Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
2 of 2 < >

Skeptiko Haven Rules

Welcome to Skeptiko Haven.

The simple rules here:
  1. We don’t discuss general materialist explanations for ‘psi’ and related phenomena. Anyone wanting to suggest materialism as the explanation for paranormal or spiritual phenomena is directed to the Skeptiko Forum.
  2. In particular, anyone suggesting or implying that it is ridiculous, inherently stupid, etc., to talk about non-materialist experiences and paradigms, especially in what the moderator considers to be a rude, abrupt or threatening fashion, will be instantly suspended. First suspension: 3 weeks; second: 3 months; third: indefinite. (Unfortunately, experience of the older forum makes this rule seem advisable.)
  3. It is ok to mention materialist explanations for specific cases. Example: “I think this medium might be a cold reader” is fine, but “I think all psi is fake” is not. (Detailed materialist ‘debunking’ is still better placed in the Skeptiko Forum.)



Both forums will continue side-by-side, and everyone is encouraged to move between them as desired.

Finally, an additional guideline:
This forum is a place where the proponent side of debates discussion is respected, and where more listening and (frankly) politeness is possible than on the other forum. Of course, it’s not easy to ban sarcasm! But it is suggested that contributors listen to one another calmly, and speak to each other with respect.
See more
See less

Art and Science/Philosophy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Art and Science/Philosophy

    Hello everyone! Wanting to make my first contribution tos this forum, I came across with, what I think, is an interesting and potential idea for a good and rich debate.

    As the title suggests, the topic is Art, but more than Art, the question of what's Art's nature.

    All began when a month ago (before I discovered this forum) I had a discussion about Art (specifically, the visual and related to paintings and drawings) in another forum (which curiously wasn't about it). I commented on a topic that was about a critique to Modern Art, saying that in fact I didn't like it and I actually preferred some old tendencies (such as Renaissance, Ancient Greek art, etc), arguing that they were more developed and complex in features and making than many pieces of Modern Art. Then, two users said that my opinion "had not value" because there were famous and revolutionary artists such as Picasso (which I honestly think that is way overrated) that were of the Modernist stream and so it is "wrong" to have that opinion that X class of art is superior to X artist. Then I answered saying that although I recognized some Picasso's works and talents, in my personal opinion I didn't consider his work as equally superior to other ones that were before him and asked that they should respect my opinion as I was respecting theirs (I never said what I though in a threathening and imposing fashion)

    Then they used the statement that I was an "ignorant" of art (only because I said that I didn't consider myself a Art erudite and also that I never received specialized instruction in it) and thus my statements were completely invalid and didn't deserve any respect (one of them said that he didn't believe in "respecting others opinions" and that he also didn't ask respect for his, like trying to say that he had all the reason). That's when the discussion began to warm up and transform into a squabble, because I responded to those remarks with the statement that Art's nature and essence is purely subjective, and thus is absurd and illogical to look for things such a perfect, absolute and unique criteria to define what is good and wrong in it (in fact, I think that if it were in that way, It wouldn't be art), so, we all have the right to express our thoughs and opinions about it.

    They keep insisting in the "You are ignorant so shut up!" (one of them even said that comparing the differences between Technical Drawing and Artistic Drawing was senseless and wrong because Artistic Art was also objective...) statement and that is a lie that Art is subjective because there are specific and objective criteria in its making. Then, and seeing that I was handling with single minded and "not willing to debate" people, I decided to stop the discussion and leave for once and for all that forum.

    In my opinion, and after to search about the topic on Internet, I think that my position has more sense. It's true that to build Art and to share it to the world, you must make use of objective elements, the physical elements, but the source of inspiration and the basis of its expression is the creativitity, the imagination, the feelings and the thoughs, which are all subjective elements and thus what we call Art is an entirely subjective concept in its essence. If we look it at that way, we are all artists, because we all have creative and imaginative thoughs, the problem is to express and shape those ideas through physical elements and the technique that is used to do so, which is a complete different story. The "criteria" statement is also weak because if we talk about criteria we can find a lot and different of them in many artists and streams around the world, meaning that that "criteria" is mainly decided by the artist or stream ideas, preferences and points of view of their "ideal" work of Art. Again we can see how even the objective elements are strongly related to the subjectiveness of the artist and its culture.

    I think that those people were too influenced by their Academic formation into the subject (which in most of the cases is close minded and limitated to specific areas) and forgot to question their preconceived ideas about the topic.

    Seeing that in this forum there are some people who, indeed, work with Art and are familiarized with it, I wanted to see your opinion about this discussion. Maybe my position has some flaws too and I would like to discuss them in a polite and respectful way (something that I couldn't accomplish in that forum).

    BTW, I'm not an "ignorant" and a "nondedicated" person into the matter. I've basic knowledge of World Art History, and I also used to write fantasy and science fiction stories and recently I've started drawing, so I know how is to create and work with Art (although I don't like to consider myself an Artist, and after seeing how are some of them even more!)

    Note: I commited a mistake in the title. I put "Science" when this topic has more to do with Philosophy (even when we talk about objective Philosophical thoughs, which sometimes are related with Science).

    Regards!
    Last edited by Sextus70; January 22nd, 2012, 11:23 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Sextus70 View Post
    Hello everyone! Wanting to make my first contribution tos this forum, I came across with, what I think, is an interesting and potential idea for a good and rich debate.

    As the title suggests, the topic is Art, but more than Art, the question of what's Art's nature.

    All began when a month ago (before I discovered this forum) I had a discussion about Art (specifically, the visual and related to paintings and drawings) in another forum (which curiously wasn't about it). I commented on a topic that was about a critique to Modern Art, saying that in fact I didn't like it and I actually preferred some old tendencies (such as Renaissance, Ancient Greek art, etc), arguing that they were more developed and complex in features and making than many pieces of Modern Art. Then, two users said that my opinion "had not value" because there were famous and revolutionary artists such as Picasso (which I honestly think that is way overrated) that were of the Modernist stream and so it is "wrong" to have that opinion that X class of art is superior to X artist. Then I answered saying that although I recognized some Picasso's works and talents, in my personal opinion I didn't consider his work as equally superior to other ones that were before him and asked that they should respect my opinion as I was respecting theirs (I never said what I though in a threathening and imposing fashion)

    Then they used the statement that I was an "ignorant" of art (only because I said that I didn't consider myself a Art erudite and also that I never received specialized instruction in it) and thus my statements were completely invalid and didn't deserve any respect (one of them said that he didn't believe in "respecting others opinions" and that he also didn't ask respect for his, like trying to say that he had all the reason). That's when the discussion began to warm up and transform into a squabble, because I responded to those remarks with the statement that Art's nature and essence is purely subjective, and thus is absurd and illogical to look for things such a perfect, absolute and unique criteria to define what is good and wrong in it (in fact, I think that if it were in that way, It wouldn't be art), so, we all have the right to express our thoughs and opinions about it.

    They keep insisting in the "You are ignorant so shut up!" (one of them even said that comparing the differences between Technical Drawing and Artistic Drawing was senseless and wrong because Artistic Art was also objective...) statement and that is a lie that Art is subjective because there are specific and objective criteria in its making. Then, and seeing that I was handling with single minded and "not willing to debate" people, I decided to stop the discussion and leave for once and for all that forum.

    In my opinion, and after to search about the topic on Internet, I think that my position has more sense. It's true that to build Art and to share it to the world, you must make use of objective elements, the physical elements, but the source of inspiration and the basis of its expression is the creativitity, the imagination, the feelings and the thoughs, which are all subjective elements and thus what we call Art is an entirely subjective concept in its essence. If we look it at that way, we are all artists, because we all have creative and imaginative thoughs, the problem is to express and shape those ideas through physical elements and the technique that is used to do so, which is a complete different story. The "criteria" statement is also weak because if we talk about criteria we can find a lot and different of them in many artists and streams around the world, meaning that that "criteria" is mainly decided by the artist or stream ideas, preferences and points of view of their "ideal" work of Art. Again we can see how even the objective elements are strongly related to the subjectiveness of the artist and its culture.

    I think that those people were too influenced by their Academic formation into the subject (which in most of the cases is close minded and limitated to specific areas) and forgot to question their preconceived ideas about the topic.

    Seeing that in this forum there are some people who, indeed, work with Art and are familiarized with it, I wanted to see your opinion about this discussion. Maybe my position has some flaws too and I would like to discuss them in a polite and respectful way (something that I couldn't accomplish in that forum).

    BTW, I'm not an "ignorant" and a "nondedicated" person into the matter. I've basic knowledge of World Art History, and I also used to write fantasy and science fiction stories and recently I've started drawing, so I know how is to create and work with Art (although I don't like to consider myself an Artist, and after seeing how are some of them even more!)

    Note: I commited a mistake in the title. I put "Science" when this topic has more to do with Philosophy (even when we talk about objective Philosophical thoughs, which sometimes are related with Science).

    Regards!
    Have you been to the IONS website lately? They have a ganzfeld study done with the "artsy" people, and apparently their hit rates verged on 50%. Just thought I'd add that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Iyace View Post
      Have you been to the IONS website lately? They have a ganzfeld study done with the "artsy" people, and apparently their hit rates verged on 50%. Just thought I'd add that.
      Interesting! Maybe it's because many "artsy" people are related with the Schizotypal personality disorder, which, and for what I could read, in last years and investigations have showed tendency towards developing Psychic abilities.

      Anyways, and although that wasn't the main topic of this thread, thank you for the info!.

      Regards!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sextus70 View Post
        Interesting! Maybe it's because many "artsy" people are related with the Schizotypal personality disorder, which, and for what I could read, in last years and investigations have showed tendency towards developing Psychic abilities.

        Anyways, and although that wasn't the main topic of this thread, thank you for the info!.

        Regards!
        I don't think that Schizotypal is a disorder (and I don't think that Asperger's is either.) Just because we're different doesn't mean that something is wrong with us.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sextus70 View Post
          Interesting! Maybe it's because many "artsy" people are related with the Schizotypal personality disorder, which, and for what I could read, in last years and investigations have showed tendency towards developing Psychic abilities.

          Anyways, and although that wasn't the main topic of this thread, thank you for the info!.

          Regards!
          I think it has more to do with intuition. Artists are often struck with inspiration. I have a friend who's a professional artist, and he practices some sort of TM when hes working on something, to work out the kinks. Some artists do drugs to induce states, etc. I tend to think that that inspiration might be tapping into something ethereal (this is pure speculation here), that tends to reach the essence of human interest. I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Craig Weiler View Post
            I don't think that Schizotypal is a disorder (and I don't think that Asperger's is either.) Just because we're different doesn't mean that something is wrong with us.
            Me too, I prefer to call them personality types, but unfortunately that is the way which current medicine and neurology has treated those particularities (just search for them on Google and you will find the word "disorder" a lot). If you didn't like that word, I ask you apologizes because I never had intentions to discriminate anyone.

            BTW, the thread's main topic is the question of Art's nature, not Art and Psi XD.

            Regards!
            Last edited by Sextus70; January 23rd, 2012, 03:18 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Sextus, there are a number of ways of answering your question but context is important. Before the invention of photography, the figurative arts were the sole means of portraying reality. That was as true of cave paintings as it was of the Rennaissance masters and equally so of any artwork up to the mid-C19th. Optical lenses were in use previously, many art historians inspired by David Hockney's research believe Vermeer, Holbein, Rembrandt and others to have used optical tracing in earlier centuries. From the advent of 'fixed' photography onwards, the figurative and illustrative aspects of art were no longer its predominant reason to exist. Art began to move further away from external realities, what-stuff-looked-like painting, towards an investigation of perception which was inevitably less literal and more personal.

              Another aspect is patronage. The biggest sponsors of art have always been the church and the wealthy. Both were looking for positive PR, either to concentrate the minds of the worshipper, or to make themselves look rich, beautiful and powerful. Any 'message' from the artist tended to be hidden and codified (think of Caravaggio or Michelangelo) within the expectations of patronised painting.
              With the coming of the reformation the old iconography, paintings, statues, music, anything depicting the spiritual domain in a literal way was seen as decadent and the word gained ascendency as the only true arbiter of value. Iconoclasts smashed images as 'graven' and this tendency to whitewash over previous forms of human expression can be seen in modern art today where the word or concept is of more importance than any skill in execution. I also believe puritanism of the kind that tries to kick over the traces of anything 'old fashioned', reduce everything to empirical facts and eliminate trust in instinct or personal expression is alive and well today - but that's another argument.

              In the end people will respond to art in a personal way but it helps to have your opinions informed by the context in which the artist operated and what he was attempting to achieve, which may have nothing to do with making a visually pleasing picture.
              Last edited by gabriel; January 24th, 2012, 10:35 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gabriel View Post
                Sextus, there are a number of ways of answering your question but context is important. Before the invention of photography, the figurative arts were the sole means of portraying reality. That was as true of cave paintings as it was of the Rennaissance masters and equally so of any artwork up to the mid-C19th. Optical lenses were in use previously, many art historians inspired by David Hockney's research believe Vermeer, Holbein, Rembrandt and others to have used optical tracing in earlier centuries. From the advent of 'fixed' photography onwards, the figurative and illustrative aspects of art were no longer its predominant reason to exist. Art began to move further away from external realities, what-stuff-looked-like painting, towards an investigation of perception which was inevitably less literal and more personal.

                Another aspect is patronage. The biggest sponsors of art have always been the church and the wealthy. Both were looking for positive PR, either to concentrate the minds of the worshipper, or to make themselves look rich, beautiful and powerful. Any 'message' from the artist tended to be hidden and codified (think of Caravaggio or Michelangelo) within the expectations of patronised painting.
                With the coming of the reformation the old iconography, paintings, statues, music, anything depicting the spiritual domain in a literal way was seen as decadent and the word gained ascendency as the only true arbiter of value. Iconoclasts smashed images as 'graven' and this tendency to whitewash over previous forms of human expression can be seen in modern art today where the word or concept is of more importance than any skill in execution. I also believe puritanism of the kind that tries to kick over the traces of anything 'old fashioned', reduce everything to empirical facts and eliminate trust in instinct or personal expression is alive and well today - but that's another argument.

                In the end people will respond to art in a personal way but it helps to have your opinions informed by the context in which the artist operated and what he was attempting to achieve, which may have nothing to do with making a visually pleasing picture.
                Thank you for your comment! It's the first that is totally related to the thread's topic and, besides, you show to know about it, which was what I was looking for.

                What you say is totally true, at least in the Western cultures, Art was seen most as a mean to portray reality than a mean to express and embody subjectiveness. But, even at Renaissance, you can see pieces or Art that were original and not only exact copies and representations of objective elements (real people, places, ect), and IMO all what is original and created in some way by your imagination is a work of your subjective thinking (regardless if your source of inspiration is always the objective world, the reality).

                Of course that Art context and perception has been different and has evolved through Human History, but that doesn't means that we can't (and have our free will to) prefer some styles and periods over others. For example, many people today still prefers old school music over modern music (including me XD), even when their contexts are quite different in some aspects, and don't care if Modern Music is how it is by certain aspects that didn't exist before, they cannot enjoy it.

                I know that my example is a little weird, but I think that it can express what I try to say. Context is not a excuse to objetify Art, although is recommendable studying it to understand what was expected at the time and the artist's intentions with his or his works.

                Regards!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sextus70 View Post
                  Hello everyone! Wanting to make my first contribution tos this forum, I came across with, what I think, is an interesting and potential idea for a good and rich debate.

                  As the title suggests, the topic is Art, but more than Art, the question of what's Art's nature.

                  All began when a month ago (before I discovered this forum) I had a discussion about Art (specifically, the visual and related to paintings and drawings) in another forum (which curiously wasn't about it). I commented on a topic that was about a critique to Modern Art, saying that in fact I didn't like it and I actually preferred some old tendencies (such as Renaissance, Ancient Greek art, etc), arguing that they were more developed and complex in features and making than many pieces of Modern Art. Then, two users said that my opinion "had not value" because there were famous and revolutionary artists such as Picasso (which I honestly think that is way overrated) that were of the Modernist stream and so it is "wrong" to have that opinion that X class of art is superior to X artist. Then I answered saying that although I recognized some Picasso's works and talents, in my personal opinion I didn't consider his work as equally superior to other ones that were before him and asked that they should respect my opinion as I was respecting theirs (I never said what I though in a threathening and imposing fashion)

                  Then they used the statement that I was an "ignorant" of art (only because I said that I didn't consider myself a Art erudite and also that I never received specialized instruction in it) and thus my statements were completely invalid and didn't deserve any respect (one of them said that he didn't believe in "respecting others opinions" and that he also didn't ask respect for his, like trying to say that he had all the reason). That's when the discussion began to warm up and transform into a squabble, because I responded to those remarks with the statement that Art's nature and essence is purely subjective, and thus is absurd and illogical to look for things such a perfect, absolute and unique criteria to define what is good and wrong in it (in fact, I think that if it were in that way, It wouldn't be art), so, we all have the right to express our thoughs and opinions about it.

                  They keep insisting in the "You are ignorant so shut up!" (one of them even said that comparing the differences between Technical Drawing and Artistic Drawing was senseless and wrong because Artistic Art was also objective...) statement and that is a lie that Art is subjective because there are specific and objective criteria in its making. Then, and seeing that I was handling with single minded and "not willing to debate" people, I decided to stop the discussion and leave for once and for all that forum.

                  In my opinion, and after to search about the topic on Internet, I think that my position has more sense. It's true that to build Art and to share it to the world, you must make use of objective elements, the physical elements, but the source of inspiration and the basis of its expression is the creativitity, the imagination, the feelings and the thoughs, which are all subjective elements and thus what we call Art is an entirely subjective concept in its essence. If we look it at that way, we are all artists, because we all have creative and imaginative thoughs, the problem is to express and shape those ideas through physical elements and the technique that is used to do so, which is a complete different story. The "criteria" statement is also weak because if we talk about criteria we can find a lot and different of them in many artists and streams around the world, meaning that that "criteria" is mainly decided by the artist or stream ideas, preferences and points of view of their "ideal" work of Art. Again we can see how even the objective elements are strongly related to the subjectiveness of the artist and its culture.

                  I think that those people were too influenced by their Academic formation into the subject (which in most of the cases is close minded and limitated to specific areas) and forgot to question their preconceived ideas about the topic.

                  Seeing that in this forum there are some people who, indeed, work with Art and are familiarized with it, I wanted to see your opinion about this discussion. Maybe my position has some flaws too and I would like to discuss them in a polite and respectful way (something that I couldn't accomplish in that forum).

                  BTW, I'm not an "ignorant" and a "nondedicated" person into the matter. I've basic knowledge of World Art History, and I also used to write fantasy and science fiction stories and recently I've started drawing, so I know how is to create and work with Art (although I don't like to consider myself an Artist, and after seeing how are some of them even more!)

                  Note: I commited a mistake in the title. I put "Science" when this topic has more to do with Philosophy (even when we talk about objective Philosophical thoughs, which sometimes are related with Science).

                  Regards!
                  You don't have to qualify why you like the art you do to anyone in life. Stick by your own convictions is what I say! I speak as an artist who primarily deals in fantasy & symbolic art with a heavy emphasis on figures. I took the art college route many years ago - a lamb to the slaughter it was...lol - and although at the time I could appreciate my tutors were trying to free up my very - in their opinion lacking risk - realistic portraits and still lifes with something more unpredictable, experimental and vital, it has taken me another 30 years to sit comfortably with my own style and recognise the importance of every art form - from Japanese Woodblock prints to Joan Miro, to Native American art - and why it is some resonate on a far deeper level of understanding than others for me personally; personal preference or taste is something you can only argue academically to a point. Whilst each art form is endowed with its own merits, conversely that doesnt mean one has to like it one bit.

                  I was very privileged to attend a private viewing (before the auction) at Christies of a collection of Impressionist/Modern art last summer with the CFO from my workplace. The works, from one or two private collections, were some of the most stunning I have ever seen - Piccasso, Degas, Macke, Monet, all gloriously rubbing shoulders in a burst of freeing expression; I thought I'd died and gone to heaven! Despite being an artist, its hard to define why some of them resonated on such a profound soul-touching level, and others didn't which is why I let my loitering by a certain piece speak words, rather than going down the pretentious art critic route by expounding to my CFO what I thought was or wasn't working.

                  That said, the ones that resonate the deepest for me tend to be symbolic, primitive, abstract or figurative and in a way uniquely interweave their own language and rhythm; I guess when you distil a language to its essence (and essences of moments and feelings are universal to us all), if you do it with conviction, vision and skill, this creates a tacit and compelling force which, to me, is the true purpose of artistic endeavour. Yes, to master ultra realistic life drawings involves applying technical skill, and I could do a portrait of you, for example, no problem, to very realistic and correct proportions but replication is not what on the whole art is about, but rather interpretation and vision.

                  In a sense, when you fully immerse yourself in this poetical distillation of our rich internal world which touches on the very essence of a feeling, or place, or person as I mentioned previously, you touch upon a universal language which isnt obligated to make sense, or be in proportion, or even necessarily give you an obvious clue as to what is is depicting straight off. A paintings value or merits are not carved across the sky for everyone to "get" though, and therefore judging apples against pears, is kind of irrelevent.

                  In fact I had a wonderful Van Gogh moment over Xmas, when, getting up briefly during the night on hearing my resident owl, I noticed how the stars from my bedroom window, with my short sight, were hugely distorted orbs of light, exactly as Van Gogh depicted. How lovely, to not paint a star as a star - a pinprick of light - but as with short sight, as this imcomprehensible and impassioned swirl of light, and in doing so, the stars become internalised and quite glorious. Thank God for the arts...is all I say.
                  Last edited by Lizzie S; January 24th, 2012, 12:28 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Further to what Lizzie said, I was aware of other traditions when I replied but didn't want to over-complicate the issue. There have always been symbolist and outsider artistic traditions, even within Western art. Bethlehem mental hospital ("Bedlam") has a large collection of patient's work including luminaries like Richard Dadd. So called 'naive' artists like Alfred Wallis painted what they knew from long experience (ships in Wallis's case) rather than how they appeared in perspective. Other cultures have different artistic priorities, aboriginal ceremonial work for example. It's a big subject.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Very interesting indeed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sextus70 View Post
                        Hello everyone! Wanting to make my first contribution tos this forum, I came across with, what I think, is an interesting and potential idea for a good and rich debate.

                        As the title suggests, the topic is Art, but more than Art, the question of what's Art's nature.

                        All began when a month ago (before I discovered this forum) I had a discussion about Art (specifically, the visual and related to paintings and drawings) in another forum (which curiously wasn't about it). I commented on a topic that was about a critique to Modern Art, saying that in fact I didn't like it and I actually preferred some old tendencies (such as Renaissance, Ancient Greek art, etc), arguing that they were more developed and complex in features and making than many pieces of Modern Art. Then, two users said that my opinion "had not value" because there were famous and revolutionary artists such as Picasso (which I honestly think that is way overrated) that were of the Modernist stream and so it is "wrong" to have that opinion that X class of art is superior to X artist. Then I answered saying that although I recognized some Picasso's works and talents, in my personal opinion I didn't consider his work as equally superior to other ones that were before him and asked that they should respect my opinion as I was respecting theirs (I never said what I though in a threathening and imposing fashion)

                        Then they used the statement that I was an "ignorant" of art (only because I said that I didn't consider myself a Art erudite and also that I never received specialized instruction in it) and thus my statements were completely invalid and didn't deserve any respect (one of them said that he didn't believe in "respecting others opinions" and that he also didn't ask respect for his, like trying to say that he had all the reason). That's when the discussion began to warm up and transform into a squabble, because I responded to those remarks with the statement that Art's nature and essence is purely subjective, and thus is absurd and illogical to look for things such a perfect, absolute and unique criteria to define what is good and wrong in it (in fact, I think that if it were in that way, It wouldn't be art), so, we all have the right to express our thoughs and opinions about it.

                        They keep insisting in the "You are ignorant so shut up!" (one of them even said that comparing the differences between Technical Drawing and Artistic Drawing was senseless and wrong because Artistic Art was also objective...) statement and that is a lie that Art is subjective because there are specific and objective criteria in its making. Then, and seeing that I was handling with single minded and "not willing to debate" people, I decided to stop the discussion and leave for once and for all that forum.

                        In my opinion, and after to search about the topic on Internet, I think that my position has more sense. It's true that to build Art and to share it to the world, you must make use of objective elements, the physical elements, but the source of inspiration and the basis of its expression is the creativitity, the imagination, the feelings and the thoughs, which are all subjective elements and thus what we call Art is an entirely subjective concept in its essence. If we look it at that way, we are all artists, because we all have creative and imaginative thoughs, the problem is to express and shape those ideas through physical elements and the technique that is used to do so, which is a complete different story. The "criteria" statement is also weak because if we talk about criteria we can find a lot and different of them in many artists and streams around the world, meaning that that "criteria" is mainly decided by the artist or stream ideas, preferences and points of view of their "ideal" work of Art. Again we can see how even the objective elements are strongly related to the subjectiveness of the artist and its culture.

                        I think that those people were too influenced by their Academic formation into the subject (which in most of the cases is close minded and limitated to specific areas) and forgot to question their preconceived ideas about the topic.

                        Seeing that in this forum there are some people who, indeed, work with Art and are familiarized with it, I wanted to see your opinion about this discussion. Maybe my position has some flaws too and I would like to discuss them in a polite and respectful way (something that I couldn't accomplish in that forum).

                        BTW, I'm not an "ignorant" and a "nondedicated" person into the matter. I've basic knowledge of World Art History, and I also used to write fantasy and science fiction stories and recently I've started drawing, so I know how is to create and work with Art (although I don't like to consider myself an Artist, and after seeing how are some of them even more!)

                        Note: I commited a mistake in the title. I put "Science" when this topic has more to do with Philosophy (even when we talk about objective Philosophical thoughs, which sometimes are related with Science).

                        Regards!
                        Oh, you poor thing. They gotcha, didn't they? Next time, please be sure to mention that the emperor has no clothes. They hate that.

                        Beneath all the incredible hype and fervent descriptions that elevate tripe to new heights of absurdity, anything that calls itself art gains a blanket moral indemnity. How dare you question? You must be an ignorant moron. Obviously, your sensitivities to the sublime are, well, dulled.

                        Pffft.

                        What you need, see, is the right politics, the right venue, and the right subject matter (the more shocking the better.) And the right cult makers behind your efforts. Oh, and ostentation doesn't go amiss, either.

                        Well, I'm glad to report that the same spirit that allows certain people to opt out of the whole rat race thing is alive and well in the arts. A lot of us who paint (I'm a painter myself) knew long ago that we did what we did because it was what we needed to do to express ourselves. Authentic work is not self-conscious, insincere, superficial, or all bluff. It is a direct communication of ideas; deliberate and honest. It has to do with nothing more than needing to make a visual statement about something deeply felt - and share it.

                        Once you get past the hype of the critics, and you look at the work as it stands without being propped up by pretentious verbiage, then you can allow your response to dictate its resonance for you. Let the art do its own talking.

                        I choose to paint in a classical realist style because it suits me now. I appreciate many periods of art and styles, but do not get sucked in by the hype of the critics.

                        I have a test that works for me. If it makes me stop breathing for a second; if it brings tears to my eyes- it has touched me. I'm not talking about sentimentality here. I'm talking about visceral power.

                        I don't count Kandinsky among my favorites, but I walked around a corner once in a museum to be confronted by one of his huge abstracts (I forget the title) and my world stopped. THAT to me is a masterwork. It radiated this energy that was palpable. Weirdly, Vermeers make me cry too. Go figure.

                        So, people who say art is everywhere and in every human activity are diminishing art and making it so meaningless that it no longer has purpose.

                        I believe art is first a marvelous and unique way of communicating ideas that can not be communicated in any other way as effectively. But it shouldn't need a translator or a PR agent or shock value to gain respect.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gizmo View Post
                          Oh, you poor thing. They gotcha, didn't they? Next time, please be sure to mention that the emperor has no clothes. They hate that.

                          Beneath all the incredible hype and fervent descriptions that elevate tripe to new heights of absurdity, anything that calls itself art gains a blanket moral indemnity. How dare you question? You must be an ignorant moron. Obviously, your sensitivities to the sublime are, well, dulled.

                          Pffft.

                          What you need, see, is the right politics, the right venue, and the right subject matter (the more shocking the better.) And the right cult makers behind your efforts. Oh, and ostentation doesn't go amiss, either.

                          Well, I'm glad to report that the same spirit that allows certain people to opt out of the whole rat race thing is alive and well in the arts. A lot of us who paint (I'm a painter myself) knew long ago that we did what we did because it was what we needed to do to express ourselves. Authentic work is not self-conscious, insincere, superficial, or all bluff. It is a direct communication of ideas; deliberate and honest. It has to do with nothing more than needing to make a visual statement about something deeply felt - and share it.

                          Once you get past the hype of the critics, and you look at the work as it stands without being propped up by pretentious verbiage, then you can allow your response to dictate its resonance for you. Let the art do its own talking.

                          I choose to paint in a classical realist style because it suits me now. I appreciate many periods of art and styles, but do not get sucked in by the hype of the critics.

                          I have a test that works for me. If it makes me stop breathing for a second; if it brings tears to my eyes- it has touched me. I'm not talking about sentimentality here. I'm talking about visceral power.

                          I don't count Kandinsky among my favorites, but I walked around a corner once in a museum to be confronted by one of his huge abstracts (I forget the title) and my world stopped. THAT to me is a masterwork. It radiated this energy that was palpable. Weirdly, Vermeers make me cry too. Go figure.

                          So, people who say art is everywhere and in every human activity are diminishing art and making it so meaningless that it no longer has purpose.

                          I believe art is first a marvelous and unique way of communicating ideas that can not be communicated in any other way as effectively. But it shouldn't need a translator or a PR agent or shock value to gain respect.
                          Totally agree. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who sees Art in this way. In fact, all the responses that I've seen until now supports my opinion about the matter.

                          I think that more than the superficial, esthetic and physical part of art, the most important, and the basis of Art itself, is the message, the meanings or/and feelings that the artist or artists want to express with their work. Of course, the technique and criteria used to do so helps to archieve it, but they AREN'T Art itself, because what defines Art is the final result and not the process behind its making.

                          In my case, I sometimes draw original manga/comic (it's like a fussion of both styles) characters, because is the style that I like most and the one which I think that fits better with me, but I also respect, appreciate and recognize other Art periods, styles and artists, but discuss which are the "masters", "pillars", etc, and give them like you said, a blanket of moral indemnity it's simply ridiculous and improductive.

                          All the statements that I see from Art purists and hardcore critics (who think that for studying in an Art academy they are the only with authority to value and criticize art) are only based on opinions and, in the worst cases, in logical fallacies that try to objetify those opinions, but they are only that: opinions which are heavily influenced by their subjective structure and not by a real objective basis, because at the end Art's nature and essence it's subjective.

                          Regards!
                          Last edited by Sextus70; February 11th, 2012, 10:45 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sextus70 View Post

                            All the statements that I see from Art purists and hardcore critics (who think that for studying in an Art academy they are the only with authority to value and critize art) are only based on opinions and, in the worst cases, in logical fallacies that try to objetify those opinions, but they are only that: opinions which are heavily influenced by their subjective structure and not by a real objective basis, because at the end Art's nature and essence it's subjective.

                            Regards!
                            I think they're afraid. They tend to cloak their insecurity with bluster and a superior attitude. An amusing thing to do is to go and read the glowing reviews they write about the newest genius...but don't look at the art until you finish reading. I find it remarkably hilarious.

                            This is not to demean all contemporary works, because there are some stellar ones out there. And this is not to lump all critics in one pile as self-conscious egotist know-it-alls. I'm not arguing against aesthetics.

                            But you don't need to listen to the shrill voices of 'authority' if you don't agree with them. Opt out. Lose yourself in enjoying whatever art fires you.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I totally disagree. As a painter - and a figurative one at that - I recognise some art has evolved as a craft skill (representations of reality) others as political statement, yet more as a means of expression. There is no 'right way' to make art. Patrons have changed, the means of producing it have altered.

                              The word in both the artifact and its explanation has become increasingly important.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X