No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by CarlosFandango on Dec 11, 2017 12:04:02 PM
ART!! What's if FOR??

Serious thread this.

For serious people.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
FredDee - 11 Dec 2017 12:04:37 (#1 of 180)

Art's SAKE.

CarlosFandango - 11 Dec 2017 12:06:06 (#2 of 180)

Jolly good, Fred, noted.

I need to discuss this in a semi-formal cross-disciplinary teaching capacity and I don't want to feed the poor saps solely my own dismal little ideas.

Illuminate me, please.

machiavelli - 11 Dec 2017 12:08:51 (#3 of 180)

Keep me in exile the rest of my days

Burn me in hell just as long as it pays

widenation - 11 Dec 2017 12:09:01 (#4 of 180)

It provides a background to selfies when you visit foreign cities.

CarlosFandango - 11 Dec 2017 12:09:05 (#5 of 180)

I seem to recall Stephen Fry in his book on how to do the poetry coming up with something quite good about it providing a way into others' perspectives - or somesuch.

I imagine he nicked it from Ruskin or Potemkin or Squirrel Nutkin, or somewhere. Anybody recognise it and can argue for or against?

WibbleAgain - 11 Dec 2017 12:14:25 (#6 of 180)

It's self expression. Artists' need to produce their work is more of an inner urge. For us the audience, it's about resonance.

Alexander Pope apparently said:

To wake the soul by tender strokes of art,

To raise the genius, and to mend the heart

I got the first part from the inscription on top of the proscenium arch in the Richmond Theatre, and the second half from Google.

CarlosFandango - 11 Dec 2017 12:15:09 (#7 of 180)

Please turn this sorry little thread into a hotbed of 2002-style GUT ferment and fervour.

Thank you Wibble - that's the sort of stuff.

Bonusy - 11 Dec 2017 12:15:39 (#8 of 180)

Well, there's this perspective on the matter:

Art is supposed to transform ... Entertainment makes us feel good. It doesn’t surprise us; it meets our expectations. And that’s why we like entertainment: it coddles us. But the problem with entertainment is it leaves us unchanged. And we so desperately need to be changed, whether we realize it or not.

https://goinswriter.com/art-and-entertainment/

All the problem there is that it assumes all change must be an improvement, which is not necessarily a given.

Maybe you could say that the purpose of art is to challenge a preconception, and force people to consider their own. But if this goes on to confirm someone's preconceptions, was it just entertainment to them?

TinyMcOtter - 11 Dec 2017 12:20:13 (#9 of 180)

To reflect a distorted, or alternate form of what we already know and see, back at us.

Or, whatever.

CarlosFandango - 11 Dec 2017 12:20:21 (#10 of 180)

Oooh yes. Liking that Bonusy. A defense of disturbing and destabilizing, or just plain bad art too.

My inner urges rarely result in anything that should be put on display. Chris Ofili notwithstanding.

RosyLovelady - 11 Dec 2017 12:23:36 (#11 of 180)

Certain performing artists would do well to stifle their neediness in the self-expression department a bit, and pay more attention to the text, whether verbal or musical.

WibbleAgain - 11 Dec 2017 12:23:44 (#12 of 180)

There is Art as Therapy, where what you produce remains private.

CarlosFandango - 11 Dec 2017 12:27:54 (#13 of 180)

Ah... like making a model of Chester cathedral from your own bogeys, kind of thing?

How do we feel about the turd-in-a-can geezer - Manzoni?

RosyLovelady - 11 Dec 2017 12:31:12 (#14 of 180)

Swans sing before they die. 'Twere no bad thing

Should certain persons die before they sing.

CarlosFandango - 11 Dec 2017 12:32:36 (#15 of 180)

Fair comment.

WibbleAgain - 11 Dec 2017 12:36:35 (#16 of 180)

Certain performing artists would do well to stifle their neediness in the self-expression department a bit, and pay more attention to the text, whether verbal or musical.

The poor hapless actors and singers who are made to commit such atrocity are mere puppets in the hands of the far-too-powerful producers and directors, who aren't performing artists (and maybe that's their problem). I hope regietheater dies a timely death soon.

Sabacious - 11 Dec 2017 12:37:44 (#17 of 180)

There's a neuroscientist called Semir Zeki who worked on vision for many years and came up with the disciplione of neuroaesthetics. His take on it:

“Because all art obeys the laws of the visual brain, it is not uncommon for art to reveal these laws to us, often surprising us with the visually unexpected. Paul Klee was right when he said, ‘Art does not represent the visual world, itmakes things visible’”

CarlosFandango - 11 Dec 2017 12:39:32 (#18 of 180)

The transformative thing... I'd like to believe it, but is it still there, in an accessible way?

Seems that the contemporary scene expects you work at it, and to have all kinds of relevant background guff on the artists themselves...

Seems antithetical to the "being grabbed" or being overcome; having some sort of epiphany .

CarlosFandango - 11 Dec 2017 12:40:08 (#19 of 180)

Will check out Semir Zeki, thanks.

CrossBingby - 11 Dec 2017 12:47:42 (#20 of 180)

The term 'Art' is a load of nonsense, invented in the !7th century by German poets to justify starving in garrets and being a lovelorn big girl's blouse mooning over unrequited love letters (eg Die Leiden des jungen Werthers)

Before that 'artists' were just tradesmen or craftsmen - you want your bog fixed call in Herr Krapper, you want some chamber music for the archbishop's party, call in Herr Mozart.

Things were far better when 'artists' were just craftsmen.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » Arts