Print

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

[piecewise]

Training an animal to mimic something or programming a robot to play a piece composed by a human being (or simply to play notes selected by mathematical algorithm) are not examples of art, nor do they really have any reflection on it. I think you should understand this without an explanation, but if you need one then read my last post.

You're saying mathematical algorithms are not art? I beg to differ

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Well, I've seen several people say something along the lines of the idea (popular with academics in school studies, but otherwise nonsense I'm afraid) that something is art based on the discussion around it or that it provokes.

That's illogical, and I don't believe it is hard to explain what I mean. I think you'll all agree. Regardless of how artistic a discussion can be, that no more changes the nature of the thing discussed than imposing your own emotions on a pet gives that pet the capability for higher thought. It's a subjective way of viewing, and anyone can see after contemplation that the thing observed is not changed by being observed. Only your perception of it changes.

And, after all, how we look at a thing doesn't change its actual nature. It just changes our perception of its nature. And if we're simply imposing an incorrect meaning or purpose on something, we're the ones wrong. The thing has not become what we imagine it to be. Whatever significance it may have in our minds does not change its actual nature or purpose; that's backwards.

I would ask all persons having received a higher education to consider this. It's done in literature classes, in art classes, and many other instances. It is an academic exercise, and as an academic exercise then yes, what is important really is what you see in it and not its actual meaning. But that doesn't change the fact that literature and art can and always do have intent, purpose, and thought processes behind them, whether they are products of the author's conscious impulses or not. Whatever point of view you may impose on something never changes its actual nature.

For a final, compelling example in case this is too difficult for people who have incorrectly absorbed the opposite point of view from improperly explained and regulated education or simply ignorant teachers (excuse the run-on): Becoming infatuated with someone may cause you to see them as the perfect epitome of everything good in mankind, but it doesn't change what they actually are. As you will soon learn if you're infatuated with someone.

you got it all wrong, the discussion doesn't make it more artistic or a better piece of art, it just makes it more interesting because of the enigma and discussion it provoked. also, you people all have a very romantic sense of art. art can be crappy and uninteresting and still be art; nature can be beautifull and fascinating, and that's not art, the term art in it's origins refered to something handmade, made by an artisan, or artist, that in the original meanings of the words were synonym. people separated art and craft and said art was "nobler", then someone said that "art was anything" and he was right. nowadays, art is a form of philosophy, and nowadays, true fine art cares very little to what appeals to your soul or aesthetic sense, it cares for what odd thoughts it startles in you, for how it makes you rethink yourself, art itself, your culture, or the universe!

[piecewise]

The actual definition of art is "something someone does using creative or imaginative skills"

[The Architect]

Training an animal to mimic something or programming a robot to play a piece composed by a human being (or simply to play notes selected by mathematical algorithm) are not examples of art, nor do they really have any reflection on it. I think you should understand this without an explanation, but if you need one then read my last post.

You're saying mathematical algorithms are not art? I beg to differ

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Man, Piecewise, you're failing to follow basic logic somewhere along your line of reasoning. You didn't understand what I said nor did you make sense yourself. Ok, that's not polite. I'll start over:

Mathematical algorithms do not constitute art by themselves. Unless you consider them to be art created by a Creator God (really, the only way something completely natural or basic to the fundaments of the universe could be considered art), and we don't really want to go there. We REALLY don't want to go there. Equivalent to calling the Rocky Mountains art, understand? Whereas you said basically "WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS ARE NOT ART?" and showed us a picture of Mt. Rushmore. Does that make sense to you?

Arranging colorful patterns using mathematical algorithms as a base is art. It involves human input and intent. How is that even related to the statement "mathematical algorithms are art" which you seem to be making? Your statement is equivalent to saying "why do you say paint isn't art!?" and showing us a painting. Of course a painting is art. But paint by itself isn't, unless perhaps you consider it in a scenario of someone mixing a spectacularly good palette of colors.

art can be crappy and uninteresting and still be art; nature can be beautifull and fascinating, and that's not art, the term art in it's origins refered to something handmade

First you quoted me, then told me I "got it all wrong" and stated the point I was attacking, then rehashed everything I'd already said as your own. In short: we're in total agreement. The interest level raised by discussing something doesn't change what it is, art or not. Isn't that exactly what I said?
But then you go on to say that art is anything. No, art must have a definition or the word has no meaning. It's simply a basic part of language. An exceptionally pretty leaf isn't art. Taking that leaf, and preserving and displaying it, is input from a human being and could constitute art. We already have words for "anything", like "stuff". Art has to have limits, or it has no meaning.

Lastly, you make a good point that no one has brought up, that of "bad art". To return to the basic definition: Art is an expression of the human soul (if you don't believe that term has any meaning, then neither the definition nor art itself will have meaning to you, but that's beside the point). Whether it's tasteful or good does not change that it's such an expression, and no one has said otherwise. A really crappy drawing, if it is an expression of someone's intent to create or convey a message, is still art. It's just not very good art

[The Architect]

The actual definition of art is "something someone does using creative or imaginative skills"

As opposed to...?

As far as I can tell, that lines up exactly with my definition while eliminating the "mystical" part of it that annoys some people. It requires intent, and human input.

But let's not allow my point of view to stifle the discussion. You disagree? Be logical in your steps, and even if I think you're wrong then we will be in qualified disagreement and everyone can learn something. Nonsensical "non sequitor" statements don't get us anywhere.

[Soadreqm]

Training an animal to mimic something or programming a robot to play a piece composed by a human being (or simply to play notes selected by mathematical algorithm) are not examples of art, nor do they really have any reflection on it. I think you should understand this without an explanation, but if you need one then read my last post.

You're saying mathematical algorithms are not art? I beg to differ

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That is incredibly pretty, but I would argue that fractals are most decidedly not art. They're not made. They follow from mathematics. They were always there, waiting to be found, ever since imaginary numbers were defined. If they were art, who would be the artist? Euclid?

And if you start coloring them in creative ways, it's no longer the algorithm doing the work.

The actual definition of art is "something someone does using creative or imaginative skills"

Really? Great, we were kind of wondering about what it was. That solves it.

That stuff robots and lesser animals lack.

So... You would say neither robots nor animals can create art?
I strongly disagree.

I did not say that, and do not want to comment on it in any way at this time. I was merely guessing at what the original poster meant with "soul".

[Balathustrius]

I think my favorite definition of art was Picasso's:  "Art is the lie that tells the truth."

[Siquo]

And, after all, how we look at a thing doesn't change its actual nature.

It is exactly the opposite of this.

If you look at a thing, and that changes you, then it's art. 

[Dave Mongoose]

Well, I've seen several people say something along the lines of the idea (popular with academics in school studies, but otherwise nonsense I'm afraid) that something is art based on the discussion around it or that it provokes.

That's illogical, and I don't believe it is hard to explain what I mean. I think you'll all agree. Regardless of how artistic a discussion can be, that no more changes the nature of the thing discussed than imposing your own emotions on a pet gives that pet the capability for higher thought. It's a subjective way of viewing, and anyone can see after contemplation that the thing observed is not changed by being observed. Only your perception of it changes.

And, after all, how we look at a thing doesn't change its actual nature. It just changes our perception of its nature. And if we're simply imposing an incorrect meaning or purpose on something, we're the ones wrong. The thing has not become what we imagine it to be. Whatever significance it may have in our minds does not change its actual nature or purpose; that's backwards.

I would ask all persons having received a higher education to consider this. It's done in literature classes, in art classes, and many other instances. It is an academic exercise, and as an academic exercise then yes, what is important really is what you see in it and not its actual meaning. But that doesn't change the fact that literature and art can and always do have intent, purpose, and thought processes behind them, whether they are products of the author's conscious impulses or not. Whatever point of view you may impose on something never changes its actual nature.

For a final, compelling example in case this is too difficult for people who have incorrectly absorbed the opposite point of view from improperly explained and regulated education or simply ignorant teachers (excuse the run-on): Becoming infatuated with someone may cause you to see them as the perfect epitome of everything good in mankind, but it doesn't change what they actually are. As you will soon learn if you're infatuated with someone.

I thought you were trying to provoke an interesting discussion with this topic.

Now I see you are just opinionated.


Your opinion of art is that it is the creation process that makes something 'art' - what is fed into it by the artist. That is a valid opinion, but not a fact.

Art is an abstract concept, so suggesting that there is any kind of logic to be applied is ridiculous. If we are wrong to give significance to things which had none to begin with, then artists are wrong to give significance to any human concept or emotion, as these are ultimately the creation of a Universe with no sense of design or intent.

Neither your pretentious eloquence nor your patronising tone makes you any more correct in your dismissal of other people's opinions, and if you created this topic simply to proclaim your dogma then I have no interest in listening.

[LegoLord]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australian_art

I find this art in particular fascinating.  It's an example of art becoming a significant part of a culture, to the point that it even has religious associations.  It seems like something worth taking note of in such a discussion.

I honestly can't say what "art" is myself.  I know what it is, but I don't know the right words to define it with.  So I'd just go on a dictionary definition and role with that.

[The Architect]

Now, now, Dave. May I call you Dave?

See, that would be patronizing. Let's not sling insulting accusations around until they're warranted, shall we? Mind if I mock you?

'If you've come here to argue, then I have no desire to listen to you.'

Really, there's no need to provoke conflict. You're still free to disagree with me, which is the point of the topic. The fact that people are opinionated and express those opinions is the motivator of a "meaningful discussion." Telling me that my opinionated statements somehow disrupt this natural flow of conversation is silly.

I just ask that people be logical. There are many different worldviews, and one is indeed that the universe is a thing without meaning or intent. As I have stated: To understand Art, you must believe more than that. Otherwise art is meaningless and without significance, which is fine. You're quite free to think that way. But it does somewhat disqualify you from discussing art in any meaningful way. Because if art is without meaning or significance, we don't even have a specified topic for discussion.

This is what you call a cognitive conflict. Your way of thinking precludes discussion of something meaningful arising out of imagination, creativity or "the human soul", because all things are meaningless accidents. Now you'll probably come back on me and tell me that I'm ignorantly insulting you or something of the kind, but that's nonsense. You shouldn't be insulted by someone understanding and qualifying your point of view. If you are, then that would mean you have a lack of faith or security about it.

I'm a firm believer in the school of logic. The next place for you to go is to self-contradict. The utter defeat of Aristotle's point of view (that is, the absolute empirical) which you are supporting is that it is self-effacing. Let's not dive off the deep end of philosophical conflict here, and recognize that while art is by definition partially abstract, it is not a total abstract and impossible to qualify or define. That would make it meaningless, and we would have nothing to discuss.

The bottom line is: don't pull that crap here. If you're going to create a logical conflict or debate, go whole-hog and don't self-contradict. The discussion is Art: its meaning and purpose. Not Art: it doesn't exist.

Though I guess you could make that point. But make the point, don't be wishy-washy and base your statements on contradicting others without stating your purpose. And once you've made it, which I have now done for you, there's nothing more to be said. You can have nothing more to contribute if you believe that.

[Siquo]

Art and logic are usually mutually exclusive. You're asking too much.

[Soadreqm]

Art and logic are usually mutually exclusive. You're asking too much.

If that is true, does it logically follow that we should not use logic in this discussion?

[LegoLord]

I dunno.  I normally only use any sort of logic in art when trying to piece together sculptures or other 3D things.  Or mix colors.  But that's just the processes used in the respective mediums.

Dave seems to have been making an if-then statement.  The 'if' being what the Architect was saying (or Dave's understanding of it), and the 'then' being what this post:

Now, now, Dave. May I call you Dave?
[. . .]

seems to assume Dave is saying.  To demonstrate:

If-
   we are wrong to give significance to things which had none to begin with
Then-
   artists are wrong to give significance to any human concept or emotion, as these are ultimately the creation of a Universe with no sense of design or intent.

Now chop of the 'if' bit.  Different message.

Reading the architects post, it looks like he missed the 'if' part of that statement.  It looks like Dave meant him to disapprove of the 'then' part.  So it looks like a miscommunication.  No need to start a fight over it.

[The Architect]

No need to start a fight over it.

That goes without saying. Hopefully I didn't come across as belligerent. He certainly did in my reading of it, with his antagonistic accusations.

As I stated, though: if you have that point of view, then just out and say it. There's no need to hint at it and dance around it like some kind of subliminal messenger. And once it's said, it's said. It has no place in further discussion because its point needs no elaboration.

Art and logic are usually mutually exclusive. You're asking too much.

If that is true, does it logically follow that we should not use logic in this discussion?

Great point, Siquo. Not sure if it's your explicit intent to make this point: Nothing is exclusive of logic, because logic is simply a description of sound human thought. One thing follows from another, and that is how a healthy, intelligent mind reasons and works. Any claim that one thing does not follow another is simply failure to recognize one of the factors. We all make such mistakes, but they are all logically explicable.

Given enough data, there is always a correct conclusion and an incorrect conclusion. With less than enough data, there are several possible conclusions and several impossible ones. Though as Sherlocke Holmes said: having eliminated all possible explanations, all that remains is the impossible.