PDA

View Full Version : Art and the World



Godfather
07-31-2006, 03:12 PM
I had a conversation with somebody recently, when he asked me what I wanted to do after school. I said that I wanted to make a living out of what I love, which is art. I want to be an artist. He went on to say that art doesn't matter to society. That, of course, is wrong.

But I got thinking that what he meant was that society could function without art. I guess theoretically society could function without art, but what is art? Is it exhibitions of paintings, or something much more intimate?

Everybody here is an artist, where would we be without it?

Could the world work without art?

Bird of Prey
07-31-2006, 03:25 PM
I had a conversation with somebody recently, when he asked me what I wanted to do after school. I said that I wanted to make a living out of what I love, which is art. I want to be an artist. He went on to say that art doesn't matter to society. That, of course, is wrong.

But I got thinking that what he meant was that society could function without art. I guess theoretically society could function without art, but what is art? Is it exhibitions of paintings, or something much more intimate?

Everybody here is an artist, where would we be without it?

Could the world work without art?

Yes, the world could work. I just wouldn't. Neither would a lot of people, I imagine. But given a choice between a painting and an air conditioned office, it's the office, Mate. If you want to be an artist, be prepared for a great life and a real struggle.

Shadow_Ferret
07-31-2006, 03:59 PM
I don't consider myself an artist, I consider myself a writer. In my mind there is a difference (there probably isn't one in reality, but allow me my own special quirks, OK?).

I do think the world could go along swimmingly without art. Especially most of the stuff that passes for art these days.

At one time, many hundreds of years ago, art was uplifting. It was an attempt to capture the beauty of life.

I'm thinking along the lines of Greek statuary. Or the beautiful paintings of the Rennaissance. Things by Michelangelo.

Nowadays it's a crucifix in piss. Or polyurethaned and cut-up dead people. The movement seems to be to portray the ugliness of life. I think society can do without that. I don't think it advances us in any way.

laurel29
07-31-2006, 04:09 PM
I've had similar discussions with people about the value of art. It isn't practical but I think it does serve a deeper purpose. I think humans need to create, whether we can make a living off it is a different matter entirely. There are people who think it frivolous and there are those who treasure it above all things. I fall somewhere in the middle. To me it is very important but not quite as vital as feeding my children. That said, my oldest daughter wants to be an artist, this is all she has ever wanted to do (actually she has claimed since one and a half that she wanted to paint designs on sailboats) and I won't discourage her because if you really love something I think it kills you inside to just walk away. (Especially if you do so because of money) When you have people depending on you it is different of course, but since you are young why not? I think art has been around since cave paintings (whether these were practical or not) and I'm fairly certain we aren't going to see a time where it is forgotten. I don't think we realize how much of what we do could be described as art. It isn't just a term for paintings hung in a museum. I see art in most things around me, down to the decorating that people do in their homes, the artful display of nickknacks on a shelf, the arrangement of furniture in the living room. We strive (most if not all) to make these things pleasing to our eye, to fit our concept of beauty. I think for something to be so prevalent it must be a key component of who we are. Again getting paid for it is something else :). Sorry for the ramble. - wanted to add about the trend of art to portray ugliness. I don't know what that is about really- I have a different idea of what constitutes art- to me it is more simple and prevalent that pieces that are supposed to shock you and say something- I think I like art that just is there and breathes. When I am in my garden I feel like it is most definitely a work of art, a living one (read messy :) )that changes with the seasons and is shaped not only my my hand. I'm not sure someone peeing on a crucifix qualifies as art to more than a handful that get it- but that is the beauty of art there is so much variety and so many personal definitions of it that it permeats everything. I don't think we could get rid of art in all its forms.

Godfather
07-31-2006, 04:19 PM
Hmmm... I meant art in the broader sense, broadest sense, even.

Music, literature and paintings. But more than that.

In my eyes, a world without art would take away our humanity, like laurel said, look around you. Art is everywhere.

poetinahat
07-31-2006, 04:42 PM
It's wonderful to create, but it's enlightening and uplifting to observe and enjoy; art needs audiences. And, practical or not, art enlivens people.

I think about the exhilaration I feel after a couple of hours wandering in a gallery, walking through a sculpture garden (my very favorite part of Paris is a sculpture garden), or leaving a performance. There's the mind-expanding feeling of new perceptions of the world, and the feeling that I'd love to do nothing more than create art. For a time, I'm free.

Art as a concept has been abused as an academic exercise -- too many smug, this-is-art-because-I-say-it-is "installations". But that's part of the wonder too; not everyone need be a genius.

Without art, the world may well work, but for a lot of us, it'd be a brutish, joyless place.

Bird of Prey
07-31-2006, 04:50 PM
Art in the broader sense can also be defined as entertainment. It can be mind enriching, I suppose, sometimes thought provoking.

What's your definition of art, GF?

Godfather
07-31-2006, 04:56 PM
Hmmm... I'm not sure I can articulate what art is exactly, but I'll try.

Creating something beautiful, and thought provoking from yourself.

I can't explain it really, friend. But I would be nothing without art, nothing. My clothes, my watch, my ring, my bedroom, what I listen to, what I look at, what I read, everything I've ever created. It's all art.

Bird of Prey
07-31-2006, 05:12 PM
Hmmm... I'm not sure I can articulate what art is exactly, but I'll try.

Creating something beautiful, and thought provoking from yourself.

I can't explain it really, friend. But I would be nothing without art, nothing. My clothes, my watch, my ring, my bedroom, what I listen to, what I look at, what I read, everything I've ever created. It's all art.

So does it have to be meaningful to someone else to fit a definition of art, or is it sufficient that it be an individual act? Also, does it have to leave an imprint, even if that imprint is only appreciated by the one who left it?

Shadow_Ferret
07-31-2006, 05:45 PM
Interesting, GF. I have a much narrower view of what "art" is. I realize there are "fine arts" and that takes into account a lot of things from music, to graphic arts, to even literature, but I've always viewed it simply as the graphic arts.

I can't live without music or writing. But I certainly could live without pictures and statues.

And I've never ever, even in it's broadest sense, thought of my clothes as art. Or my watch. To me those are practical necessities of everyday life. Not art.

I'm sure some people even consider fine cuisine as "art" but again to me that's sustainance. Something we do out of necessity and not strictly for the simple beauty of it.

Godfather
07-31-2006, 05:50 PM
So does it have to be meaningful to someone else to fit a definition of art, or is it sufficient that it be an individual act? Also, does it have to leave an imprint, even if that imprint is only appreciated by the one who left it?

Hmmm... in my mind, if it does it for one person then it is art, yeah.


Interesting, GF. I have a much narrower view of what "art" is. I realize there are "fine arts" and that takes into account a lot of things from music, to graphic arts, to even literature, but I've always viewed it simply as the graphic arts.

I can't live without music or writing. But I certainly could live without pictures and statues.

And I've never ever, even in it's broadest sense, thought of my clothes as art. Or my watch. To me those are practical necessities of everyday life. Not art.

I'm sure some people even consider fine cuisine as "art" but again to me that's sustainance. Something we do out of necessity and not strictly for the simple beauty of it.

Clothes, fashion designers. I wear clothes that I like, clothes that look good. I wouldn't say that my clothes are art, exactly, but they come from it. A practical ncessity of everyday life, most importantly, but it's been touched by art.

My watch, which my uncle got in China, is an interesting watch. An artist designed it.

Shadow_Ferret
07-31-2006, 05:52 PM
Ah, so you don't just wear dockers and have a Timex. :)

Godfather
07-31-2006, 06:01 PM
Actually, Timberlands. I'm not even sure what brand my watch is, but it's interesting. It's funky.

But you know, I like to look good or whatever. I like to wear clothes that I like. Granted, those are tough enough to find (no lumberjack shirts, ANYWHERE). Though it's hard to explain what I mean about everythang of me being hard, do you know what I'm saying?

Bird of Prey
07-31-2006, 06:10 PM
Hmmm... in my mind, if it does it for one person then it is art, yeah.





O.K. So, would you define art as a statement or extension of ego? Or does it have to be a form of communication?

SC Harrison
07-31-2006, 06:14 PM
In my eyes, a world without art would take away our humanity, like laurel said, look around you. Art is everywhere.

A society that no longer tolerates or appreciates art is a society that is dying inside.

Take heart, GF. The world is enamored of art now more than it ever has been, as far as I can tell from my personal travels and experiences. I'm sure someone can post a link showing a 3.7% drop in art appreciation or wall square foot usage, so you'll just have to take my word for it on this one.

Always remember this, though: appreciation of art is a subjective analysis, for all but a handful of artists and/or collectors who have studied techniques for years. The former aren't really qualified to critique your work, and the latter should be ignored outright. Have fun. :)

C.bronco
07-31-2006, 06:21 PM
Hmmm... I meant art in the broader sense, broadest sense, even.

Music, literature and paintings. But more than that.

In my eyes, a world without art would take away our humanity, like laurel said, look around you. Art is everywhere.

I think you hit on it right there. It is inherent in our nature, the need to communicate through a medium- music, painting, words, dance;to rise to a greater understanding through creating or encountering someone else's work; or to experience emotional commiseration from its contact. Even the person who says it means nothing will respond in some way to some medium.

It ain't just an imitation of life.

laurel29
07-31-2006, 06:35 PM
Interesting, GF. I have a much narrower view of what "art" is. I realize there are "fine arts" and that takes into account a lot of things from music, to graphic arts, to even literature, but I've always viewed it simply as the graphic arts.

And I've never ever, even in it's broadest sense, thought of my clothes as art. Or my watch. To me those are practical necessities of everyday life. Not art.

I'm sure some people even consider fine cuisine as "art" but again to me that's sustainance. Something we do out of necessity and not strictly for the simple beauty of it.

I think the distinction is that there are things most people can agree would fall under the category fine arts and then there is everyday art. It is really a matter of perspective. To someone who fashion is important they will view their attire as art- we may not understand that- but since opinions are subjective and do not cancel each other out it still can be designated as art. Perhaps it isn't the art of Michelangelo but it still deserves its title. My husband aadores food, to me it is sustenance and I pay it little mind, to him it is art. He gets annoyed by my poor presentation. In my mind there is no reason that something cannot be art if it serves a practical function. Not all art is practical but there are certainly things that serve a practical function and could be described as art. Everytime I drive under a stone bridge on the merrit (I may be getting my highways names confused but that doesn't change my meaning) I smile because to me that architecture is art. I cringe when driving through the developments around me- the sea of sameness (down to the foundation plantings) drives me insane. I understand the practicality of it but then I remember the bridges and I wonder why a little more creativity couldn't be employed. Something that is both functional and beautiful attracts far more praise. I love the art of everyday objects, it truly is my favorite type. Then again, I think of pruning as an art (one I am terrible at by the way) so my definition is very broad. I'm happier this way, If I thought art belonged only in museums I think it would dampen my enthusiasm greatly.

laurel29
07-31-2006, 06:42 PM
[/i]

I think you hit on it right there. It is inherent in our nature, the need to communicate through a medium- music, painting, words, dance;to rise to a greater understanding through creating or encountering someone else's work; or to experience emotional commiseration from its contact. Even the person who says it means nothing will respond in some way to some medium.

It ain't just an imitation of life.

I had a discussion with my very religious (born again Christian)mother in law recently about this. Well It was actually about the phrase - created in his image- she took this to mean we literally looked like god - not getting into the religious aspect of it because I often get uncomfortable in these types of discussions - I told her if anything I thought it refered to our inherent need to create. I just really feel like it is a core part of what it means to be human. (please don't jump on the religion thing my comment wouldn't make much sense without the explanation- maybe it didn't make sense anyway?)

RG570
07-31-2006, 08:37 PM
The Protestant Work Ethic and capitalism killed/are killing art.

It's sad how in the midst of plenty, you have people who think artists are a waste of space and resources. Very sad.

Shadow_Ferret
07-31-2006, 08:57 PM
The Protestant Work Ethic and capitalism killed/are killing art.

It's sad how in the midst of plenty, you have people who think artists are a waste of space and resources. Very sad.

Explain please. Because the so-called Protestant work ethic has been around for hundreds of years, since Luther tacked his list on doors. Prior to that people just had a "work ethic."

And explain how capitalism has killed it, too, while you're at it. Artists throughout history have never really made money at their art, they've depended upon rich "patrons."

whistlelock
07-31-2006, 09:12 PM
Could the world function without art?

Yes, but no one would want to live in it.

Everything is and can be art. From the text we use to type out messages, to the desks and tables the computers sit on.


I've never understood why society rejects the concept of "artist" and "art", but readily embraces all of the by-products of art.

C.bronco
07-31-2006, 10:43 PM
You definitely can make a living as an artist. I'm more than happy to recommend specific colleges for art as well.

Shadow_Ferret
08-01-2006, 12:55 AM
You definitely can make a living as an artist.

As a commercial artist? Or as a paints-with-oils-type artist? Because I know a lot of graphic artists and designers, but I wouldn't call them "arteests."

billythrilly7th
08-01-2006, 12:59 AM
"I want to thank anyone who spends part of their day creating. I donít care if itís a book, a film, a painting, a dance, a piece of theater, a piece of music. Anybody who spends part of their day sharing their experience with us. I think the world would be unlivable without art.Ē
Steven Soderbergh Oscar Speech

Celia Cyanide
08-01-2006, 01:43 AM
Could the world work without art?

This world could work without just about any profession, apart from the medical field, the food industry, and the clothing industry. That doesn't mean we don't "need" other things, and that those aren't worthwhile.

badducky
08-01-2006, 04:20 AM
I waned to make a living doing what I love, too. Unfortunately, society doesn't need any more tuba players. I've since taken up fiction.

William Haskins
08-01-2006, 04:24 AM
art has been eclipsed by human progress.

poetinahat
08-01-2006, 04:33 AM
Eclipsed, but not quite strangled.

The good news is that art is no longer the exclusive province of the rich. Maybe piss crucifixes are part of the price we pay for having art become accessible to everyone.

Sure, maybe there were fewer crap books in Shakespeare's day when fewer people could actually read. And we don't build many Versailles palaces or St Basil's Cathedrals anymore, but people don't have to starve to see them built.

We're ahead overall, and we still have the right to practice discernment.

William Haskins
08-01-2006, 04:35 AM
yeah i didn't say strangled.

i disagree that art has historically been the province of the rich. the rich have always had more and better of everything relative to the poor, but art has existed for thousands of years across the social spectrum.

Zisel
08-01-2006, 05:06 AM
Well, there’s also the question of whether society could be considered to “function” right now even with art.

I don’t think anyone’s mentioned yet that art gives many people a sense of control in a seemingly chaotic world. It gives us a chance to try to make something “perfect,” even if we often tend to be dissatisfied with the results. Some people do this with science or sports, too, of course. For instance, I write short stories based on different social problems I run into. I don’t ever really intend to try to get the stories published; I write them as a way to examine the problems and try to understand them. They’re my way of “controlling” these problems.

What most people call “art” seems to have come out of necessary items. People needed baskets and blankets. They didn’t need them with colors or designs, but the blanket and basket makers were proud of their work (or maybe just bored) and wanted to make them as “perfect” as possible. I mean, I know a shoemaker who could rhapsodize about shoes for hours. Music often accompanied deity worship, military action, and work like harvesting crops (don't know how it started in, say, Africa, though). Storytelling was a way of passing along knowledge of history and cultural values…and keeping people busy. The whole l’art pour l’art thing is relatively new to humanity, no? So, I'm agreeing with William that art has not always been just for the rich. Poor people told stories and made music.

Anyway, those are my quarter-baked thoughts.

Edit: Humans would lose their humanity without art and these birds (http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2004/6/20045915.shtml) would lose their birdity.

Z

William Haskins
08-01-2006, 05:21 AM
garfunkel?

SC Harrison
08-01-2006, 05:21 AM
i disagree that art has historically been the province of the rich. the rich have always had more and better of everything relative to the poor, but art has existed for thousands of years across the social spectrum.

I would even go a step farther and say that, while the rich may be avid collectors of art, the vision that inspired the art often originates in poverty, leading me to wonder if the rich have a subconscious longing for the simplicity of such a life.

C.bronco
08-01-2006, 05:26 AM
As a commercial artist? Or as a paints-with-oils-type artist? Because I know a lot of graphic artists and designers, but I wouldn't call them "arteests."

Oil painters can get work too. Whether you're doing something at a professor's request or at a corporation's request, it's still yours, you still breathe life into it. Check out the list of majors at RISD or Savannah College of Art & Design. There are a lot of artists out there that make more than I do in education.

Bird of Prey
08-01-2006, 06:22 AM
I disagree on everything everybody said in general.

!)Historically, most art was created as purpose driven propoganda commissioned by the rich and/or powerful. It was also a tool for record keeping and documentation. Occasionally, it was meant to appease the gods or God, but that refers back to the and/or powerful category. That changed in the nineteenth century with the advent of the camera in practical use. Changed the definition of art, too. Radically.

2)KTC, you wouldn't forget to breathe. just smile.

3)Not Garfunkel, the Marlboro man.

3)SC, the rich don't long for a simpler life. You can take it to the bank.

4)Most oil painters get work triple coating decks and garage floors.

poetinahat
08-01-2006, 06:37 AM
yeah i didn't say strangled.
I know. Didn't suggest you did - in fact, I think I'm agreeing with you there.


i disagree that art has historically been the province of the rich. the rich have always had more and better of everything relative to the poor, but art has existed for thousands of years across the social spectrum.
Okay, I retract the use of the word 'exclusive'. But the wealthy have also had the means and the leisure to pursue art for its own sake and not as a byproduct of craft.

whistlelock
08-01-2006, 07:32 AM
I disagree on everything everybody said in general.

!)Historically, most art was created as purpose driven propoganda commissioned by the rich and/or powerful. It was also a tool for record keeping and documentation. Occasionally, it was meant to appease the gods or God, but that refers back to the and/or powerful category. That changed in the nineteenth century with the advent of the camera in practical use. Changed the definition of art, too. Radically.


While this is true, in a basic sense. Commerce does depends on art. Depends on it. Art however, does not depend on commerce.

Don't think so?

Why are you driving the car you own? sure, it's one you can 'afford', but why that shape and color?

The house you live in.

The computer you own.

The websites you visit.

And the camera was part of one of many revolutions in art. Not a catalyst for a singular change. Art didn't just "suddenly" change in the 19th century. Even the most cursory study of the era's of art will show you that each change was hearlded by a cry of "that's not art!" the camera was just a part of one, out of many.

Art has always been more than a painting on a wall, or a statue in the corner.

There is no part of our lives that is not touched by art.

It may even be the closest thing to Human Nature that there is.

billythrilly7th
08-01-2006, 09:18 AM
Art has always been more than a painting on a wall, or a statue in the corner.

There is no part of our lives that is not touched by Art.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Ednorton.jpg/180px-Ednorton.jpg

I agree.

R.I.P.

poetinahat
08-01-2006, 09:35 AM
"I heartily endorse this thread."

http://www.timelife.com/assets/images/product/medium/20627-9_198.jpg

billythrilly7th
08-01-2006, 09:38 AM
"I heartily endorse this thread."

http://www.timelife.com/assets/images/product/medium/20627-9_198.jpg

http://www.kskssports.com/ksks_sports/sports_illustrated/1970s/images/si7407.jpeg

"I'll bet you that you really don't."

poetinahat
08-01-2006, 09:53 AM
Hard, but fair, that one.


But don't shoot the messenger.

http://www.gretschdrums.de/upload/artists/art_blakey.jpg

billythrilly7th
08-01-2006, 10:12 AM
http://videodetective.com/photos/060/002549_65.jpg

"I love jazz! I love it!!!"

Godfather
08-01-2006, 01:58 PM
now where has this thread gone?

Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse
08-01-2006, 02:14 PM
art has been eclipsed by human progress.

its a kind of art in itself. some say its all ballooks, that we don't progress we just change what the fetish is every now and then.
thats a kind of art, painting the canvas, changing the materials, painting lies, fictions, whatever.

whenever i pick up 'new scientist' i read an article and i think, jesus, feck me. civilisation, the earth itself, hell even space, even made up theoretical space is a canvas where people are painting a new life and new ways of life according to theories.

maybe i got out on the wrong side of the bed this morning

Bird of Prey
08-01-2006, 03:52 PM
While this is true, in a basic sense. Commerce does depends on art. Depends on it. Art however, does not depend on commerce.

Don't think so?

Why are you driving the car you own? sure, it's one you can 'afford', but why that shape and color?

The house you live in.

The computer you own.

The websites you visit.

And the camera was part of one of many revolutions in art. Not a catalyst for a singular change. Art didn't just "suddenly" change in the 19th century. Even the most cursory study of the era's of art will show you that each change was hearlded by a cry of "that's not art!" the camera was just a part of one, out of many.

Art has always been more than a painting on a wall, or a statue in the corner.

There is no part of our lives that is not touched by art.

It may even be the closest thing to Human Nature that there is.

Since we're being serious. . . .

Your argument depends on your definition of art. I keep trying to establish a definition. So, do you think that all design is art? Anything engineered: art? Is everything man-made born of art?

BTW, Wh, I find it irritating when I'm misquoted. Nor do I like it much when people deliberately mishape my statement to suit their argument. I never said art suddenly changed; I said it radically changed.There's a big difference in the two. The former suggests time; the latter suggests form. And when did I say the camera stood alone as a sole revolution in art? Of course, I wasn't that serious last night. I guess I am now. Obviously you are, so why don't you give me some examples of those heralded cries prior to the nineteenth century?

Imo, creativity is a part of the average human psyche inasmuch as it's used to problem solve. Thus, I suppose your statement re. human nature may be construed as true, but it's a stretch for me.

Shadow_Ferret
08-01-2006, 03:57 PM
Personally? I think art has always been the province of the snooty, snobbish, and elitists. I think the common man, the working man, the blue collar man, can and has gotten along just fine without "art."

A black velvet Elvis suffices just fine.

oneovu
08-01-2006, 04:34 PM
I just went through this exercise, recently. I'll try to build on that.

In spirit, I'm an "everything can be art, everything can be poetry" person, but for this thread the intent seems a little more precise, I think. I mean, if the question were, what is business? I'd probably not say, a neighbor borrowing and then returning a cup of sugar is business, the lion taking weak herd members in exchange for a meal is business, everything is business.

So, I think art is when a person, in earnest, creates somthing - perhaps with some skill, likely to be experienced by others - with the expressed intent for it to be art. This art may be bad, good, fine, revered, spit on, profitable, not profitable, nonprofit, new, time tested and as many more possible descriptives as there are probably opinions over whether or not it's art.

Business is practical. Art is not, but it's indespensible to the world as fun*, imo.

*Particulary to artists, though not exclusively

Bird of Prey
08-01-2006, 05:27 PM
I just went through this exercise, recently. I'll try to build on that.

In spirit, I'm an "everything can be art, everything can be poetry" person, but for this thread the intent seems a little more precise, I think. I mean, if the question were, what is business? I'd probably not say, a neighbor borrowing and then returning a cup of sugar is business, the lion taking weak herd members in exchange for a meal is business, everything is business.



Thank you. I think that analysis is brilliant. Really, I do. I'm chewing on the rest of your post, like a lion. . . . on a weak herd member. Hmmm. That sounds sadistic. I'll leave it.

whistlelock
08-01-2006, 08:19 PM
So art can only exist for it's own sake? It must be put on a pedistal to be viewed?


What about the doorknob on your door? The very one you use to open the door.

Why isn't that art?


An artist designed it.
Created it's shape to be pleasing to the eye.
Picked a color to make it more appealing to you.
Used the principles of design.

Followed the same steps, used the same techniques as they would to create a bust of a handsome man or beautiful woman.

but, because it's useful it's not art anymore?

Because it's not on the wall gathering dust it's not art?

so, then jewerly isn't art?

Your screenplays and novels aren't art?

Art is everywhere. I don't mean it in an Ivory Tower theoritical 'art is everywhere' way, I mean it in a hard, real and designed your charcol grill art is everywhere way.


And if you don't think so, why are you sitting in that chair? that particular chair? why not another chair?

Art is practical. Art is real. Art is useful.

Zisel
08-01-2006, 08:42 PM
[If this thread was moved, where was it moved to? Am I posting in vain?]


I think the common man, the working man, the blue collar man, can and has gotten along just fine without "art."

Iíll assume ďartĒ means art-for-artís-sake paintings of bathing ladies and such, but where does one draw the line? For instance, is music designed to help people with work considered "art" or practical craft? I would think at least some musicians did create the music with the express intent for it to be art.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending), I donít have a lot of evidence handy, but here are some examples with links to what I mean.

Dhol (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/world/onyourstreet/dholhistory.shtml)(drum): It was used in war and the later in Punjab, North India, to keep farmers going at work.

Dhol (http://www.mahiram.com/gossip/showthread.php?t=8084): The one thing that is fascinating about all these type drums is that they share the same fait [sic] of being associated to harvest [sic]. -- Johnny Kalsi - The D.H.O.L. Foundation

Kaval (http://www.parev.net/armenian-culture-instruments.shtml) (wind instrument): It is a shepard's instrument; ox-drivers and ploughmen play songs, dance tunes and instrumental pieces are played on the kaval.

Zurna (http://www.parev.net/armenian-culture-instruments.shtml)(wind instrument): It was widely used in everyday life-it accompanied grape gathering, grain grinding, cloth making, tight rope walkers' feasts, popular games, etc

Stan Hugill has written a whole book called Shanties from the Seven Seas: Shipboard Work-Songs and Songs Used as Work-Songs from the Great Days of Sail, so there must be something there.

And hereís a nice little article on music and the brain (http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n15/mente/musica.html) that explains some possible reasons people like music.

Zisel
08-01-2006, 08:49 PM
Oops, double post, sorry!

TsukiRyoko
08-01-2006, 09:40 PM
I hate it when I have to bite my tongue at comments like that. Someone who says that clearly doesn't see how much of the world is made up of art.

I suppose the world COULD function without art, but I don't think it'd function very well. The element of beauty would completely vanish, and what is the world without a dash of beauty?

There are so many forms of art that are coming into my mind right now. Not just drawing/painting/other mediums for canvas or paper, but it extends greatly. Modeling, music, photography, fashion- it goes on and on. Honestly, how great would this world be without it?

C.bronco
08-01-2006, 09:47 PM
4)Most oil painters get work triple coating decks and garage floors (http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=garage%20floors).[/quote]

I prefer latex base myself. Oil takes too long to dry and absolutely no one reads the "wet paint" signs even if you stick them at eye level. Some illustrators use oil, pen and ink, watercolor etc.

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=172094

"I shall create, if not a note a hole..."
We need things to survive beyond the obvious... human contact for one. I still posit that the need for art is an inseparable part of our beings.

Shadow_Ferret
08-01-2006, 09:55 PM
I suppose the world COULD function without art, but I don't think it'd function very well. The element of beauty would completely vanish, and what is the world without a dash of beauty?



Beauty! Ah-ha! See? The world needs beauty. Man needs beauty. But this idea of "art," well, that's an artificial construct and man doesn't need that. Not the elitist's idea of what is art.

But beauty, beauty can be anything in the eye of the beholder. Someone who hikes is surrounded by natures beauty. Someone who goes to the beach is surrounded by beauty. Someone's backyard to them can be beauty. Sitting in a recliner watching a quarterback throw a perfect game-winning touchdown pass is beauty.

Art as defined on college campuses or art museums isn't necessary. I know dozens, maybe even hundreds of people who've never been to an art museum and they survive just fine. I know hundreds of people who never watch PBS. I know people who never read. People who's idea of a movie is some chop socky flick.

Yet they all have their own idea of what beauty is, be it fishing, or hunting, or going to a monster truck rally.

That's what I mean. You can call anything you like "art" but it doesn't make it so. The $5 doorknob I bought at Home Depot isn't art, it's functional. The chair I'm sitting in isn't art, it was bought because it feels good. Esthetics were the last consideration as long as it didn't make my butt fall asleep.

C.bronco
08-01-2006, 10:01 PM
RE: Art and the common man

Um, I think I fall into that category, and one of the best poets in this area is an exterminator by day. A lot of artists are common men, and a lot of common men (as opposed to who?) relish different mediums. The need for it goes back to the time of cave paintings.

Shadow_Ferret
08-01-2006, 10:12 PM
Common man as opposed to elitists. Common man who prefers meatloaf to caviar, beer to champagne, wrestling to ballet, Willie Nelson to the Three Tenors, a deer's head to a Monet.

and to be honest, I consider an exterminator who does poetry kind of uncommon.

oneovu
08-01-2006, 10:17 PM
So art can only exist for it's own sake? It must be put on a pedistal to be viewed?


What about the doorknob on your door? The very one you use to open the door.

Why isn't that art? Dearest whistle, are you talking to me? If so, I didn't say it must be put on a pedistal to be viewed, I said it's meant to be experienced. I suppose one can experience a doorknob and if the guy creating said doorknob, in all honesty, MEANT for it to be art, then I say it's art. If the guy designing it chose to make it the way he did as one chooses paint colors or strictly to fulfill a practical need and to match Acme's door style, I'd say it isn't.

I will, however, ammend my art is not practical statement to say art is usually not practical.

Your screenplays and novels aren't art? Bite your tongue. I didn't say that, either. You better ****ing believe my screenplays are art.

If you weren't talking to me, please disregard. It's all just my opinion, anyway.

Either way, have a wonderful day. :P


I'm chewing on the rest of your post, like a lion. . . . on a weak herd member. Hmmm. That sounds sadistic. I'll leave it. *bleat*

(and thank you)

Shadow_Ferret
08-01-2006, 10:18 PM
I don't consider my novels "art." Just as I said at the beginning of this thread, that I don't consider myself at artist.

Bravo
08-01-2006, 10:19 PM
i am art.

everyone is.

that's my contribution to this thread.

good luck every1!

oneovu
08-01-2006, 10:23 PM
Yes, you are, Bravo. Yes, you are.


Shadow, I'm not telling you you must consider yourself an artist or your novels art. The definition I posted actually totally puts that decision in your hands. As long as you don't tell me I can't call my screenplays art, we're good.

Shadow_Ferret
08-01-2006, 10:35 PM
Nope. I would never presume to tell you what to call your creations. :)

I'm just in a sassy mood today.

C.bronco
08-01-2006, 10:51 PM
1Common man as opposed to elitists. Common man who prefers meatloaf to caviar, beer to champagne, wrestling to ballet, Willie Nelson to the Three Tenors, a deer's head to a Monet.

and to be honest, I consider an exterminator who does poetry kind of 2uncommon.

1. Yep, then that's me, except the part about Monet though I do have a nice 10 pointer in my attic that my husband shot. I prefer beef and chicken myself and don't hunt.
2. That's why I love Jersey, it's full of surprises

Godfather
08-02-2006, 12:00 AM
Personally? I think art has always been the province of the snooty, snobbish, and elitists. I think the common man, the working man, the blue collar man, can and has gotten along just fine without "art."

A black velvet Elvis suffices just fine.

Hmmm... I'll have to bring up Woody Guthrie here, he's the best example I can think of.

His family started off succesful, but he ended up poor. He's an artist to every degree, a painter, a writer, a poet and a musician.

laurel29
08-02-2006, 12:15 AM
Common man as opposed to elitists. Common man who prefers meatloaf to caviar, beer to champagne, wrestling to ballet, Willie Nelson to the Three Tenors, a deer's head to a Monet.

and to be honest, I consider an exterminator who does poetry kind of uncommon.
Hmmm well my husband is an exterminator who is also a very good guitarist/musician. (I won't go into his snobbish food preferences) Writing lyrics is very similar to writing poetry. Music has been put on the back burner because we have a whole mess of kids to take care of and the music business isn't something reliable. But without his guitar or his other instruments he wouldn't be happy. Music is art and it is often made by the working man. I have to think that making a generalization like that is not a good idea. It doesn't perhaps fit a stereotype that you have in your head but that doesn't mean a darn thing. People aren't stereotypes. Most people are a mixture of what you are defining as common man and elitist. By your list you're defining me as an elitist (except that I find the prospect of eating fish eggs repulsive. I don't care how they taste - but meat loaf is gross too.) and I'm as common as they come.

TsukiRyoko
08-02-2006, 12:34 AM
I believe that beauty, though it can live alone, is expressed best through art. Without art, beauty can live, but without beauty, art will die. Still, why should the two be seperated when they do best with the other?

I don't think beauty can be fully appreciated WITHOUT art. Why should it be? As you said, someone who hikes is surrounded by nature's beauty, but someone who appreciates art sees just how beautiful it really is. If we took art (not just reifned pieces of art, it can be as simple as being seen through an artist's eye) out of the equation, beauty would be doing all that hard work for nothing.


That's what I mean. You can call anything you like "art" but it doesn't make it so. The $5 doorknob I bought at Home Depot isn't art, it's functional. The chair I'm sitting in isn't art, it was bought because it feels good. Esthetics were the last consideration as long as it didn't make my butt fall asleep. The good thing about art is that you can turn those seemingly "artless" things into a masterpiece, it all depends on how you see it.

TsukiRyoko
08-02-2006, 12:56 AM
I agree with you completely.

Anyone who disagrees is horribly, horribly wrong.

whistlelock
08-02-2006, 01:49 AM
Art as defined on college campuses
I think you would be greatly shocked as to what the colleges call art.

My wife, who is pursuing her degree in Fine Art, just got back a salt and pepper shaker she made for a show. Two small pieces, the pepper shaker made from copper and the salt shaker from silver, that now sit on our table and perform the function for which they were designed. dispensing spices.

Her pieces garnered the most comments.

She won an award. Think of a "best in show" for a metals piece.

In a art show. For a salt and pepper shaker.

So, because it was designed for a practical everyday use it's not art?

They are pleasing to the eye. they have a practical use.

She designed them because she was sick of the wooden ones we bought at Target 6 years ago. While she was making them at school, her friend told her about the show.

They were shakers first, entered into a show second.





The $5 doorknob I bought at Home Depot isn't art, it's functional.

but why that doorknob against all the other doorknobs for the same price? Was it the color, was it the shape? Did that shape and color happen by accident?

They weren't sculpted? They weren't meant to be pleasing to the eye?
How is that not art? Why does practicality and function negate artistic value?

Art is far more than what gets put in a muesem; more than what gets hung on a wall. That is the smallest part of art. And it's usually art for artists.

Art is real. Art is practical. Art is functional.

Art is your curtains. Your couch. The stein you drink beer from. The mug you drink from. And if art wasn't all of these things, then all our couches would look the same. We would all use the same doorknobs. Sit in the same chairs.

Elitests, regardless of whatever portion of life they're infecting, suck. They prop themselves up by 'claiming' to know what is real and isn't. When all they really know how to do is put people down.



I suppose one can experience a doorknob and if the guy creating said doorknob, in all honesty, MEANT for it to be art, then I say it's art. If the guy designing it chose to make it the way he did as one chooses paint colors or strictly to fulfill a practical need and to match Acme's door style, I'd say it isn't.


And I say it is.

I say that the act of making a doorknob different from any other doorknob is an act of art. by saying, 'you know, I think the door would look better with a brass doorknob that has a swirly bit would make it look better' you are making an artistic choice.

And when I pick the $5 doorknob that is brushed aluminum over the $5 doorknob that is polished brass, I just engaged in an artistic choice.

Everyday that I use it, I will experience a door that I like. That I think looks good. And is functional. And is practical.

We are surrounded by art. We are emersed in it. We engage in it every day. Every time that someone has said, 'you know it'll look better if we do THIS to it.' they have engaged in art.

Being useful does not negate artistic merit.

pconsidine
08-02-2006, 02:23 AM
I tend to agree with Whistle here. While it does stray close to the even more dreaded Art vs. Craft debate, the fact is that some degree of artistic sensiblity informs everything around us. In that context, Art is the appreciation of the visual (or audible or tactile) impact of a human artifact. That's what leads doorknobs to be the variety of forms they are - the pratical aspect can be filled in so many different ways that all that differentiates one from another is the artistic sensiblity of the person who designed it.

I think there are two ways to look at Art - first, through its impact on its creator; and second, through its impact on the audience. Writers like Kafka are artists concerned with the first definition of art above - they create for personal expression and gain satisfaction from the mere act of doing it. Their work is for themselves alone. I often say that everyone should be a painter, but not everyone should get a solo show. I believe that everyone can benefit from Art of the first sort. The act of creation is spiritually uplifting and enlightening, if one can simply be pleased with the act and not seek outside validation.

The second sort is where we begin to encounter more challenges to the experience. It becomes defined by forces outside the artist. Success becomes defined by how well the intent of the artist and the perceptions of the audience align. If the audience "gets it," then it's a successful artwork. If not, then someone is at fault.

I've been grappling with this question for 30 years and this kind of non-answer is still the only truthful one I've ever found to the question of "what is art". It's best to make sure you're defining the question in the same arena before you argue over whether something is or isn't art.

pconsidine
08-02-2006, 02:27 AM
Totally forgot to answer the original question -

As far as whether the world can function without art, I don't believe it can, though I can't tell you how it would be different. I think Art is necessary aspect of human evolution akin to laughter. It serves no explicit survival value in the same way that strength or stealth do, but it exists. I think it's a necessary step in learning how to deal with our overly evolved cerebral cortexes.

But there's no way to know what the world would be like without it. It's here and regardless what kind of value judgements we put on it, it will continue.

It must.

whistlelock
08-02-2006, 02:37 AM
I tend to agree with Whistle here. And yet I remain rep pointless for the whole thread.

C.bronco
08-02-2006, 03:02 AM
When are you people going to realize that when you disagree with me, you are wrong? Boy. I'm getting tired of this.

Art is necessary. Art is life. Art is the window to self. Art is the reason we don't jump off of mountains and plunge to the rocky shores. Art is the antidote to suicide.

I have spoken. (Do not DARE disagree with me.)

And, Haskins, yes...Art Garfunkel is essential too. I can't help it. It's that voice. (And that hair!)

Can't agree more. An artist is student of the human experience. "Common Man" poets, by the way: add on Bukowski please, Charles that is. And I like ole Art.

Zisel
08-02-2006, 06:31 AM
Music.

Fudge, I put up something about music and the "common people" and it disappeared if it even made it up at all. Anyway, my point was that especially with music it's hard to draw a line between functional craft and "pure art". I cited the use of the dhol (drum) and I think the davul (drum), too, in war to prepare troops for battle and frighten the enemy and in music used while harvesting crops. Also had something about shepherds' use of the kaval (wind instrument) and the zurna (wind instrument) being used for "grape gathering, grain grinding, cloth making," along with something about sailors' use of songs for their work. I imagine there was similar music in Africa, East Asia, etc. I just don't have any examples.



Art is the reason we don't jump off of mountains and plunge to the rocky shores.

Yeah, pretty much.

billythrilly7th
08-02-2006, 06:51 AM
I just wish Art would concentrate more on the exporting and less on the importing.

oneovu
08-02-2006, 07:18 AM
And yet I remain rep pointless for the whole thread. I'm not. :D

(it was from whistle, 'cuz he's swell)

Def 1.
art is when a person, in earnest, creates somthing - perhaps with some skill, likely to be experienced by others - with the expressed intent for it to be art. This art may be bad, good, fine, revered, spit on, profitable, not profitable, nonprofit, new, time tested and as many more possible descriptives as there are probably opinions over whether or not it's art.I’m really trying to define it in a boiled down way. One wouldn’t say I’m going to an art show, get in the car, and drive to Lowe’s to see their new line of doorknobs, you know? Which also isn’t to say if you can’t have a show for it, it isn’t art. You know what I mean. A craft in and of itself – in this more specific definition - is not readily considered art and to say so is neither elitist or snobby. You will not find doorknobs under Art in the yellow pages.

(the doorknob artist from the other post and your wife’s S&P shakers, notwithstanding. There’re always exceptions, eh?)

Def 2. In the broad sense, I totally agree, whistle. Art, and artistry, as a state of mind can find art in anything and any venture. It’s a wonderful place to see things from and it’s as valid as def one. They’re separable, but equal, I believe. We'll call it def 1B or 1A or the other 1.

Def 3. Subjective. I knew it would come to this. It always does, lol. This should actually be definition #1.

Shadow_Ferret
08-02-2006, 04:15 PM
Sheesh. Yes, you can have doorknobs that are art. You can spend hundreds of dollars for some sculpted crystal masterpiece. Salt and pepper shakes can be art, as someone earlier mentioned.

But if I go to the hardware store and pick out a mass-produced, machined stamped doorknob, that isn't art.

Neither are the salt and pepper shakers I pick up at Target to replace the other chincy ones I just broke.

I may choose one doorknob over another because I prefer brass to steel, but that isn't an artistic choice. I'm not debating the relative merits of the medium. It's mere asthetic preference. Maybe some of you don't want to accept that. But art does not permeate my everyday life as you seem to think it does.

Granted we could be talking semantics here. But to me "art" is something above and beyond the ordinary. It's special and it speaks to the soul.

My doorknob doesn't speak to my soul. It doesn't spark something deep within me and make me go, "Ah, that's beautiful." maybe it does to whistle, but it certainly doesn't to me.

I guess I do put art on a pedestal. And I certainly don't think that artists are the everyday man. Everyday men can become artists, but dabbling in poetry doesn't make one an artist. And social status doesn't make or break an artist.

I play guitar but that doesn't make me a musician. I write poetry but that doesn't make me a poet.

And if it seems my argument has changed it's because I'm in a different mood today. I cheat like that. :)

poetinahat
08-02-2006, 04:27 PM
I play guitar but that doesn't make me a musician. I write poetry but that doesn't make me a poet.

"I got feet but I'm not a feature"

dadgum soul/soldier song... just ONE more time, I tell ya...

Shadow_Ferret
08-02-2006, 04:57 PM
I've got patience but that doesn't make me a doctor.

pconsidine
08-02-2006, 05:53 PM
I play guitar but that doesn't make me a musician. This kind of demands that one ask, "What would?"

This is an especially interesting concept to me because for many years, I've said the same thing. I've been a "guitar player" for over 25 years, but I would still never claim to be a musician. And I recently figured out why.

Because I'm only ever aware of what I don't know. I find myself thinking that a "real musician" would know the natural resolution for an augmented D9 chord, or would be able to tell you what 6 notes would be proper to play after a particular blues run.

Basically, it's poor self-image. I couldn't possibly be an artist because Art is so far above me. Art couldn't be everywhere, otherwise it wouldn't be so far above me. It's something that I could never attain, so I'll just continue to be a guitar player and a hack writer and an amateur poet.

I'm working on it though.

Shadow_Ferret
08-02-2006, 06:07 PM
It's not self-image in my case, it's that I just noodle on the guitar. If I was a musician I'd have that drive, that underlying spark, and I'd be driven to learn the guitar, to express myself with it. I'd practice religiously everyday. I'd feel the burn.

laurel29
08-02-2006, 06:23 PM
In this case I'm agreeing with the ferret. (I love ferrets by the way :) ) There is a big difference between me messing around with a piano and my husband playing his guitar. There is something about it that I will most likely not ever get. I think it has to do with the passion maybe? He can't just listen to a song, he picks it apart like I see people here pick apart a piece of writing. It is funny all the stuff he can tell by listening to something, I can't even remember all the names...The one thing I remember is he loves to tell me is that so and so is playing a Gretsch or a Martin (the man loves his Gretsch for electric and his Martin for acoustic) all the technical crap flies over my head. He has an illness that they actually refer to as G.A.S. - (guitar acquisition syndrome - makes me laugh) but I guess I wouldn't really call him a musician, even with all that, if he couldn't play. I used him as an example because (not just by my assessment) he is an exterminator who really could play at a professional level.

pconsidine
08-02-2006, 07:32 PM
This reminds me of a thread where someone asked "how do you know you're a writer?" My response there was, "If you have to ask, you aren't one."

I would paraphrase myself with respect to the current topic. If you have to ask whether something is art, it's not - to you.

Shadow_Ferret
08-02-2006, 08:00 PM
This reminds me of a thread where someone asked "how do you know you're a writer?" My response there was, "If you have to ask, you aren't one."

I would paraphrase myself with respect to the current topic. If you have to ask whether something is art, it's not - to you.

If you had posted that first thing in this thread, we wouldn't have had to go through all this! :tongue

pconsidine
08-02-2006, 08:38 PM
Art is not efficient.

:)

C.bronco
08-03-2006, 02:17 AM
This reminds me of a thread where someone asked "how do you know you're a writer?" My response there was, "If you have to ask, you aren't one."

I would paraphrase myself with respect to the current topic. If you have to ask whether something is art, it's not - to you.

because you write words for fun, love or sanity

kdnxdr
08-04-2006, 05:03 AM
A - all
R - responses
T - told

Art seems to be a personal taking in of information on several different levels, rearranging that information and then reexpressing that information from that one, unique perspective such that others take in that expression, reinterpret that information and once again express that information from yet another unique perspective.....a celebration of continuity through individuality

I liken the idea to a stone tumbling through a river of time, endlessly being ground to it's essence