DELETED
- Thread starter deleted139124
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you're just trying to make a statement about something then why can't you just "say" it?
My opinion on this topic is pretty much the exact opposite of that statement actually, that being that "art" dosen't need to have any point to it at all. It's just art.
Of course it can be about something if that's what was intended by the artist or if there's something people perceive in it but it's not what defines it.
My opinion on this topic is pretty much the exact opposite of that statement actually, that being that "art" dosen't need to have any point to it at all. It's just art.
Of course it can be about something if that's what was intended by the artist or if there's something people perceive in it but it's not what defines it.
Art is a creative expression of an idea. To say art is not for entertainment is to say a rectangle cant be a square. Sure when you think of a rectangle, you don't think of a square, but all squares are rectangles. Translated, all entertainment is art, but not all art is entertaining.
Ofcourse people who argue what is and is not art forget that simply being art does not make something of high quality. Good and bad art both exist.
Ofcourse people who argue what is and is not art forget that simply being art does not make something of high quality. Good and bad art both exist.
What is art? The eternal question.
Is there a statement in Van Gogh's Starry Night or the Mona Lisa? Maybe there is, I'm no critic, but I'm sure most art is created for the purpose of looking pretty, unless there's a hidden agenda to all those landscape and still life pencil sketches.
Art tends to be best explained as 'intentionally indeterminate' Any academic undertaking to properly scientifically explain what it exactly is always falls short, like that famous statement that runs along the lines of true art is that which is created neither for public acclaim or profit, resulting in the conclusion that the truest form of art is anonymous toilet graffiti.
Is there a statement in Van Gogh's Starry Night or the Mona Lisa? Maybe there is, I'm no critic, but I'm sure most art is created for the purpose of looking pretty, unless there's a hidden agenda to all those landscape and still life pencil sketches.
Art tends to be best explained as 'intentionally indeterminate' Any academic undertaking to properly scientifically explain what it exactly is always falls short, like that famous statement that runs along the lines of true art is that which is created neither for public acclaim or profit, resulting in the conclusion that the truest form of art is anonymous toilet graffiti.
Interpretation matters most. "Statement" could mean "expression"; "entertainment" could reflect an intent by an artist to appease an audience. If an artist's source is even moderately about seeking to entertain people without inner feelings, I'd question the integrity of the artist. That's closer to developing a product with marketable value rather than creative expression.
It's within this discussion that you can point to ways that art is becoming more entertainment than expression:
http://tinyurl.com/o3xdo8s
Gender bias film ratings. As if art didn't already need to cope with strong aversions to violence or so much as side-boob in a film, now it's about actually regulating characters in a film. This is entertainment undermining art, and demonstrates how we need to be mindful of what those two words really mean.
It's within this discussion that you can point to ways that art is becoming more entertainment than expression:
http://tinyurl.com/o3xdo8s
Gender bias film ratings. As if art didn't already need to cope with strong aversions to violence or so much as side-boob in a film, now it's about actually regulating characters in a film. This is entertainment undermining art, and demonstrates how we need to be mindful of what those two words really mean.
I think I am inclined to agree with the statement, but I think about 80% (Maybe 90%) of media and entertainment does make values statement of sorts. I mean look at Twilight or rap music video's about guns, bitches and bling. You may not consider them to be "art", but never the less they make statements and espouse values- intentionally or unintentionally, which if you accept this premise make them art.
The real, more important question I think is not wherever something is art or not (because I would say most things are) but wherever it is good art.
The real, more important question I think is not wherever something is art or not (because I would say most things are) but wherever it is good art.
AgedGrunt said:
I feel as if you are making a mountain out of a molehill. This was launched as an experiment in four theatres in Sweden. The rating itself says nothing about the actual quality of the film, as indicated by the following extract:
"To get an "A" rating, a movie must pass the so-called 'Bechdel' test, which means it must have at least two named female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man."
That's the extent of it. It's up to you and other movie-goers to decide whether your potential enjoyment of a film hinges on that one factor alone.
I think it's really difficult to define what is and what is not art. I do however think that there are at least two conditions that need to be fulfilled:
1) It has to have been made with the intention of being art.
2) The majority of the viewers have to consider it to be art.
That is, it doesn't matter how much you think something is art, if it was not made with the intention to be art, it simply is not. If a film was made primarily as entertainment or to simply make money, it is not art, no matter how art-like it is. Sport normally is not art since it's not the primary intention, but sport CAN be used in a work of art.
Likewise, if you make something you think is art and people just don't agree, then it is not art either.
Make sense?
1) It has to have been made with the intention of being art.
2) The majority of the viewers have to consider it to be art.
That is, it doesn't matter how much you think something is art, if it was not made with the intention to be art, it simply is not. If a film was made primarily as entertainment or to simply make money, it is not art, no matter how art-like it is. Sport normally is not art since it's not the primary intention, but sport CAN be used in a work of art.
Likewise, if you make something you think is art and people just don't agree, then it is not art either.
Make sense?
Art needs to have a message of some kind, at least according to my definition.
The message might well be 'the world is beautiful', though.
Examining gender-bias is a separate thing, and it can be used to judge the artistic value as well. (If the movie for example has very cliched and 'safe' gender-portrayals made mainly to appeal to some demographic.)
Bad portayals of women are often the result of bad writing, like putting in a female character just for a love-interest, and not making her an actual character with motivations of her own.
The message might well be 'the world is beautiful', though.
I don't get your point.AgedGrunt said:
Examining gender-bias is a separate thing, and it can be used to judge the artistic value as well. (If the movie for example has very cliched and 'safe' gender-portrayals made mainly to appeal to some demographic.)
Bad portayals of women are often the result of bad writing, like putting in a female character just for a love-interest, and not making her an actual character with motivations of her own.
Art imitates or expresses life in some form or another.
Entertainment made for entertainment's purpose is pandering, and serves no purpose other than short bursts of self-fulfillment.
Art can entertain, that is for sure. But it's not made with the purpose to entertain. It's made with the purpose to evoke thoughts, emotions, all sorts of stuff.
Entertainment made for entertainment's purpose is pandering, and serves no purpose other than short bursts of self-fulfillment.
Art can entertain, that is for sure. But it's not made with the purpose to entertain. It's made with the purpose to evoke thoughts, emotions, all sorts of stuff.
It's not merely an experiment when a film festival and cable network hopped on-board with the idea (the latter blocked out a special day to run only qualifying "A" rated films).Barbas said:
And it's disingenuous to state that this rating leaves it up to the audience to decide. If people were left to judge for themselves (as it should be) then this system is totally unnecessary. This isn't about critiquing art as "entertainment", it's an absurd, objective litmus test that cannot be taken seriously.
It's one thing to critique art, but a film rating is not a critical review of a subject. Bias is anything but objective and demands critical thinking, something people seem convinced is unnecessary and can be determined for them by a simple rule.Lieju said:
It's fair to make a story in which best friends and a third wheel, merely playing a love-interest, comes between them without developing other motivations.
Notice how I didn't inject gender into the example; we're not supposed to be prejudiced.
I prefer art that has a statement, symbolism is one of my favourite things to study. It is a completely false statement though. Does the Mona Lisa or any of Rembrandt's work state anything? They are beautiful portraits yes, some of the most well renowned pieces in the world, yet they have no meaning unless the viewer fabricates one.
I suppose if you are the snooty hipster type who only view movies like Requim for a Dream or Hard Candy as art, or slap on your own meanings to pieces so the world can fit your exaggerated pretentious view of art. In that scenario, the statement is correct.
I suppose if you are the snooty hipster type who only view movies like Requim for a Dream or Hard Candy as art, or slap on your own meanings to pieces so the world can fit your exaggerated pretentious view of art. In that scenario, the statement is correct.
That statement is completely false. Art can be anything. It can be made to express an opinion, make a statement. It can be made to entertain. It can be made so that it has been made, or so that it exists.
And really, the definition of art is such a weird philosophical topic. So whoever said art isn't meant to entertain has a very, very narrow view of what art can be and is.
And really, the definition of art is such a weird philosophical topic. So whoever said art isn't meant to entertain has a very, very narrow view of what art can be and is.
Yeah, no
Art can make a statement, and/or it can be for entertainment. It could even do neither. Frankly, the definition of art is so broad that anything made with aesthetics of some kind in mind qualifies. Which in turn means that almost everything ever made is artistic to some degree.
Now, people can argue about which forms of art are more pure than others. If you could force me into actually participating in such an annoying discussion, I would even agree that art made with entertainment primarily in mind is likely to be less of a true expression of the artist. But the person referenced in the OP is getting heavily into "no true Scotsman" territory here.
Art can make a statement, and/or it can be for entertainment. It could even do neither. Frankly, the definition of art is so broad that anything made with aesthetics of some kind in mind qualifies. Which in turn means that almost everything ever made is artistic to some degree.
Now, people can argue about which forms of art are more pure than others. If you could force me into actually participating in such an annoying discussion, I would even agree that art made with entertainment primarily in mind is likely to be less of a true expression of the artist. But the person referenced in the OP is getting heavily into "no true Scotsman" territory here.
Art is whatever the Hell it wants to be. To try and define it so singularly like that is impossible.
I tend to go by two of the dictionary's definitions:
1: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2: The product of these activities.
Now, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So art can still be plenty of things with that definition.
Here's an example of something I DON'T think of as art: Taking a selfie in the bathroom mirror and posting it somehwere to show off your new hair/clothes/etc. You didn't do it because you thought you looked pretty. Stop lying. You did it to show it off to others and get some positive attention.
Here's an example of something I DO think of as art: A simple photograph of your pet. Sure, it's just about the lowest quality art, imo. But you saw your pet, and decided that you wanted to capture that moment so you could look at it again, or let others look at it. In other words, you found it beautiful in one way or form.
Of course my definition is flawed. And I may not always keep to it myself. But that's the thing with 'art'. Every attempt to properly define what art is throughout the centuries, has failed. And I'm not claiming to be some messiah that figured it all out. It's just what I think of art.
1: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2: The product of these activities.
Now, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So art can still be plenty of things with that definition.
Here's an example of something I DON'T think of as art: Taking a selfie in the bathroom mirror and posting it somehwere to show off your new hair/clothes/etc. You didn't do it because you thought you looked pretty. Stop lying. You did it to show it off to others and get some positive attention.
Here's an example of something I DO think of as art: A simple photograph of your pet. Sure, it's just about the lowest quality art, imo. But you saw your pet, and decided that you wanted to capture that moment so you could look at it again, or let others look at it. In other words, you found it beautiful in one way or form.
Of course my definition is flawed. And I may not always keep to it myself. But that's the thing with 'art'. Every attempt to properly define what art is throughout the centuries, has failed. And I'm not claiming to be some messiah that figured it all out. It's just what I think of art.