|
I have an English night class and after we did our diagnostic essay, we had a discussion about art. We were given a list of questions to think about before we watched the movie "The Shining" next week. So some of the questions were
1 What is art?
2 What seperates good art from bad art?
3 What criteria must a work meet to be considered artistic?
4 What is the opposite of artistic?
We pondered these in class and came up with some ideas.
1 Art is: Confusing, yet rewarding if you try to understand it; creative depiction; may have artistic elements, but doesn't function as art; aesthetic; evocative; relevance; and emotionally universal.
2. Things that separate good and bad art: popularity, who the artist is, and the market of buyers. Popularity will make the art seem good because most people will like it, or not, and that will influence some people's opinions to go along with the crowd. The artist may make the art seem bad or good just because he is who he is. For example if Da Vinci came back to life and made another sculpture or painting or whatever he did, people may like it just because of his reputation, or not. Lastly, the market of buyers will make the art seem bad or good because most of the buyers of "good" art are rich people who pay a lot for them. This is saying that the price of the painting, and therefore the value of the art, is determined by the market of buyers.
3. Criteria for artistic art: composition (placement of elements, use of media), originality/uniqueness of style, appeal to emotion.
4. Opposite of artistic: factual, mundane, intent, purely functional. We said that anything that were worldly were not art, because it was not creative, or because it was there just to serve a purpose. Like buildings that can be called artistic, also serve a purpose. Because of that, it's not "artistic."
Those are the ideas the class came up with. Personally, I don't know what art is. Art to me is.....indescribable. Art is subjective and people may not always like other people's art for various reasons, like today's music for example. There are a lot of kids who listen to this new age "rap" music and emo music. They may seem to like it and call it "art" because..........well, they like it and it brings them the emotions that they're looking for, and it sounds good. Older generations may not think so. Just like older art, people nowadays don't understand art from 1000 years ago just because they're different and confusing. We're probably going to be writing an essay on this topic so i need ideas.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
|
I dont like art because I think its useless, although I appreciate them for the difficulty one must go through to create such thing.
so I like the effort but not the result.
edit: the "art" I am talking about, I meant things that are created for no real purpose rather than for general enjoyment, such as paintings, songs, sculptures, things like that.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
art can be effortless. I guess I am just repulsed by the extreme generalization of art in your post.
|
On September 05 2008 01:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
art can be effortless. I guess I am just repulsed by the extreme generalization of art in your post.
these are the questions he gave us before we see the movie. he's going to give us more specific questions after seeing it.
|
I have to disagree with you about the opposite of art - I'd say that the opposite of art would be unimaginative creation. Mundane things, factual things, thing we take for granted can have an aspect of art about them. Some people say Euclid's theorems (math and geometry) are art in a way. Are Leonardo's inventions not expressions of his inner thoughts, revolutionary and foreseeing of the future? Can't that also be considered art? It might not be traditional art, but I can still see something art about it. Minimalism is a form of art which tries to express an idea or accentuate something by using the least amount of material possible - a solid black painting (it's pretty famous) is widely considered as art because in a way it went against the impressionist direction of its time, and it expressed that so simply.
EDIT: I think also that the difference between good art and bad art is not popularity, but perspective. What is good for one person is bad for another; it all depends on your taste. There is no such thing as bad art or good art (as long as it actually took effort to do, not chickenscratch doodles by a 3 year old... I guess that is another quality of good art: evident effort, or at least a clear concept and presentation if it is "effortless"). There is only art that you like or don't like, which differs from person to person, which is why art is such a broad field.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 05 2008 02:00 sqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2008 01:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
art can be effortless. I guess I am just repulsed by the extreme generalization of art in your post. these are the questions he gave us before we see the movie. he's going to give us more specific questions after seeing it.
I wasn't talking to you. I was referring to XCetron's post.
|
On September 05 2008 02:03 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2008 02:00 sqwert wrote:On September 05 2008 01:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
art can be effortless. I guess I am just repulsed by the extreme generalization of art in your post. these are the questions he gave us before we see the movie. he's going to give us more specific questions after seeing it. I wasn't talking to you. I was referring to XCetron's post.
o fsho
|
art is semantics
art is the ability of aesthesia, and the appreciation of such.
It pertains to all aspects of life
|
On September 05 2008 01:55 XCetron wrote:
I dont like art because I think its useless, although I appreciate them for the difficulty one must go through to create such thing.
so I like the effort but not the result.
edit: the "art" I am talking about, I meant things that are created for no real purpose rather than for general enjoyment, such as paintings, songs, sculptures, things like that.
Art discussion-mode: ON
I just have to disagree with you on this for a bit. Even though "classical" art can be hard to fully appreciate you must surely have been moved or affected in some way by some, more common work of art. A movie, a book, a song? All of this is art and as for purpose I can just say, where would we be, and what would we do without it? As previously stated, you generalize greatly.
Sqwert:
Read the discussion Incontrol linked, it contains alot of thoughts on the nature and value of art. If you have to write an essay about art I suggest you just elaborate on your own thoughts on the elusiveness of art and continue that train of thought until you reach a conclusion, or a lack of one.
Might be a good idea to read up on some famous, or even better not so famous, artists and shine a bit in your paper.
|
It's funny, because I'm taking a Philosophy of Art class. I can't stand that class. The tone of the class is so elitist. There's nothing, but bohemians with macs in there. Everyone is always arguing with out having the respect for the instructor do it in a decent manner.
I simply drift off, and think about other things while I'm in there.
I appreciate art, but I think it's all up to your Objectivity to decide what is art.
|
anything can be art. a coca cola can, mass produced by a machine, can also be considered an art object. art can include any and all forms that exist in our world. a rock can be considered an art object.
what is the difference between a rock and a da vinci? da vinci may have more technical skill, but why should technical skill, precision be a requirement? refer to duchamp and yves klein, who covered naked ladies in paint and made paintings with them
another difference is that a da vinci is man made. but again why is this necessary? we live in a modern age, and why shouldn't machines be able to make art? refer to warhol. machines alone do not make objects afterall, it is the human behind the machine that designs it. as for the rock, i argue that even indirect human involvement is not required. artists have since the beginning of time depicted nature in their paintings and sculptures. nature is beautiful, nature is sublime, nature impacts human beings (refer to Caspar David Friedrich). therefore nature is art. and if both man and nature can be art (indeed some artists have put people on pedestals and claimed them to be art) then really everything is art.
but art historians of course cannot treat all objects as art and study them indiscriminately. neither do we as people hold exhibitions of rocks as art objects. reality is more complex than that. so instead art historians treat art as different periods and movements. art history is always a series of reactions that tell not only the history of art, but the history of man. refer to Neo-classical/gothic, etc -> International style -> Postmodern; starting from development in technology to emphasis on functional form to a return to ornamentation. refer also to art before and after the World War, trend going from painterly (Dionysian) to optical (Apollo).
|
|
|
Leo Tolstoy - "What is art" VERY good read overlooking the fact he's one of my favorites.
|
arguing the philosophy of art with incontrol is like arguing why it's okay to eat meat with a vegetarian girl who believes all animals have feelings.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On September 05 2008 04:17 zulu_nation8 wrote:
arguing the philosophy of art with incontrol is like arguing why it's okay to eat meat with a vegetarian girl who believes all animals have feelings.
Nope. I had a very nice debate with the swede. You just kinda suck at debating and instead of wanting to actually argue shit you revert to jabs and declarations of victory.
|
|
|
Art is eternally an open question; that is part of the beauty and joy of it.
You can't pin it down. It can be fun and interesting to try, but I think that if you are focused on pinning it down, that is the wrong approach. If you are focused on asking the question, and keeping the question eternally open, you are on the right track.
Interestingly, Pierre Bourdieu would say that "bad" (as perceived by a typical person), dense, and esoteric art can be prized by the elite, because they alone have the "cultural capital" (training in high culture) to "decipher" it (appreciation of this art is away to show off how elite you are - "I get it because I'm smart enough and have good enough taste to get it. You think it's just random scribbles or random noise because you are too plain and uneducated to get it.") Hence the snobs embracing strange avant garde art and music that most people would never appreciate, and rejecting the art of the masses (pop art). (Or even snobs' appreciation of classical "high art.")
Personally, I love some alien avant garde art, and I love some pop art, and I love stuff that mixes them. I'm something of an anarchist, so I like anarchistic art (what constitutes that is also an eternally open question!)
Art may have nothing to do with emotion. Andy Warhol, for example, claimed he wanted to be a machine, and that his work could be understood by the fact that he wanted to be a machine. His matter of fact paintings of Campbells soup cans, for example, illustrate that emotion probably was not important for him or his art. (Though some would question whether his art is art).
The way much modern music is consumed seems to me to have little to do with depth, interest in forms or process, or emotion. Music is often used, I think, to fill up silence, to provide a sense of company, as a kind of aural wallpaper. Music and other "art" is often used as a kind of tool to establish identity. "I listen to punk because I'm a rebel." "I listen to rap because I'm from the streets yo." (Or whatever).
Classical music (actual classical period music) was meant to be fairly unemotional - a reflection of the rational enlightenment ideals. Romantic period music was more, I understand, about expressing the individual soul of the artist (very emotional).
Well, there are some thoughts for you.
|
only a fool would attempt to explain art in mere terms! Art has different meanings and values to different people.
I should probably read what everyone posted as well @_@
|
oh any art thats just abstract and looks like a 3rd grader put it together I find pointless, stupid, and should be burned.
p.s. please cite all information lawl
|
You'll find a lot of different viewpoints in this thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=71471
Ranging from "Art is anything you want it to be," to "Art has transformed from a beautiful expression of feeling, to a commercial, and very much soulless endeavour, which may or may not fit your personal definition of art."
In my opinion, something is art if it has meaning to someone. Something is not art if it was created with soul purpose of being a marketing tool. I won't call any ad I see on T.V. art, and I won't call a piece intended to lure people into a museum "just to see what it's about" art. Sometimes something created as a marketing tool can transform into art for some people, and sometimes a giant painting of 3 even lines really does mean nothing to anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://liternet.bg/publish11/avangelov/christo/2a.jpg)
