- Messages
- 9,301
- Edit My Images
- No
Your post is probably the definition of "off-topic", Alan........
Your post is probably the definition of "off-topic", Alan........
Such diversions, as the beauty and charms of Kazakh women, provide light relief and perhaps greater enlightenment.
Yep. OTT sounds about right.Sorry to go way OT
Yes, but attempts at analysis might still be mind-improving, and help with appreciation of the spheres within which we operate.I‘m inclined to think it’s a waste of time trying to pin these things down too narrowly because the definitions always fail.
Yes, but attempts at analysis might still be mind-improving, and help with appreciation of the spheres within which we operate.
I'm wedded to the view that an essence of art is that in the end it's a synthesis of the creator's intent and how the work is received. The art needs to communicate to reach its full value. To declare that one is an artist doesn't make you one.
Are you saying then, that there are objective standards of art or are you not?What you are describing is what I would describe as good art and artists, but can't people who make lower value art (ie art that fails to fully communicate its creators intent) still claim to be an artist, just not as good an artist as they would like to be.
But that intent could be an empty fantasy, and even if genuine you might lack the skills to realise it.because it describes your intent
Well yes, of course!What you are describing is what I would describe as good art and artists, but can't people who make lower value art (ie art that fails to fully communicate its creators intent) still claim to be an artist, just not as good an artist as they would like to be.
Well, as I explained in another post there are objective approaches to assessing art.Are you saying then, that there are objective standards of art or are you not?
For the sciences, yes. For art, no.we need to rely on the judgement of experts to help us learn about things, whether it’s the arts or the sciences.
Are you saying then, that there are objective standards of art or are you not?
I'm not disagreeing with any of that, I,ve said similar things in other posts.But that intent could be an empty fantasy, and even if genuine you might lack the skills to realise it.
But I'm still trying to champion analysis of the nature and content of any work, coupled with peer review. Again, we need to keep away from that inarticulate term 'like' - it just doesn't wash, seriously. The nature of art, though, includes emotional and intuitive aspects - but these can be observed within ourselves, analysed and reported on. The discussion isn't firstly about technique - in the case of visual art it's about the experience of seeing (for music, obviously, it's about hearing, but the same arguments apply).
So how does an artist think?...they need to think like an artist
So how does an artist think?
Does Tracey Emin think like Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni? If they met, would they have anything of mutual interest to discuss? What would Michelangelo think of that bed? What would he think of her drawings or paintings? If they are both "artists" then they must share common traits. What are those traits?
The first is about craft and aesthetics, not art.
No, and yes!Does Tracey Emin think like Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni?
Hopefully!If they met, would they have anything of mutual interest to discuss?
He could be appreciative, or dismissive, who knows?What would Michelangelo think of that bed?
He might find resonance there.What would he think of her drawings or paintings?
The urge & ability to make a visual statement that reveals something.If they are both "artists" then they must share common traits. What are those traits?
Telling other people what they should regard as "good" art
Perhaps they're just making them easier to burn for double the fun?More fun than burning books .
So how does an artist think?
The first is about craft and aesthetics, not art.
The second strays into the realm of art - and also (this is a compliment, Dave) the realm of comedy.
To quote again what you wrote: "we need to rely on the judgement of experts to help us learn about things, whether it’s the arts or the sciences."But "who" is telling you what "you" should regard as good art.
On the contrary, I'm attempting to pin down what you and others are claiming. I've tried to make my position clear, which is that art is simply about "liking", although some objective qualities of accuracy can be applied to the technical skill of a drawing, painting or sculpture.But, I'm sure you know all these arguments and are just being mischievous in your questions
Well that's the critique sections of TP redundant. Just hit 'like' and move on....there are no absolutes in art, only degrees of personal opinion and enjoyment.
That is exactly what I meant, but I also said.To quote again what you wrote: "we need to rely on the judgement of experts to help us learn about things, whether it’s the arts or the sciences."
This gives the impression that you believe that there are "art experts" who know better than non-experts what is "good". Perhaps that is not what you meant?
Which is just a schoolteacher-like distraction that reads pretty much like it's trying to tell the time by looking at the cogs behind the clock-face.Wikihow has a page on how to critique artwork, looks like a sensible approach to me and much of it could be applied to photos produced to be works of art: https://www.wikihow.com/Critique-Artwork
No way! I think you're confusing art with what might be just decorative. What's just decorative has a place in the world, but it ain't art. Art 'speaks'.art is simply about "liking"
That is one option. The other is that we find out what "the customer" likes and work from there, "the customer" being whoever you are seeking to please, be that yourself or a friend or people who will pay you (There are many other possibilities, of course).If we do away with all forms of 'curation' (based on informed opinion and experience) we end up in a swamp of shallow, superfical photography.
You are, of course entitled to your opinion but it's an opinion I don't share....but it ain't art. Art 'speaks'.
That's still making work for 'likes'.That is one option. The other is that we find out what "the customer" likes and work from there, "the customer" being whoever you are seeking to please, be that yourself or a friend or people who will pay you (There are many other possibilities, of course).
That isn't really picking up on my point.Making work for yourself is fine. But liking it is a different matter. There's too great a chance that you'll stagnate and 'settle' for what you're doing.
1) Why should art need an objective assessment?In the absent of assessment against objective criteria, we're left only with subjective opinion. Whoever is the person whose subjective opinion is primary, is "the customer". While it's possible that work done for yourself may fall into the trap you describe, if you are seeking to please a wider and (possibly) ever changing audience, the target will constantly be in motion and stagnation unlikely.
I see what you're saying but that's a bit harsh, no? A structure to analyze and interpret is a helpful thing?Which is just a schoolteacher-like distraction that reads pretty much like it's trying to tell the time by looking at the cogs behind the clock-face.
1) Why should art need an objective assessment?
2) Art isn't about pleasing people.
It can be subject to education, though - I was greatly helped years ago by reading "The Hidden Order of Art" by Anton Ehrenzweig, but not everyone would have the appetite to plough through it.