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 / NEXT»
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 10, 2013 09:16 AM

You took the metaphor way too literally. Maybe that's why we need public funding art.

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2013 10:56 AM
Edited by xerox at 11:01, 10 May 2013.

Quote:
Real artists don't do it for the money


So is this an argument against public funding of art?
Because that's money too. The difference is that public funding is money that has been forcefully taken from people. Private funding is money that's been given voluntarily. Which one is worse?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2013 11:18 AM

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

I have this opinion since my "encounter" with Modigliani, whose paintings my wife rather liked.
I didn't, though. Because something was bothering me with those paintings. "It's all wrong", I used to say, meaning these longish faces and stuff. But it wasn't just that and so I started to REALLY look at the paintings to find out what it was EXACTLY that was bothering me, and then I didn't need long to find out that all body proportions where completely off: arms that would be way too long, if continuing the half shown, legs, necks, whatever.

And before I knew it, I was spending time with them, looking at them from this angle and that, trying to get a grip on the actual proportional twistings - until the point came when I realized, that art can't really do more than compel people to think about it.

Now, you can do the Emperor's New Clothes trick only once for everyone, which means, if you have painting that is seemingly a random collection of ... somethings, the first time you may take time trying to find some MEANING in it, making it art because of the original idea.

But that's true only for the first one. All the others are copies. 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.

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 10, 2013 11:33 AM

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


I'd say this definition fits more to avant-garde in specific rather than art in general.

Think of folk music (of any country), it's traditional, it's safe, even the criteria of success is reproducing something just like it was done a hundred years ago. Yet, we call that art too, and it really is. It can still be self-expressive, it can touch you, it requires craftsmanship... No shocking ideas though.

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


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2013 12:09 PM

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


I'd say this definition fits more to avant-garde in specific rather than art in general.

Think of folk music (of any country), it's traditional, it's safe, even the criteria of success is reproducing something just like it was done a hundred years ago. Yet, we call that art too, and it really is. It can still be self-expressive, it can touch you, it requires craftsmanship... No shocking ideas though.
Of course it's art because it makes people feel something.
What I meant is this: there is also the art of "sophisticated nothing": random noise in music, random color splashes or patterns in painting and so on.
In my opinion, these are not pieces of art, but indeed a CONCEPT that transports an idea. Within this context, one is indeed like the other - all are actually the same - even if they differ, since they transport the same basic idea: NONE. If you paint SOMETHING, it's a question of details in relation to the whole, and it has a meaning. If you transport the meaning that there is none, details don't matter.

This may become more clear, when you look at a book or story. Imagine a story that makes no sense in a very basic way. Words are building sentences, but the words are just randomly picked, so that the sentences make no sense. While there is a plethora of different "stories" possible that differ in detail, these details don't matter because they all say the same thing, namely, NOTHING.

This would be different, if the process of "taking away sense" would follow a discernible pattern, that in itself might make sense. For example, a story in which feelings and emotions would be named inappropriately, but following a specific pattern.

But the idea of making people think only to find there is nothing to think about, is a one-timer.

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

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted May 10, 2013 02:12 PM
Edited by Corribus at 14:13, 10 May 2013.

Quote:
It's different because in the biology music case, while most people don't get much out of it, no one knows how valuable it is before they do it. Afterwards, some people may become interested in biology music and go into it, so retrospectively the value to them is high, even if it remains at zero for everybody else.

Doesn't seem so different to me.
____________
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

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2013 02:22 PM

Quote:
Wrong. Real artists are real artists even when they do it for the money.


we were talking about artists depending on people buying their stuff. in that case, it seems logical that they may try to make what they think will please people, and then it would be more like merchandising than art I think.

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2013 02:39 PM

It could just aswell be a private art gallery that hires an artist to exhibit his or hers work.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
HC SUPPORTER
posted May 10, 2013 02:50 PM

Quote:
Dagoth hit nothing, this is commonly mistake to think an artist will keep working insanely if his artworks are not bought or appreciated. Read some biographies and you will be fixed. Everyone needs food to survive, so do artists as well.

If a man only produces art when its his bread and butter, then I don't feel he's a "real" artist. You can roll your eyes at that statement, until they drop out of your skull, but only a select few paint and then get paid, immediately, and can resume their lives painting and doing nothing else. I also don't feel that's necessarily admirable.

What is most definitely admirable are people who work a job and then paint and they eventually find a way for their painting to get paid. This is a silly opinion and I guess artist should be a métier like any other and some guy should just be able to go to some academy and get public funding to get his art at exhibits. I realise that if you would cut out public funding, then the people who would become artists, would only be already wealthy people (à la every piece of Romanticist art was made by a wealthy land owner), friends of mecenases (or however you spell that in english, the actual latin plural would be maecenates) and people who suffer doing day jobs and then produce art and may never get paid for their art.

Of course, how ridiculous this sounds depends on how entitled you think people are to money, depending on the academics they went through.

And I hit everything!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

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


Legendary Hero
♀ DEUS VULT!!! ♀
posted May 10, 2013 04:32 PM
Edited by Tsar-Ivor at 16:47, 10 May 2013.

You can't put a price on culture. (failed to locate)

Xer: Yes it should, money ("profit") should be only an after-thought, and state finance ought to only be for the resources needed for the production.

^
Out of me element, going to restructure my stance on the matter. (feel free to comment on the above and offer scrutiny)
____________
"Love one-another as I have loved thee".

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2013 04:33 PM
Edited by xerox at 17:04, 10 May 2013.

Does that apply to tax-financed culture aswell, Tsar?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

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


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted May 10, 2013 06:58 PM

Quote:

If a man only produces art when its his bread and butter, then I don't feel he's a "real" artist.

What is most definitely admirable are people who work a job and then paint and they eventually find a way for their painting to get paid.


Well, is your opinion, and as asses, everyone has one. Read Leonardo of Michelangelo biography and you probably will not find them anymore admirable after seeing how conditioned by the money amount was their work. Does this makes them less genius? I don't think so.

I grew in a communist country. There are bad sides and good sides. The good side was that you did not have access to media or newspapers for every fart you throw, like today. If you had a painting to expose, you were confronted to several juries, had to pass endless competitions and if you proved being the best, it was exposed. Others were ignored. Which is good and bad too. The good part again was that the common man had a selective and quality approach of the art, he KNEW what means paint, music or writing. Which today is lost and forever, art now is a large concept, which, as JJ says, it synthesizes "something which makes an effect upon us". The bad part was that many talents couldn't develop and reach potential because the places were very limited.

For me it still means "someone has access to spheres not visible by the others" and offers the vision of what he sees within a technically perfect realized artwork. And technically, it takes a whole life to master art; if you think someone can have a job, then do art in his free time and become a professional artist only from his free time hobby, you have it wrong, there are no such examples, it can't work.
____________
All my Era II mods

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
HC SUPPORTER
posted May 10, 2013 07:58 PM
Edited by DagothGares at 20:12, 10 May 2013.

Yet, Socialist Realism is the most artistically empty genre I've ever seen. Or do you all still read Gladkov's "Cement" or Ostrovskij's "How Steel Hardened"/ "kak Zakalyalas' stal'"? Such institutions absolutely killed visionaries like Zamyatin and Pasternak (not that I liked Pasternak, but whatever). I wasn't even talking about quality, but communism shows that committee-handled art kills actual art. I guess technically-proficient artistry survives, but then the bizarre, the weird, the dangerous art dies and that's the most valuable of all. What? You still read S'olohov's (Using international transcription, ef it) Silent Don/ Tihij Don (using international transcription is fun, okay)?

I'm all for elitist art and art is not for everyone, but are they entitled to your plumber's money? And all the old Renaissance masters were not publically funded, they found patronage, which isn't something I'm arguing against. Private institutions paying for giant paintings that they'd like is an entirely different beast from publically funded art.

EDIT:

Also:
Quote:
Well, is your opinion, and as asses, everyone has one.

Rude

EDIT2: Still rude!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

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


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted May 10, 2013 08:01 PM
Edited by Salamandre at 20:16, 10 May 2013.

Actually was old saying: tastes are like anuses,everyone has one and proud of. Didn't mean to be rude, just pasted it not literally.

I don't know much about national socialist art, but I know Communism produced true geants, just to mention David Oistrakh, Sviatoslav Richter, Emil Gilels, Prokofiev, Shostakovich. So far the communist Russia from XX century offered such artists that the western could only dream about, but never have one. I don't know if is due to harsh conditions which created a special and fertile matrix, or simply that people is exceptionally talented, but there they are, there is nothing to be ashamed of.
____________
All my Era II mods

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
HC SUPPORTER
posted May 10, 2013 08:21 PM
Edited by DagothGares at 20:23, 10 May 2013.

Sadly enough I only know literature and russian music is cheating, since music is like an entirely different beast in Socialist Realism.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

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


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted May 10, 2013 08:24 PM

Literature had a terrible destiny in communism because the word is the easiest thing to be censored. Is different for other arts, as many not so obvious but still powerful messages can be hidden.
____________
All my Era II mods

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 10, 2013 09:13 PM

@Dagothgares:

Public funding doesn't necessarily have to be like the system in the old communist countries. It can simply be supporting museums, theaters,exhibition centers  etc etc, getting minimal or no tax from art and art-related business. Different models can be suggested but I don't understand the obsession to get the state totally out of it.

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted May 10, 2013 09:45 PM

Dagoth:
I don't know about literature, but Socialist Realist sculpture, architecture, and painting are superb. Much better than the avant-garde junk produced in the West. If anything, the beauty and utility of Socialist Realism is an argument in favor of public funding.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 10, 2013 09:48 PM
Edited by xerox at 21:55, 10 May 2013.

Quote:
I don't understand the obsession to get the state totally out of it.


I think to most people, it's a morale/ideological issue with public funding of (selected) culture in general. For instance, is it right that the low-income nurse should pay taxes that sponsor an upper class lady's visits to the opera?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted May 10, 2013 09:50 PM

But you can also use public funding to make opera tickets cheaper hence available to more people.

 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 / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0518 seconds