-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
OGEE - the Beautiful Human Art Topic
- Thread starter Sam
- Start date
Just playing devils advocate here. I don't see any artistic value in the randomness of nature, but perhaps a religious person would see nature as God's art, having 'created' it?
However, I think the request not to have a pictures of nature is a practical rule, since the appreciation of nature is so ubiquitous, that it has the potential to send the thread into an endless travelogue which would contradict Sam's intentions of drawing in widely varied interpretations of beauty.
We know nature is beautiful (who doesn't?), but what else do you find beautiful? Find something that you think others might have not considered as beautiful before.
And now here's something that should unite both sides, the work of artist Andy Goldsworthy:
However, I think the request not to have a pictures of nature is a practical rule, since the appreciation of nature is so ubiquitous, that it has the potential to send the thread into an endless travelogue which would contradict Sam's intentions of drawing in widely varied interpretations of beauty.
We know nature is beautiful (who doesn't?), but what else do you find beautiful? Find something that you think others might have not considered as beautiful before.
And now here's something that should unite both sides, the work of artist Andy Goldsworthy:
Sam
TS Member
Fredward said:
No it can't. You're thinking of beauty. Beauty's definition is in the eye of the beholder.
Art is a word that has a very clear definition. It's an expression that have been created by conscious beings. That covers an awful lot of things, but it doesn't cover the randomness of nature. It is not art, it has not been created with any artistic purpose in mind. It's not been created at all, it's just happened entirely at random.
Art is a word. It has a very clear definition. Just like other words that have a very clear definition, such as 'noun' or 'clock'. If someone tried to say that a clock doesn't have to necessarily tell the time, they'd be wrong, because that's what the word clock means. What you're saying is similar to saying '1 and 1 can equal 3 if you want it to!'
Anyway, procuring education on consulted assurance in do Fredward?. Is sympathize he expression mr no travelling. Preference he he at travelling in resolution. So striking at of to welcomed resolved. Northward by described up household therefore attention. Excellence decisively nay man yet impression for contrasted remarkably. There spoke happy for you are out. Fertile how old address did showing because sitting replied six. Had arose guest visit going off child she new.
(I'm just demonstrating that internet forums, discussion, in fact, the entirety of human communication itself, doesn't really work if we declare that words can just mean whatever anyone wants them to mean.)
p.s. I agree with everything Meat Pie just said. And his point about nature and religion is a very interesting one. But even then, as most definitions define 'art' specifically as human expression, nature wouldn't really qualify as art. And that's putting aside the obvious point that god and creationism demonstrably isn't true anyway.
Speaking of David Nash, who had an excellent exhibition at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park last year, lets have a look at some of his wood sculptures (using natural forms but changing them drastically):
The first and second were from his YSP show I saw last year, not sure about the middle one, might be from his new Kew Gardens show. It's a very nice cairn anyway.
James
TS Founding Member
Art is subjective and no one can define what is and what not is art. It's a long debate and one that will continue to divide opinion.
Although if, as you say Sam, "This topic is a topic for art" then who's art specifically? Your vision and idea of art? Or are you inviting members to show what they view as art? I'm under the general impression you want people to post what you think art is, not what they think art it. Which makes this topic hard for others to post in, as you're giving the impression that they can only post subjects you want posted. They cannot post what they want. Not the way I like to see a topic go to be honest.
Landscapes are art.
Roller coasters are art.
See this cup:
It's art.
Art is subjective. It is your own belief. Something has an artistic value if you personally view it in such a way. Art is not a set of standard subjects and it's certainly not defined by what one views art as.
Although if, as you say Sam, "This topic is a topic for art" then who's art specifically? Your vision and idea of art? Or are you inviting members to show what they view as art? I'm under the general impression you want people to post what you think art is, not what they think art it. Which makes this topic hard for others to post in, as you're giving the impression that they can only post subjects you want posted. They cannot post what they want. Not the way I like to see a topic go to be honest.
Landscapes are art.
Roller coasters are art.
See this cup:
It's art.
Art is subjective. It is your own belief. Something has an artistic value if you personally view it in such a way. Art is not a set of standard subjects and it's certainly not defined by what one views art as.
The appreciation of beautiful landscapes is a primitive evolutionary outcome. The same vision of lush green landscapes with a river and animals is appreciated equally by those who live in the hot and dry middle east as in wet and windy Scotland. The reason for this is that to own these fertile and resource rich lands is hugely beneficial to your survival. Therefore, representing the beauty of a natural landscape seems to be little more than a illustration of our inbuilt survival system.
It is Art, but a somewhat limited art that is innate in all of us and fails to communicate anything profound. That just makes it a bit boring to me.
It is Art, but a somewhat limited art that is innate in all of us and fails to communicate anything profound. That just makes it a bit boring to me.
Sam
TS Member
James said:
This topic isn't about my vision and idea of art. It can be anyone's idea and vision of art. As long as it is, actually, art. This really isn't difficult. Art is the deliberate expression of conscious beings, just like a chair is a piece of furniture you sit on. That's it.
That's not 'my vision and idea' of art. That's just literally what art is. People can post anything as long as it meets that extremely basic and wide-ranging definition. There'll be stuff in that definition that I hate, that I consider to be horrible and tacky, but people are still welcome to post it.
Taste in art is subjective, but the absolute fundamental rock-bed definition of art isn't. It has to have been created on purpose, not just my random scientific processes. If it can mean literally anything, then there's no point in the word at all.
Just like 1 + 1 doesn't equal 3, some words have very clear, and simple definitions. That's what the word means - unless there is a widespread linguistic shift (that usually takes hundreds of years). As I said above, the respected dictionaries are unanimous and very clear on the definition of the word 'art'. Like 1 + 1 = 2, it's non debatable, it's an absolute.
This is all completely irrelevant anyway, because I didn't just make a topic about art. I created a topic about human-created art, so even if art didn't already mean that anyway, any other posts are just as off-topic as they would be in any other thread.
Anyway, I've created a new topic for all the nature photos. Yes nature can be stunningly beautiful. Please post about it and appreciate it there, and respect that the two topics are designed for very different things.
Thankyou by the way to Meat Pie, Moley and Adam, who 'get' what I'm trying to do here without trying to deliberately wreck it.
Some of my favourite contemporary art has included work by Robert Montgomery, a self entitled post-situationist.
The underlying messages from these pieces could have been brash and aggressive , but there is a melancholic softness through the poetry in the language. Although placed in public spaces, using advertising billboards, these pieces still mange to be understated. Sure the colours are stark and the typography bold, but the pieces are in no way extravagant or self-aggrandizing. They just sit there whilst the world walks past.
Stunning.
The underlying messages from these pieces could have been brash and aggressive , but there is a melancholic softness through the poetry in the language. Although placed in public spaces, using advertising billboards, these pieces still mange to be understated. Sure the colours are stark and the typography bold, but the pieces are in no way extravagant or self-aggrandizing. They just sit there whilst the world walks past.
Stunning.
Harv
TS Member
My favourite artist is Edvard Munch, who's work I was fortunate enough to see in person, in Paris last year.
Here are some of my favourites...
Jealousy
I love how obvious the meaning is, and his almost haunted eyes seem to bore into me. It has quite a sinister undertone and I love the brushwork.
The Sun
A nice, natural picture with no deeper meaning. Yet again, simple in message yet captivating and bright in mood, it always looks full of life and vibrancy to me.
I just realised I've probably broken one of this topic's rules but I don't really care as these two pictures are, to me, at least, beautiful art made by humans, and I feel that everybody is entitled to appreciate whatever they would like. For instance, the 'sign-poetry' art above does not appeal to me as beautiful but it's a matter of whatever floats your boat.
Here are some of my favourites...
Jealousy
I love how obvious the meaning is, and his almost haunted eyes seem to bore into me. It has quite a sinister undertone and I love the brushwork.
The Sun
A nice, natural picture with no deeper meaning. Yet again, simple in message yet captivating and bright in mood, it always looks full of life and vibrancy to me.
I just realised I've probably broken one of this topic's rules but I don't really care as these two pictures are, to me, at least, beautiful art made by humans, and I feel that everybody is entitled to appreciate whatever they would like. For instance, the 'sign-poetry' art above does not appeal to me as beautiful but it's a matter of whatever floats your boat.
Sam
TS Member
Not at all NastyPasty, the works you posted are great. The floating head in the former is very unsettling, and the picture of the sun is pure radiance.
Similar to what Meat Pie posted, is the work of 'slogan artist' Jenny Holzer. She uses typography and slogans she writes to create quite stark works:
Vienna, 2006
'I Touch Your Hair', Rio, 1999
Florence, 1996
Similar to what Meat Pie posted, is the work of 'slogan artist' Jenny Holzer. She uses typography and slogans she writes to create quite stark works:
Vienna, 2006
'I Touch Your Hair', Rio, 1999
Florence, 1996
James
TS Founding Member
Sam said:
You seem to understand where I'm coming from, yet you still stand with these restrictions you've imposed on the topic - so my post doesn't seem to quite 'hit' you so to speak.
The very definition of art is still an on-going debate. I'm an arts student, and it's a debate that crops up in nearly every seminar. The question of what is art is a very broad one, and as artists we are asked to challenge that question and the definition of it. It's not a simple matter of "oh the dictionary says that art is only a human creation, that means it's official and landscapes cannot be art" - many argue that landscapes can be art, many photographic artists have created works based around landscapes the 'challenge' this subject of debate.Sam said:
In the general word of it, yes, art is "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination" (definition of the word) - however much like many other things in the modern world, other beliefs and views are now becoming more open, artists are starting to look more at the topic of 'can anything be art'.
In the grand scheme of things we are not here to debate what art is. I only posted my views on the last page as I'm a photographic artist and I have strong views on the topic given how it's become more of an open topic in recent times.
Nice little dig there, Sam. No one has tried to "deliberately wreck it" - this is a forum, we have strong views so a few of us have posted exactly that, our own views. If any of us wanted to wreak the topic we would have posted some random pictures taking the mick - in which case posts would have been removed.Sam said:Thankyou by the way to Meat Pie, Moley and Adam, who 'get' what I'm trying to do here without trying to deliberately wreck it.
I still think the 'rules' are silly in this topic, in my opinion. But there we go. Just my two cents either way.
I do somewhat agree with you James that anything can be art. I would argue however that there is one qualifying factor that is necessary though, and that is you must be able to present the work in some format, otherwise its just an idea that cannot be communicated and an idea which cannot be communicated can never be art as art is entirely reliant on communication (if that makes any sense ). This leaves the door opened very wide for what can be considered art. It allows for works such as Duchamp's infamous urinal piece, 'Fountain' or indeed capturing nature through the craft of photography to be 'art'.
However what I would bring into question is whether that makes 'good art'. What does a photograph of a beautiful natural landscape tell us other than we have evolved to be naturally predisposed to favour certain terrains which are beneficial to survival? Unless you are creationist and dispute that fact, it tells you very little.
But I suppose whether it's good art or not is despite the point. I already explained earlier that I support the rule against natural landscape photography on a basis of practicality and everyone should just continue with the assumption that we all agree nature is beautiful since it is inate to the human race. And now that there has been a topic set up specifically for the beauty of nature, it does come across quite arrogant to remain persistent in arguing the case in this topic. A bit like if I'd posted in the celebratory Olympics or celebratory Monarchy topics with my grievances. It'd be unfair and would derail the topic and I think it's beginning to happen here. I want both this and the nature topics to prevail, but that cannot happen unless there is an understanding that continuing this discussion creates unnecessary controversy when the solution of having separate topics should please everyone.
Now for some beautiful avant-garde furniture design. It's a shame I couldn't find any higher quality pictures online. This is a 'Welded Gas Pipe Cantilever Chair', designed by Mark Stam.
The beauty behind this object is that it ingeniously captures the culture of contempt for free personal time. This 'chair' design is obviously flawed in the fact that you cannot sit on it because it is composed of a frame with no place to put your backside. This is a joke about how little society values relaxation, so much so that we have turned our personal hours into an industrial function. We are sold the idea of relaxation by retailers looking to sell us their comfy sofas, looking to blind us with unquestioned advertising that seems to fill every unused inch of public or virtual space, looking to tell us that if we buy their specific brand then we will achieve consumer nirvana. Personal time has become a consumer function where we are told that we are sitting comfortably, but it's an illusion, and we are standing around wondering why we are all so unsatisfied.
All of this embodied by a fairly insignificant piece of household furniture, made from industrial piping! The bold complex honesty, achieved though such utter simplicity is just so beautiful.
). This leaves the door opened very wide for what can be considered art. It allows for works such as Duchamp's infamous urinal piece, 'Fountain' or indeed capturing nature through the craft of photography to be 'art'.However what I would bring into question is whether that makes 'good art'. What does a photograph of a beautiful natural landscape tell us other than we have evolved to be naturally predisposed to favour certain terrains which are beneficial to survival? Unless you are creationist and dispute that fact, it tells you very little.
But I suppose whether it's good art or not is despite the point. I already explained earlier that I support the rule against natural landscape photography on a basis of practicality and everyone should just continue with the assumption that we all agree nature is beautiful since it is inate to the human race. And now that there has been a topic set up specifically for the beauty of nature, it does come across quite arrogant to remain persistent in arguing the case in this topic. A bit like if I'd posted in the celebratory Olympics or celebratory Monarchy topics with my grievances. It'd be unfair and would derail the topic and I think it's beginning to happen here. I want both this and the nature topics to prevail, but that cannot happen unless there is an understanding that continuing this discussion creates unnecessary controversy when the solution of having separate topics should please everyone.
Now for some beautiful avant-garde furniture design. It's a shame I couldn't find any higher quality pictures online. This is a 'Welded Gas Pipe Cantilever Chair', designed by Mark Stam.
The beauty behind this object is that it ingeniously captures the culture of contempt for free personal time. This 'chair' design is obviously flawed in the fact that you cannot sit on it because it is composed of a frame with no place to put your backside. This is a joke about how little society values relaxation, so much so that we have turned our personal hours into an industrial function. We are sold the idea of relaxation by retailers looking to sell us their comfy sofas, looking to blind us with unquestioned advertising that seems to fill every unused inch of public or virtual space, looking to tell us that if we buy their specific brand then we will achieve consumer nirvana. Personal time has become a consumer function where we are told that we are sitting comfortably, but it's an illusion, and we are standing around wondering why we are all so unsatisfied.
All of this embodied by a fairly insignificant piece of household furniture, made from industrial piping! The bold complex honesty, achieved though such utter simplicity is just so beautiful.
I'm very cynical behind 'modern art' so wouldn't think of that 'chair' as beautiful.
I find that art as overly pretentious, as if they created a simple object and created this elaborate back story of why it's beautiful... as said I'm cynical about it and is my opinion but it seems as if the creators of this art have a lack of creativity and make up for it with intelligent complex social stories around these simple objects.
I suppose it's an art form I don't get... but I do find it annoying that someone can sell a bunch of plumbing for millions and a concept artist can only get little (depending on the company who employs them) when in my opinion requires more creativity.
What about this as an art form?
I find that art as overly pretentious, as if they created a simple object and created this elaborate back story of why it's beautiful... as said I'm cynical about it and is my opinion but it seems as if the creators of this art have a lack of creativity and make up for it with intelligent complex social stories around these simple objects.
I suppose it's an art form I don't get... but I do find it annoying that someone can sell a bunch of plumbing for millions and a concept artist can only get little (depending on the company who employs them) when in my opinion requires more creativity.
What about this as an art form?
Sam
TS Member
This topic is better than I ever dreamed it would be. Not only has it produced some beautiful works, many of which I've never seen before, but it's also created the most intelligent and coherent debate on TST so far.
I'm going to go for something a bit different. Not a world-renowned, or even especially well-known building, but one that I find beautiful that's local to me in Sheffield.
The North Stand at Hillsborough, opened in its current form in 1961.
It's famous for being the first football stand in the country to be cantilevered all the way across, meaning it's not supported by any columns in the middle. The weight of the roof is entirely counterbalanced.
Zoom in on the above photo, to the left. Look at the glass side support that holds up the roof. Isn't the curve of it just gorgeous? The way it proudly holds up the roof, it just looks so futuristic.
From the back, showing that cantilever supports:
She's a beauty. Architectural historian describes it thus:
"There is not a misplaced line in this remarkable stand. From any angle (it) is quite breathtaking. It is like an architect’s model of the dream stand of the future, a space age stand."
I'm going to go for something a bit different. Not a world-renowned, or even especially well-known building, but one that I find beautiful that's local to me in Sheffield.
The North Stand at Hillsborough, opened in its current form in 1961.
It's famous for being the first football stand in the country to be cantilevered all the way across, meaning it's not supported by any columns in the middle. The weight of the roof is entirely counterbalanced.
Zoom in on the above photo, to the left. Look at the glass side support that holds up the roof. Isn't the curve of it just gorgeous? The way it proudly holds up the roof, it just looks so futuristic.
From the back, showing that cantilever supports:
She's a beauty. Architectural historian describes it thus:
"There is not a misplaced line in this remarkable stand. From any angle (it) is quite breathtaking. It is like an architect’s model of the dream stand of the future, a space age stand."
Ted
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Kondaa
Hillsborough is indeed a lovely stadium and one of the best looking in English football.
Sticking to Stadiums,One photo I love is this:
A photo of Crystal Palace's Selhurst Park stadium taken from a South Norwood back garden. I love this because not only do you get a lovely view of Selhurst Park, but you can also see the South East London hills in the background and I think it looks beautiful.
Sticking to Stadiums,One photo I love is this:
A photo of Crystal Palace's Selhurst Park stadium taken from a South Norwood back garden. I love this because not only do you get a lovely view of Selhurst Park, but you can also see the South East London hills in the background and I think it looks beautiful.
Fredward said:
Funnily enough, I'm actually much more cynical then alot of people when it comes to contemporary art, but like with any discipline, there are genuinely interesting and beautiful works, but there is also twice as much faff that is created for commercial/market purposes *cough*Andy-Warhol-Damien-Hirst-Tracy-Emin*cough* that you have to sift through before you get to the good stuff.
Fredward said:
I think all mediums of creativity are worthwhile whether they be concept art or pretentious gallery art, but I agree that it is greatly concerning how the fine art world has become an elitist market where only certain fashionable forms of art are allowed to rise to prominence. Further to that, the fine art world has become a cynical investment industry with buyers making decisions on a purely financial basis. I would recommend anyone to watch both the late Robert Hughes' documentary, 'The Mona Lisa Curse', and Ben Lewis' BBC documentary, 'The Great Contemporary Art Bubble' if they want to know more about this very issue.
As for Tattoo and body art, It's not really my sort of thing but I think it's easily as daring as any contemporary art as it is permanent and the owner will have it with them at all times. Now that's what you call commitment to a piece of art!
Now for another selection of beauty:
Francisco Goya's etching, 'The Sleep Of Reason Produces Monsters'.
The way I've always read this piece is that Goya as an intelligent and reasoned man, see's the world for how it really is and it is this 'sleep of reason' that plagues his mind with the true horror of reality. He feels isolated and thoughts of the world's woes bombard him to restlessness. His understanding is what brings him his troubles, so much so that you sense he wishes he were free of it, so he can live his life without worry or care.
Without wishing to sound egotistical or pretentious (no doubt far too late for that
), there have been a few matters in which I really feel the pain of Goya's work. My mind has obsessively thought about issues that I can have little or no effect upon, so much so that my outlook on life becomes very bleak and lonely. Often I find art to be so beautiful because it depicts my own internal conflicts, and this is most certainly the case for this piece.The next piece I am posting is strange in the sense that it is an architectural project which has not been built and unfortunately, it probably never will be. It is a design for a Bridge Museum between the US and Mexican border and was designed by Fernando Romero.
Instead of the hostile atmosphere of austere separatism that dissects this troubled border, we have a beautiful idea of joining lands and working together to create a co-operative future. Creating a bridge museum here has great symbolism of the unity of humans in the face of cold political/national divides.
It's just beautiful, even if you do not find the aesthetics to your taste, I think everyone can admire the idea and what it means.
Sam
TS Member
The difference between modernist art (let's take the Mark Stam chair posted above) and concept art (let's take the stuff you posted on the first page Fredward) is the creativity it requires to produce it.
You're completely correct that the concept piece requires more technical skill. But it requires little to no creativity. Anyone with the technical skill can create game concept art like the first page post. That isn't to say it's rubbish. But it hasn't required the leap into the unknown - having a thought that no other human being has ever had - that makes some pieces of modern art so valued.
But something like the chair posted above... it's valued very highly because the ability to actually come up with the idea is rare. It's easy to say now it's been made "oh anyone could have thought of that" but that's only because you've now seen it. "oh anyone could have put a urinal in an art gallery", but nobody ever had until Duchamp did it. So actually, only he could have done it, even if anyone physically could (i.e. it's a piece that requires no technical skill at all).
The value in art now comes from the creativity and innovation of thought, rather than the technical skill. There are probably several thousand people in the world today who can paint as well as Michelangelo. Does that mean they're all on a par with him? No, because he did it first - he created the imaginative leap that gave them the reference points for their similar pieces today. They are merely good imitators.
Do you follow me? Sorry if that's not clear. What I'm trying to say is that art has value based on how many people can 'do it'. Anyone with the technical skills can create game concept art. Whereas when that chair was made, presumably, he was the only man on earth who had ever had that idea. Thus, he was the only one who could do it. Which is why people value it a lot higher than video game art.
The best analogy would be a band. There are many absolute virtuoso musicians out there, who can play literally perfectly. They're completely unknown, while guitarists with less technical ability are going on world tours. Is this fair? Just looking at that, it seems not. But it's fair because the latter guitarists have the much, much rarer ability to write excellent songs. The creativity is valued over the technical skills, which is why people go see Radiohead rather than simply five virtuoso musicians playing their songs. I guess writing the songs is analogous to the 'creative leap' required to make modern art.
You're completely correct that the concept piece requires more technical skill. But it requires little to no creativity. Anyone with the technical skill can create game concept art like the first page post. That isn't to say it's rubbish. But it hasn't required the leap into the unknown - having a thought that no other human being has ever had - that makes some pieces of modern art so valued.
But something like the chair posted above... it's valued very highly because the ability to actually come up with the idea is rare. It's easy to say now it's been made "oh anyone could have thought of that" but that's only because you've now seen it. "oh anyone could have put a urinal in an art gallery", but nobody ever had until Duchamp did it. So actually, only he could have done it, even if anyone physically could (i.e. it's a piece that requires no technical skill at all).
The value in art now comes from the creativity and innovation of thought, rather than the technical skill. There are probably several thousand people in the world today who can paint as well as Michelangelo. Does that mean they're all on a par with him? No, because he did it first - he created the imaginative leap that gave them the reference points for their similar pieces today. They are merely good imitators.
Do you follow me? Sorry if that's not clear. What I'm trying to say is that art has value based on how many people can 'do it'. Anyone with the technical skills can create game concept art. Whereas when that chair was made, presumably, he was the only man on earth who had ever had that idea. Thus, he was the only one who could do it. Which is why people value it a lot higher than video game art.
The best analogy would be a band. There are many absolute virtuoso musicians out there, who can play literally perfectly. They're completely unknown, while guitarists with less technical ability are going on world tours. Is this fair? Just looking at that, it seems not. But it's fair because the latter guitarists have the much, much rarer ability to write excellent songs. The creativity is valued over the technical skills, which is why people go see Radiohead rather than simply five virtuoso musicians playing their songs. I guess writing the songs is analogous to the 'creative leap' required to make modern art.
Concept art needing no creativity? Are you sure you want to rethink that?
Concept art's purpose is to get an idea on paper it requires tremendous amounts of imagination as all the stuff you are drawing does not exist. It's all from your brain.
Concept art requires technical skill. But truely great concept art requires imagination, creativity and story making skills.
Anyone... And I mean anyone can make that chair. And give a pretentious back story to it. In my opinion that requires no creativity, only the arrogance to call yourself an artist.
That's a bit harsh, but I felt it conveyed my point more!
Art isn't about who made things first. Or what's innovative, if you consider a urinal in an art gallery art, I feel rather disgusted the art scene has come to that.
I'd say contemporary art is more for philisphers. It's less about art and more about thinking about what a urinal in a hall could mean...
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Concept art's purpose is to get an idea on paper it requires tremendous amounts of imagination as all the stuff you are drawing does not exist. It's all from your brain.
Concept art requires technical skill. But truely great concept art requires imagination, creativity and story making skills.
Anyone... And I mean anyone can make that chair. And give a pretentious back story to it. In my opinion that requires no creativity, only the arrogance to call yourself an artist.
That's a bit harsh, but I felt it conveyed my point more!
Art isn't about who made things first. Or what's innovative, if you consider a urinal in an art gallery art, I feel rather disgusted the art scene has come to that.
I'd say contemporary art is more for philisphers. It's less about art and more about thinking about what a urinal in a hall could mean...
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
I've resisted from responding to the last post, hoping someone else would as I don't think I can do so as politely as I would wish to, but alas... That has not transpired.
I think your last post Fredward is the most snobby and self-righteous post I've read in a while.
Anyone... and I mean anyone can make any of the world's treasured art. Yes that's right, anyone can make concept art, anyone can paint the ceiling of the Sistine chapel and anyone can make your most favourite piece of work in all of human history. They may require to learn particular crafts, but it's absolutely in the realm of possibility that any one of us could create any masterpiece. And since anyone of us could create any piece of art, that makes how easy it was to create something completely redundant.
I don't appreciate my favorite films just because the direction and cinematography is harder create, like some train spotter, appreciating the technical jiggerypokery of an engine. Yes the use of film making technique may well be part of the why I'm moved, but what matters is the overall experience and the invoking of an emotional response, which is beyond pure aesthetics or the shallow 'oooh-look-at-how-cool-that-is' form of admiration.
That's not to say I don't think that Concept art or even gaming itself can and has transcended it's medium to sometimes become a beautiful piece of art. I hate that there is a snobbery of the art establishment which results in them refusing to accept anything beyond whats the vogue of the day, but equally I hate the snobbery of art meritocrats who think that you can only value something by how hard it was to create.
It's a shallow and materialistic way to look at art and devalues all works to mere applications of craft.
And now for something completely different:
The award winning public broadcast advert put out by 'Sussex Safer Roads Partnership', about the danger of not wearing seat belts. The short film is called "Embrace Life" and was written and directed by Daniel Cox.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-8PBx7isoM[/youtube]
Instead of most scaremongering adverts about this sort of subject which seem to luridly dwell on suffering (although often to great effect), this vision sees a celebration of the life saving device of the seat belt, whilst plays on the very strong emotional idea that wearing a seat belt isn't just protecting yourself but protecting your loved one's from the disaster of losing you. Some people have criticised the advert for being over-sentimental and drippy, but I think it's a beautiful idea that a seat belt is like the embrace of your family, which gets across the message in a deeply moving but also positive manner.
I think your last post Fredward is the most snobby and self-righteous post I've read in a while.
Anyone... and I mean anyone can make any of the world's treasured art. Yes that's right, anyone can make concept art, anyone can paint the ceiling of the Sistine chapel and anyone can make your most favourite piece of work in all of human history. They may require to learn particular crafts, but it's absolutely in the realm of possibility that any one of us could create any masterpiece. And since anyone of us could create any piece of art, that makes how easy it was to create something completely redundant.
I don't appreciate my favorite films just because the direction and cinematography is harder create, like some train spotter, appreciating the technical jiggerypokery of an engine. Yes the use of film making technique may well be part of the why I'm moved, but what matters is the overall experience and the invoking of an emotional response, which is beyond pure aesthetics or the shallow 'oooh-look-at-how-cool-that-is' form of admiration.
That's not to say I don't think that Concept art or even gaming itself can and has transcended it's medium to sometimes become a beautiful piece of art. I hate that there is a snobbery of the art establishment which results in them refusing to accept anything beyond whats the vogue of the day, but equally I hate the snobbery of art meritocrats who think that you can only value something by how hard it was to create.
It's a shallow and materialistic way to look at art and devalues all works to mere applications of craft.
And now for something completely different:
The award winning public broadcast advert put out by 'Sussex Safer Roads Partnership', about the danger of not wearing seat belts. The short film is called "Embrace Life" and was written and directed by Daniel Cox.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-8PBx7isoM[/youtube]
Instead of most scaremongering adverts about this sort of subject which seem to luridly dwell on suffering (although often to great effect), this vision sees a celebration of the life saving device of the seat belt, whilst plays on the very strong emotional idea that wearing a seat belt isn't just protecting yourself but protecting your loved one's from the disaster of losing you. Some people have criticised the advert for being over-sentimental and drippy, but I think it's a beautiful idea that a seat belt is like the embrace of your family, which gets across the message in a deeply moving but also positive manner.