The Function of Art

[Fun in the Sun]

To put it another way, while everyone experiences beauty subjectively that doesn't mean that someone has to exaggerate that and make their art as subjective as possible to prove some point and try to appear smarter or more intellectual than everyone else. That's elitism, not art.

 

[Opal]

I don't fully understand. Do you mean rebelling against what the art was before?

He tied art to society, and condemned pieces that accepted and reinforced cultural values (such as something with only aesthetic value).

Experience of stimulation, insight and/or emotion can be what art tries to achieve. Even if it's facepalming frustration and insight to the idiocy of modern art...

White Paintings is one of my favorite pieces.

The idea matters more than technical skill, in my opinion.

 

[Oaky]

White Paintings is one of my favorite pieces.

The idea matters more than technical skill, in my opinion.

My art:

This is insight to the barista who has had distorted his broken heart in the sadness of losing his girlfriend over spilling coffee over her in the late 20th century. It was intended to send a burst of bold emotion to the individual looking at it to provide a level of subconscious distress formulated over a period of time as the user goes about his day and remembers all the confusing emotional mattes he had dealt with in his past. And with such, everytime you speak to a barista and drink your coffee you will be filled with emotional turmoil of the troubled barista.

 

[Opal]

My art:

This is insight to the barista who has had distorted his broken heart in the sadness of losing his girlfriend over spilling coffee over her in the late 20th century. It was intended to send a burst of bold emotion to the individual looking at it to provide a level of subconscious distress formulated over a period of time as the user goes about his day and remembers all the confusing emotional mattes he had dealt with in his past. And with such, everytime you speak to a barista and drink your coffee you will be filled with emotional turmoil of the troubled barista.

Hah. White Paintings highlights the influence of environment and the observer on the observed, as shadows play across its surface in the exhibit.

 

[Oaky]

Hah. White Paintings highlights the influence of environment and the observer on the observed, as shadows play across its surface in the exhibit.

Not when you've got a 'do not touch' barrier in between. Might as well use a blank wall and put up an sign for it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Not when you've got a 'do not touch' barrier in between. Might as well use a blank wall and put up an sign for it.

I prefer Marcel Duchamp's Fountain.

 

[Opal]

Not when you've got a 'do not touch' barrier in between. Might as well use a blank wall and put up an sign for it.

True, it might be more effective if the observers were free to puncture, fold and burn the piece. I think its effectiveness is in its purity, though.

I prefer Marcel Duchamp's Fountain.

Fountain was an effective statement, which is what most art strives to be.

 

[Kas]

He tied art to society, and condemned pieces that accepted and reinforced cultural values (such as something with only aesthetic value).

Oh I see, thanks for explaining.

 

[tkae.]

This quote is amazing.

Jung was far ahead of his time and our own time.

In some ways, yes. In other ways, he was very much a product of his time in a way that's hurt the legacy of his theories. While the substantial core of his theories are easily adapted into modern interpretation of psychological research, his theory of anima and animus is very backwards and is mutually exclusive to the current understand of gender and sexuality.

And I say that as someone who uses a large portion of his theories in everyday discussion.

 

[Pinker85]

I don't get a lot of art while liking it. I appreciate that it takes great manual dexterity to create art, it's cool when someone can draw or sculpt something photo realistic ... but a lot of abstract art is pretty but without much meaning for me, which doesn't mean I don't appreciate it ... I just also appreciate the walls and the way light looks and how my body feels when it moves and everything surrounding the piece of art. And I don't like places I have to restrict my movements and feel very serious and somber and the like quality of holding on that art has ... u know like holding onto these pieces for posterity or like something like that, like I think things should be destroyed and open to destruction, so that new things can come out of them.

 

[Pinker85]

I guess my tendency is that I like chaos ... and I think that art tends to be not chaotic, it's like trying to constrain or fight against the natural destructiveness, which is like symbolic of being cultured, art is being cultured.

 

[Mademoiselle]

It is a visual language.

 

[Bknight]

In my opinion, it's used to inspire, to provoke emotion or thought, to challenge or reinforce societal norms... and that's just a few of its uses.

Once we get into the subject of arts beside visual ones (literature, philosophy, science, religion, martial arts, diplomacy, politics, war (personally, I'd consider politics and war to be arts, albeit grim ones, but that's not a universal belief), etc) we get immeasurable usefulness.

 

[Opal]

[MENTION=13943]Pinker85[/MENTION], you might be more interested in happenings, or maybe abstract expressionism.

Is art only visual?

 

[Pinker85]

I don't know what either r ... but if I can eat either of the two AND they r delicious, count me in!!

Have no idea. I'm not even sure I have a definition of what art is and isn't. I'm not sure I really care, no offense ...

 

[Pinker85]

BUT u should tell us all what UR definition is ... if u want to, if it makes u feel passionate, if its something u feel happiness over then freak out with ya bad self about how much u care about art ... y did u start this thread ... etc. etc.

 

[Dreamer]

Besides all the cheesy answers, I think the purpose of art is to give people some sort of stimulation or meaning. Art is such a general word, it can take so many different forms, but at least in my opinion, the best kind of art pieces are the ones that get you to think. Why? Why did they make this? What was their point? How did they do it? It gives us an appreciation for life in the current moment. Like, I think [MENTION=20757]Opal[/MENTION] 's avatar is absolutely beautiful, and every time I see it I'm mesmerized. It makes me stop and think and reflect. It's more than just aesthetics.

I love the feeling of walking around an art museum and all of a sudden, you are stopped in your tracks by an alluring piece for whatever reason. Something about it just resonates so deeply with you, and sometimes the reason isn't even clear. It isn't always the most famous paintings that grab you, and I think that's the kick I get out of art, is how personal it can be.

 

[Dreamer]

One of my art professors considered art that doesn't challenge and rebuke culture to be kitsch.

Fundamentally, I see art as communication (totally open-ended), and I value art that educates and expands the minds of its beholders. Art's most important function, I think, is to critique the reality we accept, on cultural and personal levels--to remind (or show) us life can be different.

It really is one of the few outlets where people can openly say "fuck you" to society, government, whatever, and be socially acceptable, and even promoted as new or fresh

 

[Dreamer]

Art is most useful for me as escape. It's a distraction from other things I'd rather not think about. I find myself in need of things that are more optimistic and positive at the moment. I think I'm not alone.

I admit to not being impressed by a blank canvas.

I admit to being one of those douchy appearing art-loving geeks that totally eats up contemporary art and pieces such as that shown above. I have respect for any perspective of what art is though since I know no one person actually has the answer to what art is and what it means, so I'm not actually one of those elitist types

And you know how your eye in reality, only sees small snippets of reality, and your mind fills in the blanks of what you think is actually there? (which is why we think we see things that aren't there at times) Well that's actually why I like paintings such as a white painted canvas, since it leaves it entirely up to the individual to fill in the blanks and what it means to you. Yes, there is a message behind the act of painting a canvas a solid color, but it is so illusive that it doesn't override interpretation either.

I am so glad this thread exists, I'm loving everyone's responses

 

[Dreamer]

People over intellectualize art. Just do it, make it look great, and make someone happy with it. Enjoy it!

That's where I feel the architecture community is these days. They say they aren't artists and that they are pragmatic, but in the more theoretical schools, I went to the Pratt Institute and it was absolutely filled with artsy fartsy professors (duh, it's an art school) but by promoting such obscure meaning and depth, architecture is starting to become more and more of a niche product that only the truly wealthy can appreciate and enjoy. We're saying our profession is for pushing humanity towards a greater good, but so many of the intellectuals in the field are only secluding it to towards the few elite.

I'm all about imbuing deeper meaning into the designs of buildings, I get a high off of it, but why make building design purely an intellectual exercise? Why can't it also not look attractive and beautiful too?? Being an object of beauty, in my mind, is plenty valid enough to sustain its relativity in our society.