Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Thu Nov 14, 2024 12:12 pm
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Questions/Meta
possibly a dumb question with an obvious answer...
View previous topicView next topic
Page 4 of 10 [137 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
thebruce
Dances With Wikis


Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
hmrpita wrote:
Art is.


Props! Well said. for that you get a Jetpack
_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:06 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
water10 wrote:
I don't like this whole 3-tests thing. To me art is all about emotions! That's why it's so hard to define with words. And that's why some things have artistic value to some people and none to others. So if someone's work touch you and you feel emotions, good or bad, it should have merit as art, even though it may not pass any kind of test ...

Yes, I used a very simple definition. But in my opinion, some things should be kept simple! Smile
First, let me point out that you have designed a test for a piece of art:
water10 wrote:
if someone's work touch you and you feel emotions, good or bad, it should have merit as art

That's a test, eh! Of course, it's not necessarily a useful test. Lots of things that people do may move you, without having much artistic value. For example, when someone throws up near you, you probably have some emotional reaction. I wouldn't call the final product art, would you?

I'm interested in what you mean by "touch you." Are you saying that there is some specific, underlying emotion that would trigger recognition of artistic work? If so, what emotion or reaction are you using as a gauge? Remember, we're just talking about art here. There are things that children do (especially our own) that are touching without being works of art, so to speak. Sleeping, for example.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:41 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
Phaedra wrote:
Kali wrote:
I say:

HUZZAH!
HUZZAH!
HUZZAH to Clayfoot!
I like it. It's not perfect, but it's a start.
Okay, but why isn't it perfect? How could it be perfected? How will we know when we have a perfect test?
Phaedra wrote:
Kali wrote:
I like the tripart test. Yes, it's a balancing test, Phaedra. Now where have I heard of that before... Twisted Evil
Where haven't we heard it? Rolling Eyes Whether it's the question of whether the CIA can stiff its aging spies, or whether the state is required to give scholarships to seminary students...blech.

Can you believe they're still using the Lemon test?
Kali wrote:
Maybe that be art too?
I dunno, but I think Eakin's dissent in the PA case involving a mounted drunken driving accident can be characterized as such:

A horse is a horse, of course, of course...
I marvel at your ability to thread-jack an already-jacked thread.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:48 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
water10
Unfettered


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 712
Location: EvadeEvadeEvade
Quote:
For example, when someone throws up near you, you probably have some emotional reaction. I wouldn't call the final product art, would you?

That's why I said it should have merit to be called art. Not saying it will or even if it should. One can make a case to call a lot of things art, like someone said on this thread, even serial killers call their "work" art ...

I knew someone could say I was trying to create a rule. I won't argue cause in a sense it's true. I just don't like anything logical, based on rules, to define something so subjective and personal. Like I said, I like to keep some things simple.
_________________
You’d better not mess with Major Tom!

Gamertag: Waters100

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:06 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Phaedra
Lurker v2.0


Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously
Clayfoot wrote:
I marvel at your ability to thread-jack an already-jacked thread.


Hey, the contest between me and Melissa for "Most Likely to Thread-Jack" might be a sham, but my nomination for the award certainly wasn't. Twisted Evil
_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:47 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
ROBOGriff
Decorated


Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 297
Location: Wherever my hat lays
Clayfoot wrote:

For example, when someone throws up near you, you probably have some emotional reaction. I wouldn't call the final product art, would you?


I couldn't help but jump in here. If a group of people threw up on stage or on que, then someone would consider it art. If somone barfed on canvas and swirled it around, then someone would call it art. Technically they both are correct (even though I would'nt call it that).

But this reminds me of something my old art professor told the class once. It dosn't matter what the reaction is, it's a great reaction as long as someone reacts. His example was when somone got angry and stormed out of the gallery when they saw a piece of his work. He said that was one of the best complements of his life.

I'm about to quit before I gross myself out. I had an example, but it's best left out.
_________________
Meatwad: But you just a box.
Boxy Brown: I just a what, bitch?!
----------------------------

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:49 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Dorkmaster
Unfictologist


Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 1328
Location: The People's Republic of Dork

 		I hate to say it, but my post reacts to this thought of "throwing up" as well...

If it is intended as art, then it is. Do you like it? That's your opinion, and is it skillful? That's debatable, of course. But that doesn't make it any less of an art. Just one less valuable, or maybe more appropriately less likeable or desirable... But art is intentional.

I don't like arguing (I LOVE DEBATING, however) so I don't mean to put down anyone's ideas or anything, but I just don't see how you can disagree to the idea that anything intended as art IS art! I have yet to see one good example of intended art that cannot be considered art. Nor have I seen art that was not intended as art be considered art.

One may say "Well, there's this well crafted theory that I consider art" Well, that may be true, but is it really art? I would submit that it isn't, because the creator of that piece doesn't consider it art (unless he/she does, and in which case, then it IS art...)

See how simple this is? Cool But seriously, "What is 'art'?" is not the real question at stake here... 'What qualifies something as a valuable or justifiable piece of art' is the real thing I think we're getting at. I could honestly spit on a napkin and claim it to be art. Who could stop me? I've created an art piece. But then for it to be valued, and considered by others as worthy, or in the same league with Michaelangelo, Picasso, Gehry, Sondheim, Spielberg, or Rembrandt... well, that's opinion. That's where "good" and "bad" art come into play. "Skilled or unskilled" is probably more apt, however, since that can be more easily judged.

To say that a piece has to create emotion for it to be art is ludicrous, because what stirs emotion in one can be completely ignored by another and be considered completely effective. So does that make it "half" art? No.

Does that mean that the ORIGINAL intention must be art? No, I don't agree with that statement either. There are many instances where something completely technical in nature, mundane, or even unintentional in its creation entirely has obtained art-status, and I reason that it is because the creator of that piece, if available, accepted that position, and has made that shift to intentionality towards the artistic. However, in instances where the creator is no longer available, or unknown... I feel that art can then be decided by its critics and consumers. In this type of case only, does the line grey and become more debatable.

So there. Laughing
_________________
"The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet." -William Gibson
"Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it." - PJ O'Rourke
"ACADEMY, n. A modern school where football is taught." - Ambrose Bierce

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:52 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address
 Back to top 
ROBOGriff
Decorated


Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 297
Location: Wherever my hat lays

 		I agree and well said. Now can we get off the "vomit topic" Very Happy
_________________
Meatwad: But you just a box.
Boxy Brown: I just a what, bitch?!
----------------------------

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:55 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
Nightmare Tony wrote:
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.
Well, that certainly is an easy test to pass on the individual level. "If it's attractive to me, then it's a work of art, even there was no work involved." Of course, that doesn't help us settle on a common framework for what is art or not. If everything is potentially art to someone, then nothing is art.
Nightmare Tony wrote:
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.
I get that you find the coasters beautiful. I some get why you say they are artistic, with the "interplay" and the "structural design" and all. Can you tell me more? How could your sense of the artistic value of these works be used as a measure of any work of potential artistic value?
Nightmare Tony wrote:
A similar example which I would call collaborative art 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.
Yes, you do. Unfortunately, your essay contributes nothing to identifying what would qualify as art.
Nightmare Tony wrote:
And a question which arises, what about art by comission, is it still art? Andy Warhol and his infamous rendtions of soup cans.
Commissioned art certainly could be art. If only we had some test we could apply to determine whether a commissioned piece is art...
Andy Warhol is a tough subject. So much of his work seems to be daring us to call his work art or not. It would be easy to give in and call everything he ever touched artwork, but we should be able to sort the treasure from the trash better than that, don't you think?
Nightmare Tony wrote:
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.
Aha! So, you would say that any creative piece does (or could) qualify as art? Yes? Oh, dear, but that leaves open to call the original Post-It Notes and Velcro art, since they were certainly creative works when they were invented. Are you saying that these creative works are also art? If so, are we back to saying that everything and nothing is art? If you would say that the creation of Velcro is not art, then I have to ask what kind of creative pieces are art, and how I could identify aritistic pieces as I encountered them.
You make the point that both Bach and the Halo novels are creative, but that Bach is art while the Halo novels are not.
So, tell me: How does Bach contrast with the Halo novels such that one is art and the other not?
Nightmare Tony wrote:
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.
Really? So, you would say that a work has to be appealing to oneself to be art? If you don't like it, it can't be art? I fear that your system won't be very portable, nor will it help us classify what could be considered art. There is no way under your system to say why something is art beyond "I like it."
Nightmare Tony wrote:
Our aesthetic is based on our upbringing, cultural and personal based. So its all really a personal thing.
And yet, we have collections of works which we seem to agree are art collections. These works must have something in common to distinguish them from beautiful (or ugly) things that are not art. What might those qualities be, would you say?
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:01 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

 		Re: What is Ahhhhht?
Anton P. Nym wrote:
Art is the creation of a work whose function is to evoke specific emotions in an audience.
Ah, so we could use an audience test to classify works of art. *nods* I'm just not quite sure what you mean by "function" and by "audience" there. Could it be an audience of one? Could the artist be the only audience?
Anton P. Nym wrote:
This should cover modern and classic painting, song, theatre, sculpture, and artists voiding themselves into tin cans and hawking them to the gullible.

I see it'll also cover some political speeches, but then again I'm not adverse to that.
*nods* Yes, yes, perhaps. If only we knew just what you meant by these terms "function", "specific emotions", and "audience", perhaps we really could arrive at a suitable test for potential works of art.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:13 pm
Last edited by Clayfoot on Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
krystyn wrote:
Art is: me, a full supply of plasma grenades, and your dead bodies surrounding me like a glorious, multi-petalled, cyborgeriffic flower.
Of course, it is. But, why?
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:14 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Foz
Veteran

Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 90

 		Anyone find irony in the title of this topic?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:15 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
thebruce wrote:
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...
Art can be universally defined. It is not purely a matter of personal taste. See? We can just go on and on like this, without ever adding anything to the discussion.
thebruce wrote:
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.
'kay... Are we back to saying that everything and nothing is art? I'm not ready for that just yet.
thebruce wrote:
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 Evil or Very Mad .
So, why technically do you consider these acts to be art? What makes them so? And, how do these acts differ from other despicable acts that you do not consider to be art?
thebruce wrote:
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'.
To be sure, the face spitting was an expression of emotion. Now, why (or not) is this art? What do these acts and the consequential results have to do with personal expression and with art? Come now; you must have something better for us than, "Because, I say so."
thebruce wrote:
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?
Well, it's not in the museum, because the museum said it's not art. --or, because it didn't fit the collection. --or, because the museum didn't have the money. --or, because the artist spit in the face of a patron. But then again, the museum isn't trying to define art, it's trying to present a particular selection of works to some end. We are trying to define art, though some of us are definitely trying to subvert the discussion. We might look to some museum collections or popular notions to help us along, but we don't depend on these popular opinions to make definitions of what art is.
thebruce wrote:
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.
And yet, we have this notion that works which we may not personally like are still art, in some objective sense. Really, I find this hyperbole around personal preference quite unhelpful.
thebruce wrote:
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.
Maybe, it's not pointless. Maybe, we just don't have the definite answer to what is art or is not art, yet. It's very easy to say something is unknowable, until you discover the answer.
I'm intrigued by this assignment of "perceived value" by an individual. What is the nature of this perceived value? How does it help identify art? How could this person convey this sense of value to another person? Would that conveyance then qualify as a sytem of defining and of identifying art?
thebruce wrote:
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].
What kind of value? I'm pretty sure air has value, and that lots of us would agree on that, but I would not call it art.
thebruce wrote:
Art is only as valuable as what someone or some group will offer for it.
What's this business of offering something for it? Are you saying that we can identify what's art by seeing if someone (anyone) will buy it? I guess, that's one way to get objective criteria...
thebruce wrote:
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.
Oh, that's interesting. Now, how do you find value? Could you describe it, please?
thebruce wrote:
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.
Whoa. art is value. What fools we've been! Could you put a little more into it, maybe? Could you describe what form this value takes? How does this value relate to personal worth? And, who's personal worth? The artist's? The audience's? How could the sense of this value be described to someone else, so that another person might realize the sense of value that one person sees in a piece?
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:27 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
CoffeeJedi wrote:
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 Very Happy
Oh, that's interesting. How is it valid? Because you say so? How delightful!
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
thebruce wrote:
Clayfoot wrote:
Perhaps, if the final product was so unmoving, uninteresting, and unremarkable, we could call it just an illustration. What exists in this form? CAD drawings? Blueprints? Voice-synthesized weather reports? Romance novel covers (little joke there, people)?
And yet, each of those may somewhere be considered art... I could look at a straight illustration of an object, and admire the skill required to replicate precisely the original object, I could be inspired by the effort it took to create an accurate illustration, and I might find value in owning that illustration, treating as a piece of art for myself. Or even CAD drawings, which have been considered art in the past by people - because they hold value in and of themselves to certain individuals or groups... voice-synthesized weather reports may be considered as art by some people if they look into the work required, and the thought processes used, when defining how the voice would sound; obviously the tone had to be chosen, how much pitch, frequency, all of that... technical, yes, but the human mind had a role in creating it, and someone might hold value in it as an art form... yes, even romance novel covers Razz hehe
Some of your examples are admiring the art of the process, not the finished product. On top of that, you're still saying that anything could be art, which means that nothing could be. I hold to the notion that there is art, and that not only can I recognize it, I can describe what makes it art. I say there is art, and consequentially that there are works that are not art.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:38 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 4 of 10 [137 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): Questions/Meta
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group