Origins of Shaolin?

[MasterKiller]

Is it?

I take it you're not a fan of Dadaism. That's okay, I'm not either.

L.H.O.O.Q.

[GeneChing]

Elle a chaud au cul

[David Jamieson]

Then you are probably not very good.

While the observer brings a whole host of psychological baggage to the table which the artist cannot possibly consider, if you cannot steer people in the direction you want them to go, you are wasting your time trying to be an artist.

Intent is everything. It prevents a painting from becoming wallpaper.

You can't build a road to Istanbul and not put up street signs; otherwise, no one will arrive in Istanbul. It's the artists job to build the street and make sure all the necessary street signs are in place.

Unless of course you are a Deconstruction Theorists. In which case, you can't even trust the letters on the page to convey the words you think they are conveying.

I am not certain after reading this if you understand the difference between industrial design and art.

art is whatever the observer wants it to be.

where does van goghs "lillies" take you in your mind?

what did Dali want us to think with his work?

However, Industrial design is very direct and meme-ish and seeks to develop unified thinking towards a goal. Brand management, style guides, wayfinding, signs, logos etc etc are industrial design and are indeed a form of artistic expression, but they do not carry the same type of individualistic emotional content that more personal and direct art does.

at least, that's how I see it and I've been told I'm a good artist and designer.

[MasterKiller]

art is whatever the observer wants it to be.

Yeah, but a good artists leads you in the direction he wants you to go. You don't just splash ink on a page without an intended idea of response (unless you're Jackson Pollock, that is).

what did Dali want us to think with his work?

What difference does it make if art is only what the observer wants it to be?

However, Industrial design is very direct and meme-ish and seeks to develop unified thinking towards a goal. Brand management, style guides, wayfinding, signs, logos etc etc are industrial design and are indeed a form of artistic expression, but they do not carry the same type of individualistic emotional content that more personal and direct art does.

OK. I guess you've never been to a Warhol exhibit. How about Robert Motherwell?

at least, that's how I see it and I've been told I'm a good artist and designer.

Yeah, and I've written two novels. We are practically a new art movement.

[GeneChing]

Suppose the founder created a martial art to kill. Suppose a student interpreted that art as performance and used it to dance. Is it still art?

[Su Lin]

Aww I got excited then,I like talking about art (it's my job)

It' still a type of art if the student interprets it in a different manner to the founder,but as more of a pastiche, rather than carrying the original meaning .I suppose it's a bit like the prints of great paintings you get, ie having a print of a Mark Rothko painting on your wall rather than the real thing.It essentially looks like the real thing,but th essence is missing somewhat.

[MasterKiller]

OK, Su Lin is into Art and Kung Fu? If she says she likes Star Wars and Gatchaman, I may have to make her my mistress.

[Su Lin]

I'm very much into art (I'm a curator) and LOVE star wars , and really used to love Battle of the Planets if that's any use.

I do however HATE Phantom Menace and the other 2 prequels.

[MasterKiller]

I'm very much into art (I'm a curator) and LOVE star wars , and really used to love Battle of the Planets if that's any use.

I do however HATE Phantom Menace and the other 2 prequels.

You are allowed to hate TPM and the first 1:25 minutes of AOTC. Any sensible person cannot possibly hate the Battle of Geonosis, or ROTS (except for the inexplicable cutting of the Qui-Gon/Yoda dialogue explaining how to merge with the Force).

Battle of the Planets is a pale shade of Gatchaman. I'll forgive you that, but just this once.

[Su Lin]

Thankyou

[Crushing Fist]

It seems like a lot of people on this thread are attaching quite a bit of emotional baggage to that question. In modern times it seems like quite a trend to make something more outrageous and ridiculous than what has gone before and then stand back and let that question be asked. It seems the answer always comes back "yes".

Is there intent?

Does it lead the viewer in the intended direction?

Does it express the inner being of the artist?

Is that expression recognizable?

Does it matter?

Let's just simplify this a bit, ok?

Art is that which is created with no functional or practical purpose, a purely aesthetic creation. That's it. That's art.

Whether or not an artist intends to tell a story, express an ideal, protest a horror, demonstrate the beauty they behold, or even intend it to ever be seen by anyone else is entirely personal. These do not make art but only categorize and label it.

It's like the difference between Jazz and Rock n' Roll, which one is really music?


It has been said above that all artists whether they know it or not create with the intent of others seeing it. Again, this is personal and not an absolute truth. Look to Emily d!ckenson (how sad that I live in a world where I must edit a person's name) for the antithesis of that ideal.

Just go to the High Museum (for the atlanta crowd) look at the garbage glued to the wall and ask yourself...


Is it Art?








no I have nothing to say about the actual thread topic.

[GeneChing]

...or maybe not. Maybe we can just keep this thread rolling on it's hairpin topic turns and see where it goes.

Ever read The Great Dali Art Fraud and Other Deceptions by Lee Catterell? It's one of my favorite books on the subject, especially since I'm a huge Dali fan. I'd highly recommend it since it's quite relevant to this thread now.

...or maybe not. In my rather flailing attempts to bring this thread somewhat back on topic, the 'baggage' that Crushing Fist alludes to is exactly what I find interesting about Shaolin origin theories and Shaolin in general. Of all the martial arts, Shaolin is the granddaddy, with more recorded history, legend, movies and descendants than any other. That's what makes it interesting to me. And like this thread, it takes you to interesting places.

ok, back to talking about Star Wars or whatever...

[Su Lin]

I haven't read that book actually, I read more about Dadaism and early Surrealism,in particular a big show at Moma NY that was pretty influential ,but interestingly enough the town in which I work is the birthplace of a lady called Leonora Carrington- the1st lady of Surrealism who married Max Ernst. (Moma NY is m favourite gallery ever )

Yeah,so back to Shaolin, it's great isn't it.

[GeneChing]

...then again, it's Dali, so it's totally about surrealism. The book addresses the big lithograph controversies that peppered the Dali estate and goes on to address what might define an original artwork in the age of mass reproductions. One of Dali's final scams, or pranks, or acts of high surrealistic art, was to sign blank sheets. If you look at the website, it'll probably give you a good feel of the topic. I'm assuming that since I only just found that site when searching for the link for the book above. I read the book several years ago. Personally, I think the statements of the book can be very relevant to martial lineage, in an abstract metaphoric sort of way. But I've always seen martial arts being as much about art as combat applications.

MOMA rocks.

[Su Lin]

Sounds really interesting Gene,I shall ch ch check it out


I prefer Dali's ideas and "interventions" more than his painting really.I also find the mass reproduction thing really interesting - does it lose the original essence that the artist intended? Can that be said of Shaolin do you think ? Or is it just that things are changed and adapted over time and is that really a bad thing if it is a development?

I agree with the "art " part as well as the martial applications.