Is a dot just a dot?

[Betchass1]

Subject matter doesn't have as much to do with art being successful then the process or method itself does, a majority of the time.

I think that to draw Jesus like that, for example, only works because of the subject matter. It doesn't say anything about the process and it doesn't allow viewers to tap into it necessarily just because it's Jesus (if theres anything to even tap into). They are more likely to be overcome by anger and resentment to appriciate any artistic worth the piece may have or to inquire why the artist drew it at all.

Such pictures are double-edged swords upon themselves. The artist surely makes a point, maybe even a good one that the viewer just doesn't get, but few care what that point could possibly be; they are too distracted by the superficial obscenity of the gesture itself to even see it as art. People liken such attempts to those of a vandal, they don't consider it art at all because it was only so creative to begin with and relied completely on it's shock value to get attention rather than it's actual presense and feeling.

The controversy has overshadowed and consumed the value of the piece and has taken it's place, regardless of what the original messege or intent was (which in this case I think was obvious or at least should be). In a reversed way, the artist may benefit from that, but it seems like a rather bitter-sweet success to me. They love the controversy you inadvertently created around the picture, but they don't love the picture itself.

The value of the picture is lost somewhere along the line.

It's not that people are that close-minded or aren't trying to see something more, they simply were not moved by the picture for the right reasons or in ways they could appriciate it.

This is why controversial art (especially religious) rarely pays dividends to the artist and is a real gamble. It's best they use these themes sparingly, lest they face isolation in their future amateur or professional career.

I don't think "They won't understand," should ever stop an artist. The artist who is stopped by that will never explore.
Is it any artist's responsibility to appeal to as many people as possible? Is that any measure of anything?

The premiere of Igor Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring' was famously interrupted by a riot in the theater, by people outraged at the music they were hearing and the odd dances they were seeing. It is now one of the most revered pieces of music of the 20th Century. I'm not exaggerating, ALL musicians I know who've heard this piece love it. It was featured in Fantasia (against Stravinsky's wishes). He was revered in his own lifetime, too, as one of the greatest; which is to say, the infamous riot didn't derail his career.

btw, 'Piss Christ' is (or was, until some people destroyed it) a photograph, not a drawing.

I'm glad you brought up vandalism, I was actually going to mention graffiti before and forgot.
http://www.graffitiverite.com/GVDVD.htm
Art or not, some of it is breathtakingly beautiful, certainly more than lots things I've seen in museums or on TT.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I don't think "They won't understand," should ever stop an artist. The artist who is stopped by that will never explore.
Is it any artist's responsibility to appeal to as many people as possible? Is that any measure of anything?

The premiere of Igor Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring' was famously interrupted by a riot in the theater, by people outraged at the music they were hearing and the odd dances they were seeing. It is now one of the most revered pieces of music of the 20th Century. I'm not exaggerating, ALL musicians I know who've heard this piece love it. It was featured in Fantasia (against Stravinsky's wishes). He was revered in his own lifetime, too, as one of the greatest; which is to say, the infamous riot didn't derail his career.

btw, 'Piss Christ' is (or was, until some people destroyed it) a photograph, not a drawing.

I'm glad you brought up vandalism, I was actually going to mention graffiti before and forgot.
http://www.graffitiverite.com/GVDVD.htm
Art or not, some of it is breathtakingly beautiful, certainly more than lots things I've seen in museums or on TT.

I'm not saying anything should stop an artist. I'm simply saying they're screwing themselves over when they make something so controversial that people won't like it, especially the majority to whom the art means the greatest ammount.

About vandalism, I knew you'd bring that up and tell me the upsides to it, and I've already prepared a statement on it.

I'll give you the skinny of it:

If it's not your property and you don't have permission, and illegal then it's wrong.

Simple as that. I don't care how beautiful it is. It's a violation of someone else's property, and an expense on their part to remove it.

Aside from that, a majority of vandalism is gang-related, and theres no point to it other than to mark territory.

 

[Betchass1]

So again, I appreciate your acknowledgement [damn, that's a long word] as a worthy chatterbox and I apologize for this being so lo...

Oops.

lol
I think Vlad has a point. Whether or not it's some unconscious self-dismissing whatever whatever, people don't really pay much attention when someone says, "I could be wrong," or "I don't know, I'm tired," or "that's just my opinion." If they disagree with you, they still disagree with you, and if they agree, they still agree. Vlad's one of the few who even acknowledges that you said it. It's not going to deflect any judgments people make.

At least not in my limited experience.

 

[Betchass1]

I'm not saying anything should stop an artist. I'm simply saying they're screwing themselves over when they make something so controversial that people won't like it, especially the majority to whom the art means the greatest ammount.

About vandalism, I knew you'd bring that up and tell me the upsides to it, and I've already prepared a statement on it.

I'll give you the skinny of it:

If it's not your property and you don't have permission, and illegal then it's wrong.

Simple as that. I don't care how beautiful it is. It's a violation of someone else's property, and an expense on their part to remove it.

Aside from that, a majority of vandalism is gang-related, and theres no point to it other than to mark territory.

I don't think Serrano screwed himself over, I think it caused a rapid upswing in his career. Madonna, Prince, Frank Zappa, Francis Bacon, Picasso, Francisco Goya ( http://www.artchive.com/artchive/g/goya/saturn.jpg ), John Lennon ("more popular than Jesus"), Ozzie Osbourne, John Steinbeck, Rimbaud, Poe, Bill Maher, all tackled controversy and got attention for it. Countless others. America loves defiance. (not all of them were American I know)

Yes, most graffiti is boring and utilitarian. If you considered every single painting ever painted, I'm sure most of them would be awful. Or every single movie ever made. Still valid artforms when done well.
I'm not sure if we're still on the same page (internet discussions so often lead to people arguing about two different things just because it's stimulating)... I was trying to say that the fact that it's illegal and is seen as defacing does not mean it isn't art; I said something like 'whether or not it's art', but I *would* call some graffiti art.

If your point is that it is not art because it's someone else's property, then I guess we just disagree.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I knew this had the potential to get to this point as soon as God came into the picture, so I'd like to remind everyone that though you are welcome to share your opinion, that I do reserve the priveledge of editting and deleting your posts or even closing this thread or pruning it if it gets out of hand or turns into a flame.

This, unlike the general discussions forum, is my personal home here and I feel the need to put it and it's safety and reputation before any discussion.

So as to avoid flames or a religious debate (something that was not intended), it would be better at this point that if anyone has anything further to say in regards to the afforementioned "Piss Christ", that you do so in as reasonable and non-confrontational way as possible.

I also want to say thank you to those that have participated thus far.

Furthermore to that, the discussion is off track and it is about things that are percieved than more than why they are or could be.

This topic was really about the ambiguity or illusion of art, not the morals of it. I would prefer that to a religious decussion. The reason that is, is because ambiguous art allows us all to give our perspective on a piece.

For example, I was thinking that maybe we could upload some pictures.

Then, we'll discuss them and what they mean to us.

If this seems too elitist, snobby, or pretensious for you, then you of course don't have to participate, but I was thinking thats something we could do to make optimum use of this opportunity.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I don't think Serrano screwed himself over, I think it caused a rapid upswing in his career. Madonna, Prince, Frank Zappa, Francis Bacon, Picasso, Francisco Goya ( http://www.artchive.com/artchive/g/goya/saturn.jpg ), John Lennon ("more popular than Jesus"), Ozzie Osbourne, John Steinbeck, Rimbaud, Poe, Bill Maher, all tackled controversy and got attention for it. Countless others. America loves defiance. (not all of them were American I know)

Yes, most graffiti is boring and utilitarian. If you considered every single painting ever painted, I'm sure most of them would be awful. Or every single movie ever made. Still valid artforms when done well.
I'm not sure if we're still on the same page (internet discussions so often lead to people arguing about two different things just because it's stimulating)... I was trying to say that the fact that it's illegal and is seen as defacing does not mean it isn't art; I said something like 'whether or not it's art', but I *would* call some graffiti art.

If your point is that it is not art because it's someone else's property, then I guess we just disagree.

Like I said earlier, sometimes artists benefit from controversy. I'm not excempting this man from that.

The only thing we seem to really be disagreeing with, from my point of view, is that I think when you take someone else's property and you deface it, even as some artistic expression, then it's value is minimal and it's existance is problematic.

I'm not saying that some of it is not art, I'm simply saying it has very little value because the methods by which is was created, and where, is a nuisance to most, and a pleasure only to a few.

That you did not have permission is an offense, both legally speaking and as part of an artistical principle in regards to using an existing work outside of normal bounds.

What these "artists" need to understand is that by doing what they do they are ruining an existing work or property. A statue should be left alone so it can be admired for what it is. It doesn't need to be "enhanced".

A brick wall should be left untouched because it is private property and a work of fine masonry (a form of art), and the landowner has a right to want and expect his property to not look gaudy, look like a playground or stomping ground, or that others cannot simply do whatever they want with and to it.

That brick wall may be important to attracting legitimate business somehow. You never know. It may be next to an appartment complex, and the residents there don't want their walls marked because it may attract the wrong attention.

Because these "artists" don't think of things like this, and only of themselves, their work is inevitably worthless and an offense to the public at large. They would sooner have it removed then revel in it's presense.

 

[Betchass1]

For example, I was thinking that maybe we could upload some pictures.

Then, we'll discuss them and what they mean to us.

If this seems too elitist, snobby, or pretensious for you, then you of course don't have to participate, but I was thinking thats something we could do to make optimum use of this opportunity.

"Flight Out of Time," attributed to Hugo Ball. He was one of the founders of Dadaism in Switzerland around the time of WWI. He did mostly poetry and performance art, and this is the only purely visual work I've found from him.

He and his buddies (progenitors of this discussion, *definitely*) discovered photomontage, and they jumped on it as a way to express sarcasm and/or to confuse. My interpretation is that they saw the power that photographs had over people, like in propaganda, and wanted to create an artform that would force people to acknowledge the process of believing what you see, and kind of demystify photography, make it less like "proof".

I think that whole process ties in with the ambiguity you're talking about. A work that is as simple as 2+2=4 is quickly forgotten; just like movies where you know who's good and who's bad from start to finish, everything's clear-cut. No one writes 50-page papers about those works. It's when something is in question or doesn't quite line up that it really stimulates the imagination. Like dreams, which are most interesting when they're most inscrutable. You can't replace such a work with a description of it, you have to witness it as it is.

Anyway, I think this particular picture could be interpreted many ways. In one sense it's just an odd thing, and maybe that's all he intended. But those frills could be painted eyes, wings, lungs, breasts, hair, whatever. The sky is familiar, but upside down it takes on a whole new quality. Is he trying to portray femininity? If so, how? Or is he mocking how femininity is already portrayed? Or is this just randomly found items? It doesn't matter so much to me how he intended it, because all of those possibilities are valid ones.

What you think?

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

lol The last line of my post was just a joke to bring it full circle. I wasn't "doing it again".

That's a nice compliment, thank you. You're an exception to the general practice of alot of forums. The posts are usually shorter and the responses not as detailed. It's good that you have your own thread or art forum to do this, though, because imagine if everyone posted like we sometimes do. And I'll say that I do have to respect you can still find objectivity and converse with me despite our heated sparse history of past posts.

I've been quick to sum people up based on what they write or chime in with, sometimes in an unnecessary or unsolicited fashion. But hey... what else have I got? This is the first and only representation of most of these people I'll ever have, so I think what I think based on what they write/don't write. But you definitely have the gift of articulation, as noted by other people who read your stuff. It's true that you become like those you associate with, I think I even do it here. I'm a clown by nature, but in your threads I tend to get a little more serious. I guess that's because your threads always start with something detailed and they're not the three word "Great find, Vlad!"-type responses. And Ness, for example... I can tell she's as sharp as anyone here, but she's more likely to joke a little. If I were to sculpt both of you, she'd be a Precious Moment-esque cat figurine and you'd be Rodin's Thinker. I typically read everything you post just to see how far into you get, but I don't always join in.

So again, I appreciate your acknowledgement [damn, that's a long word] as a worthy chatterbox and I apologize for this being so lo...

Oops.

I had a really strong feeling you were joking at the end there, but I figured it would be better to entertain it then deny you. ^____________^

You're very welcome. Not to make anyone else feel bad, but you are one of the few that I feel I can talk to like this and the person won't mind. I'm sure there are others here, but they are less likely to be finding themselves in this type of a converstation with me. I think I intimidate alot of people, or they feel I expect certain things or words from them, like I'm grading them or something... so the relationships I have here with my close circle of friends are either based on an understanding of eachother, or a realization that we are too alike to not be in eachother's company. LOL

I am not normally a very needy person. But I admit that a part of my intellectual drive is dependant on there being others like me. Fuel for thought.

I think that's fairly normal, especially for someone my age. Knowing you a bit better than in the past allows me to learn from you and adapt to new ways of talking to someone.

You have your own style and I appriciate it. They say you are the company you keep. Hopefully nothing but positives can come from being associated with good, decent folk like you.

You were worth getting to know and be around, and I'd like to let you know that. God bless you. :happy:

 

[Journia]

Well we have the answer to that question, but now to mine....
WHEN IS A DOT NOT A DOT?

 

[Cbarton]

Vlad, I'll take my cookie anytime...

And, unlike as many of the religious right (of which I am one) are portrayed, I DO understand the logic behind your counter to my opinion, Betchass, et al. I just don't agree with them.

It's just that I've watched such artists and performers denigrate Christ to the point that it really infuriates me. Ok, a little shock or controversy is fine, it gets tiring after a while. For example, Picasso's "Gurnica" (sp?) is not exactly a child's watercolor, and does depict a gruesome event rather graphically, but still has great artistic value. To be honest, how much astistic talent does it take to put a crucifix in a jar and fill it with (insert correct mammal)'s urine? Not much, unless one wants to calim the so-called talent is "the inspiration to do so."

At that I will end this trail of thought on my end, to comply with Vlad's wishes.

Vlad, would love to participate in your above offered dicussions...

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Vlad, I'll take my cookie anytime...

And, unlike as many of the religious right (of which I am one) are portrayed, I DO understand the logic behind your counter to my opinion, Betchass, et al. I just don't agree with them.

It's just that I've watched such artists and performers denigrate Christ to the point that it really infuriates me. Ok, a little shock or controversy is fine, it gets tiring after a while. For example, Picasso's "Gurnica" (sp?) is not exactly a child's watercolor, and does depict a gruesome event rather graphically, but still has great artistic value. To be honest, how much astistic talent does it take to put a crucifix in a jar and fill it with (insert correct mammal)'s urine? Not much, unless one wants to calim the so-called talent is "the inspiration to do so."

At that I will end this trail of thought on my end, to comply with Vlad's wishes.

Vlad, would love to participate in your above offered dicussions...

This may seem like a contradiction, but I often have a right wing base of opinion despite the fact I'm a registered democrat. In fact, I actually find myself siding more with a republican's point of view. Maybe I bet on the wrong pony...err...jackass? LOL

All kidding aside, I don't disagree with you at all. I was merely being neutral and providing (or at least hoping to provide) equal time for both sides. Rest assured I feel nearly as hurt (or as hurt, I can't really tell since I don't know you) by such things as you do. I don't like it when the industry gets into "what ifs" about our Lord, because it always, without fail, leads to debauchery and blasphemy of some sort.

It's always a controversy. No one wants to portray Jesus in a good way anymore, because it doesn't make money.

We didn't need to see a movie about what could have happened if he didn't die on the cross and chose rather to flee and abandon his destiny.

We don't need to see him represented as a homosexual in plays and stage performances (with respect to homorsexuals).

The Da Vinci Code, which has already been analyticaly proven as myth by scholars, scribes, sages, priests, and theologians, was not necessary to make into a movie or a book.

All of these things morally undermind Christ, and I'm just as frustated as you are.

However, trying to stop people only makes them want to try harder. We have to let them do what they want so it will end more quickly. As long as it is not a direct attack on Christianity or an attempt to debunk it entirely then let them have their sacrilegious fun.

People who are as strong in their faith as they say they are shouldn't be bothered by such things. They should be confident enough to know that just because someone makes a movie, a play, or paints an indecent portrait, that it DOES NOT change the FACTS.

As long as people remind themselves of that they'll be ok.

I hope I don't seem like a hypocrite for responding again when I said we should probably move on, but it just so happened that you posted after I said that. But that's ok though, since you're not trying to start something and we're not assured of the other's feelings. ^^

As for wanting to participate, feel free to add a picture you like if you want, and hopefully someone will give you their insights on it.

 

[Timewarp]

Is a dot just a dot? (Dr Suse influence lol)
But seriously would I consider a dot to be a work of art? Unless there is some kinda atom size picute within the dot, no. If a dot is art, than every classroom ceiling is a work of art. (Cause I stare up all the time). Real art takes time, inspiration, insight, emotions, and maybe a hot dog stand to eat while admiring. But then again any picture is art to me so my defanition of art is below par, lol.

 

[Betchass1]

Is a dot just a dot? (Dr Suse influence lol)
But seriously would I consider a dot to be a work of art? Unless there is some kinda atom size picute within the dot, no. If a dot is art, than every classroom ceiling is a work of art. (Cause I stare up all the time). Real art takes time, inspiration, insight, emotions, and maybe a hot dog stand to eat while admiring. But then again any picture is art to me so my defanition of art is below par, lol.

Do you define art by what the person experienced making it or what the other person experiences witnessing it? Some combination?
Process? Product? Experience? Concept? Many people are quick to judge that art is not in a concept, as in the dot or Duchamp's 'Fountain'
http://www.teleculture.com/images/Fountain-R-Mutt-1917-1964.jpg
so, okay great, art is not that, but what is art then?

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Just to let you know, Betchass, I haven't forgotten your submission. I'm just a little busy and lazy and I want to be able to give you and the piece the proper time you deserve. I'll try and get to it sometime this week.

 

[Betchass1]

Just to let you know, Betchass, I haven't forgotten your submission. I'm just a little busy and lazy and I want to be able to give you and the piece the proper time you deserve. I'll try and get to it sometime this week.

It's all good. Even if the particular work doesn't move you to anything, that you would take the time to read it is enough.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Yeah. I just didn't want you think I had ignored or overlooked it, or something.

 

[Kjiron]

Hehe, sounds like fun. Let me take a whack at this one then.

*cracks mental knuckles*

Remember that old painting that got a lot of publicity in the art world? It's that one where it's a white canvas, and the only thing on it is a simple red dot in the middle.

This painting is has won acclaim the world over, and since then many copycats have tried to bank on the success of that simplicity so as to look and pass as sophisticated, deep, and spiritual.

When is a dot just a dot?

Is a dot never just a dot?

Is a dot never a dot?

Of course, and I think it almost goes without saying, that you've got to define the dot before you can start to analyze it. The dot, in this case, is art. Or at least, it's intended perception is as art. So then, the question is, "When is art a dot?"

So many can claim so much by even the slightest effort, and because nothing tangible exists to disprove them, we are forced to accept there is a possibility their attempt wasn't contrived, lame, or an excuse of an effort and they are simply trying to pass it off as art.

First, isn't it fair to say that unless you were there for it you can't really observe the value of the creator's effort? All you can observe is your own perceived value of the creator's effort. Of course, maybe that's the only one most people care about. In society it's always the "most people" part that matters most in such situations.

If a monkey in a zoo paints random colors on a canvas, is this art?

I think so. The monkey has demonstrated it's intelligence in the color spectrum, as often they choose colors that compliment each other or work well together with other combinations. While their strokes are not guided by a higher genius, there is a method to how they apply their techniques and they are self-aware.

I've got to disagree with you here. For things like art to come into existence the human observer must first create what is called a society. However, to create a society, linguistic conversation becomes necessary. Not communication mind you. Sure, apes and most animals have many forms of communication. What separates us for the animals is our logos, or our ability to use things like linguistic conversation. This is indeed a chicken and egg situation, in the sense that both society and linguistic conversation need one another to come into existence. So then, in other words, it is impossible to declare with certainty that things like art are created entirely by human means. It is possible, however, do declare that art cannot be created by a being lacking in either society or linguistic conversation. Art is something that is created, not found. The Niagara Falls is not art, it is natural wonder. An ape is part of the natural world, therefor if an ape were to paint some colors on a piece of paper then said creation would also be a part of the natural world. Human beings, when in a society, are no longer in the sate of nature as described by so many philosophers. Therefor, only human beings are capable of creating art. This does beg the question, however, of whether the creation of art must be direct or if it is acceptable to indirectly create art. This, in turn, brings us back to the observation that it is impossible to declare with certainty that art is created entirely by human means.

Hehe, chewy stuff eh?

Your post inspired my muse, so to speak.

(^_^)

When a person, that is to say, a human being, just draws a dot on a picture, is this art, or is it just someone trying to whore up on some attention with little effort involved?

In talking about effort the way you do it becomes impossible to avoid the question of the origin of art's true nature. For example, if someone accidentally creates art then it can be said that little effort was involved. However, if this is true then it once again brings to light the observation that one can not state with certainty that art is created entirely by human means. That is, unless, it's impossible to accidentally create art.

In the end, such standards are left to the society that must be first created prior to the birth of art.

Posers are so rampant in the art community that its hard to tell a true talent from one who is not sometimes, especially in genres that are abstract and vague in nature. It doesn't take an artist or painter to draw a dot.

I'm not questioning the original, just everything that has followed.

Should we go along with things like this or laugh at them? Or, do we simply give them the benefit of the doubt and say nothing?

I'm guessing that if this is the only type of vague artwork they draw, and they just draw dots, and triangles, and kanji, etc, then its easier to evaluate them overall.

An individual can have society of self, but it is impossible to create a society in the general sense with only a single individual. In the end, and individual will hold opinions and a society will hold sovereignty when it comes to standards such as those you question here.

I should really come to your part of the forum more often. This is great stuff!

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

First, isn't it fair to say that unless you were there for it you can't really observe the value of the creator's effort? All you can observe is your own perceived value of the creator's effort. Of course, maybe that's the only one most people care about. In society it's always the "most people" part that matters most in such situations.

He or she still has the ability to lie and exagerate in their own mind. If they are doing that they aren't being honest with themself, let alone you. They compromise their own ability to percieve themself (and perhaps even reality) honestly.

I've got to disagree with you here. For things like art to come into existence the human observer must first create what is called a society. However, to create a society, linguistic conversation becomes necessary. Not communication mind you. Sure, apes and most animals have many forms of communication. What separates us for the animals is our logos, or our ability to use things like linguistic conversation. This is indeed a chicken and egg situation, in the sense that both society and linguistic conversation need one another to come into existence. So then, in other words, it is impossible to declare with certainty that things like art are created entirely by human means. It is possible, however, do declare that art cannot be created by a being lacking in either society or linguistic conversation. Art is something that is created, not found. The Niagara Falls is not art, it is natural wonder. An ape is part of the natural world, therefor if an ape were to paint some colors on a piece of paper then said creation would also be a part of the natural world. Human beings, when in a society, are no longer in the sate of nature as described by so many philosophers. Therefor, only human beings are capable of creating art. This does beg the question, however, of whether the creation of art must be direct or if it is acceptable to indirectly create art. This, in turn, brings us back to the observation that it is impossible to declare with certainty that art is created entirely by human means.

Hehe, chewy stuff eh?

Your post inspired my muse, so to speak.

(^_^)

All of what you said here can be debased on the simple fact that if we assume animals are only capable of what we think they are, then we've already shortchanged our opinions of them and set base limitations on what they can do if either taught or learned themselves either by coincidence, fate, or human intervention. I think a monkey can paint a picture because a monkey has emotions, even if it lacks some of the advanced functions to fully interprete what it is doing. If a monkey is sad I think it's possible it can paint a sad picture represented by colors. Who are we to say they don't understand emotions through colors?

Animals work on impulse, as do humans.

We think human beings are the only ones capable of creating art because we consider ourselves the only advanced life in the known universe.

I'm sure there are aliens somewhere with art too, and possibly have animals that are highly evolved themselves and can do more than we humans can. To the aliens, we're probably animals and they may think of us they way we think of our own animals.

In talking about effort the way you do it becomes impossible to avoid the question of the origin of art's true nature. For example, if someone accidentally creates art then it can be said that little effort was involved. However, if this is true then it once again brings to light the observation that one can not state with certainty that art is created entirely by human means. That is, unless, it's impossible to accidentally create art.

In the end, such standards are left to the society that must be first created prior to the birth of art.

The person could create art unknowningly, though it is not an accident. Art is not an accident, though it may be created in complete ignorance. The value of it was by no means lost, especially if the piece is treasured by others or will come to be. Some (if not everything) of the greatest treasures and tools in life were created in complete ignorance of their future worth, process, or function but their value is not lost for future generations whom inevitably expand upon the idea and concept to harness it.

When a caveman created fire for the first time in human existance, that knowledge had to come from somewhere. I believe it came from God. To be able to create fire by accident is not possible. To the caveman, he doesn't really know what he's doing, only that he can and that it will cause something to happen that will be to his benefit.

It is not an accident then.

An individual can have society of self, but it is impossible to create a society in the general sense with only a single individual. In the end, and individual will hold opinions and a society will hold sovereignty when it comes to standards such as those you question here.

Actually, we call those people introverts. People who are able to live in themselves are able to liberate themselves from the concerns of society. While there are other methods to achieving this freedom without being an introvert, the introvert pays a heavy price to have it.

I should really come to your part of the forum more often. This is great stuff!

It probably only seems that way because of the subject. Unless you're coming for the art, theres really nothing else here at the moment.

 

[morgandee]

gurugu mawaru

 

[Kjiron]

gurugu mawaru

I'm going to take a guess that you're watching School Rumble right now as well. (^_^)

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I too am watching School Rumble. What a coincidence the three of us are at the same time, or are aware of it.

That opening song is pretty catchy. ^^

 

[Kjiron]

He or she still has the ability to lie and exaggerate in their own mind. If they are doing that they aren't being honest with them self, let alone you. They compromise their own ability to perceive them self honestly.

This is true, but I think you missed the point. For example, there are many artists who don't have confidence in their own abilities. So then let's say such an artist creates a piece that everyone else sees as being a pure masterpiece. Yet the artist feels that little effort was put fourth on his/her part, and it's not actually anything more than a doodle. Who's opinion matters more then? The artist's, or the observers'?

All of what you said here can be debased on the simple fact that if we assume animals are only capable of what we think they are, then we've already shortchanged our opinions of them and set base limitations on what they can do if either taught or learned themselves either by coincidence, fate, or human intervention. I think a monkey can paint a picture because a monkey has emotions, even if it lacks some of the advanced functions to fully interpret what it is doing. If a monkey is sad I think it's possible it can paint a sad picture represented by colors. Who are we to say they don't understand emotions through colors?

Animals work on impulse, as do humans.

We think human beings are the only ones capable of creating art because we consider ourselves the only advanced life in the known universe.

I'm sure there are aliens somewhere with art too, and possibly have animals that are highly evolved themselves and can do more than we humans can. To the aliens, we're probably animals and they may think of us they way we think of our own animals.

Again, you've missed the point entirely. Not only that this time, but you've also tried to argue with an argument based on fact and evidence using little more than opinion and wit. I'll break it down:

1.) Animals are only naturally capable of that which occurs in their minds naturally. An ape can be taught sign language, for example. But this does not mean that an ape could ever naturally create sign language without human intervention. This is my argument, against the monkeys, and you can just swap out "sign language" for "art" for simplicity's sake.

2.) You've said that you believe "monkeys can paint because they have emotions". Personally, I also believe that animals can experience emotion. However, they cannot experience logos. Unless you want to argue that only emotion is necessary for the creation of art, then you've made a point that is actually non-valid to the argument at hand.

3.) The complete synopsis of my argument is as follows: For art to be created, first a society must be born by whom said art can be interpreted. The only way you can argue against that is to say that art can be created outside of a society. This is, however, a futile effort. Human beings exist either inside of the State of Nature, or outside of it. All things in the State of Nature are natural, therefor art cannot exist therein. Again, unless you wanted to argue that something like the Grand Canyon counts as art.

The person could create art unknowingly, though it is not an accident. Art is not an accident, though it may be created in complete ignorance. The value of it was by no means lost, especially if the piece is treasured by others or will come to be. Some (if not everything) of the greatest treasures and tools in life were created in complete ignorance of their future worth, process, or function but their value is not lost for future generations whom inevitably expand upon the idea and concept to harness it.

When a caveman created fire for the first time in human existence, that knowledge had to come from somewhere. I believe it came from God. To be able to create fire by accident is not possible. To the caveman, he doesn't really know what he's doing, only that he can and that it will cause something to happen that will be to his benefit.

It is not an accident then.

You almost had it displayed very well there, but then you began talking about fire in place of art. I think I still got what you were saying anyway though. Specifically, from what I understand, you are saying that you believe art cannot be accidental. In that if it is created in human ignorance, then it must be by the hand of a greater power that it was created. If I'm wrong here, then please do correct me.

Actually, we call those people introverts. People who are able to live in themselves are able to liberate themselves from the concerns of society. While there are other methods to achieving this freedom without being an introvert, the introvert pays a heavy price to have it.

One more, you completely missed the point. To put it simply, all I was saying is that an individual will have an opinion on a piece of art for him/herself and a society will have an opinion as a whole. Because my argument is that art is reliant on the existence of a society, it is the society then that holds reign over the value of a piece of art. However, because the individual's opinion will still exist, regardless of society's views, a piece of art is capable of having value to only an individual alone.

It probably only seems that way because of the subject. Unless you're coming for the art, there's really nothing else here at the moment.

I've actually always loved your art. I remember when you did the second part of that Chun-Li/Cammy set. I don't know if you remember, but I had commented on the vast amount of progress your art had made since you drew the first part. I have to say, I think Chun-Li/Cammy part 2 is still my favorite piece of all the art I've seen you do.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

This is true, but I think you missed the point. For example, there are many artists who don't have confidence in their own abilities. So then let's say such an artist creates a piece that everyone else sees as being a pure masterpiece. Yet the artist feels that little effort was put fourth on his/her part, and it's not actually anything more than a doodle. Who's opinion matters more then? The artist's, or the observers'?

No, I didn't miss any point. In your example of an artist with a low self-esteem, his opinion of himself contradicts what others think. So the matter is left up in the air as far as he's concerned.

Even if other people tell him he's good, he doesn't believe it. So he fails himself, and, in seeing no good from his efforts, it's possible he may stop drawing.

In that regard, I think what the artist thinks of themself is more important than what others do.

I know that I care more about what I feel about my art than what people think or what people think I should feel about it (proud, etc.) To listen to them rather than myself in my art choices could lead to self-ruin.

Again, you've missed the point entirely. Not only that this time, but you've also tried to argue with an argument based on fact and evidence using little more than opinion and wit. I'll break it down:

1.) Animals are only naturally capable of that which occurs in their minds naturally. An ape can be taught sign language, for example. But this does not mean that an ape could ever naturally create sign language without human intervention. This is my argument, against the monkeys, and you can just swap out "sign language" for "art" for simplicity's sake.

2.) You've said that you believe "monkeys can paint because they have emotions". Personally, I also believe that animals can experience emotion. However, they cannot experience logos. Unless you want to argue that only emotion is necessary for the creation of art, then you've made a point that is actually non-valid to the argument at hand.

3.) The complete synopsis of my argument is as follows: For art to be created, first a society must be born by whom said art can be interpreted. The only way you can argue against that is to say that art can be created outside of a society. This is, however, a futile effort. Human beings exist either inside of the State of Nature, or outside of it. All things in the State of Nature are natural, therefor art cannot exist therein. Again, unless you wanted to argue that something like the Grand Canyon counts as art.

Again, I have not missed any point. I've heard what you said, analyzed it, and found a fault. If I had not, then I will not have said anything or quoted this portion.

All of what you say in number 1 relies completely on human assumption of the complete capacity of an animal, either as we understand them or as we assume to understand them through scientfic research. Your example of sign language doesn't float for very long, because you're applying human logic to animal logic for the purposes of communication only. That says nothing of their ability to create art, or lack thereof. An animal wouldn't need to use sign language to prove it's higher intelligence or that is has the capacity for it. We just think that it should have to in order to be on our level. I'm also not swapping sign language for art. It is not quite the same thing to begin with.

An animal does not necessarily have to be on our level to do what we do, feel what we feel, or think what we think. Some animals are very intelligent and perceptive, and some of them have psychic apptitude, some researchers believe.

It could be argued, but I have no wish to do so, that animals have their own forms of art, but we just don't understand them. Some of us do see it as art because we recognize similarities with our own.

In number two, emotions are actually quite valid to the point. Even if they are misplaced, or misunderstood by others or one's self they are still to be considered.

In number three, you admit that it is possble, but a futile effort. The point was not to prove how successful it would be, only that it was possible, and you just handed me that.

You almost had it displayed very well there, but then you began talking about fire in place of art. I think I still got what you were saying anyway though. Specifically, from what I understand, you are saying that you believe art cannot be accidental. In that if it is created in human ignorance, then it must be by the hand of a greater power that it was created. If I'm wrong here, then please do correct me.

Yes, thats all I'm saying by using the caveman analogy. Art cannot be created by accident. Fire, when harnessed and mastered and used for specfic things is a kind of art. It's the art of mastery of something.

I only used an ignorant caveman as an example to display that when you create something with no knowledge of it, you were meant to create it anyway, either for yourself or someone else. In this case, for the other cave people.

One more, you completely missed the point. To put it simply, all I was saying is that an individual will have an opinion on a piece of art for him/herself and a society will have an opinion as a whole. Because my argument is that art is reliant on the existence of a society, it is the society then that holds reign over the value of a piece of art. However, because the individual's opinion will still exist, regardless of society's views, a piece of art is capable of having value to only an individual alone.

Geez, you sure like saying I'm completely missing your point alot. LOL

Art is reliant on just a single human mind if need be. End of story.

That it will benefit (or not) from society's involvement is counterfeit to the fact that they can take solice and enjoyment in knowing something is art because they created it. The nature of it's wholesomeness to the artist is by no means extinguished. And while you are not disputing that, it is a point to make.

That this topic is largely about what other people think however (ie- interpretation of artwork) it is only obvious for you to make such statements. However, the point can simply be lead to the end that if the artist doesn't care what others think, then their opinion of him or her has little or no value.

Supposing however the artist wants to impress others, then they will have to expand themselves into society's thinking in order to do that. No one is arguing what you're saying, just whether or not it will matter in a case by case basis.

Some people are attracted to an artist's indifference towards society and it's viewpoint, and flock to these types of artists. So, just by being the way they are, THEY'RE the ones who create change in others, NOT the other way about. By being that way, they have managed to have a portion of society conform to them, not them conform to society.

I've actually always loved your art. I remember when you did the second part of that Chun-Li/Cammy set. I don't know if you remember, but I had commented on the vast amount of progress your art had made since you drew the first part. I have to say, I think Chun-Li/Cammy part 2 is still my favorite piece of all the art I've seen you do.

You still think so? I've done alot better since that (and for that matter my best work isn't even available on this site). Plus, its a tickle picture, so I'm not sure if you meant your favorite of all my artwork, including my more recent stuff, or just the tickling material.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

And now....time for a break!

"tsutaetai koto ga mou omo sugite
konomama tsuburechai sou desu
kotoba ni dekinai kimochi oo sugite
todokanai yo ano hito made chikakute tooi kyori
doko made mo aoi sora onaji youni miteru no ni
anata ni ha kumori sora mieteru ki ga shichau

GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
FURAFURA na FURI shite anata no mune ni tobikomitai
GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
FUWAFUWA ni ukabu watashi kyou mo hitori kumo no ue"

tsutaetai kotoba mou oo sugite
konomama uta ni nari sou desu
sugusoba ni iru hazu nano ni too sugite
todokanai yo ano hito made umaku ikanai yone
doko made mo tsuduku sora nagameru no mo ii kedo
itsumade mo aoi sora miteiru dakeja DAME

GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
FURAFURA na FURI shite anata no mune ni tobikomitai
GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
FUWAFUWA ni ukabu watashi kyou mo hitori kumo no ue

GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
FURAFURA na FURI shite anata no mune ni tobikomitai
GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
GURUGURU mawaru GURUGURU mawaru
FUWAFUWA ni ukabu watashi kyou mo hitori kumo no ue"

- Scramble (School Rumble)

 

[nessonite1]

How's this for off topic?

kjiron, is that the boy from Loveless in your siggy and avatar? I just added that to my Netflix cue after seeing an AMV made from it at anime mid-atlantic (it won the romance category).
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/members/members_videoinfo.php?v=117942