Originally Posted by Odin
That's the idea. One can paint, sculpt, or paint a beautiful nude female (I will leave the judgment of the male form to someone else) -- but when one has no subtlety and fails to have something other than the nude as a focus (such as figuring that there is more to the woman than sex) one has pornography -- which lies outside the realm of art. Paradoxically it might be the 'modern art' treatment of the nude that is least pornographic. The nudes that Picasso and Matisse paint are thus not pornographic. Pornography is usually seen outside the scope of "art". There seems to be nothing to the personality of that nude female. This is practically a painting for a Gilded Age whorehouse.
Bouguereau has an accurate image of a woman, but the wave fails to convince me. The wave looks to be in the wrong place due to faulty perspective, which in my book is incompetence. Bouguereau seems to be the painter for the Dirty Old Man of his day.
![[Image: quote_icon.png]](http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by Taramarie ![[Image: viewpost-right.png]](http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png)
I will just put this here so one person in particular knows the exact definition of what art actually is.
One can extend the definition:
![[Image: 250px-Daisen-in2.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Daisen-in2.jpg/250px-Daisen-in2.jpg)
![[Image: 500px-Shisendo_DSC0480.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Shisendo_DSC0480.jpg/500px-Shisendo_DSC0480.jpg)
It can be art even if it uses the conventions of a kid's cartoon and references to mass low culture (like The Three Stooges). It's modern art in this case. Two versions side-by-side. (I prefer the original).
The big difference to most people is not whether something is art or is not, but instead between what is good art and what is not-so-good art. Few people pretend that an account of a household fire, someone winning a golf tournament, or the transaction volume of a stock exchange is art. A banal snapshot is not art. Even if some skill and selection is made (I have drawn a road map from Point A to Point B as instructions) the effort is not art. A picture of a random pile of dirty laundry is not art.
Good art and bad art? There are conventions of perspective, topic, and color in the visual arts. A great artist might break one or two of those conventions and get away with it. A green-colored nude with deliberately-misaligned breasts (the artist might have reasons) might be art, and a more realistic staged photo involving a sexually-charged scene might be 'mere' pornography. It is unlikely that anyone could get genuine art out of an image of an automobile wrecking-yard... but one could make a very nasty slum the backdrop as a contrast to the delicacy of innocent children who deserve far better.
Art remains a luxury. A high level of artistic talent remains scarce -- and often takes great resources to hone into something valuable. Even with an artist's talent, the materials of artistic accomplishment (canvas, paint, stone, photographic film, raw sheet music, musical instruments, maybe computer storage) aren't cheap. It may be possible to get a tolerable piece of painted canvas for less than the cost of a banal trip to a casino or amusement park, but having the value that sees a painting more precious than the thrill of getting a big win off a slot machine is itself 'bourgeois'. (new: even the ability to appreciate art is something of a luxury, suggesting having time for visiting museums and being able to contemplate art).
I find no message in Paul Gauguin's Tahitian beauties or Monet's water lilies. I might 'hear' a message in a symphony that you don't because my background is different from yours. When someone tries to make the message overpower the artistic expression in other respects I find something suspect.
In some of my bleakest times I have gone to an art museum and found myself refreshed -- typically by art that has no blatant meaning. Some that does have meaning, if not so much beauty?
![[Image: l.jpg]](https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/v_OwodO3H7qUolFJHv5y0g--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9MzYxO3E9OTU7dz02MDA-/http://s3-media4.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/ytOXrLluR2iR3P09aWYHag/l.jpg)
http://classes.toledomuseum.org:8080/emu...8baa7de6cb
This is a very modern work, Athanor, which depicts the last stage of existence of Hitler's Reichskanzlei i n which much evil was done. With some knowledge of what the scene alludes to, I can only think of the warning awaiting those damned to Hell in Dante's Inferno:
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate
(Abandon all hope, ye who enter here).
For those who did their dirty work here, this place is a literal portal to Hell. There are allusions to the rails that led people in livestock cars to gas chambers and their cadavers to an undignified disposal in a crematorium, consequences of decisions made in that building. But that interpretation is mine, one the consequence of the values in which I was brought up. One is that God can forgive most of us for our shortcomings, but that He has His limitations -- Nazis and Stalinists can burn in Hell.
Quote:Jesus, that Bouguereau painting is pretty much porn, and I love that Malevich painting.
That's the idea. One can paint, sculpt, or paint a beautiful nude female (I will leave the judgment of the male form to someone else) -- but when one has no subtlety and fails to have something other than the nude as a focus (such as figuring that there is more to the woman than sex) one has pornography -- which lies outside the realm of art. Paradoxically it might be the 'modern art' treatment of the nude that is least pornographic. The nudes that Picasso and Matisse paint are thus not pornographic. Pornography is usually seen outside the scope of "art". There seems to be nothing to the personality of that nude female. This is practically a painting for a Gilded Age whorehouse.
Bouguereau has an accurate image of a woman, but the wave fails to convince me. The wave looks to be in the wrong place due to faulty perspective, which in my book is incompetence. Bouguereau seems to be the painter for the Dirty Old Man of his day.
Originally Posted by Taramarie I will just put this here so one person in particular knows the exact definition of what art actually is.
Quote:the definition of art
the expression OR application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
But you know what REAL art is of course, don't you? You know better naturally because in your own words, you have a higher level of thinking than the rest of us "peasants." Including lecturers, artists and art students. Bravo.
One can extend the definition:
It can be art even if it uses the conventions of a kid's cartoon and references to mass low culture (like The Three Stooges). It's modern art in this case. Two versions side-by-side. (I prefer the original).
Quote:Last edited by pbrower2a; 09-07-2015 at 11:51 PM.
The big difference to most people is not whether something is art or is not, but instead between what is good art and what is not-so-good art. Few people pretend that an account of a household fire, someone winning a golf tournament, or the transaction volume of a stock exchange is art. A banal snapshot is not art. Even if some skill and selection is made (I have drawn a road map from Point A to Point B as instructions) the effort is not art. A picture of a random pile of dirty laundry is not art.
Good art and bad art? There are conventions of perspective, topic, and color in the visual arts. A great artist might break one or two of those conventions and get away with it. A green-colored nude with deliberately-misaligned breasts (the artist might have reasons) might be art, and a more realistic staged photo involving a sexually-charged scene might be 'mere' pornography. It is unlikely that anyone could get genuine art out of an image of an automobile wrecking-yard... but one could make a very nasty slum the backdrop as a contrast to the delicacy of innocent children who deserve far better.
Art remains a luxury. A high level of artistic talent remains scarce -- and often takes great resources to hone into something valuable. Even with an artist's talent, the materials of artistic accomplishment (canvas, paint, stone, photographic film, raw sheet music, musical instruments, maybe computer storage) aren't cheap. It may be possible to get a tolerable piece of painted canvas for less than the cost of a banal trip to a casino or amusement park, but having the value that sees a painting more precious than the thrill of getting a big win off a slot machine is itself 'bourgeois'. (new: even the ability to appreciate art is something of a luxury, suggesting having time for visiting museums and being able to contemplate art).
I find no message in Paul Gauguin's Tahitian beauties or Monet's water lilies. I might 'hear' a message in a symphony that you don't because my background is different from yours. When someone tries to make the message overpower the artistic expression in other respects I find something suspect.
In some of my bleakest times I have gone to an art museum and found myself refreshed -- typically by art that has no blatant meaning. Some that does have meaning, if not so much beauty?
http://classes.toledomuseum.org:8080/emu...8baa7de6cb
This is a very modern work, Athanor, which depicts the last stage of existence of Hitler's Reichskanzlei i n which much evil was done. With some knowledge of what the scene alludes to, I can only think of the warning awaiting those damned to Hell in Dante's Inferno:
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate
(Abandon all hope, ye who enter here).
For those who did their dirty work here, this place is a literal portal to Hell. There are allusions to the rails that led people in livestock cars to gas chambers and their cadavers to an undignified disposal in a crematorium, consequences of decisions made in that building. But that interpretation is mine, one the consequence of the values in which I was brought up. One is that God can forgive most of us for our shortcomings, but that He has His limitations -- Nazis and Stalinists can burn in Hell.
Quote:Last edited by pbrower2a; 09-08-2015 at 12:58 PM.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
