Help Me Settle This Argument

rukia

Ooohh.. we're in the presence of nobility here, Rukia of the Kuchiki Clan..

Thank you very much, come again.

Dumbass

I really wasn't looking for opinions on the pieces themselves but no harm in that I suppose.. What I asked was is Japanese traditional art simple in its style? Specifically in comparison to renaissance art. An easy yes or no question.

I can't say I agree with you about the mural.. I find it comparable to the work of a child but each to his own I suppose. How do you know the technique was new when this piece was made though?

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Any Vermeer or Rembrandt is far greater in sophistication than the best Japanese paintings. The attention to detail alone illustrates this fact.

Don't let them sell you on artistic relativism. Art may be about expression now, but only since relativists have had their way with it. Now a crucifix in a cup of piss, or a signed urinal, is considered art. Art was once about beauty.

This great documentary by Roger Scruton makes a good case:

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
Dumbass


I really wasn't looking for opinions on the pieces themselves but no harm in that I suppose.. What I asked was is Japanese traditional art simple in its style? Specifically in comparison to renaissance art. An easy yes or no question.

I can't say I agree with you about the mural.. I find it comparable to the work of a child but each to his own I suppose. How do you know the technique was new when this piece was made though?

I am a designer of buildings/furniture myself and it is far harder to make something simplistic that actually works and looks good then being elaborate with it with (decorating) details. Less is more does count sometimes. So to answer yes or no, it is just that. yes on no.

I didn't say that other piece was interesting because the technique was new, I just thought the technique of applied arts when the murals were designed coherent with the building design was interesting.
I did say how ever the composition is right. It is. That does not mean it is a masterpiece it is just one of the things needed to become a masterpiece. would I want it in my home? no. Same with lotr, nice use of materials to bad it has no real composition. I have no clue why the artist didn't make a triptych or something like that.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you for the link. This'll go into my bookmarks.

I'm already convinced that there's an objective factor in art, but I also think there's a degree of subjectivity. I sometimes like cheesy art, or art that conjures feelings of nostalgia. I think there's a lot of postmodern art that is pure crap though. Especially the kind you reference involving urine and such things. Speaks of an immature mind I would say, some kind of pseudo-rebellious psychological complex.

I'm the kind of asshole that would suggest that if we're gonna talk about soft sciences and hard sciences then maybe we ought to talk about soft art and hard art. In this line of thought photography would be considered more of a soft art.

The LoTR painting in this thread is somewhat typical of a genre of art that probably isn't regarded that well by critics. A little bit too polished maybe. The same goes for the art in my avatar, it may not be the height of achievement and might even remind one of New Age art but I think there's a subtle difference. In this case the reason I chose my avatar is partly because of nostalgia, but also because elves are awesome and I'm a Warhammer fanboy.

a reply to: Dumbass

The LoTR painting is supposed to be the cover of a book I think. I think he makes it work and as the reincarnation of Leonardo Da Vinci as well as an unknown but widely celebrated Atlantean master my credentials reign supreme. There's no room for debate here, I painted both the painting in Ghostbusters 2 and the painting of Dorian Gray.

taste is not part of your character, unless you allow your taste to be a character flaw (only being physically attracted to someone off limits, for example).

Japanese art is beautiful, but is very simplistic. Its just part of the style to be minimalist. Remrandt is, IMO, the greatest artist to ever live. So comparing anything to him is unfair. But if you compare the general baroque style to premodern japanese art, its easy to see the differences in complexity.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

That Lord of the rings painting is amazing to me, (I stole it for my background.)

The only thing I really know about art is if I can do it, it is NOT art.

Taste, sophistication, I know nothing about that, but the Japanese art does look more simplistic to me

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Even though it's your thread... does it always have to be about you? 1000s of people read these things. Posts typically stand on their own, and even though there's going to be however many opinions reflected in the thread itself... none of the postings are personal or directed at anyone specific unless people make it a point to be.

I was replying to the topic at hand and being an artist I gave my opinion, to taking it personal and then quoting making it personal...

What can I say about such things other than the above... everything isnt about you sweetheart it's about the topic and thats ok.

Awareness of this expands ones world view... not understanding this simply shrinks and eventually pops that bubble.

This isn't group text messaging it's information sharing.

a reply to: BadBoYeed

The more hideous the more artsy

😜😜😜😜
😀😀😀😀
😎😎😎😎
😍😍😍😍

See that's art

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

So just because I point out your misrepresentation of my OP I'm egocentric now?

It doesn't have to be about me but if your whole post is based on negligence and misunderstanding don't be upset or surprised if I correct you as to the purpose of the thread.

I'm not taking it personal but you certainly seem to be taking this personal, me correcting your misunderstanding isn't the same as me taking it personal.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What's the reasoning behind this claim about taste though? How can the way one feels and thinks about certain subjects not be a part of one's character?

a reply to: ketsuko

My library of 4000+ books are art to me.

a reply to: ketsuko

Asian artists would completely fail if their mission was to paint like European painters

Walk through the halls of any public art gallery in Europe (and I’m sure it’s the same in America, too) and you will see any number of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese etc art students making copies of the Old Masters, and the modern ones too.

When reproduction art (I mean paintings, not prints) became popular in the West after the Second World War, most of the copies were painted in Japanese ‘art factories’ by artists who were paid by the square foot.

The person impugning the OP’s taste in in that other thread was I, by the way. It was after he or she called me a robot and a snob, as well as a few other nasty things.

He or she then told me that I had been attacking their character, when all I really attacked was their taste.

Hence the motivation for this thread. Please agree with him (or her) and make them happy.

a reply to: Astyanax

It was unbearably snobbish..

Saying:

To be vulnerable to cheap sentiment and hyperbole is not a good thing in any way at all.

Like being touched by bad writing was a crime.

Good taste and critical judgement are what prevent us from falling victim to sentiment

Great crime to fall victim to. Maybe making comparisons to rule of mob was a great exaggeration. My only claim was that there's subjective worth in "falling victim to sentiment", whether the writing was good or not.

But using your criteria I only attacked your taste by calling it snobbish. That's how you came off. Snobbish, condescending and awfully cold - like a? If you don't want to be called a snob, don't act like one. I'm only commenting on your taste after all. You then went on a tirade trying to name drop as many artists as you possibly could making ridiculous statements like the one about simplicity.

Anyone with eyes can see that traditional Japanese art is simplistic, everyone but you it seems.. despite your oh so impressive rote memorisation of names. There's great irony in you pretending that statement was ludicrous though.

And since you don't actually ever back up your claims with anything, let's stop hijacking that other thread and see if your assertions hold any weight outside of the tight confines of your own subjective mind. And going by the responses so far, it mostly looks like they don't.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Once again, simplicity does not imply inferiority.

What is the point you're trying to make?

I am not here to antagonize you

Just spell it out

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Claims were made with arrogant and condescending certainty. Mostly without any actual justifications.

Claims that were quite preposterous to begin with even without a barrage of insults adding to injury. Not to say that I was completely innocent myself but this is the way of the internet, or most of it at least.

Does it need to be though?
From this point on I'll try to take the advice of Arthur Martine by way of Rukia:

“In disputes upon moral or scientific points,” Arthur Martine counseled in his magnificent 1866 guide to the art of conversation, “let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.”

This thread was created so as to not hijack that other thread. A place to settle that sorry exchange by enlisting the opinions of outsiders.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

That was pretty civilized

:-)

But, you know - I'm not so interested in your motive as I am your point - which I still don't get

Why are you trying to establish which art is simplistic and which is sophisticated?

After you explain why - my next question is going to be - what is your criteria?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Really? Really?

Because one of the claims was that Japanese art wasn't simplistic, or in other words minimalist.

I'm not up for a game of semantics with you right now.. this is a simple matter if one's brain hasn't been poisoned entirely by relativist memes.

Imagine a sliding scale with a drawing featuring two arbitrary lines on one end of the scale, and the painting in the first post on page 2 on the other end of the scale. Sophistication and elaboration in techniques used, but also in outcome.

If you're gonna try to argue that the Japanese painting on page 1 is just as sophisticated and complex as the painting on page 2 I think we're about done as then you've clearly been poisoned by relativist notions lacking entirely in substance and I have no patience for that kind of lazy intellectual garbage.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

it's not semantics or relativism

I's not about labor, quantity or detail. Simple or complex depends on what you do see, what you're able to see and what you're willing to see

What you need to see and what you want to see is taste. Knowledge and experience can change your tastes

Aesthetics is a fascinating subject

Simple is not less sophisticated. Simple can require more skill and knowledge to pull off than complex and detailed

I understand that you weren't saying one is better than the other

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Aesthetics is a fascinating subject

Indeed. The question, though, is whether it’s part of the study of ethics.

Some relevant comments by the OP, from the earlier thread:

• Japanese art is rather simplistic.
  
  
• Postmodern art is complete trash.
  
  
• The work of Utamaro...is stylistically closer to comics than renaissance art.
  
  
• The murals at Ajanta...are lacking in technique.
  
  Mass produced Indian art...is technically superior to this mural from Ajanta.

Now I can see how psychology, sociology and even political science may be relevant to an analysis of the above statements, but I fail to see the relevance of moral philosophy or ethics.

I understand that you weren't saying one is better than the other

Actually, he or she was. They were claiming an attack on taste as an attack on character. This implies that people with bad taste are people of bad character. They were trying to refute my accusation of bad taste, and thus, presumably, rehabilitate their reputation for good character.

a reply to: Astyanax

Actually, he or she was. They were claiming an attack on taste as an attack on character. This implies that people with bad taste are people of bad character. They were trying to refute my accusation of bad taste, and thus, presumably, rehabilitate their reputation for good character.

OK - let's just say I was acknowledging that that's what he was trying to get away with

What he actually meant is the confession I was after

Which I guess says something about my character

:-)

The aesthetics of our thinking - and ethics...I just spent the past hour reading up on Nazi art

What we demand to see pretty much says it all - doesn't it?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

What he actually meant is the confession I was after

Yes, I’m curious about that, too.