Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
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: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
when is it art? and when are we just a bunch of weirdos playing in the sandbox?
    #19567749 - 02/14/14 08:06 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Does it have to do with intention? What about composition & lighting? What about medium and genre? Could pornography (and other erotic expressions, like stripping) be considered an artform? If so, when does it cross the line into smut and sleaze? Do you even think there is a line (i.e., must nudity/sex serve a function, such as character development, or can it stand alone, such as nudity for its own sake)? Or is it purely dependent upon the viewer? I think most people would recognize a Master's work as high quality compared to his sophomoric work, though.


Personally, I'm not sure. I'm not sure when nude photographs become... obscene. I think that snapping nude selfies of yourself with the purpose of sending them to someone isn't necessarily art, but when adding the element of a wider audience and/or some traditional photographic techniques, is that all that's needed to elevate the image? If someone snaps a nude & then alters it into black&white, is that then considered "art"? What about in literature? I read Gravity's Rainbow a few years ago, and it was basically erotica with a near nonsensical plot. However, I'm pretty sure my college library didn't catalogue it as such. What about artists who paint in their own blood or other body fluids? Does this somehow make their art more "art," or is it just be kitsch?

The process of attributing meaning to an image or concept or sound(s) is worth a conversation, imho.


--------------------
full blown human

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,063
Re: when is it art? and when are we just a bunch of weirdos playing in the sandbox? [Re: Penelope_Tree] * 4
    #19567794 - 02/14/14 08:22 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

if it excites the spirit, if it makes people go wow, if they want to keep looking, if on turning away they think that it was special, yeah then it was art, whether contrived or not; many pieces intended as art are crap, and many nude photos are not that interesting.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebirdland

Registered: 07/24/11
Posts: 2,202
Re: when is it art? and when are we just a bunch of weirdos playing in the sandbox? [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #19567835 - 02/14/14 08:36 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I know in my circle of friends (and so I assume the population at large) it's going to depend on who you're talking to. I know someone who is majoring in art history and considers art as a visual thing only and not applicable to any literature, film or sound. Personally I will use the term art for all of those fields in many instances though. Do you think it has to do with creativity? If nude photos are taken in a somewhat unique or creative way or with some sort of meaning/message behind it (hahaha) I think it would generally pass as art. If the sole purpose is for sexual arousal then wouldn't that be considered pornographic? I'm sure there is crossover too and no reason why a work can't be both.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
Re: when is it art? [Re: birdland]
    #19567890 - 02/14/14 08:52 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Hey dude :highfive:

There is probably a lot to do with personal taste. I use the term "art" for any mediums. I think even physical sports can be an art form (it is Winter Olympics). I guess if I find something to be kitsch and obscene, there will likely be someone else out there who digs it.


Personally, I find a lot of my own work bends towards a ... revealing nature. It was in revisiting a piece that I asked myself.. what do you intend to do with this? :lol: Sometimes I get embarrassed at my work and consider it too sophomoric. I've painted over a lot of stuff.


--------------------
full blown human

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFragment

Registered: 04/18/11
Posts: 896
Re: when is it art? [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #19567910 - 02/14/14 08:58 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I use it for any appraisal that looks good to me visually.

Edited by Fragment (02/14/14 09:04 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
Re: when is it art? [Re: Fragment]
    #19567921 - 02/14/14 09:01 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Fragment said:
I use it to it's any appraisal that looks good to me visually.




Either you are a robot or you missed a vital word/letter/punctuation mark. :confused:


--------------------
full blown human

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFragment

Registered: 04/18/11
Posts: 896
Re: when is it art? [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #19567927 - 02/14/14 09:04 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Blame the keyboard I fixed it for you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMr Person
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
Re: when is it art? [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #19567948 - 02/14/14 09:09 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Being nude in and of itself should not be inherently sexual.  Especially within art there is a long history of nudity being the basis of artistic and aesthetic beauty without being pornographic or juvenile.  Plus anything can be sexualized really.  Some people get turned on looking at inanimate objects or events like car wrecks, but that doesn't make those things inherently sexual.

As for art more generally I don't think it can really be defined, but if it could I would pick RGV's definition.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebirdland

Registered: 07/24/11
Posts: 2,202
Re: when is it art? [Re: Penelope_Tree]
    #19567992 - 02/14/14 09:23 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Hello, it's good to see you :highfive1:


I use the term for any medium too, but on a case by case basis. Drawing can be a form of art, but I'm not sure I would consider copying (or attempting to copy) a sketch from a comic book exactly as is - art.

I can't paint or draw for shit, music is for arty past-time. My favourite creations of my own are also quite revealing and um... expressive. I feel like it's a sort of alternative way of expressing my mind. "Hey this is me right now"... More so than the job, financial status, hobbies, social circles and relationships. A great musician and teacher described it as being vulnerable and I agree at least ime.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePenelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic
 User Gallery


Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
Re: when is it art? [Re: birdland] * 1
    #19568013 - 02/14/14 09:31 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Mr Person said:
Being nude in and of itself should not be inherently sexual.  Especially within art there is a long history of nudity being the basis of artistic and aesthetic beauty without being pornographic or juvenile.





Cool :thumbup:


Quote:

birdland said:
Hello, it's good to see you :highfive1:


I use the term for any medium too, but on a case by case basis. Drawing can be a form of art, but I'm not sure I would consider copying (or attempting to copy) a sketch from a comic book exactly as is - art.



I agree, but not sure where I draw the line.. For example, I know of at least two illustrators off the top of my head who routinely trace forms from photographs, but then embellish the forms to create a different image than the original. Same goes for a dude I know who draws over magazine ads. It's like taking what's there and using it to make something new. I guess the altering makes it "art".

Quote:

I can't paint or draw for shit, music is for arty past-time. My favourite creations of my own are also quite revealing and um... expressive. I feel like it's a sort of alternative way of expressing my mind. "Hey this is me right now"... More so than the job, financial status, hobbies, social circles and relationships. A great musician and teacher described it as being vulnerable and I agree at least ime.





Interesting :strokebeard: I'm dealing explicitly with this, and I agree.


--------------------
full blown human

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKickleM
Wanderer
 User Gallery


Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,953
Last seen: 3 days, 11 minutes
Re: when is it art? [Re: Penelope_Tree] * 1
    #19568281 - 02/14/14 11:01 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

I sort of fall into the camp which feels the artist decides what is art. Due to what you are describing. The personal nature of expression. Another may not see it even remotely the same. They may hate it or find it worthless. Does that mean that due to their valuation it is worthless? How about if it is deemed unartistic? Does that make it so?

For me it makes sense to put the responsibility of defining art onto the artist. To hell with the rest as much as possible.


--------------------
Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction?
Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepresentusthefuture
Stranger


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 127
Re: when is it art? [Re: Kickle]
    #19568907 - 02/15/14 03:46 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Kickle said:
I sort of fall into the camp which feels the artist decides what is art. Due to what you are describing. The personal nature of expression. Another may not see it even remotely the same. They may hate it or find it worthless. Does that mean that due to their valuation it is worthless? How about if it is deemed unartistic? Does that make it so?

For me it makes sense to put the responsibility of defining art onto the artist. To hell with the rest as much as possible.





I whole-heartedly agree with this. A thing ceases to be art when the artist takes another's opinion into account.


"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament."
~ Oscar Wilde



The critic has absolutely no place to decide if something is "good" or not. The critic does absolutely-fucking-nothing but give an opinion where an opinion is not needed. The only use of the critic is for monetary gain, that is it. And in the end that makes it not art, it makes it a commodity. Hence, the critic turns art into a commodity.


Art is a very human thing, in fact its one of the defining characteristics of being human. Anybody who thinks otherwise has their head stuck too far up some outside entity's ass, that they have forgotten what it is like to feel the richness and beauty of existence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,063
Re: when is it art? [Re: presentusthefuture]
    #19569028 - 02/15/14 05:02 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

intent is a bit wiggly in this context

people are not mindreaders, and often if there is an artist's statement, it will be or should be ignored.

the piece has to work on its own, (yes of course in context of the zeitgeist, which puts it in context historically, but great pieces speak across time and the historical references are secondary to the direct visceral connection and that goes beyond sexual arousal, but may include it as well).

out of a small circle of friends these day, an inspiring blog may be unknown, so strong references to the blog in an artwork will be a secret language, lost to everyone else and all time afterwards.

little secrets can be of interest to detectives, and to an extent, mystery is part of art, but the scale of tiny mysteries, may not be cohesive to the work at large, so I would not want to be tricked by tiny mysteries, or in-jokes in an art work.

back to intent,
fuggettabout it.

the piece works or it doesn't

and who might buy it or want to visit it in a gallery may or may not be an issue.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequinn
some kinda love
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
Re: when is it art? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #19569160 - 02/15/14 06:50 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

i agree that intent is not so important, more important is history and context

i also feel subjectively that good art comes from 'within' (:P), maybe your lived situation speaking through your art rather than really needing to analyze how things are and responding to that, idk, :shrug2:


--------------------
dripping with fantasy

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepresentusthefuture
Stranger


Registered: 09/22/13
Posts: 127
Re: when is it art? [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #19569162 - 02/15/14 06:52 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
intent is a bit wiggly in this context

people are not mindreaders, and often if there is an artist's statement, it will be or should be ignored.

the piece has to work on its own, (yes of course in context of the zeitgeist, which puts it in context historically, but great pieces speak across time and the historical references are secondary to the direct visceral connection and that goes beyond sexual arousal, but may include it as well).

out of a small circle of friends these day, an inspiring blog may be unknown, so strong references to the blog in an artwork will be a secret language, lost to everyone else and all time afterwards.

little secrets can be of interest to detectives, and to an extent, mystery is part of art, but the scale of tiny mysteries, may not be cohesive to the work at large, so I would not want to be tricked by tiny mysteries, or in-jokes in an art work.

back to intent,
fuggettabout it.

the piece works or it doesn't

and who might buy it or want to visit it in a gallery may or may not be an issue.





I strongly disagree.




The intent of a piece of art is whatever the artist decides it to be. If the artist would like to say or project a certain theme, statement, or situation, then that is the artist's decision. If not, that is also his decision. It is entirely up to the artist. The artist may even enjoy making his art a complete and total mystery. The artist may even bask in delight at the prospect of this. I've seen it happen and I've read about it. It's all up to the artist.

Saying a piece of art "has to work on its own" is only saying that there is a right way and wrong way to go about it. Almost as if it's just a science. Is art a science?

The critic has no place to tell the artist what is and what is not right. The critic is like an internet porn addict, furiously jacking off to the virtualization of art, his virtualization of art. As if it were a pornographic movie or video game. However, everything is contrived in a porn video or video game. There's no spontaneity. No creativity. Just a screen with flashing images, projecting what the critic thinks art should be. But as we all (hopefully) know, art (and life) is not so, categorical.


The only objectivity of art, is that it is completely subjective.
The only objective of art, is to be subjective.


Also, regarding these "great pieces" of art. This is another problem I have. These pieces of art have been institutionalized. They are pieces of art as well as commodities now. Yes, they may be considered "masterpieces". Yes, they are known and appreciated be a great many people. And yes, they are highly detailed and "technically superior" to many others. But in the end they are still a part of the great oceanic totem of art that all of the pieces are.

Sapphire is still a shade of blue.



Art is individual.
Art is creation.
Art is the most intense form of individualism in this world.
The best art is made when an artist is completely himself/herself.


Finally,
To be an artist, is to be alone.

Edited by presentusthefuture (02/15/14 07:50 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 22,100
Re: when is it art? [Re: Penelope_Tree] * 3
    #19569343 - 02/15/14 08:09 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

What is art? What is poetry?

Expression. Anyone can express themselves, not everyone is interesting, insightful, mature or beautiful.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDisoRDeR
motional
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
Re: when is it art? [Re: presentusthefuture]
    #19569483 - 02/15/14 09:12 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Art is individual.
Art is creation.
Art is the most intense form of individualism in this world.
The best art is made when an artist is completely himself/herself.

Finally,
To be an artist, is to be alone.




Is there no possibility for collaborative art then, or do we call that something different? Or draw lines around each individual's contribution and call it art?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: when is it art? and when are we just a bunch of weirdos playing in the sandbox? [Re: Penelope_Tree] * 1
    #19569616 - 02/15/14 11:57 AM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Burroughs called art anything that uniquely shows us what we know, and what we don't know we know.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,063
Re: when is it art? [Re: presentusthefuture] * 1
    #19569658 - 02/15/14 12:08 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

presentusthefuture said:
Quote:

redgreenvines said:
intent is a bit wiggly in this context

people are not mindreaders, and often if there is an artist's statement, it will be or should be ignored.

the piece has to work on its own, (yes of course in context of the zeitgeist, which puts it in context historically, but great pieces speak across time and the historical references are secondary to the direct visceral connection and that goes beyond sexual arousal, but may include it as well).

out of a small circle of friends these day, an inspiring blog may be unknown, so strong references to the blog in an artwork will be a secret language, lost to everyone else and all time afterwards.

little secrets can be of interest to detectives, and to an extent, mystery is part of art, but the scale of tiny mysteries, may not be cohesive to the work at large, so I would not want to be tricked by tiny mysteries, or in-jokes in an art work.

back to intent,
fuggettabout it.

the piece works or it doesn't

and who might buy it or want to visit it in a gallery may or may not be an issue.





I strongly disagree.




The intent of a piece of art is whatever the artist decides it to be. ...{more of the same...}
Art is individual.
Art is creation.
Art is the most intense form of individualism in this world.
The best art is made when an artist is completely himself/herself.


Finally,
To be an artist, is to be alone.




well to be any (human)being is to be alone to a certain extent, but I think that you are overly focused on a particular subset of self-indulgent artists (whom we all adore to some extent) who cultivate egoic distonia and then express from that "qualified" elegant marginality.
Some of it works.

I think it comes from a misunderstanding of Basquiat who was a really great artist that may have seemed to have correlating self manifestations of alone-ness.

or replace alone-ness with "death anxiety" or with any other favorite black hole of despair.


Picasso also is misconstrued, and he acted out terribly and was coddled for immaturity. It does not mean that is what an artist needs to be.

Matisse was the opposite, Cezanne opposite, and some of the more unstable seeming ones were not that alone or self indulgent such as Jackson Pollack.

In the Post Modern line-ups the media faves are media faves and nearly nothing more - how about that Justin Timberlake?

the work is individual as one's signature, very hard to forge the intent if other than beauty or transcendence is promotional (products, ideology, or nationalism) and all illustrators know what I mean when I say promotional art is a sell out, a necessary evil, mere shades of distinction from prostitution and pimpery.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,063
Re: when is it art? and when are we just a bunch of weirdos playing in the sandbox? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #19569669 - 02/15/14 12:09 PM (10 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Burroughs called art anything that uniquely shows us what we know, and what we don't know we know.



Burroughs shows us that we each are entitled to make it up as we go along.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   MagicBag.co Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Does Pornography Degrade Women
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
MushmanTheManic 11,944 114 05/25/15 11:33 PM
by Thaj
* the absurdity of child pornography laws.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SneezingPenis 7,309 61 06/22/08 07:43 AM
by fivepointer
* Who is the Artist?
( 1 2 all )
raytrace 2,579 35 01/31/06 10:48 AM
by swampthing
* Art...what is it and who decides what it is?
( 1 2 all )
trippindad82 4,275 26 05/12/07 02:58 AM
by mr_kite
* Art CeeThruMeer 562 1 06/14/05 03:49 AM
by redgreenvines
* Violent Pornography?
( 1 2 all )
MushmanTheManic 3,065 32 12/15/06 04:56 AM
by mr_kite
* Is your ego stopping you from appreciating art? Scarfmeister 666 4 02/26/03 06:52 PM
by Strumpling
* art can be objectively compared : part 2
( 1 2 3 all )
SneezingPenis 4,130 49 11/29/07 08:33 PM
by Boots

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,763 topic views. 2 members, 10 guests and 13 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 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.