|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted September 04, 2011 07:43 PM |
|
|
Isn't food something you need daily?
Is there Fauch or TheDeath is back? 
Take for example Mona Lisa. How many years took to finish it? A whole life and still not done.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2011 07:47 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:49, 04 Sep 2011.
|
that's what I asked. if you are starving now, you won't rely on a project that will take years to complete to feed yourself...
or maybe I should go in the horn of the africa, to see all those people painting mona lisa hoping that it will feed them??
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 04, 2011 08:08 PM |
|
|
Based on this logic, we would still be in stone age, if any long time project has no chance to succeed.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 04, 2011 08:25 PM |
|
|
why? you might have people feeding you (especially if you are king or something)
you could make other people working for you. castles, palaces, pyramids... are usually considered as art, no?
or you could just have a job, and work as an artist on your free time, though might be hard if you have little time to rest.
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 02:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Art is everything that TOUCHES any amount of humans in any way, whether it's a picture or photography, something written, a music piece, a sculpture, a building, a garment, origami, garden sculpturing, flower binding; a movie, a game, whatever.
"TOUCHES" means emotionally on one hand; it may evoke certain feelings. It may look beautiful; it may make you sad without any obvious reason; it may make you wonder or even wide-eyed.
But it may mean intellectually, THINKING about it, because it may give you something to think about, and best, if it comes naturally, so that you may FIND YOURSELF thinking about it.
By that definition I could murder two dozen babies in a gruesome fashion, stack their bleeding carcasses in a pile in the middle of a city center, add in a few extra who are not yet dead but terribly mutilated and crying out in anguish, and expect to be called the greatest artist in human history.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 02:55 PM |
|
|
Not the greatest per-se but yes imo that would be art, I wouldn't like it, but it would be .
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 03:06 PM |
|
|
|
You heard it here first folks. Creating a pile of dead and mutilated babies is indeed art.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 03:13 PM |
|
|
|
I guess crushing the head of the artist would be art too then, and much more appreciated by everyone
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 03:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Art is everything that TOUCHES any amount of humans in any way, whether it's a picture or photography, something written, a music piece, a sculpture, a building, a garment, origami, garden sculpturing, flower binding; a movie, a game, whatever.
"TOUCHES" means emotionally on one hand; it may evoke certain feelings. It may look beautiful; it may make you sad without any obvious reason; it may make you wonder or even wide-eyed.
But it may mean intellectually, THINKING about it, because it may give you something to think about, and best, if it comes naturally, so that you may FIND YOURSELF thinking about it.
By that definition I could murder two dozen babies in a gruesome fashion, stack their bleeding carcasses in a pile in the middle of a city center, add in a few extra who are not yet dead but terribly mutilated and crying out in anguish, and expect to be called the greatest artist in human history.
In theory it would be "performance art", as opposed to just painting a picture of how you would imagine the scene.
However, there is this small restriction that art shouldn't be harmful. Also it shouldn't be destructive - creative destruction is still destruction.
The idea isn't new, of course. There exist enough of novels/movies about psychos committing artful murders and whatnot.
|
|
Duke_Falcon
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 05:18 PM |
|
|
Art is not an universal thing. Art means something else for everyone. Someone calls DJ-mixes as art while others consider this as not art.
Art is what literally created by someone with the sole purpose to show her\his inner self, view of world, etc... So art is a piece from ourselves that have some meaning or something to tell for someones. If someone do not understand our artwork then she\he will not consider it as an artwork just like the case of modern art (minimal art).
Even I know that everyone could do such things but the meaning will be else if someone else try to do it... Consider this, words of an artist 
Ohhhhhhh
BTW...
"What is art? Baby don't hurt me..."
Feel the pain inside?
Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood...
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 05:50 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 17:51, 05 Sep 2011.
|
Quote:
However, there is this small restriction that art shouldn't be harmful. Also it shouldn't be destructive - creative destruction is still destruction.
and that crushed car azagal talked about? is it destruction or transformation?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 06:01 PM |
|
|
I think that any concept which implies harm and destruction instantly backs away from art definition, which is the form one man choose to express his feelings, share with others, with the sole purpose of positively sensitize them.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 10:07 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Art is everything that TOUCHES any amount of humans in any way
Including if it's only the person doing it? Is something art if it's never shared?
Anyway, I think this definition isn't quite right. After all, people derive emotions (being "touched" as you put it) from many things - surely they're not all "art".
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 10:20 PM |
|
|
|
I don't see the problem. it will most likely be discovered one day anyway.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 10:26 PM |
|
|
Touching people isn't easy - non-destructively, that is.
It is also true - think about performance art. Modern theatre - and 60s/7os theatre especially - was all about provoking a reaction. Doing outrageous things. Breaking patterns. Touching people.
Really touching their inner self. Because that's what actually the art is. To really TOUCH. To transport some very personal perspective of any aspect of this life, so that it can be perceived by others.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 10:37 PM |
|
|
then do museums show art? like I said, they feel a bit like supermarkets, everything is ordered, you basically just have rows of "articles", the whole doesn't look touching or provoking in any way.
for example, take a ruined castle, it will not be the same to visit it on a guided tour and visit at night with a few friends and a torch.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 05, 2011 10:44 PM |
|
|
One must have the ability of being touched by art, as well. Implies culture, education, studies. Mona Lisa is only a women portrait for most, but for those interested by its secrets, it takes a life of study and joy.
Art cannot be fully appreciated if you are not experienced. Going to a museum for seeing all artworks at once is only the proof one sees nothing while looking everywhere.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted September 06, 2011 02:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Typical internet discussion. Laymen discuss things they don't understand.
Must be hard to converse with such mundane enteties as ourselves when you know so much about art yourself Jolly. Of course no better way of letting everyone know how brilliant you are by telling everyone how stupid they are. What class .
If you think what I said is nothing but empty talk why not take me up one the point?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted September 06, 2011 02:28 AM |
|
|
What? Destruction can't be art?
What about that smashed car that ranges in seven digits?
Also: When you claim destruction isn't art you haven't ever heard or seen the orgasmic, schizophrenic and insane joy that is Italian futurism (the Russian is meh as far as I know), which is basically a fascist evolution from symbolism and it sings gloriously and beautifully about destruction, no contest.
EDIT: not fascist as in: Hitler is so great, but fascist as in: violence is really great and war.
Not saying that it's a valid philosophy, but rather that it's at least politically correct.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted September 06, 2011 02:42 AM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 02:43, 06 Sep 2011.
|
Quote:
Art cannot be fully appreciated if you are not experienced. Going to a museum for seeing all artworks at once is only the proof one sees nothing while looking everywhere.
I think you're exaggerating bit. You're right the more you know the more you'll see and the more complexity will be open to you but art can also speak to you on a much simpler level if you just think something is "beautiful" or "pretty". Take the Laocoon Group or a picture by Caspar David Friedrich (just random examples of "less complex" art) they can be appreciated on a much "simpler" level than the Mona Lisa or some abstract piece and that doesn't make the experience any less valuable or "cheaper".
It depends on the art direction we're talking about but I found you to be generalizing a tad too hard there...
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
