The "Definition of Metal" Project

[skeptik]

I'm only really thinking about stuff like automatism or improvisation. Or perhaps a work of literature that consists entirely of dream sequences, which somebody writes down and publishes simply because it "sounds cool". Is it really that hard to imagine an artist having no commentary to offer on their art?

How is a log of dreams a work of literature? Is it not just a log of dreams? There has to be an aboutness to it before it can be granted a work of art. Duchamp's Bottlerack is a work of art despite it contextually being literally nothing more than a bottle rack because of the artist's intervention. Where is the intervention in the dream log? What makes the dream log art? If it is simply and purely a recorded history of dreams and published as merely a recorded history of dreams, then it is just not a work of art.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Even though I know that is a hypothetical, it would always end up being defined as art since there is always human intention, unconscious or conscious. I just feel like this should be pointed out. Your fundamental point is strong, of course, though.

 

[skeptik]

I'm not saying that the dream log can't be a work of art, but as merely a dream log, it's not; it's just a log of dreams.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It won't ever be "just a dream log" (as in, just an automatically rendered journal of dreamlike visions sans thought/intent), and that's my point. Machines, which are always void of any artistic intent by definition, don't dream, and so the dream log will always be art even though your hypothetical is intact and true.

 

[skeptik]

That statement seems to rest on the implication that anything created by man is art (and here I differentiate between "art" and "the Fine Arts," the latter being that of which I am speaking), which I absolutely believe to be patently untrue. A published work is not necessarily a work of art, nor is a piece of music, necessarily. The same with an illustration. For example, an illustration of the human respiratory system in itself as is is not a work of art. A phone book is not a work of art, nor is generic elevator music (at least I would assume, though that depends on the composer). However, depending on how these things are used, they can be turned into a work of art. At this point, they're simply mere real things. It doesn't make sense to ask what a phone book is "about," and for that matter, it doesn't make sense to ask what a dream log is about. A dream log is as much of a work of art as any of an innumerable amount of history or biology textbooks. There is no artistic intent behind a dream log if it is truly just a mere dream log, and if it was something more than that, then we would be talking about something more than just a mere dream log. Of course, if this dream log actually used these dreams to tell an intentional narrative of some sort, then it could be a work of art, and it would make sense to ask what it is about, but simply writing down some dreams that you've had is not an artistic action, nor is the mere act of publishing it.

 

[Carcassian]

*chews popcorn, nods sagely, trying not to look lost*

*points*

Yeah, what that one guy said.

 

[Necro Joe]

I really don't see how one can reasonably dispute the idea that the artist's interpretation of his own work is the preeminent understanding. Of course you can appreciate other aspects of the work of art and even things in the work that were incidental or may not even in fact exist, but when you're looking at it as an artistic construct, a work of art as a work of art, then no, meaning is not socially defined, the meaning of a particular work of art as a work of art is the meaning that the artist gives to it, which may or may not include societal integration. While the artist's interpretation may be 'one of many,' it is, in fact, the most accurate, most prominent, most substantial, most important, and thus most relevant interpretation. Of course there is 'wiggle room,' but it can only go so far. There is a certain point at which an interpretation of an artwork is not merely a derivation of the original meaning but is, in fact, flat out wrong, such as interpreting a Marxist painting as anti-Marxist. This is simply not a valid interpretation insofar as it is viewed as a work of art created by an artist with specific intentions.

Ok where were we, ah yes...

Marxism actually leads into what I mean since traditional Marxist criticism is one school of thought in which the intentions of artists are largely discounted. What is key is the manner in which a work of art expresses an artist’s material position within society and the economic realities of their society more generally. This is regardless of what the artist intended to express; how his work manifests the world in which it was produced is the object of interest. So any underlying ideological assumptions that the artist was unaware of (racism perhaps, or support for one value system and rejection of another) can be examined no matter how hotly the artist may protest that he never meant to insert such ideas into his work. They are in it because they are in him. And if you’re a big fan of psychoanalysis you can take this thing to a whole different level.

However as I mentioned yesterday my crucial objection is in treating art as if the only thing that matters in its interpretation are the intellectual concepts that underlie it, rather than the emotional/physical processes of actually experiencing it. As if all art is just a bunch of coded messages, which are basically equivalent to one another despite being transmitted in entirely different mediums. The artist controls the transmission but what he/she transmits is (as Cythraul said) all based on conventions and the influences he inherits (perhaps without realising) and which the ‘true’ artist will shape and bend into their own form while probably still being unable to predict exactly what experience his work will ultimately produce. The only way for him to really know for sure is to step outside the role of artist and experience his own work of art as an audience member. This obviously would put him in the unique position of being able to explain some part of the listening process in words but he can still no more explain all of it than he can entirely ‘explain’ himself or the inherited traditions within which he is working. These things, the traditions and his place within them, are what define the work’s effect, and so to repeat myself and echo my hypothetical Marxist: all meaning in art is created socially.

Also in reference to your other discussion regarding what art is, I do think intentions are important but sometimes only in the extent to which an artist describes his work as expression first and something else second. Expression for expression’s sake I suppose. Like your dream log example; if the author describes it as being written primarily to catalogue his dreams so they can be studied or something, then I would say it isn’t art. However the very same log of dreams could be described as having been written as a means of expressing subconscious visual images and narratives through language (just like some painters paint their dreams as inspiration) and that certainly would seem to be a ‘subject’ worthy of being called artistic. Art does not have to be about anything in a conventional sense, it can simply be a person saying ‘this is what I feel, this is what is inside me’ simply for the purposes of expressing it (rather than just to tell others about it).

 

[skeptik]

Marxism actually leads into what I mean since traditional Marxist criticism is one school of thought in which the intentions of artists are largely discounted. What is key is the manner in which a work of art expresses an artist’s material position within society and the economic realities of their society more generally. This is regardless of what the artist intended to express; how his work manifests the world in which it was produced is the object of interest. So any underlying ideological assumptions that the artist was unaware of (racism perhaps, or support for one value system and rejection of another) can be examined no matter how hotly the artist may protest that he never meant to insert such ideas into his work. They are in it because they are in him. And if you’re a big fan of psychoanalysis you can take this thing to a whole different level.

I don't see how this usurps the idea that the artist's intention is the primary meaning of the work. Of course there could very well be other meanings in an artwork that are both unintended as well as perfectly valid that the artist may or may not object to, but that still does not mean that that is what the work as an art is about. I mean, you can easily view Rumpelstiltskin through a Marxist or a Feminist lens, but this is not the meaning behind it. Of course, Marxism and Feminism did not even exist when it was written, so applying these characteristics would be an intentional fallacy.

However as I mentioned yesterday my crucial objection is in treating art as if the only thing that matters in its interpretation are the intellectual concepts that underlie it, rather than the emotional/physical processes of actually experiencing it.

Well that depends on a number of factors, such as intention and medium. Of course the performative arts rely very heavily on the actual experience.

As if all art is just a bunch of coded messages, which are basically equivalent to one another despite being transmitted in entirely different mediums. The artist controls the transmission but what he/she transmits is (as Cythraul said) all based on conventions and the influences he inherits (perhaps without realising) and which the ‘true’ artist will shape and bend into their own form while probably still being unable to predict exactly what experience his work will ultimately produce.

Just because a work may produce a certain experience in a certain person does not mean that that reaction is central to the work. It could very well be incidental or simply inaccurate.

The only way for him to really know for sure is to step outside the role of artist and experience his own work of art as an audience member. This obviously would put him in the unique position of being able to explain some part of the listening process in words but he can still no more explain all of it than he can entirely ‘explain’ himself or the inherited traditions within which he is working. These things, the traditions and his place within them, are what define the work’s effect, and so to repeat myself and echo my hypothetical Marxist: all meaning in art is created socially.

I understand what you're saying about the work's effect, but the effect is not the same thing as the art itself and its meaning. A work's effect obviously has a much more elastic reach than the internal intentions of it, since its effect relies very heavily on audience participation, and of course everybody who experience a work of art approaches it with a different mind. It may be true in a broader sense that all meaning in art is created socially, since the artist is (most likely) a member of society and art is placed within a societal construct, but that does not imply that any member of society as a member of society can place any meaning on a work of art and call it a valid and accurate interpretation.

Also in reference to your other discussion regarding what art is, I do think intentions are important but sometimes only in the extent to which an artist describes his work as expression first and something else second. Expression for expression’s sake I suppose. Like your dream log example; if the author describes it as being written primarily to catalogue his dreams so they can be studied or something, then I would say it isn’t art. However the very same log of dreams could be described as having been written as a means of expressing subconscious visual images and narratives through language (just like some painters paint their dreams as inspiration) and that certainly would seem to be a ‘subject’ worthy of being called artistic. Art does not have to be about anything in a conventional sense, it can simply be a person saying ‘this is what I feel, this is what is inside me’ simply for the purposes of expressing it (rather than just to tell others about it).

Of course art does not have to be about anything, but art that is not about anything incidentally is not art. It has to make sense to ask of a work of art what it is about, if anything. You wouldn't ask what a an brillo box is about, but you would ask it about Andy Warhol's "Brillo Boxes", regardless of whether or not it's actually about anything. Of course, your claim about the dream log as "having been written as a means of expressing subconscious visual images and narratives through language" is perfectly valid, but I would argue that that is changing it from being a mere dream log. A mere dream log is never going to be a work of art. Once it is a work of art, it is no longer a mere real thing.

 

[Necro Joe]

Just because a work may produce a certain experience in a certain person does not mean that that reaction is central to the work. It could very well be incidental or simply inaccurate.

Well yes it could, but I think that the reaction is still central. The shared response to a peice of work is IMO the most fascinating thing about art, and intersubjective analysis of why certain conventions and forms of expression produce the same reaction in people from vastly diverse periods and places is, for me, the object most worthy of serious study.

I understand what you're saying about the work's effect, but the effect is not the same thing as the art itself and its meaning. A work's effect obviously has a much more elastic reach than the internal intentions of it, since its effect relies very heavily on audience participation, and of course everybody who experience a work of art approaches it with a different mind.

See I think that the effect is the meaning, or at least cannot be removed from it. We may have fairly different minds but the thing about art that makes it so universally discussed and enjoyed is the manner in which one person's expression is almost always genuinely comprehensible to others. Be it because of shared social values, intrinsic human qualities or just the transcendent value of really great art. After all, we can still appreciate not only the 'meaning', but the effect, of Homer's epics more than 2500 years after they were written.

It may be true in a broader sense that all meaning in art is created socially, since the artist is (most likely) a member of society and art is placed within a societal construct, but that does not imply that any member of society as a member of society can place any meaning on a work of art and call it a valid and accurate interpretation.

No I'm not saying that; I'm arguing for a proper understanding of that which we call subjectivity, since I see it as really a shared and highly predetermined response that is anything but unique.

 

[skeptik]

A work of art is (barring outlier circumstances) the work of an artist, and as such, the meaning of the art is the meaning given to it by the artist. This meaning may be dictated by societal standards, norms, experiences, relations, etc., but it is still central to the artist. Maybe the diverse interpretations affected onto the public is more interesting, but that is really here nor there when we're talking about the meaning of the work. Art is a communal experience in observation, not in creation, and the creation is the process of giving meaning. As I've said earlier, when you apply societal interference into a work of art, you're really talking about a different work of art altogether. The Marxist Rumpelstiltskin is not the same Rumpelstiltskin as the one you may read to your child at night, but rather a reinterpretation and a transformation into another work.

As for the effect, I feel that the effect is very clearly removed from the meaning or intent. The artist has only so much control over the effect of his art work, but he has full control over his own intent and his works meaning. This does not mean that society cannot designate meaning onto his work (such as the racialization of Uncle Tom's Cabin), but again, I would argue that this is not the same art work written by Harriet Beecher Stowe, but something rather different.

Sorry if this is a bit haphazard and unfocused, but I'm on my way out the door.

 

[Necro Joe]

No worries. I think we disagree pretty fundamentally so I'm not going to push the issue too much. I'm only really formulating my own views on this subject as I go along, it might require some more reading and discussing before I can convince anyone that I'm right (or before I discover I'm talking garbage). Its been fun anyway.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Good posts all around, guys.

 

[Carcassian]

Thanks V

 

[Einherjar86]

How is a log of dreams a work of literature? Is it not just a log of dreams? There has to be an aboutness to it before it can be granted a work of art. Duchamp's Bottlerack is a work of art despite it contextually being literally nothing more than a bottle rack because of the artist's intervention. Where is the intervention in the dream log? What makes the dream log art? If it is simply and purely a recorded history of dreams and published as merely a recorded history of dreams, then it is just not a work of art.

Dreams are metaphorical representations of the dreamer's thoughts and fears (according to Freud). Dreams are, in essence, works of art in that they are creations made for a purpose by the dreamer to indicate a deeper meaning.

But I understand what you're trying to say; dreams are only a bad example. If say, perhaps, someone simply made a diary of what they did on a certain day without adding any commentary or anything to it; that wouldn't be a work of art. But I consider dreams to be art; subconsciously created art, but still art.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Thanks V

 

[skeptik]

Dreams are metaphorical representations of the dreamer's thoughts and fears (according to Freud). Dreams are, in essence, works of art in that they are creations made for a purpose by the dreamer to indicate a deeper meaning.

But I understand what you're trying to say; dreams are only a bad example. If say, perhaps, someone simply made a diary of what they did on a certain day without adding any commentary or anything to it; that wouldn't be a work of art. But I consider dreams to be art; subconsciously created art, but still art.

The problem, as I see it anyway, is that I don't think it's really possible to subconsciously create art. Art is a highly intentional, and thus a highly conscious and deliberate process. Dreams, as a subconscious process, are not overtly intentional in the way that, say, raising your hand or taking a sip of water are intentional; rather, they are largely involuntary and out of the reach of the conscious mind, so for me, somebody recording their dreams is merely a scribe and a middleman, rather than an artist. Obviously there are many different and simple ways of going about transforming a dream into a work of art, but, in my opinion, I don't really view the dream itself as art. I hope my wording is clear enough, I was struggling a bit here to try to communicate my meaning.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Would one of the ways of transforming a dream into art be writing it down? (emphasis on the smiley)

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I was about to say the same exact thing but it was going to be more wordy.

 

[Zephyrus]

Is solving this dream question going to be of any benefit to this thread's original objective?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Probably not, we should focus more here tbh