Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,934   Posts: 1,585,594   Online: 705
      
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 114
  1. #51
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Because I can call myself a musician, despite being tone-deaf and someone that most people would pay not to sing.

    By all means call yourself an artist. Or intellectual. Or diva. Just don't expect anyone else to take you at your word. (Not a personal attack, obviously).

    Cheers,

    Roger
    If something has to be good to be art and if one must be making good art to be an artist, the implication is that there is therefore, no such thing as a bad artist...and by extension, no such thing as bad art. Two notions that are obviously ridiculous. "I reject that 'bad art' is oxymoronic.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    No one needs to confer the status of 'artist'. I'm an artist. The propensity among makers of art to be coy about embracing the term 'artist' is cowardly.
    I agree completely, and as I said (perhaps elsewhere -- there are two or three similar threads running at the moment), we are all born artists.

    My only disagreement is whether any self-styled 'artist's' description of himself or herself as such will be widely accepted, the more so as many are unwilling to include 'bad artist' or 'incompetent artist' or 'arrogant artist' in the overall category 'artist'.

    You and I (and indeed jd callow) are more accommodating. As is jstraw [edit]. Though I admit a certain unwillingness to include 'bad art' in 'art'.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  3. #53
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    OK, fair enough -- though someone in another, similar thread pointed out that there are dead ends which need to be explored in order to see how and why they are dead ends. It may even have been you, though I don't think it was. I suspect that our world-pictures are a lot closer than they might appear to a third party reading this exchange.

    Best of all, you've made me relax or at least reconsider some of my definitions. I hope I've done the same for you.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    That was moi'.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    That was moi'.
    My apologies for not giving credit where it was greatly due.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  5. #55
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    My apologies for not giving credit where it was greatly due.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    No need to apologize. I may only think it was me.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  6. #56
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    OK, fair enough -- though someone in another, similar thread pointed out that there are dead ends which need to be explored in order to see how and why they are dead ends. It may even have been you, though I don't think it was. I suspect that our world-pictures are a lot closer than they might appear to a third party reading this exchange.

    Best of all, you've made me relax or at least reconsider some of my definitions. I hope I've done the same for you.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    My concern with judging work through the lens of time is how it tends to exclude work over time and more importantly it excludes people as participants of the work during the works time. I believe we should be exalting in *our* artists today as we do our sports/pop hero's. The world would be a far better place if we embraced the humanities and to do that we need bring down artificial barriers.

    I agree about dead ends, stuff that is dead now may have been anything but in its time. I wonder how Warhol will be viewed after Marilyn and Campbell soup are no longer a memory?


    For the record, I have always thought the great works of human kind required the benefit of time to fully appreciate -- I see this as yours and Jovo's point and one that was, in my mind, made badly because you put the onus on the lowly artist. My point is that the great works as well as a lot of the minor stuff are both art made by artists. Some of these folks are beat writers and others are Shakespeare.

    *

  7. #57

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by jd callow View Post
    ... I believe we should be exalting in *our* artists today as we do our sports/pop hero's. The world would be a far better place if we embraced the humanities...
    Mmmmm.... But can't this deteriorate very quickly into celebrity worship of whoever is the media darling of the moment? Is not the artist reduced to the level of Paris Hilton (see Soap Box)? The media crave simplicty, black and white, heroes and villains. I think we'd agree that art ain't like that.

    I fully (and gratefully) take your other points (especially the one about participation), but with your above statement we seem to be at an interesting crossover where absolutism and relativism are identical.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post

    By all means call yourself an artist. Or intellectual. Or diva. Just don't expect anyone else to take you at your word. (Not a personal attack, obviously).

    Cheers,

    Roger
    I'm not particularly interested in calling myself anything.

    As for taking people at their word, by and large, I find it a constructive thing to do.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by catem View Post
    As for taking people at their word, by and large, I find it a constructive thing to do.

    Agreed. But I don't expect everyone to do it.

    And of course I didn't mean it personally.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  10. #60
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Mmmmm.... But can't this deteriorate very quickly into celebrity worship of whoever is the media darling of the moment? Is not the artist reduced to the level of Paris Hilton (see Soap Box)? The media crave simplicty, black and white, heroes and villains. I think we'd agree that art ain't like that.

    I fully (and gratefully) take your other points (especially the one about participation), but with your above statement we seem to be at an interesting crossover where absolutism and relativism are identical.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    Possibly.

    I would hope that the level of sophistication needed to appreciate art, might also include a modicum of maturity. Even if it were to become as bad as Hilton or Spears I'd be ok with it. Imagine the chat rooms where teenage kids are debating the relevancy and transient nature of symbols and icons in modern society opposed to arguing over whether or not so and so had cosmetic surgery or if LBJ is better than MJ.

    *



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin