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.

Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby nameless on May 30th, 2017, 8:26 pm 

jocular » Tue May 30, 2017 1:55 pm wrote:
nameless » May 30th, 2017, 4:10 pm wrote:I am unfamiliar with what 'sfa' is.

"Sfa" ="Extremely little"

Thank you!
I get it. *__-
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 150
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby Braininvat on May 31st, 2017, 12:48 am 

Sweet f--k all.

More commonly used in the UK than here in the US.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5819
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby nameless on May 31st, 2017, 1:29 am 

Braininvat » Tue May 30, 2017 9:48 pm wrote:Sweet f--k all.

More commonly used in the UK than here in the US.

Heh..
I was close! *__-
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 150
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby dandelion on May 31st, 2017, 3:47 am 

nameless » May 30th, 2017, 2:26 am wrote:
dandelion » Mon May 29, 2017 12:00 am wrote:... an artwork may be an artistic interpretative response and response to an artwork may be an artistic interpretative response.

So true!
Beautiful!
Thank you! *__-


Thanks! :)
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby dandelion on May 31st, 2017, 3:58 am 

BadgerJelly » May 29th, 2017, 3:23 pm wrote:.....My general overview is that "art" is about expressing something innately human, about uncovering layers of emotions and exposing what usually lies beyond direct rational reach.


What if others are involved? I think I’ve mentioned some examples before here somewhere, but, e.g. Mozart seems to have praised his starling’s fermata insertion in a concerto, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart%27s_starling. Picasso, Miro and Dali seem to have appreciated the works Congo, and some works fetched large prices under the hammer while some works by Andy Warhol and Renoir didn’t. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/may ... s.artsnews http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1492463 ... flops.html
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby jocular on May 31st, 2017, 5:48 am 

Braininvat » May 31st, 2017, 12:48 am wrote:Sweet f--k all.

More commonly used in the UK than here in the US.

Sweet Fanny Adams too. (the word "fanny" is a false friend vis a vis US and British usage, just so you know ;-) )
jocular
Member
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 29 Feb 2016


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby NoShips on May 31st, 2017, 9:39 am 

WHAT IS SFA?

Scottish Football Association where I come from.
User avatar
NoShips
Banned User
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 07 Oct 2016
Location: Taiwan


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby jocular on May 31st, 2017, 10:01 am 

NoShips » May 31st, 2017, 9:39 am wrote:WHAT IS SFA?

Scottish Football Association where I come from.

Same difference ;-)
jocular
Member
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 29 Feb 2016
BraininvatNoShips liked this post


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby BadgerJelly on May 31st, 2017, 10:38 am 

nameless -

I was not trying to shut down the discussion. You ask many questions so I was curious what your answer to the question you posed to me?

So what is your answer? Can art be purely intellectual? If so, what does that mean? (I would argue that nothing can be purely anything, but then I am taking the "pure" in a literal and absolute way! Such a view leads to an investigation into aesthetics.)

Here is a VERY old thread I started titled "What is ART":

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=21668

A more recent one from a somewhat different perspective touching on this subject too titled "Aesthetics":

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=28603&hilit=aesthetics

I have also in a round about way touched on, or rather skirted around, the whole broad understanding of "art" in practically every post I've made (not so obvious to see unless you consider the whole subject/object relation).

As a personal attempt at categorizing topics of human interest I also made this little diagram:

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=23537
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby dandelion on June 3rd, 2017, 6:27 am 

nameless » May 28th, 2017, 7:46 am wrote:It would seem that an Art thread on a philosophy forum, that the question of 'what is art' would be a perennial favorite. I seem to be in error.
So' I'll ask the question.

My response to the question might be that;
All 'art', like 'beauty', exists in the eye/thoughts of the beholder.
Anything that you think is art, is art.
And isn't.
And anything that you don't think is art, also is. (At the same moment!)
Simply a matter of Perspective;

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

So, what would your definition of 'art' include?
Is there a 'common' definition?
Can there be?

Of course, the exact same can be asked and said of 'music'! *__-

BadgerJelly » May 31st, 2017, 3:38 pm wrote:....
A more recent one from a somewhat different perspective touching on this subject too titled "Aesthetics":

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=28603&hilit=aesthetics...


I think there may be more examples where animals appear to respond in a not directly functional way, if that is some guide. Chimp reactions to sunset, waterfalls, their rain-dance; dolphins surfing waves together, from one of the links I posted- ‘"… Congo became increasingly obsessed with his regular painting sessions. If I tried to stop him before he had finished a painting, he would have a screaming fit… And if I tried to persuade him to go on painting after he considered that he had finished a picture, he would stubbornly refuse."’ I’d forgotten, but was pleased to see Biv and I liked the post from Paralith about chimps with possible aesthetic values. As well, only recognising human contribution to art could look like intolerant views compared with Mozart’s, Picasso’s, etc., and the art world today. I like that computer input was considered here, too.

I mentioned response, and some difference here may be to do with more physical responses, like the sound-waves of music or bodily movement of dance or other displacement or objects, which may allow for some other reflection and communication. Eco, say, distinguished some interpretations from empirical, pragmatic interpretation by a concrete subject, writing about open works, and with this on difference between more artistic and less, a guide may be less obvious utility, or less empiricism. But communication with less obvious utility may also include such communication as every-day jokes and trivial exchanges. Some might distinguish these from art or aesthetics by noting a special-ness in art, like the chimp’s fictive baby doll or fabula stories of literature, that there has been some attribution of difference from everyday reality. Warhol’s Brillo-box reproductions are said to be somehow different from other brillo-boxes, although these may just be more pronounced instances noted as usually acceptable art that perhaps show more of something of alterity.

There also seems to be a lot of mention here of singular artists, less about, for an example, collaborations, other contributions with or at other stages. For some examples it seems a particularly western tradition that a musician gives a recital to an audience rather than greater participation, but also a composition tends to have been written by others, and may be repeated in new ways by others. Ancient epic poetry seems to have included some traditionally set lines, seems to have been accompanied, etc, and passed on. Early Greek theatre involved chorus. Phidias signed some work, but also suggested to have worked in a group, etc. Vasari is credited with renaissance emphasis of the singular artist (Stein - “Collaboration”, The Power of Feminist Art), differing from anonymous teams of crafts people of the middle ages, yet workshop apprentices were assigned e.g., to paint lesser areas of famous compositions.

Also on contributions, the British art-world voted the most significant piece of the 20th Century were various fountains mass produced in factories- authorised reproductions also the subject of interventions. As well as reproduced themes and notions, there are assemblages, collages, appropriation, interventions, remix culture, etc., all combining other contributions, including contributions from natural and animal, from mass production, computers and accepted human-made artworks sources. There is re-interpretation, critique of critique, etc. (A critique of critique award- http://specgram.com/psammeticuspress/chiasmus.html )

There was a question about more intellectual art, e.g. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/c/conceptual-art , there is a notion of conceptual art. It seems if guided by less immediate applicability, some maths, more so than other maths, seems especially artistic in ways like this.

Re the op, I feel like I’ve missed out a lot but, art may be a special item produced by a singular artist, and through such views also be viewed as possible altered processes.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby nameless on June 3rd, 2017, 9:58 pm 

dandelion » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:27 am wrote:....There was a question about more intellectual art, e.g. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/c/conceptual-art , there is a notion of conceptual art. It seems if guided by less immediate applicability, some maths, more so than other maths, seems especially artistic in ways like this.

Re the op, I feel like I’ve missed out a lot but, art may be a special item produced by a singular artist, and through such views also be viewed as possible altered processes.

An interesting and well written post, but I couldn't help interpreting it all as conforming, eventually, to all 'art' being in the 'eye' of the beholder, whether the single artist, a monkey or a huge crowd.
That you can touch upon so much 'art' in such a small space, demonstrates once again... anything and all can be considered art!
Especially from the Perspective of a 'Creator' being the ultimate Artist! *__-
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 150
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby dandelion on June 23rd, 2017, 12:03 pm 

nameless » June 4th, 2017, 2:58 am wrote:
dandelion » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:27 am wrote:....There was a question about more intellectual art, e.g. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/c/conceptual-art , there is a notion of conceptual art. It seems if guided by less immediate applicability, some maths, more so than other maths, seems especially artistic in ways like this.

Re the op, I feel like I’ve missed out a lot but, art may be a special item produced by a singular artist, and through such views also be viewed as possible altered processes.

An interesting and well written post, but I couldn't help interpreting it all as conforming, eventually, to all 'art' being in the 'eye' of the beholder, whether the single artist, a monkey or a huge crowd.
That you can touch upon so much 'art' in such a small space, demonstrates once again... anything and all can be considered art!
Especially from the Perspective of a 'Creator' being the ultimate Artist! *__-

I’m pleased if some of my earlier response was ok, it tumbled out, I’d forgotten to include caveats like it was just a limited opinion, interpretations drawing on others’ interpretations, and I’m not sure about some of the criticism, but it may be fair enough. Re a perspective of an ultimate artist, I’m not sure if notions of plural, including singular views, requires privileges? I’m not sure that all can be considered art or very arty given some provisos. A consideration is that art, as well as other fields, may be limited just to responses to change, or part of changing processes, but that may not distinguish art. Another consideration is a notion of variation in response, so that responses may vary as more or less artistic. Another thought is, I’m not sure about only pure subjectivity distinguishing art, if that was an objection made. Also, a consideration was possibly distinguishing alterity amongst fields, although that may not be so much of a distinguishing feature after all.

Regarding variation in response, assume for now that examples from various fields share some values with such examples within the same field, such as a work of currently accepted art shares some resemblance with other examples of accepted art. Likewise science, religions, history, etc. This assumption may constrain fields somewhat. Variation in artistic values may involve greater responsive change compared with little responsive change in cases of more constant views held despite new contexts, such as some religious responses tend to involve, e.g., dogma held throughout the course of a religion’s history and current views attempting to be like earlier views, which may constrain possibilities quite a lot. Of fields in which greater change may be more highly valued, like artistic responses, directly functional responses may be valued more highly for innovation too, e.g. new technology. New technology, however, may be restricted by some criteria of direct utility, and so responses may not be as free to be different as art. Although these areas may be similar in valuing responses with more change, art and direct function may involve different values as art seems to open possible alternatives, and function tends to narrow down alternatives within an empirical view. Directly utilitarian responses may likely occur as a process of elimination, reducing on-going possibilities, e.g., Rutherford’s innovative functional response and resultant proton discovery seemed to lessen the likelihood of atomic indivisibility, with either/or, etc. research qualities that may help with this. In this way, it could be minimising empirical inaccuracy. Direct utility more often tends to be superseded too, Leonardo’s innovative diving designs aren’t valued so much today for comparative efficiency and effectiveness to today’s standards, while his Mona Lisa is still valued today as inspiring art, despite more recent, updated art. Maybe another way of putting this paragraph would be, art and function may involve greater change than some responses, and that art may be more open to greater possibility than function, not being as constrained by empirical correspondence as function, or less limited by empirical realism.

Although, there may be some blurring between fields, with re-interpretations of religious art, or with changeable religious notions, e.g. on a personal scale, religious conversion. Or with functional tools whose efficient qualities also allow newer responses, such as musical instruments, or artistic responses that happen to also be directly functional, or possibly art has use but less directly so (there are various notions about this last). There may also be non-Archimedean possibilities of uncertain knowledge. Function may have impact artistic responses, perhaps limiting them. That all said, given subjectivity and differing objectivity with qualities observed, differing responses to qualities may give some sort of objective guide to greater artistic responses.

I’ll try to illustrate some of this with some paintings entitled “The Three Musicians”, Picasso, 1921. The artist’s embodied self is said to be represented by a Harlequin, an alert trickster, in traditional yellow and red patterned form. His friend and poet, playwright, novelist, critic- Apollinaire, represented by a Pierrot, a sentimental clown in white. His room-mate, poet, painter, critic- Max Jacobs, a monk in brown. Some individuals and objects may be noticeable, a violin bow, pages of musical notation, etc., yet some coloured forms are shared. The three friends likely contributed to each other’s growth as an artist, which seems to correspond with the title grouping them by common artistic field, and there may be something of Picasso’s self in the others portrayed, as something of the others in Picasso. The works share in visual art traditions in many ways, such as a spatially representational painted composition. Their attire may separate and group them with in line with traditions according to qualities- the emotional fool, the focussed prankster, and devotee, which seems like some separation of values in art, utility and religion, and they appear distinguished from each other, too, by musical instrument objects. There is some shared identity between visually spatial art and more temporally musical. As well as leaning on visually spatial artistic traditions, as well as more recent works from around the Fin de siècle, like Cezanne’s and pointillists, and more recently again and involving Picasso personally, the analytical cubists, whose representations involved greater fragmentation of spatial form and colour, less tonal modelling of individual objects. In the 1910s Picasso and others were involved in this genre of synthetic cubism which recombined colour, less as identifying objective form, and more as shared on differing spatial planes, adding a novel function for colour as a different expression of space on the flat plane of a representational painting. Interestingly, the planes don’t seem to follow a usual spectral order, and distances and angles may be read coherently in more than one way, ambiguities allowing greater coherent interpretations. The painting seems also to be a temporal re-combination, as Apollinaire had passed away some years prior, and Jacobs after experiencing a revelation a decade of so earlier, left Paris the year of the painting to become a monk. The responses seem harmoniously and coherently re-composed together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Musicians

Regarding alterity, as mentioned in the earlier post, art seems to possess some feeling of this, like in stories of literature. Religion also may possess this, such as reinterpretations of responses as having special significance. Perhaps a notion of function belongs especially to an empirical system of values different from other responses, or perhaps there is some alterity in function as in other responses or systems involving response, but perhaps are influential and difficult to discern, or perhaps there is more re-interpretation in other fields increasing their alterity. Apes cradling a stone as an infant or grasping a stone to crack nutshells as a tool may be a manifestation of some similar interpretive alterity. Of these, the direct utility, of a nut seems more immediately rewarding. At some stage on such a path, these parts of the environment, just as other parts of the environment such as waterfalling, sun-setting, rain and waves may be noted, such parts may possibly have been interpreted as stones, discrete objects, of a scale well suited for manipulation. Functionally direct reward might encourage such sorts of interpretation over others and might be a part of a process that encourages a progressively narrow linear system of response possibly affecting responses in other fields, which might restrict more plural responses somewhat to access via such narrower responses.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby nameless on June 23rd, 2017, 7:14 pm 

dandelion » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:03 am wrote:
nameless » June 4th, 2017, 2:58 am wrote:
dandelion » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:27 am wrote:....There was a question about more intellectual art, e.g. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/c/conceptual-art , there is a notion of conceptual art. It seems if guided by less immediate applicability, some maths, more so than other maths, seems especially artistic in ways like this.

Re the op, I feel like I’ve missed out a lot but, art may be a special item produced by a singular artist, and through such views also be viewed as possible altered processes.

An interesting and well written post, but I couldn't help interpreting it all as conforming, eventually, to all 'art' being in the 'eye' of the beholder, whether the single artist, a monkey or a huge crowd.
That you can touch upon so much 'art' in such a small space, demonstrates once again... anything and all can be considered art!
Especially from the Perspective of a 'Creator' being the ultimate Artist! *__-

I’m pleased if some of my earlier response was ok, it tumbled out, I’d forgotten to include caveats like it was just a limited opinion, interpretations drawing on others’ interpretations, and I’m not sure about some of the criticism, but it may be fair enough. Re a perspective of an ultimate artist,....
others and might be a part of a process that encourages a progressively narrow linear system of response possibly affecting responses in other fields, which might restrict more plural responses somewhat to access via such narrower responses.

What you seem to demonstrate, is that all 'eyes of the beholder' are unique! That accounts for all the complexity, on which you touch.

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." -- E. F. Schumacher
nameless
Banned User
 
Posts: 150
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Location: Here! Now!


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby wolfhnd on June 24th, 2017, 11:42 am 

"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" Oxford

The old saying that I don't know much about art but I know it when I see it seems to capture the difficulty of consciously explaining the slightly unconscious mental workings that make us appreciate art.

I find the question why more interesting than what. What is practically a semantically question that ends in an infinite loop.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby dandelion on June 25th, 2017, 5:19 am 

nameless » June 24th, 2017, 12:14 am wrote:
…"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." -- E. F. Schumacher[/b]

I’m not sure about commenting more on this, but there may be some alternatives to my impression of your suggestions, like it may be worthwhile revisiting and revising complexity, perhaps there aren’t definite, extreme oppositions, perhaps flux, perhaps undecidability, etc. I'll read some more about Schumacher.

wolfhnd » June 24th, 2017, 4:42 pm wrote:"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" Oxford

The old saying that I don't know much about art but I know it when I see it seems to capture the difficulty of consciously explaining the slightly unconscious mental workings that make us appreciate art.

I find the question why more interesting than what. What is practically a semantically question that ends in an infinite loop.


Interesting, Wolfhound. I remember we touched on these sorts of topics ages ago, but I lost my way a bit, and it is good to read your thoughts.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby Watson on June 27th, 2017, 10:29 am 

Some one posted a similar topic with a video rant about art critics. By the time I had a reply to post the thread was deleted? I hope this isn't out of place if I hang it here.


I can not agree more with the rant in the videos. I have always felt the art critic uses art and words to puff up their own self importance, an importance that doesn't actually exist any more than an intrinsic value in art. A particular painting, or artist's work has no great value in and of itself. It i s a few $ of paint on a piece of canvas. The value comes from the public's awareness of the artist and, or the work or works. And the awareness is cumulative over the generations.
What is this painting worth?
IMG_0701.JPG

Is the value based on the artist's time and material cost? No, and not even that amount, plus accrued appreciation over a few hundred year. The value is directly proportional to the cumulative public awareness.

And the public awareness comes from the art critic. Who are these people wielding such power to attribute value to art? One would assume they have some education to be given the pen and such power. After that, they are pretty much left to there own opinion. After all, art is in the eye of the beholder, which means art is purely subjective, which means there is no wrong opinion. Which means an art critic can have any opinion they chose and justify that opinion however they subjectively wish.

I don't think it is important what an art critic says, as it is why they are saying it. After all, the art critic is promoting the artist or work equally well to their audience, whether speaking well, or speaking ill of the subject of their critique. So the question becomes why does the artist deserve critical attention? Or, why does the art critic bestow attention on a particular artist. There may be many answers to that question, depending on the critic, but most likely as not, it has nothing to do with the art.

As for the above painting, the value could be that of a priceless original work hanging in a gallery somewhere in Poland. But that is a purely subject valuation. This particular original work hangs in my study. I would consider selling for $250,000 cash FOB, but that to is a subjective valuation.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: WHAT IS ART?

Postby Braininvat on June 27th, 2017, 12:51 pm 

Other thread seems to be back. It remains a mystery where it went. I might alter the title slightly, of that one, to keep the two distinct.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5819
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Watson liked this post


Previous

Return to Art

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests