Debate mkII: Style vs Substance

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 10:02 am

Originally posted by Bordeauxxx
It seems to me that art is a form of communication: a medium through which the emotions or ideas of the artist are communicated to an observer who is able to interpret those messages in a way that is meaningful.

If, as an observer, you don't understand the emotion or idea the artist is trying to communicate, it is not art to you. To another person who can see the meaning in it, it is art. Art is not the same thing to all people.

It would all be a lot easier if we simply agreed on two definitions of art, the Art of the Auteur, and Traditional Art: art as a self-directed means of expression in any medium, and art expressed within traditional techniques and mediums.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 10:11 am

Originally posted by fable

It would all be a lot easier if we simply agreed on two definitions of art, the Art of the Auteur, and Traditional Art: art as a self-directed means of expression in any medium, and art expressed within traditional techniques and mediums.

Oh ancient one, you're taking all the fun out of arguing....

No worries, I'll think of something !

Beldin

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 10:51 am

I have had an interesting thought, and I will use a lightning metaphor to get it across simply:

I think we all agree that art has to do with expressing some idea, concept or feeling: channeling it out of the abstarct realm of thought into the physical world where people can observe it and be interested by it and put it in a gallery.
I will call this essence the 'idea' and will assume that art must have some idea/s or other, and that what does not is not art. For this reason I will clear up quickly that I do not believe [most] graffiti to be art. It appeals only to the aesthetic sense and does not provoke any sort of thought or reflexion. It does not contain 'ideas', and is therefore more like graphic design.

Now, imagine that these ideas and artistic essences are lightning bolts. They could act in three ways:

Maybe, some people are born with an artistic instinct. This will equate in the metaphor to being born incredibly tall, so that of a group of men standing on a golf course, the tal one will always be strck by lightning. He is taller that the rest and one of the effects of tallness is that one is always struck by lightning when standing with shorter people. It could be that there are some people who are just always are struck with artistic ideas and concepts rather than people without the artistic instinct. They then have to contort their bodies, writhing and twisting, trying to ground the charge. Like this, artists often have to neglect their bodies, minds, loves, families sometimes to try and get the idea out of them onto a canvass.

It could be that the lightning strikes randomly, and that the artistic instinct is not given at birth (just 'there'), but that when someone is struck by lightning (in this world everyone is the same height) they have to do their best to ground it and express it. In this example, the artistic instinct is not what causes one to be struck with artistic ideas, but is the neccesary effect of being struck with artistic ideas.

or it could be that lightning strikes far more frequently than we ever know. Maybe people are struck with artistic ideas all the time, but only those already with the artistic instinct try and express it. Some people have incredible artistic concepts in their heads, but because they are so inclined, they just forget about it.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 11:03 am

whew...just a thought I had to get down quickly.
anyway what this roughly translates into is wether you think that having an artistic idea makes an artist, and therefore compelled to express the idea; being an artist causes one to have artistic ideas and be compelled to express them; or being an artist makes one compelled to express one's artistic ideas but people can have artistic ideas and not be compelled to express them if they are not artists.

hope that makes sense. It also runs parrallel to the question, where do the 'ideas' come from? It is clear (to me) that they are a mixture of outside influences, and original which come right out of the artists' subconscious. what can our metaphor for friction between water molecules in clouds (or whatever it is that causes lightning) be?

incidentally I consider myself to be an artist, but am hard pressed to say why I think that I am an artist but my sister (say) is not, other than that when I have artistic ideas I am complelled to express them. This is ofcourse what we are trying to figure out above. Is my sister just not capable of have artistic ideas, is she not inclined to express her artistic ideas, or is it that she would have to express her artistic ideas if/when she has some, but hasn't yet.

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 12:04 pm

Originally posted by Bordeauxxx
It seems to me that art is a form of communication: a medium through which the emotions or ideas of the artist are communicated to an observer who is able to interpret those messages in a way that is meaningful.

If, as an observer, you don't understand the emotion or idea the artist is trying to communicate, it is not art to you. To another person who can see the meaning in it, it is art. Art is not the same thing to all people.

I agree. To me art is like kicking a free kick that goes in the net from 30 yards. The creator has expressed himself/herself and I the watcher ( I'm sure Chomsky has a better sounding term for this) appreciate the effort/vision/ whatever that went into the effort/end product. Some others don't appreciate it which reinforces the sometimes paradoxical nature of art.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 12:15 pm

Originally posted by Beldin

@ Voodoodali: I bow down to your profound knowledge and wisdom. I feel sincerely outclassed here since I'm just a "Joe Normal" kind of guy when it comes to background knowledge on art.

Still - I like to talk about that topic - so :NO WORRIES it's never to late to learn !

Beldin

@Beldin--Why thank ya. Actually, if you hang out at SYM long enough you will learn a lot about everything. I can't remember which thread it was on, but when we had the post-modernism discussion it made us all finally try to learn what that term actually meant! If not for SYM, I wouldn't have bothered.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 5:57 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali

I can't remember which thread it was on, but when we had the post-modernism discussion it made us all finally try to learn what that term actually meant!

And it 'actually' means? - Curdis !

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:07 pm

Originally posted by Curdis
And it 'actually' means? - Curdis !

OK--you asked for it! This will be a rather long post.

To understand Post-Modernism, you have to understand Modernism. I'll try to be as brief as possible.
Modernism came out of the ideals of the Enlightenment. Voltaire summarized these as:
1. autonomy of reason
2. perfectibility and progress
3. confidence in the ability to discover causality
4. principles governing nature, man and society
5. assault on authority
6. cosmopolitan solidarity of enlightened intellectuals
7. disgust with nationalism.

19th C. Modernism
Academic/Conservative Modernist Beliefs
--Art should improve the world.
--Images should contain or reflect good moral values, examples of virtuous behavior, inspire Christian sentiment, serve as role models.
--Preferred gradual over radical change.
--Looked to the past.

Progressive Modernist Beliefs
--Believed in goodness of mankind and that this goodness had become corrupted by industrialization.
--Some believed that man had become vicious and competitive b/c of capitalism
--Idealized Nature
--Concerned with depicting political/social issues (exp. poverty) that the bourgeoisie preferred to ignore
--Belief in freedom of expression and freedom of choice in style (e.g., brushstroke, color)
--Art For Art's Sake Movement--claimed that art should be produced for art's sake, not the public's. This deliberately affronted the bourgeoisie who demanded that art should instruct, delight or moralize. (Biggest proponent: James Whistler)
--Saw academic modernists as supporting the status quo. and their view of the future as a continuation of the present.
--Concept of the avant-garde--looked to the future.
--Critical of institutions, both political and religious as restrictive of individual liberty.
--Challenged authority and bourgeois values.

Formalism
--Art For Art's Sake Movement backfired
--Late 19th c. critics and art historians begin discussing art in formal terms only. This removed the question of meaning and purpose from consideration and effectively neutralized disruptive art.
--A notion emerges that art is an isolated phenomenon that is separate from the materialistic world and the mundane affairs of ordinary people. The visual artist, via special gifts, is privy to a purely visual understanding.
--Criticism is concerned only with: (1) Does it derive from, sum up or challenge earlier stylistic developments? (2) Does it lay stylistic bases for the next artist or period?
--The Formalist System, hand-in-hand with the art market (which cared only about money not meaning) absorbed all attempts at subversion and revolt into neutral, mildly offensive art history.
--Painting and sculpture remain central to their idea of what constitutes High Art.

Abstraction
--Artists go in search of "true" art.
--Art is more than images and can be many things. Whatever this art thing was--it was universal. (Like the scientific "truth" of the Enlightenment)
--Kandinsky strips away distracting elements such as recognizable objects
--Mondrian reduces the non-recognizable to the most basic elements--color and line.
--Both believed that abstraction would be a guide to the spectator and rekindle in him/her the spiritual dimension which they felt had been lost in the materialistic modern world.

20th C. Post-Modernism
--WWI is a huge blow to Progressive Modernist ideals.
--Dadaism begins with the belief that modernism has failed.
--WWII deals a mortal blow to Progressive Modernism. After Auschwitz, Theodor Adorno asks if any art has a right to exist.

"It became necessary to destroy art in order to save it."
Deconstructive Post-Modernism
--Has an Anti-Modern stance
--Rejects the supremacy of reason, the notion of truth, belief in perfectability of man, and the idea that we can create a better or perfect society
--Deconstructionism literally takes apart the values/ideals of Modernism to reveal what composes them.
--Shows that ideals such as equality or liberty are not natural, but are human intellectual constructions.
--Questions are often raised about who was responsible for these contructions. Who do these contructions serve?
--Decontructionism seeks to destroy or eliminate the central beliefs seen as necessary for a modern worldview (God, Self, Purpose, Meaning, Real World, Truth, etc.)

Constructive Post-Modernism
--Does not reject Modernism. Seeks to revise it.
--Erases boundaries, undermines legitimacy and logic of modernism
--Rejects the scientific approach in which only the data of science is allowed to contribute to the construction of our worldview
--Seeks a return to pre-modern ideas of cosmic meaning and enchanted nature
--Accepts non-sensory perception
--Wants to replace modernism, which it sees as threatening life on earth

Overall--
Post-Modernism
--Avoids classification
--Accepts ambiguity, uncertainty, insecurity, doubt
--Is open, unbounded and process-oriented (not results-oriented)
Post-Modern Artists
--Are self aware
--Involved in thinking about him/herself and society in a deconstructive manner
--Demasks pretensions
--Aware of cultural self in history
--Sensitive to cultural, ethnic and human conditions

Conceptual Art
--Impossible for formalism to absorb
--Placed art beyond all limits/definitions
--Broke the stranglehold of formalist critics, art historians and dealers.
--Process of creation more important than result.
--Examples:
----Temporary Art (Christo) (Performance Art)
----Art that could not be placed in a gallery (Earth Art)

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:27 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali

OK--you asked for it! This will be a rather long post.

Yeah that is as it relates to art but what does it *actually* mean? - Curdis !

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:38 pm

Originally posted by Curdis
Yeah that is as it relates to art but what does it *actually* mean?

Rejection of the values of modernism?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:48 pm

Originally posted by Curdis
Yeah that is as it relates to art but what does it *actually* mean? - Curdis !

And what do you actually mean by *actually*?

I thought Voodoo's post was very clair, and several principles are applicable to other areas than art, even if I personally has only encountered the term (as you may recall from another thread) in art school in the 1980's and in hip debate articles in popular media.

So does *actually* mean something more possible to generalise? Or more specific? Or all possible denotations?

Oh my, I'm so tired, it's 3 am and I've worked like crazy today. I'm in a state apt for producing dadaistic posts...

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 7:59 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans

So does *actually* mean something more possible to generalise? Or more specific? Or all possible denotations?

Oh my, I'm so tired, it's 3 am and I've worked like crazy today. I'm in a state apt for producing dadaistic posts...

All possible detonations, it is deconstructionalism after all

. And I am generally more specific.

Go to bed and sleep! Also don't work so hard, P.S. did my stuff suck on the big speakers? and you have been too polite to say anything? - Curdis !

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 8:41 pm

The problem with defining post-modernism is that is crosses boundaries of several academic disciplines: art, philosophy, literature, music, etc.

I am most familiar with it in terms of art and literature.

I think Georgi is actually on target, a post-modernist either rejects or wants to revise the modernist world-view (which is basically an Enlightenment POV).

Maybe it's easier, if you think about it historically:
As I said before, WWII was a mortal blow to modernist ideals. The Nazi holocaust reduced the modernist dream to ashes. The Germans, after all, were a civilized people who had actively participated in the modernist enterprise from the beginning.

The Enlightenment pictured the human race as engaged in an effort towards universal moral and intellectual self-realization. It was believed that reason allowed access to truth, and knowledge of the truth would better mankind. These tenets were fundamental to the notion of Modernism, the goal of which was the creation of a new world order.

With the holocaust, and later the threat of nuclear annihilation, these Enlightenment ideals were destroyed. The idea that reason always leads to progress, that progress is always good, that science and reason will allow us to find the answers to everything, that it is possible to create a utopian society, that man can surpass his nature, that reason can lead to truth, that there is a truth--in the post-modernist view these are all impossible dreams. Post-modern artists were involved in exploding these ideas.

Also, I posted the above to try to explain just what conceptual artists are trying to do or reacting against (formalism). Understanding this has given me an appreciation for some forms of art that were inaccessable to me before. I recommend reading the writing of some of these artists, like Duchamp, Beuys or Anselm Kiefer.

Now they say we're in a post-post-modernist phase. I'd sure like someone to explain just what THAT means...

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 9:42 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali

Now they say we're in a post-post-modernist phase. I'd sure like someone to explain just what THAT means...

Who are the 'they'? The context is pretty important.

Many are of the view that Post-Modernism is too incoherent to have any seperate identity. As you have clearly described, it is a reaction against something. This has always made it a shadow rather than a thing in itself. This had a tendancy to make it all inclusive and consequently even less self referencing and 'meaningful'.

It is probably those who wish to retain some of the clearer messages of post-moderism and re-establish a context for what they are engaged in who would posit post-post-modernism. Judging from how universally Post-Modern was hijacked I would still like to know who the 'they' are. - Curdis !

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 10:07 pm

Originally posted by Curdis
Who are the 'they'? The context is pretty important.

Many are of the view that Post-Modernism is too incoherent to have any seperate identity. As you have clearly described, it is a reaction against something. This has always made it a shadow rather than a thing in itself. This had a tendancy to make it all inclusive and consequently even less self referencing and 'meaningful'.

It is probably those who wish to retain some of the clearer messages of post-moderism and re-establish a context for what they are engaged in who would posit post-post-modernism. Judging from how universally Post-Modern was hijacked I would still like to know who the 'they' are. - Curdis !

Hey--did you notice that the above was my 500th post? And I wasn't even spamming...

I'd like to know who "they" are too. I'm sick of "them." I have my suspicions...

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Tue Mar 12, 2002 10:39 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali

Hey--did you notice that the above was my 500th post? And I wasn't even spamming...

I'd like to know who "they" are too. I'm sick of "them." I have my suspicions...

No

Actually I noticed then went looking for the post where you called your 400th (I think) didn't find it and so started a *gasp* s-word count thread in your honour.

Nice catch?

Your Welcome - Curdis !

Have to dash, 'They' are after me, again.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Wed Mar 13, 2002 10:57 am

Post modernism is like metaart. While in most art, the core essence is something like love or death or religion or something, the core essence of post modernist art is the creation of art. It is the creation of art concerned with itself, which is why the final results are often dull and not worth thinking about -they are not meant to be thought about.
Anyway, I would like to steer back away from post modernism to find out what either 'art' or 'the artist' is.

So you could call any act of vandalism or even terrorism ART ? (I know that's a horrible idea, but it gets my point across...)

very good point. It falls to me now to say that art must be moral or serve society etc...but this is not what I believe.
OK here goes: Terrorism is not art because.....oh good lord that's a tough one. I'll get back to you

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 12:35 pm

*bum-bum-bum-bumpdy-bump-bumbum*

No worries,

Beldin

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 12:43 pm

If you say post modernist art is the creation of art itself and you ask the question: Is terrorism art?; I ask: What does terrorism actually create. Are we to label that to destroy is actually creating something. Or is it the fear, panic, and waste of resources terrorism creates the art?

My personal feelings are that terrorism is not art because it does not create anything, I find the question to be inane; also, if post modernist art yields dull results that don't stimulate thought, I guess you can rule terrorism as art out there also.

Just my two cents on a conversation I'm joining very late so you can chuck my pennies in the fountain if desired.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 9:08 pm

We bumped this why?

Upon re-reading the thread I would like to make the following observations:

The style vs. substence has mutated (to an extent) into what is art.

This has further split into the modernist (traditional view) of art and the wholely inclusive Post-Modernist view of art.

As I have previously pointed out Post-Modernism is a reaction against something. While VDali (and others) have done an excellent job of placing this into an historical and artistic perspective it is pointless (under the fuzzy bounds of Post-Modernism) to argue about what is art. Everything (including terrorism) can be included, there is no fundamental basis for any exclusions. As a bit of an aside a post modern art critic really only has three possible reviews: Yuk, Not Yuk, and not Yuk but not Not Yuk either

.

In the original post the context for the debate was defined as 'IN ART, IS THE OBJECT MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOW IT WAS CREATED'.

A way forward (from here) may be to retract the context of art from the question, making it IS THE OBJECT MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOW IT WAS CREATED (remembering here that the overall issue is Style verses Substance).

I will comence this debate with my position that how an object is/was created is of fundamental importance to that objects importance/value. We live in an age where the ends have rapidly overtaken the means. That those Nike Joggers (Insert Dunlop Volley's here if you like) were produced by slave labour from unenvironmentally friendly plastics in an environmentally reckless factory and then shipped half way around the world is not much of an issue to most purchasers. Out of sight, out of mind. The much more obvious image is the one on your television which shows you how much better your image may be if you wear Nike Joggers (Insert Dunlop Volley's here {although they don't advertise much}if you like). I don't like style for styles sake, I'd rather see the colour of your substance. - Curdis !