Comments on: Does context make Art?

By: sido

sido — Mon, 25 May 2009 12:47:27 +0000

Je pense que beaucoup de personne ne regardent pas et n'entendent pas en toutes circonstance.

ils sont emprisonnés dans leur routine et alors leurs yeux ne voient pas , et leurs oreilles n'entendent pas

ils se donnent un moment précis pour ouvrir leurs yeux (cinéma) ou pour écouter ( concert , théâtre ) ; mais ne sont pas ouvert au monde comme avant : ils ont perdu le contact avec leurs sens et avec les richesses du monde qui les entoure

trop de matérialisme , d'égoisme , d'individualité coupent le lien avec la nature , l'homme et le monde

le rendez-vous "du congrès économique " de janvier 2009 doit prendre en compte l'individu en tant que personne et non en tant qu'une entité de travail , de production de richesse ( trop de richesse tue la richesse Paulo )

sorry my translator is out

By: Budoor

Budoor — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 03:15:35 +0000

This is for Paul from Austria

A couple of years ago I took this picture of a single fall leaf in the rain. I thought that you could appreciate it. Here’s the link:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/272573292_80347ddb45_o.jpg

oh and I believe that art is just simply that, a portrayal of everyday circumstances only, an artist was able to convey the beauty of it through his eyes.

By: Lewis

Lewis — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:59:19 +0000

I think what was astonishing was how all those people that walked by Joshua Bell without even a care of what happened. I think it’s because, just as the Gene Weingarten, the journalist who wrote that article, said, people are too preoccupied and closed up to their surroundings. It’s just like praying, people can usually pray really personally to God when they’re in church, but at home, they don’t bother to take the time and open up to pray, because they are always preoccupied and never prepare themselves as they would in church.

On the other hand, what was even more amazing, and even though people often took it for granted, was that seven people actually stopped and listened to Joshua Bell, being deeply moved by his music. I think for each of the seven people who did that, they touched art, and even if it is only for three minutes, it’s an amazing thing. And it was too for Joshua Bell, I think. This was what he said, ” At a music hall, I’ll get upset if someone coughs or if someone’s cellphone goes off. But here, my expectations quickly diminished.I started to appreciate any acknowledgment, even a slight glance up. I was oddly grateful when someone threw in a dollar instead of change.”

And lastly, I realize that I can be just as creative as any of the great artists. Everything around me is a creative process, and if I am open to it - wham! I don’t want to miss a single second of life again.

By: Zink.Floyd

Zink.Floyd — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:33:52 +0000

The way i see it, the context of the art is of neutral importance.
I’d clarify further by explaining that art (a painting in this example) can be given credit for the liveliness of its colors, but if your switch these colors yet keep the colors in strict proportions so that the image can be absorbed in the same manner, then the context would not be as important.

Art is meant for the heart and soul before the brain.

By: Liisa

Liisa — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:19:05 +0000

What an interesting story, thanks for sharing.

Last year in uni we read the essay “Context as a determinant of photographic meaning” by J. A. Walker. He points out how eg. a wedding photograph can be represented in a family album, in a news paper, in the window of a photography studio, in a gallery, in an archive, etc… and how the meaning changes with each change of context. Context does not make art, but it gives it a meaning.

In the case of Joshua Bell busking in the metro station, people who could put the music in some sort of personal context, ie. could relate to it, also paid attention to it. But then so many people (adults) are distracted most of the day, so they (we) are incapable of paying attention to the exact moment that’s going on.

I agree with what many have said here, art is everywhere, if only we are open to see it.