Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

Redstar wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

I said it wasn't.

Redstar wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

I said it wasn't.

I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.

Drunken Idaho wrote: This question had me struggling for an appropriate answer: "No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it." It's tough because I'm against being overly proud of your country just for the sake of pride and meaningless nationalism, however I'm all for it if you truly believe your country ought to be a guiding light to other nations. I ended up answering "Disagree" because of my own experiences. I love my country for it's overall liberal and democratic values, and I (for the most part) agree with the way it treats its citizens as well as other countries.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Redstar wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

I said it wasn't.

I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.

Did it say all abstract art had no meaning, or just the peice in question? Because lots does have meaning.

Redstar wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

I said it wasn't.

I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Redstar wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:The only question I thought was kind of weird was if abstract art should be considered art. That was difficult for me to answer. I really hate abstract art with a passion but I wouldn't go so far to say it isn't art. I'd LIKE to...

I said it wasn't.

I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.

Did it say all abstract art had no meaning, or just the peice in question? Because lots does have meaning.

It depends on HOW abstract it is. It has to be recognizable for me. You can't paint a picture of a god damned emotion.

Drunken Idaho wrote:

Redstar wrote:I said it wasn't.

I would have went the other way on that, but the question specifically said that the abstract art would "have no meaning". If it has no meaning, then how am I to expect to think it's art? Art is supposed to convey a message to me.

Then the question is really about what one considers to be art. For instance, there are many who feel that art doesn't have to have a message, but instead can leave a distinct and purposeful impression. That impression can be emotional or physical or whatever. It doesn't have to be saying anything about anything else.

A good example would be my taste in music... Some people think that lyrics are paramount, whereas I think the real poetry lies in the ability to evoke a specific emotion (or series of emotions) using nothing but tonal manipulation.

lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

they both pretend to be something they're not

Redstar wrote:

lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

they both pretend to be something they're not

Oh my. A joke about art and politics? Aren't we cynical.

lotek wrote:

Redstar wrote:

lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

they both pretend to be something they're not

Oh my. A joke about art and politics? Aren't we cynical.

And me just trying to be funny

Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.

Spicelon wrote:

Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.

Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.

The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.

Spicelon wrote:

Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.

Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.

The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.

Redstar wrote:

Spicelon wrote:

Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.

Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.

The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.

Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.

You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Redstar wrote:

Spicelon wrote:

Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.

Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.

The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.

Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.

You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.

Not necessarily saying art can exist without meaning - I'm saying that the veiwer of the art may not be able to tell whether or not there is meaning, only the artist knows for sure.

Redstar wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Redstar wrote:

Spicelon wrote:

Redstar wrote:I honestly can't see how anything that lacks the ability to give anyone that feeling could be considered art.

Well, since you don't speak for everyone, you can't really say it's not art. You can obviously arrive at a personal opinion, but you can't unilaterally state that something isn't art just because it fails to satisfy your opinion of what art is. And I mean "you" in the collective sense, not just you.

The problem with art is it is ambiguous by nature. You can't really pigeon hole it.

Fine by me, but I never said my process in deciding that question was anything but opinion.

You or anyone else can say art doesn't need to have meaning, but I think that's the exact opposite of what art's about... I can't slap a piece of torn napkin on the table and call it art if I didn't even think about it. If my intent was to basically troll the art community, or invoke a negative opinion of "That's not art!" from someone, than it would be art. But if I had no intent other than putting paper to table, then it's not art.

Not necessarily saying art can exist without meaning - I'm saying that the veiwer of the art may not be able to tell whether or not there is meaning, only the artist knows for sure.

I agree, which is why my argument otherwise can't stand because there's no way to prove it... But the question specifically stated that that art has no meaning, so we know.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

lotek wrote:

Redstar wrote:

lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

they both pretend to be something they're not

Oh my. A joke about art and politics? Aren't we cynical.

And me just trying to be funny

Wait wait, I can make this more cynical AND more accurate in one fell swoop:


what do art, politics, and religion have in common?



they all pretend to be something they're not.

SadisticCynic wrote:Apparently one time a urinal was voted the best piece of art. Is that what you're referring to?

lotek wrote:what do art and politics have in common?

they both pretend to be something they're not