Welcome to Gaia! ::

Stop Him
Invictus_88
My objection to your standards is not a moral one, but a semantic one. You say that anything created by a person, for any sort of gratification, is art.


Not exactly. "Gratification" as opposed to necessity. "Necessity" is being used rather broadly, I'll admit, since beyond food, water and a certain amount of shelter most of us don't really truly need a lot of things in order to live in the most basic manner, but I apply that to things that are related to necessity: we feel gratification when we are hungry and eat food, but that is a function of our need. A brick used to make a house serves the need of shelter, a fridge protects the food we require. This is not gratification, not art - though the way in which the fridge is decorated or the shape and arrangement of the brick(s) may very well be art.

[/brutal snip]


That's a lot of text there, and you've still failed to confront the problem of defining art. Your definition still extends the net as wide as child pornography and crush videos, fridges and toasters, beer and cocaine...etc.
Your distinction between a want and a need is stunningly flawed, and you accept yourself that all we 'Need' with a capital N are base nutrients and shelter from the elements. Beyond that is a spectrum of 'needs' which includes variety, sensation, beauty, satisfaction...etc.

The level of 'need' associated with alcohol, porn or a fridge is comparable to (and I would say lesser than) the need for art and culture. This being the case, your argument that "Art is anything made for gratification rather than need" seems even more strange and untenable than it did when you first presented it.
Major Malfunction
wank bile


Yeah, I suppose I deserve that for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you asking a question was anything more than another setup for trollery.

You can cram it sideways with fish hooks from this point on.


Invictus_88
That's a lot of text there, and you've still failed to confront the problem of defining art.


Oh come on, you're not even trying.

I've been "confronting" the issue all along, you're just not satisfied with the results. I note you clipped out the part where I ask you to offer some specific factor you think is required.

Invictus_88
Your definition still extends the net as wide as child pornography and crush videos, fridges and toasters, beer and cocaine...etc.


So?

The whole point of attempting to define an objective standard for what is art isn't to satisfy your own personal preference for what you think art should be, it's to define a standard for what art is. That doesn't mean you get to draw an arbitrary line of personal preference, say "this stuff on this side isn't art", and then wiggle your definition around to land on that line. So if you think the definition I propose fails just because something you don't think is art does get defined as art, you just haven't been paying attention.

Invictus_88
Your distinction between a want and a need is stunningly flawed, and you accept yourself that all we 'Need' with a capital N are base nutrients and shelter from the elements. Beyond that is a spectrum of 'needs' which includes variety, sensation, beauty, satisfaction...etc.

The level of 'need' associated with alcohol, porn or a fridge is comparable to (and I would say lesser than) the need for art and culture. This being the case, your argument that "Art is anything made for gratification rather than need" seems even more strange and untenable than it did when you first presented it.


You know what? You have a point, I'll admit it. I had already been giving further thought to the cases of beer and cocaine, I will admit that defining those in terms of a need was really stretching it.

(See, I admit to error, it's not that hard.)

(However, this:
Invictus_88
Beyond that is a spectrum of 'needs' which includes variety, sensation, beauty, satisfaction...etc.

Is your wild re-interpretation of what I actually have been saying, as with the possible exception of "satisfaction" I have not claimed any of those others as "needs".)

But wait - that's not the only criteria I use. A human has to create the art.

Humans manufacture cocaine, to be sure, but the purpose of cocaine is to be consumed, to induce chemical effects in the mind and body. A pile of raw cocaine can be considered a tool to achieve that end result, much like a paintbrush is not art, but a tool with which to create it. Alone, it does not gratify.

But that end result, the intoxication: can that be said to truly be created in the way art is? It is a naturally occurring biological reaction - a human cannot do much to control the reaction, save by increasing or decreasing the dosage. They induce the reaction but do not create it, much like no one creates the process of digesting food.

So despite the flaw in my original reasoning re: cocaine, re-examination still leads me to conclude that cocaine is not by itself art, nor is its usually-intended end result art.
art is everything i do! whee
Invictus_88
That's a lot of text there, and you've still failed to confront the problem of defining art. Your definition still extends the net as wide as child pornography and crush videos, fridges and toasters, beer and cocaine...etc.
Your distinction between a want and a need is stunningly flawed, and you accept yourself that all we 'Need' with a capital N are base nutrients and shelter from the elements. Beyond that is a spectrum of 'needs' which includes variety, sensation, beauty, satisfaction...etc.

The level of 'need' associated with alcohol, porn or a fridge is comparable to (and I would say lesser than) the need for art and culture. This being the case, your argument that "Art is anything made for gratification rather than need" seems even more strange and untenable than it did when you first presented it.


You wouldn't accept something as art because it's child pornography or crush videos?

It is one way to view it, if you think that videos in general are a form of art, does a video loses it's quality as art because of what it's intended for?

I think that art is art, how and what the artist uses or makes it from doesn't disqualify it - they're like "tools", subjected to whoever uses them.
(To avoid some pesky quotations, this is my opinion on it, and I'd like to hear yours)
xxellaxpopexx
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.


@designed freedom - It is for the artists though, I wanted to say this but didn't have time, like, the common artist, and what art means, its for them because art first and foremost, is created by people. It's not just fighting ahead of the business, and if art has lost its true meaning, isn't it most devastating on the artist themselves?

What I mean is, that art, not in a professional sense even, needs to say something. It can't just be there just to be there, and I don't even need something that has an ultimate deeper meaning. I just feel that there should be something there that will ultimately hold the viewer to the visuals, and not just by visuals alone. The visuals and the fundamentals are essential for good story telling, it's a language that needs to be learned to fully understand and utilize. Neither is more important than the other because both are essential, one is the knowledge and the tools to be able to present the other extraordinarily well.

I get what you're saying, well what both of you are saying, I just disagree. There's nothing to be done really, you've explained your view, and I've explained mine, just as you say it's opinion... but I understand neither of us are probably going to change our own opinions. You asked for my explanation, so I tried to give the best I could, so at least we can say it was a real discussion smile I honestly believe there's a standard in art no matter what at the end of the day, talking to me about it is like a brick wall hahahah, sorry to say, and I'll admit it, I'm ridiculously mulish in that way. But I am grateful it was a polite conversation at the least.
Invictus_88

Do you feel I am correct in my view that an unusually subjective approach prevails here?

To what degree do you feel that there exist things which cannot be art?


Art has so many form and level, art does not chained itself to certain or specific things. I believe anything that involves with the human skills, thinking/intellect and Intention(edit) in creating something[artifact] are arts, or not just creating tangible objects we also have the skills in writing, singing, martial arts, dance or anything that requires body movements. The simplest definition of art that I learned is "Art describes the works of man" so basically it can be anything so long as men human are involved.

Well that is just what I know and believe in. I am in no position to tell what is and what is not art, but I can distinguish high quality and sophisticated art from crude and junk arts.
Stop Him
Yeah, I suppose I deserve that for giving you the benefit of the doubt that you asking a question was anything more than another setup for trollery.


I'm not trolling you, I'm dead serious. You are using huge blocks of words to cover up your core issue, which is that you have serious problems with the very concept of criticism. This is obvious to everybody and it's really quite sad.

If you can't explain your point in two or three paragraphs, just give up, because you're wasting your time and everybody else's. Verbosity doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look obsessed.
praeclaris304
xxellaxpopexx
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.


@designed freedom - It is for the artists though, I wanted to say this but didn't have time, like, the common artist, and what art means, its for them because art first and foremost, is created by people. It's not just fighting ahead of the business, and if art has lost its true meaning, isn't it most devastating on the artist themselves?

What I mean is, that art, not in a professional sense even, needs to say something. It can't just be there just to be there, and I don't even need something that has an ultimate deeper meaning. I just feel that there should be something there that will ultimately hold the viewer to the visuals, and not just by visuals alone. The visuals and the fundamentals are essential for good story telling, it's a language that needs to be learned to fully understand and utilize. Neither is more important than the other because both are essential, one is the knowledge and the tools to be able to present the other extraordinarily well.

I get what you're saying, well what both of you are saying, I just disagree. There's nothing to be done really, you've explained your view, and I've explained mine, just as you say it's opinion... but I understand neither of us are probably going to change our own opinions. You asked for my explanation, so I tried to give the best I could, so at least we can say it was a real discussion smile I honestly believe there's a standard in art no matter what at the end of the day, talking to me about it is like a brick wall hahahah, sorry to say, and I'll admit it, I'm ridiculously mulish in that way. But I am grateful it was a polite conversation at the least.
The funny thing is we're both saying the same thing, just in different ways.

I don't disagree with what you're saying in the slightest, it's just how you say it. This whole discussion boils down to semantics.
I think you would ultimately disagree with me if I had not put it in... more political correct terms. I've definitely... sugarcoated to say the least. When I say I have a harsh view, I do, I'm not oblivious so I'm pretty certain mine would not be the popular position.
Kaiser-chan's avatar

O.G. Elder

Invictus_88

That's a lot of text there, and you've still failed to confront the problem of defining art. Your definition still extends the net as wide as child pornography and crush videos, fridges and toasters, beer and cocaine...etc.
Your distinction between a want and a need is stunningly flawed, and you accept yourself that all we 'Need' with a capital N are base nutrients and shelter from the elements. Beyond that is a spectrum of 'needs' which includes variety, sensation, beauty, satisfaction...etc.

The level of 'need' associated with alcohol, porn or a fridge is comparable to (and I would say lesser than) the need for art and culture. This being the case, your argument that "Art is anything made for gratification rather than need" seems even more strange and untenable than it did when you first presented it.



I hate to say things like this (I always end up quoted out of context), but why can't there be art that could be, by some definitions, also child pornography? Even without a definition of art as wide as that which Stop Him proposes - even with a narrow definition of art - you can still justify it.

As Stop Him pointed out earlier, if there is an attention paid to the artistry of it - say an image with beautiful composition, colours, etc, and there is an intent to it other than to titillate some sick pervert's desires, could not it be art by almost any definition of art that doesn't require morality? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm sure there are denizens of the more wretched hives of scum and villainy on the internet who could certainly pleasure themselves to some pieces of art I can think of.

You mentioned earlier writing about whether or not art requires morality - certainly, if we can divorce morality from art, then immoral things can be art if they contain the other factors necessary to be. I don't see how it inherently belittles a definition of art to say that it could also contain something morally reprehensible and also somewhat offensive if we aren't going to require morality or sexual cleanness in our definition of art.

My favourite painting, absolute favourite piece of art I've ever laid eyes upon, features a man being beheaded in the street. I would argue forever with anyone who cared to that it is art, no matter which way you slice it.
praeclaris304
I think you would ultimately disagree with me if I had not put it in... more political correct terms. I've definitely... sugarcoated to say the least. When I say I have a harsh view, I do, I'm not oblivious so I'm pretty certain mine would not be the popular position.


Just out of morbid curiosity, what's wrong with using the dictionary definition of art?
If the fundamental message is the same, using stronger language or harsher terms isn't going to change that. wink
Because it is insipid and shallow, the most generic interpretation.


It wouldn't change necessarily but it would sure piss off a bunch of people, lol.
praeclaris304
Because it is insipid and shallow, the most generic interpretation.


It wouldn't change necessarily but it would sure piss off a bunch of people, lol.


A lot of dictionary entries are that way, but that's because they're trying to cover all the bases.

I think you're using the art community definition of art, Stop Him is using the Scott McCloud definition... I just like using the dictionary definition. Maybe I'm a Philistine.

In a way, don't most of these arguments boil down to who gets to pick and choose the definitions of words? Since English is a living language (As opposed to something like Latin or Etruscan, or whatever...), definitions change, evolve and stretch out.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but isn't it a losing battle?

Isn't it, in a way, sort of like arguing that people shouldn't use the word 'quick' to mean 'fast'?

Maybe you should just capitalize your word. Like Art. I think that's a pretty cool distinction, and it makes you sound SUPER OFFICIAL. I would never even begin to claim that anything I draw falls under your definition of art, or the art community definition of art... or that it should be allowed within 100 feet of an art school, much less a museum...

... but the dictionary says that it's art. (shrug) I mean, theoretically if I wanted to make other people happy, I could be very careful to refer to my pictures as pictures and drawing, but common usage and the dictionary has turned it into art, and I don't really think that's my fault. I still get mad at people for using 'antisocial' wrong all the time, but I realize it's a losing battle. :<
Major Malfunction
I'm not trolling you, I'm dead serious. You are using huge blocks of words to cover up your core issue, which is that you have serious problems with the very concept of criticism. This is obvious to everybody and it's really quite sad.


....fine, I'll bite again.

Look, when you get done measuring Unchi-tan's blood pressure with your colon, maybe you can have that ADD looked at. You don't want to read it? That's your problem. You asked for what I considered "fact", and I told you, and not having any ability to respond to what you actually asked about, you pop a clutch shifting gears to go on about my "issues with criticism".

Which don't exist, and are all your own unicorn-filled fantasy. As if I gave a s**t what you think about my work, as if anyone on Gaia has offered anything remotely resembling actual criticism. But let's back up:

Major Malfunction
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.


You're equating professional art standards with the concept of art itself. You're assuming that when I talked about new artists bringing in radical concepts I was talking specifically about me. You're reading stuff into it that isn't there, and you've cloned that little behavior pattern of Unchi's to an uncanny level. I don't know if you're her sockpuppet or her stalking horse, but it would be less creepy if you could develop a personality or argument that actually distinguishes you as a different individual.

Quick Reply

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