The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Art for arts sake? Or should it have a purpose/meaning?
What do you think?
What do you think?
Damien Hirst.
Nowadays anything can be art. But I still like the visual art with a definite meaning/some underlying meaning. 'Art for arts sake' can be very annoying.
Nowadays anything can be art. But I still like the visual art with a definite meaning/some underlying meaning. 'Art for arts sake' can be very annoying.
art is anything really isn't it? anything that captures an emotion or emotions brilliantly, or demonstrates a skill of the human body at its most refined (martial arts/dance).
I don't believe however, that cutting a cow in half and sticking the bits in clear liquid, is art. I can't remember who it was who did that, but I think he should be introduced to a padded cell, not rewarded.
I don't believe however, that cutting a cow in half and sticking the bits in clear liquid, is art. I can't remember who it was who did that, but I think he should be introduced to a padded cell, not rewarded.
My Old Concept of Art (Taken from an Essay)
My opinion is that everything that is created in the Post-modern era could be considered Post-modern art, this is due to the concept of pastiche - whereby everything is an imitation of its predecessor. Also if man does not fully know himself and cannot find the true meaning of a piece of artwork then who is to say what is art and what is not? Anything can be the subject of a book, painting, installation, song, dance, film or other form of expression.
It seems to me that if anything created in the Post-modern era is Post-modern art then anyone living in the Post-modern era could be considered a Post-modern artist due to the in-definable nature of Post-modern art. Without the concept of pastiche Post-modern art would be simpler to define, however because pastiche is essentially imitating what has gone before, pastiche applies to a great deal of Post-modern creations because everything has been done before everything is a pastiche or a parody of a previous creation. It is either a serious imitation or not. But it is still an imitation.
I'll have to get back to you on my NEW Concept of Art.
My opinion is that everything that is created in the Post-modern era could be considered Post-modern art, this is due to the concept of pastiche - whereby everything is an imitation of its predecessor. Also if man does not fully know himself and cannot find the true meaning of a piece of artwork then who is to say what is art and what is not? Anything can be the subject of a book, painting, installation, song, dance, film or other form of expression.
It seems to me that if anything created in the Post-modern era is Post-modern art then anyone living in the Post-modern era could be considered a Post-modern artist due to the in-definable nature of Post-modern art. Without the concept of pastiche Post-modern art would be simpler to define, however because pastiche is essentially imitating what has gone before, pastiche applies to a great deal of Post-modern creations because everything has been done before everything is a pastiche or a parody of a previous creation. It is either a serious imitation or not. But it is still an imitation.
I'll have to get back to you on my NEW Concept of Art.
Modern art? Piffle. Anything can be said to have a deeper meaning.
Art itself is, in my opinion, a medium for displaying internal emotions in ways that others can understand. Basically converting emotive feelings to images - a format that anyone can understand. Of course, some can express it better in paint, but others can do so in music, another art form, and also literature, but imagery is the simplest form for people to express their emotions fully. A calm person will display a calm scene much better than an angered person can - just as an angry person will paint an action scene much better than someone not experiencing those emotions.
Observation art is different, though, but still the issue of emotions comes into it, though the painting of something that can be interpreted differently by others ie. different details accentuated by others.
Etc
Art itself is, in my opinion, a medium for displaying internal emotions in ways that others can understand. Basically converting emotive feelings to images - a format that anyone can understand. Of course, some can express it better in paint, but others can do so in music, another art form, and also literature, but imagery is the simplest form for people to express their emotions fully. A calm person will display a calm scene much better than an angered person can - just as an angry person will paint an action scene much better than someone not experiencing those emotions.
Observation art is different, though, but still the issue of emotions comes into it, though the painting of something that can be interpreted differently by others ie. different details accentuated by others.
Etc
I think clasical art can be a thing of beauty and have deeper meaning to it. However I think modern art, in general, is ridiculous and is not in any way 'art' at all.
Are you generalising art as 'imagery' or meaning other things such as poetry etc?
Are you generalising art as 'imagery' or meaning other things such as poetry etc?
I see art as the pursuit of originality. I believe that most artists are genuinely attempting to 'capture' the essence of something meaningful.
Now that the fact that 99% of the time they fail doesn't detract from the 1% which does capture something important and massive.
Even though the art world is over-run with pompous money-bags who spurt out constant drivel, the artistic spirit which just wants to create and capture the essence of life in an original way is something very pure and worthwhile. So art for art's sake - I'd say yes.
Artistic originality - whether it's a painting, a building, a sculpture, a book, an idea - can inspire and fuel the imagination, and make us 'see' the world and ourselves with new and different eyes.
Now that the fact that 99% of the time they fail doesn't detract from the 1% which does capture something important and massive.
Even though the art world is over-run with pompous money-bags who spurt out constant drivel, the artistic spirit which just wants to create and capture the essence of life in an original way is something very pure and worthwhile. So art for art's sake - I'd say yes.
Artistic originality - whether it's a painting, a building, a sculpture, a book, an idea - can inspire and fuel the imagination, and make us 'see' the world and ourselves with new and different eyes.
Art for arts sake? Or should it have a purpose/meaning?
What do you think?
What do you think?