What Isn't Art?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  06 June 2005
Quote: I would respond but I am too busy forging art with my moveable head and remarkable "art-eyes".

The compositions fly from my brain, it's almost painful to be filled with so much art and yet to the casual bystander I'm just a bloke "framing art with my eyes".
Unfortunately I must sleep, all those compositions ....lost....like tears in the rain...

Why don't you try and debate with me instead of being an ass? A subjective definition is in my opinion not solid enough to be valid. That's why I'm trying to pin it down as something objective.

Quote: You're not creating art every time you turn your head.

You're not creating it, you're taking it in.

Quote: You're not even creating art every time you take a photograph. I think art requires communication between artist and audience even if it's an audience of one.

But that's too subjective, imo. Why does art require anything? If a photo isn't art, then why are CG renders of Michealangelo's 'David' considered to be art if the former and the latter are just replicating?

Quote: Isn't art subjective, too?

That's my whole point. Since it's subjective, then it is erroneous to define it as something that encompasses 'aesthetic value,' simply because 'aesthetic value' is also a subjective concept and therefore my view of that concept could be completely different then someone else's.

Quote: I agree that beauty is too narrow a standard for "art", though. It totally excludes Heironymous Bosch.

LOL! Had I known that his artwork contained butt-plugs I might have thought twice before googling his name.
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Nathellion: Everything is art. Everytime I move my head, my eyes frame a set of objects in a new composition. I disagree with you, igorstshirts, because beauty is completely subjective, as are aesthetics. Which is why everything is art. One man's trash is anothers treasure.

Epistemology, Pragmatism, and subjective aestheticism...Burke..heeehaaa..drag to debate.

For everyone else, you don't have to agree or disagree with the above quote by Natehellion. This is simply a view to art from an Epistemological viewpoint rather than Ontological one. It is as truthful as a law of physics, and as illusive as a mathematical equation.
  06 June 2005
Except for poop,
what these guys do.

Animusing Productions
old animation stuff.

  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by slaughters: OK,

With the Roadkill thread and others recently there have been many people ready to leap to defend the artist. Claiming that whatever the artist was doing (no matter how distastful the poster personally thought it was) should be considered art.

My question now then is - What isn't art?

Is there anything at all that you would put in the "It ain't art, no matter who did it" category?


Supposedly this is art... I wonder if Piss Koran would be art?
Just a Bot: a work in progress
  06 June 2005
DAMNATION... my reply got wiped out by forum maintenance... arrgghh!!

Let me 'splain. No, there is no time. Let me sum up...

Art is in the intent of the person creating it. Machines don't create art, nor animals poop it, but the intent of building the machine or gathering the poop may be art. Of course, it may be stark cynicism, and that's up to the audience to decide.

wow... and I had some great turns of phrase, too. oh, well.
  06 June 2005
In the strictest terms, anything man-made is art. Anything that is not is natural.

Smellovision was art. 3D Glasses were art. McCarthyism was art.

We don't put any of that in a museum and go "oooo" and "aaaah" and sing it's praises... Only the stupid would do that. Only the stupid would put photos of urine drown items on their walls.
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by KBOC: http://www.ncac.org/timeline/2%20PissChrist.jpg

Supposedly this is art... I wonder if Piss Koran would be art?

Looks like what i posted before about. Any more links on that? I still remember a life size one, where jesus was made of feces and was in a tank of urine. Was on the news once, then i never saw it again.

edit: Ok after an hour of googling.. i think this piece is what i remember. I cant, for the life of me, find anything else.. Oh well.

Last edited by PerfectBlue : 06 June 2005 at 06:06 AM.
  06 June 2005
I just remembered it and the outrage (very justifiable outrage, IMHO) about it... took me a while to find it, though. I'd still like to see Ted Kennedy put a bill out to fund Piss Koran...
Just a Bot: a work in progress
  06 June 2005
I think the entire discussion of art just goes too damn far. In my opinion, most people don't care whatsoever what is and isn't art. Something can be sculpture, painting, advertisement, no one really ever cares what ART is. So why do artists?

I think there is an overwhelming desire in the art community to be desireable and to be liked by your peers, so you have to justify everything you do in some sort of artistic 'everything is art' way. Everything can be beautiful in it's own way, I will agree to that, and I will also agree that there are things that are ART and things that aren't, fine.

But really.... if you're not an artist... who the hell cares?
The desire to express yourself with pen is undeniable and you must do something about it. - AL
  06 June 2005
Quote: no one really ever cares what ART is. So why do artists?

I think it's because people everywhere just loove to argue. Wonder what would happen if God suddenly appeared and told us which religion is right, what is art and not, which political system is the best and whether George Lucas has the right to do anything he wants with Star Wars or not. We'd probably start arguing about a whole new set of things.
  06 June 2005
"because beauty is completely subjective, as are aesthetics"

Although it's near impossible to really back up my opinion, some part of me is dissagreeing with that statement. If that's true, then the only remaining point to being an artist for most people is to incite a reaction. Which is fair enough, but what of the desert island artist who paints pictures in octopus ink that noone else will ever see, striving for a perfection he can't quite seem to get right? If art and beauty are purely subjective, and I mean *purely*, then the very word becomes meaningless and should be dropped from our language. Go become a universal deconstructionist and deny that anything has any meaning if you want to take relativism to it's logical conclusion.

As an artist, I far prefer the idea that there is indeed, on some level, an objective standard of beauty. Just as the need to eat and the need to be loved are objective requirements of humanity which are built into our very DNA, maybe there is also an appreciation of beauty which goes beyond the mere subjective and more towards the instinctive, and which is shared by all mankind?

The idea that there is an objective beauty even beyond mere humanity that any intelligent creature in the universe could appreciate is also somehow appealing, but I guess you'd have to be religious to actually have a basis for that belief.
  06 June 2005
Here is an interesting article taken from Skwigly Magazine (APRIL)

BY Eduardo Azevedo


As 3-dimensional craftsmen, we are often asked about the artistic qualities of what we produce. Although artists can consider this subject controversial, teachers and researchers also, the truth is that the entire issue itself is being approached in the wrong way. The first line of my book reads: “The first mathematical experiment was artistic: the music”. Pythagoras discovered musical notes many years before Christ. Later, I ask: “are computer graphics only an artist's tool, or are they responsible for the work itself?” For some, this question seems to have no answer.

Consulting the dictionary, we can see that there are several meanings of the word ‘art’: “original word of Latin, which means: to know, ability. Capacities of man to put into practice an idea by dominating a material. Creator capacity of expressing or to transmit sensations or feeling.” The word, ‘create’ means: “give existence, give origin, form, produce, invent, imagine”. So, we need to have both an idea and a material domain to produce something that expresses or transmits emotions or feelings.

However, if for you, Image 1 does not seem be art, you could also be right - what is art for you may not be for another. If it does not stir any emotion in you then, for you, it is not art. That doesn’t mean, however, that it lacks significance for others. For those, Image 1 is art.

It seems clear that, for an image to be considered art, we need to take into account several different concepts. We will need to look at aspects of history, styles, and changes in art, and even a return to the student's chair. The study of artistic concepts will be useful not only in generating the best images, but also in understanding what the authors of such images are trying to express. In this case, even things that do not seem to be artistic can still be considered art.

Even before the invention of modern machines, the argument of what is or is not art began many years before Christ, where sculptors in Egypt were angry about pieces that were produced by molding. The artistic controversy of images generated by computer, however, can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution, when old artisans struggled to create new designs within the boundaries established by the new machines, often placing limitations on their work. The freedom to create without restriction is in fact an artist’s great collaborator, but that does not mean that an artist must limit the expression of an idea or feeling when using technology. Human beings, after all, can also express themselves with just a few resources - the first drawings found in caves (Image 2) demonstrate clearly the sufferings in hunt battles or techniques using nothing but lines.

There can also be confusion regarding the authorship of digital images. When we use a system as such as Terragem (Image 3), or any other for that matter (Photoshop, Max, etc), it follows that the authorship of this image should be shared somehow. We have to consider that the images generated by those systems establish an inter-connection between anonymous participants, and that they can be anywhere. Failing to recognize this would be as erroneous as a racecar driver who takes all the credit for his victory, while his building and maintenance teams are ignored.

Our last consideration in this topic has to do with the automatic image generation systems that we use to produce the procedurals textures, known most as noise or fractals. Those algorithms, based on mathematical equations, generate not only very similar images of natural elements (plants, rocks, water, clouds, etc) but also characters' behaviors. In this case, we have to know that even the images generated by equations can be considered art, because programmers or scientists created those equations and algorithms.

Moving the mouse, that’s my artist's gesture. I do not cut the stone; I do not dirty my hands with mud, neither my clothes with ink. I do not search for colours; everything is here, in the folds and bars of my systems. With this machine, I make intuitive choices, and gestures without apparent physical effort. While I rest my muscles, I awaken my mind to new dreams that open new dimensions, and transform my gesture into art.
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by KBOC: In the strictest terms, anything man-made is art. Anything that is not is natural...
Is murder art? Is pedophlia art? Photos of murder ? Photos or paintings of pedophlia?

It's easy to claim something is art when you like, or at least understand it. At one point do you say that something can not be called art, because it can not be tolerated by a healthy society?

Don't fool yourself, no matter how liberal or open you feel you are, everyone has a point, a line that can not be crossed.

What is yours? What isn't art?
Stan Slaughter
We have enough youth, how about a Fountain of Smart?

  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Stahlberg: I think it's because people everywhere just loove to argue. Wonder what would happen if God suddenly appeared and told us which religion is right, what is art and not, which political system is the best and whether George Lucas has the right to do anything he wants with Star Wars or not. We'd probably start arguing about a whole new set of things.

We would simply argue if god meant it, or was testing us.
  06 June 2005
Not everything is art but everything has the potential to be art. I think once something is given a composition, (physically or conceptually) it becomes art.
Thread Closed share thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Society of Digital Artists

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.