11 Apr '09 22:08>
Originally posted by StTitoreally, how so?
spreading butter on toast is art
Originally posted by StTitoyes but who butters their toast passionately or with precision? for many it is done in a spontaneous manner and almost subconsciously! never the less, it is an interesting point, but let us think on it for a moment, for example, structural engineering requires skill and precision and the adherent may apply his knowledge in a passionate manner, are we to understand this as art? if so then the infra-structure of a building, by definition must be considered artistic! is it really so? Also it would seem that in the visual arts, painting for example, for many years, precision was seen as a virtue, that was until the the fauves and the impressionist movement which it spawned, redefined this type of thinking, giving colour and spontaneity much higher precedence over form and precision! it would seem that there are more elements to this than passion or precision, for one may indeed butter ones toast passionately and precisely, but is it truly artistic?
Anything done with passion and precision is art. Only the pretentious need to hold it above and categorize it. Oh and art critics cause they got to get paid.
Originally posted by StTitoI wouldn't call myself pretentious when it comes to art - but I can be picky. I like art to tell me a story, or to make me "feel" something. I was recently at a Modern Art gallery in Edinburgh, and in one of the rooms the artwork consisted of some photographs...but what really got me was that they required an explanation, and the explanation was not part of the art. Art shouldn't need explaining - it should make you feel something at all levels (although, of course, an explanation may make you understand it better).
Anything done with passion and precision is art. Only the pretentious need to hold it above and categorize it. Oh and art critics cause they got to get paid.
Originally posted by StTitommmm, i think what you are saying is quite correct, however, its not so much that it cannot be defined, for already we have established that it has certain characteristics, its simply seems that there are simply different levels. for example, the little ol lady who likes her Monet print above her mantelpiece, surrounded by peach and beige walls, to her it seems perfectly acceptable, but to someone else. versed in the latest fashions of fine art, it seems sterile, even crass, lacking in taste etc etc. then there are those who seem mesmerized by labored attention to detail, we may think of fantasy art, every brick rendered and every scale of the dragon highlighted, and when they are exposed to something done spontaneously they turn the picture upside down and wonder what it is supposed to be and exclaim, this is not art, this person cannot even draw or paint! thus like you say it means different things to different persons on different levels, to be sure!
I guess my whole point is art can not be defined. We all see things differently, literally. Some people have stigmas, some can't hear certain frequencies. when you say "that is blue" imagine how many different shades we all see. I'm not trying to get all hippie on ya'll. My favorite saying is: "I don't know art but I know what I like." Good! If you want to st ...[text shortened]... d I can eat it!(that's why chefs are so pretentious, but don't get me started on that)
Originally posted by StTitoOut of interest, would you say that food must taste good to be considered art?
well since music does not provide much of an income yet I cooked for close to 10 years. Trained under a chef in the Caribbean and worked under a couple in the states. Chef's have no doubt in their mind that they are artists and I tend to agree, but again I can see a mac n' cheese dish a work of art if it was made with love.
Originally posted by SwlabrSome schools say that presentation is 60%-80% of the foods taste. And I admit that many people taste with there eyes before there nose and toungue. And on the other hand some foods(like any art) are an aquired taste. But to answer your question, for food to be a complete art form it has to taste good to YOU.
Out of interest, would you say that food must taste good to be considered art?