Correction: Who told you, David, that "art is representation of an emotion"? Is that your "opinion"? Did you care to find out where the word "art" comes from? Any chance for relation with the wor "artificial" as the opposite of "what happens alone by nature"?
Restricting art to representation of an emotion is losing much too much of its possibilities. It is a representation but not only of "emotion". In general it is a representation, a reconstruction of whatever one might have in mind, be it a statement, an observation, some idea, some emotion too, anything at all. It is art at the moment at which the artificially made "thing" is generated in such a way that is represents exactly what the "thing" in mind was.
To do that one *has* to master the methods, the tools, the work perfectly. Or else, sit and write a good novel without knowing the alphabet. Technical perfection alone is not artistic work, of cours3e, but this doesn't imply that it is not as important. If you don't master it in such a way in order to reproduce exactly what you carry in mind, then the result can be only indidental. And incidence is not the subject of artistic work, since it is what would happen anyway right out of nature. Or do you think that the result of some event that was not intented by a human is automatically "art". OK, then we don't need to do anything at all for artistic work, since such events happen all around us all the time. We don't need to learn to play some instrument for making music, since incidentally striking some strings is already art.
If you think that the great artists just "did" something, you are terribly wrong! Even Pollock rejected most of his action paonting images just because they were *not* complying to that "something" he had in mind. Artistic work is *hard* work and it demands absolute mastering of tools and techniques. First you achieve this, and *then* you go for artistic work. Only lazy ignorants discuss about art as something that has to "represent their feelings" (ohohooooo!) in their comfortable armchairs.
Here we have an armada of people that struggled throughout their lives in order to achieve making visible what they had in mind, they worked hard for mastering techniques and tools, they invented new tools that just matched better what they wanted to do, they exhanged minds in countless days and nights, and David says to me that it doesn't matter that much, if one masters technical things or not. Guess whose definition I would rather take seriously, David's "definition" or the definition of the countless art institutes spread all over the world. This would really be the only thing we missed, namely to have each and every half-knowing mediocre telling us what artistic work is. Really, what else am I going to read on this world?
Cheers!
Nick
|
