Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Why is this not art?

  1. #1 Why is this not art? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    Why is the messy rocky hill over there by the broken weeping willow not a form of art until one draws it?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    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.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Uncertain
    Posts
    182
    Nature is the greatest artist of all.. As it is nature that created our perception of itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I completley agree with you! :-D
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Inevidence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    55
    I agree, but truthfully only now that I've seen you mention it. Interesting thought, never thought of that :-D
    The wonderful thing about escalators is that they cannot break. They can only become stairs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Why is the messy rocky hill over there by the broken weeping willow not a form of art until one draws it?
    Because art is DEFINED as a product of human creativity. Nature can be wonderful and beautiful but it isn't art, by definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman Inevidence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    55
    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?
    The wonderful thing about escalators is that they cannot break. They can only become stairs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Come on Bunbury, the definition of art is widely disputed and no such definition actually exists. Now I see why nodoby got my joke. :|
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Inevidence
    .. it's the source of inspiration for a great deal of things, art and other alike, isn't it?
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    14
    what?
    __________________________________________________ ____________

    http://www.china-oilpainting-art.com china oil painting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ophelia
    what?
    It's art.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    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 prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime
    Come on Bunbury, the definition of art is widely disputed and no such definition actually exists. Now I see why nodoby got my joke. :|
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime
    Come on Bunbury, the definition of art is widely disputed and no such definition actually exists. Now I see why nodoby got my joke. :|
    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 prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    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.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    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.
    Exactly.

    This kind of contradicts with my previous statement that people need not be involved,
    Yes it certainly does.

    but I don't think emotion is something that only people have.
    Possibly dogs and cats have emotions but I seriously doubt that a plate of pasta primavera has emotions.

    I believe it is possibly even dimensional.
    Having concocted such a nice soup you have to go and put a postmodern fly in it.


    Here's some art. What is it?
    http://mvjournal.files.wordpress.com...itte-pipe2.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    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.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    We are able to remain in the same place in the three dimensions of space yet be in different emotional states. .
    This is rather obvious and seemingly trivial, so I'm not sure what you are trying to draw from it. Can you clarify.
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    The senses are easily mapped to emotions. .
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    No one knows what colors are. Red is just red and can not be defined any further.
    Wrong.
    Red is electromagnetic radiation in the visible part of the spectrum with these characteristics.
    Wavelength 635-700 nm
    Frequency 430 -480 THz
    They (the colours) must be experienced to be understood, just like the rest of the dimensions we live in.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    This is rather obvious and seemingly trivial, so I'm not sure what you are trying to draw from it. Can you clarify.
    This was my attempt to portray emotions as dimensional in the way I once saw time proven to be a dimension.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    The senses are easily mapped to emotions. .
    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?
    No, I was saying that they are easily mapped to emotions, not always mapped.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    No one knows what colors are. Red is just red and can not be defined any further.
    Wrong.
    Red is electromagnetic radiation in the visible part of the spectrum with these characteristics.
    Wavelength 635-700 nm
    Frequency 430 -480 THz
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    They (the colours) must be experienced to be understood, just like the rest of the dimensions we live in.
    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.
    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]
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    No, I was saying that they are easily mapped to emotions, not always mapped.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    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. ]
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by schiz0yd
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    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."
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Au
    Au is offline
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    3
    Art is just the art of calling something art.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    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.
    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.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: Why is this not art? 
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Dlrow
    Why is the messy rocky hill over there by the broken weeping willow not a form of art until one draws it?
    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)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •