Is bonsai art? - inspired by BVF

I am sure some of the participants will think about me that I am giving much more importance than what I need to a secondary issue.
Perhaps they are right, I don't know.
What I do know is that I have honest questions which I would like anyone with knowledge to take the time and consider for replying.
I am also aware that these subjects have been discussed in the past at their long extend, but back then I was not present and ask these questions....
So, thank you everybody in advance!

MichaelS said:

... ...It does not need to be seen (or heard or whatever) by anyone but the artist. All it needs is for the creator to be satisfied that what was inside is now outside. ... ...Remember too, I'm talking about the ''purpose'' here not the definition. The purpose is for relief

Click to expand...

Here I am honestly interested in your view, based on your own idea of Art. How would you reply to this previous query of mine :

my nellie said:

... ...BUT, here comes another question.
If there is a two-way communication of the message of an Art work between the creator and the viewer, then what can be said in this case :

a) that the creator/craftsman is simply doing his craft/object copying some original pre-existing work and
b) that the viewer captures some kind of message through the object, it is causing emotions and a mental/psychological reaction to him​

Can we ever say that this handicraft/object is a piece of art only for the viewer?

Click to expand...

I asked this question before on p. #4, post #75 mainly for @grouper52 to give me his view on this issue.
I believe he didn't notice so he didn't reply.
My question was based in that bidirectional communication (which I believe being existing) grouper52 has stated before :

grouper52 said:

... ...Visual art is defined as a human activity that creates a visual form for the purpose of evoking an inspiring emotional response in viewers. ... ...It can also be a hobby... ...but even then the definition holds true because the artist/audience-of-one has created the visual form for the purpose of evoking an inspiring emotional response as he/she beholds the beauty created... ...

Click to expand...

BUT now my question towards you is based on the fact that, the "artist" merely has the need to take out of his soul/mind his sentiments and he is in no need to communicate those sentiments to anybody.

I hope I made my self clear for you to understand my question... (language barrier you see)

Then of course there is the ultimate bottom line. Who cares about what you think of my work, or anyone's work except you and those who don't have the imagination to see through their own eyes and have to rely on another's opinion.

MichaelS said:

Ha ha, this made me smile. @jacob letoile Very droll! Very nicely constructed. Unfortunately wrong
Photography is a wonderful thing. I wish I were better at it. However, not art is it? What are you doing if you play around with shading, focus, colour, exposure, light etc. etc. with something that already exists? You are decorating it. Just like you do when you hang stuff on a Christmas tree. Oh look I'm dimming the lights in this room and lighting a candle. I'm doing art!
If photography was art, the person who decides that the person he is shooting should move to the left is doing art too. Why not? He is manipulating the image and crating a composition. Hell I can draw a red outline around the Mona Lisa and that's the same thing just more simple. Complexity and skill does not equal art. A child who sits in an empty room and scribbles something from his head is art. So what was it that you said about reality?
Raining today....nothing to do you understand.

Click to expand...

Like I said, so unconnected to reality as to be dismissed out of hand. You are free to construct your little world in your head and we're all free to point and laugh. As a very basic rebuttal I'll accept 2 museums of art which display varied media and have never had a photography exhibit, because they don't consider photography to be art. In response I will offer EVERY OTHER BROADLY FOCUSED ART MUSESM, EVER. Now you can argue that the curator of an art museum is unqualified to determine what is and is not art, but again I'm free to point and laugh.

And so we see the truth of the matter. Most of the time those that critique art or more stridently, criticize art, are usually those who cannot or do not create anything approaching art, even in their own minds. So it seems we are arguing the merit of fools and the credibility of ass holes (sorry for the AH refference).

jacob letoile said:

Like I said, so unconnected to reality as to be dismissed out of hand. You are free to construct your little world in your head and we're all free to point and laugh. As a very basic rebuttal I'll accept 2 museums of art which display varied media and have never had a photography exhibit, because they don't consider photography to be art. In response I will offer EVERY OTHER BROADLY FOCUSED ART MUSESM, EVER. Now you can argue that the curator of an art museum is unqualified to determine what is and is not art, but again I'm free to point and laugh.

Click to expand...

I dismiss this comment out of hand. Art museums are probably the last place to ask what art is. They are interested in promotion. I know that because my wife worked in a US museum for 15 years and I'm pretty well aware of the thinking in these places.
So, what you say as zero meaning to me. If you want to argue that Photo is art then convince me, with a coherent argument, otherwise just go away.

my nellie said:

I am sure some of the participants will think about me that I am giving much more importance than what I need to a secondary issue.
Perhaps they are right, I don't know.
What I do know is that I have honest questions which I would like anyone with knowledge to take the time and consider for replying.
I am also aware that these subjects have been discussed in the past at their long extend, but back then I was not present and ask these questions....
So, thank you everybody in advance!Here I am honestly interested in your view, based on your own idea of Art. How would you reply to this previous query of mine : I asked this question before on p. #4, post #75 mainly for @grouper52 to give me his view on this issue.
I believe he didn't notice so he didn't reply.
My question was based in that bidirectional communication (which I believe being existing) grouper52 has stated before :
BUT now my question towards you is based on the fact that, the "artist" merely has the need to take out of his soul/mind his sentiments and he is in no need to communicate those sentiments to anybody.

I hope I made my self clear for you to understand my question... (language barrier you see)

Click to expand...

I'm sorry Alexandra, I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Whether you are still assuming a two-way communication with regards to the object or not? Or, whether it is an work solely made by and for the benefit for the artist and if the reaction of the viewer is important? If it's the latter, I would have to say that the artist should/would? not care in the slightest how a viewer would react to his work. In practice of course, we are all humans and some of us have a need for reassurance, pride or even money which might come into play. But as far as a viewer is concerned, what he gains from looking at a piece is completely individual and will vary with everyone who sees it. A child will see something different to an adult for example. A layman will see it differently to a more experienced observer. But in the end, what the viewer sees really has little meaning to the artist himself. That's how I see it anyway. I'm happy with that. Others will see things differently but if you think about it enough, how can the objective of the art have anything to do with a viewer when all viewers will have a different perception of the same art?
As I wrote in the other thread, I like this quote from the 18th/19th century French painter, Jacque Loulis David. ''To give body and perfect form to one's thought. This - and only this - is to be an artist''. It's pure and easy to understand.
Nothing to do with a viewer.

I'm over trying to convince you of anything.
Your mind is your own to convince

amcoffeegirl said:

I'm over trying to convince you of anything.
Your mind is your own to convince

Click to expand...

Use the force. Come over to the dark side and push the ignore button and all this crap magically disappears. Life is too short to argue with buffoons. besides.....nobody wins anyway, and even if you do I'm sure it tastes bitter.

Smoke said:

I'm sure it tastes bitter.

Click to expand...

Coffee is bitter

MichaelS said:

But in the end, what the viewer sees really has little meaning to the artist himself. That's how I see it anyway. I'm happy with that. Others will see things differently but if you think about it enough, how can the objective of the art have anything to do with a viewer when all viewers will have a different perception of the same art?

Click to expand...

Finally you stepped it it. Shows your ignorance of art all together. (In red)

Real art is defined by peer review over many years.

Maybe starting 40,000 years ago can give us some perspective. Parietal art, cave paintings. Were the peoples that did this artists? Do you think they cared if 40,000 years from then we would call it art? We do, because 40 millenia of peer review has told us so.





A mothers love. The superior peer review. So strong that do chide against it will probably land you on the couch for a month or outright dead. The child does not even understand the concept of an "artist" much like the cave painter. They do their work because they wish to, need to.

Then there is this. Jackson Pollack. Some think he is a genius, some think he gets his inspiration from some childs dirty diapers. It doesn't really matter because over a period of time his peers have deemed him an artist and his paintings art. Personally I don't really get it, nor appreciate it to the point of wanting to hang it it my home.

There is also the "elitism" factor that plays a large part into the concept of 'what is art" no matter the subject matter.

amcoffeegirl said:

Coffee is bitter

Click to expand...

get better coffee?

Smoke said:

get better coffee?

Click to expand...

Yes sir

.

Smoke said:

Finally you stepped it it. Shows your ignorance of art all together. (In red)

Real art is defined by peer review over many years.

Maybe starting 40,000 years ago can give us some perspective. Parietal art, cave paintings. Were the peoples that did this artists? Do you think they cared if 40,000 years from then we would call it art? We do, because 40 millenia of peer review has told us so.

View attachment 142707

View attachment 142706

A mothers love. The superior peer review. So strong that do chide against it will probably land you on the couch for a month or outright dead. The child does not even understand the concept of an "artist" much like the cave painter. They do their work because they wish to, need to.

View attachment 142703

View attachment 142704

View attachment 142705

Click to expand...

Ah.... ok....I think. I'm there's some kind of point in there somewhere...

amcoffeegirl said:

Your mind is your own to convince

Click to expand...

Meaning?

I think you are both very tired.

MichaelS said:

Meaning?

Click to expand...

I'm going to assume that you are a grown man.
You have your mind set already that bonsai and photography are not art forms.
How could anything I say possibly convince you otherwise?

I recommend experiencing more artsy stuff- you might like it.

MichaelS said:

Others will see things differently but if you think about it enough, how can the objective of the art have anything to do with a viewer when all viewers will have a different perception of the same art?

Click to expand...

It's called a concensus. Look it up.

MichaelS said:

As I wrote in the other thread, I like this quote from the 18th/19th century French painter, Jacque Loulis David. ''To give body and perfect form to one's thought. This - and only this - is to be an artist''. It's pure and easy to understand.
Nothing to do with a viewer.

Click to expand...

I could use the same quote for each practitioner of bonsai. We have no idea what is in their heart. It is up to the viewer and a concensus of peer review over years to deem when someone creates art. I have no idea why this concept is so hard for some to grasp.

Both people have stated that: ''To give body and perfect form to one's thought. This - and only this - is to be an artist''

Are they both artists?
Have they both created art?

A


B


A concensus here. Which one is art? A or B?

amcoffeegirl said:

I'm going to assume that you are a grown man.
You have your mind set already that bonsai and photography are not art forms.
How could anything I say possibly convince you otherwise?

I recommend experiencing more artsy stuff- you might like it.

Click to expand...

So you think I should try to change my own mind for my own sake or for yours?
I've been experiencing more artsy stuff than you could ever imagine. That's how I came to the conclusion.

MichaelS said:

Meaning?

I think you are both very tired.

Click to expand...

I have become bored with you. You are a troll. easy to fix though.

B