unforum

[Clayfoot]

[Phaedra]

[Nightmare Tony]

Phaedra: I find art in most anything, especially in nature. Since I own and live on a farm, I tend to find nature quite artistic because the of the sheer beauty out here I would call art, even though it was never commissioned or relegated as such. The Zappa definition I find interesting but not always applcable, reasons said above.

Some peices of pure functionality I find beautifully artistic. For example, I am a coaster freak and to me, 3 of the most beautiful ride designs local to Los Angeles would be the Revolution, Colossus and Superman, all residing at Magic Mountain. Each one was built as a comission for their specific purpose. Their interplay with the area and structural design I find pleasing and artistic, even though that was never their original intention. A similar example which I would call collaborative atrt is my coaster model in my living room. You can see it on my website at www.Nightmarepark.com and click on the who we are. I also have an interesting essay concerning creativeness and art as a a part of that page.

And a question which arises, what about art by comission, is it still art? Andy Warhol and his infamous rendtions of soup cans.

Classical music was also done by comission, Bach's pieces, for example. I would lay a claim that the works of Bach are as artistic as the halo 2 novels, even though we don't consider the halo 2 novels as art, they ARE creative pieces based on the set rules of the Haloverse to give a creative expression into that realm.

Art I would consider is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. As a classically trained musician, I find rap and hip hop to be quite offensive and I find no artistic values in them whatsoever. But that is my own opinion, not shared by others.

Our esthetic is based on our upbrigning, cultural and personal based. So its all really a personal thing.

[Anton P. Nym]

What is Ahhhhht?

[krystyn]

Art is: me, a full supply of plasma grenades, and your dead bodies surrounding me like a glorious, multi-petalled, cyborgeriffic flower.

[weephun]

A chance to meet the "artist" :
http://halo.bungie.org/oldnews.html?item=11964

[Phaedra]

[ariock]

Coaster Model

[thebruce]

I'll second - "Oy Vey!"

two full pages in a matter of a couple of days... and I'm only responding now? man, I'm getting behind...

anyway, as I read through the posts, I found myself agreeing with pretty much everyone; yes, including Phaedra on many points... I think I response, and the next post adresses it too... but ultimately, here's my conclusion...

I don't believe "Art" can be universally defined. It's entirely a matter of personal tastes. One person's art is another person's trash, or statement of fact, etc... I think we need to recognize the different between personal art, and corporate (that is, as a group) art. Art itself, on a personal level, can be everywhere or nowhere. I might consider the shape of monitor to be art, I mean, its intent was to be esthetic (hopefully), and a lot of thought and process went into it. Whereas, someone else might consider it a design that was intended to solve a problem, with no aspect of imagination or creativity put into it - it was entirely to provide a tool that would perform acceptably.

Unfortunately, it also includes people that consider their sequential, serial murder and form of art. To them, and to other twisted minds out there, they may see 'expression' in their methods and means. Do I consider it art? technically, yeah, even though it's deplorable and I don't condone it in the slightest, obviously .

If you spit in the face of someone you disagree with, to me, if you considered that to be an act that was intended to express your emotion, and to be recognized by someone else as that expression, then yeah, I'd consider it art. If someone spit on the ground in order to clear their mouth without second thought, I wouldn't consider it art. Someone might walk up to the splatter on the ground, look at how the splatter landed, it's intricacies, the chaotic nature of particles and such, and consider 'nature's art', or might use that instance in some form of their own personal expression. In all those instances, it was a matter of what one particular person received from some aspect of existence, which made them consider that entity 'art'.

Then there's corporate art, what a group of people consider to be art - majority rules, ie. A country that purposely goes about some questionable, or immoral act, might do so with a process they themselves may consider art, and yet no one else may think the same. Or a museum might allow some objects in as art, and decline other entries stating that they're redundant, unoriginal, or simply not a legitimate art form. Can they define what 'art' is? Obviously not, becuase the person who submitted the piece obviously considered it art themselves, and may find someone else to sell it to or consider it valuable itself. Is it not art because the museum said it's not art?

What's the commonality? It seems to me that 'art' is 'art' if one entity - a group or an individual - sees value in the piece, whatever form it might take, and considers it artful or artistic, in whatever 'good' or 'bad' context... 'art' by definition can't be negative - ie, I can't say what is not art, because it's entirely up to the entity regarding it. If I spoke for all humankind, then I could define something as not art, but I only speak for myself. An organization can only speak for itself. Art can only be defined 'as art', not the other way around.

It's pointless arguing about whether something is art or is not art, because it's not a definite answer. If one person in a group of people considers the object in question valuable, artistic, the others do not, that does not make it not art, because a value was perceived in the object itself, by at least one entity.

I believe art is some thing or act which is perceived to have value by one or more entities, thus cannot be determined ultimately to have no value unless all entities in existence agree that said object holds no value.

I've always said, if what you express touches even only one person in the entire world, having theoretically exposed everyone to it, it's still art. Art is only as valuable as what someone or some group will offer for it. Can I ever know if my line drawing of a square is or is not art until I ask every single human on the planet if they consider it art in any way? Nope... so in the end, at any time someone does something, there's always a chance someone somwhere out there may consider it art.

Even a presidential speech, yes, can be considered art if someone respects and notices the effort put into the words, to the way it was spoken, and more... speech giving can be considered an art form. Just as I can find artistic value in the shape of a blob of spit or a rock.

Art is value - not necessarily monetary - but in personal worth, to one or more entities.
One cannot say "this is not art", but one can say "I don't consider this art", ie, art is defined on a personal level.

*readies flame suit* *stretches in preparation for incoming backlash*

[CoffeeJedi]

i think i'll borrow a phrase from the honorable Justice Potter Stewart:
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . . "

granted, he was referring to pornagraphy at the time, but i think the statement is valid here too

[Clayfoot]

[Clayfoot]

I'm not ignoring all of the posts in between Phaedra's and my last. I'll get around to all of you, presently.

[thebruce]

[Nightmare Tony]

And then the questin is begged on the beauty and glory of nature. Is it art? To me it is. The beauty of forests and meadows. A city dweller type would not consider it as such, I guess...

[hmrpita]