Art: What is it not?

[Major Malfunction]

Stop Him

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.

Wait, you're claiming that I'm a sockpuppet of Unchi or something?

Wow, man. Thank you. That's the nicest thing I've been told all day. If people are mistaking me for Unchi, one of the best posters in AD, then I must be doing something right.

[Stop Him]

Major Malfunction

Wait, you're claiming that I'm a sockpuppet of Unchi or something?

Wow, man. Thank you. That's the nicest thing I've been told all day. If people are mistaking me for Unchi, one of the best posters in AD, then I must be doing something right.

Watch that stickshift, Dale Jr.

[cirtneccE]

Art is.... wait what the hell is this about again? Lets look it up....


Dictionary
art 1 |ärt|
noun
1 the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power : the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris.
• works produced by such skill and imagination : his collection of modern art | an exhibition of Tibetan art | [as adj. ] an art critic.
• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture : she's good at art.
2 ( the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance : the visual arts | [in sing. ] the art of photography.
3 ( arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects) : the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible | the Faculty of Arts.
4 a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice : the art of conversation.
PHRASES
art for art's sake used to convey the idea that the chief or only aim of a work of art is the self-expression of the individual artist who creates it.
art is long, life is short proverb there is so much knowledge to acquire that a lifetime is not sufficient.
art of war the strategy, tactics, and techniques of combat.
ORIGIN Middle English : via Old French from Latin ars, art-.

[Major Malfunction]

Stop Him

Watch that stickshift, Dale Jr.

I assume from context that this was supposed to be some kind of burn, but it has failed so completely that I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. Should I feign some sort of dismay?

[cirtneccE]

SO according to the dictionary.... a finger painting toddler is creating art because he is expressing himself in a visual format using his imagination. You don't have to like it... and he probably has zero skill but if it fits the definition....

Trying to define art is... well stupid. Why? Because people have different tastes and create their own definitions and interpretations. There is no real right or wrong, really a definition is just a string of words about another word and since people have different opinions on each word used in the equation to create the final word then there could be many different meanings for the same string of words which create arguments about whose interpretation about that final word is correct (which on level we can't see, has different meanings and at the same time has no meaning since its really just noise when vocalized to someone who only understands a different language, maybe one without a similar word).

Er... what I'm trying to say is that some will decide that the toddler is expressing himself and others will say that he doesn't understand what he's doing. A child could consider a cartoon unicorn as something beautiful and an adult could consider it as just a stupid doodle. Skill and appeal mean different things to different people. I like pineapples and my sister hates them. I say they are delicious, she says they are disgusting. Can a realistic painting be seen as something creative? Yes and no. Is a picture of a naked woman beautiful or pornographic?

[Stop Him]

Major Malfunction

Stop Him

Watch that stickshift, Dale Jr.

I assume from context that this was supposed to be some kind of burn, but it has failed so completely that I don't even know what it's supposed to mean. Should I feign some sort of dismay?

Factoid: Dale Earnhardt Jr. is a NASCAR driver. Just in case your "don't know what it means" extends to pop culture references - you didn't specify.

I guess how you feel about it depends if you're as serious as you claim, or if you're just trolling.

If you're trolling, no, you don't give a s**t.

But you insisted that the incredibly important topic of my issues with criticism needed addressing - and as before, I reply and then it's like it never happened. Well, whatever - I certainly can't feel put in my place if nobody can be bothered to put anything.

[Unchi-tan]

Listen, Stop Him, you cannot prove that "everything that is created is art" because this statement is false. Before you hurr durr at me, listen up, it's a fact: "everything is art" is a modernist concept. You are looking at this argument from a modernist's point of view and you are rejecting all other definitions. Your argument is biased.

I hate modernism and post-modernism, but I included both in my definition anyway because I wanted it to be unbiased. I never said "abstract expressionism is not art", I said "abstract expressionism is art when the artist is aware of color theory and composition". It matters little to me if it's one or two blotches of paint, what makes it art or not art is the placement of these blotches and what color they are and what they mean, because this is what separates the work of an artist from stuff that is complete garbage. And the only way in which one can make this evaluation is by basing it on existing standards of composition and color. These are standards that don't change overtime, and they are safe for that reason.

I came back to this thread in hopes that things would have calmed down, but no. You are all still being idiots and refusing to accept that without standards, there is no such thing is art.

I am appalled. And I am disgusted. And I am not the Major. He is smarter than I could ever hope to be.

[Major Malfunction]

Stop Him

Factoid: Dale Earnhardt Jr. is a NASCAR driver. Just in case your "don't know what it means" extends to pop culture references - you didn't specify.

I know who Earnhardt was and who his son is, I was required by Texas law to watch the funeral on television.

What the hell does NASCAR have to do with this discussion? Are you resorting to non-sequiturs now? Or perhaps are you just not funny?

[Major Malfunction]

Unchi-tan

And I am not the Major. He is smarter than I could ever hope to be.

Even though I like Rothko and Suprematism and all that other modernist stuff?

[Unchi-tan]

Major Malfunction

Unchi-tan

And I am not the Major. He is smarter than I could ever hope to be.

Even though I like Rothko and Suprematism and all that other modernist stuff?

Nobody's perfect, man. Nobody's perfect...

[cirtneccE]

Unchi-tan

Listen, Stop Him, you cannot prove that "everything that is created is art" because this statement is false. Before you hurr durr at me, listen up, it's a fact: "everything is art" is a modernist concept. You are looking at this argument from a modernist's point of view and you are rejecting all other definitions. Your argument is biased.

I hate modernism and post-modernism, but I included both in my definition anyway because I wanted it to be unbiased. I never said "abstract expressionism is not art", I said "abstract expressionism is art when the artist is aware of color theory and composition". It matters little to me if it's one or two blotches of paint, what makes it art or not art is the placement of these blotches and what color they are and what they mean, because this is what separates the work of an artist from stuff that is complete garbage. And the only way in which one can make this evaluation is by basing it on existing standards of composition and color. These are standards that don't change overtime, and they are safe for that reason.

I came back to this thread in hopes that things would have calmed down, but no. You are all still being idiots and refusing to accept that without standards, there is no such thing is art.

I am appalled. And I am disgusted. And I am not the Major. He is smarter than I could ever hope to be.

Erm.... actually saying that "without standards, there is no such thing is art" is just being idealistic. Many people consider an elephant's painting to be art and some would pay a great sum of money to own it. Of course many others will think its just splattered paint but if its created by a "creative activity" and someone thinks its beautiful (or even pretends to think that way) then they can call it art, right?

[Unchi-tan]

DrenchedCoyote

Erm.... actually saying that "without standards, there is no such thing is art" is just being idealistic. Many people consider an elephant's painting to be art and some would pay a great sum of money to own it. Of course many others will think its just splattered paint but if its created by a "creative activity" and someone thinks its beautiful (or even pretends to think that way) then they can call it art, right?

You can call whatever you want "art", just as I can all whatever I want "shoe". That means nothing, and it changes nothing in the big scheme of things.

[Kaiser-chan]

DrenchedCoyote

Erm.... actually saying that "without standards, there is no such thing is art" is just being idealistic. Many people consider an elephant's painting to be art and some would pay a great sum of money to own it. Of course many others will think its just splattered paint but if its created by a "creative activity" and someone thinks its beautiful (or even pretends to think that way) then they can call it art, right?

Yes, but does common consent render something correct?

I've heard some pretty commonly repeated things that are just plain wrong. I had an exboyfriend argue once that feminism meant one believed women were superior to men. Obviously, he wasn't right by the traditional definition or by even one that uses common sense, but he's not the only person who feels this way. I've heard people argue that, by definition, all liberals are socialist - they believed this, and I'm sure if you spent a little time asking around you could find other people who will say this, and truly mean it. They won't understand how you could argue the point. I can call blue "purple," and though I won't mean it, it won't change that I have. However, it doesn't add a red tint to blue. Blue stays blue, no matter how many people might argue it's colour.

I don't personally have a solid definition of what art is, but I think this topic has made it clear that no matter what your definition of art is, someone will disagree with it and propose another. The definition of hypothetic buyers of elephant paintings is just one more to add to the pile - the existence of a disagreeing definition obviously doesn't render all other definitions invalid. Or, if it does, then certainly no one's can be correct.

[cirtneccE]

Unchi-tan

DrenchedCoyote

Erm.... actually saying that "without standards, there is no such thing is art" is just being idealistic. Many people consider an elephant's painting to be art and some would pay a great sum of money to own it. Of course many others will think its just splattered paint but if its created by a "creative activity" and someone thinks its beautiful (or even pretends to think that way) then they can call it art, right?

You can call whatever you want "art", just as I can all whatever I want "shoe". That means nothing, and it changes nothing in the big scheme of things.

Well no, its totally different. Calling a toothpick a shoe is just being silly since it can't possible match with any logical or emotional definition of shoe. A shoe can't be mistaken for a toothpick. There is no similarity. The definition of shoe is too straightforward to be confused with the definition of toothpick. You can create your own definition of god or art since the words used to describe it can be interpreted differently by you. Words like creativity can be warped by people and people have their own ideas about the meaning of beauty. A shoe will always be recognizable, unlike art. Also, saying that all shoes are comfy is being idealistic... not that you said that. Who knows what a photographer is thinking when he snaps that picture of that goldfish in that blender but I'm sure someone will find a way to define it as art without sounding totally out of his rocker... its against an ideal, but its doable. A man claiming that a toothpick is a shoe will be put in a straitjacket. Personally, I'd like all shoes to be comfy and all art to have thought behind it so people don't make profit from taking advantage of elephants who can use a paint brush (now I'm not being serious anymore....).

[cirtneccE]

Kaiser-chan

DrenchedCoyote

Erm.... actually saying that "without standards, there is no such thing is art" is just being idealistic. Many people consider an elephant's painting to be art and some would pay a great sum of money to own it. Of course many others will think its just splattered paint but if its created by a "creative activity" and someone thinks its beautiful (or even pretends to think that way) then they can call it art, right?

Yes, but does common consent render something correct?

I've heard some pretty commonly repeated things that are just plain wrong. I had an exboyfriend argue once that feminism meant one believed women were superior to men. Obviously, he wasn't right by the traditional definition or by even one that uses common sense, but he's not the only person who feels this way. I've heard people argue that, by definition, all liberals are socialist - they believed this, and I'm sure if you spent a little time asking around you could find other people who will say this, and truly mean it. They won't understand how you could argue the point. I can call blue "purple," and though I won't mean it, it won't change that I have. However, it doesn't add a red tint to blue. Blue stays blue, no matter how many people might argue it's colour.

I don't personally have a solid definition of what art is, but I think this topic has made it clear that no matter what your definition of art is, someone will disagree with it and propose another. The definition of hypothetic buyers of elephant paintings is just one more to add to the pile - the existence of a disagreeing definition obviously doesn't render all other definitions invalid. Or, if it does, then certainly no one's can be correct.

Thats right. Her definition wasn't invalid or valid as it can be argued against and defended. It can make sense and be disagreed with.