haha... I made this EXACT same thread a year ago. I told you we're the same person.

I think I came to the same conclusion about musical art as you did, but I could never figure out how to properly define art. That's why I made my thread.

I suppose art could be defined as a work that is visually, aurally, or mentally enjoyable. Something like that. Too tired to think properly.

Hyuga Wrote: haha... I made this EXACT same thread a year ago. I told you we're the same person.

I think i remember that.

Anyway, I can't see how people can get "into" visual arts either, because in order to create a great piece, you (generally) have to be constantly worrying about things like lighting or proportion (unless you're working on something abstract) and the "feeling" is sort of lost in the process untill you see the final product, at which point it can only be admired, or worked upon some more. Well thats what i personally find anyway.

Music on the other hand is less of a thought process, and more of a "sing it/play it/create it if it feels good" type of deal, which you can easily pick up through the likes of reggae, blues, and jazz. I'm not even sure the two can be compared really, they're just so different in terms of how they're created (or the processes in which somebody goes through to create them).

As for what defines art, after thinking about the question, i don't think it's possible. It's like trying to define time in the sense that when it comes down to it, it doesn't really exsist at all, and it's all in our heads. Almost like an emotion, or the concept of emotions. How do you define or describe the concept of emotions? It's difficult.

However, if i had to take a stab at it, i might say art is anything that results from the mind or thoughts of somebody, and can be appreciated in some form by at least 1 person. Which is a pretty poor definition really.

Well martial arts is considered an art because as I see it, art is a form of thisthingisdisabled, biet from external influences and/or internal feelings and emotions. Bruce Lee wanted martial artists to treat their art as something personal that defined them individually. He rejected doctrines and taught expansiveness.

Art is many things to many people. To apply a singular definition is to limit it's reach to the individual who experiences and embraces it. I also see art as something that can be experienced by many people, but be described in differnt ways.

As an artist(visual, design, fine, etc.) I look both to what has come before me and what comes from me. Example, go to my sinister collection page and look at what's there. You'll see many influences in the work that is there.

I have so many divergent tastes and ways to experience them, I kind feel like water, air, mist, and shadow. They all cannot be totally contaned. They can contract and expand, inhale and exhale. I feel that for me listening to music is similar. Something that's ambient will allow me to flow with the notes and rhythms and something that's hard will allow me to feel rough. I think they run through me all the same, with varying exeptions.

I think the visual and auditory experiences are one in the same! They both invoke powerfull emotions in the form of memory. "Stary Night" by Van Gogh reminds me of the first time my art history professor told us about it's meaning and what I tought about it. "Tonight, tonight" by Smashing Pumpkins reminds me of the first time I heard the violins melding with the guitars. It was such a euphony of sounds, that I play it whenever the band comes to mind.

Spacial accuity in visual art is esential to understanding form and perspective. It is... like looking into a landscape and knowing that there is a wall on the other side of a house even though you don't see it. You can imagine that it's there by taking in all that you can assimilate from a picture of a summer cottage.

Auditory experiences can effect spacial accuity I believe. A Joan Jett song blast in tha background and I'm back in the mid 80's again singing "I love rock n' roll"! I listen to the chords and admire them even thought I know nothing about writen music. I know only about how it sounds and how it feels when I hear them.

Is it also the words that come from her mouth that capture me? If so, then expanding this discussion to poetry would only be a logical course to steer towards. If by reading Shakespeare I can invoke the same sort of emotions that I recieve when I look at art or listen to music, then they should be relative right? I mean, biet it of a different design, it's still at it's core the same emotions.

Let's also expand this to languages. Some, including me have a thing for different languages. Is it the fact that we find it interesting to learn something new? Do we pause to admire the distinctiveness of French, Japanese or Spanish? What is it that draws us to languages? Is it simple fondness for them or something more? The complexity of learning something new is always a trial, but why do we still want to understand them?

Also, I'd like to know how you all feel art is actually defined, and what you actually consider to be an art. Can a sport be an art? Can a textbook be called "art"?"

What about a flower or a tree or a stream. You could assert that all are the art of nature; the art of creation. Sport was created, so... we could say that it's art. Of course we could say that it's also skill. Well, the skill of nature to create a rose is really no different than the skill to throw a 97mph fastball. Most would call it a talent, but isn't talent something that is individual and therefore expressive? And if it's expressive, can it not also be skillfull and therefore... an art?

We use the term "a work of art" a lot. Funny how we rarely look into it critically. The skill of a binder made a book. His skill is an artform and his work therefore is a work of art itself. The artisans of 17th Century Europe made things with their hands. It was not only their skill, but their livelyhood. People bought their "works", their "products", their "art" of which they made and sold.

For me this is how I feel, but for others it may be varied, but it's relatively the same experience if you look at it closely. The experience of listening to music, looking at art, or reading poetry itself, though varied to a certain degree, is still... appreciation. The one thing that may change over time, but will never be forgotten.

Great topic! One of the best in a long time! Zai jian!

I'm Ghost!

Hyuga Wrote: haha... I made this EXACT same thread a year ago. I told you we're the same person. I think I came to the same conclusion about musical art as you did, but I could never figure out how to properly define art. That's why I made my thread.

Really? I don't remember that. If it was a year ago I'd have been a member here already, but there were a couple months when I stopped coming here. Plus I was here a while before I even started posting in General Discussion, as I stayed mainly in the MKDA and MKD (then called MK6) forums (now it's the opposite; I spend most of my time here in General).

But, if it was a year ago, I assume it was before the old General board was taken down. So at least now the newer members can join the conversation.

Hyuga Wrote: I suppose art could be defined as a work that is visually, aurally, or mentally enjoyable. Something like that.

I guess that makes sense, but "enjoyable" is a relative term. A lot of people consider the music I listen to noise. Plus, some art is meant to shock, as a social statement. Like Francisco De Goya, his paintings depicted the horrors of war. I doubt he intended for people to say of his paintings, "Wow, that's beautiful, I really enjoy it." More like, "Wow, is war really like that? We gotta stop this shit." I guess my point is, art can be made with different intentions. Personally I would define it as a work or performance that exists as it does as an thisthingisdisabled of its creator's individuality, personality, views, etc. (as opposed to purely practical purposes).

I've got a question that sort of deals with this:
Is a piece of art still considered "art" if not one person enjoys or appreciates it (hypothetically)?

krackerjack Wrote: I've got a question that sort of deals with this: Is a piece of art still considered "art" if not one person enjoys or appreciates it (hypothetically)?

Hmmmmmmmmm..... good question. Well... If we're also including to one who mande it, then I wouldn't think it'd be considered art.


GD

I'm not sure were I stand on this subject. I enjoy the process of music being made over the process of making/writing a painting, movie, or book. But I prefer the finished product of the latter more.

ghostdragon Wrote: Is it also the words that come from her mouth that capture me? If so, then expanding this discussion to poetry would only be a logical course to steer towards. If by reading Shakespeare I can invoke the same sort of emotions that I recieve when I look at art or listen to music, then they should be relative right? I mean, biet it of a different design, it's still at it's core the same emotions.

That's what I was getting at with the verbal aspect of art. I didn't mention poetry specifically, but it's definitely a verbal art form, like literature (prose), just as painting and sculpture are both visual/spatial arts. But the verbal arts definitely have the power to elicit as much emotion as painting or music. Take, for example, the lyric in my sig (below the anti-Bush pic), which is from the song "Tip the Scales" by Rise Against. (BTW, I should point out that lyrics and poetry are really one and the same, except lyrics are usually set to music. But anyway...) When I think about that lyric, it literally gives me chills. It may be the memory of the music of that part of the song itself (I find the guitar riff here very interesting: it's basically the same as one played earlier in the song, but with a few ascending notes added; these notes have a dramatic effect on the melody and overall impact of the riff, and give it what I would descrive as a sense of urgency) but the line "You can lead me to the bloodbath, but you can't make me drink" just grabs me in a way that's hard to describe in words. Another interesting thing about the full lyrics of the song is the interpretation factor: Rise Against often write lyrics about politics, but also about personal issues like love and soul-searching. But some of the political lyrics aren't blatantly obvious. Such is the case here: the lyrics are largely metaphorical, and as such, have a deeper emotional impact than they probably otherwise would.

ghostdragon Wrote: Great topic! One of the best in a long time! Zai jian!

Thanks, I appreciate that Most of my threads are lucky to recieve two replies. (Either that, or go on for 2-3 pages, and end up getting closed due to flame wars created by their controversial nature.) Glad to see people enjoying this topic.