Why are we so illiterate about Art?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by BeBro


Isn't in a certain sense any form of art manipulating? Not that I think art is generally brainwashing, but it appeals to our senses.....

Well, anything appeals to our senses. What you probably mean is that art appeals to your sense with your full will and agreement.

From this, follows the prominent artistic question of the 20th century: what is art, then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

we need to make a distinction between anything prior to the 19th century and the rest.

Seeing as in the course of human history the 19th and 20th Centuries are kinda much, much, much less than the rest, that's a BIG distinction .

We also need to make the distinction between technical prowess (inherent to painting, sculpture) with the rest.

Why? Does good art have good technical prowess?

Understanding the Sistine chapel requires erudition, that was highly unlikely held by the masses of the Italian Renaissance.

So?

[loinburger]

I'm not going to torture myself with viewing (or "experiencing" or whatever) art that I don't like just so that I can pretend that I'm "refined" or some **** like that, any more than I'm going to torture myself with crap food just because it's trendy or gourmet or whatever.

Oh yeah, and roquefort tastes like ass, "refined" or otherwise.

[FS*]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


From this, follows the prominent artistic question of the 20th century: what is art, then?

Followed by the phrase, " I may not know much about art, but I know what I like."

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Verto


Not true.

Excluding plain religious art in the churches (and not the great masterpieces of Michelangelo, Raphael, etc.). However, I would argue that that was not really art.

There is also the special case of theater, I know. Then I could dispute much about it, and say how its appeal was different than today's hollywoodian movies.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'm not going to torture myself with viewing (or "experiencing" or whatever) art that I don't like just so that I can pretend that I'm "refined" or some **** like that, any more than I'm going to torture myself with crap food just because it's trendy or gourmet or whatever.

Oh yeah, and roquefort tastes like ass, "refined" or otherwise.

Well, it ends up tasting good, and the effort is most always rewarding.

[FS*]

The big distinction from my years in art college was commercial art vs. fine art.

The commercial artists were all sellouts and whores, while the fine artists were the ones with no technical prowess and subjective perspectives on art that were so obtuse as to completely lose most viewers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess we are 'illiterate' about art, because we have no ****ing idea what the Hell you are talking about when you say 'art' .

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
However, I would argue that that was not really art.

What would your definition of art be?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Seeing as in the course of human history the 19th and 20th Centuries are kinda much, much, much less than the rest, that's a BIG distinction .

Well, you just have to keep in mind that art distibution and consumption was wholly different in that time.
It is also a known fact that the avant garde was made possible by the industrial society, for many reasons, which have to do with the Enlightment, urbanization, and skyrocketing of inequalities.

Why? Does good art have good technical prowess?

I'll take an easy example: Lost in Translation or ROTK? There is a fine line between them; but history tends to favor the former over the latter (the eternal 'style' or substance question).

So?

It was seen by the masses, but the discourse it contained had more. That's why it's not like Seabiscuit or Paulo Coelho.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I guess we are 'illiterate' about art, because we have no ****ing idea what the Hell you are talking about when you say 'art' .

Interesting point. The thing is: art is so complex, that no one should know that he's talking about.

If you can claim to know what is art, then... you are probably ignorant.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Verto


What would your definition of art be?

In the case of the common paintings of religious scenes, I'd say it's merely art- because its function was to educate first, not to make revolutionary aesthetic statements.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll take an easy example: Lost in Translation or ROTK? There is a fine line between them; but history tends to favor the former over the latter (the eternal 'style' or substance question).

What makes one 'art' and the other not? Is LIT more avant garde? How so?

It was seen by the masses, but the discourse it contained had more.

What does it have to do with its artistic quality?

[Verto]

Why must art make revolutionary statements?

[FS*]

Which leads to my earlier point. I may not know much about art, but I know what I like.