The General Conversation Area
- Thread starter Tachi
- Start date
MaxonTreik
Chuunibyou
Zing.ayase said:
MaxonTreik
Chuunibyou
So my many attempts to throw my full kitchen bin across the room were pointless? Darn.ayase said:
anything can be made into art, here's a random definition i found on the interwebsStuart-says-yes said:
a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
b. The study of these activities.
c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
ayase
State Alchemist
Hey, I actually started a discussion I'm interested in prolonging.
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with conceptual art, but the fact that any meaning it has is not readily apparent and lies purely inside the mind of the artist is what bothers me about it. I'll admit that it does have meaning, but it only has any real meaning to the artist who created it. Anyone else who claims to understand it has either given it their own meaning (in which case the artist has had no impact on their thoughts, rendering their act of creating it as "art" worthless) or has had the artist's original meaning explained to them... and if you have to explain what a piece of artwork represents then it probably isn't very good.
I'd say conceptual art is personal art, so IMO it doesn't belong in a gallery and certainly has no monetary worth. The fact that it is both widely admired and worth so much seems to me very much like a case of "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome, engineered by art collectors (and not necessarily the artists) purely to make money.
There isn't necessarily anything wrong with conceptual art, but the fact that any meaning it has is not readily apparent and lies purely inside the mind of the artist is what bothers me about it. I'll admit that it does have meaning, but it only has any real meaning to the artist who created it. Anyone else who claims to understand it has either given it their own meaning (in which case the artist has had no impact on their thoughts, rendering their act of creating it as "art" worthless) or has had the artist's original meaning explained to them... and if you have to explain what a piece of artwork represents then it probably isn't very good.
I'd say conceptual art is personal art, so IMO it doesn't belong in a gallery and certainly has no monetary worth. The fact that it is both widely admired and worth so much seems to me very much like a case of "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome, engineered by art collectors (and not necessarily the artists) purely to make money.
MaxonTreik
Chuunibyou
But I'd argue that all art is conceptual art if you think along those lines. I believe people can still interpret "proper art" differently. Many people may come to the same conclusion, but it can still be a different conclusion from what the artist intended. Everyone doesn't think the same way.ayase said:
I hate debating what constitutes art though, since it's by far one of the most subjective things I can think of, so I don't know why I'm bothering. :lol:
I think art is art because it can be subjective and down to interpretation. I don't think its right to judge a piece solely on whether you understand it or need it explained to you, since its up to yourself whether you want to emote something towards it. Who decides how much a painting is worth? What someone will pay £10, 000 towards might be worthless to another.
It's always up for others to study things, even if its unintentional by the artist themselves. You might make something that makes you so happy and you feel its so dense and says a lot, but other people just don't understand. You might just share completely different reference points.
It's always up for others to study things, even if its unintentional by the artist themselves. You might make something that makes you so happy and you feel its so dense and says a lot, but other people just don't understand. You might just share completely different reference points.
ayase
State Alchemist
I hope I'm being pretty clear that this is my personal opinion, I'm just interested to know what others think. It's totally subjective all right.
I dunno, I think it's that fact that the meaning is far less apparent with conceptual art. Of course, a painting of say, a woman sat alone at night in an automat could be symbolic of anything as well, but there are a certain emotions the picture evokes to draw you towards a conclusion about it. A pile of bricks, however, doesn't instinctively make me think or feel anything. I could probably derive some meaning from it, but it would be a meaning I'd created and no different to if someone had pointed at a garden wall and said "How does that make you feel?" so it doesn't feel like the artist's work has been of any value to me.
I dunno, I think it's that fact that the meaning is far less apparent with conceptual art. Of course, a painting of say, a woman sat alone at night in an automat could be symbolic of anything as well, but there are a certain emotions the picture evokes to draw you towards a conclusion about it. A pile of bricks, however, doesn't instinctively make me think or feel anything. I could probably derive some meaning from it, but it would be a meaning I'd created and no different to if someone had pointed at a garden wall and said "How does that make you feel?" so it doesn't feel like the artist's work has been of any value to me.
ayase said:
Bingo, the same here.
I done an Art GCSE for two years, and some of the work that I saw getting an A was ridiculous. Someone got a a bedsheet (or something), threw paint over it, and then drove over it. Now, maybe (although unlikely for a 15/16 year old) there was some deep meaning there, but i'm pretty sure it got an A/A* because the examiner saw something that wasn't actually there.
I'm cool with abstract, but that kinda **** just does my head in. I think Mem's definition (1) is the key. "Conscious production or arrangement...", i'm 90% sure the person who threw some paint wasn't really conscious of what they were portraying.
But heck, I could be wrong.
Art (to me) is something a person has captured or created. It can be something of an instant or a long-lasting piece, as long as it has some effect on themself or others.
I.e. A photographer that has captured an unusual or the "perfect" shot of something; A sculpter that has shaped something into form (from another form/s or something undetermined); A painter that has captured and displayed either something picturesque, influencial or expressive.
I wont accept a scribble or a dot as art. I have seen work that is litterally white-on-white, and I saw nothing. If a piece cannot entertain in the ways that art should potray itself, then it is not art. There has to be some skill involved, both in the idea/background and in the process of creation.
I find abstract art (especially in the area of shapes) rather contraversal, with a huge range between people who have made something in 2 minutes with not much thought, and others who have tried and thought hard about things maybe too much. It's very hit-and-miss with me, which is why I prefer a familiar approach materialise in a different/fantastic way (eg. figurative).
But ultimately, art is made by the people who critisize it - whether it has effected them in any form and manner. An audience that likes or dislikes it has an opinion, and if that is delivered to a piece (and the more times it's done), it has made it's mark and become a success. If you want to be famous though, I suggest you get the crowd on your side.
I.e. A photographer that has captured an unusual or the "perfect" shot of something; A sculpter that has shaped something into form (from another form/s or something undetermined); A painter that has captured and displayed either something picturesque, influencial or expressive.
I wont accept a scribble or a dot as art. I have seen work that is litterally white-on-white, and I saw nothing. If a piece cannot entertain in the ways that art should potray itself, then it is not art. There has to be some skill involved, both in the idea/background and in the process of creation.
I find abstract art (especially in the area of shapes) rather contraversal, with a huge range between people who have made something in 2 minutes with not much thought, and others who have tried and thought hard about things maybe too much. It's very hit-and-miss with me, which is why I prefer a familiar approach materialise in a different/fantastic way (eg. figurative).
But ultimately, art is made by the people who critisize it - whether it has effected them in any form and manner. An audience that likes or dislikes it has an opinion, and if that is delivered to a piece (and the more times it's done), it has made it's mark and become a success. If you want to be famous though, I suggest you get the crowd on your side.
Zin5ki
Railgun
Yesterday I came across a chap wearing a Principality of Zeon jacket outside Bettys Tea Rooms. Such an encounter was a delight rivalled only by the gastropub meal I later consumed. Grilling chicken off the bone often leads to dry and unpalatable meat, but the chefs of the establishment in which I dined avoided such an error adeptly.
ayase
State Alchemist
Interesting. I can't have "1haten4tw3st" as a verified by visa securecode, even though it meets the length and numeric digit requirements.
On a related note, I hate Nat West. Not only are they not content with all the money the government stole from us and gave to them, attempting to sell me an account with a monthly charge at every available opportunity, still haven't got my credit card working (because apparently a credit card with "NatWest" written across it nothing to do with them) but now they intend to charge me £20 for going overdrawn by £1.65 on the day before my salary went into my account. If my credit card had been working, I wouldn't have f*cking gone overdrawn, would I? Twats. Will leave them next Saturday for someone else. It's been too much hassle to do so previously but now they've *really* pissed me off. I hope you crash and burn, RBS Group. Even worse than you already have.
On a related note, I hate Nat West. Not only are they not content with all the money the government stole from us and gave to them, attempting to sell me an account with a monthly charge at every available opportunity, still haven't got my credit card working (because apparently a credit card with "NatWest" written across it nothing to do with them) but now they intend to charge me £20 for going overdrawn by £1.65 on the day before my salary went into my account. If my credit card had been working, I wouldn't have f*cking gone overdrawn, would I? Twats. Will leave them next Saturday for someone else. It's been too much hassle to do so previously but now they've *really* pissed me off. I hope you crash and burn, RBS Group. Even worse than you already have.
I recommend Barclays. Been with them all my life, and they have served me well. They take the hint when I decline their monthly charge account options, and their credit card, the Barclaycard, while it may be dealt with separately from the bank, has also served me well, and on the occasion that my card details were nicked by a dodgy site and used to purchase welsh football tickets in London, they refunded me my money with no hassle at all.