Jump to content

Is This Art? Debatable Issue...


Recommended Posts

I like Conceptual Art,like Dennis Oppenheim's piece with his son below; and the simple but profound Japanese Sculpture.

post-9348-0-41345500-1373386032_thumb.jp

Edited by gaqo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hope you have speakers with your pc walnutcowboy you are in for a nice surprise

There's a few statements that hit me; 'capitalism will absorb everything, even those opposed to capitalism', and in some books they reach a point where they say 'from now onwards, I don't have the lan

Posted Images

Effect of music is very problematic from evolutionary point of wiew:

-I mean spiritual music acts as a sophoriphic. It makes us tranquil, and less aware of our surroundings.

 

Now, think what happened to those humans that fell half asleep when listening to the tranquil birdsongs in the jungle. They were eaten by beasts!

-So how has this effect been imprinted in our genes???

 

It really makes no sense...

Authentically spurious or sardonically facetious? As a sound artist, I went around listening to everthing through a microphone/amplifier/headphones; and lost all the sound filters that we develop to stop ourselves being overloaded by all the noise in the modern world. I think my hearing is now akin to pre-modern age humans, I hear everything, even a tiger breathing 500 m away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Authentically spurious or sardonically facetious? As a sound artist, I went around listening to everthing through a microphone/amplifier/headphones; and lost all the sound filters that we develop to stop ourselves being overloaded by all the noise in the modern world. I think my hearing is now akin to pre-modern age humans, I hear everything, even a tiger breathing 500 m away. 

Trance like state we find ourselves when listening to spiritual music would really be a hindrance to human development.

-our ancestors, the pre humans in raiforest would be in trouble!

 

Not a survival skill, hence it should not exist. And I'm being quite serious here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ART is therapeutic! It's good for you! Getting messy using your hands. It is a cathartic process for the artist as well as for the viewer to enjoy it. I could mention piles of books where this therapeutic effect is explained in great depth.

 

@Gaqo thanks to bring to our attention Dennis Oppenheim as a "land art" artist and more. I've just learned he died in 2011.

Do you happen to know why he drew strange diagrams on the back of the models?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ART is therapeutic! It's good for you! Getting messy using your hands. It is a cathartic process for the artist as well as for the viewer to enjoy it. I could mention piles of books where this therapeutic effect is explained in great depth.

 

@Gaqo thanks to bring to our attention Dennis Oppenheim as a "land art" artist and more. I've just learned he died in 2011.

Do you happen to know why he drew strange diagrams on the back of the models?

Definetly cathartic. That makes me sad to think he died recently. His work was a revelation to me. That's his son drawing a picture on his back, which his son has formed in his mind. He has then transfered the image through his hands, onto his father's back. Dennis feels the drawing, and forms an image of it in his mind, which he then transfers through his hands to the board. I suppose it about the flow of an image from one generation to another. I was thinking if you had ten people you could play 'chinese whispers' with the image!

Edited by gaqo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a few statements that hit me; 'capitalism will absorb everything, even those opposed to capitalism', and in some books they reach a point where they say 'from now onwards, I don't have the language to express my meaning'(I'm paraphrasing both badly!). I think as we work our way into art we move through all the different forms(impressionism,expressionism,etc), but I like 'art that doesn't exist for arts sake', I like art that challenges, is radical, has meaning(perfect for this thread!). I'll keep looking for examples, to post. There's this Japanese guy who builds wooden sculptures on the side of modern buildings, but I've forgotten his name! I have to go to Japan!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wannamaker What do you think of the Guerrilla Girls? They combine performance,activism and art, often in a humourous and challenging way. 

ah guerrilla girls! I just read about them from an art history book!

-theyve been around for ages, it seems!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah guerrilla girls! I just read about them from an art history book!

-theyve been around for ages, it seems!!!

You could say that about alot of art, strangely enough! If you count the pyramids as art, and who wouldn't! All that's left after civilizations have risen, gone through the hedonistic phase, and disappeared back into the dust is art;cave art,reliefs,paintings,music, literature,sculptures,monuments. So the only record of those people, how they lived their lives, is their art!

Edited by gaqo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although wether the cave paintings are real art is to be determined

-to me, no.

 

Lot of cave art and cliff painings were done for very utilitarian purposes. For example, here in finland, cliff painings were used as guide for navigating the thousands of labyrinthine lakes of finland, and marking fishing territories of different tribes. So, while some people think them art, I cannot agree. I mean are todays traffic signs art???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if we can read them in the same way as the creators intended them. If you think how much of a problem we had with hieroglyphs, for example. Some cave paintings have been found a long way down through dark tunnels, which to humans at that time must have been a frightening descent, in near darkness, and are considered 'spiritual' in content. I do like the idea that if instrument makers want to recreate medieval instruments, the only record they have is paintings from that time. This whole concept of art representing humans at a certain point in time, makes me wonder how future historians, in say five millennia, will view us, based on contemporary art? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although wether the cave paintings are real art is to be determined

-to me, no.

 

Lot of cave art and cliff painings were done for very utilitarian purposes. For example, here in finland, cliff painings were used as guide for navigating the thousands of labyrinthine lakes of finland, and marking fishing territories of different tribes. So, while some people think them art, I cannot agree. I mean are todays traffic signs art???

 

Well that's your opinion...however, I do not understand your post very well...and what your viewpoint is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many historian say cave art was very rare, and therefore sacred and special.

 

They are imbeciles.

 

Let us consider the facts:

 

Specialists and historians agree that cave paintings we know are extremely well drawn.

-they were made by people who knew how to paint, and who were extremely practiced and skilled at the art.

 

This is a fact.

 

Now, how did they became so skilled at drawing animals?

-With practise. Lots of practise.

 

They must have painted hundreds of cave and cliff faces, to get that good.

 

also, there must have been paint making skills that were passed from master to disciple for generations.

 

This must mean the following:

-there was a lot of cave and cliff paintings done in that era. A lot.

 

And that means the paintings were very commonplace in that era. Therefore they could not have been very sacred.

 

Of course, most paintings have been lost to the ravages of time. Only ones left, are the ones in deepest caves, where forces of nature or humans could not touch them and destroy them.

 

So, those cave paintings we have now, were not the only ones in the era. They're just the ones that survived.

 

Now that's logic. There's no need to become spiritual and mystic about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I don't care if you have a different opinion, as long as you keep making me laugh! I've decided the worst people are those with no opinions, combined with no humour. It's bizarre that at Lascaux 2, they public are now viewing copies of the originals, seems a bit of a cheat. I'd pay them with fake money! It is possible that since those paintings can date back 40,000 years, it indicates that humans had reached a level of sophistication, by the quality of the art, but only had limited technology!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found solid proof why the cave paintings cannot be spiritual in nature!

-I will tell you tomorrow.

 

But now I just have to say this:

 

The best cave paintings in europe are so refined, both in technique and in style, that there must be a history behind them.

-a complete art history, spanning hundreds of years.

 

Because such fine art does not just appear out of thin air.

 

Such fine art tells that there is an institution of art in the society. A system of masters and apprentices. A style, refined over generations.

 

Also, the paints used are of such quality that it tells there must have been 'professional' paint makers in those early societies.

 

So, art must have been an istitution ever back then. Who knows, there might even have been a school of artists in some village, where gifted boys of the tribe were send to learn the art of making paints and painting.

 

As to what the art was used for: In my opinion the art was used to record the history of the tribes. there was no written language, and spoken language was rather crude too, so the best way to remember past victories and event was to paint them. Most were probably painted on skins of animals, but walls and barks were used too.

 

So, no need to bring spirituality into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe art has always been the main language of humans(cuneiform, hierogyphs, symbols,etc), I find words don't really match what I'm trying to say. When I say 'spirituality', I mean our innate belief in something greater, than our petty needs and desires. Maybe we need to believe there is more to all our trials than just eating, sex and death. Otherwise we are all just nihilists, and they don't smile much!  I suppose without cave paintings, we would have a very different understanding of early humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many historian say cave art was very rare, and therefore sacred and special.

 

They are imbeciles.

 

Let us consider the facts:

 

Specialists and historians agree that cave paintings we know are extremely well drawn.

-they were made by people who knew how to paint, and who were extremely practiced and skilled at the art.

 

This is a fact.

 

Now, how did they became so skilled at drawing animals?

-With practise. Lots of practise.

 

They must have painted hundreds of cave and cliff faces, to get that good.

 

also, there must have been paint making skills that were passed from master to disciple for generations.

 

This must mean the following:

-there was a lot of cave and cliff paintings done in that era. A lot.

 

And that means the paintings were very commonplace in that era. Therefore they could not have been very sacred.

 

Of course, most paintings have been lost to the ravages of time. Only ones left, are the ones in deepest caves, where forces of nature or humans could not touch them and destroy them.

 

So, those cave paintings we have now, were not the only ones in the era. They're just the ones that survived.

 

Now that's logic. There's no need to become spiritual and mystic about it.

 

@Sherminator

 

From just reading the first two paragraphs of yours... I had to stop reading you :D

 

Historians are not imbecils but perhaps critics are ...

 

Serious historians base their arguments on facts whereas critics on various self projected opinionated speculations.

 

My opinion in a few sentences? The cave paintings are super! They are artfacts on their own right. I've been in Altamura caves (Spain) They are mitical and magical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's something I'd like to do, go down into the Earth, and experience the art, as it was created. To them those places were 'special', 'spiritual'. It must be like visiting a modern spiritual place, it contains a certain energy. Even modern art galleries, have that aura, like visiting a shrine to culture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it pleases the court, I have here two pieces of solid proof why those heathen cave paintings cannot be spiritual in nature.

Firstly:

Spiritual people are very egoistic. Fact.
When spiritual people do spiritual stuff, they want to have a big audience. They want to be as visible as possible, and make as much noise as possible, while they are doing their spiritual stuff.

So, would a spiritual person go to a very remote, dark cave to paint a spiritual mural?
-I do not think so!

A spiritual stoneage artist would do his painting in as visible place as possible, to attract a crowd.
-They would also choose a place where the painting would be seen by all.

So, they would choose a outdoor cliff wall for their art, rather than some remote, hard to reach, pitch black cave.

So, based on the psychological profile of these so called spiritualists, those cave painting could not have been done by spirtiual people. So, they cannot be spiritual in nature.

At this point I would like the jury to consider spiritual people of today:
-popes, gurus, preachers, they all want to be seen by all. They really are egoists. And when they pray, they want a crowd of thousands to admire them. No lonely cell for them!

And spiritual gurus? even worse! For example, there's gurus who lived on top of a pole, in middle east!
-not because it was spiritual. -No, they lived on top of a pole because that way everyone could see them for miles, and think, man that's one spiritual dude!!!

Also, think of spiritual people in backward tribes of the Amazons (the place, not the website)
-Their witch-doctors are very egoistic indeed. They are the loudests and the most colourful of their people, and they are pathologically obsessed at being the center of attention in every tribal business, be it a hunt or a funeral.

Egoism, pure and simple, dominates the minds of spiritualists and mystics.

 

-Objection your honour! That is pure slander! -Wannamaker

 

-Overruled. Proceed, sherm, but try to keep it short. -Tripper

Very well. I shall move to my second point of proof:

Spiritual art is of very low quality.
-whereas those cave paintings are very high quality indeed.

So, they could not be spiritual in nature.

Again, consider the spiritual, or new age artists of today:
Their inferior, badly executed paintings are full of dolphins, milkyways, dolphins swimming in the milkyway, and, worst of all, floating people with auras around them.
-they are not the kind of expressionist rubbish an art critic wants to see on full stomach.

And as you can see fro exhibit c, d, and e, dolphins, milkyways and auras are mercifully absent in cave paintings.

I rest my case, your honour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it pleases the court, I have here two pieces of solid proof why those heathen cave paintings cannot be spiritual in nature.

Firstly:

Spiritual people are very egoistic. Fact.

When spiritual people do spiritual stuff, they want to have a big audience. They want to be as visible as possible, and make as much noise as possible, while they are doing their spiritual stuff.

So, would a spiritual person go to a very remote, dark cave to paint a spiritual mural?

-I do not think so!

A spiritual stoneage artist would do his painting in as visible place as possible, to attract a crowd.

-They would also choose a place where the painting would be seen by all.

So, they would choose a outdoor cliff wall for their art, rather than some remote, hard to reach, pitch black cave.

So, based on the psychological profile of these so called spiritualists, those cave painting could not have been done by spirtiual people. So, they cannot be spiritual in nature.

 

 

The caves were special not only for representing the mural depictions but more importantly rituals were held there almost daily. Of course there were other external sites but those caves were sheltering by protecting them from wildlife animals attacks. Primitive indigenous people worshipped hunting and by the  act of painting those symbol-like-wild-creatures they would in a way take hold of the surrounding fauna and control it in secret. It was a sacred refuge for that people, a safe place from the dangers of the outside world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egoism, pure and simple, dominates the minds of spiritualists and mystics.

 

-Objection your honour! That is pure slander! -Wannamaker

 

-Overruled. Proceed, sherm, but try to keep it short. -Tripper

 

:p :D :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we work our way, through the whole history of art, doing detailed counter analysis, until we reach the future. I always noticed the sculptures, and art in Star Trek. I think that cave dwellers, were just either painting their homes. Some caves would have inspired higher feelings! I looked up The Altimira caves. The bison are very sophisticated, and were probably, painted over a more basic, earlier attempt. I'm sure someone must have carbon dated some charchol used to draw sketch. I think they probably worshipped the Earth, Sun and Moon. Therefore painting down into the Earth was a gesture. Your last idea about the quality of spiritual art, the words' 'scraping' and 'barrel', flash before me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we work our way, through the whole history of art, doing detailed counter analysis, until we reach the future. I always noticed the sculptures, and art in Star Trek. I think that cave dwellers, were just either painting their homes. Some caves would have inspired higher feelings! I looked up The Altimira caves. The bison are very sophisticated, and were probably, painted over a more basic, earlier attempt. I'm sure someone must have carbon dated some charchol used to draw sketch. I think they probably worshipped the Earth, Sun and Moon. Therefore painting down into the Earth was a gesture. Your last idea about the quality of spiritual art, the words' 'scraping' and 'barrel', flash before me!

 

Yes indeed they are sophisticated @Gaqo

 

It was a very simple technique to begin with...and very well known to say the least. It is still used by some muralists in nature nowadays. They were inspired and used the natural embossing of the bumpy rock walls of the caves... to suggest the initial relief of the design. Once satisfied by their shape and form jotted down...they'd  colour and countour it with the charcoals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.