Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 05:22:40 PM

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.

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 11:02:10 PM

Quote from: Aether on August 12, 2017, 10:50:47 PM

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 10:35:13 PM

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.

Quote from: Snake on August 13, 2017, 01:02:54 AM

Quote from: Aether on August 13, 2017, 12:56:48 AM

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 11:02:10 PM

Quote from: Aether on August 12, 2017, 10:50:47 PM

Quote from: Snake on August 12, 2017, 10:35:13 PM

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Aether on August 13, 2017, 08:50:19 PM

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.

Quote from: Snake on August 13, 2017, 09:11:41 PM

Quote from: Aether on August 13, 2017, 08:50:19 PM

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

Quote from: Casper on August 14, 2017, 07:58:51 AM

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

>Doesn't even have three monitors.

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

my pc is art

Quote from: Ian on August 15, 2017, 12:44:29 PM

>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   

I make better art in the toilet. HHHHWAAAAAAANG