Art, and meeting its creation

[rumisong]

I felt led to say something about Art and the moment of its creation in the Tanka thread, during an exchange with goldenlangur- and then gl responded to me (as below) and then I found myself writing something even more about it... so I thought it wise to move the whole thing into a new thread here in General Discussion- and of course if anyone has anything they see on this that we are speaking of, to feel free to join in...

 

I wont quote the full exchange here- but do, if you feel so inclined, read the few posts before this one- Here

 

_______________________

 

goldenlangur wrote:

 

I suppose the

art

is then in that moment of

meeting

of minds/hearts and what this engenders is something that is beyond the

artist

and the reader/spectator/recipient.

 

I will often speak to others about this topic (and since to me, everyone is an artist, I should say) I often dialogue with other artists about this very thing...

 

Ive been asked, "so when Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa, was there any divine influence there? is there any art that is in itself infused with Grace?"

 

and my reply would go something like this:

 

when DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa, there was the model, there was DaVinci, there was the City outside- these things all came into that room, into that meetingplace, and put paint to canvas... then, when DaVinci left the room, and the model went home, and the City outside went about its business, with no one the least bit aware of the Painting that was waiting in storage for the patron to come to his first viewing, then NO, there was no art... then, when the patron arrived, THERE was art again... then, when the patron showed it to his friends on the walls of his villa, THERE was art again... then, when the patron died and it was left to a museum, THERE was art again... then, when patrons of the museum come to look at it, THERE was art again...

 

but each time the painting was covered by dark cloth, and put into a cool dark temperature controlled environment, where no one was looking at it- No, there was no Mona Lisa at those times- the painting did not exist, until it did again- until viewed...

 

put more succinctly, to me, art is ONLY ever in the perception- NOT in the creation...

 

this means, that the "art" was in DaVinci's "perceiving" of his model, and that window-light, and the City noises below, and the colors he mixed for the palate... in these perceptions, there lied the art...

 

and Im contending, that it is the SAME art as when that same painting stops a viewers breath, even if its hanging on a museum wall... the "art" now no longer belongs to DaVinci, but to the viewer... DaVinci effectively gets no credit from me in this case...

 

I notice, that even for myself, looking back at what Ive said- only the one in me who looks for credit, will come to 'disagree'- but the one who actually creates- THAT one knows, the art is never 'mine'... and the one who beholds, THAT one too, knows something about what he is beholding that is not commonly understood by our societies- not usually... the beholder knows something about being a part of what s/he is beholding, that is not easy to express, given the ways our human brains normally work...

 

this is often the job of the poet, is it not? to speak about this very knowing- of the beholder and the beheld? that there IS as much art in that moment, even if it were NEVER to be captured (written about, photographed, painted, danced to, sung to) the art is there- in that meeting, whether a "product" is created or not...

 

this leads to an artists struggle with ambition- with wanting to claim the art for his own... is there something in the artist, that knows there is nothing there to claim? that the creation was really never his? and that struggles with society, for this whole "making a living" thing that we do... making a "name" for oneself... does this flow counter to the perception of the art in the moment of its occurrence? (what I am calling the meeting)

[goldenlangur]

Hello rumisong,

 

 

You've started a fascinating discussion here and how well you express your position re: art and artist and the intrinsic nature of a piece of creation ( painting, novel, even scientific invention, poem etc.) And yes, this is essentially true:

 

the beholder knows something about being a part of what s/he is

beholding, that is not easy to express, given the ways our human brains

normally work...

 

And yes,

the perception

of a work of art is necessary for it to have any meaningful existence outside the imagination of the artist/writer/inventor/poet.

 

But to make a Derridean execution of the artist/writer is to deny the origin of that spark of creation which engaged the beholder. The artist certainly cannot control what and how his work of creation will be perceived as but I would not say that the artist is dead.

 

 

 

Thank you for a most wonderful chance to exchange ideas. I've enjoyed this very much. I shall leave it to more informed PMO members to share their views here.

 

 

goldenlangur

[rumisong]

But to make a Derridean execution of

 

you made me look that one up... yeah, Ive been told that Ive deconstructed things before... but that whole nihilism thing that gets read into that is just NOT so!

 

but I would not say that the artist is dead.

 

no no, that was YESTERday he was dead- TODAY, he just gets no credit

[goldenlangur]

You paint a pretty sad state of the artist:

 

no no, that was YESTERday he was dead- TODAY, he just gets no credit

 

 

I suppose Derrida's 'deconstruction' is a bit nihilistic. But if that is now what you meant then I'll have to have eat my words!

 

 

goldenlangur

[tonyv]

Thank you, Rumisong, for starting this thought-provoking topic. I'm a little behind in my reading here on the board, and I did notice the discussion centered around the use of the word meeting (I think it was in the Playground). I didn't quite understand the exchange -- and I still haven't read the topic -- but, hopefully, lack of understanding on my part was not due to a lack of ability to comprehend that which I was reading rather to a lack of time to read and absorb. That aside, for me this topic has shed some light on that concept of "meeting."

 

Your assertions are fascinating, and I tend to agree with them to some extent. When you say,

when DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa, there was the model, there was DaVinci, there was the City outside- these things all came into that room, into that meetingplace, and put paint to canvas... then, when DaVinci left the room, and the model went home, and the City outside went about its business, with no one the least bit aware of the Painting that was waiting in storage for the patron to come to his first viewing, then NO, there was no art... then, when the patron arrived, THERE was art again... then, when the patron showed it to his friends on the walls of his villa, THERE was art again... then, when the patron died and it was left to a museum, THERE was art again... then, when patrons of the museum come to look at it, THERE was art again...

 

but each time the painting was covered by dark cloth, and put into a cool dark temperature controlled environment, where no one was looking at it- No, there was no Mona Lisa at those times- the painting did not exist, until it did again- until viewed...

 

put more succinctly, to me, art is ONLY ever in the perception- NOT in the creation,

it seems to me that you are addressing the question "What is art?" on a higher level as opposed to a tangible product like a painting, sculpture, or other containable intellectual work-product, like music and literature. I'm prompted to ask, if art exists in the perception, and the artist himself perceives his work, but he never shares it with the world opting instead to keep it for his own enjoyment, is it still art? For example, was the outsider art of Henry Darger art before it was discovered? [For the purposes of discussion, let's leave out whether it was good or bad (that's a separate discussion) and agree that it was art because (a) it was, at some point, viewed by others, and ( B) it is literature and drawings.] Had Darger burned the literature before his death and never shared it with anyone, was it nevertheless art during the time that it was in his possession being enjoyed (hopefully) only by himself? Had da Vinci kept Mona Lisa for his own enjoyment and then destroyed it before his death, would it have been art during the time it was in his possession? I suppose it would have been, though it could be argued that his doing so would have been a selfish act.

 

I think most creators of any kind would prefer to share their creations with "the world," albeit for different reasons. Whether the creator shares because he wants glory, credit, commercial success, to edify people, to shock them, or any combination of the aforementioned perceived rewards, it does seem that "society" will ultimately decide whether the creation is good or bad and whether it's worthy of recognition.

 

What you say here is very inspiring:

and Im contending, that it is the SAME art as when that same painting stops a viewers breath, even if its hanging on a museum wall... the "art" now no longer belongs to DaVinci, but to the viewer... DaVinci effectively gets no credit from me in this case...

When I wrote my poem Industry, I had misgivings and dismissed my own work. Our very own Rony replied as follows:

Bloodyday wrote:

 

and as long as i know what poet writes in the page, he loses the right to judge it any longer. this part is kept for readers. it's hard to conquer every hearts since none is the same.

 

so let's the reader decide what you created!

 

At first read, it is quite alike boring, but after that, one should surprise for the style of creation!

Perhaps I didn't feel the same emotion when I wrote Industry that I had felt in the past when writing other poems, but I wanted to create. I take what you are saying somehow in the same encouraging way that I took Rony's comment. Okay, good or bad poem, it makes no difference -- it's a creation, and it's public. Hopefully, it's art. Let the reader decide. Must the reader be qualified to decide? I suppose within any circle there could be standards, but individuals can certainly always decide for themselves according to their own tastes. For example, you wrote,

and the one who beholds, THAT one too, knows something about what he is beholding that is not commonly understood by our societies- not usually... the beholder knows something about being a part of what s/he is beholding ...

When I went to the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida, I took the guided tour. Had I just wandered around by myself, I would have enjoyed the art, too, albeit in a much more limited fashion. Even so, I would have found the works aesthetically pleasing, but I would have missed a lot and "seen" a lot less in them due to my own inexperience.

 

Where you write,

this is often the job of the poet, is it not? to speak about this very knowing- of the beholder and the beheld? that there IS as much art in that moment, even if it were NEVER to be captured (written about, photographed, painted, danced to, sung to) the art is there- in that meeting, whether a "product" is created or not,

I would say that there is as much inspiration in any of these moments, but I fail to see how there can be art until the creator produces, unless, of course, it is divine creation to which you are referring. There's certainly art in that. As for me, sometimes I'm inspired, and I create. Sometimes I'm blase, and I don't recognize any inspiration around me. Sometimes I'm not inspired, and I try to create. Lots of times I'm just lazy, and I feel like "I have wasted my life."

 

You ask some great questions:

this leads to an artists struggle with ambition- with wanting to claim the art for his own... is there something in the artist, that knows there is nothing there to claim? that the creation was really never his? and that struggles with society, for this whole "making a living" thing that we do... making a "name" for oneself... does this flow counter to the perception of the art in the moment of its occurrence? (what I am calling the meeting),

and they prod me to ask myself why I try to write and why I share what I write here on the site or on any site. To answer my own first question, I would say one of the reasons is that I see beauty in the poetic creation (the product, that is), and I want to create. As for the second question, I enjoy it. I guess I see life as being too short to wait for commercial success, and, I don't have any credentials when it comes to art. I don't have a PhD. Therefore, I will do my best to learn on my own and to have fun while doing it by sharing my creations. Hopefully, others will enjoy them, too.

 

Thanks again for the fantastic topic. I'm pleased to meet you.

 

 

Tony

 

 

note -- I'm moving this topic to the Literary Discussion forum. Alek and I talked about changing the name of that forum to Literary and Art Discussion, but for now, we'll leave it as it is.

[rumisong]

wow Tony- Great additions to the discussion!

 

my Philosophy brain is not working tonight- (which is good, 'cause it means my poetry brain might be ) so let me look again at this later on... but this is turning into a great discussion - and if anyone else has any adds? lets go into it all!

 

oh, you mentioned moving it-

of course, I think I would have found it if you had- do anytime, no need to hesitate on my account...

[Aleksandra]

Wow, how nice topic and wonderful conversation.

Thank you rumisong, for opening this nice thread. Let me say word - two about my thoughts about art. I think that the art it is a meeting, between mind and heart. I can say, that art can be founded in almost everything around, only if your mind and heart have a special meeting.

 

When you talk about Mona Lisa example, I agree with the points where the art exist, but in the part when you say when that is gone, I would add that the art can't be gone if is not seen. When something is done, artistic, it is done, and it is an art. Hidden, or presented, still is the same art ( poem, painting, song, sculpture... ) When it is presented in public, then more people can enjoy in that art, not only the artist - my opinion - only that is the difference. Sometimes, I make my own view of art in some stones around, natural art, see some rocks at the side of some mountain, or lake... you can notice the beauty. I think that is art made by the nature. Never can't die. The same for paintings or poems.

 

Interesting thought you have in here:

and Im contending, that it is the SAME art as when that same painting stops a viewers breath, even if its hanging on a museum wall... the "art" now no longer belongs to DaVinci, but to the viewer... DaVinci effectively gets no credit from me in this case...

 

--but I would say, that Mona Lisa in the case, always will belong to DaVinci. Her can't be out of his painting, he is the creator, he is the soul of the painting. His name remains, the same as his paintings. Yes he doesn't have Mona Lisa in his tomb, but still is a child of him. Once created art, can't die ever.

I always keep next to me one of the expressions what I was sharing all the time, what says that art should be build, we are all artists, we should help with even only one small stone, to be a part from that eternal art world, because that is what lives forever, we will die one day, but our work will stay, together with our names.

 

Much enjoyed here. I am sorry maybe I went even out of subject, but still my thoughts about this are the same.

 

Aleksandra

[Larsen M. Callirhoe]

i think art is found in everything. it is called the beauty of life. we difine it as art because it is colorfol loud guiet soft peaceful etc... all life can be decribed as poetry in motion which is life itself and also can be called art of life. even animals in nature are art. look at their designs and you will notice beauty even in the ugliest creature or even human being. everyone is different. we create so therefore it is called art.

 

great discussion everyone

[Viking Poet (U.K.)]

Hi everyone,

a great topic and discussion piece along with the many interesting reads.

 

I believe: Art is created by a state of emotion and is seen by others as art, when it evokes an emotional response!

 

As victor has pointed out, Art it is all around us.

All we have to do is open our eyes to see and enjoy it.

 

Best regards

 

Viking Poet (U.K.)

[Aleksandra]

Hi everyone,

a great topic and discussion piece along with the many interesting reads.

 

I believe: Art is created by a state of emotion and is seen by others as art, when it evokes an emotional response!

 

As victor has pointed out, Art it is all around us.

All we have to do is open our eyes to see and enjoy it.

 

Best regards

 

Viking Poet (U.K.)

Hello Paul, how are you? Nice to see you around my friend, made me happy to see you here.

 

I agree with yours state for art.

 

Aleksandra

[Viking Poet (U.K.)]

Hi Aleksandra,

I'm O.K. thanks! It's good to see you to.

How are you?

Best regards

Paul

 

Viking Poet (U.K.)

[Frank E Gibbard]

Just noticed Paul popping in. Good to see you here. I read some of this long discussion on Art, I may return to this interesting thread upon reflection. Cheers Paul, Frank.

[Viking Poet (U.K.)]

Thank you Frank.

This site has a very relaxed feeling and i'm not relating to volume.

I've been watching daily since joining just to listen to members and see what floats other writers boats.

It's good you see you again!

Best regards

Paul

 

Viking Poet (U.K.)

[rumisong]

this thread was mentioned earlier today, and I just saw this quote on TED

 

Ansel Adams said, and I disagree with him, "You don't take a photograph, you make it." In my view, it's not the photographer who makes the photo, it's you. We bring to each image our own values, our own belief systems, and as a result of that, the image resonates with us.

 

Jonathan Klein, Chief Executive Officer, Getty Images- on TED2010: Photos that changed the world

[waxwings]

Would you say to me that if while I am looking ar the Mona Lisa but you are not there (same as hiding it behind a dark cloth) it does not exist! Since I have not done so cannot possibly mean it is not there. While you have a right to deny something is Art if it does not grab you, you cannot exclude others. Interesting argument, but you need to come up with something more convincing to support your take on Art.

[waxwings]

I felt led to say something about Art and the moment of its creation in the Tanka thread, during an exchange with goldenlangur- and then gl responded to me (as below) and then I found myself writing something even more about it... so I thought it wise to move the whole thing into a new thread here in General Discussion- and of course if anyone has anything they see on this that we are speaking of, to feel free to join in...

 

I wont quote the full exchange here- but do, if you feel so inclined, read the few posts before this one- Here

 

_______________________

 

goldenlangur wrote:

 

I suppose the

art

is then in that moment of

meeting

of minds/hearts and what this engenders is something that is beyond the

artist

and the reader/spectator/recipient.

 

 

Do we have to go to such great lengths to dicuss what amounts to a de gustibus non disputandum est.

 

Seems to me that any objet d'art is the work of someone with a very specialized skill not all that unlike but extremely rare in comparison to that needed to make a most attractive shoe.

 

The skill of any artist is to produce some object/item that others find 'attractive' for no provable beyond a shadow of a doubt obvious reason. It is true, however, that objects of the performing arts: a play, a ballet, a musical opus or a poem (or other literary composition) does not exist in that specific sense of being fully felt/enjoyed except during a performance of it, but they exist nevertheless by proof of that those having done so even at times years apart will share the enjoyment with others.

Edited February 21, 2011 by waxwings