Posts: 444
Threads: 285
Joined: Nov 2011
(09-19-2013, 03:47 AM)milo Wrote: Yes, a word can be cliche through /usage/ but never through definition or identity.
Congratulations on the completion of your journey from "wrong" to "ironic".
You've finally 'seen the writing on the wall'. A clichéd word is like every
other type of cliché (not an exception as you implied earlier): The
original meaning was not a cliché; it's clichéness had to be earned
through hard, often repetitive, work.
(09-19-2013, 03:51 AM)milo Wrote: The statement "art is subjective" is a great demonstration of what a cliche is. It pretends to be identity but we can test that identity. If art is subjective, we can replace the word "art" in situations with the word "subjective"
I went to the subjective musem.
There was a subjective show at the college.
My best friend is a subjectivist.
nope, not identity. And it is pretty common. That makes it a cliche - a doozy too, it is so overused as to be considered axiomatic without even consideration which makes it great to roll out as a quote occasionally without any thought.
Identity? That's just plain silly.
"Is" is being used to assign an attribute:
Art is enlightening.
Art is pretentious.
This wheelbarrow is red.
Soylent Green is people. (Close, but it contains other ingredients as well.)
(Since it doesn't contain any animals, is it vegan?)
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions
Posts: 1,279
Threads: 187
Joined: Dec 2016
(09-20-2013, 08:19 PM)rayheinrich Wrote: (09-19-2013, 03:47 AM)milo Wrote: Yes, a word can be cliche through /usage/ but never through definition or identity.
Congratulations on the completion of your journey from "wrong" to "ironic". I should just repeat this back to you. A word can never be cliche, it is usage. That is just repeating the same thing, not changing stances.
Beauty isn't a cliche
Truth isn't a cliche
Etc.
Quote:
You've finally 'seen the writing on the wall'. A clichéd word is like every
other type of cliché (not an exception as you implied earlier): The
original meaning was not a cliché; it's clichéness had to be earned
through hard, often repetitive, work.
(09-19-2013, 03:51 AM)milo Wrote: The statement "art is subjective" is a great demonstration of what a cliche is. It pretends to be identity but we can test that identity. If art is subjective, we can replace the word "art" in situations with the word "subjective"
I went to the subjective musem.
There was a subjective show at the college.
My best friend is a subjectivist.
nope, not identity. And it is pretty common. That makes it a cliche - a doozy too, it is so overused as to be considered axiomatic without even consideration which makes it great to roll out as a quote occasionally without any thought.
Identity? That's just plain silly.
"Is" is being used to assign an attribute:
Art is enlightening.
Art is pretentious.
This wheelbarrow is red.
Soylent Green is people. (Close, but it contains other ingredients as well.)
(Since it doesn't contain any animals, is it vegan?)
Ahhh . . .you don't know what identity is either.
Posts: 444
Threads: 285
Joined: Nov 2011
(09-19-2013, 11:10 AM)trueenigma Wrote: A work of art is an object, and therefore not subjective. Whether or not it it is perceived as art/or how/why is subjective the to opinions, views and perceptions of the ones perceiving it. The perception itself may be subjective, dependent on circumstances ranging from the philosophical " I may see things differently from you" to the seemingly minuet details such as the lighting in the room. Art as a whole is not subjective, because that would open it up to the argument that it may not exist, (and if not, do we then exist etc. etc. ad nauseam), and we know that it exists, at least insofar as we perceive it to.The opinion that art is subjective was not a cliche when it was originally expressed, but quoting old popular opinions and phrases, especially outside of the context of their original argument, as your own opinion, or as fact, is cliche.
Going back to that wonderful quote from Sanders:
"A painting is a physical object, it is not art.
Art is the effect the painting has on a person when
they see it. Art is subjective because it is a
product of perception and perception is subjective."
- William Sanders
Yes, the object can be very real, but the 'art' part
is just someone's opinion. People disagree about a
specific object being art all the time.
Art, by the way, does not depend on material existence;
there are many forms of art (conceptual art, descriptive
art, literature) that do not require physical objects.
(And digital photographs... just where do they exist?)
Here's my paraphrase of a (dare I say?) clichéd old
thought experiment:
I'm in a hotel I've never been in before and I'm looking
for a seminar on "Biospheric Contexts of Cognitive Mechanisms".
I open a door and look into a large hall. No one is there,
but on the opposite wall are two quite beautiful paintings
of the city. As I walk forward to inspect them I realize
that they aren't paintings but windows looking out on the
real city. Then I walk even closer and realize that only
one is a window and the other is a painting of a city
seen through a window. Then I get very close and hear
people talking behind me. They've just come in the door
and are looking at what they think are two paintings of
the city. One of the paintings, they notice, has an odd
little man in it that appears to be watching them. They
remark on how spooky it is that his eyes seem to follow
them as they move about the room.
(09-20-2013, 09:15 PM)milo Wrote: A word can never be cliche, it is usage.
Corollaries:
An unused word can never be a cliché.
An unused identity can be considered disposable.
Three clichés walked into a bar.
The bartender looked up and said:
"Same as yesterday?"
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
(09-20-2013, 09:39 PM)rayheinrich Wrote: (09-19-2013, 11:10 AM)trueenigma Wrote: A work of art is an object, and therefore not subjective. Whether or not it it is perceived as art/or how/why is subjective the to opinions, views and perceptions of the ones perceiving it. The perception itself may be subjective, dependent on circumstances ranging from the philosophical " I may see things differently from you" to the seemingly minuet details such as the lighting in the room. Art as a whole is not subjective, because that would open it up to the argument that it may not exist, (and if not, do we then exist etc. etc. ad nauseam), and we know that it exists, at least insofar as we perceive it to.The opinion that art is subjective was not a cliche when it was originally expressed, but quoting old popular opinions and phrases, especially outside of the context of their original argument, as your own opinion, or as fact, is cliche.
Going back to that wonderful quote from Sanders:
"A painting is a physical object, it is not art.
Art is the effect the painting has on a person when
they see it. Art is subjective because it is a
product of perception and perception is subjective."
- William Sanders
Yes, the object can be very real, but the 'art' part
is just someone's opinion. People disagree about a
specific object being art all the time.
Art, by the way, does not depend on material existence;
there are many forms of art (conceptual art, descriptive
art, literature) that do not require physical objects.
(And digital photographs... just where do they exist?)
Here's my paraphrase of a (dare I say?) clichéd old
thought experiment:
I'm in a hotel I've never been in before and I'm looking
for a seminar on "Biospheric Contexts of Cognitive Mechanisms".
I open a door and look into a large hall. No one is there,
but on the opposite wall are two quite beautiful paintings
of the city. As I walk forward to inspect them I realize
that they aren't paintings but windows looking out on the
real city. Then I walk even closer and realize that only
one is a window and the other is a painting of a city
seen through a window. Then I get very close and hear
people talking behind me. They've just come in the door
and are looking at what they think are two paintings of
the city. One of the paintings, they notice, has an odd
little man in it that appears to be watching them. They
remark on how spooky it is that his eyes seem to follow
them as they move about the room.
(09-20-2013, 09:15 PM)milo Wrote: A word can never be cliche, it is usage.
Corollaries:
An unused word can never be a cliché.
An unused identity can be considered disposable.
Three clichés walked into a bar.
The bartender looked up and said:
"Same as yesterday?"
This is why when somebody says knock knock I never ask who's there.
You can't really share a painting with someone without actually painting it. And the act is done in the physical world subject to such laws as gravity (paint may drip and run), therefore art isn't only in your head. It's poses a non literal philosophical question equivalent to such Abstractions as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and does a tree make a sound if no one hears it? Does art exist in nature? If we are not observing the art does it crease to be art? Where does the Art actually occur? It cannot be proven, it's entirely figurative.
All he is saying is "I can have a different opinion than you, and you can't prove me wrong because my opinion is based on my perception, not yours".
Ergo, an artist must be objective, and understand and be aware of the physical limitations imposed on the creation of his art, he must also be aware that there are differences of opinion and different points of view regarding art, he must use both sides of his brain.
One must not forget that art requires a physical medium (even music requires sound), and it should be supported in one way or another by logic. If the logic is irrefutable all the better.
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
One could say, "well art, like evil, is an abstraction, and a man made concept, it doesn't exist in nature, or outside of our minds". We have no proof of that either, we don't know if we invented it, or just named it, or whatever. We call language and communication art, are dolphins artists? We have absolutely no proof that we aren't works of art ourselves, or that we weren't created by some other being that created a world full of artistic entities to perpetuate his/her/their own artistic nature and glory. Or an assassin bug squatting over us,
shoving a proboscis right through
our breast plate then sipping-(dean young). In a way art is part of how we communicate, and seek to understand, explain, and re-create the things around us, both far and near- it's bound to be influenced by the outside world.
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
Also, the argument only really pertains to the quality of the art. If someone draws a stick figure it is art, whether or not it is "good" art is up for debate, and we've even developed rules to help with that debate. Art is our immortality, it's how we remember from generation to generation. Early art was almost entirely objective and may not have even included or required intent.
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
maybe a stick figure is just a stick figure till someone sees it as art, the artist may just see it as a stick figure.
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
So is art purely subjective?
I’m sorry, it isn’t. I know it’s a golden little dream that feels warm and cuddly when we hold onto it, but it simply isn’t true. Now, one’s reaction to art IS purely subjective. But one’s opinion or enjoyment of something does not affect the work itself.
It is possible for art to be good or bad; even more so it is possible for art to be better or worse. And the more extreme the difference, the easier it is to tell. If I draw a little sketch, that sketch is not as good as a Picasso piece. Even if my mom looks at it and loves it, it isn’t better. It is worse. It’s OK for my mom to like it more; that is her subjective opinion. But it would be silly of her to try to objectively claim it was better. It isn’t. That is a fact. I don’t know how to draw. Every technical aspect would be worse. Every creative aspect would be worse. Is my mom stupid for liking mine more? No. Do I look down on her? No. But is my piece better? Absolutely not.
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
i don't hold with this good poetry bad poetry, i think it's a cop out, just because i write something and call it a poet does not make it poetry. i don't think the creator has a choice in saying "this is art" if everyone else says "it isn't then it isn't"
while there is bad poetry there is also stuff called poet that is only poetry because the writer said it is.
it's a bit like me saying a "pig is car" or "water is parrafin" or "taking a piss and calling it wine"
i remember visiting an art museum in london and in the middle of the floor was one house brick. everyone was cooing how artful the brick was and how clever the creator of the piece....it was a fucking brick. it was art only as much as any brick can be called art.
you say the work. i say the brick and those who see the brick as artistic were also bricks. people are to quick to call something art in order to seem connoisseurs. all they are are pretentious bricks
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
(09-21-2013, 08:24 AM)billy Wrote: i don't hold with this good poetry bad poetry, i think it's a cop out, just because i write something and call it a poet does not make it poetry. i don't think the creator has a choice in saying "this is art" if everyone else says "it isn't then it isn't"
while there is bad poetry there is also stuff called poet that is only poetry because the writer said it is.
it's a bit like me saying a "pig is car" or "water is parrafin" or "taking a piss and calling it wine"
i remember visiting an art museum in london and in the middle of the floor was one house brick. everyone was cooing how artful the brick was and how clever the creator of the piece....it was a fucking brick. it was art only as much as any brick can be called art.
you say the work. i say the brick and those who see the brick as artistic were also bricks. people are to quick to call something art in order to seem connoisseurs. all they are are pretentious bricks
And if you tell them the brick isn't art, they'll say "well, art is subjective".
Quote:i don't hold with this good poetry bad poetry, i think it's a cop out, just because i write something and call it a poet does not make it poetry. i don't think the creator has a choice in saying "this is art" if everyone else says "it isn't then it isn't"
Poetry isn't art. I just developed the opinion that poetry, good or bad, isn't art, therefore it isn't. Art is subjective.
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
yeah of course, art like most things are what we make it. for example; you opinion is a piece of art  just kidding.
but all we are doing here is giving opinion, i'm sure anything can be proven one way of another. what we think is valid to us, and if it makes sense valid to the artist or creator of the works, be them paint, text, object or non solid
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
['billy' pid='140447' dateline='1379723993']
yeah of course, art like most things are what we make it. for example; you opinion is a piece of art just kidding.
but all we are doing here is giving opinion, i'm sure anything can be proven one way of another. what we think is valid to us, and if it makes sense valid to the artist or creator of the works, be them paint, text, object or non solid
[/quote]
Its what we make it? Lol what like life? I could say a tree is subjective, because we only know it's there by sensory perceptions, so it's really just in our heads. I wholly disagree, calling it something other than a tree doesn't make it something else. If I disagree with Tennyson on religious viewpoints, it doesn't make his work any better or worse, even in my mind. But anyway, I think this one has been run into the ground.
Posts: 204
Threads: 57
Joined: Jan 2013
I'm starting to really detest this thread.
I'll be there in a minute.
Posts: 1,279
Threads: 187
Joined: Dec 2016
(09-21-2013, 10:13 AM)newsclippings Wrote: I'm starting to really detest this thread.
Stop reading it.
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
(09-21-2013, 10:21 AM)milo Wrote: (09-21-2013, 10:13 AM)newsclippings Wrote: I'm starting to really detest this thread.
Stop reading it.
Lol i was gonna stop bumping it. But it's getting bumped anyway
Posts: 1,568
Threads: 317
Joined: Jun 2011
(09-21-2013, 10:13 AM)newsclippings Wrote: I'm starting to really detest this thread.
Just starting? I was there long ago. I'm only reading it in case I have to spank someone.
It could be worse
Posts: 1,279
Threads: 187
Joined: Dec 2016
09-21-2013, 10:28 AM
(09-21-2013, 10:24 AM)Leanne Wrote: (09-21-2013, 10:13 AM)newsclippings Wrote: I'm starting to really detest this thread.
Just starting? I was there long ago. I'm only reading it in case I have to spank someone.
I can cover for you. The thread . . .amuses me.
Posts: 2,354
Threads: 229
Joined: Oct 2010
This should have been the only answer to this thread:
YES!
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson
Posts: 1,279
Threads: 187
Joined: Dec 2016
(09-21-2013, 10:36 AM)Todd Wrote: This should have been the only answer to this thread:
YES!
Do we really need other threads? I feel like we can cover everything we want in this thread right here.
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
(09-21-2013, 10:38 AM)milo Wrote: (09-21-2013, 10:36 AM)Todd Wrote: This should have been the only answer to this thread:
YES!
Do we really need other threads? I feel like we can cover everything we want in this thread right here.
Why not? It's all subjective... interpretation. . .
|
