Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19246282 - 12/08/13 05:43 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

The back-and-forth repartee between various posters convinced they're right and everybody else is wrong in this thread is true art.

PROVE ME WRONG :awebig:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: jewunit]
    #19246289 - 12/08/13 05:44 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

jewunit said:
No thats not at all what I'm saying.

Maybe to try and articulate I'll briefly continue with your example. To me the act of putting seeds in the ground isn't an art. The act of putting paint to a surface isn't art. The action isn't the art.

To a certain extent (I'm sure we can get into technique itself being an art, which isn't really what I'm trying to say).



that's EXACTLY what i'm getting at too. the technique of doing the art, isn't what makes art art. it might make that art art for some people, but that's because they find that the technique is part of the aesthetic appeal. (see: Jackson Pollock; the guy would drip and throw paint at the canvas; that for some people and himself was part of the appeal to the aesthetic of the art)

how art is art, is the final product... the finish piece... the complete picture... and how someone "feels" about that, is what give the potential for something being art.

like i said earlier... even if for some people, it's the action that contributes to the art... regardless of that, it's NEVER the action that makes something art. it's never the artist, who "defines" the art. it's never like that in the world of art.

the artist is irrelevant; unless one is a fan... the ART however, is comprised of whatever someone (anyone) can see as art.

i'l post this again, because this is a Dadaist (and hilarious) example of what i mean...



this is art^ Duchamp put his name on trash and called it art... everyone agreed (not lol, but plenty of people...) plus, the artist even thought so... that makes it art; hilariously enough. (also the photographers photo can be considered art too)

(i think this is what pisses Zappa off so much... that this can be considered art :lol: )


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: deCypher]
    #19246291 - 12/08/13 05:45 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
The back-and-forth repartee between various posters convinced they're right and everybody else is wrong in this thread is true art.

PROVE ME WRONG :awebig:



ie: shroomery's usual past-time... only about art now. :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejewunit
Brutal!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/11/07
Posts: 34,264
Loc: Ohio Flag
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: akira_akuma]
    #19246304 - 12/08/13 05:47 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

The only reason what Duchamp made is art (which is of course debatable to many people) is because this debate even exists. I don't think it's a very good example of what you're trying to say, unless I'm still not understanding.


--------------------
!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19246317 - 12/08/13 05:51 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

jewunit said:
No, I think he would agree that a garden is art. He's saying that Zappa and I don't think a garden is art. At least that's what I think he means. I also think he's wrong, because I would very easily think a garden is art.



the reference was for Zappa only. i wouldn't think you'd struggle with the concept of a garden as art; you did after all just said you wanted to visit a Museum earlier.
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

akira_akuma said:
art is a piece of a work that someone has done, that is aesthetically pleasing to someone.




So if I take a dump and I think it is spiffy it is art?
Quote:



and since you don't know what'll be art for someone, everything can then be considered a form of art, or at the very least artful; even if you don't think it's art; because if you like it, at all, it can conceived that someone could think that it's art.




Then you agree that the word has no meaning.  Everything and anything is art.  Why bother with the word?



first off: if you think your poo is art, fine, that makes it art. who would agree that it's art, though? that's what makes it "good art"; because it resonates with people (regardless of what other people think of it)

secondly: i think words are stupid, when they're begrudgingly used to set barriers for ideas. i think words are a form of art, in essence, because the "literary art" and "spoken word" (which from early antiquity up till now has been used as art; ie, poetry, tone poems ect) has allowed us to communicate better, hence, creating change in the world; and with which having said changes being made, allows us to produce more things that could be called art.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: jewunit]
    #19246337 - 12/08/13 05:55 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

jewunit said:
The only reason what Duchamp made is art (which is of course debatable to many people) is because this debate even exists. I don't think it's a very good example of what you're trying to say, unless I'm still not understanding.



no, you're right on point. people thought it was art, though, and people continue to... the Dadaist movement was HUGE and has continued on in the form of Futurism,  Fluxus and then later this current century, Stuckism.

it's fundamentally art, because people think of it, and see it as art... even if it's anti-art, in prospect.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineYage
Z
Male


Registered: 12/14/11
Posts: 512
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: Crystal G]
    #19246475 - 12/08/13 06:24 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Crystal G said:
Quote:

Shins said:
Quote:

Crystal G said:
Quote:

Patlal said:
It seems that most people don't get it. They think it's either good or bad. No analysis, nothing.

When you look at a painting, do you "feel" what the artist was doing?

When you watch figure skating, do you understand the story the skater is acting?

When you listen to a symphony, do you grasp the deeper sense of it?


Most people are clueless. It always seems like you need refined taste. Is it another level of intelligence you think? The ability to grasp the higher sense of art?




No. People can understand art by simply learning about it.

However, it does not take a high level of intelligence to understand art. Art is primal. Even primates create art.





Humans are primates too by the way.




Yes. My point was that humans evolved to create art as early as in the prehistoric era. So to me, it's not a sign of intelligence. It's something that exists in our primal nature.




That could be Crystal G. But it's important to evolve art. That's why people make witty and difficult to understand art. I think because so many people dropped that "instinct" all together, so the others still holding on can get some. Or maybe arts just made by people with mortality issues and want to pass something physical on. Or they didn't get to play in any reindeer games.


Edited by Yage (12/08/13 06:27 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: deCypher]
    #19246480 - 12/08/13 06:25 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

deCypher said:
The back-and-forth repartee between various posters convinced they're right and everybody else is wrong in this thread is true art.

PROVE ME WRONG :awebig:




Prove yourself right:awebig:

:grin:

I'm not trolling because I believe what I'm saying but I think the larger reason why I continue to go on is that there is an educational value for the youngsters and Canadians here.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefapjack
Title
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/26/07
Posts: 16,574
Loc: Central New Jersey
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19246516 - 12/08/13 06:33 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

We might as well be arguing about what is or isn't funny.  Your trolling is an art.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19246522 - 12/08/13 06:35 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

you can't educate, if you can't be educated.

you've provided no conjecture that would lead to any further understanding of your "point" and "education".

in fact, all you've had said other then "art is fake" and "i don't do art i execute" is some questions... which i and other have answered, and you've proved no response. i have to conclude, that you must not have a reasonable answer, other then simply repeating yourself.

which is ok, but don't call it education.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleApollyphelion Happy Birthday!
Dungeon Master/Princess(1009)
Female User Gallery

Registered: 03/15/07
Posts: 16,757
Loc: Festival of Deaths
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: akira_akuma]
    #19248939 - 12/09/13 06:42 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I think people calling Zappa names is kind of childish so I'll start with that.

BUT ANYWAY...

I think Zappa wants a definition as narrow as nail, but I think the definition of Art is more like an entire house, something broader.
you have sculpting, painting, video, performance art etc.

One of the main qualities of art are the aesthetics involved, and these aesthetics can be aural, visual, or semantics. So for instance, the carpentry involved is not art, but the design itself IS art. So we have a porch which is functional, and the design of the porch is technically non functional. Columns are needed, but the decision as to whether those columns are doric, ionic or corinthian is art. Also, what the columns themselves look like is Art. Although art can be fully functional such as architecture, I would say broadly, art is non-functional.

I don't think people like to consider the people who design what Ikea furniture looks like as Artists, but they are. Art is what fills in the void of the necessary non-functional aesthetics that make life less mundane.

So to try to narrow it anyway for Zappa,

Art is the attempt to create pleasure (or pain if it floats your boat) through a non-functional means.

for you TECHINCALLY do not need sculpture, song, painting, aesthetics, but to give that up for pure practicality seems awfully regressive to me.


--------------------

"I'm looking at you looking at it"

SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL PLEASE! www.youtube.com/apollyphelion



Creator of the World's Worst Comic Book


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJonnyBtreed
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/09/10
Posts: 2,096
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 1 year, 24 days
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: Apollyphelion]
    #19248974 - 12/09/13 07:00 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I doubt there will ever be a time where people agree about what is, or isn't art.

Glass pipe artists have been dealing with this for many years. The movie Degenerate Art addresses the point well. Uppity glass artists like Paul Stankard, Milon Townsend, and in some cases even Robert Michelson look down at the Pipers and consider all of what they do to be trash, garbage, not worthy of ever being seen as art or labeled as such, simply because a bowl has been pressed in it.

Is something as simple as a pushed bowl enough to turn an amazingly beautiful piece of glass art into something not gallery worthy? It most certainly is to some people. It's especially so of master artists in the same medium. Why? Truly they can grasp the amount of work and dedication, heart and soul that went into a piece. Why can they not then label it as the art it is? Jealousy of the amazing skill of some of these "kids" who've only been working with glass for 5-10 years making more per piece than those working for 30-40+ years ,anger that they are destroying the image of their medium? Who knows? All we can do is speculate.

This goes to show that nobody will ever %100 agree that what they are seeing is art. Although the majority may feel that it is, there will always be those who simply cannot view it as such which is fine and natural. If you showed a single shade of color to 100 people you could guarantee there will be those who love it and those who hate it and many in between. Why would something as complex as some pieces of art be any easier to interpret or able to definitively be labeled as "art"?

So in this case it's actually those who are incredibly intelligent in the medium/art who look down on those who are unintelligent or uninformed looking at a piece of glass as art when they shouldn't. Almost the opposite of OPs original question, which is why I brought it up, lol.


Edited by JonnyBtreed (12/09/13 07:06 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: JonnyBtreed]
    #19249476 - 12/09/13 10:42 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

My very first post in this thread was quite complete and concise and I have not seen one single respondent address it appropriately or thoughtfully.  To wit

Quote:

I find the entire conceit of "art" to be a construct that allows the self anointed cognoscenti to look down their snouts at the bourgeoisie.




--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleApollyphelion Happy Birthday!
Dungeon Master/Princess(1009)
Female User Gallery

Registered: 03/15/07
Posts: 16,757
Loc: Festival of Deaths
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19249483 - 12/09/13 10:44 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Awww, not even mine? I gave you a pretty narrow definition, def.


--------------------

"I'm looking at you looking at it"

SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL PLEASE! www.youtube.com/apollyphelion



Creator of the World's Worst Comic Book


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19249495 - 12/09/13 10:46 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

i find the entire conceit of "needing a jerb" to be a construct that allows the self anointed bourgeoisie to look down their snouts at the cognoscenti.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: akira_akuma]
    #19249522 - 12/09/13 10:54 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

akira_akuma said:
i find the entire conceit of "needing a jerb" to be a construct that allows the self anointed bourgeoisie to look down their snouts at the cognoscenti.



Huh?  You're better than this akira.  Think about it instead of just jerk the knee.  Why is a painting smeared with shit art when a sidewalk smeared with shit not?  Why is a cross in a vial of piss art and not watersports porn?  They both offend some and delight some.  I see no particular difference.  Potter Stewart was a snob.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefapjack
Title
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/26/07
Posts: 16,574
Loc: Central New Jersey
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19249523 - 12/09/13 10:54 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
My very first post in this thread was quite complete and concise and I have not seen one single respondent address it appropriately or thoughtfully.  To wit

Quote:

I find the entire conceit of "art" to be a construct that allows the self anointed cognoscenti to look down their snouts at the bourgeoisie.







You sound like a self-anointed cognoscenti by criticizing people who value art.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #19249553 - 12/09/13 10:59 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

akira_akuma said:
i find the entire conceit of "needing a jerb" to be a construct that allows the self anointed bourgeoisie to look down their snouts at the cognoscenti.



Huh?  You're better than this akira.  Think about it instead of just jerk the knee.  Why is a painting smeared with shit art when a sidewalk smeared with shit not?  Why is a cross in a vial of piss art and not watersports porn?  They both offend some and delight some.  I see no particular difference.  Potter Stewart was a snob.



hey, i have standards myself.

but art is what it is. if someone calls shit on a sidewalk art, it's art to that person. :shrug:

that person can make an installation just filled with  turds of different shape and consistency, and say each one is a different piece. :lol: it'd be what that person thinks is art; so it's art. maybe not good art, but it's art.

some people think that porn is an art form. i'd argue you'd at least need some good lighting, but hey, who am i to say what's art for that person... one man's trash, is another person's art.

it's not worth debating. there is no level of consistency, these days, when it comes to art, rationale, or reason anyways.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAntiEverything
im not a doctor
Male

Registered: 07/07/06
Posts: 6,003
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: Patlal]
    #19249566 - 12/09/13 11:03 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

i was kind of thinking about this recently and no, definitely not

everyone can appreciate art and i cant think of anybody who doesn't in some form or other.

art doesn't have to be sophisticated or old or ancient to be legitimate. most art that i see is contemporary and very easy for the current human to understand. "art" in the most general sense is the least esoteric thing i can think of that people are interested in, in this age especially, imo.

and also "zappa's" conceit of art argument is pretty damn non-unique. the bourgeoisie have used art to direct politics for centuries, you think this is something new? the poor use it to look down on the powerful? people who create classic and immortal art are many times rich. there is no correlation between class and art imo.


--------------------
You are at once
both
the quiet
and
the confusion
of my heart.
-Franz Kafka


Edited by AntiEverything (12/09/13 11:11 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibledeCypher
 User Gallery


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
Re: Does it take a higher level of intelligence to understand art? [Re: JonnyBtreed]
    #19249972 - 12/09/13 12:46 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

I think the divisive question between both sides of the issue here, is:

Does the mere ability to call something 'art' make it art?  A disused toilet in the back of a grimy lavatory probably isn't art, or so most people would think IMO, but if an artist takes that disused toilet and puts it in his art exhibit, does his labelling of it make it art?

Or does a group of people need to come to a consensus that something is art before it becomes art?  :strokebeard2:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* High-Level Biowarfare Lab to be Placed in Boston Ravus 1,230 5 08/23/04 11:11 AM
by Fade_To_Black
* there are some intelligent mother F#CKERS on here
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Anonymous 6,046 89 10/06/04 09:25 PM
by PhanTomCat
* Red Heads Have Higher Tolerence!
( 1 2 all )
Nuggetpouch 2,840 29 12/05/11 05:26 AM
by kirilan
* super mario an art form in itself
( 1 2 all )
SixCee 3,498 21 12/05/03 06:11 AM
by ummikko
* the art institute schools Vats of Blood 1,126 10 10/24/03 02:28 PM
by Vats of Blood
* Art - A Paragraph by me Redstorm 995 7 09/01/04 06:21 PM
by Redstorm
* abstract art hemp_threadz 3,555 19 06/02/03 05:22 PM
by acidcrys
* Psychedelic Art kroum 1,208 6 04/07/04 09:59 AM
by mjshroomer

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
7,010 topic views. 3 members, 42 guests and 22 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.