you should expect commentators who have many years of understanding and contemplation on all these issues to be found here and it will be pointed out. — Punshhh

What will be pointed out?

I'm put off by the minutia. Actually, I'm put off by the idea that "art" can be dissected in the same way as a frog. As an artist, I feel like a frog. I feel like there's a scalpel slowly but surely incisionining a precise incision along my spine.

Actually, I'm put off by the idea that "art" can be dissected in the same way as a frog. As an artist, I feel like a frog. — Noble Dust

Well, unfortunately, it can be. Stop feeling so special.

Sure, present me with an argument.

About what?

About what "it" referred to in your post that I quoted.

About what "it" referred to in your post that I quoted. — Noble Dust

Art? Actually you seemed to be referring to yourself and art at the same time.

Are you asking me the question "Art?"

Yes, is that what you want me to present an argument on, or the artist?

Oh, I see now you edited your post from "art?" to "Art? Actually you seemed to be referring to yourself and art at the same time."

And now I'm confused...

Shall we start again?

If we're starting again, then this interests me the most:

Well, unfortunately, it can be. Stop feeling so special. — Brett

Edit: I drunkenly thought I had a good angle, but since I can't delete anything, this is a great piece of music that I love.

Yes. — Artemis

Do you actually reject all art that is not about beauty? And do you also reject the idea that beauty is cultural? — Brett

I’m not saying that it’s not about beauty, I’m saying it’s about experiencing beauty beyond our conventional sense of it. An artist is skilled in inducing an aesthetic experience, simply put, if only their own. The subject matter may not be what we typically regard as beautiful. — praxis

I think I already said this before but there's a need to divide art into two categories viz. the subjects of art and the process of art. By subjects of art I mean the main idea of an art piece. By the process of art I mean the methods by which the artist expresses the subjects of art. Veritably ugliness can be a subject of art but it appears to me that the artist must express ugliness in an aesthetic manner i.e. the process of art must contain some element of beauty. For instance there may be an ugly idea, say racism, that can be a subject of art but it must be expressed aesthetically if it is ever to be a work of art. We can't have an ugly subject of art expressed non-aesthetically (in an ugly way) because such a combination is clearly not art. Imagine a racist doing the monkey chant where clearly both the subject, racism, and the method of expression, the monkey chant, are ugly; nobody will every say that the racist was in the act of creating art. However, imagine a writer who's writing about racism and creates interesting, colorful and moving characters in his book; this is art because although the subject is ugly, the writer expressed it beautifully.

Ergo, art can be ugly but not wholly ugly - somewhere, either in its subject or in the method of the artist's expression of the subject or both, there has to be beauty.

Neither clumsy nor flat footed. I’m overwhelmed by the fact that someone can write this.

What?

The music you put up.

Oh, that? That's only the best piece of solo piano music ever composed.

However, imagine a writer who's writing about racism and creates interesting, colorful and moving characters in his book; this is art because although the subject is ugly, the writer expressed it beautifully. — TheMadFool

Sure, I understand.

That word “beautifully” is so open to misinterpretation.

I feel your pain.

P.s. thanks for bringing me to some great pieces of music.

Eh.... what??....

Sorry, grumpy old man syndrome. :ok:

I will respond to your posts later as I am out at the moment. But have you had a few drinks or something? You keep asking people to restate what they stated in the previous post, or the one before that.

You won't get any argument from me( tongue in cheek).

I was referring to the piece above and the Einojuhani Rautavaara piece.
Thanks again.

You keep asking people to restate what they stated in the previous post, or the one before that. — Punshhh

A bit of confusion between Noble Dust and me. All I’m asking from you is more clarification because posts on this forum can be very vague or imprecise which leads to misunderstanding.

My pleasure, I didn't realize you meant that. The fact alone that you enjoyed the Rautavaara piece is enough to make my day. :up:

Nah, don't include me. State your case clearly, with as few words as possible. I just did it myself.

let's start again and then come back to the issues.

This is a work I did last year, many people have said how they like it. What do you think lifts it above an average rendition of a hare by an amateur?



(A clue, it wasn't how well I depicted the hare.)

Nice post about creativity, I would say that there are artists who choose not to seek recognition for their work because it would become an unwanted pressure on their work, a pressure causing them wanting to please others in how they do their work. The work of these people may be discovered after their death or long after they made them and be regarded to have great creative merit by the art world in their absence.

Also in movements in art, there are groups who work together in some way and push forward as a group effort, such as surrealism and cubism.

I'm not sure of the artistic merit of this thread so far, but touch wood it might shine through at some point.

P.s. You can edit, when you click on the tree dots at the bottom of your post, you will see a pencil, click on that and you can then edit your post.