Date: 2/10/2004 8:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 53836
I believe there are different values put on art. The comparisons you made were obviously different levels of art...some art is merely crap, when others are priceless...Take Amy Lee of Evanescense...she's an artist in every light, from the lyrics she writes to the way she portrays them as well as her own sense of personal style. Unlike the popular vote, I didn't find Lost In Translation to be very well written, but the manner in which it was filmed was quite artful! And I do believe that there should be a cap on artistic freedoms so actions like Miss Jackson's cannot be misconstued as artistic liscense...that was completely insensitive to the viewing audience.  |
|
Date: 2/10/2004 8:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 53836
don't forget the infamous quote when debating this, for Art is in the eye of the beholder! :) |
Date: 2/10/2004 9:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 57232
This is post is why I'm a former Art major. I'd work me tail off (feeling British so worked me tail off...) just for them blokes to give water in a cup a better grade. Didn't quite understand the way things were for those classes.  |
Date: 2/10/2004 9:04:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 29387
Art is indeed in the eye of the beholder SpaceCase; thanks for reminding me about that quote...Amy Lee and Evanescence may be "true" artists; I think that there is a very thin line between art and opinion of art.  |
Date: 2/10/2004 10:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 62146
art is language of the soul that is spoken in different ways. Some might not beable to decode one pice of art but tohers mioght their is not such thing as true creativity cause thats the whole point their are different ways to express creativity.  |
Date: 2/11/2004 6:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 54987
There was a famous case years ago where an experiment was made using painting made by chimps and rated by art critics. The critics didn't know they were painted by chimps and rated them highly to their later embarrassment. Everything can be deemed as art. It is in the eye of the beholder it seems. One artist used dead animals as art. It is something that subjective to the viewer. We all know what we like, but it's all art.  |
|
Date: 2/11/2004 7:17:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 29387
Good point Koolade, although, I wonder if after the critics found out that it was actual monkeys, whether they had said that it wasn't art then. Did the monkeys know what they were doing, and whether they were trying to say something with their art?...Thanks for the replies you guys. |
Date: 2/11/2004 8:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 47162
I think art involves some amount of personal effort, not just someone laying on a bench or splashing water on a towel or something. If I leave a candy wrapper on a paper plate and put it in the smithsonian, and call it art, well thats just silly. Something isn't aren't when someone can justifiably call it silly. Many times today people say that their stupid stuff is art, because in the past, great artists had their stuff called stupid also. Thus since in the past real art was considered stupid by the masses, their current stupidness is art also. But in reality it's just stupidity. There is no way the masterpieces of the past that were shunned by the church and the gov'ts of their time, there is no way current stupid art even compares with that earlier stuff. It's apples and oranges. In the past when art was shunned, it was shunned because it disagreed with the common beliefs of the day, now days when art is shunned, it's shunned because it's sloppily put together, and looks silly. The reasons for shunning art are so different from the past and now into the present.  |
|
Date: 2/11/2004 8:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 47162
The validity of art seems like it could partially be measured by the response of the masses also. For example if someone makes a painting of Jesus and Buddah holding hands, and the masses respond with hate, because it goes against their personal convictions, then I would say that is art. It's merely shunned because it arouses negative passions in people. On the other hand if someone puts a twig on a park bench and the masses reply with laughter and think it's silly, well chances are it isn't art! The passions aroused aren't once of substance. Maybe we need to look at the kind of passions that a piece of art arouses in people, in order to see if it's art or not. I mean on a simple level everything can be art! But on a simple level I can make a paper airplane and call it mass transit too. Some of this just calls for a lil common sense. Some will hate and dismiss a piece of art simply because they disagree with it's message. For those people, I would say they are wrong. Something doesn't cease to be art just because it goes against your system of beliefs. On the other hand, something isn't art, simply because the masses cease to recognize it as art. |
|
Date: 2/11/2004 9:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 62518
Art is an expression of somthing. It does not have to be a reflection of society. It can be emotion, a thoguht, and impression, representation. Art can taje many forms such as poetry, or painting, and music... Or speech, just the tone of your voice could be considered a form of art. Some one with a very interesting personality may be said to be very animated. You could say it is a form of art. Wether or not some forms or depictions of art are apropriate or not could be up for debate. But it cannot be disputed as not "being art" it is. Not everyone has to like what they see, and may not think other people shoould be exposed.. But it is still art... -Night Ryder... |
|
Date: 2/11/2004 9:54:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 29387
You make good points Resilient...art may or may not get reactions from people; but a place to start defining art is whether or not it gets a reaction at all. Then, like you said, we need to determine if the reactions are positive - and by positive I mean that it's a reaction that makes a person think negatively or positively about it. If the reaction is laughing at it because it's silly, then it's not really categorizable as art. Thanks for the reply. |
|
Date: 2/11/2004 9:58:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 29387
Night Ryder - I'm not sure whether speech could really be described as "art." If the person is up on stage speaking, and performing, then yes, that is playacting and art. But even if someone is speaks eloquently or elegantly, or emotionally or exceptionally, I think that is a talent. But perhaps talent is art. Thanks for the response. |
Date: 2/11/2004 7:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
Art is a wide variety of things. To me, art is anything that expresses something of the artist, be it a video, painting, acting, or writing. Anything can be considered art.  |
Date: 2/11/2004 7:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
art is in the eye of the beholder  |
Date: 2/12/2004 3:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
One day I'm going to go into a modern art museum and rope off a bit of tissue on a stand. Then listen to people rave about the 'nilhistic expressionism' of it...  |
Date: 2/13/2004 1:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 39370
To me, everyone has a different opinion and value of art. Art is simply an expression or a reflection of yourself. At least that's how I feel :)  |
Date: 2/15/2004 9:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 24813
Here's a quote I like that's on the topic: "Music, states of happiness, mythology, faces formed in time, certain twilights and certain places are trying to tell us something, or have said something that we should never have missed, or are on the point of telling us something; this imminent revelation, that has not yet happened, is, perhaps, the aesthetic reality." - Jorge Luis Borges  |
