K says: I can't sleep. I went through a few of my relatively calming CDs but nothing works.
HX says: Because you listen to crap
K says: The other day I was thinking about indie people. Many of them think that pop is crap. There are three possible explanations: 1.) they don't like them for personal reasons. 2.) They are “incapable” of understanding the good in pop. 3.) Pop really is crap.
HX says: There is no art in pop. Art being something more than the creation of art... Does that make sense?
K says: Yes and no because what defines art is us so there really isn't a universal definition to what art is.
HX says: I hate this “defining” art thing. There are some definitions and most agree that art is created by artists and an artist is not always an entertainer.
K says: Isn’t art something that the artist felt something about? Meaning that, any artistic object made by an artist is art for whatever the reasons the artist saw.
HX says: An artist is someone that sees the direction of the world and the potential hazards and through art expresses it.
K says: Yeah, that's one aspect of it. If you sum up “artist” by that, you are excluding every photographer. In nature photography, there are no potential hazards.
HX says: No, no it is the aspect. You can show things with photos other than an object. Well, I don’t know how artistic national geographic is but not very in my opinion.
K says: So, you are saying that what people think is artistic just isn't because someone else has defined art in a different way. I think that contradicts the principle of art.
HX says: No, you didn’t catch what I was saying. Art is created by artists and artists express through art what they see of the world.
K says: Right, therefore, in my opinion, whatever they feel is art becomes art.
HX says:
You’re slashing in the right direction but I think you’re trying to hit something else. A lot of pop is not art due to the fact that it is basically manufactured to sell and any meaning in it becomes second or third in line.
K says: I think that's just an opinion of artists who refuse to make something that echoes with the majority.
HX says: That’s the opinion of some of the best and historical artists. And the people that fall out of that zone are trying to put themselves in so as to feel better about who they are.
K says: So, rock is not an art?
HX says: Music is an art.
K says: But pops isn't?
HX says: The reasons why pop is created negates its artistic potential.
K says: So, what's the artistic potential of nature photography, or product photography?
HX says: Product photos, I can’t image there being any potential. Nature photos can be taken with a purposeful message or it can be taken to sell to people because it looks pretty.
K says: And therefore they are not an art? But the nature drawing in oil or watercolor is?
HX says: That’s a grey area, in my opinion, some of that crap is just an image with a price tag but some can have an emotion.
K says: Exactly, now just think about who makes the decision about if the drawing or picture is art?
HX says: There’s nothing to think about or consider. It’s a personal decision and sometimes an economical decision. I’m say what most artists consider art and that may be the purest thing as something can only be judged by its peers. Art as a general principle rarely reflects current pop culture but more often shows ideas of what is coming or may come or could occur.
K says: Right, but you have to realize that pretty much all the pop music WAS very indie to begin with. hip hop, emo, brit rock.
HX says: You’re thinking in terms of progression and hierarchy, it doesn’t work like that.
K says: Well, you are over-generalizing that "all pop culture" is not an art in its entirety.
HX says: I’m saying pop entertainment being created because it’s popular is not art. Which touches on the roots of indie.
K says: That does not mean that what was created for that purpose “is not” artistic at all.
HX says: Yes it does
K says: So, why do people think it's great?
HX says: I’m not saying that it’s not technically well produced or of poor quality. I’m saying it’s not art. Two different things.
K says: It’s a different kind of art, in a different room.
HX says: See, I separate technical ability from the "spirit" of the work. The intention is almost what dictates if its art or not.
K says: So, you know that none of the pop music artists has spirit.
HX says: I had spirit in quotes because I didn’t know what other word to use. I’m sure Jessica Simpson is into her music but I would never consider her art.
K says: Well, I’d hesitate to call her an artist that's sure. She just sings. Although, there is an art involved in the way she sings.
HX says: She is technically proficient as a singer.
K says: The logic would be; singing is artistic, therefore singer equals artist. So, she calls herself an artist.
HX says: Singing isn’t artistic. Lyrics can be.
K says: Oh, bull shit
HX says: Singing is an instrument.
K says: Voice is the oldest and purest musical instrument of all.
HX says: So, is a guitar an artist?
K says: Singing is a way to utilize and express your voice.
HX says: I’m saying singing is the same as playing a guitar. But, not all guitar players are artists. A person can know how to play guitar but not be an artist.
K says: By some people's definition, that's true. They can certainly express what they play that's why I hesitate to call all of them "artist" but they are, indeed, artist in a different level in a different room.
HX says: I’d say more that a group or band as a unit is art.
K says: What they create is art. The sound they create. The expression they use.
HX says: But, if it has no intent then they might as well be a robot. A robot can play guitar.
K says: They follow a protocol. I know you play guitar too.
HX says: I wouldn’t say me playing guitar is art.
K says: But, you can certainly try to express a note by...bending...sliding...vibrato...or whatever.
HX says: I have no intent when I play guitar... this is hard to explain. I can hit my guitar against the wall and that would be an expression, it would even make noise.
K says: Now, the question is, do you think there is any artist in the whole world who might think that what you do with the guitar is artistic? There might be, right?
HX says: Well, here is the real question. If I randomly stand up and smash my guitar is that art? Or if I smash my guitar in a fit of rage? Or if I smash it in frustration to the world?
K says: Some people have called it art. Some people call it a bad example for kids.
HX says: Art is something that has meaning.
K says: Art is not an objective topic, unlike hard science.
HX says: I pissed in a bottle when I was a kid but if I pissed in a bottle to show my frustration with bottled water, that is art.
K says: Could be. There are million people who think a woman pissing is great.
HX says: Every so often I strum my guitar but if I strum it with intent that could be art but the intention has to be of a certain order.
K says: Why certain order? Art has no boundary or limit.
HX says: That’s what you want to see but in that case everything is art if I point and say it is art. That only diminishes the idea of art. There has to be a limit, a boundary.
K says: Art is derived from nature; now that doesn't mean landscape or anything. I mean anything that belongs to nature. I think pi could be art, pure randomness. The original random number, endless, beautiful.
HX says: Any random number is art.
K says: Could be.
HX says: I was being sarcastic about random numbers. Pi is only known to us because some math guy couldn’t figure out an equation. If I roll a dice, the number that comes up isn’t art. It’s just a number. There’s no meaning behind a random number. That’s why it’s random.
K says: And the reason why it cannot be artistic to anybody is?
HX says: You can find meaning in random numbers but it’s up to an artist to express that meaning
K says: Or a viewer. You see a sunset, you think it's beautiful and artistic, but some others think it’s not.
HX says: Art is an expression to others, internal thought isn’t the same.
K says: Art is also an impression by viewers, external thought isn't always the same as the impression of the viewer.
HX says: I don’t agree. A viewer can see something beautiful but its not art its just beautiful.
K says: So, what I think is artistic is never artistic?
HX says: Art is a human creation that is expressed to others.
K says: Remember, the artistic product is produced by an artist because he saw an artistic vision in it and that's only his/her definition.
HX says: The artist is the medium between thought and expression.
K says: There are infinite definitions. Whether I think one picture brings me cold or warmth is irrelevant. Do I have to feel cold because the artist thought it was cold?
HX says: The impression is always up to the viewer but if you don’t get what the artist wanted you to see then they failed.
K says: I disagree. Some people will just never get the artistic value in some art.
HX says: I think I understand what you’re getting at. You’re trying to apply artistry to the viewer or the experience.
K says: In a way, yes.
HX says: This is something I think I get upset about. Watching a person stand in front of a painting and jabber on seeming to be intelligent and thoughtful, thinking they’re artistic. Experiencing art is not art, it’s thought and a viewer can be more thoughtful then others but that’s it.
K says: Now, you are getting the wrong idea. I meant to say, just like an artist can think something is artistic when he/she sees something a viewer can do exactly the same thing. Meaning, viewers and artists share the basic role of determining what is artistic to them. Whether they agree or not depends.
HX says: I disagree with the first part, an artist can’t point and say, "art" and by magic its art.
K says: Oh yah?  Somebody paints whatever and calls it a modern art? I point at Mount Fuji and call it art?
HX says: You see a sunrise, how will you express to me what you've seen, that is art, even if you are bad at expressing it.
K says: A sunrise is a great art of nature.
HX says: Nature can’t create art; a viewer can think something natural worthwhile to express and then express it as art
K says: Art came from nature.
HX says: Art came from man viewing nature.
K says: Where do you think we first got the idea for color coordination?
HX says: Again, nature to man, man to expression. Man is always the intermediary.
K says: That does not have direct relationship to your opinion on “nature cannot be art".
HX says: Yes it does, because nature is nature it doesn’t create art, man sees a part of nature and desires to express it, that expression is art. It is kind of like a tree falls in the forest will anyone hear it. If man wasn’t here to see nature there would be no art.
K says: If nature cannot be art whatever I see outside is never art? What I see is an image that is reflected in my eyes? This is exactly the same thing as what goes on when i see a drawing.
HX says: Yes, art is only an expression of what man experiences, granted what man experiences is nature man must still express what he's seen in order to create art.
K says: Except, when I see a drawing I’m looking at someone else's interpretation.  When I see the original sunset, there is everything.
HX says: The image in a photo isn’t the same as the image in real life. You are seeing what the artist wants you to see, what they saw.
K says: That’s right and that does not make a rule to say that “nature cannot be art”.
HX says: You’re reading my words wrong. A tree in a photo or drawing can be art, me looking at the tree with my own two eyes; the tree then isn’t art.
K says: And the reason for that is?
HX says: Because art is the expression of what man experiences, until I express what I saw when I looked at the tree, the tree is still only a tree.
K says: Man is nature.
HX says: That’s another argument and theological discussion.
K says: There are two parts in nature, expression and impression. You are talking only in expression.
HX says: Yes, expression equals art.
K says: You are ignoring the impression all together.
HX says: Because impression isn’t art. Impression is thought
K says: No, what you receive from looking at artistic thing.
HX says: That’s thought. Art is only an expression of man.
K says: Art is created from man's impressions of nature.
HX says: Yes, but they are separate things, you can have impression of art but that impression isn’t art. You can have an impression and express it to make art. If you have an impression and never express it then you have not created art.
K says: It sounds like nature is producing and expressing art everyday but doesn’t have a customer or viewer everywhere.
HX says: But nature is not man.
K says: Man equals nature.
HX says: Only man can create art because man is self aware and is given to interpretation.
K says: Modern landscape is created by man; modern sky color is a result of man's industrial advancement.
HX says: If I pointed at a tree and said that’s art, I didn’t create art, I pointed at a tree. If I pointed at a bottle and said that’s art its not. It ties into man is part of nature. What man makes is part of nature but nature is not man.
K says: You yourself didn't create art, nature did, and you claim it to be art.
HX says: No you still don’t get it. Pure and simple, only man can create art. Only. Art is the human interpretation and expression.
K says: What I’m saying is, whatever you experience could be artistic.
HX says: What I’m saying is that it’s not art until it has been run through the human brain and back out again. Things can inspire art but they aren’t art. Things can inspire thought but aren’t art.
K says: And the definition of art is made by man?
HX says: Yes.
K says: So, there is a limit to art? How boring.
HX says: Actually, quite the opposite. If everything felt like sex wouldn’t sex be boring?
K says: I’d rather do science.
HX says: Science is limited too
K says: How do you know?
HX says: Because science is only the expression of what man is capable of understanding and we don’t understand much.
K says: Science is what we have understood and theorized so far, and what we might understand in the future. There has been no one who has set the limit to what we can understand.
HX says: I believe that man is incapable of understanding certain things. As we know man today, man is limited in its understanding.
K says: We’re advancing slowly.
HX says: And who knows how long the human race will survive. We could kill ourselves before the next leap in evolution.
K says: We could. I don't see an end, that's what interests me. Limiting is the stupidest thing, in my opinion.
HX says: But art and science are limited by the same things. Mans ability to perceive. I think art and science share several connections, one influencing the other.
K says: True. When it comes to science, we just can't see what's out there.
HX says: So, it goes to reason that a leap in science could expand art.
K says: True to expansion.
HX says: And if you think science isn’t limited then art may not be either.
K says: It’s a hypothesis
HX says: Here’s a riddle for you. What is this conversation if I were to say that it has inspired me to write a book and put it in it?