Anstey - Man, that's a hell of an argument. I am on your side on this one Alcuin. I'd say very much in agreement.
Anstey - I just can't even fathom the argument that art is for anything other than communication. The more i think of it, the less sense it makes.
A photograph isn't art until it is developed and cropped, framed and presented.
Computer Generated Poetry isn't poetry until it is discovered out of a mess of 'unPoetry' spewed by the machine. (which was, by the way created by people)
It is not art until it is a message. Until it is arranged. Until it is placed in context.
Art that does not communicate anything is not art. Otherwise Mt. Everest is more than just the biggest mountain it's one of the biggest pieces of art on the planet.
Tracey - Please to forgive - I am having a very hard time reading your .5 font (alas, the eagle eyes begin to change).
This is an outstanding topic and I'll ponder it. For now I'll be a simpleton and say that I don't mind when certain things are interpreted differently then I intend them. The perfect example is the poem I have in the second Revue, "the power of suggestion." That was a total free association write for me that suggests the essence of certain parts of my teenage years without any specific message. Everyone who reads it takes it differently, and I'm fine with that. But with some of what I gather from you and Stephan it seems that maybe with that kind of response, the words are relegated to the category of "not art."
I'll think on this some more.
Anstey - I disagree -- the essence of your teen years, the sharing of insights and free-associative thoughts can be art. You took those thougts and words and put them in a form and a context which then put across some sort of message, whether it was emotive or cognitive. There was intent to communicate something. That is the essence of art, i think.
Mosquitobyte - Whilst I tend to agree that something is not art until read/seen/viewed by another in many instances, I have to agree with the thrust of Alcuin's argument.
My poetry; in the main, is written so that the reader can find what art they wish, what message they wish. This is an intentional thing, requiring a layering of meanings in each piece. If I just randomly babbled on, only keeping to "dictionary definition number one" meanings of words, I'd have produced nothing more than a really bad advetorial!
I am a nerd, (and yes I have beaten people up Leanne!! lol) and love all things fractal, though to suggest that a randomly occuring part of nature which can be duplicated with equations is art, well.....that is just folly. Beautiful yes, art, no!
End.
Mos.
Anstey - So i was perusing the net looking for some clue, some relevant data that might enlighten me on this issue, and what i found was this funny little quote on wikipedia:
Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art.
I really can't say that computer generated poetry is ruled out, nor fractals. It seems to me that they fit basically. Still, there is a looseness of their fit, which makes me wonder.
It all comes back to the concept of the intent of the artist. When Warhol framed the soup can it seems rather lacking. I once saw a series of blurred photographs of ducks, that didn't' do much for me. But, it isn't really about whether they work or not, bad art is still art.
The question comes back to the context and intent of the artist. When my friend Geoff wrote programs to generate what he called, "rugs" which were basically a form of fractal design, and then he would cut from these "rugs" the bits which he found aesthetically pleasing and frame them. This was art. They were, in their way, very beautiful. Completely computer generated, but still, beautiful and affective (i won't comment on their effectiveness)
I used to have a tool called 'the fridge' on an old site (yes julie, i'm working on porting it for nano) that basically generated poetry auto-magically. 99% of it was gibberish. The thing was, once in a while something would come out that was not. Someone would cut and paste and put it in their library. Some times they'd edit it. They'd find something in it. It was intended as a poetry starter and game. It worked really well. It wasn't generating art by itself, it was offering the clay with which artists could create their own art.
Sometimes, there is little that is necessary to do but frame and reveal. The context offers the message. This is still art. Sometimes the artist must clean away the debris and help the audience understand and see the message therein.
All in all, I don't disagree completely that computer generated schlock is not really art. I just think its not as simple as that.
Whether, an artist such as Andrew tries to offer pieces that lead to multiple thoughts and trains of thought, or an artist such as Alcuin tries to lead the audience to a conclusion, obviously either is an artist trying to evoke a reaction of a certain kind from the audience. (even if that 'certain kind' is one of purposeful un-direction)
Art is the final product, placed in context and presented. The amount of work put into the art is irrelevant. The tools used to create the work are of no import. It is my very humble opinion, that there important question for the success of any piece of art is this: Does the product offer the stimulation the artist intended?
If the presented work, regardless of where it was found/generated, does this, then the artist has succeeded.
I am not really standing up for the rights of computers to generate art, nor the recognition of computers as artists. What I'm trying to hint at is a bit less grand or interesting. The entire, "I can't tell you what art is, but i can tell you when i see it" argument is not valid in my opinion.
The bias against any given source, style, or type of art by any particular segment of society is something that many artists rail against. Of course, Maplethorpe, Warhol, Pollack, Mandelbrodt (and more others than can be listed) have all dealt with these sorts of questions.
The entire philosophical sphere of aesthetics is devoted to addressing this very thing.
I have no answers, only more questions. Still, I will choose to find art where ever I find it. I'm just an art-slut like that.
Jasmine Mann - I think anything can be considered art. The scribbles my son makes could be a piece of abstract art or a poem. He is interacting with the world and putting it down on paper as much as a 14 month old can.
I think the idea of computer generated poetry is intensely amatuerish. I wouldn't want to read something that was made by an inanimate object, which was programmed by a human, then arranged by someone else. It almost seems like plagiarism to me.
We all have things to communicate and a need to, otherwise there wouldn't be any form of art. Art is soul.
----- "Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer." - Arnold
"Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer." - Arnold
Rene' - Leanne, I really have to say that I agree with your thought process here. When cooking, you really are only following a recipe with instructions BUT I have known people who did not possess the TALENT to follow those instructions. Using this line of thinking, you still must possess some talent to create even from a recipe or doing cross stitching with instructions.
I sew and can do anything I desire with my sewing maching; with or without a pattern too. I can create from my own mind/design. Just because you have instructions to follow does not in any way assume that you will be able to create the desired effect if you possess no talent whatsoever.
Did this make sense 
----- LIFE: I messed up, can I have a 'do over'?
I am orbiting, I don't know where, but I am orbiting something!
Alcuin of York - I feel like yelling, "Focus! Focus!".
I ask Rene, is paint-by-numbers art? My answer would be, "Yes, but only slightly." It is much more art to paint without numbers. Similarly, to sew without a pattern is more art than to sew with a pattern; to sew from a pattern someone else made is less art than to sew with a pattern you made.
However, all this was not really central to my point, which was whether art should communicate an artist's intent. If you made a shirt and someone tried to use it for a hat, you would not consider that an acceptable "interpretation" of your artistry. Similarly, if you cooked up a vegetable casserole and someone served it after the dessert, you would not think your creation had been fully understood or properly appreciated.
I think that art requires an artist; and the more his/her involvement, the more it is art, even if it is bad art (i.e., poorly done). I also think that if that art is comprehended differently than the artist intended, it has either been inadequately executed, inadequately understood, or both. On the other hand, if it comprehended as the artist intended, and the perceiver is capable of getting even more from it, that's wonderful.
Alcuin
Rene' - Paint by numbers is the beginning instruction to one who wishes to learn to paint. While it may number among the great arts or creations, it is an art in and of itself. The seamtress who can follow a pattern and sew is more talented than the one who tries to emulate them and cannot sew even a straight line much less thread the machine.
I read an interesting piece today by Edith Wharton, "To read is not a virtue; but to read well is an art, and an art that only the born reader can acquire. The gift of reading is no exception to the rule that all natural gifts need to be cultivated by practice and discipline; but unless the innate aptitude exist the training will be wasted. It is the delusion of the mechanical reader to think that intentions may take the place of aptitude."
I really think this applies here. How many of you could create the programs to make a computer write poetry? I know that I don't know how to do it.
Also (before my feeble old mind forgets), does art have to be qualified and by whom? If beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and we all know this to true!), isn't art also in the eye of the beholder? So, therefore, wouldn't computer generated poetry be held to the same guidelines and be beautiful in the eye of the beholder. After all, we don't all hold the same qualities to judge beauty. What one of us declares to be immensely beautiful another of us finds hideous.
----- LIFE: I messed up, can I have a 'do over'?
I am orbiting, I don't know where, but I am orbiting something!
Jasmine Mann - So which is more of the artist: the person who can technically play any song written by someone else, or the person who plays from the heart, creating their own music?
Paint by numbers, sewing with patterns, playing someone else's music and computer generated poetry is not art, IMHO. It is your interpretation through someone else's art.
So technically, it still is art at its core. But it is not your art.
----- "Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer." - Arnold
"Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer." - Arnold
Anstey - I harshly disagree with that Jas. Again, if you're right then photography isn't art either. The question is how any of these are framed -- the context they are in, the message created by the artist. The media and method are irrelevant I think.
Jasmine Mann - I think photography is a much different area of art. When you take a picture, you are under the assumption that what you are taking a picture of isn't so much important as how you take a picture of it. Two people can take the same picture, but one will more than likely come out better and be considered art; framed and sold.
Your camera is your tool, just as a paintbrush and a pen is your tool for creating art. You don't read a book telling you how to take a particular picture of bird in a very particular sort of way, then call it your art. At least, that's been my experience in doing photography.
Though again, since there is no real deifnition of art, it's all art. So why do we continue discussing what is and isn't art if it all is?
I do because I'm always right. It's just no one ever listens to me.
----- "Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer." - Arnold
"Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer." - Arnold
Anstey - We discuss it because it is important. It is vital to understand what we do and why we do it.
How is it different that a picture taken with a camera is different in how it is taken and done than a paint by numbers?
The quality of the brush, the skill of the painter, the choices to follow or not follow any given number. In reality a paint by numbers is really just an underpainting sketch. Someone can as easily use that to create amazing art by the choices in painting technique.
In fact, photos taken with bad cameras by non-photographers can be turned into art simply by processing and cropping.
Again, the media and method are once again irrelevant as the message is the art.
Rene' - Following written or verbal instructions to learn to use a camera, write poetry/prose, paint by numbers, or sew is merely the beginning of how we learn to develope talents that may be hidden from us. Just because I can read music perfectly doesn't mean I have the talent to justice to a piece of music written by someone else, therefore, in my opinion, the one who can do so is creating art through the talent that they have been given. Being able to follow the instuctions on a pattern for sewing, crocheting, or knitting does not mean that the end result will look anything like you originally wanted it to. Talent comes in many different forms and fashions.
So, just for arguments sake, let's say person A writes a beautiful song complete with music and words but they have no talent to sing said song and do it justice, they involve person B to do the singing and it sounds amazing....shouldn't both people be acknowledged for the art that they have given to us to hear. The singer is no less blessed with a talent for art than the writer of the music.
I feel it is the same with any offering of art.
----- LIFE: I messed up, can I have a 'do over'?
I am orbiting, I don't know where, but I am orbiting something!
Rene' - From Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesarus;
Art- 1. human creativity 2. skill 3. any specific skill or its application 4. any craft or its principles 5. creative work or its principles 6.any branch of creative work, as painting or sculpture
Craft- 1. a special skill or art 2. an occupation requiting special skill 3. the members of a skilled trade
according to these definitions, they are pretty much one and same. I have no problem with someone who writes a poem or two calling themselves a poet or someone who sews with a pattern calling themselves a seamstress or any other version of the craft/art scenario. I am a craftsperson and an artist. Just because I am not famous (nor will I ever be) for it makes me no less of one to begin with. If someone has the knowledge to make a computer spit out poet rambles and call it poetry, I say more power to them. If I happen to enjoy that same group of words, even more power to them. I do not need to know the source of the words in order to enjoy them nor will it make me enjoy them any less either. But then again, this is only my opinion and it is also subjective as well.
----- LIFE: I messed up, can I have a 'do over'?
I am orbiting, I don't know where, but I am orbiting something!
Anstey - Fair enough Leanne, but i didn't really say how much credit. Also, I don't think something has to be 'good art' or have 'great quality' to still be considered art. Just becuase it's awful, doesn't mean it isn't what it is. A chihuahua is still a dog - even if a lousy horrible ratty nasty little dog.
So, 'deserve credit' isn't any great thing if the product is crap.
Anstey - Just so I'm clear, i think the distinction between art and craft and not worth the effort. I don't see any cowtowing or making anyone feel good if i say something is art. art to me is not intrinsically good. A poem is art. The craft of poetry creates the art of poetry. Fine, bad poetry is still poetry, whether poorly crafted or not. And it is still creative and artistic even if it's horribly, embarrassingly dispicably so.
There is, to my way of thinking, no reason to pick that nit. However, if you feel better crushing the majority of artists who absolutely suck -- i'm find with that. Even if i'm included.
Invite participants
Share at Facebook
Share at Twitter
Share at LinkedIn
Reference this page