A philosophical off topic thought thread

[ItHadToComeToThis]

With all the discussions as of late regarding last names and premium I have noticed an increasing amount of negativity forming in the forum. So, let’s do something utterly off topic and move away from those subjects, at least for a little while, to give ourselves some breathing space.

Okay, so let’s have a philosophical discussion. The premise is simple, I pose a question and we all try to answer / debate it amongst ourselves and if we are really lucky..come out the other end with a general consensus on what we think the solution is.

The question (As we are all creative types) is as follows :

What benefits does art provide society? Does art hurt society in any way? How do you even define what art is? Could a pile of laundry on the floor be considered art?

[Qie Niangao]

[Akane Nacht]

As John Cage would say:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Erwin Solo]

Economics of Art

 

[Zeta Vandyke]

1 hour ago, ItHadToComeToThis said:

What benefits does art provide society? Does art hurt society in any way? How do you even define what art is? Could a pile of laundry on the floor be considered art?

I'm not delving into the value for art to society, but one thing that really botters me (in my country, the Netherlands) is how art is being subsidized by (local) governments. I think if art is interesting and good enough that people willing to pay for it and gives you income, great! Your art considered good and valuable by others. But if you need to be subsidized to be able to create your art, maybe its just not good enough?

I can also be terribly annoyed when I see yet another "art" installation bought by local government to be put on some town square that looks ridiculous, 95% of the people have no idea what it supposed to be and do not like it. But there's a sign next to it explaining how these bend metal bars really are a representation of ones inner journey blah blah blah, so it's art! And the "artist" received tens of thousands tax euro's for it.

What is art is really in the eye of the beholder. Piet Mondriaan for example, world famous and his pieces are worth a sh!tload of money. To me its just colored squares that everyone can paint. But hey, people are wiling to pay for it so that's up to them.

[Erwin Solo]

11 minutes ago, Zeta Vandyke said:

What is art is really in the eye of the beholder. Piet Mondriaan for example, world famous and his pieces are worth a sh!tload of money. To me its just colored squares that everyone can paint. But hey, people are wiling to pay for it so that's up to them.

The video I provided leads off with the selling of the US$58 Million stainless steel version of the balloon dog.  The sales pitch was that buying it got you into the exclusive club of other people who bought the other balloon dogs.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

This piece (or one identical) was on exhibit in our local Dali museum last year.

[Amina Sopwith]

2 hours ago, ItHadToComeToThis said:

Does art hurt society in any way?

I once got hit in the arm with a plaster bust. 

[Morena Tully]

I see art as important and enriching for individuals who enjoy it, but it also seems to cause some division and snootiness too.. If someone admires a painting that's photorealistic in it's detail, another person will ridicule their taste and say "no no, you have no appreciation for REAL art, like this Jackson Pollock painting over here." I've been lectured about how I have an undeveloped appreciation. What is that even supposed to mean? Discussing art is sometimes almost as bad as discussing politics.. lol.  But it definitely can make communities vibrant, who foster local artists of all kinds.

[Orwar]

   Whenever I hear the word 'art' I cringe. Art is pretentious and vague, and everyone and their grandmother is an 'artist'. I agree with Zeta, I absolutely fume whenever I hear that our local municipality wants to 'invest' in an art project; it isn't an investment, it's an irresponsible waste of tax money. They announced several years ago that they were going to do an 'art project' with a bench that would run between two of the town squares, that was to 'mix art and usefulness' by making a bench that would be ergonomic and heated in winter to give homeless people somewhere to rest - well, the prototype they put up a few years later was absolutely hated by everyone, it was built out of many-coloured strips of steam-shaped plywood that was an absolute butt-killer to sit on and impossible to lie down on without growling in discomfort, it looked extremely out of place and was a complete eye sore. The quick-fix was that they decided to cast it in gray concrete instead, but keeping the shape - the 'Forum Sofa' cost our municipality 12 million crowns (roughly $1,3M). Meanwhile they wanted to shut down one of the town's largest and most popular youth centers because the rent had gotten 'too high' - or rather, the exclusivity of the address has increased as the town has grown so the municipality figured they might turn it into offices (luckily the backlash was severe enough to make them withdraw those plans). The bench would have paid for the rent for several decades.

   Whenever someone points out that I'm 'a real artist!' I snarl at them - I'm a bookbinder, what I do isn't 'art', it's craftsmanship that adheres to some very strict rules and principles where function comes before form. Yes, there's plenty of room for creativity within the boundaries of the craft - but 'artist' and 'artisan' are two very different things. People calling a heap of laundry 'art' should be taken off the streets, I don't trust them around children.

[ThorinII]

I call myself - at best - a hobbyist general artist. At least sometimes, whenever I look on my own stuff: a dozen or more drawings (some of them colored), some photo manipulations, a stone bust I once created in a local "art project" group. Yes people liked what I've done so far - that's enough appreciation for *me*. I do what I do just for fun, whenever I feel like doing it.

However, when I look at websites like deviantArt for example, there are people whose so-called "doodles" and "sketches" are way better already than my own best finished drawings. Compared to these folks, I am just someone attempting to master the craftsmanship of drawing and stuff somehow. They are the real artists in my eyes: What they create with just pencils or pens, or (water-)colors etc., or even using Wacom tablets is way beyond my own meek abilities. They have talent, and lots of it. And yes, if I had enough money, I would buy art made by them.

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

So many definitions for art. Whatever suits you best.

Art is anything from a turd to a concept that is explained to the audience by someone with a the ability to speak with eloquence and fluency to a high degree, for financial gain, power, immortality and fame.

Either that, or it's a struggle to just do what you like with no particular benefit to others at all.

From my limited, biology-related world view, art is stuff you do that has no benefit for survival of the species.

Most likely, in the stone cold reality, art is just a compact form of currency to conveniently hide from taxing authorities.

No, wait, scrap all that.

Art is something you make with love. Or, no... Jeez. Hell, I don''t know.

I got interviewed once in an auditorium at SL11B. The interviewer asked me in advanced to display some of my 'art' there. I was rather shocked that my stuff was being referred to as art--even a little offended, since I regard art as something that's on a higher plane, something ethereal. Not the junk that I churn out from my Blender for a quick buck.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Arduenn Schwartzman

[Orwar]

   The best 'modern art' that I've heard of was an exhibition in Gothenburg (I think, might have been Malmö) where the 'artist' put up a row of podiums with a blender on top, with the power cords very clearly plugged in. In the blenders was a bit of water - and goldfishes. Anyone who wanted to, could turn on the blender whenever. People freaked out, and animal rights groups were fuming.

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

Peanut Butter Floor by Wim T. Schippers

https://www.boijmans.nl/tentoonstellingen/de-pindakaasvloer-van-wim-t-schippers

The real 'art' about this is that the estimated worth of this thing is 30,000 Euros.

Edited June 28, 2019 by Arduenn Schwartzman

[sirhc DeSantis]

25 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   The best 'modern art' that I've heard of was an exhibition in Gothenburg (I think, might have been Malmö) where the 'artist' put up a row of podiums with a blender on top, with the power cords very clearly plugged in. In the blenders was a bit of water - and goldfishes. Anyone who wanted to, could turn on the blender whenever. People freaked out, and animal rights groups were fuming.

Denmark actually via the beeb : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3040891.stm

But why let facts get in the way, eh? Especially as it had an interesting point to make.

[Orwar]

38 minutes ago, sirhc DeSantis said:

Denmark actually

   Ah! Well, Denmark, Gothenburg, to a northern Swede it's all the same.

[Beth Macbain]

3 hours ago, Orwar said:

   Whenever I hear the word 'art' I cringe. Art is pretentious and vague, and everyone and their grandmother is an 'artist'. 

The thing is, though, that I actually kind of agree with you. I like art. Not all of it, of course. It's not all to my taste, but in general I think art is pretty fricking cool.

However, as long as (I'm using the US since that's where I am) as long as we have one homeless, hungry child living on the streets... really anyone, actually. Child or adult. As long as there are people without a bed to call their own, I don't think government should be spending a dime on art. 

Back in the day, artists who were determined to live off their art had patrons, rich individuals who got a kick out of having their own little artist to support. Let's go back to that. If some stinking rich person wants to support someone covering a floor in peanut butter and calling it art, go for it. But not one cent of my tax money should go towards that. 

[ThorinII]

Not by me, but I think it speaks for itself:

https://www.deviantart.com/jokimon/art/Art-is-a-Creation-76767423

[Orwar]

   I think that ultimately, art must be in the eye of the beholder. What appeals to one person might not appeal to someone else, and for its creator to push it on others as 'art'  is annoying - not all creators do, but some people think that their art must be seen because it carries a philosophical or political message and if you don't agree or like it, you're a dolt. People who knit things and put them around lamp posts and street signs for example - whilst obviously deliberate, why is that supposed to be fine whilst throwing trash on the street and claiming it's 'modern art' isn't?

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

'What is art?' is just another way of asking 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'.

The premise being that the question is really nothing to do with the scale of pins nor the spacio-dimensional qualities of angels, rather upon certain basic yet pivotal facts, the principal being that only one angel ever learned to dance.

Further noting:

a) That while angels are inclined to listen appreciatively to the Music of the Spheres, they rarely feel the need to get down and boogie to it.

b) that the one angel that learned to dance learned to Gavotte, which sadly went out of fashion in France about the same time that beheading went in.

Hence assuming the Angel Aziraphale of the East Gate could find a suitably diminutive partner to Gavotte with, the answer to the question "how many angels may dance upon the point (not the fat end) of a needle" is one, https://media.giphy.com/media/RkF2r6R9IXejpCTxDD/giphy.gif

Consequently, if A (art) = B (amount of angels that can dance on a pin) and B = 1, then,

Art = 1

Quod Erat Demonstrandum*

Edited June 28, 2019 by Arduenn Schwartzman
* as per reductio ad absurdum

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

Art is way of helping us take a moment to consider looking at something differently.

Some art is more successful at this. Some viewers are more successful in truly taking that moment. But the idea of stopping to look more closely has much merit.

[ClariceRose]

Art is an expression of unsaid words. To some, it can be weird, ugly, interesting, conversation starter, or beautiful. Each person who makes "art" , it's something personal to them. Sometimes they hope for others to see it as they do, other times they can care less. 

I don't think it hurts society. It can be beautiful or ugly, but it's an expression.

 

[Mollymews]

when it comes to art and public money then it can work ok

like the public toilets in Kawakawa, New Zealand. Take something functional and apply a bit of art to it. In this case the art of Friedensreich Hundertwasser

 

[rasterscan]

Art for arts sake 
Money for Gods sake 

10CC - Art for Arts sake