Defining Art - Page 4

Originally posted by: Believe

@tally....You know that pic cost!!!! 😃 its a beautiful women picuture with lot of inner meaning..... 😉 😛

I couldnt care less Vinu...I wouldnt pay a phooti kaudi for that Picasso!😆

This discussion on art has come to a very interesting point. The question of morality in art has become a subject of heated debate amongst critiques and the general population.

Art is define by personal perceptions. It is an aesthetic presentation of various elements that appeals to an individuals personal senses. While we may set standards and objectivity, it is impossible to be completely objective as our subjective tastes will influence us.

Take popular music, I may like a song while a friend might think it sucks. We consider Beethoven and Mozart to be classical maestros but back in the time their music was considered racy and repulsive.

Similarly an art teacher may think little Timmy's drawing was extremely awful. Most people will think it is really bad. But from Timmy's little child perspective it probably is something very beautiful and artistic.

Artistic perceptions evolve too. We find that we no longer enjoy the music we did as teens. Little Timmy will grow to find his childhood drawings quite hideous.

When it comes to morality art takes on another layer of subjectivity. Our moral values tend to differ. Nudity, Sexuality and Religion in art have become controversial subjects based on ethical aspects of art.

The human body is a work of art in itself. It is the most primal art form of nature. The curvature, the complexion, the features are all unique. There is an aesthetics to sexuality too. Nature's ingenuity in attraction, romance and consummation. Yet when it comes to nudity or sexuality in art forms many people feel queasy and think it is not art. Similarly trying to blend religion and these elements seem blasphemous to us.

Japanese Anime has received critical acclaim by many people for artistic representation, visual characteristics, style, themes etc. In recent times Anime has become one of the most popular genre of animation and won a lot of accolades. However, will we transfer that appreciation to Hentai? While the Japanese for centuries have considered all forms artistic, not all cultures are accepting of it as an art form.

In my personal opinion art in its absolute sense should be devoid of morals. However, art is based on subjective taste and morals and ethics are part of our subjective opinion. I personally am quite open to nudity and sexuality in art and find that these can be infused very aesthetically. Yet there will be somethings I will consider not artful or too far in the name of art, somethings I will consider immoral and grotesque. At the same time someone else might find the very things I dislike as artistic. No matter what we think we will never be able to erase another person's perception.

Originally posted by: TallyHo

I couldnt care less Vinu...I wouldnt pay a phooti kaudi for that Picasso!😆

lol😆....so crual lol😆 😛

ok lets check our Picasso's some paintings(MF hussain sab's works)

Ye dheaka tho muje my 5 year old Nephew yaad aathe hey😊he do same like works😕

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Hear your point loud and clear... even am not in support (whatsoever) of degoratary form of art, but am not agreeing that it(🤢 art...) cann't be called art.

Originally posted by: lighthouse

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.

Just replied to Qwertz on similar POV, well Good form art appeals to empotion in a positive wat and is progessive.Bad form of art is by no means acceptable. My point is good or bad, finally it's called ART. Similar to good/ bad thoughts, bad thoughts are after all thoughts by defination, isn't it?

Originally posted by: raj5000

Hear your point loud and clear... even am not in support (whatsoever) of degoratary form of art, but am not agreeing that it(🤢 art...) cann't be called art.

So you say crucifixion of Jesus is art of live body sculpting?......so u think btk killer is creative genius... so is jack the ripper???

You know what everything that evolved within the context of good should have interpretations within that context...

Originally posted by: raj5000

Just replied to Qwertz on similar POV, well Good form art appeals to empotion in a positive wat and is progessive.Bad form of art is by no means acceptable. My point is good or bad, finally it's called ART. Similar to good/ bad thoughts, bad thoughts are after all thoughts by defination, isn't it?

I think what we are saying is that nothing is art until it is recognised,accepted and valued by people as such. Just because someone creates "something" it is not necessarily an ART. Thoughts are real and not a label as art is.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

.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...

Arey baba .. now I am getting confused with this khichdri you are making here 😆.. chalo lets deal with this issue over here separately and will talk the other stuff on my second post..

Infact I got your point and I tried to answered it .. but it seems I need to elaborate it further.. so here you go .

Well appreciation of nude human body is not a new concept .. it has been around since ever . even in west .. nude male body had been exhibited in many of ancient western fine arts. so even after emergence of monotheistic religion in those areas culturally they were fimiliar with such concepts in fine art.

As for India well, till todate majority of indians are practicing one of the ancient religions and it never disapeared even after serveral invasions. I've never been there in India and I am not Hindu so make me correct if I am wrong anywhere. Sex in ancient civilization ( India is part of it) was not considered only a basic insitict .. it holded a much sacred place then .infact was considered as a magical power to protect and to flourish.. well you can see explicit figures in some of the vulnerable parts of temples along with other protective figures again stressing its sacred position during particular time period.

Fertility festival in Japan is another example . So nudity one way or another was part of fine arts during early civilization where it was not only accpeted but was worshiped or considered sacred .. to its acceptance or later on ignorance was nothing unexpected .. Sex= Sin is reletively new concept in evaluation of cultures 😊

Hindus are polytheist but culture among them or rahter I would say in India is influenced by the overall evaluation taking place everywhere . Now in this thread we are discussing about controversial paintings by Hussain I never get a chance to see what he painted ..but ofcourse it evoked a very strong reaction and rage ..which is acceptable to current mind-set and current moral values. I personally don't like infact hate it 🤢 any art form create such kind of problems. however back in ancient time it was perfectly normal .. I remember some times back I was reading about Hindu Art and Architecture.. several of its pictures specially one showing Shakti sculpture carved I guess around 5-10 AD was among pictures which I can't dare to open infront of my father or borther. let me remember the book .. will provide the name here later😊

Ok now I m now responding Lighty and Qwerts togather ..as I find both of you are saying almost same thing ..Pahle to let me put it in bullets what we are talking about .

What is art itself? Moral obligations in art?
• Differentiating points in science and arts?

What is Art itself

I personally thing it is impossible to define it . cause to say what is art we have to define what is not an art? ..problem is where we can put a limit.

We all are agree ..art had no boundries .. no limits and that is how it is different than other entities .cause it is play of imagination and creativity of human mind... well if we agree on this than we have to include everything which a human says an art and his \her creativity whether we like it or not .

Originally posted by: lighthouse

I think what we are saying is that nothing is art until it is recognised,accepted and valued by people as such. Just because someone creates "something" it is not necessarily an ART. Thoughts are real and not a label as art is.

chalo maani tumhari baat.. but the thing is if a set of people dislike something and not considered anything an art .. others think it otherwise.. then who is going to decide it..

lets think about stuff which we can't even imagin can be an art work..

How about human excreta .. Yuck!!!!🤢 reaction of majority would be this one .. However Italian artist Piero Manzoni, published an edition of ten cans each containing 30 gms of his own excretment . One of them was bought by the Tate Gallery 😊

http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue10/excrementalvalue.htm

ok how about " The Reincarnation of St Orlan" Starting in 90s French Artist Orlan underwent series of surgical procedures to reconstruct her face to make it according to historically-defined male criteria of female beauty..

the operations were broadcast live to many art galleries.. the whole event was titled "The Reincarnation of St Orlan" .. she did other wierd stuff too you like it or not but people around world think it as art

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan

Moral Obligations

Qwerts my dear I dont' understand ,why you include only nudity and sex in moral values.. yes they are however moral values also include crimes, right or wrong etc.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Of course not where do you see art being slave of moral standards....

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

[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....

Now I am quoting you from two different posts of this thread.. One place you said Art is not bound to moral standard .. however next post .. you want to bound it ..😊

I am not saying you are wrong in your second post.. what I m saying that even in arts there is a limit of *acceptance*.. to me certain moral values are absolute truth just like numbers .. they simply exists and that is why we found a kind of uniformity in some of the moral values across the world despite being part of different cultures. so at some point we have to put some limit on human creativity which especially doesn't go well with our moral values.. no I don't agree that moral values mean only Sex or nudity . to hurt other people's sentiment also fall under moral standards, to feel disgusted about killing also shows moral aspect 😊

Originally posted by: lighthouse

[.How can art be slave of reason when it appeals to emotions and imagination which science clearly does not

Lighty either you accept that art can be negative or you accept it is slave of reason ... donon batain to nahi hosaktin 😊

If I take your point that art can't be negative than I have to accept that it is slave of moral values and the reason bhind it to preserve huminity in general .. everything is included in preservation ,, right from physical well being to emotional satisfaction ..

Differentiating points bwt Science and Arts

Well initially we were discussing that both fields are different cause one is being slave to reason and other is not .. however at one point or another both are slaves .. yes I believe that both are different ..but I also believe that Science is part of arts .. Scientific researches start with hypothesis .. you think and then you proceed.. yes in both execution may be different but at level of thought conception .. they are somewhat similar.. again even great artistics modle you find scientific rules embeded in it .. you simply can't separate science from arts..

chalo egs pe aate hain ...

Renaissance architecture is famouse for its mathematical precision.. how can we separate science from this art work

Ok we say art is pure creation .. but even then one way or another every art work is a copy of things pre existed in nature.. and ofcourse science deal with the same . For me it is really hard to separate both .. to many science evoke same ecstasy as an artwork to others to agar baat emotions ki hoi to wo bhi to criteria nahi raha .. phir kia karain 😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

So you say crucifixion of Jesus is art of live body sculpting?......so u think btk killer is creative genius... so is jack the ripper???

You know what everything that evolved within the context of good should have interpretations within that context...

I think already said hear your point. I really don't want to hurt any religious feeling here and would request to please avoid such examples. Back to topic:-

How do you percieve such acts, acts of creativity Or acts of annihilation? BTW - there are hundreds of paintings (work of art (creativity)) on Lord Jesus, depicting (google search pls) the point you mentioned, they are not form of ART, according to you?

My point is very simple anything has essence of creativity/innovation is ART. After basic defination of ART (creativity/innovation) is sufficed, we can term it act of whatever we like crime/degoratary act or not appreciated or not encouraged or 🤢 or whatever ... but all the deriveables of art.