By what standard....

Why Ocho, whatever could be wrong, she is merely utilizing her rights....

This along with the defendants who were force feeding pot to a 3 yr old is really testing my faith in my fellow man, this is secular humanism, make no mistake about it...

 

Wow....just....wow....

 

Yale says it isn't true:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

 

I had a feeling she might have been bsing, but you never know how crazy some people are.

 

Well it would make sense in that the outrage that followed would be the artistic expression of the piece itself....

 

Truth or lie...it was a perversion of "art" and, as such, was evil.

There is no appropriate "celebration" for the death of a child.

 

Well I'm not sure this was a celebration of the death of a child. Art is supposed to be shocking, it should upset you and make you think. Art for art's sake is rather pointless to some. I'd say if her goal was to make people uncomfortable, and to make them think about that discomfort she was at least somewhat successful with her project.

 

Depravity should make anyone feel uncomfortable Shoes, now the story is "Just kidding"?

Does that make any sense at all?

 

Where in all of your scriptures, does it account for the gift of individual thought and expression, that your God supposedly gave us?

Further, if the Bible is the word of God, that we are to live our lives so strictly by, why was it not written by God, but my men, who'll any will admit, can't know the mind of God?

 

That it is ultimately your interpretation though. That speaks specifically of image not of thought. Or is it your stance that we think like God as well?

We, historically know that a committee of men, wrote, cataloged and edited the Bible. Was God speaking through these men? If so, then the only evidence you have is the written word of these same men. How is it, that you know for sure God spoke through them, yet, was not speaking through this woman?

 

Since when? Is the Mona Lisa shocking? Does it upset you? How about the Sistine Chapel ceiling? Starry Night? Do those works shock and upset you?
When did art start being about shocking and upsetting people? Somehow, I think my college art history teacher would disagree with your interpretation of the purpose of art.

 

I'm sure he wouldn't. The purpose of art changes with the times. Of course the Sistine Chappel Was not supposed to shock... those where other times. There where other ideas involved in art... but how about the Dames of Avignon from Picasso that was supposed to shock, his use of form and of african influences to create a painting of women was supposed to shock to be new.

The problem here is, these days that representational art that was all about painting Mona Lisa's and starry nights is no longer something that could be done to any effect. You can take pictures of a person and voila. you got a portrait that represents them exactly as they are, or a landscape exactly as the landscape is. So the work of art has to go deeper, has to shock, has to represent not the object itself but the feeling the object has created. So unless your art professor in College refused to admit the work of Dali, Duschamps, Rothko, WArhol, Picasso, so many artists whose purpose was not to create just a pretty representational work of art, but something more then I would think he would have to agree.

Times change, the simple painting is now no longer something that is interesting, it has been done, you got to search deeper, find newer ways of expression. And some of them involve shock.

 

She, actually.

I disagree. The best art is timeless and so is its purpose. What some people call "art" today is anything but.

 

I agree with you that what some people call art is something that I cannot understand. Specifically "Object Art" and some of those new and popular installations.But... To say that the rules and the conventions of what is art and how art is appreciated are not in perpetual flux would be ridiculous. Impressionism was at one point considered to be ugly, something that was done by lesser artists that did not have the ability to paint a real interesting work of art and just threw blotches of paint onto a canvas... yet now you use Starry Night as an example of the beauty and of the timelessness of art.

I can assure you that these are timeless:













You and I will be dead and people will be talking about each one of these in the same breath as the ones you listed. Belonging to a different era, but ultimately of the same importance. All are timeless and all of them where creative to shock the pillars of the art world at the time, to create something new (cubism, Soviet Constructivism, Abstract Impressionism) just like Van Gogh tried to destroy the idea of traditionally painting what was there to paint your impression of what was there (hence impressionism) that in itself was supposed to shock. And it did at its time and the people which where his audience. Just like now we are shocked in different ways.

 

Depends on what you want to get out of the art. If you want to see something pretty, which is fine and sometimes a good thing, more power to you. But art that challenges societal norms and values and makes one question themselves and the world can also be powerful and has a place in the art community. Some people think pretty art is useless, others dont understand art that's controversial.

 

That statement is a far cry from your original statement, however.

 

The conventions of what constitutes art change, but the definition of art's purpose didn't change...it's simply being fraudulently redefined by people who lack the talent to produce anything that will truly be appreciated through the ages as art.

 

i agree, i just have no words for this. it's disgusting.

 

Not really but ok. My first post was giving the perspective of those who believe art needs to be controversial to have a purpose, I didnt close the door on other beliefs, however, and expanded on those in post 2.

 

I agree Mandy. If in fact the girl did this, to me, she murdered babies for the sake of art?
There is no justification for acts like this except evil or just plain crazy. She should have her head examined for even THINKING of doing such awful things.

 

You extended on them later, but your initial post said the purpose of art was to shock and upset and you didn't add any caveats such as "among the many weapons of the Spanish Inquisition are..."

 

My caveat was:

Art for art's sake is rather pointless to some.

That leaves open that to others art for art's sake has some value.

 

But they do change man. In the renaissance art was a way to speak to god... plain and simple, all art was supposed to be for god and to god. Period. It was not about beauty it was about creating something that was religious and spoke to god.

Then the Rococo period comes around and art is about creating beauty (as far as beauty is concerned with people of that period) and a return to greek appreciations of art.

Then impressionism comes and art becomes about painting not what is in front of you but the impression you have about what is in front of you. Cubism comes and art becomes about painting forms and using forms to express what you are trying to represent....


Art changes, is in flux. It is not about beauty (Hyeronimus Bosch never attempted to make beauty with his art and he was for sure an artistic juggernaut back in the 1500's).

Now some of the things we have now are a little harder to appreciate and I agree with you. I personally don't think that a vacuum cleaner in a museum is a piece of art. But in the same way I have seen works that are made right now that are impressive, Serra's sculptures are an example, even things like Brakhage's movies or instalations by Orozco.

Granted... this doesn't sound like it was very good. But let us also see the source. It was not an established artist doing something to acclaim, it was a student in Yale who hasn't even left the comfortable comfines of school and hasn't really done anything of importance (In all fairness to her Rev... she did not do it through sex with a lot of men, she had artificial inseminations. Not that it makes it much better, but we can at least say that she was not a ho' y'know.) therefore her work hardly would be one to define art as it is right now.

Having said that at one point we have to see that most of that widely accepted view of art are things that we have seen already. That people have already done, so it is time for new stuff and that new stuff can't just be content (photography has taken over most of paintings content for example) but in form. In an era of multimedia, to reduce artistic expression to painting, sculpture and photography would be to not speak to the era. You have to incorporate everything, and once you do then you have to rewrite the limits of what art is, and how art is supposed to be.

Dunno if any of you are interested, but as an example (and since movies are my realm of artistic expression and interest) these are some works of contemporary art in the movie form:

Brakhage's Mothlight:

[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=XaGh0D2NXCA[/media]

Brakhage also... Water for Maya:

[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=BVNWq3gOBl4&feature=related[/media]

If anyone liked Brakhage you should check out "Window Water Baby Movement" and "The art of seeing with one eyes" which I can't link to because "Water" is him shooting his wife while giving birth to their 2nd child, and that well has shots of body parts not TOS acceptable. And The art is him shooting autopsies at a morgue which also has a couple body parts that should be unavailable. But they are totally in you tube.

Jan Svankmajer's Dimension's of Dialogue pt 2:

[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=O_QOjLnVEC8[/media]

Y'all should also try out Darkness, Light, Darkness if you are interested... again, animated bodypart I should not post here. Also try out his food trilogy.

Anyways on a lighter note. There is Charles A Riddley's manipulation of the Leni Rieftenstahl's footage for Triumph of the Willing, to ridiculise the Nazi's cutting it to the music of the Lambeth Walk (and yes it is art... parody is art too)

[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=XHtEKSg-ycQ[/media]

 

Ah, I had taken that to mean that you considered what the girl was doing "art for art's sake."

 

Oh, I would disagree with that almost totally. And even though there was a period in the Middle Ages when art was created for religious purposes, the idea was to create something beautiful and meaningful...for God or the church in that case, but the purpose of the art was the same as it is today, to create something eternal in its beauty and meaning.

 

But see the original question was "Where in the scriptures does it discuss independent thought." You're answer was a scripture saying we were created in God's image. Which speaks nothing to the concept of man's ability for independent thought. So since that was the scripture you quoted, I took it to mean that you are saying we think like God, along with looking like him. So how is it that you know, God did not choose for this woman to do what she did? You can't know, no one can, since no man can know the mind of God. Maybe God, wanted her to do it to reaffirm the faith of his believers. If so, than this woman did exactly what God wanted of her, and since she obeyed God, that would make her righteous...wouldn't it?

 

WEll far be it from me to try to say I know what the purpose of art is. That is one thing that has debated around and around for years. Centuries even, and if greater minds than Rick 1966 or Quelonio have yet to find a definition that convinces them, I am very sure that you and I will just go over and over in it without any consensus. Your definition of art seems to negate at least a century of artistic achievements and focus basically on modernism forgetting postmodern art (which quite frankly to me is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more interesting than Modernism).

I understand where you are coming from, and ultimately it is a matter of tastes, but in my taste give me Rothko, Kasimir Malevich, Jasper Johns and Kandinski over Vincent Van Gogh every single time. Theirs are works that are way more beautiful and eternal if you are to ask me, and that beauty is based precissely in them not looking to create beauty but to break conventions.

 

And what, may I ask, is inherently good about breaking conventions? Something different CAN be good art, but it doesn't become good art JUST by being different.

 

No but all good art was different. And searched for difference. That is the part of the argument that we both are forgetting. Research every single one of the guys you pointed up as examples of great art (Michelangelo, Van Gogh) all of them where breaking their conventions of what was considered good at the time. And for a while where not considered to be quite good (Think Shakespeare who also ha the exact same happen to him). That is what art is supposed to do, even in Music, the best music are the guys that went a little bit forward (Clash adding reggae into punk, Ramones sort of creating punk, The beatles adding indian music into rock, Sabbath creating Heavy Metal) all artistic expression is better when the person doing it is attempting to push boundaries.

The argument being made is that challenging these conventions is something inherent in good art, not that it is the only thing necessary to produce good art. You must challenge the conventions, hat doesnt mean it is good. I don't think what this girl did was good, well in all fairness I haven't seen the installation it might be good, just doesn't sound like it would be. But I can see that the effect she was trying to create with it was indeed accomplished and as such it becomes an effective piece of art. She accomplished what she set out to do... does that mean that it is good? No. It just means she did what she wanted to do, I would have to actually see the piece to tell you how she used this effect to create or not a piece of art. (chances are I wouldn't like it since what she did is reminiscent of the work of Damien Hirst whom I frankly find to be an awful artist... but that is my opinion, and it seems as though a lot of people disagree if you count all the millions the dude has made).

The thing is all attempt at human creativity is art. This is art, Bob Ross is art, a TV commercial is art, Britney Spears is art, all of it is art... how good an artistic piece is really depends on your taste.

 

I don't know that statement is entirely accurate. A LOT of great art was different, but not all of it, except in the sense that every great piece of art is unique in character.

I suppose you could make that statement, but it seems a bit broad to me to include crass, cynical, commercially-produced crap like Britney Spears under the heading of "art."

 

I know.. it makes me cringe too. But its true, then you can get into a discussion between the difference between pop art and high art. But ultimately human creatinon is art, an unfortunately it includes britney spears.