Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > UG Community > The Pit
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 11-20-2012, 07:49 AM   #3481
T00DEEPBLUE
Illuminati IsRAEL
 
T00DEEPBLUE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Hey slacker, you forgot to answer my question.

Quote:
Here's an interesting idea on the topic that i came up with: Would you consider the universe as an accidental work of art? Many scholars and art philosophers consider an artpiece as an object that serves no purpose but for itself. It serves no real legitimate function as art other than for people to be moved by it in it's form over it's function. If life is meaningless, would that mean that all existence is in a way, a work of art? That existence is an accidental sculpture in motion?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFromTheVoid
Is this like one of those things where when you were on the bus kids would ask you weird wuestion and one meant you were gay or something but they'd never tell you what the question meant till you answered


mfw

Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE : 11-20-2012 at 07:53 AM.
T00DEEPBLUE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 08:01 AM   #3482
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
It's an interesting thought, but I don't agree with that definition of art. For one, I think art has to be man-made.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:13 PM   #3483
eGraham
¬cool
 
eGraham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
It's an interesting thought, but I don't agree with that definition of art. For one, I think art has to be man-made.

Disgaree. Art merely has to be man-interpreted.

I find art in nature on a daily basis, whether it be visible or audible.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.
eGraham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:17 PM   #3484
eGraham
¬cool
 
eGraham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Indiana
Pretentious? Hardly lol.

Perhaps you're right, though. It would be silly to assume that nature has never inspired art, though, and I would certainly argue that it takes art to inspire art.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.
eGraham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:20 PM   #3485
willT08
Banned
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Art is intentional.

This whole idea of nature producing 'accidental' art makes no sense whatsoever.
willT08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:20 PM   #3486
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by eGraham
Disgaree. Art merely has to be man-interpreted.

I find art in nature on a daily basis, whether it be visible or audible.

I used to agree with that but then realised it's way too po-mo. Nature is nature, not art. I think the intent is very important in art, and fundamentally comes down to trying to say something.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:22 PM   #3487
kalnoky7
Bland
 
kalnoky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A place of settlement, activity, or residence
So you guys think art is anything that is man-made?

^ I don't entirely get your point, you'd argue that it takes art to inspire art but that it would be silly to assume that nature hasn't ever inspired any?

edit: Whoops, that was for eGraham. Anyway, so what is intent exactly? I doubt you require of an artist a solid verbal explanation for a piece to be deemed art
__________________
Song of the moment: Sufjan Stevens - Postlude: Critical Mass

Camptown Ladies never sang
All the doo-dah day, no no no


The Classical Thread - The Forums need it! - That's right, trying to get it going again

Last edited by kalnoky7 : 11-20-2012 at 02:24 PM.
kalnoky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:24 PM   #3488
willT08
Banned
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnoky7
So you guys think art is anything that is man-made?

^ I don't entirely get your point, you'd argue that it takes art to inspire art but that it would be silly to assume that nature hasn't ever inspired any?

Art is whatever the creator intends to be art. Nature doesn't intend any of itself to be art, so it's not.
willT08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:26 PM   #3489
PatchworkMan
UG's Wise Old Owl
 
PatchworkMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cheeseland, USA
Nature is only art under the assumption that nature has an intelligent creator intending to produce something artistic.
__________________
Death to Ovation haters!

My martial arts blog: The Young Grasshopper
PatchworkMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:27 PM   #3490
kalnoky7
Bland
 
kalnoky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A place of settlement, activity, or residence
Quote:
Originally Posted by willT08
Art is whatever the creator intends to be art. Nature doesn't intend any of itself to be art, so it's not.


So what happens when you don't know what the creator intended?
__________________
Song of the moment: Sufjan Stevens - Postlude: Critical Mass

Camptown Ladies never sang
All the doo-dah day, no no no


The Classical Thread - The Forums need it! - That's right, trying to get it going again
kalnoky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:27 PM   #3491
willT08
Banned
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchworkMan
Nature is only art under the assumption that nature has an intelligent creator intending to produce something artistic.

This

Quote:
So what happens when you don't know what the creator intended?

Then you don't know whether what you're looking at is beautiful, art, both or neither. But that's not a problem with nature because it'd be ludicrous to assume nature intended anything.

Last edited by willT08 : 11-20-2012 at 02:28 PM.
willT08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:29 PM   #3492
kalnoky7
Bland
 
kalnoky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A place of settlement, activity, or residence
Quote:
Originally Posted by willT08
This

Don't get me wrong, though, I don't think nature is art

But all the attempts at defining art I have ever heard seem flimsy

edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by willT08
This


Then you don't know whether what you're looking at is beautiful, art, both or neither. But that's not a problem with nature because it'd be ludicrous to assume nature intended anything.


I don't think it's so inconceivable to have an artist working outside of a bottled concept of "art". Isn't it possible to have an artistic expression which is "art" without having the creator think "I will now create art!"?
__________________
Song of the moment: Sufjan Stevens - Postlude: Critical Mass

Camptown Ladies never sang
All the doo-dah day, no no no


The Classical Thread - The Forums need it! - That's right, trying to get it going again

Last edited by kalnoky7 : 11-20-2012 at 02:37 PM.
kalnoky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:30 PM   #3493
PatchworkMan
UG's Wise Old Owl
 
PatchworkMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cheeseland, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnoky7
Don't get me wrong, though, I don't think nature is art

But all the attempts at defining art I have ever heard seem flimsy

Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
- Frank Zappa
__________________
Death to Ovation haters!

My martial arts blog: The Young Grasshopper
PatchworkMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:31 PM   #3494
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
It has to be intended to inspire some sort of reaction from the viewer (or whatever)(EDIT: Or the creator, the process of making art is often important) whether it be an idea or an emotion etc, I reckon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnoky7
Don't get me wrong, though, I don't think nature is art

But all the attempts at defining art I have ever heard seem flimsy

Good luck finding a solid one, I'm not sure it exists

Last edited by WhiskeyFace : 11-20-2012 at 02:32 PM.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:32 PM   #3495
eGraham
¬cool
 
eGraham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Indiana
The definition of art is about as solid as glass.


trolololol
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.
eGraham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:40 PM   #3496
kalnoky7
Bland
 
kalnoky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A place of settlement, activity, or residence
Quote:
Originally Posted by willT08
This


Then you don't know whether what you're looking at is beautiful, art, both or neither. But that's not a problem with nature because it'd be ludicrous to assume nature intended anything.


I don't think it's so inconceivable to have an artist working outside of a bottled concept of "art". Isn't it possible to have an artistic expression which is "art" without having the creator think "I will now create art!"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
It has to be intended to inspire some sort of reaction from the viewer (or whatever)(EDIT: Or the creator, the process of making art is often important) whether it be an idea or an emotion etc, I reckon.

If a man were alone on an island, could he deem his paintings "art"?


Quote:
Good luck finding a solid one, I'm not sure it exists

I know, I do like pointless debate though
__________________
Song of the moment: Sufjan Stevens - Postlude: Critical Mass

Camptown Ladies never sang
All the doo-dah day, no no no


The Classical Thread - The Forums need it! - That's right, trying to get it going again
kalnoky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:41 PM   #3497
WhiskeyFace
:^)
 
WhiskeyFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnoky7
If a man were alone on an island, could he deem his paintings "art"?

Yes because of my edit.
WhiskeyFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:42 PM   #3498
willT08
Banned
 
willT08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalnoky7
I don't think it's so inconceivable to have an artist working outside of a bottled concept of "art". Isn't it possible to have an artistic expression which is "art" without having the creator think "I will now create art!"?

I don't think so, well I can't think of an example. What do you mean exactly?
willT08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:43 PM   #3499
kalnoky7
Bland
 
kalnoky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A place of settlement, activity, or residence
Quote:
Originally Posted by willT08
This


Then you don't know whether what you're looking at is beautiful, art, both or neither. But that's not a problem with nature because it'd be ludicrous to assume nature intended anything.


I don't think it's so inconceivable to have an artist working outside of a bottled concept of "art". Isn't it possible to have an artistic expression which is "art" without having the creator think "I will now create art!"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
It has to be intended to inspire some sort of reaction from the viewer (or whatever)(EDIT: Or the creator, the process of making art is often important) whether it be an idea or an emotion etc, I reckon.

If a man were alone on an island, could he deem his paintings "art"?

I think an actual, existing expression (art is not ideas or something "non-existing" like that) can always be thought of as art, regardless of intent or audience. Now, the problem in mine, I think, is "expression"


Quote:
Good luck finding a solid one, I'm not sure it exists

I know, I do like pointless debate though
__________________
Song of the moment: Sufjan Stevens - Postlude: Critical Mass

Camptown Ladies never sang
All the doo-dah day, no no no


The Classical Thread - The Forums need it! - That's right, trying to get it going again
kalnoky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 02:49 PM   #3500
kalnoky7
Bland
 
kalnoky7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A place of settlement, activity, or residence
Quote:
Originally Posted by willT08
I don't think so, well I can't think of an example. What do you mean exactly?

Whoops, I copied to my post above, thought you might miss that other edit or something...

Cave paintings is a pretty factual example, I reckon.

But if you can see it, creation for the pure sake of creation. A man-made expression which is not chained to a boxed concept, to the objective of being "an artist". Is it really that impossible?

edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskeyFace
It has to be intended to inspire some sort of reaction from the viewer (or whatever)(EDIT: Or the creator, the process of making art is often important) whether it be an idea or an emotion etc, I reckon.

Didn't see that.

To get a reaction out of himself??
__________________
Song of the moment: Sufjan Stevens - Postlude: Critical Mass

Camptown Ladies never sang
All the doo-dah day, no no no


The Classical Thread - The Forums need it! - That's right, trying to get it going again

Last edited by kalnoky7 : 11-20-2012 at 02:52 PM.
kalnoky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:48 PM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2015
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.