Does Art Serve Any Purpose?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

Desire suggests knowledge in the Biblical sense.

---

...Huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blithe spirit

...Huh?

---

Carnal knowledge, darling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

Art is life most plainly.

---

Ugh, what is this muddle? I think too many liberal arts courses are making your brain soft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blithe spirit

Art is a pleasurable and effective form of visual communication using a vast selection of medium (paint, pastel, collage, sculpture, etc) that further enhances personal expression and reaches a vast visual audience.

---

Not really. Art is highly specialized now. Only a few who spend years of study are going to understand whats going on when they go to a museum. Whereas everyone in the tribe would've understood what the totem pole meant. The point is museums and the like are irrelevant to the vast majority of people nowdays. Tell me where I'm wrong? Isn't this what Bakhtin was getting at perhaps? That the only relevant art form is the novel and that everything else is anitquaited - kind of like mental masturbation more than anything else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prickly_pete

Ugh, what is this muddle? I think too many liberal arts courses are making your brain soft.

---

Life is like a steak, it has got to be well done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

Carnal knowledge, darling.

---

"Carnal" is only mentioned once in the Bible and refers to sex...not knowledge. Carnal Knowledge is a movie with Ann Margaret. Is Hollywood your God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blithe spirit

I'm Miss Blithe to you (okay, you can drop the Miss).

"Carnal" is only mentioned once in the Bible and refers to sex...not knowledge. Carnal Knowledge is a movie with Ann Margaret. Is Hollywood your God?

---

Hollywood has only one love, and that is greed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prickly_pete

Not really. Art is highly specialized now. Only a few who spend years of study are going to understand whats going on when they go to a museum. Whereas everyone in the tribe would've understood what the totem pole meant. The point is museums and the like are irrelevant to the vast majority of people nowdays. Tell me where I'm wrong? Isn't this what Bakhtin was getting at perhaps? That the only relevant art form is the novel and that everything else is anitquaited - kind of like mental masturbation more than anything else?

---

I remember Bakhtin mentioning something about the dialogic, that can be equally applied to the visual arts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prickly_pete

...Art is highly specialized now. Only a few who spend years of study are going to understand whats going on when they go to a museum. Whereas everyone in the tribe would've understood what the totem pole meant. The point is museums and the like are irrelevant to the vast majority of people nowdays....Isn't this what Bakhtin was getting at perhaps? That the only relevant art form is the novel and that everything else is anitquaited - kind of like mental masturbation more than anything else?

---

"highly specialized" as in "digital art"? That's only one form of art. Pete, you're missing out on a whole world of creativity. Visit a gallery and then don't just view each piece but actually take the time to read the plaque next to it...you'll begin to understand and appreciate art. Not sure what what the tribe understanding a totem pole has to do with anything...btw, cave paintings came first. If Bakhtin actually said your last statement then, sorry but he is ignorant about "relevant art forms", not to mention...crude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blithe spirit

"highly specialized" as in "digital art"?

---

Nah, specialized in the sense that it takes years of study to really know something about art. You can't just walk into a gallery and know what's going on.

Like, painting is not part of our cultural dialogue. Niether is poetry. Why would we teach this in schools? Why would you teach something that is relevant to just a handfull of people? More people watch movies and sports than they do operas or art exhibits. This is just a fact. Why wouldn't we look more closely at these things than we would at, say, Michaelangelo which is irrelevant to almost everyone in the United States?

I mean, I hate to sound crude here but I'm on a roll and I don't think anyone has even attempted to answer the questions I've presented. Just some jibberish about how "art is life" "living a fuller life" and the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prickly_pete

Nah, specialized in the sense that it takes years of study to really know something about art. You can't just walk into a gallery and know what's going on.

---

Art is not science, prickly_pete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prickly_pete

Like, painting is not part of our cultural dialogue. Niether is poetry. Why would we teach this in schools? Why would you teach something that is relevant to just a handfull of people? More people watch movies and sports than they do operas or art exhibits. This is just a fact. Why wouldn't we look more closely at these things than we would at, say, Michaelangelo which is irrelevant to almost everyone in the United States?

I mean, I hate to sound crude here but I'm on a roll and I don't think anyone has even attempted to answer the questions I've presented. Just some jibberish about how "art is life" "living a fuller life" and the like.

---

Art is not science, prickly_pete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G L Wilson

Art is not science, prickly_pete.

---

You act as though art is something that the viewer has access to instantaneously and ignore how meaning is largely achieved through referencing other works indirectly. Look at School of Athens for instance - just an cursory viewing would tell you that unless you know something about Greek Philosophy that painting probably isn't going to make alot of sense.

And that's exactly what I'm getting at. In order to talk about art and get beyond anything more than just calling it "pretty" requires a pretty vast cultural knowledge that can only be achieved through years of personal study. If you're missing the "intertextuality" as it were than what's the point really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prickly_pete

You act as though art is something that the viewer has access to instantaneously and ignore how meaning is largely achieved through referencing other works indirectly. Look at School of Athens for instance - just an cursory viewing would tell you that unless you know something about Greek Philosophy that painting probably isn't going to make alot of sense.

And that's exactly what I'm getting at. In order to talk about art and get beyond anything more than just calling it "pretty" requires a pretty vast cultural knowledge that can only be achieved through years of personal study. If you're missing the "intertextuality" as it were than what's the point really?

---

I will leave the intertextuality to the elites and stick to what I like, thanks prickly_pete.