Archived What is your view on true art?

[Gameboy]

Do you think that art is something that fades away or art is something that is eternal?

 

[Impel Down]

...are you fucking serious? That's taken STRAIGHT from Naruto. Like, word for word.

But I'll answer you: True art can be around forever, although maybe not physically. The idea that that art or artist was there can stay in people's minds forever, even if it may be destroyed or unappreciated in the beginning.

Although, some people can have different ideas of what "art" is. To some, it's like artwork and architecture and whatnot. To others, dance, music, poetry. Going even further, ideas, speech, plans, even human nature. Then there's those who feel that art is an event, although those people can be sadistic at times, but I won't get into all that.

 

[Gameboy]

...are you fucking serious? That's taken STRAIGHT from Naruto. Like, word for word.

But I'll answer you: True art can be around forever, although maybe not physically. The idea that that art or artist was there can stay in people's minds forever, even if it may be destroyed or unappreciated in the beginning.

Although, some people can have different ideas of what "art" is. To some, it's like artwork and architecture and whatnot. To others, dance, music, poetry. Going even further, ideas, speech, plans, even human nature. Then there's those who feel that art is an event, although those people can be sadistic at times, but I won't get into all that.

Actually its not straight from Naruto. This view of Art that i believe in comes from Taro Okamoto, a famous artist. The character Deidara from Naruto was originated based on Taro because Taro Okamato originally said "Art is a bang" So this quote officially was from him, before Deidara used it. Taro's view was the same as Deidara, SO I DIDNT GET IT STRAIGHT FROM NARUTO. And im so mad right now because i just joined this site like two days ago and i thought there would be some nice people here and now i think im wrong. YOU DONT HAVE TO CURSE BECAUSE
1. your wrong that i got this from naruto, Masashi Kishimoto originally based this art perspective of Deidara from Taro Okamoto
2. Its pointless to curse for something thats not even important.
3. you make yourself look stupid for using such a language in an awesome site

But anyways thanks for your opinions, i could have been bad and said lots of bad things, but since im a nice person, im not gonna do that.


This is my view on art:

Im a fan of Taro Okamoto, and i like his beliefs on art. So whenever i finish a masterpiece,i always destroy it ( like i smash it or other obliterate it, in the best way possible ) because like Taro Okamoto and Deidara, i too believe that art is something beautiful that fades away. So i destroy my art work while they are beautiful because they are not a full masterpiece until the moment they are destroyed. So yah, im pretty much like Deidara. I hate the belief that art is something that lasts forever. For example, i'll use the painting "Mona Lisa" as an example. It is art, but not art at its true potential because it hasnt been destroyed. It is supposed to be destroyed so it would finally be a true work of art. But that is all my opinion. 80 percent of the people in the world follow the belief that art is something eternal, so im one of the 20 percent of people that go against this belief.



and by the way if you were talking about the quotes, they are officially by me. I just used the view of art that i believed in and made a quote of it.

 

[eroda]

http://paintalicious.org/2007/09/14/ron-mueck-hyper-realist-sculptor/ <--true artist

NB id thought id add seeing these in real life is even more outstanding

 

[Gameboy]

hes a good artist, i know about him. But Taro is way better

 

[PaperYomiko]

I think true art is both something that fades away and something eternal. For me, what defines something as art is very much dependent on the intentions of the creator. A work of modern art, such as Rothko's paintings or Noguchi's sculptures, is as much a piece of art as are works by Michelangelo. Similarly, the 'eternal' quality of Michelangelo's Pieta is to me as valuable and moving as the ephemerality of Goldsworthy's nature works. And of course, I don't limit my definition of art to the visual mediums - writing, music, dance, film - all of these things are art to me ^^

So, if destroying a piece of artwork is the way in which an artist's vision will ultimately be expressed, then yes, I consider that art. However, I do not believe all art should be limited to either form of expression.

Spoiler: Michelangelo's Pieta

Spoiler: Isamu Noguchi's Euripides

Spoiler: Mark Rothko's Green and Maroon

Spoiler: A work of Andy Goldsworthy's that I can't find the title to ^^;

Thanks Gameboy for this insightful topic, by the way

 

[rabb]

3. you make yourself look stupid for using such a language in an awesome site

that's not true. impy-kohai makes himself look stupid by spamming to get his post count high, then bragging about it in another thread, then denying it. (actualy, i think it was the other imp that bragged, but either way spammers=evil that must be crushed)

oh, and you should blow some of your art up. just so it has as beautiful an end as possible. and if you can't do that, fire is alway's pretty, too. *slight piromaniac*

hey, wut kind of art do you do, anyway? i've more or less limited myself to drawing and painting... i've done sculptures, and stuff like that, but it is more annoying, imo. and also imo, if your art isn't something you enjoy, what is the point of it? surely expressing your soul at the cost of your happiness isn't worth it.


someone i know once said that she thought of art as anything done by humans. just by the sheer amount of choices, everything we do, from cooking, to driving, to typing a response on a internet website (ok, that last one i made up, but i'm sure she'd include it) gives everything we do the same unique-ness as our art.

i, personaly, can agree somewhat with this, but i think that the creative spirit must be present. for example, when i cook, i love trying different things, and i never measure anything, so everytime things taste just that much different. in driving, however, i always want to talk the fastest path, which would mean, to me, that it isn't art.

so in this case, art is finite. meant to be enjoyed, then it ends.

put then there is art in truer forms: painting, sketching, sculpture, filmography, pottery, photography, etc. which last much longer. they can be damaged and forgotten, but then centuries later, someone finds them, and puts them on display, so i don't beleive that art can always be destroyed. sometimes it outlasts its people. tomorrow, an asteroid come hit earth and kill all the humans, then 10,000 years later, and alien race could come along, find the then buried ruins, and un-earth our art.

so in this case, art is never-ending. seen, studied, and enjoyed by the ages.


i think a better question is which is it that is remembered and studied, the art, or the artist's soul?


oh, and sorry if this isnt really thought out or is sloppy, or incoherent, but it is 2:30 in the am. oh, and remind me to argue with you about that third quote. or at least ask you to explain it

 

[Gameboy]

that's not true. impy-kohai makes himself look stupid by spamming to get his post count high, then bragging about it in another thread, then denying it. (actualy, i think it was the other imp that bragged, but either way spammers=evil that must be crushed)

oh, and you should blow some of your art up. just so it has as beautiful an end as possible. and if you can't do that, fire is alway's pretty, too. *slight piromaniac*

hey, wut kind of art do you do, anyway? i've more or less limited myself to drawing and painting... i've done sculptures, and stuff like that, but it is more annoying, imo. and also imo, if your art isn't something you enjoy, what is the point of it? surely expressing your soul at the cost of your happiness isn't worth it.


someone i know once said that she thought of art as anything done by humans. just by the sheer amount of choices, everything we do, from cooking, to driving, to typing a response on a internet website (ok, that last one i made up, but i'm sure she'd include it) gives everything we do the same unique-ness as our art.

i, personaly, can agree somewhat with this, but i think that the creative spirit must be present. for example, when i cook, i love trying different things, and i never measure anything, so everytime things taste just that much different. in driving, however, i always want to talk the fastest path, which would mean, to me, that it isn't art.

so in this case, art is finite. meant to be enjoyed, then it ends.

put then there is art in truer forms: painting, sketching, sculpture, filmography, pottery, photography, etc. which last much longer. they can be damaged and forgotten, but then centuries later, someone finds them, and puts them on display, so i don't beleive that art can always be destroyed. sometimes it outlasts its people. tomorrow, an asteroid come hit earth and kill all the humans, then 10,000 years later, and alien race could come along, find the then buried ruins, and un-earth our art.

so in this case, art is never-ending. seen, studied, and enjoyed by the ages.


i think a better question is which is it that is remembered and studied, the art, or the artist's soul?


oh, and sorry if this isnt really thought out or is sloppy, or incoherent, but it is 2:30 in the am. oh, and remind me to argue with you about that third quote. or at least ask you to explain it

Me too. Im a clay sculptor ( ive been inspired by taro okamoto since i was a child ). But i just hate the fact that i have to leave it in the sun for a long time for it to get solid. Clay sculpting is really hard, but fun. I create whatever i want to see in real life. Then after i create it, the final part of making it beautiful is destroying it. Just because i destroy my creations doesnt mean i hate it. Youve got it all wrong. I love my creations so much that i love seeing them go out in a nice way. people think im crazy because after i finish working hard on a sculpture, i destroy it. They ask me what the point was of doing making it. i tell them that is my belief of art, seeing my creations fade away. Thanks for your opinion. it was really interesting.

---

I think true art is both something that fades away and something eternal. For me, what defines something as art is very much dependent on the intentions of the creator. A work of modern art, such as Rothko's paintings or Noguchi's sculptures, is as much a piece of art as are works by Michelangelo. Similarly, the 'eternal' quality of Michelangelo's Pieta is to me as valuable and moving as the ephemerality of Goldsworthy's nature works. And of course, I don't limit my definition of art to the visual mediums - writing, music, dance, film - all of these things are art to me ^^

So, if destroying a piece of artwork is the way in which an artist's vision will ultimately be expressed, then yes, I consider that art. However, I do not believe all art should be limited to either form of expression.

Spoiler: Michelangelo's Pieta

Spoiler: Isamu Noguchi's Euripides

Spoiler: Mark Rothko's Green and Maroon

Spoiler: A work of Andy Goldsworthy's that I can't find the title to ^^;

Thanks Gameboy for this insightful topic, by the way

Thanks for your opinions on art. it was really interesting. Im glad i helped you find this topic insightful! Artists should express their art in a way that defines them.

 

[bax]

Hmm.. personally, I view art neither from if it's long lasting nor vice versa.

For me, art is something that people remember, some people cherish it and some people die for it. What makes something "art" in my view is that the beauty and the meanings behind it.

True art is the works of the soul, I agree with that completely. It doesn't matter if it's just for a flicker of moment like fireworks or able to withstand time like a stone sculpture, the true art behind the visible art we see with our eyes lies in the purpose and meaning of it.

In short art for me isn't counted from the tangibility of an item, it's the eternal memories of it what makes it valuable. Because what's the point of having a beautiful painting, without anyone remembering it.

 

[Zwivix]

Art to me is something that makes people think. Any work of art has to make you think, you can think anything good or bad of it, but if it made you think about it then it was successful in being art.

Anything can be art to me. From a painting and sculpture, to the way someone speaks or a dance ^^

 

[Gameboy]

Omg BAX that was so beautiful! I like your point of view on art!!! i agree somewhat too!

 

[Zwivix]

Was that to me or to bax? I might have posted right before you posted....

 

[Imperium]

De ja vu, this was one of my art teachers first questions when I started her class.

My view of true art is simple, it is not something that last forever but neither is something fleeting that never lasts, rather I believe art is truly individual, something that cannot be expressed through time. Because when one sees a true piece of art it makes them feel a mixture of emotions. Wether it is for a second or for years, the impression left on a person after seeing an insightful work of art stays with them forever. So it doesnt matter if it is fleeting or eternal because it is always with the person.

that's not true. impy-kohai makes himself look stupid by spamming to get his post count high, then bragging about it in another thread, then denying it. (actualy, i think it was the other imp that bragged, but either way spammers=evil that must be crushed)

;__________________________________;

And as i said boast is better than brag...

 

[_ATMA]

art is a number of things it totaly depends on how you view it, its something that will be forever in one form or another. i find programing to be a form of art but i find abstract "art" to be totaly stupid and not artistic. art its self something that is totaly in the mind of the creator and the person viewing that art.

now compare something like

Spoiler

while ($array = mysql_fetch_array($query)) {
if ($hC <= $_incDet['screenshotHeightcount']) {

if ($wC == 0) { $ss .= "<tr>"; }

$ss .= "<td". $_incDet['screenshotTdSpec'] ."><a href=\"screenshots.php?i=". $array['id'] ."\"><img src=\"screenshots.php?i=". $array['id'] ."&w=". $_incDet['screenshotWidth'] ."&h=". $_incDet['screenshotHeight'] ."\" /></a></td>";

if ($wC >= $_incDet['screenshotWidthcount']) {
$ss .= "</tr>";
$wC = 1;
$hC++;
}
else {
$wC++;
}
}

now which of those do u see as art?

---

true art imo is something that where the viewer feels what the artist is trying to catch or convey for the moment you are viewing it

 

[chison]

art make things effective...likes Graphic .p,d
art expression something...like fine art
art tell a story...like manga/comic/storyboard/
art make someone beautful ...like fashion/textile
art make life interesting...building design
art make life colourful...like music

unless we turn into a god of "having enough"...without a dream,without a purpose of living
i dn't think we will stop,
well,not in our lifetime...

 

[yoniekai]

as a kid i've been generalizing the definition, and i concluded that art is an expression of emotion. which holds true for all kinds of art.