I am
I am
Follow

Something I Haven't Done For Awhile .......

Posted about 4 years ago
Is post some Disney sounds. Many moons ago I had started (or tried to start) a discussion about the difference between Art and Artifact. Here is the original track I used.




This was my contention:*I know, I know get to the point.Ivy is correct in labelling the 2 Disney clips as art.They had to be scripted, recorded, then processed. Ultimately, for mass consumption.Yet I can't help but think they are more artefact than art.Like many of the clips Subsonic has on his site, these 2 clips are incidental. They were created to enhance the "experience", not to be the "experience".By separating the sounds from their surroundings I have moved these clips, more than less, from the incidental to the crucial.*So I ask again, Art, Artifact or both?

0

Comments (25)

  1. Groon
    Groon says I guess for me I would have to know what definitions you're using for Art and Artifact.
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  2. Dzendvokh
    Dzendvokh says That's where I would start
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  3. I am
    I am says I guess this would be it in a nutshell. *They were created to enhance the "experience", not to be the "experience".* As I was writing this, this thought hit me. Something can be both art and artifact, but not all artifact is art. So how I define art? How do I define artifact? That why I am relying on you guys to help sort this out. I asked the "art" question already; http://mog.com/I_am/blog_post/101762 Where do you stand?
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  4. I am
    I am says contra's comment had this to offer. *Like I stated before, the skills of a craft can be rolled into the process of creating art, where the art takes on concept and leaves the realm of function.* Artifacts peak in function, but art goes farther, to some place else.
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  5. I am
    I am says Maybe my question should be, "Is art functional too?"
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  6. Groon
    Groon says I like your enhancement vs. experience idea. Going that route, then these would take the role of artifact in their original context. However, I don't think by removing them and placing them center stage, so to speak, is enough to qualify them as art. That's where personal opinion would come in. They could be art (I haven't made an opinion on that yet) but they could juat as easily become neither, divorced from their primary function, so to speak. I've always thought that one of the problems with "art" as an idea (and I've never been much for art, per se, for this reason) is that so much gets classified and debated as art that I would never consider to be. And I'm not just talking about paintings made from poo, here.
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  7. dachmo
    dachmo says Awesome, ...now where's that tab of acid I had?
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  8. Groon
    Groon says Is art functional too? I've always, for most art anyway, always thought of as it being its own function, so to speak. It exists, to exist.
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  9. Dzendvokh
    Dzendvokh says That's a tough question.....I really don't think it is possible to get at it in a nutshell. But your definition is interesting. Although I think the most powerful forms of art are necessarily and fundamentally functional, in that they illicit an emotional, or intellectual, possibly even spiritual response from us. Hey, I would love to chat a bit more, but I gotta finish a movie with the woman.... I'll try to get back to this later...
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  10. Groon
    Groon says dude . . . broz before hoz! I'm kidding, of course. My wife would kill me if she saw that!
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  11. I am
    I am says *It exists, to exist.* Chuck, you got my vote for Vice Taoist in '08. Get over to "Zenpop's site":http://mog.com/ZenPop/blog_post/134192 He just dropped his Fave 11 of the year. He sold me on Kevin Drew. Anyway, G it's subjective. There is no wrong answer, even with poo involved. I pretty much made up my mind that art is function to at least one person, the artist. Whether the 'art' effect someone else is inconsequential.
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  12. I am
    I am says Dave, talk about a wild trip.
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  13. Groon
    Groon says art is function to at least one person, the artist. Whether the 'art' effect someone else is inconsequential I would agree with that. But I guess, then, the question is what function did the artist intend for it? Going back to the original clips, if the creator of those incidental sounds meant nothing for them except to enhance something else, and it means nothing to him, then could its affecting somebody else still make it qualify?
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  14. RGM
    RGM says Nice post!
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  15. I am
    I am says What do you think, Ray?
    Permalink posted 01/01/2008
  16. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says I would add that because something exists symbolically, does it have meaning (in both the deeper sense and literal), function, or both? Plenty of symbols exist from which we derive function: But do these exist in the same way the sounds for the rides do? I admire the minimalist, cross cultural/language oriented ability for these signs to communicate information - no easy feet. But I also admire this because I am often in a position where I have to express the same things in my own work and being able to synthesize information like that into such an innocuous and easy to understand image is a lot more work then it would appear. The symbols exist as a simple alphabet character would, yet you cold be illiterate and understand them. Chris, doesn't McCloud have a good chapter on this in one of his books?
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  17. I am
    I am says He does Ty. I'll have to get back later.
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  18. Bartleby
    Bartleby says This brings us back to the question posed by Marcel Duchamp and his "Fountain" in 1917. He signed it R. Mutt and claimed it was art (which is more or less accepted nowadays) I personally subscribe to his views to a certain point. An artist's intention is not enough to make something become art. But if we are to start a discussion on aesthetics: whether it is the expression of an individual's representational system or it is absolute and autonomous from any time and place, we might as well talk about chickens and eggs... Have you heard of Guy Debord and situationism? I think Disney would fit really neatly into this line of thinking: it is all about seduction (more than any aesthetic proposal). That is, in my humble opinion.
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  19. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says Duchamp turned art onto it's head (all puns intended as proper respect towards Mesier Duchamp). We are still feeling the impact either due to the fact that he was so far ahead of his time, or that he predicted that everyone would run themselves in circles, like a dog chasing it's tail, in their over analysis of his art pranks. I am forever in awe of him either way. One thing Duchamp saw was that Art was moving towards (or would it be away from?) needing concrete reference to symbology. We would see this later with the action painting of Pollock and to a lesser extent DeKooning. Art was becoming the expression of the act. Art would stand like a splotchy thumb print of the artists existence and creation. The art world was becoming as much the artist as it was the art. Of course Warhol stole a chapter from Duchamp's play book and cemented that fact. Funny how this brings me back to what you mentioned about Disney, and just how fitting this seems, now that I think of it. See Disney's original intention of EPCOT for some mind blowing stuff.
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  20. Bartleby
    Bartleby says Thanks for posting the link on EPCOT, Contra. Reading through the Wiki article, I couldn't help but thinking about Le Corbusier's "The City of Tomorrow" and his "Modulor." Here's a model of his 3 million people city:
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  21. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says Yes, International Style at it's worst. Thousands of Cabrini Green type projects sprung up around the U.S. and ghettoized the poor. Eventually some of the towers were taken over by rival gangs in which they would take pot shots at each other from the other tower. Corbusier had some good ideas, but was a bit out of touch with the human condition in others.
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  22. wdog
    wdog says Ok.. I'll wade in. In my mind, "art" is an individual's intentional expression of some aspect of the human experience. Seems simple? Well, I think it cancels out "accidental" expressions, cancels out purely mechanical expressions, and cancels out expressions who's purpose is functional, without the expression of more. The interesting thing about "artifacts" is they can be beautiful and moving - but if they were never intended by their maker to express how they see some aspect of life experience, I don't think they are "art". I don't think I quite agree with the dichotemy of "enhancement" vs. "experience".. as I believe that when René Jules Lalique designed a crystal hood ornament, there is no question that the ornament "enhanced" the automobile it was attached to.. but I think most would still consider it art.. and likewise, if someone accidentally spilled toenail polish on the carpet - just because they might frame it and put it up on a wall doesn't make it "art".. even though there was then no purpose at all to it's existence other than to be an "experience" ..although, if Marcel Duchamp intentionally spilled the polish, to express a point of view about triviality of what may be "art", well, he's expressing himself, and, in my mind, that then makes it art.. This gets us away from the whole question of excellence and techinque - from a child's finger-painting to Monet's lilies.. they are created to express how they see an aspect of their existence.. and so, are "art".. ...and thanks to Bartelby for bringing Marcel Duchamp back to mind.. which got me thinking of Rene Magritte.. another great surrealist to whom many rockers owe their album covers directly or inspirationally to Magritte.. including Sammy Hagar (Standing Hampton), Jeff Beck (Beck-Ola), Styx (Grand Illusion), Counting Crows (This Desert Life).. So. I think the intention of the maker is the key. And as such, I don't think the Disney clips would constitute art, unless there were some intention on the part of the makers to express themselves regarding a view of their life experience..
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  23. wdog
    wdog says
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  24. wdog
    wdog says
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  25. wdog
    wdog says
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Forgot Password?

OR login using Facebook Connect

Connect

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!

 

© 2006-2012 Mog Inc. All Rights Reserved