Art

 
Snake πŸ™
| Key Animator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

17,783 posts
Talk no Jutsu specialist.
Something that sells a lot is not art.
Something that looks nice is not art.
Something that requires creativity is not art.

I'm a gear-head too but cars aren't art.

nice poem, faggot. Gonna hang it up in an art museum?

Maybe I would if we still had the print button.


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,004 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
I think of art in a much broader sense than that. Basically if someone has artistic intentions, I'd consider it art. Making a statement with your clothing, for example.
What about aesthetic forms in nature? Fractal geometry for instance, something that can absolutely instill some emotion or idea in someone, is essentially nothing more than looped mathematical functions.

I wouldn't consider that art. Art necessitates artistic intention.
Well I disagree entirely I guess. Reality is art to me. Virtually anything can be perceived as art, and in my eyes, so long as a single person exists to perceive something as art then it's art.


 
Snake πŸ™
| Key Animator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

17,783 posts
Talk no Jutsu specialist.
I think of art in a much broader sense than that. Basically if someone has artistic intentions, I'd consider it art. Making a statement with your clothing, for example.
What about aesthetic forms in nature? Fractal geometry for instance, something that can absolutely instill some emotion or idea in someone, is essentially nothing more than looped mathematical functions.

I wouldn't consider that art. Art necessitates artistic intention.
Well I disagree entirely I guess. Reality is art to me. Virtually anything can be perceived as art, and in my eyes, so long as a single person exists to perceive something as art then it's art.

When you can apply a definition to "virtually anything", the definition is flawed. It doesn't actually encapsulate anything. Reality can be beautiful, but there's nothing artistic about it.

I think your definition could use some work.


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,004 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
I think of art in a much broader sense than that. Basically if someone has artistic intentions, I'd consider it art. Making a statement with your clothing, for example.
What about aesthetic forms in nature? Fractal geometry for instance, something that can absolutely instill some emotion or idea in someone, is essentially nothing more than looped mathematical functions.

I wouldn't consider that art. Art necessitates artistic intention.
Well I disagree entirely I guess. Reality is art to me. Virtually anything can be perceived as art, and in my eyes, so long as a single person exists to perceive something as art then it's art.

When you can apply a definition to "virtually anything", the definition is flawed. It doesn't actually encapsulate anything. Reality can be beautiful, but there's nothing artistic about it.

I think your definition could use some work.
You can't objectively define something that is subjective. My definition is perfectly reasonable.


 
Snake πŸ™
| Key Animator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

17,783 posts
Talk no Jutsu specialist.
I think of art in a much broader sense than that. Basically if someone has artistic intentions, I'd consider it art. Making a statement with your clothing, for example.
What about aesthetic forms in nature? Fractal geometry for instance, something that can absolutely instill some emotion or idea in someone, is essentially nothing more than looped mathematical functions.

I wouldn't consider that art. Art necessitates artistic intention.
Well I disagree entirely I guess. Reality is art to me. Virtually anything can be perceived as art, and in my eyes, so long as a single person exists to perceive something as art then it's art.

When you can apply a definition to "virtually anything", the definition is flawed. It doesn't actually encapsulate anything. Reality can be beautiful, but there's nothing artistic about it.

I think your definition could use some work.
You can't objectively define something that is subjective. My definition is perfectly reasonable.

I wouldn't say that's reasonable at all. You're entitled to having a poorly thought-out definition if you want, but like I said, if you can apply a definition to anything, you need to update the definition. If everything is art, nothing is.

To be art, you need both a creator, and a creator with artistic intentions. That's my position.


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,004 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
I think of art in a much broader sense than that. Basically if someone has artistic intentions, I'd consider it art. Making a statement with your clothing, for example.
What about aesthetic forms in nature? Fractal geometry for instance, something that can absolutely instill some emotion or idea in someone, is essentially nothing more than looped mathematical functions.

I wouldn't consider that art. Art necessitates artistic intention.
Well I disagree entirely I guess. Reality is art to me. Virtually anything can be perceived as art, and in my eyes, so long as a single person exists to perceive something as art then it's art.

When you can apply a definition to "virtually anything", the definition is flawed. It doesn't actually encapsulate anything. Reality can be beautiful, but there's nothing artistic about it.

I think your definition could use some work.
You can't objectively define something that is subjective. My definition is perfectly reasonable.

I wouldn't say that's reasonable at all. You're entitled to having a poorly thought-out definition if you want, but like I said, if you can apply a definition to anything, you need to update the definition. If everything is art, nothing is.

To be art, you need both a creator, and a creator with artistic intentions. That's my position.
I'm sorry but that is the nature of subjectivity. You can try to impose your perspective as much as you want, but it will never be absolute.

My perspective isn't poorly thought out in the slightest, despite your assumption. I've spent a great deal of time thinking about what constitutes art, and the more I reflect on the idea the more I come to understand that art is defined by the individual and it has innumerable individual interpretations.


 
Snake πŸ™
| Key Animator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

17,783 posts
Talk no Jutsu specialist.
I'm sorry but that is the nature of subjectivity. You can try to impose your perspective as much as you want, but it will never be absolute.

I'm not "imposing" anything. I believe my definition is superior to yours and will argue it. Whether you want to accept or reject my definition is up to you. But I'm not going to soften my locution to appease anyone's sensibilities.

Quote
My perspective isn't poorly thought out in the slightest, despite your assumption. I've spent a great deal of time thinking about what constitutes art, and the more I reflect on the idea the more I come to understand that art is defined by the individual and it has innumerable individual interpretations.

I think it's pretty embarassing that you've allegedly spent so much time thinking about how to define art and you come up with something like that. Something that lacks both an artist to create said art [the two cannot be separated] and any inherent meaning. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this perspective stems from psychedelic drug use of some kind. Am I wrong?
Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 05:55:42 PM by Snake


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,004 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
I think it's pretty embarassing that you've allegedly spent so much time thinking about how to define art and you come up with something like that. Something that lacks both an artist to create said art [the two cannot be separated] and any inherent meaning. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this perspective stems from psychedelic drug use of some kind. Am I wrong?
I have a very significant passion for creating art. I think anyone who gets to know me well enough can see that very clearly. My view on this is not a result of drug use and it's very disappointing that, again, someone is trying to stigmatize my views in that way.

My views of what constitutes art are entirely rooted in my contemplation of the idea of art. My perspective does not negate the individual standards and interests I have when it comes to art. There are plenty of things that do not strike me, personally, as art but I recognize that I do not define what is art for other people. That ultimately art is defined individually, and what I may not perceive as art, someone else might. Ergo it seems true to me that virtually anything can be perceived as art so long as a single person exists to perceive it as such. That thing may only be art in the mind of a single person in existence, but one is all it takes. I'm very much of the mindset that nature itself can be and is an artist. My view of art is such that it does not require a sentient creation, but merely a sentient interpretation.

You can shit all over my perspective all you want to but it isn't going to sway my understanding of an idea that appears to me so clearly. It may be a simple perspective but I don't see how it's unreasonable at all. If anything is even remotely embarrassing here, it's that you seem to be incapable of entertaining the idea I've presented and respectfully disagreeing, instead of acting stricken by it to the point that you have to say it's embarrassing.

Honestly, your perspective is perfectly reasonable to me, I just define art differently than you do.
Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 08:51:39 PM by Aether


 
Snake πŸ™
| Key Animator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Prehistoric
IP: Logged

17,783 posts
Talk no Jutsu specialist.
It's very disappointing that, again, someone is trying to stigmatize my views in that way.

Sorry, but that's just what it comes off as.

Quote
That ultimately art is defined individually, and what I may not perceive as art, someone else might. Ergo it seems true to me that virtually anything can be perceived as art so long as a single person exists to perceive it as such. That thing may only be art in the mind of a single person in existence, but one is all it takes. ... It may be a simple perspective but I don't see how it's unreasonable at all.

But see, it's not even worth defining "art" at all if it can be applied to anything.

I'm not even saying that my perspective is the "right" one (though I'm going to argue as though I think it is). But I know that your position is wrong. If you can apply a definition to anything, it's not worth having a definition. Objectivity exists.

Quote
If anything is even remotely embarrassing here, it's that you seem to be incapable of entertaining the idea I've presented and respectfully disagreeing, instead of acting stricken by it to the point that you have to say it's embarrassing.

I say it's embarassing because it's an incredible primitive perspective, not one that you'd think would come from extensive rumination. It's the artistic equivalent of nihilism.

Quote
Honestly, your perspective is perfectly reasonable to me, I just define art differently than you do.

You actually don't define art at all. That's my contention.


Casper | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Casper
IP: Logged

9,482 posts
My dear old friend, take me for a spin
Two wolves in the dark, running in the wind
I'm letting go, but I've never felt better
Passing by all the monsters in my head
This is why we need to go back to 17th century Dutch standards of art


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,004 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
It's very disappointing that, again, someone is trying to stigmatize my views in that way.

Sorry, but that's just what it comes off as.

Quote
That ultimately art is defined individually, and what I may not perceive as art, someone else might. Ergo it seems true to me that virtually anything can be perceived as art so long as a single person exists to perceive it as such. That thing may only be art in the mind of a single person in existence, but one is all it takes. ... It may be a simple perspective but I don't see how it's unreasonable at all.

But see, it's not even worth defining "art" at all if it can be applied to anything.

I'm not even saying that my perspective is the "right" one (though I'm going to argue as though I think it is). But I know that your position is wrong. If you can apply a definition to anything, it's not worth having a definition. Objectivity exists.

Quote
If anything is even remotely embarrassing here, it's that you seem to be incapable of entertaining the idea I've presented and respectfully disagreeing, instead of acting stricken by it to the point that you have to say it's embarrassing.

I say it's embarassing because it's an incredible primitive perspective, not one that you'd think would come from extensive rumination. It's the artistic equivalent of nihilism.

Quote
Honestly, your perspective is perfectly reasonable to me, I just define art differently than you do.

You actually don't define art at all. That's my contention.
You keep labeling my perspective all manner of pejoratives like it will somehow invalidate it in any way. At this point I'm wondering why you're even continuing this discussion as it would seem you have no intention of trying to understand my point of view and would rather just insult it. Which, fine, you can shit on my view all you want to. As I said, you aren't going to sway me with condescension and insults when my perspective appears to me as clear and true as it can be, and your opinion of my perspective isn't that important to me.

What is the issue here, honestly? Does my view of art offend your sensibilities? Does it really bother you that much that a person could spend time reflecting on the nature of art and come to an understanding that is much more simple than yours? Don't assume that the way I define art is the result of intellectual laziness or some form of incompetence. You have no knowledge of the thought process I used to come to the understanding I have, and yet regardless of that you seem to imply that it is unintelligent in some way or lesser than your own. I think some humility would do you good.

I have absolutely defined art by my view of it. Art is everything defined as art by all those who are capable of defining it. I entertained the idea of applying my specific standards for what strikes me as art and defining it in that way, as you have done, but I realized that doing so was not appealing to me nor was it necessary. I am still perfectly capable of having those standards and defining art in a way that would encompass all perspectives. This way of viewing art has opened me up to art forms I wouldn't have recognized in the past and allowed me to appreciate them when I likely wouldn't have otherwise. It has made my experience with art more enjoyable.

Also, please try to drop the preconceived notions you have about my views and psychedelic drug use. I would never come off to you in that way if you did not have them.
Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 11:45:53 AM by Aether


MarKhan | Heroic Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MarKhan54
ID: MarKhan
IP: Logged

1,082 posts
Don`t suffer in silence.
> looks at walls of text, discussing what art is, what art isn't

Spoiler


Casper | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Casper
IP: Logged

9,482 posts
My dear old friend, take me for a spin
Two wolves in the dark, running in the wind
I'm letting go, but I've never felt better
Passing by all the monsters in my head
It's very disappointing that, again, someone is trying to stigmatize my views in that way.

Sorry, but that's just what it comes off as.

Quote
That ultimately art is defined individually, and what I may not perceive as art, someone else might. Ergo it seems true to me that virtually anything can be perceived as art so long as a single person exists to perceive it as such. That thing may only be art in the mind of a single person in existence, but one is all it takes. ... It may be a simple perspective but I don't see how it's unreasonable at all.

But see, it's not even worth defining "art" at all if it can be applied to anything.

I'm not even saying that my perspective is the "right" one (though I'm going to argue as though I think it is). But I know that your position is wrong. If you can apply a definition to anything, it's not worth having a definition. Objectivity exists.

Quote
If anything is even remotely embarrassing here, it's that you seem to be incapable of entertaining the idea I've presented and respectfully disagreeing, instead of acting stricken by it to the point that you have to say it's embarrassing.

I say it's embarassing because it's an incredible primitive perspective, not one that you'd think would come from extensive rumination. It's the artistic equivalent of nihilism.

Quote
Honestly, your perspective is perfectly reasonable to me, I just define art differently than you do.

You actually don't define art at all. That's my contention.
You keep labeling my perspective all manner of pejoratives like it will somehow invalidate it in any way. At this point I'm wondering why you're even continuing this discussion as it would seem to you no intention of trying to understand my point of view and would rather just insult it. Which, fine, you can shit on my view all you want to. As I said, you aren't going to sway me with condescension and insults when my perspective appears to me as clear and true as it can be, and your opinion of my perspective isn't that important to me.

What is the issue here, honestly? Does my view of art offend your sensibilities? Does it really bother you that much that a person could spend time reflecting on the nature of art and come to an understanding that is much more simple than yours? Don't assume that the way I define art is the result of intellectual laziness or some form of incompetence. You have no knowledge of the thought process I used to come to the understanding I have, and yet regardless of that you seem to imply that it is unintelligent in some way or lesser than your own. I think some humility would do you good.

I have absolutely defined art by my view of it. Art is everything defined as art by all those who are capable of defining it. I entertained the idea of applying my specific standards for what strikes me as art and defining it in that way, as you have done, but I realized that doing so was not appealing to me nor was it necessary. I am still perfectly capable of having those standards and defining art in a way that would encompass all perspectives. This way of viewing art has opened me up to art forms I wouldn't have recognized in the past and allowed me to appreciate them when I likely wouldn't have otherwise. It has made my experience with art more enjoyable.

Also, please try to drop the preconceived notions you have about my views and psychedelic drug use. I would never come off to you in that way if you did not have them.
I think what he's getting at, or at least what I took from it before, is that what you define as art is so broad, that the term is essentially meaningless. It's like when everything is art, nothing is


Aether | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: BirdTHUG
PSN:
Steam: Sofles_Yo
ID: DemonicChronic
IP: Logged

6,004 posts
theaetherone.deviantart.com https://www.instagram.com/aetherone/

Long live NoNolesNeckin.

Ya fuckin' ganderneck.
I think what he's getting at, or at least what I took from it before, is that what you define as art is so broad, that the term is essentially meaningless. It's like when everything is art, nothing is
I'm not saying that everything is art, but rather, virtually everything is capable of being perceived as art. What I'm saying constitutes art is everything that is defined as art by at least one person. If no one exists who defines any specific thing as art, then it is not art.


Casper | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Casper
IP: Logged

9,482 posts
My dear old friend, take me for a spin
Two wolves in the dark, running in the wind
I'm letting go, but I've never felt better
Passing by all the monsters in my head
I think what he's getting at, or at least what I took from it before, is that what you define as art is so broad, that the term is essentially meaningless. It's like when everything is art, nothing is
I'm not saying that everything is art, but rather, virtually everything is capable of being perceived as art. What I'm saying constitutes art is everything that is defined as art by at least one person. If no one exists who defines any specific thing as art, then it is not art.
So then rather it's a matter of whether it's good art or not


. | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Fr3shNugg3tz
IP: Logged

2,003 posts
 
my pc is art


Ian | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Gaara00444
PSN: TheFriskyIan
Steam: Gaara00444
ID: Gaara444
IP: Logged

7,760 posts
Garlemald did nothing wrong.
>Doesn't even have three monitors.

But you got an inside view of the PC so I guess it is.

my pc is art


. | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Fr3shNugg3tz
IP: Logged

2,003 posts
 
>Doesn't even have three monitors.
you simply bought three monitors

but have you modified your components

Spoiler



Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 01:08:08 PM by Pepsi


XSEAN | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: XSEAN
IP: Logged

3,494 posts
I got nothing
>Doesn't even have three monitors.
you simply bought three monitors

but have you modified your components

Spoiler


Art has no real definition. Your brain see's it a beautiful it consider art   


Relatively Quiet | Respected Posting Spree
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Relatively Quiet
IP: Logged

121 posts
 
I think there's two large factors to consider when classifying anything as art. The first being the eye of the beholder. Art is subjective by nature. Where one sees beauty or expression another may not. This can be said of many things. The second, of course is artistic intent to expressing emotions or ideas at the time of the creation of content.


Dietrich Six | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DietrichSix
IP: Logged

10,208 posts
Excuse me, I'm full of dog poison
I make better art in the toilet. HHHHWAAAAAAANG