I'd say it may be said to be one possible representation of a black square, a picture of a black square, and that it also may be said to be just a black square because squares are abstract objects. — Janus
What could that mean, if not that it must participate in some game in which we call it art?It does have to be recognizably art in some sense — Moliere
What could that mean, if not that it must participate in some game in which we call it art? — Banno
There is a community who claim continuity with the Murujuga artists... — Banno
And we can further insist that "seeing" retain its metaphorical meaning, that it doesn't have to be retinal, but can instead be the kind of seeing we mean when we say, "Ah, now I see!" — J
OK, let's call that special way of seeing an act of judgment. And let's agree that there's no "innocent eye," no "brain-off" way of looking at paintings. Still, we need to explain the important difference Duchamp is pointing to. If I understand him, he's saying that the Warhol exists in order to stimulate thought, whereas the Monet is an object of contemplation in its own right -- or something like that. Now we need a lot of conceptual apparatus to see either of these paintings in the right way; that's not in dispute. But conceptual art uses the image in a way that traditional painting does not. The soup cans have to function as a bridge to the concept, otherwise the artwork fails. Whereas the water lilies don't insist on this kind of move. — J
Well, if you must. The idea that a black square only represents a black square looks a tad too platonic for my taste... it smells of perfect forms and such nonsense. — Banno
Trouble is, the custodians would not call it art.I'd still be inclined to call that art — Moliere
Platonism not needed; it is just the idea of a black square that is being represented, an idea which can be re-presented in countless ways, just as the form of a tree or a human face can be re-presented in countless ways. — Janus
What might a Davidsonian aesthetic look like? — Banno
I am sure a case could be made that I am not looking at things properly. And a case could be made that there is no such thing as looking at these things properly. And a case could be made that I was looking at things properly, (no matter what I said I saw, or because of what I said I saw, namely, a sculpture with a blue wall). — Fire Ologist
I was beginning to wonder if part of what makes paintings and drawings paintings or drawings is that they are in 2-dimensional space. — Moliere
but even the painter wouldn't say it's art — Moliere
On the multiplicity of artworlds — Moliere
Also, a general caution for family resemblance -- I like that concept a lot for tamping down the desire for universal and necessary conditions as a foolhardy quest.........................................There's still the work of specifying that family resemblance — Moliere
Fauvism is the name applied to the work produced by a group of artists (which included Henri Matisse and André Derain) from around 1905 to 1910, which is characterised by strong colours and fierce brushwork. The paintings Derain and Matisse exhibited were the result of a summer spent working together in Collioure in the South of France and were made using bold, non-naturalistic colours (often applied directly from the tube), and wild loose dabs of paint. The forms of the subjects were also simplified making their work appear quite abstract.
There are also transcripts for each episode — GrahamJ
https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/transcripts/lecture-1-transcript.pdfNow there’s no easy answer for this one, I’m sorry to say. I’m not going to live up to sort of like the Reith Lecturers’ code of honour which is to have definite strong opinions and be a kind of certainty freak because many of the methods of judging are of course very problematic and many of the criteria that you use to assess art are conflicting. I mean we have financial value, popularity, art historical significance, or aesthetic sophistication. You know all these things could be at odds with each other.
What might a Davidsonian aesthetic look like? — Banno
looking at an artwork "properly" means looking at an artwork as it was intended by the artist — RussellA
a philosophical sortie into the world of Art. — I like sushi
I've gone to plenty of modern art museums out of curiosity, and some of the installations/videos/etc. really just left me mystified. I was willing to look just to see, but sometimes I sort of just shrugged.
Which usually means I'm missing something -- what is it about this that so many other people like that I'm not seeing? — Moliere
But this pluralism that you know we have in the art world, that’s a great thing because
you know you can literally do anything, and I think that is also a problem. I am
haunted by this image. After a lecture once, I had a student come up to me and she
said, almost whimpering like this “How do you decide what to do your art about?”
And I was like “Oh …” I said, “Well” - and I was sort of struggling to say something
- and I looked at her hand and she had her iPhone, and I said “Well I didn’t have one
of those.” Because she has every image, access to all information in her hand. When I
started, I had none of that and I think it’s a challenge for young people today.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.