gotta agree hard on zdzisław beksiński though.

damn gottem again another compelling rebuttal from budgie. =[

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

Leszek Kostuj is also one of my favorites. Also Yamamoto Takato, who inspired this one's art. Gustave Doré and Hieronymus Bosch are some classics that I love, although the former's best works are woodcarvings.

if a red and blue canvas meets the requirement for 'creative skill and imagination' then we're setting the bar preeetty fucking low, guys.

Album Rating: 5.0

*Notes rik as a with-it dude.*

Album Rating: 5.0

The shitty thing about art is that it's a social construct. This stuff changes over time and from person to person. You had one definition of art, gyro. If it was easy to define people would jump at each other's throats in conversations like this. xD

Shit on a canvas is pretty expressive to me. It kinda toxic and I would hate it, but it's communicating something to me. And a canvas with two colours would make me angry, it's fucking stupid, but my reaction kind of validates the art

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

Once we recognize human intention in something, we perceive it as art, since we see it as something that was ''art''ificially created to fit an intent. Whether it has an impact or not doesn't matter in that case. It can be the most bland thing ever. That has to be the definition, I guess. There's no other reason why we don't see an apple as art and start to see it as art as soon as someone painted on it. We recognize that someone actively did something with it. It's like language - not every noise in the world is language, but once we recognize that it's a person speaking, we start to perceive it as something that a person actively does to express something.



(Doesn't stop something from being bland and meaningless, I might have to add.)

you guys ever check out francis bacon's stuff? he has some fucked up shit

intention =/= art. by such loose definitions, everything could be perceived as art. moreover, thinking something is dumb because it's defined as art doesn't validate it as art - having a reaction to something's lack of merit can't inherently give it merit, that's just illogical. by that logic why isn't everything that pisses you off 'art'?

Album Rating: 5.0

'everything could be perceived as art'

That's the point basically. Everthing can be art, but nit everything is art to everybody at the same time. It's about perceiving something as art

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

The thing that I said about pissing off didn't have anything to do with the definiton of art. It had something to do with the impactfulness of it. Like I strained several times, the impactfulness of art does not have anything to do with whether it's art or not. The reaction of something doesn't have anything to do with whether it's art.

And I didn't say that intention = art, but that perceived intentinon = art. Once we take something for granted (like the interior of an elevator), we don't recognize it as art anymore. And I already said, we don't recognize an apple as art, because we take its shape as a given. Once someone does something with it, it becomes something that we can recognize as shaped by human intent. That excludes quite a few things. But I agree that a lot of things are still art in that case, and yeah. They are.

i guess my contention is with the categorization of it. there is a lot of art i personally dislike but would certainly still call art, and i separate that from the stuff that's truly awful - something as dumb as the aforementioned red and blue canvas, which i struggle to classify as art when it's so devoid of passion or talent or anything remotely resembling creativity.

Album Rating: 5.0

Not perceiving something like that as art is fine imo

fair enough kalk and rik, i can accept that, albeit somewhat reluctantly.

Album Rating: 4.5

go fuck yourself

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

I guess it's got something to do with the word art having a very positive connotation and therefore the expectation that something has to earn it by some accomplishment. That is what I'm arguing against, although I definitely see where that assessment comes from and I don't find it unappealing. But I'm convinced that the definition of art should be descriptive and not evaluating. So I'll insist that there is art that is just bad, uncreative, devoid of passion etc. But like I said, I can't blame anyone for arguing like that.

Album Rating: 4.5 | Sound Off

Lol budgie, just as we were about to re-enter fluffy fairy Alcest-land.

budgie just popping off with the illuminating rebuttals. idk how we can compete with this. you win. i concede. please stop beating a dead horse my man.

yeah it's that it carries that connotation (for me). it's hard not to have that expectation, but what you say does make sense the more i think about it. it's hard to argue what constitutes 'art' when you factor in subjectivity, no matter how banal and stupid it may seem.

Album Rating: 4.5

don't concede rik, everything you've been saying is spot on