|
vampirism
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
Re: My definition of "art" [Re: BrAiN]
#4104886 - 04/27/05 09:28 PM (18 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Well, who aren't we to say what art is?
Many propagandistic pieces are not art from the artist's perspective or the viewer's.. they had a clear message, and it was the point of the piece. However, I'm sure that someone would consider it art and like it. I suppose your essentially saying that I'd be insulting the viewer for his taste if I said it wasn't art. And you're right, I would be. But that brings the discussion back to my point- sometimes it's warranted.
For example, I respect people who have bad taste in art, but I obviously don't like their taste in art. However, there is something in the art that connects to the person in some way. By not liking it, I already don't like something about the person. Does it matter if I question its artistic quality? I think it does.
I think that people should draw a personal distinction between art and craft, at least if they intend to have any opinion on the matter. People can say art and craft are one and the same, say they're completely different, or find a compromise. If you say they're the same, that squelches things like creativity and expressiveness in art. Copying something perfectly from a photograph takes 0 skill or ingenuity. It takes time and either patience or experience. I would call it a craft because of this fact.
On the other hand, completely disregarding everything and just playing with objective aesthetics is completely disconnected from reality. I would still call this craft because there is no expressiveness involved. It is basically just training your eye and mind to agree on things.
Anyway, art is not art because of the final product IMO. It is art because of the process involved. My point is that the process can either be brainless and inhuman, or very human and individual. It is exactly this process, which *combined* with passion can lead to great works. I *think* we agree here.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
|
Re: My definition of "art" [Re: vampirism]
#4104972 - 04/27/05 09:42 PM (18 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morrowind said: Well, who aren't we to say what art is?
Many propagandistic pieces are not art from the artist's perspective or the viewer's.. they had a clear message, and it was the point of the piece. However, I'm sure that someone would consider it art and like it. I suppose your essentially saying that I'd be insulting the viewer for his taste if I said it wasn't art. And you're right, I would be. But that brings the discussion back to my point- sometimes it's warranted.
For example, I respect people who have bad taste in art, but I obviously don't like their taste in art. However, there is something in the art that connects to the person in some way. By not liking it, I already don't like something about the person. Does it matter if I question its artistic quality? I think it does.
I think that people should draw a personal distinction between art and craft, at least if they intend to have any opinion on the matter. People can say art and craft are one and the same, say they're completely different, or find a compromise. If you say they're the same, that squelches things like creativity and expressiveness in art. Copying something perfectly from a photograph takes 0 skill or ingenuity. It takes time and either patience or experience. I would call it a craft because of this fact.
On the other hand, completely disregarding everything and just playing with objective aesthetics is completely disconnected from reality. I would still call this craft because there is no expressiveness involved. It is basically just training your eye and mind to agree on things.
Anyway, art is not art because of the final product IMO. It is art because of the process involved. My point is that the process can either be brainless and inhuman, or very human and individual. It is exactly this process, which *combined* with passion can lead to great works. I *think* we agree here.
I have a similar way of seperating art and craft... i think of it mroe as science vs art though. I think there is definately a craft that needs to be seperated from the art.. but i just think it's still art even if it's used for advertising/propoganda/etc. If the person who makes the media enjoys what he does. I think it's still art.
But yea.. we can come to agreement with that last statement. I think we agree more than we seem to. You seem to think that to determine wheteher or not something is art is in the process. Is the process something with great thought, planning and imagination, or is it something done brainlessly. I think we can have a common ground here. I just think it's hard to really get an artistic, rewarding feeling out of something that's brainless.
If you take a stencil and just trace it.. is it art? Maybe yes... maybe no.. this is a tough call. But... if someone takes great care in making a stencil... creating something like this out of a stencil:
(i'd give the artist credit for this pic, but the web site this came from is down)
... then you can't really deny that it's art.
You're right.. there's repetitive brainless tasks which are still aesthic that wouldn't be art, because the reward is money or compensation rather than the person doing it free for the love it it.. and there are people that put great care into their process. I still think that some of the slightly brainless stuff is art, but I will conceed that if someone does something more for the money then it has less artistic merit.
With my original "this cd sucks" example, I should have gone into a little more detail.
If someone picks up a country cd and says "this cd sucks. it isnt art"... they're just being a douche. How do they know how passionate that person was about his craft. The same goes for an old geezer that picks up an underground punk rock cd and claims it to be garbage... what do they know.
Now if I take a Brittney Spears cd... and says it sucks... well.. she's a sellout whore that doesn't do it for the art.. she's a corporate whore that does it just for the money Then again... no one really knows what's in her head. If she would STILL be making the same music even if she wouldn't be getting paid for it.. then yea it's art. If she's doing it just to make money, then it's a corporate product and not art... because there was really no passion to go into it to begin with. We'll never know. Maybe even SHE will never know herself.
And somewhere out there in the middle of all this lies Andy Warhol
|
sulucano
fli
Registered: 05/06/05
Posts: 31
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
|
Re: My definition of "art" [Re: BrAiN]
#4141092 - 05/06/05 06:38 AM (18 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
lol sweet dude!
|
|