The Art

[SusanMart]

photography may become art only in the arms of a skilled artist

 

[ann]

ok i can't believe i have continue to read this thread ( i never pass an accident and say oooh i must take a look)

for me it is time to say, we will agree to disagree. Nothing but nothing will ever change with the positions taken regarding this topic . If PP insist on taking on the world single handed, so be it *(forgive ending with IT ) .

 

[abraxas]

This is what dogs do.

-

 

[Overread]

My ava takes issue with your point on dogs - she never chases her tail - she is far more interested in chasing cat/rabbit/pheasant/vole and other various small furry thing's tails.

 

[table1349]

=Petraio Prime;1995534]

The trouble is that a very large portion of what has been considered 'art' for thousands of years does not qualify under these criteria to be called 'art'. Or else the statement is so vague as to include almost anything

.

For thousands of years man thought the earth was flat and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth. Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society?

What criteria, and more importantly, what universally accepted and respected body developed this criteria that you refer to?

Surely neither of these positions is tenable.

If your belief in your position is so strong offer proof, not rhetoric.

The rest of your post does not merit a response.

You are simply not qualified to debate this with me.

You will make an outstandingly average parent. You have mastered the art of "Because I said so". The sad thing is, you apparently believe in "Because I said so" as well.

You apparently lack in the area of analytical thinking deludes your abilities to separate opinion from provable fact. You have been challenged innumerable times in this thread to offer proof of your opinions and you continually fail to do so, which makes you last statement a bit of an oxymoron.

What is perplexing is you apparent belief in the philosophy that if you repeat the same opinion over and over, it will become fact.

 

[Petraio Prime]

=Petraio Prime;1995534]

.

For thousands of years man thought the earth was flat and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth. Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society?

What criteria, and more importantly, what universally accepted and respected body developed this criteria that you refer to?



If your belief in your position is so strong offer proof, not rhetoric.



You will make an outstandingly average parent. You have mastered the art of "Because I said so". The sad thing is, you apparently believe in "Because I said so" as well.

You apparently lack in the area of analytical thinking deludes your abilities to separate opinion from provable fact. You have been challenged innumerable times in this thread to offer proof of your opinions and you continually fail to do so, which makes you last statement a bit of an oxymoron.

What is perplexing is you apparent belief in the philosophy that if you repeat the same opinion over and over, it will become fact.

But I have, many times, laid out, in excruciating detail, the matter.

Why do you think we consider Egyptian art, 'art'?

 

[table1349]

It will end when it ends - not a post before and not a post after
42 probably factors into the equation of when it ends because the answer to the question of "when will it end" is 42 - though 42 works in mysterious ways so its hard to guess at the actual end - for that we would need to know the question.

I like you. You are a funny funny guy.

 

[Petraio Prime]

=Petraio Prime;1995534]

.

For thousands of years man thought the earth was flat and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth. Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society?

What criteria, and more importantly, what universally accepted and respected body developed this criteria that you refer to?



If your belief in your position is so strong offer proof, not rhetoric.



You will make an outstandingly average parent. You have mastered the art of "Because I said so". The sad thing is, you apparently believe in "Because I said so" as well.

You apparently lack in the area of analytical thinking deludes your abilities to separate opinion from provable fact. You have been challenged innumerable times in this thread to offer proof of your opinions and you continually fail to do so, which makes you last statement a bit of an oxymoron.

What is perplexing is you apparent belief in the philosophy that if you repeat the same opinion over and over, it will become fact.

There are reasons why people call things 'art'. If the criteria are contradictory, then something is wrong. You cannot say something is art, claiming that self-expression is the essential criterion and a necessary one, when the vast majority of art ever created has nothing to do with that.

 

[Overread]

Why do you think we consider Egyptian art, 'art'?

Do I? Never really thought about if it was art or not - certainly much is very ornate, beyond basic needs for functionality - and its very skilled in production.

I guess pretty and requiring skill to produce are the two basic criteria for things to start being art in my book - inner meaning; inner expression and all other such thing tend to lead to what I call Tate Modern Trash - that is art that is considered art only because a 1000+word essay justifying it as art comes along with it.

I can even justify art as art when it is not pretty (to my eye) but requires great skill and shows a degree of beauty even if I cannot appreciate it *eg I don't find the Mona Lisa all that engaging, but I respect the quality of the artistry present)

edit - and containing a degree of creativity as well I think is probably important as well now I think of it

 

[Petraio Prime]

Why do you think we consider Egyptian art, 'art'?

Do I? Never really thought about if it was art or not - certainly much is very ornate, beyond basic needs for functionality - and its very skilled in production.

I guess pretty and requiring skill to produce are the two basic criteria for things to start being art in my book - inner meaning; inner expression and all other such thing tend to lead to what I call Tate Modern Trash - that is art that is considered art only because a 1000+word essay justifying it as art comes along with it.

I can even justify art as art when it is not pretty (to my eye) but requires great skill and shows a degree of beauty even if I cannot appreciate it *eg I don't find the Mona Lisa all that engaging, but I respect the quality of the artistry present)

I'm asking you, now, specifically, why we think of Egyptian art as 'art'. What makes it 'art'?

 

[Overread]

Well I thought I just gave you the answer for myself and I can't say why you think of Egyptian works as art.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Well I thought I just gave you the answer for myself and I can't say why you think of Egyptian works as art.

No, you gave some vague answer. Focus specifically on Egyptian sculptures, etc.

Why is this considered 'art'? You said something about being 'pretty'.

 

[table1349]

=Petraio Prime

But I have, many times, laid out, in excruciating detail, the matter.

The only thing you have laid out many times is your own rhetoric based upon opinion. You have laid out no concrete, sustainable proof. This apparently is not just my opinion as others in this thread have expressed the same thing.

=Petraio Prime
Why do you think we consider Egyptian art, 'art'?

First I don't presume to act as the spokesman for the masses as you do. That I why I do not use the term we. As to why you or any other person does or does not consider Egyptian art as art is inconsequential to all but the individual.

I do not consider all of the things created during the Egyptian period to be art. That which I do consider art is based upon my opinion shaped by my personal likes and dislikes.

You miss the very basic common point in a topic of this nature. Any answer to an abstract concept such as a definition of art is purely opinion. It to this point cannot be proven. Until such time as there is Proof of what is or is not art, the whole concept of defining the term ART is merely personal opinion.

 

[Overread]

It's my experience that the aims of the creator mean nothing when it comes to the acceptance of their creations - and that different communities (within and outside of the same time frame) can interpret the same creation in different light.

Maybe it was made to appease the gods - such the pharaoh might say
Maybe it was made to appease the pharaoh - such as the sculpture might say
Maybe it was made to be a right pain the neck - such as the stonecutter might say
Maybe it was made to be beautiful or artistic or creative

Whatever it was made for is, in effect, irrelevant - its what it is accepted as that is important. Some accept it as a sculpture - some sculpture is art and some is not. That one is art does not make all art - just some of it to some people for some reasons.

 

[Infidel]

I'm asking you, now, specifically, why we think of Egyptian art as 'art'. What makes it 'art'?

Was it considered art at the time it was made? The belief at the time was likely that it served a very practical purpose...to satisfy the gods/pharoahs, which would lead to prosperity, success in battle, stuff like that. Also, pyramids and sphinx's send a pretty clear message about how powerful the ruler is. Quite practical, really.

Alternatively, maybe it represented the self-expression of the pharoah, who did all of his bidding through the work of slaves...commissioned art, if you will. Times have changed (thankfully).

So there, either it wasn't art, or it was indeed representing self expression, albeit indirectly.

Just trying to approach this with an open mind (try it out!).