To what extent is this site an exposition of artwork?
Thursday, June 6, 2002 by Fishbone | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Just want to see your point of view on this matter.I find it really amazing that so many people join their creativity,display their work and share it with others.The only question I have is to what extent this is pure art or just the answear to the subconcious need of modern man to consume images in a fastfood manner.
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Koasati
Reply #22 Friday, June 7, 2002 12:56 PM
Reply #22 Friday, June 7, 2002 12:56 PM
The purpose of a desktop is to have icons sitting on them..
Not always true.......there are no icons (in the traditional sense) on my desktop.
Koasati thinks the 1964 Corvette Stingray was/is a work of art!
Not always true.......there are no icons (in the traditional sense) on my desktop.
Koasati thinks the 1964 Corvette Stingray was/is a work of art!
Chris
Reply #23 Friday, June 7, 2002 1:01 PM
Reply #23 Friday, June 7, 2002 1:01 PM
Chris thinks the bottle of Sam Adams currently sitting in front of him a is work of art.
(And let's not forget the '64-65 Ford Mustang)
(And let's not forget the '64-65 Ford Mustang)
paxx
Reply #24 Friday, June 7, 2002 1:54 PM
Reply #24 Friday, June 7, 2002 1:54 PM
MobiusCo:
A Monet that is painted directly onto a chair is only a chair, but if Monet then took the fabric off the chair and put it on a frame and it was placed hanging on a wall it would only then be art?
Yes. Because if it hangs on the wall it definatly isn't meant to be sat on.
Koasati:
there are no icons (in the traditional sense) on my desktop.
I also know some people who have nothing sitting on their "real" desk. But it doesn't mean that the purpose of a desk is not to have things on it.
A Monet that is painted directly onto a chair is only a chair, but if Monet then took the fabric off the chair and put it on a frame and it was placed hanging on a wall it would only then be art?
Yes. Because if it hangs on the wall it definatly isn't meant to be sat on.
Koasati:
there are no icons (in the traditional sense) on my desktop.
I also know some people who have nothing sitting on their "real" desk. But it doesn't mean that the purpose of a desk is not to have things on it.
MobiusCo
Reply #25 Friday, June 7, 2002 2:08 PM
Reply #25 Friday, June 7, 2002 2:08 PM
I am amazed at the limited view of what art is. The fact that some feel art is only something that hangs on a wall is astounding. It totally elimanets the vast majority of the art world. In the musical world there are peices of music that are considered artistic masterpeices, sculptures are free standing artistic expressions, just as a painting is. A pure visual multi media presentation can be art, art is not limited by the medium or placement of the peice. To say that art is only what is on a wall, is saying that every other form of art does not exist. And for some of those that do not know, there are many wall paper artists in the digi communities that do have their works displayed in galleries, and etc.
I am still astounded by the limited narrow view of art.
I am still astounded by the limited narrow view of art.
paxx
Reply #26 Friday, June 7, 2002 2:31 PM
Reply #26 Friday, June 7, 2002 2:31 PM
*sigh*
Maybe I can't express what I mean, I don't know. But my message isn't passing trough.
Art doesn't belong on a wall only, but Art has a self purpose. Art is only meant to be Art. Art isn't meant to be sat on, driven around, open cans, or play music. Art is meant to be appreciated in itself. Whether it's hanging on a wall, Sitting on a stool, or even played through a stereo doesn't matter.
Paintings are meant to be looked at, not thrown around as a freesbee.
Sculptures are meant to be looked at, not sat on.
Music is meant to be listened to, not danced on (that's why I don't consider dance music Art)
Litterature is meant to be read without any purpose but enjoyment (that why a recipe is not litterature)
Dance is meant to be looked at (only dance as a performing art is art, what you do in a night club isn't art) and appreciated with the music
Cinema is meant to be watched without any purpose but enjoyment (that's why the evening news isn't usually considered artistic)
Maybe I can't express what I mean, I don't know. But my message isn't passing trough.
Art doesn't belong on a wall only, but Art has a self purpose. Art is only meant to be Art. Art isn't meant to be sat on, driven around, open cans, or play music. Art is meant to be appreciated in itself. Whether it's hanging on a wall, Sitting on a stool, or even played through a stereo doesn't matter.
Paintings are meant to be looked at, not thrown around as a freesbee.
Sculptures are meant to be looked at, not sat on.
Music is meant to be listened to, not danced on (that's why I don't consider dance music Art)
Litterature is meant to be read without any purpose but enjoyment (that why a recipe is not litterature)
Dance is meant to be looked at (only dance as a performing art is art, what you do in a night club isn't art) and appreciated with the music
Cinema is meant to be watched without any purpose but enjoyment (that's why the evening news isn't usually considered artistic)
MobiusCo
Reply #27 Friday, June 7, 2002 2:43 PM
Reply #27 Friday, June 7, 2002 2:43 PM
and wallpapers by many artists are ment to bring beauty, expression, and art to the screen. just because the person that downloads it only uses it as decoration does not mean it is not art. Some are created as an expression of the person, a visual representation of their thoughts, idea, or concept. No different from what a painter does with a brush, what a sculpter does with a chisel, or etc.
paxx
Reply #28 Friday, June 7, 2002 3:34 PM
Reply #28 Friday, June 7, 2002 3:34 PM
I think we're getting somewhere.
It comes down to what I was saying. You can put an artwork on your desktop as a wallpaper, but it doesn't mean that wallpapers are Art. Also, what I would accept as a beautiful piece of Art and even hang it on my wall at home, I would not automatically accept as a wallpaper here. Wallpapers should be submitted as a functional wallpaper. The artist that makes them should consider that most people will have icons on it, etc. Read the guidelines about moderation, you'll understand what I mean.
Again, there are great wallpapers that I would never think of calling Art. (for example, I have a couple of pictures of my kids on my desktop right now... absolutely not Art in any way, but still is my favorite wallpaper)
And there are great Artworks that I would never put on my desktop.
It comes down to what I was saying. You can put an artwork on your desktop as a wallpaper, but it doesn't mean that wallpapers are Art. Also, what I would accept as a beautiful piece of Art and even hang it on my wall at home, I would not automatically accept as a wallpaper here. Wallpapers should be submitted as a functional wallpaper. The artist that makes them should consider that most people will have icons on it, etc. Read the guidelines about moderation, you'll understand what I mean.
Again, there are great wallpapers that I would never think of calling Art. (for example, I have a couple of pictures of my kids on my desktop right now... absolutely not Art in any way, but still is my favorite wallpaper)
And there are great Artworks that I would never put on my desktop.
Aleatoric
Reply #29 Friday, June 7, 2002 3:35 PM
Reply #29 Friday, June 7, 2002 3:35 PM
Function does not remove the quality of being art from a creative work. What is art is very much in the eye of the beholder, and in the final analysis, what is art is what we call art. (sounds pretty circular, I know ).
The idea that a creative work can only be art if it exists only for the sake of some ephemeral criteria of non functionality is pretty elitist, and is a limiting definition of the word.
Just to give as an example, here are two of the dictionary definitions of the word 'art'
art
n
1: the products of human creativity; works of art collectively [syn: fine art]
2: the creation of beautiful or significant things; "he was a patron of art" [syn: artistic creation, artistic production]
3: the superior ability that is attained by study and practice and observation; "he had mastered the art of a great craftsman" [syn: artistry, prowess, superior skill]
4: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication [syn: artwork, graphics, nontextual matter]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
art
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
There are of course, those who claim that the dictionary definition doesn't apply because it doesn't appeal to their inner aesthete, but that misses the point. In the simplest (and best) definition, art is the expression of creativity in any medium or context.
).The idea that a creative work can only be art if it exists only for the sake of some ephemeral criteria of non functionality is pretty elitist, and is a limiting definition of the word.
Just to give as an example, here are two of the dictionary definitions of the word 'art'
art
n
1: the products of human creativity; works of art collectively [syn: fine art]
2: the creation of beautiful or significant things; "he was a patron of art" [syn: artistic creation, artistic production]
3: the superior ability that is attained by study and practice and observation; "he had mastered the art of a great craftsman" [syn: artistry, prowess, superior skill]
4: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication [syn: artwork, graphics, nontextual matter]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
art
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
There are of course, those who claim that the dictionary definition doesn't apply because it doesn't appeal to their inner aesthete, but that misses the point. In the simplest (and best) definition, art is the expression of creativity in any medium or context.
MobiusCo
Reply #30 Friday, June 7, 2002 3:53 PM
Reply #30 Friday, June 7, 2002 3:53 PM
thank you Aleatoric
art is not limited byt the medium, final use of the work, or the placement of the peice. Art is the creative process whether it is dance, music, painting, sculpture, building, steel, wood, or digital. It is the expression and creativity of the artist, they emotions, vision, and the byproduct of creativity. Art is not limited to one medium, placement, or if it can hang on a wall. A high detailed painting on the hood of a high performace car can be considered art, depending on the artist. A portrait of a person soul purpose was to capture the beauty, or appearance of the person, its function was to hold in record a moment in time that is seen by the artist at the time of its creation, but by some statement above since it has a function it is not art, but still it is art. Art does not need to be without function, art an expression that takes many forms.
art is not limited byt the medium, final use of the work, or the placement of the peice. Art is the creative process whether it is dance, music, painting, sculpture, building, steel, wood, or digital. It is the expression and creativity of the artist, they emotions, vision, and the byproduct of creativity. Art is not limited to one medium, placement, or if it can hang on a wall. A high detailed painting on the hood of a high performace car can be considered art, depending on the artist. A portrait of a person soul purpose was to capture the beauty, or appearance of the person, its function was to hold in record a moment in time that is seen by the artist at the time of its creation, but by some statement above since it has a function it is not art, but still it is art. Art does not need to be without function, art an expression that takes many forms.
paxx
Reply #31 Friday, June 7, 2002 3:55 PM
Reply #31 Friday, June 7, 2002 3:55 PM
Of course, there are several definitions of the word "Art".
Lets not forget the seven liberal arts, based on the types of studies pursued in the Classical world:
- Grammar
- Rhetoric
- Logic
- Arithmetic
- Geometry
- Music, Harmonics, or Tuning Theory
- Astronomy or Cosmology
But, of course, these are not what I was refering to.
Lets not forget the seven liberal arts, based on the types of studies pursued in the Classical world:
- Grammar
- Rhetoric
- Logic
- Arithmetic
- Geometry
- Music, Harmonics, or Tuning Theory
- Astronomy or Cosmology
But, of course, these are not what I was refering to.
paxx
Reply #32 Friday, June 7, 2002 4:03 PM
Reply #32 Friday, June 7, 2002 4:03 PM
But MobiusCo. What you are saying is not incompatible with what I am saying myself.
Yes, a painting on the hood of a car can be considered art. Yes, indeed. So, is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. But the hood of a car itself is not Art. Nor is the car. What is Art is the painting on the hood of the car. You can put the same painting on a wall, as a wallaper on your desktop, wherever, it will still be Art, but the wall itself, the wallpaper on youre desktop, will not be Art themselves.
You may see this as just rhetoric, but I do see a difference.
Yes, a painting on the hood of a car can be considered art. Yes, indeed. So, is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. But the hood of a car itself is not Art. Nor is the car. What is Art is the painting on the hood of the car. You can put the same painting on a wall, as a wallaper on your desktop, wherever, it will still be Art, but the wall itself, the wallpaper on youre desktop, will not be Art themselves.
You may see this as just rhetoric, but I do see a difference.
Aleatoric
Reply #33 Friday, June 7, 2002 4:22 PM
Reply #33 Friday, June 7, 2002 4:22 PM
The hood of a car may or may not be art, depending on a point of view. An aesthetically pleasing solution to an engineering problem (fit and finish, aerodynamics, contribution to the form of the automobile), can definitely be considered as art, with or without the above mentioned fantastic painting.
The inclusion of the fact that such an item is also functional in some fashion has no effect whatsoever on its artistic merit.
A good example, to go back to the chairs, are Eames chairs. Not only are these chairs functional in the definition of being perfectly usable, they are also art, not only in terms of form and creativity, but in recognition of that fact by some in the artistic community at the time.
The entire perception of art is supremely subjective. I, for one, have no regard for the artistic style known as 'found objects' as I have yet to see any particularly creative representation thereof.
From the standpoint of what is available on this site, for example, I find a great deal of what I call art, that which is aesthetically pleasing, both in form and function. The fact is that people in general are far more positively disposed to accept functional objects that are more than merely functional, i.e., they have some artistic and aesthetic quality that, in itself, has no bearing on the function of the device. And while that may not make a lovely screwdriver art in some ephemeral sense, it is nonetheless an artistic expression of creativity, and has as much right (perhaps even more) to be called art as any painting of Elvis on black velvet (just to use a particularly egregious example).
Enjoy
The inclusion of the fact that such an item is also functional in some fashion has no effect whatsoever on its artistic merit.
A good example, to go back to the chairs, are Eames chairs. Not only are these chairs functional in the definition of being perfectly usable, they are also art, not only in terms of form and creativity, but in recognition of that fact by some in the artistic community at the time.
The entire perception of art is supremely subjective. I, for one, have no regard for the artistic style known as 'found objects' as I have yet to see any particularly creative representation thereof.
From the standpoint of what is available on this site, for example, I find a great deal of what I call art, that which is aesthetically pleasing, both in form and function. The fact is that people in general are far more positively disposed to accept functional objects that are more than merely functional, i.e., they have some artistic and aesthetic quality that, in itself, has no bearing on the function of the device. And while that may not make a lovely screwdriver art in some ephemeral sense, it is nonetheless an artistic expression of creativity, and has as much right (perhaps even more) to be called art as any painting of Elvis on black velvet (just to use a particularly egregious example).
Enjoy
adni18
Reply #34 Friday, June 7, 2002 4:58 PM
Reply #34 Friday, June 7, 2002 4:58 PM
I agree with Mobius and Aleatoric in all that they have said! They took my words from my mouth
paxx,
Because you have mention many times above the word chair, I have to inform you or to remind you, that the chair "Red and Blue" designed by Rietveld, is a great piece of modern art and has been exhibited in almost every ART MUSEUM in the world. (by the way, many other chairs or objects are well known as pieces of art).
I have 'Red and Blue" in my house and sometimes I use this piece of art as a chair
paxx,
Because you have mention many times above the word chair, I have to inform you or to remind you, that the chair "Red and Blue" designed by Rietveld, is a great piece of modern art and has been exhibited in almost every ART MUSEUM in the world. (by the way, many other chairs or objects are well known as pieces of art).
I have 'Red and Blue" in my house and sometimes I use this piece of art as a chair
craeonics
Reply #35 Friday, June 7, 2002 6:20 PM
Reply #35 Friday, June 7, 2002 6:20 PM
A wall has no function really. You can use a desktop fine without it (I do, solid black ofcourse), therefore the wall is only aesthetic.
As for those definitions Aleatoric gave, I like how they involve the aspect of skill. Though I tend to think of skill more as craftmanship than art itself.
How about this point: art is how others label someone's work. You cannot label it yourself. What do you think?
As for those definitions Aleatoric gave, I like how they involve the aspect of skill. Though I tend to think of skill more as craftmanship than art itself.
How about this point: art is how others label someone's work. You cannot label it yourself. What do you think?
adni18
Reply #36 Friday, June 7, 2002 7:06 PM
Reply #36 Friday, June 7, 2002 7:06 PM
I think that this is a good point craeonics , but at the same time I think that this is not the point.
How can tommorow be judged by yesterday?
The digital art is the art of tommorow.
The wallpapers are digital art.
Why you see the wallpapers as a desktop only and not as something that pleases your eyes as a painting in the wall, in your everyday life?
How can tommorow be judged by yesterday?
The digital art is the art of tommorow.
The wallpapers are digital art.
Why you see the wallpapers as a desktop only and not as something that pleases your eyes as a painting in the wall, in your everyday life?
Griffinme
Reply #37 Friday, June 7, 2002 7:54 PM
Reply #37 Friday, June 7, 2002 7:54 PM
A wall is just a wall?
The Vietnam Memorial in Washington is just a wall. Yet it generates more emotion in people that see it then people viewing the Mona Lisa. It is only a black stone wall with names carved in it. Would you call that art? It certainly generates emotion and captures a moment.
"Music is meant to be listened to, not danced on (that's why I don't consider dance music Art)" A few classical composers would beat you over the head for saying that. The Nutcracker Suite isn't art? Ever hear of Johann Strauss? Most of what he did was tied to waltzes.
This reminds me of the debate that some scientists thought that the human race had learned everything there was to know in 1900.
The Vietnam Memorial in Washington is just a wall. Yet it generates more emotion in people that see it then people viewing the Mona Lisa. It is only a black stone wall with names carved in it. Would you call that art? It certainly generates emotion and captures a moment.
"Music is meant to be listened to, not danced on (that's why I don't consider dance music Art)" A few classical composers would beat you over the head for saying that. The Nutcracker Suite isn't art? Ever hear of Johann Strauss? Most of what he did was tied to waltzes.
This reminds me of the debate that some scientists thought that the human race had learned everything there was to know in 1900.
skinner7892
Reply #38 Friday, June 7, 2002 8:22 PM
Reply #38 Friday, June 7, 2002 8:22 PM
I personnaly like the short definition the Office de la Langue Française gave to the word art: "Expression, par les oeuvres de l'homme, d'un idéal de beauté." My liberal translation to this would be "Way of expression, by the mean of man's work, of an ideal of beauty" (that's basically it ). The question this deficition brings to my mind is "what quantify or qualify this 'ideal of beauty'"? To that, my first answer would be that it's subjective to what each and everyone consider to be a "beauty". So basically, it's up to us, individually, to decide what's art and what's not
). The question this deficition brings to my mind is "what quantify or qualify this 'ideal of beauty'"? To that, my first answer would be that it's subjective to what each and everyone consider to be a "beauty". So basically, it's up to us, individually, to decide what's art and what's not 
Jafo
Reply #39 Friday, June 7, 2002 8:31 PM
Reply #39 Friday, June 7, 2002 8:31 PM
Mobius....
You got me totally, totally WRONG with my comment about 'narrow minded view'.
I meant that it always appears that Joe Public's interpretation of what 'art' is is limited specifically to that which MOST looks like a painting on a wall...and in our case, that means 'wallpapers'.
You got me very, very wrong.....especially when I rate people such as yourself, and Nuvem, to name but two, as very significant ARTISTS of the 20th/21st century.
What I was trying to point out was that 'art-on-walls' is a narrow-minded view of the world of ART and that there is 'art' to be found in many, many MORE facets of society and its 'expression'.
For whatever reason, if you can continue to look at something, or touch it, or even USE it, and while doing so, continue to feel appreciation of it then, to you, it is ART.
ART is selfish and personal.
POPULAR ART is merely the same, but admired/appreciated by more.
THE MASTERS are simply Artists elevated to dizzy heights by opinionated 'critics' who wish to impose their 'perceptions' on the great un-washed who are not allowed to form their own opinions.
OK, this was posted immediately on seeing your comment on my post....now I'll read the rest of 'em in between....
You got me totally, totally WRONG with my comment about 'narrow minded view'.
I meant that it always appears that Joe Public's interpretation of what 'art' is is limited specifically to that which MOST looks like a painting on a wall...and in our case, that means 'wallpapers'.
You got me very, very wrong.....especially when I rate people such as yourself, and Nuvem, to name but two, as very significant ARTISTS of the 20th/21st century.
What I was trying to point out was that 'art-on-walls' is a narrow-minded view of the world of ART and that there is 'art' to be found in many, many MORE facets of society and its 'expression'.
For whatever reason, if you can continue to look at something, or touch it, or even USE it, and while doing so, continue to feel appreciation of it then, to you, it is ART.
ART is selfish and personal.
POPULAR ART is merely the same, but admired/appreciated by more.
THE MASTERS are simply Artists elevated to dizzy heights by opinionated 'critics' who wish to impose their 'perceptions' on the great un-washed who are not allowed to form their own opinions.
OK, this was posted immediately on seeing your comment on my post....now I'll read the rest of 'em in between....
Fishbone
Reply #40 Friday, June 7, 2002 8:56 PM
Reply #40 Friday, June 7, 2002 8:56 PM
I never expected there would be so much debate on this matter.But now I understand that the whole matter leads to the eternal question:what is art?
Artists create only because they have no other choice.It is a means of expression.A statement to their enviroment,a need to communicate,to speak their own truth.It is their way to ballance their inner thoughts with reality.It doesnt matter if what they do is beautiful or functional.It only matters that they created it and that maybe they want to share it.
In a human-unfriendly world,art is the search for answears.It is the effort of man to make his world more understandable and therefore more bearable.
It is the truth of an artwork that makes it significant and not the materials you use to make it.Wether you use paint,metal,or digital means it makes no difference.
Artists create only because they have no other choice.It is a means of expression.A statement to their enviroment,a need to communicate,to speak their own truth.It is their way to ballance their inner thoughts with reality.It doesnt matter if what they do is beautiful or functional.It only matters that they created it and that maybe they want to share it.
In a human-unfriendly world,art is the search for answears.It is the effort of man to make his world more understandable and therefore more bearable.
It is the truth of an artwork that makes it significant and not the materials you use to make it.Wether you use paint,metal,or digital means it makes no difference.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Friday, June 7, 2002 12:54 PM
Wallpaper is just a medium that some artists use as their canvas. It is no different than a painter that uses canvas, stone, brick, paper, or etc. It is the medium of choice of some. If the same work was released as a wall and then also printed out to be framed and sold as a gallery does not change the base content and creativitiy that is put into the work. Just because it is displayed on a screen compared to a wall in a gallery does not lower the catagory of the artistic quality.
That is like saying a Frank Loyd Wright(spelling wrong) is only a house.
Art is not limited by the medium that it is created on, it is only limited by the people that created it, and sadly is condemned by the limited view of some sides of society.