What is art.

All things related to Art! Poetry, painting, literature, visual, theater, movies, tv, music, media, culture, etc. Share your creativity or others', reviews, aesthetic theories, etc.

What is art.

Postby MrMikeludo on August 19th, 2011, 2:49 pm 

The primary purpose of this post is to address an issue which many believe to be subjective, but which can, now, be proven to be fact, and which is: what is art?
Historically, 2-dimensional art began with paleolithic man drawing 2-D images of 3-D tangible things upon their walls. It slowly progressed for 15 thousand years until the renaissance, when Filippo Brunelleschi introduced 3-dimensional space into 2-dimensional art, with the introduction of perspective. At this point in time; early 1400’s, art was still not considered a noble art, and/or ‘Art,’ as we know it, as: “At the beginning of the renaissance, painters (were) still regarded as members of the artisan class, and occupied a low rung on the social ladder.” Also, at this point in time the fine arts were science, mathematics, and music, as:”The noble arts were scientific examination – mathematics, (and) musicians.” And even with Brunelleschi’s introduction of perspective, art was still considered to be only a manual labor.
Then came Leonardo da Vinci, and, in 1480, Leonardo introduced the concept of the 4th dimension, of time, into 2-D art, as Leonardo did explain, as:”Amid the greatest of things around us the existence of nothingness holds the first place, and its function extends among the things which have no existence, and its essence dwells as regards time.” And then, in 1480, Leonardo did produce a single picture: The Annunciation, which transformed art. In that this single picture was a defined mathematically, and scientifically, verifiable visual musical equivalent, and which is a picture which contains a defined pictorial syntax, and as was explained by Leonardo, as:”Here no one hazards guesses as to whether two threes makes more or less than six.”
Except this was still only 1480, and there did not yet exist any mass communicative processes, so while some did know that Leonardo had done it: transformed art, they still did not know exactly what ‘it’ was he had done. Essentially, what Leonardo had produced was a concordant polyphonically structured whole, of non-tangible form geometrical equations, effectually functioning as, while remaining subservient to, a hierarchically structured whole: symphony, and as was explained by Leonardo:”The harmonic proportionality of the whole non-tangible form, is composed simultaneously from the various components, the sweetness of which can be judged both in their particular, and their general affects.” And which has become proven to be, both, the definition of intelligence, and reality, as:”The equivalent of the machine language of the brain is very complex field configurations – The mind of man contains only so many visions; four recurrent geometrical forms – Life is patterns in space/time (not) particular physical things – Einstein had replaced Newton’s space with a network of light beams.”
Affectively, the primary difference between this picture, and all others, is that this visual musical equivalent has the ability to affect the variety of biochemicals that only music can affect: serotonin and endorphins. Without the syntax, and the music, 2-D art reverted back to serving 1 of 2 utilitarian functions: tell stories to the masses and provide the aristocracy with portraits. Also, without the syntax, murals served basically the same function as movies, until 1880 and the invention of actual movies. Also in 1880 was the advent of the industrial revolution, and a newly affected, and also unusually large, wave of nouveau riche. But there was something else which had happened, and to this same demographic: the aristocracy. A large percentage of this demographic experienced what can be defined as a regression back to point time zero: the point of our birth, and became only capable of cognitively functioning as a young child, as:”At birth a baby’s language of the senses is primitive: he sees vague shapes – but without meaning (and) what he sees is flat, his eyes not yet capable of sighting an object 3-dimensionally.”
Unfortunately, this particular demographic was the primary patrons of the ‘arts,’ and their regression can be exactly correlated with Paul Cezanne’s regression, as:”Cezanne tried to make the ultimate journey back through time (as he) created a kind of space where one technique to create space is canceled out by the other.” And because we do now have the benefit of having access to knowledge which simply wasn’t available in 1880, we can now know, that this: defined function of the regression back to point time zero and Cezanne’s pictures, is also the definition of a:”Black hole: At the center of a black hole lies a singularity – here it is no longer meaningful to speak of space and time, much less space/time.”
So we can now know: factually and scientifically, that any picture which does not contain pictorial syntax, but which does contain an accurate representation of 3–D reality, can only serve a utilitarian function, and can NOT be defined as 'Art,' but, and more importantly, any Cezanne or post Cezanne picture – while including Picasso and most of 20th century ‘art,’ is simply the pictorial equivalent of a ‘black hole.’ I know that there are others who have expressed this sentiment, but simply did not know exactly wherein lied the proof. So, there it is.
Last edited by MrMikeludo on August 19th, 2011, 4:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art.

Postby mtbturtle on August 19th, 2011, 3:43 pm 

The formatting on the above is unreadable, imo. Could you edit or repost it with some paragraph breaks, white space, so it isn't all running together?
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: What is art.

Postby songwriter on August 19th, 2011, 4:00 pm 

'Tis better to be brief than tedious'. -Shakespeare.
songwriter
 


Re: What is art.

Postby Lomax on August 19th, 2011, 4:19 pm 

"Second hand opinions don't make you look any smarter" - Natalie Imbruglia :P
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: What is art.

Postby MrMikeludo on August 19th, 2011, 5:18 pm 

To Lomax:
As Leonardo wrote:"The abbreviators of works do injury to knowledge and to love, for love of anything is the offspring of knowledge, love being more fervent in proportion as knowledge is more certain; and this certainty springs from a thorough knowledge of all those parts which united compose the whole of that which ought to be loved. Of what use, pray, is he who in order to abridge the part of the things of which he professes to give complete information leaves out the greater part of the matters of which the whole is composed?"
How, exactly, do you suppose someone could know of its existence, unless they had, first, also produced a visual musical equivalent? Also, I could not care less about how I am perceived, all I care about is producing the visual musical equivalents. They are the ones who have constructed their entire existence upon 'perceptions.'
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art.

Postby Lomax on August 19th, 2011, 6:34 pm 

MrMikeludo wrote:To Lomax:
As Leonardo wrote:"The abbreviators of works do injury to knowledge and to love, for love of anything is the offspring of knowledge, love being more fervent in proportion as knowledge is more certain; and this certainty springs from a thorough knowledge of all those parts which united compose the whole of that which ought to be loved. Of what use, pray, is he who in order to abridge the part of the things of which he professes to give complete information leaves out the greater part of the matters of which the whole is composed?"'


Yeah. I mean, I'm usually a fan of brevity but I can understand that sometimes it's inappropriate. When Stephen King originally published the Stand he was asked by the publishers to omit 300 pages worth of content, because the book was deemed too long and verbose. Later, with a reputation as one of the world's most popular and critically acclaimed authors, he was in a position to release the unabridged version. In the preface, to explain why brevity can be a vice, he re-tells a story we all know:

Stephen King wrote:Hansel and Gretel were two children with a nice father and a nice mother. The nice mother died, and the father married a bitch. The bitch wanted the kids out of the way so she'd have more money to spend on herself. She bullied her spineless, soft-headed hubby into taking Hansel and Gretel into the woods and killing them. The kids' father relented at the last moment, allowing them to live so they could starve to death in the woods instead of dying quickly and mercifully at the blade of his knife. While they were wandering around, they found a house made out of candy. It was owned by a witch who was into cannibalism. She locked them up and told them that when they were good and fat, she was going to eat them. But the kids got the best of her. Hansel shoved her into her own oven. They found the witch's treasure, and they must have found a map, too, because they eventually arrived home again. When they got there, Dad gave the bitch the boot and they lived happily ever after. The End.


MrMikeludo wrote:How, exactly, do you suppose someone could know of its existence, unless they had, first, also produced a visual musical equivalent? Also, I could not care less about how I am perceived, all I care about is producing the visual musical equivalents. They are the ones who have constructed their entire existence upon 'perceptions.'


Well my post was rather a response to Songwriter, and an attempt at irony: you see, Songwriter was quoting an opinion as though its origin gave it weight. According to Natalie Imbruglia, it doesn't; and the joke is that, in quoting Ms Imbruglia, I have committed the same crime of which I charged Songwriter.

Never mind.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: What is art.

Postby MrMikeludo on August 19th, 2011, 6:56 pm 

Lomax:
Sorry. I did not get that. Thanks for explaining.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art.

Postby mtbturtle on August 19th, 2011, 8:02 pm 

Lomax wrote:Well my post was rather a response to Songwriter, and an attempt at irony: you see, Songwriter was quoting an opinion as though its origin gave it weight. According to Natalie Imbruglia, it doesn't; and the joke is that, in quoting Ms Imbruglia, I have committed the same crime of which I charged Songwriter.

Never mind.


hehe I liked it because you were quoting a song writer to songwriter...
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: What is art.

Postby AmbivalentOne on August 23rd, 2011, 8:51 am 

Art = Any human-produced object or activity which includes a non-utilitarian design element.
AmbivalentOne
 


Re: What is art.

Postby MrMikeludo on August 23rd, 2011, 6:02 pm 

To: AmbivalentOne:

Wait, I thought this was the place for:
“…more rigorous discussions are encouraged.”

And also:
“…When you assert a position on something, you must be prepared to demonstrate basic scholarship behind that position, you should be prepared to provide up to date references.”

And that this was, exactly, NOT a place where personal opinions were simply stated over, and over, and over again. Such as:
“Is too.” “Is not.” “ Is too.” “Is not.” “Is too” “Is not”

Because, what would be the point of that? As it would, simply, serve no cognitive function at all.

These are the facts: Prior to the invention of the printing press, around 1460ish, there were no books. Or, rather, books were very expensive, as they were hand-made. So, the common man masses owned no books. Therefore; factually, the common man masses could not read, and they could not write. But the worldly political institutions, and primarily the Catholic Church, wanted to teach their lessons to the common man masses, who could not read or write. So, a Pope, and I believe it was Pope Nicholas V, made a decree that the Church would employ painters to paint murals in their churches, and, thereby, become capable of ‘teaching’ their ‘lessons’ to the masses: this was the utilitarian function of art. Also, wealthy aristocrats employed artists to paint their portraits, and to, primarily, preserve their ‘importance’ for all of posterity; as this was another purely utilitarian function.

Now, of course, any of these images could, also and simultaneously, serve a decorative purpose also. But, factually, up until this point in time; mid 1400’s, there simply: factually, existed no such thing as what we now think of as ‘Art.’ ‘Artists’ were, exactly and factually, considered to be ‘artisans,’ as art did not, yet, hold a noble position within society.

Fact: Leonardo da Vinci was a bastard child, and his father was ashamed of him. So, Leonardo da Vinci’s father dumped Leonardo into a ‘guild,’ a defined lower class ‘artisan’s’ guild, were Leonardo could function as a defined ‘craftsman,’ and also maintain a defined ‘lower’ position in society. While Leonardo’s father held an elevated position in society, I believe he worked as a notary.

Fact: In Leonardo da Vinci’s Notebooks there are thousands of pages defining various ‘artistic’ functions, and Leonardo never refers to painters as ‘artists,‘ he simply refers to them as “painters.”

Fact: The defined ‘fine arts’ were, at this point in time, science, mathematics, and music, and because these things exist a priori; they are universally applicable, and they are subject to no one’s opinion.

Fact: In 1480 Leonardo da Vinci did produce a single picture: The Annunciation, which was a mathematically, and scientifically, verifiable, visual musical equivalent. Now, exactly because Leonardo had produced this picture, art did acquire the title of a noble art: ‘Art.’ And only exactly because this single picture was a combination of science, mathematics, and music, all rolled up into one. And too while this actual visual musical equivalent, is the defined function of pictorial syntax.

Fact: The definition of the visual musical equivalent, and defined pictorial syntax, has become proven to be the definition of intelligence: universally applicable empirical self-consciousness; the definition of uniquely humanistic consciousness, and also the literal definition of Einstein’s explained function of a 4-dimensional space/time continuum.

Fact: The concept of ‘syntax’ is a concept which every human being who has ever thought; or spoken, or too written, anything, can universally simply understand. As these examples demonstrate: If a person were to write these words: “ball – have – I,” we, as an intelligent and learned society, would not call that person an author, such as we would Stephen King. If a person were to simply nail two 2 by 4’s together, we would not call that person a carpenter, such as we would Gustav Stickley. If a person were to simply pound on the keys of a piano, we, most of all, would never call that person a musician, such as we would Mozart. The ‘thing’ which defines all of these functions, is defined: syntax – structure – intelligence, and exactly not just random coincidences.

Fact; The ‘art’ world exists as it does today, wherein someone can pay up to 160 million – MILLION, dollars, for a picture, because they employ words like: “genius” – “masterpiece” – “intelligence” – “music” – “symphony” – “structure” – “syntax.”

Fact: The actual 160 million price tag, was for a Jackson Pollock ‘painting.’

Fact: Someone paid 160 million for that Pollock, because those responsible for ‘selling’ it: the concept of Jackson Pollock as a defined genius, use the analogy of it being pictorial ‘music’:

“…some artists, such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, find their voices indecently early, but Jackson Pollock was one of art’s late great bloomers.”

Fact: A Jackson Pollock ‘picture’ is not even the definition of ‘noise,’ it is defined pure ‘nothingness,’ as the literal, and most simple, definition of ‘music’ is defined: 4-dimensional fundamental frequency modulations; 4-dimensional overtones – AND 4-dimensional harmonies, and Jackson Pollock’s ‘pictures’ are nothing more than defined 2-dimensional ‘color.’ And which: ‘color,’ is factually defined as:”one of the physical attributes of mass” – pure mass: AND NOT “MUSIC.”

Fact: a good portion of the world does actually sincerely believe that Pablo Picasso was a defined ‘genius.’

Fact: The primary reason that a good portion of people do believe that Picasso was a genius, is because the people who are ‘selling’ the concept, claim that a Cubist picture is a representation of the fourth dimension, of ‘time’:

“…they wanted to introduce the concept of relativity, a Cubist painting is painted from many different viewpoints simultaneously.”

Fact: The definition of Einstein’s explained theory of relativity, or the fourth dimension of time, is the defined function of a formed: non-tangible form, 4-dimensioanl space/time continuum. With the applied function of the fourth dimension, of time, actually forming the function of the continuum; which is exactly analogous to the formation of a 3-dimensional ‘house,’ and – then, with the applied function, of ‘time,’ forming the manifold of space/time: the interior ‘rooms’ within the ‘house.’

Fact: There simply are no “volumes of 3-dimensional space” contained within any: ANY, actually defined 2-dimensional Cubist pictures; so it is simply impossible for any ridiculously asinine Cubist picture to be a representation of the fourth dimension of time.

Fact: One doesn’t even need an understanding of physics, to understand that, in 1480, Leonardo da Vinci did define this exact ‘function’ in his notes:

“…It is the supreme folly of some painters to paint a scene as if being viewed from point A, and point B, and point C simultaneously, and this mistake should be avoided at all costs.”

So, anyone can simply understand, that they: the ‘Cubists,’ did not ‘invent’ – or ‘pioneer,’ anything, they had simply made a ‘mistake’ that almost everyone had made at one point in time: FACT. And, too, that a ridiculous, and asinine, 2-dimensional Cubist picture is the definition of a 2-D 'flounder/person,' and that a Cubist picture has no more intrinsic value than 1: 'one,' single still from a Spongebob Squarpants video. As there is exactly no such thing as a 2-D Cubist 'thing' anywhere in 4-D reality, just as there is no such thig a a walking, talking 'sponge' in reality: they are both childish fantasies ONLY: FACT.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art.

Postby AmbivalentOne on August 23rd, 2011, 7:17 pm 

MrMikeludo wrote: So we can now know: factually and scientifically, that any picture which does not contain pictorial syntax, but which does contain an accurate representation of 3–D reality, can only serve a utilitarian function, and can NOT be defined as 'Art,'...


Does this mean that anything which only serves a utilitarian function can not be art? Thats kind of the point I was trying to make in my little definition. I haven't done a great deal of reading on the subject, and you may scoff at both my source and my questionable interpretation of it, but this is what got me thinking about the subject in general...

“1. Only if x is a primary function that is unique to art is x a sufficient condition for art.
2. The primary function unique to art is either representation, expression or the exhibition of significant form for its own sake.
3. Representation is not a primary function unique to art.
4. Expression is not a primary function unique to art.
5. Therefore, the primary function unique to art is the exhibition of significant form for its own sake.
6. Therefore, the exhibition of significant form for its own sake is a sufficient condition for art”.
Page 114 Philosophy of Art: A contemporary introduction. by Noël Carroll. Routledge, 1999

I take 'significant form' here to mean a form which signifies, irrelevant of its content. Syntax without semantics, to put it another way.

MrMikeludo wrote: So, a Pope, and I believe it was Pope Nicholas V, made a decree that the Church would employ painters to paint murals in their churches, and, thereby, become capable of ‘teaching’ their ‘lessons’ to the masses: this was the utilitarian function of art.


Interesting point... I’d never thought about it that way before. You then go on to state that these people were not called artists but artisans. Does this mean what they produced was not art, or just that it was not recognized as such at the time?

I must admit I had a little trouble seeing how your post was attempting to answer the question posed in the thread title (What is art). You seem to be pursuing some interesting angles, but they are beyond my realm of understanding. If my post was too superficial for you, I will happily bow out of the discussion.
AmbivalentOne
 


Re: What is art.

Postby MrMikeludo on August 23rd, 2011, 9:52 pm 

AmbivalentOne:

Firstly, let me sincerely apologize if I offended you, as that was not my intention. Also I am sorry if it seemed as if I was scoffing at you, as I was not trying to be intentionally demeaning, or condescending. The problem is, I have been trying to promote these concepts for a while, and I am the one who is usually being scoffed at by others, so I have become, ugh, a bit touchy, and purposefully defensive, in retaliation to them assailing me. I welcome all: regardless of experience, sincere dialogue.

I know that the issue: What is art, is a very complicated concept. But there is one universally applicable aspect of the definition of art which most people do agree upon. And that is, that defined art should, somehow, be different than say: television – movies, and the, quite literally, infinite amount of pictures that are produced in the world on any given single day. And it can’t be: “Because we say so,” and it has to be something different than defined entertainment: that which enables us to simply, mindlessly, escape reality. Actually, the fine art community exists exactly because they promote this concept: that there is something different about these pictures, which they are attempting to sell. The problem is, when you attempt to ask them to define the ‘difference’ they can not: analytically, do it. This I have learned from many past experiences.

The fact is, that in 1480 Leonardo da Vinci did produce that single picture, which is exactly ‘different’ than all the others. Also, the fact is that the defined fine arts were, prior to the 20th century, always considered to be things that can be proven to be ‘true’ and ‘real,’ and scientifically, and mathematically, verifiable. Well, this picture is all that.

Essentially, the difference between this picture, and all the others, is the fact that this picture enables a person who is consciously viewing the picture, to employ their defined universally applicable empirical self-consciousness: the factual knowledge that all of mankind can have in common gathered through their senses, to become capable of experiencing something exactly different than all the other pictures. It does this by purposefully inducing the uniquely humanistic biochemicals which are unique to actual music: serotonin and endorphins. Now, of course, the complete explanation, as to exactly how it does this, is complicated, but it can be scientifically defined.

Also, the concept of universally applicable empirical self-consciousness is one of those simple, but yet not so simple, concepts. Essentially, universally empirical self-consciousness is the knowledge that a person would acquire if they lived on a farm: in a rural area, and went out every day and simply experienced reality. And without having access to any: books – newspapers – computers – television – any abstract knowledge at all. And it may seem complicated: like the scientific formula for gravity, but it really isn’t. Here is an example: If you were to simply walk outside and stand next to a sidewalk, and focus upon the horizon line in the distance, you would become capable of seeing: within your peripheral vision, the function of a defined visual musical scale: which is the exact cognitive function of ‘music.’ And what you would see, within your peripheral vision, is the fact that the section of sidewalk, that you are standing next to, would appear to be just a little bit wider than the exact next section of sidewalk, and so on up to the horizon line. While each section of the sidewalk would represent one of the simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations within a scale: as the fundamental frequency rises as the distance increases: you see simple, and something that every human being who has ever lived has learned: and more importantly experienced.

Here is another simple universally applicable one: When you are standing out on that sidewalk, where will you be standing: here on planet Earth, which is relatively heavy in weight, and dark in color: as relative to light, which is light in color and mass, and is up and far away in the relative far distance – up in the sky, where the high fundamental frequency modulations are. This too is the defined function of music, and a universally applicable constant which every human being, who has ever lived, has learned, and experienced.

Now, the actual way that music functions is, that a purposefully formed cognizance of a cadence of those defined relatively: beneath our feet – low – dark – heavy – slow, fundamental frequency modulations, replicating universally applicable simultaneously relative reality, is capable of inducing a serotonin biochemical induction, which causes us to experience a relatively: low – dark – melancholy, uniquely humanistic emotion. And a purposefully formed cognizance of a cadence of relatively: up in the sky – high – light (color) – light (mass), fundamental frequency modulations, replicating simultaneously relative reality, is capable of inducing an endorphin biochemical induction, which enables us to experience a relatively: high – light – euphoric, uniquely humanistic emotion. Only music can do this: actually replicate universally applicable simultaneously relative reality, and employ the knowledge that all of mankind can have in common gathered through their senses.

And too the one single picture which Leonardo da Vinci produced: The Annunciation, and which is the thing that makes this one single picture 'different' than all the others, and also different than defined entertainment: exactly escaping reality. And which is the exact 'thing' which enabled Leonardo da Vinci's picture to be defined as a "Fine Art."

So it's simple in theory: learn how to produce a literal visual musical equivalent - a picture which does contain defined pictorial syntax, and you can call what you did: "Fine Art." Otherwise, it can -and exactly should, be simply called: "entertainment."

Here is another simple analogy: Imagine that you are a someone who has made a proclamation that you are attempting to define a picture as a pictorial equivalent of 'Mozart': such as the art community has done with Jackson pollock, and, therefore, you do sincerely love Mozart. Would you be upset if someone said: "Well, that is not it, but this here is?" Of course not: IF you did sincerely love Mozart. But they: the art community, do not. What they do actually do, is purposefully sow the seeds of confusion, to become capable of empowering themselves: so the can 'sell' a Jackson Pollock - a picture which any child can create, for 160 million.

Sincerely: MrMikeludo
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art.

Postby AmbivalentOne on August 28th, 2011, 6:22 am 

Hi MrMike

I would really like to see you narrow down your definition of “what is art”. Your posts are quite long at this stage, and difficult to navigate.

The position in your most recent post seems to be: Particular musical frequencies have been proven to induce the secretion of an associated neurotransmitter. Da Vinci’s “The Annunciation” had a syntax which was mathematically isomorphic with the relationships between these fundamental frequencies. This painting is widely regarded as a piece of fine art. Therefore, only art which has a syntax isomorphic with the musical scale can be considered “fine art”.

I don’t really see any reason to accept this as a definition for all art. The problem with definitions is the grounds on which you EXCLUDE members, rather than the grounds on which you INCLUDE them. You have given great reasons for including “The Annunciation”, and I agree that it was a paradigm-shifting piece of art. But I would not be willing to EXLCUDE a Jackson Pollock painting simply based on that.

On exactly what grounds do you reject the notion that a Jackson Pollock painting is art?

Also, what about sculpture, dance, poetry etc? Do these fall within your definition of art?
AmbivalentOne
 


Re: What is art.

Postby Mossling on August 28th, 2011, 9:25 am 

If a monkey scrapes a paintbrush full of paint across a canvass, is it art?
What if the monkey accidentally paints the Mona Lisa, is it art?
If a person with a monkey-like mind does the same, is it art?

To answer this, I would like to add a more Eastern perspective on art here.

In China there is a saying which goes something like: "Art is from heart to hand".

The Chinese see the human heart as something inherently 'good', and therefore if one extrapolates the above saying, then art is a rendering of the good human heart - something which brings attention to our noble nature.

Of course art can be 'good' or 'bad' in the sense that the more 'polluted' the rendition of the brilliant human heart is - be it through imagery, dance, poetry, etc. - then the less it is going to resonate with those who view it.

Due to the human heart's abstract existence, art seems to aim at rendering that which is at the core of us, and within a certain context of meaning. It doesn't matter what the medium is, or what the subject is, the human heart can engage with it and be expressed. I mean who wouldn't be able to connect with an image such as this?:

Image

In the Eastern disciplines, the accuracy, and therefore potential impact, of the expression tends to increase with spontaneity.

An accident which appears like an expression of the human heart can inspire one, even if it has not been created by a human hand. For example, everywhere in China one can see these rocks in parks and outside buildings:

Image

They are natural formations, and yet they engender deep feelings in those who view them. Can we call these things art, however? It seems not, and yet since the human heart is seamlessly connected in history and material manifestation to these rocks, then one should not necessary be restricted by explicit definitions. Definitions such as 'art' and 'not art' are mere general guidelines, are they not? In reality, that which resonates with us and turns us towards our deeper nature is not only that which is created by humans.

In seeking to define what art 'is', I think we should remain aware of what art 'does', and that what art does for us is not limited to human works. Art is apparently merely a practice of referring human beings back to their deeper natures in the same way nature already does so - it is a recognition of our ability to recognise ourselves in the infinite phenomena in the universe around us; a sharing in consciousness.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: 02 Jul 2009


Re: What is art.

Postby MrMikeludo on August 28th, 2011, 3:55 pm 

AmbivalentOne:

If you were to read Leonardo’s notebooks, you would find thousands of pages defining various relevant aspects of the functions pertaining to art, which I really don’t know whether, or not, can be condensed, and fully communicated at the same time. But I will try, by explaining two main concepts.

Science now confirms the fact that there exists no images of any things within our minds, but only the digital language of the brain, as was explained by Dr. Jonathan Miller:

“…Many of the provinces of the brain (are) topographical maps of projections of the sensory fields which they represent…(And) the same geometrical decorum applies to all projections (while the) physical events impinging on the sensory surface are transformed into the characteristic digital language of the brain.”

And science does also confirm the fact that human beings do possess a genetic predisposition to be affected by the two, basic, biological functioning capabilities, which are encoded within the DNA of all living cells, and of: pleasure and pain. And, as was communicated by Dr. Candace Pert:

“Even uni-cellular organisms have peptides – Even bacteria have a little hierarchy of primitive likes and dislikes. They’re programmed to migrate toward or away from a chemotactic substance. They’re little robots that go for sugar at all costs and away from salt.”

So, let us consider these two most very basic biological concepts, of defined: harmony = music, and defined: discord = noise. We know that humans possess a genetic predisposition to be affected by these two polar opposites in literally defined polar opposite ways. Because, humans, and animals also, are supposed to like harmony = music, and dislike discord = noise. And exactly because, for evolutionary survival purposes, music/harmony/sugar = life, and discord/noise/salt = death.

Now, let us go back 200ish years, to 1780. In 1780 there were no recording devices, such as: record players – cd’s – ipods – etc. So, let us imagine that you are a person walking down the street 200 years ago, or today. And, as you walk down the street, you are being exposed to acoustic discord: noise, which causes you to experience a discomfort = pain/salt/death. So, now let us suppose that you wish to be exposed to the polar opposite of discord, which is defined harmony = pleasure/sugar/life. So, what could you do? You would take some of your money and hand that money to someone else, to be allowed into a music hall, and wherein: the music hall, you could then be exposed to acoustic harmony = music = pleasure = sugar = life.

Now, remember, there actually exists no images of any things within our minds, but only the digital language of the brain, and everything perceived is translated into this digital language. And, remember also, in 1480 Leonardo da Vinci did produce a literal visual musical equivalent, which is a mathematically, and scientifically, verifiable, fact, and, most importantly, there does ONLY exist the one, and any picture which does not contain this mathematical structure is defined noise. So, why then would any supposedly intelligent person hand some of their hard-earned money to someone else to be allowed inside a building, wherein there are 2-dimensional pictorial equivalents of defined noise, and when, herein is the kicker, they could simply open their eyes: OUT IN 3-DIMENSIONAL REALITY, and then see real 3-dimensional visual noise. Well, you would exactly NOT: IF you were both intelligent and capable of employing that intelligence.

Because, if you employed your intelligence when perceiving any: ANY, 2-D picture, except for a mathematical visual musical equivalent, it: the appearance of the picture, will be translated: within our minds and wherein there are no images of things, into the defined perception of: discord = noise = salt = pain = death. And it would cause you to move in a direction away from it, just as it would an amoeba: IF YOU WERE EMPLOYING YOUR INTELLIGENCE.

And therein lies the rub. You see, I do not know how familiar you are with the Fine Art world, but I have spent 20 years learning these facts: People do NOT pay 160 million for a Jackson Pollock because they fully understand that his pictures are defined: discord = noise = salt = pain = death, but they have been brainwashed into believing that they, when they buy a Pollock, are buying literally defined: Mozart – music – symphony – genius – masterpiece – intelligence – innovation, and the list of things that it is supposed to be, but which it is NOT, goes on, and on, and on.

Also, let us consider the concept of pictorial syntax. Again, if you saw me write these words:”ball – I – have,” you would NOT call me an author. If I nailed two 2 by 4’s together, you would NOT call me a carpenter. If I pounded on the piano with my fists, you would NOT call me a musician. The thing which defines all these, and all, functions, is defined syntax: structure – intelligence.

Now, I like to use this example because I believe that it is the most perfect example. Do you remember in the movie Amadeus, Antonio Salieri talks about how he is anticipating hearing, and too seeing, Mozart’s music for the first time; while expecting something entirely "different,” something grandiose, and something spectacular also. And then he does hear, and see, it for the first time. And then he says:

”On the page, it looked…nothing. The beginning simple; almost comic, just a pulse; bassoons and basset horns, like a rusty squeezebox. And then, high above it – an oboe, a single note hanging there; unwavering, until a clarinet takes it over, and sweetens it into a phrase of such delight.”

You see, Mozart did learn how to purposefully rearrange the EXACT SAME UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE BUILDING BLOCKS: notes, that every composer, and musician, has ever had access to, in a manner that no one else ever could, and while forming his extraordinarily complex syntax. But, while the thing: music, itself, was nothing extraordinary; nothing spectacular, there were no notes that no one had ever heard before; as Mozart had NOT invented any new “thing.” He had learned how to rearrange the: EXACT SAME THINGS THAT EVERYONE HAD ACCESS TO.

And this is the: EXACT SAME "THING" THAT LEONARDO DA VINCI HAD LEARNED HOW TO DO. He didn’t invent any new: never before seen, “things,” such as a never before seen 2-D Cubist thing, or a never before seen Impressionist thing, or a never before seen Minimalist thing, or a never before seen Fauvist thing either. He learned how to rearrange the: UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE BUILDING BLOCKS – some people, some trees, and a building, in a manner that no one else ever could, and while affecting defined pictorial syntax. This defined mathematical syntax: structure, this defined mathematical music is the thing which separates this picture: The Annunciation, from all the others. And which, all the others, are defined: discord – noise – salt – pain – death, and which would cause any intelligent person: IF they were using their intelligence, to move in a direction away from them: ANY picture which is NOT a visual musical equivalent.

Now, of course, I do personally patronize all the arts, from glass blowing to Mozart. And too I listen to every kind of music, from Ministry (metalish) to Mozart. But, again, the problem is that the art world does not recognize the difference, and too that there should exist a complete range of art: from the purely decorative; any Pollockish painting, to the most cerebral: the actual visual musical equivalents.

You see, I actually approached these people: the Fine Art world, and said:”Yes – yes, I know that there exists these: decorative, people, who produce these decorative (and too remember utilitarian) pictures, but there also exists this: these literal visual musical equivalents.” And they are the ones who assailed me. And then I realized exactly why.

Because, if you were selling a childishly simplistic decorative painting: a Jackson Pollock, for 160 million dollars, but you were ONLY selling it because you had convinced some people that Pollock was pictorial Mozart, would you want someone to explain to the world that it is not. Of course not.

But you see also, you can not have it both ways. You can not make a public proclamation that you embrace the concept of there existing a literal pictorial equivalent of Mozart in one breath, and then condemn the actual defined concept in the next breath.

So, I do unabashedly patronize all the arts.

I just believe that if someone would like to actually see the literally defined equivalent of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, they should be afforded that opportunity, just as the people who govern the art world claim they are doing, but actually are not. And if someone would like to purchase a picture, because the pretty colors match their sofa, or carpets – or whatever, they should also be given that opportunity: to then purchase a Jackson Pollock, because his decorative pictures match their pretty carpet.

AND TO DEFINE EVERYTHING EXACTLY AS IT ACTUALLY IS

(P.S. There does exist a scientific reason why people can become capable of believing that Pollock is Mozart, while it is exactly noise.)
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art.

Postby MrMikeludo on August 29th, 2011, 3:43 pm 

Mossling:

In your post you, absolutely correctly, state that:

“…art is a rendering of the good human heart – something which brings attention to our noble nature…Of course art can be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (and if it is bad) then the less it is going to resonate with those who view it.”

And you also state:

“…art seems to aim at rendering that which is at the core of us…Art is apparently merely a practice of referring human beings back to their deeper natures in the same way nature already does so – it is a recognition of our ability to recognize ourselves in the infinite phenomena in the universe around us; a sharing in consciousness.”

And, again, I, personally, believe that you could not be more infinitely correct.

The problem is, that most people simply do not recognize – or perhaps do not even understand, that there exists many various levels of this consciousness that humans can, or can not, experience, and how, exactly, those varying levels of consciousness can, or can not, be affected.

For example, there is defined sex, which, when humans experience it, will require a human to engage in a most minimalistic level of consciousness. And which, sex – and the level of consciousness experiencing sex requires, applied in a defined artistic endeavor, is simply: 2-dimensional color, and devoid of any extended context, and such as a Jackson Pollock painting. And which also does mimic nature’s most primitive application.

And then there is a slightly elevated level of consciousness – accessed by an artistic endeavor, and a person’s ability to perceive the intrinsic beauty of a 3-dimensional: harmoniously proportioned, form, and such as The Mona Lisa, or the Chinese rendering of Flowers and Butterflies. And, also, which does mimic nature’s, slightly, more elevated function.

Then there exists a slightly more elevated level above this 3-D level, and as a person does actually begin to: artistically, access the 4th dimension, of time, through music. And such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, or Ludwig van Beethoven, did actually do, in Beethoven’s 9th symphony.

This is how music, and especially this: Beethoven’s 9th, does do this. The opening stanza of Beethoven’s 9th is comprised of a largo tempoed movement. Which is a cadence: a movement, of relatively: low – dark – heavy – slow, fundamental frequency modulations: notes. The perceived: cognized, cadence, of these relatively: low – dark – heavy – slow, fundamental frequency modulations, does – then, induce a serotonin biochemical induction within our minds. The induced serotonin induction, does, then, enable a human being to experience a: low – dark – melancholy, emotion; mimicking a higher level of nature, and elevating a higher level of consciousness in a human being.

The climax of Beethoven’s 9th, is comprised of a presto tempoed movement. Which is a cadence: a movement, of relatively: high – light (color) – light (mass) – fast, fundamental frequency modulations: notes. The perceived: cognized, cadence, of the relatively: high – light (color) – light (mass) – fast, fundamental frequency modulations, does – then, induce an endorphin biochemical induction within our minds. The endorphin induction, does – then, enable a human being to experience a: high – light – euphoric, emotion; mimicking a higher level of nature, and elevating a higher level of consciousness in a human being.

And experiencing these functions, does enable a human being, or any thinking and sentient being in the entire universe, to experience – and too share, a defined: “universally applicable elevated level of consciousness.”

And, then, there does exist an even higher level of consciousness: which can be universally communicated and shared, which is the defined universally applicable syntax of music, and visual music also: which also replicates universally applicable 4-D reality, and which affects the literally defined “highest” level of consciousness: which can be communicated and shared by any thinking being in the universe.

Sincerely: MRMikeludo
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 174
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art.

Postby Percarus on June 29th, 2012, 9:55 am 

Ok, I will use this space to fill out my first self derived definition of what ‘Art’ is, encapsulated through sheer improvisation – it is my first crude draft.

Art to me is a stylised notion which seeks to illustrate imagery so as to argue/persuade a viewer to a novel interpretation of reality – it hence bolsters one’s creativity and is a stimulation of the senses. Art seeks to compare, contrast and in some instances persuade and argue for a novel ideal. It can involve the use of visual similes that encompass the environment around us and by all effects can be antagonistic in nature. It may examine cultural aspects, and in fact I argue that it bolsters ethical and cultural understanding between perceived worlds. The ‘form’ is used as a method to understand perspective and the very essence of composition within an art piece can be conveyed through the usage of texture, shading, and contrast.

For art to be considered ‘art’ it has to demonstrate research, or it can be manifested through a set of lenses that portrays one’s authentic self. Art can be demonstrated through whatever means that captivates our five senses. Art can be even demonstrated through notions of time and physical properties such as temperature. Art is dimensional and to that effect to be fully appreciated it has to be understood through the context of the creator. Meaning can be given to non-art pieces, abstract shapes and random compositions – but then it becomes an artistic interpretation and not a physical conveyer of meaning. The primary essence of art is that it aims to convey imagery through visual senses and on that notion I believe art can be most often easily conveyed through stencilling.

Art is comprised of an embodiment of emotions, it is then however true that art itself, to be considered ‘true art’, must emotionally affect and stimulate the mind of the viewer. The notion of art is to affect our mind, our brain, and our senses in ways in which fosters creative thought. Art by itself is in vain if there is no one to share it with. In that regards art is a social experience to be shared amongst a community, between individuals, and as a conveyer of meaning. Art is a language that seeks to be universal through explanatory ideals of communication. It is an attempt to enliven inhibited senses and bring out feelings that could not otherwise be experienced. A sacrilege to art would be one that deprives us of such meanings or bolsters unethical thought patterns to the viewers. Art, in all accounts, desires to be ethical and when not it fosters an educational truth to the onlooker that is captivating to say the least – for better or worst.

What is an individual without creativity? What is an individual without a mind? The mindless become epitomised as art pieces themselves and in that regards the ‘fool’ without the ability to understand takes centre stage and sets an example in art if given meaning. Art may be devoid of passion, it may be living, and it may manifest in whatever form the creator desires. Art is, art was, art will be, art retaliates, art is dead, art is alive, art is simply but the very essence of mankind.


American Heritage Dictionary Definition:
*********************************

NOUN: 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
Percarus
 


Re: What is art.

Postby Mossling on July 3rd, 2012, 8:57 pm 

"Human effort" - I like this idea about what is at the core of art, and it seems that the more skilled that effort becomes, honed through focused practice - possibly beyond what can be considered basic innate talent - the more the product is considered 'art'. The skill can be, of course in the rendering of a work of art, in the concept in context, in the location of the piece within it's environment, etc. There are so many ways for skill to manifest. The real test of the skill, it appears, however, is in whether the underlying message is received by those who encounter the work.

Maybe we want to share some beautiful sight we once saw - a fleeting sunset or a person we passed on the street. How are we going to pass on that experience effectively without skill of any sort?
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: 02 Jul 2009


Re: What is art.

Postby Cartesian Fantasy on July 22nd, 2012, 1:25 pm 

good documentary that might help

Roger Scruton - Why Beauty Matters (2009) - BBC documentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiajXQUppYY
Last edited by mtbturtle on July 22nd, 2012, 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: added youtube title
Cartesian Fantasy
 


Re: What is art.

Postby edy420 on July 23rd, 2012, 3:21 am 

My simple explanation of art would be, the communication of emotion or a state of mind.

We can communicate artistically in any form, written, drawn, song, even exercise etc etc.

So long as the communication is clear between the artist who is expressing, and the person receiving the message, then it is good art.

I'm not sure if anyone else does this or not, but I have a habit of trying to mimic other peoples emotion, by watching their facial expressions and listening to their tone of voice.
Listening to something like 'this is a man's world', just blows me away while doing this. :)



But then again, you don't have to try mimic his emotion, to be able to feel what James Brown is expressing :P
I find the way that he projects his state of mind is very artistic, something that is lacking among many modern music "artists".
A lot of good singers are just that, good singers, but lack artistic expression. (perhaps not completely lack, but compared to James Brown, Bob Marley or Micheal Jackson.)
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1342
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ



Return to Art

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests