What's your definition of art?

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: namelesss

Ever learned how universal laws works on the planet earth, they are awesome.. ? First time humanity came across universal laws in art were in Egypt.. But cave paintings are probably master pieces?

(Screeching of tires and skid marks...)
What isn't 'art'?
I can tell you what isn't a Universal Law!
Please share how you equate Universal Laws and art? I am intrigued with your Perspective. *__-

Art is something you look at or hold, and it pleases you, or revolts you, that is art.
Art is lie that makes us wonder, feel awe or we just can't understand what it is.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, I don't know who said it, but it is the sum of the question.

a reply to: namelesss

When you build a building, when the wave hits the shore, when the wind breezes through your hair.. When the tree grows, flower petals, a seashell.. I can draw a perfection of it.. Your fantasies are not art..

a reply to: Drawsoho

So what you think is art? America has had 240 years of living in a fantasy isnt that enough?

I think true art is skillfull and accurate portayals of realism. Quality
workmanship and quality construction.

Picasso can keep cubism and those impressionist can keep impressing.

a reply to: Drawsoho

Yes, divine.. Not a twisted imagination of our thoughts..

I like how this OP constantly asks questions as if to welcome discussion and debate... when it's clear that he's already made up his mind. He's not interested in our perspective or expanding his own. He's only interested in reinforcing his already set in stone views.

I guess you could say that about all of us... but, some of us are more interested in building bridges and actually communicating.

To me, art is a conversation... it's about communicating. Getting a thing across. Building that bridge. And possibly more importantly, there's also such a thing as bad art... just like theres such a thing as poor engineering of an actual bridge. Bad art is real, one needs only to review this OP's entire thread history to experience it.

originally posted by: tikbalang
Your fantasies are not art..

Any time you wish to debate that something is NOT art, you will lose.
Every time!

a reply to: namelesss

Aesthetics is what you mean not art itself..

a reply to: namelesss

David Hume had a fantastic idea where humans had the ability to transcend into divine creatures if the understood art.. Should fit the word freedom somewhere in there also..

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: namelesss

Aesthetics is what you mean not art itself..

I mean EXACTLY as I say!
Please don't presume to tell me what I really mean!
And I repeat, any time that you wish to debate that anything is not art, you will lose!
You are amazingly silent on that, the first time I said it, so I'll repeat!
If you care to clearly explain how anything (pick anything) is not 'art', I will be generous enough to show you where your logical errors lie. *__-
Now, please, get to your point!

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: namelesss

David Hume had a fantastic idea where humans had the ability to transcend into divine creatures if the understood art.. Should fit the word freedom somewhere in there also..

Frankly, I am unimpressed with Hume's thoughts!
He was far from either Enlightened, or aware of contemporary science!
But, Dog Bless his 'fantastic(al)' ideas'.
Let's let Hume have his ideas, and we shall have ours, okay?
Especially as he is not here to defend himself.

"Humans have the ability to transcend into divine creatures" if We find and become unconditional Love/Enlightened!
We become Universal!
The subjective conditional likes of the ego do nothing but hinder us, blind us to unconditional Love!
When you are Love, everything is Beautiful, everything is music, everything is art!
Because everything is God!
We Are One Omni- Self!
There is no 'other'!
That is schizophrenia!
There is no 'God' 'and'... anything!

"God cannot know himself without me." - Meister Eckhart

"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart

"All things are simply God to thee who seest only God in all things. Like one who looks long at the sun, he encounters the sun in whatever he afterwards looks at. If this is lacking, this looking for and seeing God in all and sundry, then thou lackest this birth." - Meister Eckhart

"What a man loves, he is. If he loves a stone he is that stone, if he loves a person he is that person, if he loves God - nay, I durst not say more; were I to say, he is God, he might stone me. I do but teach you the scriptures." - Meister Eckhart

a reply to: namelesss

Well the debate/discussion detoriates into you and not anything else but you.. It's like I'm trying to say something to someone who is talking to himself and say well I'm right and you are wrong cause it sounds right when I'm talking to myself

originally posted by: tikbalang
a reply to: namelesss

Well the debate/discussion detoriates...

The question was "What is art?"
I responded;

1) Everything is 'art'!

2) 'Art' is in the eye of the beholder, a matter of Perspective!

Two truths I offered that you don't seem to like, feel free to refute something using logic and evidence, because I can certainly use same in support of my proffered 'definition'..
Or agree and move on, but attacking 'me' is futile.

"We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are!"

a reply to: namelesss

Try building something from your pow.. Art is in everything.. I don't think this discussion will work
Cause you look at things from your pow without education for it

originally posted by: geezlouise
I like how this OP constantly asks questions as if to welcome discussion and debate... when it's clear that he's already made up his mind. He's not interested in our perspective or expanding his own. He's only interested in reinforcing his already set in stone views.

My threads are not about me. They're about ideas, news, etc. Why would you go off on a tangent discussing me?

I'm irrelevant to my threads; they stand on their own. There may be one exception to that, if I didn't make the topic clear in the original post then something may need to be clarified. I haven't done that in a while, it's a rare occurrence for me.

originally posted by: geezlouise
I guess you could say that about all of us... but, some of us are more interested in building bridges and actually communicating.

"Building bridges", what does that mean? I didn't come here to make friends. Are you criticizing me for that?

"Actually communicating"...I only reply to a thread when I feel like it's necessary, why else would anyone reply to a thread?

originally posted by: geezlouise
Bad art is real, one needs only to review this OP's entire thread history to experience it.

member threads: 435
ave. flags per thread: 8.69
ave. stars per post: 5.05

There are objective measures that disprove your assertion directly above.

P.S. I loved your post. It made me laugh more than anything else I've read on this forum.

a reply to: Profusion

its a great thread, im just gonna try to get things into a bit of perspective..



If we take the ratio of two successive numbers in Fibonacci's series, (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, ..) and we divide each by the number before it, we will find the following series of numbers:
1/1 = 1, 2/1 = 2, 3/2 = 1·5, 5/3 = 1·666..., 8/5 = 1·6, 13/8 = 1·625, 21/13 = 1·61538...

It is easier to see what is happening if we plot the ratios on a graph:



The ratio seems to be settling down to a particular value, which we call the golden ratio or the golden number. It has a value of approximately 1·618034