LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhy is the messy rocky hill over there by the broken weeping willow not a form of art until one draws it?
July 18th, 2008, 03:26 PM
Why is the messy rocky hill over there by the broken weeping willow not a form of art until one draws it?
It is.
But I believe 'art' defines as 'That which is controversial'.
Seriously though, I believe however that this is not to far from the truth, in that each and every painting of that messy rocky hill that is painted by someone is entriely different and can convey a whole variety of meanings, emotions etc. But in English, in my deifinition, art is something, anything, that is represented out of real time, to be observed without time.
That is my definition anyway.
Nature is the greatest artist of all.. As it is nature that created our perception of itself.
I completley agree with you! :-D
I agree, but truthfully only now that I've seen you mention it. Interesting thought, never thought of that :-D
Because art is DEFINED as a product of human creativity. Nature can be wonderful and beautiful but it isn't art, by definition.Why is the messy rocky hill over there by the broken weeping willow not a form of art until one draws it?
Well, call me silly, but concidering art began with nature, there should be something to credit nature too; i mean.. it's the source of inspiration for a great deal of things, art and other alike, isn't it?
Come on Bunbury, the definition of art is widely disputed and no such definition actually exists. Now I see why nodoby got my joke. :|
art 1. Skill, esp. human skill, as opposed to nature;
Concise Oxford Dictionary
art 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter or counteract the work of nature 2.a. Conscious arrangement of or production of sounds, colors forms...and so on...
Websters II
A question was asked. I answered it. The rest is noise. :P
Yes, absolutely. It is the inspiration for art, but it isn't art in itself. Unless you believe in Slartibartfast, designer of Norway. He wasn't human, but who wants to nit pick...Originally Posted by Inevidence
humans are nature, and the things we do are a part of nature... so if we create; it is nature creating.
When the day comes where we can engineer DNA... we could possibly create beautiful things... like a flower that is designed to be beautiful to the human mind...
One more thing. I know from personal experience, the most beautiful thing i have seen is our progress in the universe. Those figures that have stood out in our history, coming to new conclusions about our world, or the groups that have fought or died for new beliefs are, to me, a grandeur that can not be matched.
Rocks and waterfalls are nice; but one day we all will look back at our home amid the stars and see beauty untold; because it is ours.
I would like to share a poem I wrote... = )
EARTH RISE
Standing among ashen gray
Peering into a blackened void
Amidst it; home
Crystal blue
Never knowing isolation
Never knowing wonderment
Never really understanding why I cry; until now
There, by herself, she looks back
Inside I feel alive
For once; I know tomorrow will survive
If forever I could feel this moment
I could truly say I am in love
If only with the thought of what I saw
My home among the stars
This is a tribute to our first steps into a much larger existence.
what?
__________________________________________________ ____________
http://www.china-oilpainting-art.com china oil painting
It's art.
I believe that everything is art for the sole reason that anything unique is art, and the universe is infinitely unique. As Einstein used to ask himself what kind of universe he would create if he was God, my answer is that if you are God and you can do anything, what is there to do other than make art? Not only just make art, but since you are capable of it, why not make all forms of art that could possibly happen by creating a universe where every possibility comes true?
I got your joke but it wasn't very funny. 8)
Evidence please of this dispute, in which one side, apparently, claims the creation of art need not involve people.
I claim that art need not involve people.I got your joke but it wasn't very funny. 8)
Evidence please of this dispute, in which one side, apparently, claims the creation of art need not involve people.
I think it could be said that art is anything that invokes emotion upon experiencing it. It is in this way that we are able to agree on things such as emotion and color, even though they are indescribable aspects of our experience. We have no way of checking that our experience of love or hate is the same other than agreeing that a piece of art brings about the same emotional reaction. Sad music, angry music, happy music, loving music. Sad colors, happy colors, angry colors, etc. how can you describe what any of these things are? emotions, music, color? art is our emotional connection. This kind of contradicts with my previous statement that people need not be involved, but I don't think emotion is something that only people have. I believe it is possibly even dimensional.
Exactly.
Yes it certainly does.This kind of contradicts with my previous statement that people need not be involved,
Possibly dogs and cats have emotions but I seriously doubt that a plate of pasta primavera has emotions.but I don't think emotion is something that only people have.
Having concocted such a nice soup you have to go and put a postmodern fly in it.I believe it is possibly even dimensional.
Here's some art. What is it?
http://mvjournal.files.wordpress.com...itte-pipe2.jpg
We are in one state of emotion or another at all times, at varying scales. We are able to remain in the same place in the three dimensions of space yet be in different emotional states.
The senses are easily mapped to emotions. No one knows what colors are. Red is just red and can not be defined any further. They must be experienced to be understood, just like the rest of the dimensions we live in. It is something we can only agree on by our mutual experience of reality, and therefor I conclude that it is intrinsic of reality.
It's a hyperlink. Very beautiful indeed.
This is rather obvious and seemingly trivial, so I'm not sure what you are trying to draw from it. Can you clarify.
Again, I don't see this as being correct. If I am happy it is an internal, reflective state. I don't need to be able to be seeing at the moment I am feeling happy. I could be immersed in a sensory deprivation tank and be happy, sad, bored, or whatever. I see no mapping at all.
Certainly the senses can, through our perceptions of what is happening, lead to a change in our emotional state, but this is quite a different thing. Is that what you were thinking of?
Wrong.
Red is electromagnetic radiation in the visible part of the spectrum with these characteristics.
Wavelength 635-700 nm
Frequency 430 -480 THz
My brother in law is colour blind and cannot experience red in the same way as you and I. However he had no trouble understanding it. I venture to say, in his role as a pathologist, he had a greater appreciation of colour than many.They (the colours) must be experienced to be understood, just like the rest of the dimensions we live in.
This was my attempt to portray emotions as dimensional in the way I once saw time proven to be a dimension.
No, I was saying that they are easily mapped to emotions, not always mapped.Again, I don't see this as being correct. If I am happy it is an internal, reflective state. I don't need to be able to be seeing at the moment I am feeling happy. I could be immersed in a sensory deprivation tank and be happy, sad, bored, or whatever. I see no mapping at all.
Certainly the senses can, through our perceptions of what is happening, lead to a change in our emotional state, but this is quite a different thing. Is that what you were thinking of?
This is our brain mapping senses to vibrations, just as it does with sound. I can say with certainty that colors are not a direct property of light but rather a method of our brain to differentiate the energy levels in light. I say this because I have synaesthesia, and I experience colors even when I do not see light.Wrong.
Red is electromagnetic radiation in the visible part of the spectrum with these characteristics.
Wavelength 635-700 nm
Frequency 430 -480 THz
My father is also colorblind to red, and he can recognize it by its difference from other colors, but gets it confused with grey. This shows that red is not a characteristic of the wavelength or frequency, but a production of our brain to differentiate this energy level of light.[/quote]
Sorry, I don't see them ever mapped to the emotions. Mapping applies a close correspondence, closer than an analogy, thought not necessarily an identity. Thus you would need to correlate sight, or some consistent aspect of it, with a specific emotion. This does not seem to be the case. I can think of know instance where it is. Can you cite one?
You are taking a narrow and necessarily wrong interpretation. I cannot see ultra-violet, yet my knowledge of it is similar to that of red. In the case of red I have some additional information of a personal character, based on my sightedness. I don't accord it much importance since I have scant regard for discrete personal observation: mine, or anyone elses.
No. I have defined redness on the basis of the wavelengt and frequency of the light, not by how I, my brother in law, your grandfather, or Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, sees it. To be more precise science has defined it. I have accepted their definition.
I agree. I see it as a definition of a numerical range we can understand by our knowledge of our personal experience of that range. There is no way to ever know if what I see as blue is or isn't what you see as blue. Perhaps what is green to me is yellow to you. it is non-physical so I doubt that it can be a product of a physical dimension.
I guess 'mapping' is the wrong word to use then, though I consider it to be semantics. I find that most people can agree that the senses are easily connected to emotions.
a quick search found this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0208211926.htm
"Colors are frequently used to describe emotions, such as being 'green with envy' or 'in the blues'. Although there is a large, often anecdotal, literature on color preferences and the relationship of color to mood and emotion, there has been relatively little serious research on the subject."
Art is just the art of calling something art.
That is fine. As long as you want to do away with dictionary definitions you can also say, for instance, that a diesel locomotive is a cup of tea. Go for it, but you will have considerable difficulty communicating your thoughts to others.Art is just the art of calling something art.
A diesel locomotive is a cup of tea because it is easy to understand. A (caffienated) cup of tea is a diesel locomotive in the sense that it can produce energy. You could fill a diesel locomotive with tea and call it your cup. No difficulty communicating creativity in anything, between anything. The true essence of creativity is found in metaphors; the ability to grasp harmony between ideas that have no literal relevance.
June 4th, 2010, 05:08 PM
Here's my take on this topic.
Art requires a "humanly" intervention in manipulating a specific or a combination of mediums, to recreate or to bring forth "something" from their experience of either a scene, a subject, an (mental) abstract concept, etc. into reality (the very same "space" that we exist in).
Something that exists in nature for example, is nature, and not art. Although there are times where we might admire something in nature to be "beautiful", it isn't considered art till "we" intervene.
(This is something I have given some thought over during my time as a amateur sculptor some years ago)
This discussion of art being related to emotion is relatively superficial. A society's conception of art is based on subjective aesthetics which change from culture to culture and through time.
There has been strong research on music exploring why we associate certain sounds with emotions, much of it is learned and cultural. However, it is not the fact that sounds have an emotional affect on people that makes music art. It is the intent and skill of the artist which creates art, there has to be some concept and intent in place for something to be art. If I bang away on a keyboard randomly for the fun of it, it's not art. If I bang away on a keyboard with the intent of creating some deliberate effect, or to express some concept, then it could be art.
Because it is exceedingly hot today:
Heat
O wind, rend open the heat,
cut apart the heat,
rend it to tatters.
Fruit cannot drop
through this thick air--
fruit cannot fall into heat
that presses up and blunts
the points of pears
and rounds the grapes.
Cut the heat--
plough through it,
turning it on either side
of your path.
H. D.
It is not the emotional affect this poem has on people that makes this poem art, but the fact that it was deliberately crafted by Hilda Doolittle with some intention in mind. It is meant to be read, it is meant to have some sort of effect, and it is meant to be art.
| « OrIgaMI | my third creative painitng, sunset in orion » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
