Why Art? Why Music?

[GH85Carrera]

It is always funny to see the pompous stuffed shirt blowhards proclaim some “artwork” as great.



Somewhere some art critic is wringing his hands over the beauty of this “ART”

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Art serves no useful purpose and has no value whatsoever except it makes some people feel better.
Helps them get by.

Sports are a practice for battle.
nothing more, nothing less.

Those who play sports and learn strength through practice battle at least have a chance to defend themselves and fight back when faced with a foe, as opposed to art and music lovers who will roll up into a victim ball.

They love art in france.

What do you call Paleolithic drawings and etchings? Do we not understand more about ancient civilization due to the art?

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by DARISC

Sports are competitive, art is expressive.

There are plenty of aspects of art that are can be competitive. Competition does not disqualify a composition, work or event from being art in my mind, but perhaps there is a clear definition of art of which I am unaware.

But here's a question: can an act within a sporting competition (say Ted William's swing, or a Lynn Swan catch) be evaluated on its artistic merits?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by milt

What do you call Paleolithic drawings and etchings?

Early forms of written language, communication.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

It is always funny to see the pompous stuffed shirt blowhards proclaim some “artwork” as great.

That's funny.

It is always a boring waste of time to read the banal proclamations of those who know/understand little berate those who may know/understand something that they do not, by dismissing them as "pompous stuffed shirt blowhards".

Somewhere some art critic is wringing his hands over the beauty of this “ART”

Somewhere (hey, right here!) some uninformed blowhard is criticizing art critics.

..

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Taz's Master

There are plenty of aspects of art that are can be competitive.

In order to pursue that, won't we first have to agree on a definition of terms, the first of which would be "art"?

Competition does not disqualify a composition, work or event from being art in my mind,

What is art, in your mind?

but perhaps there is a clear definition of art of which I am unaware.

What definition/s of art are you aware of...that, I'll surmise, inform what is art in your mnd?

But here's a question: can an act within a sporting competition (say Ted William's swing, or a Lynn Swan catch) be evaluated on its artistic merits?

"Art" is a word that is very often used very loosely and ambiguously. Consider two books, well written by two knowledgeable and respected authors; "The Art of Hitting a Baseball" and "The Art of the Renaissance". Can one read, then discuss both books using the same definition of the word "art"?

..

[nostatic]

Art and music are communication.

“A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine picture every day of his life, in order that worldly cares may not obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the human soul.”

- Goethe

“Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend.”

- Beethoven

[sammyg2]

Please note that in my previous post, I said

Art serves no useful purpose and has no value whatsoever except it makes some people feel better.
Helps them get by.

I believe that to be true, and i beleive art to be over-rated in most cases but I did not say I don't like or appreciate art and music. I didn't say it doesn't make ME feel better.
I've played some music over the years and I like listening to music when I'm in the right mood.
I can appreciate a well painted picture, and can tell the difference between beautiful art and some crap promoted by a phoney-baloney poser wanna-be intellectuual go along with the crowd andy warhole smughead-up-his-arse sitting up on a pedestal on his high horse looking down his nose pretending he's smarter than everyone else goober.

Try saying that three times fast. Or saying it quickly, as the pinkey crowd prefers.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by nostatic

...- Goethe

- Beethoven

1) Goethe wuz a phoney-baloney poser wanna-be intellectuual go along with the crowd andy warhole smughead-up-his-arse sitting up on a pedestal on his high horse looking down his nose pretending he's smarter than everyone else goober.

2) Beethoven wuz a phoney-baloney poser wanna-be intellectuual go along with the crowd andy warhole smughead-up-his-arse sitting up on a pedestal on his high horse looking down his nose pretending he's smarter than everyone else goober.

3) And I woodn't be surprised if they wuz French.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Early forms of written language, communication.

Let's then move on to the Egyptians. A little more than communication? Michelangelo?

How about da Vinci?

Sam, believe me, I take the discussion seriously because I claim most "art" is simply craft. But, there are those that transcend craft. So what is it that they are doing?

[Crowbob]

Sammy,

There is a time to bolster one's precarious and fragile beliefs and there's a place to sound really stupid. I think the two have intersected at your keyboard. Here's proof:

"Art serves no useful purpose and has no value whatsoever except..." blah, blah, blah.

[Seahawk]

The answer to the Mike's question is Eagle Ranch clear:

Music and art scratch an itch, every society engages in both...every last little hut on the road to perdition.

So, not why, but how.

I blame salt.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by milt

...I claim most "art" is simply craft. But, there are those that transcend craft...

I agree with you 100%.

On a recent thread on this topic I got involved in a pm session with several other posters who wanted to discuss just what "art"really is. It was impossible to do that on the thread without an incessant barrage of "That POS ain't art!", "Artists are worthless, lazy sleazebags", etc., so we had an enjoyable discussion privately.

In one of my PMs I wrote this about that, in an attempt at a generally accepted categorization within which it might be easier to discuss the question, "what is ART?":

Graphic/commercial art - conveying info that promotes a product, event, etc.

Crafts - ceramics, weaving, glass blowing, etc. Objects made primarily to serve a purpose or function.

Decoration - eye candy.

Design - applicable to all the above and judged by how effectively/elegantly/aesthetically it is embodied in the product.

The area of crafts is problematic for some who might say, "That's a tapestry to hang on the wall to look at, it has no other function, it is art". Yes, but its essence is that of craft; it's a weaving. The artist/craftsman (as opposed to the basic craftsman, whose basic focus is on his craft as utilitarian) chooses to be constrained by the medium of his choice and when judging his work the aesthetic/artistic aspects of the work are penultimate to the quality of the craft.

A fine artist may in fact be a lousy craftsman and the choice of medium is dictated by the statement he wants to make. I've never heard or read reference to the quality of the "craft" in Van Gogh's paintings for example. Truth is, he was driven by images which he attempted to put on canvas as quickly as he could, even at one point when he was institutionalized, rapidly making a painting then immediately scraping off the paint and making another and another. His focus was on his visions, not so much with the craft involved in realizing them.

Fine art, whatever the medium - serves no purpose or function other than to make whatever statement the artist wishes to make. It, by definition, has no utilitarian value. And, it is cutting edge, pushing the envelope, avant garde, however one wants to describe it. Most often it is not possible to judge its historical importance immediately. Some is not, as is generally realized, able to be judged until varying amounts of time has passed, after which great/historically significant art can be recognized in the greater context that only accumulates over time.

What most people stumble over is the differentiation between the avant garde and the academic. They tend not to recognize that "creativity" is not the ability to paint like Rembrandt, Renoir, Picasso or Pollock - that ability is a craft. The creative work was done by Pollock - to repeat what he did is craft and one who may be able to do it well is an "artist" craftsman, an academician, because that which has been done, become recognized as creative and important is thereafter academic - creative art moves on.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

...I blame salt.

Salt make da pressure of da blood go zoom, zoom, zoom, an' da veins go a poppin' all Sammyapoplexic but music soooth da savage beast an' bring down da pressure of da blood (an' so do art).

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

Sammy,

There is a time to bolster one's precarious and fragile beliefs and there's a place to sound really stupid. I think the two have intersected at your keyboard. Here's proof:

"Art serves no useful purpose and has no value whatsoever except..." blah, blah, blah.

I expressed an opinion developed over a long period of time. You don't like it? Don't care. Maybe you aren't deep enough or sophisticated enough to get it!

Does art keep you warm? No. Does art keep you from getting hungry? No. Does it help you survive? No.

Art and music are not food or water or safety or securty or shelter. They are not something that a man needs to survive. They are toys of wealth and discretionary time, born of boredom. But they make him feel better.

What is a rolex worth? how about a big diamond? Gold jewlery? A $2000 suit or $600 shoes?
The real answer should be very little. Certainly not much more than a cheaper version with the same functionality.
But they have an artificially inflated value because of man's irrational emotional want.
Art and music are the same way to a lesser extent.
They all play on man's insecurity and emotional frailty. And vanity.

A painting worth tens of millions? no.
A musician so rich he kills himself with excess? Silly.
Something that resembles nothing but a glob of whatever, and snobby posers stare at it and say they "get it" because they want to pretend to be deep? Sickening.

The mona lisa is worth millions because the posers tell us it is supposed to be worth millions. Just looking at it and saying, "hey that painting looks kind of cool. Notice her expression? I wonder what she's really thinking. Yeah, that's kinda neat" would be honest and real, but it would also gain the wrath of many here on this board who would be looking down their poser noses at others who obviously are not as sophisticated as they are because they fail to experience the uplifting reverence and awe such an inspired work or art should instill on the soul!

How much did the pictures of campbell's soup can sell for again?

[nostatic]

Sam, replace art or music in your post with God or religion. Then re-read and see what you think.

I find your opinion directly at odds with a number of deeply religious Christians. Not that everyone has to have the same values but I find it interesting that you devalue completely something that others find has incredible meaning beyond hubris or self-service.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by DARISC

..

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera
It is always funny to see the pompous stuffed shirt blowhards proclaim some “artwork” as great.

That's funny.

It is always a boring waste of time to read the banal proclamations of those who know/understand little berate those who may know/understand something that they do not, by dismissing them as "pompous stuffed shirt blowhards".

Somewhere some art critic is wringing his hands over the beauty of this “ART”

Somewhere (hey, right here!) some uninformed blowhard is criticizing art critics.

Right there. You claim to have some superior ability to understand art. I call BS.

That is the definition of a "stuffed shirt blowhard" you are better because you think you are. All I see is a BS blowhard.

Some other sensitive art critic says "this is fantastic" and you agree because he is the major expert and paid a lot of money for his opinion. You all stand at around at the gallery and drink expensive wine and pat each other on the back knowing you are superior because some POS painting is worth a lot of money.

I can't possibly care less unless my tax dollars are used to pay the "artist" to make his "art" because blowhards decided he is talented and needs a tax subsidy. That makes me mad.

I can spend hours at the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum looking at real art. They don't have anything that would be considered modern art. No paint blobs done by the elephant at the local zoo done in the Jackson Pollack style.


I hope this is right side up. It might be rotated 90 degrees. Who can tell?

That is NOT art that is a waste of paint.

Edit: By the way that is a Pollack painting that is likely worth more than my house. The Elephant at the local zoo can pain just like that.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

I expressed an opinion developed over a long period of time.

Wow! Really? Here I suspected that your blanket dismissal of all that you have no understanding or appreciation of was a snap decision.

You don't like it?

What's not to like? I'm indifferent.

Don't care.

Well..I don't either!

Maybe you aren't deep enough or sophisticated enough to get it!

HAHAHAHAHA!

Does art keep you warm?

Yes.

No.

It doesn't?

Does art keep you from getting hungry?

Yes.

No.

No?!

Does it help you survive?

OK, now that's a definite yes, right?

No.

Damn!

Art and music are not food

I've been to exhibitions of edible art (but it was hard to eat the music).

or water

Clearly you've not licked the mist from the beautiful Bellagio fountains from your plump red lips - sigh...

or safety

Nor have you availed yourself of the rainbow colored condoms?

or securty or shelter.

Tell that to the homeless in Canterbury who sleep curled up in the billowing folds of Henry Moore's bloated woman sculpture there,

They are not something that a man needs to survive.

There have been, over the long course of history, untold scores who have perished from lack of art. Do you not read man?!

They are toys of wealth and discretionary time, born of boredom. But they make him feel better.

I'll go along with you there; it's disgusting watching him frolic and play with his art toys. Who's him?

What is a rolex worth?

$3,512.27 (more or less).

how about a big diamond? Gold jewlery?

Yer talkin' big money.

A $2000 suit or $600 shoes?

That's an easy one; $2000 and $600, respectively.

The real answer should be very little.


Sez who?!

Certainly not much more than a cheaper version with the same functionality.

Certainly?

But they have an artificially inflated value

One should always shop for luxuries which have a genuinely inflated value - problem solved.

because of man's irrational emotional want.

Hey! I'm a man and I ain't got no irrational emotional want!

Art and music are the same way to a lesser extent.

Oh pshaww, they are not.

They all play on man's insecurity and emotional frailty.

Really?

And vanity.

Vanity too? Damn, what's left?

A painting worth tens of millions?

YES!! Now yer talkin'!

no.

No again? Dayum.

A musician so rich he kills himself with excess?

Now that's just silly.

Silly.

Yes. Silly!

Something that resembles nothing but a glob of whatever, and snobby posers stare at it and say they "get it" because they want to pretend to be deep?

Yeah, there's them globs of whatever on occasion; and they can be kinda

Sickening.

yeah, sickening (you have such a way with words!).

The mona lisa is worth millions because the posers tell us it is supposed to be worth millions.

Who are these posers? I say they should be aprehended and smothered to death with globs of whatever. That would be justice!

Just looking at it and saying, "hey that painting looks kind of cool. Notice her expression? I wonder what she's really thinking. Yeah, that's kinda neat" would be honest and real, but it would also gain the wrath of many here on this board who would be looking down their poser noses at others who obviously are not as sophisticated as they are because they fail to experience the uplifting reverence and awe such an inspired work or art should instill on the soul!

Hard to argue with that level of profundity.

How much did the pictures of campbell's soup can sell for again?

$3,512.27. No, wait...that was the Rolex. I'll get back to you on the soup cans.

..

[Taz's Master]

DARSIC, you are the one who told me that what I believe to be form of performance art is not. Is it because of an arbitrary standard you hold to be true, or is it because there is a true standard for art? I find that sports communicate same messages of emotion, the human condition and the state of society that art strives for, and sports do so with a grace, beauty and ferocity that is also often the goal of art.

To me sports are a performance art and often sporting events are more meaningful than any other form of performance art I have experienced.

Art and music are communication.

nostatic, I will agree with you, but when the subject of a work of art is an athelete engaged in competition, is not the same communication taking place at the event?

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

...Right there.

OMG! WHERE? :eek:

You claim to have some superior ability to understand art.

I do? No I don't! You're makin' things up! Sheeesh.

I call BS.

Well...that's a bad call. What can I say?

That is the definition of a "stuffed shirt blowhard" you are better because you think you are. All I see is a BS blowhard.

OMG! WHERE? :eek:

Some other sensitive art critic says "this is fantastic" and you agree because he is the major expert and paid a lot of money for his opinion.

I do?

You all stand at around at the gallery and drink expensive wine and pat each other on the back knowing you are superior because some POS painting is worth a lot of money.

Who's "you all"?

I can't possibly care less unless my tax dollars are used to pay the "artist" to make his "art" because blowhards decided he is talented and needs a tax subsidy.

Do you think that those you tell that you couldn't care less could care less that you could care less?

That makes me mad.

Oh well; you'll ge over it.

I can spend hours at the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum looking at real art.

Nothing wrong with that (so long as you don't waste any time looking at the phoney art).

They don't have anything that would be considered modern art.

Are you serious?!

No paint blobs done by the elephant at the local zoo done in the Jackson Pollack style.

Well, I damn sure bet yer avoiding that there weird local zoo ya got there!



I hope this is right side up. It might be rotated 90 degrees. Who can tell?

That is NOT art that is a waste of paint.

Edit: By the way that is a Pollack painting that is likely worth more than my house. The Elephant at the local zoo can pain just like that.

I jus' luv it when thaings gits all inty leckshual here on PPOT.

..