Comments on: Art or artists?

By: Sweetums

Sweetums — Thu, 24 May 2007 11:06:03 +0000

Well you made me giggle at the end at least. I know what you’re saying and I tend to feel the same (I don’t own a pair of Nike’s or Levi’s). Though i am more judgemental on these things for my impressionable girls.

But that aside, I still wonder if we take things too far sometimes as christians. “I only buy my *whatever* from Koorong then I know it’s spiritually clean”. Bah, I know some people who would actually admit to only eating muesli made by new testament christians……

By: The Scot

The Scot — Thu, 24 May 2007 10:56:10 +0000

That’s true enough; we cannot possibly know the philosophy or world view of every product that we consume, but a goodmany of them put their world view right out there. For eg; Levi’s ran an ad campaign years ago that was clearly not just selling jeans; it was selling (via it’s advertising) a world view that it was OK to have casual sex before marriage; since that ad, I have never bought a pair of levi’s. Nike had a world view that it’s OK to pay Michael Jordan, more than the sum total of all of their employess who produced their goods working in sweat shops.
And I haven’t even brought up art yet. I agree with the idea that you can’t know the philosophy of evry distributor that you encounter, but you would have to admit that when it comes to shaping societal attitudes that music & art sits in a different place to corn flakes.
A lot of music is just what it is, light, entertaining & as my friend Marty McFly says, “Hey, it’s got a beat & you can dance to it!”. But then there is a lot of stuff that is not all that hard to spot which is selling questionable attitudes about life, sexuality, religion/beliefs, & they should be questioned. This is why I said that art is food for the soul & we need to be careful what we feed our soul.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not on a witch hunt here. But I for one would rather approach art with this kind of attitude; I actually believe that as a Christian I have a responsibility to do so.
Oh & BTW; I don’t eat corn flakes, I only eat Muesli that has been grown in happy paddocks by New Testament Christians.

By: Sweetums

Sweetums — Thu, 24 May 2007 10:25:39 +0000

Do you take that stance on everything you “Consume”? You haven’t been clear on what their stance was so I don’t know how impactive it was. But you can’t know the philosophy of every distributor you encounter. I mean those conflakes you eat in the morning could be made by a bunch of Satanic Worshippers who sacrifice a chicken before they flatten the corn. How would you know?

By: The Scot

The Scot — Tue, 22 May 2007 21:49:18 +0000

I think that the “it’s how it makes you feel” argument is one worth examinng. I think that art is food for the soul & we each need to be careful about what we consume. For e.g. I grew up loving a certain band that are still popular today. In my late teens I became conscious of some of th ethings that they stood for & made the decision that even though I loved the sound of their music, I would never part with money for their market place product as this would propogate something that I inherintly(?) disagreed with. I still like the sound of their music but theyr still stand for what they stand for & I won’t change my mind as long as this is the case. So like any product, when you consume art, you are not just consuming an image or a song, you are also consuming a world view about something.
MM

By: Sweetums

Sweetums — Wed, 09 May 2007 04:48:09 +0000

I am going to avoid the argument about laws ‘n’ stuff on account of ignorance (on my part, please note!)

Back to the original post. “I know what I like” is what i stick to. If I like something, even if it’s the picture that “came with the frame” then I like it and that’s art. I get angry when people try to tell me I have to like it cos it’s Monet or Da Vinci, but some of their art is awful (to my eye). now some Art buffs would tell me it’s because I am uncultured or uneducated. But isn’t about what you like?

I had the same argument about music with hubby. I am going to say something shocking here. I think a lot of the beatles music sucks! There I said it, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t like it. If an Abba track makes me happy inside and feel like dancing my slippers off then isn’t that good music?

I think it’s all about how it makes you feel. Like your little friends artwork that made you happy.

By: Audrey

Audrey — Mon, 07 May 2007 05:08:07 +0000

‘If laws changed everytime the majority of the population chnaged from one to another, think of the anarchy.’

That’s what you said, I was merely pointing out that this is totally possible. The international system is in a state of anarchy. If Australia moved to becoming a predominantly Hindu society, the laws would change in interpretation and enforcement - as is the case in many predominantly Hindu societies.

I think the ‘nude’ cover is also an interesting point. We’re all pretty aware that it would spark a fair bit of controversy in christian circles - especially if it were to be placed in stands in christian bookshops. So knowing this, and placing aside the fact you may really just want to do a nude photo shoot to represent the beauty of the human body - should you do such a thing simply to provoke a response out of people?

The same could be applicable to the man who demanded the bull’s head be displayed. His main objective for this could certainly be defined as provoking a ’shock-factor’ to get the issue into public discourse.
Is this a legitimate reason for producing a piece of art?

By: Think Tank

Think Tank — Thu, 03 May 2007 12:36:56 +0000

Back to Audrey, firstly, I did not say “the majority of political scientists do believe the world is in a state of anarchy”. I welcome you disecting my comments but please try to avoid putting words in my mouth - much appreciated.
Secondly, I dont think anyone argued that the law should define art. I think what both godBoy and I argued was that the law was the only device by which we could control what was placed into public view.
Thirdly, I think Audrey raises a interesting topic, our desire to give people titles. If someone pursues a hobby that allows to express themselves in a visual format, do they immediately announce themselves an artist, or perhaps is it relevent only when the product is produced for commercial purposes. I would like people to stop putting titles on people, allow them to become what they become without fear of falling into a genre or niche.

Onto The Scot, this is a great example of our discussion. Firstly, you are producing something that on it’s own could be left alone to be a visual expression of an idea or the music that you produced. But oh, how everything changes when we need to commercialise it! In your attempts to do the marketing required you potentially need to make certain sacrifices or at least restrict your options to ensure you album doesn’t fall at the first hurdle.

By: The Scot

The Scot — Thu, 03 May 2007 04:08:34 +0000

Case in point; My next album is to be called “Reality”. On my road trip to brisbane last week, I spent a portion of the time thinking about the cover. I have tended to avoid photo’s of myself on the covers, & have rather leaned towards making the covers something of an artistic representation of what was on my heart.
The thoughts about this cover & the title track have lead me to think that Reality dictates that we see ourselves one way, but God sees through all our disguises to see us just as we are.
So, I mused at the possibility of some naked images on the cover to represent that thought; What I actually thought was to have an image of a naked person(s) on the front & on the rear, the same image but being fully clothed; If this were a secular album, I know I could get away with what I am thinking, but I am a gospel artist, & even though our naked image & form is a creation of the very creator I serve & worship, (he isn’t scared or embarassed by our nudity) I know that I would not be able to sell that cover to Christian outlets; they would censor my art.
Let me say, that that cover idea was only one of about 15 that I thought of that day. Should I be afraid to proceed with it?
MM

By: The Scot

The Scot — Thu, 03 May 2007 03:53:06 +0000

I don’t know if there exists such a thing as freedom of speech, or in this case, artistic representation. With the right to express oneself also comes the responsibility to ensure that what you express doesn’t cause harm within societal norms. Talking about issues related to sexual expression can be misleading so lets take another track.
What if I want to represent something contentious like issues relating to Muslims in the contemporary world? What if I want to represent a negative connotation about gay people?
I remember years ago a cartoon by Leunig, in which he drew a baby in child care; the baby was thinking out loud & apologising for being such a burden to interupt his mothers career;
The responsibility not to express oneself in such a way that it breaks societal laws is easyish to know where the line is. (Or at the very least, you have a measure to test that line)
I actually love artistic expression that pushes people to think. but I think that we need to be questioning about what is appropriate & more importantly, when it is inappropriate. We need to be prepared to fearlessly debate the propriety of every form of expression, and the artist needs to be prepared to have their various forms of freedom of expression called to account. Every artist does, & if they are not prepared to, then it is my belief that they should keep their expressions to themselves. Grrrr!!!

By: Audrey

Audrey — Thu, 03 May 2007 03:48:24 +0000

But don’t you see godBoy, that is the idea of this discussion. Obviously what constitutes art is a discussion that could go on and on and is the source of much stress for curators in galleries.

But change the idea of the definition to rather what constitutes an ‘artist’? Who is given such a title? Why are they given the title? and what they should do with such a title? Thus ‘there is no art, only artists’

This is a very prevalent discussion especially in the entertainment world at the moment. Women exposing themselves and men communicating extreme forms of violence, what do you do with this? Should they be termed artists?

We are in a state of global anarchy. There is no definitive order other than ‘laws’ and ‘rights’. Why do people obey these? Why don’t they?