PureX
Veteran Member
I'm sure this thread will die quickly from fear and/or lack of interest, or perhaps from ya'wl's disgust of my arrogant and unapologetic snobbishness when it comes to the artistic endeavor. But somewhat of a debate began on another thread, and although I began it mostly tongue-in-cheek, the more I thought about it the more I felt I was in the right and wished to further defend my position.
The debate is about the term "art" and how I believe and contend that it's being grossly misused by almost everyone. And why I think this is so. And since this was fairly far afield from the actual topic of the thread, I've decided to move the beginning of the debate to it's own thread, and see if anyone cares enough about it to actually debate me, or even to just toss in their few cents worth of opinion. Frankly, I doubt anyone cares that much, but we'll see.
The debate sort of begins here, between myself and Danisty:
Illustration, decorative design, photography, painting, sculpting, etc.,: these are all crafts that people engage in for money. These are not "art" (yes, I understand that by the dictionary definitions, they are, but the dictionaries are wrong in this case *smile*). Art is a specific kind of human endeavor that has nothing to do with making money, facility in manipulating physical media, or promoting products or ideas or sexual gratification or whatever. The art I'm talking about does have an intent, that is evident in the objects that it produces, and is identifiably different from the intent of other craftsmen even though it may employ a similar craftsmanship.
When it comes to art, I am a complete and unrepentant snob. To me, there is fine art, and there is everything else that is not fine art, but keeps trying to call itself art to give itself a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. Comic book illustrators are not really artists. They're comic book illustrators. Nor are pornographers artists, no matter how "artsy" they try to make their pornography look.
The debate is about the term "art" and how I believe and contend that it's being grossly misused by almost everyone. And why I think this is so. And since this was fairly far afield from the actual topic of the thread, I've decided to move the beginning of the debate to it's own thread, and see if anyone cares enough about it to actually debate me, or even to just toss in their few cents worth of opinion. Frankly, I doubt anyone cares that much, but we'll see.
The debate sort of begins here, between myself and Danisty:
Ummm ... you are using the term "art" WAYYYY more loosely then I am. Sorayama and Royo are illustrators. They make posters and fantasy/comic book images and whatnot. And they sell these for money. It's a craft, it's not art in the way I understand and mean "art".Ðanisty said:I disagree with you. You cannot know the intent of an artist any more than anyone else. There is a good deal of fine art out there that is created for the purpose of sexual gratification and I think it's safe to presume that the artists are making money doing their work. What about Sorayama or Luis Royo? Most of their art is designed to get a sexual response and much of it is exploitative in nature.
I assert that there are many forms of art that seek to exploit. What about propaganda art? It seems to me that you are picking and choosing what you define as art rather than accepting art as a form of expression that sometimes goes against what you believe acceptable. Just because you are uncomfortable with something doesn't mean it ceases to be art. I would think as an artist you'd already know this. What are they teaching in art school these days???
Illustration, decorative design, photography, painting, sculpting, etc.,: these are all crafts that people engage in for money. These are not "art" (yes, I understand that by the dictionary definitions, they are, but the dictionaries are wrong in this case *smile*). Art is a specific kind of human endeavor that has nothing to do with making money, facility in manipulating physical media, or promoting products or ideas or sexual gratification or whatever. The art I'm talking about does have an intent, that is evident in the objects that it produces, and is identifiably different from the intent of other craftsmen even though it may employ a similar craftsmanship.
When it comes to art, I am a complete and unrepentant snob. To me, there is fine art, and there is everything else that is not fine art, but keeps trying to call itself art to give itself a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve. Comic book illustrators are not really artists. They're comic book illustrators. Nor are pornographers artists, no matter how "artsy" they try to make their pornography look.
There is only fine art. The rest is just functional object-making. The rest is craft.Ðanisty said:Then you understand the word incorrectly. What you are referring to is fine art which is a form of art, but not the only art. I'm sorry, but your definition is incorrect.
They are cartoonists, and everyone knows it. They're just trying to adopt some extra credibility by calling themselves "artists" when they're not. And as for that school, it's a business. They'll call you whatever you want them to, as long as you'll pay them a big tuition. All art is fine art, and the rest is just craft. Cartooning is a craft. Illustrating is a craft. Even painting and drawing and sculpting are crafts. Artists may employ any of these crafts, or none of them in their art endeavor, but their art endeavor is not defined by or limited to these crafts. Crafts are crafts, and art is art. That's the way it is. Real artists deserve my respect, and I won't accept the pretenders.Ðanisty said:Savannah has one of the biggest art schools in the country (SCAD - Savannah College of Art and Design) and it teaches "comic book illustration" which, by the way, is known as sequential art. Illustration is also taught at SVA (School of Visual Arts) in New York. Your snobbery is nothing more than ignorance.
They are artists...sequential artists.
Danisty said:You're just a snob and you're not going to change your mind regardless. I know what art is and it looks like several other people here do too. I don't care if you want to take your snobbery to another thread because I'm not going to indulge it anymore anyway. Oh, and in case you didn't know it...being a snob is not something to be proud of, but since you called yourself that, I have no problem repeating it.