I agree, but no one else on this site will.Quote:
Originally Posted by African_Love
Printable View
I agree, but no one else on this site will.Quote:
Originally Posted by African_Love
You can express emotions badly, that is why there is good actors and bad actors. Laurence Olivier was much more able to give credibility to his expression of emotion than Stallone.
And my scream of pain when I broke my art was a expression of emotion and certainlly not art. I could even do it in a creative way, next time.
"bolded - would you say that feces is as beautiful as a sunset? Probably not, but you can't analyze one as being more beautiful than the other. Either you have that emotional response or you do not.
You cannot express an emotion 'badly'. Emotions are subjective, whether or not you find any work of art to be appealing is a matter of taste, nothing can be proven to be beautiful or inspiring.
What other definition of art is there besides being an expression of emotion or creativity/imagination?"
You are right everyone experiences similar emotions. However the ability to express them is a skill in its self. Compare the two bellow:
I Love you
Baby I do
Each time I see you
My heart stops
Without you
The sun don't shine
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee.
Both of these poems express love...guess which one takes talent to compose and which one doesn't...
Emotion is a crucial part of art, but it is not the only factor. Saying art is solely about emotion is like saying War is solely about who has a bigger army.
Art is about the creation of beauty, expressing emotion takes part in it as well, but I assure you the creation of beauty is one of the most difficult things out there.
Now if you say that from your own point your prefer L' Arssetr Essgrand poetry ( made uo the name) to all classic poetry. There is nothing wrong with that it is quite fine. The enjoyment of art is utterly subjective. However anyone who is trained in literature wont think the same way as you. Know if you are fine with that, things are all peachy, but if you preach your opinions above those who have years of study, then you come of looking rather...lets use the word foolish here...
The creation of great literature depends greatly upon having studied past greats. Il give the example of Rimbaud who created all his work in his teens, people suppose he was a natural genius and it all came flowing to him, balderdash, at the age of 17 Rimbaud had read more classics and greats than most people in the 21st century shall read in their lifetimes, he spent nearly his entire young years reading.
Oh and JCamilo, I see your point, but I maintain that someone who devotes time in studying and understanding a poem shall enjoy it far more than one who just reads it.
People trained in literature are not mere automatons who all have the same exact opinions about everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Have you ever considered that African_Love might have studied literature for years and come to different conclusions than you?
You are quite right they don't all have the same opinions, they have varied opinions, for example Tolstoy hated Shakespeare. However they all have educated opinions and will base their arguments using logic and reason which can be understood, they wont just say I don't like it because I don't; and if they do its hard to take them seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
The same logic can be used for example in evolution theory. If someone say's I don't believe in evolution because the bible say's otherwise, to one who lacks faith, there is nor logic in the argument and is thus discredited. however a man who argues the theory of evolution based on the notion that there are gaps in the theory and he uses logic to explore the gaps and show why he doesn't believe in evolution shall be listened to. Do you get the jist of what im saying ? sorry if I am not quite clear with what im tying to express.
It is entirely possible that African Love is far more well studied in literature than me, she may ( or he) have a bachelor in literature, or maybe ever a masters or PHD. Her theory may be that the sole essence or art is emotion, that is a theory which may be plausible, and I am wiling to listen if she offers logic and examples to prove her point, good logic...
However I believe differently and while I could offer all the logic to my view, it would be easier just looking up the symbolist and decadent as well as the romantic and modernist views of literature, as I mainly agree with what they say, I have yet to say anything new. Yet African Love says something new, something which requires a little bit of argument on her (his) part.
Well, I do not think I am enjoy my readings and re-readings the same. If I, a single person, can have a different degree of enjoyment, I do not think it is objective to build an argument about it. However, my point that is not the enjoyment that creates the elite, it is the studying time and knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
But does not the studying and knowledge enhance the enjoyment ?
I view this as elitist.
And??? Art is elitist.
Why is it elitist?
Art is elitist because it makes demands upon the audience. In order to gain a deeper appreciation of a work of art the individual must invest a degree of time and effort into coming to a understanding of the work... the intentions and goals of the artist... the history of the work and its predecessors... where it stands within a given tradition. The "elitism" that I speak of is an elitism of choice... an elective affinity. The individual decides that a given work of art or a given artistic tradition is worth the effort... or not. This is as true of fine literature as it is of sub-genre. Those who take science fiction seriously are as clear or certain as to a certain hierarchy of great writers as those study literature. Those who are into jazz or the blues are just as certain that some individuals are far greater and far more influential than others as those who listen to opera or classical music.
Art is also elitist because every artist strives for recognition and survival. Art is truly a Darwinian game of the "survival of the fittest". There is the Romantic notion of art which certainly rejects any idea of competition and embraces art as little more than "self-expression"... but art is more than "self-expression". The teenager's diary entries are self-expression... as are the baby's cries because he has gas... but they most probably aren't art. Artists have historically congregated in great metropolitan centers where they could feed off each other... and prove themselves in comparison with others.
No, art is an expression of emotion.
Is that so? What emotion does this express:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6yuR8efotI
or this:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/...6b6bfac391.jpg
Whatever emotional impact you draw from these works comes from you. An artist can have an intention of conveying a certain emotion... but this is not true of all art. Some art is anchored more in formal concerns, the expression of an idea, the illustration of a narrative or drama. The notion that art is simply the expression of emotions is an idea rooted in Romanticism and nopt in the reality of art as a whole.
You cannot analyze whether or not art is valid because emotions are not logical or illogical.
"Valid?" What makes something "valid" or "invalid". All art involves an expression or an intention... it is not this that is judged. The intention of an artist or an individual art work may go against our own values, beliefs, standards, or experiences... and still be successful as art. I think immediately of Plato's Republic. I disagree with almost every conclusion that Plato comes to... but I have no qualms about judging the work as a great piece of literature.
This attitude is why I could never consider myself to be an 'intellectual' (besides just not being very intelligent ).
An inability to analyze a work of art... to recognize where it falls short and where it succeeds... will also severely handicap any attempt at individual artistic endeavors. The creation of art involves continual critical analysis... at time very conscious... and in other instances quite intuitive... yet rooted in experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
I am not sure if I enjoyed the Comedy now or when I was 10 years old more or less... Other reasons for enjoyment surelly exists, not sure which is better, stronger, more fit or not..
bolded - would you say that feces is as beautiful as a sunset? Probably not, but you can't analyze one as being more beautiful than the other. Either you have that emotional response or you do not.
You cannot express an emotion 'badly'. Emotions are subjective, whether or not you find any work of art to be appealing is a matter of taste, nothing can be proven to be beautiful or inspiring.
What other definition of art is there besides being an expression of emotion or creativity/imagination?
I'm sorry, but you are 100% wrong. You can most certainly express emotions badly... or less artistically. The diary of the teenage girl expresses emotions that are no more profound or less worthy of artistic expression than anything else... but quite likely they are not expressed well... in terms of art. You are seemingly confusing art with the expression of emotion and so are unable to make any objective analysis or judgment of the art.
Have you ever considered that African_Love might have studied literature for years and come to different conclusions than you?
It's possible... but highly unlikely considering the strength of the arguments here and elsewhere.
Nice explanation(s), stluke. But I always thought babies grinned or giggled when they let one fly – just like me.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I think people often confuse the effect of an artwork (trully subjective, trully rooted on a possibility of interpretation, wrong or right, trutlly emotional in the aesthetical sense) with the definition of art. Definition, the meaning of words, is not an artistic work, it is when culture accepts another word or a serie of words (and since I think art is process, that is more easy to be showed than simplificated on one line analogy) that you have a definition.
If art is what cause emotion and subjective, the day I listen to Bach and feel nothing, it would cease to be art.
asdfg
At the risk of admitting to the 'older members' remark, when I was in college other than required reading; Camus, Dostoevksy, Chekhov, Brecht, Sartre, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic
Fun reading was Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance or Jonathan Livingston Seagull along with the poems (lyrics) of Bob Dylan
and other folk type artists.
No I don't think that what is being read today is of lesser quality, because I am still reading and enjoying and expanding and exploring. I read older works because I want to know about them and want to keep them around. I read newer works to see what there is to see.
Try The Lost City of Z: A Tale of Deadly Obsession in the Amazon I read it over the summer (I would recommend not doing this if you are the least bit skittish), it is not fiction, and for me it was an effort to start, but am very glad it was recommended and given to me to read.