The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is a musician always an artist? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 17th January 2017
  #361
This was actually the result of human effort.... It is in front of a TV studio building in the town where I live.

Regarding art I stick to my comment on the first page, and in that sense this I say this turd is art.
Old 17th January 2017
  #362
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
So Groucho must be an artist! Or is he? Are these photos art? Only the ******* ******** know for sure!









He obviously an artist - I mean the French thinks so...nuff said.

Marx Bros, Three Stooges, Jerry Lewis - the holy comedic trinity for them Frenchies...I give them credit for that, despite many other myriad misgivings...
Old 17th January 2017
  #363
********** ********** is the name of the headoffice where the root of all art resides, also known as SHHHHHHHT!
Old 17th January 2017
  #364
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Your own posts?
Guess again.


Quote:
No, not really. You said:

"it still just comes down to what people like or don't like, or however they want to label people and their work."

And that indeed does sound like to you it won't ever matter what we say here, or how we view things or how we reason to come to conclusions, because the generic "people" "like" what they "like", and that's art. So Justin Bieber is art, Britney Spears is art, Milli Vanilli is art etc. With what seems to be your view that is obviously true, and completely disconnected from quality, I agree with that logic.

I just don't agree with that line of reasoning, in part because there is a not insignificant part of our community of creators that actually do make a distinction such as some of us here have already made.... again...
As far as subjective labels go.

I never said anything about skill or snowflakes.

Why can't people just say, I think so and so is skilled. I think so and so is great.

Quote:
Not to you it won't. You've clearly closed your mind to it.
I tried to understand the point of what you were saying. Sincerely. But your attitude is quite unpleasant and condescending. So you're right in that regard. I have closed my mind to you, and no longer care what you have to say!
Old 17th January 2017
  #365
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozmik Prod. View Post
One thing is for shure, since the start of this discussion less art was made
I wish less art was made. "Artists" need to think more about quality rather than quantity.
Old 17th January 2017
  #366
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
I tried to understand the point of what you were saying. Sincerely. But your attitude is quite unpleasant and condescending. So you're right in that regard. I have closed my mind to you, and no longer care what you have to say!
Like I said, you're not open to question your beliefs on this.

You and some others here seem to view art and artists a certain way, with specific emotional connotations that go with it, and then use those connotations and that way of thinking and apply that to what other people are proposing. And that's why you end up with a disconnect.

"We" aren't saying that a mother shouldn't "like" her child's paintings for example, but it's (in retrospect) easy to see how someone would think so IF they use their views on the subject and interject that into what other people are saying. So they can have their opinion about it, but their conclusions are dead wrong when they then apply it to other people.

So there's nothing "condescending" about what I'm saying, that's all in your head because of your preconceived notion of what I'm talking about and not inherent in what I'm saying with regards to the arts.

I do understand however if you find it unpleasant, and that really just goes back to what I mentioned not long ago regarding on what level one wants to have a conversation.

I'll put you back on ignore now and we can just ignore each other; deal?
Old 17th January 2017
  #367
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Well, literally speaking, the question actually really was whether or not some people were artists, not whether or not they or their art was good.
And I'm saying that's the wrong question to ask. Of course musicians are artists. I think as a broad starting point, the most open and logically consistent definition of artist would have to include:
1: anybody who wishes to call themselves an artist or call their work art. and
2: anyone who works in the areas commonly and traditionally considered art (painting, music, theater, dance, literature, etc.) whether they consider themselves artists or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
But let me ask then:

- Can you give an example of something man-made that is not art?
- If you can, how do you know it is not art?
I think my definition up there sets up a reasonable starting point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Either way I'd rather be called a skilled non-artist craftsman than a crappy artist.
That's a strange point of view to me. So you want to make art, but you don't want to be judged alongside the greats who came before you, so you claim to not be an artist. That's kind of a cop out, isn't it?
Old 17th January 2017
  #368
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
1. is there such a thing as 'good art' and 'bad art'?

to my personal taste there is - I'll know it when I see it
Exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
2. am I willing to accept someone else's personal taste as the yardstick? No.
Agreed but I would rather have somebody say that I make bad art than to say that I'm not an artist at all. That's an incredibly condescending point of view to take, especially when people try to apply it to artists who are highly successful in their field!

The history of critics, academics, and other experts building canons of acceptable art is of course full of people who overlooked the contributions of people of color, women, non-western cultures, etc. Anyone who claims to have an objective judgement on what is or isn't art is inevitably full of their own cultural biases. At least if you label good vs bad art that's a subjective value judgement. But if you're saying that a particular artist's work isn't even worthy of being considered art you're claiming a more objective categorization and potentially erasing an artist's contributions from history simply because their process or their values don't align with your own.
Old 17th January 2017
  #369
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
And I'm saying that's the wrong question to ask.
Fine, but it is the question he asked. Perhaps if there's a better question a thread can be made especially for it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
Of course musicians are artists. I think as a broad starting point, the most open and logically consistent definition of artist would have to include:
1: anybody who wishes to call themselves an artist or call their work art. and
2: anyone who works in the areas commonly and traditionally considered art (painting, music, theater, dance, literature, etc.) whether they consider themselves artists or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc

But let me ask then:

- Can you give an example of something man-made that is not art?
- If you can, how do you know it is not art?
I think my definition up there sets up a reasonable starting point.
But I didn't ask for a "starting point", I asked you for an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
That's a strange point of view to me. So you want to make art, but you don't want to be judged alongside the greats who came before you, so you claim to not be an artist. That's kind of a cop out, isn't it?
But that isn't what I said!

You commented on something that I didn't think had been proposed here, and wrote in that sentence "to give or take the mantle of artist away from the person doing the work". To me that implies that there's some emotion that goes along with being labeled an "artist" by other people. And so I thought what you were implying was that it was somehow offensive or otherwise emotionally 'negative' when a person who wants to be an artist is not seen as an artist.

All I said was that I would rather be praised for what I do well regardless of how it's classified than be classified according to my wishes but then judged negatively on that. It's not a cop-out, it's just explaining that not everybody is all hung-up on the label when it is or isn't being applied to them.
Old 17th January 2017
  #370
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post

So there's nothing "condescending" about what I'm saying, that's all in your head because of your preconceived notion of what I'm talking about and not inherent in what I'm saying with regards to the arts.

I do understand however if you find it unpleasant, and that really just goes back to what I mentioned not long ago regarding on what level one wants to have a conversation.
The unpleasantness has nothing to do with the arts and whatever your ideas are. In fact, I was asking what your ideas are, trying to get you to explain it clearly, what the point was....

It's the little sort of personal snide underhanded things you pepper your posts with that are unpleasant, and the last was so useless and snotty that I realized I was truly wasting my time and the conversation with you was pointless and nothing but unpleasant.

Go ahead and put that on me if that makes you feel better...I don't care.

Quote:
I'll put you back on ignore now and we can just ignore each other; deal?
Do whatever you want, say whatever you want, be however you want.
Old 17th January 2017
  #371
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cozmik Prod. View Post


Dutch art by Wim T Schippers
Jesus man, the fake flies that feast on that must be the size of rats!
Old 17th January 2017
  #372
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Fine, but it is the question he asked. Perhaps if there's a better question a thread can be made especially for it?
I answered his question. Of course all musicians are artists. Every example of musicians discussed in this thread as somehow being "non-artists" are imo better classified as bad artists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
But I didn't ask for a "starting point", I asked you for an example.
I don't believe that you truly read and understood my definition of an artist because it allows for enormous leeway to define almost anything as art as long as the person making it considers themselves to be an artist. And I believe that any human activity that's been traditionally considered to be within "the arts" should be considered as art regardless of its quality or originality.

I wouldn't consider a toothpick to be art, but if a master toothpick carver told me that his work was art, who am I to disagree? I would try to understand his point of view and try to assess his work as art, and maybe I would conclude that it's bad art, uninteresting art, meaningless art, unoriginal art, etc. But I would still allow him to call himself an artist if he wants. Who cares?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
You commented on something that I didn't think had been proposed here, and wrote in that sentence "to give or take the mantle of artist away from the person doing the work". To me that implies that there's some emotion that goes along with being labeled an "artist" by other people. And so I thought what you were implying was that it was somehow offensive or otherwise emotionally 'negative' when a person who wants to be an artist is not seen as an artist.
Yes, art is all about emotion imo. I'm not religious but I consider it akin to religion. If someone spends his whole life devoted to the church in every way and considers himself a christian, but ends up murdering someone, is he suddenly not a christian? Or is he a bad christian, a failed christian, or a christian who did one bad deed? He did something "unchristian" but does that mean he didn't spend the rest of his life believing what he believed and practicing accordingly? I believe all should be welcome in the church of art. Maybe you'll be judged on your works and deeds, but you can never be excommunicated!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
All I said was that I would rather be praised for what I do well regardless of how it's classified than be classified according to my wishes but then judged negatively on that. It's not a cop-out, it's just explaining that not everybody is all hung-up on the label when it is or isn't being applied to them.
Yes but "that's not art" is generally lobbed at people who do consider themselves artists and are even widely accepted and praised for their work. It's meant to be the ultimate putdown. Not only is your art bad, but it's not even art! My child could paint that, that's not really music, etc.

If you're making furniture and you just consider it functional and consider yourself a solid craftsman, fine. Nobody is going to argue with that. But if you're making music that's mediocre or unoriginal and your defense of any critique is that "I'm not really an artist, I'm just a craftsman" then yeah that's a copout. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Old 17th January 2017
  #373
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
I answered his question. Of course all musicians are artists. Every example of musicians discussed in this thread as somehow being "non-artists" are imo better classified as bad artists.
Fair enough, I understand your position. I disagree with it as you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
I don't believe that you truly read and understood my definition of an artist because it allows for enormous leeway to define almost anything as art as long as the person making it considers themselves to be an artist. And I believe that any human activity that's been traditionally considered to be within "the arts" should be considered as art regardless of its quality or originality.

I wouldn't consider a toothpick to be art, but if a master toothpick carver told me that his work was art, who am I to disagree? I would try to understand his point of view and try to assess his work as art, and maybe I would conclude that it's bad art, uninteresting art, meaningless art, unoriginal art, etc. But I would still allow him to call himself an artist if he wants. Who cares?
We don't really need to use the word "art" at all then, really. I mean, if it all is art, and really the thing to discuss (if at all) is whether or not its good, then we can just call the object what it is. It's toothpick, do you like it? Yeah, I do. No need to call it "art". It's as much art as is feces, rainbows or unicorns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
I believe all should be welcome in the church of art.
Well, if there ever was a way to make me turned off to art you just found it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
Yes but "that's not art" is generally lobbed at people who do consider themselves artists and are even widely accepted and praised for their work. It's meant to be the ultimate putdown. Not only is your art bad, but it's not even art! My child could paint that, that's not really music, etc.

If you're making furniture and you just consider it functional and consider yourself a solid craftsman, fine. Nobody is going to argue with that. But if you're making music that's mediocre or unoriginal and your defense of any critique is that "I'm not really an artist, I'm just a craftsman" then yeah that's a copout. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I find the above to be a bit contradictory. On the one hand you seem to argue for people not saying people aren't artists because it could hurt their feelings, then you end with telling people to call themselves artists and deal with the criticism and just deal with the heat. I don't get that at all.
Old 17th January 2017
  #374
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post

Agreed but I would rather have somebody say that I make bad art than to say that I'm not an artist at all.
Meh, six of one, half a dozen of the other. I have no preference as to which insult someone wants to use because I don't give a rat's ass about their definition of "art" or their definition of "good".

Quote:
The history of critics, academics, and other experts building canons of acceptable art is of course full of people who overlooked the contributions of people of color, women, non-western cultures, etc.
And a million other sins of omission and commission. These 'experts' owe their jobs to the fact that someone somewhere actually thinks we need canons of acceptable art. I propose that we could all do perfectly just fine without any of it.


Quote:
Anyone who claims to have an objective judgement on what is or isn't art is inevitably full of their own cultural biases.
I was going to say they were full of something else. In fact, someone just posted a photo of a large statue of "Cultural Biases" apparently somewhere in Holland.
Old 17th January 2017
  #375
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
We don't really need to use the word "art" at all then, really. I mean, if it all is art, and really the thing to discuss (if at all) is whether or not its good, then we can just call the object what it is. It's toothpick, do you like it? Yeah, I do. No need to call it "art". It's as much art as is feces, rainbows or unicorns.
I didn't say anything even remotely like "it is all art." Clearly there is a huge range of human activity that isn't art. And judging art is a lot more complicated than "do you like it?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Well, if there ever was a way to make me turned off to art you just found it.
I thought you were just a "skilled non-artist craftsman"? How can I turn you off of art if you're not an artist to begin with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I find the above to be a bit contradictory. On the one hand you seem to argue for people not saying people aren't artists because it could hurt their feelings, then you end with telling people to call themselves artists and deal with the criticism and just deal with the heat. I don't get that at all.
Oh I don't care about hurt feelings. I'm looking for a definition of art that's as logically consistent as possible. I do think that you're talking about two entirely different targets though. The "skilled craftsmen non-artists" you're talking about are probably unknowns, amateurs, or behind the scenes. While the people who get the "that's not even art" complaint are often popular successful artists that the complainer just doesn't personally appreciate.

But I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. If someone plays covers in a wedding band and considers themselves a skilled craftsman but not an artist, that's perfectly fine. Nobody is going to complain or disagree. But that's not really where the argument lies is it?
Old 17th January 2017
  #376
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Meh, six of one, half a dozen of the other. I have no preference as to which insult someone wants to use because I don't give a rat's ass about their definition of "art" or their definition of "good".
That's a good attitude to have, but I do think that there's a certain sense of identity involved in being an artist that can be an important factor in some people's lives. I think "you're not even an artist" is an insult of sorts but "your song sucks" is just a criticism. One is targeted toward a particular work, but the other calls your entire identity into question. If your new album sucks then maybe your next one will be better. But if you're not even an artist, then that's a blanket dismissal of all past and future work.

If the religion analogy wasn't controversial enough, how about this one? Say somebody tells you that she is a woman born in a man's body. Now you might say that she's an ugly woman which is rude of course. But if you persist in arguing that she's not a woman at all in 2017, then you're just an ignorant asshole.
Old 17th January 2017
  #377
Lives for gear
 

Toothpicks are a tool to pick your teeth with and chuck out.

Toothpicks presented (theoretically) as art...drawing, painting, photo, sculpture...makes you, instead, look at the toothpick, the design, the texture, appreciate it, think about it, or maybe it symbolizes something or conjures up thoughts, ideas, or emotions. Same for any other art.

Old 17th January 2017
  #378
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
But I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. If someone plays covers in a wedding band and considers themselves a skilled craftsman but not an artist, that's perfectly fine. Nobody is going to complain or disagree. But that's not really where the argument lies is it?
I sort of think it is. The question is what difference there is beside scale...

?
Old 17th January 2017
  #379
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I sort of think it is. The question is what difference there is beside scale...

?
Intention. Most of the thread is not about whether or not a wedding cover band drummer is an artist or not, but whether Coldplay are artists because they're derivative of Radiohead.
Old 17th January 2017
  #380
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Toothpicks presented (theoretically) as art...drawing, painting, photo, sculpture...makes you, instead, look at the toothpick, the design, the texture, appreciate it, think about it, or maybe it symbolizes something or conjures up thoughts, ideas, or emotions. Same for any
Yep, which is why I hesitated to take the bait with mattiasnyc's "what human activity isn't art" question. What is or isn't art is a question for the artist. The audience can judge whether they like it or not, whether it's good or bad, original or unoriginal, but they can't deny its identity as art imo.
Old 17th January 2017
  #381
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
Intention. Most of the thread is not about whether or not a wedding cover band drummer is an artist or not, but whether Coldplay are artists because they're derivative of Radiohead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
Yep, which is why I hesitated to take the bait with mattiasnyc's "what human activity isn't art" question. What is or isn't art is a question for the artist. The audience can judge whether they like it or not, whether it's good or bad, original or unoriginal, but they can't deny its identity as art imo.

Ok, well, but then we're just back to the following strange situations then:

- You look at something and think it's not art, yet you're wrong as long as some person claims it's their artwork. Then once they do, since they consider themselves to be artists, you're "wrong" and they're right.

- You look at something and don't think it's art, someone says "I made that with intent of creating art, it's art", and you think it is. But they lied to you. Is it still art?

In both cases the object still is what it is. Could be a painting, could be a pool table, could be a rock on the side of a street.....
Old 17th January 2017
  #382
Lives for gear
Quote:
I'm looking for a definition of art that's as logically consistent as possible.
Definition is objective, Science is defined through observation.

Art is emotion.

"I'm looking for a definition of Love that's as logically consistent as possible"

Art and Love are "subjective" experiences.

Defining them is not possible without imposing your personal experiences onto others!

The whole thread is existential in it's essence.

To me Radiohead aren't "Artists" .... personally I think they churn out bl**dy awful depressing music!

But that doesn't define whether they are "Artists" or not - unless I declare myself Gearslut's sole arbiter of good taste
and force everyone to agree with me on pain of death!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

My sh*t on a white card in the Tate Modern may evoke strong emotions in some and they may view it as "art" - they have that right to do so.

I prefer the OP's original question - which I keep returning to,

Does the mere act of making art make you an "Artist"?

Annoying as it may be, I still feel I need to differentiate artist and "Artist" by using a capital A.
Much as I would define king and King.

The two year old with a crayon is, upon drawing on the paper, an artist.

Yet by any known understanding (not definition) of a great "Artist" he is not a great "Artist"

LOL .... hhamilton and mattiasnyc, I can't believe where dabating music and art and you've ended uo with "ignore buttons at dawn" really :-)

Last edited by thehightenor; 17th January 2017 at 12:30 PM..
Old 17th January 2017
  #383
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
Definition is objective, Science is defined through observation.

Art is emotion.

"I'm looking for a definition of Love that's as logically consistent as possible"

Art and Love are "subjective" experiences.

Defining them is not possible without imposing your personal experiences onto others!

The whole thread is existential in it's essence.

To me Radiohead aren't "Artists" .... personally I think they churn out bl**dy awful depressing music!

But that doesn't define whether they are "Artists" or not - unless I declare myself Gearslut's sole arbiter of good taste
and force everyone to agree with me on pain of death!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

My sh*t on a white card in the Tate Modern may evoke strong emotions in some and they may view it as "art" - they have that right to do so.

I prefer the OP's original question - which I keep returning to,

Does the mere act of making art make you an "Artist"?

Annoying as it may be, I still feel I need to differentiate artist and "Artist" by using a capital A.
Much as I would define king and King.

The two year old with a crayon is, upon drawing on the paper, an artist.

Yet by any known understanding (not definition) of a great "Artist" he is not a great "Artist"

LOL .... hhamilton and mattiasnyc, I can't believe where dabating music and art and you've ended uo with "ignore buttons at dawn" really :-)
How longs a piece of string??? Work it out man!
Old 17th January 2017
  #384
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
How longs a piece of string??? Work it out man!
42"
Old 17th January 2017
  #385
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
The two year old with a crayon is, upon drawing on the paper, an artist.

Yet by any known understanding (not definition) of a great "Artist" he is not a great "Artist"
A two year old with a crayon, upon drawing on the paper, is doing art...whether it makes him/her an artist comes down to the question, is the mere action of doing art make one an 'artist'?...I guess that's the crux.

I think even at an early age like that (maybe a little older), it's easy to discern talent and ability, and it's possible to teach and train one to become an artist.

Just as someone that young banging on a drum or blowing on a horn doesn't making them a musician per se, but there are steps to becoming one through an effort of wanting to play and learn whatever instrument, a commitment to a process.

Just as if someone working the heavy bag doesn't make them a boxer, but there are steps to learn the sweet science - which makes them more of a boxer than without that commitment.

Then there's the notion of an 'artist' in the sense of someone who's extremely talented, expressive, seriously committed to excellence and a standard, someone who creates things of incredible beauty or excellence...myriad criteria that sets them apart from others within their discipline - I think that definition of an 'artist' is a real and understandable concept for many. Though there are many interpretive possibilities at that as well.

In the end, it doesn't matter to absolutely define things, and to argue among one another as to who's definition is more correct - why should it matter to the ones practicing and producing in their discipline, nor to the audience or beholder, who will/(should) react to it however they may, regardless of strict or absolute definitions or labels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
LOL .... hhamilton and mattiasnyc, I can't believe where dabating music and art and you've ended uo with "ignore buttons at dawn" really :-)
That's sort of sad, because I like both of them, and I think they each say things with great conviction and passion, and neither are necessarily wrong in how they feel about things or how they express it.

Stubbornness is a very stubborn thing...
Old 17th January 2017
  #386
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
I prefer the OP's original question - which I keep returning to,

Does the mere act of making art make you an "Artist"?

Annoying as it may be, I still feel I need to differentiate artist and "Artist" by using a capital A.
Much as I would define king and King.

The two year old with a crayon is, upon drawing on the paper, an artist.

Yet by any known understanding (not definition) of a great "Artist" he is not a great "Artist"
The above I absolutely agree with.
Old 17th January 2017
  #387
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
Then there's the notion of an 'artist' in the sense of someone who's extremely talented, expressive, seriously committed to excellence and a standard, someone who creates things of incredible beauty or excellence...myriad criteria that sets them apart from others within their discipline - I think that definition of an 'artist' is a real and understandable concept for many. Though there are many interpretive possibilities at that as well.
I more or less agree with the above sentiment. I think that's what some of us have been trying to get at. However, some people find that inherently offensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
In the end, it doesn't matter to absolutely define things, and to argue among one another as to who's definition is more correct - why should it matter to the ones practicing and producing in their discipline, nor to the audience or beholder, who will/(should) react to it however they may, regardless of strict or absolute definitions or labels.
But then I'd come back to the question of just what a person's understanding is of the art form. I think it's definitely possible that a person has an understanding of and approach to an artform that is very "technical" in nature, and so using your definition above a conversation about what it is to be an "Artist" (with the capital "A"), one that is different from a craftsman for lack of better terminology, could reveal what is "missing" from the equation. If being "expressive" is key then talking about what it is to be an "Artist" may uncover that and change the direction of this particular artist (with a tiny "a", so as to only offend people somewhat, and not completely).

I'd even say that a similar discussion could be held with a 'consumer' of art as well, where they'd learn what to look or listen for to further distinguish between artists..... and thus get a 'bigger' or 'deeper' experience.... arguably....
Old 17th January 2017
  #388
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Ok, well, but then we're just back to the following strange situations then:

- You look at something and think it's not art, yet you're wrong as long as some person claims it's their artwork. Then once they do, since they consider themselves to be artists, you're "wrong" and they're right.
There's nothing strange about this at all. I could look at a plate of mush and think that it's dog food and have somebody tell me "no, that's my lunch." I still might think it looks like dog food and I wouldn't have any desire to eat it, but if they made it intending it to be their lunch, then that's what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
- You look at something and don't think it's art, someone says "I made that with intent of creating art, it's art", and you think it is. But they lied to you. Is it still art?

In both cases the object still is what it is. Could be a painting, could be a pool table, could be a rock on the side of a street.....
Honestly, who cares? Does this question really bother you or have any impact on your life? What if I saw a meal in your refrigerator and you said "that's my lunch" but you actually lied and you're going to eat it for dinner? It doesn't really matter to me, I'll call it whatever you want. That doesn't change our shared understanding of the word "lunch."

The actual strange situation that happens in the real world is when people consider themselves artists, find success working in the arts, have admiring fans and critics praising their artwork, and then somebody comes along and says "that's not art" just because they don't like it, don't get it, or think it's bad.
Old 17th January 2017
  #389
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
There's nothing strange about this at all. I could look at a plate of mush and think that it's dog food and have somebody tell me "no, that's my lunch." I still might think it looks like dog food and I wouldn't have any desire to eat it, but if they made it intending it to be their lunch, then that's what it is.
The same could be said for arsenic. If you ingest it, does that make it food?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oche ecaps View Post
Honestly, who cares? Does this question really bother you or have any impact on your life?
Well, how many of the questions you encounter in this forum have any impact on your life? Honestly, who cares? And who cares who cares?

We can either use the forum as it was intended, to discuss things, or we can question the discussions saying the above, which seems curious since doing so in a forums appears less 'rewarding' than just ignoring it in the first place.
Old 17th January 2017
  #390
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
"I'm looking for a definition of Love that's as logically consistent as possible"

Art and Love are "subjective" experiences.

Defining them is not possible without imposing your personal experiences onto others!
It's possible if your definition allows for everyone's subjective personal experience to be included. I'm not going to tell somebody else that they're not really in love, just like I'm not going to tell someone else that what they created is not really art.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
To me Radiohead aren't "Artists" .... personally I think they churn out bl**dy awful depressing music!

But that doesn't define whether they are "Artists" or not - unless I declare myself Gearslut's sole arbiter of good taste
and force everyone to agree with me on pain of death!
Then why would you say it? You know that you can't really defend calling them non artists because it doesn't make any sense and is just an extreme personal opinion. Why not just say that you hate them and they're terrible? Why is it so important to you to consider them non-artists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
The two year old with a crayon is, upon drawing on the paper, an artist.

Yet by any known understanding (not definition) of a great "Artist" he is not a great "Artist"
Yes of course, which is why you had to add the modifier "great" artist to make your point! The "leader" of a group of children playing follow the leader is not actually a celebrated world political leader. Thankfully most people are capable of understanding context and nuance in language, so it's not really a big deal to use these words in different situations.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump