Though a lot of what results from good craftsmanship has no practical application other than aesthetics.
More tl;dr stuff in from the gun thread:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'd like to chime in to say they are not the exact same thing. In fact, they're specifically different. If I provide monetary support to an artist or musician just to free them up to do whatever it is they do best, that's patronage. I'll also get to brag about it to my golf buddies at tea parties during UN summits and free trade conventions. However, if I pay someone $60 to paint a bunny with a pancake on its head or $3000 to sculpt a massive sculpture of a SNES in marble, that's a commission.Dilbert_X wrote:
They're different names for the exact same thing.Uzique wrote:
patronage is much different from commission work, hahaha.
you're so ridiculous.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Its a marginal difference, patronage invariably consisted of mostly commissions - see the list of artists who lost their 'patronage' when the patron decided their product didn't meet his liking.
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's like saying an automated allowance from your parents to help you with misc. college expenditures is the same thing as getting paid by the hour to take orders and flip burgers. The difference isn't marginal at all. You're technically getting paid to do stuff either way, but any similarity beyond that vanishes.
To clarify, commissions may be a part of a patronage, but they are not specifically patronage.
e: brb while I move these to the dst art thread
^ Combining those two analogies would be valid if I had stated that mr. trust fund and burger flipper were the same person.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends, if my parents are expecting me to deliver them a regular supply of burgers and fries - taking up the bulk of my time - in return for their contribution to my college expenditure is that really 'patronage'?
I think you'll find that historically 'patronage' was in fact very rare.
Also please move this guff to the art thread.
it's a huge difference, just one that dilbert doesn't understand. patronage exists completely outside the forces of the market - patronage is a practical living arrangement more than a 'job' or a 'commission' or anything at all involving art-as-'exchange'. patronage is a feudal-aristocratic way of letting an artist have complete aesthetic freedom to create art according to his own inspiration. a commission is requesting something specific of an artist in exchange for money. in technical terms it has to do with the application of a use-value to works of art, and then a development of that use-value to an exchange-value (i.e. commodifying the work of art). when you do that, you're dealing with a commission. you're also dealing with a form of market capitalism that pretty much kills any genuine aesthetic expression.
dilbert i think you're confusing what the medici-type system of 'commission' entailed. it was more to do with values of esteem, honour, aiming for posterity/immortality than being interested in the actual money-exchange. the money in former pre-capitalist times was merely for subsistence, not profit. likewise the artist accepted a commission because it would exalt his artwork and convey a sense of social prestige upon his work. this is much, much different from the 20th/21st century equivalent of a commission which basically boils down to 'here's a design brief/specification, and here's a contract promising you a lot of money in exchange'. exchange-value.
dilbert i think you're confusing what the medici-type system of 'commission' entailed. it was more to do with values of esteem, honour, aiming for posterity/immortality than being interested in the actual money-exchange. the money in former pre-capitalist times was merely for subsistence, not profit. likewise the artist accepted a commission because it would exalt his artwork and convey a sense of social prestige upon his work. this is much, much different from the 20th/21st century equivalent of a commission which basically boils down to 'here's a design brief/specification, and here's a contract promising you a lot of money in exchange'. exchange-value.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
and historically patronage was very rare? are you kidding? almost all examples of high-art in every single sphere of art - painting, music, poetry, literature, sculpture - involved artists being taken under the patronage of a rich aristocrat or being propped up by someone with a lot of money. this system was even prevalent in the high-modernist circles of 1922-1937, with individuals like wyndham lewis and female writers (who always struggled for artistic independence) such as djuna barnes finding financial security from rich nouveau-riche americans (interestingly in the case of barnes, a lesbian millionaire heiress). patronage was practically the de rigueur system for all high-minded aspirational artists. according to aesthetic principles and values of judgement (such as those laid down, again, by kant, who was pretty much the copernican revolution as far as the philosophy of aesthetics is concerned...) any reliance on money or any involvement of that whole socio-political-economic shebang was vastly detrimental to that task of 'poetic inspiration'.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-21 07:00:02)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The purest art form.
Art and vandalism are not mutually exclusive.
Art and vandalism are not mutually exclusive.
Still tools for writing on property they don't own.
the purest art form? are you kidding? i'm not debating art/vandalism cause i think you're right, there... but the purest art form? spraying your name on a wall is 'purer' than a sonata? okay dude. keep blazin'.Wreckognize wrote:
The purest art form.
Art and vandalism are not mutually exclusive.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Love graffiti, wish I could do it.Wreckognize wrote:
The purest art form.
Art and vandalism are not mutually exclusive.
Absolutely despise graffiti.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Latest expo i went to was 'STRP festival, Design <3 Technology'. It was a 10 day fesival with lectures, workshops, music and a big design/technology-collab expo.
Most of it was very mediocre and trying to hard to touch very far-fetched subjects with very weak reasoning. But this piece grabbed me. Telcosystems by 12_series. A room filled with 12 monitors and speakers interacting with one another, thanks to some very ingenuitive software. All to express 2 simple principles: evolutionaire development and decentralised, autonomous decisionmaking.
It was quite the experience. Lots of loud ambient sounds rushing towards you, accompanied by, what can only be described as, trippy imagery. It looked and sounded so basic, yet you could sit there for hours.
Now that it hink about it, the last 3 expo's i've been to were modern design expositions/galleries.
I've also been to Piet Hein Eek's workshop/gallery. He actually made out diningtable before he became big and started charging 10.000 eruos for a basic wooden piece of furniture (well crafted, i'll give him that).
I've also been to Piet Hein Eek's workshop/gallery. He actually made out diningtable before he became big and started charging 10.000 eruos for a basic wooden piece of furniture (well crafted, i'll give him that).
whenever i go to the tate and wander through the concept art / art installation areas i normally quicken my pace by a step. the stuff is interesting but sometimes i feel like these people would be better off just writing a bloody good essay and getting their idea down that way.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Ok, maybe graff doesn't compare to a sonata, but I'd still consider it one of the purest modern art forms. Graffiti is a mode of creative self expression with a variety of aesthetic techniques and most often not done for monetary compensation. It's free and publicly accessible, if you know where to look. Some gradd artists make it big and do gallery shows, but the real gallery is in the streets. Any cunt can write their name on a wall, but developing a unique handstyle and differentiating yourself from other writers is an artistic endeavor as legitimate and intensive as any other.Uzique wrote:
the purest art form? are you kidding? i'm not debating art/vandalism cause i think you're right, there... but the purest art form? spraying your name on a wall is 'purer' than a sonata? okay dude. keep blazin'.
Modern art has taken a deep plunge into the abstract in the last 10 years. Besides furniture, no artist seems to make anything practical with a clear reason behind 'Why?' and 'What?'. Now of course I'm talking about painting and sculpting. Although sculpting in it's old form doesn't really exist any more. These artist are now all designers and stick pins in poo and give it some description about how it expresses our economical crisis.Uzique wrote:
whenever i go to the tate and wander through the concept art / art installation areas i normally quicken my pace by a step. the stuff is interesting but sometimes i feel like these people would be better off just writing a bloody good essay and getting their idea down that way.
Needless to say, I'm not a fan of modern (abstract) art, but that only makes it that much sweeter when you manage to find something that makes sense and grabs hold of you like art is supposed to.
For every 'street Picasso' there are thousands of wanbabes destroying property values and covering cities in shit. Graffiti artists should be given the same prison sentences as thieves.Wreckognize wrote:
Ok, maybe graff doesn't compare to a sonata, but I'd still consider it one of the purest modern art forms. Graffiti is a mode of creative self expression with a variety of aesthetic techniques and most often not done for monetary compensation. It's free and publicly accessible, if you know where to look. Some gradd artists make it big and do gallery shows, but the real gallery is in the streets. Any cunt can write their name on a wall, but developing a unique handstyle and differentiating yourself from other writers is an artistic endeavor as legitimate and intensive as any other.Uzique wrote:
the purest art form? are you kidding? i'm not debating art/vandalism cause i think you're right, there... but the purest art form? spraying your name on a wall is 'purer' than a sonata? okay dude. keep blazin'.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
for my little town we spend an average $45,000 in tax money to clean up graffitiJay wrote:
For every 'street Picasso' there are thousands of wanbabes destroying property values and covering cities in shit. Graffiti artists should be given the same prison sentences as thieves.Wreckognize wrote:
Ok, maybe graff doesn't compare to a sonata, but I'd still consider it one of the purest modern art forms. Graffiti is a mode of creative self expression with a variety of aesthetic techniques and most often not done for monetary compensation. It's free and publicly accessible, if you know where to look. Some gradd artists make it big and do gallery shows, but the real gallery is in the streets. Any cunt can write their name on a wall, but developing a unique handstyle and differentiating yourself from other writers is an artistic endeavor as legitimate and intensive as any other.Uzique wrote:
the purest art form? are you kidding? i'm not debating art/vandalism cause i think you're right, there... but the purest art form? spraying your name on a wall is 'purer' than a sonata? okay dude. keep blazin'.
i'm sorry but i don't put street art on anywhere near the same level as a painting. it's just not in the same league. self-expression, sure.Wreckognize wrote:
Ok, maybe graff doesn't compare to a sonata, but I'd still consider it one of the purest modern art forms. Graffiti is a mode of creative self expression with a variety of aesthetic techniques and most often not done for monetary compensation. It's free and publicly accessible, if you know where to look. Some gradd artists make it big and do gallery shows, but the real gallery is in the streets. Any cunt can write their name on a wall, but developing a unique handstyle and differentiating yourself from other writers is an artistic endeavor as legitimate and intensive as any other.Uzique wrote:
the purest art form? are you kidding? i'm not debating art/vandalism cause i think you're right, there... but the purest art form? spraying your name on a wall is 'purer' than a sonata? okay dude. keep blazin'.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
the mans a artist
he sure is! move over leonardo the new renaissance man is here
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanndd....... another threads gone down the shitter
Making a gun isn't an art, its a craft. Same as a car. They can be well made, a slick design and the best at what they're intended to do, but they're not art.
About graffiti (well I dont know if this counts as one, but it is painting on public walls):
I dont know if it this can be considered as "art", seeing the concepts and definitions you are throwing around. (I was never really interested in arts, or literature, or philosophy so I'm afraid to voice my opinion here being a layman when it comes to these topics )
I dont know if it this can be considered as "art", seeing the concepts and definitions you are throwing around. (I was never really interested in arts, or literature, or philosophy so I'm afraid to voice my opinion here being a layman when it comes to these topics )
if you wanted to be high-minded and poetic about it you could discuss graffiti as being a really quite revolutionary, avant-garde artform... an entirely new aesthetic that makes the public spaces around us a canvas for expression. that is a very new concept and is very modern. that has potential as a true avant-garde artform. unfortunately this high-minded conceptual talk is rarely seen in the real-world examples, where it just comes across mostly as infantile tagging and petty vandalism; even the greatest examples are still too wrapped up in an inclusive 'urban' culture for it to ever truly realise its aesthetic potential.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Lots of places in California have 'free public expression' spaces where graffiti artists can paint with no worry about repurcussions from destroying people's private property. Sure, there will be people who tag everywhere but its a step in the right direction, and at the very least gives some sort of separation between vandals and aspiring artists.Jay wrote:
For every 'street Picasso' there are thousands of wanbabes destroying property values and covering cities in shit. Graffiti artists should be given the same prison sentences as thieves.Wreckognize wrote:
Ok, maybe graff doesn't compare to a sonata, but I'd still consider it one of the purest modern art forms. Graffiti is a mode of creative self expression with a variety of aesthetic techniques and most often not done for monetary compensation. It's free and publicly accessible, if you know where to look. Some gradd artists make it big and do gallery shows, but the real gallery is in the streets. Any cunt can write their name on a wall, but developing a unique handstyle and differentiating yourself from other writers is an artistic endeavor as legitimate and intensive as any other.Uzique wrote:
the purest art form? are you kidding? i'm not debating art/vandalism cause i think you're right, there... but the purest art form? spraying your name on a wall is 'purer' than a sonata? okay dude. keep blazin'.
Yeah, but perhaps painting there is not the same. What Im thinking about is that the environment the graff is in gives it context. Of course now Im not talking about those tags and whatnot little punks do. I cant explain why, but I think for example the vid I posted wouldnt make the same impression if it was made e.g. in a rich neighborhood.
Im not even sure where Im going with this, so Ill just stop
Im not even sure where Im going with this, so Ill just stop