Censorship and Art

Noodleface · Mar 9, 2017

Tanoomba said:
Yes, anything CAN be art, if the circumstances are right. But that DOESN'T mean that the only requirement for something to be art is for anyone anywhere to call it "art". If you shit in a plate and call it art, it's not art. If a career artist who spent decades studying art, experimenting with art, learning and developing classical skills in order to learn more about himself as an artist, and who has something to say that he believes can best be expressed by shitting in a plate, then yes, that would be art. This is why even though you could reproduce that god-awful painting if you tried hard enough, you would not be able to sell it for 80 million dollars. Clearly this bugs the shit out of you and you feel you need to speak out against it. The art community doesn't care and will not be deterred, though, so good luck with that.

insert Billy Madison video of principal telling everyone they're now dumber

Lendarios · Mar 9, 2017

Titan_Atlas said:
No, but the reason intelligent people stop arguing with you is. You can't argue with someone who refused to define things. You don't even take the time to think, let alone question the negative effects of what you try to champion. Be a man make a decision then be willing to adapt as more information comes. Don't be a wishy washy child who floats in a void of subjective.

lol. You are the one who refuses to define the objective yardstick for art.

Lithose the golden rule is a fallacy, you have golden rules painting that are still ugly.

The best way i can think of measuring paintings, is by its technical aspect of it. Are the strokes clear, does the colors bleed into each other? But looking at this, is looking at the individual trees, and then try to rate the forest by it, it is also incorrect.

Look at this style of pointilism. it is done dot by dot.

30 inspiring examples of pointillism | Creative Bloq

and some of it is gorgeous.
look at this guy xavier casalta

he drew it with this

one dot at a time.

I have to admit that shit is amazing, eve if technically it is different from brush, but is still good and beautiful art.

Titan_Atlas · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
lol. You are the one who refuses to define the objective yardstick for art.

Lithose the golden rule is a fallacy, you have golden rules painting that are still ugly.

The best way i can think of measuring paintings, is by its technical aspect of it. Are the strokes clear, does the colors bleed into each other? But looking at this, is looking at the individual trees, and then try to rate the forest by it, it is also incorrect.

Look at this style of pointilism. it is done dot by dot.

30 inspiring examples of pointillism | Creative Bloq

and some of it is gorgeous.
look at this guy xavier casalta
View attachment 125313

he drew it with this

View attachment 125314

one dot at a time.

I have to admit that shit is amazing, eve if technically it is different from brush, but is still good and beautiful art.

Yes the artist is very objectively talented and his work reflects that. I mean it's no sixteen chapel, but I'd hang it in my living room.

Lendarios · Mar 9, 2017

Titan_Atlas how hard did the sixteen trigger you? Honest answer.

Titan_Atlas · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
Titan_Atlas how hard did the sixteen trigger you? Honest answer.

About as hard as not having you on ignore does. Answer not at all, I don't think about you at all.

mkopec · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
lol. You are the one who refuses to define the objective yardstick for art.

Lithose the golden rule is a fallacy, you have golden rules painting that are still ugly.

The best way i can think of measuring paintings, is by its technical aspect of it. Are the strokes clear, does the colors bleed into each other? But looking at this, is looking at the individual trees, and then try to rate the forest by it, it is also incorrect.

Look at this style of pointilism. it is done dot by dot.

30 inspiring examples of pointillism | Creative Bloq

and some of it is gorgeous.
look at this guy xavier casalta
View attachment 125313

he drew it with this

View attachment 125314

one dot at a time.

I have to admit that shit is amazing, eve if technically it is different from brush, but is still good and beautiful art.

Dude we already showed you how math, rules in composition, such as rule of thirds, leading lines to focus the eye to the subject, and many many more are used by artists of all media types, from paintings, to furniture, photography.

Phaze showed you how math is the core of any music piece. even the above picture, using the dots, still must conform to basic rules of composition or else, no matter how detailed and perfectly shaded it is, it will be awkward to look at by most.

And of course you can have a person follow the rules to a tee and still be a shitty artist which still produces shit, this is why art is a gift, not everyone can do it.

Lithose · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
lol. You are the one who refuses to define the objective yardstick for art.

Lithose the golden rule is a fallacy, you have golden rules painting that are still ugly.

The best way i can think of measuring paintings, is by its technical aspect of it. Are the strokes clear, does the colors bleed into each other? But looking at this, is looking at the individual trees, and then try to rate the forest by it, it is also incorrect.

Look at this style of pointilism. it is done dot by dot.

30 inspiring examples of pointillism | Creative Bloq

and some of it is gorgeous.
look at this guy xavier casalta
View attachment 125313

he drew it with this

View attachment 125314

one dot at a time.

I have to admit that shit is amazing, eve if technically it is different from brush, but is still good and beautiful art.

I'm not an artist, why would I work out objectivity for art (Like this is what specialists in a field DO, they make up measurements that when used give people a good idea of qualities and let them compare them)? The golden rule is not a fallacy, it's just not an absolute causation, it dramatically increases the chances though that your "art" will be pleasing (Which infers there ARE objective principles in art that have large effects). The three act structure in a movie offers a start to make a decent film, too. This doesn't mean you can't make a film that disobeys it and is still good, nor does it mean your film will be good with it--but if you look, there is a significant correlation in good films and three act structures, and how it affects the audience. (If you put a drug on trial, and on one group the placebo does 0 and the other drug cures people 70% of the time, guess what? That means the drug doesn't always work, sometimes people still die. But it works at such a high rate, we can TELL a mechanism in the drug is working against the disease. Just because not ALL golden rule paintings are good, doesn't mean there isn't a standard there.)

Understand? But making up measurements, and structures? Already makes an objective quality to art. Meaning beauty isn't totally subjective. It obviously has rules. People who work IN art used to delve into those rules, classical artists actually began codifying them before post modernists shit on everything. Artists should once again start doing that, start really digging into what people enjoy, what speaks to the broadest group and begin isolating variables so they can develop measurements. This won't mean some niche won't have separate measurements, but it will mean artists might create something coherent that might be able to predict enjoyment within a ballpark (Still subject to subjectivity, but certainly a strong starting foundation, like our three act structure.)

Simply saying "there are no standards, anything can be art as long as I know the guy?" is laughable dog shit. That's the idiotic shit people like Tanoomba believe because they truly believe the world should be a social club, and deciphering an actual measurement or way to PREDICT enjoyment? Is bad. And that's what it why people treat are like a profession end up making consistent money, and people who treat art like 'an expression of their soul' usually end up poor. One is concerned about finding of why people enjoy something, the other is concerned about impressing their friends "in the scene".

Lendarios · Mar 9, 2017

mkopec said:
Dude we already showed you how math, rules in composition, such as rule of thirds, leading lines to focus the eye to the subject, and many many more are used by artists of all media types, from paintings, to furniture, photography.

Phaze showed you how math is the core of any music piece. even the above picture, using the dots, still must conform to basic rules of composition or else, no matter how detailed and perfectly shaded it is, it will be awkward to look at by most.

And of course you can have a person follow the rules to a tee and still be a shitty artist which still produces shit, this is why art is a gift, not everyone can do it.

So jazz is not art? Because it doesn't follow any musical standard and at its core is about improvisation.

Have you looked at a Monet? or "To the outskirts of Paris by Van Gogh?" There is not rule and somehow the result is quite nice (debatable, i actually don't like it)

Lithose · Mar 9, 2017

Tanoomba said:
Yes, anything CAN be art, if the circumstances are right. But that DOESN'T mean that the only requirement for something to be art is for anyone anywhere to call it "art". If you shit in a plate and call it art, it's not art. If a career artist who spent decades studying art, experimenting with art, learning and developing classical skills in order to learn more about himself as an artist, and who has something to say that he believes can best be expressed by shitting in a plate, then yes, that would be art. This is why even though you could reproduce that god-awful painting if you tried hard enough, you would not be able to sell it for 80 million dollars. Clearly this bugs the shit out of you and you feel you need to speak out against it. The art community doesn't care and will not be deterred, though, so good luck with that.

The prosecution rests. Thank you Tan, for proving that who knows you makes something art, not any quality of the expression. (No one needed know who Michelangelo to look up at the Sistine chapel and say "that's something special". Yet nearly everyone would need to KNOW who Pollock is to even know his painting was not literally garbage (Because Pollock's paintings have literally been mistaken for garbage before--not kidding.) )

And here is the reason why--because people like Tan believe shit on a plate can become art if people who like the smell of their own farts say so, because they are brave and won't be deterred.

Lendarios · Mar 9, 2017

Lithose said:
I'm not an artist, why would I work out objectivity for art (Like this is what specialists in a field DO, they make up measurements that when used give people a good idea of qualities and let them compare them)? The golden rule is not a fallacy, it's just not an absolute causation, it dramatically increases the chances though that your "art" will be pleasing (Which infers there ARE objective principles in art that have large effects). The three act structure in a movie offers a start to make a decent film, too. This doesn't mean you can't make a film that disobeys it and is still good, nor does it mean your film will be good with it--but if you look, there is a significant correlation in good films and three act structures, and how it affects the audience. (If you put a drug on trial, and on one group the placebo does 0 and the other drug cures people 70% of the time, guess what? That means the drug doesn't always work, sometimes people still die. But it works at such a high rate, we can TELL a mechanism in the drug is working against the disease. Just because not ALL golden rule paintings are good, doesn't mean there isn't a standard there.)

Understand? But making up measurements, and structures? Already makes an objective quality to art. Meaning beauty isn't totally subjective. It obviously has rules. People who work IN art used to delve into those rules, classical artists actually began codifying them before post modernists shit on everything. Artists should once again start doing that, start really digging into what people enjoy, what speaks to the broadest group and begin isolating variables so they can develop measurements. This won't mean some niche won't have separate measurements, but it will mean artists might create something coherent that might be able to predict enjoyment within a ballpark (Still subject to subjectivity, but certainly a strong starting foundation, like our three act structure.)

Simply saying "there are no standards, anything can be art as long as I know the guy?" is laughable dog shit. That's the idiotic shit people like Tanoomba believe because they truly believe the world should be a social club, and deciphering an actual measurement or way to PREDICT enjoyment? Is bad. And that's what it why people treat are like a profession end up making consistent money, and people who treat art like 'an expression of their soul' usually end up poor. One is concerned about finding of why people enjoy something, the other is concerned about impressing their friends "in the scene".

Objectivity means without personal opinion, for example a object is faster than another because we can determine 100% that this property occurs. That is objectivity, the capacity to measure something, without our personal opinion on the subject, based on factual and data that can be corroborated by third parties.

Is American dance an art form?

American dancing is simple a serious of random uncoordinated movements, where the music and its tempo are rarely related to the speed of song played. You can dance everything the same way the whole song, and it will correct.

There are two major dance movements, electronic head shaking, that came from rock metal; and side to side, that applies to everything else.

Honorable mention to the Electric slide and country line dancing, as they do have structure.

Lithose · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
So jazz is not art? Because it doesn't follow any musical standard and at its core is about improvisation.

Have you looked at a Monet? or "To the outskirts of Paris by Van Gogh?" There is not rule and somehow the result is quite nice (debatable, i actually don't like it)

Not all Jazz is improve. Good improvisational Jazz most certainly does follow musical standards. Do you think those guys get up there and just blow their fucking horns dude? I can answer this one, since I actually was in Jazz band in highschool, I actually did a professional gig with my horn too. (Totally serious, I played in the band at a theme park.)

Lendarios · Mar 9, 2017

Lithose said:
Not all Jazz is improve. Good improvisational Jazz most certainly does follow musical standards. Do you think those guys get up there and just blow their fucking horns dude? I can answer this one, since I actually was in Jazz band in highschool, I actually did a professional gig with my horn too. (Totally serious, I played in the band at a theme park.)

It is the subjective measurement of does this sounds good?

Oh and pollock is garbage.

My personal measuring stick for art is that it has to be reproducible, if not is just randomness.

ZyyzYzzy · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
It is the subjective measurement of does this sounds good?

Es objectivo por un muy grande extento.

Ridas · Mar 9, 2017

Lithose said:
(No one needed know who Michelangelo to look up at the Sixteen chapel and say "that's something special".

Lithose · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
Objectivity means without personal opinion, for example a object is faster than another because we can determine 100% that this property occurs. That is objectivity, the capacity to measure something, without our personal opinion on the subject, based on factual and data that can be corroborated by third parties.

Is American dance an art form?

American dancing is simple a serious of random uncoordinated movements, where the music and its tempo are rarely related to the speed of song played. You can dance everything the same way the whole song, and it will correct.

There are two major dance movements, electronic head shaking, that came from rock metal; and side to side, that applies to everything else.

Honorable mention to the Electric slide and country line dancing, as they do have structure.

Yes, objectivity means removing it from your frame of mind. Using a measurement, even if the measurement was agreed upon before hand subjectively. As for American dance? That depends. I'd want to infer with others on why people like it, experiment with what works, and find patterns in the movements--you say they are random, but very, very, very few things in nature are truly random at the level you're talking about (Usually we see randomness because we have incomplete information). Most likely there is a pattern most people adapt to. Once you find that pattern, you can start developing rules to it--then you can have the OUTLINE of being able to say "that's American dance".

There will still be some subjectivity, just like medicine, whenever you're working with something as complex as the human brain? We're simply not going to know enough, and the fact is, there are too many permutations to get it down to an exact science. But we can certainly figure out standards to make "big distinctions" (IE we can find those natural inclinations that are almost universal, and use those to say "this is X kind of art" and "this is X not X kind of art"). And from there it simply depends on how you agree to continue making those standards.

Take figure skating, for example...The standards are all made up. I could go out there and fall on my ass a bunch and say "this is my new expression of figure skating". I'd goose egg at the Olympics though. A world class figure skater, if he goes out and does a great routine, you may have some subjective disagreement on the EXACT numbers (Like our 70% medication)...But in general the scores will all be decently high. And guess what? Any figure skating routine that gets high scores, for even a layman watching? Will look pretty good, even if you don't understand figure skating at all.

This is how you end up with spectacular "artful" Olympics, that don't just have people running out onto the ice and pissing on it and calling it an expression of their art. Because people had the balls to say "no, that sucks, fuck off".

Lendarios · Mar 9, 2017

mkopec touched it here
"And of course you can have a person follow the rules to a tee and still be a shitty artist which still produces shit, this is why art is a gift, not everyone can do it."

This is why art is subjective, you can hit all the technical aspect, all the golden rules, everything you use on your definition, and still produce garbage.

Objective properties are not like that, once they are satisfied, that is it. It is done.

Lendarios · Mar 9, 2017

Lithose said:
Take figure skating, for example...The standards are all made up. I could go out there and fall on my ass a bunch and say "this is my new expression of figure skating". I'd goose egg at the Olympics though. A world class figure skater, if he goes out and does a great routine, you may have some subjective disagreement on the EXACT numbers (Like out 70% medication)...But in general the scores will all be decently high. And guess what? Any figure skating routine that gets high scores, for even a layman watching? Will look pretty good, even if you don't understand figure skating at all.

This is how you end up with spectacular "artful" Olympics, that don't just have people running out onto the ice and pissing on it and calling it an expression of their art. Because people had the balls to say "no, that sucks, fuck off".

Judging on the Gymnastics is subjective, same as on figure skating. I don't think this is up for debate. Not all sports are graded on an objective scale.

mkopec · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
mkopec touched it here
"And of course you can have a person follow the rules to a tee and still be a shitty artist which still produces shit, this is why art is a gift, not everyone can do it."

This is why art is subjective, you can hit all the technical aspect, all the golden rules, everything you use on your definition, and still produce garbage.

Objective properties are not like that, once they are satisfied, that is it. It is done.

Sentagur said:

Objective truth is the foundation on which the subjective experince is built. Our experience can color the reality we see but the reality is still the basis for everything.

Click to expand...

This man gets it

Lithose · Mar 9, 2017

Lendarios said:
Judging on the Gymnastics is subjective, same as on figure skating. I don't think this is up for debate. Not all sports are graded on an objective scale.

Fuck, Lend. Do you even read what I write?

A world class figure skater, if he goes out and does a great routine, you may have some subjective disagreement on the EXACT numbers (Like our 70% medication)...But in general the scores will all be decently high. And guess what? Any figure skating routine that gets high scores, for even a layman watching? Will look pretty good, even if you don't understand figure skating at all.

Understand how something like art in the Olympics came to look good even to laymen. Even to people who do not know shit about how to "judge" the sport. A bunch of early figure skaters found out X and Y and Z things were appealing (people clapped when they did them!). So they made rules to judge the art based on those things. The artists know those rules too, and developed routines to exploit them and getting better scores by doing those appealing things BETTER. Now, how 'good' someone does it? That's subjective, yes. But the basics of WHAT figure skating is? That's not, a judge can objectively say "no, fuck off, that's not figure skating".

Understand? There is a subjective RANGE of APPLICATION of objective rules. Those objective rules are what makes figure skating, figure skating. And on the subjective end? Because the rules offer restrictions on HOW judges can judge (Like you can't watch someone do a triple jump and say 'that was shit' without giving a reason, your judgement can be judged because the rules are there)? You can be assured that if someone gets a high score in figure skating, then even someone who doesn't know shit about the 'sport' will find the routine pretty pleasing, because its ALL based off of those universal things that the community realized were pleasing to everyone.

Which is what you said, its the predictability (Reproducability) of engaging the audience. If I make rules to judge a triple jump really high, and more people add triple jumps, the audience likes it more--I know how to add rules now that have a HIGH correlation to engagement. Why? Because at the start of my 'art' I found patterns that were pretty elemental in nature and that nearly everyone enjoyed (So we can assume those patterns have some deeper structure, not saying biological, but something fundamental that if we encourage them, it will produce good work most of the time. Again, this is like medicine, we experiment with a variety of variables to find the pattern.)

ZyyzYzzy · Mar 9, 2017

Lithose said:
Fuck, Lend. Do you even read what I write?

A world class figure skater, if he goes out and does a great routine, you may have some subjective disagreement on the EXACT numbers (Like our 70% medication)...But in general the scores will all be decently high. And guess what? Any figure skating routine that gets high scores, for even a layman watching? Will look pretty good, even if you don't understand figure skating at all.

Understand how something like art in the Olympics came to look good even to laymen. Even to people who do not know shit about how to "judge" the sport. A bunch of people found out X and Y and Z things were appealing. So they made rules to judge the art based on those things. The artists know those rules too, and developed routines to exploit them and getting better scores by doing those appealing things BETTER. Now, how 'good' someone does it? That's subjective, yes. But the basics of WHAT figure skating is? That's not, a judge can objectively say "no, fuck off, that's not figure skating".

Understand? There is a subjective RANGE, but there are objective rules of what makes figure skating, figure skating. And on the subjective end? Because the rules offer restrictions on HOW judges can judge? You can be assured that if someone gets a high score in figure skating, then even someone who doesn't know shit about the 'sport' will find the routine pretty pleasing, because its ALL based off of those universal things that the community realized were pleasing to everyone.

Which is what you said, its the predictability (Reproducability) of engaging the audience. If I make rules to judge a triple jump really high, and more people add triple jumps, the audience likes it more--I know how to add rules now that have a HIGH correlation to engagement. Why? Because at the start of my 'art' I found patterns that were pretty elemental in nature and that nearly everyone enjoyed (So we can assume those patterns have some deeper structure, not saying biological, but something fundamental that if we encourage them, it will produce good work most of the time. Again, this is like medicine, we experiment with a variety of variables to find the pattern.)

ESL. Don't waste key strokes

Search

Censorship and Art

Noodleface

A Mod Real Quick

Lendarios

Trump's Staff

Titan_Atlas

Deus Vult

Lendarios

Trump's Staff

Titan_Atlas

Deus Vult

mkopec

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor

Lendarios

Trump's Staff

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor

Lendarios

Trump's Staff

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor

Lendarios

Trump's Staff

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA

Ridas

Pay to play forum

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor

Lendarios

Trump's Staff

Lendarios

Trump's Staff

mkopec

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA