I will keep the wonder of art itself, in all its variations, as the very essence of expressing life itself as my perception. It is like a wise friend, steadfast in the hard times, befriending me when need a hand. i appreciate your eyes and what they grab. Thank you
It's even on microchips. Google it. The interior of your smartphone could resemble the Louvre or the MOMA.
& there's a famous / infamous Dr. ( Gunther von Hagens ) with this Bodyworks exhibit. My uncle & aunt saw it in '08. My uncle likely turned at least ONE shade of green.
Jul 19, 2023·edited Jul 19, 2023Liked by Richard Partridge
Art is the expression in creative form of an emotion. Love. Anger. Derision. Playfulness.
I don't think there is much art in a series of bent nails, though they may possess a beauty of their own. What makes them art is if somebody bent them the way they are bent, in order to project an emotion.
A wag is an artist whose bent is to play on irony. So, if a wag bent some nails made of iron, that would be art. How great, thou art.
I remember watching a group of Tibetan Buddhist monks from a Buddhist center in Atlanta ( ! ). Anyway, they made a mandala out of colored sand. Watching them CREATE the mandala was as much art as the end result. How they could CONCENTRATE with people milling about was phenomenal. Maybe I need to start meditating again. 🕉☸
Jul 19, 2023·edited Jul 19, 2023Liked by Richard Partridge
A mandala is, broadly, a tool for devotion. As a tool, it is an object of design. It is designed to fulfil the function aimed at. Whether it does so to good effect depends on its ability to forge the desired emotion in its beholder. It is an interesting example to take within the trichotomy of design - function - art.
I was recently drawn to the Millet painting "The Gleaners" (https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/millets-gleaners). Millet sold the painting in 1857 for around 5 euros - about 120 euros today. The painting depicts peasant women gathering scraps from a field after the harvesters have gathered in the crop, which is just visible in the distance, piled high on a hay wain. Millet's depiction is unquestionably art - it hangs now in a prominent position in a Paris art gallery. But, in 1857, it was derided as unwelcome social comment, by precisely those who would identify more with the hay wain than with the peasant women.
Millet's social comment evinced an emotion from the land owners. It was not the shame he had intended, however, but haughty dismissal of his depiction. We're left to conjure whether his art was thereby defective; or whether the dismissal of his art was.
A hammer is less art; it is design. A hammer that is well balanced and that strikes its object to good effect is good design and fulfils its function. But is it art? The mere fact of the hammer's good design and its effective function can evoke in the observer a wonderment that imbues it with artistic quality. In the fields of design and art, function is always a factor that will play on the user's and the observer's emotions.
Hence, Millet's Gleaners can evoke admiration for his technique and for its depiction of a bucolic scene long disappeared from the farmlands of France. Viewed technically, it is still art. Viewed from the viewpoint of the land owners, however, it fails in its function; viewed from that of other observers at that time, it entirely fulfils its function. Yet as a wage-earner, it failed for Millet. As an expression of his emotion, it was a grand success, precisely because it yielded only 5 euros. But if his painting makes the modern observer consider the lot of those who scavenge on rubbish tips and landfills or try to secure end-of-shelf-life produce at supermarkets in order to be able to afford a decent meal, then its function is all the more fulfilled, since its fundamental depiction of haves and have nots will never cease in its relevance. Extrapolating the function from Millet's of 1857 to ours of 2023 is the factor that interconnects each of art - function - design, which is insight.
There is art, however, that is simply not understood by an observer. It evokes no emotions, but bewilderment. Art that bewilders requires enquiry, and perhaps even conjecture. Conjecture is where the art's message requires the observer to allow themselves to be led by the artist to a place they might not ordinarily go. The social comment of The Gleaners was blatant to 1850s French land owners, and it piqued them. Today's admirers of the painting might need to be told of the social comment to even realise it is there.
Hence, design can also be apparent, as with a hammer; it may require a manual to appreciate its function. And it is artistic when, with insight, the user is moved to exclaim, "Wow!"
Which is what the creation of the mandala in question did with you.
great series
I will keep the wonder of art itself, in all its variations, as the very essence of expressing life itself as my perception. It is like a wise friend, steadfast in the hard times, befriending me when need a hand. i appreciate your eyes and what they grab. Thank you
Art is a REALLY SUBJECTIVE term. It's like flavor. It can be used as a message, or it can be neutral.
It's pliable / malleable. I don't know if that's a definition as such, but it works for me.
I can see art in a series of bent nails, a bonsai tree or a dustpan. Or old labels.
Art is everywhere. It is the very essence, imho, of humanity.
It's even on microchips. Google it. The interior of your smartphone could resemble the Louvre or the MOMA.
& there's a famous / infamous Dr. ( Gunther von Hagens ) with this Bodyworks exhibit. My uncle & aunt saw it in '08. My uncle likely turned at least ONE shade of green.
Art is the expression in creative form of an emotion. Love. Anger. Derision. Playfulness.
I don't think there is much art in a series of bent nails, though they may possess a beauty of their own. What makes them art is if somebody bent them the way they are bent, in order to project an emotion.
A wag is an artist whose bent is to play on irony. So, if a wag bent some nails made of iron, that would be art. How great, thou art.
I remember watching a group of Tibetan Buddhist monks from a Buddhist center in Atlanta ( ! ). Anyway, they made a mandala out of colored sand. Watching them CREATE the mandala was as much art as the end result. How they could CONCENTRATE with people milling about was phenomenal. Maybe I need to start meditating again. 🕉☸
A mandala is, broadly, a tool for devotion. As a tool, it is an object of design. It is designed to fulfil the function aimed at. Whether it does so to good effect depends on its ability to forge the desired emotion in its beholder. It is an interesting example to take within the trichotomy of design - function - art.
I was recently drawn to the Millet painting "The Gleaners" (https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/millets-gleaners). Millet sold the painting in 1857 for around 5 euros - about 120 euros today. The painting depicts peasant women gathering scraps from a field after the harvesters have gathered in the crop, which is just visible in the distance, piled high on a hay wain. Millet's depiction is unquestionably art - it hangs now in a prominent position in a Paris art gallery. But, in 1857, it was derided as unwelcome social comment, by precisely those who would identify more with the hay wain than with the peasant women.
Millet's social comment evinced an emotion from the land owners. It was not the shame he had intended, however, but haughty dismissal of his depiction. We're left to conjure whether his art was thereby defective; or whether the dismissal of his art was.
A hammer is less art; it is design. A hammer that is well balanced and that strikes its object to good effect is good design and fulfils its function. But is it art? The mere fact of the hammer's good design and its effective function can evoke in the observer a wonderment that imbues it with artistic quality. In the fields of design and art, function is always a factor that will play on the user's and the observer's emotions.
Hence, Millet's Gleaners can evoke admiration for his technique and for its depiction of a bucolic scene long disappeared from the farmlands of France. Viewed technically, it is still art. Viewed from the viewpoint of the land owners, however, it fails in its function; viewed from that of other observers at that time, it entirely fulfils its function. Yet as a wage-earner, it failed for Millet. As an expression of his emotion, it was a grand success, precisely because it yielded only 5 euros. But if his painting makes the modern observer consider the lot of those who scavenge on rubbish tips and landfills or try to secure end-of-shelf-life produce at supermarkets in order to be able to afford a decent meal, then its function is all the more fulfilled, since its fundamental depiction of haves and have nots will never cease in its relevance. Extrapolating the function from Millet's of 1857 to ours of 2023 is the factor that interconnects each of art - function - design, which is insight.
There is art, however, that is simply not understood by an observer. It evokes no emotions, but bewilderment. Art that bewilders requires enquiry, and perhaps even conjecture. Conjecture is where the art's message requires the observer to allow themselves to be led by the artist to a place they might not ordinarily go. The social comment of The Gleaners was blatant to 1850s French land owners, and it piqued them. Today's admirers of the painting might need to be told of the social comment to even realise it is there.
Hence, design can also be apparent, as with a hammer; it may require a manual to appreciate its function. And it is artistic when, with insight, the user is moved to exclaim, "Wow!"
Which is what the creation of the mandala in question did with you.