Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: What is art?
Thread: What is art? This thread is 10 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV
kayna
kayna


Supreme Hero
posted October 23, 2014 04:13 PM
Edited by kayna at 16:19, 23 Oct 2014.

To me, art is a creation meant to be pretty to look at, or deep, or, well something like that.

Expressing yourself isn't enough to be considered art imo. I agree with the opening post, a white canvas with 3 black dots isn't art, even if you put the modern word next to it, because there simply isn't enough and its just stupid. So are martial arts, they aren't arts, just a sport or a training program. Walking naked somewhere with words written on you isn't art either, just a person craving attention. However, if those three black dots actually formed something, reminiscing of something else, it could be art ; pictures of naked people can also be art if there s something else that we can perceive through it.

If you guys call every thing art, then I guess we can compare quality of art like we can compare McDonalds hamburgers to a 100 $ restaurant. In the OP, the red panel IS NOT art, I'm sorry, there's nothing intelligent in it, it dulls our senses rather than made us think or impress us. The football guy himself isn't art, but the picture is, it's a really well timed picture, and lastly, the yellow cheap book cover isn't art because it's just too cheap. Or maybe it is art but its not impressive at all.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shares
Shares


Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
posted October 23, 2014 06:22 PM

I think art is self-defining simply as "anything interpreted or intended to be interpreted as art."

This makes the definition very agential in pretty much every scenario, which means that a broad definition could only be achieved by looking at a broad population and context, making any broad definition both temporary and limited to whatever context was looked at.

And I don't think anyone can argue that art is strongly agential, unless you want to argue that everyone that ever disagrees with you on something being (or not being) art are just plain wrong.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted October 24, 2014 06:04 AM
Edited by artu at 06:12, 24 Oct 2014.

I hardly understand the usual blunt polarization on such an issue which is quite sophisticated and relative. Where as one group suggests that the only real art is one that has classical values of virtuosity and perfection of form, the other group objects by saying everything is absolutely subjective and there is no criteria at all to suggest X is art or not/good art or not/better art or not.

While it is true there is a lot of junk out there, that only exploits the ignorance of pretentious pseudo-intellectuals or that are simply soon-to-be forgotten mediocre attempts (just like in any age), everything about contemporary art is not a sham. There are really creative people out there, who are discovering new ways to express human experience and emotion. And not every experimental work is  evaluated on an arbitrary basis of "I call it art, so it is." There are schools of thought and individuals with original ideas, that really give the time of day and night to come up with something genuinely capturing.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shares
Shares


Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
posted October 24, 2014 06:44 AM

Well, I for one made no claims to good art being completely agential. There are some things that one can do to loosely judge quality of art, in particular fidelity. Usually the artist will have something in mind when they set out, for drawn art this is usually an image in their head or an object/scene in our physical world. The skill required to accurately depict this vision* is one thing you can use to judge quality, but that's more of a requirement to achieve quality, rather than quality itself. If the art is poorly made it might very well lack quality even if the vision itself was good. I for one might have some interesting pictures in my head, but my drawing skills are rather lacking so my drawn artworks are rather unimpressive and unimpactful as well.

If we want traits to measure quality by, I'd say that impact, remembrance and re-visitability would be decent ones. A good piece of art should both have an impact on its consumer, make them think of it at a later point and should warrant more than one, brief inspection. In theory, this is also completely agential, but we do have art pieces that have lasted for centuries and have been enjoyed in many cultures and completely different sub-cultures I think it's safe to say that it'd be a bit lacking to just say that it only depends on the person consuming the art. This is probably because the only demographic is humans, and humans tend to have similarities. Especially if we start looking at cultures and sub-cultures. Making a piece of art that is relatable for a wide array of people for a long time is possible because humans haven't changed that much in some regards and despite all our differences we do have a lot of similarities across our cultures.

I know that fidelity depends on the artist and that impact, remembrance and re-visitability are all agential, but I do believe that that's rather inherent to art. After that, we should consider that a piece of art will only grow recognised to be good art if it's appealing to an array of people and gets the exposure to appeal to them, which makes wider definitions and considerations more relevant.


*And I should clarify that I not at all mean the realism or graphical detail in the art, though that certainly can be the case. The artist might have a very simplistic, or any particular style, vision for their piece of art.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted November 14, 2014 11:46 AM
Edited by artu at 11:46, 14 Nov 2014.

A photographic fantasy of What Cities Would Look Like if Lit Only by the Stars
____________
you guys are after some sort of systemized system - tsar

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted November 14, 2014 12:03 PM

They look DEAD, don't they? Like ruins.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted March 15, 2016 11:19 PM
Edited by fred79 at 23:21, 15 Mar 2016.

came across this, and figured it'd be cool to share(since it doesn't break the coc):







(lol, came across... break the coc...)


oh, and this is considered a landscape, btw.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted March 16, 2016 12:20 AM

It has a certain flavor. From here, I can imagine the smell too.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Neraus
Neraus


Supreme Hero
Emperor of the Bromans
posted March 18, 2016 02:57 PM
Edited by Neraus at 14:59, 18 Mar 2016.

That is certainly something.

I now have to study up on the current famous drugs.

For some reason it makes me think of this...
____________
Wait, where is my clever punchline?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Miru
Miru


Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
posted August 19, 2016 11:59 PM
Edited by Miru at 02:27, 20 Aug 2016.

Alright, I'm a little bit late to the party, but it's probably for the better because I didn't finalize my idea until a few months ago anyway.

What is art?
Art is something that captures and provokes an emotion, a feeling a reaction. Art is something you can look at and feel sad, happy, jealous, for example.

However there is a particular insanity that people have come to have which has ruined the perception art and although I've seen it for years I only recently figured out how to explain it. There is a part of your brain that spots patterns and looks for meaning. In some people they start seeing patterns that aren't there, finding meaning where there is none. These people feel emotions from random things and thus attribute them to being art, however they are not. The person in question has just become unable to tell because their brain is spotting patterns where one hasn't been established.

The mathematical equivalent would be if I said "1,.. 2,.." and someone said "I know where this is going!". But they don't. Many patterns start with 1 and 2. There is a scene in "A beautiful mind" where a schizophrenic guy starts looking for hidden messages in news paper circling things here and there and finding patterns. But there never was one.

Because of this particular insanity many things have been labeled as art which are not. The insanity seems infectious almost; by explaining how one sees a meaning where there isn't one you can convince a person to start seeing meaning everywhere too.

I propose a simple test. Placebo art. We take a bunch of random snow that literally has no meaning and then ask people if they see meaning in it. Oh wait, it's been done - garbage art. Garbage art is literally placebo art and people are failing the placebo test.

Now I would have liked true art but I've always had this incredible disdain for it because the name "art" has been taken to describe so many things that simply are not.

This offends me greatly because over the years many people have put great effort into things: the corner of the Mona Lisa's smile,
the soft descent of a note in Moonlight Sonata, the smug look in the eyes of The Blue Boy. You can feel something. A person has done nearly the impossible, they have captured a feeling, a state of mind, a reaction and put it into a physical object.

NOT everything is art. Art does not mean that the artist felt something while making the art. Art means that the artist has recorded something in the art that you can feel just by experiencing it.

Now to address some things others have said

Corribus said:
This comment, though admittedly rather asinine, serves as the launching point for what I anticipate could be an interesting discussion about the value of art – and would be a nice diversion from the religion/politics talk we usually have in the OSM.

It was a half formed idea and an asinine remark, but I had a idea behind it I could not at the time express.

Corribus said:
What determines whether something is considered art, or not?  Is it the amount of effort, work, or money that something takes to create?  Or skill?  Does it have to be something that an “average” person cannot do?  Does it have to be unique?  The length of time it takes to make?  The length of time it endures? Can a child’s scribbling be art?   Is the quality of art based on how much pleasure a person gets from interacting with it?  Does it have to be thought-provoking, symbolic of the age or times in which a person lives?  Is the classification of art or not art based on the artist’s intention?  Is it based on a piece’s worldwide recognition?  Is it determined through consensus?Can something be created for profit and still be art?  Would you consider this art?
Can something be created for profit and still be art?  Would you consider this art?

The effort and work is irrelevant. Good art usually takes a lot of work, but if it only took 8 brush strokes it could be art if they were masterfully done.
Same for skill, usually yes but not always.
An average person can make art, but usually only skilled artists devoting years to it actually do.
A child's scribbling is not likely to be art. Sometimes children do or say profound things though.
Art is not necessarily pleasurable, some of it is intentionally repulsive.
Art MUST provoke something, though not necessarily a thought. A mood, a whim, a desire, half of a feeling, a fleeting memory, nostalgia, hate, remorse. But my definition is that it provokes something.
Art is generally dependent on the artists intention. Someone could make great art accidentally in the same way someone could write a beautiful song by tripping on a Piano. Possible, but not plausible.
The question is good. Something can be art to one person but not another. Something may be art to only a single person in the world. But it must be because it actually has meaning to that person, not because that person's schizophrenic malformed ability to recognize art is triggering.
Absolutely, most art was done for profit.

Corribus said:
So, HC members, I ask you: what do you think – are there things which should and should not be considered art?  Can, as Miru puts it, “a black square with a white dot or three black lines and a red square” be art, and can it have some value?  Or should the MOMA in NYC be burned to the ground and all the thousands of people who visit it each year have their right to independent thought revoked?

I'd be fine with that. I think this snow is an offense to real artists and tarnishes the name of art. Art is grand. Art is majestic. Art deserves respect.

Fauch said:
I fear when your goal is money for exemple, it leads to mediocrity, because once you found a "formula" that works, you stick to it and stop being creative. that becomes a mechanical work, but you still call it art.

If you're following a formula then it isn't as impressive or grand as the first time. It'd be like it Beethoven released 10 new versions of his 9th symphony that were all the same. You might consider them all the same work. In the case of Salvador Dali, the  melting clock paintings are all the same work in a sense.

DagothGares said:
What? Destruction can't be art?
What about that smashed car that ranges in seven digits?

I suppose it could be but I've never seen any and I doubt there is any. A smashed car is an attribution of emotion to an object that does not have intrinsic emotion and thus is not art.

JollyJoker said:

The question is: are people who buy that kind of garbage from the "art factories" are really touched by what they read or hear or see?

Precisely

Corribus said:
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.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm with JJ.

JollyJoker said:
I think, one main property of art is to make people think or feel something they will chew on.

I think that is the only property of art.

JollyJoker said:
So basically there is only ONE piece of art that is just random splashing of color, showing that you can read meaning into everything, and you can maybe repeat it with random designs or structures or plastics or whatever - but that's it in that regard.

That doesn't count. Just because you can read meaning into something does not mean that it intrinsically has meaning.

kookastar said:
Does good art still have meaning if no one will pay for it?

Humans like to think that art defines us but animals can create art too- nature is the most powerful art of all (photography highlights this).

If everything is art, does art lose it's significance?

No, perhaps something is artfully repulsive an no one wants it, or perhaps no one with any taste ever finds the art.

Finding a beautiful scene in nature and encapsulating it is art. Which brings up a point. If you make someone love you is that art? No, that is directly provoking the emotion. If there is a beautiful meadow and you feel serene? No. You must capture that moment, that it can be shared with others. That is art.

Not everything is art AND IT IS LOSING IT'S SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK EVERYTHING IS ART!

Corribus said:
Example:  A physicist uses a highly creative solution to solve a difficult problem.  Art?  

Nope.

Azagal said:

Miru please you should know better... if you don't like it that's fine I had the same oppinion for quite a while (except for the part where I claim people who do enjoy it are idiots) and I can enjoy whatever art I find enjoyable but why would that entitle me to judge what others may or may not find appealing?

Because they are finding it appealing for the wrong reason and they are wrong.

Normally when someone is wrong I don't care, however as previously mentioned the insane masses are making art lose it's significance.

"oh you wouldn't understand"
Au Contraire YOU don't.

Azagal said:
But the thing is I will never, nor will anyone else, begin to understand a piece if I don't give it a chance. The artist was trying to portray something or tell me something and I will never find that (which is what makes any piece of art interessting beyond the idea of "oh it looks pretty") if I don't look for it. So do yourself a favour Miru and all those like you don't dismiss something because you don't immediatly see the meaning behind it or because you don't agree with the style. If you do you'll never come to understand it. If you don't want to understand it that's cool to. No reasonable person will tell you "BUT YOU HAVE TO LIKE IT IT'S GENIUS" if it's not your cup of tea it's just not your cup of tea but I can't stress enough how that doesn't entitle you or anyone to tell what's good and what isn't. You are no judge of that.

You have a point here that I concede. I am no connoisseur and perhaps some of the things I dismiss I am overlooking. But not most of them.

JollyJoker said:
Touching people isn't easy - non-destructively, that is.
It is also true - think about performance art. Modern theatre - and 60s/7os theatre especially - was all about provoking a reaction. Doing outrageous things. Breaking patterns. Touching people.
Really touching their inner self. Because that's what actually the art is. To really TOUCH. To transport some very personal perspective of any aspect of this life, so that it can be perceived by others.

It isn't easy and real art should be respected for what it is.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted August 20, 2016 05:30 PM

I think of Art as a personal expression; at its most base level, a non-verbal language.

i.e. If I paint a room, I could do this action for preservation/external-need only. However, if I am interested in more than making sure that the surfaces of wood and sheet-rock are protected, but wanting this new coat/shield to be attractive, then I venture into the new purpose of expression.

That leads me to my choice of color/s. Do I want to appeal to other people's taste? If no, and I don't care what others think and just what my room black for my own purpose than I am not "necessarily" wanting to communicate anything, even if my choice still says something to others. Unless of course I am wanting to say I am a rebel and don't give a flying flip what anyone thinks but let's set that aside because it makes my point too.

However, if I do care what others think, a common way is to pick "neutral colors" so if I sell that room later, it has a greater chance to be acceptable to a wider number of people, than I am seeking to say something to others. i.e. This room's color is generally acceptable.

Despite, whether I have either intent, neither prevent the interpretation being quite different in the "eye of the beholder." For example; my "I don't care what other's think" or my "I'm a Rebel" may still be met with understanding and acceptance. And my effort to generally please most of the masses (in theory) may still be met with "bland crap" or "God how I hate neutral colors."

<imvho> No matter the intent of the originator of Art, some form of language is happening and there is no perfect control of how it is understood.

As a poet, I "sometimes" write down something I deem very important and make a serious effort to make my goal perceptible; other times I'm more writing for capturing the flow of words. However, that is more akin to writing my wish on the face of a balloon and letting it ride the wind. Sometimes people read my words and give them meaning far from my intent, so this speaks to be of an unseen language that no one ever masters.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted September 08, 2016 09:57 PM
Edited by artu at 21:59, 08 Sep 2016.

Oh, I like this one.

Wolfgang Stiller - Matchstickmen







Homepage
____________
you guys are after some sort of systemized system - tsar

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Celfious
Celfious


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Mickey cult member
posted September 17, 2016 08:32 AM
Edited by Celfious at 09:01, 17 Sep 2016.

cancer of the pineal gland
My heart goes to this guy but this art


Click  pic for more of his works
There are two pages different kind of stuff.

If you would like to read an article where I found the link to his pics please god bless this guy

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 18, 2017 02:37 AM
Edited by artu at 02:39, 18 May 2017.

I was watching a movie called Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould and in one of the short films, Gould has an interview with himself, both Goulds are played by an actor of course but the text of the Q and A is all him. I particularly enjoyed this, since as a teenager I used to do the same thing, prepare imaginary interviews and attack my own ideas. He has great sense of humor, too. Here are some questions (and answers) about the nature of art and the artist:

- Mr. Gould, to begin, let me ask straight out: Are there any off-limit areas?
- I certainly can't think of any, apart from music, of course.
- Well, Mr. Gould, I don't want to go back on my word. Your participation in this interview was never contractually conflrmed but I assumed we'd spend the bulk of the interview on music-related matters.
- Do you think it's essential? I mean, my own personal philosophy of interviewing and I've done quite a bit of it on the air, as perhaps you know is that the most illuminating disclosures usually derive from areas only indirectly related to the interviewee's line of work.
- For example?
- In preparing radio documentaries, I've interviewed a theologian about technology, a surveyor about William James and a housewife about acquisitiveness in the art market.
- But, surely, you've interviewed musicians about music.
- Well, yes, I have, on occasion, but only to put them at ease with the mike. But it's been far more instructive to talk with Leopold Stokowski about the prospect for interplanetary travel which is, I'm sure you'll agree…
- Let me ask this: Is there a subject you'd particularly like to discuss?
- What about native rights in Alaska?
- Well, I must confess, I had a rather more conventional line of attack, so to speak, in mind, Mr. Gould. As I'm sure you're aware, the virtually obligatory question about your career is the controversy you created by giving up live concert performance at age 32 and choosing to communicate only through the media. I do feel we must at least touch on it.
- As far as I'm concerned, it primarily involves moral rather than musical considerations. In any case, be my guest.
- Now, you've been quoted as saying that your involvement with recording with media in general, indeed, represents the future.
- That's correct.
- And conversely, the concert stage, the opera house or whatever represent the past, an aspect of your own past in particular perhaps as well as, in more general terms, music's past.
- That's true.
- I hope you'll forgive me for saying that these ideas are only partly justified. Also, I feel that you,
Mr. Gould, have forgone the privilege that is rightfully yours of communicating with an audience.
- From a power base?
- From a setting in which the naked fact of your humanity is unedited and unadorned.
- Couldn't I at least be allowed to display the tuxedoed fallacy perhaps?
- Please, Mr. Gould, we shouldn't allow this conversation to degenerate.
- I’ve tried to pose the question in all candor, and… Well, then, I'll try and answer likewise. To me, the ideal audience-to-artist relationship is a one-to-zero relationship. That's the moral objection.
- Run that by me again?
- First, I'm not at all happy with words like "public" and "artist" or the hierarchical implications of that kind of terminology. The artist should be granted anonymity. He should be permitted to operate
in secret, as it were unconcerned with or, better still, unaware of the marketplace's demands, which demands, given enough indifference on the part of enough artists will simply disappear. Given that disappearance, the artist will then abandon his false sense of public responsibility and his audience, or "public," will relinquish its role of servile dependency.
- And never the twain shall meet.
- No, they'll make contact, but on a much more meaningful level.
- Well, Mr. Gould, I'm well aware that this sort of idealistic role swapping has a certain rhetorical flourish. The creative audience concept of which you've spoken at length elsewhere has a kind of McLuhan-esque fascination. But you conveniently forget that the artist, however hermetic his life, is still, in effect, an autocratic flgure. He's still, however benevolently, a social dictator and his public, however generously enfranchised by electronic options, is still on the receiving end of the experience. All your neomedieval anonymity quest on behalf of the "artist-as-zero" and all your vertical pan-culturalism on behalf of his "public" won't change it.
- May I speak now?
- Of course. Sorry to get carried away. But I do feel strongly about the-
- About the artist as Superman?
- That's not quite fair, Mr. Gould.
- Or about the interlocutor as controller of conversation, perhaps?
- There's no need to be rude.
____________
you guys are after some sort of systemized system - tsar

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
frostysh
frostysh


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
posted May 18, 2017 07:30 AM
Edited by frostysh at 07:37, 18 May 2017.

For now I think that the ability to create an Art is one of the most characterizing features of the Intelligent Creature. But the Arts means a wide range of terms, not narrow. Very interesting the evolution of the Art in the human society during it's History. Of course it is the only estimates, always exist a derivations from the mainstream. I mean maybe many time ago existing a great Artists, or the peoples with such potential, but their talents never become a known for the peoples.



Well, of course some peoples is more aligned to the Art, some peoples less. But the choice is the main IMHO. For an example, if the human have a genetic stuff enhanced for the Art, and decided to become a Scientist and creating something revolutionary, or a, I don't know, a Political Leader, or just a good Baker that is unknown for a most of peoples. And the human that have super poor genetic stuff for the Art becoming an Artist that creating a new Era in Art, which have a Global influence. I think Geniuses is a result of complicated, I can even say, a crazy combination of different factors, such as luck , life conditions, genetic stuff, etc. And the main of this factors, is the choice of particular human
Even a 100% cloned twin, that have a mirror life will have a different brains, will have a different minds, and in the same situations can take a different choices This is truly wonder of the human Mind, of the human Brain. Yeah, yeah, the Sociology Science is used different terms, but we cannot forget that this terms is the only estimates, an averages, something like the Quantum Mechanics, when you need to describe something larger, or in greater numbers, than a single Hydrogen Atom . Very good precision, yes, but the actual picture and 100% prediction, - no.
In case of Art, I think Glialic stuff is playing a very important role

Quote:
Confocal image of rat NG-2 positive oligodendrocyte progenitor cells (green color) and GFAP-positive astrocytes (red color) in culture. Cell nuclei are counterstained with Hoechst 33342 (blue color).- Neuroglia
Well, somebody can say - it is a nonsense, and perhaps will be true , but as for myself, I think in such self-evolutionary system as Human' Brain, and especially the Mind, many thing can be a very weird .
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
PandaTar
PandaTar


Promising
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted May 18, 2017 11:53 PM

I would say that art is something that sparks and prompts senses and feelings beyond that of ordinary reach of the art itself (the object in question intended as 'art'). Which makes it very personal and ever-changing.
____________

Heroes-based proposal threadOn hold, while I'm writing my book. =)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
frostysh
frostysh


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
posted May 19, 2017 01:44 PM
Edited by frostysh at 13:48, 19 May 2017.

PandaTar said:
I would say that art is something that sparks and prompts senses and feelings beyond that of ordinary reach of the art itself (the object in question intended as 'art'). Which makes it very personal and ever-changing.
Nah, you will be not able to understand what is Art means before you will understand how the Brain and the Mind of human works. In this case you need a large amount of a smarty peoples (and more likely some amount of a very smarty peoples), a laboratories, a resources, etc. Even in this case, it will be not so easy, coz' even understanding of how a single cell works is not so easy, and when all of those billions and billions cells connected into a self evolutionary system such as Brain/Mind, the things is going crazy exponentially.
Some Mathematicians saying that we just need more data, and when this level will be reached, we will obtain a direct, a clear picture without all of this probabilities. But. I don't think things is going on so easy, there is too much of factors, too much of stuff and it is creating uncertainty always, actually it is giving to us a little choice, except using the probability.
It is like a deciphering of the insane cipher, you have a medium, a very large medium of, I don't know, of images, a symbols, the sounds, etc. And you need to find a few single combinations there The point is the medium is so large, and you cannot count it one by one, element by element, and this is like a Quantum Mind Model, which is discussed and exploring in the modern Scientific community. Anyway, if talking on Philosophical level, there is no clues that Nature is finite, and also no clues of the opposite .

About personal, I am agree, and I am disagree in the same time: personal yes, coz actually the any brain, the any mind of the any human is unique. There is not congruent humans in the Earth, with Congruent Minds, the probability of that is so small, even a probability, hmm, the Sun is made from a cheese is larger .
But in the same time, the Mind of human is interacting with the outside world, this is 'double edge axe', society have influence on the mind, and the mind have influence on the society around it. And Sociology is using a simple Laws (well, in terms of the Mathematics, it is not so simple , but still) to predict how the large amount of peoples, of Minds, that is connected in 'Society' will react on different kinds of disturbance, it is like the Quantum Mechanics, predicting the Density of Probability over the particular region of the Space. Of course it is the all is IMHO .
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
PandaTar
PandaTar


Promising
Supreme Hero
Celestial Heavens Mascot
posted May 19, 2017 02:38 PM

frostysh said:
Nah, you will be not able to understand what is Art means before you will understand how the Brain and the Mind of human works.


Just stay quiet. An advice. Unless you know how my mind and brain works.
____________

Heroes-based proposal threadOn hold, while I'm writing my book. =)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
frostysh
frostysh


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
WHY?
posted May 21, 2017 01:25 PM

PandaTar said:
Just stay quiet. An advice. Unless you know how my mind and brain works.
Well, I am staying quiet, I just typing on forum, but my mouth is closed. But anyway, thanx for an advice, if it was good. And I have bored to repeat, it is just a forum, if you don't like the posts of somebody, just ignore him/her, of course if you have enough power of will.

With no disrespect, but I have a little interest in how manner your brain and mind works, mr PandaTar, same as other user of this forum .
And indeed, the minds of some genius have above average of glialic stuff.
Quote:
In the 1980’s another experiment was set up to observe the ratio of glial cells (Neuroglia) in Einstein’s brain compared to that of 11 other preserved male brains.  Glial cells are essentially non-neuronal cells that maintain homeostasis, form myelin and provide support and protection for neurons in the brain, as well as for other neurons in other parts of the nervous system. The four main functions of glial cells are:

1.      To surround neurons and hold them in place.

2.      To supply nutrients and oxygen to neurons.

3.      To insulate one neuron from another

4.      To destroy pathogens and remove dead neurons.

Additionally, they also participate in signal transmission and are the other integral component of the brain. Physical Characteristics of Ein-Brain
IMHO, the Brain of the Human is a miracle of somekind. And the ability of making your own choice, is a gift and in the same time is a curse. But this is only my own Philosophy, so it's can be just a nonsense, but who knows .
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted August 25, 2017 09:28 PM

Do you people think there will ever come a time when an internet site will turn into a form of art, you know, like how printing gave way to modern novel and so on... I'm talking about an internet site with a narrative, it has a beginning and an end, maybe many alternative ends. All of its contents, the links, the pictures, the movies, the text, the soundtrack, the gifs... all is part of that narrative as it would be in a body of artwork. All is orchestrated / directed / designed or whatever you want to call it, by its creator for the purpose of creating a singular, united piece. I think the first person who does this in a way that is not eclectic or superficial can be remembered as the genius of this age.
____________
you guys are after some sort of systemized system - tsar

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 10 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1925 seconds