From: Ed Atkeson <edatkeson-AT-earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:42:05 -0500 To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] politics >>> Hobey Ford: Joseph Cambell hade an interesting concept about the definition of art. The main precept was that a work of art contains everything needed to absorb and comprehend the value within the piece. If a major aspect of the artwork is refrenced outside the piece and needed to comprehend the piece then it did not meet the critieria. I find the concept interesting but am not completely in agreement. Consider Diary of Anne Frank for instance (my example not Cambell's). The journal is very everyday in terms of what happens within the diary. A main force of the work lies outside the book, namely the tragedy of WWII and the mass murder of jewish people and ultimate death of Anne. We find out outside the diary that Anne dies. Cambell believed that referencing energy outside the piece made the work something else than art, not that is of no value but something else. I am moved by Anne Frank's diary but the thing that gets me lies outside the work. What do you think of this definition? Does the energy have to be generated within the piece through the characters or can those energies lies outside the work. Consider if you made a work of art about the deaths of 911. Is it manipulation? there is a lot of energy in that concept that would come from the event not the art work necessarily. Is it then sentimentality or jerking the audience around? This seems to be a factor in "political art". ----------------------- Hobey, thanks for this, something to think about. I'm a big Joseph Campbell fan, but I have trouble with this idea about referencing in art. What about this? If you draw a line across a canvas, a landscape pops out. It's a reference from outside the piece, from back when we were lizards. We don't think, "line across a canvas" we think, "horizon line of a landscape." We can't really help associating every shape, color, idea of whatever... mom, god, sex, with our whole lived experience, can we? I guess I really disagree with Campbell's idea because I think that art has to reference from the real world. That's how art works! ART: A simple two-stage definition: 1) What people usually consider art -- that is, made by artist, shown in gallerys, hung on walls, displayed on pedestals. Art is simply art, no value judgement or analysis needed. Art is a simple category of objects. 2) The highest aspiration of humankind. Just my opinion! Ed As far as political art goes, I think politics usually detracts from art. I use a dichotomy like this, it it art or is it a political cartoon? _______________________________________________ List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit Archives: http://www.driftline.org
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005