audience was responding to. In earlier posts, I put forth the notion that something wasn't art until the audience decided it was. Upon relection, and thanks to your posts helping to refine my thoughts, I'd adjust my earlier statement to say that something isn't CONFIRMED as art until an audience responds to it and "gets it". I agree with you about Super, by the way. He IS connecting, intentionally, and he understands why. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
burst Veteran user Memphis, TN 308 Posts |
For me, an audience does not matter. The person that creates it is the judge of whether it is art or not. It needs no other confirmation. No one needs to get it. That's why I said that this does not relate to the topic.
I think the discussion needs to be limited to this particular field of performance art. It's not that I don't find it interesting, I do. I think it may end up distracting from the intentions of this thread. /paul.f |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
If the audience doesn't matter then why do it for them? Is it purely to make money?
If you don't care whether you're connecting with them or not, I imagine they would feel that and respond in kind. As I said before, this thread continues to evolve, as good discussions often do. Those who find it interesting will continue to read and to contribute. Those who don't, won't. If you have something to contribute that speaks to the original post's comments about the categories of Mentalism, by all means do so. - entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-19 22:00, entity wrote: I may not agree with Entity's definition of art, but I certainly agree with his assessment of this thread. There should be no limitations as to what is to be discussed, particularly as all the posts have focused on art. I have found the posts of Entity and others regarding art and performance to be philosophical and thought-provoking. Yes, even those regarding William Hung and Vincent Van Gogh. If you don't like what's on Channel 4, change the channel. |
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-19 22:28, gabelson wrote: |
|||||||||
deputy Inner circle USA 1041 Posts |
I just wanted to say this is a great thread. Thanks to have posted, very good read.
I am glad to see these discusions are back here on the Café. Ryan |
|||||||||
Silvertongue Inner circle One day I will die leaving behind 2426 Posts |
It would seem to me that using the analogy of the painter as artist. The painter who spends his life painting the images that appear to his mind is no less an artist if his house burns down along with his lifes work and him as well. He needs no-one to judge what his art means to them or to have an opinion on it for it to be art.
I am sure there are others who could put this point across more eloquently, please do . Thanks.
For as long as space exists,
And living beings remain in cyclic existence, For that long, may I too remain, to dispel the sufferings of the world. -Shantideva Engaging in the Conduct of a Bodhisattva |
|||||||||
gabelson Inner circle conscientious observer 2137 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-11-20 01:26, Silvertongue wrote: I believe this is what Burst and myself have been trying to do. And Silvertongue, you put the point across quite elegantly, and in a far more concise manner than I have. |
|||||||||
burst Veteran user Memphis, TN 308 Posts |
Like I said, I like what all is being said here. The reason why I don't see it applying to this is that we're not talking about performance art. With that one does need to have an audience in mind. Certain categories of performance art require a different view, and that is why I suggested the conversation to be about this art.
And really, I don't have anything to contribute to that conversation. I don't care about whether there is a clear distinction between the two. I know what I like to perform and look for things that are congruent with my character, not about if it is congruent within the definition of magic, mentalism, or mental magic. /paul.f PS. The audience does matter with performance art. What I was saying is that, ultimately, in the broadest definition of art, an audience does not matter. |
|||||||||
entity Inner circle Canada 5060 Posts |
I guess then I'd ask all of you if you think that there is a purpose to art. (All art, including stage performances). What is the purpose?
- entity
email: tomebaxter@icloud.com
|
|||||||||
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 © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 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 < |