19 Nov 08
Originally posted by stellspalfieIs this a trick question? I say singing is a form of art, hence a singer is
why are singers who have other people to write their songs still called artists, shouldnt they just be called singers?
an artist, and you drop the bomb which is?..
19 Nov 08
Originally posted by stellspalfieart
if singing to a high standard is art, then is everything that is done very well art? i reckon art is more about the creating than the end product.
n 1: the products of human creativity; works of art collectively;
"an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art" [syn: fine
art]
2: the creation of beautiful or significant things; "a good
example of modern art": "I was never any good at art"
[syn: artistic creation, artistic production]
3: a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice
and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an
art" [syn: artistry, prowess]
4: photographs or other visual representations in a printed
publication; "the publisher was responsible for all the
artwork in the book" [syn: artwork, graphics, nontextual
matter]
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Nov 08
Originally posted by frillyonce people step beyond the sticking toilet rolls to cardboard boxes and making trees out of green paint hand prints at school, i say most art is for commercial enterprise or personal gain. the engineering side is tricky, sadly without the money grabbing shiny arse buisness men behind most artistic ventures most things wouldnt be available........think of a world without scott, aitken and waterman or simon cowell..............ahhh bo*****ks, contradicting myself now..
what if the creation is engineered, a commercial enterprise?
20 Nov 08
Originally posted by stellspalfieOn that I fully agree. 😵
...it still winds me up when kylie, madonna, ms spears and the likes are called artists. its all karaoke to me.
I think of commercial artists like Aguilera, Carey and the rest as singers,
but not artists, totally contradicting my earlier posts (damn you for
bringing them up). Say I take a blank canvas, some colours and a few
brushes, and then I start painting a copy of Mona Lisa with a few twists
to make it just different to qualify as an original piece, but still it's
obvious to anyone that it's Mona Lisa. No one would call me an artist. I
may be referred to as a painter, simply because I painted it. I will most
definitely be referred to as a fraud, even though it would require a
certain amount of talent for me to paint that copy(ish thing).
Actually, you've given me something to think about here. Where's the
line drawn between copying and creating something entirely new? Even
the greatest artists were influenced by earlier artists. It's inevitable. How
banal and obvious must the copy be, before it's creator loses the
epithet: artist?
20 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieWhy is innovation on an old idea not art? Isn't it about the subjective experience of art by a creator, an innovator and the spectator, their indivdual as well as shared experience, the context of the piece?
On that I fully agree. 😵
I think of commercial artists like Aguilera, Carey and the rest as singers,
but not artists, totally contradicting my earlier posts (damn you for
bringing them up). Say I take a blank canvas, some colours and a few
brushes, and then I start painting a copy of Mona Lisa with a few twists
to make it just different to qualify How
banal and obvious must the copy be, before it's creator loses the
epithet: artist?
Why is a creation made of sticky back plasctic not art? Does the definition of low and high brow art rest on the particular materials used or the age of the artist or intellectual depth and debate of the subject?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by frillyare we saying that everything in the world is or has the potential to be art, that art is a feeling inside the creator or viewer? does this mean that the asthetics of art are unimportent? if so does this make thought an art form, was einstien an artist are novelist artists.
[b]Why is innovation on an old idea not art? Isn't it about the subjective experience of art by a creator, an innovator and the spectator, their indivdual as well as shared experience, the context of the piece?
does something have to be created with the purpose of being art to be art?
my simple man brain hurts, im off to scratch my balls and fart.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by stellspalfieit is my view that art is a dialogue. the aesthetic is a is a sort of tool of communication, no? several themes can be discussed in any given work and the artist impresses on us, her thoughts and feelings so that we might find empathy or discourse in the viewpoint expressed.
are we saying that everything in the world is or has the potential to be art, that art is a feeling inside the creator or viewer? does this mean that the asthetics of art are unimportent? if so does this make thought an art form, was einstien an artist are novelist artists.
does something have to be created with the purpose of being art to be art?
my simple man brain hurts, im off to scratch my balls and fart.
the depth of the subject, the skills or tricks that an artist employs might define good or bad art but really i think this is a question of taste and dare i say, snobbery.