Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Craftsmanship and art
Or rather, the lack thereof.
There seems to be a pervasive idea that one can make worthwhile art straight from the kiss of the muses, the bolt of inspiration, drawing pure idea from the Aether itself.
In-other-words, without much effort.
And it's not just artists; it's the consumers as well, who eat up half-formed dreams and badly-done paintings like a crack addict with a dune of white powder.
You can mail your glass box without a fragile sticker and call it art and by definition it is; but the fact remains that you relied on the efforts of others to even shape it and should be judged as a lazy bastard.
If on the other hand, you make giant plastic sculptures of nude boys playing painted a lurid red, that's fine. I won't for the life of me understand it, but I'll appreciate the effort and craftsmanship.
There seems to be a pervasive idea that one can make worthwhile art straight from the kiss of the muses, the bolt of inspiration, drawing pure idea from the Aether itself.
In-other-words, without much effort.
And it's not just artists; it's the consumers as well, who eat up half-formed dreams and badly-done paintings like a crack addict with a dune of white powder.
You can mail your glass box without a fragile sticker and call it art and by definition it is; but the fact remains that you relied on the efforts of others to even shape it and should be judged as a lazy bastard.
If on the other hand, you make giant plastic sculptures of nude boys playing painted a lurid red, that's fine. I won't for the life of me understand it, but I'll appreciate the effort and craftsmanship.
Comments
I would argue that both artworks are equally valid/invalid, because I consider it the responsibility of an artist to contain all necessary contextualising information in the artwork itself. So that's from an expressive point of view.
I do agree that technical skill for the sake of technical skill is something beautiful, though, when applied gracefully and intelligently.
^I find that technical skill cannot ever be just for the sake of technical skills. Human beings aren't capable of something so passive. There's always a spark of desire there, an inspiration or a love.
Which isn't to say technical skill isn't impressive of course. Eddie Van Halen is regarded more critically positively than whatshisface from Green Day.
I guess what I meant to say was "when something is more technical than it has to be, but still works on an artistic level within its context", because I agree that technical skill alone (technically) circumnavigates artistic expression. Whether it's possible to have technical skill without artistic input is another matter entirely, though.
Controversies like this are what make it very tempting to just go "You know what? Fuck art."
I think this is where exhibition art has very much shot itself in the foot. Where literature, film and games continue to seek the strongest balance between meaningful expression and accessibility, exhibition art has become very inaccessible to a general audience and has therefore fallen from broader cultural relevance. Film and games in particular threaten to subsume traditional art entirely, as they can provide aesthetically pleasing art while giving it context through the general narrative experience.
"Film and games in particular threaten to subsume traditional art entirely, as they can provide aesthetically pleasing art while giving it context through the general narrative experience."
*that was unnecessarily rude*
Tell me, have you ever experienced exhibition art in any way? For one thing, paintings can communicate abstractly in a way narrative media cannot.
I say it depends on the planning and work put in
If somebody just ships the glass box and has it break then calls it art, then they aren't doing it right
If, however, they have put thought into it and thought of exactly what it is they want, then they can call it art
I'd argue that it has already happened, in terms of the public eye.
Also, really, video reaction with no arguments? Thought you were better than that.
Eh, I had to take some time to come up with a proper response, so I just put my emotional response. I think it's rather ignorant to dismiss an entire medium offhand.
Anyways, the public may not explicitly draw attention to traditional art, but even paintings in the background can emotionally affect a person. Classical music is still being widely used today even if people don't necessarily pay attention to it, and soundtracks have certainly not subsumed the concert hall. Similarly, Skyward Sword's graphics were influenced by Impressionist Art, but that doesn't make it a replacement for Impressionist painters, since it didn't come up with the style on its own.
A lot of this I think has to do with the changing nature of the consumer of media. In the past the artist just produced something, shipped it out to the audience and they would experience it. But nowadays there is certainly a lot more interactivity going on. The audience wants to experience the media a bit more directly nowadays. They want to put their own spin on it, with things like remixes, fanfic, game mods, interactivity between the audience and two way communication with the artists, which can end up affecting the actual work in question, at least for serialized things.
That isn't a recent thing. Personal portraits have existed for a long time. And like I said, that doesn't speak for the entire audience. There's still a place for theatre and the concert hall.
That is nice and all, and I even agree. But Alex's point is that they are no longer relevant to the public eye, because they have fallen with the times. We use classical music, yes, but most of the time, we play and compose new songs that are nothing like classical music (Even with the use of an orchestra). We take cues from Monet, Van Gogh and so on, but what we do isn't exactly similar to what they did.
Overall, I love exhibition art. I love aesthetically beautiful images and constructs, and I understand that it's not about "Getting them" or whatever, but simply about creating an image. But this doesn't work for everybody. Exhibition art is dying in terms of popularity. And regardless of how much you enjoy it, you can't deny that, either.
My older brother used to work at Melbourne's leading art gallery and gallery excursions were a regular part of my private high school education. I can't recall every instance of me going to an exhibition, but I've seen a variety of art forms and pieces and had them explained to me by numerous different professionals and teachers. No art contextualises itself as poorly as contemporary art, in my experience.
The Tidus laugh was completely unnecessary, too. I understand that you might have been taken aback by my statement, but please don't do that.
Now it's just opera.
All things die.
I think music holds an advantage here in that it's much more immediate. It seldom requires interpretation, and instead attacks its audience's emotions directly. Classical music and opera will probably outlast exhibition art because of accessibility alone.
God this conversation is just way too relevant for me, considering I'll have to defend my work in the future (and hell, even now) against those who won't see it as art =/
The greater your craftsmanship, the more tools you have at your disposal to create art that actually does what you're trying to do, says what you're trying to say.