A lot of modern art has little substance imo, it's just about projecting meaning where there is none.
It's like the viewer has to put more effort into viewing and interpreting art than the artist puts into coming up with and creating it, seems pretty silly to me.
I might as well cover a blank canvas in a thin layer of lsd and ask people to lick and then stare at it. Should be a masterpiece.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38800356]you guys do realize that this is not an interpretation of the song and that the performance had no relation or context having to do with fireworks, right? this is just some youtube user making a joke. the original video is old as fuck[/QUOTE]
i thought we all knew that haha
[editline]12th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=RobbL;38806460]
It's like the viewer has to put more effort into viewing and interpreting art than the artist puts into coming up with and creating it, seems pretty silly to me. [/QUOTE]
art in itself has no meaning tho
any emotional connection you establish with a piece of art is completely based on you and nothing else, not even the artist's intention.
[url]http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/26/the-perils-of-introspection/[/url]
you know how you feel about something long before you even interpret or try to even intellectualize it.
[img]http://uploads2.wikipaintings.org/images/claude-monet/water-lilies-1907-1.jpg[/img]
what is the meaning of that? the artist was just painting water lilies.
any emotion or feeling you get is completely yours and yours alone, no piece of art can directly give itself meaning, even if the artist tries to explain it.
[editline]12th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Occlusion;38800372]I see no point in art where the interpretations are so varied that the actual piece loses all meaning.
This is screaming, this is art:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwmlq4p7l9M[/media][/QUOTE]
#defenddadrock
[QUOTE=thisispain;38807148]i thought we all knew that haha[/QUOTE]
most of these posts dont read as if the posts realize it's a joke idk
[QUOTE=Tippmann357;38804042]The ignorance in this thread... You people need to take a Visual Arts class. It goes over everything including stuff people don't usually want to consider art. The first things you go over are Duchamp's Fountain posted above along with other "simple" things such as canvases with only one color and why you probably don't consider it art. The way people react towards things like this is because of prejudice, ignorance, lack of information, etc. You soon learn to look at the art's form/meaning rather than its content.
Malevich's White on White (posted earlier) is the representation of the universal image of God.
Rothko Chapel
[IMG]http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/1313538773-rothko-chapel03.jpg[/IMG]
Reinhardt has a series of black paintings based on Zen Buddhism.
[IMG]http://johndanversart.co.uk/versions/003/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Ad-Reinhardt-Black-Painting-No.-34-1964-oil-on-canvas.jpeg[/IMG]
Take an art class and learn to look at things differently as opposed to being ignorant idiots. Things don't have to look beautiful and realistic. "Oh, but I can paint a square." Sure you can, but that doesn't mean simple things don't take skill.[/QUOTE]
is this post a joke?
In my opinion, if you have to take a class to learn that something is art... than it isn't art, or is at a very minimum really bad art. The same goes for poetry or music. These types of things are objects of emotion, which every human being has an equal ability to use and experience in their own way. One doesn't need to learn how to feel emotion and therefore shouldn't have to learn how to experience art. Also, I think it's stupid when people get a different meaning out of art than was originally intended. That just means the art was a failure.
[QUOTE=megafat;38800350]For fucks sake, you're supposed to interpret art, not question whether or not it's art. If you're asking "Is this art?", then no, it's not art.
The fact that someone put up a blank canvas and told the viewer "No, it's art, all you have to use is your imagination.", then it's not art because i had to ask "Is this even art?"[/QUOTE]
Watch out guys this dude wrote the universally acknowledged book on what defines art..
Art can be whatever you want it to be. installations don't need to have anything, it's art in itself to experience and interpret.
You don't need a nice painting or a sculpture for it to be art. Art is whatever the fuck you want it to be. Whatever the fuck the person made it wants it to be might not be what you want it to be, but fuck all, it's still going to be art.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38807632]In my opinion, if you have to take a class to learn that something is art... than it isn't art. [/QUOTE]
art class is to understand and learn about art movements in history. there's no class that teaches you something is art
[QUOTE=sgman91;38807632]The same goes for poetry or music.[/QUOTE]
lol don't tell me
gertrude stein isn't art and neither is merzbow
[QUOTE=sgman91;38807632]These types of things are objects of emotion, which every human being has an equal ability to use and experience in their own way.[/QUOTE]
art isn't about emotion at all. maybe like sloppy romantic art where the emotion is rammed down your throat. emotions aren't things you can prepackage in a piece of art, so no, they aren't "objects of emotions". usually they are inanimate things that we happen to ascribe meaning to, even if it isn't there.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38807632]One doesn't need to learn how to feel emotion and therefore shouldn't have to learn how to experience art.[/QUOTE]
so jazz isn't art because it might take you a while to understand and experience it?
[QUOTE=sgman91;38807632]Also, I think it's stupid when people get a different meaning out of art than was originally intended. That just means the art was a failure.[/QUOTE]
idk i think it's stupid to tell people how to feel
Sounds like she is having the greatest orgasm of her life
[QUOTE=thisispain;38807883]art class is to understand and learn about art movements in history. there's no class that teaches you something is art[/QUOTE]
Tippmann357 seemed to be claiming otherwise.
[QUOTE]art isn't about emotion at all. maybe like sloppy romantic art where the emotion is rammed down your throat. emotions aren't things you can prepackage in a piece of art, so no, they aren't "objects of emotions". usually they are inanimate things that we happen to ascribe meaning to, even if it isn't there.[/QUOTE]
... emotional meaning. It produces awe, or happiness, or sadness, or any other of the huge array of human emotions. It does not teach us verifiable facts, that's where science comes in.
[QUOTE]so jazz isn't art because it might take you a while to understand and experience it?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why you would use jazz as an example. Its one of the most emotion containing and producing styles of music around. I also don't see how this relates to my comment that you quoted.
If someone makes something (like the blank canvases) and an average person gets no meaning what so ever from it without being taught some meaning than I either wouldn't call it art, or would at the very least call it bad and unsuccessful art.
[QUOTE]idk i think it's stupid to tell people how to feel[/QUOTE]
It's irrelevant what you think is stupid or not. Art is created with some purpose in mind, in fact, it is probably the most inspired creation humanity can achieve. If the art created fails to convey this purpose than it is simply bad art.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808191]Tippmann357 seemed to be claiming otherwise.[/QUOTE]
idgaf what tippmann says
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808191]... emotional meaning. It produces awe, or happiness, or sadness, or any other of the huge array of human emotions. It does not teach us verifiable facts, that's where science comes in.[/QUOTE]
not necessarily
when i listen to Autechre i think of buildings and spaces, not emotions.
you can't tell people what they feel dude, it's irresponsible.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808191]I'm not sure why you would use jazz as an example. Its one of the most emotion containing and producing styles of music around. I also don't see how this relates to my comment that you quoted.[/QUOTE]
because good jazz is difficult to understand.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8OWAFbFGbA[/media]
go ahead and try to understand the music there, try explaining it.
you can't. you have to learn how to understand this. you have to get used to it, and understand the composers mindset.
according to your logic this isn't art?
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808191]If someone makes something (like the blank canvases) and an average person gets no meaning what so ever from it without being taught some meaning than I either wouldn't call it art, or would at the very least call it bad and unsuccessful art.[/QUOTE]
so the Talking Heads were a bad band because the average person got no meaning from David Byrne's strange and confusing lyrics?
idk again you're telling people how to feel. how you can call something bad art is beyond me, usually people study music for decades before they get the ego to start calling things bad or unsuccessful.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808191]It's irrelevant what you think is stupid or not.[/QUOTE]
lol ok the feeling is mutual haha
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808191]Art is created with some purpose in mind, in fact, it is probably the most inspired creation humanity can achieve. If the art created fails to convey this purpose than it is simply bad art.[/QUOTE]
art is created because humans are bored and need something to do. that's the only reason.
any romantic notions of art started way after humans made art.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wil8wOuVry8[/media]
This is extremely relevant.
(At 8:50 and on.)
[QUOTE=thisispain;38808365]not necessarily when i listen to Autechre i think of buildings and spaces, not emotions. you can't tell people what they feel dude, it's irresponsible.[/QUOTE]
Would you rather listen to that or a person talking about buildings and spaces in a monotone voice, and why?
[QUOTE]because good jazz is difficult to understand.
go ahead and try to understand the music there, try explaining it.
you can't. you have to learn how to understand this. you have to get used to it, and understand the composers mindset.
according to your logic this isn't art? [/QUOTE]
You are taking my statement too far. If a jazz song was created out of a horrible and sad event and was created to express that sadness, but it made everyone happy and lighthearted who listened to it I would say the jazz song failed as art. It did not express what it was meant to express.
I do not mean that you instantly know every specific of the situation that was in the author's mind, but that you understand the emotions that are being expressed.
[QUOTE]so the Talking Heads were a bad band because the average person got no meaning from David Byrne's strange and confusing lyrics?[/QUOTE]
Emotional meaning, not factual meaning. I'm sure people got plenty of emotional meaning out of it.
[QUOTE]idk again you're telling people how to feel. how you can call something bad art is beyond me, usually people study music for decades before they get the ego to start calling things bad or unsuccessful.[/QUOTE]
Things are usually defined as good or bad by how close they come to their intended purpose. For example, a good bridge works well as a bridge while a bad bridge does not. This type of reasoning can work for anything.
I'm saying that if the intended purpose of a specific piece of art is not understood than the art was unsuccessful. If a person is in awe of a vast nature scene and is inspired to capture that feeling in an art piece, whether that be drawn, sung, etc., but creates a piece that makes people feel claustrophobic and uncomfortable they have failed to achieve their purpose. I would define this as bad art.
[QUOTE]lol ok the feeling is mutual haha[/QUOTE]
I haven't declared anything stupid. I have attempted to provide reasoning that backs up my position. You, on the other hand, haven't provided any reason to believe your position.
[QUOTE]art is created because humans are bored and need something to do. that's the only reason.
any romantic notions of art started way after humans made art.[/QUOTE]
There's a reason people say they are 'inspired' to create art or 'lack inspiration' if they aren't in a mood to create art. Boredom, by itself, is not enough.
[QUOTE=thisispain;38807148]i thought we all knew that haha
art in itself has no meaning tho
any emotional connection you establish with a piece of art is completely based on you and nothing else, not even the artist's intention.
[/QUOTE]
I can agree with you partly that that there is an unconscious emotional connection people have to art they like; but imo your own interpretation is important and many people can correctly articulate why they like a certain piece of art and why they might not. Saying that all appreciation of art is from emotions before you even think about it is a wide generalisation. Artists can also use techniques to invoke certain emotions (or at least attempt to)
Couldn't anything man-made be considered art?
[QUOTE=GhettoGeek;38809306]Couldn't anything man-made be considered art?[/QUOTE]
If it includes everything people have made than the word is meaningless.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808495]Would you rather listen to that or a person talking about buildings and spaces in a monotone voice, and why?[/QUOTE]
well the other doesn't have beats
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808495]You are taking my statement too far. If a jazz song was created out of a horrible and sad event and was created to express that sadness, but it made everyone happy and lighthearted who listened to it I would say the jazz song failed as art. It did not express what it was meant to express.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent[/url]
idk i understand your view, but i don't agree with it. my english teacher was a new critic and we were taught about the intentional fallacy.
if you disagree that's fine but i don't know why we have to use the word failure
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808495]Things are usually defined as good or bad by how close they come to their intended purpose. For example, a good bridge works well as a bridge while a bad bridge does not. This type of reasoning can work for anything.[/QUOTE]
not really. you can like art for its good and bad.
i like lo-fi music because it's lo-fi, i like David Byrne because he's a bad singer.
you can't like a bad bridge :v:
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808495]I'm saying that if the intended purpose of a specific piece of art is not understood than the art was unsuccessful. If a person is in awe of a vast nature scene and is inspired to capture that feeling in an art piece, whether that be drawn, sung, etc., but creates a piece that makes people feel claustrophobic and uncomfortable they have failed to achieve their purpose. I would define this as bad art.[/QUOTE]
so you don't think that art has a life of its own? then what's the point of interpretation? why don't we just write what you're supposed to feel with the art work?
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808495]I haven't declared anything stupid.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808495]I think it's stupid when people get a different meaning out of art than was originally intended.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808495]There's a reason people say they are 'inspired' to create art or 'lack inspiration' if they aren't in a mood to create art. Boredom, by itself, is not enough.[/QUOTE]
as a mediocre artist myself, it's usually because we're frustrated with something or don't have the patience to do something. i don't believe inspiration is a real thing, it's just sometimes your mind isn't in the right mentality to work.
[QUOTE=sgman91;38809555]If it includes everything people have made than the word is meaningless.[/QUOTE]
wrong
in reality nothing around you means anything
we give meaning and value to everything,
so what's so different about art?
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
if it isn't important to you then stop caring.
i mean words themselves are meaningless. they are sounds we've made with our various anatomical parts that over time happened to gain context.
i mean yeah it's high school philosophy class again, but still
[QUOTE=Last or First;38808421][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wil8wOuVry8[/media]
This is extremely relevant.
(At 8:50 and on.)[/QUOTE]
Great, you reminded me of how Yoko Ono ruined The Beatles.
Useless bitch.
[QUOTE=megafat;38810465]Great, you reminded me of how Yoko Ono ruined The Beatles.
Useless bitch.[/QUOTE]
hehe look at this beatles noob
[QUOTE=sgman91;38808495]If a jazz song was created out of a horrible and sad event and was created to express that sadness, but it made everyone happy and lighthearted who listened to it I would say the jazz song failed as art. It did not express what it was meant to express.
I do not mean that you instantly know every specific of the situation that was in the author's mind, but that you understand the emotions that are being expressed.
Emotional meaning, not factual meaning. I'm sure people got plenty of emotional meaning out of it.
Things are usually defined as good or bad by how close they come to their intended purpose. For example, a good bridge works well as a bridge while a bad bridge does not. This type of reasoning can work for anything.
I'm saying that if the intended purpose of a specific piece of art is not understood than the art was unsuccessful. If a person is in awe of a vast nature scene and is inspired to capture that feeling in an art piece, whether that be drawn, sung, etc., but creates a piece that makes people feel claustrophobic and uncomfortable they have failed to achieve their purpose. I would define this as bad art.[/QUOTE]
I think sgman91 is playing the troll to see who here is clever enough to realize he's crafting a basic logic test, but I also think he's also upset by an unasked question which I intend to also address. If I may address sgman91 directly, you strike me as quite Teleological in mind set, which is an old and respectable school of philosophy. For the benefit of those who don't know. Teleology is the philosophy that everything that is created has a Teleos which is the purpose they strive to fulfill. A good bridge is one that spans an entire gap to connect one ledge from another while supporting itself and whatever traffic it was built to sustain. A poor bridge doesn't fufill this purpose by collapsing or by not supporting cars if it was meant to be driven over.
With that out of the way, I'd like to examine the definition of art sgman91 offers in the above quote. I expect him to correct me if my understanding is incorrect. Art is something which is made by an artist and is meant to communicate a particular emotional meaning from the artist to those others who experience that art. Good art is that which is made by an artist and communicates the emotional meaning its artist intended to others who experience it. Bad art is that which communicates an emotional meaning other than what its artist intended it to convey.
Earlier he defined another concept: Objects of Emotion
[QUOTE=sgman91;38807632]In my opinion, if you have to take a class to learn that something is art... than it isn't art, or is at a very minimum really bad art. The same goes for poetry or music. These types of things are objects of emotion, which every human being has an equal ability to use and experience in their own way. One doesn't need to learn how to feel emotion and therefore shouldn't have to learn how to experience art. Also, I think it's stupid when people get a different meaning out of art than was originally intended. That just means the art was a failure.[/QUOTE]
Objects of Emotion are things which include art, poetry, and music, perhaps among other things. They are things which may be experienced by humans who may use and experience the Object of Emotion in their own way. That is, according to your grammar, Objects of Emotion may be experienced by different humans differently. That is, one human beings experience of an object of emotion may be entirely different than another human beings experience of the exact same Object of Emotion. A good object of emotion is one that when experienced or used by a human being instills some kind of emotional meaning that is entirely unique to that particular human being in their own way. A poor object of emotion must then inspire either no emotion in some people, or the same emotion in all people. It cannot be a mixture of the two because that would indicate an individual emotional meaning by differing opinions of (insert emotion here) and indifference.
Does anyone see the contradiction sgman91 has laid down before us? If art is to be an object of emotion, then it must be experienced individually differently by all human beings, but art must only communicate the emotional meaning intended by its artist. Yet if somehow this obvious contradiction is not in fact a contradiction, here is what it would mean in regard to Yokos vocal undulations:
Her performance was not art. It did not communicate the same message to each and every single one of you who viewed it. This argument is evidence enough. However, everyone involved did experience an individual emotional reaction, from disgust at this thing she dares to call "art" to adulation at the genius of her performance. It is by that fact that the performance must be an Object of Emotion. Because as far as I can tell these definitions contradict, I feel I ought to do correct that while proposing a solution to some of sgman91s concerns.
Now I'd like to direct my attentions entirely to you, sgman91. It sounds like you're concerned that art, music, or poetry classes teach people how to feel emotion so that they will appreciate bad art, or worse, things which are not art as art. I cannot blame your opposition if that is the case, certainly that would constitute some form of brainwashing, would it not? It also sounds like you're a little confused and perhaps a bit annoyed that sometimes people experience different emotional meanings from art than your meaning, or even that of the artworks creator. How could it be that the same thing can be experienced so differently between individuals? Because it is bad art does seem like a pretty logical conclusion at first glance, but then it raises a question in my mind, "Can bad art be a good object of emotion?"
If you can explain that yes, a good object of emotion can be bad art then your definitions do not contradict each other, but it also means by your own logic that all good works of art must be poor objects of emotion because all good works of art must communicate only a particular emotional meaning to those who experience it, everyone who experiences it ideally. This also means that all good objects of emotion would have to be poor art. I don't think I can accept that train of thought as truth.
I reject that logic entirely and offer my own solution. Which is this, your definition for art is made superfluous by two concepts (one of which you already defined) and thus must be scrapped. The definition for Objects of Emotion will be kept with art as a synonym and I will supplement my own concept with a definition: Perspective. Perspective is a thing which restrains and influences individual human perception at all times. All humans are limited by their Perspective which keeps them from experiencing things the same way as other human beings. People with similar Perspectives generally have similar perceptions, while people with different Perspectives will perceive experiences differently.
Let's say there are two old men sitting on a bench at a park. Neither is wearing their glasses; one old man is obscenely near sighted and the other obscenely far sighted. Nearby there is an artist painting a distant couple walking near a pond. The far sighted man can see the couple, who fondly remind him of his deceased wife, but he can only distinguish the pond in the artists painting, so he asks the near sighted man why isn't the painter including such a beautiful couple in his landscape painting. The near sighted man can't make out the couple in the distance, but he can see the man already painted on the artists canvas infront of the pond and looming trees which reminds him of his days hunting in the woods as a young man. The near sighted man asks the far sighted man, "Why the hell would he put a kissing couple in a painting of mans struggle against nature?"
Neither man can appreciate each others or even the artists emotional meaning because their Perspectives lack so much common ground. If the two men had been wearing their glasses, their Perspectives would be broadened by the new visual information they would receive. They might have found more commonality in their experience of the artists painting if they had and the far sighted man would find more appreciation in his experience of the artists work with the knowledge the couple was already being added.
Does that help clarify Perspective? Here's a more hands on approach:
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Claude_Monet_Weeping_Willow.jpg[/IMG]
What the hell is this picture? It looks like somebody smeared baby food all over a canvas to make this shitty blurry-ass painting! Who the fuck even made this? Claude Monet? Why'd he make this piece of diarrhea when he could paint shit loads better?
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Claude_Monet-Madame_Monet_en_costume_japonais.jpg[/IMG]
Well, it turns out Monet was really damn nearsighted and one day simply didn't put his glasses on before painting. He painted a blurry picture because that is what he saw. Monet lived in a blurry world most of his life and this was his opportunity to share it. Do you see the genious of the first picture more clearly? What emotion do you think he wanted to inspire in those who looked at his blurry paintings? Pity? Fear? I personally have no idea short of one guess: Monet didn't want to inspire any specific emotion with his paintings, for him it was enough to inspire emotion with it.
Let's imagine for a moment Monet did have an emotion in mind by painting blurry pictures, let's say pity. Let's also say that three people experience one. The first person feels the deepest pity at Monet's plight of eyesight, the second person, like Monet has poor eyesight which leads to him feeling like he can identify with Monet which comforts him, and the third person feels disappointed and unfulfilled by the lack of crisp details in the painting.
Here is the question I'd like to pose to everyone: Are any one of these experiences more or less valuable than the other and how do you know that?
Art.
See, this is how Lennon really died.
That was fucking hot.
[QUOTE=The very best;38807566]is this post a joke?[/QUOTE]
I think it's funny how people disagree with minimalist paintings being considered art.
[URL]http://www.rothkochapel.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=19[/URL]
[URL]http://www.rothkochapel.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=6[/URL]
[quote]In 2011 the Chapel celebrated its fortieth anniversary, having achieved, in those years, recognition as [B]one of the greatest artistic achievements of the second half of the twentieth century[/B]. In 2001 the Chapel was [B]listed in the National Register of Historic Places[/B], an honor awarded before the institution was fifty years old. The Chapel regularly makes top ten lists of places to visit, and is a [B]featured entry in National Geographic's book Sacred Places of a Lifetime: 500 of the World's Most Peaceful and Powerful Destinations[/B], published in 2009.[/quote]
Learn before you criticize.
[IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls2kzjBZnL1qbbqm2o2_1280.jpg[/IMG]
[URL]http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-mark-rothko-painting-no-1-sells-for-751-million-in-new-york-20121113,0,3205154.story[/URL]
[IMG]http://htekidsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ht_mark_rothko_no_1_nt_121114_ss_ssv.jpg[/IMG]
75 million dollar painting. I can feel the rage building up in all of you.
Also, I love me some Pollock.
[IMG]http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/lavender-mist/pollock.lavender-mist.jpg[/IMG]
oh good this is officially one of those threads
honestly do you people not see the shit you do
I'm surprised that nobody bothered to check the description other than Rilez.
This is like not reading the article in sensationalist headlines, commenting on it, then starting the "art is crap, no it's not!" war.
[QUOTE=KingKombat;38812303]oh good this is officially one of those threads
honestly do you people not see the shit you do[/QUOTE]
What do I see?
jesus christ guys
some people see art as somethig different than what others do
everyone chill the [U]fuck[/U] out
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
