EPTOn August 29 2008 03:01 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
well I cannot argue by myself
Even I haven't aspired to that level.
well I cannot argue by myself
Even I haven't aspired to that level.Would be fun if you had a twin.
:>
Argument Blog - Page 2
| Blogs > zulu_nation8 |
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Would be fun if you had a twin. :> | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 29 2008 02:23 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Ok bly! Anything can be art! Art is undefined and cannot be constrained by the subjective definition of a few. Additionally: All art is equal. Since art is timeless and it's inherent value is based on the emotional/thought provoking experience deeming one piece or work of art more valuable than another is ignorant since current art perhaps deemed inferior could have a greater impact down the road with more people or a mass of more important people. I do believe there is something inherently equal in all art; that of which mirrors what is inherently equal in all human beings since art is the expression of human beings. However we must define and interpret art constantly in respect to ourselves and the place and time we live in in order to understand art in any sort of context. By interpreting art, a certain worth or value is forcibly assigned to it which very often changes when the things we measure art upon change themselves. However if we don't critique art there would be no dialectics or progress at all. So in the end, it's necessary to assign certain art more value than others for the sake of art itself. | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On August 29 2008 02:19 Kletus wrote: Yes yes, well I'm sure you'd find if you just kindly angle your pee stream a fraction to the left, that it would find it's way to the ground quite uninterrupted.Good sir, it appears your leg is in the way of my pee stream. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On August 29 2008 03:07 zulu_nation8 wrote: I do believe there is something inherently equal in all art; that of which mirrors what is inherently equal in all human beings since art is the expression of human beings. However we must define and interpret art constantly in respect to ourselves and the place and time we live in in order to understand art in any sort of context. By interpreting art, a certain worth or value is forcibly assigned to it which very often changes when the things we measure art upon change themselves. However if we don't critique art there would be no dialectics or progress at all. So in the end, it's necessary to assign certain art more value than others for the sake of art itself. But you contend that we may be so vain as to speak to the value of art as if it's progress is dependent on our subjective and relatively ignorant critiques? You yourself acknowledge that art is timeless and it's value transcends a mere mortal.. how then can a mere mortal assign any kind of value to a work of art? We cannot. Even a thousand year old painting is young in it's potential.. perhaps it ends up surviving for a million years how can anyone along the way assume to know its value? And what is much more disturbing on that vain, how can someone presume to speak on behalf of art's progression at all? As if we are somehow above art and can carve it a progressive path? I contend there have been 0 "progress" in art. Art is beyond human control. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On August 29 2008 03:29 {88}iNcontroL wrote: But you contend that we may be so vain as to speak to the value of art as if it's progress is dependent on our subjective and relatively ignorant critiques? You yourself acknowledge that art is timeless and it's value transcends a mere mortal.. how then can a mere mortal assign any kind of value to a work of art? We cannot. Even a thousand year old painting is young in it's potential.. perhaps it ends up surviving for a million years how can anyone along the way assume to know its value? And what is much more disturbing on that vain, how can someone presume to speak on behalf of art's progression at all? As if we are somehow above art and can carve it a progressive path? I contend there have been 0 "progress" in art. Art is beyond human control. Art critics influence art history all the time, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
He may have influenced a form of art, or a style and the artists that openly adhere to the rules of that art.. but that is a ridiculous statement "art critics influence art history all the time." Easiest debate of my life would be refuting that. We both accept that art is the expression of humanity.. if that is so.. it is huge and all encompassing. How can we refer to "art history" in such a broad and open way and refer specifically to a specific period of time? Or an expression of a specific branch of art? We cannot, or at least if we do; we risk being ignorantly short-sighted. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
SayaSP
Laos5494 Posts
| ||
|
azndsh
United States4447 Posts
| ||
|
BanZu
United States3329 Posts
| ||
|
Makhno
Sweden585 Posts
On August 29 2008 03:29 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I contend there have been 0 "progress" in art. Art is beyond human control. How can art be beyond human control when arguably the "greatest" art (by the definition of fame and appretiation) has been painted, written, sculpted or in other ways devised by man? I agree to the statement that, subjectively, everything is art, but I want to make a point about the most well-known works of art being man-made, rather than the feeling often conveyed by f.e. the beauty of nature or science. These two are separate and must be viewed as two separate entities. One of them eternal and beyond our reach, the beauty of the perceivable world, and the other made by us, an attempt to capture all that is thought provoking around us and within us. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On August 29 2008 04:33 Makhno wrote: How can art be beyond human control when arguably the "greatest" art (by the definition of fame and appretiation) has been painted, written, sculpted or in other ways devised by man? I agree to the statement that, subjectively, everything is art, but I want to make a point about the most well-known works of art being man-made, rather than the feeling often conveyed by f.e. the beauty of nature or science. These two are separate and must be viewed as two separate entities. One of them eternal and beyond our reach, the beauty of the perceivable world, and the other made by us, an attempt to capture all that is thought provoking around us and within us. Arguably is right. I would contend we cannot possibly begin to condemn some art over others as "greatest." Their life is potentially young, who knows their reach? And which faulter or succeed? Additionally, art is outside of human control because its "value" or potential is fully realized by no one individual.. it is only recognized by a collection of people forming an entity that can span a thousand years or more. | ||
micronesia
United States24772 Posts
| ||
|
Makhno
Sweden585 Posts
On August 29 2008 04:50 {88}iNcontroL wrote: Arguably is right. I would contend we cannot possibly begin to condemn some art over others as "greatest." Their life is potentially young, who knows their reach? And which faulter or succeed? Additionally, art is outside of human control because its "value" or potential is fully realized by no one individual.. it is only recognized by a collection of people forming an entity that can span a thousand years or more. I agree that no individual has the authority to condemn any art as inferior to other but my point is that, as you state, the "greatness" or as you put it, the "value" of a specific piece of art can be judged in retrospect when sufficient appretitation has been shown the work and artist and when it's legacy reaches in to modern times, when the art-movement it was part of is long gone. But this does'nt put it beyond human control, just beyond the individual, where it should be. Art critique is a paradox in my opinion. However I agree that "young", contemporary art is hard to judge other than purely subjectively as it has'nt stood the test of time and future. But really we are only discussing the material value of art as some kind of commodity, where it is defined by its accomplishments, rather than the inner, purer kind of value as in how it affects the viewer personally. | ||
|
Kletus
Canada580 Posts
On August 29 2008 03:21 Falcynn wrote: Yes yes, well I'm sure you'd find if you just kindly angle your pee stream a fraction to the left, that it would find it's way to the ground quite uninterrupted. And I'm quite sure that you'd move your leg but a fraction to the left, you would find that it would cease to be peed upon. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On August 29 2008 05:05 Makhno wrote: I agree that no individual has the authority to condemn any art as inferior to other but my point is that, as you state, the "greatness" or as you put it, the "value" of a specific piece of art can be judged in retrospect when sufficient appretitation has been shown the work and artist and when it's legacy reaches in to modern times, when the art-movement it was part of is long gone. But this does'nt put it beyond human control, just beyond the individual, where it should be. Art critique is a paradox in my opinion. However I agree that "young", contemporary art is hard to judge other than purely subjectively as it has'nt stood the test of time and future. But really we are only discussing the material value of art as some kind of commodity, where it is defined by its accomplishments, rather than the inner, purer kind of value as in how it affects the viewer personally. We agree on "young contemporary" art except that you misunderstood me: All art is potentially "young" in my opinion. Mere human beings do no determine whether or not art is great or amazing. Art transcends time and place so that their value can articifically be labeled by people of that current time.. but its actual value and worth is undetermined. People have died for art, wars have been fought and societies burried.. how do you place a value on that art? You cannot. That is my argument. | ||
|
Makhno
Sweden585 Posts
On August 29 2008 05:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote: We agree on "young contemporary" art except that you misunderstood me: All art is potentially "young" in my opinion. Mere human beings do no determine whether or not art is great or amazing. Art transcends time and place so that their value can articifically be labeled by people of that current time.. but its actual value and worth is undetermined. People have died for art, wars have been fought and societies burried.. how do you place a value on that art? You cannot. That is my argument. I disagree. I don't see art as something that trancsends time and place to the level that it becomes close to supernatural, as I interpret your understanding of it (though I may have misunderstood your view of art itself). I see art as something thought- and feeling provoking, a thing that almost forces a reaction from the viewer. It can sometimes be so moving for the individual that they value it above basically everything else. But I still think it's something physical, made by man for man, which provokes a physical response which can be understood by humans. As for value, my argument is that you can establish some sort of physical value, the appreciation of mankind and the general value given by man, both now and then. This however is only material. But the sort of inner value, the higher sense of value, I don't think exists, not for art and not for anything. | ||
|
Tinithor
United States1552 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
actually, pretty much all empiricists (like everyone in the west and most in the east) have this same flaw. even new-age philosophers(and most from the past) seem to have this flaw, those who claim they are pursuing truth. and when you bring it up they ignore that you even made a point, they say that science will explain it, in the future. that they are getting closer to explaining how experience happens via matter. meanwhile they ignore the question of why it would ever happen in the first place. why is this? | ||
|
Falcynn
United States3597 Posts
On August 29 2008 05:13 Kletus wrote: Yes yes yes yes yes, BUT my leg was here first.And I'm quite sure that you'd move your leg but a fraction to the left, you would find that it would cease to be peed upon. | ||
| ||
