What is art?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What is art?

Post by davidm » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:10 pm

Would anyone actually like to discuss art? :P

Nick_A
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:48 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:42 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:08 am
davidm wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:20 am


Gosh, Nick, this is just breathtakingly stupid. Chess is a game with rules built in, in advance. Can you identify the analogous rule book for art? :lol:

Of course you can't, Nick. I kind of respected some of your posts. But this is just pathetic. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you are just some sort of right-wing Republican dumb ass.
You still don't get it. A work of art is capable of serving as the means for the communication of objective art. Objective art is like a phone call. It occurs. The process of objective art begins with the artist who must have experienced a quality of emotion associated with an objective value. The artist must be aware of the techniques by which the transmission of this emotion becomes possible through the means of his chosen work of art. A sensitive viewer will experience the same emotion the artist put into their work of art. When this happens the communication called objective art occurs. People less sensitive will not experience this direct communication. Subjective art will take the place of objective art since it doesn't require the knowledge or emotional experience necessary for objective art. The expression of egoisitic imagination gradually becomes known as art. The knowledge and skill necessary to produce works of art is gradully sacrificed for the egoistic benefits of random expression.

If a person doesn't know chess they see no reason to retain it for what it is. They may know the rules but consider it archaic. So why not change them and produce chess which everyone wins so everyone is happy? If one hasn't experienced the value of chess, it is a logical thing to do. For those not having experienced objective art it is easy to deny it in favor of random expression where its value is only determined by current social norms. It may be politically correct but lacking any objective value
:lol:

Nick, this is such utter meaningless twaddle that I can't even bring myself to respond to it. To quote my favorite villain Anton Chigurh from another context, "You don't know what you're talking about, do you?" :lol:

Nick, what's the most you ever lost on a coin toss? :lol:
If you are challenging me to a $100 bet on a coin toss match the winner being decided by who reaches ten wins first, you will lose. Since I am challenged I make the rules and I choose a quarter as the coin to be tossed. The rules are so simple that any progressive can understand them. They state: Heads I win and tails you lose." Once I win ten times in a row you will call it beginners luck or the luck of fools.

Nick_A
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:49 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:10 pm
Would anyone actually like to discuss art? :P
First you have to know what art is before you can discuss it.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Greta » Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:47 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:49 am
davidm wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:10 pm
Would anyone actually like to discuss art? :P
First you have to know what art is before you can discuss it.
David, according to Nick you don't know what art is. You will also find that you don't know what love is or have a clue what life is about - as compared with him. It seems that, according to Nick most of us here and elsewhere lead coarse, unexamined lives like reptiles. He regularly implies that I lack finer human sensibilities. In short, like many theists, he often expresses contempt for anyone who is not a believer.

Since this thread is about art, and given that Nick's turning this question into one about how we should live, let's consider the living of one's life as an ongoing (hopefully) work of art. Like a sculpture, the years turn the "rough block" of the child into the fully fledged adult. We become more ourselves. We tend to refine. I like to think of the Sun sculpting the Earth, with each orbit under its influence bringing further planetary evolution. Then again, we could just as readily figure that the Sun is being sculpted by Sagittarius A* at the centre of the galaxy.

We create little versions of this dynamic with our creative works (whether referred to as "art", "crafts", "expression" or "product") and cannot help but to imbue our works with our individual attributes. The question is then whether creative work touches another, to what extent, in what way, and how enduringly.

As for objective "standards", as in any field there needs to either be a certain level of technical proficiency or outstandingly "clean" artistic instincts - to be able to carry the intended pattern or message.

I'd agree with Nick insofar that some people have "the gift" (however one may attribute those gifts) and tend to produce work that is a cut above most others. Bully for them. However, to lionise those and dismiss the beautiful and passionate works of many others strikes me as overly precious gatekeeping. To have broad tastes is not "embracing mediocrity" but embracing the same diversity as occurs in our emotional lives, thus we fancy different kinds of art, depending on mood. Sometimes only "great art" will scratch the itch. At other times, it's simply overbearing.

If I only embraced "great art" I would have never bothered with any artistic endeavours myself and missed out on much joy and personal development. Should artists all give it away if they find that they are not great geniuses and will produce relatively "shallow" art? In a way, Nick's attitude seems to be the ultimate in Taylorism, replete with the collectivism of his "Great Beast" (ie. society at large exploiting individuals). What of creative individuals creating personal art? Must only the great works of mighty institutions and individuals commissioned by institutions count?

Nick_A
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:17 am

Greta
David, according to Nick you don't know what art is. You will also find that you don't know what love is or have a clue what life is about - as compared with him. It seems that, according to Nick most of us here and elsewhere lead coarse, unexamined lives like reptiles. He regularly implies that I lack finer human sensibilities. In short, like many theists, he often expresses contempt for anyone who is not a believer.
Don't blame me, blame Socrates. He said "I know nothing." If he is right how can we know the objective meaning and purpose of humanity? If we don't know the potential for emotional communication how can we distinguish art from expression? I sit here with innocent flushed cheeks. You must blame Socrates for arousing these questions in me that cause you so much indigestion. Be happy he swallowed the hemlock. it will give you partial satisfaction to know that he could never again corrupt the youth of Athens.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Greta » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:47 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:17 am
Greta
David, according to Nick you don't know what art is. You will also find that you don't know what love is or have a clue what life is about - as compared with him. It seems that, according to Nick most of us here and elsewhere lead coarse, unexamined lives like reptiles. He regularly implies that I lack finer human sensibilities. In short, like many theists, he often expresses contempt for anyone who is not a believer.
Don't blame me, blame Socrates. He said "I know nothing." If he is right how can we know the objective meaning and purpose of humanity? If we don't know the potential for emotional communication how can we distinguish art from expression? I sit here with innocent flushed cheeks. You must blame Socrates for arousing these questions in me that cause you so much indigestion. Be happy he swallowed the hemlock. it will give you partial satisfaction to know that he could never again corrupt the youth of Athens.
So why do you apply that to everyone else but not to yourself?

Why the f would I be happy that anyone swallowed the hemlock? Are you completely insane?? Dial it back, tiger. This is a little forum - we are not playing for sheep stations here. People may hold whatever views about art they like without me wishing them dead or maimed :lol: :lol: :lol:

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What is art?

Post by davidm » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:47 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:49 am
davidm wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:10 pm
Would anyone actually like to discuss art? :P
First you have to know what art is before you can discuss it.
Nick, I am an artist.

And you're an idiot. :lol:

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What is art?

Post by davidm » Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:56 am

Nick!

Call it, friend-o!

Image

:lol:

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: What is art?

Post by davidm » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:14 am

If we can brush aside Nick's idiot nonsense babble about The One, The Beast, Plato's Cave, and the alleged evil machinations of Nancy Pelosi and secularists (I don't think he even knows what the word means), maybe some of us could have a decent discussion about art, with which I am very familiar.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Belinda » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:52 am

Dubious wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:07 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:08 am
The artist must be aware of the techniques by which the transmission of this emotion becomes possible through the means of his chosen work of art. A sensitive viewer will experience the same emotion the artist put into their work of art. When this happens the communication called objective art occurs. People less sensitive will not experience this direct communication. Subjective art will take the place of objective art since it doesn't require the knowledge or emotional experience necessary for objective art.
Well expressed! What you appear to denote as objective art is the gestalt manufacture of that which renders the emotional response for those whose empathy conforms to what is experienced. When encountered the first time it can be quite overwhelming and inject a new complex layer in one's Weltanschauung.

Art, especially great art, is the catalyst which penetrates those layers of the psyche to make the experience possible. In that repect, art has much in common with dreams which always seem to refer to another person inside oneself.

It is art as an object, as a potential prophecy, which causes one to know oneself better meaning subjectively that in the collective amounts to culturally.
The convention of differentiating between 'art' and 'work of art' is useful with respect to evaluating the artefact whatever it may be. What Dubious and Nick are talking about here is works of art, not art. Art is a human activity: works of art are artefacts that we value,

Dubious described how a work of art is a Gestalt that's to say (as I understand Gestalt) which connects separate consciousnesses within the same experience.The work of art includes not only the work of the maker but also the recipient who joins with the artist in celebration of whatever it is that is the theme.

Great themes are always those which have wide application to many people. I doubt however if any theme affects all people. Some works of art for instance are narrowly nationalistic , some are narrowly pornographic, others glorify rich patrons. For this reason I'd say that the meaning of the work of art, is not always the theme but the physical form of the work. What I have in mind as a clear example is drumming which being sheer rhythm, has a visceral appeallike heart beat. I guess that some abstract paintings too connect maker and viewer by means of the sheer form of the painting or whatever. Music does I suggest provide more form in proportion to meaning than other idioms.

However I don't believe that form remains free from meaning which must accrue to any object ; even putting the artefact in an art gallery adds social meaning to the artefact. But beauty might be a constant quality do you think? Maybe beauty and eternity are the same.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Greta » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:25 am

Belinda wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:52 am
Art is a human activity: works of art are artefacts that we value
Thanks Belinda, I like that. People are far from unanimous about what art is valued or not. Consider the Mona Lisa. It's fine work but surely has less to offer than many less valued pieces. Consider some of the trivial stone age art in museums and in caves, much of which is not inspired but is simply valuable through scarcity and historical significance. Thousands of years ago a child blows plant-based ochre paint around her hand on the side of the cave, leaving one of the first stencils. The message, "I was here". Basically graffiti. Today it is treasured and preserved.
Belinda wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:52 am
For this reason I'd say that the meaning of the work of art, is not always the theme but the physical form of the work. What I have in mind as a clear example is drumming which being sheer rhythm, has a visceral appeal like heart beat. I guess that some abstract paintings too connect maker and viewer by means of the sheer form of the painting or whatever. Music does I suggest provide more form in proportion to meaning than other idioms.
A number of jazz musicians seem to have a liking for abstract painting. A quote from Wiki about jazz drummer, George Wettling:
Towards the end of his life, Wettling (like his friend the clarinetist Pee Wee Russell), took up painting, and was much influenced by the American cubist Stuart Davis. He has been said to have believed that "jazz drumming and abstract painting seemed different for him only from the point of view of craftsmanship: in both fields he felt rhythm to be decisive".
Consider your post in context with the above - music is more pattern-based, more inherently mathematical than painting - aside from cubism, which is seemingly the two idioms' closest meeting points.
Belinda wrote:However I don't believe that form remains free from meaning which must accrue to any object ; even putting the artefact in an art gallery adds social meaning to the artefact. But beauty might be a constant quality do you think? Maybe beauty and eternity are the same.
Yes, even when one tries not to imbue meaning in art, that in itself is a statement. Like trying to look inconspicuous says something about the person.

That's why I like making music without any meaning or message. We are bombarded by messages and pop art vying for our attention. It's nice to make music that isn't trying to please, to gain attention or to encourage listeners to outlay their hard-earned. It's just art for art's sake. It's a lovely sensation to have some people in a room, count off the tune and suddenly the air fills with beautiful and/or stimulating patterns and textures.

Nick_A
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:58 pm

davidm wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:14 am
If we can brush aside Nick's idiot nonsense babble about The One, The Beast, Plato's Cave, and the alleged evil machinations of Nancy Pelosi and secularists (I don't think he even knows what the word means), maybe some of us could have a decent discussion about art, with which I am very familiar.
It seems I have encountered a genuine artistic genius - a person who has risen above the greats such as Plato and Plotinus. Only such an extraordinary talent can appreciate art for what it is. It isn't their fault that Plato and Plotinus were born even before Oxford university existed so were denied a progressive education. We must shed a tear for their misfortune and be grateful that the modern age has produced davidm to enlighten us. We must be humble and learn what art is from one who is all knowing.

Nick_A
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:19 pm

thedoc wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:38 pm
davidm wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:42 pm
:lol:

Nick, this is such utter meaningless twaddle that I can't even bring myself to respond to it. To quote my favorite villain Anton Chigurh from another context, "You don't know what you're talking about, do you?" :lol:

Nick, what's the most you ever lost on a coin toss? :lol:
Political correctness is total Bull Shit, and doesn't deserve the attention it gets. Chess is a game with definite rules and to abandon the set rules of chess is nonsense, chess is not politically correct and never should be, play the game as it is or go find another game where you won't loose. About 45 years ago I encountered idiots who insisted that no child should ever experience failure and wanted to eliminate the failing grade from the school system, how is a student expected to learn about real life if they don't occasionally fail. These "experts" had obviously never been in a class room and stood in front of a class of students who didn't want to be there. Failure was the only way to wake them up but it didn't always work, students often come to school with the attitude of their parents, so they just drifted along till they were out of school.
We can admit that the game of chess must be played in accordance with rules for it to be called chess. Experts say it is unfair and a person should be allowed to place their pieces wherever it feels good to do so. the king and queen must be made equal in importance as an attack against sexism.

This may seem silly but consider it from the perspective of karma recognized in the East. Karma is an expression of universal laws. it is how the game of existence is played. A certain quality of art enables the recipient to "feel" the emotional value of an aspect of the human condition in relation to the laws of objective reality. Subjective expression is based on interpretation of what is not emotionally understood. It is the same as denying the rules of chess and calling it improved chess.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: What is art?

Post by thedoc » Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:12 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:19 pm
Experts say it is unfair and a person should be allowed to place their pieces wherever it feels good to do so. the king and queen must be made equal in importance as an attack against sexism.

This may seem silly
These "experts" are just idiots who have lost touch with reality.

It is silly.

Nick_A
Posts: 3999
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: What is art?

Post by Nick_A » Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:49 pm

thedoc wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:12 pm
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:19 pm
Experts say it is unfair and a person should be allowed to place their pieces wherever it feels good to do so. the king and queen must be made equal in importance as an attack against sexism.

This may seem silly
These "experts" are just idiots who have lost touch with reality.

It is silly.
Since you know and respect the rules of chess all this PC tampering is just silly. But it is the same with the universal laws of existence. The East understands them far better than the West which is why they value the knowledge of dharma and karma. Art worthy of the name allows the recipient to feel the quality of emotion related to greater objective value which the dharma in its own way allows a person to experience. Modern western art is only concerned with glorifying random egoistic expression. It is like silly chess in which the games of the great masters like Fisher, Morphy, Lasker, Capablanca etc. could never be experienced.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests