Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Art

Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 11:49:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why do we have it? Is it simply a byproduct of sentience, consciousness, or intellect? Is it a language? Is it a necessary facility? What do you think we'd be like without it?

Let's talk. :)
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 12:36:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 11:49:03 AM, Ren wrote:
Why do we have it? Is it simply a byproduct of sentience, consciousness, or intellect? Is it a language? Is it a necessary facility? What do you think we'd be like without it?

Let's talk. :)

Art is basically letting our consciousness run wild. Especially in abstract art, it's an exercise for our imagination, the most dominant portions of our personality come to fore while trying to decipher a meaningless plot.

I don't think we could be without it, we are wired in a way that we wish to show off our 'feelings and stuff'. We reproduce what we see, and that is another way of showing what we wish to transmit in a creative way.

It is a language since it transmit ideas. Is it necessary? That is somewhat a difficult question. I don't think it is. It is just wildly convenient.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 4:56:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 11:49:03 AM, Ren wrote:
Why do we have it? Is it simply a byproduct of sentience, consciousness, or intellect? Is it a language? Is it a necessary facility? What do you think we'd be like without it?

Let's talk. :)

Define art.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2011 6:29:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 4:56:51 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/5/2011 11:49:03 AM, Ren wrote:
Why do we have it? Is it simply a byproduct of sentience, consciousness, or intellect? Is it a language? Is it a necessary facility? What do you think we'd be like without it?

Let's talk. :)

Define art.

art1    [ahrt] Show IPA
noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2.
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3.
a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4.
the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5.
any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 8:28:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sorry, this wasn't meant to be a semantic conversation, but rather, a philosophical one.

I mean, we can argue ad infinitum about the meaning and fundamental essence of every concept man entertains. "What is language? What is being? What is selfness?"

This isn't about any of that. Solipsism, Objectivism, and Agnosticism aside, do you believe it's even a necessary faculty? Is it something that man was meant to have, or is it something that we simply have? You know, like the first response, which I initially missed and will approach now. :P
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2011 8:45:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 12:36:56 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/5/2011 11:49:03 AM, Ren wrote:
Why do we have it? Is it simply a byproduct of sentience, consciousness, or intellect? Is it a language? Is it a necessary facility? What do you think we'd be like without it?

Let's talk. :)

Art is basically letting our consciousness run wild. Especially in abstract art, it's an exercise for our imagination, the most dominant portions of our personality come to fore while trying to decipher a meaningless plot.

So, essentially, you have a theory similar to some for dreams -- it's a means for us to sort our minds. We reproduce the things we learn or experience and the concepts we use to define them, so that we can have something tangible to review and decipher. Alternately, our mind engages this process subconsciously and it manifests in the form of performing or expressing some sort of art.

The major difference, though, that I think draws a very strong distinction--and perhaps, evidences a kink in your theory--is that dreams are invariably a single-person activity. The person generating them is both a performer and a spectator, so to speak. In fact, offhand, I can't think of any other scenario that exists in which one can be both the performer and spectator--can you? Perhaps, an out-of-body experience, but that's probably just a dream, too.

Art, on the other hand, is an expression--something we literally do for other people, and that some of us can't even bear to review ourselves. I know there are some periods during which I find it hard to review my own work. There are others that I'll seem obsessed.

Are you an artist? How does that play into your opinions?

I don't think we could be without it, we are wired in a way that we wish to show off our 'feelings and stuff'. We reproduce what we see, and that is another way of showing what we wish to transmit in a creative way.

Well, I don't know the proportions offhand, but I'm pretty sure a fairly substantial proportion of people are affected with communication idiosyncrasies, making them unable to engage some, if not all forms of communication, whereas they're physically capable. A good many of us aren't creative, either. So, the inclination to produce art couldn't be an inherent human characteristic, but I suppose it could be genetic.

In fact, I'd say that it's pretty likely that it's genetic to some extent.

It is a language since it transmit ideas. Is it necessary? That is somewhat a difficult question. I don't think it is. It is just wildly convenient.

You believe that art is convenient???

Some schools of thought, and I can't help but agree, consider art literally the expression or production of something in a way that literally foregoes the most efficient means. For example, the best way to reproduce a tangible image is to print it. However, that isn't considered art. The first impulse of most when you ask them why is "anyone can do that." What significance does this have to art? Does that mean it's exclusive? A culture in itself? It'd say definitely that. Does it mean that not everyone is allowed in this culture? That it's a separatist culture? To an extent, although it's based on something actual, and it doesn't pervade other aspects of life unless you let it. It's definitely elitist, if nothing else.

On the other hand, painting is painstaking. It truly is. As is any form of visual print art -- pencil/graphite/chalk/conte, relief, etch, all of them -- they're not easy. Line drawing is easy. Photorealism and translatable but unique abstract art is not.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 3:34:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 11:49:03 AM, Ren wrote:
Why do we have it? Is it simply a byproduct of sentience, consciousness, or intellect? Is it a language? Is it a necessary facility? What do you think we'd be like without it?

Let's talk. :)

Art is intellectual sustenance. Not really necessary for life, but adds great meaning to it. Without it, we'd be like animals/machines who just go about doing stuff because that's all they know to do.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
MrCarroll
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 7:22:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Art would be the expressing of a certain point of view in a creative fashion. Art in order to be effective needs purpose. It is quite necessary because it is one of the most widely used ways of spreading ideas.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 2:35:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/6/2011 8:45:12 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/5/2011 12:36:56 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/5/2011 11:49:03 AM, Ren wrote:
Why do we have it? Is it simply a byproduct of sentience, consciousness, or intellect? Is it a language? Is it a necessary facility? What do you think we'd be like without it?

Let's talk. :)

Art is basically letting our consciousness run wild. Especially in abstract art, it's an exercise for our imagination, the most dominant portions of our personality come to fore while trying to decipher a meaningless plot.

So, essentially, you have a theory similar to some for dreams -- it's a means for us to sort our minds. We reproduce the things we learn or experience and the concepts we use to define them, so that we can have something tangible to review and decipher. Alternately, our mind engages this process subconsciously and it manifests in the form of performing or expressing some sort of art.

The major difference, though, that I think draws a very strong distinction--and perhaps, evidences a kink in your theory--is that dreams are invariably a single-person activity. The person generating them is both a performer and a spectator, so to speak. In fact, offhand, I can't think of any other scenario that exists in which one can be both the performer and spectator--can you? Perhaps, an out-of-body experience, but that's probably just a dream, too.

That is an interesting parallel.

Art, on the other hand, is an expression--something we literally do for other people, and that some of us can't even bear to review ourselves. I know there are some periods during which I find it hard to review my own work. There are others that I'll seem obsessed.

Yes, most of the art is for people to understand, but then we do wish to speak to 'us' with a lot of our pieces. Of course I can't speak for everyone, but I personally know a few who resolve their mental conflict by depicting their struggle on paper, a way for them to speak to themselves.

Are you an artist? How does that play into your opinions?

I am not an artist. I definitely do not look to emote while painting, merely some compliments by copying some fine piece of art. Then again, that too is pretty symbolic, I like attention. Art is my medium. But I do like to decipher abstract art.

I don't think we could be without it, we are wired in a way that we wish to show off our 'feelings and stuff'. We reproduce what we see, and that is another way of showing what we wish to transmit in a creative way.

Well, I don't know the proportions offhand, but I'm pretty sure a fairly substantial proportion of people are affected with communication idiosyncrasies, making them unable to engage some, if not all forms of communication, whereas they're physically capable. A good many of us aren't creative, either. So, the inclination to produce art couldn't be an inherent human characteristic, but I suppose it could be genetic.

In fact, I'd say that it's pretty likely that it's genetic to some extent.

Yes, I think you misunderstood my statement. I meant that some of us would always be willing to depict our emotions through art, so the society as a whole won`t be without art at any given time. Deciphering art is an art in itself.

It is a language since it transmit ideas. Is it necessary? That is somewhat a difficult question. I don't think it is. It is just wildly convenient.

You believe that art is convenient???

Some schools of thought, and I can't help but agree, consider art literally the expression or production of something in a way that literally foregoes the most efficient means. For example, the best way to reproduce a tangible image is to print it. However, that isn't considered art. The first impulse of most when you ask them why is "anyone can do that." What significance does this have to art? Does that mean it's exclusive? A culture in itself? It'd say definitely that. Does it mean that not everyone is allowed in this culture? That it's a separatist culture? To an extent, although it's based on something actual, and it doesn't pervade other aspects of life unless you let it. It's definitely elitist, if nothing else.

On the other hand, painting is painstaking. It truly is. As is any form of visual print art -- pencil/graphite/chalk/conte, relief, etch, all of them -- they're not easy. Line drawing is easy. Photorealism and translatable but unique abstract art is not.

I guess this asks for a slight differentiation. Is the process of producing art convenient? No, but the process of transmitting your emotions is. And art as a medium to transmit emotions is convenient for people who love that. The process isn't easy, but the method of showing one's emotions is. And for people who have a creative streak, it is a convenient way to express themselves.

But then it isn't something exclusive to art. Every profession is a sort of elitist.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2011 12:49:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/5/2011 4:56:51 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 12/5/2011 11:49:03 AM, Ren wrote:
Why do we have it? Is it simply a byproduct of sentience, consciousness, or intellect? Is it a language? Is it a necessary facility? What do you think we'd be like without it?

Let's talk. :)

Define art.

Art is a man with no arms and no legs nailed to a wall.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 1:04:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Art is a necessary outlet for one's mental disorder and confusion. It is a product of both our intellect and perception.
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
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 9:21:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 1:04:16 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Art is a necessary outlet for one's mental disorder and confusion. It is a product of both our intellect and perception.

Product of intellect and perception, but an outlet for disorder and confusion?

Are you saying that it's like byproduct emission from processing and interacting with the natural world?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 2:26:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Art is attempting to make sense of things we don't understand through communication that isn't readily understandable. Art is the monkeying around with symbols and other forms of idolatry.
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
12/14/2011 2:32:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Art is a subjective and personal thing on the whole. Even with broad cultural understanding.
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
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 6:23:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 2:26:57 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Art is attempting to make sense of things we don't understand through communication that isn't readily understandable.

See, I'm not so sure about this. Generally speaking, we can delineate sensible explanations to most art, meaning that it's translatable. There are incomprehensible manifestations of every general thing.

But, that said, you believe that art is a form of pedagogy? Introspection?

It seems to me like you're referring to a very limited interpretation of art. Could you give me some examples?

Art is the monkeying around with symbols and other forms of idolatry.

Idolatry? Hehe. Why do you refer to symbols as idolatry? What other forms of idolatry?

Like, rather than communication, couldn't you say that art is instead, stimulation? Of course, one could construe stimulation as a form of communication as well... in so many ways, you should treat a woman in conversation the same as you should treat her in bed. Indeed, interspersing conversation and stimulation in varying proportions is one of the main chemical reactions that result in the release of passion.

Alright, alright, the point is that, perhaps the qualifier for art to be such is that it elicits its particular brand of stimulation? I just thought of that, and I like it. It makes sense. Art that doesn't stimulate is failed art. Art that stimulates is a success. We watch Tv to be stimulated. We come to this website to be stimulated, by the words so often artfully woven together, or perhaps, a banal presentation of words used to communicate an exquisite thought.

A touch is just a touch until it becomes something more, and the distinguishing factor for that is stimulation as well.

I like it. I like it.