SpheresOfBalance wrote:Sorry walker, but I have to primarily agree with HC, as much as it pains me to do so.
What art is best, is dependent upon what someone likes the most. It's subjective!
But, an art piece is an object and the method in which it was created might be extremely difficult and time consuming, such that only someone that is familiar with the process can sense the beauty of it's objective reality, which surely can factor into their subjective opinion as to it's worth.
Never apologize for your limitations, or for what you are.
I never apologize for my current limitations or what I currently am, as I am indeed aqueous, as at least I can fathom, sorry walker, that intelligent people learn until they die, realizing they are an artwork in progress, where they are both the sculptor and the stone at the same time. Where one starts and finish's to sculpt is arbitrary, saying absolutely nothing of the artists abilities. Still my value is subjective, dependent solely upon what it is that one is capable of sensing within my work. Unfortunate for them, it's true that many turn a deaf ear and a blind eye.
At the prices original name-art commands, there’s a whole lotta consensus in subjectivity. Does a consensus of subjectivity amount to objective truth? Of course not. The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be, as Hobbes knows. Fidelity to the inherent qualities of the medium is how Michaelangelo knew to remove all that was not the form envisioned in marble. Artists such as Duchamp were reactionary though he did possess technical skill. In other words, their work would have much less meaning unless connected with what preceded it, in art and culture. Realists in any medium require minimal audience participation. Naturalists exaggerate realism in any medium. Realism can also be romanticized, and there is market for that in the velveteen Elvis crowd where the viewer fills in the missing realism. A lot of modern art was academic reaction, distortions upon distortions upon distortions of realism. Meaning required context for appreciation, though early reactions to variations on realism had inherent quality without education, e.g., the experience of Cezanne’s use of advancing colors in the background, and receding colors in the foreground.
Oops, got it wrong. Maybe because the original words were spoken by a monster character.
Walker wrote:
Never apologize for your limitations, or for what you are.
I never apologize for my current limitations or what I currently am, as I am indeed aqueous, as at least I can fathom, sorry walker, that intelligent people learn until they die, realizing they are an artwork in progress, where they are both the sculptor and the stone at the same time. Where one starts and finish's to sculpt is arbitrary, saying absolutely nothing of the artists abilities. Still my value is subjective, dependent solely upon what it is that one is capable of sensing within my work. Unfortunate for them, it's true that many turn a deaf ear and a blind eye.
At the prices original name-art commands, there’s a whole lotta consensus in subjectivity. Does a consensus of subjectivity amount to objective truth? Of course not. The object d’art has objective qualities that are true to the principles of whatever the medium may be, as Hobbes knows. Fidelity to the inherent qualities of the medium is how Michaelangelo knew to remove all that was not the form envisioned in marble. Artists such as Duchamp were reactionary though he did possess technical skill. In other words, their work would have much less meaning unless connected with what preceded it, in art and culture. Realists in any medium require minimal audience participation. Naturalists exaggerate realism in any medium. Realism can also be romanticized, and there is market for that in the velveteen Elvis crowd where the viewer fills in the missing realism. A lot of modern art was academic reaction, distortions upon distortions upon distortions of realism. Meaning required context for appreciation, though early reactions to variations on realism had inherent quality without education, e.g., the experience of Cezanne’s use of advancing colors in the background, and receding colors in the foreground.
Oops, got it wrong. Maybe because the original words were spoken by a monster character.
Walker wrote:How arrogant. It’s not all about you. I presented a philosophy question.
Fuck you, you called me a monster, take your hits boy! Your protection fear racket, (character armor) is showing, while mine is too, so what you gonna do? Hey, it was you that initially brought it up, while you exuded that which you knew so well, go figure.
I don't believe you ever can be civil with me. You started off on the wrong foot and still here we are! I'm only ever your reflection! Sure I'm sensitive, I cry for the entire world, Atlas has nothing on me!
Walker wrote:How arrogant. It’s not all about you. I presented a philosophy question.
Fuck you, you called me a monster, take your hits boy! Your protection fear racket, (character armor) is showing, while mine is too, so what you gonna do? Hey, it was you that initially brought it up, while you exuded that which you knew so well, go figure.
I don't believe you ever can be civil with me. You started off on the wrong foot and still here we are! I'm only ever your reflection! Sure I'm sensitive, I cry for the entire world, Atlas has nothing on me!
Good grief. I have no reason to call you a monster. In fact from my impression, you’re anything but that.
However, the character from the clip is a monster. And, the actor is an artist.
Thus the philosophical question.
Get over yourself, get the chip off your shoulder. Ignorance is clouding your perception.
This is why you must maintain good intent. If not your mind will devour itself.
Walker wrote:How arrogant. It’s not all about you. I presented a philosophy question.
Fuck you, you called me a monster, take your hits boy! Your protection fear racket, (character armor) is showing, while mine is too, so what you gonna do? Hey, it was you that initially brought it up, while you exuded that which you knew so well, go figure.
I don't believe you ever can be civil with me. You started off on the wrong foot and still here we are! I'm only ever your reflection! Sure I'm sensitive, I cry for the entire world, Atlas has nothing on me!
Good grief. I have no reason to call you a monster. In fact from my impression, you’re anything but that.
However, the character from the clip is a monster. And, the actor is an artist.
Thus the philosophical question.
Get over yourself, get the chip off your shoulder.
Ignorance is clouding your perception.
This is incorrect though, it's that both ignorance combined with knowledge can sometimes cloud our perception.
This is why you must maintain good intent.
If not your mind will devour itself. It's true what you say, humans sometimes do that to themselves. If you knew of my history, you'd understand my guardedness! While it's true that I try and love everyone, I trust no one! One has to be prepared for the back stabbers, the main threat. As in my case, I'm no one to toy with, face to face.
You've already shown that you believe yourself clever. That your link contained a monster as well as this dialog of yours: "Oops, got it wrong. Maybe because the original words were spoken by a monster character," evidence of how clever you believe yourself to be? You were saying that I originally spoke as a monster, fess up, don't be such a coward.
The function, wages, and social status of artists changes with the cultural values of time and place. Better ask "What is an artist in present day New York?" or "What was an artist among the middle classes in eightteenth century rural England?"
Sorry if this is a zombie thread. I just joined the forum.
An artist is a spiteful person who hates repeating the same results again and over, and thus, creates something, which is not wholly original, but just enough to present itself as being above mindless consumption. A great example of this is the popularly disputed "sandwich artist." He or she gets paid for making sandwiches, but not for making sandwiches well, in which lies the art. Anyone is an artist if they put in the effort and observation. But no, it doesn't mean simply doing the craft well; it means doing it well in spite of. All artists create in spite of.
an artist finds unique relationships hidden in nature or solely in the imagination. Relationships that inspire. Or perhap the artist wants to capture a feeling that moves one. I love impressionism. Maybe the artist wants to create the feeling. To invoke the soul. To emphasize awareness of a beautiful moment. An artist makes you enthused with life and wanting to live.
When i visited monticello it was art to be there. Like hallowed ground full of design and curiousity. I literally felt independence and wonder. That a single idea can breathe life.
osgart wrote:an artist finds unique relationships hidden in nature or solely in the imagination. Relationships that inspire. Or perhap the artist wants to capture a feeling that moves one. I love impressionism. Maybe the artist wants to create the feeling. To invoke the soul. To emphasize awareness of a beautiful moment. An artist makes you enthused with life and wanting to live.
When i visited monticello it was art to be there. Like hallowed ground full of design and curiousity. I literally felt independence and wonder. That a single idea can breathe life.
That’s better for the world.
Art gets created so passions don’t burn down the world,
Even though time makes things quaint.
If you're feeling contempt
Well then you tell it
If you're tired of the silent night
Jesus well then you yell it
Condemned to wires and hammers
Strike every chord that you feel
That broken trees
And elephant ivories conceal
- Joni Mitchell
This verse describes the boundary between the inner world and art.
