BF2S Forums Art

no thanks. discussion lost here. 90% science/engi background people. will just be a flamefest.

btw ironic that the gun nuts reported that thread cause they didn't like it. now you want a place to discuss it? oh ok. funny.

I make sculptures on the reg.

My opinion is that of Trotsky's in this case.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

My opinion is that of Trotsky's in this case.

I didn't have an opinion, I'm just stating what I think someone else's intentions were.

I'm just looking for some clarification ... now I know these aren't in the league of Rembrandt but would something of these examples be considered art








and no these weren't made by a child

SEREMAKER wrote:

I'm just looking for some clarification ... now I know these aren't in the league of Rembrandt but would something of these examples be considered art

and no these weren't made by a child

the point of these paintings (and all modern art which is non-representational), roughly originating in the 20th/21st century, is that they still have an aesthetic meaning. explaining why these works of art are 'Art' is a difficult process because they're inherently and ideologically elitist; part of the point of abstract art is a) the layman won't 'get' it (this is linked to a historical reaction originating in the early 20th century in which art had to fight back against mass culture and pop-everything; you can read american abstract art as the counterbalance to the warhols of the time) and the other point, b) has a lot to do with an ongoing aesthetic-philosophical debate within art that is still very academic and ivory tower. so yeah i completely agree that to you, walking around the MoMA, most of the stuff is utter shite. it displays very little technical skill (seemingly so, anyway). but this is exactly my point. the amount of skill put into a thing isn't the criterion of art. the fact a finely-crafted revolver takes a lot of skill makes it the work of an artisan crafter, not an artist. to be honest the question of 'skill' in art has been in a crisis since the advent of mechanical reproduction and the increase in technological production-- basically everyone having a canon dslr makes the rembrandts of the world shit their pants. BUT, sparing a massive discussion of 'modern art' aside, what you have to understand is that there is still some wider 'point' (for want of a more technical word) behind these arts. they have meaning beyond the physical level of skill-required (what we'd call metaphysical meaning); they have an aesthetic awareness of the philosophy of arts and they engage in a dialogue with the ongoing aesthetic (either reactionary or revolutionary).

i think the argument between figurative (i.e. representative) art and abstract art is a massive one. probably the biggest one of the 20th century (in painting, at least). but the point is that works of art on both sides have a symbolic meaning--  the artist is making a 'point' of some kind. this point may seem meaningless or facile to the pedestrian but to the art world it's part of an evolving discourse and back-and-forth dialogue that is 2,500 years old. remember that the rembrandts and 'high' renaissance art is not the be all and end all. before that we had primitive art that was abstract and completely non-representational (this is what inspired picasso and was the advent of modernism in the form of cubism). it's a hugely complex issue with a long, intricate history. i'm only scratching on the surface of the 'how are these coloured lines art?' debate. it's a good question but the short answer is that it's an age-old debate within the art world, which is inherently elitist and selective and aristocratic and the peasants aren't meant to understand it anyway what do they know of Beauty and transcendence etc.etc.

when a person decorates a gun, he does it to an end (i.e. to increase value or collectability). it's a decoration on an object that is not art to begin with, and the object originates in function, not this airy-fairy world of aesthetics and symbolism. kant is essential reading on definitively laying out this hierarchy between art->craft->entertainment, but i guess it's one thing to ask a complicated question and another thing to be told in response that you should go read an even more complicated response that is several hundred years old. but that's how art is. art is hard work. understanding art is hard work. use the word and term 'art' all you want in an offhand way to infer 'skill' or 'technique' - the "art of flirting" - or whatever use of the word occasions in everyday speech. but if you want to start calling objects 'Art' (capital a again) then you're engaging in a philosophical discussion that requires a lot of effort and knowledge on your part to justify.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-20 16:48:06)

kant is one of the big intimidating names that everyone shies away from but his writing is extremely clear and is an excellent place to go. i think that link i gave you was a monograph (i.e. someone else regurgitating kant in their own words for your benefit) but it seemed pretty decently written, too. kant was the guy that tried to really analytically map out how we think, how our Reason works, how things like taste are determined etc. very influential. the distinctions he made still serve well.

kant is one of my go-to guys when people cop out with that "all art is subjective!" line to defend their lady gaga concert tickets.

Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-20 16:47:20)

jsnipy wrote:

discuss.

made by a program.

machines are not capable of making art.

Fredrick Remington

by definition not art but its in my line of work and theres a few others out there that also find this beautiful

rdx-fx wrote:

Uzique wrote:

you know i really want to say that video-games are art, i'm really excited by the video-game as a new medium (as a successor in a line from film->television->video->video-games) but right now they're just not cutting it. the games industry is a sorry state. and that's mostly to do with the fact it's just that: an industry. capitalist logic completely ruins art because it makes the top demands financial rather than aesthetic. there's a reason why all of the best art throughout history has been made by people under the patronage of rich people (think the big renaissance geniuses): because money and market and commodity kills art, and turns it from transcendent object to appropriated commodity. it's a big ask of a game design company to ask that they put all the time and effort to create a work of art when their main motivations are making a buncha money from it.

The better side of that, in regards to video games, is that the majority of the young, energetic, talented creative types go into the video game industry wanting to create something of artistic value.

Then they get their souls crushed by the big wheels of industrial assembly line game factories (EA, Activision,...)

There is the accidental chance some Art might happen, though.

by that logic all those indie game companies should be producing works of art.

However that really isn't happening, now is it?

Trotskygrad wrote:

by that logic all those indie game companies should be producing works of art.

However that really isn't happening, now is it?

The desire to create Art is there.
Is the medium sufficiently developed, that Artistry is possible?
And, are there people with all the talents, skills, and inspiration to create Art within that medium?
Seems if you cannot answer both with an unqualified "yes", you're not going to see anything worth calling Art.