Judgement Day

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by All Shall Be Judged

Only in the sense that fanfiction is technically art.

Is that supposed to be a counterpoint, or are you admitting defeat?

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by All Shall Be Judged

Only in the sense that fanfiction is technically art.

Well, sad thing is, Judgy, not all art is good.

[Malice In Wonderland]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Fashion as a whole? While I agree that fashion isn't HIGH art, fashion is, by virtue of being a symbol of an idea, always expressive.

If you can give me an example of any kind of garment that doesn't express an idea whatsoever, then I'd be inclined to agree with you that fashion as a whole is not expressive. The sad thing is, it is. The thing that needs to be understood, that not all expression is as profound as we would all like to think.

Sure, a plumber could wear some coveralls with his tool belt around his waist, but the uniform he is wearing is expressing the idea that he is indeed, a plumber.

Think about it. If fashion as a whole wasn't expressive, then bondage pants and funky colored hair would not offend anyone in the least.

Very rarely does one ever put on any amount of clothing for nothing but the sake of function. Even when they do, the piece itself will express who you are. So if one looks like they just fell out of their closet or even tried to look as strictly plain as possible, they're still going to express an idea, weather they mean to or not.

Makes sense.
Thanks Kontan.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Making fashion is a creative endeavour. Picking fashion is an expressive one.

And yes, I agree that fashion is not High Art. I, at least, think of High Art as being inherently useless, which fashion is not. I don't mean useless in that it can't carry a message or give us pleasure or beautify the world, but it's not something like food or transportation or shelter or social things.
Clothes are necessary for keeping one warm and/or keeping one in an acceptable degree of modesty, but fashion makes it pretty (or not). It's similar to making a pretty quilt when a plain puffy blanket would do quite well.

Also, one has to have displayed some kind of thought and effort for it to truly be high art. Agony, I find, is an integral part of the process, whether it's in the planning or the execution (though preferably both. Shitting in a can doesn't indicate agony to me, unless it happened a particularly bad poopy, but that's not the type of agony I'm talking about).

[/pointless elitist crap]

[JCC]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

Making fashion is a creative endeavour. Picking fashion is an expressive one.

And yes, I agree that fashion is not High Art. I, at least, think of High Art as being inherently useless, which fashion is not.

How so?

'High art' (I'll make it clear here that I absolutely hate this term) - created with the intention of aesthetic value and provoking thought.

Fashion - created with the intention of aesthetic value and provoking thought.

Where's the difference?

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by JCC

How so?

'High art' (I'll make it clear here that I absolutely hate this term) - created with the intention of aesthetic value and provoking thought.

Fashion - created with the intention of aesthetic value and provoking thought.

Where's the difference?

In actuality, there isn't. I was simply molly coddling some people's feelings by enlightening them to a fact while not making them feel like their precious Mozart and Rembrandt isn't likened entirely to Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

Making fashion is a creative endeavour. Picking fashion is an expressive one.

And yes, I agree that fashion is not High Art. I, at least, think of High Art as being inherently useless, which fashion is not. I don't mean useless in that it can't carry a message or give us pleasure or beautify the world, but it's not something like food or transportation or shelter or social things.

You have a point about its material uselessness to the individual, but it does more than merely give pleasure to societies. It's often a vehicle for social change (look at the influence of the Beats on youth culture, including the sexual revolution - while they weren't single-handedly responsible for it, the lineage of values that they gave birth to had a very substantial effect). The novel Black Beauty advanced concerns about animal welfare in public consciousness more effectively than any political movement of its time. Not to mention that, if we view art as an organized response to the world, it encompasses philosopical works such as Rights of Man, which influenced social change to a considerable degree.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by JCC

How so?

'High art' (I'll make it clear here that I absolutely hate this term) - created with the intention of aesthetic value and provoking thought.

Fashion - created with the intention of aesthetic value and provoking thought.

Where's the difference?

The fact that one matters only to the individual, and the other matters to the world.

I'm not gonna win any arguments in here given that everyone else is talking about technical definitions, whereas my attitude is just that there's a line and anything below the line - while it may be enjoyable to some - is not worth serious consideration. However I think that's a valid stand to take in the quagmire of shit that culture unleashes upon us, and the only real argument is where and by whom the line should be drawn.

Obviously, I think it's by me, and if you disagree then you fall below the line so I don't really give a shit.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

You have a point about its material uselessness to the individual, but it does more than merely give pleasure to societies. It's often a vehicle for social change (look at the influence of the Beats on youth culture, including the sexual revolution - while they weren't single-handedly responsible for it, the lineage of values that they gave birth to had a very substantial effect). The novel Black Beauty advanced concerns about animal welfare in public consciousness more effectively than any political movement of its time.

You ignored part of what you quoted. I *did* say it can carry a message, and it often does. Sometimes the message is so far out that people aren't going to get it, but.

Why do I think that fashion is not High Art? Well, why do I think that painting santas on gourds is not High Art? It's a craft. It takes skill and effort and such, but it lacks something. Granted, I think fashion is closer to High Art than painted gourds are because fashion does take some inventiveness, but it's just not there for me. Fashion has its own high.
And I agree with Apathy's Child about the line: it's a subjective thing. It depends on what field one works in and how pretentious one is. A fashion designer with an ego might consider him/herself to be an artist who makes High Art, but a painter with an equal ego (like myself) will laugh at said fashion designer and say there's nothing High about clothes.
And yes, I know it's a terrible argument, but honestly that's how I feel. I love diy, and I wish I had a sewing machine to make it easier for me, but *shrug* it's not the same as painting or sculpture.

[Despanan]

This is stupid.

Art can be defined in a number of way, however, I prefer Scott McCloud's: "Anything that we as humans do which is unrelated to our survival and/or reproduction."

Under this definition, it is the intention behind the creation, not the product, which makes something artistic. Any activity can be art, from painting, to making comics, to the way one washes his hands. Certain activities have more art in them, while others have less. IE:

-I make a t-shirt because I think it looks cool.

has more art than:

-I make the same t-shirt because someone is going to pay me for it, or I think It will get me laid.

Not all art is good. Worthiness has nothing to do with the definition, but people are snobbish and therefor want to pretend that only "good" art or "High" art is art. Hence you get retarded comments like: "My six-year old could do that! That isn't art!" and the aforementioned "Pictures of butts".

Also, everyone needs to stop assuming that just because they create "art" that somehow makes them a worthy person. I assure you it does not. "Art" by itself is not good or bad, high or low, worthy or unworthy it is the product of an intention, or as some would say, a compulsion.

[KontanKarite]

Desp, you came mightly close to arching me there. Do you want trouble from me? Do want to deal with Rorschach?

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

I agree with most of what you say, Despanan, including the more-art-in-things-for-oneself thing. But even with a commission, one inevitably put some aspect of oneself in it, even if it's something not in one's usual style. Much of what survives from the Medieval and Renaissance era are commissions.

I don't say that all High Art is good. That would be a load of crap, especially since what's "good" art is as individual as the answer to "What is art?"

If everything can be art, then there's nothing that *can't* be art, and the term "art" loses its value. If you overuse the term love, how much does it mean when you tell your partner, who you love more than anything else, that you love them?

[JCC]

I agree with absolutely everything that Despanan said.

[Devil's Darling]

Come on! Art is art.Nothing more and nothing less....or as someone said [can't remember who] "Art is the sex of imagination".Everyone sees it differently 'cuz they have different tastes and ideas.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Despanan

-I make a t-shirt because I think it looks cool.

has more art than:

-I make the same t-shirt because someone is going to pay me for it, or I think It will get me laid.

Actually, I don't necessarily agree with this. It can be true, but it really depends on what the artist puts into the piece that he/she is being paid for. The patron specifies a subject matter and maybe a few other things, and then a good artist will ask "What can I do with this to make it mine?"

But back to the original point, fashion is an art, but it's not High Art. I don't know what it is, but it just doesn't feel right to classify it with High Art.

Devil's Darling: But it's dashed fun to argue about it.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

But back to the original point, fashion is an art, but it's not High Art. I don't know what it is, but it just doesn't feel right to classify it with High Art.

High Art is a scam engineered by rich old people to disenfranchise themselves from everyone else in a spurt of obnoxious nonsense, and like all obnoxious nonsense paraded around by rich old people, certain poor or middle-class losers such as yourself flock to it and defend it as if it was their newborn child because they think that it makes them look cool. Pantomimes are funny, so go away.

[Devil's Darling]

Well yeah but art is subjective you can't say for sure what art is.
@ LaBelleDameSansMerci

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Yeah, but you can say - with at some degree of certainty - what *you* think art is.

[Devil's Darling]

Yes that's true
It's like that thing with what's shit for some is art for others.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by Devil's Darling

Yes that's true
It's like that thing with what's shit for some is art for others.

Sometimes it's both. Quite literally.

JCC: Yup. Pretty much.
The thing about art is that it's so muddled and subjective. How does one define art? One defines it based on other principles and views that one holds. Usually I don't think about what I think art actually is, which is largely why I'm not exactly clear on it myself. I just do my best to make art that I hope can be judged as "most excellent" by the standards I ascribe to (I've yet to achieve "most excellent," or even "great," I think, but I still try).
That's part of the attraction of it to me, is the subjectivity of it. If there was a right and wrong answer to art, then it wouldn't be art. It would be math.

I think that anyone can be a good artist IF they put forth the time and dedication required. But most people don't (I don't, in some areas that I should, like lifedrawing).

[gothicusmaximus]

Art is anything that conveys ideas on a figurative level as well as a literal level.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

What about abstract art?

[gothicusmaximus]

... that's a fine example. What is literally a splotch of blue on a white canvas might figuratively be the Bolsheviks usurping the upper class.

[Felreaper]

Exam me and tell me what you think, this could be interesting...

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

... that's a fine example. What is literally a splotch of blue on a white canvas might figuratively be the Bolsheviks usurping the upper class.

Aha. I see what you mean. I thought you meant that it had to convey the same thing figuratively and literally.
Pshsh. I'm an artist. I should know better than to think that...