Defining Art - Page 3

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Dewey , everyone sees art differently it is boundless hence cannot be explained and accepted with reason.

I asked Qwerts one question in my last post.. I would like to ask the same question to you too ..

as you mentioned and I agree with you there .. Art can't be negative.

according to which standard we can decide what is negative and what is not.. ofcourse what I percieved it is our own moral values and current acceptable social norms , I am using term current as some values tend to change over the period of time.

well if we are bounding art with moral obligations . then there is a reason behind it .. when art is also a slave of reason then it is very difficult to separate it with science at the level of thought conception 😊

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

-

Sorry became really busy with some other stuff and forget to edit it 😊

Ok .. first forgive my ignorance but dont' have any idea what KS stand for 😕..

What I percieved from your post .. you are refering some ancient architechtur .. especially built before muslim-era.

Well the problem is that the moral values which at present we conservatives follow are heavily influenced with monotheistics even among them *that* particular act is not totally prohibited. Yes it is regulated .. so one thing whatever exhibited there in ancient architecture was nothing against human nature or especially against social norms of that particular time period ... the question is why it survived ..well India is an ancient country and majority of Indians are following one of the most ancient religion, parts some of its mythologies don't even match the current moral values still they are accepted so I m not surprised .

What I observe that acceptability of forms of art has been changed over the period of time with the transformation of society in terms of social norms and values.Let me put it more clearly... nude paintings have been accepted when people didnt accept public expression of nudity... especially in western world.... check out paul gauguin. there are sexually explicit architecture in several parts of india which is not vandalized... unlike muslims... hindus are more polytheists...so that much more ground to cover...

Career and life of Oscar wild was ruined because of his deviated attitude according to the moral valuesof society at that time .. Nobody would care if he wrote or does whatever he like these days.

However creativity in crimes is still not acceptable form of art. As you agree with Lighty saying art cannot be negative.. so on which standard we decide what is positive and what is negative. Eventually the negative , postive or good, evil is decided on the basis of social norms or current moral values.

I find it really difficult to separate science with arts.. cause if imagination and creativity is not the part of science we would've stuck somewhere in stone age . why should you unless you are dwelling in the twilight zone and cant make up the difference bet' dawn and dusk... Its not that grey area... Science is hard bound to reason.. .no lee-way there... art is boundless so no limits. there... Give me where imagination and not observation and experimentation was the cause of scientific discovery.....Science needs to prove everything it says so that again limits it to strong reason.....

Infact I find science being a great vehicle to expand our horizon of imagination .. after all everything which is created by man as an artist is already a copy of pre existed natural element 😊. If you imagine... you are not one with scientific temper... even our brain has logic and creativity are on opposite havles of the brain... 😊

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

I asked Qwerts one question in my last post.. I would like to ask the same question to you too ..

as you mentioned and I agree with you there .. Art can't be negative.

according to which standard we can decide what is negative and what is not.. ofcourse what I percieved it is our own moral values and current acceptable social norms , I am using term current as some values tend to change over the period of time. All of us come from different cultures but why is that none of us in the world think it appropriate for their 13 year daughter to be pregnant except for the tribals maybe... We all have implicit sense of right or wrong its not a grey area as you might think.... To put it in a simplistic manner, anything thats not life-preserving is negative....

well if we are bounding art with moral obligations . we are not... nudes and explicit amorous paintings abound...Also mostly what you call moral obligation doesnt apply to an artist since they dont intend to vandalize a value when they are being creative... thats true of a true artist... then there is a reason behind it .. when art is also a slave of reason then it is very difficult to separate it with science at the level of thought conception 😊 Art and reason are opposites... there is no reason in art... when a painter paints a landscape - he knows whats three point prespective thats math... but what he depicts is totally his imagination... not a logical expression of reality - its subjective expression....😊

Originally posted by: raj5000

Is that so 😉 why do same moral flag bearers limit today's artist full freedom First the people who you are calling artist need to establish themselves as artist secondly if a M F hussain who is an established artist... is drawing nudes of godesses he should realize he is hurting sentiments of those simple people who dont intend to be moral flag bearers but just want their religious expression respected.. so does the danish cartoon portraying prophet muhammad was more hatred than art form or expression... So let me know who you are talking of.... of expression? Architectural structure saved on the name of preserving cultural hertiage, moral part is ignored. (this sentence me 😆😆) Trust me art form which is hurting most cant be right... its like you will even call crucifixion of Jesus an act of art when people were trying to nail him as he was bleeding.. and finding innovative means of hanging him off a cross......!!!! - thats not art....by any measure....

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

I asked Qwerts one question in my last post.. I would like to ask the same question to you too ..

as you mentioned and I agree with you there .. Art can't be negative.

according to which standard we can decide what is negative and what is not.. ofcourse what I percieved it is our own moral values and current acceptable social norms , I am using term current as some values tend to change over the period of time. How about our built in standard? When you see a picture of mother breast feeding her baby and then look at pix of topless woman, which picture do you think will get strong and or negative reaction.?

well if we are bounding art with moral obligations . then there is a reason behind it .. when art is also a slave of reason then it is very difficult to separate it with science at the level of thought conception 😊 I think this is Ayn Rand school of thought.😊 ...How can art be slave of reason when it appeals to emotions and imagination which science clearly does not.. Artistic expression often bypasses the human reason and appeals directly to emotion.

Originally posted by: raj5000

Is that so 😉 why do same moral flag bearers limit today's artist full freedom of expression? Architectural structure saved on the name of preserving cultural hertiage, moral part is ignored. (this sentence me 😆😆)

Just because some whacko wants to depict god and godesses in nude or deragotary manner it does not become art. Art appeals to emotion in a positive way and is progressive . Since in ancient India reading was not popular, Vatsyayana is said to have written his understanding of sexual psycholgy in sutras. Sutra means, a string or formula. There were no qualms about it then or now.

So many diverse opinions... 😛 Just goes to show how abstract the whole issue is...I think it is wise not to try and define art...to each his own! 😛

eg... I find Picasso's works uggggh!

For me God/ Nature is the greatest artist...

The Day GOD SPILLED THE PAINT!

The east side of the Carrizo plain, in the Temblor Range, about 50 miles due west of Bakersfield, CA.
Photo taken by Barbara Mathews, May 14, 2005

Originally posted by: TallyHo

For me God/ Nature is the greatest artist...

The Day GOD SPILLED THE PAINT!

The east side of the Carrizo plain, in the Temblor Range, about 50 miles due west of Bakersfield, CA.
Photo taken by Barbara Mathews, May 14, 2005