The Questionnaire began: Can we demystify the arts to decipher actual values or meanings of art in our culture? It offered a definition of art as:  methods, languages or devices that process, transfer and store meaningful cultural information, identifying art as some sort of significant experience, communication and record, or memory.
 
 
1. Roy J.
2. --18@
3. Karen W. @
4. Colin B. @
5. Matt H.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
SUMMATIONS
Q1: ^ a useful def? Yes Yes Is art defined? Tires- if you have to define it, it is no longer art. "Useful" unnerves me because I do useful stuff all day to earn a living. With art I try to transcend. I guess you could say I "use" art that way. y Yes I suppose the above touches on definition, but qualify that term meaningful... Art as information system is not totally rejected. Q 1. Is this  ^ a useful definition for art?
Q2: a useful def? >> Art for Art's Sake Spirit, a touch of higher power, perhaps also a pull from the primal below. practice, desire, practice, desire Makes you feel lifted. For me, spirituality is in art. Transcendence. It's a feeling I get sometimes, like a lump in my throat, but down in the gut. Where poetry is the synthesis of sound painting is the synthesis of color. "useful definition" is meaningful or reciprocal communication evolving shared understanding. Art inspires, shocks, pleases, horrifies or otherwise evokes emotion from creator to audience. no A object (visual) that brings beauty to the creator. Beautiful, creative, amazing, fantastic, funny, surprising, wonderful, lovely, neat, anger, unlike and much more! Communication - Self- portraiture, a depiction of one's view of the world and one's measure of the human condition, through the artists' eye. A lot about "transcendence"
Some about art being primarily for the artist.
A bit on communication.
Q 2.  What is a useful definition for art? Or, what should art be?
Q3: Art is valid if... a, b, c, other? All of the Above 
& much more
all of the above b. d. same as above. b., c., d., Well, if it speaks that hard-to-define feeling of transcendence Art opens the cutting edge of human aspiration. y, y, y - causes revelation -as in understanding or enlightenment. Something bored people do to occupy themselves with. = Thought
2-= Soul
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not Art
a. Perhaps all of the above, "All real art is self- portraiture," if not direct then oblique... Most want an inclusive definition for art. A few feel strongly that art must be this or not be that. Q 3.  Art is valid if it, a. offers a visual pleasure or aesthetic satisfaction? b. stimulates interesting experience, emotions or thoughts in an audience? c. produces a disturbance, agitation or commentary on society, establishment or authority? d. other? [add your criteria of validity]
Q4: Conforming... Creativity is Limitless/ boundless. Your art reflects your mirror image. No, art must be from the authentic. Conformity is choking the soul. n, true art isn't standard maybe just recognized sometimes It depends on whether that serves what the artist is trying to express. Potentially art can open doors of perception & always expresses the tech. expertise of doer. "Decor" as in "art" to suit the surroundings (interior decorating) Art has nothing to do with validity. yes It is art and so is it if you can not tell what is even a scribble could be worth so much! Its okay to, "break the rules," -if one doesn't go so far out of the box as only to be talking to ones self... (abstract expressionism is wallpaper) Mostly people do not desire art to conform but some go on to add exceptions or guidelines. Q 4. Is painting, or art arrangement of any sort, served by conforming to an acceptable standard of aesthetics? Why or why not?
Q5: Is agitation significant? No. "Art is Art" Yes, shake it up, the truth rattles out.... no, why verbalize Yes. I guess there is some kind of release of thought when we momentarily see things in a different way. The main function of art is to make a cultural statement whatever that may be. Y. Anything is "significant" when it agitates McVeigh (of Oklahoma bombing) is significant if horrific. no yes & no: Relationships & Surprise The function of art is not to Agitate -any "object" that is considered art has no other reason but to be a pleasure to the creator. Yes, it does because we are not used to those changes! It is difficult in our time to jar the system to the point of shocking the public. Sexual and religious mores under scrutiny or satirized can raise a fuss -but the final measure is: does it enhance or detract from the message? A full range on agitation, from yes and  no to sometimes. Q 5. Is the function of art more significant if it agitates assumptions of how we are supposed to see, think and feel? 
Why or why not?
Q6: Can art communicate? Yes. Broadens Mental Boundaries Color, shape, action speak to intuition. Of course, but I don't know how. Yes. But on a higher non verbal level. Ah: That's where I have to say something potentially scandalous: People add the other half of the equation by interpreting art however they like. We might not like it, but I don't think we can & should change it. Yes but only to the extent that painting connects w/an experience/emotion of the beholder. If I am awed by a Glacier, say, and tell you about it, you can only relate to my words if you've experienced a Glacier. no Yes & no: Political/ Physical Why should it even try to communicate to other. The thought of needing to communicate thru any form other than speech is not an art. It could be but maybe in a different way than the painter intended. Like if you see just some lines that are dark colors it might mean bad, evil, to one person while it might mean a striped shirt on a happy boy to another. Communication to others, to be valid and hold integrity needs some meaningful point of reference... Some say yes to communication. Some qualify that meanings are subjective. One no, never, never. One why should it. Q 6. Can objects of paint transmit or communicate meaningful information to others? How?
Q7: rearrange the way we see Yes Yes, puzzle it apart and together sometimes Yes By all means... The display of art, in and of itself an art... as are all things done mindfully in life. no certainly! I don't get the question- any variable juxtaposition wouldn't depart or enhance... Mostly using a device to rearrange the way we see and consider things is appreciated or at least acceptable. Q 7. Is it meaningful or artful to reassemble the way paintings are exhibited to rearrange the way we see and consider paintings as art?
Q8: Meaning in art? 1970's British Pop Title "Art for Art's Sake." Yes, to unify us in beauty and mystery. Cultural, yes- a kind of record of our (peoples) ideas of this time. It is part of who we are and explain it personally + differently Um. You have to do something using the culture in which you find yourself. Communication, by definition, is a cultural endeavor. Lascaux cave paintings... There were, it surely would seem, created for cultural reasons and significantly so. none of this is meaningful of Course: art leads civilization Meaningful to you may totally be opposite to others, it does not matter as long as the paintings are beautiful to you. For some people yes and some no. Tell you what - it's only subjective - its only "pictorial masturbation" for the artist... I'll leave summarizing this one up to the reader. Q 8. Is there a meaningful cultural reason for my paintings, or any paintings, to exist? If so, what might the meaning or reason be?
EXTRA or ID... Thank you, very provocative and inspiring!  left his phone # IMMO-  Please be gentle MH@ no Almost half who took the time to write identified themselves. In the guest book format there were more signatures. If you would like to identify yourself or hear about the results from this survey enter your contact information. 
My Response. 

If the authors of these comments would like to write I can add to this document.

Not a lot to respond to. "Art for art's sake," seems to be the main sentiment. And, of course, that leaves definitions to the artist. Your Welcome.

Intuition?

Yes, kind of a record. Having to define is different from messing around with definitions.

Elevated to what?
Merging with the universe? Isn't that what death is for?

I wonder why you think subjectivity is scandalous? Could my experience of  Glacier  hinder as well as assist my understanding your glacier story?
If I never knew a glacier but knew something else could I understand?
Why did you come to a gallery?
Why did you pick up a pencil?
Why does it frighten you to identify yourself? Yes, people have different ways of seeing and interpreting. And I find it quite interesting how strongly you feel that art must be a pleasure to the artist, and must only be this. This person wrote about 4 pages, mostly about himself. He threw in a couple newspaper clips, [does he carry them around or did he come back?] He is a sculptor and claims to feel strongly... He did not have the guts to identify himself. He claims to have a built in shock-proof shit detector. But really, after reading his text, it is a lot of BS. But heartfelt BS. I do appreciate that this "artist" was so motivated to contribute his shit. I wonder if he stole the amethyst?


Cameras: <A> <B> <C> <D> < > <H> <S>
Questionnaire
Log Books
Data Box

. - : 02 : - . : 01 : - . : 00 : - . : 86-99 : - . : 94-95 : - . : 93-94 : - . : 92 : - . : 89-91 : - . : 84 : - . : other : - .
. . . . . . - : : : - . Main . - : : : - . . . . . . . . . - : Show Thing : - : 8e : - : Work by Dat a : - . . . . .