FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

What is art...

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

...to you?

Personally, to me, it is something that catches my eye.

It can be the way a woman carries herself, a certain colour that appeals to me, the way a vehicle has been built and looks, a life times work on just one canvas, a two minute doodle on a note pad, just something that appeals to me.

What is art to you?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Something inspired by imagination captured in form with no other purpose than to indulge a whimsical celebration of being human….!.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Something inspired by imagination captured in form with no other purpose than to indulge a whimsical celebration of being human….!. "

Good answer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some of Tracey Emin's & Damien Hurst's work i find a little difficult to describe as art! Looks like a pile of shite too me. I hate graffiti but i like Banksy. some things give me a buzz, other things leave me a bit cold, So what is art? f$%k knows xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I enjoy the work of David Shrigley, but I totally understand some wouldn’t _iew it as art….!.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Some people wouldn't consider Von Dutch an artist in the gallery sense or Mike Levelle, yet their works are up there with some of the greats if you ask me.

I could spend as much time admiring a well crafted piece of auto art.as much as I would Escher, Dali, Coop and so on.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

easy answer: its pretty subjective

unfortunately in my eyes, that includes piles of literal shit with some added text to justify its existence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

whatever the creator wishes it to be, thereafter the interpretation is one of individual taste

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

modern art is the ipod.

classic art is a routemaster bus.

so everyone has different opinions.

damian hurst's cow?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"whatever the creator wishes it to be, thereafter the interpretation is one of individual taste"

True.

The same with music.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

Subjective, but the great thing about art is we can interpret it how we wish.

For me it would be something that inspires my imagination or makes me think.

For me it could be ball room dancing or a piece of poetry, an image.

Good question

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

For me, art is something created by one person that communicates an idea to, or instils a response in another person.

If it doesn't move me, and I just stand there wondering "Why...?" - then there isn't any art involved....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"Something inspired by imagination captured in form with no other purpose than to indulge a whimsical celebration of being human….!. "

What about useful things like the ceramics of e.g Clarice Cliff. They are elegance with other purpose.... what about clothing ? Isn't design art ?

You're a work of art Sox xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"Something inspired by imagination captured in form with no other purpose than to indulge a whimsical celebration of being human….!. "
I like that!

Does it need to "please" (the senses) in your definition?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

An artschool lecturer in 1993 told me anime wasnt art...silly japanese cartoons apparently

after that I was told to close my eyes while a student partner guided me to feel walls etc...so we could then draw what we felt...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"An artschool lecturer in 1993 told me anime wasnt art...silly japanese cartoons apparently

after that I was told to close my eyes while a student partner guided me to feel walls etc...so we could then draw what we felt..."

So you drew tits

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"An artschool lecturer in 1993 told me anime wasnt art...silly japanese cartoons apparently

after that I was told to close my eyes while a student partner guided me to feel walls etc...so we could then draw what we felt...

So you drew tits "

dont be silly, I was still thinking of the anime, so drew myself as a demon with my 10 cocks exploding women in half with my cum shots

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unky monkeyMan
over a year ago

in the night garden

Art is very subjective.

I think the greatest works of art is the human genome and that just happened by a bunch of accidents.

I can see artistry in a great free kick in football or a flowing try in Rugby, others see nothing more than balls.

Some see art in a half a cow in formaldehyde I only see half a cow in formaldehyde.

I've made a living for nearly 30 years as an artist and I frequently don't understand why my own work appeals or is rejected.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"Art is very subjective.

I think the greatest works of art is the human genome and that just happened by a bunch of accidents.

I can see artistry in a great free kick in football or a flowing try in Rugby, others see nothing more than balls.

Some see art in a half a cow in formaldehyde I only see half a cow in formaldehyde.

I've made a living for nearly 30 years as an artist and I frequently don't understand why my own work appeals or is rejected."
Does art for you therefore mean you have to"like" it, find it appealing?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Something inspired by imagination captured in form with no other purpose than to indulge a whimsical celebration of being human….!. I like that!

Does it need to "please" (the senses) in your definition?"

Nooooo Affro it doesn’t need to please me,,,,,…

Although I must confess I find irreverent amusement-seeing people challenge or defend what constitutes art based on where it fits into an evolutionary progression of human skill or choice of subject…!…… much in the same way I enjoy a wry smirk listening people attempt to interpret what an “artist” was trying to embody in their work …

But that’s just the way I roll…. I guess maybe I’m not emotionally ready… pffft….

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"Something inspired by imagination captured in form with no other purpose than to indulge a whimsical celebration of being human….!. I like that!

Does it need to "please" (the senses) in your definition?

Nooooo Affro it doesn’t need to please me,,,,,…

Although I must confess I find irreverent amusement-seeing people challenge or defend what constitutes art based on where it fits into an evolutionary progression of human skill or choice of subject…!…… much in the same way I enjoy a wry smirk listening people attempt to interpret what an “artist” was trying to embody in their work …

But that’s just the way I roll…. I guess maybe I’m not emotionally ready… pffft….

"

I agree with you re listening to other people's interpretations...

There is also the consideration that more often than not there is more than one interpretation (intended or otherwise) and no single perspective captivates the whole idea...

Apologies... I have my serious hat on today... comes from not having had chocolate since 1st January

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adcowWoman
over a year ago

kirkcaldy

to me it is something that takes my breathe away and makes me think wow !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Apologies... I have my serious hat on today... comes from not having had chocolate since 1st January "

OMG - you've become a masochist......! xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unky monkeyMan
over a year ago

in the night garden


"Art is very subjective.

I think the greatest works of art is the human genome and that just happened by a bunch of accidents.

I can see artistry in a great free kick in football or a flowing try in Rugby, others see nothing more than balls.

Some see art in a half a cow in formaldehyde I only see half a cow in formaldehyde.

I've made a living for nearly 30 years as an artist and I frequently don't understand why my own work appeals or is rejected.Does art for you therefore mean you have to"like" it, find it appealing? "

I have to be stimulated by it, I'd prefer that to be a positive stimulation but it doesn't have to be to be art.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"

Apologies... I have my serious hat on today... comes from not having had chocolate since 1st January

OMG - you've become a masochist......! xx"
Well that part of my split personality that has masochistic tendencies is now very happy... the other part is still exploring why I would want to be a masochist in the first place

Now where is that last box of Green and Black miniature.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Art is whatever the _iewer, reader, listener defines it to be - not what some organisational body dictates what art should be.

Turner, Booker etc.. all worthless trophies and any 'artist' who accepts one devalues his/her work in doing so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"Does art for you therefore mean you have to"like" it, find it appealing?

I have to be stimulated by it, I'd prefer that to be a positive stimulation but it doesn't have to be to be art."
I get that! I do not need to find it appealing but equally I would not like it to be revolting so for me there has to be an element of at least tolerance if not liking. Shallow perhaps on my part...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Art for me is something that changes my life, even if just for a few moments.

I'm an artist and every time I sell a piece I'm outrageously happy that I've made an impression on someone somewhere.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Something inspired by imagination captured in form with no other purpose than to indulge a whimsical celebration of being human….!.

What about useful things like the ceramics of e.g Clarice Cliff. They are elegance with other purpose.... what about clothing ? Isn't design art ?

You're a work of art Sox xx "

Well Gwanny, although I’m not 100% sure, I'm not aware of any social convention that requires art to have form without function…

But unless otherwise directed by Brian Sewell I think its OK to mix priorities as long as Frankland Mint couldn't bring out a limited edition or your Dad is a former Beatle ….!.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My favorite quote..

Art is made to disturb. Science reassures. There is only one valuable thing in art: the thing you cannot explain.

Georges Braque

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"My favorite quote..

Art is made to disturb. Science reassures. There is only one valuable thing in art: the thing you cannot explain.

Georges Braque"
I really like that quote

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not! "
Why would Art cease being art simply because it commands a different space?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not! Why would Art cease being art simply because it commands a different space? "

Perhaps because it becomes a commodity where its true value becomes lesser

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not! Why would Art cease being art simply because it commands a different space?

Perhaps because it becomes a commodity where its true value becomes lesser "
So if you 9 and I do) include music in the concept of art... then it ceases being art by being broadcast to others? I am just curious and I guess being devil's advocat here)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not! Why would Art cease being art simply because it commands a different space?

Perhaps because it becomes a commodity where its true value becomes lesser So if you 9 and I do) include music in the concept of art... then it ceases being art by being broadcast to others? I am just curious and I guess being devil's advocat here) "

But in the case of music can anyone really own something that can’t be touched or contained….?.

Surely when we listen to recorded music we are mostly hearing a facsimile of the original composition so we are not witnessing original art ….!.

Anyway,,, if I really knew where I was going with this…. I’d now present you with a salient point to illustrate my thoughts on the matter….hmmmmmm….!.

But Ok-ok…. I need more time on this one….!.

;-)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not! Why would Art cease being art simply because it commands a different space?

Perhaps because it becomes a commodity where its true value becomes lesser So if you 9 and I do) include music in the concept of art... then it ceases being art by being broadcast to others? I am just curious and I guess being devil's advocat here)

But in the case of music can anyone really own something that can’t be touched or contained….?.

Surely when we listen to recorded music we are mostly hearing a facsimile of the original composition so we are not witnessing original art ….!.

Anyway,,, if I really knew where I was going with this…. I’d now present you with a salient point to illustrate my thoughts on the matter….hmmmmmm….!.

But Ok-ok…. I need more time on this one….!.

;-) "

On that basis, is any music an orginal composition because only when the music is created could it be considered original. Even if the musician who created it wrote it down so he wouldn't forget it, it then becomes a fascimile of the original work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"to me it is something that takes my breathe away and makes me think wow ! "

Like a god fart?! Lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I am.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If an artist creates something and tells me it's art that's exactly what it is.

Who am I to argue.

I quite liked Anthony Gormleys Event Horizon in London. I loved the ship in the bottle on the 4th plinth,it always made me smile.

The Weather Project at The Tate about 10 years ago was awesome tho I had just had an operation and was off my face on codeine.

I quite like Art Deco,some of Tamara de Lempicka's paintings are fantastic

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

Art is pretty much whatever you want it to be, as has been proven over the years. Emin and Hurst are perfectly capable (and a lot more) artists but it's their more controversial works that put them into the limelight.

I love Robert Mapplethorpe, whereas a lot of people consider much of his work to be hardcore porn, it's all in how you see things, art doesn't always have to evoke positive emotions.

I produce some work that people proclaim to be art but all I see is work...plus a hell of a lot of people out there who I consider produce far greater pieces than me.

Back to Pseud's Corner now...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn


"Art is pretty much whatever you want it to be, as has been proven over the years. Emin and Hurst are perfectly capable (and a lot more) artists but it's their more controversial works that put them into the limelight.

I love Robert Mapplethorpe, whereas a lot of people consider much of his work to be hardcore porn, it's all in how you see things, art doesn't always have to evoke positive emotions.

I produce some work that people proclaim to be art but all I see is work...plus a hell of a lot of people out there who I consider produce far greater pieces than me.

Back to Pseud's Corner now..."

Mapplethorpe is

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not! Why would Art cease being art simply because it commands a different space?

Perhaps because it becomes a commodity where its true value becomes lesser So if you 9 and I do) include music in the concept of art... then it ceases being art by being broadcast to others? I am just curious and I guess being devil's advocat here)

But in the case of music can anyone really own something that can’t be touched or contained….?.

Surely when we listen to recorded music we are mostly hearing a facsimile of the original composition so we are not witnessing original art ….!.

Anyway,,, if I really knew where I was going with this…. I’d now present you with a salient point to illustrate my thoughts on the matter….hmmmmmm….!.

But Ok-ok…. I need more time on this one….!.

;-)

On that basis, is any music an orginal composition because only when the music is created could it be considered original. Even if the musician who created it wrote it down so he wouldn't forget it, it then becomes a fascimile of the original work."

I’m not really sure how I feel about calling all music art, …..

But apparently the very word "Music" derives from Greek "µ??s??? mousike" meaning "art of the Muses" and it's still possible to gain academic accreditation in the forms of "Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) in Composition" or as a "Master of Fine Arts in Music, Composition".....

So I guess somewhere along the line... all Music must be art....to someone…!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not! Why would Art cease being art simply because it commands a different space?

Perhaps because it becomes a commodity where its true value becomes lesser So if you 9 and I do) include music in the concept of art... then it ceases being art by being broadcast to others? I am just curious and I guess being devil's advocat here)

But in the case of music can anyone really own something that can’t be touched or contained….?.

Surely when we listen to recorded music we are mostly hearing a facsimile of the original composition so we are not witnessing original art ….!.

Anyway,,, if I really knew where I was going with this…. I’d now present you with a salient point to illustrate my thoughts on the matter….hmmmmmm….!.

But Ok-ok…. I need more time on this one….!.

;-)

On that basis, is any music an orginal composition because only when the music is created could it be considered original. Even if the musician who created it wrote it down so he wouldn't forget it, it then becomes a fascimile of the original work.

I’m not really sure how I feel about calling all music art, …..

But apparently the very word "Music" derives from Greek "µ??s??? mousike" meaning "art of the Muses" and it's still possible to gain academic accreditation in the forms of "Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) in Composition" or as a "Master of Fine Arts in Music, Composition".....

So I guess somewhere along the line... all Music must be art....to someone…!!!!

"

Beck released an 'album' last year, Song Reader' simply containing the notations for 20 songs written but never released or recorded by Beck. a lovely boxed present for a Beck completist but I'm not sure if it's art

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley


"Art is pretty much whatever you want it to be, as has been proven over the years. Emin and Hurst are perfectly capable (and a lot more) artists but it's their more controversial works that put them into the limelight.

I love Robert Mapplethorpe, whereas a lot of people consider much of his work to be hardcore porn, it's all in how you see things, art doesn't always have to evoke positive emotions.

I produce some work that people proclaim to be art but all I see is work...plus a hell of a lot of people out there who I consider produce far greater pieces than me.

Back to Pseud's Corner now...

Mapplethorpe is "

My favourite artist/photographer by a country mile but he's not universally appealing His portraits are soul-revealing, wonderful stuff.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

A conclusion I came to was, if it makes you look, either in disbelief or admiration, whether you chunter or praise, if you listen or _iew something that makes you stop for a split second, it some way it is an artform.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Art is pretty much whatever you want it to be, as has been proven over the years. Emin and Hurst are perfectly capable (and a lot more) artists but it's their more controversial works that put them into the limelight.

I love Robert Mapplethorpe, whereas a lot of people consider much of his work to be hardcore porn, it's all in how you see things, art doesn't always have to evoke positive emotions.

I produce some work that people proclaim to be art but all I see is work...plus a hell of a lot of people out there who I consider produce far greater pieces than me.

Back to Pseud's Corner now...

Mapplethorpe is

My favourite artist/photographer by a country mile but he's not universally appealing His portraits are soul-revealing, wonderful stuff."

Some of his portraits of Patti Smith are stunning. And one of Iggy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A conclusion I came to was, if it makes you look, either in disbelief or admiration, whether you chunter or praise, if you listen or _iew something that makes you stop for a split second, it some way it is an artform."

true art would probably be ritualistic art owned essentially by the community that they were meant for.The likes of cave paintings and stone henge etc, these 'works' had true meaning to those people without it being so subjective to what the artwork meant.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 04/01/13 18:25:10]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not! Why would Art cease being art simply because it commands a different space?

Perhaps because it becomes a commodity where its true value becomes lesser So if you 9 and I do) include music in the concept of art... then it ceases being art by being broadcast to others? I am just curious and I guess being devil's advocat here)

But in the case of music can anyone really own something that can’t be touched or contained….?.

Surely when we listen to recorded music we are mostly hearing a facsimile of the original composition so we are not witnessing original art ….!.

Anyway,,, if I really knew where I was going with this…. I’d now present you with a salient point to illustrate my thoughts on the matter….hmmmmmm….!.

But Ok-ok…. I need more time on this one….!.

;-)

On that basis, is any music an orginal composition because only when the music is created could it be considered original. Even if the musician who created it wrote it down so he wouldn't forget it, it then becomes a fascimile of the original work.

I’m not really sure how I feel about calling all music art, …..

But apparently the very word "Music" derives from Greek "µ??s??? mousike" meaning "art of the Muses" and it's still possible to gain academic accreditation in the forms of "Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) in Composition" or as a "Master of Fine Arts in Music, Composition".....

So I guess somewhere along the line... all Music must be art....to someone…!!!!

Beck released an 'album' last year, Song Reader' simply containing the notations for 20 songs written but never released or recorded by Beck. a lovely boxed present for a Beck completist but I'm not sure if it's art"

Yeah I can see where you’re coming from….

I just struggle with the notion that every-time I hear a tune played, be it live or recorded that somehow I’m supposedly in the presence of art,….!.

I guess it’s all subjective…… but as a kid at school being forced to repetitively belt out baa baa black sheep on my plastic recorder, I never felt like I was creating art…

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Art is pretty much whatever you want it to be, as has been proven over the years. Emin and Hurst are perfectly capable (and a lot more) artists but it's their more controversial works that put them into the limelight.

I love Robert Mapplethorpe, whereas a lot of people consider much of his work to be hardcore porn, it's all in how you see things, art doesn't always have to evoke positive emotions.

I produce some work that people proclaim to be art but all I see is work...plus a hell of a lot of people out there who I consider produce far greater pieces than me.

Back to Pseud's Corner now...

Mapplethorpe is

My favourite artist/photographer by a country mile but he's not universally appealing His portraits are soul-revealing, wonderful stuff.

Some of his portraits of Patti Smith are stunning. And one of Iggy "

The one piece of his photographical work is the figure posed in the circle. Don't know why, it just seems to be slightly different from some of his work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Art is pretty much whatever you want it to be, as has been proven over the years. Emin and Hurst are perfectly capable (and a lot more) artists but it's their more controversial works that put them into the limelight.

I love Robert Mapplethorpe, whereas a lot of people consider much of his work to be hardcore porn, it's all in how you see things, art doesn't always have to evoke positive emotions.

I produce some work that people proclaim to be art but all I see is work...plus a hell of a lot of people out there who I consider produce far greater pieces than me.

Back to Pseud's Corner now...

Mapplethorpe is

My favourite artist/photographer by a country mile but he's not universally appealing His portraits are soul-revealing, wonderful stuff.

Some of his portraits of Patti Smith are stunning. And one of Iggy

The one piece of his photographical work is the figure posed in the circle. Don't know why, it just seems to be slightly different from some of his work."

*The piece I like*

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"IDK,,,, but possibly art ceases to become art once its owned by someone other than its creator….!.

or maybe not! Why would Art cease being art simply because it commands a different space?

Perhaps because it becomes a commodity where its true value becomes lesser So if you 9 and I do) include music in the concept of art... then it ceases being art by being broadcast to others? I am just curious and I guess being devil's advocat here)

But in the case of music can anyone really own something that can’t be touched or contained….?.

Surely when we listen to recorded music we are mostly hearing a facsimile of the original composition so we are not witnessing original art ….!.

Anyway,,, if I really knew where I was going with this…. I’d now present you with a salient point to illustrate my thoughts on the matter….hmmmmmm….!.

But Ok-ok…. I need more time on this one….!.

;-)

On that basis, is any music an orginal composition because only when the music is created could it be considered original. Even if the musician who created it wrote it down so he wouldn't forget it, it then becomes a fascimile of the original work.

I’m not really sure how I feel about calling all music art, …..

But apparently the very word "Music" derives from Greek "µ??s??? mousike" meaning "art of the Muses" and it's still possible to gain academic accreditation in the forms of "Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) in Composition" or as a "Master of Fine Arts in Music, Composition".....

So I guess somewhere along the line... all Music must be art....to someone…!!!!

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland

Re whether music is or is not art... it probably depends on your early life experience more than anything as to whether or not it feels like art for you. I have grown up with music (mainly but not exclusively classical) and been taughter to appreciate it, its various and varying forms of interpretations as art. I am happy for others not to consider music as art though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A conclusion I came to was, if it makes you look, either in disbelief or admiration, whether you chunter or praise, if you listen or _iew something that makes you stop for a split second, it some way it is an artform."

Well in that case some cars and motor bikes must be works of art too.!.

But I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty fork than agree with Jeremy Clarkson about that...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

It must be conceived through thought and created - made manifest. The rest is subjective.

Nature is beautiful but not art.

Design, music, putting an outfit together, the thoughtful movement of an arm, a complex equation are all as artful as images.

R4 has had a Melvyn Bragg series on culture this week - have a listen. I had to miss most of the last one this morning but I left as someone described culture as being small c - science and art both included.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"A conclusion I came to was, if it makes you look, either in disbelief or admiration, whether you chunter or praise, if you listen or _iew something that makes you stop for a split second, it some way it is an artform.

Well in that case some cars and motor bikes must be works of art too.!.

But I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a rusty fork than agree with Jeremy Clarkson about that... "

Look at iconic cars.

The Batmobile, The General Lee, The Munsters vehicles and Chip Foose creations.

When you see the Batmobile or something similar, what pops into your head? Theme music!

Then there are costumes, which in turn brings into play fashion which is considered art.

Then there are the celluloid images of the big screen which is classed as art.

Imagine watching a film without background music to stir emotions.

To hear a car, motorbike, or any vehicle and to take a moment to admire them, is an artform to some.

Watch Easy Rider, Vanishing Point, Gone in 60 seconds and listen to the engines and background music. Look at the scenery caught on film forever in the films.

Automotive forms of art exist in sound and vision.

Take musical instruments that help creative people express their art through music and inspire others.

Look at the tattooist who blend styles of art and history and then skillfully etch someones idea of a masterpiece into their skin.

Most people will _iew all of the above through the lens of a camera, which is an art in itself to capture a moment in time.

These captured images will make their way into galleries where poeple will be able to admire, admonish or meander through the exhibitions and look on works from centuries ago to the latest incarnation of someones interpretation of art.

Some people will.queue for hours to see bands they class as art/talent.

Art is timless.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I;m going to the V&A in april to specifically see the Bowie exhibition. Stage Costumes,sets etc. Most wouldn't see that as art but as a Bowie obsessive I will. As said before,It's subjective..

I'm going on my 50th birthday and have insisted the kids come with us. I don't think they'll find it arty

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"I;m going to the V&A in april to specifically see the Bowie exhibition. Stage Costumes,sets etc. Most wouldn't see that as art but as a Bowie obsessive I will. As said before,It's subjective..

I'm going on my 50th birthday and have insisted the kids come with us. I don't think they'll find it arty "

Take them to lunch in the V&A and let them just admire the light fittings. Then go to the Design Museum and they can see the art of all of their gadgets.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I;m going to the V&A in april to specifically see the Bowie exhibition. Stage Costumes,sets etc. Most wouldn't see that as art but as a Bowie obsessive I will. As said before,It's subjective..

I'm going on my 50th birthday and have insisted the kids come with us. I don't think they'll find it arty "

I'll have their tickets if they don't want to go

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"A conclusion I came to was, if it makes you look, either in disbelief or admiration, whether you chunter or praise, if you listen or _iew something that makes you stop for a split second, it some way it is an artform.

true art would probably be ritualistic art owned essentially by the community that they were meant for.The likes of cave paintings and stone henge etc, these 'works' had true meaning to those people without it being so subjective to what the artwork meant."

Practical, historical, architechtural art?

Probably so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top