Mod The Sims - Modern Art (Art After WWI)

Neerie

18th Apr 2010, 5:07 PM

I have a very personnal opinion about art, and it's pretty much all based on this: people have different tastes, and so we will all find different things beautiful or ugly, appealing or repulsive, or we just may remain neutral about them.

Like with most things, I just dislike putting one single label (here pretty or ugly) on a wide range of things that falls into one category (here modern art). When it comes to art, I prefer to go with a piece by piece appreciation, or with an appreciation of the works of a particular artist. Some modern art I like, some I don't. Some paintings I like, some I don't, some sculpture I find annoying to look at, some I find totally fascinating. And above all, I strongly believe that one doesn't have to have studied art history or anything along those lines to be able to voice their opinion upon an artistic piece, it's just overzealous to think so.

I personally rather enjoy any type of visual art, I just don't like the atmosphere of most museums, so I tend to prefer modern art expositions and public sculptures to classical art museums.

fakepeeps7

18th Apr 2010, 7:18 PM

I was walking through the city. On one side I can see modern skyscraper - cold concrete and dark glass. On the oposite side I can see neoclassical and neobaroque buildings - with warm colours and beautiful decorations and ornaments.

You don't find the juxtaposition intriguing?

The same thing is with pictures. Can we even compare, for example, Fragonards art with modern abstract art?

Why not? They're both representations of similar things (people, landscapes, objects).

Why is "Louis Style" furniture 10 times expensive than modern furniture, even if it is work of modern designer?

I don't think that's true. Maybe the Louis Ghost Chair ($500 for a piece of plastic?). But modern-style furniture (http://www.gabrielross.com/seating-10/dining-and-side-chairs-105/) can be very expensive.

I don't mind some modern art. What bugs me is some of the performance art, like a person pooping on the side of the road and calling it art. I don't consider it art if everyone can do it.

Vampire_aninyosaloh

18th Apr 2010, 8:14 PM

Why is "Louis Style" furniture 10 times expensive than modern furniture, even if it is work of modern designer? What do you think?

Well, it's not exactly like that, look for example how much it costs a chair by Le Corbusier or Gery.. If they aren't expensive could you send me one for my birthday, please? :lol:

Can we even compare, for example, Fragonards art with modern abstract art?

You can't compare them because they are different things.. it's like comparing apples and cats, they are different, but each one has its good and bad things. What does modern art has got that classical one doesn't? Well, it has more soul, the soul of the artist. Classical artists tended to represent the world how they saw it, the only thing that makes different a painter from the other is the technique. Modern painters don't try to paint the world how it is, but how they see it. See the example of Picasso, when he was 14 he could paint and make his paintings look as a photograph, and years later he started to paint the world how he saw it, and that's how it started the Cubism.

On one side I can see modern skyscraper - cold concrete and dark glass. On the oposite side I can see neoclassical and neobaroque buildings - with warm colours and beautiful decorations and ornaments.

As in painting, classical Architecture is based on technique. Each period has its changes, technical changes, discoverys.. they may look pretty, but if you look at them you couldn't distinguish an architect from the other. Modern architects give their soul to their buildings, it may not look like that with a simple view, but if you look at a building and without knowing it you can say: "That's a Gery" or "That's so totally made by Alvar Aalto". Modern Architecture creates spaces, places that invite you to cover, watch, live in.. It's a perfect collection of lights and shadows that make the human be moved :)

Oaktree

19th Apr 2010, 7:58 AM

I like aspects of modern art, including minimalism and prevalence of solid colors as opposed to patterns (I am extremely picky about patterns). The rigid geometry, or conversely, the shapelessness or many pieces isn't as appealing. I like shapes that have some organic qualities, but are ultimately symmetrical, which is found in most older art. As far as architectural styles go, my favorite is classical architecture. It is minimalistic, but sturdy and simple, yet elegant.

fakepeeps7

19th Apr 2010, 6:16 PM

They both have their merits.

Europe is lucky. It has both elements of the old and elements of the new. Here in Canada (especially western Canada), there aren't that many old buildings (thanks in part to a fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vancouver_Fire) that wiped out Vancouver in 1886). And of those older ones, many have been torn down to make way for shiny new ones. As a result, most of the city starts to look very modern, as if we've wiped away much of our history.

I don't mind the old and the new standing side by side. I don't really like it when all the old is torn down to be replaced by the new, though.

jhd1189

19th Apr 2010, 10:10 PM

As in painting, classical Architecture is based on technique. Each period has its changes, technical changes, discoverys.. they may look pretty, but if you look at them you couldn't distinguish an architect from the other. Modern architects give their soul to their buildings, it may not look like that with a simple view, but if you look at a building and without knowing it you can say: "That's a Gery" or "That's so totally made by Alvar Aalto". Modern Architecture creates spaces, places that invite you to cover, watch, live in.. It's a perfect collection of lights and shadows that make the human be moved :)

I think centuries of classical architects would be horrified at you saying they didn't put their souls into their work... artists from every era have poured their souls into their work, and it's a little unfair to say that only modern architects do it. If you've ever driven through a subdivision of overgrown McMansions or through an office park filled with bland corporate sculptures, you would be hard-pressed to say that all modern architecture is about pouring out your soul and making people feel moved. And as far as Gehry goes, his buildings all look like crumpled paper and discarded straw wrappers to me. :|

I'm not trying to bash all modern architecture, I promise. I think the mid-century modern movement was capable of turning out some very elegant buildings, for instance, and I'm crazy about art deco. I'm also not trying to say that classical architecture was the pinnacle of civilization, either. There's both good and bad to every artistic and architectural movement, like you said. :)

EDIT: I think I may have forgotten to actually state what my point was... basically, all I was getting at is that everybody sees something different in different artistic movements, and that's their prerogative, I guess. I'm not sure it's really possible to create something that everyone could find universally beautiful. For every person who finds a certain strand of modern art irritating, there's another person who finds it wonderfully expressive and thought-provoking. I think I was just reacting strongly to how I interpreted what you were saying... I get kind of defensive about old architecture. ;)

ivan17

20th Apr 2010, 9:02 AM

Okay, I won't be aggressive like in religous threads (because religion is my no.1) and I will consider that here are members that can be my parents, grandparents...

I agree with Neerie, because everything depends about tastes.

@fakepeeps7

I was thinking about Louis Style furniture like this, not plastic:

http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11843562/French_Louis_Xv_Style_6_Piece_Salon_Suite_Reproduction_Furniture.jpg.

Here, in Europe, you can find modern divan for about 200$ and for Louis XV divan replica for 2000$ - 3000$!

Which picture is more valuable:

1.
http://streamsandforests.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/reader-fragonard.jpg

2.
http://www.sjo.k12.il.us/art_1/abstract.portrait5%20(Small).jpg?

jooxis

20th Apr 2010, 9:43 AM

There is an overall difference in the level of skills. Today, you don't need to have the kind of painting skills you needed to have hundreds of years ago to be a renowned artist. I can replicate any Mondrian or Rothko but I could never replicate a Caravaggio or a Vermeer. Whether that makes those artworks better is a different topic. Still, I would much rather hang a modern piece in my living room as I would prefer the atmosphere it gives.

My problem is that some of what is considered modern art looks like it was painted by a two-year old. Maybe I'm not snobbish enough to appreciate that stuff but I seriously laugh at "artists" who put together a couple of squiggly lines/brushstrokes and call it a masterpiece. Even more silly is when it's supposed to be some abstract depiction of the holocaust or human rights or something :rolleyes:
That is also my main issue with performance art. 99% of it is shit. (And I haven't seen the 1% that isn't, but I'm going with the assumption that it exists somewhere out there).

Some of you already know about "Pierre Brassau"- a chimpanzee whose artworks were exhibited at an art show with everyone thinking it was the work of some avant-garde Frensh artist. And art critics praised his work. So that really speaks for itself and really sums up nicely everything I said previously.

Vampire_aninyosaloh

20th Apr 2010, 4:08 PM

I think centuries of classical architects would be horrified at you saying they didn't put their souls into their work... artists from every era have poured their souls into their work, and it's a little unfair to say that only modern architects do it. If you've ever driven through a subdivision of overgrown McMansions or through an office park filled with bland corporate sculptures, you would be hard-pressed to say that all modern architecture is about pouring out your soul and making people feel moved. And as far as Gehry goes, his buildings all look like crumpled paper and discarded straw wrappers to me. :|

I'm not trying to bash all modern architecture, I promise. I think the mid-century modern movement was capable of turning out some very elegant buildings, for instance, and I'm crazy about art deco. I'm also not trying to say that classical architecture was the pinnacle of civilization, either. There's both good and bad to every artistic and architectural movement, like you said. :)

EDIT: I think I may have forgotten to actually state what my point was... basically, all I was getting at is that everybody sees something different in different artistic movements, and that's their prerogative, I guess. I'm not sure it's really possible to create something that everyone could find universally beautiful. For every person who finds a certain strand of modern art irritating, there's another person who finds it wonderfully expressive and thought-provoking. I think I was just reacting strongly to how I interpreted what you were saying... I get kind of defensive about old architecture. ;)

I think I explained myself bad :lol: I actually love classical architecture. I only say that you can know of what period of time is a building because of its style, but in buildings of the 1920s and up you barely can, 'cause each architect has their own style. I'm not saying that all modern buildings have soul, for example skycrapers that are basically a cube of glass or the houses of some housing developments don't. One of my favorite architects is Brunelleschi, so that says everything. Sorry if I seemed too extreme :)

Jasumi

20th Apr 2010, 5:08 PM

I have a very personnal opinion about art, and it's pretty much all based on this: people have different tastes, and so we will all find different things beautiful or ugly, appealing or repulsive, or we just may remain neutral about them.

I disagree with cultural reflexism--there is only cultural art, and the absence (or perversion) of said cultural art. I would consider Cubism/Dadaism to be a very profound absence of any real creative impetus.

But I do appreciate modern skylines more-so than older-looking edifices. The older design just looks out of place on a modern marvel. Likewise, I feel as though modern homes lack the appeal of traditional homes, it doesn't suit the format of a house.

ivan17

20th Apr 2010, 9:17 PM

My problem is that some of what is considered modern art looks like it was painted by a two-year old. Maybe I'm not snobbish enough to appreciate that stuff but I seriously laugh at "artists" who put together a couple of squiggly lines/brushstrokes and call it a masterpiece. Even more silly is when it's supposed to be some abstract depiction of the holocaust or human rights or something :rolleyes:
That is also my main issue with performance art. 99% of it is shit. (And I haven't seen the 1% that isn't, but I'm going with the assumption that it exists somewhere out there).

I agree with you 100%, jooxis. If I want modern painting, I just need to have fingers, colours and canvas. 0% skills. And voila, I am an artist! :rofl:

For me, the top of art was Art Nouveau. Everything after is simpler and without such quality.

It will be continued... :D

grumpy_otter

20th Apr 2010, 9:29 PM

That is also my main issue with performance art. 99% of it is shit. (And I haven't seen the 1% that isn't, but I'm going with the assumption that it exists somewhere out there).

http://www.poopreport.com/Intellectual/Content/Art/art.html

Sometimes art is literally shit.

I was an art history major in college, and I struggled with modern art, and the definition of art. I finally got sick of it and made up my own criteria for what qualifies as art:

1) It must have meaning--doesn't have to be deep meaning, just some small meaning to the artist.

2) It must created by the artist's own hands. No fair coming up with an idea and getting other people to make it. (this one kills all conceptual art)

3) It must require technical skill to create. No throwing poop at a canvas.

My definition definitely axes about 2/3 of all modern art--and that's fine with me.

ivan17

21st Apr 2010, 9:33 AM

Neerie

21st Apr 2010, 4:39 PM

fakepeeps7

21st Apr 2010, 5:39 PM

I think that with modern way of living, people are more lazy. Why to build home with so much details on facade, when we can build home with 4 glass panels. Why to carve wood for chair, when we can sit on leather and metal chair. Why to paint 3 years, when we can make art in 3 minutes and then say that we are seeing world like that.
:lol: We are blind then! :rofl:

Do you really think architects who build glass-paneled structures are lazy? You can't just put up four walls of glass and be done with it. You have to know about how the weather is going to affect your materials, what stresses they could be under, how an earthquake might affect your building... If anything, architects who build with steel and glass are less lazy than someone who builds a stone building that can stand up to anything. It's harder to make something that looks delicate be strong than it is to make something that looks sturdy be strong.

We're not the ones who are blind. Some people just can't appreciate change of any sort.

jhd1189

21st Apr 2010, 6:43 PM

Do you really think architects who build glass-paneled structures are lazy? You can't just put up four walls of glass and be done with it. You have to know about how the weather is going to affect your materials, what stresses they could be under, how an earthquake might affect your building... If anything, architects who build with steel and glass are less lazy than someone who builds a stone building that can stand up to anything. It's harder to make something that looks delicate be strong than it is to make something that looks sturdy be strong.

You do have to take those things into consideration for buildings that aren't made of glass, you know. And actually, the whole point of a skyscraper is that the visible exterior is essentially structurally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the building is covered in, because the exterior isn't load-bearing, the inner frame is. So... unless you're actually making the frame out of glass...

The Monadnock building in Chicago is a good visual representation of how skyscrapers work, actually. When the structure was initially built, the art of skyscrapers was in its infancy, and the architects didn't take the whole load-bearing-frame-cased-in-whatever approach. The stone walls themselves are load-bearing, and because of that are incredibly thick at the bottom and taper off towards the top. The windows are also pretty small and narrow, because anything bigger wouldn't have been feasible. The Monadnock building is basically as tall as a building can possibly be built with walls that are load-bearing. In later years, however, they added onto the building using the steel frame approach instead, and this half of the building has thinner walls, larger windows, and flat sides that don't taper as they go up. That half of the building could have just as easily been covered in giant plate glass windows instead, because the walls aren't loading-bearing. :)

We're not the ones who are blind. Some people just can't appreciate change of any sort.

Again, it's the whole personal prerogative thing. Where you see structures that are graceful and technologically impressive, other people see buildings that are boxy and unimaginative.

ivan17

21st Apr 2010, 9:25 PM

Neerie, interesting question. It can be educational.
Personaly, I don't like it. Why? Well, I wouldn't like to be part of other bodies on the exhibition. They were humans, living beings and I think that it's disgraceful. :lol: Again.
I was drinking and eating cookies when I saw short documentary on TV.
I didn't felt good.
But, if that was last will of exhibits, fine.

@fakepeeps7

Do you really think architects who build glass-paneled structures are lazy?

No. They are usualy crazy or mad individuals who let off steam on some building. Workers are doing their ideas and hard work. But it is 100% easier to put one glass panel sizes 5x5 meters, than to dedicate x hours for unique facade on 5x5 meters.

grumpy_otter

21st Apr 2010, 10:31 PM

I'd be curious to read people's opinion about the plastinated bodies expositions.

I personally find plastinated bodies to be an incredible educationnal tool for anatomy, but the way that they are prepared and exposed is also very artistic (and definitely would fall into Otter's 3 criteria).

I looked at some examples, and I'd call them art. None I'd like to display in my living room, but definitely meaningful, and definitely technically skilled. However, whose name goes on them--the donor or the worker who transforms them? Nothing wrong with art also being educational.

Neerie

22nd Apr 2010, 2:40 AM

Well, I wouldn't like to be part of other bodies on the exhibition. They were humans, living beings and I think that it's disgraceful.
One thing that has to be said about the bodies used on display in those expositions is that every single one of them is from someone who actually agreed to it before their death. So in a way, they wanted to be on display, not knowing exactly in what way, but they wanted it. IMO I think it's a nice way to leave a legacy.

I looked at some examples, and I'd call them art. None I'd like to display in my living room, but definitely meaningful, and definitely technically skilled. However, whose name goes on them--the donor or the worker who transforms them? Nothing wrong with art also being educational.
Oh I certainly wouldn't put a plastinated body anywhere in my house either :lol: But I am amazed at the beautiful displays they were able to achieve with these bodies, showing the complexity and beauty of the human body.

As for the name on display, I recall that the names of the donor is never displayed, even the families are not notified, so they don't know either. I have no idea if the name of the artist/doctor is displayed though (I wish I wasn't broke and could go see the one in Montreal).

grumpy_otter

22nd Apr 2010, 9:35 AM

As for the name on display, I recall that the names of the donor is never displayed, even the families are not notified, so they don't know either. I have no idea if the name of the artist/doctor is displayed though (I wish I wasn't broke and could go see the one in Montreal).

Well, then, I'd say it's art. I hate the whole conceptual "art" thing where some guy has an idea about a museum exhibit--but never lifts a hand to create it. Poor little flunky interns have to do it--but the "artist" gets to put his name on it.

I've informed my children that they can do whatever they want with my body when I die (funerals are for the living, after all) but I sure wouldn't mind being preserved like that.

jooxis

22nd Apr 2010, 9:43 AM

fakepeeps7

22nd Apr 2010, 7:23 PM

I think he meant "lazy" as far as creativity is concerned... because these things you mentioned have nothing to do with art.

Well, maybe. But then he went and called such architects "crazy and mad". So he seems to have some sort of weird judgmental bias that I'm not even going to pretend to understand.

ivan17, just because someone has a different aesthetic preference than you doesn't make them mentally ill.

Is this (http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/30_St_Mary_Axe.html) the work of someone who's "crazy and mad" and "lazy"?

The floorplans are shaped like flowers, with a circular perimeter indented by 6 triangular light courts. The indentations remain a constant size at each level, while the space between them diminishes.

The floor plan is rotated for each successive floor, creating a series of spiraling 5-storey atria that stretch the full height of the building.

That actually sounds pretty artistic to me. And it also sounds like a lot of work. I'm not saying that the old buildings didn't take a lot of work, but to imply that it's easy to throw up a modern building is not accurate.

pegasaus

22nd Apr 2010, 7:55 PM

Here are my opinions:

About architecture: Old ones are much more beautiful! Just think about how much harder it was to build baroque or victorian building (they didn't have all machines like today), and yet, they are still better and nicer than modern ones.

Modern buildings usually have box-like and sphere-like furniture and most of the rooms have very little number of stuff in it. And when you look at walls, there is just huge wall glass all over the house. Mostly everything is in one color (black & white mostly), and light is everywhere.

While on the other side, we have a beautiful hand-crafted curved furniture (in older times it was hand-crafted), and it still looks nicer than today's fabric made box like armchairs and sofas. In older times everything was colored and it was lighted by romantic candles. I really think that 'old' is much better than 'modern' (well look at my profile and my lots ;))

And for art:

Old ones were much harder to be made, and I would rather have victorian paintings in my house. New one are only freaking me out : boxes, triangles, spheres, background in one color, use of three-five colors maximum....
The same I think for sculptures: baroque and neoclassical are much nicer than today's awkward 'statues'

So for me, older style is better! :)

Mistermook

22nd Apr 2010, 10:40 PM

What I find really interesting is that some of these descriptions of "modern" art are at least half a century old. Artists make money by selling art, so those people who sell the most or for the most money are usually picked to be considered at the forefront. Honestly? I'm not sure if I can think of anyone that's dominating that actual modern art scene that's making the sort of paintings that you guys to be referencing - most of it that I've been made aware of seems to be in the realm of multimedia/media/sculptural more than "oil paint." As for modern architecture versus past architecture, architecture has always been nearly as much about what was possible with the latest engineering techniques as anything else. The old gothic and baroque cathedral's forms weren't dictated by the art as much as the need to buttress tall walls a certain way that we can dispense with in the modern world. And to suggest that we still choose to put functionally useless, overly expensive, forms on our architecture just to satisfy an aesthetic that was born from when those forms were functional? I don't see it.

But really, you all like modern art. We're here because we've all come together about a video game, that's art. Everyone probably watches television, or has seen a movie they like? That's modern art. Or maybe some of you have designer clothes? Art. Even some of the cutting edge design that goes into furniture or kitchen appliances is artful. The reason we don't recognize modern art for what it is is that it's all around us. There's more of it than there ever was and we use it every day.

Also, I reject the idea that art must somehow be difficult to perform for it to be valid. If that were the case then a gifted artist born with an eye and a steady hand would be at a disadvantage to an artist who merely tried very hard to create substandard or commonplace art. I'd be a much better artist painting portraits, which I'm really terrible at and find really hard to do simple things with sometimes, than still life paintings that I can work three at a time on and pretty much do in my sleep sometimes (but which are actually up on walls because people like to look at them.) The idea that a restricted color palette is a valid criteria for dismissal? Even more ludicrous - Michelangelo's David would be inferior to store mannikins because of its limited, apparently bland, coloration.

What I'd like to see is people stop worrying about what is and isn't art, trying to compare something so subjective as art as if it were a set of greater than or lesser than numbers in mathematics, and just enjoying it for its own sake. Because I dislike some piece of art, or anything I might dislike for similar reasons to the reasons I might dislike art, does not mean that it is invalid or I must convince other people of its lack of value. There's people out there I can't stand that are widely popular, and vice versa. I don't need to convince you why you should dislike Scott Baio while finding Paris Hilton innocuous anymore than there's any compelling argument I can think of that's going to convince me that Lady Gaga is anything I find appealing. Politicizing art might be a compulsion in our obsession with politicizing everything ( in the sense that people campaign and want to draw clear, simplified, distinctions to complex abstract concepts) but it's just not the sort of thing that lends itself to that...until people start fighting wars or killing each other about it I guess.

Oaktree

23rd Apr 2010, 12:11 AM

Modern art actually isn't the name for the current art movement, going by most definitions. We are actually in the postmodern art period, though this isn't universally accepted by art historians. So technically the term "modern art" is being applied (mostly) accurately in this thread, but I think that some people are trying to get at contemporary art rather than modern art, whereas others are actually describing modern art. :)

ivan17

23rd Apr 2010, 9:02 AM

fakepeeps7

23rd Apr 2010, 7:06 PM

fakepeeps7, look at these:

This (http://mayhem-chaos.net/photoblog/images/ugly%20ass%20building.jpg).
This (http://jamestamp.com/normal_soviets.jpg).
This (http://z.about.com/d/goeasteurope/1/5/m/1/-/-/DancingBuilding.jpg).
This (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2370/2188489539_6a739d1afd_b.jpg).
Paris!!! (http://static.stuff.co.nz/1233108507/248/722248.jpg)

I agree with pegasaus.

With the exception of the Dancing Building (which I kind of like... it sort of reminds me of Gaudi's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudi), which I also like), those other buildings were probably never intended to be "art". They're utilitarian, designed for function rather than for looks.

Just because you don't like "modern art" (whatever that is... Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Arts and Crafts, and Impressionism are all relatively recent art movements, occurring in the last two centuries) doesn't mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Art is subjective. Posting a bunch of links to utilitarian buildings built by communist governments isn't exactly a persuasive argument against "modern art".

How about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Batll%C3%B3) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re%C3%B6k5KJ.jpg) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Red_House,_Bexleyheath.JPG) or even this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_Opera_House_-_Dec_2008.jpg)? Do you not consider those buildings "art" simply because they're not in the classical or Gothic styles?

Petchy

23rd Apr 2010, 8:05 PM

jooxis

23rd Apr 2010, 8:51 PM

ivan17

23rd Apr 2010, 9:23 PM

With the exception of the Dancing Building (which I kind of like... it sort of reminds me of Gaudi's work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudi), which I also like), those other buildings were probably never intended to be "art". They're utilitarian, designed for function rather than for looks.

Just because you don't like "modern art" (whatever that is... Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Arts and Crafts, and Impressionism are all relatively recent art movements, occurring in the last two centuries) doesn't mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Art is subjective. Posting a bunch of links to utilitarian buildings built by communist governments isn't exactly a persuasive argument against "modern art".

How about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Batll%C3%B3) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re%C3%B6k5KJ.jpg) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Red_House,_Bexleyheath.JPG) or even this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sydney_Opera_House_-_Dec_2008.jpg)? Do you not consider those buildings "art" simply because they're not in the classical or Gothic styles?

I am sorry, but you didn't read all what I posted in this thread. I said that I love Art Nouveau (Jugendstil, Secession) and Gaudi's work too, okay I didn't mentioned that I love impressionism. Anyway, building is building. I think that every architect must be an artist and talented creationist.
What I am calling "modern", I think on everything after World War I. So I think that these your pics are art.

Just because you don't like "modern art" (whatever that is... Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Arts and Crafts, and Impressionism are all relatively recent art movements, occurring in the last two centuries) doesn't mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Do you not consider those buildings "art" simply because they're not in the classical or Gothic styles?

You also likes to be right. ;)
If I think that something is ugly, that's subjective opinion. You or anyone else doesn't have to accept it.

jooxis, Burj Al Arab looks (to me) like space shuttle. Very, very nano.

fakepeeps7

23rd Apr 2010, 9:48 PM

What I am calling "modern", I think on everything after World War I. So I think that these your pics are art.

Well, that's your own definition. Wikipedia defines it as follows:

Modern art refers to artistic works produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s, and denotes the style and philosophy of the art produced during that era.

You also likes to be right. ;)

No, I'm just tired of being told that I'm wrong on a subjective issue.

You're the one who's accused modern artists of being lazy, crazy, and mad... not me.

If I think that something is ugly, that's subjective opinion. You or anyone else doesn't have to accept it.

Are you listening to yourself? You're the one who started this thread. You're the one who's trashed "modern" art and architecture and tried to bring everyone around to your point of view.

Take your own advice, please.

pegasaus

24th Apr 2010, 11:37 AM

I agree with ivan17, I don't like architecture after WW1. But some styles, like Art Nouveau are beautiful. When I was commenting in the earlier post, I was comparing old victorian and modern style (after 1940). I really think that boxy modern flats and mansions that we see today are stupid and ugly. Also older replicas of baroque furniture are more expensive because today it's hard to find them. Yes, modern is expensive, but you can't compare baroque armchair with box-like or sphere-like modern armchair.

Answer this:
Where you would rather spend your free time?
here: http://www.decodir.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Ultra-modern-Living-Rooms-by-Presotto-Italia.jpg
or here: http://www.churchrefinishing.com/monta/images/living-room-sets-Ti-large.gif

Where would you rather sleep?
here: http://www.homeimprovementplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/modern-bedroom.jpg
or here: http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/46/f/AAAAAtAZLNwAAAAAAEb6Dw.jpg

I definitely chose old and romantic!

WayBack

24th Apr 2010, 1:06 PM

Where you would rather spend your free time? ... Where would you rather sleep?

In both cases, I would go for option number one. Number two looks too heavy, kitchy, it evokes napthalene balls and dust bunnies. While number one makes me think of fresh air and freedom, the simplicity of the design has a calming effect on me (I love the bedroom).

Vampire_aninyosaloh

24th Apr 2010, 4:12 PM

ivan17

24th Apr 2010, 5:09 PM

fakepeeps7, I really don't have time to brawl with you.
I would not pay too much attention on wikipedia, because I can now log in and change Modern art to my own definition. I think that we can't even compare art and architecture from 1860s with 1970s.
I am not participating on this site to change other's mind, opinion or convert to Christianity! OMG, no!!!
I just like to express my own attitude.
I feel that everyone here agree with me or just trying to prove that I am wrong and change my opinion.
E.g.
1. If I say that I don't like gays, I am wrong.
2. If I say that I am Catholic, I am guilty for all Vatican's bad things (from St. Peter - 2010).
3. If I say that I don't like most of architecture and most for art after WWI, I am wrong.
Funny, but truth. :)

jhd1189

24th Apr 2010, 5:51 PM

Uh... Ivan, please don't drag other debate topics in here. We've got separate threads for each of them.

And as far as art and architecture go... they certainly are subjective. I personally think Gehry's work, for instance, is just awful--but that doesn't make me right or wrong, it just means I don't find his particular style appealing. There isn't a right or wrong answer to what you like, after all, and I think the fact that human beings still have varying tastes on things is a reassuring sign.

Unless your favorite architectural movement is brutalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalism). Then you're wrong. :giggler:

fakepeeps7

24th Apr 2010, 7:56 PM

fakepeeps7, I really don't have time to brawl with you.

Why did you start a debate if you don't want to debate?

I would not pay too much attention on wikipedia, because I can now log in and change Modern art to my own definition.

Well, you could, but then you'd also have to delete the footnote that indicates that that definition is actually from a book... and not from some random Wikipedia editor.

I think that we can't even compare art and architecture from 1860s with 1970s.

Well, that's your opinion. But I think you missed the point. Those dates merely indicate the beginning and end of the Modern Art movement... not points of comparison.

Answer this:
Where you would rather spend your free time?
Where would you rather sleep?

I actually prefer the modern living room and the more traditional bedroom (although I wouldn't mind sleeping in the modern bedroom, either). I guess you'd call my taste "eclectic". :)

Unless your favorite architectural movement is brutalism. Then you're wrong.

:lol:

Arisuka

24th Apr 2010, 8:05 PM

I love street art, Banksy is The Man.

ivan17

24th Apr 2010, 8:50 PM

Why did you start a debate if you don't want to debate?

Because of fun, not to shake out all my negative energy on someone, only because I don't agree with him.

Well, you could, but then you'd also have to delete the footnote that indicates that that definition is actually from a book... and not from some random Wikipedia editor.

Is anybody checking all informations on wikipedia?

Well, that's your opinion. But I think you missed the point. Those dates merely indicate the beginning and end of the Modern Art movement... not points of comparison.

Can we even compare:

http://hotelpulitzerparis.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/palais-garnier-2002.jpg

with

http://www.arhitectura1906.ro/images/articole/1.1_s4w.jpg?

jhd1189, okay. ;)

Brutalism, :rofl: terrible!

According to fakepeeps7 and wikipedia:

"Brutalist architecture is a style of architecture which flourished from the 1950s to the mid 1970s, spawned from the modernist architectural movement."

It's modern then. Postmodern architecture is then very, very, very mild brutalism.

Arisuka, it seems that street art is like born for brutalism. :)

Vampire_aninyosaloh

24th Apr 2010, 9:53 PM

Can we even compare...

Can we compare:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1089/1321346964_93b8890b6a.jpg?v=1188911445

with

http://freakymartin.com/nitro/funtasticus/4816003d203ecfallingwater-2.jpg

fakepeeps7

24th Apr 2010, 10:35 PM

Because of fun, not to shake out all my negative energy on someone, only because I don't agree with him.

Then you're a hypocrite.

I didn't start out negative, either. But when someone is constantly saying, "Your opinion is wrong and here's why," without even trying to understand the opposite point of view, it starts to grate on the nerves.

Is anybody checking all informations on wikipedia?

Do you even know what a source is?

Brutalism, :rofl: terrible!

According to fakepeeps7 and wikipedia:

Stop putting words in my mouth. You may think you're being clever, but you're just coming off as a closed-minded ass.

You want people to accept your opinions, but you absolutely refuse to accept that people don't have to share your opinion! Unbelievable...

You like old architecture. We get it. What you don't seem to get, however, is that you're using a definition for "modern art" that is not commonly accepted. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. All you have to do is Google it.

Don't like Wikipedia? Here are some more definitions for you (although I don't know why I'm bothering; you've closed your mind so hard I heard the door slam shut from North America):

Modern Art (http://arthistory.about.com/od/current_contemporary_art/f/what_is.htm): Art from the Impressionists (say, around 1880) up until the 1960's or 70's.

Modern Art (http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/markport/lit/introlit/modart.htm) - 1900s to Present

And the Wikipedia definition was from a book called Artspeak by Robert Atkins. I have no idea if it's a correct source or not, and I'm not about to buy the book just to prove a point to some stubborn twit on the Internet.

For someone who claims to be a person of faith when it comes to your religion, you seem to require an awful lot of proof for everything else.

ivan17

25th Apr 2010, 9:12 AM

Can we compare:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1089/1321346964_93b8890b6a.jpg?v=1188911445

with

http://freakymartin.com/nitro/funtasticus/4816003d203ecfallingwater-2.jpg

Well, nothing is impossible to compare. I was thinking (up) on buildings that are placed in same style.

These two yours...this first looks medieval and second is from last century. We can compare materials - stone. :)

Vampire_aninyosaloh

25th Apr 2010, 11:17 AM

Ummm... well, I was answering to your post where you asked the same.. and in your first post in this thread you also did.

I don't like all the modern architecture as I don't like all the classical architecture. I just want to make people realize that some modern architecture is awesome, and not everything are soul-less buildings.

ivan17

25th Apr 2010, 11:55 AM

I don't like all the modern architecture as I don't like all the classical architecture. I just want to make people realize that some modern architecture is awesome, and not everything are soul-less buildings.

Yeah. I understand and respect your opinion. Everything depends about taste. ;)

Then you're a hypocrite.

I didn't start out negative, either. But when someone is constantly saying, "Your opinion is wrong and here's why," without even trying to understand the opposite point of view, it starts to grate on the nerves.

Do you even know what a source is?

Stop putting words in my mouth. You may think you're being clever, but you're just coming off as a closed-minded ass.

You want people to accept your opinions, but you absolutely refuse to accept that people don't have to share your opinion! Unbelievable...

You like old architecture. We get it. What you don't seem to get, however, is that you're using a definition for "modern art" that is not commonly accepted. That's not an opinion. It's a fact. All you have to do is Google it.

Don't like Wikipedia? Here are some more definitions for you (although I don't know why I'm bothering; you've closed your mind so hard I heard the door slam shut from North America):

Modern Art (http://arthistory.about.com/od/current_contemporary_art/f/what_is.htm): Art from the Impressionists (say, around 1880) up until the 1960's or 70's.

Modern Art (http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/markport/lit/introlit/modart.htm) - 1900s to Present

And the Wikipedia definition was from a book called Artspeak by Robert Atkins. I have no idea if it's a correct source or not, and I'm not about to buy the book just to prove a point to some stubborn twit on the Internet.

For someone who claims to be a person of faith when it comes to your religion, you seem to require an awful lot of proof for everything else.

fakepeeps7, I never wrote "Your opinion is wrong and here's why,". This is debate and it's not forbidden to reply and express own opinion. You like to reply everyone, but when somebody reply to your post, then it starts to grate on the nerves.
And now I am a hypocrite just because I am having fun in participation in debate and having different opinion.

It looks that participating in debates means a lot to you, when you can afford yourself bad language and abusing others.

I can also use your words for you:

"You want people to accept your opinions, but you absolutely refuse to accept that people don't have to share your opinion! Unbelievable..."

I will never come down to your level of insulting people and blackmailing on base of their faith just to win. ;)

pegasaus

25th Apr 2010, 1:06 PM

People, please stop fighting and arguing. We are here to discuss what's nicer and better, not to argue.

For ivan17: You can't compare Palais Garnier (one of the most beautiful buildings in France and one of the best opera houses) with some random box-like building which you have found on net. It would be the same to compare Versailles with small modern home.

For Vampire_aninyosaloh: The same, you find a medieval fortress pictured in strange angle, and than you posted a picture which shows modern mansion in all its glory.

Things that we could compare, is for example these two:
A Venus, Greek-inspired sculpture http://www.amlinkmarble.com/image_statue/as-701-fourseason-sm.gif
High modern boat-like statue http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1366/1295668819_5ac8ad2696.jpg

Or compare these two fountains:
http://www.garden-fountains.com/images/garden-fountain.jpg
EDIT: copy this as internet adress
(http://image60.webshots.com/60/4/65/35/486046535fNblQC_fs.jpg)
I think that all of you already know what I will chose ;)

jhd1189

25th Apr 2010, 5:03 PM

People, please stop fighting and arguing. We are here to discuss what's nicer and better, not to argue.

Indeed. Please knock it off with the bickering, everybody. I'm seeing lots of little jabs and cheap shots here, and that is not how a healthy discussion works.

Also, pegasaus, I just wanted to let you know that your last link doesn't seem to be working. :)

Vampire_aninyosaloh

25th Apr 2010, 5:49 PM

For Vampire_aninyosaloh: The same, you find a medieval fortress pictured in strange angle, and than you posted a picture which shows modern mansion in all its glory.

Well, I was doing the same thing that ivan17 did but by the other side to show him that he couldn't compare like that.. but it seems that I explain myself too bad all the time, so I'll leave this forum.. ahem

ivan17

25th Apr 2010, 6:13 PM

You can't compare Palais Garnier (one of the most beautiful buildings in France and one of the best opera houses) with some random box-like building which you have found on net. It would be the same to compare Versailles with small modern home.
Things that we could compare, is for example these two:
A Venus, Greek-inspired sculpture http://www.amlinkmarble.com/image_statue/as-701-fourseason-sm.gif
High modern boat-like statue http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1366/1295668819_5ac8ad2696.jpg

Or compare these two fountains:
http://www.garden-fountains.com/images/garden-fountain.jpg
http://image60.webshots.com/60/4/65/35/486046535fNblQC_fs.jpg

I think that all of you already know what I will chose ;)

Well, I was just trying to say that it's hard to place Palais Garnier and building from 1960s in the same style.
My choice is like yours. I think that is much harder to make classical statue, than modern.

fakepeeps7

25th Apr 2010, 7:01 PM

I will never come down to your level of insulting people and blackmailing on base of their faith just to win. ;)

Blackmailing? I don't think you understand what that word means.

I don't want to fight with you anymore. I'm not a "reason" for an edit (I saw your first post). If you wanted to talk about postmodern art or contemporary art, then you should have said so in the first place.

Personally, I don't really see how this issue is even something you can debate. You can't change a person's sense of aesthetics by beating them over the head with other opinions.

To answer the original question (Modern Art after WWI: pretty or ugly?), here's my final answer: both. Some of it is beautiful, and some of it is not so beautiful. The time period encompasses too many styles to declare that it's all pretty or all ugly. But that's just my opinion.

And I'll leave it at that.

ivan17

26th Apr 2010, 9:18 AM

What do You think about Beaux Arts architecture?

fakepeeps7, my intention wasn't to change someone's opinion. I just wanted to learn, what people thinks about modern (postmodern) art vis a vis classical art.

Mistermook

26th Apr 2010, 1:16 PM

fakepeeps7, my intention wasn't to change someone's opinion. I just wanted to learn, what people thinks about modern (postmodern) art vis a vis classical art.
Then it isn't a debate and probably should have been a topic for another forum.

ivan17

2nd May 2010, 8:39 AM

I think that art must be something pretty. We don't need to hang modern picture in our living room just because it's trendy or maded by popular artist.

jooxis

2nd May 2010, 9:29 AM

Many people go by that definition that art has to be pretty. This doesn't however exclude ALL modern art. Do you think none of these modern paintings are pretty?

Painting 1 (http://www.haberarts.com/images/tansey.jpg)
Painting 2 (http://sunsite.utk.edu/FINS/Doctrines_Injustice/O%27Keefe.jpg)
Painting 3 (http://www.ninjavspenguin.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/summer-evening-edward-hopper.jpg)

kattenijin

2nd May 2010, 10:37 AM

I think that art must be something pretty. We don't need to hang modern picture in our living room just because it's trendy or maded by popular artist.

"Pretty" dosen't make something art, it just makes it commercial. It is also in the eye of the beholder. As to what hangs in the living room, most people buy what matches the couch.

Mistermook

2nd May 2010, 10:45 AM

Or what fits. Half of what I've done that's hanging on walls has had more to do with what size it was than anything else.

ivan17

2nd May 2010, 11:13 AM

fakepeeps7

2nd May 2010, 7:12 PM

I prefer: John William Waterhouse, Thomas Cole and Camille Pissarro.

Pissarro was an Impressionist. Impressionism was one of the first forms of Modern Art, which you claim to dislike.

Here we go again...

ivan17

2nd May 2010, 7:46 PM

Impressionism was part of modernism, and before WWI.

I think that this new postmodern buildings are heritage of war and post war depression. It is sad that socialists destroyed kitchy facades (such as neo-baroque, art nouveau, etc.) because they were optimistic which were showing beauty of life. And after WWI and WWII, it seems that people lost sense for beauty and luxury.

But here are some good and optimistic examples and I hope that this will become trend. :)

http://www.antika-plus.ru/pics/lists/other/f12_kopiya(1).jpg

fakepeeps7

2nd May 2010, 8:14 PM

Impressionism was part of modernism, and before WWI.

Then why do you...

Forget it. It's impossible to argue with someone who can't even keep his own position straight.

ivan17

3rd May 2010, 9:35 AM

Fakepeeps7, I'm sorry, but is this forum and debates so important in your life?

Nekowolf

3rd May 2010, 1:11 PM

She meant, I believe, no point in arguing in someone who cannot keep their facts straight and is in fact in a contradictory standing that is actually against their own position that they took the time to construct.

Zela

3rd May 2010, 3:41 PM

I think that art will be art. It will change and you can't group all pieces of art after WW1 as 'ugly'. You will ALWAYS, even before WW1, have a mixture of art and junk pretending to be art. Nothing has changed from then and now. Most people still paint and are artists to get across their feelings, to put thoughts on paper. I certainly do.
Oh, and ivan17, you seem to be debating just as hard as fakepeeps7. You seem to always want the last word.

ivan17

3rd May 2010, 9:01 PM

Oh, and ivan17, you seem to be debating just as hard as fakepeeps7. You seem to always want the last word.

I agree.

Just a note:
There is a difference between 2 words modernism and modern.
I checked in art book.
Modernism is term used for arts in end of the 19th century and beginning of 20th, but also for art in second period (second half of 20th century), i think about 1970s.
Modern (adj) - [ad. late L. modern-us (6th c.), f. modo just now (on the analogy of hodiernus that is of to-day, f. hodi to-day). Cf. F. moderne, Sp., Pg., It. moderno, G. modern.] Being at this time; now existing. Obs. rare.

fakepeeps7

3rd May 2010, 10:27 PM

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. Look, I can make one, too!

Impressionism - a theory or practice in painting especially among French painters of about 1870 of depicting the natural appearances of objects by means of dabs or strokes of primary unmixed colors in order to simulate actual reflected light

Impression - a characteristic, trait, or feature resulting from some influence

The problem is that "modern" and "impression" don't have any dates or art movements associated with them. They are simply words that can be applied to many things besides art and architecture.

"Modernism" and "Impressionism", on the other hand, describe distinct art movements that can be placed in known time periods. They have existing definitions that should be respected.

You like some pieces of "modern art" (which refers to modernism) just like the rest of us. You've said so yourself. Just because you have a different definition of what constitutes a modernist piece of art doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to use it!

Nekowolf

3rd May 2010, 10:38 PM

Just because you have a different definition of what constitutes a modernist piece of art doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to use it!
Deconstructionism?

Neucleus

3rd May 2010, 10:42 PM

"Pretty" dosen't make something art, it just makes it commercial. It is also in the eye of the beholder. As to what hangs in the living room, most people buy what matches the couch.
I agree, look at this:
http://www.spaceabovethecouch.com/wp-content/uploads/congobluepainting.jpg

It's not pretty. And it took practically no learned skill to make. It's actually the work of a chimpanzee named Congo. But I still consider it art, as it looks interesting and, while there may be no intended meaning, it has a story to it. That all said, again: it's not pretty. But that's okay, it's still art.

Anyway, as far as architecture goes, I have a pretty varied taste. I like Elizabethan, Gothic and Gothic Revival, Neoclassical (Particularly Greek Revival), Georgian, Antebellum, Beaux Art, Art Deco, Prarie School (more large, public buildings, not houses so much). I don't really like most Modern and Postmodern architecture, especially where it ventures into the Expressionist or "Blobitecture" tendencies.

Some buildings I like:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/6631/abrajalbait2vi4ac3.jpg
Abraj al-Bait Towers in Mecca

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/DALLAS%20-%20FOUNTAIN%20PLACE/FOUNTAINPLACE003.jpg
The 'Old Red' Dallas County Courthouse & Fountain Place, behind, in Dallas

http://magazine.wustl.edu/Spring09/images/pg4a.jpg
Espace Léopold in Brussels

fakepeeps7

3rd May 2010, 10:43 PM

Heh... maybe.

ivan17

4th May 2010, 8:46 AM

Just because you have a different definition of what constitutes a modernist piece of art doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to use it!

OMG! Please don't shoot!

I just wanted to say that I am talking about modern, not modernism.
Anyway, when we are talking about postmodernism, we are then talking about art since 1970s - 1990s. We are currently in post-postmodernism.
But term modern is universal, for describe today.

I prefer something like this:

http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/eur/vhrv/embzag.-ContentPar-000100-Image.ContentParimage.1.2.gif

It is quite simple, but also luxury and pretty.

jooxis

4th May 2010, 9:32 AM

It's not pretty. And it took practically no learned skill to make. It's actually the work of a chimpanzee named Congo. But I still consider it art, as it looks interesting and, while there may be no intended meaning, it has a story to it. That all said, again: it's not pretty. But that's okay, it's still art.

People may define art in many ways, but there is no way that an animal can create art. However you want to define art it is still a human activity, it is deliberate and with a specific purpose. Animals cannot create anything considered art.

fakepeeps7

4th May 2010, 7:14 PM

People may define art in many ways, but there is no way that an animal can create art. However you want to define art it is still a human activity, it is deliberate and with a specific purpose. Animals cannot create anything considered art.

Humans are animals, just with more developed brains.

We make art as representations of what we see around us, as expressions of how we see the world... right? How do we know that what animals are painting isn't an expression of how they see the world? And even if it's just blobs of paint on a canvas, why are those blobs any less valid than those of Jackson Pollock? Why can't the idea of action painting, in which "the resulting work often emphasizes the physical act of painting itself as an essential aspect of the finished work or concern of its artist", apply to animals?

Oaktree

5th May 2010, 12:41 AM

It's not pretty. And it took practically no learned skill to make. It's actually the work of a chimpanzee named Congo. But I still consider it art, as it looks interesting and, while there may be no intended meaning, it has a story to it. That all said, again: it's not pretty. But that's okay, it's still art.

I'm actually very amused by this. The first thing I saw when looking at the picture was a little monkey. It's a little right of center, with a white belly, black fur, and red highlighting the angles of its face. Maybe I'm just weird. :P

kattenijin

5th May 2010, 1:03 AM

I'm actually very amused by this. The first thing I saw when looking at the picture was a little monkey. It's a little right of center, with a white belly, black fur, and red highlighting the angles of its face. Maybe I'm just weird. :P

Nope, I see the monkey too. Maybe it's a self portrait?

Oaktree

5th May 2010, 1:18 AM

Nope, I see the monkey too. Maybe it's a self portrait?

I believe primates are capable of recognizing their own reflection, so it is a possibility. :)

jooxis

5th May 2010, 9:21 AM

Humans are animals, just with more developed brains.
We make art as representations of what we see around us, as expressions of how we see the world... right? How do we know that what animals are painting isn't an expression of how they see the world? And even if it's just blobs of paint on a canvas, why are those blobs any less valid than those of Jackson Pollock? Why can't the idea of action painting, in which "the resulting work often emphasizes the physical act of painting itself as an essential aspect of the finished work or concern of its artist", apply to animals?

When you use the terms "animals" and "humans" to talk about any topic, by "animals" you obviously mean "all animals except for humans".

And animals cannot create art. "Art" is a man-made concept, it is a word that we as humans have defined. It is humans communicating to other humans through a means of painting, filming, writing, etc... If a chimpanzee can create art, then everyone in the world is pretty much an "artist" which would pretty much destroy the purpose of that term.
The difference between Jackson Pollock and a chimpanzee is that the artist was the one creating his work with a purpose in mind, with an audience in mind, he wanted to communicate an idea to other people, intending to spark either certain emotions or thoughts.

ivan17

5th May 2010, 10:42 AM

It is stupid to say that humans are animals.
Also I think that action painting is stupid. Everyone can create something like Pollock's art and call it art. If it is art, then we are all artists.

HystearicalParoxysm

5th May 2010, 10:56 AM

It's not stupid, it's accurate. Humans -are- animals: Homo sapiens sapiens. It's a simple fact. We have a lot of interesting things we can do that other animals don't - but that doesn't change the fact that we are animals just like chimps and elephants. Who can do some interesting art of their own. ;)

kattenijin

5th May 2010, 4:27 PM

If it is art, then we are all artists.

Personally, I believe we are all artists. Not all of us are good artists. There are many, many more bad artists than good artists that are still able to sell their work. There are several "art shows" at various hotels throughout the area I live in during the year. I typically see a TON of formulaic and trite pieces of $#!^, and very few pieces actually worth the value of the materials used to make them, yet most of the pieces still get sold.

Neucleus

5th May 2010, 7:19 PM

When you use the terms "animals" and "humans" to talk about any topic, by "animals" you obviously mean "all animals except for humans".

And animals cannot create art. "Art" is a man-made concept, it is a word that we as humans have defined. It is humans communicating to other humans through a means of painting, filming, writing, etc... If a chimpanzee can create art, then everyone in the world is pretty much an "artist" which would pretty much destroy the purpose of that term.
The difference between Jackson Pollock and a chimpanzee is that the artist was the one creating his work with a purpose in mind, with an audience in mind, he wanted to communicate an idea to other people, intending to spark either certain emotions or thoughts.
If you define art as being human-only because the concept is thought of only by humans, then you have to say that the laws of physics are human-only, because only we understand them.
And you can't say for certain that chimps or elephants aren't expressing themselves in art. Obviously, you can't prove they are or are not (or at least, it's very difficult), because we have no way to communicate well enough to determine that. For all we know, they could very well be expressing themselves through art.
After all, animals grieve, and have specific actions they perform only in grieving, which is certainly a conscious expression of their emotion.

ivan17

5th May 2010, 7:38 PM

Nekowolf

5th May 2010, 7:49 PM

Because we call ourselves "humans." Like we call genus Tamias, chipmunks. Or the many aquatic species as...fish. Or dogs. Or cats. And I can go on. And on.

iCad

5th May 2010, 7:52 PM

And animals cannot create art. "Art" is a man-made concept, it is a word that we as humans have defined. It is humans communicating to other humans through a means of painting, filming, writing, etc... If a chimpanzee can create art, then everyone in the world is pretty much an "artist" which would pretty much destroy the purpose of that term.

Actually, elephants do create art. Both African and Asian elephants in the wild will "doodle" with a stick in the dirt when bored and, now that in Southeast Asia domesticated elephants are no longer used in the logging industry (due to restrictions on logging), there is at least one organization that trains these "unemployed" elephants to use their natural "artistic" tendency to create paintings. Some are trained to create "realistic" art, others are left to their own artistic devices. Either way, individual elephants seem to create their own style over time. It's most interesting.

I have purchased several paintings from this organization (http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/splash.php), to support elephant conservation, as elephants are my favorite animal. One painting hangs over the fireplace in the living room, and many people think it's my roommate's work, for she sometimes dabbles in abstract. One time, a friend of hers who dabbles in art critique went on about how fabulous it was, thinking that he was complimenting her. :lol: His face was precious when she said, "Uh, an elephant in Thailand painted that." :lol:

Neerie

5th May 2010, 8:11 PM

Why are we then humans, not animals?
This is definitely one of the poorest argument for a debate I've ever read.

Humans are apes, which are part of the animal kingdom, just like our other ape cousins: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas to name a few. We humans like to name things, but naming something doesn't remove it from it's nature. The fact that we decided to call our planet Earth, doesn't make it stop being a planet, even though it differs from other planets.

jooxis

5th May 2010, 9:20 PM

Personally, I believe we are all artists. Not all of us are good artists.

This is almost like saying that we are all doctors, except some of us are really, really bad doctors. To be an "artist" requires you to have certain qualities. So, a "bad artist" is sort of an oxymoron :)
It's all semantics though.

If you define art as being human-only because the concept is thought of only by humans, then you have to say that the laws of physics are human-only, because only we understand them.
And you can't say for certain that chimps or elephants aren't expressing themselves in art. Obviously, you can't prove they are or are not (or at least, it's very difficult), because we have no way to communicate well enough to determine that. For all we know, they could very well be expressing themselves through art.
After all, animals grieve, and have specific actions they perform only in grieving, which is certainly a conscious expression of their emotion.

Laws of physics exist no matter what man says, so nothing about it is man-made. It is something that is present in nature. What I was saying is that "art" itself is a man-made concept. We created that word and we gave it meaning. And the meaning we gave it has very much to do with human culture.
Just because a chimp can slather paint on a canvas does not make him an artist. You seem to suggest that whenever any creature creates a line or a shape using a tool that it becomes art- give me a break.
How do I know that a chimp is not really trying to express himself? Who cares? A chimp can also express himself by flinging poo at you. Are you going to suggest that that is performance art?

Actually, elephants do create art. Both African and Asian elephants in the wild will "doodle" with a stick in the dirt when bored and, now that in Southeast Asia domesticated elephants are no longer used in the logging industry (due to restrictions on logging), there is at least one organization that trains these "unemployed" elephants to use their natural "artistic" tendency to create paintings. Some are trained to create "realistic" art, others are left to their own artistic devices. Either way, individual elephants seem to create their own style over time. It's most interesting.

Doodling in the sand because you're bored does not make you an artist either. Sheesh, you would think we all create dozens of works of art every day just by sitting on the toilet... training elephants to paint is somewhat like building a robot that can paint. It can learn to replicate stuff, but again, has nothing to do with art.

iCad

5th May 2010, 9:40 PM

This is almost like saying that we are all doctors, except some of us are really, really bad doctors. To be an "artist" requires you to have certain qualities.

What qualities would those be?

Doodling in the sand because you're bored does not make you an artist either. Sheesh, you would think we all create dozens of works of art every day just by sitting on the toilet... training elephants to paint is somewhat like building a robot that can paint. It can learn to replicate stuff, but again, has nothing to do with art.

Except, as I said, that individual elephants develop their own styles over time, all on their own, without training or guidance. For instance, I have two pieces painted by one elephant who, once she was taught the basics (to hold the brush and put the paint on the paper, she apparently decided to be a pointillist. She will cover entire canvases with dots about an inch across in different colors, with the different colors evenly spaced across the canvas. She was not taught or led to do this. It's just what she decided to do. How do we know that this isn't genuine artistic expression? Maybe not on the level of human expression with deeper meanings and such, but it's certainly evidence of aesthetic sense, which was previously thought to be the sole domain of humans.

fakepeeps7

5th May 2010, 10:55 PM

How do I know that a chimp is not really trying to express himself? Who cares?

Zoologists. Evolutionary biologists. Animal art connoisseurs.

A chimp can also express himself by flinging poo at you. Are you going to suggest that that is performance art?

It's considered art when a human does it (http://www.poopreport.com/Intellectual/Content/Art/art.html). :lol:

We humans are so full of it.

kattenijin

6th May 2010, 3:44 AM

This is almost like saying that we are all doctors, except some of us are really, really bad doctors.

Well... If you have a shallow cut or scrape and clean and bandage it, or take asprin for a headache, or cough medicine for a cold, etc, etc; you are infact doctoring yourself. If you are giving that treatment to another person, you are doctoring them. Dosen't mean you can go out and be a brain surgeon.

It is my belief that all people have within themselves the ability to be anything they want to be. Dosen't mean they will be good at it.

jooxis

6th May 2010, 9:44 AM

What qualities would those be?

Either talent, skill or experience in a field, with the ability to successfully depict concepts, communicate ideas, evoke emotions and/or create moods or atmosphere among an audience by using one's very own creative and interesting ideas.

The fact that elephants can develop individual styles again is not an argument that they are artists. It is simply an argument that they are living beings with a brain that will of couse differ from one another. My three dogs all have different personalities, they eat their food in different ways, this isn't new or surprising.

Zoologists. Evolutionary biologists. Animal art connoisseurs.

Look. Creating art is generally considered something that distinguishes animals from humans. It is simply the way it is. I can't argue the definition anymore because the definition is there. Art is an important part of human culture. Not of alien culture, not of ape culture and not of amoeba culture.

It's considered art when a human does it.
We humans are so full of it.

Even though I do not consider that art (and I'm not alone on that) I could still argue that it's different from when an ape does it. Since the person is obviously doing it with the intent of questioning the boundaries of "what is" and "what isn't" art or is trying to be controversial (like Ofili) and is therefore trying to provoke thoughts/conversation which is usually a characteristic of art. You can't always look at it superficially - the content matters, the inspiration/ideas behind it. Again, something no ape or elephant can consider.

Neerie

6th May 2010, 2:41 PM

Either talent, skill or experience in a field, with the ability to successfully depict concepts, communicate ideas, evoke emotions and/or create moods or atmosphere among an audience by using one's very own creative and interesting ideas.

I disagree, with those qualities, it would mean that only those who have actually studied fine arts would be considered artists. I personally believe that everyone is an artist, the problem is that at some point, some zealots decided to define art, and even to this days you can see that not everyone agrees on what constitute art.

Would you not consider a 5 year old doodling an artist? According to your definition, they would at least lack a few of the caracteristics required (talent, skill, and experience, and possibly the others as well depending on the doodle).

Look. Creating art is generally considered something that distinguishes animals from humans. It is simply the way it is. I can't argue the definition anymore because the definition is there. Art is an important part of human culture. Not of alien culture, not of ape culture and not of amoeba culture.

Intelligence used to be considered something that distinguishes animals from humans, now we know that there are plenty of animals who do show a great deal of intelligence.

Language and a developped and complex communication used to be considered something that distinguished animals from humans. Now we have apes to whom we have developped ways of communicating with, either through symbols or sign language, and we know that every social animal actually NEEDS a way to communicate, either vocally or through body language.

Meta-cognition used to be considered to be what distinguished humans from animals, then we extended that to at least some of the great apes. And now, new studies (2007) shows that rats also may have meta-cognition abilities.

My point is: why do people become so defensive when the line that distinguishes humans and the rest of the animal kingdom becomes blurry? What if some animals can indeed create art consciously? What does it do to you? Why be so defensive about it? Why fight the idea?

We humans have our own limits. How dare we assume that animals do not have the qualities required to create art? It might not be art that we would have created (but then again considering kids' art and some modern artists' art - oh look I got back on topic), but that brings us back to the fact that WE decided to define what constitute art. Again, how do we know? We still have a lot of trouble communicating with most animals, but that doesn't mean we are supperior, just that we don't have the same language.

RoseCity

6th May 2010, 3:23 PM

The elephant is taking materials (stick, dirt, whatever) and using them to express some emotion, feeling or idea. I think that's what art is. Some feeling or idea that you try to convey using some material. Only an opinion. I'm pretty sure Raphael didn't start a canvas thinking - here comes another masterpiece from Raphael Sanzio. Jackson Pollock wasn't thinking, here comes some crap I can scam people with.
They both were probably excited about trying to execute an idea they had, and I think that excitement is very addictive. Then when the art is completed, reality sets in and that's the another thing entirely. The viewer may not like it or people may expect the artist to defend it or explain in words what it's 'about'. The elephant had fun doing something - the people needed to assign value to it.

jooxis

6th May 2010, 3:32 PM

I disagree, with those qualities, it would mean that only those who have actually studied fine arts would be considered artists. I personally believe that everyone is an artist, the problem is that at some point, some zealots decided to define art, and even to this days you can see that not everyone agrees on what constitute art.

No, it does not mean that you have to have studied fine arts to be an artist. I didn't mention "having an art diploma" anywhere in that sentence. I said EITHER talent, skill OR experience.
As far as everyone being artists, this is something you personally believe, as you have pointed out. All I can say is that I strongly disagree. And no, I don't normally consider a 5 year-old doodling an artist. Perhaps a future artist.

Intelligence used to be considered something that distinguishes animals from humans, now we know that there are plenty of animals who do show a great deal of intelligence.

I just can't believe people can't grasp this. Intelligence, unlike Art is not a man-made concept. This is all you need to know. We didn't make intelligence up. We have observed that such a thing exists and then we gave it a name.
BUT WE MADE ART UP. We made it up. We, humans. We defined something we do as art. In the same way that we made up superstition and taxes. Humans made those things up. How can that not be clear? And in our definition, of this very thing that we created, it is something that is a characteristic of a human society.

We humans have our own limits. How dare we assume that animals do not have the qualities required to create art?

You've got to be kidding. I also assume my dog has no political orientation - but you're right, how dare I assume that? Maybe most dogs are smart enough to have a degree in political science and we humans have underestimated them. Maybe a butterfly can write a symphony if you gave it the tools. Maybe a blowfish could write a best-selling novel if we taught it to write. You're right, we should all never assume anything to be a certain way no matter how much it makes sense.
And even if they could, it still isn't art, and I know I'm repeating myself but art is HUMAN.
In fact I just looked up human in wikipedia and there was a sub-category of Art
"Art is one of the most unusual aspects of human behaviour and a key distinguishing feature of humans from other species."
Any art book will say the same, this is the definition that I have accepted and I don't even see any more room for debate here.

fakepeeps7

6th May 2010, 5:38 PM

Art is an important part of human culture. Not of alien culture, not of ape culture and not of amoeba culture.

How do you know? Have you been abducted again? :giggler:

If aliens do somehow manage to visit our planet one day, I can almost guarantee that they will have some form of art. Are you telling me that a species advanced enough to build interstellar transportation would never feel the need to express what's going on in their complex minds? That the drive that led them to create technology to explore the universe and look for other intelligent life would not also lead to a desire to express their unique views of their existence?

Art will be a part of alien culture. To assume otherwise is pretty darn arrogant on our part.

Oaktree

6th May 2010, 6:50 PM

I just can't believe people can't grasp this. Intelligence, unlike Art is not a man-made concept. This is all you need to know. We didn't make intelligence up. We have observed that such a thing exists and then we gave it a name.
BUT WE MADE ART UP. We made it up. We, humans. We defined something we do as art. In the same way that we made up superstition and taxes. Humans made those things up. How can that not be clear? And in our definition, of this very thing that we created, it is something that is a characteristic of a human society.

Aesthetics, a branch of philosophy dealing with appreciation of beauty, is considered by many philosophers to be universal. I think that, in some sense, any organism with sensory organs is capable of appreciating some type of beauty, even if that appreciation is only driven towards finding an ideal mate. It makes sense from a biological perspective as human beauty is mediated by things like symmetry and sex hormones. Other animals should also be capable of judging potential mates by a standard of beauty. Art is generally aimed at creating beauty, or subverting it to provide a contrast to aesthetic values. If an animal creates something it finds beautiful, can't that still be considered art?

Neerie

6th May 2010, 11:27 PM

No, it does not mean that you have to have studied fine arts to be an artist. I didn't mention "having an art diploma" anywhere in that sentence. I said EITHER talent, skill OR experience.
I will admit that I did misread this part and read it as an AND, instead of OR. My bad.

As far as everyone being artists, this is something you personally believe, as you have pointed out. All I can say is that I strongly disagree. And no, I don't normally consider a 5 year-old doodling an artist. Perhaps a future artist.

We shall agree to disagree about this then, as I consider art to be externalized expression. Music, architecture, painting, sculptures, novel writing, movie making, video game making, are all, in my own opinion, different forms of art. The fact that people appreciate or not any particular artistic piece doesn't take away the fact that it is still art.

I just can't believe people can't grasp this. Intelligence, unlike Art is not a man-made concept. This is all you need to know. We didn't make intelligence up. We have observed that such a thing exists and then we gave it a name.
BUT WE MADE ART UP. We made it up. We, humans. We defined something we do as art. In the same way that we made up superstition and taxes. Humans made those things up. How can that not be clear? And in our definition, of this very thing that we created, it is something that is a characteristic of a human society.
[...]
And even if they could, it still isn't art, and I know I'm repeating myself but art is HUMAN.
In fact I just looked up human in wikipedia and there was a sub-category of Art
"Art is one of the most unusual aspects of human behaviour and a key distinguishing feature of humans from other species."
Any art book will say the same, this is the definition that I have accepted and I don't even see any more room for debate here.

Again, I shall agree to disagree. Even if humans decided to put a name on the concept of art (because I'm sure that humans created art long before they started to name it art - in any language), even if we decided to say that art is a caracteristic of humans and humans alone, that does not stop any other animal from developping art for themselves. It might not be as elaborated and complex as our art, but it will still be art.

Now I will agree that definitions of what constitute art might not agree with this, but like I said, there are SEVERAL definitions of what constitutes art, and those definitions are constantly evolving as time passes and new technologies surface. Some don't currently consider video games to be a form of art, I believe otherwise. *shrugs*

And finally, I was inspired by the comment of Oaktree, and remembered some documentary I watched a while ago about bird nests, so did some research and found out the info I was looking for.

Earlier in this thread, we considered architecture. Now, I am sure we can both agree that a building can be considered both artistic and utilitarian. So what about bird nests? Sure, they are utilitarian, no need to explain how here, but while males of many bird species attract mates by the colorful display of their feathers, others attract mates by putting a lot of effort in building their nest. Females will inspect the nests and if they don't like them, they won't mate and will go inspect other nests. So in that respect, they can show criticism.

Take the example of the bower birds:
The birds decorate their bowers with items from the environment, such as leaves, flowers, berries, feathers, iridescent insect skeletons, colored stones, kangaroo bones and snail shells; trash like blue plastic, paper and glass; and items poached from human abodes such as hair curlers and car keys. Objects collected for decoration are often blue, and in today’s world it is quite common to see that the birds have collected blue plastic bottle caps. Each species has its own decorating preferences.

They don't just build a nest to be sturdy and comfortable, they actually decorate it to look pretty and attractive to the females. I personally call that a form of art. After all, they have to find the materials, and not just anything (they seem to just LOVE blue) place them around in a conscious manner in order to make the whole thing attractive.

Why would you consider only one of the following nests as art?
http://cinematographique.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/bower04.jpg?w=300&h=197
http://www.miltoncountryretreat.com.au/images/image-bowerbird_nest.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o3/39/685739/1/88707106.gs0P9OcC.TopEndWebs_utcafe.JPG
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/05/12/china_wonders/image/herzog___de_meuron__74b512e.jpg

ivan17

7th May 2010, 9:16 AM

Why would you consider only one of the following nests as art?
http://cinematographique.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/bower04.jpg?w=300&h=197
http://www.miltoncountryretreat.com.au/images/image-bowerbird_nest.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o3/39/685739/1/88707106.gs0P9OcC.TopEndWebs_utcafe.JPG
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/05/12/china_wonders/image/herzog___de_meuron__74b512e.jpg

I think, it's sad to know that we are so advanced, but we are making buildings like some birds... Personaly, this nest looks better than this stadium! :lol:

jooxis

7th May 2010, 10:06 AM

How do you know? Have you been abducted again? :giggler:

If aliens do somehow manage to visit our planet one day, I can almost guarantee that they will have some form of art. Are you telling me that a species advanced enough to build interstellar transportation would never feel the need to express what's going on in their complex minds? That the drive that led them to create technology to explore the universe and look for other intelligent life would not also lead to a desire to express their unique views of their existence?

Art will be a part of alien culture. To assume otherwise is pretty darn arrogant on our part.

I really can't believe why you are treading into this territory now. There's so many things wrong with your response, that I'm simply dumbfounded. I think the best way to respond is to change my initial sentence and add the word "still".

Oaktree and Neerie. I am not trying to take away any credit from animals and whatever they do that amazes you all. Yes, animals can create pretty stuff. That bird may have created a pretty nest. In fact, nature has created the most beautiful things in the world, in my eyes. I often find things in nature to be more moving, amazing and beautiful than a painting or a sculpture done by a person. But I will not confuse the term "artist" with an animal that is able to create something pretty or interesting. Whether you like it or not, terms like "Art" and "Artist" are for humans, at least now with this ever-evolving definition of the term "Art" as you have pointed out.

You know what happened, just last night? My dog, while I was away, stole a huge pack of napkins from the dining table, shredded them up and created a giant nest for himself beneath the table. You could even argue about its aesthetic qualities and everything. But he isn't an artist, at least I and most people would not consider him to be one.

This is an analogy of your arguments:
-Can an animal be a slut?
-No it can't, only humans can be sluts.
-But what if an animal has casual sex all the time with other animals and puts out easily?
-It still isn't a "slut" because we have decided that to be a slut you are required to be a person as well. It has certain implications.
-But it's doing the exact same thing as a human slut, so why can't it be one as well?
-It just can't and it isn't because it's an animal. You can't compare the two.

grumpy_otter

7th May 2010, 11:00 AM

Actually, elephants do create art. Both African and Asian elephants in the wild will "doodle" with a stick in the dirt when bored and, now that in Southeast Asia domesticated elephants are no longer used in the logging industry (due to restrictions on logging), there is at least one organization that trains these "unemployed" elephants to use their natural "artistic" tendency to create paintings. Some are trained to create "realistic" art, others are left to their own artistic devices. Either way, individual elephants seem to create their own style over time. It's most interesting.

I have purchased several paintings from this organization (http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/splash.php), to support elephant conservation, as elephants are my favorite animal. One painting hangs over the fireplace in the living room, and many people think it's my roommate's work, for she sometimes dabbles in abstract. One time, a friend of hers who dabbles in art critique went on about how fabulous it was, thinking that he was complimenting her. :lol: His face was precious when she said, "Uh, an elephant in Thailand painted that." :lol:

I love that website and I want one! I don't know if it's art (since we can't interview the elephants about their intentions) but there definitely seems to be some deliberation about the process. Which elephant does the pointillism? They definitely seem to have style.

iCad

7th May 2010, 3:16 PM

I love that website and I want one! I don't know if it's art (since we can't interview the elephants about their intentions) but there definitely seems to be some deliberation about the process. Which elephant does the pointillism? They definitely seem to have style.

The two I have were painted by Duanpen. In fact, one of the ones I own is still on the site under her profile; it's the more brightly-colored and horizontally-oriented one, and it hangs in my bedroom. I confess that I matched the room's decor to her painting. It's all in turquoise and ochre, which also matches the Southwest aesthetic of where I live and the few SW pieces I have.

I don't know whether or not it's "art" in the hoity-toity sense, either. I only know that I like that painting a lot. :) But it is interesting to me what these animals do, especially because they ARE my favorite animals. Sure, some are straight trained to paint certain things, like those who will draw pictures of elephants and recognizable flowers. But when left to their own devices, they will create things that are far more interesting, as far as I'm concerned. And in a way, human artists are "trained" the same way. You go to art school or take art classes and they teach you "how to paint," but from there you develop your own style. I don't know whether or not elephants imbue what they create with meaning because like you said we can't interview them, but it's fairly obvious to me that they have aesthetic sense, and I'm pretty sure that's the foundation of the more visual forms of art. That sense could be influenced by the fact that they're "trained to paint," sure, but to me the case is certainly not clear-cut.

grumpy_otter

7th May 2010, 5:22 PM

iCad

7th May 2010, 6:09 PM

I don't really care if anyone calls it art--it's beautiful and I love it! And I imagine Duanpen doesn't give a damn either! There is a beauty and deliberation in her work that is different from the others (and I guess justifies the higher price tag!)

So I suppose you will be planning a vacation to that resort where the elephants go marching through on their migration?

I confess that when I played a few concerts in Australia and New Zealand a few years back, I made a side trip to Thailand with the express purpose of hanging with elephants. I'm an opportunist that way. :) If I could, I'd open an elephant sanctuary. Maybe when I'm rich and famous (HAH!)...but I don't think they'd like the climate here, so I'd have to move, too. :)

Anyway, I guess at this point humans will only call something art if there is "meaning" to it. Since we can't communicate with animals, their "artwork" will never be appreciated as such by most humans because we'll never know if there's any meaning. It's kind of a shame, if you ask me.

Oh, there's apparently another pointillist (http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=73) now. :) I noticed when I was scrolling through the site again...shopping...tax refund, you know... ;) I like his #12... Same $500 price point. Hmmmmm....

Purity4

7th May 2010, 9:32 PM

I believe primates are capable of recognizing their own reflection, so it is a possibility. :)

It also appears that the black forms are humans standing over and surrounding the monkey as he paints a self-portrait.

grumpy_otter

8th May 2010, 10:58 AM

Anyway, I guess at this point humans will only call something art if there is "meaning" to it. Since we can't communicate with animals, their "artwork" will never be appreciated as such by most humans because we'll never know if there's any meaning. It's kind of a shame, if you ask me.

Oh, there's apparently another pointillist (http://www.elephantart.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=73) now. :) I noticed when I was scrolling through the site again...shopping...tax refund, you know... ;) I like his #12... Same $500 price point. Hmmmmm....

Punpetch's work is beautiful! I wish I could spare the change for one. (Did you catch the bit that he doesn't like cats? LOL) My favorite is his #11.

I am tempted to start calling it art. We can't interview them, but looks like there is meaning to me, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. They certainly fit my other criteria--skill and self-made.

ivan17

8th May 2010, 11:23 AM

I love animals, but it is sad when I see that elephant is creating art and we (humans/animals) can't make something better and demanding than them.

Mistermook

8th May 2010, 12:20 PM

I love animals, but it is sad when I see that elephant is creating art and we (humans/animals) can't make something better and demanding than them.
Speak for yourself, I do quite well.

Oaktree

8th May 2010, 7:14 PM

Oaktree and Neerie. I am not trying to take away any credit from animals and whatever they do that amazes you all. Yes, animals can create pretty stuff. That bird may have created a pretty nest. In fact, nature has created the most beautiful things in the world, in my eyes. I often find things in nature to be more moving, amazing and beautiful than a painting or a sculpture done by a person. But I will not confuse the term "artist" with an animal that is able to create something pretty or interesting. Whether you like it or not, terms like "Art" and "Artist" are for humans, at least now with this ever-evolving definition of the term "Art" as you have pointed out.

I think the distinction you are making is that between "high" art and "low" art. I would guess that you don't consider things like comic strips, tattoos, doodles, ditties, and other "low brow" expressions as art. These things are grouped into the definition of art, though; they are simply not considered equal to the masters. You wouldn't compare a Van Gogh to some little doodle you drew while you were bored in your classes, but the difference is that Van Gogh's work is classified as high art, while your doodle is classified as low art. The exact definition isn't agreed on by art historians, but the categories exist because more can be considered art than would be studied for meaning and artistic qualities.

Given these categories, don't you think that animal-produced art would be able to at least fall into the category of low art?