I wanted to have a definition that is definitive and inclusive. (The basis of the definition is that visual perception takes the outside world in directly. Thus the definition can only be used on an object that has been perceived – it can not be used to describe a genre or movement.)

Beuys quip is a sentiment – which I like – but a definition must exclude something.
A.C Danto includes universality and a historical/cultural component in his thoughts of art.

Intent:
Intent might eliminate paintings of an elephant, a computer, or a 4-year-old child. Intent might eliminate The Velvet Elvis, but would include Marcel Duchamp’s urinal.

Structure of space:
I was reading a blog about Joe Frank’s work. They were discussing a guy who took Joe’s words and re-wrote them sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. They couldn’t decide whether this was plagiarism because they didn’t understand that there is a structure to Joe’s work. Just changing the words didn’t negate plagiarism of that structure.

Visual allegory:
The concept of the visual allegory gets arcane, but it comes from Rudolf Arnheim’s The Power of the Center: A Study of Composition in the Visual Arts (1982).

That there are three possible types of allegory, stemming from an assertion that artistic motivation comes from inner conflict,
is my contribution.

The structure of an image can be described in terms of one of three visual allegories:
The expression of conflict
The resolution of conflict
The suspension of conflict

http://www.chuckclose.coe.uh.edu/life/gallery.html

In portraiture the visual allegory is found in the gaze/expression of the sitter. Run your cursor up and down the titles and the image appears at right on Peggysue’s link above – notice anything about the gaze(s)? There are two that jump out at me as different from the rest.

Chuck’s self-portrait is exactly the gaze I coaxed from a sitter for the expression of conflict.

Note the infant: resolution or suspension?

Don’t you mean “jousting” rather than “jesting?”

(That was my attempt at humor. If for no other reason than to show how poorly humor travels over the ‘internets’. Hence the creation of the ubiquitous smileys. Some attempt at indicating the author’s tone. I’d like to suggest that we all use the ‘wink” smiley if we’re being humorous. It looks like this: ; ) (that is, a semi-colon and close parenthesis (or a semi-colon and capital D for a big smile.) Many, many parts of threads have become heated due to an attemp to inject humor which was not read as humor by other posters. Just a thought about how to keep things light…..)

With this I can completely agree. I also liked the quote from the director of “Breaking the Waves” where he saw the female character as himself. I can certainly accept that men explore a piece of themselves in the female characters they create.

But, if this is the case, then it argues for the premise that a film created by a man is inherently different than a film created by a woman. And, that, if we are to all experience the full perspective of human experience, we need to hear/see that which comes from women, as well.

Yes, a well done ribeye (especially bleu) can be definitely termed a work of art, the Camry as well.

and then ventures a credo to my query as to his definition of art: good luck with this: Visual art is, by way of an artist’s intent, the structure of space into a visual allegory: expression, resolution, or suspension of conflict.

I meant ART in the META sense encompassing all sensual experience of ART but I’ll start with visual and pose a few questions.

Is intent necessary for a work to be ART? Is the intent implicit in creating the vision (which rules out unintended n-order consequences?) Is the defining the structure of space necessary to the ART (I assume you mean negative as well as positive space?) Is ART required to be allegorical or can it just be?

Expression is the meat of Joseph Beuys’ definition. Why resolution? Suspension of conflict? I suppose that harks back to your confrontational style of self edification: Confront, resolve, suspend conflict. I say “Work” to differentiate from “mother nature’s art” (and she is a spectacular artist – even employing her humans in her quest for beauty but I don’t count those efforts as ART – you could say that the intent is missing) and “well done” to allow for the infinite perceptions of others.

Peace

There were a few feminist artists in the 1970s who painted male nudes in the same manner we are used to seeing female nudes, passive & beckoning, these look disturbing to us because we are so unaccustomed to seeing men portrayed in this manner whereas we see passive naked women all the time.

From oblique (high view point), to “impish”.

…..after seeing the machinery, will the magic remain?

File under: machinery, magic, Avril Lavigne

Just to be sure, I looked up dilettante in the wiktionary (btw, first time user of the wiktionary.)

dilettante : A person who enjoys the arts.

Indeed I do !

Dilettante I am, because I am not interested in an overbearing knowledge of things.
For example,
I prefer not to be weighted down by the infinite substance of Spinoza, but to have it pass through me, like gravity.
Knowledge of the elephant in the room of Kurdistan is of no value to me, although I am certainly glad for the people of Kurdistan.

It is the process of learning new things – the context within which they are acquired, that matters most to me.

I’m sure Slavoj would agree, it is best not to be a slave to anything, with the exception of great discipline.

good point nother, I hadn’t thought about that

One of the precepts of modernism is to tear down and then rebuild.

On this thread I perhaps tear down (not really tear down, more likely jesting) psychoanalysis, but I offer to replace it with neurobiology.

Hope this helps.

Good question

My arts group is 65% women
65% of my arts group do nudies (as we call them)
100% of the nudies are female

Is any of this to be construed as narcissistic?

As an artist, you know artists tend to use what ever is readily accessible to them. Although difficult to find, female models are available.

That is the irony of analyzing art – sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar.

Fair enough, everyone defines himself or herself.

I think Slavoj was trying to say that a movie, from a man’s perspective, is defining men. The women in cinema are a device used to define a man.
Women are not intended to be real, but contra-man.

Slavoj might be saying feminism isn’t relevant to this type of movie because cinema isn’t trying to define women.

That could include a Toyota Camry or a grilled ribeye, no?

Joseph Beuys’ definition might apply: everything is art and everyone is an artist.

To define something is to exclude everything else – I don’t want to exclude any possibilities, that is why I hesitate.

But….what you are asking me to do is to lay-it-on-the-line as you do – good luck with this:

Visual art is, by way of an artist’s intent, the structure of space into a visual allegory: expression, resolution, or suspension of
conflict.

Would it constitute due diligence?

TIA

Handke’s The Piano is completely different from Noe’s Irreversible.

Laura Mulvey is outdated and even she has amended her views on women and cinema.

And to those who brought up Lacan, Lacan is Freud plus Structuralism, and for that reason (among others!) the words “desire” and “real” are very complicated in this context.

Also, wiki’ing a term, concept, or theorist does not constitute “research.”

Is that why, (to quote a Guerrilla Girls’ Poster), “less than 5% of the artists in the Modern Art section of the Metropolitan Museum are women, but 85% of the nudes are female. Do women have to get naked to get into the Met?”

I loved Grizzly Man by the way. Slavoj should see it.

I just have to say regarding the movie, Artemisia, you know the scene during the trial when she’s in the thumbscrews? In the movie she gazes longingly at Tassi and says, “I love only you”. I did a term paper on her and read the actual court transcript. She had a much better line. According to the court record she screamed “This is a fine substitute for the wedding ring you promised me!” Why anyone would change the perfect line (not to mention what she actually said) is beyond me. They turned her into a sap.

Why not willing? What have you got to lose? Give it your best shot – you call your work Art – what makes it so? I will remain missing for the most part as I unfortunately have been tasked with a Herculean project that is taking all my work time (8 hrs.) and unpaid overtime (2-3hrs/day) and my only computer is here at work so this is 1 of the few posts I can make. I can’t get involved in any meta-philosophical or hot button discussions as they take too much time and effort.

Peace