That's what you said. What are you implying?
Quoting out of content my friend, is meaningless.
Originally Posted by CaW_
These are things you said. It's really late here and I'm very tired so I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. If this list is what you have said then you certainly are implying that art is meaningless.
If i meant that, i would have said that.
Just for the sake of this conversation, answer this, before you say anything else.
Explain why you disagree.
- All art is equally valid.
You do not agree? what art forms are less valid than others? List some
- All art forms are equal.
No? What art forms do you think are worth more or are more important? (not talking about material value)
- Art has no boundaries.
No? What are the boundaries?
- Art has no rules, it has no guidelines
No? What are the rules and boundaries? Where does validity of art stop?
- Art cannot be forced into a shape.
Can it? how?
What puzzles me most is how you managed to pull off the 'meaningless' part
This is really what it's about isn't it? It's about conflict with authority. It's about going against norms. It's about standing up for the little man. And it's about equality between people. The concept artist is equal to the fine artist therefore what they produce must also be equal.[/QUOTE]
It is much about it but there is no 'little'
The entertainment industry is everything but little! and successful people in this industry are everything but poor.
It is not specifically about the concept art field or comics, it goes for music music, literature and performance art as well.
Last edited by Randis; February 24th, 2011 at 03:58 AM.
Something that always staggers me is the hugely platonic influenced view on aesthetics a lot of people on conceptart seem to have. The idea that art serves a higher purpose or ideal, or has something called a 'meaning', sounds very romantic and has probably been the aim for ages in western art but if you look at "Abstract art" nowadays that simply isn't the case. It goes from dionysian to apollonian and not the other way round.
I clearly wrote 'all' forms of art, i did not exclude any, ergo 'all' art is valid.
My point is about equality and not validity.
There is no business about what is valid and what is not, i don't know what you are getting at here. Your statement is just vague at best.
I did not say, 'everything is art', i used the term 'equally valid' because for me it is important to point out that there is no such thing as that one art form is 'more' art than others. There is no shit like true art and all people who look down on artists doing something out of the norm need to pull their heads out of their ass.
All artworks created do belong to some art genre, sub-genre, a mix of genre, a category, you name it. All are equally valid, there are no guidelines or restrictions for art and there is no judge. Comics, Fine art, canned shit, everything is valid art.
I am really sick of people looking down on of some of the art forms as if some artists are More artist than other artists. Art has no boundaries, rules and laws, art is simply art and is equally valid in all forms.
Many people sadly fail to understand it, i even hear it form some university professors, how they do not see comics and concept art as a 'TRUE" art form.
Pinheads!
There are so many people out there who would not see pretty much most of what is posted on this website as art at all!
All Art forms are equal!
That being said you need to understand that being equally valid does not mean equally good, or does not stand for skill, popularity or brings you instant respect and it certainly does not apply to individual artworks.
RANDIS, I understood and understand everything you are saying. My point is that in your first post you implied heavily that abstraction was a genre of Art - your statements about the validity and equality of all art genres made it quite clear that this is how you thought of it. My replies to this have been addressed to the point concerning it being a genre and why I disagree with that idea. I am not at issue here with your beliefs concerning equality of genres.
My saying that it is not to be considered a genre of art but a salient caracteristic of all visual art places the question completely outside issues of validity or equality. If I said "design is not to be considered a genre of art" that would not mean I was saying "design is not art".
The whole business of art genres being equally valid or equal or whatever else is not what I am concerned with here. I am contesting the notion that 'abstraction' should be thought of as a genre in the way that is ordinarily understood by that term.
Last edited by Chris Bennett; February 24th, 2011 at 06:35 AM.
A Genre is a term of category, how is abstract art not one?
You can categorize things in many ways, content wise, technique wise, and so on and so on. Abstract Art for me is a category (wide one).
> Futurism, Abstract Expressionism, Cubism, Fauvism and so on...
Yes, that's true.
But placing 'abstraction' into a catagory is particularly problematic in this regard. Not because it cannot be done, it can, and it is a handy way of thinking about what people are refering to.
It is problematic because it encourages a distinction between 'pure design' and 'representation'. And at its worst this then filters into the kind of things you have been rightly objecting to.
Yes, it's a convenient catagory to use, and we all use it, but whenever things get heated concerning 'good and bad, like and hate' it is helpful to be aware that catagories are only labels of convenience.
And rather than just stating this, I've tried to show what happens in this particular case.
It would seem that the last three of the above definitions are easily excluded from the current discussion. So, let's try an analysis of the first three:
1. All forms of art are equally sound.
2. All forms of art are equally effective.
3. All forms of art are equally authoritative.
Depends. I don't hate the whole art movement. But to me its like the anime-style stuff. There's some good stuff that is really worth it, but you have to dig through the massive amounts of crap first.
Abstract art as in modern abstract art is generally not concered with esthetics or technical proficiency, but with conceptuality, philosophy and logical abstraction (not visual abstraction).
What puzzles me most is how you managed to pull off the 'meaningless' part
Both fast food and gourmet cuisine are equally valid in that you stuff your face with both and experience fecal urgency. You can reduce anything down to the point it becomes a vague definition that suits your world-view but it's not intelligent.
Art holds value because it is unique. It is unique because the properties of art separate it from other things. These properties are rules and guidelines. If art is everything from the height of the Renaissance to the "Sandwich Artists" at Subway, then it has little value. The bigger it is, the more common it is, the more comprehensive, the less value. If everyone is an artist, no one is. It would no longer special or valued or unique. It would be meaningless to be an artist. Art would be whistling or riding a bike.
I know you're probably going to ask me what the definition of art should be in this case and where the lines should be drawn. I don't know. I'll leave that up to people a lot smarter and more experienced than myself. But I do know that art is extremely meaningful and that comes from all the things unique to art that you say do not exist. Whatever it may be, there is a definition. There are limits.
Within those limits the genres of art are different. They are unique to themselves. They too have their own limits and definitions. I don't think a societal concept such as Separate but Equal (or Equal but Separate in this case), applies to art. I don't think they are equal when some genres relish in the fact that they aren't about quality.
It is much about it but there is no 'little'
The entertainment industry is everything but little! and successful people in this industry are everything but poor.
It is not specifically about the concept art field or comics, it goes for music music, literature and performance art as well.
And that's a problem. Art isn't a person. Art has no rights. All art is not created equal. You're applying liberalism to art. Which is natural I guess in a post-post-modern world. You're confusing art with society. Again, your assumption is that because people are equal, so must be what they produce. That's a fallacy. Good people make bad art. Bad people make good art. Some people make life-saving medicines and some people make plastic bobble-heads that resemble cartoon characters. The products not equal because both people have equal rights.
Within music, there are genres that I would seriously question. Mashups for example. I have a bunch in my library, before you assume I hate them. Just like you assume I dislike the art I may invalidate. But are Mashups really musical art? It's just copy/pasted songs. What about remixes? What about sampling music for rhymes? Do we say it's all valid so we don't hurt people's feelings?
"Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
Depends. I don't hate the whole art movement. But to me its like the anime-style stuff. There's some good stuff that is really worth it, but you have to dig through the massive amounts of crap first.
Gosh, that's what I always thought about figurative art too.
"Work for your self first. You can paint best the things you like or the things you hate. You cannot paint well when indifferent.
Express a mental opinion about something you are sensitive to in life around you. There is a profound difference between sensitivity and sentimentality." ~ John Sloan Gist of Art
I'm with Caw and Chris Bennett on this one. You CAN categorize things in many ways, but if you don't agree on a set of terms then any kind of discussion becomes meaningless because there isn't a set definition. Then the whole argument becomes a bait and switch of terms as neither party can decide on what they're really talking about. And then you can't have an interesting, in depth discussion.
Anyway personally I value any piece of art if I find it aesthetically interesting. In most cases this applies more to representational art, but some abstract art is really interesting. I view artists who say they try to make their work as unappealing as possible to "test the limits" of what art is as hacks who have no discernible talent, except maybe in the department of self-marketing and bullshitting. However those talents are not in the visual arts so they are failures as visual artists. Many modern artists fall into this category.
I don't think a societal concept such as Separate but Equal (or Equal but Separate in this case), applies to art. I don't think they are equal when some genres relish in the fact that they aren't about quality.
Art isn't a person. Art has no rights. All art is not created equal.
Within music, there are genres that I would seriously question
You missed the point!
What you just said is basically that people who post on CA are not real artists,
coz they do lesser art than fine artists and classical music composer.
This is a big bull.
You see, ‘equally valid’ does not stand for ‘equally good’ and it does not deal
with individual artists or artworks but with various types of art.
There are awesome comic artists and there are shitty comic artists but still,
they are all artists.
A fashion photographer would be a lesser artists than a photographer who captures
shocking documentary?
Originally Posted by CaW_
If everyone is an artist, no one is. It would no longer special or valued or unique.
It would be meaningless to be an artist. Art would be whistling or riding a bike.
I say everyone can do art, you say no. I get your point, you associate art with
skill and craft and say that individuality gets lost and art may be nothing
special and meaningless if everyone would do art..
You say that if everyone is a artist no one is?
Think again! You don’t make art by calling yourself ‘artist’, you make art by
actually ‘doing’ art.
You say it would no longer be special or valued or unique if everyone was an artist?
Again, what does the quantity of artists has to do with the quality of the artworks?
Every artwork is individual and the level of quality, sophistication and
idea depends on the individual artist.
Do you think that if all people were artists they would not appreciate art?
I am an artists, I love arts and so is everyone here!
Again, you say that if everyone would make art, it would be come nothing special.
Think again, it’s not what you ‘call’ yourself or what you ‘do’ for a living that makes
you special, it’s the how 'well' you do it.
Why do you see the need to limit art to a circle of people? Art is a form of
expression, a language, everyone can do that! Everyone is encouraged to do that!
But just because everyone could, it does not mean that everyone will and it
certainly does not mean that everyone would be equally good at it.
If you want to stand out, work harder, be more sophisticated, think of better ideas.
Don’t be so narrow, open your mind and open your hearth.
Don't look down on the less popular genres...
You look down on ‘pictures pissed in snow’ only so long till you meet an
artist who will make your jaw drop by pissing monalisa in perfect likeness.
In the end it all boils down to fame and money doesn't it?
Let's be honest, some people would get a lot less shit thrown at them if they would
not get so much attention and $$$ for their work. No one would give a shit or complain.
But no, some people get pissed when they feel like others get undeserved attention,
fame and money.
Art is free, art is love, we hold hands in lala land, lalalalala,
...all good till someone mentions the business side....
Once people make hard Dollar others get all pissed and jealous.
Oh no look at that DJ, WTF, he made a lot of cash with his remix, WTF, he is no artist!
Look at that fucking huge empty canvas, WTF is that shit... And what is that crap?
My kid could paint that better! Oh no look at justin biber, that lil twat, wtf
And that guy looks like a drug addict! And what is that rap shit? they don't even sing!
That is BULL, that is intolerance. That is penis envy and pure crap and has nothing to do with art views.
Last edited by Randis; February 25th, 2011 at 12:42 AM.
You missed the point!
What you just said is basically that people who post on CA are not real artists,
coz they do lesser art than fine artists and classical music composer.
This is a big bull.
No I didn't. I didn't even imply it.
I say everyone can do art, you say no.
No I didn't. Anyone can do art. It's an obtainable goal or most anybody. But everyone doesn't do art.
You don’t make art by calling yourself ‘artist’, you make art by
actually ‘doing’ art.
Right. And art has a definition.
Again, what does the quantity of artists has to do with the quality of the artworks?
It has less to do with the amount of artists and more to do with how comprehensive the definition of art is. Opening the definition up to include more people devalues art. Not everyone deciding to be an artist for a living. Though that would screw up the job market.
Why do you see the need to limit art to a circle of people?
The same reason why degrees are limited to a circle of people? Or any skilled position. Do you think everyone is a doctor? Do you think everyone is a professional athlete because they toss a football back and forth in the backyard every Sunday? One earns the title of artist. It takes work. Like you said, it's not something you appoint yourself. It's what you do.
I know people don't like exclusion. Especially social liberals. But admiring skill and mastery isn't elitism. People earn things through hard work. Other people don't. The people who don't work do not earn things. Having a painting in a gallery is not a civil right.
Don’t be so narrow, open your mind and open your hearth.
You look down on ‘pictures pissed in snow’ only so long till you meet an
artist who will make your jaw drop by pissing monalisa in perfect likeness.
There's such a thing has being so open minded that your brain falls out.
I think everyone should have exposure to art. There are several admission-free museums in my area and I think that's great. But we shouldn't hand out "I'm an artist" certificates at the door because those people got out of bed that morning.
In the end it all boils down to fame and money doesn't it?
Not at all, don't be so cynical.
Let's be honest, some people would get a lot less shit thrown at them if they would
not get so much attention and $$$ for their work. No one would give a shit or complain.
But no, some people get pissed when they feel like others get undeserved attention,
fame and money.
So we're not allowed to question famous artists because we're all just jealous haters if we do? Sorry chump. I'm not going to be bullied into being quiet.
Art is free, art is love, we hold hands in lala land, lalalalala,
...all good till someone mentions the business side....
Once people make hard Dollar others get all pissed and jealous.
Appeal to making money.
Oh no look at that DJ, WTF, he made a lot of cash with his remix, WTF, he is no artist!
Look at that fucking huge empty canvas, WTF is that shit... And what is that crap?
My kid could paint that better! Oh no look at justin biber, that lil twat, wtf
And that guy looks like a drug addict! And what is that rap shit? they don't even sing!
Oh no look at that guy who busted his ass on concept.org for years, WTF, that's not fair. I'm just as much as an artist as he is because I'm a special little snowflake who expresses himself through pissing in the snow. Oh no look at Da Vinci, what a tool. I can paint a blue square and be more of an artist than he is. People being better than me at something makes me feel inferior. Fuck the system, you don't know me man. Pass the bong and let me pontificate on how laid back and open I am.
That is BULL, that is intolerance. That is penis envy and pure crap and has nothing to do with art views.
I agree that what you said has nothing to do with art views.
Last edited by s.ketch; February 25th, 2011 at 12:59 AM.
"Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
What you just said is basically that people who post on CA are not real artists,
coz they do lesser art than fine artists and classical music composer.
Originally Posted by CaW_
No I didn't. I didn't even imply it.
-->
Originally Posted by CaW_
Within music, there are genres that I would seriously question.
Originally Posted by CaW_
Art isn't a person. Art has no rights. All art is not created equal.
Originally Posted by CaW_
I don't think a societal concept such as Separate but Equalapplies to art.
- - - - - - - - -
- I say everyone can do art, you say no.
Originally Posted by CaW_
No I didn't.
-->
Originally Posted by CaW_
If everyone is an artist, no one is.
Originally Posted by CaW_
It would no longer special or valued or unique.
Originally Posted by CaW_
It would be meaningless to be an artist.
- - - - - - - - -
Originally Posted by CaW_
The same reason why degrees are limited to a circle of people? Or any skilled position. Do you think everyone is a doctor?
i have no degree, i am a lesser artist now?
There is a limit to how much you can twist your own words.
Last edited by Randis; February 25th, 2011 at 01:10 AM.
I think there is a serious language barrier. I thought you were a native English speaker.
You think that I do not consider concept art to be real art. This is wrong because I have not said that concept art is not art. I simply said that art has boundaries and everything is not art. I have also said that all genres are not equal. I agree that they are all valid even though they are equally valid when you simplify them.
I didn't say that artists without a degree are lesser artists. I don't have a degree. You are quoting things and then jumping to illogical conclusions. You're not understanding what I am saying. Partly because you have made up your mind about what I believe despite not knowing.
You're making a lot of hasty generalizations about me and those who disagree with your opinion.
"Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
Then what are you saying? Boil it down please (keep it short please)
- i said that all art forms are equally valid and that everyone can do art.
You disagree, please explain.
I perfectly get what you are saying, the problem is that you build your arguments n your personal convenience.
I know you did not say that concept art is lesser art, but if you say that not all forms of art are equal you are bound to have a hierarchy. Do you know what it is? I assumed you are a native English speaker.
According to you art forms/genres have a hierarchy and having that, where do you think concept art and comics are?
middle? upper or lover half?
You seem to mix up art forms with individual artists within a genre and equaly valid with quality.
Last edited by Randis; February 25th, 2011 at 01:31 AM.
Genres are equally valid when simplified too much.
Everyone can do art. Everyone doesn't do art.
"Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
Here's a definition of art that I like: Art is a form of communication where the message is not on the first level of meaning.
Take literature, for example. A story can be taken at face value: there was a coup at the Danish court in 10th century, which ended up with the real heir caught in intrigues against the usurper and getting killed stupidly, which resulted in the change of dynasty. That's the immediate meaning. But if you take the actual content - the text of the play - then you might be able to see that there are multiple deeper layers of message in it. Emotional messages, ethical messages, linguistic harmony messages, contextual messages that are lost to us because they require an Elizabethan English cultural immersions, contextual messages that aren't lost to us because they are specific to humanity, philosophical messages, meta-messages (actors played by actors play a play within a play), etc. etc. etc. The actual message is created within you as you experience the work of art.
Take visual art. On the surface it can be a depiction of some objects or some color swirls. But there is another layer to it: perhaps it is meant to remind you of some historical event that is important to you or should be important in the opinion of the artist, or to make you stop and think, or feel elation, or just make you realize: "hey! the shadows are blue! the apple has a multitude of colors!" The actual message is created within you as you experience the work of art.
I like this definition because it pretty unambiguously defines what is a work of art. The moon is not a work of art. Me describing the serenity of moonlight is. (Before you ask, the beauty of natural forms is a selective response of the same perception mechanisms that let us respond to works of art - we get an emotional "message" that was not sent by anyone, filtering the harmonics out of the noise.)
There are some "rules" to art, in that some devices work better for creating such indirect messages than others, simply because we share common contexts. Go out of these contexts and the subliminal message will be less certain to get through. The color blue is more likely to be associated with sadness than the color green. But the color white has different "achors" in Western and Far Eastern cultures: purity in one case, death in the other. The building blocks are more or less context-dependent, and the building itself is indirect, so you can get wildly divergent opinions about the same work of art.
Perhaps it'd be better to say not that art has rules or boundaries, but that art has tools. Some work better, some work worse, some are universal, some are very specific. As long as they are tools for constructing a subliminal message in the recipient, they all are valid.
Okay, I think I understand Randis' intent. And, I think, apart from that intent, he misused the idea of "validity."
A thing is either valid or it isn't. (Kind of like being pregnant or being dead).
To say a valid apple is just as valid as a valid orange just doesn't say anything. But, validity is still a key issue in the discussion because a form of art certainly can be "valid."
By analogy, let us conceive of an "invalid" item-- a hammer made of chocolate.
Such a hammer would not be sound or effective-- it would fall apart upon striking nails and would melt in your hand.
The chocolate hammer is not "valid" because it utterly fails in the role of a hammer-- pounding nails.
It is not valid. Even though it LOOKS like a hammer, it is NOT a hammer.
So then, a not valid Form Of Art would LOOK like a Form Of Art but would not actually BE a Form Of Art due to some intrinsic failing.
unleash us little dogs
Level 12 Gladiator: Laqueatores
Join Date
Jan 2006
Location
Lakselv, Norway
Posts
2,119
Thanks
591
Thanked 1,014 Times in 376 Posts
Originally Posted by arenhaus
Here's a definition of art that I like: Art is a form of communication where the message is not on the first level of meaning.
[...]
I like this definition because it pretty unambiguously defines what is a work of art.
Your definition unambiguously defines art as necessarily being ambiguous? So an expertly crafted singular statement, in whatever medium, cannot be art...merely because it lacks an easter egg? Aren't you then if fact severing the connection between art... and craft? Or are you simply stating that art is a form of communication where the recipient is capable of misunderstanding the message...and maybe even prone to experiencing random phenomena as meaningful messages? If so, all you are stating is the old Eye-of-the-beholder position, no?
And, if not, who are you to say that the Moon is in fact -not- a message with a double meaning?
Any way, pragmatical definitions of "art" are bound to fail as long as the semantic defintion remains absolutely unhinged.
...aaand I just wanted an excuse to post this:
...have a nice weekend, everybody
In the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of privacy.
Your definition unambiguously defines art as necessarily being ambiguous? So an expertly crafted singular statement, in whatever medium, cannot be art...merely because it lacks an easter egg? Aren't you then if fact severing the connection between art... and craft? Or are you simply stating that art is a form of communication where the recipient is capable of misunderstanding the message...and maybe even prone to experiencing random phenomena as meaningful messages? If so, all you are stating is the old Eye-of-the-beholder position, no?
And, if not, who are you to say that the Moon is in fact -not- a message with a double meaning?
Any way, pragmatical definitions of "art" are bound to fail as long as the semantic defintion remains absolutely unhinged.
...aaand I just wanted an excuse to post this:
...have a nice weekend, everybody
I LOVE HENNESSEY YOUNGMAN.
The problem with art is that people talk about it too much. =D. All this time spent arguing could've been put towards making cool stuff. As an artist you must define art for yourself. And leave it there. If you're making it for yourself what you think is what you think, whether or not people agree is irrelevant. Now if you're making art FOR people, then you have to concede that what you think is art, may not be the popular opinion. You can do whatever the hell you want and call it Art. How its received is out of your control.
Okay, I think I understand Randis' intent. And, I think, apart from that intent, he misused the idea of "validity."
A thing is either valid or it isn't
No, that is exactly the point... You almost got it.
A thing is either valid or it isn't
Many people however treat art as if there is a hierarchy in terms of validity.
As if there is the true art and the rest some pretentious shit or kid stuff people do as a hobby.
It commonly is judged by genre.
Classical music is true art, electronic music is not.
Last edited by Randis; February 26th, 2011 at 12:25 AM.
Ahh, but an aspect of validity, in discussions such as this, is self-validation of the the individual piece of art.
For example, if the Blue Panel and, say, a Thomas Kinkade cottage painting were lying on the ground at a construction site, the average person would easily identify the Kinkade painting as "art," whereas the Blue Panel would probably be seen as construction debris or maybe building material to be used in the project.
Critics of the Blue Panel would say that, outside of being installed in a gallery with a little blurb on the wall that tells us what it's supposed to be, it does not stand alone as "art."
Thus, because the Blue Panel and forms of art of which it is a part fail to function as "art" without this "help," they are not valid.
Kamber, i am talking about art genres/forms and not about individual artists or artworks.
But, that's what I've included when I said the "Blue Panel and forms of art of which it is a part."
Specifically, Kelly could be considered a Minimalist. This type of art frequently produces the "Hell my kid could do that" type of response that you were discussing.
For example, a minimalist piece by Kazimir Malevich entitled "Black Square:"
Then, of course, there's the whole movement of "Abstract Expressionism!"
Originally Posted by CaW_
That's what you said. What are you implying?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks