Most Artistic?
-
- Posts: 329
- Joined: December 25th, 2012, 3:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Voltaire
Most Artistic?
1) Is this painting "true art" in your opinion? 2) Do you find the painting to be "artistic"? Why or why not?
Painting 01
==========
Painting 02
==========
Painting 03
==========
Painting 04
- Blazmeteor
- Posts: 110
- Joined: January 10th, 2013, 5:19 am
Re: Most Artistic?
I like this thread, I think it's creative.
http://youtu.be/HJEahE-4juQ
-
- Posts: 329
- Joined: December 25th, 2012, 3:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Voltaire
Re: Most Artistic?
Which did you find to be most artistic?Blazmeteor wrote:I think that all four of the pictures you presented are true art.
- Blazmeteor
- Posts: 110
- Joined: January 10th, 2013, 5:19 am
Re: Most Artistic?
Ah, I really liked the last one with the large red circle. I enjoyed the power that it seemed to portray. It really captured my attention. It reminds me that there can always be more to the universe.Blazing Donkey wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Which did you find to be most artistic?
Was there any particular reason that these four pictures were selected?
http://youtu.be/HJEahE-4juQ
- 3uGH7D4MLj
- Posts: 934
- Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
"True art?" Why "true"? It's either art or not. I also seldom use the term "artistic." Does it refer to something that isn't art but may have some attributes (?) of art, or does it mean that one artwork has more art content than another? By my definition one object can't be "more artistic" than another. Art is simply art.
It's a two stage-definition, the second meaning: The highest aspiration of humankind.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Most Artistic?
As for the paintings posted, they're "nice" to look at - compared to others I've seen - but not art since the skill set required to create it is not at all uncommon. What am I supposed to hypnotize myself into seeing here? The easiest thing in the world is to be "original" because absurdity itself knows no bounds.
-
- Posts: 329
- Joined: December 25th, 2012, 3:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Voltaire
Re: Most Artistic?
Interesting; thanks for sharing that.Blazmeteor wrote:
Ah, I really liked the last one with the large red circle. I enjoyed the power that it seemed to portray. It really captured my attention. It reminds me that there can always be more to the universe.
Yes, actually, but please have patience; I'll go into that later. Trust me.Was there any particular reason that these four pictures were selected?
-- Updated Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:56 am to add the following --
I agree with you 100%.3uGH7D4MLj wrote:My definition of art is pretty simple, if it's art, it's art. I accept the usual definitions. A painting or sculpture, dance piece, or literature that is made by an artist and presented as art, is art. It's art if you say it is. "Art" is a simple classification of objects or performances, it's not a judgement. This definition will save you from hours of tiresome "but is it art?" discussion. I recommend it.
I don't personally believe that the adjective "true" should be used at all in relation to any kind of human expression. I think it imposes a standard that doesn't exist."True art?" Why "true"? It's either art or not. I also seldom use the term "artistic." Does it refer to something that isn't art but may have some attributes (?) of art, or does it mean that one artwork has more art content than another? By my definition one object can't be "more artistic" than another. Art is simply art.
The only reason I mentioned the word "true" is because a number of people here have been making all kinds of statements as to what is "true art" so I thought I'd ask them if these paintings qualify in their opinion.
-- Updated Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:04 am to add the following --
I disagree. The consensus view of art is very fickle and sometimes based on reasons other than the art itself. For example, in the 1960's, many artists works fell into unpopularity when they were accused of being 'communists'. By the same token, many German and Japanese works of art were shunned in the 1940's because of the US's war with these countries. Even today, in some parts of the US, a painting by a known Muslim would be rejected.Jklint wrote:Art is what the consensus says it is.
I agree.The less contemporary that definition the more likely its true merits will eventually float to the top or rest in oblivion with hardly a notice on it's tombstone. So how anyone, including whole generations attempt to define it is totally useless.
I disagree; I don't think the longevity of a piece of "art" has any bearing on it's validity as art. I also think that art is what you call it. But we can disagree on that point.Art must be exceptional in a grand kind of way which doesn't exclude simplicity or fractal like complexities and it's not something which needs to be immediately understood. Much art requires a long incubation period even to be acknowledged. One can personally define art in any way one chooses but that is hardly ever it's definition which is not a surprise. Even its creators very often have a foreshortened view as to it's value and a diminished comprehension of. So to say that art is what the beholder says it is, that it's art because you like it, is complete and thorough bunk. It may be but it's more likely not to be.
Hmmm. Interesting perspective.As for the paintings posted, they're "nice" to look at - compared to others I've seen - but not art since the skill set required to create it is not at all uncommon.
-
- Posts: 277
- Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
I don't think consensus has anything much to do with what is or is not art. Consensus is more applicable to enacting legislation.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Most Artistic?
In short, if art is "what you call it" then it does not on any level suffice as a definition of art. It operates in reverse to the God definition whose only true validity is based on your personal view.
- 3uGH7D4MLj
- Posts: 934
- Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
The way I look at it, the word art does not mean "masterpiece." That solves the problem. "Art" is not a value judgement. The definition is straightforward. Some artworks may be appreciated for centuries, some not, but they are all "art," no?Jklint wrote:When I spoke of "consensus" I was speaking of the overall evaluation of subsequent generations. 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.
Imagine an artist working every day not knowing if her work was even "art." We don't have to wait for the overall evaluation of subsequent generations. (and anyway, what the hell do they know?)
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Most Artistic?
No. If art is not judged by it's value, what then is it judged by? Your statement suggests that everything is art. If everything is art, then everything is not art. Does art not hold any special status among the everyday mundanity?3uGH7D4MLj wrote:The way I look at it, the word art does not mean "masterpiece." That solves the problem. "Art" is not a value judgement. The definition is straightforward. Some artworks may be appreciated for centuries, some not, but they are all "art," no?
- 3uGH7D4MLj
- Posts: 934
- Joined: January 4th, 2013, 3:39 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
You know Spiral Out, Art carries a lot of freight in our culture and I'm sick of it. We should lighten up and call it what it is. People should become artists and make art, not worrying what some fourth-grade tv addicted future generation will think of it. Don't you agree?Spiral Out wrote: No. If art is not judged by it's value, what then is it judged by? Your statement suggests that everything is art. If everything is art, then everything is not art. Does art not hold any special status among the everyday mundanity?
I don't mean to say anything against judging art.
We're talking about art, it is a word in English with various definitions you can look up. It's not "everything."
For me, art objects in general do not hold any special status. Some do of course, that's where the judging comes in.
If you want to wait generations before you assign the word "art" to something, that's ok by me.
"Art" is just art. I remember the relief when I realized it.
-
- Posts: 277
- Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Re: Most Artistic?
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Most Artistic?
Most artists would be aware of their skill without necessarily being aware of its longevity. That solves the problem.3uGH7D4MLj wrote:
Imagine an artist working every day not knowing if her work was even "art."
History completely disproves your assertion. Consider another instance in Shakespeare who never thought highly enough of his plays to qualify as an offering to the future. That insight was left to others without whom most of the plays would not likely have seen the light of day and Shakespeare himself as one of world's foremost writers. It took another 150 years before he was even remotely acknowledged and that awareness arrived in Germany before the English caught on with some exceptions.We don't have to wait for the overall evaluation of subsequent generations. (and anyway, what the hell do they know?)
But you're right in a sense. You don't have to wait for the evaluation of subsequent generations. Contemporaries obviously declare their opinions first usually one preempted or highly amended by future generations who announce the winners and losers. Art evaluations never were or ever be immediate and final. So called legacies are constantly revalued along with everything else.
Assign whatever values you want but if a work possesses the critical flash point it becomes an inheritance first to the country of origin and then possibly to the world. Once that happens the artist and his works become virtually untouchable.
"Level" it if you like. That doesn't change the story of how values get assigned or measured through the hindsight of history.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13821
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Most Artistic?
Fleetfootphil wrote:Someone said about the image with the red circle that they liked it. That's the whole deal as near as I can tell. Trying to inflate the simplicity of liking or not liking to the level of a definition is kind of pointless. I don't know if those images were made as paintings by people or done by monkeys, or found somewhere else and I don't care. I didn't like any of them, except in the superficial way that allows me to respond to colors and shapes.
I don't think consensus has anything much to do with what is or is not art. Consensus is more applicable to enacting legislation.
But art is something that people do. This view of what art is is worth investigating because it sheds light on the nature of human beings, how they differ from other animals and how certain activities e.g. art may be placed within the context of how all communal activities fit together to form a structured culture of belief and behaviour.
If, as Fleetfootphil insists, any statement about art is a value judgement,(Someone said about the image with the red circle that they liked it. That's the whole deal as near as I can tell. Trying to inflate the simplicity of liking or not liking to the level of a definition is kind of pointless.) then Fleetfootphil should also provide us with criteria for his value judgement. If criteria, (which may be appropriate only to Fleetfootphil), are not provided for us to reflect upon Fleetfootphil has said in effect that he likes what he likes which is a non sequitur.
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