Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Art without meaning?

laleona89
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 7:12:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
should art be considered art if it has no meaning?
I think it should have a meaning to be art even though sometimes the meaning depends on the viewer, which can change. If art didn't have a meaning I could just say my room is art or the pavement is art, or even a blank wall is art, so I think art should always have a meaning, although it may change depending on the person.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 7:57:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 7:12:28 PM, laleona89 wrote:
should art be considered art if it has no meaning?
I think it should have a meaning to be art even though sometimes the meaning depends on the viewer, which can change. If art didn't have a meaning I could just say my room is art or the pavement is art, or even a blank wall is art, so I think art should always have a meaning, although it may change depending on the person.

Meaningless art can still be considered art by those who are not looking for meaning. An art form may be highly skilful, beautiful and effect the emotions in a positive manner without presenting a ‘meaning'. But for me, meaningful art is the best because that's what I'm looking for. And although ugly art can have meaning, its also not what I am looking for, therefore I have no liking for ugly art. It is difficult however for me to separate Beauty from Truth, as I think they are the same thing.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:17:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 7:12:28 PM, laleona89 wrote:
should art be considered art if it has no meaning?
I think it should have a meaning to be art even though sometimes the meaning depends on the viewer, which can change. If art didn't have a meaning I could just say my room is art or the pavement is art, or even a blank wall is art, so I think art should always have a meaning, although it may change depending on the person.

My own room is an art for me, because it soothes me. Your room would be an art for me because it would tell a story, reveal different portions of you. Everything is art, if you are in the mood to decipher from it. Or else, even Mona Lisa would be 'just a canvas'.

It depends on you, really.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:27:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sometimes "meaningless" art expresses its own meaning.

There is no such thing as meaningless art. Even the most abstract piece conveys a meaning.. Even if the original artist didn't intend to convey a meaning.

Art expresses itself. When you try to interpret it, often times you cheapen it. Some of the best pieces of art have been rejected by the masses and by critics because they didn't "understand it".

You begin to appreciate art more when you realize how absurd it is.

Here is a rather spiffy piece by Edgar Varese, a composer of the modern period. It is rather abstract, and some would say that it doesn't have meaning, but it sounds fuggin cool. Isn't that what matters?

Music starts about 26 seconds in.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
BangBang-Coconut
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 10:08:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 7:12:28 PM, laleona89 wrote:
should art be considered art if it has no meaning?
I think it should have a meaning to be art even though sometimes the meaning depends on the viewer, which can change. If art didn't have a meaning I could just say my room is art or the pavement is art, or even a blank wall is art, so I think art should always have a meaning, although it may change depending on the person.

I had a very interesting conversation very similar to this subject last Friday. I had a conversation on what makes some-one a good artist; is it technique, passion, or content.

I mean for instance, fan art; would you consider a picture of mega-man art had it not been drawn by konami? Or what if the point of the expression comes during the creation instead of the off product? I know I do that a lot, the art won't have any direct meaning via the end result, but the process of making the art means the world to me.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 10:10:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 12:27:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is no such thing as meaningless art. Even the most abstract piece conveys a meaning.. Even if the original artist didn't intend to convey a meaning.

this. although i can't say i really appreciate "art" that the artist didn't intend to mean anything or that he/she intended to be weird for the sake of being weird. strikes me as a waste of time/effort and attention whoring on the part of the artist. but thats just me.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2011 5:42:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/9/2011 10:10:16 PM, belle wrote:
At 4/3/2011 12:27:47 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is no such thing as meaningless art. Even the most abstract piece conveys a meaning.. Even if the original artist didn't intend to convey a meaning.

this. although i can't say i really appreciate "art" that the artist didn't intend to mean anything or that he/she intended to be weird for the sake of being weird. strikes me as a waste of time/effort and attention whoring on the part of the artist. but thats just me.

I of all people know how hard it is to incorporate flushing toilets and children toy sounds into music without seeming pretentious. No one has ever called me pretentious, but I can see how I might look pretentious to someone who doesn't understand that most everything I do is intended to be humorous to some extent. To be pretentious, I'd say that you have to be more serious than humorous.

Some people(namely me) just like the sound of that stuff, and are kind enough to share it with other people who might like the sound of it.

To be honest, a lot of people who make art, music in particular, make their art with the soul intent of making it appeal to a particular group.

Most of what people consider to be "art" is little more than copying and pasting from a proven formula that guarantees that a work will appeal to a group of people who actually hate art. The "art" that most people think of is actually the ability to replicate something convincingly, but different enough to where it looks distinct. As soon as something goes waaay outside that norm, it is met with hostility by most people.

Sometimes trying to find meaning in a good piece of art will lead you to be analytical to the point of retardation. As long as you can step back and realize that it's just speculation, and in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter, because this piece of art looks/sounds/smells b!tchin, you cool.

Art is meant to be porn for your senses. Most people don't care if art has meaning, they just want to be fooled into thinking it has meaning. This is reflected in the evolution of music in particular. While before, you at the very least you had an unreasonably sexy cable guy come in to hook up an unreasonably sexy woman's cable, which somehow led to fvcking.. Now it is just straight up porking. Screw the plot, no one really wants that anyway, they are really watching for the boning, and if they say they are watching for the plot, they are full of sh!t. I bet you also read playboy for the articles too. amirite?

Art's meaning is to sexilate your senses. Any claim of another meaning is pretentious. Art is a terribly inefficient means to get a point across.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2011 5:45:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, just about everything is art.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
neoanarchy
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2011 2:25:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 7:12:28 PM, laleona89 wrote:
should art be considered art if it has no meaning?
I think it should have a meaning to be art even though sometimes the meaning depends on the viewer, which can change. If art didn't have a meaning I could just say my room is art or the pavement is art, or even a blank wall is art, so I think art should always have a meaning, although it may change depending on the person.

Andy Warhol better take his soup cans elsewhere then?

Art isn't about meaning. It's about perspective. Something that looks perfectly ordinary to you can look quite different to somebody else. The only reason people have preconceived ideas about art is because there's occasionally a bit of money involved. Don't fall for it. It's a big trick. Anything can be art. Enjoy it!
Chibibbi
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2012 3:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagree on that any art could be meaningless. I do believe even the most simple purpose is still a meaningful one, since it has some kind of value, depending on who the one looking at it is, as you said. In this case, I assume a purpose automatically has a meaning.

Um...hehe. Well, at least I do not believe you can accept the premise that art is meaningless for everybody (which I interpreted OP meant), because it's a subjective matter. Everybody do not think alike, which I presume is an opinion we all share. Saying "art is meaningless", is therefore wrong.

I guess you should answer the questions "What is art?" and "What is a meaning?" (and probably some other question(s) I've forgot) before you could try to set any value at all on the subject, but I'm not gonna go there.
parul
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:22:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagree, Art is an expression of human creativity & at times imagination, Meaningless art even so if we may call it has a meaning attached to somewhere , as we say "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" . Meaning lies in the mind of the interpreter. Maybe the creator might not be able to decipher meaning out of his creation but that doesn't still make it at all "meaningless".
Jessalyn
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2012 8:05:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just because art wasn't created with meaning doesn't mean it has none. Everyone finds their own meaning in art, so really there is no art without meaning of some sort.

Theoretically, though, no. Art is expression, art is meaning. Beauty comes FROM the expression and meaning, therefore art is not art if you subtract its meaning.

Still, though, everything is art. Everything has the potential to be viewed as so, so in some form...It is.
WARNING: Hitchslaps may become inflamed when accompanied by unceasing stupidity.
leighlooza
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 2:56:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2011 7:12:28 PM, laleona89 wrote:
should art be considered art if it has no meaning?
I think it should have a meaning to be art even though sometimes the meaning depends on the viewer, which can change.

^^^
But can you really define "meaning" in the sense of art? What IS meaning to an artist? I love to paint, and my satisfaction comes from the process: being extremely inspired by something, having a vision of how something could look on a canvas, and then executing my vision onto the canvas with paint. If people like it, then that's great, and I like the appreciation of my work. But the attention is not the reason I create it. I do it because I f'ing love the smell of an art studio, shopping for art supplies, learning new techniques, and for some reason my brain and hands just enjoy working together to implement those techniques. It's weird!

So if you enjoy the process of slapping paint of a canvas aimlessly with NO MEANING (cough! Pollock) then that's fine. It is still art- because you enjoyed doing it! And if people like it and will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for your colorful splatter paintings, then you better come up with a "meaning" for your work so that people will continue to fork over the cash for it. An emotional meaning makes a painting more valuable to the viewer. And a meaningless one is boring. Hey, I learned something today, too. You never know how much art could be meaningless. The artist had fun creating it and didn't know what they were creating, they just liked the flow of the paintbrush. And no one is making you pay for art. Its your choice, so don't hate!

Kurt Cobain even said he was surprised at how many people wanted to know the "meaning" of his songs/lyrics so he found himself making up reasons as to why he wrote stuff. We can't just enjoy creating cool stuff and have people pay us for it without question :) They'll always want to know why.
RedneckR0nin
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:06:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2011 7:12:28 PM, laleona89 wrote:
should art be considered art if it has no meaning?
I think it should have a meaning to be art even though sometimes the meaning depends on the viewer, which can change. If art didn't have a meaning I could just say my room is art or the pavement is art, or even a blank wall is art, so I think art should always have a meaning, although it may change depending on the person.

No such thing as art without meaning. William Burroughs said" If you want a true reflection of society and the current state of humanity...is conveyed by the worlds artists far before the worlds politicians"
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 7:05:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:06:46 PM, RedneckR0nin wrote:
At 4/2/2011 7:12:28 PM, laleona89 wrote:
should art be considered art if it has no meaning?
I think it should have a meaning to be art even though sometimes the meaning depends on the viewer, which can change. If art didn't have a meaning I could just say my room is art or the pavement is art, or even a blank wall is art, so I think art should always have a meaning, although it may change depending on the person.

No such thing as art without meaning. William Burroughs said" If you want a true reflection of society and the current state of humanity...is conveyed by the worlds artists far before the worlds politicians"

I think all art has a meaning. Especially modern art. It means "I'm borderline unemployed with crushing art school debt and I can't hold a real job" so yes all art has a meaning.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2013 11:00:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think things without meaning are art. The thing is that is completely subjective.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush