Separate names with a comma.
Join Symphony X and discover tons of other great Metal forums, sign up today!
Discussion in 'Symphony X (Unofficial)' started by Frontal Lobotomy, Apr 6, 2011.
There is no consensus. Don't equivocate on that one... Ask everyone here to define "art" and you will get as many definitions as replies. That is why art evolves - permutation. It's like saying there's a consensus on religion. It'd be a poor judgment of the facts.
Taking a cue from the title, I made what I've thrown away "art"...
And to answer a question poised earlier, curator reject artists all the time. More often than accepting them. I am married to an artist and have art teacher relatives.
Don't either make the mistake that I am defending bad art. I am correcting popular misconceptions and ill-drawn conclusions. There is no consensus and for every Picasso there are thousands of imitations and failures. It is futile to compare Renaissance art to contemporary. It is in error to draw a conclusion based on personal preference and call it fact. It is arrogant to presume ones preferences are more intrinsically meaningful.
I have preferences in art. They do not rule my intellectual capability to accept that others view art differently.
All of your comments, complaints and quips can be readily applied to music. You who lament fringe art praise fringe music. Don't be Janus. There is no consensus, there is no right or wrong art. There are only different views from which groups of different membership observe and comment.
To me fringe music is like...Alvin Lucier or something. And I dunno how many people here would accept him either.
A few years ago huh?! How about 1989!!! lol
I actually know about it because in the art class I took in uni we talked about it. When I first saw the image I though, hey that's some pretty awesome colors and stuff going on. I like the image, but the whole piss thing is a little extreme...
I am aware that for every artist that is accepted, probably thousands are rejected. That was not my point. Once one curator accepts an artist, it opens doors and makes it easier for that artist to exhibit again. Once someone is established as an artist, the consensus is created that what that person makes in the future is art. Good or bad, which would be personal taste, but still art.
Why is it futile? Contemporary artists use many of the same motifs as Renaissance artists did, just like they again did with motifs from classical antiquity - for example Venus of the rags. The idea was then and is now to transform the art into something that fits the time of the artist and create something meaningful out of it. My point was simply that it used to take talent. Today it seems like the only thing you need is for someone in charge to say that what you do is meaningful enough to allow an exhibition, even though you didn't actually create anything, like gluing a part of a railway track to the ceiling. Sure, it takes time, but you don't need any talent to pull that off. Recall that I did start this thread by asking if anyone can explain to me why that is considered art. I'm simply saying why I don't consider it to be so. If you can point out to me where I state anything as a fact, I will be glad to revise my utterances.
Fringe music in the States, maybe. There is nothing special about listening to metal in Norway, therefore I'm not being Janus-faced. He was a dude anyway. I do not lament it since I feel no sorrow or grief about it. It is more annoyance about where all this is going. In any case, music is art, and I feel the exact same way about experimental music, which is more comparable to installation than Symphony X is.
I get what you are saying, art is subjective. It is however, in my opinion, made objective by the people who are in charge of what is considered to be art and what is not - the curators and the art critics. If I want to see what is considered as important works of art today, I have to visit a gallery. I wouldn't know about installation otherwise. If I don't consider myself a person who understands art, I would swallow it raw because they should know. After all, they probably studied it and have worked with art all their lifes and who am I to say any different. My point is that there are authorities on this as on everything else and like it or not, they are the ones who decide. I can say that it is not art, but the mere fact that it is in a gallery, chosen to be there by the people who are meant to know best what art is, inherently makes it art. And the person who made it is considered to be an artist. Would a curator say that he is not, after being established as one? Herein lies my meaning of consensus, without ever having the intention of being arrogant about it.
Not necessarily. The door can just as easily close. Again, very similar comparisons can be drawn to music. You're a celebrity one day and a hobo the next.
No one is going to be able to really explain to you why the train thing is or isn't art. It's a matter of opinion. I've said before, art is subjective. That it is subjective is also my own opinion, which is somewhat paradoxical. I think you're just apathetic towards those who curate and judge art as a career. There's nothing wrong with that, you have a different opinion than what these consider art.
You also seem to be forgetting that when we view the lens of history, it is focused. For every master, thousands are forgotten. So too it will be of the current era, wherein many will not be remembered in the years to come. Those that do, are they more valid artists then? Maybe they are, in the sense that according to the premise I proposed earlier, they were more potently effective at conveying their purpose through their art.
It's not the curators that ultimately judge what art is important, it is time and history.
Note also that I'm not singling you out with my comments, I'm addressing everyone here and people in general.
That's a spot on statement Ken, I must say.
Everything remains relative and subjective of course, and in that light I still believe the Nietzsche quote to be true. But time and history have proven most effective in ultimately filtering out that which is of less artistic essence.
It's not the curators or time and history who judge what's important - it's me. I judge what is important, objectively, for everyone. deal with it
It is your own opinion you're expressing but you dress it as objectivity and logical thought while simultaneously calling other people arrogant. Don't get me wrong, personally I don't mind if you are arrogant, everybody is to some extent, but don't accuse everyone of being hypocritical while at the same time pointing to your own discrepancies as ''paradoxes''. Or do - nobody seems to mind anyway, this is a laid back bunch
I'm not apathetic towards them, I am exactly the opposite, otherwise there would be no point in creating this thread. The big difference is that they are the ones deciding what to present to people as contemporary art and in that way have an influence in the society, while all I can do is moan about it, which pretty much doesn't influence anyone.
What you're talking about is historical importance, while the point I was trying to make was about contemporary importance. Two very different things, something van Gogh is a very good example of.
Here I have to say that your mode of address confused me. In any case it did also pertain to me and I simply expressed why I felt you were wrong in your analysis. Don't worry, I didn't take it to heart - I'm more thick skinned than that
Wait a minute... did somebody say ARROGANT?????
Seems more like hipster ale to me.
HAHAHAHA WTF is that?!
^ It's good beer is what it is!
Damn good beer.
Just felt like sharing these fantastic pictures in case anyone was interested - I didn't even know this was possible. He is a Swedish man by the name of Axel Erlandson and he's a tree shaper