How non-artists behave is not irrelevant to how artists do. — T Clark

Ok, so how is it relevant?

Ok, so how is it relevant? — Noble Dust

You seem to object to my post. I don't understand why. I have been responsive and on-post throughout this discussion. How can 11 words cause a problem?

Artists are the leaders of civilization.
— Thinker

Artists don't lead civilization, they ride on it. Excess wealth generated by centralized economic systems allows expenditures on things that are not directly related to food, shelter, and security. That doesn't say anything bad about art, but there's no doubt it, as an organized institution, is a luxury.

The paintings in the Lascaux cave are some of the most beautiful and moving things I've ever seen. It seems unlikely that whoever painted them had any concept of art or artists. Seems to me that art became a thing when cities came into existence. I have no evidence for that. — T Clark

Spoken like a true engineer. You see the surface mechanics of things real well. However the voice behind the curtain is that of the artist. Do you realize philosophers are artists? Who thought of the institutions of society first? Who helps steer the ship of state today? When we debate stem cell research in the US – who is talking to the politicians?

I'm not objecting; follow the thread of our conversation, I'm asking you honest questions. I'm not sure if I agree that broadening the discussion will help, but that's why I'm asking you to explain, maybe I'll end up agreeing.

I'm asking how art receives content or meaning, and as I've stated, I think the audience is 50% of the work, so all of these attempts by artists to define what they've done beforehand are not only unhelpful, but futile. — Noble Dust

I agree with you and stated that in my post - and much more - perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Or maybe something else is going on - you seem frustrated.

I agree with you and stated that in my post - and much more - perhaps I didn't make myself clear. — Thinker

It wasn't particularly clear, no, but maybe I should clarify as well. When I say the audience is 50% of the work, I mean that literally, the audience defines the work more than the artist does. This is a symbiotic relationship that bears itself out based on what the artist first puts into the work. If the artist tells the audience what to think, or creates a work that can only be interpreted in a limited number of ways, then the audience tends to be left cold (if they're discerning) or they'll mindlessly accept the definition given to them. But art that's diffuse and multi-layered encourages an audience to think for themselves. This is when the audience really puts in their 50% share of the work, and many different interpretations of a piece get made; people experience within many different contexts; a piece that transcends generations gets experienced in even wider (historical) contexts.

I'm not objecting; follow the thread of our conversation, I'm asking you honest questions. I'm not sure if I agree that broadening the discussion will help, but that's why I'm asking you to explain, maybe I'll end up agreeing. — Noble Dust

It wasn't a big point. Explication of one's work is common practice. Artists are not somehow special in that regard. Some of us do it well, some don't. My work - reports and designs - has to speak for itself as much as yours.

Ok, I see what you mean. But I still disagree; art at it's best is it's own form of communication; it's own language. That's why the best art, to me, doesn't require explication. It does in fact speak for itself because it speaks in it's own language. That's actually a main component of the argument I'm making.

Spoken like a true engineer. You see the surface mechanics of things real well. However the voice behind the curtain is that of the artist. Do you realize philosophers are artists? Who thought of the institutions of society first? Who helps steer the ship of state today? When we debate stem cell research in the US – who is talking to the politicians? — Thinker

You have a pretty high falutin vision of the importance of philosophers and artists, especially philosophers. None of us are "the voice behind the curtain." There isn't one.

I have mixed feelings about conceptual art.

So do I, but and I think it is important, until conceptual art came along art was, and to a large extent still is representational. Du Champs, Warhol et al made art that was overtly metaphorical, giving it a representational facade with a metaphorical referent. Doing this was very different from what went before it, which is not to say there were no metaphorical works of art, only they were not structured to be overtly metaphorical such as Warhol's Campbell Soup Cans, or Roy Lichtenstein's works such as

Ok, I see what you mean. But I still disagree; art at it's best is it's own form of communication; it's own language. That's why the best art, to me, doesn't require explication. It does in fact speak for itself because it speaks in it's own language. That's actually a main component of the argument I'm making. — Noble Dust

My response to you is the same as mine to Thinker - I think you are raising art up on a pedestal it doesn't need or deserve. Art is human action. Thinker called me a "typical engineer." I think he thought it was an insult or that it somehow disqualified my argument. I think he thinks he has a clearer vision of the ground of being than I do.

Art is human action. — T Clark

I'm not trying to insult you; if you hadn't said you were an engineer I would still be debating your ideas in the same way.

I think you are raising art up on a pedestal it doesn't need or deserve. Art is human action. — T Clark

I disagree that art is action; what do you mean by that? Creating a work of art is an action, but the art itself isn't action.

but and I think it is important, until conceptual art came along art was, and to a large extent still is representational. Du Champs, Warhol et al made art that was overtly metaphorical, giving it a representational facade with a metaphorical referent. — Cavacava

Yes, this is always a good reminder. I have to look at the metaphorical content in my own work and be reminded that I have a debt to conceptualism. But it's an interesting point, actually. Metaphor has always been an aspect of human thought in general (not just art). Language itself is based on metaphors; when new scientific terms get coined, for instance, they're almost always metaphorical. Even a representational piece of art is still itself a metaphor, but with conceptualism, as you say, the metaphor becomes more overt. I think it's because of a sense of self-consciousness; the irony in the Lichtenstein piece is extremely self-conscious. Sometimes I like think of the development of human thought in stages of individual human growth; Warhol, Duchamp, et al, seem to represent a stage of artistic "puberty" to me. The conscious irony, the flaunting personalities, the exhibitionism.

I'm not trying to insult you; if you hadn't said you were an engineer I would still be debating your ideas in the same way. — Noble Dust

I don't think you were, but I think Thinker thinks he was.

I disagree that art is action; what do you mean by that? Creating a work of art is an action, but the art itself isn't action. — Noble Dust

Art is just another thing that people do/make. I like visual art and music, but I'm more attuned to writing - poetry, stories, essays. The satisfaction and pleasure I get from "Heart of Darkness" feels the same as that I get from a good design. I get the same kind of pleasure from writing poetry as I do writing construction specifications, although I can feel myself using different parts of my mind.

This is when the audience really puts in their 50% share of the work, and many different interpretations of a piece get made; people experience within many different contexts; a piece that transcends generations gets experienced in even wider (historical) contexts. — Noble Dust

I have seen many a poem interpreted well beyond the author’s intent. So, 50% is a guesstimate. It may be 80% or 20% - depends on the work and also depends on the audience.

I get the same kind of pleasure from writing poetry as I do writing construction specifications, although I can feel myself using different parts of my mind. — T Clark

Interesting. We seem to have different experiences then. The main difference to me is that writing construction specifications is utilitarian; it serves a practical purpose. There's a goal, and the specifications get you there. Poetry doesn't have a goal. I don't like to say that it's not utilitarian, but I agree with the painter Makoto Fujimura when he repurposes the word "gratuitous" and applies it to art.

I say 50% because there's just two participants, fundamentally: artist and audience. Or, as pointed out, there's also the middle men of sorts; the record label, the art dealer, the money guy. So maybe 33% is better.

You have a pretty high falutin vision of the importance of philosophers and artists, especially philosophers. None of us are "the voice behind the curtain." There isn't one. — T Clark

Very perceptive of you. Ok, I guess we just got here by accident. Was calculus an accident? Was Newton an artist?

I say 50% because there's just two participants, fundamentally: artist and audience. Or, as mcdoogle pointed out, there's also the middle men of sorts; the record label, the art dealer, the money guy. So maybe 33% is better. — Noble Dust

I don't think it is a fixed number - circumstances change - people change - art takes new meaning today from yesterday.

The main difference to me is that writing construction specifications is utilitarian; it serves a practical purpose. There's a goal, and the specifications get you there. Poetry doesn't have a goal. — Noble Dust

Specifications, drawings, work plans, project plans - everything that goes into a design - are all part of a vision. A model I can feel and see. I can hold it up to the light, a single, undivided whole. That's how poetry feels. That's how the world feels.

Poetry doesn't have a goal. — Noble Dust

I think you are way off base here. Please reconsider this statement.

You might know that to be true of yourself and perhaps those you are acquainted with, but how could you know it to be true of all of us?

But the circumstance of artist/audience/middle man doesn't change. I'm making this point because too often one of those three gets a distorted view of their role in the process.

↪Thinker

You might know that to be true of yourself and perhaps those you are acquainted with, but how could you know it to be true of all of us? — John

What are you talking about?

Specifications, drawings, work plans, project plans - everything that goes into a design - are all part of a vision. A model I can feel and see. I can hold it up to the light, a single, undivided whole. That's how poetry feels. That's how the world feels. — T Clark

Beautiful description of your experience which I will not argue with.

I think you are way off base here. Please reconsider this statement. — Thinker

Give me a reason why I should reconsider.

But the circumstance of artist/audience/middle man doesn't change. I'm making this point because too often one of those three gets a distorted view of their role in the process. — Noble Dust

The artist doesn't change - but the audience does.

What? Sure the artist changes. Look at Radiohead - Pablo Honey vs. Amnesiac. Plus, I said the circumstance of artist/audience/middle man is what doesn't change.

What? Sure the artist changes. Look at Radiohead - Pablo Honey vs. Amnesiac. — Noble Dust

I am talking about a single artist in relation to a single work.

Very perceptive of you. Ok, I guess we just got here by accident. Was calculus an accident? Was Newton an artist? — Thinker

Not sure I understand. Are you putting Newton up as a philosopher? Sure. But what he did would not be considered philosophy now. Today's philosophy is an intellectual backwater. I guess I would make a possible exception for political philosophy.