art

[Linzoy]

Is it possible for something that's mass produced to be art? Where do you we draw the line? Is film art? Does it matter if it's from hollywood or not?

It's natural for people to disrespect any medium of creation that's not old. People think of video games as mentally unhealthy, but a lot of video games are very hard and force you to use your brain. Novels where considered a waste of time when they where first invented, like television is now. Punk music wasn't taken seriously by critics until it became vintage. How do we decide what art is... is anything old art? People really seem to admire ancient african art, but it looks very simple to me. Egyptian art has a certain charm to it, but I've always felt like they get too much credit for building giant triangles. If somebody built a building like that today it would be mostly overlooked. I know it's neat that they build the pyramids without machines, but why is it that there aren't any modern machines in museams? (Except for cars, for some reason.) I think those are much more intresting to look at than ancient machines. But a radio isn't art worthy until it's a very old art deco radio...

The reason I was thinking about this is because I'm trying to figure out why I can't stand the movie blue. It's supposed to be one of the most artistic movies ever or something. Maybe there's something wrong with me but I don't get it. It reminded me of this. http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/art.htm They use the same music from the movie blue in that cartoon and everything.

[Vile]

I think everything that has a mass and a volume is art. To me, oxygen is art.

But it depends on what you think art is. To me, art is creation. Art is something that IS. Something no one created. OR, something some one DID create, such as paint on canvas.

A murder can even be art, so long as it forces you to think about it.

However, in this thread you're talking about created art- the default definition. Ok, so we've established that old things=artistic. In my opinion it's because since we don't think the same way we did back then, the concept of what's infront of us seems artsy and abstract. Like finding an old diary. When you wrote it it didn't seem like a lot, but when you look back you think- "Hey. I was pretty neat." See what I mean? We're different now, but it's like a... hmm. I'm not sure what it's like, but I like where you're going. Rediscovery can be just as good as discovery, I guess.

[Linzoy]

I don't feel like that, whenever I look at an old diary I'm surprized at how much I haven't changed at all. I don't think ancient cultures where much different than modern ones either. Maybe there's something wrong with me but it pretty much looks like the same continuous culture to me. All cultures evolved from the same culture and they all have pretty similer structures. People seem to think that ancient people where stupider than us, but I don't think the way people think has changed since 2500 years ago.

[Vile]

I don't think the way we think is different, so to say. I just think we have different ideas.

[Linzoy]

It's kind of sad that people can't appriciate the ideas that we have in the moment though, until it becomes an old idea.

[Vile]

Well, I think I let on that I do. I appreciate pretty much everything for what it is.

Every atom, element, and isotope.

[Liz]

I think we don't appreciate something until it is old, and looking back in retrospect is when we realize the amazing aspects of it.

There were a LOT of advanced mathematics and such involved in the production of the pyramids; very advanced for civilizations at that time. I heard there is one pyramid in which there are shafts going to the burial chamber that align with the stars of a certain constellation at a certain equinox or something. I am not sure it is exactly art; art can be a lot of different things. It's all about composition; whether instinctual and intuintive composition or mathematically contrived symmetry and perfection.

[Vile]

I disagree. I don't think art has to be anywhere near perfect. I think any picture taken by anyone is art so long as they thought about it while doing so.

But don't prove me wrong, please. I like the way I think! :(

[MST3Kakalina]

i don't think we put old things on display because we think they're art. we put them on display because we think they're neat trinkets.

[Shaman King]

i don't think we put old things on display because we think they're art. we put them on display because we think they're neat trinkets.
Not true. "Fountain," by... that guy who signed his name as R. Mutt.

http://www.teleculture.com/images/Fountain-R-Mutt-1917-1964.jpg

He was a famous artist, and it got put in some famous museum. (I haven't had this class for a year, so I forget all the details.) Anyway, the point is, what we display in museums isn't based on the individual worth of the piece, it's all about WHO submits it.

[Linzoy]

Like picasso... he did a few good paintings, and a bunch of boring little doodles that became famous because of the person who did them.

"Peace"
http://www.luckwell.bristol.sch.uk/images/peacePicasso.jpg

I appricated all art, but it's the same way I appriciate all edible food. I'd eat beetles if there was nothing else avalible but that doesn't make it as valuable as real food... That's a really stupid metaphor but I think there's a point in there somewhere. Art is communication, it's meant to be judged, like any idea is.

[MST3Kakalina]

Anyway, the point is, what we display in museums isn't based on the individual worth of the piece, it's all about WHO submits it.


and WHO submits it determines whether or not it's a neat trinket, as well as its age.

[when you are the moon]

Not true. "Fountain," by... that guy who signed his name as R. Mutt.

http://www.teleculture.com/images/Fountain-R-Mutt-1917-1964.jpgMarcel Duchamp. His patron(ess) was Peggy Guggenheim. A Futurist painter and major contributor to the <a href=http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/d/dada.html>Dada</a> movement in modern art, and most famous for his "Nude Descending a Staircase", his "readymades" series of works, and a picture of the Mona Lisa with with a moustache drawn on with the title "L.H.O.O.Q" (an alliteration roughly translating to "she has a hot ass").

[/gigantic art history nerd]
Anyway, the point is, what we display in museums isn't based on the individual worth of the piece, it's all about WHO submits it.True, yes. But it has more to do with this idea:
Art is communication, it's meant to be judged, like any idea is.Precisely. And this brings us back to why Duchamp trying to pass of a men's urinal in a prestigious art show is so important to our definition of art today.

Basically, the story goes like this; Duchamp submits a signed urinal to the American Society of Independent Artists. Promptly rejected with the exclamation "an un-altered* men's urinal is not art", he then turned around a wrote an open letter to a newspaper asking the question "Why is this not art?" the printed rebuttals between he and the curators spanned the course of several months. And this is why it's important -- Duchamp's questioning of the established definition of art <b>opened discourse between the artist and the viewer</b>. The art is meant to be judged, questioned; so long as there is active discussion surrounding it, it's doing its job. This becomes a major tenet of the modern arts (starting with the post-impressionists around 1910-ish) and influences people like Warhol, Lichtenstein, Oldenburg, all those quirky folks that you tend to hear about while some guy in a gallery is loudly exclaiming "That's not art! My kid could do that!".

Basically, the idea is this -- <i>it's not art if it doesn't provoke some questioning</i>. It's not the piece of art that's important so much as the discussion surrounding it. Granted, that's one definition of art, but it's the definition that dominates up until the post-modern period (which, depending on who you ask, we're in the middle of leaving behind).

* actually, it is altered. it's displayed upside-down, which serves to remove it from the context of actually being a urinal (that little hole on the front would actually be on top, and the flat part it's resting on would be mounted against a wall). this idea of removing objects from their normal, functional context is what really drives all of Duchamp's "readymades".

[Shaman King]

Basically, the idea is this -- <i>it's not art if it doesn't provoke some questioning</i>. It's not the piece of art that's important so much as the discussion surrounding it. Granted, that's one definition of art, but it's the definition that dominates up until the post-modern period (which, depending on who you ask, we're in the middle of leaving behind).
Damn, and I was happy I actually remembered that piece. Thanks for showing me up, big time XD

That definition's not complete, though. That's pretty much limited to modern art, since a lot of Rennaissance art didn't really prompt discussion, it just looked pretty. It's still art though, because it took a thought process to create.

I think that there are two ways to judge whether or not something is art - the cynical way and the... not cynical way. The cynical way is that whatever society thinks is art, is art. If society thinks something isn't art, then it's not. Regardless of whether or not this is a <em>good</em> way to judge something, I think a lot of people do it.

The "...not cynical way" is to call anything that shows that the creator is sentient, and put their mind to creating it, art. Also, it shouldn't have a purpose other than showing the creator's mind. So <em>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</em> is art, but an infomercial isn't, even though they're both film.

Argh, I have to go now. I'll continue this later.

[Linzoy]

I'm not an art history expert or anything, but I think all rennaissance art represented some kind of idea. Like the impressionistic art represented a fleeting moment in your subconcious, romantic art represented an idealistic veiw of nature, realism represented the way the "real" world is.

[when you are the moon]

Like the impressionistic art represented a fleeting moment in your subconcious
Mmm, that's more post-impressionism. Like, Van Gogh. That was a reaction <i>against</i> impressionism, which focused primarily on capturing fleeting "impressions" of actual <i>vision</i> -- "paint exactly as you see". They were primarily concerned with capturing light's effect on surfaces as it occured in nature. The post-impressionists started to see this as an intellectually void pursuit (not to mention the blatant pandering to the bourgoise patrons that were usually depicted in impressionistic art), so the post-impressionists are the ones that really took that first big leap into abstraction by trying to capture emotion through color and form. So, where the impressionists really were working with a kind of realism, the post-impressionists like Van Gogh and Gauguin really went back to that idea of showing a portal into the artist's mind, entirely fantastic as opposed to naturalistic.

Of course, Gauguin was also into this really Jungian "universal color symbolism" garbage, but he gave up on that after he fucked off to Tahiti and figured out that that stuff is culturally biased. ANYWAY.

[robot]

art is art

who cares man

[when you are the moon]

The "...not cynical way" is to call anything that shows that the creator is sentient, and put their mind to creating it, art. Also, it shouldn't have a purpose other than showing the creator's mind. So <em>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</em> is art, but an infomercial isn't, even though they're both film.
See, but that gets into this sticky stuff about "if it's meant to advertise, it isn't art". Which I don't agree with entirely, but I think the difference really lies in... I dunno. A level of craftsmanship, maybe?

[Linzoy]

Impressionism and post-impressionism both have the word "impressionism" in it, it's easy to get them mixed up... kinda. I've never really thought of any impressionism as a type of realism actually. If they ever taught us that in art history class I wasn't paying attention, it makes sense though.

I don't think all color symbols are culturally biased. Blue is always a peaceful color I think, because it's the color of the sky, and grey is never the color of energy. Colors like black, white, red, yellow, brown, and stuff seem to be pretty interchangeable though.

[Linzoy]

Almsot all advertisements follow some kind of formula, but some of them are unique or become a cultural symbol or something, like that "we want you" poster. I think those can be considered art.

With movies it's hard to tell if it's meant to advertise or not, even if it's an independant movie, which is why I can't decide if film is actually art or not.

[when you are the moon]

See, but that's not really the case if you go overseas or into any "Asian" (sorry for the lump terminology) cultures. Colors have entirely different connotations depending on where in the world you are. It's like how Gauguin claimed that "yellow is the color of innocence", while our general consensus in western culture now is that yellow is a "hectic" color. So, color meanings can be pretty fluid over time, too.

As for film, what exactly are your thoughts on that? What would make a film "not art" in your mind?

[implode]

a lazy response: my personal definition of "art" is anything you don't do on autopilot. brushing your teeth isn't art. brushing your teeth with a pinecone while doing a headstand is. "art is anything that provokes discussion" doesn't work for me, because that would mean that cancer could be art, or an order to vacate your house, or whatever. there's a fair amount of tedium in every one of our lives - but when you take a moment to think about what you're doing and actually craft it into the likeness you choose and prefer, that's when it becomes art.

The "...not cynical way" is to call anything that shows that the creator is sentient, and put their mind to creating it, art. or. you know. what he said.

[Linzoy]

I know that a lot of colors have different meanings in other cultures, I'm saying that I can think of a couple of colors that as far as I know have the same meaning everywhere, blue and grey.

A script can go into production and come out nothing like the writer or director wanted it to be like. It just becomes a random collection of ideas that random people think are marketable. Or it can be a movie like kangaroo jack or something that's created by some kind of focus group. People like hip hop, people like animals, let's put them together and reel in a lot of money. It can't be considered art. In order for something to be art there has to be a real concept behind it. To call most films art would pretty much be like calling some RWAM thread a novel written by the thread starter. It's a story, but it's not a novel because the person who made the thread had little to do with how it ended up eventually.

[when you are the moon]

"art is anything that provokes discussion" doesn't work for me, because that would mean that cancer could be art... but when you take a moment to think about what you're doing and actually craft it into the likeness you choose and prefer, that's when it becomes art.
I guess I should have clairifed it as "anything created by a person and available for viewing and discourse" (mind you, that's not <i>my</i> definition of art, I was just throwing out the definition of Modernism for the sake of argument). I think that's pretty much a given that there has to be some amount of "craft" for something to be considered art. Picking up a tin can and calling it art doesn't make it so, but maybe crumpling it in a certain way and gluing it to a base does. Artist involvement I think is a default part of that definition.

Linzoy: maybe you should do some research into that? You might be surprised. Maybe not, but then again it's always kind of interesting to see if there's anything that corroborates a theory rather than just assuming it's so.

[Linzoy]

I've sort of done research, I have a book that describes a lot of color symbols from different cultures and stuff, and according to that book blue and grey are pretty much the same everywhere. Maybe it doesn't seem like it, but I don't really express random theorys without looking into it at least a little bit.

[implode]

I guess I should have clairifed it as "anything created and available for viewing and discourse". I think that's pretty much a given that there has to be some amount of "craft" for something to be considered art. Picking up a tin can and calling it art doesn't make it so, but maybe crumpling it in a certain way and gluing it to a base does. Artist involvement I think is a default part of that definition. but that definition is still subjective to other variables - who's there to do the discussing, most importantly, if anyone at all. i have things that i've done that no one has ever seen, and that i've thrown away before anyone got the chance to see them - does that mean that they weren't art?

...

uh-oh.

...

if an artist paints in the forest, but no one is around to see the picture, is it really art?

[when you are the moon]

I've sort of done research, I have a book that describes a lot of color symbols from different cultures and stuff, and according to that book blue and grey are pretty much the same everywhere.See, and that's cool, because you could make all kinds of cases for why that developed essentially across the board in human cultures. Maybe it's because of the association with the sky, and grey with clouds that bring rain.

Then again, talk to an agoraphobe and see if they feel the same way about blue. You might get an entirely different answer.

if an artist paints in the forest, but no one is around to see the picture, is it really art?
OH SNAP. Is your mind blown yet? it is a valid question, though. But keep in mind that we are essentially discussing an "outmoded" definition of art -- that whole "discourse" thing really only relates to Modern art, where we are still kind of teetering on the edge of Postmodernism (which has mostly to do with the idea of appropriation).

[Linzoy]

but that definition is still subjective to other variables - who's there to do the discussing, most importantly, if anyone at all. i have things that i've done that no one has ever seen, and that i've thrown away before anyone got the chance to see them - does that mean that they weren't art?

...

uh-oh.

...

if an artist paints in the forest, but no one is around to see the picture, is it really art?I think so. That's the great thing about having two sides to your brain, you can discuss things with yourself. In a cultural context it's unimportant though.

[implode]

OH SNAP. Is your mind blown yet? <small>it is a valid question, though.</small> nah. art is useless without a mind to interpret it, just as sound is useless without an ear to hear it. it's art because <i>your</i> brain is aware of it. for example, if four trees collapsed over the course of several hundred years to form a diamond pattern, it's not art until someone shows up to call it art. we'll never agree on a set definition because art is an idea that can only live inside a sentient mind, and all sentient minds are free to think whatever they like. the only set definition for art can therefore logically be "what you call a guy with no arms and no legs hanging on a wall."

[when you are the moon]

the only set definition for art can therefore logically be "what you call a guy with no arms and no legs hanging on a wall."I think we can all agree with that.

So! To the bar, then?