Welcome to Gaia! ::

Tyrande Whisperwind
GIANT WALL OF TEXT


Wow, and you were accusing Unchi of taking this thread too seriously.

Your whole argument is still a tautology, by the way. "Science is true because it is the study of true things" is not a useful logical construction. Maybe you should read some Popper or Kuhn or something.
Sigh. I'm sad to see that the only people who responded to my post several pages back were those it wasn't even directed at.

Also, I'm not sure who is arguing that art has no standards. I see one side of the fence arguing for an academic view on what is art while the other has several stances.

My stance is not one that disagrees with Unchi (not completely) or that believes that anything is art. Frankly, I'm somewhere in the middle. I don't think that everything is art. But my requirements are a lot more lenient than others.

I didn't formulate this opinion based on my desire for my drawings to be called art. To be honest? I don't call what I do art. I base my opinion on years of study, including time as an art student. I base my opinion on experience, on research, on talking with other people. On what art teachers have taught me. My opinion is not meant to be self-serving.

I think it's childish to bring up people's art and say "oh THIS is why you have this opinion!" Why does someone's skill level have to be brought into it? Do you have to be able to do something well to be able to have an opinion on something, to be knowledgeable about something or to judge something? Argue with their words.



I'll ask it again: What are the standards for something to be art? At what point does a person become "skilled" enough to be deemed an artist? At what point is a work deemed art?

I don't want some long, pedantic argument about how I don't understand art because I'm asking these questions. I want answers from the people in this thread who are using this as the basis of their argument. I want to know the rationale. I want it stated out in full, here in this thread. I Ask because it's been said and said and said, but no one ever is clear about what these standards are, how they are judged/what the basis for that judgment is, who has the right to make these judgments, etc.
Major Malfunction
Wow, and you were accusing Unchi of taking this thread too seriously.

Your whole argument is still a tautology, by the way. "Science is true because it is the study of true things" is not a useful logical construction. Maybe you should read some Popper or Kuhn or something.


I dislike walls of text myself, but sometimes I can't help it... I leave the window open while I'm working, and I go filling it bit by bit in the meantimes.

When I'm done I don't even check the size it was or anything, and sometimes it end up like that.

And yeah, maybe I should study some philosophers and understand what is the science filosophy.
And since we're alread there, just to treat the issue of a random guy/girl throwing insults back and forth because someone didn't agree with his/her opinion, we can also think and make an essay of the way of life.

I'm just moving up a bit ahead since, after we get into the science filosophy we'll end up on "how things started, to make this point valid?".
Afterall, for something to be considered a valid point in an argument it's background must be true from it's origins, it can't be just because the "standards" say so right? (notice the irony, please)

Anyway, I've just got some work to do so I'm finishing up everything I said so far with a (long) resume:

1. OP starts thread, asks for a personal opinion. "What is art". Countless books were written on it and every author, from the most important to the least, have different views of it. It's a subjective matter thus everyone's entitled to an opinion, as we seen since page 1, everyone gave theirs and they weren't exactly the same.

2. Random person that I'll call U starts discussing that someone's opinion is wrong (?) and the thread turns into a huge discussion.

3. Childish acts make the discussion hotter with "I'm better than you are, so you're wrong" and "You're all idiots, I hate you!". Signs become more evident when issues not at hand are used as arguments, such as "Whoever draw gay anime porn doesn't know what he's talking about!" and "I'm older than you so I'm right.".

4. On one side, people (that I'll call S and T) asks "Why is it that you can't give me an argument that's not based on your personal opinion on what you think it's art, and without holding it to be an universal truth?", while on the other side they reply "My opinions are true because I'm the Lord Master of all that is art, so I decide what is and what isn't." and "You guys are morons you can't understand something as simple as: I say this is art, then it is art! I say it isn't art, then it isn't art! This is how the world works, it's the standards!".

5. Discussion, or rather, the flames go on. "Standards" say that whoever shoot first are wrong and must explain themselves, but the other side doesn't bother with it and just keeps asking for a logical argument that can satisfy their minds other than "it just is it just is". The other side starts using underhanded tactics, lowing the level of the discussion to a childish prank - trolling.

6. You bug me, I bug you, you get confused and attacks with all possible imaginable arguments, I laugh off, and so here we are.

I'm giving two answers on the original issue, I might be repeating myself but I'll be doing it anyway, just to please whoever you are:

1. Art is anything, can be anything, and anyone can create art. Because I say so. I, my design degree, my 2587 years of experience, my vast knowledge on a huge and wide selection of talents, from making a tree house to a computer program, my friends and the whole town I live in, my title of Lord of Everything That's Truth that I got for no more no less than achieving the maximum number of truths said in a lifetime and breaking every record so far, and my opinion is worth more than the average joe. In fact, recent researchs carefully executed at my labhouse found that my opinion weight as much as 3.712.452.209 human's opinions currently on earth. I say "jump" and China jumps, taking the earth off it's orbit and dooming us all if I want to.

2. Art can be anything that transmits a feeling, message. It doesn't take anything, from a random sketch or just a pose, if it's able to transmit you a particular feeling the artist tried to, it is art.
Skills affect how much you're affected by it and how this transmition goes (smooth or not).
Standards exist because after some practice, artists noticed that by using those standards they can achieve a higher level of transmition with them, making people feel what they want more than with a random sketch.
Because art can be anything, the only requeriment is the artist's will to transmit a message/feeling to whoever sees it. Writing your shoplist on a piece of paper is a piece of art, the art of writing, if it's intended to give a message to whoever reads it.
If it'll affect you as much as a 3000 page romance book, who cares, but you?

My 7-year old niece drawing on a dirty paper with some old crayon she found attempting a happy family to show how happy she is when we're all together, is a piece of art, and a really goddamn good one.
It affects me much more than any other famous painter's work, unknown to me, even with her skills being way lower than any standard.

This is *my* (it means it's mine and mine alone) mind, my (again, this means it's mine) opinion and no, it is not (it means no, contrary) wrong.
And if you can't understand this (if you don't get the point, the idea), it means you've got some social issues that I won't get into, and I suggest you look for a shrink asap.
Newcomers to this thread, unsure of what you've missed? Let me sum it all up for everyone, so we're all at the same page and not having to reread 17 pages of semantics and bickering.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
designed freedom

What are the standards for something to be art? At what point does a person become "skilled" enough to be deemed an artist? At what point is a work deemed art?

I think that art should at least have the Principles and some elements. I think, other then that, it's up to the individual.
I have no idea about the other questons, but I'd like to hear a good answer. xp
designed freedom


I'll ask it again: What are the standards for something to be art? At what point does a person become "skilled" enough to be deemed an artist? At what point is a work deemed art?

I don't want some long, pedantic argument about how I don't understand art because I'm asking these questions. I want answers from the people in this thread who are using this as the basis of their argument. I want to know the rationale. I want it stated out in full, here in this thread. I Ask because it's been said and said and said, but no one ever is clear about what these standards are, how they are judged/what the basis for that judgment is, who has the right to make these judgments, etc.


This probably wasn't directed at me but I have two standards, and two rules. Art has to have a form to it, a medium, and a way to present itself to the audience. It has to visually embody the fundamentals of design, composition, balance, color theory and has to embody at least skilled knowledge. The second part of it is, meaning, or intent. I feel art has have some sort of meaning, to me it doesn't have have such a complicated one, like a study of atmosphere, or a study of light and composition, but it has to have an intent of being created.

I judge art by these two standards, the creator doesn't have to be Picasso, they have to have the intent and knowledge of what they're doing, using both fundamentals as a basis. I feel like it isn't about the rights to make these judgements, it's about the standard that I feel artists should hold to themselves as well. I will probably judge for myself, but I also take in account, age and experience, and where younger people are, so for example in the picture post, I'll not be too rigid and I'll probably get some redlines and help them out.

My view is totally created from being in an art atmosphere, and I'm not talking about just going to art school. I actively go to art shows, and galleries, even fashion shows, and I actively try and meet some of the professionals in the field for networking and also just for seeing who it is that can create the things I admire so much. The art field... is not that big to be honest, you'll find the niched chunk in you're city and you'll be able to meet basically anyone. I met some of the artists and Pixar just from going to a bar at the right time, I met some high demand concept artists by going to some fashion shows, and I met some genius fine artists by going to galleries just on my street. My entire philosophy is derived from my own standard to myself, but also through meeting these people and hearing what their thoughts are, against or even for the same.

The Pixar lead set designer I know, only had one thing to say "You have to kick a**, if you suck, you suck, too bad," drawing wise and in design, the high concept artist I know felt that "Experience is unique to the person, everyone's learning," he felt that anyone could learn to be an artist and if they felt they were doing art, it was fine as long as the keep learning, and a fine artist just says "There's bad paintings and there's good art." Views really jump around according to people, and to be honest, I've found that my view is actually lenient in some way. But out of all the people I've met, no one could say, "Anything can be art." My own teacher said, as a student, skill wise he was behind, so he tried to counteract it with interesting color, and knowledge in composition and design, skill is not an expendable part of art.
Kaiser-chan's avatar

O.G. Elder

praeclaris304

This probably wasn't directed at me but I have two standards, and two rules. Art has to have a form to it, a medium, and a way to present itself to the audience. It has to visually embody the fundamentals of design, composition, balance, color theory and has to embody at least skilled knowledge. The second part of it is, meaning, or intent. I feel art has have some sort of meaning, to me it doesn't have have such a complicated one, like a study of atmosphere, or a study of light and composition, but it has to have an intent of being created.

I judge art by these two standards, the creator doesn't have to be Picasso, they have to have the intent and knowledge of what they're doing, using both fundamentals as a basis. I feel like it isn't about the rights to make these judgements, it's about the standard that I feel artists should hold to themselves as well. I will probably judge for myself, but I also take in account, age and experience, and where younger people are, so for example in the picture post, I'll not be too rigid and I'll probably get some redlines and help them out.


I don't really have a grounded opinion in the overall topic at hand, so I'm not asking to try to argue, just out of curiosity. The different viewpoints here, whether they be right, wrong, or just viewpoints, are fascinating.

To what extent would you require these skills and knowledges to be present in a work? If a piece clearly strives towards good composition, but falls flat, does it get "points for effort," or is it weighed down by the artist's inability to execute a principle they're not quite solid on yet? Or if they manage excellent composition and yet, fail at executing the colours?

Is there a point at which the meaning and intent can support flawed execution, or in reverse, can a picture that is a perfect, beautiful example of the fundamental principles overcome being created just to as a show of technique? Or would the pursuit of technique qualify as a meaning, in that case?
praeclaris304


This probably wasn't directed at me...
You're one of the people this was directed at, yes. 3nodding Thank you for taking the time to answer it seriously.

Of everything you said there's only one thing I'd like to comment upon:
praeclaris304

... But out of all the people I've met, no one could say, "Anything can be art."

This here definitely comes down to first-hand experience. You've met a lot of people on one side of the art spectrum, people who work on the highly competitive side. I on the other hand went to a school geared towards art education. Most of the people were either there to be art teachers or art historians, with a sprinkling of fine arts and illustration majors. Where you saw/see the side of art that demands skill, proficiency and efficiency.

I heard quite frequently that anything could be art and was pushed to create art out of things that people dismissed. The potential is there if you tap into it. I think the difference in opinions here depends a lot on what people were taught and how they were taught it.

praeclaris304

My own teacher said, as a student, skill wise he was behind, so he tried to counteract it with interesting color, and knowledge in composition and design, skill is not an expendable part of art.
xD As for this, I wish every art teacher/professor were as honest and willing to adapt. I had a few who thought their s**t didn't stink but are outpaced by those MSPaint doodles people keep complaining about..


@Kaiser-chan: xD I glad I'm not the only one curious about this line of thinking.
If I see them trying at an interesting composition, or trying to study color or lighting, or at least trying something other than stiff pose looking at camera, I'll appreciate it more and try and actually help out. Because on this site, it's more of a younger general populace I probably won't be "you suck."

But in general, it's not like, they have to have every point of execution, like, some of the artwork I really like has some of the most awesome compositions and layouts, but maybe they can't draw people as well, it doesn't take anything away from their compositions and such. Like to be more specific, I don't have a "what's more important" ranking for the skill department, like, I won't judge skill as the one two three ranking, composition, color, drawing etc etc. I have a friend, who isn't technically as skilled as some others, but he knows light, he knows composition, and he knows how to think so he creates art on his strengths while still learning and practicing on his weaknesses. He manipulates the average viewer into believe he has no weakness, but he's conscious of them himself, and he's always improving himself.

I think there isn't a specific line between the balance on skill and intent. Personally, things created just to be pretty, like, just to look technically stunning makes me uninterested. Anyone with a pencil and a lot of time can create something technically good, but what really grabs someone, is the story. I don't even call my own sketches for practice, really art, I just say, drawing on the bus or at school. But on the other side of the spectrum, the story is so interesting, and so unique, but there's nothing there that can tell it because they don't have the tools to tell them. It's not like I know exactly what falls in either spectrum, it really is me looking at each piece with fresh eyes and seeing what works and what doesn't. To those that really makes me think about it and see the values, composition and story ... I pretty much call all of it art if it can make me stop and analyze. With stuff I don't even judge art, I pretty much just pass it by.

The stuff I'm talking about, art is not is anything, that's my point, that there's a standard. Of course standards change, and I don't even have mine on down to a science, it's a lot of factors for me. But it's really not like I go through posts and stuff and is like "That's not art that's not art that's not art." Art really can't be anything to me, it can't just on principle, and I say this through my own experiences. Because if art can be anything, than the people who are toiling to create something unique, fresh, something that has impact... It looses it's gravity, it makes people brush off the very concept of art, and in this field... it's can be very damaging.
There is a lot of things that I find artistic without it being art. Like you I feel a piece needs to have something behind it, something if not in the design then in the color the light the composition, something that grabs at you and conveys emotion, story, purpose--again something--to the viewer--needs it to be art. However, there in comes perception, preference and opinion again.

I don't think to say that "art can be anything" is to devalue the toil of common artist (because let's be honest--what artist isn't fighting to stay ahead in that business?) but rather that it's lost it's true meaning.

Anything can be art if you make it into art. That says nothing about what it takes to turn it into art, but allows for the potential to be there.
Major Malfunction
Stop Him
That's your opinion.


Can you tell me something that you would consider a "fact"? As far as I can tell, you have claimed that the entirety of human knowledge is merely opinion and there are no actually authorities on any subject. Even Foucault would laugh at this.


Oh, well, "why bother explaining, you're too stupid to understand" worked so well for you...

nah. I'm not that cheap.

I have NOT claimed that "all of knowledge is opinion". Whether you are doing it deliberately to troll me or are just naturally obtuse, you are misreading and misinterpreting what I have said.

Some things are facts by definition, by self-evidence. I think, therefore I am. The value of four.

Some things are facts by historical evidence. The names of all US Presidents. The date of Hurricane Katrina.

Some things are facts through empirical study. The melting point of copper. The circumference of the Earth.

These things can be proven through independent verification. If someone questions or disbelieves them, the science can be performed, the historical records can be examined.

Some things cannot be proved in any way to be fact, such as the existence of God. Oh, many, many people do believe this to be true, that God exists, but there is no way to verify this as a fact. How do you know God exists? "The Bible says so." But how do you know the Bible is true? "God says so." Where and when did He say that? "In the Bible." It circles in on itself, and there is no independent science or test currently that can pick out the God Particle or some other phenomenon and point to it as proof of God. Some people may treat it as a fact, but it is opinion. Strength of belief does not make it any more a fact.

Now - Unchi-tan's "facts" are unprovable by any objective, unbiased method of establishing a bonafide fact. She cites quotes, she cites precedent, she cites this and that, but all of these trace back to personal preferences, and while it may be a fact that these preferences exist, the preferences themselves are not irrefutable facts, they are opinions. Feelings. A majority opinion - getting a lot of artists to agree on some principles - may be evidence to support a theory, but it is not automatically proof.

And opinions change. Once it was thought the Sun orbited the Earth, at the time was accepted as fact - but better science came along and eventually most people realized that they had been mistaken. Artist upon artist has emerged with some new way of looking at art; been called a fake, a heretic, denied even the status of being an artist by some - but after people stopped being butthurt by the challenge to their own hidebound ideals, ideas that were once radical became accepted - or at least, more accepted.

The biggest fault in Unchi-tan's arguments is that she assumes that words she uses have value judgments that (at least by dictionary standards) they simply do not possess. "Skill" does not automatically mean "great skill", "talent" does not mean "exceptional talent", and "art" does not necessarily mean art that aspires to some higher ideal or deeper meaning or whatever the hell she thinks it's supposed to have. There are no stated minimum requirements for these concepts.

If she were to come up with a real fact, instead of what she merely claims is a fact, instead of an opinion dressed up in a fact costume, to support her theories, maybe that would be worth examining. If she simply said, "this is what I think just because I think it's good and right," then we could treat it as someone's opinion and debate its merits or just leave it alone. But when she offers blatant opinions and presents them AS fact, it's bullshit, and I'm going to call it bullshit. Her experience with art matters little when she has a beginner's acquaintance with the difference between subjective and objective.

And I'm using her and her arguments as an example in this case because aside from the fact that you like to whip out your contempt openly, I have no idea what the ******** you think.
This thread is art!

A lot of effort and skill went into it, and it evokes an emotion in me (Disgust).

Trying to read what I've missed in this thread over the past four days I was gone was like very slowly pushing my hand into a meat grinder, with my only benefit at the end being the knowledge that I can do it all over again four days from now!
Quote:

Meowhead

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 9:30 am
This thread is art!

A lot of effort and skill went into it, and it evokes an emotion in me (Disgust).

Trying to read what I've missed in this thread over the past four days I was gone was like very slowly pushing my hand into a meat grinder, with my only benefit at the end being the knowledge that I can do it all over again four days from now!


true, true, true......
i missed one day n suddenly it went to 17 pages...its a record this forum....

to put it in a simple way as possible so that no one is offended and hurt or something else....

art is definable only for those who understand it, definable for those who learn it, definable for those who use it....

it is a matter of loving or hating it....
doesn't mean if u hate art u force someone to hate it also....
and of course im referring art in general whether it is a piece or something....

its describable but depends on the people who is describing it....
there is no absolute answer...
it is not a multiple answer this one its a long one......

to put it in a really simple way art=love...
bcoz love also cannot be describe....
to prove my point i asked everyone in school to describe the meaning of it....
and each answer is different like art....

again, fightin to know who is right does not bring us anywhere it only leads to multiple of pages *annoyed* ....

its like confucius say"............" i don't know what he said but sounds really cool....
the point im making is even though art have lots of different styles and stuff e.g. surreal, cubeism, mixed media, sculpture, realism, post realism, abstract, stencil and etc....
it is a matter of hating or loving em'.....
Tyrande Whisperwind
Wall Of Text II: The Quickening


Stop Him
Wall Of Text III: The Search For Someone Who Gives A s**t


Wow, look at all those words I'm not going to read. Why not just cut to the chase and say what you really mean: "we don't like people being critical of our artwork and therefore we have decided that there are no rules for art".

The professionals are not scared of your artistic philosophy, like you both have implied. You are not "heretics" or bringers of new wisdom. You are simply shitty artists, and you will remain shitty artists because you refuse to acknowledge that your field of work has actual professional standards. Keep raging against the machine all you want, but you will never amount to anything and it will be entirely your fault.
Yeah, art without a story seems dull, and it gets passed bye and buryed under the others who do have a story. Thats why art is a very competitive carrer, You won't make without something absolutely stuning.
praeclaris304 is this something like what your trying to say.???
I don't think its on the mark, but is it close?
I think art should have a story, but I don't think it needs one. I don't know how to explain it right now (just woke up) but I'll try to come up with something later.

designed freedom
There is a lot of things that I find artistic without it being art. Like you I feel a piece needs to have something behind it, something if not in the design then in the color the light the composition, something that grabs at you and conveys emotion, story, purpose--again something--to the viewer--needs it to be art. However, there in comes perception, preference and opinion again.

I don't think to say that "art can be anything" is to devalue the toil of common artist (because let's be honest--what artist isn't fighting to stay ahead in that business?) but rather that it's lost it's true meaning.

Anything can be art if you make it into art. That says nothing about what it takes to turn it into art, but allows for the potential to be there.

I think thats what most belive when they say everything can be art. They just don't go though to explain themselves and some people just chose not to read between the lines.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games