ART TALK

SwampTroll · Post by **SwampTroll** » Thu May 10, 2012 11:25 pm

My definition of art:

Firstly, I have to explain that my model has two primary forms of art: high (Art) and low('art').

High art has no function other than to project its own qualities. Some particularly special cases of non-art manage to transcend their initial state to become high art for one reason or another (Fountain being a point in case). The point of art isn't that it entertains you, or makes you experience a particular thing, it's a provocative medium which is meant to make you have some kind of aesthetic experience. I think in most cases, it is expressive of the artist in some capacity - although it doesn't have to be.

Low art is an artist endeavour which has a practical function. An example of this is film, television, some visual mediums, some musical mediums, and so on. This is not a means to belittle people who do this kind of work - it is just a classification system. There are many works of low art, which have far greater merits and value of many kinds of high art.

The reason for this is partly because low art is manipulative. It is designed to make you experience a particular something - to provoke a specific reaction from you. Laurence Kramer (someone who I don't admire, but was apt in this case) says in 'Classical Music and Postmodern Knowledge':

'While all constative actions are performative, not all performative actions are constative.'

Some people may think this is snooty, but that's the way it is. Some things are square, some are triangular. It really is just a classification system, and it's only really suitable for a fairly narrow band of art history. It's also a system which is mostly concerned with critical theory and intellectual history, so it suits my needs well.

-- constructed in haste, I can address any issues later.

Nathan Karr · Post by **Nathan Karr** » Sat May 12, 2012 1:13 pm

Art is when you draw boobies and not everyone calls you a perverted creep.

msw188 · Post by **msw188** » Sat May 12, 2012 3:59 pm

As to Pepsi's 'tortured artist' comment:
I think that a person can still be considered an 'artist', even though his or her attempts at art end up as essentially void (never considered by any audience). This just means that he is an unsuccessful artist.

An engineer whose job is to build engines can still be called an engineer even if all of his engines fail. This just means that he or she is an unsuccessful engineer.

Post by **Bob the Hamster** » Sun May 13, 2012 1:13 am

But a Tortured Engineer then falls to his knees, screaming "Why!, oh, god, why? Why must all my engines explode! Nobody understands my engines! Not-exploding doesn't understand my engines!" (pounds forehead against the floor)

Spoonweaver · Post by **Spoonweaver** » Sun May 13, 2012 7:23 am

Actually msw188, I see your argument as a great example of why the tormented artists you mention wouldn't (or shouldn't) be considered artists at all.

If we think about what it takes to be an engineer (in this case a mechanical engineer that focuses on engines), it would be safe to say that the ability to design an engine would be the most important if not only thing needed to be an engineer. If all the engines an engineer makes don't work, we then have to ask whether an engine that doesn't work is still an engine. If we answer that an non-functioning engine isn't an engine than the engineer must not actually be an engineer.
If we say that engines that don't function are still engines, then one could argue about the amount the engine doesn't function. In the case suggested by James, all the engines seem to be better described as bombs than as engines. So then wouldn't our engineer be better described as a terrorist than as an engineer. And therefore, wouldn't a failed artist be better described as something else as well, perhaps a hobo?

BMR · Post by **BMR** » Sun May 13, 2012 7:43 am

That would depend then, on whether or not the artist creates something that functions as "art" or as something else. The artist would indeed be a failed artist if what is created fails to achieve recognition as art and should not be considered an artist. Therein lies the difficulty though, as engines either work or they don't, making the distinction a simple one. Art on the other hand, is far more difficult (impossible?) to classify as functional (in the sense of functioning as "art") or not.

Just my two slimes, hehe. Wasn't planning on participating in the discussion, but it's getting rather interesting.

msw188 · Post by **msw188** » Wed May 16, 2012 9:37 pm

Nah, I'd rather just say an "artist" is someone who ATTEMPTS to make art, and an engineer is someone who ATTEMPTS to make some sort of device work. Again, this is because I think it rather useless to classify things like this with strict nouns that allow only "is" or "isn't". The sooner one agrees to allow subjective accounts and adjectives into the scheme (good vs bad engineer, good vs bad artist), in my opinion, the better.

In other words, I'm a mathematician, and in my opinion, true objectivity, and by extension objective classification, requires something similar to mathematics and logic. Neither of these is applicable to human psychology, sociology, or emotion, all three of which are very important for discussing not only art, but also classification schemes of humans beyond the structures of biology (and even such simple things as male and female are not so clear when extra chromosomes get thrown in). In addition, I don't see this state of affairs changing any time soon, and if it DID, I'm pretty sure humanity would be the worse for it.

My conclusion? Abandon objective classifications/definitions and embrace the subjective as overlord.

G-Wreck · Post by **G-Wreck** » Wed May 16, 2012 11:48 pm

James Paige wrote:I have never had beer alongside my chili, but I think that is a pretty respectable definition

I've come to learn that beer and chili share a similar relationship to wine and cheese.

For non-spicy chilies, I enjoy a dark stout. Guiness and Left Hand Milk Stout are both nice.

For mild chilies, any lager will go well. Killian's Irish Red is my favorite. Actually, I'd probably drink Killian's Red with anything (it's just that good).

For spicy chilies, avoid spicy beers. In fact, I'd say your best bet is any pale lager (like Bud or your preference of American lagers).

This is just my taste though. I know guys who like their beer as stout as their chili. This is also just for beef chilies. There's no telling what the combos are for non-beef chilies.

Newbie Newtype · Post by **Newbie Newtype** » Thu May 17, 2012 10:03 am

Art: iProducts
Not art: Android

Art: Wind Waker's graphics
Not art: Saturday Morning Cartoons

Art: Metal Gear Solid
Not art: Metal Gear Solid after Kojima said so

Art: Abstract art pieces depicting splashes of color that look great in your front room
Not art: Home depot interior decorating

Art: Typewriters
Not art: Fax machines

Also, the difference between a failed artist and a failed engineer is that one becomes famous and injected into worldwide culture years after their death, and the other gets fired.

Meowskivich · Post by **Meowskivich** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:24 pm

G-Wreck wrote:
James Paige wrote:I have never had beer alongside my chili, but I think that is a pretty respectable definition
I've come to learn that beer and chili share a similar relationship to wine and cheese.

For non-spicy chilies, I enjoy a dark stout. Guiness and Left Hand Milk Stout are both nice.

For mild chilies, any lager will go well. Killian's Irish Red is my favorite. Actually, I'd probably drink Killian's Red with anything (it's just that good).

For spicy chilies, avoid spicy beers. In fact, I'd say your best bet is any pale lager (like Bud or your preference of American lagers).

This is just my taste though. I know guys who like their beer as stout as their chili. This is also just for beef chilies. There's no telling what the combos are for non-beef chilies.

I personally find beer to be disgusting, along with most alcoholic beverages. However, Rum is an exception to this and is a perfect treat served with some chilled cola to have at the end of a day.

Moral of the story: Drink Rum.

BMR · Post by **BMR** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:12 pm

Heh, it would seem that we now need a "Beer Talk" thread :p

Post by **Bob the Hamster** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:55 pm

I think on average, I drink about one beer a year... that is to say, about twice a year I order a beer, and finish about half of it.

I have been told that most american beer is terrible, and I am inclined to believe it. The best beer I have tasted was on another continent :)

Master K · Post by **Master K** » Thu May 17, 2012 5:33 pm

Well I don't drink beer, so there.

SwampTroll · Post by **SwampTroll** » Thu May 17, 2012 6:14 pm

Not to derail the thread, but I would love to talk about cask ales.

G-Wreck · Post by **G-Wreck** » Thu May 17, 2012 7:14 pm

BMR wrote:Heh, it would seem that we now need a "Beer Talk" thread :p

Possibly, but I would be inclined to say that the brewing of beer is also an art form. So is your selection of beer at a given time, in a given place, with a given meal and company