|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
posted September 07, 2011 05:02 PM |
|
|
For Art-fun, I write, draw, paint, create maps and strum; <imo> of all, my music is probably my most artistic expression. Btw, too many pursuits to be really good at any. Do the best artists focus on one? I'd say to excel ...usually.
One thing became obvious to me about my list is that; today, there are 2 paths for each of those art-forms; Manual vs Digital.
I prefer using a pencil over MS Paint but I have to say it takes as much skill to do the digital bit, maybe more.
Maybe the best thing about digital is what I will call the zoom factor . Take any drawing and you can enlarge the thing to incredible size work, in truly minute detail and then reset the picture. Just that ability is amazing to utilize. Even I can make something look pretty good.
Some might think that too easy to be Art but <imo>if you have to learn it, then it must be Art Hmmm, that might describe higher-art (i think this discussion has happened before)to me better than any other way. While taking balloons filled with paint and tossing them on canvas may make a artistic picture; <imo>it's more a captivating-accident that required little effort to acquire any skill. So, I guess for me the best art needs some learning and effort to master. Sort of like the old oil painting masters and their students example.
About the higher art bit. Should that term be used? Should folks determine/classify the difference between my taking a brush & oils for the first time and using a mix of my favorite colors, to make a battle of brush-strokes versus painting a light-water-scene like a Turner that took years to master?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 07, 2011 06:02 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 04:22, 10 May 2013.
|
@FriendofGunnar
Quote:
I have a question for Corribus. On your first post you showed a football picture. Typically when the word "art" is used in the context of sports it's talking about some one who shows a superlative level of skill or technique. So I'm wondering if you see art in football and if so, in who?
In a word, no, I don't.
Because I see art as a form of self-expression, and nothing more. Whereas JJ appears to judge would-be art by its affect on the viewer, I judge it based on the creator. Art is a person's attempt to express an emotion or idea in a creative way, typically using a non-analytical part of their mind. We often hear the expression: "more an art than a science". All this means is that the thing being done requires more of an intuitive feel than a methodical approach.
In that sense, there is no "quality", per se, to art. There is no "good" art or "bad" art. We can try to qualify art based on how much technical skill it requires to make, or some other metric, but what does that really mean?
Is a canvas painted all in red with a white bar across it art? If it's some kind of creative expression, if it's made because a person thought it would be pleasing to the eye, then sure, why not? Is it good art? Better than a Monet? I think it's a senseless question. It certainly might not take the same amount of technical skill to slop red paint all over a canvas as it does to paint a detailed landscape - but who says the "quality" of art has anything to do with technical skill? Monet's paintings may have taken an incredible degree of skill to create, but if they look awful, to my eye, hanging on a wall in my modern-decorated room, then what value do they have to me?
*shrug*
I'll also point out for people who criticize the worth of minimalist art, that art does have historical value as a reflection of the society in which its created.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2011 08:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Whereas JJ appears to judge would-be art by its affect on the viewer, I judge it based on the creator. Art is a person's attempt to express an emotion or idea in a creative way, typically using a non-analytical part of their mind
Sounds like what I said, but not totally sure.
though I admit JJ has a good point, the problem is from our point of view, we can't know what the artist had in mind.
how do we now that mona lisa is supposed to express something for example?
the "non-analytical" part is interesting. I think that means spontaneity?
but I believe many artists planned their work. without planning it is rarely very good (depend on the field though, for example in modelling, I think little to no planning is better)
though there could also be a process of trials and errors.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2011 09:50 AM |
|
|
The problem is, that basically everything is a form of self-expression. Quote:
Art is a person's attempt to express an emotion or idea in a creative way.
I'm not saying that this is wrong, on the contrary, but that is only the starting point.
The killings of a serial killer are a person's attempt to expres an amotion or idea in a creative way as well.
Now, since basically everything is a form of self-expression, but not every attemp to express an emotion or idea in a creative way can be called art, we may reach our goal, when we merge both definitions together.
Seen from the artist, a piece of art is a creative expression of an idea or emotion. But without taking an effect - leaving an impression - it's just like you or me writing a post in this forum: Not EVERY expression of an emotion or idea, creative or not, is art
|
|
PinkFlamingo
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2011 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I despise all abstract art with a cold passion, especially geometric abstract art. I think that anyone who considers geometric abstract art (eg a black square with a white dot, or three black lines and a red square) as valid as... well pretty much ANYTHING else is a complete idiot who doesn't deserve the right to an opinion.
I can't say I am a fan of geometric art (ie 3 black lines and a red square) but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's not art. It does show mathematical precision and it's very neat and tidy.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 08, 2011 07:38 PM |
|
|
|
well it may show a good technic, but is it enough to be called art?
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted September 09, 2011 07:05 AM |
|
|
Corribus:
Quote:
Art is a person's attempt to express an emotion or idea in a creative way, typically using a non-analytical part of their mind.
Mvass:
Quote:
I'll agree with Azagal in that art is the expression of an idea or opinion...So there we have the three components of art: idea, production (skill/effort), and obliqueness.
Okay, then is this art?
And yes, I would consider it art. In fact I'd hang it on my wall because I find it infinitely more stimulating than the "art" that the local art grads are putting out. This means I'd prolly agree with JJ's definition of art the most:
Quote:
If you see something in it, if it speaks to you, if it shows something to you, if you feel the artist opened a new vista for you or touched some deep sensation in your core - it's art.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 09, 2011 03:14 PM |
|
|
Hard to get in the mind of an elephant, but I'd say yes.
A better question would be: if there was a computer program that was designed to randomly put colors and shapes on a canvas, would that be art?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2011 03:26 PM |
|
|
if that's art, then that would be luck 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2011 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay, then is this art?
No, because I doubt an elephant can understand the concept of expressing an idea artistically.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 09, 2011 11:26 PM |
|
|
|
but I think they can feel emotions. maybe they like flowers?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 10, 2011 12:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, because I doubt an elephant can understand the concept of expressing an idea artistically.
When in doubt, Google.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 10, 2013 01:15 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:16, 10 May 2013.
|
I haven't read all the post in here yet, I started a new thread titled Conceptual Art and Corb suggested I resurrect this one instead, my opening post was this, here you go:
This news I pick is old, a cleaner accidentally throws away part of the exhibition mistaking it for trash:
Cleaner bins rubbish bag artwork
Yet, the question is still fresh, what do you think of conceptual art?
Are you one of those guys who say "sigh, I can do that too" or are you one of the guys who answer "but you didn't think of it first." Is free jazz just noise to you or is it self-expression of the musician? Do you think having a "shocking idea" is enough to classify it as art, or do you think art should always maintain some craftsmanship? When people look back 200 years later, will they spot classics of conceptual art or is the whole thing just a fad?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 10, 2013 01:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, then is this art?
No, because I doubt an elephant can understand the concept of expressing an idea artistically.
The awareness and emphasis on "understanding the concept of expressing an idea artistically" is after the Romantic Era. Before that many artists thought of themselves no more than a carpenter or a gardener. They still had a stronger ego I guess, but they didn't theorize the work they did differently. In some of the cases they didn't even sign their work.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2013 01:27 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 01:27, 10 May 2013.
|
If art stopped receiving public funding, we'd have art that people are actually willing to pay for. I doubt a lot of people would be willing to pay for a bag of trash. That particular piece makes me think "It's stupid and pointless". Generally, I want art to express things that makes me reflect at a more advanced level than that.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 10, 2013 01:31 AM |
|
|
|
But then we have the question of "how much can the majority understand a revolutionary approach? Who would pay for cubism in the beginning of 20th century, not many. What would happen to Renaissance art without the patronage of families like the Medicis and so on...
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2013 01:38 AM |
|
|
Are you refering to public funding?
I do not believe that bureocratic cultural elites are necessary for art to progress. It hasn't been for most of history.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 10, 2013 01:55 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:56, 10 May 2013.
|
|
It wasn't always in the form of modern state's public funding (because modern state did not exist back then) but art and especially art that is considered high-art has always been funded this way or the other. It was almost always part of an economy yes, yet that does not mean a strategy of "whatever sells" lets you get rid of pretentious BS and leaves true art behind. In other words, free market wont necessarily produce quality art by an evolutionary dynamic.
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 10, 2013 04:07 AM |
|
Edited by fauch at 04:07, 10 May 2013.
|
it's crazy the tons of paper that people throw away in offices... well, that's what the bag makes me think about. and when you read the emails they printed, at the bottom, it is written : "please consider the environment and print this email only if necessary"
Quote:
If art stopped receiving public funding, we'd have art that people are actually willing to pay for.
so, basically, it would be like advertising? and if we only had art that people are willing to pay for, it would just kill art.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted May 10, 2013 04:25 AM |
|
|
Real artists don't do it for the money.
Money is just a means to pull the suckers in!
If your art has any significance, you'd make it without public funding. If it has any value to someone else, they'd pay for it, if they wanted more of it.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
