Art - the great debate

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Overread, Feb 23, 2012.

  1. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +341 / 1 / -0
    *since we need a topic that isn't religion and yet debateable ;)*


    Here is a question for you - art - in itself should art be judged by its own qualities as a work of art, or should/is it judged based upon who and how it was produced. Is art in itself judged more on its production, its creator or its impact - and which should be the right way to judge it?
     
  2. Saeriel

    Saeriel A Paranoid Android

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    *Makes required post flaming the author, mother of author, and subject matter of the thread.*







    On a more serious note, I think art should be for arts sake, not mattering of the name behind it.
     
  3. Feidai

    Feidai Put some spleen into it.

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0
    Is it pretty and useless? Then it's art.
    If it serves a purpose, then it's illustration, design or decoration.
    If it's a square or paint splatter, or a collection of cans with a deep and meaningful story behind it, then it's rubbish.

    Bring back classical art that took skill and finesse, that even the most defunct person could identify what was depicted.
     
  4. Firiath

    Firiath Halfling barbarian

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    20,590
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    good ol' Germany
    Ratings:
    +790 / 5 / -0
    That, dear OR, is a very good question. :D
    Although many people might disagree with me, I personally judge art based on its production. Although I think the meaning of pieces of art is also not absolutely insignificant, this is an even more difficult matter to discuss, as we can't always say what the intention of the artist was (unless he or she makes a statement about it - but I don't know if artists do that) - and I absolutely dislike the idea of forcing one single intention or meaning upon an artwork, just because a number of critics agree on something.
    Back to the topic of the act of creation as defining art: I have to admit I'm one of the people often saying "that's not art, I was able to paint like that as a 5-year-old". This often relates to abstract art, to which I can rarely associate a purpose.
    ... which raises the question: Does art have (to have) a purpose?

    EDIT:
    I agree. And have to say I also agree with some of the things Feidai wrote. However:

    So, would this still count as art?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2012
  5. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Hm. I would want to say that art is about the work. But the work pretty much always harbours a story. And at least part of that story is who made it. The creator of the work provides some reference to the work as it stands and, reversely, might add to the background of other works.

    Of course, I've been blown away by art created by complete strangers (to me). And, when having looked up other works by the artist, came to the conclusion it was the only interesting bit the creator ever made. And still, that one magnum opus was great. But even then, knowing the background of that specific piece certainly adds to it.

    Now, there's always the discussion whether art, by a great artist, but to his standard, under par, should fetch more than great work by a mediocre artist. I think that this is mostly decided by the market, but I can certainly see how prospective buyers are out for the magic of art. There is a certain drive to come close to great people, great artists. And owning a work, even if its not so great, of an artists which has created your most favourite art, is just about as close as you can come. And drives up price. It's basically how it is...
     
  6. AlphaAlex

    AlphaAlex Official Forum Nuisance

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    8,691
    Likes Received:
    214
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Australia
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -0
    art is an opinion of taste just like religion is an opinion of beliefs.. same difference. only people's art taste can change. (that was probably a bad comparison but meh)

    The only 'art' I dont feel is worthy of calling art is getting monkeys or elephants or 3 year olds to splatter paint on canvas and sell it. Then there's the abstract junk glued together.. just like I said that's an opinion.

    as for judging art, I go for the difficulty factor. The more time spent on something and the fine detail appeals to me.
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous the king

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,606
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Riga, latvia
    Ratings:
    +115 / 2 / -3
    hmm, in my opinion art, is just something that your mind enyojs, there are no standarts for it, or grading system, it is as good as it makes you feel....some say its shit, some say its marvelous -> it depends on personality, but I perfer classic. and the biggest art of all, is to make us happy, dosent matter is it a book, a painting or just a simply comedian, its art as long it make you happy
     
  8. AlphaAlex

    AlphaAlex Official Forum Nuisance

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Messages:
    8,691
    Likes Received:
    214
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Australia
    Ratings:
    +307 / 3 / -0
    bob eggleton's paintings are amazing! He has a website and its crap but his art is amazing.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    hope these show up
     
  9. DavidJae

    DavidJae New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Art should be based on what it means to each individual, not who created it. Art is an expression of the artist, but the artist is not the most important. What it makes you feel is important.
     
  10. Firiath

    Firiath Halfling barbarian

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    20,590
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    good ol' Germany
    Ratings:
    +790 / 5 / -0
    Isn't it amazing how a thread about Christianity can get more than 1,800 replies with users ripping each other's heads off, but in a thread about art, everyone states different opinions and can still live with the opinions of the others?

    I don't think that was a bad comparison. Taste, just like believing, is something unconscious, right?

    And whereas it's my opinion that art cannot be created without skill, other opinions are like this:

    So, if anyone would be interested in reviving this thread... Instead of discussing how we'd define art, we could talk about why we're not insulting or threatening each other like some people do when discussing religion. :p
     
  11. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    maybe because we all agree that there is no one true art, simply cause it's made by humans.
    Whereas there are still people out there believing in the one true Booger monster
     
  12. Firiath

    Firiath Halfling barbarian

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    20,590
    Likes Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    good ol' Germany
    Ratings:
    +790 / 5 / -0
    My first reaction to this post was "yeah, but it's the same with gods/God, isn't it?" - but then you said it yourself. My next question started with "Why can't all people agree that" - but it didn't make sense to finish it (with, for instance, "everyone can believe in whatever god(s) they want to believe in"), as we're talking about humans here. Anyway, I don't want to turn this thread into just another religious debate. :/


    Is art really so insignificant for us (not us, the forum members, but all humans in general)? Are artistic means that can express our innermost feelings, thoughts, opinions so unimportant that we'd rather waste our time fighting a fight that will never have an end instead of looking at the almost limitless beauty of art?
     
  13. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +341 / 1 / -0
    You guys are so innocent - or possibly just not cranky artists (yet) ;) I think its a community thing; art isn't as "big" a thing here as it is if you were, say, to ask the question on a painting or photography forum.



    Although the question in the opening post isn't actually "what is art" but more how we judge what we already consider to be art. Maybe we need a new "what is art" thread!
     
  14. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    but art is like music... it's not a defined term and thus everyone can put any meaning he likes into the word. Discussions only work though, when the terms we use are closely defined, otherwise they make no sense.
     
  15. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +341 / 1 / -0
    Hmm but music is defined - and probably is a lot easier to define than art.

    I think part of the problem is that the more structured side to art itself isn't part of the typical school education most people get.* As a result the idea that something, like art, can have rules or regulation is confusing to them because its a concept that has never been presented; furthermore art is often viewed as the release from "rules" and governance and structure and order and all things teenagers to young adults loath about life.

    The thing is there are, at least, strong theories as to artistic creation. Covering parts such as compositional theory and criteria for counting as art.






    *hides his rant about the fact that most art teachers are lazy and survive upon only the natural talent present within their classes
     
  16. Kakashi

    Kakashi The Fighters Guide House Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    15,018
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    In the hearts and minds of us all
    Ratings:
    +306 / 0 / -0
    There is no definition to art or music. I don't think you can put parameters around it or it loses all of its worth.
     
  17. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +341 / 1 / -0

    ^^ Watch those (yes I'm very serious watch them)
    The concept that there are no rules or at least no reasoned guidelines is somewhat false. Though it is true that many can appear to have a natural talent which results in them not "requiring" to study the theories in order to produce good results. However it does not negate the need for the theories. Further many people often forget that many past great masters (eg Beethoven) spent much of their youth in training (often with "pushy parents" guiding them down the path from a very early age - with the theories)
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2012
  18. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    I agree that music is somewhat closer defined than art but not to a degree where it would be clear what music is. Most agree on Bach, Beethoven, Mozart blah. Then there are music styles and periods and cultures - and the things the term "music" encompasses get more and more and more until stuff from one side of the spectrum have little to no similarities to things on the other side of the spectrum.
    Some consider the sounds from the whales as music - compare that to Rap.
    Some indigenous folks can produce (for us "weird") sounds with their mouths - maybe it's music for them, but just weird for us.
    So music is defined as sound.

    And art is defined as 'something visible' then, I guess, huh? Because Dada declared a toilet seat as art, so really, the definition doesn't help at all.
    All those rules and theories about art is just there to bring structure into the system, I guess. To declare this as being romanticism, this as Dada and that over there as modern HipHop street art.
    But art itself can be any- and everything, depending on who's looking at it.
    (I'm not even sure if it has to be created by humans. What about that orang utan with the brush, that paints a lot like picasso? Does he produce art?)
     
  19. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Hm. How about this.

    Art is every otherwise pointless expression that sparks an intellectual reaction with at least some observers.

    That's the best I can do.


    EDIT:

    Actually... I can do better.


    Art is every human expression that sparks an intellectual and/or emotional reaction with at least some observers and is created predominantly in service of sparking an intellectual and/or emotional reaction.

    There :)

    EDIT2:

    Or even better...

    Art is every human expression that triggers an indirect or unexpected intellectual and/or emotional reaction with at least some observers and is created predominantly in service of sparking an intellectual and/or emotional reaction.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2012
  20. Running Wolf

    Running Wolf Join the Madness

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    6,485
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Bittersweet Hell
    Ratings:
    +231 / 0 / -0
    Dada contradicts