Pretty tricky thing if you ask me.

 

If there wasn't, artists (e.g. musicians) would possibly be much happier...I mean those who do it to earn money with it, but those who listen to it probably wouldn't be happy, because it would just be chaotic.

 

Ok now I have just realised how dumb this question is, but I really want to sort it out

No. Artistic freedom should always remain uncompromised.

one my arts teacher (History of Arts), said: there's no right definition to what art and beauty is, as it is a subjective thing....

 

i agree with him, but that comming from that total stupid he was.... :dozey:

Now I've got it: Why are there always people (artists) who think they are better than others? Just because their technique is better,....but if there isn't any emotion in it and it doesn't really fit and other people do not get happy about it then it's just useless no matter how perfect it is...

ah i get what you mean...

well is bad when no talented artists think they are better than emotional artist.... from the last times to now i've come to divide artists into: showers (those who express somehting but don't really created it). / creators (those who no matter their technique or talent do their own stuff).

 

anyways is just a matter of what we consider good or right...

 

i believe in freedom, but it should have some limits, i've read many stuff about preformers that tie a dog and let them die of hunger, that shouldn't be allowed and less consider that as art :sick:

Art appreciation is completely opinion.

I love art.

I don't think a crucifix in a jar of urine is art.

 

Creating something just for the reaction is not art, but an experiment...

I don't think a crucifix in a jar of urine is art.

 

Creating something just for the reaction is not art, but an experiment...

 

and these kind of things make me so torn about it

I don't think a crucifix in a jar of urine is art.

 

Creating something just for the reaction is not art, but an experiment...

 

Art is meant to be an experiment. Trying something new.

Yeah, and that's okay, but using "I'm going to see what people do if I do this" as a basis for a creation is not art. Art is something that you do to express what is inside of you.

I was reading on the internet recently about this guy who won $10 000 for making three piles of sheaded woodchip, plastic and metal.

Yeah, and that's okay, but using "I'm going to see what people do if I do this" as a basis for a creation is not art. Art is something that you do to express what is inside of you.

 

You make a valid point. Sometimes art is meant to freak people out though and make them go wtf? That is art in and of itself.

anything can be "art" but the best art reaches into you and grabs at your heart or mind. If it doesn't affect the way you feel or perceive things, then it's useless.

anything can be "art" but the best art reaches into you and grabs at your heart or mind. If it doesn't affect the way you feel or perceive things, then it's useless.

 

This is true.

by that definition, drugs would be the best kind of "art" ...... OK so art does those things without being ingested.... but some food is art as well.... drugs just happen to be a science, because they're more defined

I think since art is a kind of expressing your feelings it shouldn't be perfect...but some people tend to forget that...

by that definition, drugs would be the best kind of "art" ...... OK so art does those things without being ingested.... but some food is art as well.... drugs just happen to be a science, because they're more defined

 

I was more or less suggesting that anything created could be considered art.

I don't think a crucifix in a jar of urine is art.

 

Creating something just for the reaction is not art, but an experiment...

there was a jar of "urine" at a modern arts museum i went to before,

 

And over it was a sign saying,

Here's the Piss

Take it.

:laugh3:

 

in reference of course to the saying,

Taking the Piss

There is no such thing as right or wrong, in art, in anything. Everything is relative. Was 9/11 wrong? To us, definitely. To Bin Laden? It was necessary and justified.

 

Right and wrong in a philosophical sense are meaningless and objective.

yeah it was probably a bad way to question it....I rather wanted to say if art has to be perfect...I mean if a perfectly played piece of music is better than one which is not as perfectly played...

I was more or less suggesting that anything created could be considered art.

 

sorry, I was actually criticizing myself there... I just meant to be more specific, because art is defined a little more than by its result

There is no such thing as right or wrong, in art, in anything. Everything is relative. Was 9/11 wrong? To us, definitely. To Bin Laden? It was necessary and justified.

 

Right and wrong in a philosophical sense are meaningless and objective.

 

right and wrong in a human-defined pragmatic sense are meaningless. But they aren't meaningless if you believe in principles.

yeah it was probably a bad way to question it....I rather wanted to say if art has to be perfect...I mean if a perfectly played piece of music is better than one which is not as perfectly played...

Define 'perfect'.

 

right and wrong in a human-defined pragmatic sense are meaningless. But they aren't meaningless if you believe in principles.

Principles are relative. Different people believe in different principles. And anyone who thinks that there is a set of defined rules to live by is an ignorant narcissist. Anything can be justified.

Define 'perfect'.

 

 

Principles are relative. Different people believe in different principles. And anyone who thinks that there is a set of defined rules to live by is an ignorant narcissist. Anything can be justified.

 

principles are only relative if they aren't based on truth.