Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap


Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
gogins@pipeline.com
Date: Mon Jul 05 2004 - 11:13:21 EDT


Art is not culturally determined, not relative, not in the eye of the
beholder. The experience of art is completely subjective, but the art
object is a physical thing.

This thing has physically objective qualities that determine the art
experience. No thing, no experience. Therefore, the thing determines the
experience, causes the experience. Of course this experience is enabled and
conditioned by education, training, culture, and exposure to the field and
style of art, but it is caused by the physical thing interacting with the
viewer. The viewer can't do it all on his or her own, can't produce the art
experience without the help of the art object, therefore the art experience
at its most fundamental level is a purely subjective experience that is
literally caused by a physical object.

Some art experiences are subjectively superior to others. But you can't
substitute one art object for another one, and get the same experience.
That in turn proves that some art objects are superior -- absolutely, and
not other things being equal -- to other art objects. Since the experience
is subjective and is conditioned by cultural influences, it is difficult to
discern the objective worth of the art object, but it is certainly possible
given enough time and effort by enough people over a long enough period of
time.

It is this causal power and worth of the art object that is the only really
interesting thing about art.

Presenting an arbitrary object, a found object or ready-made, as a work of
art is certainly possible, but obviously the presentation itself produces a
new physical object that consists of the found object plus a frame,
gallery, theater, page of a book, or other physical entity.

Objects that produce an esthetic response without any work of any artist
certainly exist. They are natural phenomena, not works of art. The minute
you place a natural phenomenon in an art world context, be it the frame of
a photograph, the floor of a gallery, or the page of a book, you have
created a new physical object not to be confused with the original.

Original Message:
-----------------
From: David Mooney moko@city-net.com
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 08:31:53 -0400
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap

eg: Duchamp framing a urinal; Cage framing "silence." Art is
in the eyes/ears of the beholder.

John Nowak wrote:
>
> On Jul 1, 2004, at 12:44 PM, gogins@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I don't agree that intention counts for much. A TOTALLY deaf
> > person (no bone conduction or vibration senses, even) could intend to
> > create music -- whatever it was, it would be essentially random. Not
> > noise,
> > but random. No connection to the intention. Is that music? I don't
> > think so.
>
> I disagree. Anything someone puts in an artistic context must be
> examined as art... even if it is not the creator who puts it in that
> context.
>
> - John

-- 
David Mooney
dmooney@city-net.com
http://www.city-net.com/~moko/

-------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST