Why not try to break that down like a poem? Dot points. What are it’s qualities, what does it allude to, do it until you run out of meaning. — Brett

Because then what makes it art is gone.

Interesting juxtaposition. Do you find one more arresting over the other? I'm not well versed in political cartoon-ism.

Because then what makes it art is gone. — Noble Dust

Okay. So then this OP just becomes an art gallery?

You're right in the sense that it does require interpretation. But "dot points" got me riled up; dot points are high school teacher non-sense, as are the questions you ask after that turn of phrase. I'm not here to get a good grade.

You apparently know Tarkosvksy. What's your interpretation of the clip?

So you felt like you were being instructed. An old school hangover.

It doesn’t require anything. It’s something to do if you feel like it. It’s a pleasure to really look at a work. Yes, dot points sounds sterile, but it was just a way to ease into it.

No, I don’t know Tarkovsky, but I watched the video, then the short interview after. My interpretation? Who knows? I’ll need to look at it longer and assume the comments on translation are accurate enough to go by.

.

So you felt like you were being instructed. An old school hangover. — Brett

No, I felt like you were trying to instruct me, apparently about things you don't know about; i.e. Tarkovsky.

No, I don’t know Tarkovsky, but I watched the video, then the short interview after. My interpretation? Who knows? I’ll need to look at it longer and assume the comments on translation are accurate enough to go by. — Brett

So in other words, why waste space with this?

Thanks.

So in other words, why waste space with this? — Noble Dust

I don’t understand this.

You responded to me posting a Tarkovsky clip with "Why not try to break that down like a poem? Dot points. What are it’s qualities, what does it allude to, do it until you run out of meaning."

To which I eventually asked if you were familiar with his work, to which you responded

No, I don’t know Tarkovsky, but I watched the video, then the short interview after. My interpretation? Who knows? I’ll need to look at it longer and assume the comments on translation are accurate enough to go by. — Brett

To which I responded:

So in other words, why waste space with this? — Noble Dust

So in other words, why waste space with this? — Noble Dust

This is the bit I don’t understand. Are you asking or is it rhetorical?

Edit: how does my last comment equate to your single sentence?

Why talk about Tarkovsky if you're not familiar with his work?

Because he sounded interesting and I didn’t know anything about him. So I thought it would be interesting to talk with you about him and find out a bit more about where he was coming from. But not anymore, thanks.

Word, I guess I missed that genial attitude in your initial posts... must have been my mistake...? regardless, Tarkovsky is a master of presenting reality as dream, and dream as reality. The Mirror, the film I posted that clip from, is admittedly not a good staring point...if you like what you saw, I would recommend Stalker as an entry point. Tarkovsky is a true poet, as his father was (who's work Tarkovsky used in his films). The imagery in his work functions as imagery does in poetry. Image functions as...memory does...? it becomes impossible to talk about when you watch his films.

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. — Brett

This is not true.

They were traveling billboards from one graffiti group 'home' to another. The graffiti were hidden messages specifically for their own 'home members', sub-culture, and nobody else. Their locations where the art was found marked out the groups boundaries, and other groups usually respected each others space. The trains were used to send a message to the other group down the track, as if to say: 'Can you do better than this piece of artwork'. They competed against each other. Also it was a way to get their artworks outside of the home territory, and into the outer-worlds so to speak.

You might be able to see where I’m going here. — Brett

You are right about what is "good" art because you know more than me about art? How do we decide who knows more?

If you want to understand art, tell good from bad, then you need to educate yourself. — Brett

Hmmm, I am not sure this has any relevance on my opinion of art. When I was young, I liked action movies and I disliked Shakespeare. When I got older, and understood Shakespeare better, I did not suddenly like it. I just understood WHY I didn't like it. I can admit there is some clever writing in there, but the stories suck (solely from my perspective...I can list reasons and am sure some others would agree, but nothing objective or universal).

Learning about art allows me to learn about myself. I begin to understand why I like/dislike certain things...I DON'T SEE HOW MY DEEPER KNOWLEDGE OF ART ALLOWS ME TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY SHOULD LIKE...isn't that what you are doing if you attempt to objectively label some art "good" and some "bad"?

Is art recreational space manipulation? Or 'space play'.

Painting on a canvas manipulates the space of the canvas.

I might be wrong.

Is art recreational space manipulation?

Painting on a canvas manipulates the space of the canvas.

I might be wrong. — Qwex

Does that mean life/existence is professional space manipulation?

I don't know, is life objective art?

Honestly to answer this I'll need to think. I will hail you later.

Honestly to answer this I'll need to think. I will hail you later. — Qwex

Don't fret too much. I was sort of just playing on words. But it seems to me that "recreational space manipulation" is a fine way to describe art, but it doesn't help one understand it any better (and I would think oral stories are still art but they do not take up any physical space...??).

When I got older, and understood Shakespeare better, — ZhouBoTong

Big assumption. We don’t know if you learnt anything or understood anything about Shakespeare.
You can claim the stories suck, but at the time people flocked to see the plays, so we can assume that the stories resonated with the times.

At its most basic level the visual arts use “The elements of art and principles of design.” (This is why people think they see art in nature). Even when artists break the rules they still use those elements and principles.

Writers uses standards we all understand. Those standards enable us to understand what the writer means. All languages operate this way.

These are not subjective, these are universal. They can be learned and understood.

So to satisfy your demands for objective standards we can begin with that.

You remind me of the football fans who sit on the couch drinking beer and watching the game and telling the coach where he’s going wrong.

I’m not concerned with your opinion on art. It’s irrelevant. Only you think it’s important and yet you profess to know little about art.

My point about recognising deceptive behaviour in people was that if you know something about art, if you make the effort to familiarise yourself with the history, the movements, the techniques, the artists themselves, then you might be able to see through the deception in art and separate the charlatans from the genuine artist. Otherwise how can you make any decision except to say “I enjoyed that” or “I didn’t enjoy that”. Which is all your entitled to in your ignorance.

I DON'T SEE HOW MY DEEPER KNOWLEDGE OF ART ALLOWS ME TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY SHOULD LIKE. — ZhouBoTong

No ones saying that. Deeper knowledge allows you to work your way through the world of art, not to tell others what they should like. Why would anyone want to do that? We’re not saying you should like something, we’re saying why some pieces have value in the world of art. No ones forcing you to go to an art gallery.

One last thing, care to list your reasons why the Shakespeare stories suck? Should be easy because it’s not even about language. Just pretend it’s a Batman movie.

Is art recreational space manipulation? Or 'space play'.

Painting on a canvas manipulates the space of the canvas. — Qwex

Except a monkey can do that. So there’s still the issue of intent, which comes first.

Does that mean life/existence is professional space manipulation? — ZhouBoTong

Some people do lead lives that are absolutely unique compared to most others. Their lives might be considered creative.

Here's a reminder about what good art is. I figure we need these, every 19 pages or so:

I understand art as an expression of human consciousness, and art work as information about the artists consciousness. Art as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all art ever made - cave paintings to present. — Pop

I understand taking a walk as an expression of human consciousness and where one chooses to walk as information about the walker's consciousness. Walking as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all walking ever done - cave people walking to the present.

All meaningful acts are an expression of human consciousness.

Just saying.

What is art is decided by the artist. A group of people who are difficult to pin down. — Punshhh

if I am going to purchase art, then I will decide what art is.

if I am going to purchase art, then I will decide what art is. — Arne

I don’t think that really works.

If you go to buy a car you go to a car dealer. You don’t decide what a car is you decide what sort of car you want. It’s the same when you go into an art gallery.

I don’t think that really works. — Brett

It is your comparison that does not work.

You may rest assured I will never buy a car that fails to meet my definition of a car nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art.

How others define either matters not to me.

I understand taking a walk as an expression of human consciousness and where one chooses to walk as information about the walker's consciousness. Walking as an expression of human consciousness is broad enough to capture all walking ever done - cave people walking to the present.

All meaningful acts are an expression of human consciousness.

Arne


What separates an art object and a non art object is that an art object has extra information - it is deemed to be art.It is an arbitrary extra bit of information, but results in art being put on a pedestal, this differentiates it from other aspects of human consciousness.

Glad to hear from you Arne - first serious challenge.

.

nor will I ever buy a work of art that fails to meet my definition of art. — Arne

Which is what?