»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Art
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Art |
|
|
Red Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 143Ca 
|
I've been perusing the threads in here for the last little while and can't seem to find one on the topic that I was thinking about so I figured I'd just ask...... Essorant posted something about art in the alley and I've been thinking about it ever since.. it raised a question in my mind... I thought I knew the answer but now that I think about it more and more, I probably don't. What is art? Is it art because the artist says it's art? When do certain things cease to be art and instead, become obscene? Have we so blurred the line between things like pornography and a 'tasteful' nude that there is no longer a difference?.... Where is the line drawn? There are many 'artists' that come to my mind when I think about this and I find that even though I may have usually said that they definately created works of art, I'm also aware that I could very well be wrong... I wonder what anybody else thinks of this? --when I say art here I was thinking more on the lines of visual art (photo's, paintings, sculptures etc) though the same questions can be applied to other art forms. |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Melissa - All Rights Reserved | |||
Wind
since 2002-10-12
Posts 2981 |
I think art is more a feeling than a thing. It's like asking what is fun? it depends on the person. Hope that helped. "Sticks and stones will break my bones, |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Our culture might understand right and wrong and itself more if its art wasn't so confusing and obscure. The images and attitudes we are emulating and circulating are not declining obscurity and vice, they are actually glorifying it at many instances and we are not unmoved. I'm not interested in hearing about "freedom of expression" "eye of the beholder" or censorship. We are ultimatly as the society the highest government of ourselves--we determine us by our nature and choice. We are choosing perversly with a perverse side of our nature because many forms of "art" are becoming purely obscure, purely ugly, hedonic, vicious. This is disappointing. Just because you can artfully envelope and present something does not make your something art if it is hateful, vicious, or degrading. People act as if there are moral purposes governing, but predominatly the truth is , there actually isn't, it is struggle to keep a countenance up so they can operate more broadly. Even if you use obscurity trying to say somethign through it, it is obscurity trying to be art--it is not art. These ends are often not even seen amidst their obscurity and do not justify it. To me Art is expressions admirable and understandable, seeking forms of civilized beauty and eloquence. It is civilized because it retains some modesty and shame and it is eloquent because it may transgress some, give a clarity, a pleasure and a meaning. There is nothing more art should oppose than obscurity and confusion. But our culture is ceasing in seeking "civilization" in things, thus everything in one way or another is being accepted without much moral criticism, creating a an omnicculture of a scizophrenia of things that smear into each other and result in more obscurity then personality at all... [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-10-2002 10:50 PM).] |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
I do not know if they will assist you in your thinking, but I did a search on art as a discussion, and came up with these two links... /pip/Forum8/HTML/000255.html /pip/Forum8/HTML/000199.html |
||
|
Red Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 143Ca |
Wind-- simple words, simple definition and a lot of wisdom, sometimes to the point is best eh? I'll try and remember that.  Thanks!Essorant-- I love reading your thoughts, I find myself disagreeing with you but at the same time you challenge the way I've thought of it before which of course, is always fun!!! Sunshine-- ok, so I feel silly, I never thought of actually searching for the word art. I just kept cruising the pages of topics. DUH! lol But thank you very much, definately helped me out after reading those links and left me with much to ponder! [This message has been edited by Red (11-10-2002 10:54 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is mostly only a contemporary of our age. Look at artforms before the before the 20th century--they were opposed to obscurity...this is what I refer to. We should retain our ancestors designs in mind for arts to be clear and tasteful, pursuing enlightenment and perfection, but we are pulling off all the strings and bonds and art is losing its identities, for our own individualistic notions of freedom of expression and incorporating virtually everything. It is unhealthy and any thing unhealth in my opinion is bad and wrong, thats why I am disturbed by these things. [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-11-2002 12:13 AM).] |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
I would have to say that art is any form of creative expression. It's any manifestation of one's creative powers. "If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh" |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think that whatever was intended to be "art" by it's maker is art. However, I think the real question behind this thread might be "what is good art versus bad art?" Then it might be suggested that bad art is not really art at all... who am I to argue? I hear music alot to which I think to myself, "That's not music". But then again, it may go deeper than that. (than just bad vs. good art). There is a traditional defining of art that is being challenged and rebelled against. Some of this testing and boundary stretching may be good. Some is not so good. Vulgarity called art is still vulgarity. Sometimes certain human expressions merely use the label "art" as a wedge to get recognition. For example, taking a urinal out of a men's bathroom and calling it art is outlandish. Art? You might think so. Not me. A toilet is a toilet. Art used to incite physical lust is pornographic in purpose, and therefore at a fundamental level, just pornography. It doesn't matter what it is called. For those who disagree, I have a question. Can an example of "art" be an imposter? Can it be fundamentally something else which is deceitfully called art, that it might benefit from the prestige that art has earned through the centuries? I would say, yes. Stephen. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Art = Expression, by word, song, physical depiction. Art can be seen in the grace of a baby's smile, when one looks hard enough... Art is seen in the way a woman walks, when she is doing so guilelessly... Art is seen in the man holding the elbow of his elderly mother so that she does not trip, and fall... Art is all around us, but Passion makes it come to life. |
||
|
Red Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 143Ca |
"We should retain our ancestors designs in mind for arts to be clear and tasteful"--- really? So it should be the way they thought it was with us never changing and coming up with new movements and ideas? "Sometimes certain human expressions merely use the label "art" as a wedge to get recognition. For example, taking a urinal out of a men's bathroom and calling it art is outlandish. Art? You might think so. Not me. A toilet is a toilet."---rofl! I take it your not a fan of the Dada movement. I don't know if I am, but I think the ideas behind their 'art' was interesting. "Art used to incite physical lust is pornographic in purpose, and therefore at a fundamental level, just pornography"--- I have a feeling that people said the same thing about Michelangelo's David once upon a time... I think I like the way Fractal and Sunshine see it!  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
In my mind Art can't be art unless it is civilized. The less civilized it is the less artful it is. This is because I am looking for enlightenment, not obscurity, wishing to experience something that will open and clear a part of the mind and soul not make it become more confused. Aren't you with me in this, where can art progress if it is not toward enlightenmennt. I don't see your poetries seeking obscurity or to confuse, they are seeking to be clear and accurate, and eloquent and understood. There is no poem that can be a poem if it is made of crudest language and curses. So this will always be my law, not matter how many things will try to justify vile obscurities and pornography, it is not art, because it is not civilized. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Essorant, I gently disagree with you. Please, give me the drawing of a retarded child who may have no hope of ever being "civilized" according to the terms I believe you are viewing, but only his he[art], which he may draw from, and I will place this in a frame, next to your civilized pieces - which seems to come from a civilization always bent on ruination. Oh yes, I would study closely the cave drawings, as well. Would you like to come spelunk with me?  |
||
|
Red Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 143Ca |
"something that will open and clear a part of the mind and soul not make it become more confused." Some art that is considered vulgar by the majority, seeks to do just that. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sunshine, If it is understanding and understandable on which ever level, and not hateful, vicious or degrading, it is still definitly civilized, and thus very truly art as well. Red--We cannot know for sure what something is trying to do, but can only judge by what it is is doing. If this is obscuring than it is obscurity, no matter what its ends are..artful intents don't justify obscure results. [This message has been edited by Essorant (11-12-2002 12:10 AM).] |
||
|
Jaime
Registered
MemberPosts 250 |
>>>art is the mirror of nature, both personal and worldly, designed to provoke self-examination, thought, and emotion>> I don't believe enlightenment comes Only from civilized art because I feel that enlightenment itself almost requires the opposite of what is generally considered as being civilized. To me, englightenment and balance go hand and hand. i was here [This message has been edited by Jaime (12-06-2002 12:47 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I would define art as being a creation of something which is intended to be viewed, heard, etc by others, and which evokes an emotional reaction from those viewing, hearing, etc. |
||
|
IcyFlamez89 Member
since 2003-02-14
Posts 292Jersey City NJ |
Art is a way to channel emotions and show a person's perspective of something. I don't think many artists' are 'enlightened'. Enlightenment is to be free of illusionment and given clear thought. But there are many artists who are still clouded of such vision, like everyone else is. I don't think anyone has had such a revelation. Instead they just show what they are feeling or thinking at that moment.Art shows what you were passionate about at that moment, but passion doesn't always give us such insight, but can instead cloud our senses so that we are entirely focused on one subject. The quality of a piece is determined by how passionate the artist was and that gives the art its deep meaning Emotions and Philosophy, my source of Inspiration |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Essorant: Go read 'Please Master' by Allen Ginsberg. Is he not a poet? Try 'Babelogue' and 'Rock & Roll Nigger' by Patti Smith. (Is that going to get edited?) Or, hell, speaking of the 'N' word, why not read 'incident' by Countee Cullen. Not art? You can say you don't like forceful (pornographic? lol) language, but to put yourself on such a high horse that you can declare it 'not art' is somehwat offensive to me. I agree that certain curse words tend to lose meaning when they are used constatnly (um.. can we say the same thing about love, rose, shadows, darkness, etc.?), but often when someone uses language like that, it's intended to make a point that couldn't be made in as forceful a manner with a more gentle word. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Here's a rule of thumb that I've followed for years. When a good writer uses an offensive word, her intent was to offend you (for any of numerous reasons). When a not-so-good writer uses an offensive word, it usually just means he was too lazy to find an alternative. Strangely enough, I've always thought it was pretty easy to tell the difference. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I dunno, Ron... I could say "My sister is a lesbian" with no intent of it being offensive... but someone might be offended by the fact that my sister would be a lesbian... just because someone is offended by something doesn't mean it was intended. Of course, this just goes back to the whole relativism thing. What's offensive? I would be offended at the idea of someone being offended that my sister was a lesbian... do you think that person meant to offend me by being offended, or voicing that opinion? Do you think Essorant meant to offend me by asserting that certain things, because they are offensive, are not art? I think we might be talking apples and oranges, because I'm talking about the offensiveness of ideas... but if a person has an instantly negative reaction to the word "lesbian," isn't that an offensive word to them? Are we talking about words that are universally accepted as offensive? The words that are banned from TV? Something you wouldn't say in front of your mother? Maybe we should define offensive. |
||
|
chasing rain Senior Member
since 2001-05-15
Posts 737Canada |
Art is not only an expression; it is also an interpretation. There is no dividing line between expression and interpretation. Instead, they are one. The existence of both ideas depends on one another. You cannot merely express yourself without someone or something to interpret it. What is a picture if there is no one to look at it? As well, what you interpret is an expression. It is impossible to paint a pear. There are a myriad of ways to look at it: upsidedown, right side up...which way is upside down anyway? Up could be down to someone else. For example, the way people open bananas can vary. You should try giving various somebodies a banana and see which end they open it from. The way we see things defines our existence, and it is through art that we share who we are with others. (Besides, we're all curious little monkeys...  ) We are born to be interpreters; we are born to see with heart, and feel with the mind. If that made any sense...KUDOS! Leah  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Art gives you something you didn't have before. If you think it gives you something you already know, it's not art. You don't give art, you feel it. You can feel it, of course, but no one, no one, is wrong for not feeling it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: In your previous post, hush, you said, "I agree that certain curse words tend to lose meaning when they are used constantly, but often when someone uses language like that, it's intended to make a point that couldn't be made in as forceful a manner with a more gentle word." My post, immediately following that comment, was also directed specifically at language. Still, your basic point is valid. What offends one reader may not offend another, whether it be language or ideas. But the good writer recognizes that, too, while the not-so-good writer may not. The use of words like "rose" and "soul" require consummate skill, else they will trivialize the art. In my opinion, the same danger lurks for those who would shock us with profanity, and for much the same reasons. Rose and soul, over the course of many generations, have become cliches. Curse words, pretty much without exception, start out as cliché. They are usually twisted from their literal meaning into something without ANY meaning. Here's a simple example (since anything other than simple would get us moved a Mature Content forum). I just did a search in the Discussion forums for the word "damn." As a legitimate word, this means to consign someone to hell. The majority of incidents I found, however, apply the word to everything except people. Does it really make sense to send your school assignment to hell? In this context, the word has no real meaning and is simply being used to tell others of our displeasure because it's too much work to show. Profanity, in most instances, is just a handy cliché for the lazy writer. quote: So does unprotected sex, Brad. The problem I have with that statement is that it implies art stops being art at some point. Once I have absorbed that "something," after all, the art can no longer give me it again. If you are suggesting that art must be a bottomless well of giving, one that can never be wholly drained, I think the definition is far too demanding. That may be true of great art, but that's a different definition. I don't think art has to necessarily give us something we didn't have. I think it can also reinforce. Indeed, I think that's what most art does. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ron, I think it also depends on what curse words you're talking about. Yeah, I'll concede that certain 4-letter words, those most commonly thought of as curses, essentially have no meaning. They're generally used to augment something, and the intention is usually to give something emphasis, often a negative one. The 'f' word, on the other hand, has so many meanings that it's universally applicable. There are some words that refer to both male and female genitalia that can't be said on TV or radio. These words have meaning, and I think it's interesting to look at the way they've been applied to everyday life. A mild example: "That took balls." I think there are interesting implications here- a female spoken-word duo used a neat inversion of the idea (and the phrasing): "Honey, it took eggs to..." Unfornutale, neither the name of the band nor the name of the song are appropriate for a general forum. Still, I think in this case, we're agreeing- assuming that the aforementioned women are good writers, that is. In any case, they most definitely use certain words with the intent of offending... I still think there is a grey area between your two designations: 'When a good writer uses an offensive word, her intent was to offend you (for any of numerous reasons). When a not-so-good writer uses an offensive word, it usually just means he was too lazy to find an alternative.' (Grinning at your gender choices...) But what about the person who uses a word like 'lesbian' or 'abortion rights' without intending it to be offensive? Certain people will still be offended... but it's not in the same sense as if the words were 'dyke' and 'baby-killing rights.' It's the idea behind the word that people are offended by, and it's by no fault of the writer. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Absolutely. "Lesbian" or "abortion rights" may be offensive phrases to some, but they are not curse words. Nor are they clichés (though they are all too often used as stereotypes). IMO, with phrases like these, the offense centers not on the word but on the person who is offended. Even here, however, I think the good writer recognizes that some words are more "loaded" than others. Uneducated and ignorant mean much the same thing, but the latter carries connotations the former generally lacks. Any writer who doesn't recognize the differences -- and USE them to advance their theme -- falls in the not-so-good category. In short, and to address your closing sentence, EVERYTHING is the fault of the writer. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
