PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
All I have to say about defining art, is citing that Spongebob episode about it: "Now it's art."
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Art is as the word says, an expression of an artistic ability to give happiness and joy to the people.
Some artists use their "dark side" in the expression of their art yes. And often in the art of the old masters like Rembrandt, Edvard Munk, Van Gogh we can see their pain within their pictures. Its an expression to the world in their time. Often what is seen as art today eve back to 1960 or so would not be seen as art in older times, because much of the art of today are made to shock and to give an expression of a different calibre then it was in the time where the painting was the main medium used.Not necessarily.
It is also about revealing and working with our dark side, and forcing people to look at things from which they normally avert their eyes.
Accurately determining a person's intention is very hard to do.On the other hand, I have known people I consider real artists. They are on a very personal mission to externalise their vision.
That is the difference.
Accurately determining a person's intention is very hard to do.
It's so much easier to simply judge: "I like it" vs. "I don't like it".Yep. I once took a course where you had to guess the intention of vague political comics. Wasn't easy.
It is. But in the end it doesn't really matter. What matters is the intention being conveyed (and fulfilled) by the artwork, itself.Accurately determining a person's intention is very hard to do.
It's so much easier to simply judge: "I like it" vs. "I don't like it".
The lines have blurred a little for me with the advent of the 3-d printer. Also, counterfeiters, should they be automatically excluded as artists? I go back and forth in my head about that.Either way, art is art
Counterfit artists are often very good technically in one or two fields within art, But yes i think they should be seen as artists too, because of their ability to copy the way they do, they would need the quality too. (but counterfeit is not a good way of being an artist since it is not allowed)The lines have blurred a little for me with the advent of the 3-d printer. Also, counterfeiters, should they be automatically excluded as artists? I go back and forth in my head about that.
For me, it's the same as a great craft person who elevates their craft into art. When does a person cross the line from "Maker" to "Artist"? Is it intention? I don't think so... When does a counterfeiter becoms so skilled that they themselves are an artist and the copy is a work of art? I don't know.Counterfit artists are often very good technically in one or two fields within art, But yes i think they should be seen as artists too, because of their ability to copy the way they do, they would need the quality too. (but counterfeit is not a good way of being an artist since it is not allowed)
If someone copies others, that to me is a maker of art, when someone creates a new artistic work from beginning to end, that is the artist.For me, it's the same as a great craft person who elevates their craft into art. When does a person cross the line from "Maker" to "Artist"? Is it intention? I don't think so...
OK. I agree with you, but, I don't think this is complete. I think, quite honestly, you're a harsh critic. Not just in visual arts, but in music as well. It's not a bad thing.It is. But in the end it doesn't really matter. What matters is the intention being conveyed (and fulfilled) by the artwork, itself.
... until ...If someone copies others, that to me is a maker of art, when someone creates a new artistic work from beginning to end, that is the artist.
When i went to art school we did a lot of copy the old masters, and yes we learned a lot about technique, so in this way copy someone is good, to make a copy so well that t is almost impossible to see the difference, then sell it as the real art, that to me is going to far... until ...
The Maker of art becomes so skilled that they are able to copy many many different artists, and they discover creative and innovative ways to copy.... IDK... it's kind of like a pick-pocket who becomes an artist in their slight of hand...
idk...
There is someone who built a machine to recreate the painting style of Pollack. The machine ( an ingenious contraption ) recreates pollacks drunken random splatters and drips. The inventor / counterfeiter, if I recall, is a mathematician. Could the inventor be an artist? Maybe. It depends on what else they create. Perhaps this counterfeiting machine is their "early work"? Only time would tell?
The lines have blurred a little for me with the advent of the 3-d printer. Also, counterfeiters, should they be automatically excluded as artists? I go back and forth in my head about that.
OK... how 'bout this:
Snoopy. A common somewhat predictable comic strip character... or... the catalyst for "shockingly heated arguments over how to survive and still be a decent human being in a bitter world"? Was Charles Schultz an artist? Was he making art? I'm not sure...
The Exemplary Narcissism of Snoopy
I think comic art is a good example where the artist's intention and desire to express themselves is greatly diminished from the valuation/label: this is art.Comic art is a separate genre all to itself