When to add ornamatation?

[Nanohedron]

Dunno. Have we answered FFLT's query yet?

I don't add ornamentation to an S.O. anymore. Taste issues, you see.

Does that mean you are NOT an artist anymore?

Body painting's different. It's the jewelry and clothes that I fail at.

[Mongoose of Righteousness]

My wife (a Canadian) plays piano. I bought her a harp in April and after some lessons she now accompanies our small group in our weekly ITM sessions. I asked her today "is Irish music art?" She thought for a few seconds and said "It's fun, uplifting, cheery, but not art". I told her I had upset some folks on this forum by expressing this opinion. Her response was "I'll bet they are not Irish".

After the subject had been dropped and she had thought about it a few minutes she said, "but then there are some people who include almost anything as art, and if you look at it that way, it's art."
And I agree with that. With sufficient talent and art you can "haute" almost anyting...cuisine, couture, tattooing. Why not "Haute ITM"? Absolutely! Mary Bergin, Derek Bell and many others qualify.

(These are sincerely held opinions, BTW. If some are annoyed by it it's probably my lack of tact, for which I apologize.)

[Nanohedron]

Yeah, Mongoose, I'd be one of those who considers all music to be art: some is highbrow, some is pure rubbish, some is as complex as brocade, and some is starkly simple, but I take it all in the context of art, wherever the music comes from. But I also hew to the ancient Greek idea that there's no essential difference between art and craft, artistry and craftsmanship, artist and artizan.

Your wife's comment, "I'll bet that they are not Irish", was interesting, and brought home a point that I've thought about before. As an American, it's easy for me to forget to think of Bluegrass music, for example, as an art form as it's so close to home. And yet I do see it as art. But that's just me. Perhaps her comment illustrates an Hibernian cultural perspective, then?

[BoneQuint]

I asked her today "is Irish music art?" She thought for a few seconds and said "It's fun, uplifting, cheery, but not art".

As I implied before, I sort of think the question is nonsensical. What makes something "art" (to me) is the soul you put into it, the feelings and inner truths you're trying to express with it. Saying for example "is painting art?" to me is just about the same as saying "is paint art?" No, painting is a medium that can be used for artistic purposes. Although it's probably used more often for decorative purposes, or egotistical purposes (neither of which to me qualify as "Art" since they don't require soul, and don't attempt to communicate any inner truths).

Now, much traditional music is purely for entertainment, for "decorative" purposes. Although I feel that since it's been shaped by centuries, to a large degree "unconsciously," there are some inherent "inner truths" to be found in it. But it's also a medium that can be intentionally used for artistic purposes.

I'm probably saying the same thing you are, but I'm just pointing out that I feel it's more germane to classify art by the inner effort put into it (from the inside) as opposed to the medium used, or the audience's personal judgement of "result" (from the outside). It's not the critic that decides if something is "art" or not. It's whether you learn something about yourself in the process of creating it. And if the art is "good," this inner effort will be apparent to someone who is sensitive enough -- which is why true art can speak so deeply to us.

"One cannot create science -- it is the result of the scientific process. One cannot create art -- it is the result of the artistic process."

[jim stone]

The disagreement is by now entirely verbal.

If a form of creating something aims at something
the principal value of which is aesthetic, and if
it can be done artfully so as to produce
wonderful things (not always, but sometimes),
it's an artform. If that isn't enough, perhaps
you might say why not?

Blues is an artform, musack isn't.

You can pack into 'artform' the idea that
it's highbrow, etc. It must be the
sort of thing that people say with
soloemnity is an 'artform.'
But really that's silly, yes?
Because the difference between
high and low brow doesn't make
the difference between art and
non-art. tenfour.

[Nanohedron]

Jim, I don't know if your comment about muzack was a statement for dissecting, or an opinioin.

Your following words, though -if I take them correctly-, seem to echo my own view: put a gun to my head, and I'll admit muzack is art. It's just very bad art, is all.

If someone doesn't see it as art, that's always an option. I certainly wouldn't take the debate very far, as I hate the stuff, anyway.

[Bloomfield]

After the subject had been dropped and she had thought about it a few minutes she said, "but then there are some people who include almost anything as art, and if you look at it that way, it's art."
And I agree with that. With sufficient talent and art you can "haute" almost anyting...cuisine, couture, tattooing. Why not "Haute ITM"? Absolutely! Mary Bergin, Derek Bell and many others qualify.

Derek Bell, lol.

[jim stone]

Jim, I don't know if your comment about muzack was a statement for dissecting, or an opinioin.

Your following words, though -if I take them correctly-, seem to echo my own view: put a gun to my head, and I'll admit muzack is art. It's just very bad art, is all.

If someone doesn't see it as art, that's always an option. I certainly wouldn't take the debate very far, as I hate the stuff, anyway.

I wrote:

If a form of creating something aims at something
the principal value of which is aesthetic, and if
it can be done artfully so as to produce
wonderful things (not always, but sometimes),
it's an artform. If that isn't enough, perhaps
you might say why not?

Musack doesn't qualify as an artform, by this definition.
The principal value of what's created isn't
aesthetic, but to fill up silence with an innocuous
background. Chickens lay more eggs; cows
yield more milk...Shoppers buy more.
It can't be done artfully to
produce wonderful things, for it you did,
it wouldn't be musack. (Of course it
can be done competently; one pities the
musicians, but hey it's a gig.) I think it's a feature
of an artform that it can produce something
wonderful, and that it often aims
at doing so, even if it usually fails.

It's possible that there are hidden treasures
in musack, which we would discover
if we sat and listened carefully, as we
would to Bach; but supposing that musack
is what it appears to be, nothing more,
by my def it isn't an artform. Best

[thurlowe]

This refers to visual arts but could apply to all (and meant as humor):

"To be a good artist takes very little. Art is a shell. Appearance is important. So, first of all, you need to wear black ... Second, if you want to be a really great artist, you need to drink alcohol. That is why British art is so good these days. Because British artists drink like ponies.
Third, you must stop believing that art is about self-expression. Art is a job. An occupation. Art is not about freedom. Art is about repetition. Affirmation. Your whole life must be devoted to one stupid thing."
-- Alex Lispenard

[Caj]

After the subject had been dropped and she had thought about it a few minutes she said, "but then there are some people who include almost anything as art, and if you look at it that way, it's art."
And I agree with that. With sufficient talent and art you can "haute" almost anyting...cuisine, couture, tattooing. Why not "Haute ITM"?

Wow, even music counts as art?? Geez, next thing they'll be saying that sculpture is art too. Or dance. I suppose that if some people think that almost anything is art, then *maybe* that would include sculpture. I mean, if cabinet making is an art then I guess sculpture would kinda count, maybe sorta.

Again, I'd be very interested in hearing what your definition of art is, so I can see why it includes painting (say) but not folk music. I already gave my definition, which I thought was very limited and conservative, but even so it still included folk music.

Caj

[BoneQuint]

I don't think you're taking to me, but I'll answer anyway. First of all, this is just MY definition of art, but I think it's a useful one.

The disagreement is by now entirely verbal. If a form of creating something aims at something the principal value of which is aesthetic, and if it can be done artfully so as to produce wonderful things (not always, but sometimes), it's an artform. If that isn't enough, perhaps
you might say why not?

This is similar to what I've been saying -- the aim of the artist (as long as it's an honest aim) is what's important in defining art. I feel if something is done say to make money, or maybe to make people like you, then no matter how skillfully it's done, it's not art.

I wouldn't say "if it can be done artfully" because "artfully" is what we're trying to define. I'm I'm not sure just "aesthetics" alone is enough to qualify as art. And "producing something wonderful" is a bit subjective and vague. Something can be "pretty" or skillfully made, but have no soul, no inner meaning. None of the inner essence of the creator has gone into it. In that case, I wouldn't call it art. For there to be art, there has to be an artist. And if none of the artist's essence is invested in the work, then there is no artist in the result, so there is no art.

Blues is an artform, musack isn't.

I think I agree with what you're trying to say here. Musak is made for money, not to create something worthwhile in itself. But again, something being "blues" isn't what makes it art -- the effort and intention that goes into creating it is what makes it art. Blues can be approched soullessly too, and in that case, I wouldn't call it art. But maybe then you would call it musak.

You can pack into 'artform' the idea that it's highbrow, etc. It must be the sort of thing that people say with soloemnity is an 'artform.' But really that's silly, yes?

Yes, silly. That's one reason I believe the definition of art lies in the artist's honest efforts and intentions, not in the medium used or in critic's opinions. Although some mediums are richer in possibilities than others.

If I'm talking to myself here, that's OK -- just writing things like this helps me think about them, which is useful.

[jim stone]

'Artful' just means 'clever or skillful.' No circularity here. Best

[Nanohedron]

The disagreement is by now entirely verbal.

If a form of creating something aims at something
the principal value of which is aesthetic, and if
it can be done artfully so as to produce
wonderful things (not always, but sometimes),
it's an artform. If that isn't enough, perhaps
you might say why not?

Oddly, I see your definition working for my angle on this. Musical wallpaper is an aesthetic effect: hardly inspiring, but it has an aesthetic value which befits its intended purpose. Just to throw this in: if art is to be defined by "Ars gratia artis", then most ITM is not art because it has an intended function, i.e. dance music. This makes no sense to me; for example, native traditional Japanese works of art have predominantly been married to function: boxes, swords, tea bowls, clothing, bells: all designed to be appreciated for aesthetic appeal whether ornate or spare, and to be used as well, frequently for mundane purposes in the meantime. For example, there are old, stunningly lacquered latrine boxes extant, crafted for ladies of high station. Would these be works of art? I think so.

Blues is an artform, musack isn't.

Again, I don't differentiate much between "art" and "craft", so I think this boils down to personal opinions, not absolutes. Musack makes me irritable, but so does most Mappelthorpe, even his innocuous works. Yet his pohtography is deemed "art". I would agree, and tend to place it in the same category as Muzack, frankly. I don't care for his work, but I do call it art. I also place the dreck on McDonald's cups, for example, within the realm of art, but it's strictly commercial and vapid. Now, I'm more inclined to agree with you in using the word "artform", which implies to me something living and dynamic, mutable and communicative in the hands of the artist. Arguably Muzack and corporate soft drink cups don't fit in that category, but we could go round and round on that one. All in all, art for me shows composition, and is at least decorative. This isn't to suggest that all art ought necessarily to be given equal footing just because I consider it art. What it is, though is very human. I also consider the nests of bower birds to be avian art.

You can pack into 'artform' the idea that
it's highbrow, etc. It must be the
sort of thing that people say with
soloemnity is an 'artform.'
But really that's silly, yes?
Because the difference between
high and low brow doesn't make
the difference between art and
non-art. tenfour.

It occurs to me that I would earlier have done well to put the word "highbrow" in quotes as I have just now done, and forestall any misconception that I subscribe to any value implied by the word. And I agree with you. Muzack may be conveniently called "lowbrow", but it doesn't address the question as to whether or not it is art. Frankly, I see it as a matter of perception, and however persuasive arguments get on any side of this, all I see is people illustrating their perceptions, not defining absolutes.

[jim stone]

If a form of creating something aims at something
the principal value of which is aesthetic, and if
it can be done artfully so as to produce
wonderful things (not always, but sometimes),
it's an artform. If that isn't enough, perhaps
you might say why not?

Let me retreat from my bold definition, then,
and offer the above as a sufficient, not
a necessary condition, for an artform.
Maybe there is art that doesn't satisfy it,
but whatever satisfies it is an artform.
And ITM satisfies it--at least when
it's performed not for dancers, as often
it isn't (e.g. sessions, etc).

How's that? Best

[Nanohedron]

Works for me, but let's not forget that I'm philistine enough to appreciate the aesthetic merits of McDonald's cups.