Sup Forums, what's your definition of art? Do you think contemporary "art" has been destroying the concept itself?

Sup Forums, what's your definition of art? Do you think contemporary "art" has been destroying the concept itself?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hxd8ml-n5NE
youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Sup Forums, what's your definition of art?
shit I like and you don't
>Do you think contemporary "art" has been destroying the concept itself?
If I don't like it and you do, yes

...

art is art

shitty art is still art

Not a proper argument.

Yeah, shitposting before shitposting.

Elaborate?

The most simple straightforward answer is that Art is the creative expression of a human being or group of human beings. Art doesn't mean it's either good or bad, there's plenty of bad art that is still art.

Art is taking one thing and transforming it into what you desire it to be.
That's my definition. Much modern art I feel is soulless and lost in semantics.

These
Something can be art as long as it's artist says it is. It's up to other people to decide if it's good or not

Do you think contemporary art is still art and can evoke emotions?

It's art, it doesn't mean I like it though. Whether or not it can provoke emotions depends on the talent and ideas put forth by the artist

Actually it depends on the viewer. Whether it can transport emotions from the artist to the viewer is dependent on his abilities and ideas however.

i don't believe in art
'art' is a product that you consume. everything else is romantic horsecrap. modern art is mostly wank, with products that have become massively overvalued in a bizarre and sick economy being traded at prices that far outstrip their usefulness as media objects.

This. I'm sorry to tell you this but in the real world, art and artists are 100% useless.

Artists and their art are just expendable commodities for businesses and people to hang on their walls to seem cultured. Also many artists will be the first to do die when the day of the rope comes.

I suggest you all get more redpilled on this matter

lol get a load of this guy. above it all, aren't you?

at its most basic, something that has been modified with the intention of creating art
if I slap my dick on the table and intend it to be art, it is art

When you say contemporary I'm going to guess you're referring to post-modernism. And again, it depends on the piece. Some post-modernism is fascinating in how it deconstructs traditions, but some is effortless and self indulgent. You're trying to discuss an entire movement as if it's all the same which is retarded.

I know modern and contemporary classical can be emotional, just from personal experience. I think you paint contemporary art in too broad a stroke. Maybe artists that are known for being innovative will be known for their innovative pieces rather than their emotional ones, or in general will be more on the innovation side than the emotional side. But artists that draw from these (valid) techniques still use them to make stunning work.

Non representative visual art and post modernism generally aren't my cup of tea, but still, I feel all art becomes well known by virtue of its evocativeness and I can't deny others' apparent reactions

wow Sup Forums you're totally stealthy on your crossposts

why are you on a music board? go to Sup Forums if /that's/ what you want to romanticize

>How americans rendered art meaningless...

Art needs to be hard to achieve, hard to reproduce, original (at least at first) and/or require talent or a ridiculous amount of training to attain. It also needs to emit a strong emotional, yet silent, response, if not now then later.

People without culture will be tempted to tell you everything is art because they have no idea what is art, partly because they never went out of their comfort zone to see what really stirs the soul, partly because they haven't experienced enough hardship to understand art.

That's pretty bluepilled, actually. Everyone is driven by a personal value system dependent on the cultural objects they come in contact with, so art has a purpose - mind control. Create art, have people consume it and have your thoughts and values spread by loyal fans across the globe.

you are assuming that art equals good art
as said before, shitty art is still art, its just semantics
*good* art needs to be all those things that you listed, I agree

that's a wholly indefensible position

>needs to emit a strong emotional, yet silent, response
if you are being serious, that is

calling anything wholly indefensible is itself wholly indefensible...
Not seeing merit != no merit there.

Is there really supposed to be such a thing as "bad" art ? I mean it's really binary to me (that could be where i'm wrong though). The way I see it there is art (which is good), you like or art you don't, and there is the rest of what mankind is doing (which isn't art, but which may still be good) which you like or not.

What you consider shitty art might "stir the soul" of the next person, not that it's even required for something to be considered art (what a dumb precedent to set). So yeah shitty art is still art.

calling something wholly indefensible is absolutely not wholly indefensible because it's possible to be wrong.

your position is indefensible because it requires you to define rigid limits of concepts which are entirely subjective. whether or not something is a creative expression of a human can be seen, measured, documented etc. whether something 'stirs the soul' is contained in an individual's mind, and differs greatly from person to person (even disregarding cultural differences). also something that's easy to make can 'stir' emotion, which is in direct contradiction with your definition

Art is arguably more important than science though

This.Just imagine if mainstream music actually had positive messages in it today

was the photographer laying down and jackin off or some shit wtf is with angle?

No it's not.

yes

post-modernism killed off sincere non-selfconscious expression, or at least looked down on it as base. many parts of the art world are self sustaining circle jerks.

David's a big guy

Newton said they are the same in his eyes

youtube.com/watch?v=hxd8ml-n5NE
i wouldn't say that

> redpilled
Back to Sup Forums with ye, you virgin alt rightist dicklick

youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

Sup Forumsshits BTFO.

That doesn't make it true

yeah authoritative shot is cool but at the expense of giving an accurate representation of the sculpture. This photograph is the answer to this pathetic pseudo-intellectual bullshit thread. op is a faggot, yet again

It makes it half true

yeah but imagine if beck released an album back then. no one would like it because no one knew how to be 3 layers irony deep yet. i'm talking broad strokes with post-modernism, there are tons of exceptions to the rule..

99% of science is based around finding solutions to problems that didn't exist in the first place, or creating new problems

It doesn't make it anymore true than when you said it, unless he provided an argument.

The statue 17 feet tall user

>being this autistic

Elaborate

what does that have anything to do with dimension. get a ladder or some shit

Exactly and some of science is always waiting to be disproved just as someone disproved some of Einsteins theories not long ago just and reduced it to shit just as someone who loves the work of this the next person would reduce it and think it's absolute shite

u obviously never worked in a cathedral you disgusting pleb

You're retarded if you actually think this.

Art would be so much better if artists were still painting Rembrandtesque pieces and stunning hyper-realistic statues

What the fuck happened to real art?

That is objectively the best album cover of the 60s

Art is just color and pattern added to an object

it's easier to shit on a canvas and rationalize it conceptually then it is to master painting and sculpting. art became an absurdly-academic circle jerk race to the bottom. i think it also stems from the strong zeitgeist of apathy and nihilism going on with most more people in america then ever before right now.

So music isn't art?

I'm just saying what Newton thought of art he thinks art and science are one in the same I'm not forcing you to believe his thoughts.

sorry, i had a stroke while typing this

I know, and I'm saying that fact isn't an argument.

He saw music and sculptures in a very positive light I never read anything he said about paintings though

Saying not an argument really isn't an argument either

the fact so many people constantly bring Fountain up as an example of "not art" is what makes it such a great piece of art

when everything is beautiful, nothing is beautiful

art is not and should not be synonymous with beauty

Yeah, it's a statement in response to your non-argument. You're the one who should be providing arguments that back up your assertion that art is more important than science.

Retard

I don't think you are that much of one you're just a little slow maybe dyslexic

let me try this.

when everything has artistic value, nothing has artistic value.

Isn't music just pattern added to sound?

the intrinsic property of being art has nothing to do with value, in my eyes at least

In its most basic form, yeah. Reductionism is a meme though

This is a good thread, op. I recommend you all take an aesthetics (philosophy of art) class

You're talking to a reductionist database

Fair enough. I don't think anyone is going to agree on a definition of art unless it's stripped to it's core.

Because we have photography and it's boring.

Anything you can put a frame around

Art should be like a product. I should expect immediate pleasure from the beauty and aesthetic value of it. Not be force to look at something that conflicts inside me and forces me to look at subjects in a different light. Anyone else feel the same?

So stupid. So everyone should be unoriginal and recreate things that already exist and it's merit should be based on how realistic it depicts it? What a simpleminded view of art. Picasso has a good quote related to this: "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."

How retarded are you? You just wanna look at pretty things?

nothing has intrinsic properties in and of itself. the properties we see as coming from objects are the properties we project onto them. this is why different people see different things in the same item.

*logs onto deviantart and looks at furry porn and stencils of marvel characters for 6 hours*
now THAT's what real "art" is all about :)

...

so how the outside world come into us?

>day of the rope

let me guess, alt right is the new punk right?

through our nervous system. i meant properties as in artistic/emotional properties that we see in something we consider art, not size, color, shape etc. although there are varying degrees of subjectivity with that too between people.

or even the emotional properties we see in things we don't consider art i.e. a sunset, the ocean etc. that's what i meant by properties.

so art can also "shape" us

Yeah, i'd say that. Like how the abyss stares back into you when you stare into it.

no it isn't.

art by definition has to appeal aesthetically to a sense. If it's ugly, it's not art.

completely wrong. art, and music, are about what you create, not what you inteded to. If i slap my dick on the table and intend it to be a rap song, it's not a rap song. You have to RAP for it to be a song. You have to create something aesthetic for it to be art.

shitty art is not art unless it's an attempt towards good art. Shitting in a toilet is not art stop putting crap and piss and hot cheetos in art galleries with your mediocre thinking

perhaps i was not being precise enough in my language. i agree that the artistic/emotional properties of any given object are not intrinsic, but i believe that the state of 'being art' is intrinsic to an object or sound or whatever (under the definition of art being the product of creative expression of a human)

it's probably a little vague and there's some problem with intent and defining what we mean by creative expression but yeah

So Jackson Pollack wasn't an artist?

This is an argument that's always made, but is taken drastically out of context.

There are people who's soul can stirred by literally anything put in front of them, because they actively look for meaning in anything in an art gallery.

True art doesn't need to be put in a gallery to be recognized.

Sorry mate, a bowl of piss or a urinal would be gross and unexciting in any other context than a gallery and you know it

>Day of the rope

Please fuck off Sup Forums

>If i slap my dick on the table and intend it to be a rap song, it's not a rap song. You have to RAP for it to be a song. You have to create something aesthetic for it to be art.
If you are slapping to a specific rhythm it can be music, which is art.

Nice try though

okay yeah i agree with you 100%. talking about art is tough. it's like dancing about architecture. the limits of communication come into play quickly when you get into the nitty gritty of it.

Are you actually serious

Some people have different fucking tastes. "Ugliness" is subjective.

see

depends on what your definition of "is" is

>implying you can have beauty without ugliness
Otherwise you wouldn't even know what beauty was

no it isn't and it's not even close