Why is there a forum for movies, another for “comics, books and tv”, but no forum for music. Just curious.
“Writing about music is like dancing about literature.” – Elvis Costello
Wasn’t it architecture?
Yes, and I hope there are some good architecture-dancers out there, because I greatly enjoy reading intelligent writers on music… (e.g. James Huneker, Charles Rosen, Alan Pollack etc.)
Music gets bundled into comics/tv/etc. What, you expect the Qt3 fora to be organized??? :)
I thought architecture wasn’t art? You know along with photography and so forth.
Didn’t somebody (was it Goethe?) say that architecture was “frozen music?”
So the question then becomes: can you dance about frozen music?
And does this mean music is melted architecture?
I dunno, it’s hard for me to look at Notre Dame Cathedral and not say “that’s art!” A matter of definition I suppose.
No, its a matter of human capacity.
It was a matter of me recalling to mind older threads from QT3 where some jackoff was attempting to make the point that architecture and photography weren’t art. <sigh> I give up.
Good. Oblique referential humor ain’t fer sissies.
No, its a matter of human capacity.[/quote]
I have no idea what that means.
No, its a matter of human capacity.[/quote]
I have no idea what that means.[/quote]
It means that the size of your bladder dictates one’s appreciation of art. The smaller the bladder, the more time one spends in quiet contemplation about art.
Troy
No, its a matter of human capacity.[/quote]
I have no idea what that means.[/quote]
It means that the size of your bladder dictates one’s appreciation of art. The smaller the bladder, the more time one spends in quiet contemplation about art.
Troy[/quote]
It seems to me that the larger your bladder, the longer you can spend in quiet contemplation of art.
No, its a matter of human capacity.[/quote]
I have no idea what that means.[/quote]
It means that the size of your bladder dictates one’s appreciation of art. The smaller the bladder, the more time one spends in quiet contemplation about art.
Troy[/quote]
It seems to me that the larger your bladder, the longer you can spend in quiet contemplation of art.[/quote]
Nope. It’s an inverse relationship.
Small bladders = more bathroom time = more time away from the world
Troy
I dunno, it’s hard for me to look at Notre Dame Cathedral and not say “that’s art!” A matter of definition I suppose.[/quote]
Clarifying: No. Its a matter of human capacity.
A definition by nature is something shared. Art is something that is created by the viewer (the art appreciator) and is only shared if he can communicate what he has created. Much of that sharing only takes place if the other human has the capacity to appreciate the art in the same way.
I’ve waxed poetic before about art in computer games, or art in sport, or art in many other forms but I rarely appreciate paintings or sculptures. Regardless of whatever definition you would like to present I have the capacity to see art in a specific way and by specific means, just as everyone else does.
Art can be defined, but never in terms of whether a specific thing is art. Art does not reside in things but rather in the relationship between that thing and the person creating the art (the appreciator).
Its a matter of human capacity.
Good. Oblique referential humor ain’t fer sissies.[/quote]
Well it caused quite the stir back then.
Nevermind, I live in the past.
It sounds to me like you don’t have any capacity to appreciate actual art (which is created by artists, not “the viewer”), and yet you desire the intellectual cache of tossing the term “art” around in a knowledgable manner, so you’ve redefined “art” to mean anything you want it to (i.e., athletics, while according to the Greeks one of the pillars of culture, cannot be considered art by any stretch of the imagination).
Art can be defined, but never in terms of whether a specific thing is art. Art does not reside in things but rather in the relationship between that thing and the person creating the art (the appreciator).
But art must be defined somehow and this in turn will impact the spectrum of things which (according to one’s definition) qualify, or fit into that definition… (This of course will vary from person to person.)
Do I personally consider a building to be art? Well, depends on the building. Notre Dame, Cheops Pyramid, Pantheon, of course I do. But “art” is a word that is generally going to be defined more fluidly than, say, “tree” or “ungulate.” More open to interpretation. And according to some folks’ definition maybe a building doesn’t qualify. That’s all I was saying.
/me stumbles off to sleep
Why should we need to define what’s art or not at all? Do you really need to be told what’s ‘art’ for you to be able to appreciate it? By trying to classify what’s art and what’s not, at all, all you are doing is giving someone the basis to argue and debate about the said object. Is it not able to just be fucking appreciated for Christ’s sake?
It’s one thing to have an opinion on something. I dislike The White Stripes, Steve dislikes Pink Floyd, we agree to disagree and that’s done with it. If I were to say that The White Stripes aren’t ‘art’ for x reason, and Pink Floyd are for x reason, then that debate would go on forever and be un-ending and no appreciation would get done and we’d all deserve to be shot in the face.
I might be jumping the gun here, but I’m tired of this debate. I spent one too many afternoons arguing with supposed ‘art’-majors trying to convince them that by classifying something, it stifles creativity and opinion-based discussion. It creates an aura of elitism and makes those who are elite feel that everyone below them is subservient to their lifted and higher awareness.
Sorry if this is off-topic, and I ruined a good running gag, but it’s really just plain annoying.
[quote=“Ignatius_P_Reilly”]
It sounds to me like you don’t have any capacity to appreciate actual art (which is created by artists, not “the viewer”),[/quote]
A person creates something. The viewer looks at it and calls it art. He THEN looks around for what generated this thing and calls him an “artist”. The “artist” beams with pride and then calls HIMSELF an artist.
THEN another human comes along who produces something similar. Since this other similar thing was already called art this human BYPASSES the “viewer” and goes ahead and calls what he produced “art” and calls himself an artist. But he never looks at what he produces… he is looking at the previous thing, the thing honored. And the viewer smiles, recognizing something similar to what was already called art and thus calls this thing art too.
And thus, the idiocy of your position, the entire history of your position, and the position which came to be known as true was born and cultivated. The Artist who produces things that are inherently art based on past reference.
And then when someone like me comes along who says “that painting is not art” and “that computer game is art” he is met with derision.
A computer game? What the hell is that? Where’s the past reference that enables us to close our eyes and pin the Art on the donkey?
Ahh, paintings… warmy and So fuzzy. Past references.
Paintings are still shots. A moment captured. A scene or something else frozen.
What if the medium becomes boring? How can you look at something while being bored of it? WHY would you?
What if you lose touch with the medium? What if still shots are not to your taste… you may prefer a more vibrant or dynamic medium.
So you say a painting isn’t art, and are scorned by those who either have the capacity to see it as art OR those who feel the weight of PAST REFERENCE on their shoulder and mouth the words “its art”.
If noone calls something art that doesn’t mean it isn’t, that just means that noone who viewed it saw it as art. The next human might. VIEWERS determine what is art and what is not art. You heard it here first.
The rules of the sport indicate the bounds of the art, and humans then engage in the artform. I’m not going to go into an explanation in this post, but as an analogy a painter has his artform bounds… the material he is painting on, the material he is painting with, etc.
Sports tend to be more limited (the overbearing win/lose prerogative) in application than many other artforms but that doesn’t disqualify them.
I can go into a more complete explanation if requested.
Why should we need to define what’s art or not at all? Do you really need to be told what’s ‘art’ for you to be able to appreciate it? By trying to classify what’s art and what’s not, at all, all you are doing is giving someone the basis to argue and debate about the said object. Is it not able to just be fucking appreciated for Christ’s sake?
Can you stop being so fucking condenscending for Christ’s sake?
Jesus fuck, I didn’t mean for my throwaway comment (“a matter of definition”) to turn into some big fucking production. And I don’t appreciate your arrogant, superior tone of voice.
If you define art as such-and-such then that definition will have consequences… so if someone doesn’t think a building can be art, bully for them. I know you probably think I’m really square and clueless and confused for having things like “definitions” but that’s how we get through the world, we define things, we categorize them, we label them, and the labels are always imperfect and always shifting and always fluid and always an approximation.
I don’t spend all day agonizing about this. I don’t normally give two fucks what is “art” or what is not. But if the question is put to me, I will ponder it, which is what I have done here. I appreciate a tree and I appreciate Beethoven. I don’t consider them both to be art, however. There are divisions and there are categories etc. Art has to be defined as SOMETHING, just as a cup and a dog and a telephone and a kidneystone have to be defined in some way. That doesn’t mean we all sit around agonizing over the definition but those definitions, even if only implied, even if never articulated, have some kind of reality.
It’s called “language” and it’s the way certain hairless apes process information in the world.
I don’t need to be told Notre Dame is “art” in order to appreciate it. Its Notre Dameness doesn’t care what word we affix to it. That’s not what I was talking about at all. Jesus, all I was saying was that whether a building is “art” depends how you define “art” and then Koontz comes in with his cryptic comment and I’m trying to respond to that, and now you’re fucking coming in giving me some stupid lecture about how all my evil definitions are bringing me down and preventing me from experiencing the universe in all its totality or something.
Just fuck off, okay?