unforum

[Dorkmaster]

Ok, the wings are gone, and now I'm in the trenches.

The problem with how you attacked (in a nice way) my argument was incorrect. The way you present it, is yes, circular, but that was not my presentation of my view.

To clarify, I will present it again, more briefly.

Art is created when anyone who intends to create art, does so. Therefore, if your intention is to create art, you have done so. If you don't like the outcome, you destroy it, and then it ceases to be art, because it simply ceases to be. (For example with your intended horse becoming a grey streak... If you intended to present that grey streak then as art, then it would be. But if it was a mistake, and that's all you, as the artist interpreted that stroke of grey to be, then it would simply be a mistake, and cease to be art.)

Art is not simply the result of an artist. Then any excrement created in the bathroom, or any thoughts or delusions created by said artist would be considered art under the same theory. That would be circular, and wouldn't get us anywhere. I agree wholeheartedly with that.

However, anything INTENDED as art, is such. That is a major difference. If you spit on some idiot, and intend it as art, then it is. (Is it protected art under the bill of rights, is a whole other subject) I may consider it a lower form of art, or not as worthy as some other pieces of art, but I would still consider it art nonetheless.

The definition of an artist is someone who creates art. While you may see that a circular, I see it as inherent to the title. Someone who works at a bank is a banker. Someone who bakes is a baker. That's just why the name exists. So I have no problem saying that an artist is someone who creates art.

The major thing that keeps this from going artist makes art makes artist makes art makes artist...

is this:

Intention. Again, good or bad, art is made when art is said to be made by its creator. I completely understand others may disagree with that statement, but I hold firmly to that, wholeheartedly.

Am I making sense here or does that still seem circular to you? (Again, I'm not saying anyone who claims something is art, makes it art... only the creator of that art can claim it as such.)

Ok, Phaedra... lay it on me... I'm bracing for impact. (if necessary.)

[CoffeeJedi]

::hands DM a small umbrella, Wile E. Coyote style::

"You're gonna neeeeed it!"

[Clayfoot]

[Clayfoot]

[water10]

For starters, I don't even want to get close to this art discussion!

But I bought all 3 Halo novels before my trip to Brazil. My initial thought was that the novel couldn't be that bad and it would help me sleep on the plane.

I decided to took only Fall of Reach, since I thought I wouldn't even finish that novel, just because I would be doing so much more interesting stuff!

Well, I ended up finishing it halfway through my vacation and I wished I had taken another one with me! Yes, its quality is questionable. But after playing the game and following ILB, I was looking for more info on the Halovers. And I got my money's worth! Sure, not even close to ILB quality, but I was not expecting that! Pretty easy reading for the few moments I wanted a break from having fun with friends/family!

[Phaedra]

[Clayfoot]

[Kali]

I think a problem we're hitting on here is that you can't use one definition to describe the plethora (Mexican accent for that, Hefe) of things we commonly describe as "Art". More useful to us is to distinguish between the Static Arts and the Performance Arts. There's no other way to get a useful definition.

[Phaedra]

[Nightmare Tony]

I think I would define art in the method that Frank Zappa does.

The idea being that an art form is something defined by the artist. Metoaphorically, it is the frame he draws around it, the definition.

For example, you can be drinking a glass of carrot juice with a microphone to your throat. If the artist defines THAT as his composition, then it is art. Otherwise, its a guy drnking a glass of carrot juice.

[Clayfoot]

Peter Vidmar does a speech on Risk, Originality, and Virtuosity that might help us define art. We might say that an artistic work is an intentional creation that has an element of risk, originality, and virtuosity. Whether we call some activity or work "art" may just depend on how much risk, originality, and/or virtuosity is apparent to us in the work. Taking Phaedra's craftsman example, we recognize that much of the ancient craftwork was perfunctory and not very "artistic." However, a few pieces show the care and the thought that went into creating them. We recognize the virtuosity that goes into such pieces. In her musical example, we might say that we appreciate the originality of the piece and the virtuosity of the musician performing it. The musician might even take some risks in the performance that we recognize as an artistic contribution.

The Halo novels sound like they are on shaky ground with regard to these 3 qualities. They aren't very original; they're semi-original stories from existing characters and circumstances. They aren't very risky, because they have a predefined audience of readers hungry for information. It sounds like they aren't even written very well, so they fail the virtuosity test. To qualify as art, a creative work should meet at least one of these conditions, don't you think?

[Kali]

[Phaedra]

[water10]

Yes, I said I wouldn't come close to the "art" discussion, but I read this bit on Kristen's interview:

[Phaedra]