PDA

View Full Version : Soul of art?


killermachine
07-20-2010, 06:02 AM
I see many works which are done really nicely and executed beautifully but they look just like that, only technical renders(not disrespecting any great artists). At other times, we would find a simple lineart moving/inspiring beyond words. Some people say that it is the soul of the art that does this. What do you think is this soul of art??

This question has been bothering me for sometime now so i thought i'd know my fellow artists opinion on this.

halen
07-20-2010, 02:39 PM
Love and hard work is the soul of art - or art in general has no soul and individual piece of art has no other soul than the one given to it. And like human souls, they come in many flawors: some are deep, some swallow, some tricky, some funny, some have even sold their sould and the others are something else. :D

And just couple of notes:

- "simple" line art might have more (work) in it that it seems.
- you might be interested reading philosophical discussion part of the FAQ thread here (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=166&t=266927).


edit: Seriously it is also worth noting that any piece of art isn't usually interpreted in vacuum, but how something speaks to you is related to anything you have currently going on in your life, what music are you listening currently, how was your day, how do you read the visual language, what the others said about that piece of art, how it is presented, how mutch does it cost, what is the name of the piece, are you hungry or satisfied, what did you see just before or just after etc. So the "soul" and meaning may change depending on situation. That and what I said above.

Lunatique
07-20-2010, 04:40 PM
Any visual image has a variety of possible intents:

-Conveying a visual narrative
-Expressing an emotion
-Making a personal, socio-political, or philosophical statement
-Depicting a mood
-Showing a design
-Demonstrating technique
-Demonstrating artistic knowledge (the foundations--composition, perspective, values/lighting, colors, anatomy/figure...etc)
-Interpreting the world around us filtered through artistic sensibility

and so on.

As you can see, it's very possible for any piece of artwork to only contain the more technical aspects, if that's all the artist focused on. It's just the same as if an artist concentrated on the creative aspect but lacked technical or artistic skill, and thus end up with a great idea that was poorly executed.

Ideally, a compelling piece of artwork contains both creative and technical excellence.

killermachine
07-20-2010, 06:15 PM
hey helen,
I had read the faq's but couldnt find anything that could quite satisfy me. Also i agree that no work can be made in a vacuum but if i take comics as example, the todays mainstream comics tend to look more "stiff" at times, from art point of view. There are many exceptions but i dont think we have anyone like Mr. Kirby now whose creative priority came before anatomical correctness. And he composed his shots. I think same can be said for John Buscema and Frazetta(well Frazetta was practically God). Is this happening just because comic is business? It was then too and more intense then now.

Lunatique, i completly agree with you on what you say. I think the top 4 from your list would do the maximum in this department. I dont know if you would agree with me but when i look at NC Wyeth's work i feel he hit his mark 90% of times in putting soul in his work but in todays time an artist might miss that many times. What could be a possible reason for it? have we been corrupted by some kind of influence?

RoundRobbin
07-20-2010, 07:56 PM
If u may think you are getting corrupted. And our past with its accomplishments and merits have felt the least of it in comparison. Does not make the individual artist any less original.
Research the work of Rollo May. It could help open some locked doors.

halen
07-20-2010, 08:01 PM
uhm. poser (or some other 3d base)? :twisted: It might make production faster, but might also lessen the work, love and soul put to one individual image, mass production, comics drawn not by individuals, but by cheap factory labour somewhere? lack of personal passion towards the subject? A lot of things that just need to be done, instead of thinking what amazing we could do, quantity over quality, burdens of the history to follow (might limit writing part) ...? Things going more towards industry or than art, individual freedom and passion? (just a sidenote that this happened also at the IT -industry - what used to be "software development" is now something like "service" - instead of creating something just numbly doing what client wants, because it brings money now).

Amazing examples of the past compared to average work of today and not average work of the past or amazing work of today?



If we skip the viewer effect of this thing, as mentioned and lunatique listed, an artwork might only have that soul that is put there. If it is not there, then it isn't.

edit: lists above are questions, things that may have an effect to things you are experiencing. Still may can do good work even today and with all those new tools (I wouln'd probably have started at all without them).

BasHe
07-21-2010, 10:00 AM
I agree here that the soul part can solely arise on the artists` side. This begs the question though, what exactly is this soul you are talking about? Lunatique seems to put it alongside other qualities, like a piece of art is like a checklist. I find that `soul` is actually sincerity. Being interested in the subject and the craft you are doing, not just the end result. If you LOVE just mixing colors, put them in various compositions, it will show. There might not be a story to read for the viewer, but I believe that sincerity will always show through. Or if it lacks that, it wil show aswell.
I guess that even if you have that same sincerity towards stick figures, you can make it work (see Don Hertzfeldt)

Lunatique
07-21-2010, 10:24 AM
I don't know if sincerity is enough. Intent alone doesn't go very far if the execution is terrible. Also, what is soulful is different to everyone. Uwe Boll certainly is sincere in his love of filmmaking and he believes in what he's doing, but his films are considered some of the lowest of low in terms of merit. I think soulful alone is not enough of an indication of quality. Some of the most pretentious, whiny, shallow, and idiotic creative works are done very sincerely. I believe that sincerity must also be combined with knowledge, skill, and ideally also taste. As soon as taste is involved, it becomes very complicated because it is subjective. One man's beloved serious piece of art, literature, film, or music might be considered pretentious and unbearable to another, or one man's love of entertaining pulp would be considered low-brow, crass, and cheesy disposable waste of time by another. All are done with sincerity, but not all will agree they are soulful or worthy of praise.

BasHe
07-22-2010, 07:36 AM
Hmm...you kindoff killed the discussion there...there`s no arguing about taste...

I disagree with you when you say sincerity isnt enough. If you are sincere about what you are doing, you will always look back on what you have already made and see where you can go from there. I`m not saying how you can IMPROVE from there, because I think that is less interesting (and again, always open for debate what improvement really is). You approach this discussion more from a craftman`s point of view and I respect that. In that train of thought there is defeniately something to say about (tangible) quality of art.
I tend to see this discussion more about the intangible part, and see art more as expressions of an artist. Inescapably the piece of art will therefore reflect what the artist was going through when making the piece. His/her intentions, point of view, etc. Perhaps indeed the inability to express yourself in the early stage will result in works of lesser quality, but by sticking with it, you can distill your original intentions to what you really want to express.

Lunatique
07-22-2010, 08:22 AM
I don't think it's as mysterious or intangible as most people think it is. Most think that because they haven't really made an honest effort to demystify and deconstruct these things. I don't mean just think about it for a few minutes while talking about it with someone--I mean sustained, serious, and deep study of the subject and research into all the elements that are involved--months and years of concentrated effort. Part of what makes the workshop I teach very unique is the way it breaks down the intangible into something that could be taught and learned. There are specific psychological elements that contribute to our impression of and feeling about an image, and most people just haven't tried to make sense of it all. There are many aspects at play, and I can't really explain it all here since it'll take pages of text along with dozens of images. We spend an entire week on this very subject in my workshop--in fact it is the opening week that kicks off the whole thing. There are lots of things that most artists never even considered or paid attention to--such as the difference between a straightforward and abstract narrative, the various uses of visual analogies, how a simple action image could be utterly transformed in its meaning by adding the element of cause and effect, voyeuristic and exhibitive narratives and how they influence us psychologically, or the way good writers approach storytelling and how artists can borrow those same techniques for creating visual art.

So yes, I do believe that the "soulful" aspect of an image isn't as mysterious as people think, and it can be made to be tangible and accessible for those that want to learn about it. This goes the same for music composition, creative writing, filmmaking, dance, photography, and so on. They all share common traits of creativity, and many are interchangeable between the various creative disciplines.

halen
07-22-2010, 02:11 PM
^ now I just have to agree with lunatique about common traits of creativity and demystifying things. I'ts not reducing the value or the soul or art - instead it just shows that there is always more to know even in complicated subjects (which is great) and the best part in my opinnion is that when something is demystified it can be learned and used for ones own work.

Altought I have to say I'd like to make and see (or hear or experience) art made with sincerity and passion if is opposed to someone doing it just fakely - if one can have em all. :D

killermachine
07-22-2010, 03:20 PM
The recent dicussion is getting focussed more on how art can evoke something in one person and doesnt even matter to another. I dont think a genuine soulful art will stop on the barrier of "taste" because if that was the case then art icons like Mickey Mouse and tom n jerry would not hav been able to sustain themselves for decades(mickey mouse is nearing 70-80 years, i guess, and stil how popular he is can be seen by the hype around epic mickey) Till that time disney himself was there, all of his projects gained universal approval be it animated movies or places like disneyland. There was no taste barrier.Same goes for artist like michael jackson who sold more music then anyone ever will. Is it passion to create something beautiful or rememberable that might be the real soul of art?

halen
07-22-2010, 08:25 PM
I dont think a genuine soulful art will stop on the barrier of "taste"

I agree with that. And as mentioned, "taste" is difficult since everyone has one and it might not only be different, but also vary in width of arts and styles. I consider my self quite "omnivorous" what comes to arts and styles, but I also realize that I need certain amount of knowledge of certain arts just to tell good from bad. It's not always obvious or something universal or at least knowing helps me.


Is it passion to create something beautiful or rememberable that might be the real soul of art?

...or something dark and painfull - or something. You'll need some to do anything. Even getting up from bed. I mean for example building houses with "don't care" -mentality makes bad houses. :D Passion or love or sincerity mentioned here are things that with keep one doing whatever one is doing and getting better at it. Or at least caring enought to try and make it - and make it again, maybe better. So I don't think passion in it self is the soul of art, but one of those qualities of an artist that help you do (or learn) your stuff. Add some consistensy, wisdom (not burning out with all that passion) and patience (to get over the boring or bad days), some actual life to share and enought knowledge and skill to express those things so that it is understandable (you are not preventing people to understand your art with inferior quality) we are at least growing changes to create sometimes something that has "soul" to someone. (gosh what a sentence :rolleyes: )

Lunatique
07-24-2010, 04:32 AM
If you really want to investigate what you personally find to be "soulful," then simply do an experiment. Collect a large variety of images and then separate them into what you find to be soulful and what you find the opposite, and those that fall somewhere in the middle. Then you analyze the common traits in each group. Like I already said, the so-called intangible aren't exactly intangible, just that most people don't bother investigating and spending enough time understanding.

I'll bet that the images you find to be soul will have some similar traits like expressive emotions, evocative moods, strong atmosphere, some sort of visual narrative, some kind of dramatic contrast, compelling composition...etc. These are all tangible aspects that could be understood and studied. I think some things are only mysterious if you haven't learned enough about it or haven't excelled enough as a practitioner of the discipline. It's actually very surprising how much isn't mysterious if you spent enough time investigating. For example, music can be utterly magical to most people--the way the sophisticated harmonies and captivating melodic contours and complex rhythms take a hold of us and put us and transport us to another world. But if you actually studied music for long enough, you'll learn to deconstruct even the most complex music and learn what makes it tick--how the tension is built up with dissonance in harmonic intervals, and how it modulates over time and then finally resolves for the release. Even the ethereal and heavenly sounding impressionistic music could be deconstructed, such as the use of whole tone scale and parallel fifths often used in impressionistic styles. Melodies also have contours that can be broken down to see how each interval contributes to a very specific emotional response in conjunction to the harmonic structure.Rhythmic elements like syncopation is the foundation of modern "beats" but so many people who aspire to "make beats" never even make an effort to understand the anatomy of a rhythm.

So while it's easy to sit and talk about what the "soul" of the art is, how many people actually took the time to really investigate and learn about the anatomy of visual vocabulary and the elements of evocative imagery? Anyone here actually spent years studying this very topic and conducted lots of experiments and really made it a priority is his life? I think if a topic is of enough importance to you, then it deserves further investigation beyond simply a few posts on the internet. Really dig into the subject and treat it like an important study, and test your theories in a scientific manner. Conduct experiments with colleagues, family and friends. Really learn something about it.

killermachine
07-24-2010, 06:21 AM
So while it's easy to sit and talk about what the "soul" of the art is, how many people actually took the time to really investigate and learn about the anatomy of visual vocabulary and the elements of evocative imagery? Anyone here actually spent years studying this very topic and conducted lots of experiments and really made it a priority is his life? I think if a topic is of enough importance to you, then it deserves further investigation beyond simply a few posts on the internet. Really dig into the subject and treat it like an important study, and test your theories in a scientific manner. Conduct experiments with colleagues, family and friends. Really learn something about it.

i would not have posted this topic if i wasnt serious about it. And i dont believe in anything happening by magic as all artists we like have worked very hard to achieve this "effect". As you said, i intend to learn some concrete answers but indian art community has fallen back in this department in past few years and i couldnt find any satisfactory answers that is why i came here. The list you gave in your first post does clear some things for me. If you can help in guiding me more on this i would be greatful.

Lunatique
07-24-2010, 06:38 AM
I don't know if India has good liberal arts programs like we do in the States, but that's a great way to learn about the intellectual, emotional, philosophical aspects of art, and there are also books out there that cover this topic. The workshop I teach (shown in my signature below) tackles this topic head-on from different angles, and combines with actual technique and foundational knowledge, as well as highly advanced study of sophisticated subjects like expressive characters, stylization, aesthetics, the creative intent, and so on. It's essentially an art bootcamp and the kind of stuff I wish I had learned during my formative years and early professional career. But obviously hind-sight is always much more clear, and many of the sophisticated insights I'm teaching are only possible with many years of experience in a variety of creative careers.

BasHe
07-24-2010, 09:34 AM
Altought I have to say I'd like to make and see (or hear or experience) art made with sincerity and passion if is opposed to someone doing it just fakely - if one can have em all. :D

I find all these talent shows on tv quite interesting in this respect. You see a variaty of people performing back to back. Some with and some without any formal education of whatever they are performing. It is hard to grasp what makes some excell and others dont. I found that the more sincere, humble performances are usually more interesting than technically highstanding boring ones.

If you really want to investigate what you personally find to be "soulful," then simply do an experiment. Collect a large variety of images and then separate them into what you find to be soulful and what you find the opposite, and those that fall somewhere in the middle. Then you analyze the common traits in each group. Like I already said, the so-called intangible aren't exactly intangible, just that most people don't bother investigating and spending enough time understanding.

Yeah, well, interesting article about that:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/26/the-perils-of-introspection/
You will most certainly claim that this method still has its merits and we will all end up with some (universal) truths...unfortunately, knowing what you know, you run another risk when you try:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/
Ofcourse, if we all read the same literature we are bound to agree with you...funny thing the way the mind works...

I still remain at my stance that there is more to art than craftmanship. And that sincerity will help you develop your work. Your idea of developement is that of improving craftmanship; deconstructing truths about the craft. My idea is purely that, development; asking yourself the question, where can I go from where I stand now? Perhaps you`ll end up a perfect craftman with this method, perhaps you`ll grow into a whole other kind of artist...who knows. But thing is, doing it this way, you took your own road to destilling the artist you have inside yourself. And thus, you`ll be more true to yourself, and have seen different things along you path.
Now, you may call me ignorant for believing what I believe. I may call you narrowminded for what you believe...I`m not trying to bash you here, because I certainly respect what you have acomplished doing it you way. It`s just the way these two stances sortoff seem to mutually exclude eachother...

Lunatique
07-24-2010, 10:13 AM
Now, you may call me ignorant for believing what I believe. I may call you narrowminded for what you believe...I`m not trying to bash you here, because I certainly respect what you have acomplished doing it you way. It`s just the way these two stances sortoff seem to mutually exclude eachother...

Actually, you're wrong to assume I only place emphasis on craftsmanship. It couldn't be further from the truth. I place enormous emphasis on the intellectual and emotional resonance of creative works--in fact it's the main thing I care about. When a piece of creative work fails to move me in someway, I wouldn't be nearly as interested in it. If you took a spin around my website, that will become very clear--how much I care about passion, sincerity, injecting one's soul into one's work...etc. In fact, this is one of the most important lessons I teach in my workshop--that you must be sincere and passionate in your desire to create, and you should create what resonates with you emotionally.

The reason why I have to break these so-called intangible elements down into tangible and understandable ones is because I have to teach it to those who don't understand the inner workings of creativity. Anyone who tries to teach anything about the creative process and the creative vision must be able to put into words these complex ideas. If you can't break this stuff down into understandable bits, then you have no business teaching it to others. And if you don't know how to break this stuff down into understandable bits, then you really don't understand it to begin with.

So no, the two are not mutually exclusive. At least not to me. What I'm advocating is that passion, inspiration, sincerity, needs to be combined with knowledge and skill in order to produce the best creative works. One without the other is almost always not nearly as compelling as when there's both.

Quadart
07-24-2010, 01:25 PM
What do you think is this soul of art??

For me, the “soul” of a work of art is the transcendent or emergent property of the work that significantly affects an observer and only exists in the mind of the observer. Simply put the “soul” of a work of art is that intended property of the work that is greater than the mere sum total of the work’s reducible parts, e.g. composition, color choices etc. This property represents a whole through orchestration that also has a multilayered richness which in essence becomes food for thought that transcends the art object itself. This embodied “soul”/emergent property is totally dependent on the experiences, insight, communicative capability, and in more cases than not, the genius (real or perceived) of the artist. You can’t dissect genius, fully understand it and repeat it—unless you’re a ‘genius’ and most are not. The magic and mystery of a work of art lies, more often than not, in it’s genius.

To me, trying to break down art to find the exact location of it’s “soul” is a futile Reductionist’s attempt.

Breaking down Peotry and understanding it’s mechanics from the bottom up won’t make you a Poet Laureate. It will give you a greater appreciation of Poetry.

killermachine
07-24-2010, 02:12 PM
Yeah, well, interesting article about that:
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/05/26/the-perils-of-introspection/
You will most certainly claim that this method still has its merits and we will all end up with some (universal) truths...unfortunately, knowing what you know, you run another risk

this was an interesting article to read.

HelionDark
07-24-2010, 03:24 PM
must say very interesting discussion.

what is soul of work of art?

for me it is ability of art to stay in people mind, not like 5 minutes after watching.

more like that some banal thing remind you of that work and then memories starts to flow.

it depends of artist skill skill mostly, but in good part also in spectator mind and his taste.

i agree that procedure for making art with soul is generally futile but general guidelines are possible but nothing guarantee success

SpiritDreamer
07-24-2010, 09:31 PM
What is SOUL
I personally don't think it can be defined in words ..other than to say it is real MAGIC
Magic by diffinition is something that is there, but cannot be explained..it's effects can only be felt.
It's like the difference between the kiss of two people in love, and the kiss between a prostitute and a client that was just met on the street.
The kiss produced with and for love is producing real magic between the giver and the receiver, each being one and the same,.. just as the kiss for profit is just going through the motions..has all the elements of a kiss, but lacks the love and the intension of love, and lacks the ending result which makes it a mutually shared magical moment
Maybe that is too stronge of an example...Maybe a better example is a kiss between two people...one kiss produces a spark that results in love, and the other results in friendship because the spark was not created to ignite the magic of love...The difference being subtle, but the ending result being ether magical or not magical..The feeling can be described with examples, but cannot be defined.
Perception of soul just might be in the inner eye of the beholder.

Interesting discussion to bring into view Amrinder, and very interesting perceptions by those responding as to what is SOUL..:)
TAKE CARE
Glenn

RoundRobbin
07-26-2010, 08:56 PM
there's also an emotional leve.
called "grow some balls and do your own thing"
and if your a female, I think it's called "wake the fk up, just because you were destined to be a failure doesn't mean u need to make it come true."

BasHe
08-06-2010, 02:17 PM
Actually, you're wrong to assume I only place emphasis on craftsmanship. It couldn't be further from the truth. I place enormous emphasis on the intellectual and emotional resonance of creative works

Thats not what I said. Obviously, we both find some soul in art, otherwise we wouldnt be in this discussion. The way we differ is how we approach it. You deconstruct it like a craftman, and I like to keep it a bit more mystical. I have the luxury I dont have to teach it. `Getting it` but not knowing how to explain this soul is what I am personally after. And that is in my eyes only possible by evolving your work.


For me, the “soul” of a work of art is the transcendent or emergent property of the work that significantly affects an observer and only exists in the mind of the observer.

Do I detect the voice of a post-structuralist here? Sounds like Deleuze to me. I only started to read his work quite recently...very confusing how he talks about the planes of immanence and composition and the rest of his terminology. I know to little of his work to decide wether his work is relevant to me or contrived, but I do find it more interesting than structuralism/reductionism. It leaves artworks way more open for interpretation and how it interacts with its surroundings.


Breaking down Peotry and understanding it’s mechanics from the bottom up won’t make you a Poet Laureate. It will give you a greater appreciation of Poetry.

I guess this underlines the question on what that knowledge is worth? Is it helpfull in retrospect (evaluating/appreciating your own and others` work) or in prospect (creating your own work)?

Lunatique
08-06-2010, 03:20 PM
I guess this underlines the question on what that knowledge is worth? Is it helpfull in retrospect (evaluating/appreciating your own and others` work) or in prospect (creating your own work)?

That's a great point. It reminds me of all the people out there who talk the talk but can't walk the walk--the "Armchair Quarterbacks" of the art world. You've probably met a few them, especially if you went to art school. They can talk your ears off about theory and philosophy, deconstruct the hell out of any image you put in front of them, and knows art history like the back of their hands, but the moment you ask to see their work they either make excuses or show you incoherent abstract work--the kind that's impossible for anyone to really critique because everything is up to interpretation, and no actual drawing and painting skills are required to do such work--just the ability to shoot one's mouth off. So in cases like that, no, knowledge won't get one very far if all one does is talk. ;)

HelionDark
08-06-2010, 04:51 PM
this is becoming very interesting topic.

so we have other approach to subject after all we are people with our opinions.

still soul have some connections between us it will make us to look at in and be speechless, to admire it for some time.

i have my opinion it is probably classic in some thinks i don't understand most of modern art don't get me wrong i don't say that it is not good it is just it don't have same impact like some more classic paintings or sculptures,

so for me that arts have soul that i can recognize, still there are also soul in modern works after all no mater my opinion some people like his some that.

so how to see soul in things that aren't your first taste?

and do it have soul?

first answer is in time

and yes for me all art have taste also mass produced art because it have some impression
on some one, so for me it is not question do art have soul.

question is how much soul it have and that is hard because you cant measure soul.

P.S.
Sorry if post is a bit confusing

Lunatique
08-07-2010, 02:26 AM
so how to see soul in things that aren't your first taste?

and do it have soul?

first answer is in time

and yes for me all art have taste also mass produced art because it have some impression
on some one, so for me it is not question do art have soul.

question is how much soul it have and that is hard because you cant measure soul.


I personally think it's irrelevant to judge any creative works by measuring it's soulfulness. It's way too vague of a word to having any real meaning because every living creature with some level of intelligence has a soul, but not all of them can create meaningful or compelling art. Even serial murderers have souls--they often love their own family and pets very much, and they can expound on their killings and relish them as if they're works of art. So in that sense, soulfulness become a useless word.

These types of discussions of "what is art" always goes around in circles and it becomes a circle jerk of intellectual masturbation. This is why some forum leaders ruthlessly lock threads like this as soon as they are posted, since we already have countless threads just like this in our forum archives, and they all get nowhere fast. I'm not as trigger happy so I tend to let threads like this play out until people realize that once again, it is going nowhere. Maybe I should start locking threads like this too from now on. ;)

BasHe
08-07-2010, 08:57 AM
I personally think it's irrelevant to judge any creative works by measuring it's soulfulness.

I dont think thats what this discussion is about, judging creative work. Yes, this IS a thread of some sort to find an intangible essence in art. We may not come up with any thruths, and in that way, this discussion is pointless. "What is art?" Is quite a personal question and a thread like this offers, more than thruths, perspectives.
I do not mind people talking the talk and not walking the walk. It is only natural. As we entered art school, we all had preconceived notions on what we wanted our art to be. However, in the beginning, we do not know how to express those notions through our art (I still don`t, at least, not fully). Since we have been speaking most our life, putting those notions in words is easier than expressing it in an artwork. So, what artschool is, more than learning the craft-part, developing and destilling those notions you had to begin with and learn to express those. It is a personal quest for everyone who attends. A quest that continues for our entire life. The teachers are only there to guide you. To teach you to look at your own work, self-reflect so that you may grow on your own even after graduation. That is the part you are most likely to miss if you learn from static media such as books and videos.


These types of discussions of "what is art" always goes around in circles and it becomes a circle jerk of intellectual masturbation. This is why some forum leaders ruthlessly lock threads like this as soon as they are posted, since we already have countless threads just like this in our forum archives, and they all get nowhere fast. I'm not as trigger happy so I tend to let threads like this play out until people realize that once again, it is going nowhere. Maybe I should start locking threads like this too from now on.

..."a circle jerk of intellectual masturbation." Yeah well, if you are gonna lock this thread, you might as well close this entire forum and stop your own workshop. All communication and sharing of knowledge is ego stroking. Here is how it works: We have a notion of ourselves, our self-image. We communicate to reinforce that image, it makes us happy (communication-theory 101). Naturally, our notion of what art is, is a major part of our egos as creatives. So discussions that question those notions are prone to be somewhat more lively, and likewise, we are more likely to repeat ourselves. By the way, if you are affraid too many of these "what is art?" threads popping up, why not make this one sticky?

On topic: I did notice we got back where we started from that art is highly subjective. I like spiritDreamer`s analogy of a kiss. Where something just has to `click` between art and the observer. Also, when I look at it strictly logical, I have to admit that inanimate object like art cannot have a soul. We may put our souls into an artwork and we may attribute souls to art, but it cannot HAVE a soul. Perhaps what art really does (from the observer side), is reflect upon our own souls (or egos, if you find `soul` too spiritual). It may be a catalyst as we process our own lives. Where we stand, who we are, problems we are facing, etc.

Lunatique
08-07-2010, 09:51 AM
By the way, if you are affraid too many of these "what is art?" threads popping up, why not make this one sticky?

In fact, there is a FAQ sticky that lists all the past philosophical discussions about art:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=166&t=266927

And cgtalk has always been more about craft and technique. In general that's how the people behind the scenes would like to keep it. There are way too many technical aspects to CG, especially in commercial productions, and many of the practitioners of those disciplines just aren't all that interested about the "soul" of art. They just want to know how to better rig a skeleton or simulate that water effect. This Art Techniques and Theories forum is like the red-headed step-child of cgtalk--some people behind the scenes don't even think it should exist and like to make fun of it. The fact I created this forum and fought hard to keep it alive is a testament to how much I actually care about having a place on cgtalk where we can discuss things other than technique and software. But even I get wary of this particular type of discussion because it's way too subjective and we've seen far too many threads just like this one. But like I already said, I'm not nearly as militant as some of the other forum leaders, and the fact I haven't locked this thread actually says a lot. If this thread was posted anywhere else on cgtalk it would've gotten locked right away.

HelionDark
08-07-2010, 12:24 PM
i agree you cant measure soul.

still you can try to understand soul of art but it is different thing for all of us.

i didn't go to art school (my first interest was natural science) so we didn't discuse about art to much.

so this topic is interesting to me, also to he honest i aren't accustomed to talk on forums where people talk nice.

Topic is maybe philosophical but if it helps me to improve my self i don't see problem with talking.

also faster workflow is also important but if you work with art only because you have to what is point? except money?
yes CG is full of technical aspect i started with Acad and i still have that way of thinking with shapes

about closing topic it is good im not moderator so i don't have to think about it :rolleyes: but then we should close all topic where people ask what program is better? maya, max, cinema ...

but back to point soul it remind me to story about quest for grail, you cant find but you stil try to understand, so it probably improve us in some way

CGTalk Moderation
08-07-2010, 12:24 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.