Oh The Moral Implications,..

[Greg_L]

Dumb idealists? Because I don't believe your view. You can say that there is no art, but at the end of the day you have songs that move you. They can move you to anger or joy, doesn't matter. They move you. You can talk like your this bad-ass that doesn't care about anything, but your not. You bust your ass to make good recordings because you want the music presented in a stong and appealing manner. If there is no art, then you wouldn't be doing what you do.

Lol. You can't make up the rules as you go. Either everything is art, or nothing is art. And since no one agrees on what is actually art, then it can't exist. If you see a zebra and I see a zebra, we can agree that it's a motherfucking zebra, because it is. Art doesn't work like that. You can talk like you're this enlightened intellectual that has it all figured out based on your opinion, but you're not. You're just another guy with an opinion.

 

[Greg_L]

That doesn't even make sense.
I do accept that sometimes, 'art' can be an overused word or can be applied rather liberally. But there are 6 or 7 definitions of 'art', one of which is "human creativity" and therefore it is quite a broad term. I'd be surprized if any term existed that cannot be defined. Their very existence militates against non definition.
Neither is the concept of human creativity and expression stupid. Some of the actual created stuff and expression may be, but not the concept. But then, what is 'stupid' in an artistic sense ?

Simply being vague isn't an argument or proof of anything.

 

[kcearl]

I like this place , appart from when people say stuff like this:



It's not my fault I've got dyslexia, I just try and convey what I feel about subjects I care very deeply about, I can only hope that people at least respect that.

Good job he got banned, he said the most pointless things I heave ever heard

if thats carries on you'll be writing dyslexic posts to yourself


dont take it to heart, folks dont know what your disposition is, theyre not meant to..its just the way of the internet

I have loads of disabled friends, theyre nice folks




j/k

 

[benherron.rrr]

if thats carries on you'll be writing dyslexic posts to yourself


dont take it to heart, folks dont know what your disposition is, theyre not meant to..its just the way of the internet

I have loads of disabled friends, theyre nice folks




j/k

No worries KC, Im not really offended. I just think its a little pointless when ones only input is picking out the small flaws in others, God, some people must be really insecure.

Yeah. . . you better be joking, or ill come over and mis-spell al over yo-ass!!! <thats a pen.

Lol I actually like gregs philosophy. agree or not it works.

Art really is a word invented for people to feel better than others.

"If it needs to be analyzed, it isn't art"

I think that genuinly hit the nail on the head.

It's less about the circumstances, IMHO, and more about intent.

I think intent was what I was going for aswell

 

[kcearl]

No worries KC, Im not really offended. I just think its a little pointless when ones only input is picking out the small flaws in others, God, some people must be really insecure.

totly...folks slag me because I dont work...that hurts

 

[benherron.rrr]

totly...folks slag me because I dont work...that hurts

Aww, well somone needs to stay at home and make sure the house doen't catch firen

Just but some tunes up on Itunes, amazon or last Fm, then you can say you have a job

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

You can't make up the rules as you go. Either everything is art, or nothing is art.

It's just the opposite; everybody has to make their own rules there. Art is in the individual perception and the individual use of the thing.

Is a Louis XIV chair a chair or a piece of art? To the average bricklayer, it's a chair. To the art historian, it's art.

Or is it both? Or is it neither, but something of it's own definition? Is a chair a chair if no one sits on it and only admires it's vision?

If sitting on it makes it a chair, is that tree stump in the quad that everybody sits on all the time, actually a chair? Or is it still just a tree, even though almost all of it's "treeness" is gone?

Art is art to me if I think it's art or use it as art. Art is art to you if you think of something as or use something as art. Those may be different things to each of us. There may be some for whom there is no art; others for whom everything is art.

Art is not definable in any terms other than that. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists for each of us in it's own way in our perceptions. Even for those who feel that there is no art, art exists in their perception, because there has to be something for which they can say "nothing is that". One cannot have art without not-art, and one cannot be artless without the concept of what it is that they are without.

G.

 

[moresound]

It's just the opposite; everybody has to make their own rules there. Art is in the individual perception and the individual use of the thing.

Is a Louis XIV chair a chair or a piece of art? To the average bricklayer, it's a chair. To the art historian, it's art.

Or is it both? Or is it neither, but something of it's own definition? Is a chair a chair if no one sits on it and only admires it's vision?

If sitting on it makes it a chair, is that tree stump in the quad that everybody sits on all the time, actually a chair? Or is it still just a tree, even though almost all of it's "treeness" is gone?

Art is art to me if I think it's art or use it as art. Art is art to you if you think of something as or use something as art. Those may be different things to each of us. There may be some for whom there is no art; others for whom everything is art.

Art is not definable in any terms other than that. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It exists for each of us in it's own way in our perceptions. Even for those who feel that there is no art, art exists in their perception, because there has to be something for which they can say "nothing is that". One cannot have art without not-art, and one cannot be artless without the concept of what it is that they are without.

G.

Precisely! One can not define art as each person sees or hears it to another.

Art is a never ending process ..... art grows from art. It's not that you've made a song, it's how you've made the song.

 

[nate_dennis]

Lol. You can't make up the rules as you go. Either everything is art, or nothing is art.

WTF? Either everything is a Zebra or nothing is a Zebra. Makes about as much sense. I'm not posturing as an enlightened know-it-all. Just the opposite. If you read through the thread you'll see me say that I had an oppinion and someone made a really great point, and now I'm unsure of my thoughts/beliefs.

It's not that you've made a song, it's how you've made the song.

I disagree. It's not that you made the song or how you made the song. It's WHY you made the song.

 

[grimtraveller]

Simply being vague isn't an argument or proof of anything.

Simply being vague is an art in itself !

 

[Greg_L]

WTF? Either everything is a Zebra or nothing is a Zebra. Makes about as much sense. I'm not posturing as an enlightened know-it-all. Just the opposite. If you read through the thread you'll see me say that I had an oppinion and someone made a really great point, and now I'm unsure of my thoughts/beliefs.
.

No, a zebra is a zebra. There is no debate. Art is subjective, which makes it meaningless.

 

[Greg_L]

It's just the opposite; everybody has to make their own rules there. Art is in the individual perception and the individual use of the thing.

Right, my set of rules says it doesn't exist. Stop trying to convince me, or yourself, that it does.

 

[c7sus]

My bowel movements are art, and they make society a better place.

Therefore, my shit captures the essence of both form and function.

 

[Greg_L]

I agree. The whole concept of art is shit.

 

[moresound]

WTF? Either everything is a Zebra or nothing is a Zebra. Makes about as much sense. I'm not posturing as an enlightened know-it-all. Just the opposite. If you read through the thread you'll see me say that I had an oppinion and someone made a really great point, and now I'm unsure of my thoughts/beliefs.



I disagree. It's not that you made the song or how you made the song. It's WHY you made the song.

Alright who, how, what and where. Now why. I think we have everything here covered now.

 

[Captain Ego]

What if I made the song because I wanted it to change the world and save the children and I thought it was really beautiful and very rich and full of technique and skill and it had a pretty picture on the cover and I explained in great detail during interviews of what I intended as the message of the song and and and... you get the idea...

and the song sucked? It was just a stupid repetative melody, a predictable beat, a bad overused hook, horrendous metaphors so I can sound glib or something, and well... it just sucked. Did I make a great work of art just because that was my intention? All the playing showed technical skill too... why did nobody else think it was great? because it sucked!

I don't even want to get started on Andy Warhol, I would rather see the little girl's picture from her daddy's fridge in a museum personally.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

What if I made the song because I wanted it to change the world and save the children and I thought it was really beautiful and very rich and full of technique and skill and it had a pretty picture on the cover and I explained in great detail during interviews of what I intended as the message of the song and and and... you get the idea...

and the song sucked? It was just a stupid repetative melody, a predictable beat, a bad overused hook, horrendous metaphors so I can sound glib or something, and well... it just sucked. Did I make a great work of art just because that was my intention? All the playing showed technical skill too... why did nobody else think it was great? because it sucked!

Then you are a member of Band Aid.

 

[mcmetal]

I feel morally obligated to say this thread must die!

An interesting fact about zebras is that no two are alike.They all have stripes but no stripe pattern is identical...it's still not art though..it's just a zebra.

 

[moresound]

Yeah but are they black with white stripes or white with black stripes?

 

[Greg_L]

Yeah but are they black with white stripes or white with black stripes?

Shave one and find out.