Deep Thought Thursday

We were having quite a discussion on the last Deep Thought Thursday, so I’m pulling out some of the comments for this week’s post.

Tinam
Give us your thoughts on what Tina Mammoser wrote . . .

Does being an artist/making art require intent? :)
Or is [art] defined
only by the viewer? (which is how we now consider some ancient
artifacts art, that were not in their own time)

Does classification as
‘art’ change over time?

Image (c) Tina Mammoser, Horizon.

Send to Kindle

7 comments to Deep Thought Thursday

  • Nat

    Does classification as art change over time? Just looking at classical devotional art and portraiture, clearly our classifications have changed enormously over the last century and a half. The question in my mind is whether the classification as art will continue to change, or have we exhausted the extremities?

  • in law (as a metaphor), two elements must exist in trying a crime…they are called “mens rea” & “actus rea” …the first refers to mental motivation , the second to the act itself…if the mental decision is not proven , then murder becomes manslaughter…if we were trying a case to decide if someone had committed an act of art , we would have to prove both cognition & physical action…that is of course, if art is at all like crime…

  • Thanks for calling me out Alyson. I suppose this means I actually have to think about the questions! I do think art, in a contemporary situation, is made by artists and it takes an intent, you put down marks (or sculpt or compose) as a step in a creation. I rather like the comparison to murder and manslaughter! Historically I don’t think we can deny that the definitions change and that it’s us as current-day viewers that decide historic items are now art, when they may have originally been practical useful items. One example in my own studio is an old indian fabric printing block. While the printed fabric itself may have been art or craft the tool, the block, probably wasn’t. Yet I display it as a beautiful object in and of itself. I often see wooden printing blocks, usually lettering, displayed and sold now as art objects (or at least decorative ones). There are even contemporary forms that are trying to define themselves – hence the debates about craft and fine craft, particularly glass and ceramic that may have a useful form but were intended as art pieces. I think it will be the next generations that label us in retrospect. Of course, I’m reading a book about Empiricism philosophy right now. So none of our art “objects” may exist anyway, all just impressions in our minds. But lets not go that deep! :)

  • Does any of this really matter? Why can’t we just enjoy what we do, what we look at, what we experience in the moment of the doing, looking, experiencing? Let’s agress that art enhances our understanding and appreciation of the world. For me, arguing about it not only muddies the intellectual waters but takes away from the unique and often eye opening relationship with the world one has when experiencing art. And let’s not forget that children are still starving, being forced into slavery and prostitution, and generally being abused around the world while we’re having this conversation….

  • That’s agree, not agress…..

  • education, intellectual pursuit, schooling, debating, philosophy, art, have been shown to lessen a child’s likelihood from going astray…the pursuit of these seemingly esoteric ideas is actually what prevents the harsh realities that you refer to above…proven…

  • John Salmon

    For me creating art is a by-product of an instinct to create in order to survive. Since the beginning of time, man has had to create tools and form ideas to improve his chances of survival. I’m just lucky enough to have the same instinctive behaviour that allows me to do something I enjoy.