Originally posted by bas
I just read Watchmen and now I want to be a vagabond in a mask beating up thugs in a ty dive bar. Hell yeah Rorschach.
:stongue:
MrJiveBoJingles
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
...art is intrinisically linked to the promotion of ideals, values, or philosophies.
I am not an aestheticist like Nabokov, but I have to disagree with this. Sure, you can read a moral or an ideal into any work of art, but that does not mean that the artist made it to "express a philosophy" or something. Of course, you might say that the artist's intent does not matter: what matters is what you yourself get out of experiencing the artwork. I have some sympathy for that view...
:p
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I am not an aestheticist like Nabokov, but I have to disagree with this. Sure, you can read a moral or an ideal into any work of art, but that does not mean that the artist made it to "express a philosophy" or something. Of course, you might say that the artist's intent does not matter: what matters is what you yourself get out of experiencing the artwork. I have some sympathy for that view...
:p
I think every artist has intention in his art. Even Pollack wished to convey that art doesn't need to have form - it can break free of social constructions of art and just be. Art generally pushes boundaries, whether it be moral, political, religious, or merely the boundary of what actually constitutes art.
MrJiveBoJingles
Sure, there is intention in every work of art. I just wanted to note that the intent of the artist may not connect to morality or to a systematic philosophy of any kind, whether aesthetic or ethical or whatever. It could be just a whim, for example.
:clown:
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Sure, there is intention in every work of art. I just wanted to note that the intent of the artist may not connect to morality or to a systematic philosophy of any kind, whether aesthetic or ethical or whatever. It could be just a whim, for example.
:clown:
I agree that it doesn't necessarily correlate to a moral or philosophical school of thought - but I think that all art intends to impart a particular thought or idea on the viewer/reader.
The magnitude of that idea can vary, as can its complexity, of course.
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Well that eliminates anything painted with the purpose of glorifying God as "art" - art is intrinisically linked to the promotion of ideals, values, or philosophies.
No it doesn't - glorifying God or other religious figures is fine as art, but the sole purpose of such work is rarely to merely convert people or make them "believe" in the agenda of the artist creating the work, even if he or she would want that. The intention can be clear as day, but art fails as a means of commandment because it is merely a presentation of intention or agenda, not a statement of consequence for denial of art in the first place. Leave consequence to lawmakers and Priests, art exists to help people see the wold they live in, to show them; not tell them how to see it.
Lebezniatnikov
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
No it doesn't - glorifying God or other religious figures is fine as art, but the sole purpose of such work is rarely to merely convert people or make them "believe" in the agenda of the artist creating the work, even if he or she would want that. The intention can be clear as day, but art fails as a means of commandment because it is merely a presentation of intention or agenda, not a statement of consequence for denial of art in the first place. Leave consequence to lawmakers and Priests, art exists to help people see the wold they live in, to show them; not tell them how to see it.
Well I agree that it's impossible to imbue consequence on art, but the mere intentionality is what I was referring to. Art is a form of persuasion, not a form of commandment.
denys envy
has anyone mentioned scientology yet?
Vlad
quote:
Originally posted by denys envy
has anyone mentioned scientology yet?
Halcyon+On+On
I agree that art can be persuasive, but as an expression, it is not merely some instruction or suggestion. Some art does not have a point because pointlessness mocks intention. Does the artist who picks up his pen or brush and creates a work which mocks society or reality really want his observer to denounce all forms of order and perception? Or is he just playing with the idea?
MrJiveBoJingles
Some of the Dadaists used to hold events where they would have someone read a poem without stopping while a loud bell rang every few seconds, making it impossible to hear the whole poem. What was their persuasive intent?
:conf:
denys envy
quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Some of the Dadaists used to hold events where they would have someone read a poem without stopping while a loud bell rang every few seconds, making it impossible to hear the whole poem. What was their persuasive intent?
:conf:
When did anything in the Dada movement have a point (persuasive intent)? Wasn't it the whole point to ignore the standards and rules created by society and make things as abstract as possible?
i really wish i've studied more into this, we just briefly touched on it during my theatre curriculum in college.
