P3D Re: Art? (Sage, Tank, Dottle, Vorobyoff, Rehotshots),

["Xal razutis" <razutis@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sage on 'Art' has provoked a number of responses, as rhetoric often does, 
some illuminating, some trivial, some humorous, some not.

Greg Tank's response was thorough and illuminating. One can't argue with his 
premise of the (artist's) task of striking a personal and collective 'chord' 
and aspirations of the human 'soul'.

I'll take issue with Dottle's:

>Who says art is created with a specific intent?....(snip) I've always 
>equated art with talent........not with an intention or
>message.

Who says? Volumes of writings by artists about their works and lives. And 
the works themselves.  Sure, fortuitous accidents will happen. There are 
arts of the 'accidental meeting of' (as in Surrealism) or art by chance 
(Cage). To select the accident that works, as distinct from the accidents 
that don't mean anything, is also the artist's task. Talent?  The talent to 
express and with courage of one's own convictions. Not simply a talent to 
'focus properly' or draw a straight line.

Vorobyoff wrote:

>To address your (Sage's) question, I’d say it is not art if it is not 
>designed to
>elicit a specific set of ethereal reactions in its audience.  The higher
>the quality of the art the more finesse it employs and the more
>multifaceted it appears.

The use of ambiguous phrases ('ethereal reactions', 'finesse', 
'multifaceted') didn't help clarify the matter. But it did appear to be a 
call for appreciating the subtle rather than the accidental characteristics 
in expression (art).

Then there was a rather personal invective (directed at me)  from
someone (unsigned) 'Rehotshots@xxxxxxx':

>I would like to know if Mr. Razitus' purpose is to insult us or enlighten 
>us. (and)
>I did however find the content of Mr. Razitus'  post very informative and
>enlightening, in spite of the repulsiveness of his attitude.

Actually, my bone of contention was with the content (not the person) of Mr. 
Sage's remarks and the rhetorical constructions he was using.  Whether it is 
'repulsive' to a unsigned 'Rehotshots@xxxxxxx' is only slightly interesting. 
  I am amazed at the conceit that anyone would speak for the list by using 
the plural '(insult)us or (enlighten)us.

Who are you referring to when you write of 'us'?

As in some previous threads, disagreements produce new ideas. And thanks to 
Mr. Sage, we have some more constributions (take them or leave them) on that 
timeless subject of 'art'.  Contributions written by people who are or are 
not 'artists', whose livelihood may or may not depend on how that term is 
understood and applied.

I, for one, value these ideas, opinions and disagreements. This is because 
they affect (and sometimes afflict) the very profession that has been my 
life over the last thirty years.

And just think, many of us will never meet and put a face to the typed 
script offered here and within the 'comfort zone' of anonymity that these 
exercises provide! (It is quite different for an artist who hangs his/her 
work in a gallery and stands in defence of them.)


Al Razutis

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com