• What does art mean to you?
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The golden;31202696]I once saw a piece of "art" at a art showing at a garden that I go and take photos at. This piece was basically just 3 flat boards of differing species of wood glued together. That's it. It was on sale for $3,600[/QUOTE] Did anyone buy it?
First of all we need to determine what art is. And we all have different perspectives so fuck your art and fuck my art.
To me, "art" is a verb, you know, "thou art"
there is no exact definition of art. If you set out to create something, and your trying to make art. You made art. If your trying to make something that isn't art; bacon, a car, or even a painting, and you arn't trying to make art, then it isn't art. The more you are making something for the purpose of it being art, the more "artistic" or "pure" it is. If you make something just for it to exist as art, that's pure art. But if you just make something to be art, and also get notoriety, then that's not all that pure art. By my logic, some graffiti can be the most pure art. It is made anonymously, and made ONLY for the sake of being created and observed. I say most because some assholes just right there names on a wall. I'm talking about this shit [img]http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/photos/cans_festival_banksy_cave_painting.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=SlicedBread;31213424]By my logic, some graffiti can be the most pure art. It is made anonymously, and made ONLY for the sake of being created and observed. I say most because some assholes just right there names on a wall. I'm talking about this shit [img]http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/photos/cans_festival_banksy_cave_painting.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] This is not substantially different from tags Don't talk shit about graffiti if you don't know anything about it duuuuude
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31199110]Well i can't draw for shit. Does that make me retarded?[/QUOTE] Well by implying art can only be drawings, then yes.
[QUOTE=JoeyZ;31196765]I beg to differ[/QUOTE] You can. [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;31199110]Well i can't draw for shit. Does that make me retarded?[/QUOTE] No. It makes you a bad drawer / painter. Even the shittiest piece of art has an unique touch of its artist.
i think art is worthless shit I'm sure humanity could go on with out staring at pictures. You wonder why we're in debt? All those fucking art grants we give out.
I think art is about honestly expressing what you feel through your heart. It's not easy, and there are no limitations to it.
[QUOTE=FoohyAB;31202318][IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/1z2n728.png[/IMG] This is art.[/QUOTE] no [img]http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/141/b/1/b12fbde7cc7f91e8b701c94a618f5dfa-d3gu1q9.png[/img] this is art that shit you posted is terrible
This is art [img]http://cdn.evilbeetgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/david_statue.gif[/img]
just something nice to look at
Art is a bias-based subjection of mankind. You see... Everyone has a different view of art, and beauty. For example, I'll buy myself a six pack of micro-brewery pop. I deem it art. Not because it's something 'artsy' or 'colorful' it's actually more on the line because it has a taste which promotes my belief of on what a pop should taste like.
[QUOTE=Kindlinho;31196689]Art is an expression of your real identity. It shows off what you really are.[/QUOTE] Except when it doesn't. [editline]5th August 2011[/editline] Art doesn't really mean anything to me. I can enjoy a nice painting, or good music, but trying to interpret art is rather pointless imo. I do not understand why art (be it paintings or literature or whatever) is seen as so important, and why schools spend so much time on it. At best, we can get the personal opinion of whoever made the artwork.
The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things. The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty. There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all. The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass. The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless. -- OSCAR WILDE
Art allows you to see what you like/ are like at a very emotional and deep level.
[QUOTE=The golden;31202696]I once saw a piece of "art" at a art showing at a garden that I go and take photos at. This piece was basically just 3 flat boards of differing species of wood glued together. That's it. It was on sale for $3,600[/QUOTE] cool. I also see things [editline]5th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SlicedBread;31213424] By my logic, some graffiti can be the most pure art. It is made anonymously, and made ONLY for the sake of being created and observed. I say most because some assholes just right there names on a wall. [/QUOTE] whats inherently different between graffiti done anonymously and graffiti which contains a reference to it's creator?
Snip
For us texture artists, art is the most visually pleasing of the 4,398,046,511,104 different combinations of pixels within a 512 x 512 canvas.
[QUOTE=proch;31509167]This is art [IMG]http://cdn.evilbeetgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/david_statue.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SilverDragon619;31544316]just something nice to look at[/QUOTE] :v:
Entirely depends on the type of art. Modern art however means nothing since it's just a load of shit on a piece of paper that hipsters enjoy because it makes them feel deep.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31553522]Entirely depends on the type of art. Modern art however means nothing since it's just a load of shit on a piece of paper that hipsters enjoy because it makes them feel deep.[/QUOTE] so it's not art because you, personally don't like it? also pls dont say "hipster" because that word doesn't mean anything
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31553556]so it's not art because you, personally don't like it? also pls dont say "hipster" because that word doesn't mean anything[/QUOTE] Most of them are just splodges of paint on a piece of paper that probably took the "artist" a few seconds to make. Picasso style modern art is worthy of the definition of art, but a lot of it is complete and utter crap.
i mean i understand if you want to be like, a conservative wrt to art (like super-conservative if you're legit complaining about abstract art as a whole its 2011 man) but do you have to be a presumptuous jerk about it and not only dismiss the form, but come up with a condescending reason to dismiss it's fans as well? [editline]5th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;31553609]Most of them are just splodges of paint on a piece of paper that probably took the "artist" a few seconds to make.[/QUOTE] i beg to differ (the processes used by pollock and rothko were super involved, for example) but that's not even my main contention. my main contention is: so? just because, to you, something seeming easy automatically makes it not art?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31553626]i mean i understand if you want to be like, a conservative wrt to art (like super-conservative if you're legit complaining about abstract art as a whole its 2011 man) but do you have to be a presumptuous jerk about it and not only dismiss the form, but come up with a condescending reason to dismiss it's fans as well?[/QUOTE] It entirely depends on what you mean by abstract, some abstract is worthy of being called art, however I've seen some where it's just a shade of green covering a canvas that's supposed to represent war.
are we really doing this? are you really gonna be [i]that guy[/i]? [editline]5th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;31553692]It entirely depends on what you mean by abstract, some abstract is worthy of being called art, [/QUOTE] and youre the infallible art god who gets to decide which abstract art is art and which abstract art isn't actually art? [QUOTE=carcarcargo;31553692]however I've seen some where it's just a shade of green covering a canvas that's supposed to represent war.[/QUOTE] why not? what makes that so different from the paintings you're defending? just because it's simpler doesn't mean it's less a work of art. that's equitable to saying longer, more complex films are automatically more artistic than minimalist ones
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31553626] i beg to differ (the processes used by pollock and rothko were super involved, for example) but that's not even my main contention. my main contention is: so? just because, to you, something seeming easy automatically makes it not art?[/QUOTE] People can call it art if they want, I just don't understand why people like that kind of art, it's devoid of both talent and meaning.
something to admire
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31553764] it's devoid of both talent and meaning.[/QUOTE] "talent" doesn't make good art. neil peart is an incredibly talented drummer but that doesn't mean the music he creates is automatically good (not a fan, myself) and saying it's "devoid of meaning" is virtually objectively false considering the fact that sort of the whole point of art is that the viewer is able to create, at least in part, their own meaning for a work
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;31553891]"talent" doesn't make good art. neil peart is an incredibly talented drummer but that doesn't mean the music he creates is automatically good (not a fan, myself) and saying it's "devoid of meaning" is virtually objectively false considering the fact that sort of the whole point of art is that the viewer is able to create, at least in part, their own meaning for a work[/QUOTE] But what about the stuffs that's literally just a bin bag full of paper, surely that cannot constitute as art, hell I could do that in about 5 minutes
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.