Is it against the law for us to create art in this surveillance state we live in?

I remember back-in-the-day the discussion of Art; what is it,
is it possible to define it, was one of the mainstays of a
healthy philosophical debate. This was before the era of
daytime television. Back when people knew how to have
conversations. Philosophical inquiry was something even
us commoners practiced.






People generally choose the position that art cannot be
defined.





Or that (in a nod to Einstein) it's all relative.
Anyone here old enough to remember the days before
the saying "one mans garbage is another's treasure?"





Anyway.





The "art cannot be defined" position has been blown
out of the water.



With the new Beauty algorithms the most attractive
face can, in fact, be quantized.

Mind hacks .com / the beauty algorithm




But the question itself remains.

What is art.



In fact, is it even possible to insult artists anymore?
I remember a day when even daring to define art
for one's self would raise the ire of musicians and
painters alike.








Or is the lack of discussion in the post digital world
a symptom of something worse. Something deeper.
That we have no more artists.
That art, as we knew it, is dead.

And that it never really mattered anyway.

Is this our future?

ATS / Stolen Picasso and Monet art Burned



Maybe it's no coincidence that just at the
moment that each one of us has sufficient
computing power to really create lasting
art, is exactly when the main stream media
stops talking about it all together.

The auto-tune,
the 4/4 time
the cyclic rhythms
the beauty algorithm



Look,
I'm not saying anything for or against.
I'm asking.
I'm just asking.
What is art.

What is art to you?
And,
do you even care to have a definition.


Mike

It's hard to have real artists in a society such as ours that takes all its mystics and pumps them full of drugs and sticks them in insane asylums.

Yes there is a specific definition.

Prolific artists utilized ancient geometries such as the golden mean ratio as well as the fibonacci sequences. There are plenty of sources on the internet that have gone as far as to measure the individual brush strokes of these geniuses.

The true question is, were they so inherently gifted that they could produce artwork and the goldenmean/fibonacci sequences flow naturally? Or are they geniuses that take the time to make sure their art is mathematically perfect?

I personally believe the former, they are innately gifted. We have these folks in our society today but they are sucked up through one of the many funnels such as "american idol" where they are bought by the corporate system and utilized for corporate means and not their own personal talents.

Originally posted by BlueMule
It's hard to have real artists in a society such as ours that takes all its mystics and pumps them full of drugs and sticks them in insane asylums.

If they are all locked up,
does that make a police officer
with a gun strobe,
the default artist of our day?

Originally posted by chadderson
Yes there is a specific definition.

Prolific artists utilized ancient geometries such as the golden mean ratio as well as the fibonacci sequences. There are plenty of sources on the internet that have gone as far as to measure the individual brush strokes of these geniuses.

The true question is, were they so inherently gifted that they could produce artwork and the goldenmean/fibonacci sequences flow naturally? Or are they geniuses that take the time to make sure their art is mathematically perfect?

I personally believe the former, they are innately gifted. We have these folks in our society today but they are sucked up through one of the many funnels such as "american idol" where they are bought by the corporate system and utilized for corporate means and not their own personal talents.

Even worse, the Idol shows,
try to only take individuals.
They seem to be against
group art, or team art.

Maybe that is only for
military squads these days.


Mike



Is this IR vision squad
using modern team art?

only if it offends Public Morals,,,
see Plato.
Roman Empire.

I don't think there is a definitive answer to the question: "What is art"? I know what is art to me, when something excites my senses.

It's a John Seerey-Lester painting.

It's a Vivaldi piece of music.

A piece of furniture by H.R. Giger.

A lone Bag Pipe playing.

Reading Edger Allen Poe.

Watching Peter Cushing in a movie.

Eating a decadent piece of chocolate cake.

The smell of a woman's perfume.

Originally posted by Carreau
I don't think there is a definitive answer to the question: "What is art"? I know what is art to me, when something excites my senses.

It's a John Seerey-Lester painting.

It's a Vivaldi piece of music.

A piece of furniture by H.R. Giger.

A lone Bag Pipe playing.

Reading Edger Allen Poe.

Watching Peter Cushing in a movie.

Eating a decadent piece of chocolate cake.

The smell of a woman's perfume.

Some great definitions.

I do have to take exception with the first sentence though.

Great civilizations throughout history have had definitions of art in their age.


Mike

A few examples.

Art according to Ancient China
: meaning, style, form, pathway

Art according to the Greeks
: a sense of perfection, order, balance, and beauty

Art according to the Romans
: political leaders, practical, a higher degree of individuality than the Greeks

Art according to Islam
: surface decorations based on rhythmic linear patterns of scrolling and
interlacing foliage, tendrils.

Art according to Byzantium
: saints or people from the bible, lot of symbolism, halos

Art according to the Renaissance
: activity, spirit, revival, literature, learning, ideas, and values

Art according to Victorian England
: vibrant colors, high society, grand excess of ornament

Art according to France
: definition, conjugation, Reversal, Folk

Art after Newtonian Revolution
: either attractive or repulsive

Originally posted by BobAthome
only if it offends Public Morals,,,
see Plato.
Roman Empire.

Yes,
and in Plato's era
Public Morals were defined by the ruling class.

We, on the other hand, seem to like anything except
what our elected officials say we should.

Does that make modern America nothing more
than anti-platonic?


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


so guess u have not heard about the Weiner guy?,,Public Morals? in Elected Officials???where?

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

so guess u have not heard about the Weiner guy?,,Public Morals? in Elected Officials???where?

Or is that mainstream media frenzy
nothing more than the tombstone
on top of any real discussion about
what is art and is it an expression of morals.

I have three levels of art.
These are my definitions.
These are my standards.

Art should speak to more than the artist.
This is level 1.

Better art should speak across language barriers
This is level 2.

Great art should do all that and speak across generations. That timeless quality.
This is level 3.

Mike

What is 'Art' is highly personal and it's worth is determined by the one who perceives it as art . My definition of Art is: anything one perceives as beautiful and special.

Originally posted by Euphony
What is 'Art' is highly personal and it's worth is determined by the one who perceives it as art . My definition of Art is: anything one perceives as beautiful and special.

Give us an example.

Do you mean something like this?


Is this beautiful and special?
I mean what is more personal,
what is more special,
than one's own
wedding cake?


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Euphony
What is 'Art' is highly personal and it's worth is determined by the one who perceives it as art . My definition of Art is: anything one perceives as beautiful and special.

Give us an example.

Do you mean something like this?

Is this beautiful and special?
I mean what is more personal,
what is more special,
than one's own
wedding cake?

Mike

edit on 30-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

To a bride to be and the person that created this, that is absolutely a work of art.

Originally posted by Euphony


To a bride to be and the person that created this, that is absolutely a work of art.

Are you positing that the only art
is consumable art, and that there is
no lasting art. Thus granting corporations
total dominance and ratifying the consumer culture?


Mike

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

Originally posted by Euphony
What is 'Art' is highly personal and it's worth is determined by the one who perceives it as art . My definition of Art is: anything one perceives as beautiful and special.

Give us an example.

Do you mean something like this?

Is this beautiful and special?
I mean what is more personal,
what is more special,
than one's own
wedding cake?

Mike

edit on 30-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)

To the Hungry of the World,,,pinnacle,, indded.

Absolutely not. I should include my definition of art to include something about the act of creating. Art will never die because life itself is a created work of art and by us creating 'just life', art is inherently created.

Originally posted by BobAthome

Originally posted by mikegrouchy

I

To the Hungry of the World,,,pinnacle,, indded.

Um, pardon me for making the comparison.

But just like Marie Antoinette did you just say...



to the people in bread lines?



I hope I misunderstood.


Mike

Originally posted by Euphony
Absolutely not. I should include my definition of art to include something about the act of creating. Art will never die because life itself is a created work of art and by us creating 'just life', art is inherently created.

Maybe,
but no one creates more
than the monopolies and giant corporations of the world.

By that definition they are the artists and they deserve to rule.
That only leaves procreation for the individual.


Mike

reply to post by mikegrouchy


pinnacle indeed,,,, no i meant like Trotsky .

or was it,,
British,, as in Irish Potato Famine,,

or Mao,, during collective's

or maybe the "Wedding Feast" of the bride of CHRIST,,,,,,

u pick

and by the way,,"But just like Marie Antoinette did you just say... ",,it was that or let thier Army's Starve, and loose too the English Crown.
once agin your pick,,