N/S preference in Art

[Abendrot]

As an amateur writer, I often have a visual scene or symbol come to mind, permeated with associated themes and feelings. I then create the scene around that image. It sounds somewhat similar to the comments by [MENTION=8046]ayoitsStepho[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]. Maybe this is that Ni-Se axis I've been hearing about. However, I focus much more on the underlying thematic content than things like form, style and aesthetics.

 

[Tellenbach]

I like the 2nd Mondrian tree the best. The first looks like a tree but it's an ugly tree. The 2nd doesn't look like a tree but I do like the contrast between light and dark. The 3rd just looks like a rushed job where the artist knows he's made it big and now he's just churning out garbage for money. The 4th looks like pac-mans being impaled by an evil bastard - just bad vibes from someone gone insane.

 

[CitizenErased]

Interesting theory. I disagree with point 2, but I always like considering ideas.

1) One possible definition of art is that it is an effort to replicate personality. It embodies a desire to propagate one's own personality, values and worldviews, as a mental counterpart to biological reproduction. It seems that much like children, they do seem to take on a life of their own.

2) Whether this is true or not will probably come down to semantics. I personally prefer to take a pragmatic approach and not recognize as meaning that which cannot be used as inspiration in bettering the self or the world. The sacrifice of aesthetics and form has sadly been a common feature of the postmodern art in general.

Do you think art is solely related to personality? A photo of a political event (that for some reason is considered artistic) can be art and not be focused on the author's personality. Maybe what tries to replicate is the essence of things. But replicate can be one of the options. It can also make them opposite or exaggerated. I once read a book that talked about what "good" and "bad" artists were, and it said that (according to the author) art was not meant to be "kathartic" to the artist. I do agree that a piece of art is like its artist's child, because it's made from the artist's mind material. Art was "created" as a means to fill the void between the human being and his estrangement from its environment. From a very Nietzschean point of view, at some point everything in the human's life could be questioned, whereas in the Renaissance the humanists were in control of their environment. An example: the Romantics had this sort of strangement from their environment because they acknowledged the finiteness and smallness of humans vs. the infiniteness of the universe, and the way to reconcile the two parts was through art. As the time goes by, society changes and the reasons for estrangement change too, so art has to change. Nowadays people believe everything is possible, so nothing gives them awe. Art turns gruesome and suddenly people are able to react to something. The way art is now is a response to the existential crisis of the human being today, so there's a lot to reflect as to whether it is sad or not that the aesthetics are sacrificed. What does today art say about us?

 

[geedoenfj]

Art is exclusive of the human being because it's the only "activity" that produces objects intended to generate a feeling (pleasure, fear, doubt, rejection) on another person.

 

[CitizenErased]

Hahaa, I had seen one of those videos before. It strikes as odd that the painting has the way humans see colours, because elephants see similar to colorblind people. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that these are elephants who are "domestic" because they can't survive in the wild, so the place that owns them or whatever trained them to make certain drawings. They don't know what they are doing. It reminds me of this case of the monkey who took a selfie and there was a copyright problem between the owner of the camera and Wikipedia regarding who the author was... and people saying the photo belonged to the monkey..

 

[Abendrot]

Do you think art is solely related to personality? A photo of a political event (that for some reason is considered artistic) can be art and not be focused on the author's personality. Maybe what tries to replicate is the essence of things. But replicate can be one of the options. It can also make them opposite or exaggerated. I once read a book that talked about what "good" and "bad" artists were, and it said that (according to the author) art was not meant to be "kathartic" to the artist. I do agree that a piece of art is like its artist's child, because it's made from the artist's mind material. Art was "created" as a means to fill the void between the human being and his estrangement from its environment. From a very Nietzschean point of view, at some point everything in the human's life could be questioned, whereas in the Renaissance the humanists were in control of their environment. An example: the Romantics had this sort of strangement from their environment because they acknowledged the finiteness and smallness of humans vs. the infiniteness of the universe, and the way to reconcile the two parts was through art. As the time goes by, society changes and the reasons for estrangement change too, so art has to change. Nowadays people believe everything is possible, so nothing gives them awe. Art turns gruesome and suddenly people are able to react to something. The way art is now is a response to the existential crisis of the human being today, so there's a lot to reflect as to whether it is sad or not that the aesthetics are sacrificed. What does today art say about us?

Not solely, of course. Art is very difficult to define, and that is one possible definition of many. From a more political perspective, art could be viewed a medium to make people realize something or see things from a perspective that is important, but is underappreciated in the opinion of the artist.

I think the art being put out by a society can be used as an approximate indicator of its cultural health and the condition of its zeitgeist. There are exceptions. To name an example, in Japanese history, art sometimes flourished exactly at that point when their society was on the brink of collapse. "Nowadays people believe everything is possible, so nothing gives them awe". I don't know if I agree with that statement. I don't see the kind of optimism in the world that can be seen in the art of the past. But perhaps that's because the art of the past was a lie.

"Existential crisis" is a good description of the zeitgeist of today, and this apparent in post-modern art, which implies in general that life and the universe is meaningless, worthless, and grotesque. This does not bode well for the future of society. I think that a new counter-movement of art is necessary to inspire and uplift the spirit of society.

 

[CitizenErased]

Not solely, of course. Art is very difficult to define, and that is one possible definition of many. From a more political perspective, art could be viewed a medium to make people realize something or see things from a perspective that is important, but is underappreciated in the opinion of the artist.

Truth be told, I think art has as many definitions as individuals in this world, so I have no saying on what others believe. I agree with you on the art-politics perspective.

I think the art being put out by a society can be used as an approximate indicator of its cultural health and the condition of its zeitgeist. There are exceptions. To name an example, in Japanese history, art sometimes flourished exactly at that point when their society was on the brink of collapse. "Nowadays people believe everything is possible, so nothing gives them awe". I don't know if I agree with that statement. I don't see the kind of optimism in the world that can be seen in the art of the past. But perhaps that's because the art of the past was a lie.

Exactly, that's what I meant. No, of course there's not optimism about art compared to the one of the past, because the one of the past was a "lie". there's an interesting book called The Invention of Art (I think the author is Larry Shiner, it's fun to read) and another, not so interesting called A History of Six Ideas (by Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz --hope I wrote that right), which tell how art as we know it was invented in the 18th century after the lords left Versailles and installed themselves in their petit hotels. Before that, what we think it's art in ancient times had a functional, logic-magical purpose (like in cave paintings, etc). In fact, the Greek only had the word techne, which was related to every action that shifted from a non-existing thing to a existing thing (it could be creating a painting or a building or a pair of shoes or a loaf of bread). The same happened in Rome, with the word Ars (where "art" comes from). Hence the sayings "the art of war" and such (meaning "technique"). Art before 1750 had a functional purpose (decorating, making portraits of important people --some of which were used as "Facebook", when families arranged marriages: "Ah, Lord X looks nice!" and he was nothing like the painting, but well...*). It was also a lie in the sense that it didn't show anything about the reality of the moment (yes, garments, etc), but everything was how it was supposed to be.

"Existential crisis" is a good description of the zeitgeist of today, and this apparent in post-modern art, which implies in general that life and the universe is meaningless, worthless, and grotesque. This does not bode well for the future of society. I think that a new counter-movement of art is necessary to inspire and uplift the spirit of society.

So you think this relationship society-art should be like a cycle? I mean, purposefully making positve art that will change the "health status" of society so that it will make positive art "unconsciously"? That's an interesting idea!!

* There's a story about a Lord or King (I suck at historical gossip) who saw the portrait of a girl and arranged to marry her but when he went to meet her, her face was disfigured by smallpox, so in a way, the portrait was like a photoshopped profile picture nowadays.

 

[geedoenfj]

Love this

 

[Abendrot]

Truth be told, I think art has as many definitions as individuals in this world, so I have no saying on what others believe. I agree with you on the art-politics perspective.



Exactly, that's what I meant. No, of course there's not optimism about art compared to the one of the past, because the one of the past was a "lie". there's an interesting book called The Invention of Art (I think the author is Larry Shiner, it's fun to read) and another, not so interesting called A History of Six Ideas (by Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz --hope I wrote that right), which tell how art as we know it was invented in the 18th century after the lords left Versailles and installed themselves in their petit hotels. Before that, what we think it's art in ancient times had a functional, logic-magical purpose (like in cave paintings, etc). In fact, the Greek only had the word techne, which was related to every action that shifted from a non-existing thing to a existing thing (it could be creating a painting or a building or a pair of shoes or a loaf of bread). The same happened in Rome, with the word Ars (where "art" comes from). Hence the sayings "the art of war" and such (meaning "technique"). Art before 1750 had a functional purpose (decorating, making portraits of important people --some of which were used as "Facebook", when families arranged marriages: "Ah, Lord X looks nice!" and he was nothing like the painting, but well...*). It was also a lie in the sense that it didn't show anything about the reality of the moment (yes, garments, etc), but everything was how it was supposed to be.



So you think this relationship society-art should be like a cycle? I mean, purposefully making positve art that will change the "health status" of society so that it will make positive art "unconsciously"? That's an interesting idea!!

* There's a story about a Lord or King (I suck at historical gossip) who saw the portrait of a girl and arranged to marry her but when he went to meet her, her face was disfigured by smallpox, so in a way, the portrait was like a photoshopped profile picture nowadays.

These look interesting. I'll add them to my growing reading list, thanks . This distinction between "art" and "Art" that you're describing, seems to be mostly a product of the Romantic era. Society/culture and art are closely interrelated. Art can be used to inspire and change society, but society and culture also has to take part in the patronage and development of art.

I think there was a composer who said once (was it Beethoven or Rachmaninoff? I can't figure it out for the life of me) that the composer does not write symphonies. The symphonies are written by the age, and the composer merely transcribes it. Another example is how Beethoven's Eroica symphony, which is said to have started the Romantic movement in music, was initially inspired by Napoleon and the apparently democratic values which he touted. Art alone can't change society; society needs to go the other half. I didn't think of it as a cycle, but that's an interesting way of looking at it.

What a tangent this is turning out to be.

*I think that's the story of Anne of Cleves and Henry the 8th.

 

[CitizenErased]

These look interesting. I'll add them to my growing reading list, thanks . This distinction between "art" and "Art" that you're describing, seems to be mostly a product of the Romantic era. Society/culture and art are closely interrelated. Art can be used to inspire and change society, but society and culture also has to take part in the patronage and development of art.

I think there was a composer who said once (was it Beethoven or Rachmaninoff? I can't figure it out for the life of me) that the composer does not write symphonies. The symphonies are written by the age, and the composer merely transcribes it. Another example is how Beethoven's Eroica symphony, which is said to have started the Romantic movement in music, was initially inspired by Napoleon and the apparently democratic values which he touted. Art alone can't change society; society needs to go the other half. I didn't think of it as a cycle, but that's an interesting way of looking at it.

What a tangent this is turning out to be.

*I think that's the story of Anne of Cleves and Henry the 8th.

If you want more titles, I have tons on them (depending on the topic, when I finish my career I'll have a wider range of topics, haha). That's what I think too. The Romantic era is the time when these ideas I was mentioning in my posts (all the Hume-Hegel-Kant-Nietzsche combo) started to flourish/settle.

I can't tell who the author of the quote was, but I get what you're saying. There's a French philosopher of that time called Hippolyte Taine, who adapted Comte's principles of positivism to the art field (he was a little bit... racist) and said that every artist/artwork is the child of a race, milieu (environment) and historical moment (The book is Philosophy of Art). It is interesting thinking of it as a cycle, isn't it? At least it's worth playing with the idea.

Well, yes and no. The S/N dichotomy is about how we take in and process information, so even if we're not discussing about the specifics of each side of the coin, we're talking about the coin per se, haha

*Thanks! That was it! I have a lame memory when it comes to historical characters.

 

[cascadeco]

As an amateur writer, I often have a visual scene or symbol come to mind, permeated with associated themes and feelings. I then create the scene around that image. It sounds somewhat similar to the comments by [MENTION=8046]ayoitsStepho[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION]. Maybe this is that Ni-Se axis I've been hearing about. However, I focus much more on the underlying thematic content than things like form, style and aesthetics.

I'm not sure about this, but what I can say to expand on my other post is that I need my paintings to feel 'whole' -- to feel like they are cohesive and everything flows together and there's nothing out of place/'glaring'. Arguably this is entirely subjective on my end; however I do feel that as results go, these end up being my best pieces and others view them similarly. I know this statement is pretty much completely vague, but I'm not sure how else to describe it. My best ones are when I just 'know' what I need to do and everything comes together, it is relatively effortless, colors don't clash, it's not disjointed. This sadly doesn't happen super often. Contrast this with me 'trying' to achieve something (vs just 'knowing' I can do it).

 

[Abendrot]

Sounds like a fine tuned sensitivity to the sensory aesthetic. I think I can understand what you're saying: there has to be a sort of emergent aesthetic to the work as a whole. Could it also be that you're trying to encapsulate a sensory experience for the viewer? It seems like your art is not meant to be contemplated, but rather, personally experienced. I window shopped through your gallery by the way, and I found it quite beautiful. There's something about the flowers, the mountains, and the cold blue lakes that go well together. The one I liked best though is the "Frost and Snow Filled Winter Morning". It has something of the dreamlike and evocative quality of the images that I was describing.

 

[cascadeco]

Sounds like a fine tuned sensitivity to the sensory aesthetic. I think I can understand what you're saying: there has to be a sort of emergent aesthetic to the work as a whole. Could it also be that you're trying to encapsulate a sensory experience for the viewer? It seems like your art is not meant to be contemplated, but rather, personally experienced. I window shopped through your gallery by the way, and I found it quite beautiful. There's something about the flowers, the mountains, and the cold blue lakes that go well together. The one I liked best though is the "Frost and Snow Filled Winter Morning". It has something of the dreamlike and evocative quality of the images that I was describing.

Hmm, interesting indeed. I don't think I've thought about this much before, but you might be onto something. I would agree my art is not meant to be contemplated. I do think it is more about conveying a bird, flower, landscape, bring the viewer into it. For me in creating it, I am aiming for what I find beautiful, and I also have personally experienced almost all of what I paint (ie seen the scenes with my own eyes). So yes I would say I am in a sense probably trying to recreate an emotional 'memory' of the subject, and also capture what I find very meaningful/ that's important to me, and maybe it be more of an immersive thing for the viewer. Not an analytical thing. Same goes for my photos I suppose.

Thank you, by the way. And re the Frost piece you reference, I do consider that as one of my 'successes'. So thanks.

 

[Lia_kat]

When I start on a photo or painting, I like working with abstract pieces and sometimes there may be a sort of feeling attached to it, but overall I'm more satisfied when everything just fits together beautifully.. the look, the mood, the composition. This happens most when I'm working on collages.. it can take hours for me to be completely happy with it because I constantly move and rearrange photos - similar to what [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] said "I'm not creating art to have X meaning. I'm creating what I like and what I find visually pleasing." I also relate to what [MENTION=27809]Stargaze[/MENTION] said about letting viewers add their own personal meaning to the art, I prefer it that way.

 

[The Cat]

I'm an oil painter, but not sure whether I'm an INFP or an ISFP. At the moment I'm leaning more towards ISFP. I personally like my paintings to stand out through color, tonality, and contrast with some surrealistic and symbolic aspects added into it. They always have a person involved too where they are showing some kind of raw emotion. So I guess I like a mix of realism with abstract concepts.

Although when I was a child, I always loved drawing people or made up landscapes in my mind. I started out drawing things strictly from my imagination, and then ventured on to copying things in order to develop my technique. Drawing what I saw always came naturally to me, so this is why I lean more towards being Se dominant. I am also very detailed oriented when it comes to my work and always have been since I was young.

My appreciation for other people's artwork were always more concrete, and I never understood the love some people have for heavily abstract work. I always assumed abstract art was created by people who didn't have skill to draw, and were taking an "easier" route to make art. However, my perspective on abstract art has since changed, as I have been awestruck by such mesmerizing pieces that are actually full of details and such complexity that I could never imagine in a million years creating myself.

As for meaning, I try to show some kind of personal inspiration for a piece I start with. Like I have the idea set in my mind of what I want to do and what its intent is, but it always comes out differently in the end. I always keep adding things as I go, and sometimes the original "meaning" of what I set out to do kind of diminishes as it ends up being surrounded by a bunch of randomness everywhere. I do try to connect everything together, but if someone were to ask me what the meaning of a particular painting is, I often have trouble explaining as it may not necessarily make as much sense to them as it would to me. I actually hate when people ask me up front, because to me each piece is pretty personal. I would rather people look at my artwork and come up with their own meaning, because then they'd be able to interpret what it means personally to them, whereas if they were to find out the original intention of a piece, the relation they had originally would be lost. It's kind of like listening to a song and coming up with your own idea of what it means, and then later finding out that it's completely different then what you originally interpreted it to be and then you end up thinking and relating to the song in a different way thereafter, if that makes sense.

I would love to hear others perspectives on art and whether there is a correlation between different art preferences in intuitives and sensors. Also, sorry for the incessant rambling, haha.

I don't paint much anymore, but I feel very similarly to [MENTION=27809]Stargaze[/MENTION]. I've found some of my most meaningful work to be abstract, but I did choose that style because of my own technical limitations at the time. Instead I fucused on the way the colors stood out, the textures of the paint, with lots of symbolism for me at the time, and I feel it worked because I was painting moods not things.