[opelayday]

So what's the 'meaning' of Bruegel's 'Netherlandish Proverbs' ?

If it was expressible in words then we wouldn't need visual art.

But thanks for playing.

[gyjsdtuwr]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So what's the 'meaning' of Bruegel's 'Netherlandish Proverbs' ?

If it was expressible in words then we wouldn't need visual art.

But thanks for playing.
Talk about pretentious.

[globjgtyf]

Spot the meaning:

[krasniyluch]

And again:

[drislerfottor]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I'm sorry, I thought we all communicated in words and language, not telepathic pictures Words are one way that we communicate with each other. Visual art is another way. Music is another way. Mathematics is another way.

If everything was easily translated into language then we wouldn't need any of the other things.

So apparently did you:

I can feel and understand things that I can't communicate in words. Or has language suddenly become a perfect vehicle for our thoughts and feelings?

[Prosocorneliay]

Originally posted by molly bloom
This a Persian miniature. It's a fair wager that many people posting here won't be familiar with either the subject or the way it's being represented.

Does it still possess a meaning ? It has some meaning, but much of it is lost by a lack of context. When did I say that art had to be completely universal? The better it is, the more universal it will be, but that's an ideal, not a requirement.

[Poreponko]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Actually, what is pretenSion is the idea that an outside observer can express in a few words what an artist took possibly years of his life to express in pictures or sculpture. That's your argument, not mine. I've already made it clear that I do not believe the purpose of art is to communicate one singular and 'correct' message.


You're proclaiming to know what art is, but when asked to define it you fall back on pretentious "it transcends vocabulary" arguments.

You say that the purpose of art is to communicate, and you claim to know the difference between pieces that communicate something and those that do not, and yet, you can not explain the communication in the pieces that supposedly do possess a message. If you can identify 'false art', than surely you should be able to provide some inkling as to what 'true art' posseses that makes it so.


Essentially what you are saying is that art is art only if you (quite arbitrarily) say that it is. That is pretentious

[irrawnWab]

Thoral - that is a somewhat silly argument.
Only who knows nothing about art can think he knows what art is. The definition of art is a common topic among the first year students at Fine Art Universities.
That is in itself a silly concept.

Its as if english students would have to be explained what english is, and only they could later "understand" or define english.

Art is a common concept in humanity. Any art that needs "explaining" loses its value as art. Obviously, you need to know a context to understand art, otherwise it might loose some or all of its meaning.

But contrary to your belief, 'the masses' can, and indeed do define "Art".

Lets take a joke for instance. You can argue for hours about the exact definition of a joke, and what makes it good or bad. But if you have to "explain" a joke - then it is a bad joke.

If almost nobody laughs in a large crowd - it is probably a bad joke. Saying "no its a good joke, you need to familiarize yourself with "joke studies" to get it" would sound kind of silly.

But a joke, like art - has to have an intended meaning. Otherwise its just a "funny moment". If someone mistakes an accident for a joke - then that person has a bad understanding of what jokes are.

[juptVatoSoito]

Originally posted by civman2000

How is mathematics a form of communication??? It's the expression of relationships within a language expressed entirely in figures and symbols, each of which have their own meanings, in just the same way as words do in conventional spoken languages.

[WFSdZuP3]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Thoral - that is a somewhat silly argument.
Only who knows nothing about art can think he knows what art is. The definition of art is a common topic among the first year students at Fine Art Universities.
That is in itself a silly concept.

Its as if english students would have to be explained what english is, and only they could later "understand" or define english.

Art is a common concept in humanity. Any art that needs "explaining" loses its value as art. Obviously, you need to know a context to understand art, otherwise it might loose some or all of its meaning.

But contrary to your belief, 'the masses' can, and indeed do define "Art".

Lets take a joke for instance. You can argue for hours about the exact definition of a joke, and what makes it good or bad. But if you have to "explain" a joke - then it is a bad joke.

If almost nobody laughs in a large crowd - it is probably a bad joke. Saying "no its a good joke, you need to familiarize yourself with "joke studies" to get it" would sound kind of silly.

But a joke, like art - has to have an intended meaning. Otherwise its just a "funny moment". If someone mistakes an accident for a joke - then that person has a bad understanding of what jokes are.
I suggest you read what you quoted more carefully. Saying that art can not be defined, is a far cry from claiming that an education is needed to appretiate artwork.

The only people here who have spoken about art needing to have a specific message or explanation in order to be appretiated are the nay-sayers. Why don't you post an example of a master piece and give a critique on it's meaning and artistic merits?

[soprofaxelbis]

But A>B communicates exactly what "A is larger than B" does, just in a different language.

[MicoSiru]

It is a different language. It has a certain Je ne sais quoi. Cinq is fundamentally different from five, as is cinque, and funf. The signified might be the same, but the signifier is different, as they're all from different languages.

Anyway, you wanted to know how mathematics was a form of communication, and seem to have conceded the point already.

[AdvertisingPo]

I haven't the faintest idea why or how the visual arts alone have managed to invert the concept of quality. In every other art or craft, it's generally uneducated commoners who prefer garbage anyone could make to a masterpiece. They'll eat Big Macs rather than Veal Scallopini, they'll read The DaVinci Code and ignore Hemingway...but almost nobody who hasn't studied art history for years thinks a can of Campbell's soup is art.

A work of art doesn't have to be incredibly realistic, but the thing that makes a piece more than the sum of its parts is the amount of effort that went into it, combined with the sensibility that made it.

If it were a matter of complexity, a tree would qualify as art. If it were a matter of beauty, a sunset would qualify. But they are not art. Why? Because humans didn't make them.

Some painters and sculptors work faster than others, but the talented ones have skill, discipline, and craft regardless of their speed. I still consider my old ceramics teacher an artist, even though he could pull off a vase in twenty seconds on the wheel. And the vase might be fairly simple. What matters is the degree of skill and craftsmanship. It took a lot of training to be able to do that. Most of his lifetime, in fact. If something can be produced by any old bozo who's new to the medium, it's got very little artistic merit.

Aesthetic sensibility + discipline = art.

[SallythePearl]

Markos should invite you to his wedding then.

When/if it happens.

[bactrimtab]

Originally posted by General Ludd
That's quite a bold statement.

Strange how you find andy warhol in virtualy every art history book, when no one who studies the field thinks that it's art. Huh? I'm aware that a lot of jagoffs with degrees think Warhol is art (plus some morons hoping to look smart by imitating the jagoffs with degrees, even though they know, deep inside, that it's just a can of soup). I'm talking about the majority here.

So why do you believe that this excludes modern art? There is a great deal of composition, theory, and conceptual background involved in all contemporary styles of art. You seem to of forgetten to mention the conceptual and interpretive aspects of art. Craftsmanship is important, but by itself it doesn't amount to much. Just as concept, by itself, does little without good craftsmanship. I'm just saying that, if it could have been done by accident, 'taint art. I'm sure there's modern art that qualifies as art (M.C. Escher comes to mind), just not the people who put a few colored squares on a canvas and think it's marvellous. Their concept and composition creates a work of startling beauty and elegance...to other people who've spent too much time reading up on modernist theory. To people who don't have a background in the pompous-crackhead language, it's just a bunch of colored squares, meaning nothing. Whereas you can know nothing about any theory and still think "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is really cool.

By the way, I've only been doing it for a year and I can throw vases with ease. Not like a master you can't. Unless you're an absolute prodigy. I'm talking about someone who can make three casual-looking pulls off a mound, while talking to a group of students and sometimes not even looking at it, and produce a perfect vase consistently, in under thirty seconds. He made it look comically easy, and didn't seem to be showing off. It was just old hat. Which is not to say that perfect technique alone makes an artist. Some of the pieces he made for sale (typically to benefit the college) were gorgeous.

My point is, there's skill involved in all art. Effort indicates the potency of an artist's feeling, shows s/he put heart into it, makes the message stronger. If it shows little skill, it's not going to be very impressive. Unless you've studied lots of devastatingly witty Derrida and suchlike. LHOOQ, nothing means anything, hahahaha!

[Mjxhnapi]

Originally posted by Elok


Huh? I'm aware that a lot of jagoffs with degrees think Warhol is art (plus some morons hoping to look smart by imitating the jagoffs with degrees, even though they know, deep inside, that it's just a can of soup). I'm talking about the majority here.



I'm just saying that, if it could have been done by accident, 'taint art. I'm sure there's modern art that qualifies as art (M.C. Escher comes to mind), just not the people who put a few colored squares on a canvas and think it's marvellous. Their concept and composition creates a work of startling beauty and elegance...to other people who've spent too much time reading up on modernist theory. To people who don't have a background in the pompous-crackhead language, it's just a bunch of colored squares, meaning nothing. Whereas you can know nothing about any theory and still think "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is really cool.


Not like a master you can't. Unless you're an absolute prodigy. I'm talking about someone who can make three casual-looking pulls off a mound, while talking to a group of students and sometimes not even looking at it, and produce a perfect vase consistently, in under thirty seconds. He made it look comically easy, and didn't seem to be showing off. It was just old hat. Which is not to say that perfect technique alone makes an artist. Some of the pieces he made for sale (typically to benefit the college) were gorgeous.

My point is, there's skill involved in all art. Effort indicates the potency of an artist's feeling, shows s/he put heart into it, makes the message stronger. If it shows little skill, it's not going to be very impressive. Unless you've studied lots of devastatingly witty Derrida and suchlike. LHOOQ, nothing means anything, hahahaha!
You don't have to have a background in art to appretiate warhol's commentary, or to enjoy his work for it's pop-aesthetic, or whatever at all. All you have to have are eyes and a brain, and the ability to draw your own conclusion. You don't have to like it (I'm not a fan of his, personally) but that doesn't make it 'false art'.

Simply because somoene sees something in a piece that you don't doesn't mean that they are posing or trying to look smart. As I have said previously, there is no correct intepretation to art. And if there where - it wouldn't be possesed by you alone!

Skill is involved in art, yes, but there is SO MUCH more to it than pure skill. Infact, skill can sometimes risk limiting a work, turning it into a purely technical process rather than a form of expression (just as not having skill will leave you unable to create the expression you want) The most talented artists will often learn to reconize the potential in 'mistakes' and to use things that are out of their control. A master potter may tell you, for instance, that the clay has a life and characteristics of it's own, and that in order to work with it you must allow it to move and shape itself, as much as you give it direction.

[PharmACT]

awesome

but this shows the truth, art is in the minds of the beholder..

Jon Miller