Big Klu Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 then it is just about anything you want it to be, which to me is too ambiguous and rather convenient. ...is what I'd use to describe: Even if you want to disuse the term 'art', then 'it' has a universal meaning beyond opinion. I think you're engaging in a circular battle of semantics. Its not a bad thing if the discussion introduces unique perspectives you/we hadnt considered. Seems odd though that the discussion so far is of music (a universally recognized artform)...and not even of the John Cage 4'33'' variety. Even Revolution#9 at this point would be an inspired drop if we're still going down the musical road. where the freak is hetware. this his up his alley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamG Posted December 31, 2007 Author Share Posted December 31, 2007 ...is what I'd use to describe: I think you're engaging in a circular battle of semantics. Its not a bad thing if the discussion introduces unique perspectives you/we hadnt considered. Seems odd though that the discussion so far is of music (a universally recognized artform)...and not even of the John Cage 4'33'' variety. Even Revolution#9 at this point would be an inspired drop if we're still going down the musical road. where the freak is hetware. this his up his alley. These discussions always contradict themselves. I like to call it the poverty of language. But it's the only universal method at our disposal of describing uncategorizable qualities. So far, from what I can ascertain, art is really just an invention because it is anything to anybody. At the same time, we like sing its praises without quantifying what it is we mean. (example: LedZeppelin.com) But feel free to discuss any form you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 These discussions always contradict themselves. I like to call it the poverty of language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamG Posted January 1, 2008 Author Share Posted January 1, 2008 Aren't you contradicting yourself? In the very first post you said there was hierarchy in art. Later, you say I'm voicing some 'social-conditioning' when I say that art indeed has some hierarchy... They do exist but I don't think categories constitute 'art' (whatever art is?) But if we are to believe in these fabrications, then it should apply across the board. In popular music circles, music is considered subjective. Basically you were stating that folk art was rather crude and classical was quintessential and I felt that you were alluding to craft as opposed to art. Yes, classical is complex and from this viewpoint all other forms of music could be seen as bastardizations of it, and therefore inferior but it's like children comparing toys; mine is better than yours. Art, broadly speaking, can cover just about anything that plays with one's emotions... Even that a$$hole manipulator you know has his/her dealings down to an art... But there exist gradations in value for types of art. Folk art from hundreds or maybe thousands of years ago does not exist in its original form today, except perhaps as an historical record. Keeping with the classical/romantic music example, those artists are still popular today because they "tugged at our heart strings", and did so with class. That is, there was a complexity woven into their music which cannot be found in folk art. Fine art, such as these composers made, is the highest art because it is both evocative and complex. Period. There compostions are some of the finest of human achievments. Not every schmuck can create what they did; this is what delineates them as true artists. Their work represents the pinnacle of human accomplishment. Classical is still around because it was popular music, adopted by the rich and powerful. It is also still around because it was written down. Folk music coexisted with tribes and dialects, it was local and accessible. By your thinking, classical art is superior to abstract art because it is 'harder to do'. Classical music was written in accordance to strict ideas, with religion, monarchy, etc. It was intellectual, but this is mealy one aspect of music. It is also true to say that a rock musician, for example, is incapable of such technical wizardry. Could you not say that that both forms are a product of their times? All in all, I don't think you are talking about 'art'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaztor (slight return) Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Definition of art? When you like it it's bitchen, when you don't like it it sucks. Pretty simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Classical is still around because it was popular music, adopted by the rich and powerful. It is also still around because it was written down. Folk music coexisted with tribes and dialects, it was local and accessible. By your thinking, classical art is superior to abstract art because it is 'harder to do'. Classical music was written in accordance to strict ideas, with religion, monarchy, etc. It was intellectual, but this is mealy one aspect of music. It is also true to say that a rock musician, for example, is incapable of such technical wizardry. Could you not say that that both forms are a product of their times? All in all, I don't think you are talking about 'art'. Ok. Folk music is music of the people. That is, popular music. Do you think the average 17th or 18th century joe was listening to the village musician or Beethoven? Folk music then, and now, will always be more popular (because it was/is more accessible). I believe I defined the highest art as essentially being complex and evocative. This could be classical, abstract, or some other art form of which I'm not even aware. If I'm not talking about art, what am I talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamG Posted January 1, 2008 Author Share Posted January 1, 2008 Ok. Folk music is music of the people. That is, popular music. Do you think the average 17th or 18th century joe was listening to the village musician or Beethoven? Folk music then, and now, will always be more popular (because it was/is more accessible). I believe I defined the highest art as essentially being complex and evocative. This could be classical, abstract, or some other art form of which I'm not even aware. If I'm not talking about art, what am I talking about? Craft: "an art, trade, or occupation requiring special skill, esp. manual skill: the craft of a mason." Or you could be talking about 'art' as well. But it isn't necessarily so black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RjK Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 All art is bullshit it just depends weather its good bullshit or bad bullshit thats my opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. Therefore if you ask for an opinion on art your going to get nothing but bullshit and it will stink !!! :thanku: :thanku: :thanku: :thanku: :thanku: RjK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamG Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 All art is bullshit it just depends weather its good bullshit or bad bullshit thats my opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. Therefore if you ask for an opinion on art your going to get nothing but bullshit and it will stink !!! RjK There is wisdom in your vulgarity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOJO Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Craft: "an art, trade, or occupation requiring special skill, esp. manual skill: the craft of a mason." Or you could be talking about 'art' as well. But it isn't necessarily so black and white. The mason is the tool the architect uses to make his art. Although the mason is an artist in his craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 art: noun. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power And that is all I have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyMerkin Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 These discussions always contradict themselves. I like to call it the poverty of language. I like to call it lack of coherent argumentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 I like to call it lack of coherent argumentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cactus Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Art is about communication. Language is one form of communication. Painting is another. Music is another etc etc. Unfortunately a lot of artists are pretentious, and really have nothing to communicate, so do something obscure and act as though it's really important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamG Posted January 2, 2008 Author Share Posted January 2, 2008 art: noun. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power And that is all I have to say. Well there you go. Art is anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humbucker Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 The worst thing that can happen to an artist, is to be ignored. If an artist gets a reaction, whether positive or negative, then the art work has served its purpose. Whether you like the work, or not, is neither here nor there. RB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOJO Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 The worst thing that can happen to an artist, is to be ignored. If an artist gets a reaction, whether positive or negative, then the art work has served its purpose. Whether you like the work, or not, is neither here nor there. RB AMEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamG Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 The worst thing that can happen to an artist, is to be ignored. If an artist gets a reaction, whether positive or negative, then the art work has served its purpose. Whether you like the work, or not, is neither here nor there. RB From the consumerist point of view, or for recognition, this is true. But still, 'reaction' isn't a definition of art. True art is far likely to get ignored. Popularity in either guises of rebellion or conformity appeal to the masses and this is very cheap indeed! Again, you aren’t necessarily talking about art. Expediency maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyMerkin Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Well there you go. Art is anything. From the consumerist point of view, or for recognition, this is true. But still, 'reaction' isn't a definition of art. True art is far likely to get ignored. Popularity in either guises of rebellion or conformity appeal to the masses and this is very cheap indeed! Again, you aren’t necessarily talking about art. Expediency maybe? If art is anything how can there be "true" art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidmoon Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 If art is anything how can there be "true" art? Yes, I think--ahem--, uh, FuzzyMerkin and I are on the same page. Of course, you are right Sam G, the term 'art' can be whored out to just about anything. But the point I'm trying to make is that "art" (proper) should represent the epitome of human skill, creativity, etc... Anything that falls short of this mark is, well, not art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyMerkin Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Yes, I think--ahem--, uh, FuzzyMerkin and I are on the same page. Of course, you are right Sam G, the term 'art' can be whored out to just about anything. But the point I'm trying to make is that "art" (proper) should represent the epitome of human skill, creativity, etc... Anything that falls short of this mark is, well, not art. Eh, no...the point I'm trying to make is that if "everything is art" there can not be some "true" art since the term "true" implies that there is also some "untrue/false" art which by definition is NOT art - which then contradicts the claim that "everything is art". That's one reason why I don't consider Sam's line of argumentation coherent. As far as I'm concerned art is a subjective concept whose definition depends on the resonance an object/piece of music etc. creates within a person - which in term is dependent on personal taste, experience, formative influence of the society a person lives in etc., i.e. there are NO objective measurable criteria of what constitutes art and what does not. That's why the conept of "art" has been changing throughout the centuries and why some people consider modern art humbug while others dispise opera etc.. Unlike art, craft and technical skills can be measured and compared - I get the feeling you're mixing up those terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamG Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 If art is anything how can there be "true" art? I never said what art is. I'm just not satisfied with any notion which states that art is intellectual property or that it is anything that arouses emotion. A dead cat arouses emotion. If I was to surmise, I'd say that art must be something educational, connected with 'truth'-whatever that may be? And being representations of truth, artistic objects must be in a flux. Frankly, the subject is almost impossible to define. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamG Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 FuzzyMerkin, I need to insert more inverted commas. You are taking everything literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katuschka Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 And being representations of truth, artistic objects must be in a flux. Frankly, the subject is almost impossible to define. Frankly, so is truth or any representation of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamG Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Frankly, so is truth or any representation of it... That's why allegory exists. ...the poverty of language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.