Metaphysics, anyone ?

[Cary L. Brown]

BalthierTheGreat said:

xortex said:BTW, can anyone define art ?

Art is something that provokes a response in the viewer. It makes you think or feel somehow that you weren't before you saw it. With great art, you can't help but want to somehow respond to it.

Can't agree with that. You may see a person beheaded in an auto accident, and that may make you "think or feel something that you weren't thinking or feeling before you saw it." But that doesn't make it ART. (I mention this because I DID see that once.)

Art is much harder to define than that... but one thing that is significant, I think (though POOR artists tend to disagree) is that art really requires both great skill AND great inspiration.

If I were to attempt to characterize art, it is something created for the express intention of stirring an emotional reaction from an audience (how you define "audience" can vary... from a single viewer looking at a painting, to a colliseum filled with screaming fans... to anything in between). Art must be INTENDED for this purpose, and no other purpose, or it is not art, IMHO. A jet fighter fuselage may inspire an emotional response from some people (maybe even MOST people) but if the shape and form exists due to TECHNICAL NEED rather than "artistic intent" it isn't really "art" per-se.

But art also NEEDS to be based upon real inspiration and, yes, real SKILL. Putting a crucifix in a jar of urine is NOT art, even though it may well meet that first requirement (stirring up an emotional response). Why? Because ANYBODY COULD DO THAT. It requires no special skill... only a particularly perverse mindset. If, instead of a PURCHASED CRUCIFIX in a PURCHASED JAR, it had been a container blown from glass by the "artist," and the object inside had been made by the "artist," I might acknowledge it as art... but as it is, it represents nothing BUT the desire to offend, and thus is more appropriately described as a "tantrum" than it is as "art."

Art can only really be art if it's made for its own sake, and it must be something that requires skill and perseverance to make. It can still be "good art" or "bad art" but without those things, it's not ART at all.

How's that for a definition? :thumbsup:

 

[cardinal biggles]

It's certainly more involved than the answer I was going to give.

 

[xortex]

So something repulsive can be considered a work of art.

 

[xortex]

Didn't read pg 2 before I said that. Can the expression of rage be considered art ?

 

[Kegek]

Art is a non-utilitarian creation made by person(s)... that achieves criticial acclaim.

The critic's everything, you know, check out Wilde's dialogue, The Critic As Artist, for a long discussion of this very idea.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I think you're right about the act having to be intentional.

But I think the opposite is true too. Just making a picture of something doesn't make it art. Historic reenactments aren't something I'd consider art. They go to a lot of trouble, they try hard to get every detail *right*, and it takes skill and dedication, but it's not Art. Art has to say something beyond "hey look! It's the Battle of Gettysburg!" It has to say something, even though that would make it historically inaccurate. (Personally, I think it would be funny to go to a reenactment as a Confederate soldier, yet also do something completely innaccurate, like have a phaser and a communicator with me. Mostly to mess with the other reenactors.)

And no critics aren't everything. They tend to fall for whatever they've convinced themselves is art. Some stuff that got rave reviews are things like a vaccuum cleaner in a glass case, a pile of candy, and a crucifix in a jar of urine. They fall prey to the hype machine faster than others because they marinate in it. Half of the "Art" that critics love couldn't be sold at a grage sale if it hadn't come from a famous "Artiste". Never underestimate the power of the hype machine.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

xortex said:So something repulsive can be considered a work of art.

Absolutely. Doesn't mean it's GOOD art, (or bad art for that matter).

And "repulsive" is something that's very subjective, after all. For instance, a fantastic "Rembrandt quality" painting of Mohammed would be considered repulsive by fundamentalist Muslims. That would not make it any less "art."

You need:

1) Sole reason for the "artistic" content to be for the sake of art. (Fancy crown moldings in a house can be considered "art" because the artistic element of those parts is not a TECHNICALLY NECESSARY element of the component. The existence of a molding is not art... but the ornate scrollwork on it may very well be art.)

2) Special talent must be required... if the art can be easily reproduced by anyone, I don't think it's "art" at all.

3) Significant effort must go into it. Buying a jar and a crucifix (per my earlier example), relieving yourself into the jar, and putting the purchased crucifix into the purchase jar... that's no EFFORT, no WORK... so as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing "artistic" about it.

Art can, and often IS, "offensive" to someone. But merely being offensive doesn't make something "art."

Make sense?

 

[xortex]

I think producers are afraid of the 'a' word. To me it's all a science - rocket science. Nobody wants a brain surgeon trying to build a rocket.

 

[CaptainStoner]

BalthierTheGreat said:

xortex said:
BTW, can anyone define art ?

Art is something that provokes a response in the viewer. It makes you think or feel somehow that you weren't before you saw it. With great art, you can't help but want to somehow respond to it.

This is true. It is true because Art exists in a Moment which is not Time, but is more of a wavelength. Our ability to be in the Moment is our ability to see Art, and the wavelength of it I think is similar to that of seeing God. Similar to God, Art exists whether we see it or not.
There are no criteria for Art!
One might say, Artistic intent, doing it for the sake of Art, is required. I don't think so. A blues guitarist, tearing out a solo, is not thinking about Art for Art's sake. He's thinking about that woman and his broken heart. Art could be the furthest thing on his mind, and so my point is that Art happens in "The Moment". Blues musicians are good examples of Artists who specialize in getting into the Moment.
But they are just one type. Blues musicians are often not the most proficient on their instruments. The Italian Carpenters you mention, though, are fine craftsmen. Now they may not be much in the Moment themselves, probably not at all as much as the Blues Musician is, but the Carpenter makes great Art too. It is of a different type. But the Moment is beyond any one person or Artist.
So the high level of skill, although appreciated and having another kind of power, the high skill level is not necessary for Art.
Nor is it necessary to spend a certain amount of time making the Art. Art is outside of time. Some works of Art come rapidly, others unbearably slow. Often those that come rapidly are the best.
What about this infamous urine/crucifix? It has become the classic example for the question of what is Art. I would say that Art is all that it is, and little else. Why deny it for what it is? It is only through the denying of it as Art that it has become so famous.
I know an Autistic painter who has no artistic intent, barely looks at what he is doing, and has almost no skill beyond grasping the brush. But there is Art "happening" and some of the paintings are powerful. He cares a lot more about the soda he will stop to buy on the way home than he does about the paintings.
What I'm saying is there is something sublime to Art that is beyond us, and that you cannot place certain criteria on it and define it in terms. The criteria we place on it is nothing more than personal preference. If you are unable to see the Art in something, you don't negate it. So I guess I'm saying that the tree did make a noise, to bring us back to the Metaphysical topic that began this thread.

 

[xortex]

I'm almost sorry I asked. Where's my dictionary?

 

[Balthier the Great]

xortex said:
I think producers are afraid of the 'a' word. To me it's all a science - rocket science. Nobody wants a brain surgeon trying to build a rocket.

Yes and no. They fear the consequences of the Art. It isn't the person at all. The thing is that for most artistic things you run a decent chance of offending somebody.

If you made a movie that says anything other than "Kaboom", you've said something that will offend somebody. If I make a movie about the millitary, I have basicly two choices.

1.) A movie that portrays the US Army as heros, basicly doing everything right for the right reasons. (Think a John Wayne movie) People who are generally pro millitary will love me. However, I'll probably get hate mail from the MoveOn.Org people, liberal bloggers, etc. Most will say it's a Bushie propaganda piece.

2.) I can make a movie in which the Millitary is portayed as evil. Abu Graib and shooting civillians, stuff like that. I get hate mail from every patriotic group in the country. Papa Bear does a hit piece calling me and the movie treasonous.

There's no way to make a movie about something significant without offending somebody. The only way to make such a movie is to make movies about topics that everyone agrees on. I can't ask questions about war -- I'll offend someone. I can't really start talking about when life begins -- I'll either bug the pro choice or the pro life crowd. That makes the suits nervous -- not because its ART, but because it's something that might offend the audience.

Suits (and I don't blame them) are adverse to controversy. A controversial movie means that not everyone will be comfortable buying a ticket. And if people aren't buying tickets, the studios lose. That's one reason that they like franchises -- it's a lot safer to make X-men 5 then Mutants, or Star Trek then Space Adventures. A name brand is safe, people already know it, they know pretty much what you'll get.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

CaptainStoner said:This is true. It is true because Art exists in a Moment which is not Time, but is more of a wavelength. Our ability to be in the Moment is our ability to see Art, and the wavelength of it I think is similar to that of seeing God. Similar to God, Art exists whether we see it or not.
There are no criteria for Art!
One might say, Artistic intent, doing it for the sake of Art, is required. I don't think so. A blues guitarist, tearing out a solo, is not thinking about Art for Art's sake. He's thinking about that woman and his broken heart. Art could be the furthest thing on his mind, and so my point is that Art happens in "The Moment". Blues musicians are good examples of Artists who specialize in getting into the Moment.
But they are just one type. Blues musicians are often not the most proficient on their instruments. The Italian Carpenters you mention, though, are fine craftsmen. Now they may not be much in the Moment themselves, probably not at all as much as the Blues Musician is, but the Carpenter makes great Art too. It is of a different type. But the Moment is beyond any one person or Artist.
So the high level of skill, although appreciated and having another kind of power, the high skill level is not necessary for Art.
Nor is it necessary to spend a certain amount of time making the Art. Art is outside of time. Some works of Art come rapidly, others unbearably slow. Often those that come rapidly are the best.
What about this infamous urine/crucifix? It has become the classic example for the question of what is Art. I would say that Art is all that it is, and little else. Why deny it for what it is? It is only through the denying of it as Art that it has become so famous.
I know an Autistic painter who has no artistic intent, barely looks at what he is doing, and has almost no skill beyond grasping the brush. But there is Art "happening" and some of the paintings are powerful. He cares a lot more about the soda he will stop to buy on the way home than he does about the paintings.
What I'm saying is there is something sublime to Art that is beyond us, and that you cannot place certain criteria on it and define it in terms. The criteria we place on it is nothing more than personal preference. If you are unable to see the Art in something, you don't negate it. So I guess I'm saying that the tree did make a noise, to bring us back to the Metaphysical topic that began this thread.

Well, at least your screen name seems to be appropo... "Stoner" indeed. Seriously, other than throwing out a bunch of pretentious (yet simultaneously meaningless) verbiage, do you think you actually SAID anything there?

"Art exists in a moment which is not time, but is a wavelength?" Do you have ANY IDEA what you're saying? You're trying to sound pretentious without the slightest comprehension of the meaning of the words you're using, it seems. You're simply spewing nonsense... putting words together which you do not understand, in an attempt to seem "intellectual." Meh...

You think that the "blues musicians" you mention are simply playing without the intention of performing for an audience? And if the "autistic painter" you mention isn't creating art... and having no knowledge of the paintings produced by this person, I have no idea if it is "art" or just "novelty items for the dilletant nuevo-rich" ...

You can talk about "moments that are wavelengths" or "memes" or whatever you like. The reality is that the only people who will ever agree with that definition are the people who want to make themselves feel somehow "superior" to the "chattle" who don't "get" the supposedly higher-artistic-sensibility held by the would-be-intellectual-elitist.

One of my all-time favorite moments in any television series was one involving Tom Hanks, prior to his movie career.

The show involved an art exhibit. The would-be-intellectual crowd was totally wowed by this one painting... discussing the deeper metaphysical meanings and intensity brought about by the stark contrasts... all that sort of bullshit.

And the rant of the Tom Hanks character was just sooo PERFECT.

"IT'S THE FLAG OF JAPAN!"

Bottom line... that isn't art. And you can't convince anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that it is.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I'm sorry I missed that one. Was it the show where he dressed as a woman to get a cheap apartment? I vaguely remember it from when I was like 5 or 6, but I don't remember the name.

But that Japanese flag thing sounds right.