|
|
Re: Lord - a response to Toms post.
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Re: Lord - a response to Toms post. // Roundtable
Post by W!ZARD // Jun 7, 2007, 7:35pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
This is how I use my digital imaging software for the most part!
And conveying why I got trueSpace in the first place:
This day is a good day :)
Enjoy
Tom G wins my vote for Diplomat of the Year :D (again!). He also raises some very valid points which I agree with and support. However Leifs picture 'Lord' is posted in the "Finished Artwork" forum which I understand is there so we can discuss the posted images on their merits and demerits as a 'finished artwork'.
I feel Toms response would be perfectly appropriate had Leif posted this in the WIP forum where discussions can and possibly should be limited to technical discussion of the render. However this is posted in the 'Finished Artwork" forum and should perhaps therefore be able to be discussed as a finished artwork.
So my question is: If all Art is communication then how does one seperate the meaning from the Art particularly when the art is primarily textual?
Leif apparently felt comfortable ascribing his own interpretation or meaning to Madmouses Devil mech picture and responding to that interpretation, even if somewhat cryptically. This is fair enough when he does it but not when Splinters responds to his interpretation of Liefs work? Am I seeing a double standard here or is this just the meaning I am ascribing to the messages in both artistic form and posted response?
I agree fully that Leifs picture should not be discussed on it's meaning alone however I do feel that by posting it where it can attract comments then we should be able to comment truthfully and fully.
I recently posted a non-religiously themed picture that contained nudity (Fairy Nuff). Some people expressed reservations and their personal responses to that nudity (or perhaps more accurately to what that nudity meant to them) and that is fair enough (especially given that they did so honestly and respectfully). I posted an image - people expressed their honest responses to both the image on it's technical aspects and on it's perceived meaning.
In this thread Leif has posted an image for us to comment on and Splinters gave a reply that mentioned both his response to the technical aspects and his response to the meaning of the artwork as he percieved it - which seems to me to be perfectly fair enough (especially given that he did so honestly and respectfully).
Tom says "I would ask that comments be kept to the render, and not the content." I would say that in a "Finished Artwork" thread that this is inappropriate. If I post a picture in that thread I want to know what people think about it, good or bad, technically and in terms of how they respond to it intellectually and emotionally - how else can I judge the effectiveness of my art?
I suggest that to refrain from commenting on the content of the render and our reactions to it we are doing Leif (or any other artist) a disservice. He has a right to know that some people do not like religious propaganda in the same way thay Madmouse has a right to know that some people may find his devil mech offensive and in the same way I have a right to know that some people find my Fairy objectionable because they don't like fairies and/or they don't like nudity.
In a nutshell? If you don't want to know what others think of your art, don't post it in a 'finished artwork' forum.
I've posted this response in the Roundtable forum as it seemed like the most appropriate place. I'm not out to criticise anyone and really wish to engender some further discussion on this as I feel it concerns important principles.
Thanks
Stephen
W!ZARD
I would ask that comments be kept to the render, and not the content. No-one berated the Version6.6.6 image as being devilish, instead it was all about renders, light, materials, poses etc.
Let's do the same here. If someone wants to post 3D renders of text with their message, then that is still a 3D render and is valid. If it is not a good 3D render, then tell how it could be made better - dont say "this render is bad it is just an excuse to put the message in there" as that is making assumptions.
So I would say this render is as entitled to be here as any other, and as entitled to feedback. I think a lot of improvements could be made to it, it has a long way to go I believe, for my tastes anyway. Either the comments will be taken on board and a better image will result - or the comments won't, and the image will not improve.
Either way, that's just the same as any other image on here :) Now if the original person posting this or any other person starts discussing the message and not the render, that is a different thing.
I don't want this image "banned or panned" just because of its subject matter, any more than I would have any other image "banned or panned" for its content alone.
While the original poster here may have had a flame war in the past, there was nothing like that here - he did not raise the subject in the image outside of the image itself, and neither should anyone else :)
HTH!
Tom |
Post by ProfessorKhaos // Jun 7, 2007, 9:09pm
|
ProfessorKhaos
Total Posts: 622
|
I actually kind of agree with Tom in this case.
The reactions were a bit strong but likely motivated in part from past experience. At the same time, I'm not naive to the similarities between recent and past posts when a huge flame war broke out. Lessons from the past should be heeded but not necessarily relived without examination.
Good artwork often does have a message and while I think it's fair to speculate on what that message is symbolically, I don't think it's required to get into the politics surrounding the rightness or wrongness of the message nor explain the message beyond the context of the image itself. To do more than that usually results in a degenerative flame war that makes people forget they came to a forum about 3D artwork.
Glen |
Post by splinters // Jun 7, 2007, 9:32pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
No Wizard, with that reply I think you would earn the award of diplomat of the year...:D
Bottom line here and I will say no more. I am completely against religion myself, I worked at a quaker school for many years and had no exposure to religion as that particular group believe prayer is a private and personal thing and take private time and/or retreats to do so.
This image was in the image thread not a WIP or roundtable so we can only comment on the artistic merits.
When I give trueSpace to a 10 or 11 year old student for the first time they do one of three things;
1. Stab at icons and menus until they ruin the UI beyond repair...:D
2. Make rude body parts using basic primitives.
or
3. Write their name (or other silly message) in 3D text because it 'kinda looks cool' in 3D.
So taking that perspective in that render you simply have a pro-jesus message done in a style that an 11 year old could do.
I am not being cruel here as I have seen Leif do some nice work so I know this is not a 'newbie' simply experimenting with a new program. As a teacher I know better than to insult the first attempts of a 'student' to learn a piece of software but the explanation of the piece here simply implies that he is rejoicing in his faith through a few 3D words, and that is where I took 'offence' as I perceived it more as preaching then sharing artwork or modelling technique.
So, feel free to flame me but I have been candid but respectful here by not posting my own (opposing) views on religion and faith.
I'm done. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jun 7, 2007, 9:47pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Thanks Glen. I tend to agree with Tom myself and I'm the last person to advocate a flame war or the criticism of anyones beliefs.
On the other hand if I post an artwork that says "The king is a fink" shouldn't you have the right to say 'well actually I think the king is an OK guy" if that's what you think and it's not expressed in antagonistic and disrespectful (ie flame war inducing) terms?
I don't have a problem with folk posting artwork in a 'finished artwork' forum for others to comment on (with all due respect of course). I just don't see how one can offer effective feedback on art without addressing the meaning of the art and it's impact on the viewer.
Additionally when someone posts a potentially provocative artwork (no matter what the specifics of it's content) then should not the provoked viewer be entitled to a right of response?
I agree that asking an artist not to post certain types of art because some folk may not like it is "a bit strong" as you say but there is a clear middle ground here I think. Asking someone to not comment strikes me as equally "a bit strong".
The key is respectfulness in my opinion. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jun 7, 2007, 10:00pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
No Wizard, with that reply I think you would earn the award of diplomat of the year... LOL - thanks Paul. I am a great fan of the Buddhist Philosophy of the Middle Way myself. The answer is not Either/Or, it's both.
So, feel free to flame me but I have been honest and respectful by not actually posting my image of Harold dressed as Moses carving into a large stone the words;
'God is a myth perpetuated by people who cannot accept fate and destiny....'You'll get no flaming from me, I thought your replies were well considered and that the honesty and respectfulness you mention came through loud and clear from the balanced way you expressed your comments.
Based on (my interpretation of ) Toms comments however it would seem you have every right to post an image of Harold as Moses carving words expressing your beliefs. Freedom of belief is a fundamental human right IMO.
And besides, Harold as a religious icon seems appropriate "Our Father who art heaven Harold be thy name...." ;) |
Post by splinters // Jun 7, 2007, 10:06pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Harold as a religious icon seems appropriate "Our Father who art heaven Harold be thy name...." ;)
That made my day Wizard, but you manged to grab that quote before I could remove it (which I have since done). I simply felt that it contradicted my point about not expressing my own view, even though it was a bit tongue in cheek.
Sorry for that. Still, your response was rather funny...:D :D
So now, I have done...:rolleyes: |
Post by jayr // Jun 7, 2007, 11:09pm
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
So taking that perspective in that render you simply have a pro-jesus message done in a style that an 11 year old could do.
It seems to me that the reaction was caused mostly by what people saw as the simplistic nature of the image Leif provided rather than even the message itself, Just think, what would have been said if leif had given us a stunnung 3D version of this (other than compailnts of originality):
http://www.mostmerciful.com/last%20supper-in%20color.jpg
The message would be similar but there would be a whole other dimension of art involved. As an athiest splinters, are you offended by the last supper or do you enjoy it of the skill and artistry it conveys?
I don't see any problem with conveying a religious message in artwork, in fact religion has inspired some of the greatest works of art in history, it seems leifs image provoked debate because it seemed to be lacking the 'art'. It seemed far to simplistic to be posting here, but having said that, do we really want quality controls on the 'Finished Artwork' gallery like a certain other site? |
Post by splinters // Jun 7, 2007, 11:28pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Said I am done, but you asked a question and it would be impolite not to answer. I am an educated person and a trained artist and the last supper is widely recognised for many clever artistic and perspective tricks including that one about the 'woman' to his side. If it were reinvented in 3D (which it has been in several documentaries) then I would be probably be amazed at the technicality and artistry of it all.
My reaction was to the relative 'artlessness' of the image posted which only left the message. Comparing reaction to three crudely rendered 3D words and a reinterpretation of Da Vinci's last supper is, well...a little pointless really.
Oh, and I am almost impossible to offend (being small, built like a bulldog, bald and ugly) especially when given lovely, creative, original and inventive art to look at...but I wasn't really... was I? |
Post by jayr // Jun 7, 2007, 11:35pm
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
Thank's for replying splinters. that really was wasthe point for me, it wasn't the message but the simplistic execution that annoyed people. |
Post by weaveribm // Jun 7, 2007, 11:54pm
|
weaveribm
Total Posts: 592
|
I have been honest and respectful by not actually posting my image of Harold dressed as Moses carving into a large stone the words;
'God is a myth perpetuated by people who cannot accept fate and destiny....'
I'm imagining that image and it hits the nail on the head. That image would not be art it would be like those fascist posters of World War One/Two or something one would hang on a fridge. Art with a capital A must have an element that lifts the soul not to be pretentious, it must speak to the childlike spirit within not to be incredibly over-the-top pretentious. Just because it's pretentious doesn't mean it's not true :)
Otherwise everything is art. Dadaists and so on, a toilet pan or box of matches. Those have something of Art about them - and I do believe that everything is Art from a certain angle - but more of Artifice. Not to mention Artfulness. I told you NOT to mention Artfulness :)
message
Another nail hit on the head. If an image has a message it can't be Art. The best images are usually those that we don't understand and don't feel we need to. Understanding is a brain thing but Art is a spirit thing. See earlier 'pretentious' note for more on this :)
Amusing banter is excellent for morale and respectful debate is almost always interesting.
Peter |
Post by W!ZARD // Jun 8, 2007, 12:20am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
do we really want quality controls on the 'Finished Artwork' gallery like a certain other site?
This was sort of the central question for me, although not quality controls on the artwork, rather quality controls on what is subsequently discussed about the artwork.
I'm not as concerned with the artist merit or otherwise of one picture in particular but the principles of discussion and feedback. Whilst Tom was probably trying to avoid a Flame War and long involved arguement/discussion about politic and religion he also seemed to me to be suggesting that it is possible to effectively discuss the merits of any artwork whilst discounting it's meaning and emotional impact. That's really what I wanted to discuss rather than the specifics of Leifs work.
Having said that, with regard to the message and artlessness aspects referred to here I draw your attention to this thread,Ascension WIP (http://forums1.caligari.com/truespace/showthread.php?t=2848)in the WIP forum. Ascension is clearly a religio-spiritual theme and kena's early efforts with the image were somewhat 'simple' and 'artless' (with all due respect to kena). What is significant here is that kena subsequently did considerable further work on his image whilst remaining true to the original message of the piece. The end result was a fine and creditable artwork.
Again, it is not my intention to discuss the specific content and relative merits of any specific artwork here but the principles and guidelines under which we can both expect to receive and give feedback. |
Post by jayr // Jun 8, 2007, 12:42am
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
Another nail hit on the head. If an image has a message it can't be Art. The best images are usually those that we don't understand and don't feel we need to. Understanding is a brain thing but Art is a spirit thing. See earlier 'pretentious' note for more on this
I think this is a whole other debate. What is and isn't art is a question that can't be answered, like one of those buddist meditation things 'what is the sound of one had clapping'. The minute you start to put limits on what is and isn't art you limit it's very nature, and i'm sure one thing art is not is limited.
A lot of traditional artist look down on art made on a computer because they say you can't produce art that way that it's soulless, some people say if you paint a portrait or make a sculpture it's not art because you're just copying something in existance already. To me art is interpretation, what you intend to draw/ paint/ model/ sculpt may not be what the veiwer see's in the end, art is what you get out of it, at least for me.
Another thing that seems to get skirted around in these discussions is the possiblity of bad art, something could be art but just plain crap. We accept the fact that there is bad music, bad films and bad books but i've spoken to people who think that everything called art must be great and benifical, why? What makes art so different from everything else in existance? |
Post by W!ZARD // Jun 8, 2007, 1:09am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
I think this is a whole other debate. What is and isn't art is a question that can't be answered, like one of those buddist meditation things 'what is the sound of one had clapping'. The minute you start to put limits on what is and isn't art you limit it's very nature, and i'm sure one thing art is not is limited.
A lot of traditional artist look down on art made on a computer because they say you can't produce art that way that it's soulless, some people say if you paint a portrait or make a sculpture it's not art because you're just copying something in existance already. To me art is interpretation, what you intend to draw/ paint/ model/ sculpt may not be what the veiwer see's in the end, art is what you get out of it, at least for me.
Another thing that seems to get skirted around in these discussions is the possiblity of bad art, something could be art but just plain crap. We accept the fact that there is bad music, bad films and bad books but i've spoken to people who think that everything called art must be great and benifical, why? What makes art so different from everything else in existance?
I completely agree jayr especially with your last paragraph. I have a theory that started off being about music and then expanded to books, movies, performance art and art in general. I call it the 10% theory. Ten percent of art (music, books etc) is stunning, uplifting, spectacular, powerful, meaningfull and just plain superior. The next 80% is just plain 'good' in varying degrees and finally the last 10% is, as you say, just plain crap.
The problem is that these categories are different for each observer - one persons top 10% could be someone elses bottom 10% and vice versa.
I think that anything made by mankind has some degree of art inherent to it along with varying degrees of other qualities (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?) such as originality, derivativeness and so on.
I suggest that all art has meaning and is therefore a message - often cryptic, subliminal and nonspecific (Mona Lisa's Smile?) and often conveying nothing more than a feeling, all art carries a message. The thing is that, like beauty, the meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, as you say, Art is interpretation. As such art can indeed be limited but only by the limitations of human imagination and perception. |
Post by Nez // Jun 8, 2007, 1:15am
|
Nez
Total Posts: 1102
|
I think that quote (if image has message, can't be art) was supposed to be a bit 'debatable' - seemed to me he was having fun writing that... :) (edit - was referring to Jayr's quote from Peter - W!zard must have typed faster than me so his thread was 'in the way'!)
Probably best that we don't start on 'what is art' - that's just SO subjective anyway (personally I would probably class music, film and writing as 'art' anyway, and have no problem with the idea of 'bad art' - but have to recognise that my idea of bad is not the same as someone else's....) - I don't like Tracy Emin but somebody seems to... (edit - seems W!zard and I are on similar tracks, as I expected we would be)
Peter's closing remark - 'Amusing banter is excellent for morale and respectful debate is almost always interesting.' is perhaps the best one here - I think everyone has made good points, many of which I agree with, on what could be considered sensitive. I hope we can keep the discussion here (and elsewhere on the forum) just as civil and friendly as usual. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jun 8, 2007, 1:58am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
seems W!zard and I are on similar tracks, as I expected we would be
Chuckle! Must be that Kentish water! And Peter's in London, where do they get their water from? |
Post by Nez // Jun 8, 2007, 2:07am
|
Nez
Total Posts: 1102
|
Well, some of it comes from the Thames (where some of their sewage also ends up :p ) but some of it comes from deep chalk aquifer, like in Kent, so you may have something there... ;) |
Post by jayr // Jun 8, 2007, 2:09am
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
Probably best that we don't start on 'what is art' - that's just SO subjective anyway
i agree, we could end up having to start a whole other forum to contain this discussion never mind a new thread!
that is what it comes down to in the end though, one persons art is another's un-made bed (btw, i can't stand her either) |
Post by TomG // Jun 8, 2007, 4:34am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
This is an interesting discussion! You know the only subject I ever got an A+ for my work in was Aesthetics in my philosophy studies at Uni? The best thing about that A+, the thing I liked most, was that the professor doing the grading had absolutely the opposite viewpoint from mine that I expressed in the essay. He spent his classes teaching but his bias for his point of view was pretty strong and obvious, and here I was, argued the total opposite from something he believed in profoundly about art and what it was, and he still could grade me top marks.
That's interesting here I think on a couple of levels. First, you can really disagree with someone and their beliefs, but still totally treat them with respect and "judge" the things they do exactly the same as you "judge" the things by someone who expresses the same beliefs as you.
Next, it was definitely an interesting instance of rating the presentation and content separate from the message. While he sure didnt think my message was A+ in that essay, that didnt factor into how he rated it.
Finally, I really only started to mention it to say that aesthetics and appreciation of art is one of my favorite topics, so I am enjoying this thread (but found it surprisingly relevant when I wrote it down!).
On the next item, I never look to see where a thread is posted in fact. I do a "show me all threads I havent seen" and look through them. Now, it is interesting that I hadnt even considered for a moment that the piece in question was in finished works, and not in work in progress. It is true that knowing what Leif can produce, I considered this a work in progress - based on the technical criteria, the image was just not as good as it could be.
So I commented based on that, that the image was there inviting comments on how it could be improved - and as has been pointed out here, that's not the case!
I do think the image can be improved, but I am aware that what is "good" and "bad" is subjective (my essay argued that what is art is entirely in the hands of the viewer, and not in the artist, and as such varies from viewer to viewer - don't get me wrong, that offends my logical sense of orderliness, and also means that I can't criticize art that I really think takes no talent to make, so it's not a position I wanted to accept, but one that I am truly forced to accept when I think it through!).
So when it comes to a finished piece, it is not for me to say (nor anyone, I think) "that is bad art". You can say "That is bad art to me. That is not art at all. I dont regard something made with that tool to be art. I don't think something made with so little effort is art." - but you need to have the "I" in there to qualify it.
You can't say "That is not art. Anything made without effort is not art. Anything made with this tool or by this technique is not art." Because to someone else it might be.
Now of course you may not even accept that art is subjective, because I guess even that belief is subjective :) In which case you can feel entitled to say "That is not art" and not "To me, that is not art" :)
As for discussing the message. Art I think often has a message, not necessarily an argument for one side or another, but a message of some sort. It may not be a verbal message, not something that you could write out in words, it could be "Look - beauty", not some speech etc, but it has something to communicate, to say to you.
Is discussing that out of place? In most cases it is not. However when the message IS verbal, and is arguing for one side or the other, then it is not worth discussing - the artist clearly believes their side, and they know other people do not, so hearing "I don't believe your message!" is no surprise nor benefit to the artist.
What I was concerned about was the beginning of the message in the thread of "You are not allowed to produce artwork that expresses this particular message". The logic put up was "This is bad art. Therefore you have no reason for posting it other than to convey this message. I disagree with the message. So you have no right to post this."
Now no-one SAID that, but the seed was there. And it is not a route I want to go down on these forums. Given their nature, many people of many backgrounds are here. If you see something with content you don't like or find offensive, my feeling is this - don't participate in the thread, because it is not a thread meant for you.
Don't tell the person how you hate hearing about that message, etc, simply avoid the message altogether. There will be plenty of threads where there are messages that are for you.
So for Leif's picture, I don't think the discussion about whether Jesus is Lord is one that is a valid discussion to ago around his piece of art. I don't think a discussion on his motives for posting are valid to go with his piece of art. Whether the picture could convery that message better is valid. Whether anything that is just 3D text can be a finsihed image is a valid discussion (but best left for another thread).
I am glad everyone has avoided any sort of flame war here though! The discussion was kept on track, both in that thread and here. The community has shown its maturity, and for that I am glad.
I want this to continue to be a diverse place where everyone can meet, no matter what their beliefs, no matter what they think is art and what is not, no matter what they think is a good or bad image, and all continue to get along, for the improvement and betterment of everyone here.
Anyway, great thread. I love aesthetics, did I mention that? :)
Thanks!
Tom |
Post by weaveribm // Jun 8, 2007, 5:22am
|
weaveribm
Total Posts: 592
|
The Rosetta Stone.
While we couldn't read it, it was Art. A sculpture. Whoever created it didn't know they were creating an art object and Dadaism (defined as 'What IS art anyway?') uses this knowing or not-knowing to label found objects as Art
When we finally could read the Stone, it stopped being Art and became a message. Which was the original intention. It was finding the message that stopped it being Art in the same way as it had been before
It's still only Art to people who can't see the message. Cunieform tablets are very much art objects but when we translate them they become laundry lists. Not only laundry lists, still something of Art remains. But once there's the message it shoulders Art aside. Messages intend to do this, they are brutal and insensitive they can't hear you saying "No that's not true" and they don't care if you do
Chinese newspapers are art. As soon as you can read them they become newspapers again. Art moves around a bit it doesn't stand still, it's forever trying to dodge the slavering message that's always chasing it around looking for a piece of the action
Peter
Watch art turn into something less than art...
Four shirts when they've been invented
A large cotton sheet with grass stains
Fourteen pairs of socks and an odd one
Can I pick it up on Monday?
Moses of Tunis
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/exhibitions/treasures/assets/claytablet01.jpg |
Post by Steinie // Jun 8, 2007, 5:59am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
Weird, I had the extra sock framed on my wall!:D |
Post by frootee // Jun 8, 2007, 6:12am
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
Heck. If we all could get this fired up about all the WIPs and helping each other and New Users, and developing Plugins and Scripts, this place would be Totally Hoppin!
Every Day's a Good Day.
Frootee |
Post by jayr // Jun 8, 2007, 6:42am
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
The Rosetta Stone.
While we couldn't read it, it was Art. A sculpture. Whoever created it didn't know they were creating an art object and Dadaism (defined as 'What IS art anyway?') uses this knowing or not-knowing to label found objects as Art
When we finally could read the Stone, it stopped being Art and became a message. Which was the original intention. It was finding the message that stopped it being Art in the same way as it had been before
It's still only Art to people who can't see the message. Cunieform tablets are very much art objects but when we translate them they become laundry lists. Not only laundry lists, still something of Art remains. But once there's the message it shoulders Art aside. Messages intend to do this, they are brutal and insensitive they can't hear you saying "No that's not true" and they don't care if you do
Chinese newspapers are art. As soon as you can read them they become newspapers again. Art moves around a bit it doesn't stand still, it's forever trying to dodge the slavering message that's always chasing it around looking for a piece of the action
Peter
Watch art turn into something less than art...
The difference is that all these objects were created not as art but as functional objects, to deliver the news, to tell someone what to wash, etc that illustration doesn't hold water. Over the centuries art has involved telling stories, thru painting tapestry or pottery, whatever the medium they all tried to tell a story,to illustrate a state of mind, a moment in time. The story is a message. |
Post by ProfessorKhaos // Jun 8, 2007, 11:04am
|
ProfessorKhaos
Total Posts: 622
|
Another nail hit on the head. If an image has a message it can't be Art. The best images are usually those that we don't understand and don't feel we need to. Understanding is a brain thing but Art is a spirit thing. See earlier 'pretentious' note for more on this
Ah, but who is to say where the brain and spirit divide? Not such a fine line when it comes down to it. Nature is a bit more blended than our attempts to categorize it. Are feelings a part of the brain or the spirit? How do the two interact (and they do because how you think often affects how you feel and vice versa). Is the spirit a primal entity and if so would a lizard's brain be the equivalent of our spirit or something else altogether? If the line between the brain and the spirit is grey then the definition of art might be equally so :)
Caligraphy can be an art form as well as a medium for words. It can be admired for it's asthetic beauty in the presence of a literal message. Often it's used as the opening letter of a paragraph to denote grandeur or just to make a book more pleasing to read.
Some find poetry to be an art form of sorts. Beautifully crafted words that have pleasant or surprising tones in addition to the meaning of the words they are composed from.
In the end, the word "art" itself is a symbol for a concept which apparently differs among us all sufficiently that we could both argue on the meaning and yet both be absolutely correct from our own points of view. |
Post by e-graffiti // Jun 8, 2007, 11:56am
|
e-graffiti
Total Posts: 171
|
Let me start by saying I am a Christian. And yeah Leif's render was bad as I stated on his thread and I am sure he knows it. As far as I am concerned he should just "man up" and put the image out in a composition that is fit for viewing the text. Name the thread appropriately and for those that want to see and comment do so while those that dont, well, dont. Now I looked up the definition of atheist and understand that atheist dont believe in ANY religious deities in the definitions broadest interpretation. Now Christians and many other religions believe in God AND Satan so I have no offense in seeing pictures of devils or angels and quite frankly I dont offend easily. But I dont understand why the picture of the Devil and message of 666, which is a New Testament Christian teaching representing the mark of the beast, DID NOT OFFEND THE ATHEIST. |
Post by jayr // Jun 8, 2007, 12:05pm
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
But I dont understand why the picture of the Devil and message of 666, which is a New Testament Christian teaching representing the mark of the beast, DID NOT OFFEND THE ATHEIST.
Probably because it was an outstanding model with superb textures! |
Post by splinters // Jun 8, 2007, 12:10pm
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Well said. In that example the image spoke volumes and any 'subliminal' messages about devil's etc. were clearly overshadowed by the quality of artwork. I have no problem with references to gods or devils...just preaching. |
Post by Garion // Jun 8, 2007, 2:08pm
|
Garion
Total Posts: 116
|
Religion is a deeply personal subject, everone has their own belief system, I myself am wiccan (well thats the modern name for what I believe in :D ) and my own practises are personal to me. :)
I suppose it could be said that all religious imagery, no matter what the belief system followed, could be said to be propaganda for that religion. In todays modern world with multiculturalism, it's nigh on impossible to create a piece of art, be it graphic, song or dance that will not offend someone, somewhere, sometime.
I have seen many christian, muslim, budist and hindi images (to name but a few) that have inspired me.
In the end though its best if we can agree to differ and move on, art is in the eye of the beholder after all :D
Cheers
Garion |
Post by W!ZARD // Jun 8, 2007, 10:42pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
@TomG - LOL - Easy to see why you got an A+! I'd have to give your post here an A+ too!
I'm a member of a forum group that discusses photographic art, particularly as it applies to the nude. The question of 'What is Art?" comes up quite regularly there usually accompanied with the additional question "What is porn?". What always surprises me is the unexpected degree of agreement in these discussions around the central point that Art/beauty/meaning is in the eye of the beholder - in other words a subjective experience.
This was bought home to me one night when I was playing a gig at a local bar. I played a fairly energetic and original version of Pink Floyds "Welcome to the Machine" which triggered some fairly extreme responses. One guy later told me I had commited sacriledge and murdered a great song, which was a bit disheartening but then another guy came up and with great enthusiasm proceeded to tell me that I'd just played the best version of that song ever and that Pink Floyd should learn to play it that way! Same song, two opposite responses.
Another night, same bar, this time playing with a band, we did an original song of mine I had written about my time in Katmandu, Nepal. One woman in particular had a strong response and later said she really loved the song. I meet this woman many years later on the Ferry between NZ's North and South Islands and asked what she had liked about the song - she replied that it was not the song itself that she liked but the fact that it reminded her of some aspect of her life. So it was not the song but the feeling it triggered for her, feelings that were unique to her life experience.
From these experiences and others I've concluded that Art is subjective and it's value and significance to any individual depends on how they are able to relate to it. Given this then I would suggest that perhaps a valid way to distinguish between 'good' art and 'bad' art is to measure it's relative overall accessibility to the audience/viewer. The only thing wrong with this approach is that a lot of art (and certainly most of my own) is created more for the pleasure of the act of creation by the artist than for any degree of public acceptance.
@Weaveribm. - Peter you have an interesting perspective on this but after some consideration I must say that I can't agree with your assertion that Art and Message are inimical. In fact much of our modern advertising is based on the art of the message. This raises an often overlook aspect of art - the intention with which it was created.
This becomes an important consideration particularly with religious art (irrespective of any specifc religion). Is the intention to inform, to uplift, to inspire to perhaps even terrify the viewer? Here we can see a threeway communication of a message, from the artist to the art then from the art to the viewer. This is quite different from art created simply for the pleasure of creating art as it has a message to convey.
Early European visitors to Nepal were often extremely put out by blatantly sexual figures carved into the structure of many temples there. It is important to note that these sculptures are not actually sexy as such or even particularly offensive to anyone with an open mind. They certainly were not the porn of the day. The reason for this raunchy art was actually intensely practical. It seems that the local goddess of lightning was a renowned prude and it was reasoned that because of this prudishness she would not strike a building with such sexual figures on it! Personally I'd prefer to rely on a well earthed lightning rod myself!
In this case the art definitely had a message - please don't hit this building with lightning - which was not even intended for human eyes but for the eyes of a deity. |
Post by W!ZARD // Jun 8, 2007, 11:09pm
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
... quite frankly I dont offend easily. But I dont understand why the picture of the Devil and message of 666, which is a New Testament Christian teaching representing the mark of the beast, DID NOT OFFEND THE ATHEIST.
Hi e-graffiti. Seems to me you answered your own question! You 'don't offend easily' and neither it seems does your average athiest!
I enjoyed your post as it raised two issues I consider both important and often overlooked. Firstly is the true nature of 'offense'. A person can choose to take offence at pretty much anything - but it is always a choice and it is always something taken - by which I mean willingly picked up - by the offended person.
A person can certainly set out to try to offend another but for offence to occur the other person must willingly engage in the chosen act of being offended. You could call me short fat and ugly with the intent to offend me - but I could just as easily interpret your remark as humourous or just simply mistaken (quite likely given that I'm tall slim and relatively good looking!!) and so attache no importance to the remark. Additionally why should I upset myself over what someone else thinks?
Which leads me to Atheism. I would suggest that many atheists simply find most religious teachings as simply mistaken or irrelevant and therefore not worth the effort of getting worked up about.
Personally I find the idea of a human shaped god with the head of an elephant (as in the Hindu Deity Ganesh) to be mildly ludicrous particularly if someone were to suggest that such an entity actually physically exists. This does not mean that I can't respect the significance of this idea to a Hindu person, only that it's not really relevant to my chosen worldview.
Finally, regarding atheism. This is a misleading and somewhat arbitrary term. Assuming all athiests are the same is as limiting as assuming all Christians are the same. There are many Christian denominations and conversely many ways of being atheistic.
I'll close with my favourite quote on the subject (sorry I can't identify the original author) which may help to answer your question.
"We are all athiests really. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you don't believe in all the other gods you will understand why I don't believe in your god" |
Post by ProfessorKhaos // Jun 9, 2007, 1:15am
|
ProfessorKhaos
Total Posts: 622
|
So, has anyone here thought a bit more about entering the tS speed modelling challenge?
I bring this up not so much to hijack the topic but to make the point that quite a bit of passion is going into these threads while other areas suffer from lack of participation. Though an all out "nuclear-sized" flame war has not broken out it might be productive to refocus our efforts on something that involves the production of art, whatever your local definition of art might be. Debate can be fun but it does indeed become a distraction if you let it. I think I'll be bowing out of this conversation to get back to the stuff I really love to come here to see and do.
I'm going to try to have an entry submitted before the Monday deadline. It's been a while since I've participated as I've been pretty heavily involved with beta testing over the last couple of months. So far, that catepillar looks pretty hard to beat! :) |
|
