The Town Herald

2006-04-18 [Sunrose]: I don't think you are over-interpreting as an artpiece can mean a lot of things to the one who views it. You however don't know if all artists give their art this much thought. I think it's interesting when people feel they know the artist by looking at their work, when their work is all they can base their opinion of the artist on. Not personal contact or whatsoever. What you see in an artwork might also just be a reflection of yourself instead of the artist. // I also think that forming a more in depth opinion on an artpiece can't be done simply by looking at it for more than 5 minutes, it's something you need to learn.

2006-04-18 [Sunrose]: By listening to opinions of others who point out things you didn't think of, by knowing more about art in general and about backgrounds of artists. // A nice article to read..  :)

2006-04-19 [~Nyx~]: Hey. I looked at it for 5 min (without reading the rest of your article) and I saw the glass of water and the sun. (not the other stuff though). Now I want my cookie :P This is a very good article by the way :)

2006-04-20 [iippo]: Thanks Sunrose, good points. // *hands cookie to [~Nyx~]*

2006-05-01 [raza]: I agree with you in a lot of points, but (yes, but sorry) i want to know your opinion on this point : Must art be understandable by only a few person, or must it everyone understand it? Art is for the élite or for everybody? What the use of an art that a few minority understand? It's a really good point to have a great idea, and want to put symbol, but, if your idea don't survive you?

2006-05-01 [iippo]: In my opinion art musn't be anything. It can be, on the other hand, only comprehendable by few (means it either deals with something that not all have experience of, or have the capability of dealing with), or it can be comprehendable by all. Neither option makes it less worthy. But with art that is difficult to understand in any way there is a danger of being shunned for not having any meaning at all by people who don't understand. And if those people are a majority, their opinion might be difficult to change even with explanations.

2006-05-01 [raza]: mmh ok i got your point of view i think... Just, if art can't be understood, why do we do art? For express idea? For nothing you may answer, and you're maybe right, but so if an art picture has a purpose, is it still art? Maybe you would say that tehre can be or not be any purpose... mh. Maybe we need a better definition of "what is exactly call "art" in your article.

2006-05-01 [iippo]: Art is used to express or extract an emotion or meaning. So a piece that means something, and a piece that makes the viewer feel something are both art. Mind you, that a piece making the viewer feel angry, frustrated or even bored can still be art. (You have interesting questions! ^_^)

2006-05-01 [raza]: ok, so if the viewer don't feel anything else than "Oh, i don't understand", can it be still art? Because, if only view viewers can feel something, it's always art? If it express something that almost nobody can understand, does it always express something? And don't you think that Art that is art must express one feeling? I mean, every body can feel anything in front of anything. Personaly, i'm never let without a feeling. at least i'm bored. So is everything Art?(thank you very much, i'm glad to find someone that want to answer them. ^^)

2006-05-01 [iippo]: The viewer doesn't define the art, so if they don't understand it or feel anything from it, it doesn't mean it ceases to be art. I think in here the coming-to-be comes to play. All work has the "why it was done" in its history (part of the aura). A designer designs a chair because he is hired to do so and he has the skill. That chair isn't Art. A painter can make a picture that no one gets, but the process of the artist making it still makes it art. But if no one gets it (while the artist does intend it to convey a message or emotion), it's possibly a failure and the artist wouldn't show it to many people. Remember that for every piece that an artist shows to the public, there are 9 failed..

2006-05-01 [iippo]: ... pieces in his studio. Also, some art is just meant to be decorative, pleasant for the eyes.

2006-05-01 [raza]: Mmh, so another question escape from my mind... If only one person feels something in front of what the artist did, it's art? In this case, the number of people doesn't matter. And i don't forget, don't worry, i know that... I'm not an artist, but. lol :)

2006-05-01 [iippo]: If it was still made as art, yes. So what counts for art is the thought gone into it (the "why should I do this thing?"), the process of making it and the feeling and/or meaning it conveys. For example, a lot of reneissance masterpieces were done as commissions (for rich people, for church, etc...) so the "why am I doing this" is more money/fame-based than some other noble reason. And many modern pieces stand shaky on the what-does-it-mean ground, either because the artist wants to let the piece "speak for itself" (and the piece doesn't for all), or the artists is giving more emphasis on the method of working (the so called "it's not the destination it's how you get there").

2006-05-01 [raza]: In this case, lots of things could be call art. And the artist can dive in a pervert thing: i first do something random, and then, he search something in it. Who could guess the,, if it was his purpose, or if he did it like that? (i know that it's not all the artist, far of that...) And if the piece must "speak for itself", it may be dangerous, because someone can interprate it badly. People may change the artist idea in something wrong, in a bad message. erhm, i'm not sure of being enough clear, must i explain more?

2006-05-01 [iippo]: But then again, the "why do something random" would be answerd with "to make art"... Then the fact that there is no such thing as random at all... When you think of something, whatever it is, it ceases to be random. Only if you are not in control of your body (like have seizures or blurt out words due to braindamage) only then it's random. But if the artist takes this approach of "I'll do something and see what it means", they are going for the "the way there makes it art" -approach. They'll probably think about half way there what it'll mean, and start to direct it that way. And a lot of artists (surrealists for example) have really struggled to make something without guiding it.

2006-05-01 [iippo]: I'm not very fond of the "work will speak for itself" -approach, really, but I'm a dictator like that: I made it, I'll speak for it! :P

2006-05-01 [raza]: ok, but so now come back the arguement that "everybody can do it". We don't need to be perfectly skill to make something that will express what they feel. So everybody can do Art. Oh, someone said, i don't remember who that "everyone is gifted, but only few people can follow the dark path of this gifts." sorry for not say it correctly, i knew it only in french. O.o But does art resum itself of being enough brave to show what we did and assume it? Oh, and for the "work will speak for itself", for my part, it depends of my mood. lol :)

2006-05-01 [iippo]: Everyone who thinks they can do art, can do art. It looks like a small difference, but it is a huge one. Many people - sadly - are far to cynical to do art. Some are too shy, some are too busy. But I don't mean you have to have a certain personality - you just need to overcome any obstacles that would prevent you from making art, like shyness (if you're afraid of the white paper, how can you draw on it?) or cynicism. But yes, you don't need to be trained or talented or even have had years and years of drawing practice to be able to do art. But if you don't have the skills, are you satisfied with the quality of your work? Possibly not, you might end up with an end-result you don't think is...

2006-05-01 [iippo]: ...correct in saying what you wanted to say, thus making you "not capable of doing art". The answer to that is naturally practice, but practice takes time so if you're busy with other things, you might not end up having time for art.

2006-05-01 [raza]: Ok i agree, but, if you don't need to practice, as t's the case when you do nothing on the thing you show as art (i saw really strange things sometimes, as some pieces of wood, titled "untitled".) So, no need to have time, no need to have skill, no need to practice... I'm glad you think that every body can be an artist. If we are in the case of the artist that invent AFTER making his piece what he wants, it will always be as he wanted to be. mmh, and i'm sorry, i didn't really get the point about cynism. Maybe a difference of nuance in the french term.

2006-05-01 [iippo]: The tree-thing art is called "found objects". And it does take time and eye to find stuff: you still have to go somewhere and see the art in something "random" -- a cynic would be incapable of doing this. The meanings that "found objects" often have is things like 'taking something out of its original habitat and placing it under the human eyes' (tree in a gallery - if it's dead = urban living is the death of nature, if it's alive in a pot = humans imprisoning nature? For example). The "found objects" thing started a long time ago with DADA (even the movement's name is a found object! They just opened a French dictionary and picked the first thing they saw XD) and they caused an outrage.

2006-05-01 [iippo]: A cynic in my opinion is someone who has quite a negative opinion on things, doesn't believe in miracles, possibly doesn't believe in art either.

2006-05-01 [raza]: I have already have heard of "found objects" but i didn't think what was here could be. It wasn't with other objects which are "found objects", so maybe that's the reason why i didn't make the link with it... I know the Dadaism. :) I find it really original, but only the first can be called artist, because after, even if they do something elsen the main idea is already taken if you see what i mean. :) And so, we come back to this: art ishaving a great idea, before everyone, and now, it's almost always express this idea with the more complexe way we can find. I don't think that making complicated is making art. For sure, not everyone can do it, but? Ok for the cynism, we don't have the same

2006-05-01 [raza]: ... definition.

2006-05-01 [iippo]: But "found object" is a method of making art, thus it doesn't make you unoriginal if you use the same method, just like you're not unoriginal if you paint, just because there's hundreds of years of painters in history before you. There is an interesting artist who "makes" found object sculpture: he takes photos of things that people have put on display on the street. You know how some people find a glove on the street and hang it from a bannister, so whoever is looking for it, will find it? (Although if someone is looking for it, they'd be looking on the ground o.O) and some people in lack of a bin, put a soda can on a bit of wall or fence instead of putting it to the street, etc...

2006-05-01 [iippo]: And the artist takes photos with his cameraphone of these every day items on display. Who is the author of the art? The person who unconsciously places the item there, or the man who chances by and snaps a pic with his camera phone? (He makes it a rule that he himself musn''t put things anywhere for composition, or "manipulate" the scene in any other way.)

2006-05-01 [raza]: mmh, yeah i understand what you meant about "found object", but i talked about the Dadaism, for the poem, for exemple. Mh, you ask question too now? lol :) Who's the artist? I think that the person who acted with conscious of what he did is the artist... But if someone else decide to do the same, i mean, take photo of random things on the street he won't be an artist, as if someone make a poem Dada, taking random words, he won't be an artist anymore, don't you think? :) I find his rule to taly normal.. that's what is original by the way in this work... :)

2006-05-01 [iippo]: Someone who reads about him and does the same... Hmm, I think it'd still be art, since there is that certain amount of anonymity, and they'd take pictures of different things. Using someone else's idea just because they are an artist doesn't make you an artist (so taking a ruler and making some black lines on a white canvas and colouring some bits in wouldn't be art if not made with 'the intent'). But someone who made a poem with the Dada-method would still be original (and no such thing as random words, there is only a limited amount from which to choose from). It all comes down to the "why". If making something just because someone else made art like that, then the why is not sufficient...

2006-05-01 [iippo]: ...for the end-result to be called art. But if happening to do the same as another, or if inspired by something someone else did, it's still art, even when the end-result is similar or same.

2006-05-01 [raza]: You think it'd still be art? mmh, i don't think so, but that's not the debate. ;) Oh yes, true it's not only random words, but indeed, i think using exactly a method that is such original, that method make the thing become art. i mean, someone who paint use the same method, but, it's not "because it's painting" that it's art. But a dada-method poem is art because it's a dada poem, do'nt you think? And personaly i don't think that the why is totaly sufficient... When we see Art, there is something more than the purôse of the artist behind, i mean, maybe an art piece allow people to find something which is inside them, that some art, closed to the majority, can't make it for everyone. It's..

2006-05-01 [raza]: .. not understand the piece, but feeling something that is inside us. But maybe people that don't understand this art have just boredom inside...(that i don't think, of course.)

2006-05-01 [iippo]: The dada-poem isn't art just because it's done that way. It makes an intellectual point about the state of art, the supposed randomness, about authorship, about the way chance affects our lives, etc.. things that dadists believed in. The same method can be used to make other points. I didn't quite get the other part, about When we see Art, there is something more than the purpose of the artist behind...? Can you expand this thought?

2006-05-01 [raza]: Mmh, surely Dadaist believe it. Aw, damned, me and this english. Erhm, when you are in front of Art, and you look at it. So maybe you'll find the artiste's purpose. But not only. We find something else, that make us think, about something that is inside us. That's maybe the artist wanted us to do, but somethimes, that's something else. That may make us think about something else. Behing each piece of art, there are a part of ourselves. So if the person looks at it, and think "nothing" and that don't make the person move inside, if you see what i mean? erhm.. i hope you see. So if the person don't move inside his mind, just found the artist purpose, and then, nothing. In great art, there is a

2006-05-01 [raza]: ...part of ourselves i mean. It's like a strange miror.

2006-05-01 [iippo]: Ah, very interesting. Very wise. I like the way you put it as "when you are in front of Art, and you look at it" - there is a notion that art has an aura, especially old art. What the physical painting has been through, how it has been touched by the artist and all the other people who have touched it, the specialness of the original. And it is a fact that viewing a reproduction ina book or on the computer screen is like watered down wine -- nowhere near the experience of standing in front of the real painting, so it's very likely that what you say is true, that the real thing reflects the person. A funny thing that happened in a gallery: the guide asked us what we saw first when viewing...

2006-05-01 [iippo]: ...the painting, and someone said "well, her back and her... bum" and she lowered her voice when she said bum, as if not wanting to upset the prestige in the gallery... XD This painting ---> http://keptar.demasz.hu/arthp/art/v/velazque/mytholog/venus.jpg

2006-05-02 [raza]: I'm glad you agree with me. :-) You find better words to express what i thought! ^^ The aura. :) How didn't i think about this word? i knew it, it's the same in french, lol. It's true that viewing a piece of art for real is not at all the same that seeing it on the internet, or in a book... Funny story, maybe this person knew that it as a part of herself, and that it was something, erhm "intime", deeply attached to her... Maybe?

2006-05-02 [iippo]: The aura is a common notion in art, and a lot of artist take it to themselves to "fight it". Like in printmaking, it is difficult to tell what is the original, when the printmaker can keep making equally original copies. And some artists make a reproducable piece, then destroy the original to kill the aura.

2006-05-02 [raza]: O.o really? what a strange idea. i never heard about that. Aura is something inherent in the art work, and it's a part of the art, don't you think? O.O

2006-05-02 [iippo]: As long as the piece in question is the original. Imagine the aura on Mona Lisa - all the people who have ever stood in front of it or touched it, or the parts of it's history (where was it for the first time, was it stolen, how did it come back etc...). A poster of Mona Lisa doesn't have that aura. The riddage of aura goes hand-in-hand with the art to the people -idea. So art wouldn't be this high and mighty institution with its auras of prestige and the elite and the canon of good art -- they want art to be accessible to all, and demolishing the aura helps in that. You can view the image without the mirror-effect you mentioned, without being overwhelmed.

2006-05-02 [raza]: But if this artist want to make art accessible to all, and at the same time, the art is totaly closed to all, i mean, there are too trends so: some artist that want art be accessible to all, and the others, that make this art that is not understandable by the majority. So it's really strange, and maybe people will be lost? If an artist make something unaccessible to people but try to destroy the aura, it's a bit, absurd? Or maybe it was the aim of the manipulation?

2006-05-03 [iippo]: Hmm, maybe the artist doesn't think that the majority wouldn't understand his art (it is probably very clear to himself), quite the same way that some people say or do things they think are obvious, when others have no idea what he's on about. I reckon that all people have the capability to understand any piece of art if they are willing to give it the chance and spend the time. And there's no shame in asking someone (museum intendent, the artist, discuss in the internet, read artist's statement). But then again, some people prefer to tear down rather than understand, to abuse other things and people, rather than to discuss it. It is very common. And not everyone find it worthwhile.

2006-05-03 [raza]: yeah, everybody can understand but there is conditions, so it's not so easy. (i never say that i didn't agree.) But now we touch another problem, that people must be "educated" to art, if nobody gives the keys, it's nonsense. So Art can't be universal with tis conception, don't you think? If we need three books and 45 opinions to understand art, where is the universal side? In this book, in the artist voice, it's just interpretation, even by the artist, so it's something with some kind of "rules" to understand art. I don't know if my point of view is clear... ?.?

2006-05-04 [iippo]: It is universal. Everyone has the capability to understand, that's what I said. Everyone is able to look and think and make a meaning for themself, make an interpretation. Everyone is also free to choose not to, but then they musn't complain that they can't understand, especially when they could just ask the people, the book, the internet, the anything. Most of these "this art can't be understood" -comments sprout from lazyness. Art doesn't force-feed itself to the viewers like (some) TV does. It challenges the viewer to figure it out, like playing hard to get. And then you get the reward when you do figure it out. It depends so much on the person.

2006-05-04 [raza]: Mmh, yes i agree with you that everybody can understand and those who don't are just people who don't want, but if we need, to understand, something else than us, it can't be really called "universal", don't you think? personaly i don't think that we really understand something in a piece of art if we just ask to someone else, we must find the answer in ourselves, do you see my point of view? O.o'

2006-05-04 [iippo]: That's exactly what I am saying. If you take the time, you can do it. Anyone can. The result may be different from others, and if you care enough, you can find out what others thought of it too, thus finding out new things about it. If you don't want to take the time to think about it, you have to option of a) asking someone or reading about it somewhere else, or b) ignore it, say it's impossible to understand or that it means nothing, go home and have a beer. As much as the viewer gets involved, the more the art means to that person. Just because the viewer doesn't bother, doesn't mean the art means nothing.

2006-05-05 [raza]: Oh ok i didn't understood. ^^ Sorry... I didn't get the "if you don't want to take the time to think about it idea... Sorry... ^^ Ok so we agree. cool! (I like your kind of humour by the way, about have a beer. lol)

2006-05-05 [iippo]: This has been one of the most interesting conversations I've ever had in ET. :)

2006-05-05 [raza]: Oh! ^^ thank you very much, it's the same for me, nice talking with you! :)

2006-06-30 [Tails Of the Revolution]: Impressive. I'd never thought about this style of art like that before. Opened my mind a lot. Thanks. ^_^