SCI-ART LAB

Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

In his seminal article on "Civilization" in the 1929 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, James Harvey Robinson wrote :

(An encyclopaedia is) "a description of civilization, for it contains the story of human achievements in all its bewildering developments. It shows what men during hundreds of thousands of years have been learning about themselves, their world and the creatures which share it with them."

Nobody is out of the box of civilization.

"A culture is the way of life of a human group", as defined in a later edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Now going to more personal views :

Culture is lost if it is not transferred from parents to children. Everyday much culture is lost. This is why what remains from earlier times looks so strange to us.

Art is a way to express culture for it not to be lost. An artist is a witness of culture. If he is an original artist, it does not mean that he is out of the box. Nobody is out of the box of culture.

Collecting is the process by which some people select a subgroup of art or artefacts because they wish that the culture related to such a subgroup get a lower risk to be lost. There is no serious collecting without an idea of transferring some culture.

Art history is the practice to better appreciate the past for better predicting the future. It is my hobby to try my hand on it. I am not an artist, I am not a collector, I am not involved in the art market except by the fact that I have selected the art market as a tool to appreciate civilization and culture.

Views: 50

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Space man Vs Box Men

Thanks for starting this discussion, Pierre. Art is a part of culture & so this is important too.
"Cultural Evolution" is a part of culture. Without out of box thinking evolution in culture cannot happen. Earlier this was a very slow process. People didn't even notice it because it took generations for the cultures to evolve.

Now we have a global culture derived out of Hollywood, cable TV, You tube, Face book & internet itself.
It is not like old times where culture that originated in a particular region of the world remained there for centuries & therefore looked like a closed box. Today it evolves & travels with lightening speed from one part of the world to another & in very innovative ways. Whether we like it or not cultures are coming out of the boxes now.
Dear Pierre
interesting..
Just as Walter Benjamin wrote about art becoming a fetishized object, collections are only a small fragment of the totality of the art experience. In our society , especially in postmodern times, without a strong consensus, art becomes anything goes and becomes success to the greatest hype
my thought is that art labs in cities and places of learning are the way to go
Frank
Dear Pierre and Dr. Krishna
I include you both since this is a 3-way conversation. It is my belief (in agreeement with some tenets of colonial, feminist, and subaltern theory) that art history is written by the victors- those who want to control it. Here in America there is an unofficial network of critics, academics, gallery owners and museum administrators who all scratch each others back and form a consensus about which artist is the new star, movement
It is a set-up. It is not about the quality of the work, although they claim it is. It is about power. I think that is what Dr. Krishna feels in wanting so much to see and write about the truth. In the art world especially, truth is held in low regard. Critics claim moral or aesthetic authority in many cases, and they are flacks doing public relations
Not that truth does not exist Pierre, it is just hard to unravel in this climate, where anything goes, and standards are in the eyes of the beholder
I too buy some artefacts , Pierre, no matter what the price Is! Some people say it is madness but if I like something I would buy it because I want it to be with me. It gives happiness & a sort of fulfilment. We have but one life & we have to enjoy it in the way we want & with all the things we like.
Many art collectors say they too will buy art work if they like it without giving a second thought to the price. They say they give importance to visual appearence. Well, many belong to this catogory. Understanding art? That is something alien to many collectors! Surprised to hear this?
Krishna
True, I agree. I only want to make people know what is going on the art market & world. This is not an academic institution.
Krishna

Pierre Tavlitzki said:
Hi Krishna !

I agree with you.

When you pay a price for an artefact, it means that it is worth this price for you, and only for you. But if it is too expensive you do not buy it. Nobody else than you can explain why you bought it at such a price. Integrating this comment at world level, it leads to my axiom that the price of art at auction is a relevant metrics of its current place in the civilization. But only the buyer knows exactly why he paid the price.

Collecting and knowing are two different things, and it is happy that some people mix both.

Many collectors do not understand art. I agree. Research on art creation is uneasy for many reasons including reliability of information, influence of emotion, personal goals or targets of the researcher. No algorithm can apply to art researching.

All the best

Pierre
I just want to point out that this started out as discussion of what is and what is not in the box, and it has become a discussion of art and capitalism, or as Walther Benjamin called it, " the art of the fetishized object" (see Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction 1938 available online). What we buy is constrained by what we can afford ( thorsetein Veblen- Theory of the Leisure Class). Some artworks cost the price of a house. Would you Pierre or Dr. Krishna sell your house to buy the art you so desperately wanted? I am not being facetious. What we want or think we want is constrained by many rules. In Colonial America the Europeans came to the American native Indians to buy land for trinkets. The Indians had no conception that land could be sold. They could only sell "rights" to use something
like fishing or hunting rights. The women owned the communities. Art was a spiritual tool that was owned by the community and could be used by anyone.
I have two studios filled with art, what am I going to do with it?
Frank
I definitely won't sell my house to buy art. Only after fulfilling my basic needs , I will buy art with the excess money I have.
Regarding your work, just keep it like that. After some time you may find a buyer.
Most of the artists are in such a situation now. There are more sellers than buyers.
It is difficult for everyone to catch the small number of buyers. Even if we find them, We should be able to read the minds of collectors to sell our art. It is an art itself.
Not all people will do the art work to sell. Sometimes people do it because they feel passionate about art.
Although I have been painting since my childhood, I never thought of selling my work till 2006.
I have a mother like affinity towards my work. It makes me sad if I have to part with my work!
So I am not bothered whether I will be able to sell it or not!
May be it is easy for me to say this because I am not a bread & butter painter. For people who depend on selling their art for their livelihood, it is really difficult if they won't be able to sell.
We put our thoughts into our works & feel great to give life to them in the form of art. But collectors might have a different set of mind & they may not like our work as their tastes differ. And can we change our thoughts
& style to suit the collectors needs? If we can then we may succeed. If we can't - well you know the answer. A good balance between these two is a must for a successful artistic career.

Frank Shifreen said:
I just want to point out that this started out as discussion of what is and what is not in the box, and it has become a discussion of art and capitalism, or as Walther Benjamin called it, " the art of the fetishized object" (see Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction 1938 available online). What we buy is constrained by what we can afford ( thorsetein Veblen- Theory of the Leisure Class). Some artworks cost the price of a house. Would you Pierre or Dr. Krishna sell your house to buy the art you so desperately wanted? I am not being facetious. What we want or think we want is constrained by many rules. In Colonial America the Europeans came to the American native Indians to buy land for trinkets. The Indians had no conception that land could be sold. They could only sell "rights" to use something
like fishing or hunting rights. The women owned the communities. Art was a spiritual tool that was owned by the community and could be used by anyone. I have two studios filled with art, what am I going to do with it? Frank

RSS

© 2019   Created by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service