Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

D&D #define's Art.

zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
edited June 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
In the vulgarity thread there was an interesting discussion going on about what art is and what counts as such. I'm posting several definitions of art, feel free to accept one of them or post your own.

Reading:
A clusterfuck of philosophical definitions. Some interesting, but one sided with regard of this discussion.
http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/art-definition

From Wiki's aesthetics definition:
Spoiler:


MW definition:
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts barchaic : learning, scholarship
3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art
5 aarchaic : a skillful plan
b: the quality or state of being artful6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

My guess is we won't be able to agree in this thread, so let's have them opinions going.

Personally I'm in the camp that most inventions and utilities are not art because I believe that art requires an intent to stimulate human senses, which lacks in almost all appliances. I'm not against the possibility of some industrial creations being art, but against the absolution that everything created by humans is.

Is your coffeemaker art D&D? What about your keyboard?
Does art encompasses all products of human activity?
Are copies art?
Are inventions art?
Anything else.

zeeny on
«1

Posts

  • DaenrisDaenris Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    Personally I'm in the camp that most inventions and utilities are not art because I believe that art requires an intent to stimulate human senses, which lacks in almost all appliances. I'm not against the possibility of some industrial creations being art, but against the absolution that everything created by humans is.

    Okay, but many/most appliances these days are made to stimulate the senses. A person is generally more likely to buy a coffee maker that is more aesthetically pleasing to them. This is why companies hire artists and designers to work on the appearance of their products. Hell, I've seen Kohler commercials (faucets/etc) that specifically play to the art/design aspects of their products.

    I certainly would agree that not everything created by humans is art, but there's an extremely wide range and it includes many everyday items.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I disagree, for me virtually all appliances have standardized design and it's one serving the idea of functionality before that of aesthetic stimulation.
    I don't believe that adding a curve to a vacuum cleaner or a bright red cup to a coffeemaker would make a work of art of either of the two as I seem to be siding with the procedural definition to the point where the process of creating art is important to be able to recognize it as such.(I don't like the example given in wiki though, so my guess is I don't really support their view if words are involved.)

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    This definition doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion that bred this thread ... and I doubt it applies in every case ... but here goes:

    Art is anything in which the physical objects or mediums you interact with to experience it "disappear."

    For example, when you're reading a book, the book "disappears." The physical object of the book evaporates as you internalize and experience the code of the words on it.

    Similarly, when you watch a movie or play a videogame, the glass and plastic of the television disappears, as do the phosphors of light. Those lights are a code that you internalize and the physical structure that gives rise to the code evaporates.

    Same can be said with paintings and maybe sculptures. But obviously some paintings and sculptures are a stretch, as is any piece of art that draws attention to its medium. Also, this definition would cover other forms of writing, pictures and video that are not considered "art" (such as newspapers and the Weather Channel).

    But I think it's an interesting place to start.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.


    But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art. Seriously, the shit is a total slave to functionality, there is virtually zero possibility for actua creativity and the only thing that it invokes is achy wrists.

    Qingu, I like your definition, but isn't that pretty much what "stimulating aesthetic sensibilities" means, except it also includes music & probably others I can't think of right now? Still, abstraction from the physical medium as a requirement for many objects to be considered art is something I'm ready to sign up for.

  • DaenrisDaenris Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    I disagree, for me virtually all appliances have standardized design and it's one serving the idea of functionality before that of aesthetic stimulation.
    I don't believe that adding a curve to a vacuum cleaner or a bright red cup to a coffeemaker would make a work of art of either of the two as I seem to be siding with the procedural definition to the point where the process of creating art is important to be able to recognize it as such.(I don't like the example given in wiki though, so my guess is I don't really support their view if words are involved.)

    Well... you're disagreeing with your own beliefs.
    I believe that art requires an intent to stimulate human senses

    The designers who work for companies on the aesthetic aspects of their products are most certainly designing them to stimulate your senses.

    I'm not saying I agree with your definition (Hell, I tend to agree more with ElJeffe's point), but you don't even seem to have your own beliefs straight about it.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I hesitated if I should edit the OP and decided to reply as to keep the discussion going when I saw your first post. Please read the "require intent" as "has as principal purpose the stimulation of senses".

    Edit: Also, no, I wasn't disagreeing with myself, I was simply unable to express what I thought better in English. I meant to say intent to stimulate should be driving force behind the object's creating, but couldn't put it into words.

  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.


    But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art. Seriously, the shit is a total slave to functionality, there is virtually zero possibility for actua creativity and the only thing that it invokes is achy wrists.

    Qingu, I like your definition, but isn't that pretty much what "stimulating aesthetic sensibilities" means, except it also includes music & probably others I can't think of right now? Still, abstraction from the physical medium as a requirement for many objects to be considered art is something I'm ready to sign up for.

    My keyboard is black, with slick little black covers over the capslock indicators, and the brand name is written in edgy silver lettering. I imagine the designers (read: graphic artists) they hired to make the concept for this keyboard realized I would find it more aesthetically pleasing then the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.


    But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art. Seriously, the shit is a total slave to functionality, there is virtually zero possibility for actua creativity and the only thing that it invokes is achy wrists.

    Qingu, I like your definition, but isn't that pretty much what "stimulating aesthetic sensibilities" means, except it also includes music & probably others I can't think of right now? Still, abstraction from the physical medium as a requirement for many objects to be considered art is something I'm ready to sign up for.

    My keyboard is black, with slick little black covers over the capslock indicators, and the brand name is written in edgy silver lettering. I imagine the designers (read: graphic artists) they hired to make the concept for this keyboard realized I would find it more aesthetically pleasing then the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear.


    Are the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear today's irrelevant pieces of art or were they never art in the first place?

  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.


    But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art. Seriously, the shit is a total slave to functionality, there is virtually zero possibility for actua creativity and the only thing that it invokes is achy wrists.

    Qingu, I like your definition, but isn't that pretty much what "stimulating aesthetic sensibilities" means, except it also includes music & probably others I can't think of right now? Still, abstraction from the physical medium as a requirement for many objects to be considered art is something I'm ready to sign up for.

    My keyboard is black, with slick little black covers over the capslock indicators, and the brand name is written in edgy silver lettering. I imagine the designers (read: graphic artists) they hired to make the concept for this keyboard realized I would find it more aesthetically pleasing then the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear.


    Are the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear today's irrelevant pieces of art or were they never art in the first place?

    There are probably people that thought they were alot more attractive than typewriters

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.


    But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art. Seriously, the shit is a total slave to functionality, there is virtually zero possibility for actua creativity and the only thing that it invokes is achy wrists.

    Well, according to my definition, it's only art if someone says it is. Say I take that keyboard, stick it on a pedestal, and call it art. When pressed, I give some claptrap about how it represents the modern 9-5 cubicle drone and his struggle against ennui.

    You say it's not art, I say it is. Demonstrate to me why you should be right and I should be wrong. I fully admit that my stance is based on expedience. What's yours based on?

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Not trying to be dense here, I'm just saying that when you put the context of "Someone could aesthetically appreciate this" into the situation, things can change quite a bit.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    Are the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear today's irrelevant pieces of art or were they never art in the first place?

    I think this calls into question whether the balance needs to be in favor of form over function. I think in the case of many primitive designs (of most objects, whether cars or keyboards) there was far too much worry over getting the function right to worry about form...at least beyond the utilitarian aspects of form (size, weight).

    I think once function is nailed, many times companies can begin worrying about the aesthetic to the point that honestly, a keyboard or car can reasonably be considered a work of art.

    Though all of this is really secondary to my actual feeling on the matter, which is pretty much what ElJeffe said.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.


    But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art. Seriously, the shit is a total slave to functionality, there is virtually zero possibility for actua creativity and the only thing that it invokes is achy wrists.

    Qingu, I like your definition, but isn't that pretty much what "stimulating aesthetic sensibilities" means, except it also includes music & probably others I can't think of right now? Still, abstraction from the physical medium as a requirement for many objects to be considered art is something I'm ready to sign up for.

    My keyboard is black, with slick little black covers over the capslock indicators, and the brand name is written in edgy silver lettering. I imagine the designers (read: graphic artists) they hired to make the concept for this keyboard realized I would find it more aesthetically pleasing then the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear.


    Are the ivory/grey brick keyboards of yesteryear today's irrelevant pieces of art or were they never art in the first place?

    There are probably people that thought they were alot more attractive than typewriters

    Shouldn't art be recognizable as such with age?(I'm actually not sure if it should be...) If you hear a song from 200 years ago, you know it's art, if you see a picture or see a sculpture or read a book, even when you're unable to appreciate it, you realize there was creativity involved. Do you feel the same way about brand new keyboards in yesteryear's ivory grey colors as you feel about your slick black one? My initial argument from the OP was about most. I do believe that a keyboard may be work of art, I just don't believe that keyboards may be called a work of art because of that one that actually makes you giddy when you look at it. I wasn't fucking clear enough again, was I?;o((( The original quote should have been
    But I can't fucking accept that "keyboards" can be referred to as art.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    Shouldn't art be recognizable as such with age?(I'm actually not sure if it should be...)

    There's a whole lot of contemporary art that I can't recognize as art now. Including some of the wackier abstract art and certain genres of really terrible music.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • darthmixdarthmix Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Art is anything which is created or presented with attention to its aesthetic qualities. That's all. It doesn't need to have meaning, nor does it have to be any good. Both of those are incidental. Nor either does it have to be created primarily for its aesthetic value. Architecture is art, but it serves other purposes too.

    Jeff is right that if you call something art, it becomes art. Because when you call it that, you're drawing attention to particular elements of the thing, and considering them in an artistic context. This is essentially what Andy Warhol did with the soup cans.

    I think it makes sense to have a really wide definition of art.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    This post is art.

    ...

    I think I just blew my mind.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I agree that it's virtually impossible to give "art" a well formed and widely accepted definition. However, when you just call everything art it becomes a meaningless description. Which it is nearly any case.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    Shouldn't art be recognizable as such with age?(I'm actually not sure if it should be...)

    There's a whole lot of contemporary art that I can't recognize as art now. Including some of the wackier abstract art and certain genres of really terrible music.

    This. In fact, I could probably name you 10 or 12 bands whose music I'm less likely to consider "art" than my Apple PowerBook.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.


    But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art. Seriously, the shit is a total slave to functionality, there is virtually zero possibility for actua creativity and the only thing that it invokes is achy wrists.

    Well, according to my definition, it's only art if someone says it is. Say I take that keyboard, stick it on a pedestal, and call it art. When pressed, I give some claptrap about how it represents the modern 9-5 cubicle drone and his struggle against ennui.

    You say it's not art, I say it is. Demonstrate to me why you should be right and I should be wrong. I fully admit that my stance is based on expedience. What's yours based on?

    I did not think there will be much demonstration involved in the discussion and said so in the OP. Opinions is what we should be able to get many from, and that shouldn't be so bad.
    What I would say about your example is that again, in this case I'd agree that said keyboard is a form of art, but only because it was promoted so and the same would not apply to any other object of the same type. Does your definition imply that if something is not explicitly called art, it just sits on the sidewalk in the rain and is quietly passed by and admired, but never actually pronounced, it would not actually be art? Or are there art works that are self-evident and don't need the affirmation?

    Edit: recognizing art:
    About the contemporary art, do you not re cognize it as such as in "When I see/hear it, I don't actually realize it's art." or as in "I know it's music/sculpture/painting and somebody probably considers it art, but I don't like that shit."? I find the difference pretty important. I'm pretty much ignorant on contemporary art, but I have never seen an actual art piece where I didn't realize the intent behind it was to be art without need for affirmation.

  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I wouldn't even need to say it has to be 100% aesthetically pleasing to be considered a work of art - if I say the redesigned gears in my transmission are a work of art, and the engineers that spent hundreds of man-hours designing them agree (not that they would really have to) - who is the ultimate authority in verifying that?

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    What I would say about your example is that again, in this case I'd agree that said keyboard is a form of art, but only because it was promoted so and the same would not apply to any other object of the same type. Does your definition imply that if something is not explicitly called art, it just sits on the sidewalk in the rain and is quietly passed by and admired, but never actually pronounced, it would not actually be art? Or are there art works that are self-evident and don't need the affirmation?

    I don't think that someone has to formally declare "this is art!" before a witness, or anything, but rather just look at something and think, "Huh, art." I made a bunch of shit when I was an ME. I doubt anyone ever considered any of it art, and so it's not. But in theory, if someone took something I'd welded and bolted together and sat down to admire it's aesthetic qualities and thought, "Wow, this is really beautiful," then maybe it is.
    About the contemporary art, do you not re cognize it as such as in "When I see/hear it, I don't actually realize it's art." or as in "I know it's music/sculpture/painting and somebody probably considers it art, but I don't like that shit."? I find the difference pretty important. I'm pretty much ignorant on contemporary art, but I have never seen an actual art piece where I didn't realize the intent behind it was to be art without need for affirmation.

    I mean things that, were I not specifically told they were are, I probably wouldn't realize they were. John Cage's 4'33", for example - I think anyone would be hard pressed to listen to four minutes of nothing and think of it as art. There's something that, for lack of a better term, I think of as "noise metal" which is atonal instrumentation and incoherent shrieking. If I were to hear it out of context, I doubt I'd think of it as music. I'd probably think it was audio from a hideous construction site accident, or something. In MOMA awhile back there was a piece that consisted of a piece of corrugated cardboard with a spritz of spray paint on it. It would not have looked out of place in an alley beside a dumpster.

    That's what I mean when I say I wouldn't recognize something as art - I mean it quite literally.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • darthmixdarthmix Registered User
    edited June 2008
    I wouldn't even need to say it has to be 100% aesthetically pleasing to be considered a work of art - if I say the redesigned gears in my transmission are a work of art, and the engineers that spent hundreds of man-hours designing them agree (not that they would really have to) - who is the ultimate authority in verifying that?

    For me it would simply be a matter of whether I believe you believe they're art, or what I think you mean when you call it art. If I thought you and the engineers were sincere in presenting the gears to me as a piece of art, I would stop to consider them as such. It would help if you took them out of your car and hung them on a wall, but it's not required; it would just be a signal of your sincere intention to present the thing as art.

    A few posts up Jeff typed an elipsis and called it art. I don't consider that art, not because I think such an object can't be art - I've seen modern art that isn't much more than an elipsis on a blank space - but because I don't really think he considers it art. I think he was joking. If I thought he was sincere in presenting the post as art, I would have stopped, looked at it, considered it in the way I consider art. Then, maybe, I'd decide that it sucks, but I wouldn't say "that's not art."

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    In re: this...
    zeeny wrote: »
    I did not think there will be much demonstration involved in the discussion and said so in the OP. Opinions is what we should be able to get many from, and that shouldn't be so bad.

    I didn't mean formally demonstrate so much as explain why you hold your opinion. After reading your last post, it sounds like we might largely be in agreement.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • hesthefastesthesthefastest Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.

    I agreee with ElJeffe here, it is completely subjective, but we can still define some of the subjectivity. I've always thought of art as value, as in the value people place on a painting more than just the paint and canvas. And this value is not as a means to an end, but as a value in and of itself.

  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I think it would be really hard to find an object/concept that would not be considered art by at least a single person on the planet.

  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    darthmix wrote: »
    I wouldn't even need to say it has to be 100% aesthetically pleasing to be considered a work of art - if I say the redesigned gears in my transmission are a work of art, and the engineers that spent hundreds of man-hours designing them agree (not that they would really have to) - who is the ultimate authority in verifying that?

    For me it would simply be a matter of whether I believe you believe they're art, or what I think you mean when you call it art. If I thought you and the engineers were sincere in presenting the gears to me as a piece of art, I would stop to consider them as such. It would help if you took them out of your car and hung them on a wall, but it's not required; it would just be a signal of your sincere intention to present the thing as art.

    A few posts up Jeff typed an elipsis and called it art. I don't consider that art, not because I think such an object can't be art - I've seen modern art that isn't much more than an elipsis on a blank space - but because I don't really think he considers it art. I think he was joking. If I thought he was sincere in presenting the post as art, I would have stopped, looked at it, considered it in the way I consider art. Then, maybe, I'd decide that it sucks, but I wouldn't say "that's not art."

    I'm not concerned with how they look on the wall though, I'm simply appreciative of their interpretation of the classic gear ratio and how it moves my car differently, for example.

    I understand what you are saying, though - I personally consider "Did the creator even give a shit?" a great litmus test for a piece being presented as art.

  • dgs095dgs095 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Art is anything that has been created that someone, somewhere, refers to as art.

    There's really no other definition that manages to not exclude some obvious hypothetical examples of art that most people would consider legitimate. Better to just call everything art and then piss and moan about good art vs bad art, with the understanding that it's all subjective.

    I agree with this definition.

    And if a person failed to recognize something as art, that does not mean it isn't art. The only problem with this definition is that is makes it useless as a tool for lawmakers. I'm guessing you were hoping this thread would help with the line on vulgarity thread...but I doubt it.

    I flipped through a maxim magazine and they had some beautiful pictures of topless women in waterfalls and what not, with the line "its official, its ART!" printed in the corner or something to that effect. What would not be art?

    All you can do is argue that its bad art (if you don't like that kind of thing :P).

  • AroducAroduc regular
    edited June 2008
    Art is art, except when it's porn, barring erotica, that's porn and art. Also, pixie sticks.

  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Was that a contribution to the thread? I can't really tell.

  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    It's a contibution so long as someone thinks it's a contribution.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    It's a contibution so long as someone thinks it's a contribution.

    Zing!

  • dgs095dgs095 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Aroduc wrote: »
    Art is art, except when it's porn, barring erotica, that's porn and art. Also, pixie sticks.

    OK, what about graphic violence then? I think most would agree movies/DVD's and video games are generally a form of art.

    Is it not art if its all gore? Who decides what is not art? And if someone starts with erotica and slowly makes it dirtier and more porn like when is it no longer art? Share with us your wisdom.

    I personally don't consider porn art. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here and point out that if someone says its art who are you to say it is not art? A swimsuit is ok but topless is not art? Topless is okay but take away the panties and its no longer art? The more you think about it the more you realize its entirely subjective.

  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Huh, this is kind of the topic that I posted on for Limed for the Truth nearly a year ago (I remember because it was apparently the post that killed LftT . . . either that or it was simply too brilliant for anyone to follow-up) >.> <.<

    Anyway, my blog-killing post:
    I wrote:
    In this post: Andrew_Jay “gets” modern art

    Well, maybe . . .

    A couple of months ago I spent a week and a half in the UK to visit my father. While I was there, I did most of the tourist stuff as well, revisiting some places from when I was last there in 2002, as well as checking out a few I had previously missed.

    One of these was the Tate Modern, housed in that massive former power plant that sits on the Thames opposite St. Paul’s Cathedral. I spent a couple of hours wandering through, well, I’ll be frank; a whole lot of nonsense, though occasionally experiencing the frisson of seeing the works of Pablo Picasso . . . or the madness of Salvadore Dali, in person.

    Then, upstairs, I came across one of the iconic works of modern pop-art: Roy Lichtenstein’s Whaam.

    Roy_Lichtenstein_Whaam.jpg

    . . . and I have to say, I think I might understand it and what makes it “art”.

    In Whaam, Lichtenstein has blown-up a comic book panel to monster proportions: 6′ x 12′ and painted it on canvas. The interesting aspect of the painting is that it’s not just a huge comic book panel, but that it is a reproduction of a mass-produced comic book panel. Rather than simply paint a giant comic, Lichtenstein instead recreates the panel as it would be seen in a newspaper or comic book, printed by a printing press.

    This immediately raises the question of how we divide “art” from “non-art”. Is the original work of the artist “art”? Some might say so. A comic book is certainly a little low-brow - especially one as pulpy as what Lichtenstein has copied: DC Comic’s All-American Men of War. Things “look like what they look like”. The American aircraft is accurately depicted and reasonably well drawn. The artist has created a colourful explosion with their limited palate. In all, it took a reasonable amount of skill and talent to draw. But is it art? Safe to say that opinion will be divided, but let’s assume that it is in fact art.

    Now, what happens when this panel is sent by the comic book artist to the printer’s and reproduced on cheap paper millions of times? Is what comes out of a three-tone printing press “art”? If the original was art, does that hold true for the mechanical, and degraded, copy? Many will say no.

    However, in the view of this Philistine, this is where Lichtenstein breathes “art” into the mute facsimile of the original artist’s work. Like I said above, with Whaam Lichtenstein recreates the comic book as it comes out of the printing press. If we were able to look at it in greater detail you’d see, especially in the shading of the closer aircraft, that he has faithfully reproduced that quasi-dot matrix effect that comes from cheap newsprint copies of images. This is not the original panel, but a painting of a comic book.

    Where have we seen this before? How about in 19th century pointillism, such as Georges Seurat’s A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, which any fan of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off will be familiar with.

    In short, Lichtenstein has taken pointillism, a facet of Neo-Impressionism, and has applied it to the low art of the 20th century. Is the printing press, a dumb machine, an artist? What about when its style is recreated by the human hand? Not to mention in a grand scale that explicitly shows-off the pointillism inherent in the modern colour printing press.
    I'm also remembering another piece of "art" I saw at the Tate. It was simply a slide projector pointed at a wall projecting an image of a light switch. Literally, that's what it was. But what I found interesting was the juxtaposition or traditional roles. Normally, a light switch controls the light but in this case the light switch owed its existence to the light emitted from the projector.

    So, from those two examples I'd just say that art is a) anything crafted by humans which also b) provokes thought in its viewer.

    Ideally of course, that thought or question shouldn't be "what the fuck is this crap?" . . . or maybe it can be, what do I know?

  • darthmixdarthmix Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Against my better judgment I'm going to argue that virtually all pornography is art. It's only not art if its level of communication is so low that it tries to arouse the viewer without actually making him conscious of its intentions, or caring whether he is. Like a drug, or something subliminal. But I can't think of any porn that is that purely mechanical. I don't claim to be an expert on porn but what I've seen usually makes some effort in the direction of character and narrative, even if the characterization amounts to nothing more than "she's a slut" and the narrative is "we just pulled the van over and picked her up". If it has no time for such pretenses, then that's what strikes me: the directorial intention that these people, who they are and what they want, could not possibly be less important. I think I'm supposed to receive that message, and I think the intended audience of that porn actually enjoys that message.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    zeeny wrote: »
    But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art.

    How about a urinal?

    tea-1.jpg
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    moniker wrote: »
    zeeny wrote: »
    But I can't fucking accept that a "keyboard" can be referred to as art.

    How about a urinal?
    It's all about context.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Huh, this is kind of the topic that I posted on for Limed for the Truth nearly a year ago (I remember because it was apparently the post that killed LftT . . . either that or it was simply too brilliant for anyone to follow-up) >.> <.<

    Anyway, my blog-killing post:
    I wrote:
    In this post: Andrew_Jay “gets” modern art

    ch930720.gif

    Fix'd.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    darthmix wrote: »
    Against my better judgment I'm going to argue that virtually all pornography is art. It's only not art if its level of communication is so low that it tries to arouse the viewer without actually making him conscious of its intentions, or caring whether he is. Like a drug, or something subliminal. But I can't think of any porn that is that purely mechanical. I don't claim to be an expert on porn but what I've seen usually makes some effort in the direction of character and narrative, even if the characterization amounts to nothing more than "she's a slut" and the narrative is "we just pulled the van over and picked her up". If it has no time for such pretenses, then that's what strikes me: the directorial intention that these people, who they are and what they want, could not possibly be less important. I think I'm supposed to receive that message, and I think the intended audience of that porn actually enjoys that message.

    ITT: We wind up discussing Two Girls One Cup

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • MikeMcSomethingMikeMcSomething Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I think that the random apostrophe and pound sign in this thread title is also a work of art.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.