Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

The Quality of Art...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Quality of Art...

    The Quality of Art:

    How can it be defined? Or can it? Is it entirely up to the individual to decide whether an expression of art (e.g. music, painting, etc.) is good? That would be the answer most people gravitate to, including myself.

    But consider that art is intended to please the creator and the audience; if one shows a work of art to somebody, it can be rightly inferred that he/she intends it to please and provide positive reinforcement to the artist through the audience. Does that mean that if one's expression has a greater audience than another's, it is more successful and, in turn better? Is Britney Spears's music better art than that of Oscar Peterson? And is Pablo Picasso's art better than that of Francis Bacon because Picasso pleases more people? This is of course, assuming that two artists are given equal opportunity to succeed and that someone is not a closet artist. Maybe closet art is the worst form of art or it automatically does not qualify as art because it has no audience beyond the creator; that is much like a car idling and getting the worst possible fuel economy.

  • #2
    Very rarely is an artist's only intention to please. Many do not even have any intention of reaching a mass audience. Art is quite often meant to do many other things, such as evoke a certain feeling, incite discussion of a desired topic, or even just to get the viewer to think about a certain thing. Art can elucidate upon areas of a concept or an issue that otherwise might not be brought to light. I think it is important to consider these other intentions when judging any piece. There may be art that is greatly insightful, and that many find quite valuable, but that is not all that pleasing or popular. There is also art that is valuable as innovation. It can be quite pleasing to a general audience not well versed in tradition or history to see nothing but rehash, but art will never evolve or advance if that is all that is produced.

    All in all, I don't know that there is any entirely objective way to judge any work of art. Time alone seems to separate mediocre from good and good from great. Britney may be quite popular today, but there is little chance that music students will be studying her work 300 years from now. Asthetics is not a concrete discipline, and it's hard to say whether or not there is any such thing as objective beauty, or whether beauty is even a quality in the truest sense, or meerly a response that is unique to the individual in which the response occurs. So while it may be impossible to objectively judge that particular aspect of a piece, as I said earlier, there is more to art than just beauty. It seems, at least in theory, possible to judge the effectiveness of a piece. We might label a piece as good if it does well what it was intended to do. However, even this may not clear anything up in a lot of cases, as the intention of a piece is not always very obvious, and in some cases, the intention may not be all that admirable or may be very easily achievable and not praiseworthy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Quality of Art...

      Originally posted by Arvestaked The Quality of Art:

      How can it be defined? Or can it? Is it entirely up to the individual to decide whether an expression of art (e.g. music, painting, etc.) is good? That would be the answer most people gravitate to, including myself.

      But consider that art is intended to please the creator and the audience; if one shows a work of art to somebody, it can be rightly inferred that he/she intends it to please and provide positive reinforcement to the artist through the audience. Does that mean that if one's expression has a greater audience than another's, it is more successful and, in turn better? Is Britney Spears's music better art than that of Oscar Peterson? And is Pablo Picasso's art better than that of Francis Bacon because Picasso pleases more people? This is of course, assuming that two artists are given equal opportunity to succeed and that someone is not a closet artist. Maybe closet art is the worst form of art or it automatically does not qualify as art because it has no audience beyond the creator; that is much like a car idling and getting the worst possible fuel economy.
      Having been involved in art myself ( not anymore unfortunately ), I'm speaking for myself when I say that all my works were things I loved, I chose, and I did for me, to develop more artistically and spirtually, not to please any audiences. In fact, I have a certain aversion from showing my work to audiences, aside from a few friends and family.

      When stupid "art critics" attempt to critique an art work, or explain or try to explain what exactly the said artist was trying to convey or think, I only wish I had a giant weedwacker handy to weed them out.
      Achkerov kute.

      Comment

      Working...
      X