Quote from: Nam on April 13, 2016, 06:25:03 PMI wasn't trying to diss them but okay.
It is sometimes used in the art/design world as a sly insult to refer to somebody being a bit simple minded.
A person that is looking at a surrealist painting says something along the lines of "I don't get surrealism, what is the point of it", somebody might reply in snide "perhaps something more literalist (not in the sense of minimalism) may me be more to your tastes".
Quote from: Crow on April 13, 2016, 10:07:29 PM
Quote from: Nam on April 13, 2016, 06:25:03 PMI wasn't trying to diss them but okay.
It is sometimes used in the art/design world as a sly insult to refer to somebody being a bit simple minded.
A person that is looking at a surrealist painting says something along the lines of "I don't get surrealism, what is the point of it", somebody might reply in snide "perhaps something more literalist (not in the sense of minimalism) may me be more to your tastes".
I tried the art world. They called it plagiarism. That was 15 years. Haven't been back since. Though as I moved in 2012 a friend found one of my pieces and bought it off me for $500. I guess he doesn't mind plagiarism. ;)
What I did was was taken an old photograph (citing the photographer if it wasn't anon) and turned it into something else, and deviantart.com called it plagiarism. And removed them from their website.
-Nam
Quote from: Crow on April 13, 2016, 10:07:29 PM
Quote from: Nam on April 13, 2016, 06:25:03 PMI wasn't trying to diss them but okay.
It is sometimes used in the art/design world as a sly insult to refer to somebody being a bit simple minded.
A person that is looking at a surrealist painting says something along the lines of "I don't get surrealism, what is the point of it", somebody might reply in snide "perhaps something more literalist (not in the sense of minimalism) may me be more to your tastes".
Oh! I get it. ;D
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_ljav5yjdv81qfbofi.gif&hash=248a440e7440d849285159a2bdd5b293791d5ce2) (https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/2/19/17/anigif_enhanced-buzz-6397-1361312701-8.gif)
Quote from: Crow on April 13, 2016, 10:07:29 PM
Quote from: Nam on April 13, 2016, 06:25:03 PMI wasn't trying to diss them but okay.
It is sometimes used in the art/design world as a sly insult to refer to somebody being a bit simple minded.
A person that is looking at a surrealist painting says something along the lines of "I don't get surrealism, what is the point of it", somebody might reply in snide "perhaps something more literalist (not in the sense of minimalism) may me be more to your tastes".
While we're on the topic, a rant on modern art, which I agree with:
Bunch of people standing and staring at something and saying vacuous crap like
QuoteAs spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future.
(Generated using Siz's Arty Bollocks Generator (http://www.artybollocks.com/#abg_short)) :grin:
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 13, 2016, 11:20:57 PM
While we're on the topic, a rant on modern art, which I agree with:
I actually quite liked the professor's apron -- it had pretty blues in it!
Quote from: Nam on April 13, 2016, 10:58:36 PM
I tried the art world. They called it plagiarism. That was 15 years. Haven't been back since. Though as I moved in 2012 a friend found one of my pieces and bought it off me for $500. I guess he doesn't mind plagiarism. ;)
What I did was was taken an old photograph (citing the photographer if it wasn't anon) and turned it into something else, and deviantart.com called it plagiarism. And removed them from their website.
Well Deviantart isn't the "art world" that is a bunch of kids and want to be illustrators/photographers doing things for kicks, it is primarily just a place to share images with other people and get their opinions or share resources.
Regardless found art is a method of producing art, Picasso, Koons, Emin and many other all engage in it, it is about seeing an idea in something an presenting it to an audience. If it lacks thought, the found piece are considered to be another work of art, or you failed to get permission from the IP holder then it is plagiarism many big artists get done for this all the time because they failed to dig into the origin of it (Rogers v. Koons for example).
-
The person in the video clearly doesn't understand what art actually is and is one of the thickos who are incapable of understanding it, which just so happen to be the part of the same coin that is the old-fashioned art snobs. If he finds it too confusing or difficult he may want to step away and go do something that doesn't challenge him as he is obviously stuck in the "if I like it then it is art, if I don't then it isn't" which is the exact same opinion of the old fashioned art snob.
What is there to not get about art (and the many different sub categories) it is a form of creative expression with the sole purpose of being such, if it is in a gallery then somebody enjoys it enough to want to share it with others that is pretty much the sum total of it, if that is hard to grasp then wow I don't even know how to reply to that in earnest because that is some simple shit.
Even this sentence is really easy to understand; "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future." It is all pretty straight forward though the last bit is a bit more poetic than necessary but why not. Not that you would hear that sort of thing often unless you happened to bump into somebody that speaks like that and most likely they are going to be a critic or somebody who actually knows what they are taking about, if they are bullshitting is pretty easy to spot them as words have meanings and if it doesn't relate to what they are talking about they are full of shit.
Quote from: Crow on April 14, 2016, 12:53:11 AM
Quote from: Nam on April 13, 2016, 10:58:36 PM
I tried the art world. They called it plagiarism. That was 15 years. Haven't been back since. Though as I moved in 2012 a friend found one of my pieces and bought it off me for $500. I guess he doesn't mind plagiarism. ;)
What I did was was taken an old photograph (citing the photographer if it wasn't anon) and turned it into something else, and deviantart.com called it plagiarism. And removed them from their website.
Well Deviantart isn't the "art world" that is a bunch of kids and want to be illustrators/photographers doing things for kicks, it is primarily just a place to share images with other people and get their opinions or share resources.
Regardless found art is a method of producing art, Picasso, Koons, Emin and many other all engage in it, it is about seeing an idea in something an presenting it to an audience. If it lacks thought, the found piece are considered to be another work of art, or you failed to get permission from the IP holder then it is plagiarism many big artists get done for this all the time because they failed to dig into the origin of it (Rogers v. Koons for example).
-
The person in the video clearly doesn't understand what art actually is and is one of the thickos who are incapable of understanding it, which just so happen to be the part of the same coin that is the old-fashioned art snobs. If he finds it too confusing or difficult he may want to step away and go do something that doesn't challenge him as he is obviously stuck in the "if I like it then it is art, if I don't then it isn't" which is the exact same opinion of the old fashioned art snob.
What is there to not get about art (and the many different sub categories) it is a form of creative expression with the sole purpose of being such, if it is in a gallery then somebody enjoys it enough to want to share it with others that is pretty much the sum total of it, if that is hard to grasp then wow I don't even know how to reply to that in earnest because that is some simple shit.
Even this sentence is really easy to understand; "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future." It is all pretty straight forward though the last bit is a bit more poetic than necessary but why not. Not that you would hear that sort of thing often unless you happened to bump into somebody that speaks like that and most likely they are going to be a critic or somebody who actually knows what they are taking about, if they are bullshitting is pretty easy to spot them as words have meanings and if it doesn't relate to what they are talking about they are full of shit.
I think one funny thing about modern art is that people are looking to attribute all sorts of meanings to things where they probably don't exist or wasn't even the producer's intent, as was shown in the case of the professor's apron in the video. "Evocative". Seriously? ::) Who are they trying to impress? The packaged artist's shit - sure he produced that, but
art? It's creative, as in he probably had a minor eureka moment while on the toilet, sure. It's a statement, but one that I would associate more with criticism towards consumerism than art. It isn't even aesthetically pleasing.
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that real talent should be divorced from art.
Are you familiar with chimp paintings? Would you personally call them art?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Chimpanzee_congo_painting.jpg)
That's one painting from a chimp called Congo. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_(chimpanzee)) I like blues, blacks and whites, but I wouldn't think that there was any deeper meaning in there somewhere to challenge the observer.
The Pierre Brassau hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau) is particularly funny. Chimp 1, art snobs 0.
Quote from: Crow on April 14, 2016, 12:53:11 AMThe person in the video clearly doesn't understand what art actually is and is one of the thickos who are incapable of understanding it, which just so happen to be the part of the same coin that is the old-fashioned art snobs.
Common vacuous rebuttal from those who can't provide a rational rebuttal. I'm sure there will be something of substance instead of just attacking the man and tu quoque.
Quote from: CrowIf he finds it too confusing or difficult he may want to step away and go do something that doesn't challenge him as he is obviously stuck in the "if I like it then it is art, if I don't then it isn't" which is the exact same opinion of the old fashioned art snob.
Another attack on the guy, plus a bonus straw man? Yep, still a common "defense" like those made by ones who can't rationally support their point.
Quote from: CrowWhat is there to not get about art (and the many different sub categories) it is a form of creative expression with the sole purpose of being such, if it is in a gallery then somebody enjoys it enough to want to share it with others that is pretty much the sum total of it, if that is hard to grasp then wow I don't even know how to reply to that in earnest because that is some simple shit.
So art is potentially anything and everything... I think that makes "art" a useless term then. Literally nothing is not art under this definition. If that's what you want to consider art, that's fine for you, but I don't accept it. I think that art should be distinguished from other things. I like a lot of abstract art, and I even dislike a lot of abstract art that I still accept as art, but I think it's also good to speak out against trying to pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art.
If you disagree, then at the very least you must accept my dissent as art.
Quote from: CrowEven this sentence is really easy to understand; "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future."[...]
No one is saying that we should accept the status quo, not the guy in the video nor anyone who doesn't accept that nails randomly hammered into a block of wood is art. Oh noes, now some bullshitter thinks that because I don't like garbage then I don't know what I'm talking about. Whatever will I do?
Unfortunately, I saw no rational rebuttal to what the guy in the video said.
Attacking the guy - check.
Tu quoque - check.
Straw man - check.
Refutation of points - ...
I suppose that last one is forthcoming.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 14, 2016, 03:03:49 PM
I think one funny thing about modern art is that people are looking to attribute all sorts of meanings to things where they probably don't exist or wasn't even the producer's intent, as was shown in the case of the professor's apron in the video. "Evocative". Seriously? ::) Who are they trying to impress? The packaged artist's shit - sure he produced that, but art? It's creative, as in he probably had a minor eureka moment while on the toilet, sure. It's a statement, but one that I would associate more with criticism towards consumerism than art. It isn't even aesthetically pleasing.
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that real talent should be divorced from art.
Are you familiar with chimp paintings? Would you personally call them art?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Chimpanzee_congo_painting.jpg[/img]
That's one painting from a chimp called Congo. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_(chimpanzee)) I like blues, blacks and whites, but I wouldn't think that there was any deeper meaning in there somewhere to challenge the observer.
The Pierre Brassau hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau) is particularly funny. Chimp 1, art snobs 0.
Once a piece of work is in the public realm the artists intention matters little, how a person perceives that work is ultimately how they feel about it. As people have differing opinions the base assumption is people are going to have opinions that differ from yours and if it is a piece that is intended to confront viewers on a subject than it is going to create strong opinion. You don't have to like it, or even understand the intention but to fail to see it as creative expression says a lot about the viewer more than it does the artist. In the video 99% of the work isn't even modern art.
Art has never had to be aesthetically pleasing, just look at some of the opinions on people who funded renascence works, they often thought it was poor but it was popular or somebody who was more influential was a fan. This is pretty much the same all the way through history whenever you find writings on the subject.
I also find it highly amusing when they say artists lack technical talent as some of the most conceptual or stylised artists are some of the most talented technically, you have to be technically talented to even get recognised in the first place but see it as redundant because it isn't anything new, anybody can learn to pick up a brush and paint to a proficient with enough practice. There is little intellectual skill involved in painting still life and why in contemporary society art that is lead via intellectual skill not a learned skill is more desirable.
I wouldn't call animal art in the traditional sense art as it wasn't intended by the creator to be art and in most cases lead by a another person as was the case with the stuff produced in the 1960's specifically to be abstract. It could be in many other ways one being as a form of primal expression but seeing as you can guide an animal to create recognisable images the input from humans diminishes that.
Quote from: Davin on April 14, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
So art is potentially anything and everything... I think that makes "art" a useless term then. Literally nothing is not art under this definition. If that's what you want to consider art, that's fine for you, but I don't accept it. I think that art should be distinguished from other things. I like a lot of abstract art, and I even dislike a lot of abstract art that I still accept as art, but I think it's also good to speak out against trying to pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art.
Art is art if it is creative expression with the sole intention of being art. There isn't much to get here and yes pretty much anything can be art in the same way a writer has a story to tell then they can write a story about anything, just because an individual dislikes the story or it might not be in the prose they like doesn't stop it being a story. Who are you to say "pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art", do you know what went into the process of the final piece? I assume not. Are you a lazy as developer that copy and pastes everything? maybe you are, maybe you aren't but for the sake of it I'm going to express that you are unskilled and lazy because I didn't like a post you made a while back about programming. I'm not going to even bother with the rest of the post.
I actually have a problem with everything being called "art", and find much of "modern art" pretentious.
Although, the guy in the video seems really angry about it. Chill, dude! It's not personal - people have different opinions. To me, a one-color canvas is painted... but it ain't art.
Here's my final word on what is the art:
http://www.joesdump.com/2013/09/02/it-arts-so-good/ (http://www.joesdump.com/2013/09/02/it-arts-so-good/)
Quote from: joeactor on April 14, 2016, 05:54:29 PM
I actually have a problem with everything being called "art", and find much of "modern art" pretentious.
Although, the guy in the video seems really angry about it. Chill, dude! It's not personal - people have different opinions. To me, a one-color canvas is painted... but it ain't art.
Here's my final word on what is the art:
http://www.joesdump.com/2013/09/02/it-arts-so-good/ (http://www.joesdump.com/2013/09/02/it-arts-so-good/)
You might not like it but it is art, even from a technical point of view it is more than a canvas of colour. Go look at a bit of monochrome painting, the minimalist stuff specifically and look at how they have been painted, they aren't basic painting techniques not by a long way. Even try it yourself, try get the precession of brush strokes (they don't use a roller or foam and don't use paints that are good for painting flat) there are so many that play with different strokes, patterns and textures.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F02%2FWe-Go-to-the-Gallery-3-600x458.jpg&hash=67c3e7a203a53e9f71eb2f1f739bb8809cb18745)
Quote from: Crow on April 14, 2016, 05:42:49 PM
Quote from: Davin on April 14, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
So art is potentially anything and everything... I think that makes "art" a useless term then. Literally nothing is not art under this definition. If that's what you want to consider art, that's fine for you, but I don't accept it. I think that art should be distinguished from other things. I like a lot of abstract art, and I even dislike a lot of abstract art that I still accept as art, but I think it's also good to speak out against trying to pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art.
Art is art if it is creative expression with the sole intention of being art. There isn't much to get here and yes pretty much anything can be art in the same way a writer has a story to tell then they can write a story about anything, just because an individual dislikes the story or it might not be in the prose they like doesn't stop it being a story. Who are you to say "pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art", do you know what went into the process of the final piece? I assume not. Are you a lazy as developer that copy and pastes everything? maybe you are, maybe you aren't but for the sake of it I'm going to express that you are unskilled and lazy because I didn't like a post you made a while back about programming. I'm not going to even bother with the rest of the post.
Does a piece of work have have art as its sole purpose to be art?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.guggenheim.org%2Fcontent%2FAffiliates%2FBilbao%2Fhomepage%2Fbilbaoabout.jpg&hash=3f6cf3a7f569538595e973526e5b9432f9f7b9ff)
Quote from: Siz on April 14, 2016, 07:06:01 PM
Does a piece of work have have art as its sole purpose to be art?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.guggenheim.org%2Fcontent%2FAffiliates%2FBilbao%2Fhomepage%2Fbilbaoabout.jpg&hash=3f6cf3a7f569538595e973526e5b9432f9f7b9ff)
The Guggenheim Bilbao is architecture. Even though it is a museum that is intended to hold art its purpose is to be a building and has been designed with that specifically in mind. It has obvious artistic merit but it is design.
Here is an example of architecture being used as art:
Turning the place over by Richard Wilson
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F45.media.tumblr.com%2F98ba08e9a72aa96889b9b8351c81d71b%2Ftumblr_mgdlzg28Nu1qlic7co1_r3_400.gif&hash=ace8b9869782e002a43eaa6d60965c6a365fb528)
Quote from: Crow on April 14, 2016, 07:18:14 PM
Quote from: Siz on April 14, 2016, 07:06:01 PM
Does a piece of work have have art as its sole purpose to be art?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.guggenheim.org%2Fcontent%2FAffiliates%2FBilbao%2Fhomepage%2Fbilbaoabout.jpg&hash=3f6cf3a7f569538595e973526e5b9432f9f7b9ff)
The Guggenheim Bilbao is architecture. Even though it is a museum that is intended to hold art its purpose is to be a building and has been designed with that specifically in mind. It has obvious artistic merit but it is design.
Yet not art?! Srsly?
Maybe he thinks only paintings or things hanging on walls is art.
;)
-Nam
Quote from: Siz on April 14, 2016, 07:33:54 PM
Yet not art?! Srsly?
Yup. Similar to a Lars von Trier film, it has artistic merit but it is feature film/cinema/movie (whatever you want to use). A lot of people don't seem to get this for some reason.
Art is a medium itself when we talk about art movements we are talking about the medium, often refereed to as capital A art. When you study Art History you do not study the history of architecture or cinema, though you do look at areas of design and entertainment where the process of thought cross over but that isn't the prime focus such as 1930's cartoons as an extension of the surrealist art movement. You can call it a work of art if you like, if that is what it is to you but it isn't "Art" and there are many things I would consider a work of art as in something of beauty.
Quote from: Crow on April 14, 2016, 05:42:49 PM
Quote from: Davin on April 14, 2016, 04:51:06 PM
So art is potentially anything and everything... I think that makes "art" a useless term then. Literally nothing is not art under this definition. If that's what you want to consider art, that's fine for you, but I don't accept it. I think that art should be distinguished from other things. I like a lot of abstract art, and I even dislike a lot of abstract art that I still accept as art, but I think it's also good to speak out against trying to pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art.
Art is art if it is creative expression with the sole intention of being art.
I can agree that some art is created with the sole intention of being art. But I also think that not everything created with the intention of being art is art. Nor do I think that everything that is art was created with the sole intention of being art.
Quote from: CrowThere isn't much to get here and yes pretty much anything can be art in the same way a writer has a story to tell then they can write a story about anything, just because an individual dislikes the story or it might not be in the prose they like doesn't stop it being a story.
That straw man again. I'll say it again, there is art that I do not like, that I still consider art. Do try to address what I actually said.
Quote from: CrowWho are you to say "pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art", do you know what went into the process of the final piece? I assume not.
Be careful of the precedent you try to set here, especially when in the following you apply it outside of art. How can you call anything art if you don't know what the sole intention of the potential artist is/was? You can't know what the sole intention of the person who made something is, so you can't call anything art. It was nice seeing you argue with yourself.
Quote from: CrowAre you a lazy as developer that copy and pastes everything? maybe you are, maybe you aren't but for the sake of it I'm going to express that you are unskilled and lazy because I didn't like a post you made a while back about programming.
This an odd false equivalency. You're comparing a post I made about programming to me actually programming, when I'm talking about an artists produced art. If I were talking about an artist talking about art instead, then this point would make more sense.
Quote from: CrowI'm not going to even bother with the rest of the post.
No worries, I accept that you concede to the rest of my post.
Quote from: Davin on April 14, 2016, 08:12:06 PM
No worries, I accept that you concede to the rest of my post.
If it actually matter to you then I can declare from this point forward you are always correct in everything you say be it past present or anything you might say. With your rigorous arguing skills even when there is no argument present that prevent any discussion from actually taking part you always win.
Quote from: Crow on April 14, 2016, 07:51:59 PM
Quote from: Siz on April 14, 2016, 07:33:54 PM
Yet not art?! Srsly?
Yup. Similar to a Lars von Trier film, it has artistic merit but it is feature film/cinema/movie (whatever you want to use). A lot of people don't seem to get this for some reason.
Art is a medium itself when we talk about art movements we are talking about the medium, often refereed to as capital A art. When you study Art History you do not study the history of architecture or cinema, though you do look at areas of design and entertainment where the process of thought cross over but that isn't the prime focus such as 1930's cartoons as an extension of the surrealist art movement. You can call it a work of art if you like, if that is what it is to you but it isn't "Art" and there are many things I would consider a work of art as in something of beauty.
It's anything you choose to redefine it to be, I suppose. *shrug*
Quote from: Crow on April 14, 2016, 08:14:34 PM
Quote from: Davin on April 14, 2016, 08:12:06 PM
No worries, I accept that you concede to the rest of my post.
If it actually matter to you then I can declare from this point forward you are always correct in everything you say be it past present or anything you might say. With your rigorous arguing skills even when there is no argument present that prevent any discussion from actually taking part you always win.
Alright, have fun. :)
Quote from: Siz on April 14, 2016, 08:32:50 PM
It's anything you choose to redefine it to be, I suppose. *shrug*
Many different meanings for a single word. Formalised art which was the beginning of the discussion and what that art bollocks stuff relates to then we are talking about the capital A art the one people study the history of and gain degrees in and become professionals within its field.
When you see/hear somebody say "X isn't art" it doesn't mean it isn't art in the other meanings. I have always thought it was pretty obvious in the same way somebody might use the word bow to mean the weapon, the etiquette or the garment dependent on the phrase it was used in. When talking about a piece of design or landscape and somebody says "what a work of art" then I automatically assume they find it to be beautiful.
Quote from: Crow on April 14, 2016, 08:52:57 PM
Quote from: Siz on April 14, 2016, 08:32:50 PM
It's anything you choose to redefine it to be, I suppose. *shrug*
Many different meanings for a single word. Formalised art which was the beginning of the discussion and what that art bollocks stuff relates to then we are talking about the capital A art the one people study the history of and gain degrees in and become professionals within its field.
When you see/hear somebody say "X isn't art" it doesn't mean it isn't art in the other meanings. I have always thought it was pretty obvious in the same way somebody might use the word bow to mean the weapon, the etiquette or the garment dependent on the phrase it was used in. When talking about a piece of design or landscape and somebody says "what a work of art" then I automatically assume they find it to be beautiful.
Fuck professionals in their field - they can't even agree what art is, which speaks volumes about what art is.
You are choosing to argue on the strength of an arbitrary personal definition. The Guggenheim building is not art in the same way that a chicken is not made of meat.
Quote from: Siz on April 14, 2016, 09:57:38 PMFuck professionals in their field - they can't even agree what art is, which speaks volumes about what art is.
You are choosing to argue on the strength of an arbitrary personal definition. The Guggenheim building is not art in the same way that a chicken is not made of meat.
I'm a fan of this definition:
Quote from: wikipediaArt is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts – artworks, expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
I know it's from wikipedia, but I don't see anything wrong with it. While there is still a lot of wiggle room, I think that puts many things (like the Guggenheim), inside of it, and other things (like white papers), outside of it. Instead of everything being art. And yes, when you get to edge cases things get blurry... but that's a "problem" that almost everything has.
Quote from: Siz on April 14, 2016, 09:57:38 PM
Fuck professionals in their field - they can't even agree what art is, which speaks volumes about what art is.
You are choosing to argue on the strength of an arbitrary personal definition. The Guggenheim building is not art in the same way that a chicken is not made of meat.
The argument about what is art doesn't really happen except for the old fashioned art snobs when a new movement arises and they dislike it, often with an edge of facetiousness. Duchamp started and ended the argument. The only real argument comes from people who either don't engage with art and their understanding comes from a news article, they might have gone to a gallery once with their kids or dragged there with school as a child. Usually people that are actually interested in the subject have usually got this out of the way.
The Guggenheim is architecture. This website is web design. The newspaper in a magazine stand is graphic design. Some might be prettier than the other but that doesn't make any of them artworks they are all design. A piece of art if it is to your tastes and they are expressions of creativity but they aren't art. Designers would often be highly offended if you referred to them as an artist or their work as art (some would be happy and most likely a fashion designer), I would be because this is often what they think of artists:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdbprng00ikc2j.cloudfront.net%2Fwork%2Fimage%2F400666%2Fy8wnrh%2F20110119061733-ian_stevenson_fucking_artist.jpg&hash=efecefac70bc63299ec8d884a6932b0c51711e12)
And whilst we are at it I will cover this. What is the difference between art and design? Art is self serving, design is functional intended for a specific use.
Quote from: Crow on April 14, 2016, 10:27:38 PM
Quote from: Siz on April 14, 2016, 09:57:38 PM
Fuck professionals in their field - they can't even agree what art is, which speaks volumes about what art is.
You are choosing to argue on the strength of an arbitrary personal definition. The Guggenheim building is not art in the same way that a chicken is not made of meat.
The argument about what is art doesn't really happen except for the old fashioned art snobs when a new movement arises and they dislike it, often with an edge of facetiousness. Duchamp started and ended the argument. The only real argument comes from people who either don't engage with art and their understanding comes from a news article, they might have gone to a gallery once with their kids or dragged there with school as a child. Usually people that are actually interested in the subject have usually got this out of the way.
The Guggenheim is architecture. This website is web design. The newspaper in a magazine stand is graphic design. Some might be prettier than the other but that doesn't make any of them artworks they are all design. A piece of art if it is to your tastes and they are expressions of creativity but they aren't art. Designers would often be highly offended if you referred to them as an artist or their work as art (some would be happy and most likely a fashion designer), I would be because this is often what they think of artists:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdbprng00ikc2j.cloudfront.net%2Fwork%2Fimage%2F400666%2Fy8wnrh%2F20110119061733-ian_stevenson_fucking_artist.jpg&hash=efecefac70bc63299ec8d884a6932b0c51711e12)
And whilst we are at it I will cover this. What is the difference between art and design? Art is self serving, design is functional intended for a specific use.
It is only your bald assertion that says design/architecture/couture cannot be art. I disagree with you by the authority of an appreciation of the marriage between aesthetics and the constraints of practical design. Any cock can create art for its own sake (as your funny cartoon aludes) but it takes an Artist to turn practical design via creative expression into a thing of beauty.
Quote from: Siz on April 15, 2016, 12:07:49 AM
It is only your bald assertion that says design/architecture/couture cannot be art. I disagree with you by the authority of an appreciation of the marriage between aesthetics and the constraints of practical design. Any cock can create art for its own sake (as your funny cartoon aludes) but it takes an Artist to turn practical design via creative expression into a thing of beauty.
I'd say it takes a good designer to do what you said as that is the job of a designer, beauty is subjective but quality design is always good design regardless of aesthetic properties. Art and design are part of the same industry and often have the same tool set but have a very different output. It would be impossible for a designer to create something that had no aesthetic properties as it is a visual medium and they have to know how to produce imagery to a high quality, all that has artistic merit but they are designers answering briefs and creating solutions to problems for their clients.
I do agree that art can have many forms.
Architecture can be art.
I've even seen computer programs and math equations that were so elegant they could be called art.
But a blank canvas? Art?
Might as well call silence music... oh, wait... some people do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions)
Quote from: joeactor on April 15, 2016, 04:54:43 PM
I do agree that art can have many forms.
Architecture can be art.
I've even seen computer programs and math equations that were so elegant they could be called art.
But a blank canvas? Art?
Might as well call silence music... oh, wait... some people do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions)
Architecture can be art (I'm using art as in the medium term the same way I have the entire thread) but isn't art in of itself it is design. The point of architecture to be art is to be the art itself and that is its primary purpose. Film, programming, paintings, drawings, literature, photography are not art unless specifically intended to be so, they can all be a method of art but the process doesn't make it art it is the intention. The creator, the artist is who makes it art rather than a novel, a piece of entertainment, design or something else.
Maybe it is because I work in the industry, have worked with artists, curators, galleries, go to openings, shows and exhibitions as well as growing up around it and seeing nearly every single example of art shown in this thread in real life the difference between something being art and something else being artistic or aesthetically pleasing and still referring to it as art but not intending it as art is clear. Everyone can hang on to the idea that there is no separation but frankly there is and it is obvious and will hinder any conversation if you want to engage with the subject (mostly make you look a bit of a fool and uneducated to be honest, like holding a wine glass by the bowl rather than the stem), go to a design exhibition then go to any art exhibition and if that doesn't help then lets just say you don't get it and that is ok.
The vast majority of art is intended for use in galleries it is created as such, the way they are displayed, the way the pieces use light, audio, smells, and the audience can interact with it goes into making the final piece, if you don't get something because you don't get a picture of it you should go visit it and see what it is actually about, galleries are free. I dislike all performance art with a passion never seen a single piece that has ever appealed to me in any way shape or form and I have sat through and walked out of many performances but it is art.
Not everything has to be art, wants to be art or should be art. Especially not because somebody enjoys it. Art should be ugly it, should challenge people, it should make them sick, it should make them have an opinion and in doing so it succeeds in being art even if the reaction received wasn't intended. Art isn't about beauty or technique, it is emotional it is conceptual, it is full of hidden meanings and doesn't pander to a common denominator or anyone for that matter once that happens expression has been lost and creativity hindered.
Quote from: Crow on April 15, 2016, 06:14:22 PMArchitecture can be art (I'm using art as in the medium term the same way I have the entire thread) but isn't art in of itself it is design. The point of architecture to be art is to be the art itself and that is its primary purpose. Film, programming, paintings, drawings, literature, photography are not art unless specifically intended to be so, they can all be a method of art but the process doesn't make it art it is the intention. The creator, the artist is who makes it art rather than a novel, a piece of entertainment, design or something else.
This at least is something that can be discussed. I disagree with it, but at least it's absent of fallacies and unwarranted condescension. There is an easy to understand quote you might be familiar with, "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future."
Quote from: CrowMaybe it is because I work in the industry, have worked with artists, curators, galleries, go to openings, shows and exhibitions as well as growing up around it and seeing nearly every single example of art shown in this thread in real life the difference between something being art and something else being artistic or aesthetically pleasing and still referring to it as art but not intending it as art is clear.
Appealing to yourself as an authority is not very original nor rational. A more rational support for your claims would produce better discussion, but instead you basically said, "I know more than you, so just irrationally accept what I say." That isn't much to go on. Either we accept your authority and blindly accept your unsupported claims, or we behave like rational people and discard it until you can rationally support it.
Quote from: CrowEveryone can hang on to the idea that there is no separation but frankly there is and it is obvious and will hinder any conversation if you want to engage with the subject (mostly make you look a bit of a fool and uneducated to be honest, like holding a wine glass by the bowl rather than the stem), go to a design exhibition then go to any art exhibition and if that doesn't help then lets just say you don't get it and that is ok.
AKA: "Emperor's New Clothes." Why do you keep falling back to this tactic? It's like the straw man that you keep trotting out. Again you leave no room for discussion because you've left us with just basic irrationality with no explanation of substance. All we can do with your statement is to go, "Well Crow said I'd look like an idiot if I don't accept this, so I had to because I don't want to look like an idiot." You left no path to rationally accept your claim.
Quote from: CrowThe vast majority of art is intended for use in galleries it is created as such, the way they are displayed, the way the pieces use light, audio, smells, and the audience can interact with it goes into making the final piece, if you don't get something because you don't get a picture of it you should go visit it and see what it is actually about, galleries are free. I dislike all performance art with a passion never seen a single piece that has ever appealed to me in any way shape or form and I have sat through and walked out of many performances but it is art.
More straw men. No one ever said that because they don't like it, that it isn't art, but you keep bringing it up. It's getting quite silly. You're not providing anything useful because no one is claiming what you're arguing against.
Quote from: CrowNot everything has to be art, wants to be art or should be art. Especially not because somebody enjoys it. Art should be ugly it, should challenge people, it should make them sick, it should make them have an opinion and in doing[...]
Who are you talking to? No one is talking about what art "should" be, we're talking about what art is. And again, refer to the "easy to understand" quote above. Once you start using "shoulds" with art, you risk participating in the stagnation of it.
Quote from: Crow[...]so it succeeds in being art even if the reaction received wasn't intended.
Even if the intention wasn't to be a piece of art?
Quote from: CrowArt isn't about beauty or technique, it is emotional it is conceptual, it is full of hidden meanings and doesn't pander to a common denominator or anyone for that matter once that happens expression has been lost and creativity hindered.
And here is another tiny bit of actual substance that we can actually discuss. I disagree obviously, but at least it's something that can be discussed that isn't "because Crow said so," "You'll look dumb if you don't accept it," or arguing against something no one said.
You didn't seem interested in a discussion because you came out with your condescension guns a blazing. Maybe it wasn't that good of me to respond to you in kind. No worries, though, you don't have to discuss things with me, but that doesn't mean that I won't reply to your posts.
Davin give it a rest with the argumentation theory. It doesn't matter if it is a informal fallacy, circular reasoning, false attribution, proof by verbosity, or any of the many other studies on logic and rhetoric. Just converse, it makes things far more pleasurable especially when no one is being argumentative in the first place and just a discussion.
Quote from: Crow on April 15, 2016, 09:21:16 PM
Davin give it a rest with the argumentation theory. It doesn't matter if it is a informal fallacy, circular reasoning, false attribution, proof by verbosity, or any of the many other studies on logic and rhetoric. Just converse, it makes things far more pleasurable especially when no one is being argumentative in the first place and just a discussion.
If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.
Quote from: Davin on April 15, 2016, 09:41:05 PM
If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.
I'm happy to discuss things I love discussing thing, I don't do it to be correct or incorrect but when you constantly decide to talk about argumentation theory rather than the topic at hand it kills all interest.
When somebody writes something entierly out of interest and experience you throw up an a reply with that is "it's a strawman", I'm like who the fuck gives a shit respond about the subject at hand or just ignore it. Its an informal discussion not an argument or a debate.
Quote from: Crow on April 15, 2016, 10:01:59 PM
Quote from: Davin on April 15, 2016, 09:41:05 PM
If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.
I'm happy to discuss things I love discussing thing, I don't do it to be correct or incorrect but when you constantly decide to talk about argumentation theory rather than the topic at hand it kills all interest.
I was just explaining why I don't accept your claims and why it would be irrational for others to accept them. If that's not interesting to you, then don't worry about it.
Quote from: CrowWhen somebody writes something entierly out of interest and experience you throw up an a reply with that is "it's a strawman", I'm like who the fuck gives a shit respond about the subject at hand or just ignore it. Its an informal discussion not an argument or a debate.
The reason I mentioned your straw men, is because I don't think I nor any one else has any obligation to discuss them because they originated entirely from you. Of course your free to tilt at windmills, just like I'm free to point it out.
Don't trouble yourself by responding to me if you're going to continue off topic. I don't care if you don't like the way I do things. You can do things your way, I will do things my way.
Quote from: Davin on April 15, 2016, 10:12:05 PM
Quote from: Crow on April 15, 2016, 10:01:59 PM
Quote from: Davin on April 15, 2016, 09:41:05 PM
If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.
I'm happy to discuss things I love discussing thing, I don't do it to be correct or incorrect but when you constantly decide to talk about argumentation theory rather than the topic at hand it kills all interest.
I was just explaining why I don't accept your claims and why it would be irrational for others to accept them. If that's not interesting to you, then don't worry about it.
Quote from: CrowWhen somebody writes something entierly out of interest and experience you throw up an a reply with that is "it's a strawman", I'm like who the fuck gives a shit respond about the subject at hand or just ignore it. Its an informal discussion not an argument or a debate.
The reason I mentioned your straw men, is because I don't think I nor any one else has any obligation to discuss them because they originated entirely from you. Of course your free to tilt at windmills, just like I'm free to point it out.
Don't trouble yourself by responding to me if you're going to continue off topic. I don't care if you don't like the way I do things. You can do things your way, I will do things my way.
The thing is that is how conversations works, different people give different elements to discuss and yes they come from people. That is generally how people communicate with each other, they give their opinion in any way they like, the other person will usually reply to what they find interesting in whatever way they desire. They may move or change the conversation to any ebb and flow that comes up, this is why pretty much every thread will go off topic in about five posts here (and most places). I know why you like to keep things structured but it can grate and you don't have to change that just keep it in mind that it can be very boorish when it is every response and appears not much different from an automated answer from a modbot about keeping the conversation on topic.
Quote from: Davin on April 15, 2016, 09:41:05 PM
If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.
Coming back to this as I think it is interesting I have removed from the post I responded to anything that is an analysis on the method of discussion, because frankly how am I suppose to respond to that in any way shape or form that is different than what I have.
QuoteThis at least is something that can be discussed. I disagree with it... ...There is an easy to understand quote you might be familiar with, "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future."
Once you start using "shoulds" with art, you risk participating in the stagnation of it.
Even if the intention wasn't to be a piece of art?
And here is another tiny bit of actual substance that we can actually discuss.
Not really giving me much to go on is it? Yet you ask for me to address your points which are an analysis on the method of discussion. There is "And here is another tiny bit of actual substance that we can actually discuss." and this "This at least is something that can be discussed. I disagree with it..." but I cant discuss something if I don't know what it is you want to discuss about it. All I actually see to discuss are "Once you start using 'shoulds' with art, you risk participating in the stagnation of it." and "Even if the intention wasn't to be a piece of art?" which I can reply to:
Indeed you do risk stagnating art by discussing what should or shouldn't be art after all in its medium sense art has changed many times, in certain cultures it was entirely religious in subject matter and now is rare to find anything of note (i.e. something that is unusual or different than what has come before) that is religious, mostly what is religious in subject now is just used to shock and will change many times again. I view it a bit like pandoras box once the lid has been lifted on certain subject matter it will forever remain even if it is just documentation. Surrealism was a rebellion against reason and logic it was about delving into the mind without any particular purpose and questioning the reality we perceive. Minimalism was an extension to this and cubism as it pushed into abstraction and became devoid of recognition it became simpler, out went colour, out went unnecessary marks until it was at the essence of what the artist was wanting to portray. Movements afterwards (post-modernism) were a rebellion against this type of thinking and conceptualisation but try as they might the more they tried to remove themselves from what modernism was the more they borrowed from it. A lot of the examples that were in the video being called modern art (modern art is what we call modernism which is a period of about 20 years, contemporary art is what we call the art of our generation) were actually post-modernist, thus why I find it amusing.
If the intention wasn't to be art then it isn't art, in the broader sense sure why the hell not you are probably art to somebody, a single weed sprouting up through the crack in concrete flooring is to another and neither are intended to be. In uni an ex of mine was studying fine art, she had a canvas in her room that she had been working on for while, working on then painting over, every time she was painting different sections of the body intersecting. A friend came over when one was about to be painted over and he said it was the best art he had seen, she replied "this isn't art it is a study, this is my art" and showed him a photo of a bronze abstract sculpture with hundreds of tiny intersecting pieces of various widths and sizes, he said "this isn't art it is a ball of metal", the studies of anatomy were what informed her art. Going back to the earlier example bring somebody into the example that sees you as art, you might become their muse and use you as the basis for their art and express what it is about you that inspires them. Somebody might look at it and think it is a picture of a guy and thus not art. Someone else might say its a hunk of clay its not art but underneath whatever the output was there was intention to express something as art, making it art. The opinion of others doesn't really matter, after all they change all the time but at the core if it was intended to be art then it is.
[Edited to clean up a lot of stuff I left in but thought I had deleted making some of it incoherent]
Merriam-Webster full definition of art:
1
: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2
a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : liberal arts
b archaic : learning, scholarship
3
: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4
a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
b (1) : fine arts (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
I think the discussion relates to 4) the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects. The phrase "conscious use" implies some level of intent on the part of the creator of the object being considered. So I think it's relevant to ask the creator if she/he intended the object to be art. If so, then we can go on to consider whether there is some use of skill and creative imagination employed. This is largely a subjective endeavor, and what I consider creative may not impress you as such. But I think the first consideration is whether the creator intended the object to be considered "art." The next step is to consider whether the creator succeeded, and on that point there will be differences of opinion.
Does this conversation remind anyone else of two theists arguing over the definition of god?
Art is a personal experience on many levels. I'll never think that an empty frame on a blank wall is art, or that silence is music. But that's only my perception. In the end, it's between the artist who creates and the person who perceives it as art.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.memecdn.com%2Fdogs-playing-poker_c_4239161.jpg&hash=2e6c411366cfc1cd385c350daa2c0cc721cd4a71)
Quote from: joeactor on April 16, 2016, 03:19:45 PM
Does this conversation remind anyone else of two theists arguing over the definition of god?
Yes, it does. :mb lol:
But defining what art is is the starting point, unfortunately. I guess people would first have to agree on what art is to have a meaningful discussion.
We could just say that "art is in the eye of the beholder" and leave it at that.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 16, 2016, 03:22:11 PM
Quote from: joeactor on April 16, 2016, 03:19:45 PM
Does this conversation remind anyone else of two theists arguing over the definition of god?
Yes, it does. :mb lol:
But defining what art is is the starting point, unfortunately. I guess people would first have to agree on what art is to have a meaningful discussion.
It would also help if people were actually into art. It is kind of telling when the examples used are ones that grab headlines for being controversial in if people are actually interested in exploring what is currently contemporary and a larger selection of art than what you normally see of the historical art movements you can't go wrong with artsy.net
Quote from: Crow on April 16, 2016, 02:02:38 PM
Quote from: Davin on April 15, 2016, 09:41:05 PM
If you don't want to discuss things, then don't. No worries.
Coming back to this[...]
While you can bother yourself in this off-topic pursuit if you want, I will not. Have fun though. :)
Quote from: joeactor on April 16, 2016, 03:19:45 PM
Does this conversation remind anyone else of two theists arguing over the definition of god?
That is very much like it feels like. While I'm fine with discussing things, and it could be interesting, I don't much like the condescension primarily supported by fallacies.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 16, 2016, 03:23:39 PM
We could just say that "art is in the eye of the beholder" and leave it at that.
No, art isn't limited to an individuals lack of understanding.
Music composition is generally regarded as a form of art. As a follow up to xSPs vid link in post 3, here is the one about musical "art". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP0wuwJBdMI.
The guy is on a rant. Much of his rant makes sense and reveals that we are conditioned to favor that which is vigorously promoted for scandalously commercial reasons. It is a bit like religion, the reasoning being that if so many people subscribe to it, then it must be good.