Is This the Secret to Aesthetics?
Aesthetics meaning qualities of character, not necessarily `lovely' looking attributes. Aesthetics meaning qualities that make the work omit a strength due to the nature of that attribute. For example, aspects of the work that the artist intentionally contributed to it during the making of it that determine the final overall character of he work. Different works of art have strengths in different areas, depending on what the artist emphasised during the creative process. That's the reason why we love art. There's an infinite amount of creations to be made and thus appreciated.
The process is the deciding factor that will detimine the aesthetic success of the work. The artist as medium produces the work from within him/herself and depending on what he/she wants it to say, the work evolves and tunes itself into focus. It evolves in accordance to what happens during this action of `giving it a voice'. I think you definitely understand the authenticity of the effort if you've experienced art-making from the other side. There's no `us' and `them' sides to practitioners and critics, no black and white in this picture. But if you've been inside the process of making art of any kind, you'd know there's a structured order of progression, levels of depth inside the actual headspace of making the work. It's an experience that feels not unlike tuning in the image quality on your TV, finding a channel and manually tuning it. Or focussing in on the sharpness of detail in your camera lens when you take a photo. Inside the action of actually constructing the artwork, the creator's headspace goes through fine tuning depending on conentration on conceptual choices, much thinking about weighing up of options takes place concerning which aesthetic direction the artist wants to bring out in the work. It's these qualitative thoughts and choices that make the work eventually contain aesthetic attributes. And it's the strenght of these aesthetic attributes that make the work successful.
Art theory comes to play in the mind of the artist on another level. What the artist is on about conceptually is cultivated by the artist on a different wavelength of` brainwave frequency'. I am differentiating between formalism and conceptual integrity but not siding with either on a premise of independant validity. They're almost like seperate realities, but I do believe in the interconnectedness of all things. Some artists cultivate their conceptual argument to a very developed degree. Some fall short on relying on this part of art-making alone, which is fine for high-concept work, but we don't want to O.D. (end up with all our eggs in one basket).
I'll go as far as saying that art today should be more conceptual, more intelligent, less complacent.
The process is the deciding factor that will detimine the aesthetic success of the work. The artist as medium produces the work from within him/herself and depending on what he/she wants it to say, the work evolves and tunes itself into focus. It evolves in accordance to what happens during this action of `giving it a voice'. I think you definitely understand the authenticity of the effort if you've experienced art-making from the other side. There's no `us' and `them' sides to practitioners and critics, no black and white in this picture. But if you've been inside the process of making art of any kind, you'd know there's a structured order of progression, levels of depth inside the actual headspace of making the work. It's an experience that feels not unlike tuning in the image quality on your TV, finding a channel and manually tuning it. Or focussing in on the sharpness of detail in your camera lens when you take a photo. Inside the action of actually constructing the artwork, the creator's headspace goes through fine tuning depending on conentration on conceptual choices, much thinking about weighing up of options takes place concerning which aesthetic direction the artist wants to bring out in the work. It's these qualitative thoughts and choices that make the work eventually contain aesthetic attributes. And it's the strenght of these aesthetic attributes that make the work successful.
Art theory comes to play in the mind of the artist on another level. What the artist is on about conceptually is cultivated by the artist on a different wavelength of` brainwave frequency'. I am differentiating between formalism and conceptual integrity but not siding with either on a premise of independant validity. They're almost like seperate realities, but I do believe in the interconnectedness of all things. Some artists cultivate their conceptual argument to a very developed degree. Some fall short on relying on this part of art-making alone, which is fine for high-concept work, but we don't want to O.D. (end up with all our eggs in one basket).
I'll go as far as saying that art today should be more conceptual, more intelligent, less complacent.
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
An interesting well written article but I feel many would protest that much art is not complacent, but I do understand the point you are making.
katyzzz
WE WANT ART WITH AESTHETICS!!
at the moment. I see what you mean, I agree we're being far from inactive but are we being culturally articulate? Is there enough cultural definition in our community? Are we as successful as our predecessors were in their cultural eloquence? For all of our achievements, how much of it is aesthetically succesful? I guess what I mean is that we've become complacent in that most art that's being produced is only successfu on one level, or not on many levels. In comparison, there's much left to be said for contemporary offerings for their lack of holistic quality.
While most of it has strenghths in their undeniable qualities, their qualities are unfortunately too few. No one can ignore our achievements and my support for contemporary art is 100% but I guess where i'm coming from is comparitive.