Can art be evaluated? (no spam)

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:26 pm

C elegans,

I think that I have a need to use language flexibly. I try to communicate but I am afraid it doesn't always go over well..sorry if this is confusing bare with me.

Basicly as millieway has noted the conventional art world is problematic. That is simply change manifest. Changing prices and opinions. Art in that sense does not interest me because it is an unreliable refuge. Doesn't mean I don't have some interest in it. In my teachers lectures she explained pursuit of the 8 worldly dharmas in context to having a car you like. At first it brings joy but then you become so neurotic over controlling every little detail and having everything how you want it. But the real world isn't like that...you might make a dent or somebody could even key your car or all sorts of things can go wrong. So you should relax and enjoy the car or the art and take it lightly (I'm using 'you' in the english 'one' sense I am not addressing you c elegans in particular)

So why did I call art spontaneous? I am interested in my own artwork although it will never be critically acclaimed

I am interested in the artwork of my niece although she is 4 years old. The reason is that art is an expression of the state of the mind...the buddha nature. This means it is an expression of clarity, openness, and sensitivity. This makes me happy because OCS is a reliable refuge. I'm not a teacher so I don't know how to show you a flash of what it can mean. Heck I have only seen flashes myself. But they were worth it

And spontaneous doesn't mean that you didn't practice. But actually it is kind of my point. Natural might be a better word. Art has to do with your relationship to your mind (for me). By practicing you can strengthen the relationship to your mind. That is why Buddhists practice too.

Fable,

Yes walls can cause a mess - impermanence. But it is your choice whether you think a wall is outside your mind. I don't think it is and if it is then where is the boundary and how does the wall get through the boundary to injure the head.

But it seems to me that it isn't the right suit of universal rules you wear that determines whether you make the cut. It's whether you understand what they are made of, and that they fit exactly to you. Tailors who suggest you must be chopped up to fit the rules, now--I'm not too sure about that.

Do you actually believe there are universal rules about art? That is confusion. Suppose I don't agree with your rules. Do we seek a third person to determome who is right? A rule is in the eye of the beholder. It can take a long time to get an inkling of why there are no absolutes. Here is a link to the heart sutra...the sutras are arranged sometimes in order of density. The heart sutra says it all regarding emptiness. There are fortunately 100s of other sutras and 84,000,000 doors and counting that masters have used to explain in case of the heart sutra not having any effect. Here's link to the heart sutra: LamRim.com - Heart Sutra Another resource relevant to topics of how to view ordinary reality and the mindWisdom. A discussion from a master who is actually empowered to teach (I am not I could lead you straight to hell

) Karma Triyana Dharmachakra -- Cultivating Insight into the Nature of Things as They Are

The Buddha taught some people the teachings of duality that help them avoid sin and acquire spiritual merit.
To others he taught non-duality, that some find profoundly frightening.

Even offering three hundred bowls of food three times a day does not match the spiritual merit gained in one moment of love.

All philosophies are mental fabrications. There has never been a single doctrine by which one could enter the true essence of things.

There is pleasure when an itch is scratched,
But to be without itches is more pleasurable still.
Just so, there are pleasures in worldly desires,
But to be without desires is more pleasurable still

-Nagajaruna

Aztaroth · Post by **Aztaroth** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:51 pm

Excuse me, Claudius, but I noticed you said "art is an expression of the state of the mind". Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? I initially took it as you meaning to say art expresses how sane or enlightened one is, which I frankly find completely ridiculous. Please explain.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:12 pm

Claudius wrote:Do you actually believe there are universal rules about art? That is confusion. Suppose I don't agree with your rules. Do we seek a third person to determome who is right?

Of course not. If I say 1+1=2 and someone else disagrees, then neither a third person, nor a fourth, nor a fifth, will succeed in convincing them. Because some people won't allow what is manifestly evident to be true, if they don't want to see it. With respect, you are doing this now, when many of us are attempting to show you that rules in the arts are a constant used to evaulate skill.

For example, speaking for one art I know fairly well, music: how to orchestrate, or compose a fugue, or harmonize four voice parts: yes, there are rules for these things, and many others. If you do them poorly, then anyone who knows the rules governing such things will be able to point that out. And this holds true for how to write a play, or construct a novel, etc. If you want to refuse the evidence of people who are artists themselves, such as Aztaroth, as well as those who are knowledgeable amateurs, then again, that's your wall.

A rule is in the eye of the beholder. It can take a long time to get an inkling of why there are no absolutes.

It can take even longer for a person who believes they have achieved wisdom to see that they are are spouting rules they've been told, but that's irony for you. Still, as I like to say, 1+1=2. One of these days, you'll look at the examples we're all showing you that it does, and then you will join the Buddha's laughter at you.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 pm

Excuse me, Claudius, but I noticed you said "art is an expression of the state of the mind". Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? I initially took it as you meaning to say art expresses how sane or enlightened one is, which I frankly find completely ridiculous. Please explain.

I think that art can be an expression of your basic sanity. Your mind is basicly sane you just have to find that quality. It is there like the sun is still there whether it is covered by clouds or not. In artwork we can feel in our hearts the expression of that basic sanity. Of course we have lifetimes of negative habits: clinging, grasping, shoring up a sensitive ego. That is why it takes practice to let your heart come through. I find art as a way to work with the balance.

Two pairs of oposing qualities:

Wisdom and Faith (not zealous I mean confidence...believing reality is good) - that is sensitivity

Concentration (or absorption) and Energy - which is clarity bright and clear cuts through the negativity.

The mediating quality is openness. So we basicly have clarity, sensitivity, and openness.

Openness is like how comfortable you are being you. Not defensive. If someone says how are you in a condescending way you can just smile and say back "I am fine" becaues you are relaxed. Being 'big about it'. Spacious.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:54 pm

But fable for me it is you who does not see that 1 + 1 = 2 :laugh:

Also the discussion does not support your argument. Aztaroth has stated that a large block dot on a white background is not good art even though he acknowledges that his relation is a successful and wealthy artist. And I am not meaning this to criticize Aztaroth. The point is that there is not any concensus of what art is. Some people say an oatmeal stout should have no more than 10% of its grain bill as steel cut oats. I intend to brew one with 10.002 % and see if they know the difference. Then I will brew one with 10.020 and see if that gets there panties in a bunch. Soon oatmeal % will be accepted as 20%.

Buddhadharma is not buddhadharma that is how it is buddhadarma- (from the Diamond Sutra). Buddha wouldn't laugh at me he would have compassion.

Can you evaluate the music I create? Can you evaluate African tribal music? Can you definitely settle whether Led Zepelin is good music? When Jimmy Hendrix set his guitar on fire would you respond that that violates the rules of a fugue

? All you have is your mind. Thats all. And what you say is not only a projection of your mind but it is also a conditioned response due to your karma.

Samadhi Raja Sutra

Know all things to be like this:
A mirage, a cloud castle,
A dream, an apparition,
Without essence, but with qualities that can be seen.

Know all things to be like this:
As the moon in a bright sky
In some clear lake reflected,
Though to that lake the moon has never moved.

Know all things to be like this:
As an echo that derives
From music, sounds, and weeping,
Yet in that echo is no melody.

Know all things to be like this:
As a magician makes illusions
Of horses, oxen, carts and other things,
Nothing is as it appears.

The Buddha

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:38 pm

Claudius wrote:Also the discussion does not support your argument. Aztaroth has stated that a large block dot on a white background is not good art even though he acknowledges that his relation is a successful and wealthy artist.

Read again what he wrote. He isn't "acknowledging" that, as though it were a key point in an argument you're making. He's saying that his relation is successful by producing very simple art that cannot be critiqued for a bunch of intellectual snobs. Aztaroth is pointing out that your understanding of issues involving simplicity and lack of critique are exactly the reverse of the way you claim, because it is the superficial snobs who embrace a lack of critical standards.

The point is that there is not any concensus of what art is.

No, that's not a conclusion, here. Most of us have been saying the opposite. You've been claiming this, but any evidence you've given has been directly refuted. To quote what C Elegans summed up very well, before:

By saying that art is something completely subjective that can only be defined by the opinion of a single individual, you have removed all of the meaning and purpose art has at social, political and historical level. You simply don't recognise that art can be greater than the personal opinions and perceptions of one individual. There is a universal level where art can change a whole society or a whole generation, but this you simply ignore. And you also ignore the great artist's talent and mastery of the enormously difficult skill to reach out and communicate an abstract message by symbols that can be understood by a large variety of different people to such an extent so this communication can alter them...

I think she put it very well, and you never did respond to her points.

Buddhadharma is not buddhadharma that is how it is buddhadarma- (from the Diamond Sutra). Buddha wouldn't laugh at me he would have compassion.

Buddha will laugh with you when you break Buddhism open, and let the air out that you've trapped inside. It will smell very badly, but only for a short while.

Can you evaluate the music I create? Can you evaluate African tribal music? Can you definitely settle whether Led Zepelin is good music?

Please don't change the playing field. This isn't what we have been discussing. Our discussion has revolved around your own words, "In fact art only has meaning to an individuals perception. Perhaps there is no art. That is fine."

Yet I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you that there are verifiable criteria used to objectively evaluate the quality of skill shown within an artform. By being unwilling to admit this fact, you are not admitting 2 can equal 1+1. Again, this is your wall, not ours. I can only attempt to show you the wall, again and again: every time you turn away, it is still there.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:55 pm

I find that you have a superior attitude towards the "snobs" who enjoy minimalist art. Your loss. The people who pay a lot of money for minimalist art seem to enjoy it. And you are telling them it isn't art? Seems to me that in fact (drumroll here is the support for my statement hope you notice it) that there is no consensus on this matter. We have minimalist artists who disagree with you. Do you really believe they don't believe they are making art? I could suggest that you are doing the orchestra just as a scam just as easily.

As far as my buddhist practice I will take the opinion of my lineage teacher more seriously than I will take yours. "be a light unto yourself" were the final words of buddha.

I would suggest that your comment that I stink violates gamebanshee forum rules for flaming. Here I have modified your statement about me and applied it to yourself. Tell me if it offends you.

Mozart will laugh with you (fable) when you break 'Orchestra' open, and let the air out that you've trapped inside. It will smell very badly, but only for a short while.

C Elegans point that information can be exchanged regarding art is true. But dogma in art is still dogma. What you find true is what is important. Sure we can talk about that.

Hendrix's feelings when setting the guitar on fire were expressed in his artwork although the convention in western culture was not to set things on fire! Therefore there is relevance to "In fact art only has meaning to an individuals perception. Perhaps there is no art. That is fine." The link is that there is a diversity of opinion on hendrixes expression.

I guess this makes me think that you believe art is a set of style guidelines. This (guidelines) is true in beer as well. But a beer that fits the styleguideline for India Pale Ale does not mean that I will like it. It just means it is a hoppy, moderately strong pale ale that features characteristics consistent with the use of English malt, hops and yeast. Has less hop character and a more pronounced malt flavor than American versions.

That is a style guideline. It is artificial and native to a set of conditions. You can brew a great beer using american citrusy hops and it would violate the IPA guideline. But either could be an example of art. In fact a ****load of beer is sold as IPA and does violate the guideline. Therefore that guideline as well as the english language which I am typing is subject to change

Oskatat · Post by **Oskatat** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:40 pm

I read through most of the preceding posts, and there is one thing that i am missing. division. in all statements i have seen, all the things that make art an art in human view, are discussed, but on an and/and basis. in my opinion, art is a matter of popularity (nightwatch isnt the greatest painting), originaligy (pop-art, who would have thought of common objects as art) or skill (no example atm)

originality is a value determined by refering to other works of (accepted) art
popularity is valued in a head count, though that might be difficult in reality
skill is a value determined by specialists, mostly, and more subjective than others. some might argue that picasso had no skill

to accept the word art you have to accept that it is not a uniform concept, but multilayerd and subjective thing, that only has a meaning in a specific culture

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:35 pm

Claudius wrote:I find that you have a superior attitude towards the "snobs" who enjoy minimalist art. Your loss. The people who pay a lot of money for minimalist art seem to enjoy it. And you are telling them it isn't art?

I am telling you exactly what Aztaroth was telling you. Please re-read his post. I don't believe you have replied to its points.

As far as my buddhist practice I will take the opinion of my lineage teacher more seriously than I will take yours. "be a light unto yourself" were the final words of buddha.

There were 2 subtexts to my comments regarding your level of enlightenment. For our current purposes, the one that matters most is that I turned myself deliberately into a mirror, and gave you back exactly what you presented me, when you wrote:

ersonally I think the difference in viewpoint stems to my relationships and general acceptance of the teachings of buddha. You have not gone there so I don't blame you for believing the dreamlike arisings of your mind are real.

Now you realize to the exact dot what it feels like to be patronized by somebody who calmly claims to understand better than you how reality operates. Not pleasant, is it? Of course, I have no idea how you practice Buddhism, and no idea how Buddha regards you, me, or anything else. -But it might be worth remembering the next time you condescend to tell somebody that you "don't blame them" for having less wisdom than you do.

I would suggest that your comment that I stink violates gamebanshee forum rules for flaming. Here I have modified your statement about me and applied it to yourself. Tell me if it offends you.

If you could please show me where I said that you stink, I would be most obliged.

C Elegans point that information can be exchanged regarding art is true. But dogma in art is still dogma. What you find true is what is important. Sure we can talk about that.

If I understand you correctly, then part of the problem is that you label any attempt to understand the use of skills in art as dogma. Instead, they're the tools of the trade.

That is a style guideline. It is artificial and native to a set of conditions.

It is the way art has operated since prehistoric times, as witness the cave wall images that you first brought up. You say, "So what?" and deny these rules, and deny any evaluation is possible of art. But that doesn't make the skill in art go away, nor does it make all that wonderful art that has produced any less spontaneous for filling rules with inspiration.

And again, back to Aztaroth, who describes just how ignoring rules isn't for those who espouse spontaneity, but for a clique of the intellectual elite, who have little respect for spontaneity.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:20 pm

Buddha will laugh with you when you break Buddhism open, and let the air out that you've trapped inside. It will smell very badly, but only for a short while.

This is the comment that I took offense to. I don't think you see what I do. Can we agree to disagree?

I didn't say you have less wisdom than me. I meant that you have not studied buddhism or at least not drawn the same conclusions that I have. I apologize for speculating that you believe the dreamlike arisings of your mind are real. Go ahead and prove me wrong and hold the arisings with lightness and humor. That would make me happy!

You know the idea of being a mirror when you feel insulted and then returning insult for insult usually doesn't get you what you want. It only fuels the anger that you have inside. Instead I urge to seek clarification when you feel wronged. Hopefully with mutual understanding the problem can be resolved.

I wish you well in life and in appreciation of art. Although we disagree on what that means I hope we can both enjoy life (and art). No hard feelings on my part. Indeed the sting only lasted momentarily and it resolved into greater curiosity and wonder over the diversity of human natures and opinions.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:50 am

Oskatat wrote:skill is a value determined by specialists, mostly, and more subjective than others. some might argue that picasso had no skill

I suppose they could. But they would be wrong.

Here's the first link that Google turns up if you search for picasso early work:

Pablo Picasso

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:07 pm

Oskatat wrote:I read through most of the preceding posts, and there is one thing that i am missing. division. in all statements i have seen, all the things that make art an art in human view, are discussed, but on an and/and basis. in my opinion, art is a matter of popularity (nightwatch isnt the greatest painting), originaligy (pop-art, who would have thought of common objects as art) or skill (no example atm)

originality is a value determined by refering to other works of (accepted) art
popularity is valued in a head count, though that might be difficult in reality
skill is a value determined by specialists, mostly, and more subjective than others. some might argue that picasso had no skill

to accept the word art you have to accept that it is not a uniform concept, but multilayerd and subjective thing, that only has a meaning in a specific culture

I tend to agree.

To be perfectly honest, in spite of my disdain for all forms of contemporary art, my own definition of Art is more flexible than my taste - Art is a product of human creativity that has a potential to affect at least some of us both sensually and intellectually, connecting with us in a meaningful (to us) way. In that sense, art value is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

Although deep in my heart I still believe that there is (or there should be) a huge difference between professional art and casual, amateurish "arts and crafts", I have to say the difference is not so huge. Being skilled with a particular medium or not being skilled does not really matter. The final product is still some sort of art, if intended as such. That is, if we are willing to admit that art, even inferior in our eyes, has intrinsic value, in addition to being in the eye of the beholder.

Not all pieces of Art are created equal in terms of skills, talent, invested time etc. Not all pieces of Art receive due attention from the public. Thousands of artists (and "artists") create their art according to established canons. Other thousands dedicate their lives to breaking these established canons in every possible way, sometimes with a quite undeserved financial success.

The canons are being broken all the time, just to form new ones that will become broken later. How to discern the "real" Art in this chaos?

Sometimes, people literally believe that something is "great" just because it is "common knowledge" or because they trust the esteemed opinions of "those who know better". According to "those who know better", a splatter on canvas is a piece of Very Fine Art. Yeah, the king is naked and lovin' it. I dare say a modest "arts and crafts" project can be more artistic and inspirational than all heaps of professionally crafted junk displayed in Le Centre Pompidou. But this is just my personal aesthetic perception. Apparently, another person's perception can be vastly different. Whose perception is true?

Actually, any junk can be art, if placed on display. I might look and say, 'that splatter is a splatter is a splatter is a splatter; just a silly splatter, for goodness sake, even if it is splattered by the Famous Splatterer Himself'. But someone else might look and have a life-altering experience. This person will assign value to what might seem worthless to me.