Art
What is art? Is art art?
What are different types of art?
There is visual art, music, literature, some people might say pure mathematics is art.
Art is beauty for beauty's sake. It's beauty as in a pretty girl, but beauty as in pure essence. The essence is an idea, and good art succesfully and effortlessly conveys the idea. (Although it may take some work on the viewer to figure out what that idea is.)
Mathematics is the pure abstraction of numbers. Numbers are innately true. If they are not true then the whole world as we know it flips upsidedown. We cannot comprehend what it means to live in a world where 1+1 does not equal 2. Mathematics is the glorious edifice constructed for these basic principals.
Literature is the essence of communication. Through the word selections in a poem or the narrative arcs of the novel, the author seeks to communicate a simple idea. Sometimes that idea is intangible, so only its ghost can be percieved. Sometimes the idea is simple: Sherlock Holmes investigating a murder. The idea is transcribed in such a way as to give the reader a cerebral pull. That pull can be intellectual and/or emotional. The beauty is in how the story is told.
Literature evolved from the oral tradition. Stories do not have to be told on paper. However, on paper one can choose his words carefully and thoughtfully, thus producing a more pure expression of an idea. The benefits of oral story involve the engrossing nature of a story told orally. However, literature's distance from the reader can also be seen in a positive light. This seperation allows the reader to seperate himself from the work, and to look objectively upon it. A good author will realize this and use this innate seperation as a tool.
The visual arts are aesthetic beauty. They communicate ideas through our eyes. A photograph captures the beauty of life in one hyperreal instant, hyperreal because real life is never as composed as a photograph. A painting is beautiful because it requires (usually) talent. The first thing one notices when viewing a painting is what it looks like. How realistic are the forms, how vibrant are the colors? If this is the sole purpose of the painter, then he has done his job, he has conveyed beauty to the viewer. The idea is simply the essence of appearance. A chair in the eyes of a skilled painter becomes so much more then when we look at it in the real world, because it takes the skill of a painter to succesfully convey a true form of that chair to our eyes. Abstract art can also convey ideas not totally related to visual context, but using the visual medium as a tool. One of my favorite painters is Kandinsky, because in his work as an abstract painter, he clearly used form and color as tools on his pallet. He used colors, angles, circles, and lines as basic composition elements, and constructed meaning with these. More clearly, he had the artist's sense of where to put these basic elements, and what these elements meant (he had a clear idea of their specific roles,) in order to create an emotional and intellectual resonance with the viewer. click here for Paintings of Kandinsky's
Music is probably the most abstract of the arts, even more so than mathematics. Where math is based on real numbers, music finds its truth somewhere I do not think anyone can explain. What is it about that arrpegio that makes it sound so sad? The composer constructs a story arc of ideas (usually emotions,) communicated through noise. It is amazing to me that we can find resonance in noise, but its true. Why does a minor chord sound sad and a major chord sound happy? Why is it if you bang 20 notes on a key board it sounds ugly, but if you press the correct 4 or 5 it can sound beautiful? Probably understanding for and appreciation of music is hardwired into our brain.
Maybe it has to do with language, (are song birds not singing when they communicate with each other?) nonetheless, all these vibrations are merely vibrations. A skilled composer understands the the translation between those vibrations and our minds and hearts well enough to make a meaningful song, composition, or peice of art.
Movies are an interesting artform, because they use sound and visuals to tell a story. They have been called a "hot" medium as opposed to a "cool" one like literature because they actively draw the viewer in. You do not have to think while you are watching the movie, you merely experience. From this last point do movies draw their deep emotional impact. If you do not have to think about it, then you are one step closer to experiencing the work directly. It is getting fed straight into your being. In the narrative case of movies, it is almost like you are there, watching the events unfold. We even suspend disbelief to allow ourselves to do this, and this suspension is a subconsious act. Movies are a hodgepodge of mediums. They start as a script, literature. Although i would venture that no script will be as great as a novel because scripts are a mere shell, a stepping stone on a path to something more. A script without a movie is like a turtle without a shell. Nonetheless, a script is still the written communication, and part of the art of movie making. Next is the movie itself. The movie tells a story, similar to an oral tale. The movie has music in it to put you in an emotional state. And the movies is framed in a visual way. We "watch" movies. In fact, movies are like paintings dragged through the extra dimension of time. i feel like this hodgepodge of mediums weakens the individual components, but alltogether adds up to something fairly substantial.
Then of course, there is the question: what delineates between art and non-art in a given form. Is Dude Where's My Car art just because its a movie? No, but i would say the silent classic Metropolis is one of the greatest peices of art of the 20th century. Is the label on a can of soup art? No, not until Andy Warhol touches it. (btw, i hate Andy Warhol.) If i doodle with lines and circles on a page, can I call it art comparable to Kandinsky? Doubt it. If i pound on piano keys randomly is that art? No. Are the strange and hard to listen to key strikes of free-jazzer Cecil Taylor art? Probably. Is the latest edition of Cosmo art? Certainly doesnt compare to a collection of Edgar Allan Poe short stories.
It is a troubling matter to define what art is. Luckily, I have done that in this livejournal post. It is harder to define what art is not. I will do that tomorrow. Peace.
What are different types of art?
There is visual art, music, literature, some people might say pure mathematics is art.
Art is beauty for beauty's sake. It's beauty as in a pretty girl, but beauty as in pure essence. The essence is an idea, and good art succesfully and effortlessly conveys the idea. (Although it may take some work on the viewer to figure out what that idea is.)
Mathematics is the pure abstraction of numbers. Numbers are innately true. If they are not true then the whole world as we know it flips upsidedown. We cannot comprehend what it means to live in a world where 1+1 does not equal 2. Mathematics is the glorious edifice constructed for these basic principals.
Literature is the essence of communication. Through the word selections in a poem or the narrative arcs of the novel, the author seeks to communicate a simple idea. Sometimes that idea is intangible, so only its ghost can be percieved. Sometimes the idea is simple: Sherlock Holmes investigating a murder. The idea is transcribed in such a way as to give the reader a cerebral pull. That pull can be intellectual and/or emotional. The beauty is in how the story is told.
Literature evolved from the oral tradition. Stories do not have to be told on paper. However, on paper one can choose his words carefully and thoughtfully, thus producing a more pure expression of an idea. The benefits of oral story involve the engrossing nature of a story told orally. However, literature's distance from the reader can also be seen in a positive light. This seperation allows the reader to seperate himself from the work, and to look objectively upon it. A good author will realize this and use this innate seperation as a tool.
The visual arts are aesthetic beauty. They communicate ideas through our eyes. A photograph captures the beauty of life in one hyperreal instant, hyperreal because real life is never as composed as a photograph. A painting is beautiful because it requires (usually) talent. The first thing one notices when viewing a painting is what it looks like. How realistic are the forms, how vibrant are the colors? If this is the sole purpose of the painter, then he has done his job, he has conveyed beauty to the viewer. The idea is simply the essence of appearance. A chair in the eyes of a skilled painter becomes so much more then when we look at it in the real world, because it takes the skill of a painter to succesfully convey a true form of that chair to our eyes. Abstract art can also convey ideas not totally related to visual context, but using the visual medium as a tool. One of my favorite painters is Kandinsky, because in his work as an abstract painter, he clearly used form and color as tools on his pallet. He used colors, angles, circles, and lines as basic composition elements, and constructed meaning with these. More clearly, he had the artist's sense of where to put these basic elements, and what these elements meant (he had a clear idea of their specific roles,) in order to create an emotional and intellectual resonance with the viewer. click here for Paintings of Kandinsky's
Music is probably the most abstract of the arts, even more so than mathematics. Where math is based on real numbers, music finds its truth somewhere I do not think anyone can explain. What is it about that arrpegio that makes it sound so sad? The composer constructs a story arc of ideas (usually emotions,) communicated through noise. It is amazing to me that we can find resonance in noise, but its true. Why does a minor chord sound sad and a major chord sound happy? Why is it if you bang 20 notes on a key board it sounds ugly, but if you press the correct 4 or 5 it can sound beautiful? Probably understanding for and appreciation of music is hardwired into our brain.
Maybe it has to do with language, (are song birds not singing when they communicate with each other?) nonetheless, all these vibrations are merely vibrations. A skilled composer understands the the translation between those vibrations and our minds and hearts well enough to make a meaningful song, composition, or peice of art.
Movies are an interesting artform, because they use sound and visuals to tell a story. They have been called a "hot" medium as opposed to a "cool" one like literature because they actively draw the viewer in. You do not have to think while you are watching the movie, you merely experience. From this last point do movies draw their deep emotional impact. If you do not have to think about it, then you are one step closer to experiencing the work directly. It is getting fed straight into your being. In the narrative case of movies, it is almost like you are there, watching the events unfold. We even suspend disbelief to allow ourselves to do this, and this suspension is a subconsious act. Movies are a hodgepodge of mediums. They start as a script, literature. Although i would venture that no script will be as great as a novel because scripts are a mere shell, a stepping stone on a path to something more. A script without a movie is like a turtle without a shell. Nonetheless, a script is still the written communication, and part of the art of movie making. Next is the movie itself. The movie tells a story, similar to an oral tale. The movie has music in it to put you in an emotional state. And the movies is framed in a visual way. We "watch" movies. In fact, movies are like paintings dragged through the extra dimension of time. i feel like this hodgepodge of mediums weakens the individual components, but alltogether adds up to something fairly substantial.
Then of course, there is the question: what delineates between art and non-art in a given form. Is Dude Where's My Car art just because its a movie? No, but i would say the silent classic Metropolis is one of the greatest peices of art of the 20th century. Is the label on a can of soup art? No, not until Andy Warhol touches it. (btw, i hate Andy Warhol.) If i doodle with lines and circles on a page, can I call it art comparable to Kandinsky? Doubt it. If i pound on piano keys randomly is that art? No. Are the strange and hard to listen to key strikes of free-jazzer Cecil Taylor art? Probably. Is the latest edition of Cosmo art? Certainly doesnt compare to a collection of Edgar Allan Poe short stories.
It is a troubling matter to define what art is. Luckily, I have done that in this livejournal post. It is harder to define what art is not. I will do that tomorrow. Peace.