Philosophy Now Forum

Frankly his works don't impress me.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Frankly his works don't impress me.

PhilX

Also, Frank ...

Here’s the thing that grabbed my attention about a picture of a clay sculpture, I think it was clay, that I once saw, which can also be seen in Rodin’s work.

The face was asymmetrical and not only realistic, but therefore of a realistic human, and showed the tension of the movement towards the balance of symmetry in the mind that shapes the face. The artist isn’t an artist because he intended to mold that tension, though he may be conceptually aware of that tension in the process of shaping form with fingertips, and afterwards. Rather, the artist is an artist simply because he is faithful to reality, and has the technical skill to transfer reality from light reflecting off a source, through the optic nerve and into the brain, then through the nerves to the fingertips to reproduce in a particular three-dimensional medium, the same pattern of light reflections that can be objectively recognized by most any brain. The transference process involves as much observation as technique, and observation requires undistracted placement of attention. In the case of the bust, either the observation or the technique is rather pure, perhaps a combination of both, and that in itself is enough to deserve a measure of respect.

Rodin was also a teacher, with at least one student who sculpted him.

Are you confusing 'Rodin' with another Rodin? Perhaps Fred Rodin, your local butcher?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Frankly his works don't impress me.

PhilX

An artist doesn't have to impress everyone in order to be considered an artist.

A great artist doesn't have to impress everyone in order to be considered a great artist.

An artist doesn't have to be a great artist in order to be considered an artist.

Conde Lucanor wrote:
An artist doesn't have to impress everyone in order to be considered an artist.

A great artist doesn't have to impress everyone in order to be considered a great artist.

An artist doesn't have to be a great artist in order to be considered an artist.

Presumably, an artist merely has to be an artist in order to be considered an artist. Much in the same way as a cyclist has to ride a bike in order to be considered a cyclist. Or a wanker has to.... And so on.

Harbal wrote:Presumably, an artist merely has to be an artist in order to be considered an artist. Much in the same way as a cyclist has to ride a bike in order to be considered a cyclist. Or a wanker has to.... And so on.

I'm with you there, up to a point. I know exactly what someone has to do to qualify as a cyclist. Being a wanker is straightforward too, and doesn't require wheels, but I'm not so clear about what activity makes someone an artist.

I think Rodin has impressed enough people who knew what they were looking at that he doesn't really need PhilX's certification.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Frankly his works don't impress me.

PhilX

He is considered an artist because he acted like one, accepted the label, and made things that artists make, like sculptures and drawings. You not being impressed wouldn't be enough to strip him of the label. You'd have to build a theory around him being an imposter: someone pretending to be an artist, pulling it off, then continuing with the charade because the going was good. Or you would have to define your idea or position on why and how someone is or should be/can be, considered as an artist, and then say why Rodin does not fit your idea(l) or model.

the artist is an artist simply because he is faithful to reality, and has the technical skill to transfer reality from light reflecting off a source, through...

This is a very old position if ever it was one.

Pluto wrote:

the artist is an artist simply because he is faithful to reality, and has the technical skill to transfer reality from light reflecting off a source, through...

This is a very old position if ever it was one.

Not really. Not everyone clearly perceives reality now that the singularity draws nigh for one and all.

Harbal wrote:

Conde Lucanor wrote:
An artist doesn't have to impress everyone in order to be considered an artist.

A great artist doesn't have to impress everyone in order to be considered a great artist.

An artist doesn't have to be a great artist in order to be considered an artist.

Much in the same way as a cyclist has to ride a bike in order to be considered a cyclist.

You get the point and the example illustrates well. Not the case in that other sentence:

Harbal wrote:Presumably, an artist merely has to be an artist in order to be considered an artist.

There is some kind of circular reasoning here, as the phrase "has to be an artist" directly leads to the problem of who is "to be considered an artist". The answer to what is considered an artist is what an artist will be. The answer to what is considered a cyclist should not be: "that which is merely a cyclist", but "that which rides a bike".

Anyone who makes art is an artist. That makes no never-mind, since 97% of art and 91% of artists are not very good.
But, if 100 years after your death, museums, art galleries and serious collectors are still competing for a chance to buy the very least of your sketches and studies, you've made your mark; you can be counted as one of the greats.

Pluto wrote:

the artist is an artist simply because he is faithful to reality, and has the technical skill to transfer reality from light reflecting off a source, through...

This is a very old position if ever it was one.

In other words:

Q: Which is more faithful to reality: Picasso’s Guernica or a painting of a photograph?

A: Depends upon how clearly the assessor perceives reality.
- Clarity includes discovering significance rather than assigning significance.
- Significance is recognized by the duration of a situation or thing’s influence upon reality.
- Reality includes the physical motions of folks and how those forces, which are set into motion by perception, come to be (through recognition of significance).

And what is light, other than the light of consciousness? Well, light is a little patch of ganglia in a dark place somewhere in the brain, connected to the optic nerve, connected to the rest of the universe.

Walker wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Frankly his works don't impress me.

PhilX

Also, Frank ...

Here’s the thing that grabbed my attention about a picture of a clay sculpture, I think it was clay, that I once saw, which can also be seen in Rodin’s work.

The face was asymmetrical and not only realistic, but therefore of a realistic human, and showed the tension of the movement towards the balance of symmetry in the mind that shapes the face. The artist isn’t an artist because he intended to mold that tension, though he may be conceptually aware of that tension in the process of shaping form with fingertips, and afterwards. Rather, the artist is an artist simply because he is faithful to reality, and has the technical skill to transfer reality from light reflecting off a source, through the optic nerve and into the brain, then through the nerves to the fingertips to reproduce in a particular three-dimensional medium, the same pattern of light reflections that can be objectively recognized by most any brain. The transference process involves as much observation as technique, and observation requires undistracted placement of attention. In the case of the bust, either the observation or the technique is rather pure, perhaps a combination of both, and that in itself is enough to deserve a measure of respect.

Rodin was also a teacher, with at least one student who sculpted him.

His most brilliant student was Camille Claudel who, in the opinion of many surpassed Rodin in her all too short career.

Yugoslavian Mestrovic, another student of Rodin.
His tragic image of Job.