AuthorTopic: Official Off-Topic Thread  (Read 705959 times)

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1940 on: March 26, 2011, 04:15:18 pm
Would you guys agree that "a celebration of the imagination" is a good simple definition of art?

Depends what you're trying to achieve with the definition, but no, I don't think it comes close to a definition of art. But then short definitions are difficult.

Offline Cure

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 566
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2621.htm
    • facebook.com/logantannerart
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1941 on: March 26, 2011, 05:20:32 pm
"What is art?" is not unlike the question: "What is beauty?", books have been written about it and the discussion, I'm sure, will continue long after we're dead.

A question I've pondered lately:
Is art primarily commmunication, or personal expression? Can it be one and not the other? Is it necessary to have one, both- or neither?

e.g. Pollock's art seems to be pure expression, more about the act of creation, the dance, than the art-object resulting from the act of creation. In this way it seems like one of the few instances where visual art approaches the purity of music, and one can imagine Pollock in the same sort of trance-state Jimi Hendrix appears to slip into when he's knee-deep in a jam session.

On the other hand, there's the communicative function, who absolutely requires the art-object, and which the majority of the plastic arts seem to give a strong emphasis. The extreme I suppose would be something like the didactic Christian art of the Medieval period, back when the artist was more craftsman than prophet. But I've also wondered if all plastic art doesn't inherently communicate something simply by virtue of existing (so the artist should be aware that the act of perception will force his art to communicate to a viewer regardless, and thus should be mindful of what his art will say).

Maybe it's all about the function you want your art to fill. Art seems an umbrella term for a thousand different things anyway, so maybe it's a matter of semantics.

Offline .TakaM

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • Fetch Quest

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1942 on: March 26, 2011, 05:27:50 pm
I was hoping to think of a simple definition that could be applied to any medium in at least some way.
It's not very original to get hung up on the definition of art, but it really is something to think about. I guess I am hoping for a simple broad definition too, I think there's a way to summarize the potential of any given artform.
I don't know if I agree with intellect and emotion being a real factor (at least to be used in an attempt at a broad definition) because they can be received in an entirely different way. I think imagination plays the largest role on the receivers end, because I would be happier just engaging someones imagination rather than a specific feeling or thought.
Life without knowledge is death in disguise

Offline Dusty

  • 0100
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1943 on: March 26, 2011, 05:39:32 pm
Art is creativity manifested? I dunno, you're gonna have a hell of a time simplifying such a complex subject.

Offline Helm

  • Moderator
  • 0110
  • *
  • Posts: 5159
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Asides-Bsides

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1944 on: March 26, 2011, 05:59:12 pm
If it's 'something to think about', anything's fine as long as your brain is stimulated. But if you're searching for a communicative definition to further an argument, then a definition becomes more and more useful 1) the narrower the scope of examination is and 2) the more detailed the definition becomes. So 'what is art' is one thing, but 'what social status art and the artist enjoyed in the sixteenth century England' is quite another. That's how people move from discussing abstracts idly while drinking with their friends and looking at the stars, to writing theses or books on aesthetics and philosophy.

Offline 32

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 540
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • @AngusDoolan
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/19827.htm
    • angusdoolanart
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1945 on: March 26, 2011, 06:19:25 pm
"a celebration for the imagination" may be a better definition if you are trying to define it from the viewers perspective, while I can see the term imagination covering the result of viewing art the term doesn't fit perfectly, I don't think celebration fits well, engage is better. I don't know how useful such a broad definition is, I'm sure most people understand the concept of art on that level intuitively.

When I say intellect and emotion I mean the abilities(toolkit?) we use to communicate through art(mental abilities, not drawing skill etc.), not necessarily a specific thought or feeling. I'm sure that makes no sense but if I could describe it better I would have.

Edit: another thing is that engaging the imagination is not something unique to art and so I don't think definition can work without describing intent in some way.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2011, 06:28:53 pm by 32 »

Offline TomF

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1946 on: March 27, 2011, 01:25:53 pm
I can't remember where I read it but "the rhythmic expression of feeling" is about as good as a short definition can get.

Offline trough

  • 0001
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1947 on: March 27, 2011, 04:55:11 pm
It's easier to define music. Music is arranged sound.

But art can be lots of things. I heard art was anything that served no purpose besides "being art." But by that definition, game art is not art.

Offline Cure

  • 0011
  • **
  • Posts: 566
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • http://pixeljoint.com/p/2621.htm
    • facebook.com/logantannerart
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1948 on: March 27, 2011, 06:27:55 pm
that (art for art's sake) is just one philosophy of art, and is a reasonably recent idea.

Offline Froli

  • 0010
  • *
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Dragon Highlord
    • View Profile

Re: Official Off-Topic Thread

Reply #1949 on: March 29, 2011, 05:42:33 am
Has anyone seen this? Card saga wars
Crono vs soma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rnBRTEEfBw
Master Chief VS Samus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDjeO1wCJmo

The artist seems familiar from pixeljoint.