| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/09/2002 12:33:32 AM · #1 |
I tried to get this going earlier, but let's see if I can get it going now.
From it's origins as I know it, the purpose of art was to pay homage or tribute to culture icons, such as the game that game a people food and life, or fertility goddesses. When did art become more than that, and when does art cross the line into simple "shock". Jerry Springer and Howard Stern can evoke a reaction, but is that art? Is there a point when art turns into editorial? |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 12:42:46 AM · #2 |
The purpose of art is expression.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:16:59 AM · #3 |
If I may quote a famous artist....
"The purpose of art is washing the dust
of daily life off our souls."
`Pablo Picasso
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:47:52 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
The purpose of art is expression.
Making what is internal external so that man can communicate with man and nature(gods). Some say art began as magic, Symbols that were meant to bring order out of chaos.
Every civilization redefines art to it's need. Sometimes it is a tool of power. Sometimes it is a social toy or status item. Under the current (last 300 years) worship of individualism art, music, math; any such talent is a means of validating our individuality and worth. It also continues to be a teaching tool, propaganda, emotional and phychological mirror, objects of worship. It is whatever anyone makes of it.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 02:01:41 AM · #5 |
I'll define art the same way i define music:
"The ultimate expression of the soul or spirit, whether it's good or evil, happy or sad, joyful or despair. The most beautiful and the most ugly can be art."
and, the purpose of "art work" is the expression of what the artist FEEL at the moment the art is created, similar to a composer. You are transformed into what the composer feels when he wrote the music (assuming the performers are doing the right job) or what the artist is feeling or saying.
Thus, art can never cross a line. Can music cross a line? Certainly there could be moral implication for art, but art itself is limitless. To limit art is to limit human existence, worth, and the truth.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/9/2002 2:01:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 03:14:44 AM · #6 |
Art isn't a "thing", it's a whole spectrum of different media that are used for different purposes. You really can't pin it down at all. While there are human brains thinking thoughts, they will be expressed, whether it's through words or music or pictures or movies or dancing or acting, etc. We pull together a bunch of visual media and call them art, but then we divide it up (into the "fine arts" etc.) and expand on it... there's an "art" to almost anything you do - the cullinary arts, the art of seduction, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".
Whatever is human has some kind of art to it. It's a part of our condition and our existence.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 11:00:52 AM · #7 |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 11:17:57 AM · #8 |
It is a gratification to me to know that I am ignorant of art, and ignorant also of surgery. Because people who understand art find nothing in pictures but blemishes, and surgeons and anatomists see no beautiful women in all their lives, but only a ghastly stack of bones with Latin names to them, and a network of nerves and muscles and tissues.
--Mark Twain |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 11:38:05 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by kathleenm:
It is a gratification to me to know that I am ignorant of art, and ignorant also of surgery. Because people who understand art find nothing in pictures but blemishes, and surgeons and anatomists see no beautiful women in all their lives, but only a ghastly stack of bones with Latin names to them, and a network of nerves and muscles and tissues.
--Mark Twain
Its a good quote - but I think in principle it is directed to the
people that want everything to have a name and be classified. That
sort of deconstructionist approach really misses the point I think. |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 12:24:38 PM · #10 |
but isnt that what we're trying to accomplish in this thread? what am i missing.
i agree with what lisae wrote: 'it cant be pinned down'. i think art isnt any one thing for any one 'purpose.
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
Originally posted by kathleenm:
[i]It is a gratification to me to know that I am ignorant of art, and ignorant also of surgery. Because people who understand art find nothing in pictures but blemishes, and surgeons and anatomists see no beautiful women in all their lives, but only a ghastly stack of bones with Latin names to them, and a network of nerves and muscles and tissues.
--Mark Twain
Its a good quote - but I think in principle it is directed to the
people that want everything to have a name and be classified. That
sort of deconstructionist approach really misses the point I think.[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:17:10 PM · #11 |
What if the artist has no other motive than trying to capture an image? A photograph of a sunset, a scene from a book.
Does all art have to have a deeper exprssion?
Originally posted by paganini:
I'll define art the same way i define music:
"The ultimate expression of the soul or spirit, whether it's good or evil, happy or sad, joyful or despair. The most beautiful and the most ugly can be art."
and, the purpose of "art work" is the expression of what the artist FEEL at the moment the art is created, similar to a composer. You are transformed into what the composer feels when he wrote the music (assuming the performers are doing the right job) or what the artist is feeling or saying.
Thus, art can never cross a line. Can music cross a line? Certainly there could be moral implication for art, but art itself is limitless. To limit art is to limit human existence, worth, and the truth.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:19:09 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by lisae:
Art isn't a "thing", it's a whole spectrum of different media that are used for different purposes. You really can't pin it down at all. While there are human brains thinking thoughts, they will be expressed, whether it's through words or music or pictures or movies or dancing or acting, etc. We pull together a bunch of visual media and call them art, but then we divide it up (into the "fine arts" etc.) and expand on it... there's an "art" to almost anything you do - the cullinary arts, the art of seduction, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".
Whatever is human has some kind of art to it. It's a part of our condition and our existence.
I agree completely. Art can't be confined to "the arts". There are people who are so good at their profession/job/hobby that it reaches the level of art. I think we've all heard the expression "He's got that down to an art." Art is the expression of passion, and can take most any form.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:23:10 PM · #13 |
I think photography, like music, like painting, like other "arts" can be used for personal expression -- to make a statement about what is important to me. It can also be used for the purpose of arousing some emotion (good, bad, or ugle) in another person. Also, like someone else pointed out, many other things are art. I have heard teaching described as an art, as well as fishing, motor racing, horse riding, etc.
I think it is the point at which the creator of the "art" is able to infuse a personal touch/emotion in such a way that the recipient can feel it. Then, it truly becomes art. |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 01:31:45 PM · #14 |
Everything is an expression of the photographer, whether it's a really bad photo or a really good photo. You make that decision when you press the shutter.
Of course, someone who does a snapshot of an object may not have the same effect as someone who meticulously set up the lighting, the effect, and an overal feeling of the SAME object. But it's still an expression, even if it's a boring one.
Originally posted by Zeissman:
What if the artist has no other motive than trying to capture an image? A photograph of a sunset, a scene from a book.
Does all art have to have a deeper exprssion?
Originally posted by paganini:
[i]I'll define art the same way i define music:
"The ultimate expression of the soul or spirit, whether it's good or evil, happy or sad, joyful or despair. The most beautiful and the most ugly can be art."
and, the purpose of "art work" is the expression of what the artist FEEL at the moment the art is created, similar to a composer. You are transformed into what the composer feels when he wrote the music (assuming the performers are doing the right job) or what the artist is feeling or saying.
Thus, art can never cross a line. Can music cross a line? Certainly there could be moral implication for art, but art itself is limitless. To limit art is to limit human existence, worth, and the truth.
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 02:54:22 PM · #15 |
| Whoa, there is a difference between what is art and what is the Purpose of art. |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 03:09:06 PM · #16 |
| Very good point, but I do not think either could be easily defined. |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 03:33:14 PM · #17 |
| They are not easy to define because history has shown that we have and will redefine them to our needs. |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 05:23:12 PM · #18 |
My personal view: the purpose of art is communication.
Of ideas, of feelings, of emotions. Do people create art to show to
others or to keep to themselves ?
Some people create art to exorcise their own personal demons, perhaps
more therapy than communication. Or maybe that is just an internal
dialog.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 07:46:26 PM · #19 |
I think Gordon makes an excellent point. My husband and I are both musicians (him more than me). He can sit and play for hours just to relax or unwind, or perhaps get a tune out of his head and on to the keyboard or guitar. Performances are fun to him, but he would rather practice. I on the other hand have to be forced to practice. Practice basically kills me, and I do it because I have to. I would rather perform. Put me on a stage adn let me go!
Is one more art than the other? Or does one define a purpose more than the other? I don't think so. For me, music is something for me to give someone else (though I do enjoy it personally), but for my husband, it is something inside, though he enjoys sharing it some.
I believe all art is much the same. Some people create to "share" while others create to "express." Happy is the one (or tormented) who feels driven to do both! |
|
|
|
10/09/2002 08:20:42 PM · #20 |
Much of this discussion centres around art as a personal expression. Most art however is created as a work for hire, to meet someone else's agenda. There may well be no "agenda" at all to the creator other than to pay the rent next month.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 10:54:39 PM · #21 |
Art to me is many things. I look at art mostly to "move me" in some way, and to some how identify with it. My particular favorite type of art is Wildlife art, though I can appreciate any type that strikes a familiar chord in me.
Being on the high strung side I usually seek art (and music) that is soothing and relaxing rather than intense, because I am so easily influenced by both. Some art stimulates and it all depends on the expression of the artist.
The art I produce is very much an expression of my own deep introspection as well as extrovert personality. Psychologically I guess I want people to know who I am deep within. Ideally my art will move people, and in some cases provoke others to see or understand something they may have overlooked, as in macro photography, etc. Since there is so much hurt and anger in the world I do like to reflect the the things that somehow seem ok..again...the natural world of creation, etc.
I may have strayed a bit off topic here....sorry!
|
|
|
|
10/09/2002 11:43:21 PM · #22 |
This is an important point, and one often overlooked. IT has really only been in recent times that art can exists solely for the artists expresion.
How does this affect the meaning of art? What is the difference between art and craftsmanship?
Originally posted by jakking:
Much of this discussion centres around art as a personal expression. Most art however is created as a work for hire, to meet someone else's agenda. There may well be no "agenda" at all to the creator other than to pay the rent next month.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2002 12:12:58 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Zeissman:
This is an important point, and one often overlooked. IT has really only been in recent times that art can exists solely for the artists expresion.
How does this affect the meaning of art? What is the difference between art and craftsmanship?
That's not quite true. "Craftmanship" can't really exist unless the craftsperson has an ideal of at least aesthetic beauty that already moves him/her to create beautiful things, things that at the very least please the client, and usually things that please the artisan as well.
Even within the "work for hire" arrangement, artistic expression has always been there. The great artists of the Italian Renaissance may have been commissioned to create their famous works, by their patrons, but they're still works that express an enormous amount of the artist's own vision of beauty, struggle, passion, etc.
In other times, art hasn't been "work for hire" but has still performed a function within society - aboriginal rock paintings told stories or indicated where waterholes were, those huge Aztec drawings in the desert were perhaps intended to communicate with the gods so they would bring rain, some of the most beautiful Celtic artwork was used to decorate swords, shields and other important objects because they were important and valuable status symbols. Egyptian scribes used beautifully painted heiroglyphics just to record information or decorate a tomb. But all of these images are beautiful, they were then and they still are to us today, because of the human need to create art, not because these people were being paid or doing their duty.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/10/2002 12:12:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2002 05:14:02 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by lhall:
I think we've all heard the expression "He's got that down to an art."
Ironically, as I consider myself to look at life in a somewhat artistic way, I always find myself saying--"He's got that down to a science!" Is that odd? :)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 11:28:01 AM EDT.
