Defining Art - Page 7

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

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....

Yes for it may be true for west .. how ever I wonder if the acceptabity among christian was due to cultural influence or due to their religion as early christianity was very close to jewish religion where such arts are not acceptable.

I was talking about ancient indian arts.. 😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

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 😊..

Well if I take your reason than I can't explain why an ancient nude sculpture of Hindu goddess is acceptable(it is part of heritage) but painting by hussain is not .

The only explanation I can get is nothing but the cultural evaluation😊

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

[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....😊..

So you are saying .. that Art can exist in negative forms as well ?

it is only artist who is not allowed to go beyond a limit?

Originally posted by: Believe

Everything is an Art 😊 ....if anyone cant enjoy the art dont blame others.... 😳 😊

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Well I guess I have to clarify, when I say a well executed murder can be a form of art. Often when I speak, I say should I speak as my human self or my cold steely self. That statement is obviously on behalf of my cold steely self.

Check this

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

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Well I guess I have to clarify, when I say a well executed murder can be a form of art. Often when I speak, I say should I speak as my human self or my cold steely self. That statement is obviously on behalf of my cold steely self.

Of course as a person who has a sense of right and wrong, I do not consider murder as an art form.Similarly when I judge art my personal taste as well as the social upbringing influences how I judge, and I am unwilling to accept art that defies those sensibilities. Thats partly true.. but hussain never blew up my sensibilities yet I didnt consider his picture worth a second look...you can pass around a lot of crap as art if you theorize....😊

However, I do believe that absolute art is meant to be expression devoid of any restriction. There is always a spectrum to things positive to negative and art cannot always be restricted to one end. A teenager in a ghetto may experience an act of crime or racial hatred against his race. It plants inherent rage within him. When he grows up his rage either transcends into time or he expresses it through music. A lot of rap music originated as an aggressive expression of their hatred. Some people consider rap to be artistic in that sense. However, there are many people who take offense at the obscene or violent lyrics. There is always a spectrum of judgment. Besides being offensive, rap music is nothing but a monotonous rhythm..except in the US nobody else makes that music... Associating meaning to it is more like that same person mouting non-stop innuendos as oratory...😆

Similarly when most of us, almost a large population of the world considered the Danish cartoons offensive. There were still a whole bunch of people who defended the cartoonists expression of art, how many of those were muslims...and how many were anti-muslims ?. I can write an ode to hitler.. there are several like that perhaps... just it change the base fact based on fluidity of opinions on part of some people...Even if I don't consider art I cannot deny that there is a percentage of population that thinks otherwise. I will consider them wrong, but I cannot be in denial of their thought process and very existence. You need thought process and subtlety for many other things does it make everything an art does it?

Is a spectrum socially possible, not at all. There will always be somethings which will always be considered negative and definitely not art by society. I think you have the right and the wrong.. All the concepts within right domain are not applicable to the wrong domain.. which is why like I said earlier we dont teach "art" of lock breaking in the "school of Robbery"😆

My point is that art is limitless. How is it limitless.. .its not limitless.. its bounded by human ability...and experience. When we say its limitless we just theorize a little to bit...However,we as humans will always judge it with our sensibilities of right or wrong. We will not accept art that is obscene, offensive to our moral sensibilities. Not necessarily.. you have three words to define here obscene, offensive and moral... I am just trying to drive a point that there is some absolute measure to art and not just arbitrary one...

@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.

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

Yes for it may be true for west .. how ever I wonder if the acceptabity among christian was due to cultural influence or due to their religion as early christianity was very close to jewish religion where such arts are not acceptable.Rather than christian and jews I would say the western world which is more acceptable...

I was talking about ancient indian arts.. 😊 agreed

Well if I take your reason than I can't explain why an ancient nude sculpture of Hindu goddess is acceptable(it is part of heritage) but painting by hussain is not .

The only explanation I can get is nothing but the cultural evaluation😊 Not really its more out of some underministic uncertainty for eg.. for all the totally nude statues you find its likely that they were covered when they were done and somehow the cover came off.. even today priests all over dress up the religious idols... not the others who were part of the religion.. Secondly hussain being a muslim has no clue of what hinduism is which is one thing evident from his work... and secondly this becomes a strong point against him....😊

So you are saying .. that Art can exist in negative forms as well ? Not negative but less positive emotions like anger, lust, etc....

it is only artist who is not allowed to go beyond a limit? right - the artist cant generally go beyond a certain point which is more evident in things like surrealistic painters are not impressionists are not potrait painters are not cubists.. the skill sets and subsequently are veri limited.....forget the imagination part....😊

Originally posted by: Morning_Dew

What is the problem with second one lighty ..😆 the second one is ok .. it has texture .. you can see balanced colors in fram etc😆 it can be used in decoration keeping the color combination of a room in mind .. ..

(I am laughing right now.. cause some days back I was taking pictures of weeds rather than going after regular flowers😆)

😆 Dewey.. People spend a lot of money on flowers and weeds. Although for weeds , it is usualy to get rid of them..😉

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

Right qwerty. Also the nude statues from ancient India were part of literature, depicting stories that were passed down verbally as people did not read and write well back then. In current times it would be similar to comparing human anatomy drawings in medical text books to nude pictures in a magazine. The statues were not created with same intentions Hussain has done his paintings with. Art appeals to most when it is in progressive and positive domain.

Originally posted by: lighthouse

Right qwerty. Also the nude statues from ancient India were part of literature, depicting stories that were passed down verbally as people did not read and write well back then. In current times it would be similar to comparing human anatomy drawings in medical text books to nude pictures in a magazine. The statues were not created with same intentions Hussain has done his paintings with. Art appeals to most when it is in progressive and positive domain.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

The only explanation I can get is nothing but the cultural evaluation😊 Not really its more out of some underministic uncertainty for eg.. for all the totally nude statues you find its likely that they were covered when they were done and somehow the cover came off.. even today priests all over dress up the religious idols... not the others who were part of the religion.. Secondly hussain being a muslim has no clue of what hinduism is which is one thing evident from his work... and secondly this becomes a strong point against him....😊..

Well as for Hussain part .. I think even if a hindu artis create something like that ,it wouldn't be acceptable these days😊

as for the ancient sculptures .. the statue was carved on stone and some kind of garment was also carved which was pulled up by Goddess.. I can't give further details because again it is not appropriate neither I can put Her picture here ..and this is not the only example ..

Even if you start following Hindu art from 2 century BC to modern days you would see gradual change in it .. I remember one painting which was part of Mughal court depicting some story about Krishna ..where topless figures both for male and female were painted .. so I found one evolutionary step there from full naked figures to half naked and then later still under mughal rule you find use of more garment for mythilogical figures and God\Goddess especially for females later on they were almost totally covered along with udhni for their heads.

So I find it rather cultural evolution.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

So you are saying .. that Art can exist in negative forms as well ? Not negative but less positive emotions like anger, lust, etc....

Arey yaar now you are negating your own statement .. if you says it is it is limitless , then it means it is covering whole specturm .from positive to negative... Yes acceptability is the factor which doesn't let anyone go beyond certain limit .. but it doesn't mean it is not existed 😊

Originally posted by: lighthouse

😆 Dewey.. People spend a lot of money on flowers and weeds. Although for weeds , it is usualy to get rid of them..😉

Arey meri jaan ..I am one weird person can find beauty in any thing 😆

As for the weeds.. well I m not sure if u know about a growing trend here in Canada for "naturalistic gardens" .. people are leaving their garden as is.and let all kind of wild stuff grow .. some time they plant themselves some wild types in their gardens . I may or maynot like it but I can't say anything about people who do who are now growing in number😊