Print

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

[Dave Mongoose]

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.

I just don't like to put effort into making a post to summarise my personal feelings about the nature of art (something I enjoy and feel quite strongly about), only to be told it's "nonsense" because finding meaning in something is "wrong" if it wasn't created with that meaning in mind.

I don't consider that to be discussion anymore: it's debate, and that's not what I was looking for when I came to this thread.

[The Architect]

 

[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)

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

You really can't tell when I'm just fucking with you can you?

But seriously, at what point does paint go from being just paint to art? Is painting a wall art? It requires creativity and imagination to pick the color. Is jackson pollock an artist? All he did was hurl paint randomly, which is something a cat dipped in paint can do. At what point do the base components of art become art? How much does a man have to do to make them art?

[The Architect]

What you'll find with artists like Jackson Pollock is that they made some art, and some things that really are hard to consider art. That isn't the only thing Jackson Pollock did, not by far.

As for when you're just f*ing around? No, if you don't give any indication, no one can tell. I am personally not telepathic, and I don't believe anyone else is.

[piecewise]

What you'll find with artists like Jackson Pollock is that they made some art, and some things that really are hard to consider art. That isn't the only thing Jackson Pollock did, not by far.

*sigh* well then lets remove my sarcasm.

"But seriously, at what point does paint go from being just paint to art? Is painting a wall art? It requires creativity and imagination to pick the color.At what point do the base components of art become art? How much does a man have to do to make them art?"

As for when you're just f*ing around? No, if you don't give any indication, no one can tell. I am personally not telepathic, and I don't believe anyone else is.

assume all my posts end in 

But really this is a pointless thread. Defining art is like arguing about which video game console is best, its a subjective thing.

[The Architect]

What you'll find with artists like Jackson Pollock is that they made some art, and some things that really are hard to consider art. That isn't the only thing Jackson Pollock did, not by far.

Not answering the question.

Fair enough, I wasn't being direct. My point was that something isn't validated just because it is done by a major artist. It would be possible to argue, however, that the act of slinging the paint randomly was art. It would be difficult to argue that the result was art. It would be difficult or at least absurd to argue that the result of placing a brush in the hands of an animal is art. We've never known animals to be capable of art, and curiosity about it was the motivation for many such experiments. Attempts to raise flickers of higher thinking in animals.

These things were done more in the vein of experimentation, and there are good reasons many people from that time period and since have been disdainful of it and/or adamantly opposed its classification as art. I think much modern art is overrated. It's often "bad art", or art without any reason to be preserved or considered good.


This is all opinion, of course. In case Dave or someone else decides to waltz in and begin mud slinging: it's all in the vein of open discussion and conflicting opinions are welcome.

[eerr]

Art is something that reveals information about perspective, for the purpose of revealing said information.
Between the artist and his audience.

wait no.. that excludes the man who hides a dick in the face of peter griffin.
mmmmm
okay close enough.

[The Architect]

it's hidden?

[Kayla]

My definition of art is as simple as I can make it. It's simply, was it created to be art? Or put into other terms, did the maker intend for it to be art?

If we look at geographical formations, such as ones found in Utah, they are beautiful. But unless you believe in a god, there is no maker per say for them. So they are not art.

However, this definition is very broad. It allows for the conception of bad art. Art that one finds not pretty or beautiful. But it is my belief if it was intended as art when it was created then it remains art. Good art or bad art.

- Kayla

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i agree to your position, Kayla, still one has to know how to *intend* to do art. one has to strive to be unique, to trully do art one has to try and outdo himself and to surprise the world. i know a lot of kids that graffiti their names in funky letters, and then proceed to claim "graffiti is art, dude". it isn't, it can be, as much as a painting can be art, but it isn't always, and it isn't in those cases.

[Omegastick]

I agree with the OP, art is an expression of the soul, not the mind, but the soul.

I direct you to 'Mere Christianity' by C.S Lewis. In case you are too poor to buy the book then here is a a general summary:  we all have a general have an idea of 'good' and a 'bad'. For 'good' and 'bad' to exist then we must be comparing them to something, the book is a very good read and I suggest you all pick the book up and read it.

Art is like morality, we all have a general idea of 'good' art and 'bad' art, opinions differ but we would all consider a scribbly, messy, unelegant drawing of a cat to be bad. This, of course, means that there is a 'good' art out there, and this, my friends, is the human soul.

Here is one more thing, an animal cannot create art, as it does not have a soul. It has a mind that is telling it to do what it was trained to do and randomly splash paint on a canvas, but that is not the monkey making art. If anything, it is the trainer using the monkey as a paintbrush to make art.

[The Architect]

Ah, so we have three people since I last looked who state that art is necessarily the product of intent. And one directs us to the reasoning of C. S. Lewis, in his argument for both an inherent moral compass and natural tastes. I'm afraid that is not a currently popular view.

Even the view that evolutionary progression has produced such inherent tendencies is not popular with modern intellectual society (or at least the most vocal part). So, while compelling to some, it probably comes off to the average liberal Bay12 forum poster (assuming the liberals are the most common and not simply the most vocal) as high-handed.

However: I have to agree. First, that C. S. Lewis's apologetic books are a heck of a good read no matter what your faith, because he was such a great logician (though I am convinced he was wrong about some things and that I see holes in some of his statements, as I am sure anyone with formulated views will say when reading his work). Second, that the human soul is quite real and that contemplation of the soul and its actions and products (such as music and physical art) gives meaning to life. Third, glad to see that someone thinks the same way about animals trained to mimic an artist's actions. I still wonder what point that poster was trying to make, or if it was a joke-troll in a straight-faced discussion?

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".

Spoiler: Now, more questions!! (click to show/hide)

1) Should art be preserved throughout the ages? What is the merit of doing so? We preserve simple historical knowledge so that we might learn from it, or at least we did in the past with the point of view that "Man does not change, and all things under the Sun have been before and will be again" or something to that point. Do we learn about the nature of "previous man" and the ways society and the individual have changed (or have not changed) in a meaningful way from art?
2) Is art something that can only truly exist in the moment?
3) Does the (possible) transience of art affect the merit of its preservation?

[Omegastick]

I'll assume you were talking to me about the animal thing. It was simply saying that the people who said earlier that animals can create art were mistaken, it wasn't a joke or anything.

Now for the questions:
1) In my personal opinion, yes, art should be preserved through the ages. This is because we can learn from it and enjoy it at a later date. If we didn't do this then countless hours and days of people's lives would have been for just a short few minutes of appreciating the art before throwing it away.

2) I disagree with this concept, I hardly ever get pleasure from my art until it is finished and I look back on it. Although other people may feel different.

3) I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, would you care to elaborate?

[The Architect]

Sure. If you believed art to be transient (you have said that you do not) then the question would be: does that affect the merit of preserving it? Are there good reasons to preserve it in spite of whatever reasons you hypothetically gave for its transient nature?

For me, art is in the moment. This is a common point of intellectual disagreement among artists of the ages: One point of view holds that the art itself is in the release of the created energy. To go further, the artist is merely a channel for the inspiration, and the quality of the art is a reflection of the artist's effectiveness as an artist channeling this creative inspiration. This is Michelangelo's view. You have probably heard of an example, his famous statement that he sculpted to free the statues in the rock. The sense of accomplishment from having created is theoretically unrelated to the art and artistic impulse itself. There are many other points of view, including the one that such talk is just high-handed nonsense, or the one that the sense of accomplishment and creation for the benefit of your fellow men is the true nature, purpose, and destiny of the artist. Yet further, some say that art is a personal creation that loses meaning when shared, and others say that their art gains its only true meaning and purpose for them when they share it.

These were the sort of things I was hoping to get to with this discussion.

[HideousBeing]

If somene intends something to be art, then I would say it is. Besides that, art is usually something that conveys a meaning or emotion symbolically.