What kind of art influnce you?

AnvilSnake said:
I doubt relieving yourself in the bathroom is art.

urine flows out like a waterfall into the pristine lake in the porclain basin desecrating the virgin waters and giving it a yellowish hue

brown feces are churned out like frozen yogurt from a dairy queen creating a vile stench causing surrounding creatures flee and frown with disgust

the flush of the toilet is like nature's hand cleansing out impurities with a tempestuous typhoon and restoring purity and peace
 
I think we should give much more thought to the question, "what is art?" It is no mere thing, or product of permutations. Like the writings of masters, it is a matter of relations.
 
Silver Incubus said:
What is art? Isn't it just a symbolic representation of the internal experessed externally?

The problem here is that the above definition is so broad as to encompass nearly all human activity. If all is art, art is nothing. Certainly, even if one supports such a notion (everything is art), they cannot erase the connotations of such a word, nor the cultural prestige and multi-million dollar facilities housing something defined exclusively as "art" in contrast to its surroundings (which is bogus, but not because everything is art).

Trying to pin down a definition of art in terms of physical objects is a hopeless pursuit (goes to limits). As I have mentioned, the relationship of the agents involved must be explored more thoroughly.
 
Justin S. said:
The problem here is that the above definition is so broad as to encompass nearly all human activity. If all is art, art is nothing. Certainly, even if one supports such a notion (everything is art), they cannot erase the connotations of such a word, nor the cultural prestige and multi-million dollar facilities housing something defined exclusively as "art" in contrast to its surroundings (which is bogus, but not because everything is art).

Trying to pin down a definition of art in terms of physical objects is a hopeless pursuit (goes to limits). As I have mentioned, the relationship of the agents involved must be explored more thoroughly.

I don't understand why you think that it is a general statement. There are, what I thought later to add but didn't, different levels of skill that pertains to art. IN a way, learning to express your internal world better or more skillfully then others. What we do, when we put on displays, is show people who are either very skilled or very unique in their ideas or perception at communicating that internal world with other people in the external. So fields like liturature workds this way, where one writing and choosing a unique combination of words, motifs and other techniques to create a compelling story. Whereas junk liturature are just easily written stories that provide the sense of escape without the artful construction of words and phrases. The same goes for music. The level of thought that may go throught the pop songs structure and harmonics are very basic and pander to those without any sense of the art, the lyrics may or may not be art in this situation and are most likely the latter. Then on the other extreme of the spectrum you have free jazz, which could be considered stream of conscouisness playing at times. Good chefs are artists they take the imagined tastes of what they know and construct flavor combinations that most people couldn't just imagine and create.
 
Silver Incubus said:
I don't understand why you think that it is a general statement.

I fail to see how, even if modified, the claim, "symbolic representation of the internal expressed externally" is not extremely general. How is this conception of art different from any other human activity involving a projected symbolic realm (language, architecture, ritual, tool making, metaphysics, etc.). What then distinguishes "art" from other modes of activity? This is what I meant by, "if all is art, art is nothing". Have I misunderstood you?

Silver Incubus said:
There are, what I thought later to add but didn't, different levels of skill that pertains to art. IN a way, learning to express your internal world better or more skillfully then others. What we do, when we put on displays, is show people who are either very skilled or very unique in their ideas or perception at communicating that internal world with other people in the external. So fields like liturature workds this way, where one writing and choosing a unique combination of words, motifs and other techniques to create a compelling story. Whereas junk liturature are just easily written stories that provide the sense of escape without the artful construction of words and phrases. The same goes for music. The level of thought that may go throught the pop songs structure and harmonics are very basic and pander to those without any sense of the art, the lyrics may or may not be art in this situation and are most likely the latter. Then on the other extreme of the spectrum you have free jazz, which could be considered stream of conscouisness playing at times. Good chefs are artists they take the imagined tastes of what they know and construct flavor combinations that most people couldn't just imagine and create.

Now you introduce "skill" in relation to "art" (although, what the relation is, is not clear from your post). You seem to suggest that art is, at least in part, a demonstration of skill (both acquired and innately disposed). If we talk about "innate" skill, then we stare at chance or charisma, neither of which are choices of the subject. If acquired, then its a matter of knowledge and habituation. Art by this understanding is mere permutation, a thing. Skill cannot be art, but merely a component. The essential relationship is still missing from the above elaboration.
 
I think various arts appeal at various stages of life, although I must say that at a core level, it's been visual and audible (i.e. music) art.

These days for example, I can be reduced to tears by watching the Brandenburg Concertos played by our local Baroque Orchestra, and visually to balance this, I have been enjoying lots of Baroque and Medieval art (which in turn influence my choices for metal). These influence me for example romantically and also spiritually as these kinds of expressions were very religious back in the day.

Where as when I was younger, I was getting into a lot of Detriot techno, Salvador Dali, Jeffery Smart and various kinds of Architecture. These influenced me more on a creative level - I was much more active artistically, and these allowed me to think on a more "unlimited" level.

As for "what is art?": well, of course, this is highly debatable, even within art circles of course.

Art to me is anything which can be creatively expressed and has no limitations, neither physical nor philosophical, and is open to interpretation. Art can never be static in either physical or philosophical form, but not necessarily simultaneously. Thus art is always dynamic in some sense, which further adds a "limitless" degree to it. Art is expression, expression which neither starts nor ends. It is infinite.
 
Justin S. said:
I fail to see how, even if modified, the claim, "symbolic representation of the internal expressed externally" is not extremely general. How is this conception of art different from any other human activity involving a projected symbolic realm (language, architecture, ritual, tool making, metaphysics, etc.). What then distinguishes "art" from other modes of activity? This is what I meant by, "if all is art, art is nothing". Have I misunderstood you?



Now you introduce "skill" in relation to "art" (although, what the relation is, is not clear from your post). You seem to suggest that art is, at least in part, a demonstration of skill (both acquired and innately disposed). If we talk about "innate" skill, then we stare at chance or charisma, neither of which are choices of the subject. If acquired, then its a matter of knowledge and habituation. Art by this understanding is mere permutation, a thing. Skill cannot be art, but merely a component. The essential relationship is still missing from the above elaboration.


Could that missing part be passion or heart? The emotional factor that compells someone to create the art. I know as a musician that I have a compullsion to make music, it flows out of me with so much creativity, whereas someone who doesn't isn't. In a way, art is about passion, that is what separates POP from jazz or extreme metal. From advertizing art to million dollar paintings. The skills are just, in a way, what you can physically do and tools to make your art fit the idea/emotion. Art is also very dependent on the culture in which it is made, which may or may not limit the expressions the artist is able to give with those limitations.
 
I would contend that art is the order reason produces external to itself, so it could encompass so many things..but if pressed to come up with an answer..I would have to say that fine arts as in painting and drawing has primarily influenced me throughout the length of my life, then literature, then music, then other forms of art like motion picture..but man, it's really difficult to say that because it just seems like all of it has influenced me in different ways and in varying levels.