Lets look in Wikipedia.
Of course fine artists must take into account what went before. That's the whole point. And it is exactly what makes it "completely new", even if it's a reworking, IF the reworking moves art to a new direction. And "attempts" is the correct term, since fine art is never self-defined. "Success", or lack of it, is defined by established critics. This is why artists such as Christo get hammered often. He tries to self-define his work.One more
This is a circular definition "fine art" is art that brings "fine
art" forward. Not only that - in the first case "fine art" is an
activity or artefact and in the second case a genre.
And - to "attempt" doing something does not make it "fine" - you
have also to succeed to some degree. And - why must it take account
what "went before"? Why not something completely new? And why not
something old made again? The "fine art" of de ja vue.
Doubtful? Setting a new standard is exactly what fine art is about.
There was nothing contradictory in my statement, but perhaps there is in your interpretation? Yes, you can set new standards in technique or process, but that has nothing to do with setting new standards of art with your work. A better road map may help you find your destination more quickly, but it won't make you a better driver.
Yup, just as definite as the long line of fine artists, art scholars and art critics whose words I borrowed and paraphrased in my posts. And the "many" who disagree can check out a copy of "Shock of the New", or "Art Now", the writings of LeWitt, or any of a number of good books on the subject. Art isn't science. Defining it ain't easy, but at some point in your art education, if you're lucky, you'll be able to say with some certitude what it is, and what it isn't.You are very definite about something that many disagree upon
I am sorry Chuck - this text dont feel relevant to me. I assume you mean the Christo that wraps different kinds of huge stuff in fabrics? In my world this is 100% cr4p. If this cr4p is art or nit can someone else discuss, maybe it is. If it is art it certainly is "fine art" as it is "pure" - i.e. free from all other purposes than being art.
No "fine art" is just a name that is used for "pure" arts, e.g. painting, sculpture, dance, ....
Roland:
Damn! That's good!
It is simpler then that: ... any artistic endeavor so labeled by the buyer or beholder .......any artistic endeavor so labeled by the artist and the
buyer...as for the rest of the world - they don't matter
Funny --- but not right.
It is not always so that higher up people knows better. Some higher up people are also intentionally or unintentionally careless with their language. They are trend setters and don't have to care about being precise. Moreover - why should they know better in the first place? Moreover - moreover - it suits their purpose that "fine art" is considered "fine" - it might increase the price.
No - "fine art" is simply "pure" art. The name was invented a long time ago when it was considered "fine" to be able to do and buy things without a purpose. Only rich (i.e fine) people (or so they thought) could do that.
How come all dictionaries and also Wikipedia says otherwise? If you are right - why do they write faulty information there?
Yes - the Sigmaoids will soon get bored. Hopefully they already are and reads some other thread
At least my definition required 2 people in agreement...lol...--It is simpler then that: ... any artistic endeavor so labeled by...any artistic endeavor so labeled by the artist and the
buyer...as for the rest of the world - they don't matter
the buyer or beholder ....
--
http://www.pbase.com/mdejong
There are MANY things that were "named" long ago, Roland, but many of them take on an entirely different meaning in today's modern world. Since this is the world I typically live in (i.e.: not long ago), I tend to go with the flow of the times.
Then - please direct me to a dictionary or equivalent that does not still adhere to the old definition?
Well, in this case, the "higher-ups" defintiely know better, since it's their language we're trying to define. Would you debate a surgeon over a medical term? An architect over technical language? I would hope not. And they know better as a direct result of years of study and immersion in their chosen field. We're just visiting.
Nope. The term "fine" simply means "superior in quality, execution or perception". It has nothing to do with price, though market forces will often take over at some point in the life of the work, or the artist. Success in sales has very little to do with success in execution and product. You can count on one set of fingers the number of fine artists who were wealthy when they were producing their first work.
Wikipedia is ALWAYS faulty.
No doubt. I can already hear an echo in here. I think we're the only two left in the thread.Yes - the Sigmaoids will soon get bored. Hopefully they already are
and reads some other thread
