Anachronous Rex
New Member
I believe the good doctor was only referring to sensory input, and not thought processes, but I find myself without objection to this.PAB said:
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Defining Art
- Thread starter PAB
- Start date
ShootMyMonkey
New Member
Intellectualization of mediums of expression is something I've always been a fan of. It's one of the reasons I studied music theory, for instance. Sure it means that when I go to a concert, things don't just wash over me, and I naturally end up analyzing the hell out of it, but in a lot of ways, that means I enjoy it more because I end up appreciating things in greater detail. It's very easy to say that G-G-G-Eb is a recognizable and powerful meme in the world of music, but there's also very much interest on my part in knowing why that's the case.
Hell, I would even point to Bruce Lee's books on martial arts as a beautiful example of this. He took a very intellectual and analytical approach to what would normally seem to be a purely physical pursuit. He didn't simply stop at saying "this is how you do xxx", but went on to talk about why it works. He also didn't simply collect theoretical musings and proclaim that "if you do x in such and such way, it will maximize power/speed/whatever" -- he actually tested out those hypotheses and collected data and refined his technique.
Something I very briefly touched upon in my editiorial article on PSInsider (it was written as a response to Roger Ebert's tirade about what defines art) was this whole idea that art and science aren't really all that disparate as people might seem to think. Overall, though, the piece is really just making the point that the "definition" of art is a dynamic thing and so any attempt to try and define it will be more rooted in prevailing culture currents with relatively few overarching parts of common ground. Trying to single out only those common aspects would make for an incredibly loose definition, to say the least.
Hell, I would even point to Bruce Lee's books on martial arts as a beautiful example of this. He took a very intellectual and analytical approach to what would normally seem to be a purely physical pursuit. He didn't simply stop at saying "this is how you do xxx", but went on to talk about why it works. He also didn't simply collect theoretical musings and proclaim that "if you do x in such and such way, it will maximize power/speed/whatever" -- he actually tested out those hypotheses and collected data and refined his technique.
Something I very briefly touched upon in my editiorial article on PSInsider (it was written as a response to Roger Ebert's tirade about what defines art) was this whole idea that art and science aren't really all that disparate as people might seem to think. Overall, though, the piece is really just making the point that the "definition" of art is a dynamic thing and so any attempt to try and define it will be more rooted in prevailing culture currents with relatively few overarching parts of common ground. Trying to single out only those common aspects would make for an incredibly loose definition, to say the least.
Lallapalalable
New Member
I've always gotten away in art classes by saying its anything man-made that can invoke emotion, promote thought, and provoke a reaction of some sort from the viewer, and it must do all three (seriously its like the professors knew I hated answering broad questions on syllabus day)
:?: I don't know what art is. I have been sitting here trying to define it for a while and I just don't know.
I was thinking it's a personal expression of an idea or feeling...until I read the part about external projection of ideas apon a piece. Maybe it's merely the personal attachment of an idea or feeling. Is there such a thing as 'thought art' ? Can you 'do' art without actually creating anything? Does it mean that you make something art just by looking at it?
On a broad note, there is alot out there considered to be art that has no original meaning, idea or point...it just became art through external perception.
I don't get it.
Then there is the stuff that was created for a purpose out of an idea with skill and time and feeling, which shows an idea or intentionally invokes an emotion or reaction.
That I like. Or maybe I don't.
In general I'm not at all bothered by the definition of the word. When it comes down to it and I look at something shit in a gallery I will say, 'What a piece of shit.'
Whether someone else considers it to be a work of genius I couldn't give a fuck.
I can see clearly from what I've written I have helped nothing, lovely.
I was thinking it's a personal expression of an idea or feeling...until I read the part about external projection of ideas apon a piece. Maybe it's merely the personal attachment of an idea or feeling. Is there such a thing as 'thought art' ? Can you 'do' art without actually creating anything? Does it mean that you make something art just by looking at it?
On a broad note, there is alot out there considered to be art that has no original meaning, idea or point...it just became art through external perception.
I don't get it.
Then there is the stuff that was created for a purpose out of an idea with skill and time and feeling, which shows an idea or intentionally invokes an emotion or reaction.
That I like. Or maybe I don't.
In general I'm not at all bothered by the definition of the word. When it comes down to it and I look at something shit in a gallery I will say, 'What a piece of shit.'
Whether someone else considers it to be a work of genius I couldn't give a fuck.
I can see clearly from what I've written I have helped nothing, lovely.
Krullish said::?: I don't know what art is. I have been sitting here trying to define it for a while and I just don't know.
I was thinking it's a personal expression of an idea or feeling...until I read the part about external projection of ideas apon a piece. Maybe it's merely the personal attachment of an idea or feeling. Is there such a thing as 'thought art' ? Can you 'do' art without actually creating anything? Does it mean that you make something art just by looking at it?
On a broad note, there is alot out there considered to be art that has no original meaning, idea or point...it just became art through external perception.
I don't get it.
Then there is the stuff that was created for a purpose out of an idea with skill and time and feeling, which shows an idea or intentionally invokes an emotion or reaction.
That I like. Or maybe I don't.
In general I'm not at all bothered by the definition of the word. When it comes down to it and I look at something shit in a gallery I will say, 'What a piece of shit.'
Whether someone else considers it to be a work of genius I couldn't give a fuck.
I can see clearly from what I've written I have helped nothing, lovely.
there is such a thing as 'thought art' ;called 'conceptual art' coined around the 60's - 70's but links back to the early 1900's with duchamp with the readymade. The readymade is non-creation production , e.g duchamp buying a urinal signing it and putting it in a art gallery.
Making art by just looking at it , is essentially, in a sense , what the visual arts is based on. Nothing is apriori art, it requires seeing something as art in consensus with the beliefs of art.
Art isnt 'anything' , although it can be anything so long as it can be argued and viewed to the mysticism of some art belief which is shared by some group