Arts Quiz
Comments
-
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.0 -
Yeah, it's subjective. Is it just something with can cause debate and opinion?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be harder to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
I mean, is the Brexit thread a work of art?0 -
focuszing723 said:
Yeah, it's subjective. Is it just something with can cause debate and opinion?briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be harder to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
I mean, is the Brexit thread a work of art?
I did, of course, mean to say it would be "easier to nail down jelly".
If you consider the Brexit thread art, that's up to you, but I'm not going to.0 -
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.0 -
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
And yet you seek to exclude some things that are beautiful, that are made that way intentionally when they need not be, because they also happen to be functional. Seems an oddly inconsistent argument to me.rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
0 -
rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
Pedant hat on, it would have been better with a comma after 'contemplated' if they didn't want it to be construed as "contemplated as beautiful". The inclusion of 'beauty' as a central part of the definition is simply wrong. That doesn't mean to say that people aren't allowed, or wrong, to prefer looking at 'beautiful' art, but it's as nonsensical as it would be to define music as having pretty tunes. As Harrison Birtwistle mischievously demonstrated with his Last Night Of The Proms piece 'Panic'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25j1wcO7yfY
0 -
And, obviously, you could spur people to contemplate the idea of beauty with something that isn't in itself 'beautiful'.0
-
Is that guy staring at a blank wall waiting for some unsuspecting victim to approach so he can regale them with his pretentious opinions on what he thinks the artist intended it to show?focuszing723 said::max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/mondrian-painting-at-rijksmuseum--amsterdam--holland-598748594-5b3e55d1c9e77c00375a0dda.jpg)
Mondrians too, and I don't think it's just La Vie Claire related.0 -
Could you let me know your dictionary of choice? Not often dictionary shopping comes up in conversation, but I know it's a subject of strong views. Sunday Times crossword editor doesn't like Chambers, but here it isbriantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
Pedant hat on, it would have been better with a comma after 'contemplated' if they didn't want it to be construed as "contemplated as beautiful". The inclusion of 'beauty' as a central part of the definition is simply wrong. That doesn't mean to say that people aren't allowed, or wrong, to prefer looking at 'beautiful' art, but it's as nonsensical as it would be to define music as having pretty tunes. As Harrison Birtwistle mischievously demonstrated with his Last Night Of The Proms piece 'Panic'.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25j1wcO7yfY
art1 noun 1 a the creation of works of beauty, especially visual ones; b such creations thought of collectively. 2 human skill and work as opposed to nature. 3 a skill, especially one gained through practice0 -
TheBigBean said:
Could you let me know your dictionary of choice? Not often dictionary shopping comes up in conversation, but I know it's a subject of strong views. Sunday Times crossword editor doesn't like Chambers, but here it isbriantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
Pedant hat on, it would have been better with a comma after 'contemplated' if they didn't want it to be construed as "contemplated as beautiful". The inclusion of 'beauty' as a central part of the definition is simply wrong. That doesn't mean to say that people aren't allowed, or wrong, to prefer looking at 'beautiful' art, but it's as nonsensical as it would be to define music as having pretty tunes. As Harrison Birtwistle mischievously demonstrated with his Last Night Of The Proms piece 'Panic'.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25j1wcO7yfY
art1 noun 1 a the creation of works of beauty, especially visual ones; b such creations thought of collectively. 2 human skill and work as opposed to nature. 3 a skill, especially one gained through practice
Oxford English Dictionary (simply one of the greatest reference works ever), which I can get online for free with my library card. 'Beauty' does come in their definition, but with the qualification of "typically" and the "or". I'd be happy if the 'beauty' part weren't there, obviously.The expression or application of creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting, drawing, or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Also: such works themselves considered collectively.
Dictionaries have an almost impossible job to succinctly define what are immense philosophical questions. For instance, I've read several very long articles grappling with how to define 'jazz', and though the OED doesn't do a bad job in condensing the debate into a simple definition, it would start to fall apart if you started prodding the subject away from the central 'typical' definition.
I think in both instances, "typical" is doing some heavy lifting.0 -
Isn't he part of the exhibit?Pross said:
Is that guy staring at a blank wall waiting for some unsuspecting victim to approach so he can regale them with his pretentious opinions on what he thinks the artist intended it to show?focuszing723 said:
Mondrians too, and I don't think it's just La Vie Claire related.0 -
First.Aspect said:
Isn't he part of the exhibit?Pross said:
Is that guy staring at a blank wall waiting for some unsuspecting victim to approach so he can regale them with his pretentious opinions on what he thinks the artist intended it to show?focuszing723 said:
Mondrians too, and I don't think it's just La Vie Claire related.
He can be, if you want him to be.
The thing is, you can only define what is art to yourself, ultimately (using the word 'define' rather loosely). I absolutely agree with you about disliking people telling me what is 'great art' or what you should like because of their 'better knowledge' of the subject. What they would be better off doing is opening doors and suggesting other ways to look at things which might give them meaning to you. Then if you can't find a meaning, you can just walk away and find something you like or that intrigues you just enough to draw you in.0 -
I don't think "typically" is the get of jail card you are looking for there. It applies to the visual form and not to "be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power". That bit seems remarkably similar to the definition I posted above which doesn't surprise me given they are defining the same word.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Could you let me know your dictionary of choice? Not often dictionary shopping comes up in conversation, but I know it's a subject of strong views. Sunday Times crossword editor doesn't like Chambers, but here it isbriantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
Pedant hat on, it would have been better with a comma after 'contemplated' if they didn't want it to be construed as "contemplated as beautiful". The inclusion of 'beauty' as a central part of the definition is simply wrong. That doesn't mean to say that people aren't allowed, or wrong, to prefer looking at 'beautiful' art, but it's as nonsensical as it would be to define music as having pretty tunes. As Harrison Birtwistle mischievously demonstrated with his Last Night Of The Proms piece 'Panic'.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25j1wcO7yfY
art1 noun 1 a the creation of works of beauty, especially visual ones; b such creations thought of collectively. 2 human skill and work as opposed to nature. 3 a skill, especially one gained through practice
Oxford English Dictionary (simply one of the greatest reference works ever), which I can get online for free with my library card. 'Beauty' does come in their definition, but with the qualification of "typically" and the "or". I'd be happy if the 'beauty' part weren't there, obviously.The expression or application of creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting, drawing, or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Also: such works themselves considered collectively.
Dictionaries have an almost impossible job to succinctly define what are immense philosophical questions. For instance, I've read several very long articles grappling with how to define 'jazz', and though the OED doesn't do a bad job in condensing the debate into a simple definition, it would start to fall apart if you started prodding the subject away from the central 'typical' definition.
I think in both instances, "typical" is doing some heavy lifting.
0 -
BTW, I think the definition of 'liking art' should include not necessarily 'liking' the artwork itself, but liking the fact that it provokes thoughts/reactions, and might change who you are just a teensy weensy little bit.1
-
2 -
.TheBigBean said:
I don't think "typically" is the get of jail card you are looking for there. It applies to the visual form and not to "be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power". That bit seems remarkably similar to the definition I posted above which doesn't surprise me given they are defining the same word.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:
Could you let me know your dictionary of choice? Not often dictionary shopping comes up in conversation, but I know it's a subject of strong views. Sunday Times crossword editor doesn't like Chambers, but here it isbriantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
Pedant hat on, it would have been better with a comma after 'contemplated' if they didn't want it to be construed as "contemplated as beautiful". The inclusion of 'beauty' as a central part of the definition is simply wrong. That doesn't mean to say that people aren't allowed, or wrong, to prefer looking at 'beautiful' art, but it's as nonsensical as it would be to define music as having pretty tunes. As Harrison Birtwistle mischievously demonstrated with his Last Night Of The Proms piece 'Panic'.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25j1wcO7yfY
art1 noun 1 a the creation of works of beauty, especially visual ones; b such creations thought of collectively. 2 human skill and work as opposed to nature. 3 a skill, especially one gained through practice
Oxford English Dictionary (simply one of the greatest reference works ever), which I can get online for free with my library card. 'Beauty' does come in their definition, but with the qualification of "typically" and the "or". I'd be happy if the 'beauty' part weren't there, obviously.The expression or application of creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting, drawing, or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Also: such works themselves considered collectively.
Dictionaries have an almost impossible job to succinctly define what are immense philosophical questions. For instance, I've read several very long articles grappling with how to define 'jazz', and though the OED doesn't do a bad job in condensing the debate into a simple definition, it would start to fall apart if you started prodding the subject away from the central 'typical' definition.
I think in both instances, "typical" is doing some heavy lifting.
Ha, even better, a debatable point of grammar/comprehension in a 'definition'. If you're right, then I'd disagree with that definition too, though the "or emotional power" means they don't consider beauty as essential. But I'd disagree with 'emotional power' being the only alternative.
As I say, any dictionary definition is likely to be a gross simplification of complicated philosophical considerations: they will tend to define what many/most people would consider something to be, but once you stray from those central viewpoints, the water gets very muddy, and you realise that the 'definitions' are only partly true.1 -
I'm really not sure why you are getting so hung up on whether something is beautiful or not. I've already listed a couple of artists whose work is very deliberately not beautiful. Münch would be another. There are others who take beauty as their subject - some of the Pre-Raphaelites maybe. Certainly some of the Old Masters when painting mythological scenes. On the other hand Roman sculpture was very interested in depicting people warts and all, as a way of showing the subject's wisdom and experience. Holbein would be another example.First.Aspect said:
And yet you seek to exclude some things that are beautiful, that are made that way intentionally when they need not be, because they also happen to be functional. Seems an oddly inconsistent argument to me.rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm not getting hung up on anything. Ypu can appreciate art for any reason you want.
You are the one arbitrarily carving off large fields of expression because they relate to form that is also functional.
Munch isn't a good example btw. Regardless of whether it is disturbing, his use of colour to reflect the northern sky is wonderful.
I had a copy of Anxiety in my room at uni. Perfectly summed up finals.0 -
I think it is only you and Brian focusing on the beauty aspect. I was suggesting that your view of the art world was a bit narrow.rjsterry said:
I'm really not sure why you are getting so hung up on whether something is beautiful or not. I've already listed a couple of artists whose work is very deliberately not beautiful. Münch would be another. There are others who take beauty as their subject - some of the Pre-Raphaelites maybe. Certainly some of the Old Masters when painting mythological scenes. On the other hand Roman sculpture was very interested in depicting people warts and all, as a way of showing the subject's wisdom and experience. Holbein would be another example.First.Aspect said:
And yet you seek to exclude some things that are beautiful, that are made that way intentionally when they need not be, because they also happen to be functional. Seems an oddly inconsistent argument to me.rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.0 -
What the hell is this all about? I've never understood cubism, one for the pretentious.0 -
I don't see how differentiating between art and design is a narrow view. That's a pretty standard distinctionTheBigBean said:
I think it is only you and Brian focusing on the beauty aspect. I was suggesting that your view of the art world was a bit narrow.rjsterry said:
I'm really not sure why you are getting so hung up on whether something is beautiful or not. I've already listed a couple of artists whose work is very deliberately not beautiful. Münch would be another. There are others who take beauty as their subject - some of the Pre-Raphaelites maybe. Certainly some of the Old Masters when painting mythological scenes. On the other hand Roman sculpture was very interested in depicting people warts and all, as a way of showing the subject's wisdom and experience. Holbein would be another example.First.Aspect said:
And yet you seek to exclude some things that are beautiful, that are made that way intentionally when they need not be, because they also happen to be functional. Seems an oddly inconsistent argument to me.rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Don't be lazy. There are lots of good explanations of Cubism.focuszing723 said:
What the hell is this all about? I've never understood cubism, one for the pretentious.
It’s worth remembering that a lot of art movements take their name from some snarky comment from a critic.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You need to start thinking in Venn diagrams.rjsterry said:
I don't see how differentiating between art and design is a narrow view. That's a pretty standard distinctionTheBigBean said:
I think it is only you and Brian focusing on the beauty aspect. I was suggesting that your view of the art world was a bit narrow.rjsterry said:
I'm really not sure why you are getting so hung up on whether something is beautiful or not. I've already listed a couple of artists whose work is very deliberately not beautiful. Münch would be another. There are others who take beauty as their subject - some of the Pre-Raphaelites maybe. Certainly some of the Old Masters when painting mythological scenes. On the other hand Roman sculpture was very interested in depicting people warts and all, as a way of showing the subject's wisdom and experience. Holbein would be another example.First.Aspect said:
And yet you seek to exclude some things that are beautiful, that are made that way intentionally when they need not be, because they also happen to be functional. Seems an oddly inconsistent argument to me.rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
Actually, depending on complexity and how you do the shading, they can be quite beautiful.0 -
Teresa May.focuszing723 said:
What the hell is this all about? I've never understood cubism, one for the pretentious.0 -
I had considered that option. 😁First.Aspect said:
You need to start thinking in Venn diagrams.rjsterry said:
I don't see how differentiating between art and design is a narrow view. That's a pretty standard distinctionTheBigBean said:
I think it is only you and Brian focusing on the beauty aspect. I was suggesting that your view of the art world was a bit narrow.rjsterry said:
I'm really not sure why you are getting so hung up on whether something is beautiful or not. I've already listed a couple of artists whose work is very deliberately not beautiful. Münch would be another. There are others who take beauty as their subject - some of the Pre-Raphaelites maybe. Certainly some of the Old Masters when painting mythological scenes. On the other hand Roman sculpture was very interested in depicting people warts and all, as a way of showing the subject's wisdom and experience. Holbein would be another example.First.Aspect said:
And yet you seek to exclude some things that are beautiful, that are made that way intentionally when they need not be, because they also happen to be functional. Seems an oddly inconsistent argument to me.rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.
Actually, depending on complexity and how you do the shading, they can be quite beautiful.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm not having it, pretentious twaddle.rjsterry said:
Don't be lazy. There are lots of good explanations of Cubism.focuszing723 said:
What the hell is this all about? I've never understood cubism, one for the pretentious.
It’s worth remembering that a lot of art movements take their name from some snarky comment from a critic.0 -
Not having what?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
People have done this before. Art is in the eye of the beholder etc.rjsterry said:
I don't see how differentiating between art and design is a narrow view. That's a pretty standard distinctionTheBigBean said:
I think it is only you and Brian focusing on the beauty aspect. I was suggesting that your view of the art world was a bit narrow.rjsterry said:
I'm really not sure why you are getting so hung up on whether something is beautiful or not. I've already listed a couple of artists whose work is very deliberately not beautiful. Münch would be another. There are others who take beauty as their subject - some of the Pre-Raphaelites maybe. Certainly some of the Old Masters when painting mythological scenes. On the other hand Roman sculpture was very interested in depicting people warts and all, as a way of showing the subject's wisdom and experience. Holbein would be another example.First.Aspect said:
And yet you seek to exclude some things that are beautiful, that are made that way intentionally when they need not be, because they also happen to be functional. Seems an oddly inconsistent argument to me.rjsterry said:
Yes, that bit is fine. It's not about creating something that is beautiful. Unless of course the artist is trying to communicate something about the idea of beauty.TheBigBean said:
The dictionary covers that with "contemplated".briantrumpet said:rjsterry said:
I think the dictionary is fundamentally wrong on that one. Quite happy with buildings being designed to be beautiful, I just don't think that's what art is trying to do.TheBigBean said:
Sometimes it is useful to reach for the dictionary.rjsterry said:Yes. Architects' models aren't art. Architecture isn't sculpture. Goodness knows why the RA has a room full of beautifully made sales material at the Summer Exhibition, either. We're not sculptors or artists. That's not to say there isn't some cross fertilisation but it's an entirely different discipline.
a. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.
If your intent is an ugly building that no one would want to look at, then fair do's you're no artist, but there are plenty of buildings that have been built to be appreciated as beautiful. Many religious buildings are obvious examples, but so too are the less obvious ones such as the Barbican - why else did they spend so long roughing up the edges?
Yes, that dictionary is wrong. Art (or music, for that matter) can be intended to be pretty much anything - beautiful, ugly, shocking, mundane, groovy, etc., or just thought-provoking, at a basic level. It would be easier to nail down jelly than define art, and you'll end up in a philosophical worm-hole in the space-time continuum.0
