nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index nglreturns.myfreeforum.org
Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Is it art?
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Philosophy Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
IvyOwl
Senior Community Member


Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 1301


Location: Norfolk

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:59 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JMC
Junior Community Member


Joined: 11 Mar 2014
Posts: 493


Location: Just passing through...

PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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).
_________________
The Way into the Kingdom of Heaven
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ELEVENSES81
Junior Community Member


Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 124


Location: Gloucester

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bnabernard
Senior Community Member


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 2726



PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ELEVENSES81
Junior Community Member


Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 124


Location: Gloucester

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Philosophy Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum