art as self-expression

self. Use tarot cards to express the self? I cry when I feel pain. I cry when happy. I cry when in sorrow. I use tears to express the self.

It can be argued that if art be self expression and tears be self expression then art is tears and tears are self expression but, if crocodile tears be false tears then crocodile art is false art. But false tears are still a form of self expression therefore false art is still a form of self expression.

This lays the foundation for the argument that false art is art and also the argument for all art is art. Saying all art is art is like saying all religion is religion. But we know some will argue that their religion is the true religion and that other religions are false religions.

This does lead to the argument that art is a form of religion and that religion is a form of art. Some argue that art is based upon a system of rules but, religion is based upon a system of rules. Therefore art is a form of religion.

If you are a pluralist then in your view everyone is equal but, if you are a secularist then in your view they are all crazy.

keith

you sound like a poet. is this your way of expressing *yourself*

You're sharp.

keith

The important point is that art is not *only* self expression. Naturally, any artist is expressing herself to some extent when she creates something, no matter how literal a work it is.

However, this does not mean that any self expression is art. Otherwise everyone who ever screamed in pain is a poet. Note that we have a separate word ('poet' for one who expresses herself _artfully_. There's a reason for that.

Likewise everyone who ever jumped when happy is not a dancer, everyone who ever whacked a stick against a tree when bored is not a musician, etc.

What makes something art is the _quality_ of the work. How sublime, beautiful, moving, tranporting is the _result_ of the self expression? Self expression resulting in mediocre or poor quality work is not art, it is pedestrian chaff.

Anyone who ever screamed in pain is a poet

You are trying to make mole hills into mountains. Either stick to the one point or not, but don't try to broaden the scope of the argument with nitpicking digressions. No one would argue with 'any self expression' isn't art. Crying babies are a great annoyance, but that form of self-expression I've never once heard called artful - unless perhaps it was some doting mother charmed by her kids bellowing.

Your definition of 'quality' equates to 'prettiness.'

Tell that to the admirers of Damien Hirst et al. I don't recall the name of the 'artist' who has had exhibitions of flayed cadavers, but that's another example of the grotesque made artful. Perhaps I could agree that the latter is both 'moving and transporting' but you define quality with the other adjectives you use. And there is nothing particularly pretty about much of the art created in 'modern' times - minimalist objects for example. Best I might say about some of minimalist works is 'the work is finely crafted.' And then there is dada and a particular urinal etc etc.

Fake at the Tate

It seems nowadays almost Aything can be turned into art. Or can it? Last week, art students from Leeds Metropolitan University dumped some cardboard boxes on the floor of the Tate Modern. Within moments, a crowd had gathered to admire the new exhibit before security guards cleared them away.

The Evening Standard decided to test the credulity of the public once again by exhibiting a mundane object - and seeing how long it took visitors to treat it with the reverence of a tank of Damien Hirst's pickled sharks.

We plumped for a classic subject interpreted by artists through the centuries - a basket of fruit, to which we added a suitably pretentious label.

The 'artist' of our masterpiece was Harrods' Food Hall. We christened the work Take A Bite and discreetly put it on show in a room housing prints and objets d'art by modern sculptor Eduardo Paolozzi. Close by were works by two of the past century's greatest artists, Matisse and Picasso. After all, Take A Bite, by fictional artist Spence Marx, was a serious piece, a work that 'empowered' the observer to eat from the display and 'actively engage with the installation'.

These were not apples and bananas hurriedly dumped into a basket by Mohamed Fayed's in-house grocer. These were 'permanent signifiers of meaning'.

Within moments, Paolozzi's canvases lost their allure as art lovers crowded around. Word spread through the surrounding rooms that there was something truly original to see in the Paolozzi room. A French viewer examined the display and said to her friend: 'Is it a real piece of art or is it just fruit? It's very hard to say. That's what makes it such an interesting work.'

A young South American woman pursed her lips as she examined Take A Bite and nodded as she read the label beside it. Then she followed the artist's advice to 'interact' with the work - and plucked a plump pear from the basket.

A Japanese couple gingerly touched some of the fruit but hurried on, bemused by its life-like texture. Another member of the cognoscenti, a rotund German man, produced a camera and started snapping - as the bench in the centre of the Paolozzi room became a feeding frenzy of culture.

'Conceptually interesting,' said Charlotte, an art student from London.

Hans, another German tourist, was boldest in his evaluation. He examined the fruit carefully for several minutes, then shoved a fistful of cherries in his mouth.

'That's funny. It's an interesting take on the still life, and you can eat it.'

Laughing, he added: 'It tastes better than the unmade bed anyway.'

Tracey Emin's My Bed caused a storm in 1999 when it went on show at the Tate Gallery. The work - an unmade bed, surrounded by vodka bottles, contraceptive pills and condoms - missed out on the Turner Prize but was bought by advertising millionaire Charles Saatchi for £150,000.

Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page

Why are you dishing out orders, Jack? This is a discussion forum, after all.

A baby's cry is not 'self-expression,' Jack. The 'self' does not even materialize in humans until the time of language acquisition.

Really? Where does the author of the above say that? He says 'quality of the work.' How do you get 'prettiness' from that?

First, you have invented a distorted interpretation of the poster's words, and then you proceed as if your invention is true. I know, I have an Icelandic proverb for you:

'A man loves the smell of his own farts!'

+Fake at the Tate

There was a British show on around a year ago in which they took average people and 'trained' them in a new occupation for a week or so before putting them to the test. ('Trading Places' I think)

One show had a house painter trained up to be a modern artist. He wasn't shown much in the way of techniques or told anything about paint compatabilities but was lectured and tutored at length by an art critic about how he should explain his work. Lots of mentions of 'the self' and a suggestion to draw on some historical fact about himself and to tell how this is encompassed in his work.

Sure enough he produced the usual ad-hoc assemblage of images, colours and swirls (clearly drawing on his pre-school experiences with paint and collage). His works were hung in a gallery along with those of three 'accomplished' modern artists. Three art experts were then invited to view the works and discuss each set with the artists who'd produced them. Our house painter had learned well - referring to 'the self' in every third sentence and explaining how he was happy for viewers to find their own meanings in his unfathomable pieces. He spoke about a childhood illness that had seen him paralysed for some time and how drawing on this unfortunate and harrowing experience had helped him find his way in art.

At the end, the experts were asked to advise who they thought was the imposter. None was 100% sure and only one, iirc, guessed correctly. One expert was 100% sure that one of the 'accomplished' artists was an unquestionable failure.

Another great artist was born.

Andy D.

'I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!'

Why are you speaking for another person? Do you have their telepathic address? What is your reason for injecting your own two-peanuts worth here? Talk about the 'high and mighty' - you take the

You are beginning to sound like the self-imposed arbiter of R.A.F. Your animosity toward anything I post here is beginning to take on a obsessive and unwelcome familiarity not unlike some other obnoxious long-time posters to this group. Is it, could it possibly be, that you feel - ummmm, dare I say it - JEALOUS of me?