How do you view art?

I'm not sure how this thread is gonna go down, but I'm gonna try it anyway. I'm wondering: how most users here view art.

What is the most important aspect of art to you? Does a work of art need to convey a message according to you or not? Are you more of an "Art for art's sake" type of person?

I guess I'm the second, I almost completely care about aesthetics alone

if it expresses something from the author, then it's art for me.

this post is art.

i can't stand symbolism, hidden or explicit messages, subtext or anything of that sort. so the 2nd type as well. art can't be consciously political in my view, for example, i don't consider it art.

in b4 somebody answers : "i view art with my eyes looolololo"

i view art with my eyes looolololo

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:46 AM, logakght said:

if it expresses something from the author, then it's art for me.

Do you mean something like "the content/feeling has got to be heartfelt" or are you talking about a political, moral etc. kind of message?

By the way: this thread is about any kind of art stuff, so paintings but also musics

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:54 AM, Berk said:

 

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:46 AM, logakght said:

if it expresses something from the author, then it's art for me.

Do you mean something like "the content/feeling has got to be heartfelt" or are you talking about a political, moral etc. kind of message?

 

By the way: this thread is about any kind of art stuff, so paintings but also musics

 

i mean in any way. like, for example, i can have a sock that had so, so many adventures with me that im so proud about it that i want to tell people how amazing this sock is for me. so i hang it at moma or some shit AND explain why. done, art.

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:58 AM, logakght said:

 

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:54 AM, Berk said:

 

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:46 AM, logakght said:

if it expresses something from the author, then it's art for me.

Do you mean something like "the content/feeling has got to be heartfelt" or are you talking about a political, moral etc. kind of message?

 

By the way: this thread is about any kind of art stuff, so paintings but also musics

 

 

i mean in any way. like, for example, i can have a sock that had so, so many adventures with me that im so proud about it that i want to tell people how amazing this sock is for me. so i hang it at moma or some shit AND explain why. done, art.

 

so it doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing?

  On 2/20/2015 at 1:01 AM, Berk said:

 

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:58 AM, logakght said:

 

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:54 AM, Berk said:

 

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:46 AM, logakght said:

if it expresses something from the author, then it's art for me.

Do you mean something like "the content/feeling has got to be heartfelt" or are you talking about a political, moral etc. kind of message?

 

By the way: this thread is about any kind of art stuff, so paintings but also musics

 

 

i mean in any way. like, for example, i can have a sock that had so, so many adventures with me that im so proud about it that i want to tell people how amazing this sock is for me. so i hang it at moma or some shit AND explain why. done, art.

 

so it doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing?

 

that's a plus. i love the aesthetically part, but in art the "why" is a bit more important to me.

tho i dont usually go to museums cuz the "why" part is always boring lol. also i won't post here that much cuz i dont want to start a discussion now, bit lazy right now :)

*jots it down*

cool, thx

edit: no worries, I'm not planning to go into a discussion either (although it'd be fun heh), it's just a matter of taste in the end I guess

Brian Eno sees art as a relationship one has with a piece, rather than as an intrinsic quality of the piece.

This solves alot of the silly "is this art or not" issues.

  On 2/20/2015 at 1:10 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Brian Eno sees art as a relationship one has with a piece, rather than as an intrinsic quality of the piece.

 

 

That's a cool way of looking at it

It's all very subjective of course.

I'm not looking for answers about "what is real art?" though, just wondering what you people think is important in art, that's all

have you got a link to the interview where Eno mentions that btw?

Bought a couple of Paul Klee print's this week. Just framed this lovely goldfish, and, well, it's a bit like having an aquarium in the wall.

Very nice, Schlitze.

"Does a work of art need to convey a message according to you or not? Are you more of an "Art for art's sake" type of person?"

It depends on the medium.

"What is the most important aspect of art to you?"

It ha to resonate inside e in some way. I have to feel it.

fok dats nice... fokkkkk!!! when i saw that painting i said "wow fukin cool" but then, I dont feel anything "special" about it, it just looks cool...

so now i changed my mind about art again :) the never ending discussion.

http://www.brainpickings.org/2013/05/15/happy-birthday-brian-eno-the-father-of-ambient-music-on-art/

He's made this point many, many times...but here's a single example:

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences. (Roy Ascott’s phrase.) That solves a lot of problems: we don’t have to argue whether photographs are art, or whether performances are art, or whether Carl Andre’s bricks or Andrew Serranos’s piss or Little Richard’s ‘Long Tall Sally’ are art, because we say, ‘Art is something that happens, a process, not a quality, and all sorts of things can make it happen.’ … [W]hat makes a work of art ‘good’ for you is not something that is already ‘inside’ it, but something that happens inside you — so the value of the work lies in the degree to which it can help you have the kind of experience that you call art."

fuck art lets play with synthesizers

when the concept outweighs the finished piece it can all get a bit full on (Viennese Actionism ahem), but that Eno quote is spot on

just occasionally museums get it spot on too though and the British Museum's Ice-Age art exhibition a few years back was rrrrrockin horse gear:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_on/past_exhibitions/2013/ice_age_art/about_the_exhibition.aspx

  On 2/20/2015 at 12:46 AM, logakght said:

if it expresses something from the author, then it's art for me.

 

this post is art.

I can understand this view but to me any particular human is more of a vessel to create something, rather than being tied to a specific person. I mean I can appreciate someones effort and skill in creating something very difficult for example, but I like personally to think of the piece as a standalone entity in the universe, like an object that maybe even be encoded with inherent meaning outside people. It's kind of a stretch I realize but think of like brains as mirrors and modifiers of reality, and that the brain wants to search for optimal conditions or unexplored areas, then a piece of art is not just inside a humans head, it's also a reflection of some reality that could be, and that could be sent to some other species or whatever. The artist is then like a focus point for a certain reflection angle of reality of incoming signals, and manages to 'record' that reality. So we all share reality, and that's why it kind of exists outside us too.

ramble over

But for me personally, when listening to music I listen to sounds, tension in the rhythms, variance, melodic hooks, whatever. Usually it's about the details and the structure. Same could be said for visual art, but visual art is a different beast somehow.

I'm very conflicted about it.. on the one hand i think it's the only thing that truly matters in life, on the other hand whenever I see or hear the word "art" I want to reach for a revolver.. because that means somebody is trying to make an objective statement about something and i think that's ludicrous

For me any piece is the tip of the iceberg of creation and the creative process.. the creation of any piece has intrinsic value and stands on its own terms, regardless of whatever subjective interpretation someone might have, it's an organic process like a natural law, a blade of grass growing is art... the resulting collision between subject-object is a mysterious and nameless phenomenon, dependant on too many factors to count and perhaps part of the universal creative process itself..

I used to be very obsessed about realism and painstakingly well presented art, but that has gone down the drain in regards to visual art and perhaps some day it will with my view of music... I feel like i am on the verge of breaking out in a picasso phase one of these days, some days I wish I could unlearn everything I've learnt in music and art.

like there's a piece of me that looks at that goldfish painting and can only analyze the presentation and composition, criticize the execution, another piece that feels like if that was the only thing that existed in the universe and no one to watch it, everything would be perfectly fine..

I guess there's a kind of hidden sanctity to it, the purity of the experience of art (regardless of whether it's positive or negative) is important to me to the point that i dislike terms, signifiers and explanations..

Thanks Limp!

Also like your post chim, and yes:

  On 2/20/2015 at 1:52 AM, chim said:

I'm very conflicted about it.. on the one hand i think it's the only thing that truly matters in life, on the other hand whenever I see or hear the word "art" I want to reach for a revolver.. because that means somebody is trying to make an objective statement about something and i think that's ludicrous

 

^I often feel the same about this

I'm growing more and more disillusioned about art and the environments it thrives in...

mostly because of notions of ownership and how it's colliding with technology.

basically capitalism-driven technology is where a lot of culture is coming from, and the very act of projecting some sort of value onto specific colored rectangles seems super silly to me, nowadays.

art seems to be stuck with representations for the naked eye/ear, and it can't really deal with complex topics such as, say, particle physics or computation.

Nice chim, but I'd dare to say, the feeling you describe just isn't possible. I don't think any brain can be in an environment for a long time and not be bored and not want to change it. Maybe this progression you see in yourself is part of the analytical process, it's just you want a new direction from before. I do agree about sanctity of experience, but at the same time I feel like, with enough experience, there will be progress, and thus you're kind of altering the experience to be something more already