anonrobt
-
Posts
94 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by anonrobt
-
-
Now I understand what art is, but when at what point does "bad art" turn into "not art"? Sometimes I find myself thinking that something is "not art" when it might actually be "bad art". Similarly, I probably would consider paintings by impressionist artists (like Monet) to be art, although not very good art because I don't think they effectively show a selective or abstract re-creation of reality. I just have a hard time being able to judge whether art is just bad, or not art at all.
If it is not communicable, then it is not art, but gibberish - whether in writing, or visual, or aural...
-
Then there's John Scalzi's Old Man's War books... Scalzi is considered by many as a worthy successor to Heinlein...
-
Can you imagine public run schools offering decent education? I can't. Where I live all education is dictated by the government and education-wise I think most people would be better off on their own(and yes, you can actually learn to read, write etc. on your own).
Remember, at the beginning of this country, without 'public education', the literacy rate was around 95%, compared to today's at best 75%, and with all the public schooling about now... [see Gatto's The Underground History of American Education - http://www.amazon.com/Underground-History-...5895&sr=1-2 ]
-
what do you think of Yang ? as a landscapist...
-
-
The original notion of art, in the Greek, was 'skill of mind in making' [bowra, The Greek Experience]... by that standard, it was then accepted that cooking was or could be an art, as was much of fine craftmanship... it was not until within the past couple hundred years that there was an attempt to consider 'art' as 'fine art', for contemplative purpose - even as there are levels of art, and separating it from 'crafts', which was utilitarian... further, the original view had art meaning as much the 'other' use of the word, aesthetics [tho that word was not coined until about the same time 'fine art' came into being] - and thus both meanings are used to day under the same word 'art'... with the consequence of much confusion all around...
-
Two points I've not seen mentioned -
1) how to tell the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion...
2)
noting that the second part contradicts the first... to claim that artificially inducing birth [creating life, actually, by artificial means] means that the fetus was 'viable' is a falsity - if the fetus was miscarried at that time, it would NOT be viable, naturally, and only would possibly become so under artificial means...however, you should be aware that a baby can survive as an independent being after around 21 weeks, maybe earlier, maybe later - it depends on the child. should the mother be forced to have a c-section/induced birth at this point if she no longer wants to carry on with the pregnancy?so, in effect, you are creating an artificial ethics, not a natural one - a subjective one based on technological situations, not an objective one of the natural world... which, further, would mean different 'standards' depending where on the world ye happen to be at the time...
-
While there is nothing wrong with fantasy per se,
Please explain - since fantasy does not deal with the real... for the love of the technical aspects, this is really pandering to social metaphysics, claiming that the real world is, somehow, less than the fantasy one... no, it is not imaginative - that is different, reality oriented, and extrapolating to life enhancing possibles - fantasy is wishfulness of the non-real, perhaps once excusable eons ago when the world was not, for most, much more than drudgery, and the desire to escape to 'another world or realm' was the means of coping...
-
If I search on CafePress, I find dozens of "Who is John Galt?" bumper stickers. How does copyright work with these? Is it a sufficiently short sentence that copyright doesn't apply? Does the fact that they're being sold, rather than given away, change the determination?
And, to stay on topic for the forum... should copyright apply to such short phrases?
"Who is John Galt" , whether liked or not, has passed into the 'common vernacular' some forty years or so ago... like the smilies...
-
I'm not saying we can do it today...just that there's no reason to think it's impossible.
My reason for thinking that man-made things can be conscious? Because the unintelligent processes of nature created us. Unless there's some reason to think that the only way consciousness can exist is in the form that nature actually made it, then there is no reason to think that we cannot make artificial consciousness.
Actually, that is not quite true - unintelligent processes of nature evolved into lifeforms - and from that, evolved into volitionally conscious beings... the difference being that the evolving of consciousness, and then volitional consciousness, came as a consequence of the increase of survivability - it was, in essence, a practical matter - and that, to be effective, had to relate to the lifeform itself as an integrated continual of surviving.... it could not have come about as an 'end in itself'... unless the 'artificial intelligence' is integratedly tied to a survival mode, it cannot come into being...
-
That's not the right use of the phrase "social metaphysics", which is the idea that reality is created by the social realm. As Ayn Rand said, "Art is the selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments."
Actually, I was correct in using the phrase - but to rephrase it ---
It is interesting that in the area of aesthetics, there are so many social metaphysicians here...
-
Please. It says nothing about him the viewer other than the fact that he's aware that we wear clothing for several reasons and hence portraying people without clothing *conveys a definite meaning*. You can't evaluate an artwork shorn of the context of its creation, and the context here is a society where people wear clothing and do not display their pubic region to all and sundry. Thus, when you *intentionally* pose a woman to expose her in this manner, you are communicating something whether you like it or not. Complaining about the fact that people do perceive this is like complaining that people view you as a bum when you show up for a job interview wearing nothing but a torn t-shirt and stained boxer shorts.
Being an artist means knowing what your choices communicate and why--not that this is necessarily easy, but it has to be done.
It is interesting seeing how much social metaphysics is involved in aesthetics...
-
Link didn't work.
It does now...
-
Interesting question. In many ways individual tastes are involved here, but, regarding the first, the position looks uncomfortable to me and it seems to be focused on the genitals and not on the beauty of the woman. There is a sense in which seems more on the animal level in that regard and this distracts from the back ground, which, I agree, is nice. To put it in concrete terms, it is more like Penthouse than Playboy.
The second picture I think is harsh on the eyes. The woman isn't attractive. I mean, look at a woman like Angelina Jolie by way of comparison. I personally enjoy looking at Angelina's face. There is pleasure I derive from it. You can ask yourself the question "What is the source of that pleasure? How do I duplicate it in my renderings?" These are the sorts of questions an artist must think about.
If, for the moment, it was a clothed figure making the sand castles, would there still be the notion of 'uncomfortable' or 'unflattering' ? if so, what is this 'unflattering' - what makes it thus? if not, what is this saying of you the viewer?
-
When you put everything in full view, it takes away from the romantic nature of it,
Why?
What is 'everything', and why the 'not-desired-to-be-include' not romantic in nature - by what standard?
-
Kelly, I wasn't implying that you were prudish about the nude human form, but American society in general. I didn't care for the OP's drawings either. The latter ones are more like it.
Am assuming you did not care for "First the Sand...", and the reason was what -
it showed the sand castle maker from the rear?
it showed as such her pubes?
you would had rather she was sitting on the sand, rather than in the process of gathering more sand for more castle-making? or facing front, her back to the skyscraper in the distance?
Consider, for the moment, what is being shown in this rendering... instead of the usual male child making crude sand castles, here is a grown person, a young woman no less, doing this, and moreover is in a process of action - doing more castle-making... as the theme/title hints, this is a beginning, and the fact she is facing to the distant building is indicative of the future-oriented... in all of this, where is there to be a disliking, philosophically speaking - whether from a metaphysical, ethical, or aesthetic standpoint... in other words, here is a universe defined by the four walls around it - what, in this universe, is irrational? and if nothing is, why the disliking?
As for "Rite of Spring", it is is an unfinished work -
the forest trees will reach to the right end,
the ground will be more snowy formed,
the left rear ridge, with distant city skyline beyond, will be more definite,
the sprout will be in color,
as will the figure [thus taking care of the supposed lack of shading]
and the ground between them -
along with the lights of the distance buildings...
with 'seeing' these in mind, is there still a dislikeing of the idea of 'Mother Nature' giving Spring as an orgasmic action? if so, why? Allegories seem acceptable - Newberry, for instance, makes much use of them...
is it, perhaps, that the sexual nature of bringing forth Spring is an uncomfortable idea? too flaunting in the face of puritanical notions?
would it have looked more 'aesthetic' if the figure were turned?
if so, which direction - and why that one as another?
Remember, everything within the universe of a rendering is there because the artist considers it of fundamental importance in the context of what the theming is being shown... in looking at these works, did anyone bother seeking out just what the theme was, and how the showing exemplified the theming?
For that matter - the same with the other works shown ?
and along with this, why those other works are more liked?
-
Am planning to add the print service to this site next month, so if any be interested, then keep this in mind...
-
Well, the phrase "sense of life" relative to Objectivism is not exactly the same as "feel for life" in the artistic sense, in conveying movement and action.
For example, in Larsen's previously-mentioned Just the Beginning, he is clearly referencing a heroic "sense of life" in the Objectivist sense. However, the tone of the work is flat and uninspired, the woman does not seem to be something that moves about (ie. is alive), the buildings through the window have no depth, as though they are part of a poster, and even the colors are muted or dull. There is no feeling of action, which is the real essence of life. In the context of Quent Cordair's gallery and his posted biography there, I know he had good intentions. But the painting misses its mark and I do not have a high opinion of it.
Also, to elaborate, a frozen frame of reality would not accomplish his aim in depicting greatness because it would also include irrelevant or superfluous information, which would be hopelessly distracting. Art is about the most important.
And there is a difference between good painting and a good painting. For example, Larsen is good at painting certain kinds of cloth and clouds. But that isn't enough to make his work overall good. I think his best piece on the site is Born with Wings.
What, then, would you say to this work - View Master -
[4'x8' mural, acrylic on canvas]
-
remember, every work of art is itself a universe, self contained and created by the artist... so anything of 'message' must be seen therein, else is just garbled or garbage... the purpose of art is 'to show' what is to the artist important, omitting the non, thus showing the essence... that is what is meant by 'selective representation ' of the artist's metaphysical value-judgments...
Replying further here - from my blog of a few years ago, under The Nature of a Rendering -
One of the things which needs correcting on is a misconception that titles are extraneous fixture to all but literature... wrong... titles[or theme/titles, as I prefer to consider them ] are, properly, as much an integral part of the rendering as is the case with writing... perhaps it is more so, since it is the key to elevating the rendering from just a 'sense of life' to something more... initially, of course, the viewer is drawn to the visual work sans anything else about it... without knowing ANYTHING else - artist, title, era in which done - the work is first viewed as a glimpse into a self-contained world... it is seen as a universe on its own... within that framework, tho, there is much which can be gleamed... the metaphysical view, for instance, is instantly discernible - there is a vast difference in how a benevolent universe view contrasts with a malevolent one... is it a world of flux, or is it one of identity? if a landscape, are there vegetation, or is it barren? if vegetation, are they blooming, dying, or dead? are animals in health, or malformed? the humans - happy, serious, fearful? are the colors bright or murky? is it viewed with clarity, or is it as if from a nearsighted without glasses? what is the most prominent feature - the main focus? how is humanity placed within this universe? what size - larger than life, or tiny and insignificant? if no figures, what are the main entities - how are they placed? is there a significant difference of size between setting and object? is the emphasis placed more on one thing than another? figures - their posture: upright and proud or elegant, or bent and awkward? is the painting smeared or distorted, or orderly and complex? the light - bright, or subdued? in still life, are the objects glistening, or tarnished? are they solid, or fractured?
-
Yes - and Atlas had to be tricked into resuming holding the world, too, for not having to was a great relief...
-
Perhaps I should make a refinement here and wonder - what is the purpose of nakedness in the arts, and why, if it is an essential aspect of depicting figures, is it not more utilized instead of the clothed? and the corresponding of if it is not an essential, why not?
This is what I wrote a few years ago in my blog on the matter -
Perhaps the most troubling aspect, when dealing with figures in a work, is whether or not to clothe them... most artists do not, as said, think in terms of the fact that whatever is included within a work is, by the fact that it is included, of fundamental importance... by the same token, what is NOT included is also making a statement of fundamental importance - the fact that it is not considered of major importance... clothing, even for an artist, is generally regarded as a norm... yet the fact that a naturalness - nudity - is being covered, is making a statement regarding one's relationship with the universe...as Rand pointed out, 'Art is not the means of literal transcription... this is the difference between a work of Art and a news story or a photograph.'... as such, what is shown in a work of Art pertains to one's fundamental view of a person's relationship to reality - which is why so many artists use the nude in their works, to establish the sense of universality, that what is shown pertains to all time... to a rational person, there is no problem - what is pro-human is to the good; what glorifies and/or accentuates human qualities is to the good [and a person's sexuality is very certainly a human quality] [and the first step towards showing that is portraying the naked figure]... the difficulty, then, lies in confronting the culture, which is, in many respects, in am anti-human viewing of one's self - thanks to the religions within it... because this has been the dominant - indeed, for most, the ONLY known code - there is difficulty in being able to mount a cognitive defense against it for most artists... even more confounding is being able to express sexuality of humans in a work - indeed, one would have less problems showing a bull mounting a cow than to humans lovemaking - and oddly enough, easier to show lovemaking than to showing explicit sexual arousal... in common parlance, this is called pornography - in fact, it is a religious attack on the sexual nature of human beings, and it is in knowing the nature and proper purpose of Art, and the rational ethics behind that purpose, that there can be a defense against this anti-human ranting...
I can only say this how I personal considered the matter - and still do if not in more firmer a stance, tho at times wonder if am rationalizing my love of the naked figure more than objectively justifying it in my renderings... I say this because am very noticing how religion plays its anti-human view on the cultural scene [having, for instance, been for a time a member of a nudist resort], and finding myself more prone to want to rant against this as a moral issue, throwing it back at them, even as I know it only, despite its perhaps correct stance, infuriates others and does not resolve the issue in a diplomatic manner... if it were only a popularity matter and nothing to inhibit my being able to show my works, the less-than-diplomatics would not bother me - but alas there are consequences...
-
One of the things I am always coming into conflict with others is the issue of having naked figures in my works... not mere nudity, where some flesh is shown yet sex organs are hid, but the full unabashed naked figure, showing her nakedness as needed in whatever posing is required for the theme/title of the rendering...
for instance,
or the as yet unfinished
"Rite of Spring" [clicking the image enlarges it]
Is there any Objective validity to omitting what is as much a part of being human as the lusciousness of the mouth, or any other part of the body - is sexuality, not mere sensuality, a non-essential aspect to being human, or should it be as gloriously shown as much as the mindfulness of the figure's activities?
This is wondered about because other artists have indicated that nakedness supposedly diverts what is of importance in the showing, something which I question for the reason stated, that I consider it an integrated aspect of being human and thus has as much validity in being there as any other part of the body...
-
Interesting, but not, all things considered, to be surprised at...
-
QUOTE (AndrewSternberg @ Jan 23 2009, 03:08 PM) *
Does a work of art speak for itself or must one's esthetic evaluation of it take into consideration the artist's intended "message"?
remember, every work of art is itself a universe, self contained and created by the artist... so anything of 'message' must be seen therein, else is just garbled or garbage... the purpose of art is 'to show' what is to the artist important, omitting the non, thus showing the essence... that is what is meant by 'selective representation ' of the artist's metaphysical value-judgments...
Contemporary Classical/Romantic Music?
in Music
Posted
...
There is [was] also Alan Hovhaness... http://www.hovhaness.com/