now Millennials - what will their art be? — Pop

They have no art, they purchase it.

Edit: however it’s still real and reflects them.

All this is to back up part of my position that art is like the ripples from a stone tossed into a pond.

So by that point it was no longer genuine, and in fact may have already been commercialised and made irrelevant in the UK. Generally, I feel, by the time the media and elites discover something “new” it’s already gone and all that remains is a commercial replica.

So would it be fair to say that art is almost an instantaneous artefact of a particular emerging culture, small or large.

But in Australia and Britain this is how it started. — Pop

Yes, and it was very imitative. So it didn’t really have the same roots or legitimacy as the UK or US. So like so much art it wasn’t a genuine reflection of culture, it was grafted on and then created its culture, which is not the same as events in the UK.

In the 70s Malcolm Mclaren as a joke created a punk group - the Sex Pistols
Punk culture grew out of that. — Pop

Yes, because there was a vast working class, unemployed, disenfranchised, angry culture that existed, had their own cultural references and felt its relevance instantly. They had always existed. Malcolm Mclaren didn’t create them.

↪Brett
Of course. But they themselves and their ability to project reflect instantaneously their time, which can only be cultural. Post WWll art reflected the trauma of the war, the tearing apart of reality.
— Brett

Just false (and a bit gibberishy). — Brett

What I meant was that their artwork is unconsciously formed by the temper of the times, which is cultural. I can’t imagine what else I could call the temper of the times. Work that is not of this sort is imitative of past movements and ideas. It’s not contemporary. Even art that seems to stand for very little except shock value may be said to represent attitudes in that society at that moment in time, therefore acting like a mirror or reflection. Maybe the art is not caused by the times but is an integral part of its manifestation.

'Art is an expression of human consciousness. And art work is information about an artists consciousness and subconsciousness' — Pop

I think there’s something there, because I believe that only humans produce art.

When they changed the definition of art they brought culture with them. Culture allowed itself to be changed. It was receptive to the new definition, and so it adopted it. — Pop

Obviously from my posts I don’t go along with that. Artists don’t create culture and culture doesn’t allow itself to be changed by anybody. If art changes then it’s because culture has shifted. Culture creates art. But I don’t think there’s “new” cultures, just ones that have not had legitimacy up until then, even though it always existed. The art is one way of making its presence felt. Punk was not invented. That working class attitude was always there, it was just repressed and devalued by social mores and power bases.

My feeling is that art once held a vital part in man’s perception of the world, possibly beginning with the Lascaux cave drawings. In early tribal communities masks and totems contained fear itself. In other times art was connected to religious beliefs in God, or myths that explained our place in the world. These works of art were owned or created by those with power. Eventually art broke away from that power base and the ordinary man took up art, broke away from the church and other cultural institutions who, through their power, had defined art.

Pivotal artists throughout history owned the definition of art.They took the definition of art away from the powers that be. It is why they are pivotal. — Pop

I think it might be closer to the truth that artists, major game players, smashed definitions but never owned them.

So when you said "art is a cultural mirror" you meant 'art is art'. Well, I think we can all get on board with that. — Bartricks

I’ll have another go at this.

Okay then - Gauguin: "art is either plagiarism or revolution". — Bartricks

I don’t think that’s really a definition of anything. If you used that to explain art you’d have nothing. When artists talk about art they generally talk in an elusive manner. Not all of course. Picasso made many statement, but most of them are interesting more than explanatory. Francis Bacon did some long interviews about what he was doing. Once again very interesting but going nowhere in terms of defining ar, just his own process. Besides that many artists that we can name off the top of our head were extremely judgemental and dismissive of each other’s work.

In terms of movement definitions most of them have come from outside of the immediate art world, by that I mean the artists. It’s not as if artists actually called themselves Impressionists or Cubists. Those names were applied to them. Even though this has no direct relation to the definition of art itself it does give some idea of the ownership and consequent definition of art. My feeling is that those people are always catching up. So their definitions are usually constructed after the fact and received from others.

And many artists are philosophically minded and have written things about art, including trying to define it (though don't ask me for names). — Bartricks

That’s not very sporting of you @Bartricks.

Oh, okay. I thought that was in reference to art movements and not art itself. My mistake.

↪Brett
Definitions are created by owners, not artists.
— Brett

And that's false too. — Bartricks

And why is that false?

↪Brett
Of course. But they themselves and their ability to project reflect instantaneously their time, which can only be cultural. Post WWll art reflected the trauma of the war, the tearing apart of reality.
— Brett

Just false (and a bit gibberishy). — Bartricks

I’m interested to hear why it’s false and “ a bit gibberishly”.

Definitions are created by owners, not artists.

Second, what the hell is a cultural mirror? — Bartricks

Art.

Art is not caused by culture, but by artists, — Bartricks

Of course. But they themselves and their ability to project reflect instantaneously their time, which can only be cultural. Post WWll art reflected the trauma of the war, the tearing apart of reality.

Edit: that’s probably WWl, I think.

Art is a cultural mirror. Unconsciously or consciously it reflects, absolutely the state of the culture it springs from. When the trains of New York City appeared covered in loud, garish graffiti they absolutely reflected the chaotic state of New York City at the time. If art appears meaningless, if there is a glut of work that seems shallow and predatory, then so too the culture it springs from. These things spring simultaneously from the tidal flow of culture, as it happens.

Art has always been about culture. It’s always owned by those with time and money to invest in it and always managed by an elite, though they’re unaware of it’s real cultural significance because they’re removed from the world they live in.

No matter how bad art gets it will always be true. It’s a spontaneous opening up of time. What gives it further significance is that the elite, of any epoch, with their money and their ignorance, freeze it in time, as they do with everything, in attempting to own whatever they set their eyes on. Then it gains another value altogether about another type of culture. So, again, it still remains about culture, explaining further ideas about who we are.

@Zelebg is right, colour does not exist, only light.

Intolerance.

The OP is the roots of racism.

I’ve had this many times, to the point where I begin to wonder if I’m making any sense at all. I’m never that positive I’m right anyway, but if someone isn’t really interested in helping me understand what they’re saying then I let things go. I’m not here to do battle but to try to work out a few thoughts I have.

At the end of the day, you have to decide where your loyalties lie, and what your primary moral considerations are. Those give you a compass by which to evaluate all these smaller points. — tomatohorse

Well I think you need to first decide what your primary objective might be. Then you decide how to reach it. Opening borders based on a moral position about it being the right thing to do leaves every step after that open. How do you measure progress, how do you know if you’re getting closer to your goal? Is it even possible to realise that goal?

I think you’re coming from an ideological position here which I cannot challenge.

Like, "The word is not the thing" and "The map is not the territory" perhaps. — Bitter Crank

Thank you.

And it doesn’t need words to be what it is.

but it doesn’t determine that the word “man” strictly refers to those with XY chromosomes and born with a penis. — Michael

Do you mean “man” or “male”?

Why?

Nature doesn’t decree what words mean. Language users do. — Michael

Yes and nature came before language. Words are an effort to categorise, but they’re not the thing. I’m sure there a more efficient argument than that but you get my drift.

Sex is nothing but another name, a categorisation of identity. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I know you think that and I don’t.

Sorry to persist in asking you to define things, but when you say, "best outcomes," what outcomes do you have in mind? — tomatohorse

Best outcomes for South Africa was an end to apartheid. Best outcomes for women was getting the vote. Best outcomes for gays was legal marriage. Very clear objectives that can be measured when you get there.

They want to say that there is some strict meaning to words like “sex” — Michael

That’s because there is and nature has decreed it. However, if you now want to say that mind determines sex, and not nature, then go for it. People can use whatever pronoun and gender name they prefer, but denying the facts of nature is a pretty big call.

With “the right decision” I’m meaning the decision that leads to best outcomes. Is a moral position the best way to make a decision on, for example, open borders, that leads to the best outcome.? Which is the position of open borders advocates; that’s it’s the right thing to do, that it’s a moral issue.

:up:

you can lack those and still be a complete woman, besides even if i believed differently who would I be to tell someone they aren't valid — sarah young

So if someone lacked them but still felt they were a complete women then doesn’t this suggest that being a woman on that basis is a state of mind. Of course if you felt that way what else would you want to be. But it’s still a state of mind, don’t you think?

From what you say though, as it seems to me, boobs and vagina are essential, and if you don’t have them then you’re not a complete woman.

I’m guessing you mean you have an idea, a concept, of what a woman should look like, not in terms of beauty, but in terms of physical characteristics and that is largely vagina and boobs.

That’s fine. So you agree that mind now determines sex, not chromosomes or nature.