• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"ART" - a One Word Oxymoron

Halfcentaur said:
Much of the classic art people place on such a pedestal, like the renaissance masters, were often copying from mirror reflections. Basically tracing imagery they projected on the wall. There are many double standards and too many emotions that get caught up in this topic. As a professional artist, while i am intrigued by technique and talent, I call anything that takes technique and subtlety an art. There is an art to many things.
Click to expand...

Isn't that technically "craftsmanship"?
 
Travis said:
To offer a contrary opinion to JQ, who won't see this because I'm on his ever expanding ignore list, is that the government should fund the arts.

Why? Well art defines us. Art is a legacy of a culture. Not all of it is going to appeal to everyone. By definition it almost can't because all art is is the deliberate construction of something to evoke emotion through aesthetics. Everything that accomplishes that is "art" no matter how much you might want to define it otherwise.
Click to expand...

Government-funded tattoo parlours then?

Not sure this one is going to get through first reading.
 
Marti epairing one of my "found materials" art things in the desert.
Some passersby took exception to it. :)
"Piss Christ" baffles me.
WTF is it about?
And did he refresh the urine every day?
Urine does age poorly! :(
 

Attachments

  • jrDesertArt-03.jpg
    jrDesertArt-03.jpg
    146.1 KB · Views: 8
JonathanQuick said:
Mothers of children were outraged at this.
Click to expand...

What other kind of mothers is there?


JonathanQuick said:
Why don't you find SOME examples of Bad Art by Republicans.
Click to expand...

Now that's just silly. Everyone knows that artists are all granola-munching lefties. Republicans don't create art. They just complain about it.

JonathanQuick said:
Do you have any children? Grandchildren? Nephews? Nieces?

Imagine taking them to the "art" museum for a day. You enter a room and there are five naked homosexuals with sadomasochistic tools, doing whatever they wish. Your youngsters under your charge look on, not knowing what to say or do.

The room monitor does not blink, but tells you "This is art. If you don't like it, leave."
Click to expand...

Has this ever happened? Ever? That aside, why must all art be suitable for children?

Fnord said:
Well, that explains the lack of creativity in our current media market -- everything comes down to some computer geek trying to produce images that will have greater appeal than anything crafted by hand.
Click to expand...

So the tools used are more important than the actual art created?

'Avatar' is known for its fantastic imagery, but did it win an Oscar for 'Best Picture'? No. Instead, 'Avatar' and director James Cameron picked up three awards in technical categories: visual effects, art direction, and cinematography, thus demonstrating that technical artifice is not art.
Click to expand...

"Fantastic imagery", "visual effects", "art direction", and "cinemetography" all sound like "art" to me.



I Ratant said:
"Piss Christ" baffles me.
WTF is it about?
And did he refresh the urine every day?
Urine does age poorly! :(
Click to expand...

The work of art was a photograph. No need to refresh the urine.
 
JonathanQuick said:
Why don't you do JUST THAT.
Why don't you find SOME examples of Bad Art by Republicans.

Don't just talk the talk. Let's SEE something.

Republicans are ALWAYS being maligned as "greedy" and "polluters."

Somehow "artists" has never crept in to any of those attacks by the Left.

Please, be the first. I welcome it.
Click to expand...

Not every artist. good or bad, makes their politics known,

But the republican party paid $7500 in money donated by Florida Republicans to support the party for a portrait of Charlie Crist, then tried to get rid of it on ebay when he defected.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/05/florida-gop-puts-charlie-crist.html

Here's a truly terrible republican rapper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uAhg9Qg-Pc&feature=related

I'd generally challenge you to point to a good artist who's a republican. I'm sure they exist, but I doubt they're very common.
 
Yes, and until I set them straight, they don't what they're looking at!
 
Travis said:
To offer a contrary opinion to JQ, who won't see this because I'm on his ever expanding ignore list, is that the government should fund the arts.

Why? Well art defines us. Art is a legacy of a culture. Not all of it is going to appeal to everyone. By definition it almost can't because all art is is the deliberate construction of something to evoke emotion through aesthetics. Everything that accomplishes that is "art" no matter how much you might want to define it otherwise.
Click to expand...

Are you saying culture can't exist without government funding? If a government art committee picks one artist over another what is the criteria?

I happen to like comic and Manga art. Do you think it would be proper to use taxpayer money to subsidize a museum of comic book art? Or Japanese erotic Manga? I don't. The fact that I might like it dosen't mean people who don't like it, should be compelled to pay for it.
 
MontagK505 said:
Are you saying culture can't exist without government funding? If a government art committee picks one artist over another what is the criteria?

I happen to like comic and Manga art. Do you think it would be proper to use taxpayer money to subsidize a museum of comic book art? Or Japanese erotic Manga? I don't. The fact that I might like it dosen't mean people who don't like it, should be compelled to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Art has had the equivalent of government funding for most of it's history. Whether it was the cave folk bringing food to the guy who did the sacred dance, the noblemen and kings who collected taxes and used their tax-gotten wealth to patronize the arts, or the church using tithed money in the same way.

If you're interested in how the NEA decides who gets funding,
http://www.nea.gov/Grants/apply/GAP11/FAQs.html

Scroll down to application review.
 
JFrankA said:
That's the thing about art. It invokes a reaction. I've always thought of Giger's work as horrific and scary but with very sexual overtones. Almost makes you feel repulsed and aroused at the same time. In that case, Jonathan is right: That is art being an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Well, not really. I see why you say it's an oxymoron in that it evokes two contradicting responses... but I think both of these reactions (feeling disgusted and feeling aroused) are perfectly within the range of reactions that a piece of art can evoke. So in that sense, there is no oxymoron, since art isn't supposed to evoke certain specific types of reactions and not others.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Well, not really. I see why you say it's an oxymoron in that it evokes two contradicting responses... but I think both of these reactions (feeling disgusted and feeling aroused) are perfectly within the range of reactions that a piece of art can evoke. So in that sense, there is no oxymoron, since art isn't supposed to evoke certain specific types of reactions and not others.
Click to expand...

Good point. :)
 
stilicho said:
Government-funded tattoo parlours then?
Click to expand...

Hell, why not?


While I don't know about a completely government funded tattoo parlor but I wouldn't doubt some funds to help in the artistic training would be alright.
 
JFrankA said:
That's the thing about art. It invokes a reaction. I've always thought of Giger's work as horrific and scary but with very sexual overtones. Almost makes you feel repulsed and aroused at the same time. In that case, Jonathan is right: That is art being an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

The eyes in Keane's paintings were creepy as hell. The thing that disturbs me that some of that is intended to be cute.

Some of H.R. Gigers stuff in Necronomicon II looks like Inferno meets extreme cyborg sex.

I don't think the movie "Alien" would have worked nearly as well without his designs.
 
Cavemonster said:
Art has had the equivalent of government funding for most of it's history. Whether it was the cave folk bringing food to the guy who did the sacred dance, the noblemen and kings who collected taxes and used their tax-gotten wealth to patronize the arts, or the church using tithed money in the same way.

If you're interested in how the NEA decides who gets funding,
http://www.nea.gov/Grants/apply/GAP11/FAQs.html

Scroll down to application review.
Click to expand...

The fact that governments and Kings have supported art throughout history is hardly a justification for continuing the practice.
Most of us don't support the principle implied in the “Divine Right of Kings”, why should we support the implied principle that some art must have government support?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom