Art? or the work of a crazy person?

Become a member of the CGSociety

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

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  12 December 2005
Using this for constructive purposes.

Quote: art isnt about craft


I beg to differ. Art is exactly that, and we seem to have forgotten this in the last century or so. I have said it before and I shall say it again. Cavemen had bad art, to record their history, not to express themselves. Everything thereafter was for a purpose, with a subject, that advanced in technique, because patrons or people wanted to show they had power when buying the great art.

This occured until modern art styles.

Arguing what is art, with this piece of work, if you want to call it that, is silly. He is mistaken and is not arguing what is art. He is arguing a philosophy of the metaphysical. Ever had a conversation with people about why the color blue is blue? Why is the color blue not red when we really think it is blue? Im pretty sure everyone has had a similar conversation with someone in their life.

THAT IS NOT ART. That is arguing a philosophy of the metaphysical which has nothing to do with art, regardless of how much you want it to be. I just really hate anything dealing with "shock factor." If you want to shock people, becoming an economist or business executive and make money for legitimate reasons. Every day I become more infuriated with the notion of modern art, and I truly believe it is destroying the foundation of art as a whole.
__________________
One day, Bunnies will rule the world.
 
  12 December 2005
Skinir [sp],

While your argument is interesting it is sadly incorrect. You suggest that art has progressed upon a linear timeline ever since the beginning of artistic creation, with the cavemen for instance. However, if you look at even the past 1,000 years of Western Civilization you will see many trends in art that were non-renewing, non-linear and were then swallowed up by other trends. Medieval paintings rooted in the two-dimensional picture plane mirrored changes in roman sculpture which had followed the naturalistic greek tradition for a long period of time. The reason that medieval art looks rougher and less skillful than that of Greek or Renaissance art is that it was intended to convey a simpler message. Such is that of Egyptian art which also if one looks into it deeply enough, was intended to convey exactly what was happening in the simplest possible conceptual form. Medieval art, taken from the later Roman art was intended to be simple, while you cannot argue that the forms are natural or flowing you must admit that in a peice of Medieval art you can make out each form distinctly, and the message of that artwork is usually quite transparent and easy to see. The message of Egyptian art is also the same. Why however, if we have a linear tradition and trend in art did the Greeks produce highly natualistic sculpture, thus "progressing" from the Egyptian tradition, and then it was directly moved against in the late Roman ages and early Christian and Medieval times? If you look at Egyptian Sculputre, Greek Sculpture, Roman Sculpture Medieval Sculpture and finall Renaissance Sculpture you will find that the naturalism that is the supposed "goal" of all art goes into and out of Fashion. Currently yes, we have swung back away from naturalism being considered, "high art", however almost every member of this forum has produced highly naturalistic and beautiful works of art, some of which are highly valuable. As much as alot of you hate Modern Art, there are few works of Modern art that reach the broad audience that Film, TV, and Video games reach. While the artists on CGtalk itself may not become awfully rich or famous, except in rare circumstances, due to their personal art. Hundreds of millions of dollars a year is spent producing our art form, and billions of dollars are spend appreciating it and patronizing it.

In conclusion: Art is not a slowly progressing linear progress that died at the end of the Neo-Classical period during the late 19th c.. Furthermore, while you guys may hate Modern art, your individual works of art are reaching a far wider audience and gaining far greater acceptance in a populist setting than Modern art ever will. Art does include skill, it is just that the skill of many modern artists is that of metaphysical thought rather than craftsmenship with ones hands. The real question that you must ask in answering and debating the question of modern art is this: Is metaphysical thought portrayed through a visual medium high art, and should its stimulus on viewers be placed ahead of the mainly visceral reactions that our CG art causes?
__________________
I'm here, and then I'm not.
 
  12 December 2005
I still believe art is a linear craft, it just depends on your perception of it.

For instance, when we are taking from the canvas perspective most of the medieval art I see is still progressive from caveman to egyptian to greek/roman to medieval etc. Now by canvas I mean anything on some sort of flat plane, just to clarify. There are still some exceptions here and there throughout all art, but the general trend, I see the medieval canvas art as progress, from previous eras.

Regarding sculpture...I think the reason art semi-digressed is a result of the collapse of such civilizations as greece and rome. If you notice, they are still into the form and figure, it is just not as advanced, and they usually incorporate symbol. I however, believe this to be the result of society in general regressing, and thus various techniques and learned traits were lost in the process. They were able to reacquire these traits and progress further than before by the mid-era of the Renaissance.

However, the only explanation for such a drastic change in todays society for modern art was individual will. Also, there has never been a change in history THIS drastic.

It is from these arguments that I declare art is , for the most part, progressive. Events can lead to digression, however, like all crafts I believe it is in actuality the Ideal design for art like all other things, to improve overtime.

The one exception in all art forms might be Architecture. Due to its inherent nature to house individuals and possessions, it has to have a basis of structure. The foundation is so important that the fact it has a weighted, naturally-pleasing exterior, ends up giving it aesthetic merit. Skyscrapers for instance, are a change to a more modern art outlook, however they also provide something new and more progressive in society. This is why architecture is not restricted to the same rules and regulations of the craft.
__________________
One day, Bunnies will rule the world.
 
  12 December 2005
So you place the morality of a society on its use of perspective and shading? I really think that's a bit of a stretch. I would think that the content of a work of art would be far more indicitive of an artist than the use of technique and perspective. Obviously many societies and governments with differing moral valuse have came into existance and passed away since the advent of real scientific perspective in the renaissance. Since that time however, painting as a craft has progressed steadily to the hyper-realism that some oil painters practice today.


One interesting thing to think about here is that there is one major society where painting in realistic styles is still acceptable. That is in China where artists were taught nothing but realism and naturalistic styles. Obviously China has a much more corrupt immoral system than we do, can anyone say Cultural Revolution and forcing intellectuals to swallow glass shards?, [yes mod's I know that's political but art history and the study of art tends to delve into political and social themes as well, what did y'all expect from this forum anyways?]. Yet despite the obvious political and social problems that came about due to Mao's programs, the artists that sprang forth from this system were highly technically talented and in their critiques of Mao's years in the '80s and '90s they used the only style they knew, a highly naturalistic and realistic method of oil painting. However, the society they sprang from was in no way representational of their rights. I think it is a bit odd to consider the use of a renaissance inspired method of painting or drawing as a predictor of a cultures morality or immorality.

-John
__________________
I'm here, and then I'm not.

Last edited by JIII : 12 December 2005 at 05:20 AM. Reason: Fix one sentence
 
  12 December 2005
Clarification on one point. by "Renaissance[sp] inspired" I really mean a painting method that utilizies scientific perspective and a realistic rather style of painting that usually depicts human subjects. Realism is definied as painting that is devoted to the near photographic likelyness of the subject matter in a picture combined with the accturate portrayal of anatomy and natural phenomena.
__________________
I'm here, and then I'm not.
 
  12 December 2005
In my opinion that is just brilliant.


Because if he says it is an oek tree, it is one. Because one cannot proof that is isnt.

Besides, that should make you think what qualifies an oek tree, to be an oek tree besides its physical form. Because our perception of physical things is always altered.

That piece of art is genius for people who are interested in philosophie as I am.
__________________

 
  12 December 2005
ah yes, but of course skirnir is not as interested in philosophy as you are :-P! However, proving that it is not an oak tree could become very easy if you accept some constraints such as using the dictionary definition of what an Oak Tree is:

Noun

  • S: (n) oak, oak tree (a deciduous tree of the genus Quercus; has acorns and lobed leaves) "great oaks grow from little acorns"
Source < http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=oak%20tree >

Once you accept that definition I think that the philosophical qualities of the artwork do indeed fall apart. Immanual Kant this artist is not.

-John
__________________
I'm here, and then I'm not.
 
  12 December 2005
Yeah I just see this as a cheap joke. It's freshman philosophy, if that.
It is more similar to "The Emperor's New Clothes" than the artist wants to admit, because without the big long hype about the new clothes, and the fear people had of the emperor, no one would have spontaneously seen any clothes on him either. If the same hype and fear had been applied to calling a glass a tree, it might have also succeeded for the same short time (until a child called the bluff).
 
  12 December 2005
Originally Posted by Phynix: In my opinion that is just brilliant.


Because if he says it is an oek tree, it is one. Because one cannot proof that is isnt.

Besides, that should make you think what qualifies an oek tree, to be an oek tree besides its physical form. Because our perception of physical things is always altered.

That piece of art is genius for people who are interested in philosophie as I am.


You are ridiculing the work even more by saying that. What do you mean by proof. This isn't about proving anything. It's about questioning, and challenging our perceptions. It's a game of some sort. Don't take it so seriously. Besides, this is not about philosophy of art.
__________________

Last edited by ashakarc : 12 December 2005 at 04:28 PM.
 
  12 December 2005
This reminds me of an old joke my father told me once. An art student who submitted his assignment in a white blank sheet. The teacher asked him: What is this? The student reply was; Oh it is a painting of a cow eating grass. The teacher asked: Where is the grass? The student said, the cow ate it. Then the teacher asked: And where is this cow? The student replied, gone!
__________________
 
  12 December 2005
I'd ask if I could taste it and say "If it tastes like an oak tree, I'll agree it's an oak tree, but if it still tastes like water..."
I'm sure he'd say no :/
__________________
 
  12 December 2005
To Jlll:

In some respects yes, I believe the ability to define more realism is the general goal. I also believe that subject and technique should hold the most of the weight in defining an artist. If someone wants to be famous for making ideas, they should become a philosopher. Note*** when I mention subject, I am trying to signify that as something narrower than content in general.

For instance, something as simple as a box is subject. Whereas something like, the color blue or red, or the line A,B,C...or the splash A,b,c are content, but not subject. Certain "modern art" do include some basic subjects, unfortunately my problem with most cases of modern art is they do it without the technique of Ideal realism. They tend to make the objects purely 2d, without need for definition. "Content"(granted this definition stated), can be used to improve the quality of art through symbolism, BUT ONLY if subject and technique were first applied.

I am not saying that the art itself should be made because of morality of society, I agree that sometimes extreme conditions can just result in greater progress. However, along with other things, I do not like the general change of previous crafts to be perverted in great depth. Art is not philosophy.

By this I do not mean, create realism of only that which you can see. For instance, I believe sci-fi, fantasy, and other such concepts are in fact the next step in progress of Art in relation to realism. Certainly parts of the skill did digress, but the overall concept has progressed. The next step in the process would be defining more real designs for those figures, which blossoms even further unrealistic fantasies. It is then the job to make those unrealistic fantasies acquire the same realism as pieces undistinguishable from a photograph or reality.

If such concepts did not suit the person, than life-figures, self-portraits(or scuptures), landscapes, paintings or sculptures of some or many objects, etc. would be suitable to follow the "art is a craft" foundation.

In terms of fashion(if you consider that art; some do some don't); then the objective would be to define realism through what is popular at the time. This means clothing should be made with the attention of appeal, based on the understanding of what you know about your consumer. Small changes here and there would be Ideal to allow possible changes to occur, but nothing too drastic. It sounds sort of like economics, but if one were to compare the economy and fashion throughout history, they always seemed to fit well together.

And as I stated before, Architecture is an exception. Im not really sure how the rules and regulations would be defined for architecture.


EDIT NOTE***

I hope this answers most of your questions. In order for me to explain the "art is a craft" foundation, with near perfect accuracy, I would need to explain in MUCH MUCH greater depth. I am trying my best to summarize the points in order that I do not confuse or put stress on any reading it.
__________________
One day, Bunnies will rule the world.

Last edited by Skirnir : 12 December 2005 at 10:25 PM.
 
  12 December 2005
Now i've seen this before, I seem to remeber that it was a piss take. a piss take that was done by the same guy that did brass eye, and the world today.

it was either that or i was laughing at the pretentious idiot who was trying to screw Mr satchi (of advertising fame) out of a tidy sum.
__________________
 
  12 December 2005
Too much of this sort of thing around these days. It's not funny anymore.
 
  12 December 2005
Originally Posted by Skirnir: And as I stated before, Architecture is an exception. Im not really sure how the rules and regulations would be defined for architecture.


Could you please explain more on what rules and regulations for architecture?

Part of the notions that are engaged in a design process involve what is known as Tectonics. It's partly the art of construction, and partly the structure as an abstract paradigm. Space, form, and function are results of higher objectives.

Craft in architecture is indismissable. Yet, it's only part of a much complex set of variables. Some rules have to follow certain programming needs, while others are invented. That what makes it very dynamic and complex.
-------------------------------------

Mods: At this point I hoped CGTalk forum threads could branch out into subtopics, because it's a little bit off topic of the original post. [sigh]
__________________

Last edited by ashakarc : 12 December 2005 at 11:50 PM.
 
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
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

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

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.