Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Are there NO artistic facts

Lynx_N
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2017 9:29:06 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
Fact of the matter is that I like Monet's artworks more than I like Michelangelo's.
Bronto?
Congrats.

poet
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 7,663
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2017 10:19:10 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 1/8/2017 7:33:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I think the concepts of 'art' and 'fact' are incompatible. Am I right or am I right?

It depends on what you mean. "Art" is such a broad term. Let us say that, if it is a fact that Metallica is one of the original metal bands, is it the fact that Metallica is one of the original metal bands compatible with art (art being music in this instance)? What if I have a perference for pastel over watercolor? Is it not a fact that I have that prefrence? Or do you mean that the interpretation of an art piece is contigent on how a person views it, and is so subjective?
2016 was the greatest year in living memory, perhaps surpassed only by 1933. -thett

Remember: diversity = strength -thett

You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding... -Vaarka

Vaarka swung his sword at the mod. However, since I am now incorporeal, he ends up accidentally striking the entire American landmass (It's a REALLY bastard sword), destroying both continents. Spiders are now at 50% of capacity.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2017 1:14:16 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 1/8/2017 7:33:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I think the concepts of 'art' and 'fact' are incompatible. Am I right or am I right?

And what type of credentials do you offer, to make such a claim?
University courses, employment, advanced hobbies, close relationship with artists?
What knowledge do you have about Art, or would you say it is not possible to have any knowledge about Art?
Perhaps you have linguistics background, with superior knowledge of the term 'fact'?
GrimlyF
Posts: 283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2017 4:22:06 AM
Posted: 5 days ago
It has come to my attention,over the years that" Art" is codswallop to the common man. To listen to a "critic" pontificating over brush strokes,form,sublime imagery and deepest meaning makes me barf.
I've been in hundreds of museums and can count on 1 hand the paintings that have stopped me in my tracks. Also on 1 hand the statuary and tapestries.
Oddly, 1 of the most beautiful pieces of Art I have seen in 5 decades, I saw on TV. 5 women sat around a bed and together made a quilt that was spectacular in its colouring and design.
I've seen Emins grubby tent and filthy underwear, Perrys childish figures and Pollocks tantrums with a tin of paint and next to that quilt they are worthless.
The only fact in art now is how much to sell it for. The next "big thing" to gush and swoon over.
See the happy moron: he doesn't give a damn:I wish I were a moron:My God! perhaps I am!. Anonymous.
I was being economical with the truth. Sir. R. Armstrong. 1986.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2017 2:13:34 PM
Posted: 4 days ago
At 1/13/2017 4:22:06 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
It has come to my attention,over the years that" Art" is codswallop to the common man. To listen to a "critic" pontificating over brush strokes,form,sublime imagery and deepest meaning makes me barf.
I've been in hundreds of museums and can count on 1 hand the paintings that have stopped me in my tracks. Also on 1 hand the statuary and tapestries.
Oddly, 1 of the most beautiful pieces of Art I have seen in 5 decades, I saw on TV. 5 women sat around a bed and together made a quilt that was spectacular in its colouring and design.
I've seen Emins grubby tent and filthy underwear, Perrys childish figures and Pollocks tantrums with a tin of paint and next to that quilt they are worthless.
The only fact in art now is how much to sell it for. The next "big thing" to gush and swoon over.

Art is a human endeavor.
The human mind can experience art in nature.
With no human mind, there is no art.
There are certain things, rules we might say, facts we might say, that rather universally affect minds in certain ways.
For example, there are rules of two dimensional art concerning where the horizon line should or should not be. These are not arbitrary rules, but are based on the effect the horizon line has on the mind.
Similarly rules for subject placement, rules for color combinations, and so on.

The artist uses these universals to affect the human mind, sometimes very effectively, sometimes rather dismally.
These universals have to do with composition, colour, texture, not only visually, but through all of the senses.

It can be said that some works of art are better than others, virtually undeniably.
It can be said that some artists are better than others, virtually undeniably.
These are some facts of art.
The qualities that distinguish the better from the lessor are facts of art.

We should not be confused by the nebulous nature of art, the confusion it can cause in the mind.
At times this is unintentional, due to a lessor artist.
At time it is intentional, due to a better artist.

If an artist's creation stirs your emotions, you have experienced art.
It may cause one person to cry, and another to laugh.

We all know what art is when we see it, we just disagree on the particulars.
GrimlyF
Posts: 283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2017 8:06:13 AM
Posted: 3 days ago
At 1/13/2017 2:13:34 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/13/2017 4:22:06 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
It has come to my attention,over the years that" Art" is codswallop to the common man. To listen to a "critic" pontificating over brush strokes,form,sublime imagery and deepest meaning makes me barf.
I've been in hundreds of museums and can count on 1 hand the paintings that have stopped me in my tracks. Also on 1 hand the statuary and tapestries.
Oddly, 1 of the most beautiful pieces of Art I have seen in 5 decades, I saw on TV. 5 women sat around a bed and together made a quilt that was spectacular in its colouring and design.
I've seen Emins grubby tent and filthy underwear, Perrys childish figures and Pollocks tantrums with a tin of paint and next to that quilt they are worthless.
The only fact in art now is how much to sell it for. The next "big thing" to gush and swoon over.

Art is a human endeavor.
The human mind can experience art in nature.
With no human mind, there is no art.
There are certain things, rules we might say, facts we might say, that rather universally affect minds in certain ways.
For example, there are rules of two dimensional art concerning where the horizon line should or should not be. These are not arbitrary rules, but are based on the effect the horizon line has on the mind.
Similarly rules for subject placement, rules for color combinations, and so on.

The artist uses these universals to affect the human mind, sometimes very effectively, sometimes rather dismally.
These universals have to do with composition, colour, texture, not only visually, but through all of the senses.

It can be said that some works of art are better than others, virtually undeniably.
It can be said that some artists are better than others, virtually undeniably.
These are some facts of art.
The qualities that distinguish the better from the lesser are facts of art.

We should not be confused by the nebulous nature of art, the confusion it can cause in the mind.
At times this is unintentional, due to a lesser artist.
At time it is intentional, due to a better artist.

If an artist's creation stirs your emotions, you have experienced art.
It may cause one person to cry, and another to laugh.

We all know what art is when we see it, we just disagree on the particulars.

Why does Art need rules? Surely rules restrict the freedom to express a thought, an emotion, an impulse to create in ways not yet seen. Horizon lines, subject placement and colour have no rules. Have you seen any of Dalis work that obeys these " rules "?

What would Da Vinci make of Picassos Guernica? Botticeli of Hirsts flayed sheep?
Would they applaud or scoff?
See the happy moron: he doesn't give a damn:I wish I were a moron:My God! perhaps I am!. Anonymous.
I was being economical with the truth. Sir. R. Armstrong. 1986.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2017 12:28:17 PM
Posted: 2 days ago
At 1/15/2017 8:06:13 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 1/13/2017 2:13:34 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/13/2017 4:22:06 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
It has come to my attention,over the years that" Art" is codswallop to the common man. To listen to a "critic" pontificating over brush strokes,form,sublime imagery and deepest meaning makes me barf.
I've been in hundreds of museums and can count on 1 hand the paintings that have stopped me in my tracks. Also on 1 hand the statuary and tapestries.
Oddly, 1 of the most beautiful pieces of Art I have seen in 5 decades, I saw on TV. 5 women sat around a bed and together made a quilt that was spectacular in its colouring and design.
I've seen Emins grubby tent and filthy underwear, Perrys childish figures and Pollocks tantrums with a tin of paint and next to that quilt they are worthless.
The only fact in art now is how much to sell it for. The next "big thing" to gush and swoon over.

Art is a human endeavor.
The human mind can experience art in nature.
With no human mind, there is no art.
There are certain things, rules we might say, facts we might say, that rather universally affect minds in certain ways.
For example, there are rules of two dimensional art concerning where the horizon line should or should not be. These are not arbitrary rules, but are based on the effect the horizon line has on the mind.
Similarly rules for subject placement, rules for color combinations, and so on.

The artist uses these universals to affect the human mind, sometimes very effectively, sometimes rather dismally.
These universals have to do with composition, colour, texture, not only visually, but through all of the senses.

It can be said that some works of art are better than others, virtually undeniably.
It can be said that some artists are better than others, virtually undeniably.
These are some facts of art.
The qualities that distinguish the better from the lesser are facts of art.

We should not be confused by the nebulous nature of art, the confusion it can cause in the mind.
At times this is unintentional, due to a lesser artist.
At time it is intentional, due to a better artist.

If an artist's creation stirs your emotions, you have experienced art.
It may cause one person to cry, and another to laugh.

We all know what art is when we see it, we just disagree on the particulars.

Why does Art need rules? Surely rules restrict the freedom to express a thought, an emotion, an impulse to create in ways not yet seen. Horizon lines, subject placement and colour have no rules. Have you seen any of Dalis work that obeys these " rules "?

What would Da Vinci make of Picassos Guernica? Botticeli of Hirsts flayed sheep?
Would they applaud or scoff?

As they say, rules were made to be broken.
The better artists know when, the lessor do not.
Dali is is one the the more successful members of the Surrealistic school of art.
The very fact that he is so well known, demonstrates that among surrealistic artists, he was better than most.

As an amateur photographer I entered a contest judged by professional photographers.
I placed the subject dead center, which violates one of these rules I mentioned. That, together with lighting, a super wide angle lens, perfect blue sky, and reflective water in the foreground, gave a surrealistic effect, I had hoped. It took first place.
I found out that one of the judges commented that my photograph was not good because of the subject placement. The other judges thought that there was a time to break this rule, and I had done it successfully.
Some art is risky and controversial.
It is that way with things that affect the emotions.

Not everyone appreciates a Warhol soup can.

Not all great artists appreciate the work of other great artists, I believe that is safe to say.
I do not see that as an argument against the existence of facts of art.
Great art is often a product of life experiences.
Da Vinci may be puzzled when first confronted by Guernica. It is emotionally upsetting, which of course was intended. In Da Vinci's time art was not used as social commentary.

Da Vinci was know for his designs of flying machines. What would he say if confronted with an F-16 and claims it could fly over 1000 miles per hour? Would he scoff, or nod his head in approval? A good question.
I do not see this as an argument against the genius of Da Vinci, or the facts of supersonic flight.

There are other special facts, called 'scientific facts'.
Some of the greatest scientific facts came to be known because someone doubted earlier scientific facts. Scientific facts come and go, historically speaking. Artistic facts last longer.
Some art is over 30,000 years old.

Critical thinkers question established facts, push the boundaries, and this is a good thing, some of us would say.
GrimlyF
Posts: 283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2017 1:37:41 AM
Posted: 2 days ago
At 1/15/2017 12:28:17 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/15/2017 8:06:13 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
At 1/13/2017 2:13:34 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 1/13/2017 4:22:06 AM, GrimlyF wrote:
It has come to my attention,over the years that" Art" is codswallop to the common man. To listen to a "critic" pontificating over brush strokes,form,sublime imagery and deepest meaning makes me barf.
I've been in hundreds of museums and can count on 1 hand the paintings that have stopped me in my tracks. Also on 1 hand the statuary and tapestries.
Oddly, 1 of the most beautiful pieces of Art I have seen in 5 decades, I saw on TV. 5 women sat around a bed and together made a quilt that was spectacular in its colouring and design.
I've seen Emins grubby tent and filthy underwear, Perrys childish figures and Pollocks tantrums with a tin of paint and next to that quilt they are worthless.
The only fact in art now is how much to sell it for. The next "big thing" to gush and swoon over.

Art is a human endeavor.
The human mind can experience art in nature.
With no human mind, there is no art.
There are certain things, rules we might say, facts we might say, that rather universally affect minds in certain ways.
For example, there are rules of two dimensional art concerning where the horizon line should or should not be. These are not arbitrary rules, but are based on the effect the horizon line has on the mind.
Similarly rules for subject placement, rules for color combinations, and so on.

The artist uses these universals to affect the human mind, sometimes very effectively, sometimes rather dismally.
These universals have to do with composition, colour, texture, not only visually, but through all of the senses.

It can be said that some works of art are better than others, virtually undeniably.
It can be said that some artists are better than others, virtually undeniably.
These are some facts of art.
The qualities that distinguish the better from the lesser are facts of art.

We should not be confused by the nebulous nature of art, the confusion it can cause in the mind.
At times this is unintentional, due to a lesser artist.
At time it is intentional, due to a better artist.

If an artist's creation stirs your emotions, you have experienced art.
It may cause one person to cry, and another to laugh.

We all know what art is when we see it, we just disagree on the particulars.

Why does Art need rules? Surely rules restrict the freedom to express a thought, an emotion, an impulse to create in ways not yet seen. Horizon lines, subject placement and colour have no rules. Have you seen any of Dalis work that obeys these " rules "?

What would Da Vinci make of Picassos Guernica? Botticeli of Hirsts flayed sheep?
Would they applaud or scoff?

As they say, rules were made to be broken.
The better artists know when, the lessor do not.
Dali is is one the the more successful members of the Surrealistic school of art.
The very fact that he is so well known, demonstrates that among surrealistic artists, he was better than most.

As an amateur photographer I entered a contest judged by professional photographers.
I placed the subject dead center, which violates one of these rules I mentioned. That, together with lighting, a super wide angle lens, perfect blue sky, and reflective water in the foreground, gave a surrealistic effect, I had hoped. It took first place.
I found out that one of the judges commented that my photograph was not good because of the subject placement. The other judges thought that there was a time to break this rule, and I had done it successfully.
Some art is risky and controversial.
It is that way with things that affect the emotions.

Not everyone appreciates a Warhol soup can.

Not all great artists appreciate the work of other great artists, I believe that is safe to say.
I do not see that as an argument against the existence of facts of art.
Great art is often a product of life experiences.
Da Vinci may be puzzled when first confronted by Guernica. It is emotionally upsetting, which of course was intended. In Da Vinci's time art was not used as social commentary.

Da Vinci was know for his designs of flying machines. What would he say if confronted with an F-16 and claims it could fly over 1000 miles per hour? Would he scoff, or nod his head in approval? A good question.
I do not see this as an argument against the genius of Da Vinci, or the facts of supersonic flight.


There are other special facts, called 'scientific facts'.
Some of the greatest scientific facts came to be known because someone doubted earlier scientific facts. Scientific facts come and go, historically speaking. Artistic facts last longer.
Some art is over 30,000 years old.

Critical thinkers question established facts, push the boundaries, and this is a good thing, some of us would say.

If you won't write properly I won't read your replies.
I don't care about photography, jet planes or scientific facts. This thread is about Art.

Dali was not better than most he was a better self-publicist than the others. If you look at the surrealists that preceded him you'll see their ideas in his work. You will also see how much he copied their work.

I note you don't actually mention artists of any kind that are famous for following your rules. Perhaps a few names from you might help this thread.
See the happy moron: he doesn't give a damn:I wish I were a moron:My God! perhaps I am!. Anonymous.
I was being economical with the truth. Sir. R. Armstrong. 1986.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2017 3:38:47 AM
Posted: 2 days ago
"I note you don't actually mention artists of any kind that are famous for following your rules. Perhaps a few names from you might help this thread."

Famous for following the rules?
Is that a joke?
They follow the rules, often instinctively, without realizing it, and become famous because their art is good.

How about Da Vinci. His work "followed the rules".
How about any traditional painter.

"Just as the Golden Section is found in the design and beauty of nature, it can also be used to achieve beauty, balance and harmony in art and design. It"s a tool, not a rule, for composition, but learning how to use it can be a great Art 101 lesson on laying out a painting on a canvas.

For those with a deeper understanding yet, the golden ratio can be used in more elegant ways to create aesthetics and visual harmony in any branch of the design arts. As you"ll find in the examples below, it has been used by some of the greatest artists the world has known.

Oddly enough, you may also find critics who say that the golden ratio cannot be found in art at all. Such statements often come from Ph.D.s in mathematics who hold a very theoretical viewpoint that nothing in the real world can be a golden ratio. Why? Simply because it has an infinite number of digits. (See a review/rebuttal on art and architecture and design.) Pi does too, so this way of thinking says there are no circles in the real world either. For the rest of us, practical applications of mathematical concepts are a simple and necessary everyday occurrence in the arts, engineering and applied sciences.
The Golden Section was used extensively by Leonardo Da Vinci. Note how all the key dimensions of the room, the table and ornamental shields in Da Vinci"s "The Last Supper" were based on the Golden Ratio, which was known in the Renaissance period as The Divine Proportion."
https://www.goldennumber.net...

Notice that this source says a "tool", not a "rule", meaning it can be disregarded, under the right circumstances.

Here is a source that does refer to the tools/rules as rules:
http://www.drawinghowtodraw.com...

"Some artists are proportioning their works to approximate the Golden ratio. Special form of the golden ratio is golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratio. It has been said that the Golden Rectangle is the most visually satisfying of all geometric forms. The strange thing is that we don"t know why human eye likes it.

The rule of thirds is a powerful compositional technique for making photos more interesting and dynamic. It's also perhaps one of the most well known. This article uses examples to demonstrate why the rule works, when it's ok to break the rule, and how to make the most of it to improve your photography."
GrimlyF
Posts: 283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2017 12:54:33 AM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 1/16/2017 3:38:47 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
"I note you don't actually mention artists of any kind that are famous for following your rules. Perhaps a few names from you might help this thread."

Famous for following the rules?
Is that a joke?
They follow the rules, often instinctively, without realizing it, and become famous because their art is good.

How about Da Vinci. His work "followed the rules".
How about any traditional painter.



"Just as the Golden Section is found in the design and beauty of nature, it can also be used to achieve beauty, balance and harmony in art and design. It"s a tool, not a rule, for composition, but learning how to use it can be a great Art 101 lesson on laying out a painting on a canvas.

For those with a deeper understanding yet, the golden ratio can be used in more elegant ways to create aesthetics and visual harmony in any branch of the design arts. As you"ll find in the examples below, it has been used by some of the greatest artists the world has known.

Oddly enough, you may also find critics who say that the golden ratio cannot be found in art at all. Such statements often come from Ph.D.s in mathematics who hold a very theoretical viewpoint that nothing in the real world can be a golden ratio. Why? Simply because it has an infinite number of digits. (See a review/rebuttal on art and architecture and design.) Pi does too, so this way of thinking says there are no circles in the real world either. For the rest of us, practical applications of mathematical concepts are a simple and necessary everyday occurrence in the arts, engineering and applied sciences.
The Golden Section was used extensively by Leonardo Da Vinci. Note how all the key dimensions of the room, the table and ornamental shields in Da Vinci"s "The Last Supper" were based on the Golden Ratio, which was known in the Renaissance period as The Divine Proportion."
https://www.goldennumber.net...

Notice that this source says a "tool", not a "rule", meaning it can be disregarded, under the right circumstances.

Here is a source that does refer to the tools/rules as rules:
http://www.drawinghowtodraw.com...

"Some artists are proportioning their works to approximate the Golden ratio. Special form of the golden ratio is golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratio. It has been said that the Golden Rectangle is the most visually satisfying of all geometric forms. The strange thing is that we don"t know why human eye likes it.

The rule of thirds is a powerful compositional technique for making photos more interesting and dynamic. It's also perhaps one of the most well known. This article uses examples to demonstrate why the rule works, when it's ok to break the rule, and how to make the most of it to improve your photography."

Why put up a website and then quote it at tedious length? " Golden Rectangle "?. I find nothing visually stimulating in a shoe box.
When the " performance artist " Petr Pavlensky nailed his scrotum to the ground in the Red Square in Moscow did he use the rule of thirds ( more likely the rule of twos )?

Again no art and no artists just conjecture. You are too boring for me to engage more.
See the happy moron: he doesn't give a damn:I wish I were a moron:My God! perhaps I am!. Anonymous.
I was being economical with the truth. Sir. R. Armstrong. 1986.