Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[IBC] Maybe we should ask a different question.
Friends,
Finally, a topic in which i feel i can contribute. I have a lack of experience in the world of bonsai, admittedly. However, although experience relates to knowledge, it is not prerequisite. Or perhaps it is, but then may one say that hour upon hour of absorbing information is not experience? Different maybe than 45 years of growing bonsai, true, but we do not speak of who can cultivate the best bonsai in this case, rather is that, or is that not, "art." Several things have prompted me to write. There are people stepping on the toes of others, where there feet may need more guidance. This is, of course, only my opinion, however I am both knowledgeable and experienced in art. One is not a necessity or precursor to the other and should not be confused. I am a sculptor, a printmaker, a painter and a draftsman. "Classically trained" is completely superfluous, arbitrary, and and therefore meaningless. The idea of "classical art," i contend, is a falsehood. This is based solely on the relative and subjective nature of art, and it's interpretation. Objective determinations, such as "this is art" and "this is not" cannot then truly exsist. Personally, i believe that there is no such thing as a true objectivity, but you can personally email me for a debate on that, i'd love to entertain mentally stimulating conversation. "How can the classics be subjective and relative? I thought they were classics?" How did you come to the conclusion they were classics? If you feel they are, then maybe they are. However many people never stop to consider this fact. Do you feel that way because you've read in a book that they are? most likely yes. how do i know this? how many people have been to see the mona lisa in person, without prior knowledge of it's exsistence, then came to the determination that, of all works of art created, for the mona lisa's intent, agenda, process and execution, among all others, it is or should be therefore deemed, a classic? My guess, not many. Therefore that leaves most people to fall under the category of those of us who believe that because we are told something it is true, we accept it as such. does this mean that it really is? no, not neccesarily. who is to say? art is too subjective and relative to exsist as such. "so then who is right? how do we know who to believe? are there then no classics?" addressing those questions actually isn't fruitful. if you would like me to address them, email me personally, and again, i would be happy to. i feel the real question people should be asking, is never asked "What do i think, and does what other people say matter to me enough to forsake my own independent thought, and its value or worth?" Not enough people ask this question. I believe herein lies the problem. People read things and believe them. they think that because a man has a phd in say, art history, his opinion matters more. does it? because one man says that something is a classic, is it? or maybe more people are needed? 10? 100? 1,000? The Nazi's (used only as an example, i hope we can steer clear of debate about WWII) all got together. many millions saying the same thing? were they right? My opinion is that they were not. I therefore ask, who is to say who's opinion is right or wrong? "then what is there left to discuss?" Well, the interpretation of what is and is not art is still left specifically unaddressed, so i will now, based upon things i have mentioned, attempt to address it. The short answer is "no one is right, no one is wrong." Spineless? if you think so, so be it. I'm convinced that it is the product of years of thought and experience, and a truly open mind. if that's spineless, or perhaps non-confrontational to you, there's not much i can say that i have not already, and i'm sorry. for the rest of us who think that art is truly subjective and relative, how do we deal with these questions? well, as these questions look for objectivity where i maintain none is to be found, i propose then that they are as such futile to ask. art therefore becomes a personal thing of opinion. where then do i propose this debate go? If i have picked up a paintbrush for the first time, and i am 6, is the scribble work i create not art? to who? i certainly would feel it is. i'm 6. yes, i lack experience, knowledge, and skill, but does that mean this is any less valuable to me? in my world and reality, who's opinion matters? why do we lose sight of this as we grow older? perhaps that's a little bit of a stretch. a better example: I have been watercolor painting for 15 years. my landscapes will never be "museum worthy" or "gallery worthy," does it therefore have less meaning to me? is it of less worth or value? i would say not. what is this discussion about then? about the worth of something, about something's value. drawing perhaps a general destinction between types of art would be the most fruitful thing for this debate to discuss. I draw art into 2 general categories. i say general, because there cannot be any clear definitions in art i feel, and as such, i only make general ones for the sake of an attempt at clarification of thought. The first category is "low art." i'm sure many of you understand this concept at least partially, but let me clarify one or two things for the sake of being thorough. My designations do not, as i will shortly explain, determine worth. I would loosely group artworks that do not or will never enter an exhibition of any kind (gallery, museum, whatever). these would include people who create art as a "hobby" perhaps, non-proffessionals, and the like. again, this does not mean it is worth any less than "high art." for a better application to this argument, this would include part-time hobby bonsaiists. people who do bonsai for fun, or are serious, but would not be generally considered masters. this does not mean it is worth any less than a master's work. what price or value would you put on your first succesful jin? What is that first successful jin worth, with all that you learned, and the feeling you get when you do something right after so many failed attempts? "high art" is the other grouping i would loosely make. this includes all proffessional artists, whose work is produced as a means of income, or for the purpose of appearing in an exhibition, gallery, museum or otherwise. also a love for making art and creativity, etc. is included but becomes one of many primary goals beyond "low art" though not neccesarily disparate. is this worth more because a general audience say it is? i have made works that many have not deemed "successful," but personally speaking, with an understanding of the worth of what i have accomplished, i would not trade that work or its experience for a so-called "classic" that i would have perhaps not gotten anything out of. i feel then that no one, save the beholder or the artist decide for themselves what they deem to be the "wort" of something, with the understanding that it does not and can never actually describe that thing's true worth. this is where i feel the debate goes astray. people are having difficulty drawing a distinction between low and high art, and whether or not these distinctions therefore attatch work. this is another area where people step on toes. a "master" displays his tree. he feels it is beautiful, and a masterful creation, a display of his experience and skill. I think it's an ugly tree. who is truly right? his skill is better than mine, his experience is unmatched, etc. etc. it may technically be a better tree than anything i could ever hope to accomplish, but because he says it is beautiful, and others agree, does that make it so? does this then determine it's worth? you display an "ugly" tree. you successfully create a jin. everyone else says it's ugly. is it ugly to you? what worth do you assign to that tree, and what it means? what does the worth that other people assign to your work mean to you? i feel that's what is at the heart of this debate. people mix and mash terms when they should perhaps use them more delicately. what is and what is art should be left to the individual. what is a good bonsai and what is not a good bonsai should be left to the individual. none are better than others. Please keep in mind that these are my opinions and do not reflect those of other "artists," "bonsaiists," or anything else that i may be grouped as. People mistakenly neglect to add a disclaimer and now i have as a member of a group they also fit in, have been cast in a manner other than what is the actual case. please take my opinions, and everyone else's with a grain of salt. please feel free to contact me personally if you would like to continue to debate specific topics. i hope that i may have in some way helped to maintain the debate/discussion, and perhaps add to it. Keep an open mind. Justin Diaz "Youth is Wasted on the Young." Richmond, VA by way of Allentown, PA ************************************************** ****************************** ++++Sponsored, in part, by Lisa Kanis++++ ************************************************** ****************************** -- The IBC HOME PAGE & FAQ: http://www.internetbonsaiclub.org/ -- +++++ Questions? Help? e-mail +++++ |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|