Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Artistic Evolution
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
DeadAwake



Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 548
Location: Aus.
 Reply with quote  

Is art evolving? What constitutes good art or valuable art? Interesting that you bring up purpose behind art, cause that is not something we do not tend to see behind art. It may or may not be there.

There seems to be much imitation in art, or is that just because more and more has been done, there is less and less to do. Or at least, it has become more difficult to do something new. By its nature, is part of its foundation in imitation?

I would contend that in art, there may be more important things then originality as well. I think striving to be original for the sake of being original has become unoriginal.
Post Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:56 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
coolerthanhot



Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Posts: 29
 Reply with quote  

^gonna respond to this in detail when I get home

Sage Francis wrote:
It's funny how we'll grumble about low activity on the forum but then whenever new users show up they get trolled until they leave. haha. Again, not complaining. Just an observation.


THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T EVOLVE.


It's not unusual for forums to be that way. Especially male-dominated forums.

I wasnt sure how you would respond but I kind of anticipated some snarky comments from forum regulars when I made the thread

Dudes just tend to do that shit when someone new approaches whatever they perceive to be their clique
Post Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7625
 Reply with quote  

DeadAwake wrote:
Is art evolving? What constitutes good art or valuable art? Interesting that you bring up purpose behind art, cause that is not something we do not tend to see behind art. It may or may not be there.

There seems to be much imitation in art, or is that just because more and more has been done, there is less and less to do. Or at least, it has become more difficult to do something new. By its nature, is part of its foundation in imitation?

I would contend that in art, there may be more important things then originality as well. I think striving to be original for the sake of being original has become unoriginal.


i just like to make stuff, therapeutic to the user, when it comes down to it im going to make it anyways regardless always, thats just me ,thats how i am, show and tell syndrome, but i dont always tell, i believe all artists of all mediums do this to some degree
Post Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2540
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  

Mr Comma has arrived. Nuero, i'm taking your goddamn comma priveledges. ;)
Post Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:02 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7625
 Reply with quote  

my commas put you in a coma
Post Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:11 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Szechwan



Joined: 19 Mar 2007
Posts: 585
Location: Vancouver Island
 Reply with quote  

You stick out like a dick on a cake if you're not used to the conversation around here.

One of my first posts was in a general merch thread explaining a lost SFR order or something; Michaelmichaelmotorcycle promptly tricked me into emailing him about it. Guard has been up since, just like yours will be from here on out, young coolerthan.
Post Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:43 am
 View user's profile Send private message
coolerthanhot



Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Posts: 29
 Reply with quote  

DeadAwake wrote:
Is art evolving? What constitutes good art or valuable art? Interesting that you bring up purpose behind art, cause that is not something we do not tend to see behind art. It may or may not be there.

There seems to be much imitation in art, or is that just because more and more has been done, there is less and less to do. Or at least, it has become more difficult to do something new. By its nature, is part of its foundation in imitation?

I would contend that in art, there may be more important things then originality as well. I think striving to be original for the sake of being original has become unoriginal.


I would say that art is always evolving, yes. I'm not so interested in applying 'good' or 'bad' to the term. But I would argue that some things, including some music, are not actually art. Art always has at least one purpose; expression of the artist. If what is being created is not expressing anything that artist feels (for example maybe it only expresses what they perceive as marketable to a demographic) then in my opinion it is not really art.

Imitation.. I wouldn't say that that is the correct term. Yes often people express what they feel upon exposure to something, their response if you will. This might have similarities to the subject or object - but are they imitating it, or simply responding to it?

As for originality, I would agree with you that it is not the most important thing. Obviously it is a huge plus when someone creates something unlike (or less like) what has been see prior. But if it is not honest, if it is not expressing anything real and vital within the artist themselves, the flavor is...well, I would say far less interesting.
Post Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:40 am
 View user's profile Send private message
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6338
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

So... Are video games art?
Post Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6278
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

T-Wrex wrote:
So... Are video games art?


Post Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:30 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7625
 Reply with quote  

T-Wrex wrote:
So... Are video games art?



i think the real question people are trying to ask when this comes up is actually
" are video games fine art? "
Post Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
DeadAwake



Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 548
Location: Aus.
 Reply with quote  

My questions were intended to be rhetorical, to serve as "food for thought", getting the sphere of the mind to begin rolling tangentally and gain momentum in a different direction. Or at least, somewhat, counteract the current current.

I would not say art is always evolving. Absolutely not. Nor would i say humans evolve constantly. In fact, i believe originally or formerly art and the evolution of art was meant to coincide with the evolution of humans, working on parallel lines. Or be one catalyst for it.
Post Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:25 am
 View user's profile Send private message
coolerthanhot



Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Posts: 29
 Reply with quote  

iz u goin to provide a basis for your beliefs

hard to debate when u offer no reasoning


and are we using the darwinian definition of evolution? or some other interpretation?
i actually wasnt certain if i feel that art is 'evolving', it really depends how youre using the word. its always changing for sure, in response to changes in human consciousness and technology


without even knowing your argument i strongly disagree that art as a whole is/was 'meant' to do anything. that sounds like a religious statement
Post Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:18 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8422
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Are we not reaching the point where some technology is functional art? Is there not a point where all technology could be considered art by some distant and unfamiliar group of people, ignorant to the ways of the Earthpeople? A brilliantly designed car possesses the power of a statue, and the glittering shapes and colors of an iPad, or even a Windows screensaver, resemble something artistic, especially to someone uninitiated to their intended use.

And if we're talking conventionally excepted art, of course it's evolving. Artists are finding new and different mediums to express their ideas, and the divides became classical and modern art are often incredibly obvious. Attendant to this is perhaps the more important point: that our conceptions of what art is are constantly evolving as well. For example, I went to the fantastic art museum in Milwaukee (I have forgotten it's former name, but it's right on Lake Michigan) and there was a whole wing dedicated to sculptures made from ordinary objects like buttons and pins. There was even an entire wall, I want to say 20 x 15, made from varying lengths of plastic straws that formed a cloud-like impression. Some people will find this to plain and even un-artistic, but to me it was a phenomenal expression of what art could be.

On that note, the only real difference between art and fine art is cultural perception. For a long time, and even still into the present, Native American art has not been considered fine because it does not bear the trademarks of Western art. It seems primitive, savage, and even barbaric, but it is recognized as different from Western traditions. This is why it is typically not included in art museums, but in 'natural history' or specific cultural museums. This separation ignores that what is anthropological to one group is the highest artistic expression to another, and imposes a dominant interpretation upon the latter. There is actually a really great and interesting book on this subject by an old mentor of mine, Susan Sleeper-Smith, called Contesting Knowledge: Museums and Indigenous Perspectives. It's an edited volume, so there are a lot of different approaches to the topic within.

I'm also not sure how people can deny the evolution of the human race. We are living longer, are generally healthier, and are at the point where genetic engineering is becoming a real thing. We have evolved so much that we have defied basic biological rules and outgrown our ecosystem, as it were, to the point where environmental damage is becoming a serious issue. At the same time, it seems merely academic to try and assess the evolution of anything, given our short span of time on this earth and the longue duree process of genetic change. What does this have to do with art? One thing that hasn't changed, but only become more sophisticated (and weirder) is body art. As yet this has not shifted into the functional category, i.e. where implants serve more than an aesthetic purpose, but I suspect the time is coming when this will occur. I'm not talking about singularity, though that has some connotations here, but I do think that humans will figure out ways to successfully introduce advanced computerized systems into the body that blur the lines between man and machine. Undoubtedly this will also bring about changes in the human aesthetic, like some dude will attach functional wings to himself, and biomechanical gills will adorn the necks of deep-sea divers. This will of course be perceived by some as abominable, but it will also mark a paradigmatic change in what constitutes human nature. I guarantee you this change will be reflected in the art of that period.
Post Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:48 am
 View user's profile Send private message
coolerthanhot



Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Posts: 29
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:

I'm also not sure how people can deny the evolution of the human race. We are living longer, are generally healthier


im afraid i have some bad news for you
Post Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:02 am
 View user's profile Send private message
coolerthanhot



Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Posts: 29
 Reply with quote  

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/health/17obese.html?_r=0
Post Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:03 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:25 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon