What is an Artist?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Well to each his own, as often mentioned, especially in the amorphous realms of art but I would certainly disagree that some Romantics aren't in the same league as Beethoven. To my mind there are a few who are close and one who may even surpass Herr Beethoven which to some is equal to blasphemy. As usual it all depends on what you're receptive to.

No it doesn't. Some people might not even like his music--that doesn't alter its greatness. His music is as near to perfection as you can get. It has everything: drama, humour, suspense, blissful resolution, pathos, joy...Astonishing genius.

This describes not only Beethoven who wasn't the only "Astonishing genius" in the history of music. We've been through this before. Mozart, along with Beethoven and Bach are usually regarded in almost every listing as the triumvirate of supremacy in music; it's hard to imagine anything better. But if you wish to regard any one of these giants as inferior to someone near the bottom of the list, that's your choice which in turn depends on what your receptive to...and that's all I'm saying.

Well I seem to recall you getting ticked off at Hobbes for rubbishing Mozart. I was with you on that. As I keep saying: it's the personal taste that is subjective. Other than that, only an uneducated ass would call Beethoven a rubbish composer, or Da Vinci a poor artist.

[Conde Lucanor]

The term "classical music" has two meanings: one is a broad term that describes certain Western musical tradition from the Renaissance to our times. Under that broad sense, contemporary composers like John Williams are considered "classical". And of course, Beethoven, Wagner, and so on. The other meaning is more specific and refers to a particular period of that same musical tradition, between the romantic period and the Baroque (post edit: I mean in the opposite order: between the Baroque period and Romanticism).

As far as I know, Beethoven has always been considered a transition between the classical and romantic periods. Periodization is just an orientation, anyway, not to be taken too strictly.

[Dubious]

No it doesn't. Some people might not even like his music--that doesn't alter its greatness. His music is as near to perfection as you can get. It has everything: drama, humour, suspense, blissful resolution, pathos, joy...Astonishing genius.

This describes not only Beethoven who wasn't the only "Astonishing genius" in the history of music. We've been through this before. Mozart, along with Beethoven and Bach are usually regarded in almost every listing as the triumvirate of supremacy in music; it's hard to imagine anything better. But if you wish to regard any one of these giants as inferior to someone near the bottom of the list, that's your choice which in turn depends on what your receptive to...and that's all I'm saying.

Well I seem to recall you getting ticked off at Hobbes for rubbishing Mozart. I was with you on that. As I keep saying: it's the personal taste that is subjective. Other than that, only an uneducated ass would call Beethoven a rubbish composer, or Da Vinci a poor artist.

I agree! Taste is subjective. The problem is that among the mundane who can't f****** think, analyze or allow an opinion to rethink its conclusion, it's their subjectivity which wrongly determines the merits of a work. They can't differentiate; the "affective" response immediately determines the value of the work and that of its creator. Subjectivity remains inescapable for most people as the arbiter of merit, not least, for the rare professional like Glenn Gould who also thought Mozart was a chintzy composer. Fortunately it isn't just a few eccentric opinions which determines the value of anything.

An example; I never liked Stravinsky and still don't after trying many times. His music seems "chintzy" to me but I won't allow myself to objectively state that that's what it is or that Stravinsky was a chintzy composer. He has a huge league of admirers and universally regarded as one of the seminal composers of the 20th century. Clearly, I'm not hearing what others hear; my mental channels are simply not tuned for that kind of sound. Objectively stated, in terms of what is considered great in art, I'm not in a position to negate what others affirm...whether I like it or not.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I agree! Taste is subjective. The problem is that among the mundane who can't f****** think, analyze or allow an opinion to rethink its conclusion, it's their subjectivity which wrongly determines the merits of a work. They can't differentiate; the "affective" response immediately determines the value of the work and that of its creator. Subjectivity remains inescapable for most people as the arbiter of merit, not least, for the rare professional like Glenn Gould who also thought Mozart was a chintzy composer. Fortunately it isn't just a few eccentric opinions which determines the value of anything.

An example; I never liked Stravinsky and still don't after trying many times. His music seems "chintzy" to me but I won't allow myself to objectively state that that's what it is or that Stravinsky was a chintzy composer. He has a huge league of admirers and universally regarded as one of the seminal composers of the 20th century. Clearly, I'm not hearing what others hear; my mental channels are simply not tuned for that kind of sound. Objectively stated, in terms of what is considered great in art, I'm not in a position to negate what others affirm...whether I like it or not.

It might be my imagination but you seem to keep flip-flopping. I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. Perhaps that's just your writing style.

[Walker]

If by "horizon of limitations"you mean autonomous search after truth, then I think that the entireity of the act of artistic creation is more perspiration than inspiration. Art appreciation also involves hard work if the art is worthy. Artworks that require no effort for their interpretation are probably commercially viable but facile.

Regarding Nazi art, I was referring to how that regime denied freedom of thought to artists and the general population.

I don't understand your comment about natural objects unless you mean that Godditit.

Regarding cathedrals both medieval and modern do you really have such an optimistic view of the spending of obscene amounts of money in the name of Jesus and his care for the poor?

If by "horizon of limitations"you mean autonomous search after truth, then I think that the entireity of the act of artistic creation is more perspiration than inspiration. Art appreciation also involves hard work if the art is worthy. Artworks that require no effort for their interpretation are probably commercially viable but facile.

{Not necessarily that with the horizon metaphor. It’s more simple. It’s a simple visual image. Beyond the horizon line is the unknown, so that horizon line is the boundry of what you know. Your limitations. Step into a hot air balloon and the horizon moves farther away, as does the limitation of what you know to be out there, between the old horizon and the new. What’s found may even affect understanding of what lay on this side of the old horizon, before the balloon trip.}

Through huts, through Harlem, through jails and gospel pews
Through the class on Park and the trash on Vine
Through Europe and the deep deep heart of Dixie blue
Through savage progress cuts the jungle line
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jonimitc ... eline.html

Regarding Nazi art, I was referring to how that regime denied freedom of thought to artists and the general population.

{Yeah, those Nazi bastards. Life is the measure of all things and that was a dealth cult, plain and simple. It intended to kill people, places, things, and ideas.}

I don't understand your comment about natural objects unless you mean that Godditit.
{It’s simply the logical application of the art definition, {which rationality should take as a hypothesis.}}

Regarding cathedrals both medieval and modern do you really have such an optimistic view of the spending of obscene amounts of money in the name of Jesus and his care for the poor?

{It’s gonna get spent on something or t’other anyway, that’s the way folks are.}

Of course those people back in the middle ages likely looked at things differently. I would imagine that a peasant of that time, while gazing at the wondrous beauty of a stained glass window that told a story he had be told since infancy, just might be moved to an ecstatic rapture of senses and imagination. And then if he looks to the ceiling, oy vey who could have done such a thing. Wonder and the desire to return to that divine sensory stimulation would inspire him with real energy to plow for another week, sleep on flea infested straw, eat meat tainted green, bread a bit blue on the edges, and half rotted vegetables, even eat parsnips, endure with faith and obedience the rest of the earthly weariness that he knew would eventually end in streets paved with gold, or whatever the priests told him was the meaning of life. And why shouldn’t they be believed. Just look at what they did with that Cathedral, and starting out in that shack like they did. He probably thought, look how we've evolved. (No, too early for that.) These days it takes more than stained-glass to inspire transcendence of the known simply because more is known.

[Belinda]

Don't get me wrong, Walker, I feel the atmosphere of holiness in cathedrals and I enjoy Romantic art and the cult of the individual whether it's Joni Mitchell, Beethoven, or Renaissance old masters.

I doubt if medieval peasants ate meat at all. One cannot even keep a pig if there is insufficient waste food to feed it on. Even as late as the 19th century Irish peasants starved to death because potatoes failed year after year.

The building of Norman cathedrals undertaken to impress the native English with the power of the Church, and the perks of which you speak were helpful for improving the peasants' loyalty to their masters. Yours and my feelings about the buildings and their innate beauty are our interpretations and those bear out what you say regarding art as occurring between producer and consumer.

I hold to my point that art if it is good art involves a lot of hard work by producer and consumer. The Joni Mitchel lyrics which you copied in seem to me to be sophisticated enough that they are not simply commercial but have real quality. This is demonstrated to me by how I personally could not have understood those lyrics when I was a child, or before I had learned any history or read any good modern reportage of significant events.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Don't get me wrong, Walker, I feel the atmosphere of holiness in cathedrals and I enjoy Romantic art and the cult of the individual whether it's Joni Mitchell, Beethoven, or Renaissance old masters.

I doubt if medieval peasants ate meat at all. One cannot even keep a pig if there is insufficient waste food to feed it on. Even as late as the 19th century Irish peasants starved to death because potatoes failed year after year.

The building of Norman cathedrals undertaken to impress the native English with the power of the Church, and the perks of which you speak were helpful for improving the peasants' loyalty to their masters. Yours and my feelings about the buildings and their innate beauty are our interpretations and those bear out what you say regarding art as occurring between producer and consumer.

I hold to my point that art if it is good art involves a lot of hard work by producer and consumer. The Joni Mitchel lyrics which you copied in seem to me to be sophisticated enough that they are not simply commercial but have real quality. This is demonstrated to me by how I personally could not have understood those lyrics when I was a child, or before I had learned any history or read any good modern reportage of significant events.

So many misconceptions, so little time.
The winter months were the time for meat and roots; spring provides fresh leaves, and the autumn fruits and berries.
Animals were either kept alive were the grazing permitted, or killed and salted where possible; and where numbers exceeded the availability of pasture.

Pigs thrive on roots mainly. They have excellent noses for fungi. Though they are capable of eating shit, that is not how they thrive.

The Irish potato famine hit in 1848, and the blight which destroyed the crops was not known with such devastation before that time.
NO SINGLE MEDIEVAL Irish peasant had ever heard of a potato let alone grew one.

[Terrapin Station]

Are you saying that it's sufficient to classify something as art when the experiencer feels an emotional uplift? I'd give this criterion pride of place but it cannot be the only one because then natural objects and sounds could be classed as art which would be an eccentric point of view. And Nazi -dominated art work would be classified as art. The mess created with paint and paper by a toddler would be classified as art because the child's parents are pleased.

In my view--and I don't really see how one can dispute this, because descriptively, it's clearly what goes on--what determines whether something is art is the way that one (mentally or not) frames the object or phenomena at hand.

I wouldn't say that an "emotional uplift" is sufficient for that framing, although it can be part of it. I think that two things are necessary for it: one,it requires meaning assignment that is different than what one takes to be the literal or conventional meaning of the objects/phenomena at hand and/or the materials comprising it (so in other words, you don't just see something as a bunch of colored pigments smeared on a canvas, or a bunch of sounds per se, etc., and you also don't just see a stop sign as signifying "stop"), and two, it requires unique aesthetic responses/emotions to be engendered in the framer (and there's where a sort of emotional uplift can be part of the equation).

Re natural phenomena, indeed people can see them as art, and sometimes people do. It's just that that's not so common as seeing artificial things, especially like pigments smeared on a canvas, as art.

By the way, this framing idea with respect to nature is captured quite literally via photography. A photographic work of a landscape is often considered art, and in that case, all we did was frame nature, with the frame representing the way we're setting that framed bit off from the rest of the world, and thinking about it differently, letting aesthetic feelings arise in response, etc. For many folks, a museum or gallery or whatever aids in the mental framing process there.

This framing idea is also what was behind works such as Marcel Duchamp's Fountain and John Cage's 4'33".

And found objects are quite common as things at least incorporated into artworks.

Also, natural/non-intentional objects and phenomena are a part of almost all artworks. Sounds occur in musical contexts, materials occur in visual artworks, etc. that are natural phenomena of the materials used and the way the materials are manipulated that are not intentional creations of the artists. For example, in music, this includes things like the noise of your fingers sliding along the strings on a guitar as you change chords.

(The framing idea isn't something that I originally came up with, by the way. I actually got the core idea from Frank Zappa. I'm not sure if Zappa got it from someone else.)

[Conde Lucanor]

An artist is someone who sits outside or on the edge of the system.
An artist is someone who works inside the system using its tools to climb up the ladder.
An artist is someone who says I'm an Artist and means it.

What an artist is and what an artist does is socially determined and has changed throughout history. So you would need to be more specific to which cultural context you are referring to.

[Walker]

Are you saying that it's sufficient to classify something as art when the experiencer feels an emotional uplift? I'd give this criterion pride of place but it cannot be the only one because then natural objects and sounds could be classed as art which would be an eccentric point of view. And Nazi -dominated art work would be classified as art. The mess created with paint and paper by a toddler would be classified as art because the child's parents are pleased.

In my view--and I don't really see how one can dispute this, because descriptively, it's clearly what goes on--what determines whether something is art is the way that one (mentally or not) frames the object or phenomena at hand.

I wouldn't say that an "emotional uplift" is sufficient for that framing, although it can be part of it. I think that two things are necessary for it: one,it requires meaning assignment that is different than what one takes to be the literal or conventional meaning of the objects/phenomena at hand and/or the materials comprising it (so in other words, you don't just see something as a bunch of colored pigments smeared on a canvas, or a bunch of sounds per se, etc., and you also don't just see a stop sign as signifying "stop"), and two, it requires unique aesthetic responses/emotions to be engendered in the framer (and there's where a sort of emotional uplift can be part of the equation).

Re natural phenomena, indeed people can see them as art, and sometimes people do. It's just that that's not so common as seeing artificial things, especially like pigments smeared on a canvas, as art.

By the way, this framing idea with respect to nature is captured quite literally via photography. A photographic work of a landscape is often considered art, and in that case, all we did was frame nature, with the frame representing the way we're setting that framed bit off from the rest of the world, and thinking about it differently, letting aesthetic feelings arise in response, etc. For many folks, a museum or gallery or whatever aids in the mental framing process there.

This framing idea is also what was behind works such as Marcel Duchamp's Fountain and John Cage's 4'33".

And found objects are quite common as things at least incorporated into artworks.

Also, natural/non-intentional objects and phenomena are a part of almost all artworks. Sounds occur in musical contexts, materials occur in visual artworks, etc. that are natural phenomena of the materials used and the way the materials are manipulated that are not intentional creations of the artists. For example, in music, this includes things like the noise of your fingers sliding along the strings on a guitar as you change chords.

(The framing idea isn't something that I originally came up with, by the way. I actually got the core idea from Frank Zappa. I'm not sure if Zappa got it from someone else.)

Framing is too general a term to have much meaning in defining art, for this reason. Everything you see, understand and appreciate is framed by you. Not just art. All your aversions are also framed by you. And yet, something about art is distinct from the framework of everything else you frame, or else art wouldn’t have a name and concept all to itself. That distinction is found in the definition that includes uplift, because one can easily drag through the mud without art, and everyone save the kings is not too far removed from that. And if you want to be rational about it, this is not to say that art is the sole cause of all expanding horizons, because whether or not that is truth has to be discovered. When horizons expand, is the world more beautiful?

[Belinda]

I wish that I hadn't said that Beethoven was a Romantic composer as its seems that people here who probably know more than I about the history of music say not so. This is tangential anyway. (My excuse: I was thinking of B's use of the big orchestra and the emotionality of the pieces (e.g. Moonlight. Pathetique) )

[Belinda]

An artist is someone who sits outside or on the edge of the system.
An artist is someone who works inside the system using its tools to climb up the ladder.
An artist is someone who says I'm an Artist and means it.

What an artist is and what an artist does is socially determined and has changed throughout history. So you would need to be more specific to which cultural context you are referring to.

I do agree. I reckon that Wittgenstein would also agree and include 'art' with other terms that stand for groupings of family relationships and which have no defining attribute.

If we are going to talk about "What should define an artist in this day and age with its peculiar problems?" then we may go ahead and think of a defining criterion. Mine would be the search for truth expressed with feeling and skill.

Joni Mitchell's lyrics then would occupy the higher ground. I think that music must be alone among the arts as music without lyrics can be meaningless but have plenty of form.

[Walker]

I wish that I hadn't said that Beethoven was a Romantic composer as its seems that people here who probably know more than I about the history of music say not so. This is tangential anyway. (My excuse: I was thinking of B's use of the big orchestra and the emotionality of the pieces (e.g. Moonlight. Pathetique) )

That’s the cost of being honest, philosophy’s foundation.
The rational approach takes that into account, no problems.

[Terrapin Station]

Framing is too general a term to have much meaning in defining art, for this reason. Everything you see, understand and appreciate is framed by you. Not just art. All your aversions are also framed by you. And yet, something about art is distinct from the framework of everything else you frame, or else art wouldn’t have a name and concept all to itself. That distinction is found in the definition that includes uplift, because one can easily drag through the mud without art, and everyone save the kings is not too far removed from that. And if you want to be rational about it, this is not to say that art is the sole cause of all expanding horizons, because whether or not that is truth has to be discovered. When horizons expand, is the world more beautiful?

What happened to the two conditions I specified? I didn't just say the word "framing."

[Terrapin Station]

I wish that I hadn't said that Beethoven was a Romantic composer as its seems that people here who probably know more than I about the history of music say not so.

Beethoven is considered in the important in the transition from the Classical period to the Romantic period, which means that a lot of his works are considered Romantic period works. So whoever said that he wasn't a Romantic composer doesn't know what they're talking about. He wasn't only a Romantic composer, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't a Romantic composer.