Sep 012010
How did art begin? What is necessary to call something art?
How did art begin? What is necessary to call something art?
| © 2012 Artists Blog | Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha |
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Life is art
Plato was long before the modern idea of art. As he is presented he has been made into a part of this modern idea.
this is laughable what about plato
Nowadays the measure is: if it’s an absolute piece of shit that no right-thinking person would consider has any remedial value whatsoever, it’s invariably “art”
@bahramf Oh, you slipped Schopenhauer in there.
You don’t define what artist is in the modern sense. There are hundreds of different definition and you’ve chosen the dumbest one, which by your own admission, does not count davinci as an artist.
You skipped Schopenhauer, and all the ancients somehow. You’re just completely clueless about art, aren’t you?
@pluskvam That’s not true at all. No artist or art-world I know of even knows he wrote the Critique of judgment and they’re better off for their ignorance. His idea of a special sphere of human experience from which art is (not enjoyed) but contemplated, whoected fromlly disconnected from anything of any matter to life or the world is a burden aesthetics philosophers have been shaking off since Kant.
Also, he was quite mad when he wrote the Critique of Judgment.
Dear variable2102. We are all free to speculate about what art can or should be, but to make any sense a speculation must be confirmed by the artworld or at least describe how this world is acting.
We try understanding each other, so we communicate with each other. Again, we’re all individuals, so we have different pereceptions of reality, so we must communicate in order to co-exist, which is why art is the most important part of our lives.
…Though this is all an opinion; I just wanted to try explaining what I think art is, but I wanna know what you all think.
The above mention ways of articulating (speech, hands motions, ect.) constitute as mediums, like paper or film or music or whatever. For instance, I’ll write down what I’m thinking onto a piece of paper, so you can understand what I’m thinking. That paper is what I’m transposing my thoughts onto, thus it’s a medium; a medium is ANYTHING I can express my thoughts through.
We’re all individuals, of course, and our individual thoughts are trapped in our heads, so we use art to transpose those thoughts to the minds of others (to say I’m happy to you, a reaction of the mind, I’ll simply communicate/articulate to you that I’m happy, so you’ll know it; I’ll be smiling and my tone will be what you’d expect from somebody who’s happy).
(Part one of many comments)
Think of it like this: Art is the shortened version of articulation, which means communicating. Art is the communicating of ideas. This text your reading is art, if I were speaking to you directly, that’d be art, my body motions are arts, because all of these things convey a meaning/idea. My tone of voice communicates how I’m feeling; so does my way of walking and how I alter my physical appearance. Art is all around us, all of the time. We’re all artists.
@cpmc1 You can believe that art is this or that or emotions. The only thing that we can be sure of is that what the artworld call art is obviously art. If you want to have a more detailed view you can check what the art critics write.
I believe that art is empathy. Art gives an insight into the mind of the artist and is defined by the beholder. Its precise form cannot be defined, but as a whole it is something that is intentional work by someone to show, express, or share an emotion or emotions.
Bahramf. Kant had a very limited interest in art. He just needed it to fulfull his philosophy art/aesthetics for a connection between his two critiques. But the artworld was and is still extremely interested in and depending on Kant.
Are you joking? Kant has very little to do with art.
Ofcourse this is amazing, but it is very difficult to read the text when the backround is the same as the text, don`t you think?
There were of course “artists” long before Kant but not in our sense. Not until Kant & is followers ART was constructed as a field independant of technique but also forming a group of ART techniques. Reynolds did not write about ART but about painting like Poussin e g. When ART was constructed it was given an identity of a certain (spiritual) aesthetics.
If you are looking for ART before this, how could you recognize it?
This was an interesting video & I loved the hedgehog but I’m not sure about the history. Joshua Reynolds’ “Discourses” doesn’t talk about art that way & neither did Leonardo. Certainly artists made work past the “Kant Deadline” without having ever heard of Kant–is that deadline their only validation? I think the error here is that you are taking aesthetics (and therefore philosophy and science) as a dictation of reality, rather than as an explanation. What are your thoughts on this?
You might enjoy my channel.