Sorry, I Just Don't Get It.
- Thread starter seacaptain
- Start date
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
It still seems like the qualifications for "good art" are not quite in line with what is being implied in this conversation.
If art is a deeply personal, visceral experience, then I'm quite satisfied to go eat a good Pizza next time I feel the urge to fill a void in my life.
Really, there are a lot of every day experiences that make most of this seem inconsequential.
Maybe BASE jumpers are the most artistic people alive today?
Maybe James Bond represents the hight of human existence?
I will say that when it comes to my own personal preference for aesthetic, the highest form of beauty is when a rhythmic and/or intricate pattern is in every way also necessary in function. The ultimate blend of function and form, where neither is compromised to any degree.
Formula 1 would be a perfect example if I didn't know that they have thousands of rules interfering with design.
If art is a deeply personal, visceral experience, then I'm quite satisfied to go eat a good Pizza next time I feel the urge to fill a void in my life.
Really, there are a lot of every day experiences that make most of this seem inconsequential.
Maybe BASE jumpers are the most artistic people alive today?
Maybe James Bond represents the hight of human existence?
I will say that when it comes to my own personal preference for aesthetic, the highest form of beauty is when a rhythmic and/or intricate pattern is in every way also necessary in function. The ultimate blend of function and form, where neither is compromised to any degree.
Formula 1 would be a perfect example if I didn't know that they have thousands of rules interfering with design.
Jeremy Clarkson once called the SR-71 Blackbird one of the most beautiful things ever created by Mankind, I don't think he was far off.
He also said the E Type Jag was possibly the most beautiful thing ever made by man, I agree with both statements
In my above post I named the E Type, I should have said it's modern reincarnation the Eagle Speedster
http://www.eaglegb.com/pages/eagle-speedster#.U3n1g96NTIU
“I think this, by a long way, is the most beautiful car I have ever seen. It might actually be the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.”
Jeremy Clarkson, BBC Top Gear June 2011
http://www.eaglegb.com/pages/eagle-speedster#.U3n1g96NTIU
“I think this, by a long way, is the most beautiful car I have ever seen. It might actually be the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.”
Jeremy Clarkson, BBC Top Gear June 2011
I see the tern "Art" as a value on something that has been created using the creative process that has had some phenomenah occur that raises the product above the level or "ordinary." To me, this includes dance, music, and even maybe peanut butter sandwiches that surpass the level of ordinary. if that is even possible. The medium is the "things" used to create the thing, whether it is a performance, event, or a "thing." And, we tend to associate the medium with the value, meaning that we see paintings, drawings, sculpture, etc as being what signifies the things as art. As someone with aesthetic training, I hate to say it, but just because it's paint on canvas has nothing to do with whether it is art or not, and today we have evolved past these antiquated mediums.
Paint and realism was used as a means of capturing what reality looks like up until the development of the camera. After the camera artists were free to use paint to explore things other than realism. Mediums made their way into the art education programs as they lost their use in society. Hand built ceramics became art when industrial processes gave us new products, making hand built ceramics no longer economical viable as a means of making "useful" products. Black and white photography became an art after it was no longer useful in lieu of color. etc, etc... However, today we see such fast developments of technology, that many in the art world are using the cutting edge latest developments to create new phenomena that many regard as the new art; web interactions, designs... crafts are taking up this elevation to a level above "ordinary" and art is no longer those things rich people buy for their walls.
Sure, some will define art by the mediums used. But, the dissonance within this thread really shows that art cannot be narrowly defined by the medium. Sure, some of us still like paintings and prints for our walls, but by no means is the definition still limited by that old framework. Art has always been the pinnacle of human creation, and as creation changes, so does the "look" of the art.
Sure, an airplane can bee seen as art. Sure, beer could be seen as art. I even think that some of the greatest golfers are artists, by the sheer beauty of the way they play. What determines what is "art" to the individual is based upon their personal, social, financial, genetic, gender, cultural, and racial make up and experience. Art to me will not be art to everyone. Art to you might not be art to me. This is the ambiguous nature of art, and like beauty, not everyone can agree on an exactly the same way to define the object and it's relationship to label of quality we call "art."
Does that help? I like that ugly pipe, others might not. :
:
Paint and realism was used as a means of capturing what reality looks like up until the development of the camera. After the camera artists were free to use paint to explore things other than realism. Mediums made their way into the art education programs as they lost their use in society. Hand built ceramics became art when industrial processes gave us new products, making hand built ceramics no longer economical viable as a means of making "useful" products. Black and white photography became an art after it was no longer useful in lieu of color. etc, etc... However, today we see such fast developments of technology, that many in the art world are using the cutting edge latest developments to create new phenomena that many regard as the new art; web interactions, designs... crafts are taking up this elevation to a level above "ordinary" and art is no longer those things rich people buy for their walls.
Sure, some will define art by the mediums used. But, the dissonance within this thread really shows that art cannot be narrowly defined by the medium. Sure, some of us still like paintings and prints for our walls, but by no means is the definition still limited by that old framework. Art has always been the pinnacle of human creation, and as creation changes, so does the "look" of the art.
Sure, an airplane can bee seen as art. Sure, beer could be seen as art. I even think that some of the greatest golfers are artists, by the sheer beauty of the way they play. What determines what is "art" to the individual is based upon their personal, social, financial, genetic, gender, cultural, and racial make up and experience. Art to me will not be art to everyone. Art to you might not be art to me. This is the ambiguous nature of art, and like beauty, not everyone can agree on an exactly the same way to define the object and it's relationship to label of quality we call "art."
Does that help? I like that ugly pipe, others might not. :
:
So, let me see if I have this straight; you're saying that art is something that is beautiful to most people's eyes. Sorry, but that cuts out a great percentage of what I consider great art. Britten's "War Requiem", great art, not beautiful. Picasso's "Old Guitarist", great art (you can see a lifetime of cause and effect in a simple portrait), not beautiful. "Hamlet", great art, not beautiful.
When I first began teaching I had to work summer odd jobs and for one of those summers I worked at a parking garage. I drove Jags, Porsches, Mercedes, and even a Lotus. Those were great experiences and the cars and the way they handled, the comfortable interiors, those gorgeous exterior lines and arcs. They were beautiful cars. Though to me, not great art. I think, for me, the main characteristic of great art is, "Am I different after seeing,hearing,reading,experiencing the art?" I have changed, or been effected by, reading Murakami's "1Q84", but not so much by reading some of my favorite detective or history books. I know I'm a minority but I still see art as a conduit to personal growth.
When I first began teaching I had to work summer odd jobs and for one of those summers I worked at a parking garage. I drove Jags, Porsches, Mercedes, and even a Lotus. Those were great experiences and the cars and the way they handled, the comfortable interiors, those gorgeous exterior lines and arcs. They were beautiful cars. Though to me, not great art. I think, for me, the main characteristic of great art is, "Am I different after seeing,hearing,reading,experiencing the art?" I have changed, or been effected by, reading Murakami's "1Q84", but not so much by reading some of my favorite detective or history books. I know I'm a minority but I still see art as a conduit to personal growth.
What does beauty have to do with art? Except that art and beauty are both pending on personal make-up in determining. And, "art" does not rely on "most" people's eyes, just your own.
And, yes, that definition of art "for you" works. It might not be mine, or anyone else's, but it sounds valid to me.
And, yes, that definition of art "for you" works. It might not be mine, or anyone else's, but it sounds valid to me.
The age of relying on someone in an ivory tower telling what is art and what is not art is over, has been over since WW1. We are just now starting to define it as a personal aesthetic and not some cultural one. Does that make sense?
I can think that watching Tiger Woods make an excellent swing with a driver is a work of art, and if someone wants to tell me it is not, that is there prerogative. Because to them, it may not be.
If you think that only watercolors painted by dead British guys is art, that is your prerogative. I may not give any value at all to such paintings, and that should not affect the way you see those things at all.
If you think that only watercolors painted by dead British guys is art, that is your prerogative. I may not give any value at all to such paintings, and that should not affect the way you see those things at all.
No, art is what appeals to your sense of quality, something that is above ordinary. You cannot make up what you want art to be, no more than you can decide what is beautiful or ugly. It just appeals to your senses and you respond. Maybe it has to stimulate your intellect, or maybe it has to appeal to your emotions. We all react differently. Just because I may not value the same things as you, does not mean that I "chose" that. It just means that we grew to those two different perspectives.
The price of a "thing" does not make it more art than something cheaper, or even free.
It's really not a difficult concept. Think of it as why some like the books or TV programs they prefer, verse what you prefer. Or, why some people are married to women we think are ugly. Not everyone has the same sense of beauty, ugly, or art. We are all different creatures.
Some like latakia, some don't. Some like those god awful, boring piece of shit poker pipes, and I do not. This should be an easy concept for pipe men to grasp. Why do some like FVF, and other don't? We all have different tastes, experiences, backgrounds, that determine what we like and respond to. We cannot force ourselves to like or prefer what we do not initially respond to. No more than I could chose to be gay or a woman. I could not force myself to respond in that way.
That's what I meant by my statement. If a plastic Jesus in a glass of piss is art to someone here on Earth---its art. Same for anything. To me, I'm looking at my zippo lighter right now, its beautiful....such form and function, to me its art. So art must be everything, or art is nothing.....just my definition, doesn't have to be anyone elses.
I would change that to, anything can be art, if someone has evolved to respond to it in that way. I would reiterate that one cannot decide what they like, no more than I can decide to lust for short fat women with huge noses.
I apologize to all of the short fat women with big noses. Sorry, I just can't...
Thank heavens we also have beautiful things around us that are not 'art". Sunrises,sunsets. Mountains, lakes, oceans, rivers, streams, creeks and wee burns. Forests and woods, plains and hills. Etc.
God was the original artist, however, "most" of us refer to his creation as nature, or natural. Some may think of His creation as art. Some may not believe in Him at all. But, referring to the definition, what or how someone deems as "art" has no bearing on what I think or believe is art.
Art is an intangible, subject to aesthetic exercises, just as beauty, love, and God is also. Only intangibles can be defined this way, with beliefs and aesthetics.
I like to tell my daughters, "it is impossible to believe in trees, because trees are real."
Maybe someone out there can believe in trees, but that is usually a sign of some sort of mental malfunction.
Art is an intangible, subject to aesthetic exercises, just as beauty, love, and God is also. Only intangibles can be defined this way, with beliefs and aesthetics.
I like to tell my daughters, "it is impossible to believe in trees, because trees are real."
Maybe someone out there can believe in trees, but that is usually a sign of some sort of mental malfunction.
Not touching the God-as-artist thing!
And women as art? Certainly there's usually artistry in the presentation......... And I suppose I'd rather look at a beautiful woman than your average mountain!
And women as art? Certainly there's usually artistry in the presentation......... And I suppose I'd rather look at a beautiful woman than your average mountain!
- Status