|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:18 pm |
  |
|
Art is art. It has no definition, but you know it when you experience it.
_________________
 |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:34 am |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Talbain wrote: |
| Art is art. It has no definition, but you know it when you experience it. |
Then answer me this, if a man finds a sunise to be beautiful and a painting of a sunrise beatiful, which one does he call art?
If you're answer isn't both, then there must be a definition of art. |
You could have both. You could have one, or the other. You could have neither.
The "definition" of art is self-defined. The reason for this is because the term is too vague to be accurately described. It's like saying you love somebody; love could be "I want to be with you" but it could also be "don't leave me or I'm going to kill you."
High art is a different matter however, because now we are establishing context (that the art has more associational meaning than just what an individual gives to it); and by doing so, we have to look at the art and judge its characteristics.
Thus, it would be accurate to say that any game could be art, but few, if any, could be considered high art. The characteristics of high art are numerous, but their particulars are somewhat general. If you want a list, I can give you some general ones.
First, the art must have some sort of social value; that is to say, it must affect a wide group of people in a provocative way. This can change, will change, and in fact, must change, to adjust to taste and time (this does not mean that the art must be popular). However, this does not mean that the past is not to be learned from and used as an example for the future, just that art must be progressive in its time.
Secondly, art must illuminate something that is not obvious. To be more specific, art must show, both through text, context, subtext, allegory, metaphors, and a variety of other fun literary terms that the art is trying to show us something about the self or the society, for good or ill.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it must be accessible to many people. Art has no value to society if no one other than the creator experiences it.
This would be my general outline for what high art must "be." Anything that fits into these outlines could then be "considered" to be high art. That still does not make it high art (time tends to play a factor in determining whether it is high art with a relative amount of certainty), but it makes the art considerable for such status.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:09 am |
|
|
| Predator Goose wrote: |
| Talbain, what I was going for was that if something has constraints, then it must be definable even if only in broad terms. I attempted to point that out by saying that nature is not art, and that we reserve that term for man made creations. But even if we accept nature as art, I still believe there is a constraint that it must be viewed by man, or more generally, an intellect. And since it has a constraint, it must be definable. |
If nature is not art, then what does that make man, who is of nature?
Just because something has a constraint does not make it definable. Granted, things that are constrained are definable, but the question is to what extent? The reality is that the extent, in some cases, is infinite. An excellent example might be something more mathematical, such as pi. It has a constraint, but it cannot be defined in a strict sense. Thus the extent that art exists, is the infinite ability of, as you say, an intellect to perceive it. One might argue then the definition of intellect; but that's unrelated to this argument.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:56 am |
|
|
I'm curious, but is a sticking point for my definition that if man were to be art, he might be likened to God?
_________________
Last edited by Talbain on Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:03 am |
|
|
Somehow I feel this argument of what art "is" has been done before. Probably by better minds than any of us as well, though I'm sure the results were similar, which is to say, disparities on the concept, as well as the application.
Defining art really does seem much like defining love to me. There are parameters, sure, but what they are? Damned if I know.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Talbain
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:48 am |
|
|
| JamesE wrote: |
| Focus wrote: |
| Focus wrote: |
Hey guys I made a doodie.
 |
|
|
This is going to be epic.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
