My feeling is that art once held a vital part in man’s perception of the world, possibly beginning with the Lascaux cave drawings. In early tribal communities masks and totems contained fear itself. In other times art was connected to religious beliefs in God, or myths that explained our place in the world. These works of art were owned or created by those with power. Eventually art broke away from that power base and the ordinary man took up art, broke away from the church and other cultural institutions who, through their power, had defined art.

When they changed the definition of art they brought culture with them. Culture allowed itself to be changed. It was receptive to the new definition, and so it adopted it. — Pop

Obviously from my posts I don’t go along with that. Artists don’t create culture and culture doesn’t allow itself to be changed by anybody. If art changes then it’s because culture has shifted. Culture creates art. But I don’t think there’s “new” cultures, just ones that have not had legitimacy up until then, even though it always existed. The art is one way of making its presence felt. Punk was not invented. That working class attitude was always there, it was just repressed and devalued by social mores and power bases.

'Art is an expression of human consciousness. And art work is information about an artists consciousness and subconsciousness' — Pop

I think there’s something there, because I believe that only humans produce art.

I think it might be closer to the truth that artists, major game players, smashed definitions but never owned them. — Brett

Quite possibly

Obviously from my posts I don’t go along with that. Artists don’t create culture and culture doesn’t allow itself to be changed by anybody. If art changes then it’s because culture has shifted. Culture creates art. But I don’t think there’s “new” cultures, just ones that have not had legitimacy up until then, even though it always existed. The art is one way of making its presence felt. Punk was not invented. That working class attitude was always there, it was just repressed and devalued by social mores and power bases. — Brett

In the 70s Malcolm Mclaren as a joke created a punk group - the Sex Pistols
Punk culture grew out of that.

Its not that simple, but everything cultural has a beginning. this thread might be one of them:)

↪Brett
Of course. But they themselves and their ability to project reflect instantaneously their time, which can only be cultural. Post WWll art reflected the trauma of the war, the tearing apart of reality.
— Brett

Just false (and a bit gibberishy). — Brett

What I meant was that their artwork is unconsciously formed by the temper of the times, which is cultural. I can’t imagine what else I could call the temper of the times. Work that is not of this sort is imitative of past movements and ideas. It’s not contemporary. Even art that seems to stand for very little except shock value may be said to represent attitudes in that society at that moment in time, therefore acting like a mirror or reflection. Maybe the art is not caused by the times but is an integral part of its manifestation.

Possibly in the US punk culture had different roots, But in Australia and Britain this is how it started.

In the 70s Malcolm Mclaren as a joke created a punk group - the Sex Pistols
Punk culture grew out of that. — Pop

Yes, because there was a vast working class, unemployed, disenfranchised, angry culture that existed, had their own cultural references and felt its relevance instantly. They had always existed. Malcolm Mclaren didn’t create them.

Art and culture are inextricably linked. Except for hermits , consciousness develops in a culture.
So an artists culture will be reflected in their art work.

But in Australia and Britain this is how it started. — Pop

Yes, and it was very imitative. So it didn’t really have the same roots or legitimacy as the UK or US. So like so much art it wasn’t a genuine reflection of culture, it was grafted on and then created its culture, which is not the same as events in the UK.

@Yes, because there was a vast working class, unemployed, disenfranchised, angry culture that existed, had their own cultural references and felt its relevance instantly. They had always existed. Malcolm Mclaren didn’t create them.@Brett"

Malcolm Mclaren created the Sex Pistols and the culture was receptive to them and adopted them, which changed how the kids dressed and behaved, and danced, and what they listened to, and how they understood themselves - It changed their consciousness.

I think it works both ways - yes the culture had to be receptive to punk, and this was primed by their living conditions. Absolutely.

So would it be fair to say that art is almost an instantaneous artefact of a particular emerging culture, small or large.

Yes in Australia it wasn't a movement that reflected the working class. It was a middle class movement.

So by that point it was no longer genuine, and in fact may have already been commercialised and made irrelevant in the UK. Generally, I feel, by the time the media and elites discover something “new” it’s already gone and all that remains is a commercial replica.

All this is to back up part of my position that art is like the ripples from a stone tossed into a pond.

i think you are in the ball park. I do not think it has to be instantaneous but a different art should emerge. An emerging culture will differentiate itself from the status quo . I think to Hippies, then Punk, now Millennials - what will their art be?

So by that point it was no longer genuine, and in fact may have already been commercialised and made irrelevant in the UK. Generally, I feel, by the time the media and elites discover something “new” it’s already gone and all that remains is a commercial replica. — Brett

Whats interesting to me is that culture was nevertheless changed.

now Millennials - what will their art be? — Pop

They have no art, they purchase it.

Edit: however it’s still real and reflects them.

Whats interesting to me is that culture was nevertheless changed. — Pop

By art?

@Brett But they will have one, and it will be different to what we currently have.
It has yet to be invented.

Yes, see my edit.

It may not be noticeable.

Edit: being a perfect replication of who they are, which is what?

@Brett Art is a part of it. Artists move the fastest. They influence music and music really delivers the message home.

Yes, art probably moves faster than anything. In a way they’re iconoclasts but they recreate in the process. Which is sort of a lose but nice definition.

Brett art is not only cultural, it is also generational .

But isn’t generational also cultural?

Absolutely, Its a steady build up of something - like a snowball

or a ripple as you say

First, one does not need to know anything about Van Gogh the man in order to be able to recognise his works as artworks (indeed, very great ones). — Bartricks

I think the work is only about the man. It’s only the man that makes his work important in terms of art. What I mean is that it’s his life and personality, the suffering artist, that’s behind the popularity of the work.

If the artist means something in it's art, then the correct way to interpret it is by that degree.

However, is it ok to interpret art incorrectly? I think so.

Unless, per se, there is a greater judge, who thinks 'no, it means this in it's best light', then the artist's meaning loses it's credibility. Perhaps, it's a matter of judgement.

I agree that if the artist deems it art then it should be judged in that way, but there is also the audience who have their say, so we have the King.

There is a dynamic between the artist and the King, with culture as the medium?