Amusing incident proves that modern perception of "Art" is crap

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

So what's the 'meaning' of Bruegel's 'Netherlandish Proverbs' ?

If it was expressible in words then we wouldn't need visual art.

But thanks for playing.

Talk about pretentious.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

So what's the 'meaning' of Bruegel's 'Netherlandish Proverbs' ?

If it was expressible in words then we wouldn't need visual art.

But thanks for playing.

I'm sorry, I thought we all communicated in words and language, not telepathic pictures.

So apparently did you:

Art is meaningless if nobody else understands what you were trying to express.

How exactly in the absence of shared cultural & visual references and being able to explicate those in a common written or spoken language are you going to be able to discover the supposed 'meaning' of any work of art ?


This a Persian miniature. It's a fair wager that many people posting here won't be familiar with either the subject or the way it's being represented.

Does it still possess a meaning ?

[molly bloom]

Spot the meaning:

[molly bloom]

On me 'ead son:

[molly bloom]

And again:

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by General Ludd



Talk about pretentious.

Oh really? Saying that an art form which I am admittedly horrible at either creating or appreciating is important because it expresses thing words can't is pretentious?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I'm sorry, I thought we all communicated in words and language, not telepathic pictures

Words are one way that we communicate with each other. Visual art is another way. Music is another way. Mathematics is another way.

If everything was easily translated into language then we wouldn't need any of the other things.

So apparently did you:

I can feel and understand things that I can't communicate in words. Or has language suddenly become a perfect vehicle for our thoughts and feelings?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Oh really? Saying that an art form which I am admittedly horrible at either creating or appreciating is important because it expresses thing words can't is pretentious?

Yes - it's the very definition of pretention. You are attempting to define what is and is not art, while seting yourself into a position where you do not have to explain the why of any of it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by molly bloom
This a Persian miniature. It's a fair wager that many people posting here won't be familiar with either the subject or the way it's being represented.

Does it still possess a meaning ?

It has some meaning, but much of it is lost by a lack of context. When did I say that art had to be completely universal? The better it is, the more universal it will be, but that's an ideal, not a requirement.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Yes - it's the very definition of pretention. You are attempting to define what is and is not art, while seting yourself into a position where you do not have to explain the why of any of it.

Actually, what is pretenSion is the idea that an outside observer can express in a few words what an artist took possibly years of his life to express in pictures or sculpture.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Actually, what is pretenSion is the idea that an outside observer can express in a few words what an artist took possibly years of his life to express in pictures or sculpture.

That's your argument, not mine. I've already made it clear that I do not believe the purpose of art is to communicate one singular and 'correct' message.


You're proclaiming to know what art is, but when asked to define it you fall back on pretentious "it transcends vocabulary" arguments.

You say that the purpose of art is to communicate, and you claim to know the difference between pieces that communicate something and those that do not, and yet, you can not explain the communication in the pieces that supposedly do possess a message. If you can identify 'false art', than surely you should be able to provide some inkling as to what 'true art' posseses that makes it so.


Essentially what you are saying is that art is art only if you (quite arbitrarily) say that it is. That is pretentious

[Thorgal]

If art is comunication then i suppose traffic signals or this very forum are art.

Only who knows nothing about art can think he knows what art is. The definition of art is a common topic among the first year students at Fine Art Universities. In fact there is nothing that only exist in art and common to all art works. The only definition would be that art is the work made by the artist. Of course now we should define ´artist´.

[Sirotnikov]

Thoral - that is a somewhat silly argument.

Only who knows nothing about art can think he knows what art is. The definition of art is a common topic among the first year students at Fine Art Universities.

That is in itself a silly concept.

Its as if english students would have to be explained what english is, and only they could later "understand" or define english.

Art is a common concept in humanity. Any art that needs "explaining" loses its value as art. Obviously, you need to know a context to understand art, otherwise it might loose some or all of its meaning.

But contrary to your belief, 'the masses' can, and indeed do define "Art".

Lets take a joke for instance. You can argue for hours about the exact definition of a joke, and what makes it good or bad. But if you have to "explain" a joke - then it is a bad joke.

If almost nobody laughs in a large crowd - it is probably a bad joke. Saying "no its a good joke, you need to familiarize yourself with "joke studies" to get it" would sound kind of silly.

But a joke, like art - has to have an intended meaning. Otherwise its just a "funny moment". If someone mistakes an accident for a joke - then that person has a bad understanding of what jokes are.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Words are one way that we communicate with each other. Visual art is another way. Music is another way. Mathematics is another way.

How is mathematics a form of communication???

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by civman2000

How is mathematics a form of communication???

It's the expression of relationships within a language expressed entirely in figures and symbols, each of which have their own meanings, in just the same way as words do in conventional spoken languages.