Little Paul - #
Is juggling art?
It's a question which I've always found hard to answer (other than "well, it's not really sport") because I've always had a great deal of difficulty articulating what I think "art" *is* - This morning, this program was on the radio and I was so engaged in it I missed the exit off the motorway.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03dsk4d/The_Reith_Lectures_Grayson_Perry_Playing_to_the_Gallery_2013_Beating_the_Bounds/
I think if you're in a country where you can listen to iPlayer - you should probably have a listen.
pumpkineater23 - - Parent #
If you express yourself through something then doesn't that make it art? So I don't see how anyone could say that juggling isn't art. I think the sport side of juggling is about 'the best way' to do something rather than an outlet for something personal.
I'll have a listen to the link tomorrow.
thegoheads - - Parent #
I never consider my hobbies to be art, at least not when I do them. Juggling, videography, guitar/drums/piano/singing, and music production are all just my hobbies. I don't express myself through them, I don't feel that they have any meaning or signifigance. It's just fun stuff to tinker with, so for me it's all pure hobbyism. If other people feel some sort of significance or self-expression through these same activities, and that's enough for them to classify it as art, then so be it :)
Anything can be art if the person responsible claims it is art. It only has to be art to one person, it doesn't matter how other people view it. The exception is if someone is only marking something as "art" to spark a "is this art" debate, which is in itself an art. Or is it?
-Steve
pumpkineater23 - - Parent #
Not many people like to say that they are an artist, it sounds pretentious for some reason and so they call it something else. Also I think that once 'the finger' is pointing at something and calling it art then it looses something, so it's best left unmentioned. I don't think I've ever heard a juggler call themselves an artist. But it's clear to see an awful lot more art in juggling than in many other art-forms.
Are you sure that you don't express yourself when you sing and play your guitar Steve? I think you do. And I think every transition you choose to link one juggling bit to the next goes towards building something unique and personal. You're bringing something into existence with your skills, isn't that something that an artist does?
pumpkineater23 - - Parent #
I'm currently holding the record on this thread for the post with the most amount of 'something's' in it. Six of em! Crikey!
pumpkineater23 - - Parent #
Thank you for the Wordle!
thegoheads - - Parent #
"Are you sure that you don't express yourself when you sing and play your guitar Steve?"
Sorta, sometimes, I guess. I do write some original music and wouldn't argue that a lot of people would consider that art, even though I don't. When I write songs they're usually instrumental because I never liked writing lyrics/poems. To me it's just patterns and rhythms that aren't special enough to stand out as art. I guess you said it best that I avoid labeling myself as an artist because it seems pretentious.
With my juggling, again, I wouldn't argue if someone called it art. I'd take it as a compliment, understanding that juggling is associated with performing which I feel has more room for artistry than juggling all by itself. But I don't personally consider my juggling or videos to be art. There is one exception, though. This video: https://youtu.be/rPSnL0xhNbI
I was in a rough patch in my life a few years ago, and bailed on a job that was stressing me out too much. The next day I made this video, specifically trying to capture that mood. When I was finished, I didn't hesitate to think to myself "this is art!" I set out to capture a mood and the whole project was driven by the desire to create something more than just a juggling video. All my other videos, just juggling videos, not art.
" I think every transition you choose to link one juggling bit to the next goes towards building something unique and personal. You're bringing something into existence with your skills, isn't that something that an artist does?"
Yes, and I wouldn't argue if someone called it art. After reading another reply in this thread though, I now think "craft" is a better word for what I do. Occasionally I like to practice what I can most easily describe as "artsy juggling" where I focus more on overall presentation of small routines (even though I don't perform, haha!) and fluid body movements to compliment the juggling. I'm not so great at it yet though...
Anyway, let's keep beating this dead horse! :)
-Steve
Little Paul - - Parent #
I *think* this link works for those outside the uk https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/reith/reith_20131022-0940a.mp3
It's well worth a listen, as it goes quite a long way towards answering the question of what is art - in an amusing, entertaining way - it's not dry at all.
I listened to this earlier today, it was a really good lecture & provided a lot to think about.
I think a lot more things are art than most people would consider. The problem being that people don't make the distinction between good art & bad art. If they like it it's art, if they don't it's not. This problem has increased with the rise of contemporary art. With a painting you can either like it or not, but it is still a painting. Whereas a lot of contemporary art is either art or a bit of rubbish found in a charity shop.
I've always been able to instinctively decide what I think is good art but I've never bothered to articulate what that is. This is a very worthwhile exercise & I think everyone should do it!
I hate the definition that art is whatever an artist calls art. This reduces art to being nothing more than someone else's whim. Art can be whatever thought pops into a possibly self proclaimed artist's head as the deadline for their next exhibition approaches. I think a lot of modern art is a big enactment of the emperor's new clothes story with the artists playing the part of the tailor. They tell people to look at this wonderful piece of art & a lot of people nod & agree because they don't want to appear foolish.
If you have to tell someone it's art, it's not. I'm sure a lot of artists would scoff at this opinion & picture me as someone who's idea of art is limited to paintings & sculpture. & they would be very wrong. Similarly if you have to tell people you are an artist, you are not. You become an artist when other people call you one.
I class a work of art as something unique that someone has put a lot of dedicated thought/practice/training to create. I prefer the full title of, "a work of art", which has unfortunately been reduced to "art" over the years & which for me is the wrong word. "Work" is the important part. I suppose this could fit in with the definition that says art is something of beauty that produces an emotional reaction because I find well directed hard work beautiful.
A good work of art shows the effort that has gone into producing it either by its presence or absence. So for me art needs to have some sort of skill or high level of thought behind it. I get that a lot of brainstorming goes into modern art to come up with the ideas but I don't class disappearing up your own arse as work.
I tend to see more works of art coming from industry than I do coming from artists.
A few things that I have classed as art recently:
The Kuhn Rikon auto safety lid lifter. Yes, a mass produced can opener. The first time I used one caused me to exclaim out loud, "Fucking hell that's amazing!". Very few artists have come close to inspiring that reaction from me. This simple can opener is one of the most fantastic pieces of design I have ever seen.
The Omega Institute.
Glen Weisgerber's handwriting. Wonderfully ornate, immaculate & flowing script. Just looking at it gives the feeling of years of practice. The video below reinforces that. He never pauses, he never takes time to line up the brush in the correct position before making a stroke. It's just straight in, this is my skill.
https://youtu.be/F4165Pp8uns
Swiss Cheese.
Mike Moore - - Parent #
Thank you for taking the time to think deeply on, and write out those ideas. There's one bit in particular I'm interested in:
> You become an artist when other people call you one.
I understand the dislike for the old "It is art because the artist said so" and "He is an artist because he says so". What do you think about the opposite?
For example, I've been called an artist for some of the juggling patterns I've come up with. Perhaps I feel unready for the responsibility I believe being an artist comes with, and I reject the idea. Am I an artist?
Mike
That's a very good question which I'm going to go away & think about (I miss Big talk), but I don't think I could answer without a bit of elaboration on what responsibilities you think an artist has.
Mike Moore - - Parent #
Oops, I didn't intend for that to be read into, I was more using it as a hypothetical excuse for me to not want to consider myself an artist. Since it's only partially hypothetical (it does somewhat reflect my feelings) I'll elaborate a bit at the risk of going off topic.
I feel like a juggling artist has a responsibility to his/her audience. Part of this, to me, is a differentiation between someone who has produced art and an artist. An artist, in my view, is someone who has, and expects to (and, to a certain extent, is expected to) continue to produce art. Similar to how I would differentiate between someone who has skied (me) and a skier (not me).
Second, I do not consider the patterns I do and/or create to be art. I sort through permutations, math things out, and try to approach patterns from different theoretical frameworks to see new connections and find different missing links. I see this as much more scientific than artistic, although I admit I don't think those are mutually exclusive.
I also don't intend to express any emotion, or elicit an emotional response from my audience. Even in my non-tutorial videos, I try to film things in a pedagogically useful order, or sometimes even add voiceovers and charts to explain my logic.
In summary, I suppose I'd say that I consider a juggling artist to be some way, and when people call me an artist I feel pressured to be that way. This may be them interpreting my juggling in a way I hadn't intended (which I'm sure is just as valid as a way I might've intended it) or we may have differing opinions about what an artist is/does.
While the patterns you have created are nice creations in themselves the thing I'd be most inclined to appreciate as artistry is your method. Your method requires methodical hard work & diligence. Not many people have the ability to do that.
I asked about what you think an artist's responsibilities are because I don't think an artist has any. Just because I appreciate something that you do that does not mean you are obligated to keep on doing it.
I bet you are like most people I know, you don't consider yourself attractive. But if someone tells you that they find you attractive that feels pretty good & you don't begrudge them their opinion. Why should it be different if they call you an artist?
Mike Moore - - Parent #
If someone calls me something, I (at least for a moment) feel that I should try to meet their expectations. That's true with both being an artist and being attractive (in the latter case, I may do some extra pushups/plankwork/squats that night to try to become more attractive). Being attractive is something I don't mind being. However, I don't want to be an artist (using my definition of an artist).
I think the central point of "artist" having differing definitions between people is key here, too. The people calling me an artist may feel like you, that an artist does not have responsibilities. I try not to begrudge anyone for their opinion (in this case I don't argue with them, because they can be right) but it does sometimes make me slightly uncomfortable. I feel weird asking asking someone what an artist means to them after they've called me one, but maybe that's a question that should be asked.
Little Paul - - Parent #
I believe I have the right to claim my own works as art when it suits me.
I also believe other people have no right to claim what I'm doing is art, if I disagree. To do so is to attribute intention where none exists.
That said, I'll take compliments where I can get them. Generally I try to take them graciously, even if they're flat out wrong (like all those people who have come up to me after shows and said how funny or entertaining I was when I know I bombed it)
I hate the definition that art is whatever an artist calls art. This reduces art to being nothing more than someone else's whim
I think it's much like the suggestion that you use female pronouns for anyone who tells you that they are a woman, whether or not they have an adam's apple and a five o'clock shadow or you have other idiosyncratic opinions of their gender presentation. The downsides for a whole community of not taking someone's word for it outweigh the possibility of being "fooled" by some theoretical imposter playing a joke by pretending to be female, or an artist.
There's always going to be art that you don't understand, whether it's art from a culture you're not part of or highbrow artist-in-joke art or art in a medium you're not familiar with. But I reckon it's worth it to take a flyer on it, to assume art unless proved otherwise, or at least to be comfortable with starting a discussion over how the artist sees it and what they were trying to say with it.
In conclusion, all my juggling is totally art, and my tea drinking is also art. YES.
I am female & I will be using the female showers at the next BJC.
Your talk of downsides paints it as assuming the worst in something. I see it as making an informed decision. Accepting something as art on the artist's say so is like voting for a political party because the party leader thinks it's a good idea. It may be, but personally I'll have a look at a few other angles first. I also don't think community comes into it at all. My & everyone else's personal concept of art shouldn't have any bearing on yours.
When judging art I don't think it matters what point you start from, either art or not art, as long as you judge it through your own personal filter for what it is & not accept what the artist or anyone else tells you to. I prefer to start from not art & change to art if & when I get the feeling of the work behind it because I'd rather look for the positive to elevate a work rather than look at a piece of art & see if I can rip it to shreds.
I think because of my process I see more art than most people (Know anyone else who gets excited by can openers?). I love the surprise of discovering that something mundane that I've perhaps used for years has a beauty that I hadn't noticed before.
I am female & I will be using the female showers at the next BJC.
see, this is what I'm getting at. This straw pretend-lady-in-the-bathrooms thing actively harms trans ladies who need to use bathroom facilities and don't want to use men's bathrooms for a variety of very good reasons, not least a serious risk of being assaulted themselves.
Similarly, the slim risk of feeling a fool when duped by someone making fake art as a joke doesn't (in my mind) make it worth dismissing art that you don't get without further examination. I don't say that you have any obligation to investigate it further, but I do think it's unfair to dismiss it if you're not prepared to learn about it.
Accepting something as art on the artist's say so is like voting for a political party because the party leader thinks it's a good idea
No, it's more like accepting that a political party believe they hold their views in good faith and that it's worth debating their arguments on merit. This, to me, seems like a reasonable default position in the absence of better information; rather than dismissing people as clowns without making any effort to understand the basis of their opinions.
Putting the diagnosis of "art" entirely in the eye of the beholder reduces the possibilities of art to only what is immediately understandable to a particular viewer, which (in the general case) is likely to have a sort of culturally narrowing effect, in that one is more likely to recognise as art that which has some surface familiarity.
Also, bedtime.
As the poet sang
She’s got everything she needs
She’s an artist, she don’t look back
It's good there are many sides to defining art and artists. It makes the question about juggling being art part of a larger discusson. For me juggling is a performing art. I came to it from theatre experience. Of course juggling is also a skill and we can do it without performing -- dance and music and the circus arts are similar.
I admit to being a juggler and willing to think of it as practicing an art. I have performed and I don't think of myself as an artist, although sometimes others have said I am. I still stumble, I know I have places to fall.
mike.armstrong - - Parent #
Putting the diagnosis of "art" entirely in the eye of the beholder reduces the possibilities of art to only what is immediately understandable to a particular viewer, which (in the general case) is likely to have a sort of culturally narrowing effect, in that one is more likely to recognise as art that which has some surface familiarity.
This.
Orin, I'd like to refer you back to your original point about "good" and "bad" art. In my opinion the artist chooses whether their work is art but the viewer then gets to make a quality judgement. One may decide that the artwork it's completely shit, but it's still art.
And I think you may be confusing art with, for want of a better word, "craft". The Kuhn tin opener is (probably, I've never used one) perfectly designed and realised but it is a piece of functional technology, not an artwork. It's intrinsically beuatiful and the fact that it's not art doesn't diminish it in anyway, but it wasn't made as art, so it isn't.
I thought long and had about this at one point and came up with the definition of "a deliberate action or a product that seeks a response (usually emotional) from an audience" - where the "deliberateness" includes the intention of making art and the "audience" can be anyone, including the artist alone.
Absolutely agree on the first paragraph. I've said all along that I believe I consider more things to be art than most people, partly because I'm open to accept work that even the creators don't call art as art.
I think it is very sad that an artist is praised for their dedication if they spend a year on a single piece of work. Yet a mere 'craftsman' who spends their entire lifetime perfecting their skills is not considered with the same prestige.
I don't think you can say I'm confused about terms. I know exactly what I think is art, just as I think you know exactly what you think is art. We just differ.
Right now, I consider the tin opener to be art. Let's assume that I am 'wrong'. Now imagine that an artist on the other side of the world who has never touched or even seen my tin opener calls it art. They don't do anything with it, they just declare it to be art. Was I right all along? Or was I still wrong but right now?
mike.armstrong - - Parent #
I think it is very sad that an artist is praised for their dedication if they spend a year on a single piece of work. Yet a mere 'craftsman' who spends their entire lifetime perfecting their skills is not considered with the same prestige.
I don't think that this justifies defining the craftsman's work as art - it's a sad indictment on the low value that society places on "craft".
Right now, I consider the tin opener to be art. Let's assume that I am 'wrong'. Now imagine that an artist on the other side of the world who has never touched or even seen my tin opener calls it art. They don't do anything with it, they just declare it to be art. Was I right all along? Or was I still wrong but right now?
By my definition they can't. A random artist on the other side of the world can't define it as art if they didn't make/design it. Even the creator of the tin opener had to deliberately set about creating a work of art for it to be considered one - a post hoc decision can't change that.
I'm AFK for a week now, but I'm genuinely interested in where this thread goes
I haven't read most of this thread, but where do you think it could possibly go? This debate has come up so many times before. Do you think we will somehow reach a definitive consensus about what art is and whether juggling is art? Both these terms are subjective.
Little Paul - - Parent #
Personally, I'm not expecting consensus - I am expecting the thoughtful debate to continue though!
Interesting how few people seem to have listed to the link I mentioned though...
I listened, thank you for posting the second link. A couple days ago I saw a pbs show about art and Paris starting about 1900 and ending with DuChamp. Thanks to your link I recognized his urinal and its importance in both stories. I was surprised by its British pronunciation, different from American.
Why can't they? There is a lot of art that uses objects that the artist did not create but they frame or arrange in some way. The arrangement is their creative input. Why can't the declaration be their creative input? Or perhaps the artist has thought about the merits of the object & then decided it is art. Why can't the deliberation process be the artist's creative input?
I think we'd both equate such notions to a man's genitals but if you unquestionably accept that art is whatever the artist says is art you allow for these possibilities.
"A random artist on the other side of the world can't define it as art if they didn't make/design it."
"Fountain".
Little Paul - - Parent #
I think "fountain" made a very interesting point, and it's especially emphasised by the first point in Grayson's checklist at the end of the lecture.
Context is *really* important.
Put something in an "art" context and it's more likely to be art than that same thing in a non-art context. Stick a urinal in a gallery and you can make a case for it being art. Leave it on the wall and it's just a urinal.
The infamous string danglers at Whitstable BJC are another example. That piece, performed in an "art" setting, absolutely nails its goals. Put it in an "entertainment" setting (like a BJC public show) and it fails.
Art, Entertainment, Craft, Design - they're all similar but different beasts. The main difference is context.
Orinocos can opener may be a masterpiece of design, it may be well built, it may provoke emotional responses every time he uses it - but it's not art, largely because it's not presented in an art context.
Also, I disagree about it being an awesome can opener. Mine broke after about 6 months of use, so I went back to the butterfly opener I've had since 1995. Now *that* is an amazing piece of design. Easy to use, robust, cheap, and it still works as well as it did when I bought it 18 years ago. Is it art? Hell no.
Why do you call it a straw argument? Are you telling me it has never happened? I know transgendered people are treated like freaks by society, I know they have a ridiculously high suicide rate because of this. I completely sympathise with their plight & I wish the world was fairer. But to deny that no-one can take advantage of what little tolerance there is is naive. I think building a society on the pretense that something bad doesn't or can't happen is a disaster in waiting.
This is where I think your comparison doesn't fit the argument about judging art. Judging transgenders incorrectly has the potential for people to get hurt on both sides. The risks of hurting people while judging art is considerably less.
I don't accept your alteration of my political analogy, if you are debating the merits you haven't accepted the artist's or politicians say so.
I agree that it is reasonable not to dismiss someone without investigation. I think it is also reasonable to not accept someone as a genius without making any effort to understand their opinion too.
If the diagnosis is put in the eye of the creator then there is an equal cultural narrowing effect because we would all have to think the same as the artist. Saying that people will only recognise art that is familiar to them is very dismissive. I think people are smarter than that.
I think building a society on the pretense that something bad doesn't or can't happen is a disaster in waiting.
Accepting people's identity and expression and experience at face value by default is, to my mind, absolutely key to a tolerant and inclusive society, to the extent that it justifies taking risks which are, to my knowledge, entirely hypothetical (in the case of bathrooms) and utterly trivial (in the case of joke art).
if you are debating the merits you haven't accepted the artist's or politicians say so
You have accepted that they exist and they have a view on the world which is formed through the lens of their legitimate experience. I don't say that you must agree with the politician any more than that you must like the art.
If the diagnosis is put in the eye of the creator [...] we would all have to think the same as the artist
Are you saying that if something is art, viewers are ergo required to think the same as the artist? That seems odd to me but I can't think what else you might mean.
Saying that people will only recognise art that is familiar to them is very dismissive. I think people are smarter than that.
You seem to be suggesting that there are circumstances under which I might present to you something I have made, which I feel is art, but which you think is not. What would cause you to disagree, other than that this thing is not familiar to you as being similar to other things that you see as art?
I objected to you instantly dismissing my (admittedly pithy & with no real substance but still) argument as a strawman because that is wrong & frankly lazy. There was a case earlier this year in South Wales where a man convinced a woman he was a transgender, she promised to support him during his change, she was invited back to his place to look at his collection of outfits where he raped her.
The point you should have made is that the prevalence of these cases is tiny & *absolutely dwarfed* by the prevalence of attacks on transgenders (which I believe is in turn dwarfed by cases of harassment on non-transgenders by non-transgenders). I'm specifically referring to males who identify as females here but I think the risk of a pervert pretending to be a transgender to access a female changing room to commit a crime is an acceptable risk when weighed against the risk of a transgender being attacked if they have to use male facilities[1].
I would prefer a society where people are educated about risks involved more than a society that unquestioningly accepts things at face value.
I think we are muddying the political analogy with too many words. Think of it simply:
A says that B is C.Larry Grayson Perry suggested that a work (B) is art (C) if an artist (A) says so. I'm saying that you shouldn't automatically accept that B is C.
You are saying I should accept that A thinks B is C. At no point have I said that I don't, at no point in the lecture did Grayson mention this, he just said that I should accept B is C.Are you saying that if something is art, viewers are ergo required to think the same as the artist? That seems odd to me but I can't think what else you might mean.
If the item in question has already been declared to be art by someone else then yes you are expecting the viewer to think as the artist. I don't see the highlighted part as a fact. I do not accept that if an artist thinks something is art then the viewer can't think that it is not. & vice versa, just because you lot don't think my tin opener is art doesn't mean that I can't think that it is.You seem to be suggesting that there are circumstances under which I might present to you something I have made, which I feel is art, but which you think is not. What would cause you to disagree
I would disagree if I could not see any sign of work or thought applied to produce something amazing.other than that this thing is not familiar to you as being similar to other things that you see as art?
This does not apply. What precisely have I said for you to make that judgement?
[1] Interestingly I usually get laid into by women for thinking this because being a bloke what right do I have to choose? I'm not the one who has to share the bathroom. & they are right, I'm not at risk so I possibly don't have the right to choose, but I do have the right to think.
Little Paul - - Parent #
Larry Grayson suggested you "shut that door"
https://youtu.be/W9Hrygq7prI
What precisely have I said for you to make that judgement?
Like I said, I'm literally unable to think of any other possible grounds to decide that my hypothetical claimed art is not art.
if I could not see any sign of work or thought applied to produce something amazing
To me this is the same as what I said. You call it "see" and I call it "recognise", is that different?
In my mind, saying "This is art", is similar to saying "I'm trying to communicate here", and sure you can reply "Well I don't understand your communication" or "Your communication is poor and your skills are limited" or "Your subject matter seems facile" or "Sorry, it sounds like noise to me" but it's hard to see how one can justify saying "No, you are not trying to communicate".
No there is no difference. I think you are assuming that I wouldn't recognise your input. Thank you for the vote of confidence! :P If you call something art, I think it would be highly likely that I'd agree.
Your entire original point, as far as I understood it, was there are circumstances in which a person might say that they have made art, where you would wish to reserve the right to decide that they have not.
This is the circumstance that I am discussing.
If you're suggesting that the artist's assertion (that their stuff is art) is good evidence that the thing in question is probably art, then we're in violent agreement and can probably stop arguing on the internet and go post pictures of cats or something.
There seems to be quite enough arguing on the internet at the moment for my taste so I'm going to knock it off in any case.
If you have not been suggesting that the artist's say so is enough qualification for something to be art then I have clearly misunderstood everything & I shall stop too!
I've stopped, so you'll never know. Stopping arguing on the internet is remarkably difficult! I need a biscuit.
Little Paul - - Parent #
Hobnobs are over rated, and the best biscuit in the world is the rich tea
mike.armstrong - - Parent #
Best for what? Absorbing excess moisture? Lining the roof of your mouth?
Little Paul - - Parent #
I think the "Flavour per unit currency" and dunkability of the Rich Tea vastly outweighs most other biscuits.
Especially Jammy Dodgers, which promise so much and deliver so little.
I feel that it's especially mean of you to engage in deliberate biscuit trolling remarks at this point. :-P
Little Paul - - Parent #
Somehow seems rather appropriate to have gone from Grayson Perry to gender politics.
Also, autocorrect tried to insist I meant "Jason Perry" which amused me greatly.
Little Paul - - Parent #
I'm not sure which of them is more elegant. Skip to 3:40
http://juggling.tv/1828
In Jay Gilligan's book "5 Catches", there is a great chapter entitled "Correct Me If I'm Wrong?" which I think fantastically explains (or at least makes you think about it, in a way you may have not before) the meaning of juggling, and its use as an art form.
It's too long to copy here, but I would suggest the book to everyone anyway, it's a great read.
Little Paul - - Parent #
How have I never heard of this book before?
*adds https://www.blurb.co.uk/b/3932394-5-catches to his shopping list*
And some other "special edition" options here, if you've got the extra cash...
https://www.fourthshape.com/index.php?/show/5catches/
Robotic juggle - - Parent #
Juggling i would say CAN be an art. art is expressing yourself and every juggler has there own style a way of linking move to move if it can be performed it can be an art and its also a sport if PING PONG is a sport juggling is
Subscribe to this forum via RSS
1 article per branch
1 article per post