Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Philosophy Forum
Lexilogio

Is it art?

One of the questions which comes up periodically is  - what is classified as art?

This came to the fore in the Uk recently, when, again, some critics questioned if the work of Damien Hirst, could be considered art. After all, he doesn't even do the painting himself.

In 2008, a photography exhibition in Sydney was shut down after politicians got steamed up and sent in the police to remove a number of pictures of naked 12 to 13 year olds. The art world was outraged, and after the classification board rated them all as fine to see - the exhibition re-started.

But is there a limit? What makes art? If I stand naked in Trafalgar Square - I'd be arrested. But if Damien Hirst put me there, on one of the pillars - it would be called art. What is the difference?
(Nb. I would like to assure members that I have absolutely no intention of standing, sitting, or in any other manner appearing in Trafalgar Square without clothing....Quite apart from the fact it would more appropriately be a comedy act....)
The Boyg

Art is that which is accepted to be art. I don't particularly consider that it has to be created with the intention of being perceived as art.
gone

Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Shrub Dweller

Re: Is it art?

Lexilogio wrote:
But is there a limit? What makes art? If I stand naked in Trafalgar Square - I'd be arrested. But if Damien Hirst put me there, on one of the pillars - it would be called art. What is the difference?

It just shows what a stupid and gullible world we live in. Real art is what a person or small group do which echos how a set of people feel inside. It's a zeitgeist. Because of our sheer numbers this soon gets lost in commercialisation or some contrived affectation. True art will often bond a group together in some kind of identity, often seen in tribal peoples.


Quote:

(Nb. I would like to assure members that I have absolutely no intention of standing, sitting, or in any other manner appearing in Trafalgar Square without clothing....Quite apart from the fact it would more appropriately be a comedy act....)

Bang goes my dreams. You raise our hopes and then dash them against the cruel rocks of life.
Lexilogio

Re: Is it art?

Quote:

(Nb. I would like to assure members that I have absolutely no intention of standing, sitting, or in any other manner appearing in Trafalgar Square without clothing....Quite apart from the fact it would more appropriately be a comedy act....)

Bang goes my dreams. You raise our hopes and then dash them against the cruel rocks of life.[/quote]

Mr Spock

Art is the discipline of creating artefacts, perhaps you meant to ask about the fine arts?
Lexilogio

Mr Spoke wrote:
Art is the discipline of creating artefacts, perhaps you meant to ask about the fine arts?


Hmmm - that depends on what you term "fine art".

I meant paintings, music, literature, sculpture, film, etc... The stuff that goes on, "The Culture Show".
Boss Cat

I think of art as being distinct from nature - the clue is in the word.  

Some art might be ridiculous, stupid, pretentiously stupid, deliberately elitist in its pretentious stupidity, poor quality, completely meaningless, useless, pointless etc etc etc.  But if it's produced as art then as far as I can see it's art.
Lexilogio

Boss Cat wrote:
I think of art as being distinct from nature - the clue is in the word.  

Some art might be ridiculous, stupid, pretentiously stupid, deliberately elitist in its pretentious stupidity, poor quality, completely meaningless, useless, pointless etc etc etc.  But if it's produced as art then as far as I can see it's art.


So art is created by humans? Something deliberately made?
Ketty

Lexilogio wrote:


So art is created by humans?


I think we can see art in nature - the beautifully crafted wasps' nest, a breathtaking sunset, etc.

Lexilogio wrote:
Something deliberately made?


Not necessarily but maybe in one sense, yes, because of what our minds and imagination make of whatever it is we're looking at and perceive as art.
IvyOwl

I see it as something seen in the imagination, inspired by a variety of stimuli, made concrete in order to share it or explore it more for yourself.

On the one hand you could have a sunset skillfully depicted in oils or watercolours and on the other one made out of coloured sweet wrappers in an infants class. Both are art. The former will be more enduring and seen by more people but at the heart of it is the process of creating and the getting near to the subject to express an age old truth or a new one and that's what's important together with the learning and honing of skills to that end.

How to put a value on it? The skill or the imagination? The 'message' and how well that's come across? That judgement can only be up to the individual artist and viewer. Some people are swayed by fashion and some are more discerning.

I see Trent's and PowWow's gardens as art. Two different styles executed with a set of hard won skills working with the raw materials of nature to express their joy of colour shape and form, and maybe make a deeper point, and to share it with others.

I tend to admire skill as that's what I'm lacking. Imagination I have a plenty but my skills are not up to putting it across as well as I'd like.

Then there is the what is art and what is craft debate but I must get on with my copy of a scene from the Bayeux tapestry and not spend any more time on here! .

It's not my art of course but as I sew I think of the original designers and embroiderers, probably cussing like me when the thread breaks or runs out or threading the needle proves problematic.  Did they have any idea of how much it would be valued all these years later? How much other work it inspired? You just wait until you you see the IvyOwl tapestry ..... just need to hone these skills.

PS 'Tapestry' is as I'm sure you are all aware a misnomer for the Bayeux thingy
JMC

Lexilogio wrote:
Boss Cat wrote:
I think of art as being distinct from nature - the clue is in the word.  

Some art might be ridiculous, stupid, pretentiously stupid, deliberately elitist in its pretentious stupidity, poor quality, completely meaningless, useless, pointless etc etc etc.  But if it's produced as art then as far as I can see it's art.


So art is created by humans? Something deliberately made?


Originally that is what art meant, hence the words artefact, artisan, artiface and, of course, artificial. Anything made is art. As Mr Spock suggested, and you confirmed, this discussion is more to do with the fine arts.

In this sense I believe art needs to be made with the intention of being beautiful and conveying truth. If they do neither of these things, but the intention is there, then I suppose it is not disqualified from being art, it is simply not very good.

A lot of modern art "gets away" with being called art because it is still has these intentions, but was created in a cultural spirit where truth is relative (and thus so is morality). Negative reactions to such art is based in a yearning - whether conscious or not - for truth that is absolute... it is in this culture where most of the pre-enlightenment art was created. Of course, the yearning mentioned is only satisfied by God Himself, which is why the overwhelming majority of beautiful art (whether paintings, sculptures, poetry or music) is dedicated and inspired by Him (or His creation).
ELEVENSES81

If an artefact is produced with no intention of it being 'Art', e.g a prehistoric venus figure or a cave painting then it is not art any more than a fortunate arrangement of leaves on the ground can be called 'Art' whatever its aesthetic value. There has to be the intention for it to be viewed as something outside of normal reality.

I once saw a construction which was a  facsimile of a garden shed complete with dusty shelves and detritus. It seemed to exist in its own parallel world and was oddly moving in the same way that Tracy Emin's bed was, although her construction was also imaginative.
bnabernard

ELEVENSES81 wrote:
If an artefact is produced with no intention of it being 'Art', e.g a prehistoric venus figure or a cave painting then it is not art any more than a fortunate arrangement of leaves on the ground can be called 'Art' whatever its aesthetic value. There has to be the intention for it to be viewed as something outside of normal reality.

I once saw a construction which was a  facsimile of a garden shed complete with dusty shelves and detritus. It seemed to exist in its own parallel world and was oddly moving in the same way that Tracy Emin's bed was, although her construction was also imaginative.

/
Something that stimulates the mind?

We was doing some zinc work on a bay roof, and working out of the back of a van, boards and trestles, benders, in an old fashion style, the owner, an artist remarked on how the work place itself was a work of art, (no she did not mean a right mess lol)

Some works of art capture the imagination of one but not  another and there in lies the difference when it comes to aproval, what do you see in it, in the case where you do not see anything then to you it will not be art.
Diversity, but to force feed art, well we get force fed a lot of stuff so  we ought to be used to it. who do we put in charge?

bernard (hug)
cyberman

ELEVENSES81 wrote:
If an artefact is produced with no intention of it being 'Art', e.g a prehistoric venus figure or a cave painting .


In the case of a prehistoric cave painting, you have no idea whether the creator of the work intended for it to be viewed as art or not. You can only guess.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
ELEVENSES81 wrote:
If an artefact is produced with no intention of it being 'Art', e.g a prehistoric venus figure or a cave painting .


In the case of a prehistoric cave painting, you have no idea whether the creator of the work intended for it to be viewed as art or not. You can only guess.


It's true that you can only guess but it seems an entirely reasonable supposition that the sheer pleasure of creating something new - something which we would call art - was in play in the minds of those cave painters: the execution strikes me as too careful, too precise, too sophisticated for it to be otherwise. Additionally, given the period of time we're talking about, that there was some sort of animistic ritual function, which is in no way incompatible.
ELEVENSES81

cyberman wrote:
ELEVENSES81 wrote:
If an artefact is produced with no intention of it being 'Art', e.g a prehistoric venus figure or a cave painting .


In the case of a prehistoric cave painting, you have no idea whether the creator of the work intended for it to be viewed as art or not. You can only guess.


These paintings are often found hundreds of metres inside caves and would have required lamps to paint them. One interpretation is that they represent the visions of shamans painted in a trance and hence not 'Art' in the accepted sense of the word as meant to be viewed by the general tribe members. Some of the figures appear to be half animal, half/woman.

Basically, we can speculate all we like, but we will never know.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Philosophy Forum
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum