What is NOT Art?

Guadalupana · Foro Master

RE: What is NOT Art?

TV Buff · TOP Guru

Lahtina wrote:

What do you think? (Daeveed, art snob, where are you?)

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Or is it Beauty?

No, glasses are in the eye of the beholder.

But wait. Shouldn't it be in the "eyes" of the beholder? Unless the beholder is a pirate.

Anyway, yo solo se que no se nada.

McOSIRIS · Comandante

Daeveed wrote:

Thanks Guada....so you're like an Art Republican @Afro: did you know fractals are very closely related to the Chaos Theory.

http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/3733860/a/Chaos+Theory.htm

Daeveed · Foro Master

Thanks Guada....so you're like an Art Republican

@Afro: did you know fractals are very closely related to the Chaos Theory.

Guadalupana · Foro Master

Daeveed wrote:

Guadalupana wrote:
I went to art school, and i would still say (props to you for the very intelligent explanation on stinky manure that moves by itself--the Dung beetle does that) that a garbage can under plexiglass is not art. Unless it's A garbage can under a plexiglass oil painted on a canvas while incorporating some mixed media...such as real garbage trying to get into the garbage can , but can't because it's under the plexi....see? that would be art.

what is your definition of art?

It's hard to explain. With the way it has evolved, most have forgotten to appreciate the classical masterpieces. We are so caught up with the 'digital times' that we've dismissed that it was because of the cassical that we got where we are.

I'm not saying 'today's' art is meaningless, heck i love digital art... it's beautiful, the fact that it moves and it makes you 'feel' as if it's real, it's amazing.
So what is art to me? well if you can engage me in that which you call art, then that's art to me.
To make me wonder "why did they paint/draw/animate/digitalize this?" "what does it mean?" "What are you trying to get across to the world, to the individual looking from the other side?"

Everyone has their own notion of what is or isn't art, modern or not.
I'm just fond of the eras long gone.

Lahtina · Foro Master

Afrodita wrote:

Dogo wrote: Ha! the first thread in weeks where my name doesn't come up... yet, you guys insist! Hey...don't pluralize...I never mentioned your name...

Ja! Tómala, Doguito! I mean... tomAla, boludo!

Afrodita · Guru

Dogo wrote:

Ha! the first thread in weeks where my name doesn't come up... yet, you guys insist!

Hey...don't pluralize...I never mentioned your name...

Lahtina · Foro Master

Dogo wrote:

Afrodita wrote: Lahtina wrote: Very interesting, Afro. Thanks for the info. Y como diría Dogo... lo qué? Sorry I don't speak Argentinian......would you be so kind to translate? Ha! the first thread in weeks where my name doesn't come up... yet, you guys insist!

Just showing our appreciation.

Dogo · Comandante

Afrodita wrote:

Lahtina wrote: Very interesting, Afro. Thanks for the info. Y como diría Dogo... lo qué? Sorry I don't speak Argentinian......would you be so kind to translate?

Ha! the first thread in weeks where my name doesn't come up... yet, you guys insist!

DulceGalletita · Foro Master

Colombiana4Life wrote:

What is art? Are we art? Is art art?

I'm with COLO on this topic

Afrodita · Guru

Lahtina wrote:

Very interesting, Afro. Thanks for the info. Y como diría Dogo... lo qué?

Sorry I don't speak Argentinian......would you be so kind to translate?

Lahtina · Foro Master

Afrodita wrote:

edruzco wrote: Would you consider this art? I know what those are......They are fractals..... Fractal art is created by calculating fractal mathematical functions and transforming the calculation results into still images, animations, music, or other art media. Fractal images are graphs of the calculation results, and fractal animations are sequences of these graphs. Although I don't think they are the greatest piece of art, the way they are generated it's really interesting.

Very interesting, Afro. Thanks for the info. Y como diría Dogo... lo qué?

Afrodita · Guru

edruzco wrote:

Would you consider this art?

I know what those are......They are fractals.....

Fractal art is created by calculating fractal mathematical functions and transforming the calculation results into still images, animations, music, or other art media. Fractal images are graphs of the calculation results, and fractal animations are sequences of these graphs.

Although I don't think they are the greatest piece of art, the way they are generated it's really interesting.

confundida · Foro Master

PERSONALLY TO ME ANYTHING IS ART. BETTER YET ART IS LIKE MUSIC .......THERE IS DIFF KINDS I GUESS WAT KIND OF ART YOU LIKE IS WAT INTEREST U!!! TO ME MY FAV PIECE OF ART IS LIL MAN PICS.....

McOSIRIS · Comandante

edruzco wrote:

Would you consider this art?

nop....that's tripping on "E"....

edruzco · Regular Plus

Would you consider this art?

Lahtina · Foro Master

Daeveed wrote:

Of course!!!! Yes!! Contemporary art has started to cross into a very complex realm in the last decades. Examples of this are numerous, and that's why I'm saying that the classical conception of an art piece....is dead. Or at least it should be.

It will forever live in my heart... and by forever I meant until I die.

Daeveed · Foro Master

Lahtina wrote:

I would have to agree that when an object or creation serves the sole purpose of questioning the definition of art, is it then more like a philosophical and/or analytical paper than an aesthetic experience?

Of course!!!! Yes!!

Contemporary art has started to cross into a very complex realm in the last decades. Examples of this are numerous, and that's why I'm saying that the classical conception of an art piece....is dead.

Or at least it should be.

Lahtina · Foro Master

Daeveed wrote:

I disagree. I'm sure Hume was a very smart person, but again, what Hume is basically saying is: If i don't know a ship is a ship, then it's not a ship to me. Which is a true statement. The concept of JUDGEMENT is as subjective as the concept of SENTIMENT. A person might consider art just a canvas painting of something "real". Another person would consider art to be just paint on canvas. Another person wouls consider art to be a set of qualities that go beyond what you see at first sight. Of course what you see makes you feel things. But sight is not the main target of art. Imagination is.

More than the imagination, for me the target is the senses - to communicate an experience to them.

I would have to agree that when an object or creation serves the sole purpose of questioning the definition of art, is it then more like a philosophical and/or analytical paper than an aesthetic experience?

I'm almost certain that the current obsession with crap in the visual arts will decompose and be long forgotten one day.

Marky Mark · Foro Master

Bainaman wrote:

I can't find that book that has only blank pages.

Anyway....I read about it on another book that I recommend.....It's called

The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe by John Barrow

Talks about the origins of nothing....from it's mathematical origins....to it's theological implications. The book is pretty heavy.....not a easy or light read.

Fak I just got constipated reading the title!!!!

Bainaman · Foro Master

I can't find that book that has only blank pages.

Anyway....I read about it on another book that I recommend.....It's called

The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas About the Origins of the Universe by John Barrow

Talks about the origins of nothing....from it's mathematical origins....to it's theological implications. The book is pretty heavy.....not a easy or light read.

Daeveed · Foro Master

Marky Mark wrote:

@e...can u have a text block of 'spaces' and 'returns' and call it a paragraph or a sentence for that matter? maybe i'm thinking too left brained today.

I don't think so, I'm not an expert in literature, but I think its only element are the words.

Marky Mark · Foro Master

yes, MC has got it... one man's trash is another man's treasure

subjectivity is a ****

McOSIRIS · Comandante

I don't think there such thing as good or bad Art...

Art is just an expression of feelings... and feelings can be good and/or bad, according to the person who's receiving this message....

Daeveed · Foro Master

Lahtina wrote:

So anyway, Hume also said that the nature of a person's appreciation of a thing or event varies with the level of knowledge that a person brings to it. But again, we'd be talking about SENTIMENTS and not using judgement. I'm sure anyone could look at that painting right now and without knowing much about the artist appreciate it for art - good art.

I disagree.

I'm sure Hume was a very smart person, but again, what Hume is basically saying is: If i don't know a ship is a ship, then it's not a ship to me. Which is a true statement.

The concept of JUDGEMENT is as subjective as the concept of SENTIMENT.

A person might consider art just a canvas painting of something "real". Another person would consider art to be just paint on canvas. Another person wouls consider art to be a set of qualities that go beyond what you see at first sight.

Of course what you see makes you feel things. But sight is not the main target of art. Imagination is.

Marky Mark · Foro Master

isn't there a quote like, 'because we're discussing it, it must be art?'

Lahtina · Foro Master

what's your point?

I edited. My point was that the level of knowledge you bring to the piece of "art" enhances your appreciation of it. You are better able to apprehend an underlying reality inhering the object. But judgements influenced by one's personal gratification in an object cannot hold claim as an universally valid delight.

-- Edited by Lahtina at 15:24, 2006-03-20

Bainaman · Foro Master

Marky Mark wrote:

@ Daeveed: so a 'musical' piece composed of 200 bars of a 4 beat rest is still considered music.

That is interesting. verrrry interesting. i dunno, i guess i'm close minded but i disagree...can u have a text block of 'spaces' and 'returns' and call it a paragraph or a sentence for that matter?

maybe i'm thinking too left brained today.

There is a book like that.

I'll find the name of it.

Marky Mark · Foro Master

@ Daeveed: so a 'musical' piece composed of 200 bars of a 4 beat rest is still considered music.

That is interesting. verrrry interesting. i dunno, i guess i'm close minded but i disagree...can u have a text block of 'spaces' and 'returns' and call it a paragraph or a sentence for that matter?

maybe i'm thinking too left brained today.

Bainaman · Foro Master

Marky Mark wrote:

it can't be music but music can contain those said silences. music is composed of notes and melodies and arrangements and silences but silence can't contain music.. silence which for a lack of better terms is the absence of sound. r u saying music can exist without sound? sound is just vibrations and without vibrations, you have silence. hence silence cannot be music but music can contain silence. -- Edited by Marky Mark at 15:08, 2006-03-20

Fine....

Since everyone seems to want to be serious today (I guess it was about time)......I'll put my two cents...

I would have to say that it is. Like Daeveed said.....it's much more than the evident. You have to look at the intent....at the reasoning behind the piece. I would have to say that everyone in that room....heard a completely different piece of music. Not even yourself.....would hear it the same way twice..........You have to let your mind free...in order to experience it fully.

The subtleties of art is what sets it apart from crap. The attention to detail.....and how everything has a meaning.

I used to listen to pieces of music that I would turn off after 30 secs......I hated them. I totally dismissed them. But after I gathered some knowledge.....I went back....and would listen to the details...the intents.....and totally appreciated them.

I do believe that you have to be a student of the art.....to appreciate the art.

Daeveed · Foro Master

preparing an answer

-- Edited by Daeveed at 15:18, 2006-03-20

Daeveed · Foro Master

Marky Mark wrote:

it can't be music but music can contain those said silences. music is composed of notes and melodies and arrangements and silences but silence can't contain music.. otherwise u are also saying silence which for a lack of better terms is the absence of sound, can music exist without sound? sound is just vibrations and without vibrations, you have silence. hence silence cannot be music but music can contain silence.

In general terms you are right, silence is a part of music.

But not every musical piece will necessarily have all the elements of music in it. Let's say for example a drum solo: it has rythm, but no melody or harmony...so is it still music??

This piece is music even if it only has one element of it (silence)...and in fact it also has rythm, sine it is written in music sheets, and it is composed using silences of different lenghts.

My point is...you can't just judge a work of art by just skimming its surface. you have to know it fully.

I guess the same principle works with people too.

Lahtina · Foro Master

Daeveed wrote:

Lahtina wrote: Would you call this art? it depends. What is it? Again, what I've been trying to say is that you can't base your judgement just in what you see. Art is much more than that. If you show me that picture, then I just can't answer if it is art or not until I know what is it? who made it? why? how? under what context? It is not fair to the artist to show just a small piece of her/his work to the public.

A-ha! I guess I should have posted the Hume thing here instead of the boob thread. Anyway...

Hume says that taste has two aspects: sentiments and judgement. If you consider something beautiful and find its artistic beauty, then it's ok because sentiments is a matter of perception and it DOES NOT represent what is really in the object. However, judgement is a different matter. Could you make an attempt to make true statements about that tile piece as to why it should be considered art?

Could you look at this and say it isn't?

Everyone's perception of beauty is different. But again, perceptions of beauty or deformity are themselves sentiments, not qualities in the object itself. However, there MUST be certain qualities in objects which are fitted by nature to produce particular feelings (like what I experience with Dalí).

ETA: D'oh! I forgot the most important part. So anyway, Hume also said that the nature of a person's appreciation of a thing or event varies with the level of knowledge that a person brings to it. But again, we'd be talking about SENTIMENTS and not using judgement. I'm sure anyone could look at that painting right now and without knowing much about the artist appreciate it for art - good art.

-- Edited by Lahtina at 15:15, 2006-03-20

Marky Mark · Foro Master

Daeveed wrote:

On a similar note, the same happens in music.
John Cage, a well known classical composer from the '50s came up with one of his most controversial musical pieces when he created 4'33".
This piece cosists of nothing else but 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Here's a comment about it.
"John Cage's most famous musical composition is called 4'33".
It consists of the pianist going to the piano, and not hitting any keys for four minutes and thirty-three seconds. (He uses a stopwatch to time this.) In other words, the entire piece consists of silences -- silences of different lengths, they say.
On the one hand, as a musical piece, 4'33" leaves almost no room for the pianist's interpretation: as long as he watches the stopwatch, he can't play it too fast or too slow; he can't hit the wrong keys; he can't play it too loud, or too melodramatically, or too subduedly.
On the other hand, what you hear when you listen to 4'33" is more a matter of chance than with any other piece of music -- nothing of what you hear is anything the composer wrote. "

Is that music???

it can't be music but music can contain those said silences. music is composed of notes and melodies and arrangements and silences but silence can't contain music.. silence which for a lack of better terms is the absence of sound. r u saying music can exist without sound? sound is just vibrations and without vibrations, you have silence. hence silence cannot be music but music can contain silence.

-- Edited by Marky Mark at 15:08, 2006-03-20

Phantasma · TOP Guru

What about this?

Im sure it must be aesthetically pleasing to some people. And like Daeveed said it is a vehicle by which the author is trying to convey a message. The message being that this is a "Drama Free Zone" thus if you are intending to cause some drama you better think twice about it mister!

Daeveed · Foro Master

On a similar note, the same happens in music.

John Cage, a well known classical composer from the '50s came up with one of his most controversial musical pieces when he created 4'33".

This piece cosists of nothing else but 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. Here's a comment about it.

"John Cage's most famous musical composition is called 4'33".

It consists of the pianist going to the piano, and not hitting any keys for four minutes and thirty-three seconds. (He uses a stopwatch to time this.) In other words, the entire piece consists of silences -- silences of different lengths, they say.

On the one hand, as a musical piece, 4'33" leaves almost no room for the pianist's interpretation: as long as he watches the stopwatch, he can't play it too fast or too slow; he can't hit the wrong keys; he can't play it too loud, or too melodramatically, or too subduedly.

On the other hand, what you hear when you listen to 4'33" is more a matter of chance than with any other piece of music -- nothing of what you hear is anything the composer wrote. "

Is that music???

Daeveed · Foro Master

Lahtina wrote:

Would you call this art?

it depends.

What is it?

Again, what I've been trying to say is that you can't base your judgement just in what you see. Art is much more than that. If you show me that picture, then I just can't answer if it is art or not until I know what is it? who made it? why? how? under what context?

It is not fair to the artist to show just a small piece of her/his work to the public.

Dogo · Comandante

Lahtina wrote:

Would you call this art?

That looks like the crack on my toilet

Lahtina · Foro Master

Phantasma wrote:

Lahtina wrote: Would you call this art? that looks like a marble tile.

It is. I like it. I would certainly lay it on my floors and it'd probably look beautiful but art? C'mon!

McOSIRIS · Comandante

Bainaman wrote:

Lahtina wrote: Do you dare consider this NOT to be art? Is that a B cup or a C cup on that chick?!?!? LOL Sorry....not in the mood for seriousness.

LOL

I was gonna ask the same...

Bainaman · Foro Master

Lahtina wrote:

Do you dare consider this NOT to be art?

Is that a B cup or a C cup on that chick?!?!?

LOL

Sorry....not in the mood for seriousness.

Phantasma · TOP Guru

Lahtina wrote:

Would you call this art?

that looks like a marble tile.

Lahtina · Foro Master

Do you dare consider this NOT to be art?

ETA: But someone please tell me... W T F is that about? Ugh! I hate it! Me inquieta! Me da miedo, me trastorna! Ugh, take it away, take it away!

-- Edited by Lahtina at 14:48, 2006-03-20

Lahtina · Foro Master

Would you call this art?

Bainaman · Foro Master

Daeveed wrote:

Lahtina wrote: Does anyone doubt that Dalí produced art? they better not....

Dali is a wanker!!!

Daeveed · Foro Master

Lahtina wrote:

Does anyone doubt that Dalí produced art?

they better not....

Lahtina · Foro Master

Guadalupana wrote:

i didn't say that you did, i was telling you that it was....

Right, and I have to ask again... why the need for the clarification? Does anyone doubt that Dalí produced art?

Daeveed · Foro Master

Guadalupana wrote:

I went to art school, and i would still say (props to you for the very intelligent explanation on stinky manure that moves by itself--the Dung beetle does that) that a garbage can under plexiglass is not art. Unless it's A garbage can under a plexiglass oil painted on a canvas while incorporating some mixed media...such as real garbage trying to get into the garbage can , but can't because it's under the plexi....see? that would be art.

what is your definition of art?

Daeveed · Foro Master

Lahtina wrote:

Daeveed wrote: Lahtina wrote: So to hell with Aesthetics and canons and such? When I say form, i'm including aesthetics in the concept. canons? Yes, artistic canons, in other words, established principles; groups of works that are generally accepted as representing a field. You know... canons!

ohhh CANONES!!!

yeah, I'm not a very fond of them...

Lahtina · Foro Master

Daeveed wrote:

Lahtina wrote: So to hell with Aesthetics and canons and such? When I say form, i'm including aesthetics in the concept. canons?

Yes, artistic canons, in other words, established principles; groups of works that are generally accepted as representing a field. You know... canons!