Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry, (not sorry) - no.

No organization decides what qualifies as "art" outside of their organization - they give an opinion, one which others can treat however they like.

That is the cold, harsh reality.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

You do not decide what is art. I don't. The Biennale does.

Well I'd say partially true, TDD123, but...

....the most important task of an artist is NOT to seek recognition, rather to keep on doing what you're doing no matter what. Follow your bliss - do what you love. Learn, grow, improve, and get hair implants if you tear your hair out... :) 

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fionalein said:

I hate to tell the hard cold truth here but in that LL would benefit more if Hangars is closing in SL - as Djehan proposed to porbably move on to SANSAR in that case...

Then here's your mirror again : You are destroying SecondLife like this,. It will just stay this niche for digitial humping with all sorts of loose morals tath endangering it's publicity and retention to the point that no one will ever care for it anymore.

Suit yourself.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Sorry, (not sorry) - no.

No organization decides what qualifies as "art" outside of their organization - they give an opinion, one which others can treat however they like.

That is the cold, harsh reality.

I'd consider somebody an artist exposing at the Biennale. You perhaps don't, but I do have to consider your opninion, like min. is based on squat.

I'd rather take their opinion, as a company, than your individual one.

Edited by TDD123
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Now here's the rub : you call yourself on your website a 3D artist. Which is however a matter of taste. You can call yourself that all day long, but I will never agree to that.

Oh you THOUGHT seriously I was talking about my work? I have no expectations for my work It was a rethorical set piece, thank you for playing though.

12 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

It's harder to say that about somebody exposing at the Biennale. That is recognition. In our lifetimes.

You do not decide what is art. I don't. The Biennale does.

Well I suppose that's your opinion, and I suppose it fits the type of person you presented yourself as over the course of this thread.

12 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

And you were not chosen.

I'm not even sure where to begin with this assumption... but I'm going to try:

Take a second to think about the thread we are in, and why this thread exists at all?

5 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Then here's your mirror again : You are destroying SecondLife like this,. It will just stay this niche for digitial humping with all sorts of loose morals tath endangering it's publicity and retention to the point that no one will ever care for it anymore.

Suit yourself.

Not SecondLife as a whole really, just the part you happen to care about. The rest of secondlife and the art within it is surviving just fine.

Edited by Kyrah Abattoir
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TDD123 said:

I'd consider somebody an artist

How do you define art?  That could be a good conversation...

For me, it has to evoke feeling and have a certain level of skill to it...although I'd say my grandsons scribbles are definitely worthy of display at an art show   ;0

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all well and good but the entire point was that their opinion is just that - an opinion.

Art - of all sorts - is not something anyone can properly quantify.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Solar Legion said:

Art - of all sorts - is not something anyone can properly quantify.

Partially true, the "beholder" notion....but art does have standards that most artists abide by...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes - because we do not agree with your rather narrow viewpoint ....

How about you strive to understand how the real world works first, hmm?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luna Bliss said:

How do you define art?  That could be a good conversation...

   A little bit like when a group of friends, who all have similar world views and probably under the influence of alcohol, find that one truth which would end all wars and bring peace and prosperity eternal to everyone across the globe.

   Asking the question "what is art" is about as complex as asking "what is the meaning of life"; there has been no conclusive answer to that question throughout millenniums of human creativity. I have my answer, you may or may not have yours, countless philosophers and artists have had theirs - we're all different, we all have our perspectives and opinions, and we could well argue throughout our lifetimes without coming to an agreement. Some people think that art is as important as water and air, some think that it's entirely superfluous, inefficient and pointless.

   I believe in entropy. That which can not sustain itself should perish. I suggested that they find ways to finance the project several pages ago, and now they have done so - whether it works out or not is up to the community that supports it. If it succeeds, excellent. If it fails, too bad. I'm not sure what, beyond that, is left to be argued for.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fionalein said:

It is the inevitable doom of all successfull underground artists to loose there underground credibility by the very act of becoming successfull - sit down and take a minute to think about it. ;)

All?   Did Joni Mitchell?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Whatever one thinks about the merit of Hangars Liquides itself, there is a precedent here, and the possibility of exploitation by other, less deserving souls?

I was trying to make a quite different point, actually, and separately to pose a quite different question. I'll try again.

The point was, of all the ways a non-profit might supplement a donation of discounted land, rental income is by far the most problematic. That's what the girl scout cookie analogy was trying to illustrate, and why it hinges on the generous donor being in the business that the recipient chooses as a side-hustle using the donation itself to compete with the donor.

Sure, it's all small scale here, in the cosmic scheme of things, but still: How would you feel if you were a huge New York City landlord who gave space to a gallery, only to discover they'd turned most of it into apartments? Sure, maybe that gallery attracts some folks to your own apartments, too, but maybe you'd planned on that all along, it was why you gave the space in the first place, not expecting the benefit to also be used against you.

But Richie Rich Moneybags was a whole different hypothetical, nothing to do with that special problem with rent. I'm not worrying about him exploiting a precedent intended only for the deserving, starving artists. Rather, I'm asking whether our starving artists would still be happy with an arrangement that saves all the art if that same arrangement is offered to any ol' money-grubbing capitalist. That's to pose the question: Is it the art that's important? or the special treatment of artists?

Would our artists feel they deserve an even better deal, if this one were available to other folks they don't consider as artistic as themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Orwar said:

Asking the question "what is art" is about as complex as asking "what is the meaning of life"; there has been no conclusive answer to that question throughout millenniums of human creativity. I have my answer, you may or may not have yours, countless philosophers and artists have had theirs - we're all different, we all have our perspectives and opinions, and we could well argue throughout our lifetimes without coming to an agreement.

No, the attributes of art and aesthetics are defined fairly well.  You can study this.

But whether one likes any particular piece of art is dependent on the person viewing it, yes. As well as whether any individual believes art is important.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Orwar said:

Some people think that art is as important as water and air, some think that it's entirely superfluous, inefficient and pointless.

The attempt to know life on a deeper level -- the  expression of one's inner self --  is pointless?  I think anybody who believes that has the consciousness of a rock (not that I mean to insult rocks here).

* It's meaningful to them, and that's all I need to know.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHATEVER THIS IS
By Dorothy Walters 

What is it,
this channeling god,
these words pouring through
like love strokes of light,
these syllables taking over
becoming flesh, my flowing veins,
I cannot remember
when it was not this way,
when my blood did not ache
for whatever this is.

from "A Cloth of Fine Gold: Poems of the Inner Journey"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

No, the attributes of art and aesthetics are defined fairly well.  You can study this.

   Anyone who claims to have a 'true' definition of art is burping dogmatic axioms. Study away if you like, and come back when you've got some meat to that argument other than opinionated jargon.

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The attempt to know life on a deeper level -- the  expression of one's inner self --  is pointless?

   That's not even close to what I said, unless you are truly unable to separate "art" from "life".

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Orwar said:
4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The attempt to know life on a deeper level -- the  expression of one's inner self --  is pointless?

   That's not even close to what I said, unless you are truly unable to separate "art" from "life".

Dedicated artists probably don't....separate art from life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Dedicated artists probably don't....separate art from life.

   So let them perish. What's your point?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Orwar said:
9 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

No, the attributes of art and aesthetics are defined fairly well.  You can study this.

   Anyone who claims to have a 'true' definition of art is burping dogmatic axioms. Study away if you like, and come back when you've got some meat to that argument other than opinionated jargon.

Once again, I said the attributes of art are fairly well defined....this is different from knowing exactly what art IS.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Orwar said:
6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Dedicated artists probably don't....separate art from life.

   So let them perish. What's your point?

Perish? What does that have to do with anything.

Art is, at its base, simply a way of seeing the world and expressing that. You can't separate art from life.

* it's a way to know life at a deeper level

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I heard Engliishman In New York by Sting , but still take coffee and toasts done on both sides. And no that has no artistic meaning. I just like coffee and toast that way.

Your point being ?

 

I really had enough with this useless battering.

Edited by TDD123
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Now here's the rub : you call yourself on your website a 3D artist. Which is however a matter of taste. You can call yourself that all day long, but I will never agree to that.

It's harder to say that about somebody exposing at the Biennale. That is recognition. In our lifetimes.

You do not decide what is art. I don't. The Biennale does.

And you were not chosen.

When the thread first started, I might have visited the place. After the way this thread was handled, I rapidly changed my mind. The mildest criticism got accusations of being a copybotter or jealous or whatever else. There are regular digs at other people, whether it's other creators (who'll never be worthy and aren't real artists), people on the mainland (because if you can't afford a sim, you're nothing) or adult sims (which mainly seems to be a dig at the idea that people might do something for fun... adult sims aren't my idea of fun either, but it doesn't harm art for people to have other hobbies).

You don't have to set up the sim creator as the one true artist in Second Life for people to appreciate the work. It's not actually necessary to bring others down to raise someone else up. I've been supported by a lot of creators who do very different stuff to me. It didn't harm them in the slightest to see value in my work.

All round, my impression from the regulars of this sim in this thread is that they feel they're the elite, who are descending from on high to mingle with the commoners, because it turns out those commoners have money. If that's not the desired impression, less of the accusations and random digs at other people would go a long way. It really wouldn't hurt to show a little bit of respect to the people who are being asked to pay money.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, a documentary concerning a failed adaptation of Frank Herbert's work ....

That's nice and quite irrelevant.

This is a public forum and the only criteria you get to set concerning interaction here consists of the tools the software gives you and your own willpower.

I find far more artistry within the written word or music than within static images and as Fiona noted above ... film (and other) adaptations are something one must be very careful with, one of the reasons that I - personally - do not consider movies and such to be "works of art" - not on the same level as the written word.

I have never been moved to any emotional response by paintings (and other imagery) with the exception of a rare few movies. I cannot say the same of the written word and of music.

Blather on all you want about your own opinion of "art" and whose opinion you give weight to - it does not change a single thing whatsoever and if you've truly "had enough" then use the forum tools available to you to ignore further posts.

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.

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...