A peacocks feathers are not art. Yes they are beautiful, like a waterfall is beautiful, or the stars in the sky are beautiful. Beautiful, admirable, enchanting, hypnotizing, awe-inspiring, wonderful, exceptional examples of nature.
But they are not art.
Art needs criticism. Art needs to have debate. "Why did the artist choose this colour over that colour? This method over that method? What was their though process, what emotions are they trying to convey? What message are they trying to send?" You can't criticize something that has no creator. The peacock has no creative process to analyze. The night sky has no motive. They are beautiful, no question about that, but they are not art.
Photographers create art when they take a photo. Sure, a nude doesn't really say much other than "I think this woman is beautiful." And "See? I paid attention in university during that lecture on proper placement of lighting." But what about photographers who go into war zones? Capturing images of horror, death and disharmony? Nick Ut's photograph of the survivors of Trang Bang. Kevin Carters photo of the Sudanese child and the vulture. Being in the right place at the right time, for the right reasons, and having the knowledge and skills thereof. It's more than a simple carbon copy of an event. The photographer puts themselves into the work when they take the picture. Photography is art. In the examples I gave the subject was war and death. In your example the subject was attractive women.... But it's all art.
peacock feathers are art. if i put some peacock feathers in a frame and put them in an art gallery they would be seen as art. why can't you criticize the way peacock feathers look in nature?
[....]
if a computer were given artificial intelligence and it decided to capture a picture from a surveillance camera, then upload the picture to a website with a gallery of images titled "art" then would you say it's not actually art? if a monkey used a camera would their pictures not be art? a camera only can show the way things naturally are, so why shouldn't the original natural objects be considered art?
I lump these together because I think they're the same argument. So, here's why framed peacock feathers are art, and randomly-selected security footage would be art (imo), but unframed peacocks wearing their feathers aren't (imo again):
Someone chose to put the feather in the frame and show it to other people. Someone chose to write a program to select security footage and show it to other people (really what's on display is the program itself). If someone gave a monkey a camera and had the monkey take pictures, that could be either art or science, depending who was shown the result.
I think art is a way for humans to show other humans something, often something beautiful. It's about expanding the viewer's experience. To a degree, art is about instruction on the capabilities and potentialities of being human. Maybe we could learn to communicate with other species in such a way as to make non-human art possible, but I don't think we're there yet, at least not most of us.
So, I ask you, what do you look for when you look at art? Do you look for something other than the satisfaction of your senses and intellect? Otherwise, I'm not sure what's the origin of your objections to the limitation of art to human-created experiences. Again, is there a difference between art and beauty? I think peacock feathers are beautiful, but I don't think they're art. Evidently you don't draw that distinction, so I'm curious if you draw any distinction, or what you think art really is.
"
art doesn't need criticism. maybe drawing inspiration from art helps, but criticism doesn't help the viewers perspective of their work. [...] the purpose of criticism is to help artists make their work better by acknowledging the faults and successes of their own and other artist's work so they can do it better next time. for a non-artist viewer there is no reason to criticize since they wont be making any art.
I think you're underestimating the value of criticism. Criticism is a way of re-telling the artwork in a way that could make it more accessible or more fully accessible. Telling how the artist failed helps to establish what it seemed they were trying to do, and telling how they succeeded can provide more enjoyment not only of that specific work, but of other works as well through analogy.
"
the only true answers are from the artist so it does no good to guess.
This is something I fundamentally disagree with, since I think art "happens" at the interface between the viewer and the work itself.
I lump these together because I think they're the same argument. So, here's why framed peacock feathers are art, and randomly-selected security footage would be art (imo), but unframed peacocks wearing their feathers aren't (imo again):
Someone chose to put the feather in the frame and show it to other people. Someone chose to write a program to select security footage and show it to other people (really what's on display is the program itself). If someone gave a monkey a camera and had the monkey take pictures, that could be either art or science, depending who was shown the result.
I think art is a way for humans to show other humans something, often something beautiful. It's about expanding the viewer's experience. To a degree, art is about instruction on the capabilities and potentialities of being human. Maybe we could learn to communicate with other species in such a way as to make non-human art possible, but I don't think we're there yet, at least not most of us.
So, I ask you, what do you look for when you look at art? Do you look for something other than the satisfaction of your senses and intellect? Otherwise, I'm not sure what's the origin of your objections to the limitation of art to human-created experiences. Again, is there a difference between art and beauty? I think peacock feathers are beautiful, but I don't think they're art. Evidently you don't draw that distinction, so I'm curious if you draw any distinction, or what you think art really is.
"
art doesn't need criticism. maybe drawing inspiration from art helps, but criticism doesn't help the viewers perspective of their work. [...] the purpose of criticism is to help artists make their work better by acknowledging the faults and successes of their own and other artist's work so they can do it better next time. for a non-artist viewer there is no reason to criticize since they wont be making any art.
I think you're underestimating the value of criticism. Criticism is a way of re-telling the artwork in a way that could make it more accessible or more fully accessible. Telling how the artist failed helps to establish what it seemed they were trying to do, and telling how they succeeded can provide more enjoyment not only of that specific work, but of other works as well through analogy.
"
the only true answers are from the artist so it does no good to guess.
This is something I fundamentally disagree with, since I think art "happens" at the interface between the viewer and the work itself.
why shouldn't natural objects be considered art? if nature arranged objects in a beautiful way it's not art in your opinion, but if people arrange the objects it is art? why do you draw a line between nature and humans? aren't we all from nature? aren't we made of things naturally occurring on earth? aren't things other than humans also conscious? if people can randomly put paint on canvas and call it abstract art, why can't naturally random placements of things be called art? natural things are likely not even random since actions and reactions only happen for cause and effect reasons. maybe there isn't a conscious will behind the structures of elements, but there are reasons for their arrangements. are you saying only conscious will can make art? why does it help to put the limitation on the definition of art?
words only mean what we decide for them to mean, and in every different language the word art is likely defined a little differently, so why not let there be many definitions of the same word so everybody can be satisfied with having their own interpretation of words? maybe it makes communication more complicated, but maybe it needs to be complicated for anybody to express their thoughts.
when i look at art i usually begin with the visual aspects like colors and details, and how well objects are rendered. then i'll think of the objects being represented and the scene the art is recreating.
i don't actually think art is a very useful word unless it describes what somebody is making, or to describe the sort of things which will be seen at a gallery or museum. if somebody pointed at a peacock and said their tail feathers look like art i would agree, and if they say they are art i would likely agree also. i don't see a reason to not allow anything to be called art. if somebody wanted to call their whistling an art i would not argue.
"This is something I fundamentally disagree with, since I think art "happens" at the interface between the viewer and the work itself."
art happens, for example, when a painter places their brush on canvas, and when they're finished putting paint on canvas they call it a completed work of art. the art can sit in an attic forever and never be seen by another viewer and it will still be art in the attic.
I lump these together because I think they're the same argument. So, here's why framed peacock feathers are art, and randomly-selected security footage would be art (imo), but unframed peacocks wearing their feathers aren't (imo again):
Someone chose to put the feather in the frame and show it to other people. Someone chose to write a program to select security footage and show it to other people (really what's on display is the program itself). If someone gave a monkey a camera and had the monkey take pictures, that could be either art or science, depending who was shown the result.
I think art is a way for humans to show other humans something, often something beautiful. It's about expanding the viewer's experience. To a degree, art is about instruction on the capabilities and potentialities of being human. Maybe we could learn to communicate with other species in such a way as to make non-human art possible, but I don't think we're there yet, at least not most of us.
So, I ask you, what do you look for when you look at art? Do you look for something other than the satisfaction of your senses and intellect? Otherwise, I'm not sure what's the origin of your objections to the limitation of art to human-created experiences. Again, is there a difference between art and beauty? I think peacock feathers are beautiful, but I don't think they're art. Evidently you don't draw that distinction, so I'm curious if you draw any distinction, or what you think art really is.
"
art doesn't need criticism. maybe drawing inspiration from art helps, but criticism doesn't help the viewers perspective of their work. [...] the purpose of criticism is to help artists make their work better by acknowledging the faults and successes of their own and other artist's work so they can do it better next time. for a non-artist viewer there is no reason to criticize since they wont be making any art.
I think you're underestimating the value of criticism. Criticism is a way of re-telling the artwork in a way that could make it more accessible or more fully accessible. Telling how the artist failed helps to establish what it seemed they were trying to do, and telling how they succeeded can provide more enjoyment not only of that specific work, but of other works as well through analogy.
"
the only true answers are from the artist so it does no good to guess.
This is something I fundamentally disagree with, since I think art "happens" at the interface between the viewer and the work itself.
why shouldn't natural objects be considered art? [...] if people can randomly put paint on canvas and call it abstract art, why can't naturally random placements of things be called art? [...] are you saying only conscious will can make art? why does it help to put the limitation on the definition of art?
As I said elsewhere, I think art is a mode of communication. I think that art meets its purpose when it is examined. I don't think either of those things are true of the beautiful displays of nature, so I don't call those displays art. By not calling them art, I know not to read too much into them, or that if I do read a deeper meaning into them, it's something I'm fabricating rather than something that was really meant.
"
natural things are likely not even random since actions and reactions only happen for cause and effect reasons.
I pulled this out because it's not central to your argument above but it is a questionable statement. I think there are lots of things, even everyday things, where the cause cannot be determined, and if the cause cannot be determined then its existence is questionable. There are so many seemingly causeless events going on all the time, and cause and effect is such a tricky idea to justify through logical means, that it's hard to say that cause and effect is an ironclad idea. I don't think it's a topical discussion, but you can read David Hume's "Discourse on Human Nature" for more on that subject.
"
words only mean what we decide for them to mean, and in every different language the word art is likely defined a little differently, so why not let there be many definitions of the same word so everybody can be satisfied with having their own interpretation of words? maybe it makes communication more complicated, but maybe it needs to be complicated for anybody to express their thoughts.
I'm fine with your definition of art, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to convince you not to use it. I just don't understand your definition, and I'm trying to understand it better. I agree that words' meanings don't have to be circumscribed.
"
art happens, for example, when a painter places their brush on canvas, and when they're finished putting paint on canvas they call it a completed work of art. the art can sit in an attic forever and never be seen by another viewer and it will still be art in the attic.
How does this interact with your description of nature as art? Since we've been talking about peacock feathers: When does the feather become art? Or, for another example, would you call a particularly beautiful arrangement of ten molecules in 1650 art, even though it was never seen at all during its brief existence?
Well, typically, high quality art will be referred to as "good," "amazing," or something, whereas low quality art will be referred to as "shit."
I mean, normally you don't call things 'art,' even when it is, right? You'll call it what it is. A "Painting," or a "Movie," or a "Video Game." Either preceded by "beautiful," "awesome," or "fun," if it's good, or "shit," "shit," or "shit," if it's shit.
EDIT: What's I'm trying to say is, we should accept the definition of the label of art in its broad, literal sense, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to be convinced of something's quality due to that label. Even if it is technically "art," that doesn't mean it's not shit.
Of course, critics will often describe things as "artful," in an attempt to make them seem of high quality, so it's a frustrating idea. Like everything, it depends on context. I mean, any critic worth their salt will evaluate whether or not the thing they're critiquing is good, regardless of what other descriptors they use.
People make a big deal about participation awards making kids feel entitled, but I don't buy it. Kids know the difference between a fake prize and a real prize.
I actually did tests in primary school where there were participation certificates. We all knew that was the lowest rank you could get, and nothing worth bragging about.
The fact that there's no barrier to entry for art doesn't mean we can't criticize it or value some art more than others. Art is a category, not an award.
The same goes for products. These words at best give us an indication of what the object is intended to be used for. They really don't need to tell us anything beyond that.
so much QFT especially the bold
"Dude he fucking said hotdog racist.
Like I can't even make this shit up." - gj
1.0.0 Forum Posters now have 50% less Critical Thinking skill per Patch
As I said elsewhere, I think art is a mode of communication. I think that art meets its purpose when it is examined. I don't think either of those things are true of the beautiful displays of nature, so I don't call those displays art. By not calling them art, I know not to read too much into them, or that if I do read a deeper meaning into them, it's something I'm fabricating rather than something that was really meant.
nature communicates with art. male peacocks communicate to female peacocks with their tail feathers. poisonous bugs are often colorful to communicate their dangerousness. there are likely many more examples.
"
I pulled this out because it's not central to your argument above but it is a questionable statement. I think there are lots of things, even everyday things, where the cause cannot be determined, and if the cause cannot be determined then its existence is questionable. There are so many seemingly causeless events going on all the time, and cause and effect is such a tricky idea to justify through logical means, that it's hard to say that cause and effect is an ironclad idea. I don't think it's a topical discussion, but you can read David Hume's "Discourse on Human Nature" for more on that subject.
can you mention an example of a "causeless event"? i really don't believe anything happens without a cause. also, simply because a cause is not identifiable doesn't mean there is no cause, only your senses haven't found the cause. for example, we only believe dark matter and dark energy exist because of the observed effects with no other explanation, but we can't directly see the cause because dark matter is not visible and we can't detect it with our senses or tools because it doesn't interact with matter except with it's gravitational force. you can read on the subject more if you're interested.
"
I'm fine with your definition of art, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to convince you not to use it. I just don't understand your definition, and I'm trying to understand it better. I agree that words' meanings don't have to be circumscribed.
i don't actually have a single definition of art because i'd rather the word be flexible and not circumscribed.
"
How does this interact with your description of nature as art? Since we've been talking about peacock feathers: When does the feather become art? Or, for another example, would you call a particularly beautiful arrangement of ten molecules in 1650 art, even though it was never seen at all during its brief existence?
i think the best definition of art is anything anybody calls art is art. if somebody said the smell of a flower is art then i would not argue, as they might have some metaphorical reason for calling it art.
this thread is not so popular than this thread : https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1663595
but have extreme title,that why developer reply so much.
As I said elsewhere, I think art is a mode of communication. I think that art meets its purpose when it is examined. I don't think either of those things are true of the beautiful displays of nature, so I don't call those displays art. By not calling them art, I know not to read too much into them, or that if I do read a deeper meaning into them, it's something I'm fabricating rather than something that was really meant.
nature communicates with art. male peacocks communicate to female peacocks with their tail feathers. poisonous bugs are often colorful to communicate their dangerousness. there are likely many more examples.
I guess I define art more narrowly than "something that looks a certain way". Everything looks a certain way, but not everything looks the way it looks with artistic purpose. You're telling me that bugs' shells are art, and I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by that. Is it merely that they have an appearance that makes them art? Do you claim it's true to say that if X exists, the X is art? Art==exist? I think there's more to it than that, because the things you've been talking about have more in common than that they exist. For example, when I said that I didn't think a domestic abuser was art, you said that someone could appreciate the appearance of a domestic abuser--so does "art" mean "something whose appearance is appreciated by someone"?
"
"
Spoiler
I pulled this out because it's not central to your argument above but it is a questionable statement. I think there are lots of things, even everyday things, where the cause cannot be determined, and if the cause cannot be determined then its existence is questionable. There are so many seemingly causeless events going on all the time, and cause and effect is such a tricky idea to justify through logical means, that it's hard to say that cause and effect is an ironclad idea. I don't think it's a topical discussion, but you can read David Hume's "Discourse on Human Nature" for more on that subject.
can you mention an example of a "causeless event"? [...] also, simply because a cause is not identifiable doesn't mean there is no cause, only your senses haven't found the cause.
I PM'ed you my response to this, imo it's off-topic as far as this thread is concerned (and I know we're stretching the topic far beyond the OP as is) so I won't post my response here.
"
Spoiler
How does this interact with your description of nature as art? Since we've been talking about peacock feathers: When does the feather become art? Or, for another example, would you call a particularly beautiful arrangement of ten molecules in 1650 art, even though it was never seen at all during its brief existence?
i think the best definition of art is anything anybody calls art is art. if somebody said the smell of a flower is art then i would not argue, as they might have some metaphorical reason for calling it art.
So do you think that a person calling the smell of a flower art probably wouldn't have a non-metaphorical reason? What makes it unlikely, in your eyes?
I guess I define art more narrowly than "something that looks a certain way". Everything looks a certain way, but not everything looks the way it looks with artistic purpose. You're telling me that bugs' shells are art, and I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by that. Is it merely that they have an appearance that makes them art? Do you claim it's true to say that if X exists, the X is art? Art==exist? I think there's more to it than that, because the things you've been talking about have more in common than that they exist. For example, when I said that I didn't think a domestic abuser was art, you said that someone could appreciate the appearance of a domestic abuser--so does "art" mean "something whose appearance is appreciated by someone"?
the appearance of some bugs shells communicate things. often times colorful shells mean they are poisonous. you can't deny the appearance of peacock feathers conveys a message of attraction since male peacocks spread their feathers out to display to female peacocks.
"
So do you think that a person calling the smell of a flower art probably wouldn't have a non-metaphorical reason? What makes it unlikely, in your eyes?
i would assume they would have a metaphorical reason for calling the smell of a flower art since traditionally art does not involve smell. isn't there an old phrase like "the art of war"? the word art is likely not meant literally right? so the word can be used even if it's exact definition doesn't match the use. maybe we should accept words not always meaning their exact definition. i guess it's up to the reader understand words with the context they're in.
Last edited by pandasplaying on May 21, 2016, 7:54:08 PM
Art is purely subjective as seen with many people enjoying the base/older effects.
Though most agree modern art is bullshit (because it is).
That being said, GGG is a business at the end of the day. Base aesthetics are never going to look better in any free to play game (because if its a good free to play game they should be making their money purely off aesthetics and have no pay to win features as GGG does). Ive played countless F2P games, never has the base character/animations/art/effects ever looked as good as something else, and thats fine because it encourages you to purchase in game aesthetics.
Harvest sucks! But look at my decked out gear two weeks in!
Labyrinth salt farm miner.
"But my build diversity" , "Game is too hard!" - Meta drone playing the same 1-3 builds for years.
Last edited by Tin_Foil_Hat on May 22, 2016, 12:24:43 AM
I guess I define art more narrowly than "something that looks a certain way". Everything looks a certain way, but not everything looks the way it looks with artistic purpose. You're telling me that bugs' shells are art, and I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by that. Is it merely that they have an appearance that makes them art? Do you claim it's true to say that if X exists, the X is art? Art==exist? I think there's more to it than that, because the things you've been talking about have more in common than that they exist. For example, when I said that I didn't think a domestic abuser was art, you said that someone could appreciate the appearance of a domestic abuser--so does "art" mean "something whose appearance is appreciated by someone"?
the appearance of some bugs shells communicate things. often times colorful shells mean they are poisonous. you can't deny the appearance of peacock feathers conveys a message of attraction since male peacocks spread their feathers out to display to female peacocks.
Yeah, I just don't call something art if I don't believe that I can even start to comprehend it. Judging the attractiveness of peacock feathers to other peacocks is outside the possible range of my experience, and since I can't tell if they're artful or not, I personally don't call them art. But you call things differently, so that's fine, I guess that's more or less settled.
"
"
So do you think that a person calling the smell of a flower art probably wouldn't have a non-metaphorical reason? What makes it unlikely, in your eyes?
i would assume they would have a metaphorical reason for calling the smell of a flower art since traditionally art does not involve smell. isn't there an old phrase like "the art of war"? the word art is likely not meant literally right? so the word can be used even if it's exact definition doesn't match the use. maybe we should accept words not always meaning their exact definition. i guess it's up to the reader understand words with the context they're in.
Well, the art of war refers to the old definition of art as a craft or skill. There used to be things called "practical arts", things like bookbinding or engineering. We don't call those art anymore because our definition of art changed from referring to all human industries to referring more specifically to the fine arts, especially in a sort of romanticized way. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with using a non-standard meaning of the word.
