By this I mean, look at Egyptian tomb paintings, you'll notice that over thousands of years the style was identical. This was because it was a public decree by the pharaoh that things had to be done a certain way (the pharaoh always had to be bigger than everybody but the gods, always had to be in front in each panel, lots of other rules). The people who made these paintings were not artists in what I think is the modern sense, I mean they didn't come up with the paintings by themselves, they painted them for the state and if they painted them wrong the paintings would be destroyed (and they'd be killed I imagine.)

 

So: question is, do these tomb paintings, to you, "count" as "art"?

Yes. Even if they were identical to other ones, they still had to be painted or carved, which in my mind is art.

I would say it's art, even if they were told what to paint they're still made by a person with creative intentions.

 

Maybe this is a bit off topic but in Sweden there was a large debate about the thin line between what's art or not some time ago. It was about an art student who filmed herself while pretending to jump from a bridge to show how the authorities deal with mentally unstable persons. So the question was maybe more about how far a person can go and still call it art. I mean it had a purpose but it's still stupid since people could get hurt. It raises a lot of questions, for example is it art to kill a person and then hang the person on a wall and call it a protest against killing animals and hang them as trophies on their walls? Is it art as long as the the act had an artistic purpose?

In my opinion it's not about the artistic purpose that makes something art, it's about the reception by people, if somebody thinks my window is art it's art to that person.

 

But you can't go around calling art "Something that is art to many people" because that's stupid, so I just usually say "art."

It's terrible to censor or restrict the medium in which art is expressed, but unless one's artistic freedoms are 100% controlled, it's still art.

if it's created by someone then it should be considered art even if it was for the state. I mean you had similar situations where artists were told to do family portraits of royalty.

I'd say it's art if the person who made it meant it to be art. Even if other people don't think so, it's still art to someone.

It's terrible to censor or restrict the medium in which art is expressed, but unless one's artistic freedoms are 100% controlled, it's still art.

I agree with this noob.

art is free

art is free

 

Agreed.

 

Yes, I feel the tomb paintings are art.

The more rules there are, the more creativity it takes to be creative within them. So yes.

I miss Noonsun already.

art is free

 

Agreed.

I miss Noonsun already.

 

I'm new so I don't have any real "connection" to anyone yet. Why don't all the regulars just go on strike until the people who were banned get to return?

we're not specialized employee's who have leverage for striking, there is an infinite supply of fangirls who can take our place.

I miss Noonsun already.

 

so do I :bigcry:

:cheesy:

so do I :bigcry:

 

:surprised: