[dorkbotsea-blabber] What's Art, and what's technology-based art? WAS: Re: [dorkbotsea-overlords] Video next meeting?

Josh Kopel joshkopel at yahoo.com
Sat Jan 23 19:02:03 EST 2010


I can.
I am self employed, and have been for 15 years.
The primary reason for my decision to be my own boss was that I hate 
people telling me what to do.
If a client does not want to hire me because of my publicly help 
opinions then so be it.
Then again my opinions are not the kind of subversive that many people 
care about.
I find this (and by extension your) definition of art interesting if a 
bit proscriptive.
On the other hand I am proud to consider myself a craftsperson, so it 
doesn't  really apply to me.
The only consistency in art, and the definitions thereof, is change.
What I find a bit silly is your insistence on privacy and on the 
importance of subversion.
If it is important to you to be an artist, and if an artist must be a 
subversive, then be a subversive.
What are you worrying about jobs and other such bourgeois trappings for?
Seems contradictory to me.

Josh

On 1/23/2010 1:59 PM, Michael Worobec wrote:
> An example of the definition of art with which I largely agree is from
> Arthur Danto:
>
> "Something is a work of art if and only if (i) it has a subject (ii)
> about which it projects some attitude or point of view (has a style)
> (iii) by means of rhetorical ellipsis (usually metaphorical) which
> ellipsis engages audience participation in filling in what is missing,
> and (v) where the work in question and the interpretations thereof
> require an art historical context." (Danto, Carroll)
> [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/#ConDef]
>
> I went a step further to say that if it is not challenging to existing
> or prevailing thought, then it has no value. In that way, I believe all
> art of value is subversive. This holds quite clearly at least since
> French Neoclassicism, assuming you consider the art that is given any
> serious attention by art historians.
>
> As for technology-based art, I think it has the additional requirement
> of being subversive toward technology and our technophiliac society.
> Just like the French Impressionists were subversive toward the medium of
> painting itself. Now, their pictures are pretty. Then, they were subversive.
>
> Mike Worobec
>
> Andrew Davidson wrote:
>    
>> Michael,
>>
>>
>>      
>>> In my own opinion, too, any art that is not political is craft. And, any art that is not subversive is propaganda. I am not a technolopheliac, I am if anything more a skeptic than a champion. It would not be wise for me to participate openly with my views if I knew that it will become a part of every job application.
>>>
>>>        
>> I'm glad you prefaced those statements with the qualifier that they are your opinion, because I hardly think they are a prevailing societal opinion of the definition of art. But that is something that has been debated for thousands of years and I'm not about to go there!
>>
>> .andy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dorkbotsea-overlords mailing list
>> dorkbotsea-overlords at eldan.co.uk
>>
>> http://eldan.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorkbotsea-overlords_eldan.co.uk
>>
>> dorkbotsea wiki: http://projects.dorkbot.org/dorkbot-wiki/DorkbotSeaWiki
>>
>>
>>      
> ........................................................................
> .........dorkbot: people doing strange things with electricity..........
> ..........................http://dorkbot.org............................
> ........................................................................
>
>    


-- 

josh kopel

206.992.2223

joshkopel at yahoo.com

a big magnet blog <http://abigmagnet.blogspot.com>

twitter / jkopel <http://twitter.com/jkopel>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://music.columbia.edu/pipermail/dorkbotsea-blabber/attachments/20100123/8bc2f4a6/attachment.html 


More information about the dorkbotsea-blabber mailing list