P3D Re: Quarrels about "Art"

["Xal razutis" <razutis@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

There have been arguments that 'prescribe' (what is, what is not art) and 
arguments that describe intent, process, context, and meaning (of art). All 
of this is valuable, though my (personal) interests are in descriptive 
analysis since I have developed an aversion for all forms of prescriptive 
(rule-bound) dogma.

Sergio Baldissara wrote (presumably) 'on behalf' of Italians:

>"May be in Italy we are fed by
>discussions about "art" since in the cradle, but I don't care any more 
>about
>"what" is art, or "what" an artist should do.

Fine. A personal statement that also presumes to speak for an entire 
nation.......

So, let's see if this will test-fly: 'In LOS ANGELES WE ARE FED UP WITH ANY 
DISCUSSION OF ART....since ENTERTAINMENT and THEME PARKS and BOX-OFFICE 
SUCCESS is all WE really CARE ABOUT.'

'We'?  'Art?'

Fortunately, this type of argument has never flown beyond the publicists and 
their various insistances of what is 'THE GREATEST', 'FABULOUS', 'YOU GOTTA 
SEE THIS', and other advertisements ('theory-practice of the lie') which 
have infected our North American culture and now are considered 'normal 
practice' resulting in SUCCESS and big-bucks.

You don't see histories of 'advertisement slogans' (yet); you do, however, 
see histories of art of all kinds (of all times, cultures, sacred, 
non-sacred, and those that UPSET the 'status quo').

And Oleg Vorobyoff wrote:

>I know this thread should be left to die.  But there is one important
>thing, I believe, that has not been explicitly said.  That is that art
>is a process, not an isolated thing.

Well, the responses posted so far prove very well that art can never be 
isolated from the context within which it is received. Even  if it is 
received by people who don't read carefully and prefer to term this author a 
'jerk'.

The various responses to Rod Sage's post (mine included) offered contrasting 
views, arguments, additional insights.  Some sought to trivialize the term 
'art' (yuk, yuk, yuk), presumably because the authors thought this practice 
to be 'worthless' in light of the subtleties of the various geometries, 
optics, and camera technologies repeatedly discussed.

I wrote some months ago that a technological art form (like 3D) will always 
feature a tug of war between technology and aesthetics. 'Holographic Art', 
from the 70's on, was similarly afflicted, with technical holograms (mimetic 
representation of objects) standing in as 'art' by 'scientists' and 
exhibited alongside works by 'artists'.  Thing was, that the scientists kept 
arguing for 'higher diffraction efficiency' while artists were trying to 
blend holography with sculpture, with painting, with historical referents.

Did this result in a unified art form?  Only if you think a embossed 
hologram of a toy appearing as a corn-flakes give-away card  is 'art'.....

To think for a minute that "art" of 3D is something that does NOT BELONG on 
this list would be to prescribe what we SHOULD discuss, and SHOULD NOT 
discuss. Or, HOW we should discuss this, or when it 'should be left to die'.

Those kinds of pronouncements fly in the face of why art is produced, 
'without permission' granted by various authorities and  cogniscenti, 
various hobbyists, and those interested in 'other' stuff.

As long as we want to understand how meaning is generated, modified, 
codified (as 'art') and transmitted (by 'culture') the task of discussing - 
and quarreling about - art will continue.

And it should have a place on this list, even if the gloves have to come 
off.

There are some of us - myself included - that value the relevance of this 
term, how it translates into 'value', how it is redefined by generations, 
how distinctions are created, and by whom.

The 'art' of 3D photography, 3D motion-pictures and video, 3D computer 
graphics is something that is being re-born as we proceed into the next 
millenium.

To dismiss it or bury it under vague generalities, to reduce it to the 
status of a purely 'subjective' (I like, I don't like) quality is to deny 
its place in a trans-personal culture that we ourselves (the producers of 
images, the conveyors of meaning) participate in.

The quarrels will continue, since the substance is always mutable, changing, 
and threatening that very 'status quo' that attempts to contain it.

And some of us actually try to make a 'living' doing just 
that....contemporary art.


Al Razutis

Visual Alchemy
e-mail: razutis@xxxxxxxxxxx
WEB ADDRESSES:
(North America)
http://www.alchemists.com/
(Europe)
http://www.holonet.khm.de/visual_alchemy/index.html
avant-garde film - 3D-video - holography

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