Originally posted by stellspalfieBecause it is an art to take your money in exchange for their CDs, when you could get it all for free thanks to the magic of internet.
why are singers who have other people to write their songs still called artists, shouldnt they just be called singers?
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
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
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?
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.
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
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?
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.