|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/30/2009
|
And I hope your also read my academical analysis on the subject there too.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 7/29/2009
|
Si, pero mi opinión al respeto del tema te la di en "communication with de past"...:-)
Un abrazo!
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/28/2009
|
Thanks a lot Gustavo!
You should also read the rest of the debate here. It is not intented as "artistic work" but rather as a demonstration of how well one can cheat of there is no sinserity about the own intention and work.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/28/2009
|
Thanks a lot for the detailed comment and thoughts, Ian!
First of all my best wishes for the exhibition! Send us some results of that when you have the time, OK?
I start from the end of your message. Pretty much the content of Cage's statements finds me in complete agreement. But we should be careful here! Very very careful! The concept of "randomness" that he introduces for a decoupling of the artist's emotion from his/her work does *not* eliminate the need to be satisfied with the result afterward. Even Pollock discarded many results of his attempts until he got exactly what he wanted by action paiting. This is consciously choosing "unconsciousness" as the tool for artistic work, but after that you switch consciousness back on again. So neither the process of selection of tools nor the evaluation of the result is a "random product" for the artist.
And here I can also refer to the italian mothers that "misinterpreted" your intention. It doesn't mean at all that *you* failed your intention as long as the result was what *you* intented. This is what I mean when I also speak of sincerity of the artist. The interpretations are much like the "liking" or "disliking" from the side of other people, but this doesn't turn something to artistic work. It is the convinction of the own mind that the intention has been fulfilled, and of course also the sincerity to accept it when it was not, discard it, try again.
So the very concept of conscious choise gets introduced very strongly here, since without it even the results of a volcanic erruption could be considered as "arts". This would be a contradiction to the very definition of the "artificial" as opposed to the natural which will happen without "knowledge" of the own activity. (Nature doesn't know that it "is" there and "does" something. The consious mind does.)
So, the whole "provovative" idea is not to "oppose" anything but rather to remind some things to the many too many who apparently think that artistic work can be identified with taking the computer and smudging around with a switched off consciousness. In this case they don't differ from any volcano that just errupted because some physical laws made the erruption a necessity.
The relevance of the conscious try to artistically achieve something is intangible provided we can trust the statement of the artist about the own intention. And the latter seems to get reduced nowadays down to "tralala, I do arts"!
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Gustavo Scheverin
{K:164501} 7/27/2009
|
WOW!, qué interesante abstracto!, me gusta mucho, y se parece bastante a algunas de las últimas imágenes que he estado haciendo.
Un abrazo y felicitaciones!
|
|
|
|
Ian McIntosh
{K:42997} 7/26/2009
|
Do you remember those slide sandwhiches I did with a Dali lithograph photo over a greel godess photo?
I thought they were rabidly antichrist but found some they found some christian fans. Thus my perception of my art failed my intention, thankfully, I want those old italian mothers of peasant stock to be happy (not sure this is intelligable, I'm on my second glass of wine).
Here am i dropping a turd in the font and someone praises and embraces it as bringing their real godhead to life.
Still all I did initially was take tweo photos (one in barcelona and the other in that towwn where the Dali museum is) and cram them into a slide duplicating thingummy on my camera.
Do we both accept John Cages assertions about art?
|
|
|
|
|
Ian McIntosh
{K:42997} 7/26/2009
|
I may be doing an exhibition soon Nick, so this interests me. (and I haven't browsed usefilm for yonks)
I'm glad you've stripped back the definition. Took me a while but I think I've followed, and I think I agree. Missing perhaps from your statement nothing can be considered as "artistic work" if it is not the result of consiously trying to achieve what one has priorly in mind" is the cool thing about artists, their relevance to another human being, that they are consciously trying to achieve something for someone else. I suspect a debate could begin about whether that relevance is intangible.
I someone with a chainsaw wandered his town cutting out bits ofthe place (dogs, or better, cats, trees, foot paths, flags, old buildings, and dumped it all in an art gallery he would be an artist, do you? And similarly Old Nick, agent provocateur that he is, eyes closed, rolling dice, opening the phone book, excreting, eating, burning and or printing his work before floating it on the internet may also do it with the perfect je ne sais quoi for the zeitgeist.
I for one am so glad you did.
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/26/2009
|
Thanks a lot for elaborating on that, Marcio! Now I can follow you absolutely.
It seems to me that such things can always be "discovered" in images like this, but this shouldn't suggest a necessarily pre-existing intention form the side of the maker of the image. I must sincerely confess that I did this "just the way it comes out" with no thoughts whatsoever.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Marcio Janousek
{K:32538} 7/25/2009
|
Something reminiscent of the sun .. The elements within the wave appear to be alive and the colors and the parties have pointed remember the sun.
The title is connected to a sentence of Russian thinker.
"The men did not remain on Earth forever, but in his search for light and space, first timidly penetrate beyond the atmosphere, and later to conquer them all the space near the Sun - Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky"
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/25/2009
|
The original image is indeed horrible but the altered image is not "artistic" at all, Sinem. It is only an ironic statement of many too many "photo-artists" that still refuse to learn the technical things *before* starting "arts".
My reply to Stan's comment might be interesting for you.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/25/2009
|
Thanks a lot, Stan. Well, its... Stan, Gustavo and me argueing about the "artistic qualities" of the image that unfolds in frint of them. ;-)
Seriously now, I only wanted to show that nothing can be considered as "artistic work" if it is not the result of consiously trying to achieve what one has priorly in mind. The defintion of arts is anything that happens "artificially" as opposed to incidents withiut a conscious cause. It takes an aware consciousness that then generates the artistic piece of work, quite contrary to things that happen "naturally".
It is this very definition that eliminates the danger of classification as "arts" or "not arts" according to the own taste, which would be very dangerous and very egoistic. Most wannabes doesn't seem to get that and keep on thinking that their impression about the essence of arts is of course what the world waited for. They only contardict their own statements about the "unlimited ways" of artistic work, since they reduce arts to subconscious or even unconscious incidental "work" which then can be judged by the liking or disliking of the result itself. But judging according to this result is a synonyme for personal taste, and thus makes it impossible to have an objective definition of what artistic work is.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't exclude personal taste. I only exclude personal taste as a *ddefinition* of artistic work both in case of "liking" as alsoin case of "disliking". So we can of course like or dislike whatever we see, but if it is the translation of an intention then it is artistic (artficially made). If it is the result of coincidense then it is not artistic work but rather result of natural (unconscious) incidents. In this sense the riffles on sand are not "art", which of course doesn't mean that they can't be consciously used as means, tools for artistic work by the humanum. And of course also the incidental can be used as a tool (but not as a target!!) for artistic work.
This one is solely the result of "doing and seeing what if goes to". There has been no such image, no such scene, so such intention in my mind. The intention was rather to get an image of those drawings on the whiteboard, which completely failed. Now, I could of course sit and sell stories about my "artistic attitudes" but this would be only a cheap excuse. And here we see another important thing for arts. Sincerity to the others and to the own self!
It may look nice. Artistic it is not.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/25/2009
|
Hmm... there is not really much to interpret here, Marcio, except that the "artist" was trying to pretend "artistic work". ;-)
But thanks a lot for the nice comment and the title suggestion. BTW, what makes you think that the title could be "The sun can expect"??
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Sinem .
{K:9180} 7/24/2009
|
Original shot is really horrible :) I prefer your image. more colorful and artistic indeed..
|
|
|
|
Stan Hill
{K:35352} 7/24/2009
|
Interesting collage of effects and colors to compile this image. I think that it is a fun , bright and interesting effort. My eye is led through the image but it is also chaotic in a fascinating way.
Be well, stan
|
|
|
|
|
Marcio Janousek
{K:32538} 7/24/2009
|
I know ..I could not interpret this post modern art as well as Gustavo but It is curious, with many elements .. interference but not enough to bother
The title could be called "The sun can expect" ..
Cheers !!
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 7/24/2009
|
And here we also have the horrible original shot. I don't think that the reasons for most less than amateuric "photo-artists" could be more obvious, ey? >:-D
Cheers!
Nick
|
Original shot |
|
0 
