Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Retro]

So, in the majority of interested posters:
1) Art has intent.
2) Art comes from the human creative soul, imagination, or simple creative impulses. There is disagreement between those who advocate a spiritual human being and those who advocate a simple genetic computer: an animal human. However, art is human.
3) There is good art and bad art, but the quality itself doesn't determine whether something is "Art".

I agree to one degree or another with all of these. However, I would like to posit that art is and must always exist subjectively. Art to one will not always be art to another. Obvious as this seems, I would like to emphasize that this includes things widely considered to be art. I'll throw out the Mona Lisa as an example: Yes, it's extremely famous, but to me it's just a picture of a woman rendered in paint. I can appreciate its value, and its significance as art to others, but I wouldn't want to hang it up in my house. I don't really like that kind of thing, and so I can understand that it is art, and due to is fame and extremely widespread critical approval that it is a good example of what the general populace considers high-quality art... but it's not appreciable by me.

I also feel that a piece of art's meaning is equally subjective. If a person finds value in something even if the creator did not intend for there to be value in it, or to give off that specific vibe, that does not devalue the observer's feelings. Therefore there cannot be one single meaning to any work of art. Even a cave painting showing stick people killing another stick person, personal meaning is varied. One person could find the intended meaning, which would be the caveman artist saying to the world "Dude, we killed this guy." Another person might find the medium or the historical value the most meaningful part of it. Another person might not give a crap and attribute no meaning to it. The author's intent is only valuable if the individual observer decides it is.

I suppose all this is saying that to me, the value of any piece of art cannot be transferred from person to person, nor can its meaning, or even whether or not it should be considered art. To me, art is a personal experience, a one-on-one relationship between the art and the observer.

[The Architect]

OK, I hear you. And I'm not a fan of the Mona Lisa either from what I've seen in photographs.

Even a cave painting showing stick people killing another stick person, personal meaning is varied.

But this is what we call misconception. I think the personal significance of one piece of art to any person is unrelated practically speaking to the validity of their interpretation.

[eerr]

OK, I hear you. And I'm not a fan of the Mona Lisa either from what I've seen in photographs.

Even a cave painting showing stick people killing another stick person, personal meaning is varied.

But this is what we call misconception. I think the personal significance of one piece of art to any person is unrelated practically speaking to the validity of their interpretation.

you might not be a fan, but do you know why the mona lisa is famous?

[The Architect]

I always thought it was because of the puzzling facial expression and the mystery surrounding her identity.

[Soadreqm]

It was made by Leonardo of fucking Vinci, the most Renaissanced of the Renaissance men. Most things credited to him are famous, including the doodles on the margins of his notebooks.

And, looking at photos of it, it looks like a pretty good painting to me.

[The Architect]

It was made by Leonardo of fucking Vinci, the most Renaissanced of the Renaissance men. Most things credited to him are famous, including the doodles on the margins of his notebooks.

And, looking at photos of it, it looks like a pretty good painting to me.

Well to answer your last statement first: It's a Da Vinci, of course it's a good painting. And to answer your first statement: This painting is famous even by comparison to other works by Da Vinci. It used to be that there was controversy over her identity, but I think art historians have been quite certain of the painting's origin for some time now.

[eerr]

well I guess it was a probably a good picture overall, but the one thing people always talk about?

The eyes.
The eyes appear to look directly at you no matter where you stand.

This one little perspective trick is more famous than anything by Houdini.

[Soadreqm]

Don't eyes always appear to look directly at you? Because of the two-dimensional medium? Point them directly outward from the canvas, and you'll never escape their accusing stare.

[The Architect]

Don't eyes always appear to look directly at you? Because of the two-dimensional medium? Point them directly outward from the canvas, and you'll never escape their accusing stare.

Not exactly, but the trick is common to period paintings and is nothing unique to Mona Lisa nor Da Vinci. It's just an old painter's trick from the time period. The thing Mona Lisa is known for is her smile, not her eyes.