Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...
I said it wasn't.
I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.
Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...
I said it wasn't.
I'm glad you're here to clarify these things for me.
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...
I said it wasn't.
I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.
Did it say all abstract art had no meaning, or just the peice in question? Because lots does have meaning.
Drunken Idaho wrote:
This question had me struggling for an appropriate answer: "No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it." It's tough because I'm against being overly proud of your country just for the sake of pride and meaningless nationalism, however I'm all for it if you truly believe your country ought to be a guiding light to other nations. I ended up answering "Disagree" because of my own experiences. I love my country for it's overall liberal and democratic values, and I (for the most part) agree with the way it treats its citizens as well as other countries.
I had that question the last time I did one of these - what a stupid question. The real answer is YES it IS foolish to be proud of your country just because you were born there, BUT, it's fine to be proud of it for other reasons.
Based on the questions they ask I think a very right-wing person put the test together, because the questions make no bloody sense from a left wing or center perspective, only to a rightwinger would most of those questions be answerable.
Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...
I said it wasn't.
I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.
Did it say all abstract art had no meaning, or just the peice in question? Because lots does have meaning.
It depends on HOW abstract it is. It has to be recognizable for me. You can't paint a picture of a god damned emotion.
Paul of Dune was so bad it gave me a seizure that dislocated both of my shoulders and prolapsed my anus. ~Pink Snowman
Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...
I said it wasn't.
I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.
Then the question is really about what one considers to be art. For instance, there are many who feel that art doesn't have to have a message, but instead can leave a distinct and purposeful impression. That impression can be emotional or physical or whatever. It doesn't have to be saying anything about anything else.
A good example would be my taste in music... Some people think that lyrics are paramount, whereas I think the real poetry lies in the ability to evoke a specific emotion (or series of emotions) using nothing but tonal manipulation.
"The Idahos were never ordinary people."
-Reverend Mother Superior Alma Mavis Taraza
Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...
I said it wasn't.
I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.
Did it say all abstract art had no meaning, or just the peice in question? Because lots does have meaning.
It depends on HOW abstract it is. It has to be recognizable for me. You can't paint a picture of a god damned emotion.
Sure you can, I think the result will suck, but it can be done. Lots of totally abstract art can convey meaning - we're just talking about visual arts, but music without lyrics is abstract (if you think about it), and convey lots of meaning, same goes for images IMO.
I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.
Then the question is really about what one considers to be art. For instance, there are many who feel that art doesn't have to have a message, but instead can leave a distinct and purposeful impression. That impression can be emotional or physical or whatever. It doesn't have to be saying anything about anything else.
A good example would be my taste in music... Some people think that lyrics are paramount, whereas I think the real poetry lies in the ability to evoke a specific emotion (or series of emotions) using nothing but tonal manipulation.
The specific question was "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all."
So it wasn't generalizing all abstract art, just abstract art that doesn't represent anything.
And DI, that's what I said. A "distinct and purposeful impression" which is emotional, physical, or "whatever", is a message. I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.
Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.
Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.
The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.
Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.
Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.
The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.
Indeed. My personal opinion is that the only person who can really know whether or not something is art is the person who created it - and even they might be wrong.
Saying that something is or isn't art is rediculous, we'd have to define art long before we could get started on excluding things from the catagory.
Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.
Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.
The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.
Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.
You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.
Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.
Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.
The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.
Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.
You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.
Not necessarily saying art can exist without meaning - I'm saying that the veiwer of the art may not be able to tell whether or not there is meaning, only the artist knows for sure.
Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.
Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.
The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.
Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.
You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.
Not necessarily saying art can exist without meaning - I'm saying that the veiwer of the art may not be able to tell whether or not there is meaning, only the artist knows for sure.
I agree, which is why my argument otherwise can't stand because there's no way to prove it... But the question specifically stated that that art has no meaning, so we know.
Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.
Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.
The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.
Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.
You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.
Not necessarily saying art can exist without meaning - I'm saying that the veiwer of the art may not be able to tell whether or not there is meaning, only the artist knows for sure.
I agree, which is why my argument otherwise can't stand because there's no way to prove it... But the question specifically stated that that art has no meaning, so we know.
Fair nuff. I like your napkin example, my artist roommate was telling me a story about a guy who did just that with a urinal.
SadisticCynic wrote:Apparently one time a urinal was voted the best piece of art. Is that what you're referring to?
Don't knock Marcel Duchamp - Fountain was clever (at the time)
The worst abstract art is just as meaningful as some of the old-master's portraits. It just lacks the skill/craftsmanship elements - which makes it less interesting to look at.. but it's still art, just not very good art.