Don't tell me that's Art!

[Asher Kelman]

Don't think you can fool me!

 

[Rachel Foster]

Interesting....more info, Asher?

 

[Bill Miller]

Asher,

"It would help if you introduce the location, Why is this significant for you and What is it that you want to convey?"

 

[Asher Kelman]

So, Bill,

You did comment, word for word, as expected! My prepared reply:

The place, Sutro Baths Ruins, S.F.

It's Significance? Only merely interesting. That's why it's in Layback Café for more friendly chat. It's not meant to convey any meaning yet rather just questions about the nature of art and identity. Not for sale, yet, just a sketch of an idea, a thoughtful exercise for hopefully meaningful responses.

Asher

 

[Deleted member 55]

It is art if only one person other than it's creator thinks so!

 

[Asher Kelman]

t is art if only one person other than it's creator thinks so!

Will,

That's an interesting assertion! What if there's only one person. S/he has the concepts make he expression of it and then it meets her expectation and she's satisfied. It evokes in her the experience she's hoped for. That then is art, at least for her. Now if the work was even incomplete and she died and then the work was discovered later and appreciated, what then? She has never had the opportunity to declare it finished. She had not negotiated with the emerging life form that art becomes to finish it. So is that art? I feel that it's the "work that's embraced" for what is does to us, that makes it art. Someone will be moved by it's esthetic physicality, beauty or the feelings induced. If the work is compelling enough for just one person to want to talk about and even revisit or possess it, it's art.

Why do I say this? To my mind, art is a tool of humans for inducing an agreeable or remarkable experience, akin to seeing an amazing sky, a beautiful person or a battle between to beasts but without requiring the actual matter to be real. It usually involves the ideas and imagination of at least one individual to be externalized and transformed to a physical form.

As soon as that is done, it's art. If, even without that work, a material is discovered by an artist, say an unusually shaped rock on the beach, to cherish in the same way, it might be art too.

The commonality of art is the relationship of a physical form to evoking feelings, thoughts and stirring our imagination. Just one person, therefore is needed! To sell art, one needs at least two people, but that's another matter!

Don't think you can fool me!

Now the real egret is saying "You are not a porcelain egret, you're a fake!" "Ah!" said the fake, "I'm as real as you! Truth is, neither of us are egrets, we're just art"!

"Wait a moment", says the egret, "How can you say we're art? Art? Just because someone put a silly cracked pattern on you, doesn't change the fact that you're a fake, a copy of me and frankly, no human is going to be slightly interested in a fake! Now I'm the real thing. I'm a white egret!"

Asher

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

I have a working personal thesis regarding this -and it's useful since talking about the meaning of art is a popular pastime here lately- and is like this: You can consider what you do as art if it has no other function, like a photo to obtain a visa, but even that is a fluid concept since you can take photos for your newspaper and also show them as art, so in this case the work works as communication image and as work of art.

The element that I want to ad is the "importance" factor. In the case of the image we are discussing here, nobody can deny that it is art, or a study, a sketch. But how important it is? first of all, it seams to not be as important even for its creator, -posting at the Layback Cafe, as Asher said: "Only merely interesting. That's why it's in Layback Café for more friendly chat..." so its importance may be more relative to stimulating our discussion about art and why we regard some works more valuable than others.

Importance is relevant since works of art live in the context of societies, they are trophies that are to be displayed at galleries, museums and our homes. The idea is to have something that others want to have, Cet obscur objet du désir In this case, even the author doesn't seam to be tempted by the object only mildly.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I have a working personal thesis regarding this -and it's useful since talking about the meaning of art is a popular pastime here lately- and is like this: You can consider what you do as art if it has no other function, like a photo to obtain a visa, but even that is a fluid concept since you can take photos for your newspaper and also show them as art, so in this case the work works as communication image and as work of art.

That I like. I think that's a good point to consider. Leonardo, I'm delighted to have your insight!

Would Frank Cappa be intending to show his art as much as make the best record of the war and epic moments he recorded"? Do we know?

The element that I want to ad is the "importance" factor. In the case of the image we are discussing here, nobody can deny that it is art, or a study, a sketch. But how important it is? first of all, it seams to not be as important even for its creator, -posting at the Layback Cafe, as Asher said: "Only merely interesting. That's why it's in Layback Café for more friendly chat..." so its importance may be more relative to stimulating our discussion about art and why we regard some works more valuable than others.

I did that because I did not wish this particular iteration of my idea to be the reason for people not to discuss the underlying concepts. I am also looking for the extent to which meaning and a stimulus for discussion is satisfactorily embedded with this motif. So yes, it's important to me. I put this here, in Layback Café, to help remove inhibitions to commenting.

 

[leonardobarreto.com]

Asher, I did't mena to say that it was not important to you, but that it may be relatively less important. I'm creating all the time, photos and now I'm back at painting since I have two studios here in Bolivia, one for photography and another for painting (converted garage), but soon after I finish a piece I become a critic of it and try to place it among other work I have done, next, I ask my wife, -she likes yellow paintings and nothing with purple, so it's subjectibe- and I come back next day to re-examin the work. Some paintings are obviously bad, and we are talking about absolut abstract work, and some work.

Using my "method", some are "important" since a lot of my friends and in a anedtoal way, like the same ones. Some just don't work for me even if I created them...

Let me include some thumbnails just in small size not to intrude in your thread ..

This one works for me

This one not so much...

(If you want to see the work here is the link http://leonardobarreto.com/PAINTINGS/index.htm)