Defining Art - Page 6

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

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 .

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.

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 😊

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 😊

Let me give you a short reply before a long one later... Art is supposed to impact... Crime, shooting and killing cant be expressed through art.like paintings or sculpting (unless you are really doing it on the live body). because they have a better impact when you see the blood flowing out of the human body.. which is why its expression is done better through movies.. but nudity and sex can be expressed through pictures and the impact can be big...which is why the morality domain of paintings mostly goes around nudity and sex.... whereas this as aesthetic in earlier centuries... with womens lib and internet its only going to get worse with expressions for human genitalia showing up on the canvas or some other as of now gross ideas..Art either enthralls or appalls...mostly its supposed to be the former in case of hussain,... its the latter. and remember an artist knows his limitations.(otherwise you could have them walking randomly into any household and asking teh lady of the house to take off her clothes since she has a good figure and he would like it potray it. art is unbounded, not artists..although I am for total freedom, no bounds even for artists...). but just chooses to experiment with it... Thats all I am saying...😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

So? Is nudity a part of the morality edifice we have around us... Can any of us move around naked.. if, yes.. .you are right if no then thats an integral part of the morality and the veri existence of these paintings shows the moral tolerance...to art...Art form has a lot more of open space to depict.. I dont think it has to tread that narrow ground of human sensitivity...

First .. Qwerts very nice post maza agia 👏👏👏

I am not saying that nudity is not part of morality..😊 I only elaborated why those art forms are still present .. see it doesn't happen that they were made centuries ago and then discovered now .. well they saw every period of time ..

So have to figure out why not they were demolished back then .. lets say during mulim rule.. well, my explaination was related to that particular time period... and when we talk about these days as Raj said it is tolareted because of its historic importance not because of moral tolerance.... My point was and still is that Art is bound to moral values which may change over the period of time 😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Why hussian painted the goddess when like the mona lisa.. he could has dressed somebody up in the nude and painted her... See the reason artist tread on people's sentiment is not accidental...but rather veri intentional even if it may be at the deep psycho-sexual level.. or explicit hate level (the danish cartoons)..

Arey yaar who knows the intention of an artist .. everything we think about intentions is nothing beyond speculation . Forget about Hussain .. if a person of same belief make some thing like that and then said he was infact following the ancient values.... who is going to believe him .. no one .. because it may be part of ancient culture but now it is not tolerated so artist is bound to follow the current moral limits. Personally I am not in favour of total autonomy in Arts but not in favour of total moralism either😊

(let me clear one thing I am not supporter of limitless art .. I hate whatever Hussain did I dont believe in hurting so many people just to get some pleasure whatsoever when one can achieve the same pleasure by doing some other stuff)

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

The tolerance might change and people might loosen up slightly as they come to know there is no real God or anything... which will be direct by-product of technological advancement but there will still be that slim hope encapsulated is strong faith which will remain sensitive....

Well said ... well what I feel Science is taking God's place on aspects.. on alot many issues where people were taking guidance from God are now relying on science. However what I believe that even in extreme situation we as society will still follow certain rules of ethics we simply can't survive without it . 😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

I just watched Gandhi last week and when he gets shot in teh end.. the director (Attenborough) chose not to show it.. just depict it through a sound.of shots. Then there was a indian version which showed Gandhi fly in the air...before dropping down.. Surpringly the former was a britisher and latter an indian.. so much for "art"... This shows the basic difference in perspective on what constitutes art...😊

Now, If we talk of absolute tolerance - we are talking of an utopian world of no religion, no race, no differences... which makes the argument, in fact this whole thread, then redundant...😊

May be alittle irrelevant to discussion but don't you think every artist is born utopian 😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

u remind me of a variation of that six blind men and an elephant.story . its almost like.. ok an elephant has a tail... so anything that has a tail is an elephant so a cat is an elephant...😆😆 Thats wat happens when the focus is limited to just one area of concern😉 rather then understanding / exploring other aspect and lack of collabaration(give & take) between thoughts . The critical point you mention should be by and large... thats where I asked you... is there any civilized society...Doesn't matter as far the defination of ARTs goes😛...thats the next step...where the parents think its appropriate for their 13 year old to take stripping as a profession and infact enroll her to some professional classes!!?????

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

First .. Qwerts very nice post maza agia 👏👏👏 thanks yaar dewey...

I am not saying that nudity is not part of morality..😊 I only elaborated why those art forms are still present .. see it doesn't happen that they were made centuries ago and then discovered now .. well they saw every period of time so?..

So have to figure out why not they were demolished back then ..beacause even then this wasnt particularly overstepping the limit.... lets say during mulim rule.. well, my explaination was related to that particular time period..its the christains who kept the muslims at bay otherwise these paintings wouldnt have survived.... and when we talk about these days as Raj said it is tolareted because of its historic importance not because of moral tolerance...na.. we dont retain something corruptible even for historical importance..... My point was and still is that Art is bound to moral values which may change over the period of time 😊..

Arey yaar who knows the intention of an artist ..i do.. show me some paitings and i can tell u what the artist is doing... the mistake u are doing is you are imagining the artist to be some kind of infinite... whereas they are just humans who have grown up with issues and not are trying to express themselves.. thats the reason a painter who paints nudes doesnt himself nude while painting... everything we think about intentions is nothing beyond speculation . Forget about Hussain .. if a person of same belief make some thing like that it would make any difference... the man would face the same wrath.. and thats cause the honesty of intentions is flimsy these days...and then said he was infact following the ancient values.... who is going to believe him .. no one .. because it may be part of ancient culture but now it is not tolerated so artist is bound to follow the current moral limits. isnt he grown up like that?Personally I am not in favour of total autonomy in Arts but not in favour of total moralism either😊

(let me clear one thing I am not supporter of limitless art .. I hate whatever Hussain did I dont believe in hurting so many people just to get some pleasure whatsoever when one can achieve the same pleasure by doing some other stuff)

Well said ... well what I feel Science is taking God's place on aspects.. on alot many issues where people were taking guidance from God are now relying on science. However what I believe that even in extreme situation we as society will still follow certain rules of ethics we simply can't survive without it . 😊

May be alittle irrelevant to discussion not really movie making is an art and the gross ness of expressions is what I was talking about...😊 but don't you think every artist is born utopian 😊... art in unbounded, artist is not... and like true love, true artists are by far too few....😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

So? Is nudity a part of the morality edifice we have around us... Can any of us move around naked.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Why hussian painted the goddess when like the mona lisa.. he could has dressed somebody up in the nude and painted her... See the reason artist tread on people's sentiment is not accidental...but rather veri intentional even if it may be at the deep psycho-sexual level.. or explicit hate level (the danish cartoons).. If you telling me that muslims should have tolerated the Danish cartoons of the prophet... which I as a non-muslim found appalling then thats wrong....its not art...

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Art is a beautiful positive spontaneous expression... or a negative expression of a less positive sentiment like hurt, despondency, malaise... not hate. The tolerance might change and people might loosen up slightly as they come to know there is no real God or anything... which will be direct by-product of technological advancement but there will still be that slim hope encapsulated is strong faith which will remain sensitive....

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

I just watched Gandhi last week and when he gets shot in teh end.. the director (Attenborough) chose not to show it.. just depict it through a sound.of shots. Then there was a indian version which showed Gandhi fly in the air...before dropping down.. Surpringly the former was a britisher and latter an indian.. so much for "art"... This shows the basic difference in perspective on what constitutes art...😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Now, If we talk of absolute tolerance - we are talking of an utopian world of no religion, no race, no differences... which makes the argument, in fact this whole thread, then redundant...😊

You know a good point. The fact is art in absolute sense is free to any form of expression. Even a well executed murder would be a piece of art. However, as social beings with a strong sense of moral and ethics we are compelled to subject art to our subjective perceptions. This thread perhaps reveals more on our subjective differences rather than art in itself.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Nudity is the natural state of being of a human. Clothing was created as a means of protection against elements and not as a moral shield of our body. How many who endorse this point can right now go out on a busy street and take off all our clothes, go to Dunkin donuts have a coffee and return, first of all can you (if dunkin allows you entry in first place! and this "you" is general and not addressed to you)? I cant. To tell you frankly for me weather is secondary The shock value associated with nudity is because of ingrained moral values created over time by human social evolution. No there is no shock value.. if like any revolution if it becomes the norm I would be the first to lead the nudist liberation march, if it becomes a norm....😊



To me art is an expression of oneself. If you did deeper its expression of ones limitations....😊It can serve as an escapist medium to express the deep feeling of our inner psyche. Right only if that medium supports is.We live in a moral and ethical bound society with instilled values of right and wrong. However, we as humans are not perfect and live repressing that aspect of ourself as immoral or unethical. Right... good you said repression since its a positive act...😊Art is can serve as an expression for our repressed subconscious. Right... but most people in that repression have factored a lot of suppression and go have garbled subconscious... most people have issues.. because most parents are not Phd in parenting..It is an artistic freedom. An artist can choose to represent sexuality, nudity, violence, hatred anything they choose to. The question is not what they can.. is why they do whatever it is that they express....thats gets us back to their inherent suppressed repressed issues...

Will it offend - yes. Will it create controversy - yes. Art is ideally meant to be freedom of expression and devoid of restraints and judgments. Yes how many of them are happy to do this in a cave.. without showing their work to anybody else.. An artist always looks for acknowledgement and recognition... they want to show off in short.... However, art is not free and will always be judged from a socio-ethical perspective. If the artist comes to me I am damn sure going to judge him, his art and everything else.. if his goal is just expression without recognition.. he can go to the mountains and do his stuff......nobody will question him if does a jesus with a female face.....😊That is its subjective value. Every art form will have someone who loves it and someone who hates it. The spectrum will vary. Not really however erratic human behavior is, I still believe in teh collective wisdom.. we might be individually whacky.. but as a collective we are more or less correct in our judgement most of the times.. as far as art is concerned...

I remember talking to a Muslim friend when the Danish comics created a controversy. I told her that when I did see the cartoons I chuckled at a few, I felt wrong in laughing and finding them funny but I could not help it. She pondered for a moment and said that from a certain point of view it is indeed funny, but she does not consider it funny because it is meant to insult, and humiliate.right thats the key thing... From a pure no holds barred perspective it was witty and funny. see you can humor anything... anything... thats where value system kicks in... If you throw a banana skin in front of dad and mom everyday, they will slip and fall and thats funny isnt it you will have that humor everyday...the question is would you do that (just to clear this wasnt a personal remark)...I have seen Neo Nazi hate propaganda cartoons that I found outrageously hilarious. However, we as humans are compelled to use our subjective moral judgments and deem it inartistic due to intentions. Not really everybody laughs at nazi jokes so also as bush jokes.. but not those targeted at Jesus, religions because the jokes veri well could have been in any other domain... but they are skewed by the artist because of his/her inherent issues.. which I mentioned above.... which is why it doesnt remain an art....




I feel if art can portray positive expresssions then it can portray negative expressions. If it portrays love, it can portray hate. No. Art is a form of expression of the good within us... Again dont look at possibilities - in the world of erratic illogical humans its just probabilities...

As you say it depends on moral tolerance. At the same time positive for me might be negative for someone else. By and large this is not true.. thats where I asked earlier about 13 year old taking stripping as a profession being part of any culture, even western?!!So we are treading a fine line with dividing human expressions into categories itself. If you call it fine its fine - for me neither hussain or danish cartoons were fine.. they were damn coarse...

True some people like art to be subtle and implicit, others prefer art to be bold and explicit. Art has always got to be subtle for there is a bold alternative of reality to it.. I remember watching the movie Passion of the Christ. I was surprised at how much violence and gore Mel Gibson had chosen to depict, I was expecting a storyline that would tug more at my heartstrings. good example of a work thats not really art just because its a movie....People dont pay millions unless its a Picasso, angelo, vinci without a reason....I must be a social delinquent, but that movie made me psychologically angry that for a few whole days I had an urge that I had to brutally destroy someone.That phase of rage I went through is inexplicable to me, somewhere somehow a bad nerve got triggered. I am glad I dealt with it. Good

You know a good point. The fact is art in absolute sense is free to any form of expression. Not really, the act of killing is not an art though its an expression of hate...😊Even a well executed murder would be a piece of art. to whom... unless you want to just make it a point of discussion... you should and bail out these criminals.😆 like a picasso or angelo....and you say that if somebody cuts someone dear to him/her in a perfect and equal sized pieces using all the symmetry and proportions rules of math? The point even though I have said art is unbounded.. its like the countable infinite... you cant finish counting which is why its infinite not because you cant discern its bounds...Would you call teh Tandoor murder case a work of art..It was innovative and well-executed.. I think then more than being generic its a distorted point of view.....However, as social beings with a strong sense of moral and ethics we are compelled to subject art to our subjective perceptions. This thread perhaps reveals more on our subjective differences rather than art in itself. Not really, art veri narrow expression of bounded behavior which appers unbounded to the uninitiated or uninterested.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The fact is art in absolute sense is free to any form of expression. Even a well executed murder would be a piece of art. However, as social beings with a strong sense of moral and ethics we are compelled to subject art to our subjective perceptions. This thread perhaps reveals more on our subjective differences rather than art in itself.

Absurd...!!!! The problem with liberal thinking is there is no line between fact and fantasy. There is a difference between ART and an ACT. Art results from creative urge , act of murder results from urge to destroy.. Haniibel lechter anyone..? he was artist AND a murderer and often confused the two by painting with fresh warm blood. It may look like art to some who are collectors of murderabilia...

There isn't any subjective moral perceptions when it comes to survial instinct- be it murder, rape, hunger etc.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

@lighthouse - I think subjective perspective in survival is very much there. There is a whole school of thought believing in social Darwinism. In a normal sense of society we live as balanced beings. Yet when push comes to shove, and you are in a corner of kill or be killed....it becomes a very blurry judgment call. Battle Royale, Lord of the Flies....or the very real life Miracle in the Andes.

Being vegeterian or not is a personal preference. Although carnivorous could easily eat flesh of any kind and herbivorous probably won't (even to survive), I don't see the survivors of Andes had any moral issues in consuming their dead friends .People get heart and kidney transplant from dead too. Cannibalism is not encouraged for various medical reasons and we don't see animals eating their own kind either as a norm.

Thousands of people die of hunger in Africa each day , but they do not resort to cannibalism to survive even though sometimes they have to walk over dead bodies to get around.