Art Reviewers Societal Exemplaires

T

TimR

Member
Messages
2,731
I was suggesting that the tree is beauty. But not art. (Ignore that a human made an image of it ) Is it’s beauty enough to call it art. I don’t think so…assuming you also find it beautiful in some way. I won’t assume you do, necessarily.

That it can only be experienced in the instant of existence could perhaps be said of art? Regardless of its perceived beauty. You experience art as the audience, in that moment you are confronted by it. Its continued existence afterwards, elsewhere, has no further meaning for the ‘art’ you experienced- ergo it can only be in the here and now (Which is why prints are largely without value…maybe…?)
Beauty isn’t something I seek to coin. I’ve done something wrong if that‘s what I’ve done
 
CatmanV2

CatmanV2

Member
Messages
48,806
TimR said:
I was suggesting that the tree is beauty. But not art. (Ignore that a human made an image of it ) Is it’s beauty enough to call it art. I don’t think so…assuming you also find it beautiful in some way. I won’t assume you do, necessarily.

That it can only be experienced in the instant of existence could perhaps be said of art? Regardless of its perceived beauty. You experience art as the audience, in that moment you are confronted by it. Its continued existence afterwards, elsewhere, has no further meaning for the ‘art’ you experienced- ergo it can only be in the here and now (Which is why prints are largely without value…maybe…?)
Beauty isn’t something I seek to coin. I’ve done something wrong if that‘s what I’ve done
Click to expand...

Sorry. Was discussing the point. And you are correct about the experience. What I sought to differentiate was that one can look at a photo repeatedly and it will be (almost) identical. A real tree won't be.

I like your thought that beauty isn't per se art :)

C
 
T

TimR

Member
Messages
2,731
Fair play….I was slightly befuddled by the notion of how a tree works, questioning if my limited understanding, also limited my capacity to appreciate it.…:)
 
DLax69

DLax69

Member
Messages
4,307
philw696 said:
I really like that Den.
Love the frame too which I'm guessing is yours ?
The background as well the patina is my kind of thing :)
Click to expand...
Thanks, Phil! You are correct...I make the frames out of wood we are reclaiming from the house reno. And she took the picture on top of an 19c Chinese piece we have in the office/library which came to us that way...

I also appreciate everyone else who "liked" the image...again, thanks for indulging your American cousin.
 
DLax69

DLax69

Member
Messages
4,307
CatmanV2 said:
Sorry. Was discussing the point. And you are correct about the experience. What I sought to differentiate was that one can look at a photo repeatedly and it will be (almost) identical. A real tree won't be.

I like your thought that beauty isn't per se art :)

C
Click to expand...
...conversely, not all art is beautiful. Nor does it necessarily have to be...at least in my opinion.
 
joered

joered

Member
Messages
440
The phrase "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" could easily encompass Art as well.

But how do you define it?

While one could be moved in some regard by say Tracy Emins "My bed" another may regard it as

some sort of Con, and ask where is the beauty or art in that?

In short both beauty and Art are subjective, and are tied to an individuals perception.

And that is as far as you can go.

Or is it?

Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that deals with beauty and perhaps Art.

While Aesthetic pleasure is also subjective there a re some general principals that can make

aesthetics both subjective and universal.

Symmetry is perhaps one, the Mona Lisa smile can cross cultural backgrounds,while the colours in say Lichtenstein Sequential art can be universaly appreciated.

Overall, what makes something aesthetically pleasing in both art and beauty is a complex and subjective mix of factors that includes symmetry, colour, personal preferences, and cultural background.
 
Phil H

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,171
IMHO one of the most important features is that of creativity; there's nothing wrong with decorative art per se and it serves a purpose, but there's a lot of the twaddle spoken about non-conformist works (cubist/abstract/impressionist/etc) where the 'creativity' is rather dubious to say the least - and that's where the hype comes in.
 
Phil H

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,171
I have more than my fair share of conventional art, both as prints and originals, but I'm currently getting a lot of pleasure from building one of these from Rokr:

615dqNFQcjL._AC_SL1045_.jpg


It's very well designed, and I'm just as fascinated by the quality of manufacture as I am by the end result. They are quite pleasing on the eye. although great dust collectors unless covered.
 
T

TimR

Member
Messages
2,731
Phil H said:
IMHO one of the most important features is that of creativity; there's nothing wrong with decorative art per se and it serves a purpose, but there's a lot of the twaddle spoken about non-conformist works (cubist/abstract/impressionist/etc) where the 'creativity' is rather dubious to say the least - and that's where the hype comes in.
Click to expand...
Of course, you’re entitked & welcome to your opinion. Much like the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In the same way love is blind, maybe?
I would argue that art needs no purpose. It is subversive by its very existence. We don’t need it; it doesn’t feed us, clothe us, keep us warm. We have no presription for its being. It is then outside our human imperative to survive. It is the fat of out success, indulged ( although, there is many an artist who gained little, if any benefit from their endeavors) by those with the timerity to shun other pursuits, and for its own sake.…Whether any of this makes it ‘art’ is some sort of philosophical maze; the $60M dollar question! And surely a matter for the individual. As much as I am hard wired to be a socialist, I can’t agree with a collective experience beyond all reason. We cannot then share the same understanding and reach thecsame determination about what is, and isn’t twiddle. So, you’re welcome to youre view but must concede that others don’t share it…
And so we arrive at what value art has. Clearly some. In expression, creativity. For the artists, and what the voyeurs get from it…And quite separately from the capitalists who seek to profit from the pedal,ing of it .
Let’s not turn a blind eye to the historical context of its emergence as an instrument of power and wealth either, wielded by religion, at the behest of God himself with promises of eternal life or at least not damnstion…just paint the propaganda dear boy, there a good chap…!:p

Which is along winded way of saying, do what you like. Anything goes…! Until it doesn’t. And, as Ewan has already pointed out, when it doesn’t go, it’s a Maser- arty :whistle:
 
Last edited:
Phil H

Phil H

Member
Messages
4,171
Art doesn't need a purpose, although it can serve one insofar as it can stimulate the old grey cells and provoke debate. It would be a boring old world if we all shared the same opinion, so I don't disagree with your sentiment Tim. That said, the art world has plenty of folk who are more interested in their bank balances than the artistic merit of meaningless blobs hanging in their galleries ;)
 
T

TimR

Member
Messages
2,731
Phil H said:
Art doesn't need a purpose, although it can serve one insofar as it can stimulate the old grey cells and provoke debate. It would be a boring old world if we all shared the same opinion, so I don't disagree with your sentiment Tim. That said, the art world has plenty of folk who are more interested in their bank balances than the artistic merit of meaningless blobs hanging in their galleries ;)
Click to expand...
Van Gogh didn’t sell a single canvas when he was alive!
Just saying…!;)
 
joered

joered

Member
Messages
440
While many can wonder at Michelangelos Pieta in the Vatican


In Italy if you ever get the chance while in Naples go to the Sansevero Chapel and there is another trueley wonderful marble Sculpture called The Veiled Christ.
Imagegdmj2.jpgImage4li.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.