Most Artistic?
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Most Artistic?
- 3uGH7D4MLj
- Posts: 934
- Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
More artistical? Does one have more supercalifragilartisticality? I think I would just move to another seat on the bus.Spiral Out wrote:Could anyone really find Mark Rothko's "No. 61" any more artistic than Jean Louis Theodore Gericault's "Le Radeau de la Meduse"? That would be difficult to believe.
I was in a class with Milton Glaser at SVA in NY and we were talking about what art is, and he was proposing that a kind of elevating qualityis needed to make the definition stick, and I was all, "art is just art, get over it." Somebody said that art is a human expression, and MG quietly replied that a sneeze is an expression and would that be art? He is such a mench, a buddha, a wonderful man, but I had the nerve to say if the sneeze was made by an artist and presented as art in a gallery it would surely be art, (maybe by Vito Acconci or Joseph Beuys). Later other students told me they were glad that someone in the class was arguing with the master and I felt better about it.
Everyone can use whatever definition of art they like. I like to think that I'm not arguing here, but just trying to point out that it's kind of cumbersome to wait for future generations to determine if something can be called "art."
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Most Artistic?
Is that an attempt to nullify a long-established concept by equating it with gibberish? Are you genuinely not able to see the logic in my example; the differing levels of skill and artistry between the two works I mentioned?3uGH7D4MLj wrote:More artistical? Does one have more supercalifragilartisticality?
So then it's simply the venue that defines the properties and nature of the expression? This is a philosophy forum, is it not? Does that indicate to you that the expression within these forums is philosophy simply as presented and regardless of its content?3uGH7D4MLj wrote:Somebody said that art is a human expression, and MG quietly replied that a sneeze is an expression and would that be art? He is such a mench, a buddha, a wonderful man, but I had the nerve to say if the sneeze was made by an artist and presented as art in a gallery it would surely be art ...
Yes, of course. However, there must be at least some minimum objective standard or else the concept of art will cease to have any distinct purpose or meaning. If I defecate on a canvas, use my genitals to smear it around and then exhibit it in an art gallery does that make it art? I think quite the contrary.3uGH7D4MLj wrote:Everyone can use whatever definition of art they like.
We draw lines and distinctions for definition and contrast. If we say anything can be art, there is no definition or contrast to that which cannot be considered by reasonable minds as art. The concept of art is then negated in the lack of any definition. Accordingly, art therefore does not exist and the artist is but an imbecile.
Art must hold some distinction as works of exceptional skill and unusual vision and creativity.
-
- Posts: 194
- Joined: October 5th, 2012, 7:58 am
Re: Most Artistic?
- 3uGH7D4MLj
- Posts: 934
- Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
Hmm. This comment isn't really fair you must admit? For your comparison to work you would have to say "made by a philosopher, presented as philosophy, in a place where you would expect to find philosophy (maybe an article or book)." Not really a bad definition of philosophy.Spiral Out wrote:So then it's simply the venue that defines the properties and nature of the expression? This is a philosophy forum, is it not? Does that indicate to you that the expression within these forums is philosophy simply as presented and regardless of its content?
This is the "hard-to-do" misunderstanding of art, that art has to be hard to do. From my point of view this is completely wrong. Look into it, I'm not the only one who feels this way.Spiral Out wrote:Art must hold some distinction as works of exceptional skill and unusual vision and creativity.
I just checked a dictionary and both definitions are in there. I don't think using my definition makes "imbeciles" of artists. Saying this for the third time, please feel free to define art however you like.
And Spiral Out, sorry about the artistical jokes -- really, I was out of line.
-
- Posts: 277
- Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
I think it was Handson who argued that art requires craftsmanship as a necessary property. I doubted it then and still do. Art just has to hang in there and be what it is. Folk music is simple and yet it is art that can be done by anyone with the time and inclination to strum a single, open chord and say something, or say nothing, or just go doo wah, doo wha, dust is coverin the land, bah.
I will listen first and decide whether it is good art or not and whether it has value later. Of course that means it is my decision whether it is good but it is not my decision whether it is art or not.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Most Artistic?
Spiral Out wrote:So then it's simply the venue that defines the properties and nature of the expression? This is a philosophy forum, is it not? Does that indicate to you that the expression within these forums is philosophy simply as presented and regardless of its content?
Yes, perhaps. But then it makes me wonder: Does the person as an artist define their work as art, or does the work as art define the person as an artist?3uGH7D4MLj wrote:This comment isn't really fair you must admit? For your comparison to work you would have to say "made by a philosopher, presented as philosophy, in a place where you would expect to find philosophy (maybe an article or book)."
Spiral Out wrote:Art must hold some distinction as works of exceptional skill and unusual vision and creativity.
I didn't necessarily mean that the art must be achieved through great difficultly, just that it shows a certain level of the qualities of skill, vision and creativity. I understand that those terms are subjective in themselves, but I think the common acceptance of what those terms indicate is proper for defining works as art.3uGH7D4MLj wrote:This is the "hard-to-do" misunderstanding of art, that art has to be hard to do. From my point of view this is completely wrong. Look into it, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
No worries my friend. We are simply discussing our views. I appreciate your thoughts and I do enjoy the sparring.3uGH7D4MLj wrote:And Spiral Out, sorry about the artistical jokes -- really, I was out of line.
-
- Posts: 329
- Joined: December 25th, 2012, 3:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Voltaire
Re: Most Artistic?
Yes, I gathered as much.Jklint wrote:When I spoke of "consensus" I was speaking of the overall evaluation of subsequent generations.
So? That is completely irrelevant and demonstrates nothing. You seem to be arguing that art be only be interpreted as such by someone other than the creator of the art - which would be rather silly because it begs the question: why would the artist bother to create it in the first place?I thought that was clear when I wrote that art has to incubate and that even the most genius creators are often blind or underestimate the value of their creations. Just one example among many. When Beethoven completed one of the longest and grandest of his piano sonatas (#29) he was so impressed with it he wrote to a friend that this one will be played even 50 years from now. Two hundred years later the very first one's are still standard repertory.
If that is not what you are arguing, then I fail to see how any sort of 'consensus' or 'longetivity' has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not a piece may be called "art".
Sure it does: that art is fluid, not static.In short, if art is "what you call it" then it does not on any level suffice as a definition of art.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please clarify.It operates in reverse to the God definition whose only true validity is based on your personal view.
-- Updated Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:35 pm to add the following --
It is subjective to the individual: what each person considers to be "art".Spiral Out wrote:If art is not judged by it's value, what then is it judged by?
I think I have found the solution to this whole 'art' fiasco in your above response: it seems that you are trying to define "art" as a stationary, static entity. Hence the question: "what is art"? However, what myself and others are trying to argue is that, indeed: Everything is art -- to the individual. In other words, what is or isn't art is always subjective to the individual, regardless of what conventions society claims.Your statement suggests that everything is art. If everything is art, then everything is not art.
-
- Posts: 428
- Joined: August 27th, 2012, 2:11 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: Most Artistic?
-
- Posts: 329
- Joined: December 25th, 2012, 3:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Voltaire
Re: Most Artistic?
The first one was painted by a 9-year-old.
The second one was painted by a modern adult artist.
The third one was painted by an elephant.
The fourth one is a famous painting by Surrealist Joan Miro.
It has been argued in this forum that art must reach a certain age or distinction in ordered to be considered "true art". The purpose of this thread is to ultimately disprove the notion that art must adhere to certain presuppositions in ordered to be considered "art".
Is a painting by a elephant less "artistic" than a painting by a famous surrealist? Clearly the answer is no.
- 3uGH7D4MLj
- Posts: 934
- Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
Thanks for this little project. The first one is my fave.Blazing Donkey wrote:So here's the deal with the paintings:
-
- Posts: 277
- Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
Miro, although he can be decoratively good, never tells me much of anything except how to print the equivalent of money in his studio. I wish I could do that.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Most Artistic?
Sure. But if I draw a circle on a piece of notebook paper, is it art? Would someone who raved about the sheer beauty and artfulness of my masterwork be ridiculed more than me if I had seriously accepted such praise? What if that person offered me $1 million for my work, and what if I had taken it? I would be persecuted for taking advantage of someone who would surely be labeled incompetent, mentally ill, crazy, delusional or some other derogatory term. If it's all completely subjective then no one should have any issue with it, right?Blazing Donkey wrote:It is subjective to the individual: what each person considers to be "art".
Will anyone attend an art show exhibiting all of my notebook-paper masterworks? I doubt it. It would be ridiculed and laughed away. Why is that?
No, I'm trying to define it as having at the very least some type of very minimal standard.Blazing Donkey wrote:... it seems that you are trying to define "art" as a stationary, static entity.
This is complete BS. This is what you say, but not what you think. Why is it that no one thinks a single line drawn on a napkin is art? There is a Human standard at work. Your claim above is only valid within defined parameters and is subject to degrees of value.Blazing Donkey wrote:Everything is art -- to the individual. In other words, what is or isn't art is always subjective to the individual, regardless of what conventions society claims.
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re: Most Artistic?
My answer is yes, I think these paintings are all art and because they are art they are artistic. Each could be appreciated and used for color coordination, each has provided something I never saw before.
Art is in the eye of the beholder and so it's worth. My children's artwork while in school meant nothing to the world of art but was/is/and always will be priceless art to me.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
- HANDSON
- Posts: 181
- Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
The problem, as I see it,with your little test is that in the case of one and three particularly there is a control factor involved: setting up the format providing the color and tools and finally and most importantly, the presentation which usually involves cropping. I continue to reiterate there is a craftsmanship involved and agree whole-heartedly with Spiral Out that there is indeed a human standard at work in the identification of art.Blazing Donkey wrote:So here's the deal with the paintings:
The first one was painted by a 9-year-old.
The second one was painted by a modern adult artist.
The third one was painted by an elephant.
The fourth one is a famous painting by Surrealist Joan Miro.
It has been argued in this forum that art must reach a certain age or distinction in ordered to be considered "true art". The purpose of this thread is to ultimately disprove the notion that art must adhere to certain presuppositions in ordered to be considered "art".
Is a painting by a elephant less "artistic" than a painting by a famous surrealist? Clearly the answer is no.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023