Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 65

Thread: What is art?

  1. #51
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,337
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    They're presented in a non-intellectual way, therefore not inspiring people to take an intellectual approach to them. [...]
    Whereas both, aesthetically and intellectually, are equal, the way modern artwork is presented as opposed to classical artwork doesn't really beg an intellectual approach to it, therefore is seemingly shallow in comparison.
    Concept art and such is produced to show certain things about the character in the game, advertisement, or such, which really isn't the same. In game art, for example, you might dress or pose a character a certain way to reveal something about their personality, or in an advertisement, to portray the character using PRODUCT A as possessing qualities that are admired by your market segment - but these are both rather shallow uses of art. In the first case, the subtext is used as part of a cohesive vision that is arguably more the game designer's (or in grim cases, producer's) than the artist's - in the latter, the subtext is simply used to try and sell gullible customers the product advertised.
    On the other hand, in the work of many of the old masters and most 'highbrow' art nowadays, the subtext of the piece is used to send a message regarding some important topic, generally philosophical or otherwise intellectual, through the use of symbolism. The problem I have is when the symbolism is so overblown that it obscures the aesthetic value of the piece. I think this applies to literature and music as well as the fine arts, too - take Revolution 9 from the White Album for example: it has an intellectual subtext, but the track can only be called 'music' in the loosest sense of the word.

  2. #52
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    You're talking about symbolism, then. I was speaking in terms of artist know-how and technique.

    TBH, expecting every piece of art to be symbolic or meaningful defeats the purpose of art, doesn't it? When you think about it, that's an extremely rigid standard to go by. Sometimes self-expression can be as simple as the desire to create something or to beautify a subject. Even the Old Masters did a lot of artwork that meant nothing; simply existed to be beautiful or "accurate". What I mean by that is that they would paint things simply for the sake of painting it accurately and realistically. A more modern example would be Monet. Monet would sit down and paint multiple iterations of the same thing under different light conditions simply for the sake of study and accurately portraying realism (which is basically the crux of the Impressionist movement). He really didn't have any profound reason to paint those things. Yet those studies are among his most famous work and consistently praised to high heaven by all kinds of historians, art critics, high art buffs and teachers (I never hear enough about the guy, I swear). A great portion of Michelangelo's most renown work is comprised of anatomy studies that he drew for no reason other than to practice.

    Besides, no offense, but any idiot can pretend there is a deeper meaning to something. You ever stand beside two college kids at an art show and hear the pretentious pseudo-intellectual BS they spout? Simply put: some things just don't have a meaning, but that doesn't mean they deserve less artistic merit.
    Last edited by CypressDahlia; 01-22-2011 at 04:46 PM.

  3. #53
    Super Senior Member Delphinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,337
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    TBH, expecting every piece of art to be symbolic or meaningful defeats the purpose of art, doesn't it?
    I didn't say I expected every piece to by symbolic, just that there was both a symbolic and an aesthetic dimension to art and that the best works use both. But it could be that I'm approaching the fine arts too similarly to literature...

  4. #54
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jubeh View Post
    I don't understand what you are getting at.
    Quote Originally Posted by GunZet View Post
    I think he meant each person's view on this subject is their own. Because art is something entirely different for every individual, there is no right and wrong answer...did I do it right?
    Quote Originally Posted by jubeh View Post
    If that is the case that is what precisely makes this sort of discussion so ho-hum. But if its not then everything is on the line and fenn is wrong!

    But continue guys Im glad you are talking about art.
    You said you are smart enough to not join, which made me sad because, as topic creator, I look dumb.

    But to be serious, the thread panned out just as I hoped. I figured people would begin by agreeing that art is what you define it as,then all the smart scary people on this site would come in claiming it does have limits (which is a good thing) and get into some cool discussions on what might be constituted art.

  5. #55
    Lord of Death jubeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Space
    Posts
    12,707
    I didn't mean that at all fenn. This is just too pure of a question to jump in to.

  6. #56
    Ruler of the Seventh Empire GunZet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Preparing the laser beam, we're gonna use it tonight.
    Posts
    11,890
    I was half expecting a clash between the artist's and the philosophers.

  7. #57
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jubeh View Post
    I didn't mean that at all fenn. This is just too pure of a question to jump in to.
    Oh. So I'm not dumb?

    I knew you weren't calling me dumb but I did think you disapproved of the question. Thanks for clarifying.

  8. #58
    Lord of Death jubeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Space
    Posts
    12,707
    If I thought you were dumb my post would have been like jesus why is fenn so dumb.

  9. #59
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jubeh View Post
    If I thought you were dumb my post would have been like jesus why is fenn so dumb.
    Like I said, I knew that wasn't the point. I usually only use emoticons when I'm being sarcastic or I'm really happy.

    On topic, would anyone like to respond to this claim: Beauty is pleasure objectified. ~George Santayana

  10. #60
    Fifty Fifty Member Evil_Cake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Z'ha'dum
    Posts
    5,507
    no thx

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •