Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Culture Forum

Culture Forum

  1. 19 Nov '08 11:11 / 1 edit
    why are singers who have other people to write their songs still called artists, shouldnt they just be called singers?
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Nov '08 11:16
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    why are singers who have other people to write their songs still called artists, shouldnt they just be called singers?
    Taking care of your hair is an art.
  3. 19 Nov '08 11:19
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    why are singers who have other people to write their songs still called artists, shouldnt they just be called singers?
    Is this a trick question? I say singing is a form of art, hence a singer is
    an artist, and you drop the bomb which is?..
  4. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    19 Nov '08 11:33
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    why are singers who have other people to write their songs still called artists, shouldnt they just be called singers?
    Because 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.
  5. 19 Nov '08 11:52
    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.
  6. 19 Nov '08 17:20
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    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.
    art

    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]
  7. 19 Nov '08 20:01
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    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.
    what if the creation is engineered, a commercial enterprise?
  8. 20 Nov '08 07:38
    okay, people who sing to a high standard are artist, cant argue with a bloody dictionary. but it still winds me up when kylie, madonna, ms spears and the likes are called artists. its all karaoke to me.
  9. 20 Nov '08 07:57
    Originally posted by frilly
    what if the creation is engineered, a commercial enterprise?
    once 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..
  10. 20 Nov '08 09:16
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    ...it still winds me up when kylie, madonna, ms spears and the likes are called artists. its all karaoke to me.
    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 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?
  11. 20 Nov '08 21:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Jigtie
    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 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?

    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?
  12. 23 Nov '08 09:22
    Originally posted by frilly
    [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?
    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.
  13. 23 Nov '08 19:30
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    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.
    it 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.

    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.