On Wednesday, September 20, 2000 2:07 PM David Lubkin
lubkin@unreasonable.com wrote:
> >If you define art as stuff that makes people change their minds or forces
> >them to deal with issues, then there is no way to distinguish art from
> >non-art and the term becomes meaningless. A death in the family forces
> >people to deal with issues. Is it art too? Being mugged will change
lots
> >of people. Is mugging an art form?
>
> Although I've seen it cited as such, I regard changing people's minds,
> forcing them to deal with something, or evoking an emotional response as
> frequent consequences of art, not central to the definition of art.
I agree it is a often a consequence, but then a lot of non-art does that
too. You can't choose a nonessential trait to demarcate something,
especially when it is shared by things radically different than that thing.
> Natasha and Nadia should really weigh in on this one. The definition of
art
> keeps moving, and it often takes generations for the borders to move. I
know
> that my own opinions don't keep up. The art world says that Jackson
Pollack,
> Christo, and Karen Finley are artists; I'm not convinced.
I don't think the definition keeps moving. The Establishment's definition
has undergone lots of changes, though for the last few decades either the
authoritarian (art is what artists say it is; something becomes art by
someone calling it art) or the institutional (art is what the artworld say
it is; something becomes art if enough accepted artists, critics,
historians, curators, and patrons call it art) definitions have held sway.
These definitions are not really definitions at all, but shallow appeals to
authority. They do not serve the function of a definition -- to make it
easy to delineate between things and understand their natures better -- but
do serve to keep the current strains of non-art up in value, both in terms
of money and status.
I stick pretty close to Rand's defintion: art is a "selective re-creation of
reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." (_The
Romanctic Manifesto_, p19)
> Eduardo Kac is a self-described performance artist. His intent was not
just
> to produce the bunny but to interact with it on stage. So this is
probably
> art by current definitions.
>
> I don't think *this* bunny is art by itself but I think that genemods per
se
> can be an art form as much as any other. Perhaps in the same category as
> bodybuilding, topiary, perfume, cooking, architecture, and clothing
design.
> Being useful doesn't make an endeavor any less art. (Or does it? Must
art
> serve no functional purpose to qualify as art? I say no.)
A fine art is defined partly by not being for other uses. Design and
craft -- such as in architecture, pottery, and clothing -- is for use and
that limits the amount of expression available to the maker of it. Thus,
cooks can make anything they want. The meal has to be edible, for example.
> What new art forms will arise as consequences of anticipated technological
> developments? Besides genemods, I think that personalities could become
an
> art form. We already consider acting to be an art form; if you could
precisely
> sculpt a personality, wouldn't that qualify?
I think there might be new arts created, but there will still be a boundary
between art and non-art. It's kind of like evolution. New life comes
about, but it still life and typically easily distinguishable from non-life.
(And the oft used counterexample of viruses is a borderline case that has
been around for probably all of life's history. It's not some new fangled
challenge to the definition of life.:)
> Don't forget Heinlein's "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag": SI
as
> artist, universe as art. What about creating a religion?
>
> My own guess is that any deliberately constructed object or action can be
> assessed from an artistic point of view. Art requires an artist. So a
> sunset is aesthetic, but it is not art (unless you bring in the God
thing).
The authoritarian definition of art rears its ugly head here, once more.:)
I agree an artistic object must be human made. But this is not the be all,
do all of art.
> I'm not sure if art requires that the creator(s) have had the intent to
create
> art per se.
I think the intention matters to some extent because artists tend to create
art objects (paintings, symphonies, novels, poems, dances, sculptures,
dramas) for different reasons than non-art objects. The function has an
impact on the creation. For art objects, the goal is to make an object only
for the experience of that object -- not for some other use. (To the degree
the so called artist has some other goal in mind, the piece becomes less
art. Thus, advertising jingles are not art per se. They hug the border
since they serve the practical end of selling a product. Doesn't mean it's
always easy to place that border or there aren't mixed cases.)
Art always, too, involves an aspect of imitation.
> One could certainly make an aesthetic assessment of lying, sex, or
> car engines; is an artistic intent required to label it as art?
None of those are arts in the sense of fine arts. (If you use "art" to mean
"skill" or "trade" or "body of knowledge," then, of course, we are talking
something different here. But people who argue mutant bunnies are art do
not mean that, I'm sure.)
> >My ethical point was to question whether such experiments should be done
on
> >conscious beings. I've not against genetic engineering per se. This
does
> >not mean, however, anything goes. I'm not for, and I doubt many on this
> >list are for, kidnapping people and using them genetic experiments.
>
> Your question about conscious beings is legitimate. A key point though is
> that we've been genetically modifying conscious beings -- humans, pets,
working
> animals, and farm animals -- for our purposes already, without consent,
for
> millenia. Direct genemod is just a more efficient mechanism than
selective
> breeding.
I'm not singling out genetic engineering here. I call into question of all
nonconsensual uses of conscious beings. Past uses and abuses do not forgive
current or future ones, any more than someone arguing, "Well, we've always
killed fill-in-the-blank-for-some-ethnic-group-here with clubs, knives, and
guns. Why shouldn't we use more efficient mechanisms of killing them?" (I
should talk! I'm one of the stokers of the uplifting thread here.:)
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not against genetic engineering. I merely
question its value if it's only to make funny colored rabbits.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:36 MDT