Help with a dissertation! What is art?

[butchersapron]

Art is dead. Do not consume its corpse

 

[fractionMan]

Do you really need to ask? It's too broad. Also, you'd think they would be able to come up with a better idea for a dissertation by that point.

For my first essay at art college I compared Art to a Cup of tea and got a 2:1. I doubt they'd let a 3rd year get away with it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because I think that coming online and asking for opinions in this way is something akin to plagiarism.

The point of a dissertation is to make the student think and draw conclusions that he/she can then defend. The hard work of getting there is done by doing research in the original sources of whatever area it is, then thinking long and hard, and coming up with something.

It's like you have to write a movie review for a newspaper, but instead of sitting through the movie, you go online and get a bunch of opinions, vette them into an article, and regurgitate it into your piece.

Personally, I'd prefer that a movie reviewer see the movie and write the review before reading the opinions of others.

Yeah, but it rarely works. If the ideas of others have been cobbled together without understanding, that shows in the writing. I coherent essay has one overriding intelligence - that of its author.

 

[keithy]

For my first essay at art college I compared Art to a Cup of tea and got a 2:1. I doubt they'd let a 3rd year get away with it.

Well yeh exactly.

I don't want to be bitchy but 'what is art?' is a ridiculous dissertation subject as it's way too vague and just seems like a very simplistic way to approach the topic of perceptions and framing of art etc. By this stage they should have narrowed it down a bit after the summer of research. I assume it's a third year undergrad diss.

If you choose a ridiculously broad subject for your dissertation you can only score to a certain level because your research won't be as in depth. Also, choosing a daft topic can limit your marks in itself.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It is a tired old chestnut. A good answer to the question ought to be one sentence, preferably without any subclauses.

Having said that, there is an interesting question in there. You could do an anthropological study comparing the concept of art in different cultures, looking at cultures where it is not a recognised category at all, and seeing how they view the stuff we would call art that they produce (the meanings it has, the reasons they give for doing it). You could then look at how art and religion have become separated in our culture, at the motives behind the likes of Goya in departing from the functional norms of art (adoration of god or representation of the rich). Compare and contrast with the efforts of the Soviet Union to reappropriate art to its previous function (its former religious function dressed up as Socialist realism), and possibly arrive at the conclusion that our modern secular concept of art is essentially the product of alienation.

There's a dissertation in there somewhere, but it will require a hell of a lot of research.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I don't know about art but I know what I like.

How about that then?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't know what I like, but I know art, mister.

 

[keithy]

It is a tired old chestnut. A good answer to the question ought to be one sentence, preferably without any subclauses.

Having said that, there is an interesting question in there. You could do an anthropological study comparing the concept of art in different cultures, looking at cultures where it is not a recognised category at all, and seeing how they view the stuff we would call art that they produce (the meanings it has, the reasons they give for doing it). You could then look at how art and religion have become separated in our culture, at the motives behind the likes of Goya in departing from the functional norms of art (adoration of god or representation of the rich). Compare and contrast with the efforts of the Soviet Union to reappropriate art to its previous function (its former religious function dressed up as Socialist realism), and possibly arrive at the conclusion that our modern secular concept of art is essentially the product of alienation.

There's a dissertation in there somewhere, but it will require a hell of a lot of research.

exactly, and if they haven't done the bulk of the research needed in order to make it more specific then it's too late now as they will waste time skating around a huge huge huge topic.

 

[Cid]

Because I think that coming online and asking for opinions in this way is something akin to plagiarism.

The point of a dissertation is to make the student think and draw conclusions that he/she can then defend. The hard work of getting there is done by doing research in the original sources of whatever area it is, then thinking long and hard, and coming up with something.

It's like you have to write a movie review for a newspaper, but instead of sitting through the movie, you go online and get a bunch of opinions, vette them into an article, and regurgitate it into your piece.

Personally, I'd prefer that a movie reviewer see the movie and write the review before reading the opinions of others.

Unless, of course, you're doing a study on the reactions of a set of people to predetermined questions... That would probably be post grad sociology stuff though. Nosos is trying to do something like that for his Phd (which is about the development of morality in modern society).

I personally think of art as an attempt to communicate an idea/concept/belief through physical media.

It's a ridiculous dissertation title though.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

all quotes will recorded as quotes.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

even mine?

 

[Dillinger4]

and mine?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Art is not advertising. Advertising is not art.

 

[Santino]

I claim this whole thread as a work of art by me. Reproduction without permission is denied.


© Alex B 2008

 

[selamlar]

Art is not a mirror to reflect the world, but a hammer with which to shape it.
Vladimir Mayakovsky

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I claim this whole thread as a work of art by me. Reproduction without permission is denied.


© Alex B 2008

All art is theft.

 

[butchersapron]

Art is not advertising. Advertising is not art.

A prisoner who cannot see the sky from his cell window may paint on his wall a scene of birds flying amongst clouds against a blue haze of space. Outside in the wider society art plays a similar role; what is denied and seems unreachable, but possible and desirable, is represented via the window of the picture frame or TV screen. So art/culture as the representation of what is repressed fuses with the commodity form; the very form whose domination has fragmented this creativity from the rest of life.

And with this fusion adverts become seen as “the cutting edge of art”. Advertising is essentially advertising the positive qualitites of the whole of the commodity system – not just a particular product, whose increased sales as a result of advertising isn't as socially important as the fact that what advertising sells above all is this society. The 'witty', 'inventive', 'imaginative' artistic permutations of advertising excuse its fundamental cover-up of a brutal system. The progress of advertising is the inevitable result of art and the best indicator of art's fundamental stupidity, a far more positive collaboration with this shit world than anyone who isn't officially 'creative', apart from politicians and big businessmen. The fact, for example, that surrealism has been part of advertising for over 30 years shows the poverty of even the best art.

.

 

[danny la rouge]

All art is theft.

But not necessarily vice versa.

 

[selamlar]

All art is theft.

All peas are carrots.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Advertising can never be art. Art is, first and foremost, useless.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I claim this whole thread as a work of art by me. Reproduction without permission is denied.


© Alex B 2008

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But not necessarily vice versa.

Oh bugger.

*sneaks back into danny la rouge's house and returns TV*

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

this is art, i know so cos its my chum who makes it

 

[Santino]

Art is, first and foremost, useless.

Tosh. The history of architecture spits in your face.

 

[fela fan]

Because I think that coming online and asking for opinions in this way is something akin to plagiarism.

The point of a dissertation is to make the student think and draw conclusions that he/she can then defend. The hard work of getting there is done by doing research in the original sources of whatever area it is, then thinking long and hard, and coming up with something.

That is in no way plagiarism.

And are you saying that original sources cannot come from the internet? And in order to get the thinking going, surely as many voices as possible lead one into that very thinking?

If i was doing my dissertation and i asked my mates for their ideas to help me get a hold of my own thinking, how can you say that is akin to plagiarism?

You sound like you're trying to limit people's sources. That seems anathema to me in such work. Totally against the spirit of doing a dissertation. Or do you think it should just be hard work, and that people should swim in the deep as some kind of punishment?

Your post is nonsensical.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tosh. The history of architecture spits in your face.

As form is dictated by function, is architecture art at all?

Only bad architecture is artistic, like some Gaudí monstrosity waving around in the still air.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

What is an exhibition space?

Where I expose myself.

Btw, sort of agree with Johnny on this one. I guess there's nothing wrong for asking for helpful references on the internet and asking for critique of your own ideas if you really want, but you can't reference opinions on a BB. And taking somebody's opinion without referencing it is, well, for all intents and purposes plagerism. Tbh I wouldn't want to ask anyone else's opinion on my research subject - it gets to a stage when you don't want to even read anymore incase you find that some other person has had the idea you've started to formulate!

 

[girasol]

You know what they say about weed being just a plant you don't want?

well, art is a bit like that.

and it rhymes with fart

HTH

 

[Dillinger4]

That is in no way plagiarism.

And are you saying that original sources cannot come from the internet? And in order to get the thinking going, surely as many voices as possible lead one into that very thinking?

If i was doing my dissertation and i asked my mates for their ideas to help me get a hold of my own thinking, how can you say that is akin to plagiarism?

You sound like you're trying to limit people's sources. That seems anathema to me in such work. Totally against the spirit of doing a dissertation. Or do you think it should just be hard work, and that people should swim in the deep as some kind of punishment?

Your post is nonsensical.

You don't really know what you are saying, do you?

Well, you wouldn't. You don't seem to have had an original thought in your life.

All your 'far out' statements look like they have been lifted directly from new age self help gurus.

If you pretend they are your own original ideas, in academic work, that is plagiarism.

 

[Cid]

As form is dictated by function, is architecture art at all?

Only bad architecture is artistic, like some Gaudí monstrosity waving around in the still air.

'Function' is a concept that goes far beyond its normal meaning when applied to architecture. Take the often quoted 'the house is a machine for living' (corbusier in vers une architure/toward an architecture), inevitably misinterpreted as a drive towards an utterly minimalist, ordered lifestyle. In fact the quotation is:

A house is a machine for living in. Baths, sun, hot water, cold water, controlled temperature, food conservation, hygiene, beauty through proportion. An armchair is a machine for sitting, etc.: Maple has shown the way: Ewers are machines for washing oneself, Twyford has created them.

Earlier in the same book he states:

The Lessons of Rome

Architecture is the use of raw materials to establish stirring relationships.

Architecture goes beyond utilitarian things.

Architecture is a plastic thing.

Spirit of order, unity of intention.

The sense of relationships; architecture organises quantities.

Passion can make drama out of inert stone.

The chapter of the 'machine for living' quotation is a response to 'styles', to 'decorators who don't know their era'. Corbu is referring to a propensity toward attempting to emulate the past despite being in 'the machine age'.

Think of all the names that are instantly associated with modernism; Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright will be the usual ones, then Mies, the Eameses, Aalto, Scharoun, Scarpa, Goldfinger etc. They don't build purely through function they build works that are at once fascinating and functional. Corbusier's 'machine for living' is a place that is able to bring comfort and enjoyment and yet embrace fully the devices of the machine age.

Take Scharoun's Berlin Philhamonie, not only is it an acoustic masterpiece, it is an incredible space; to hear a performance there is a stunning experience, the whole building works to create something which goes far beyond many other concert halls... Spaces are carefully planned to moderate the flow of the users; the stairs and transit landings have stark white handrails so people don't hang around on them, the auditorium is at once stunning and practical. It is a machine designed to create the maximum amount of enjoyment possible.

Up until fairly recently art has been extremely functional... Holbein's portraits are adverts displaying the property and personalities of nobles. Michelangelo's studio churns out various goods; from expressions of church power through to painted tea trays and bedsteads. Of course this misrepresents the artists, but in the same way it is easy to misrepresent architecture simply because it creates spaces that have functions.

In the second corbu quotation it's important to not the 'stirring relationships' bit, architecture must be a syntheses of all the senses. In a way it is hyper-artistic because it deals with so many factors and because the experience goes far beyond the visual. Their are a vast number of tiny subtleties that add to the experience of a space, but which most won't notice. In a sense Corbusier's modernism was a new kind of renaissance, he took the essence of the old styles and applied the artistic ideals behind them to modern materials and techniques... His reductionism is not a drive for the minimal, it is a reaction to imitation and tradition; why use a 1m thick wall when modern building materials mean that you no longer have to? He takes a huge amount of inspiration from Palladio in his ground plans... He explores the golden ratio and then creates a modern version in 'The Modular'.

He also draws extensively from regional cultures/techniques that are gradually being forgotten. His white exteriors are not simply blank facades but echoes of Mediterranean whitewashed buildings, his original chairs are upholstered in animal hides, echoing traditional cultures encountered on his travels... Inherently Corbu tries to find beauty and practicality and then translate that into modern, industrialised society (and is often very successful).

This is critical regionalism, which is actually kind of the dominant form of modernism up until people started obsessing about minimalism... It takes elements of the past and discards what no longer works or is simply impractical.

I've focussed on Corbusier because he's well known and I know a fair bit about him, he's also a very good artist (as in his paintings/drawings), but I think he saw architecture as a more practical form of expression. Anyway I could go on for hours but suspect I shouldn't since this post is probably only semi-coherent due to alcohol intake.

So err... in summary, architecture is art because it deals with human emotions and experience, it conveys ideas and attempts to change the way the user experiences space.