N/S preference in Art

[Abendrot]

Hello Everyone,

I would like to discuss a theory that I've been mulling over regarding the N/S preferences in art (music, literature, visual oriented etc.) My theory is that the difference between N art and S art is like the difference between the artisan and the artist. S art in general focuses on the style, aesthetic, details, and presentation. It tends to be oriented toward perfecting an existing form. Meanwhile, N art tends to focus on meaning, concepts, the big picture, and the "out-of-the-box". I'm aware that there are many exceptions, and I'm just discussing the general guidelines. What do you people think?

 

[Star Atlas]

Hello Everyone,

I would like to discuss a theory that I've been mulling over regarding the N/S preferences in art (music, literature, visual oriented etc.) My theory is that the difference between N art and S art is like the difference between the artisan and the artist. S art in general focuses on the style, aesthetic, details, and presentation. It tends to be oriented toward perfecting an existing form. Meanwhile, N art tends to focus on meaning, concepts, the big picture, and the "out-of-the-box". I'm aware that there are many exceptions, and I'm just discussing the general guidelines. What do you people think?

S vs N is just a line.

Comparing the Se-Ni spectrum to its Ne-Si counterpart would potentially yield a better picture of the dynamics at play.

 

[magpie]

No. What the fuck would art even be without meaning?

 

[Forever]

No. What the fuck would art even be without meaning?

Sometimes art does not have a meaning. Sometimes it just is.

#embraceabsurdity
#fuckyeahsensors
#thereareparadoxesyouyetnotunderstand

 

[magpie]

Sometimes art does not have a meaning.

#embraceabsurdity

What art do you think doesn't have meaning? I disagree with you, by the way. Art not having meaning is impossible. Obscurity has meaning.

 

[Forever]

What art do you think doesn't have meaning? I disagree with you, by the way. Art not having meaning is impossible. Obscurity has meaning.

There are artists who make their piece and say their art has no meaning. Professional ones.

Does every doodle you make out of boredom have meaning?

 

[magpie]

There are artists who make their piece and say their art has no meaning. Professional ones.

Does every doodle you make out of boredom have meaning?

I'd really encourage you to read up on dadaism and surrealism in its historical context. Art without meaning can represent the meaninglessness and absurdity of life. An artist who says their art has no meaning has created meaningful art because it lacks meaning. Audiences who view art project their own meaning onto it, by virtue of being human.

 

[magpie]

#fuckyeahsensors
#thereareparadoxesyouyetnotunderstand

To be honest these two tags you added after I replied are so shitty as to be comedic, given the fact that it's actually you who's incapable of understanding paradox in this context.

 

[Forever]

To be honest these two tags you added after I replied are so shitty as to be comedic, given the fact that it's actually you who's incapable of understanding paradox in this context.

Lol

So do your doodles have meaning?

Quit being oversensitive. They're light and you know I love sensors.

 

[Luke O]

What art do you think doesn't have meaning? I disagree with you, by the way. Art not having meaning is impossible. Obscurity has meaning.

It doesn't need a meaning to start off with, sometimes the meaning comes after the art is made. I mean just look at what the art critics do when they analyse a piece of art. Look at how many essays, dissertations and theses there are on a certain urinal with "R. Mutt" written on it, for example.

What there is though is purpose driving the creation of art, there's purpose behind even the most random pieces of art.

 

[magpie]

Lol

So do your doodles have meaning?

Quit being oversensitive. They're light and you know I love sensors.

Yes, doodles have meaning. They may not have deep meaning, but there is some prosaic meaning. Tell me one thing in life that is meaningless.

You need to get down from that high horse you're always trying to put yourself on. You're in love with your own delusional sense of superiority. In reality the horse is way too high for you.

It doesn't need a meaning to start off with, sometimes the meaning comes after the art is made. I mean just look at what the art critics do when they analyse a piece of art. Look at how many essays, dissertations and theses there are on a certain urinal with "R. Mutt" written on it, for example.

What there is though is purpose driving the creation of art, there's purpose behind even the most random pieces of art.

I agree. Meaning can come just as much from viewers as from artists, as audiences bring their own interpretation to any given piece by virtue of being human. Also, I see purpose as meaning, or at least as meaningful.

 

[Forever]

Yes, doodles have meaning. They may not have deep meaning, but there is some prosaic meaning. Tell me one thing in life that is meaningless.

You need to get down from that high horse you're always trying to put yourself on. You're in love with your own delusional sense of superiority. In reality the horse is way too high for you.

I think the advice applies more to you.

 

[magpie]

I think the advice applies more to you.

No, friend. You need to take a good hard look at yourself.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

I like meaning in art. I think the S/N difference is where they get the meaning. Sensors would gain more meaning from cncrete artwork, and intuitives would gain meaning from abstract art. I think some abstract art looks cool, but I dont usually see any meaning in it. And I think some intutive might look at some concrete art and think about how pointless it is.

 

[CitizenErased]

I like meaning in art. I think the S/N difference is where they get the meaning. Sensors would gain more meaning from cncrete artwork, and intuitives would gain meaning from abstract art. I think some abstract art looks cool, but I dont usually see any meaning in it. And I think some intutive might look at some concrete art and think about how pointless it is.

Or Sensors may rely on the colours, textures, etc to decide if they like certain artwork and iNtuitives may look what's behind the tangible object.

----

I wanted to respond to the debate of previous comments but I didn't want to meddle in the battle, so I'll just post it here, as an orphan idea.

1) ART is not the object. Artworks are devices than can make you experience art (or not). There is no art, but anything can be art. It depends on the individual reaction to a useless object. 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.

2) "Meaninglessness" is a meaning. There was a thread here once about how there can be everything but there can never be NOTHING. Lack of purpose/meaning is a purpose/meaning, otherwise, you'd add a purpose/meaning to the recipe. That's the difference between Beaux Arts and modern avant-garde: at some point in history the purpose of a piece of art was a perfect object (see Bouguereau); with the time, now it's more important the "beauty" of the idea behind the object, to the detriment of its final aesthetics.

It's also about priorities. Do I want others to see MY idea, or do I let my piece of work be a trigger to whatever the spectator's mind decides?

It could be also a technique, a thought process that may or may not be interesting to others. See Mondrian's trees over time:

 

[Tellenbach]

I like pretty things like the Taj Mahal and Norman Rockwell paintings; the meaning isn't nearly as important as the beauty of it.

 

[ayoitsStepho]

As a painting Sensor, I actually really enjoy creating stories with symbols. My symbols may not be the most in depth, but that's because I'm not trying to get the viewer to have a brain fart over it- I'm just dramatic when it comes to my paintings. I desire for the viewer to connect with my work. Sure, we can just give our work meaning or purpose, but why not give them just enough to begin grasping the concept, but not the whole concept so they are "forced" to come up with their own conclusions. I suppose I just view it as a game, kind of like how the Cheshire Cat sort of flirts and plays with Alice from Alice in Wonderland. She finds her way in the end.

 

[cascadeco]

It doesn't need a meaning to start off with, sometimes the meaning comes after the art is made. I mean just look at what the art critics do when they analyse a piece of art. Look at how many essays, dissertations and theses there are on a certain urinal with "R. Mutt" written on it, for example.

What there is though is purpose driving the creation of art, there's purpose behind even the most random pieces of art.

I think this is an important point. I think most of the time it is viewers of art that create meaning for themselves -- meaning that the artist may never have intended.

I mean, when I create my art, I'm not purposefully out to create 'meaning' - there's no hidden message. And I've said elsewhere on the forum, in many threads, that I don't have some 'deeper' concept in mind when I am painting. It is true I am painting things I find beautiful, meaningful to me, important, aesthetics and colors / 'tone' and mood of painting are very important to me and drive me, but I'm not creating a piece to have X meaning. Anyone who after the fact says 'oh she is saying X or this painting symbolizes Y or means Z' is really just projecting their own thing onto the piece. I try to create beautiful things and I have my own vision and style but from my pov I'm not creating art to have X meaning. I'm creating what I like and what I find visually pleasing.

 

[Abendrot]

Or Sensors may rely on the colours, textures, etc to decide if they like certain artwork and iNtuitives may look what's behind the tangible object.

----

I wanted to respond to the debate of previous comments but I didn't want to meddle in the battle, so I'll just post it here, as an orphan idea.

1) ART is not the object. Artworks are devices than can make you experience art (or not). There is no art, but anything can be art. It depends on the individual reaction to a useless object. 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.

2) "Meaninglessness" is a meaning. There was a thread here once about how there can be everything but there can never be NOTHING. Lack of purpose/meaning is a purpose/meaning, otherwise, you'd add a purpose/meaning to the recipe. That's the difference between Beaux Arts and modern avant-garde: at some point in history the purpose of a piece of art was a perfect object (see Bouguereau); with the time, now it's more important the "beauty" of the idea behind the object, to the detriment of its final aesthetics.

It's also about priorities. Do I want others to see MY idea, or do I let my piece of work be a trigger to whatever the spectator's mind decides?

It could be also a technique, a thought process that may or may not be interesting to others. See Mondrian's trees over time:

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.

 

[Hiraeth]

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.