Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When art can be anything, art is nothing.

No it not art its porn. If i was posed naked would you consider it art. Art you put thought and time into. Pointing a camera and pushing click is hardly art. any yahoo can do that.

Wrexasaur wrote:Not really though... If I cannot tell that it is supposed to be art (not like "tried", but is actually is artistic) it is then clearly porn.

You're just arguing by a different definition. Kilkrazy said it was porn if it got you going. I thought that definition had merit, but pointed out that something could both be porn (get you going) and also be art. Similarly something could also be primarily art but also be porn (in that it could get you going).

You're arguing by a different definition of porn, one that defines porn as something that isn't art. The two definitions are mutually exclusive. Both have merit, and both can be used to examine art and/or porn, just not at the same time.

I am no porn hater, but I have yet to find the Mona Lisa arousing... yet...

I agree that defining art vs. porn is a very strange conversation indeed, but as a general rule the line between the two is quite obvious. There are different forms of art, and this is where you can begin to liberally label any form you see fit, with repercussions of being wrong .

I would also like to say that this guy is obviously a very good photographer, and I was interested in his stuff before he tried this stunt (the museum specifically)... actually, I had no clue who the hell this guy was until this happened, so mission accomplished .

garret wrote:No it not art its porn. If i was posed naked would you consider it art. Art you put thought and time into. Pointing a camera and pushing click is hardly art. any yahoo can do that.

Yet photography is recognised as an artistic medium.

dogma wrote:

I'm an artist. Watch as I type artistically.

fyi its pronounced autistically


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:No it not art its porn. If i was posed naked would you consider it art. Art you put thought and time into. Pointing a camera and pushing click is hardly art. any yahoo can do that.

surely thats exactly the point, anyone can make art, its easily accessible, there no rule in art that say ...hang on...that was easy...okay thats not art anymore

I think that an artist can begin working on "abstract" art after and only after they can prove themselves to be successful at realistic art styles. Otherwise they're just bums who can't draw.

jamessearle0 wrote:
fyi its pronounced autistically

I almost forgot this was the internet for second. Good one on reminding me.

jamessearle0 wrote:
surely thats exactly the point, anyone can make art, its easily accessible, there no rule in art that say ...hang on...that was easy...okay thats not art anymore

I'm not sure I would classify art as easily accessible. At least no more so than any other equally broad discipline. Science is still science even when its easy.

dogma wrote:Science is still science even when its easy.

art is still art even when its easy.

There's a difference in my own opinion though...

Science is not easy, but learning how science is conducted is easy. When you do experiments in elementary school and even in college, you're not doing science , you're learning how to do science. Once you get into the real world of research and science it gets a tad bit difficult.

In school you do art, you can learn to do better art(that is subjective of course), but anyone can now do art right off of the bat. There was a guy who vomited up paint and it was considered art, an infant can do that. An infant cannot invent new ways to operate or new ways to determine the rate of deterioration of molecules.

just remembered were in OT

jamessearle0 wrote:
art is still art even when its easy.

Yes, that was one of the points in my post. The other being that ease of access isn't especially unique to art, because its a common feature of of broad, categorical practices. As such, placing the onus of art on a low entry barrier is useless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
Science is not easy, but learning how science is conducted is easy. When you do experiments in elementary school and even in college, you're not doing science , you're learning how to do science. Once you get into the real world of research and science it gets a tad bit difficult.

The science practiced in elementary schools is still science. Bad science, but science none the less as it turns on the use of scientific method.

halonachos wrote:
In school you do art, you can learn to do better art(that is subjective of course), but anyone can now do art right off of the bat. There was a guy who vomited up paint and it was considered art, an infant can do that. An infant cannot invent new ways to operate or new ways to determine the rate of deterioration of molecules.

Science doesn't have to be new in order to be science. Neither does art.

People that aren't attending a professional art school and trying to do well in it think that art is easy. Many things are easy in the early going; few things are very complicated right out of the gate. Advanced fields in mathematics are very complicated, but you don't start there, you start at 2+2, which is fairly simple.

I just believe that there's a difference between doing science and learning about science.
Its the way that I feel, I don't care if you feel the way I do about it, I'm not going to try to argue that point.

I thought that profeessional art school was for those attempting to be graphic designers, portrait makers, commissioned artists, etc. I don't go to art school and I don't major in the fine arts, so I may not know.

Art is broadly speaking divided into 'Fine Art' and commercial art.

Fine art is portraits, sculptures and so on. Obviously people like Damien Hirst make money at it.

Commercial art is graphic design, product design, arguable architecture. It is art for using rather than art for looking at.

All commercial artists have a basic training in fine arts in the sense of drawing and other visualisation skills. These are basic skills for all artists.

Plenty of commercial artists do fine art to amuse themselves on their days off.

halonachos wrote:I just believe that there's a difference between doing science and learning about science.
Its the way that I feel, I don't care if you feel the way I do about it, I'm not going to try to argue that point.

To an extent that's true, though I would place the divide in a different spot. Broadly between the memorization of fact, and the performance of experiment.

Isn't comparing art to science unfair to begin with though?

I mean, one is more objective and the other is subjective. Splitting an atom is splitting an atom, but a great painting could be a terrible painting.

art




NOT art




one of these is ok to show in public... one of these is not.

looking at the statue of david is one thing, what they were doing is completaly different.

This is OK to show in public. (Warning: full frontal nudity beyond the link.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Goya_Maja_naga2.jpg

Well, back when it was painted, it may very well have been considered porn. Opinions change over time, but even now I must say that this guy (OP) was not making art, he was simply using that as an excuse for public nudity.

There is a theory that that picture actually was a piece of 'private gentleman's collectable' art done for a Spanish count. There is a non-nude version of it too.

However, there are so many other examples of nude art that it is not worth arguing about. It's clear that nudity in itself does not equal porn. Also there is non-nude porn.

Using my 'get turned on' test, would the following be considered porn? It has erotic overtones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gustav_Klimt_010.jpg

In the end, the appreciation of art is rather subjective.

lame... needs more bondage gear (j/k!)

halonachos wrote:In school you do art, you can learn to do better art(that is subjective of course), but anyone can now do art right off of the bat. There was a guy who vomited up paint and it was considered art, an infant can do that. An infant cannot invent new ways to operate or new ways to determine the rate of deterioration of molecules.

You're confusing technical skill with art. There are lots of painted landscapes that took a great deal of technical skill to produce, but they're bland and uninspired. They might be art but they're not particularly good art. On the other hand there's a lot of abstract work that moves a lot of people. While it may not look like something, there is a lot of skill in the colours and composition, and most importantly in the ideas behind the work.

Creating form through color is a lot of fun. If you have a chance take a course (or study in general) in color dynamics.

There is no substitute for hands on experience though, I am a big fan of learning toys. Cards are a great way to learn to work with patterns, which are the core of any aesthetic piece. One thing to look for when you enjoy a piece is how consistent and balanced it is. Keeping a regimented plan to approach the forms in your piece will help you produce very popular stuff.

I am a huge fan of all classical Asian architecture. Japan and Cambodia probably take the cake though.





So crisp, I can't think of a single thing that doesn't work about this design.



Japanese "formats" just tend to work very well.

halonachos wrote:Isn't comparing art to science unfair to begin with though?

I mean, one is more objective and the other is subjective. Splitting an atom is splitting an atom, but a great painting could be a terrible painting.

There's more agreement on what constitutes good art than you think, and far less agreement on what constitutes good science than you think.

Simply put, in the absence of clear experiment, science struggles to established reasoned consensus.

That doesn't even get into the cross-over between pure art, and pure science; neither of which exist outside of philosopher's lexicon.

I like art, the sexy kind. And the food kind!!!

Man I wana be a chef.

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:In school you do art, you can learn to do better art(that is subjective of course), but anyone can now do art right off of the bat. There was a guy who vomited up paint and it was considered art, an infant can do that. An infant cannot invent new ways to operate or new ways to determine the rate of deterioration of molecules.

You're confusing technical skill with art. There are lots of painted landscapes that took a great deal of technical skill to produce, but they're bland and uninspired. They might be art but they're not particularly good art. On the other hand there's a lot of abstract work that moves a lot of people. While it may not look like something, there is a lot of skill in the colours and composition, and most importantly in the ideas behind the work.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Unless you are a confirmed psychic mind reader , there is no way on earth you can claim
to understand what the artist is attempting to do.

LunaHound wrote:
Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Unless you are a confirmed psychic mind reader , there is no way on earth you can claim
to understand what the artist is attempting to do.

Sure there is, he could tell me, or generate work of a quality high enough to remove the necessity of his instruction.

The thing is, we're all human. That fact alone established a common frame of reference for comparison.

LunaHound wrote:Art is in the eye of the beholder.
Unless you are a confirmed psychic mind reader , there is no way on earth you can claim
to understand what the artist is attempting to do.

Sayings like 'art is in the eye of the beholder' and 'the author is dead' exist because the purpose isn't to guess the intent of the author. The purpose is to take the ideas and thoughts in the work as their own thing.

And saying you need to be a mind reader to understand the artist's intent is silly. Logic and reason have their place in the world, even if the internet abandoned them years ago.




Oh, and props to wrexasaur for the art he's posted to the thread. It's good stuff.