That's a really beautiful and interesting notion, but I honestly can't say I entirely agree. I think that more than dream FOR people, artists EXPRESS dreams for people. I think that some people dream more vividly than others (I know that you do) and I know that my dreams tend to be really abstract - everyone dreams in different ways, but we all do it. The difference between an artist and none artist is the ability to express ideas, dreams, feelings...
DID YOU SEE VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA YET? Because I just finished it this second and loved it and it's just kjsdhfasdf it's all about love and art and what's acceptable according to society and this sounds unrelated - but Scarlett Johansson's character has this line about how she has ideas and no talent to express them and yeah. That. If you didn't see it yet, you should watch it when you get the chance, I think you'll like it.
I'M SORRY I FEEL LIKE I ALWAYS ~DEBATE~ THIS STUFF OR SOMETHING AND IT'S KIND OF OBNOXIOUS. I'm just interested and have a lot of opinions and feelings on art, so idk. I tend to have a lot to say :/
I could see that if someone asked an artist to paint something for them. But if they bring to light something that someone hadn't even considered yet, how is that expressing their dream FOR them?
Fair point. Though really I don't think you can dream FOR someone any more than you can express a dream for them. Expressing something isn't going to make it someone else's dream, and art is subjective anyway, so essentially you can inspire dreaming but I don't personally feel that it's possible to dream on someone else's behalf - only express your own dreams and in doing that inspire new dreams in others. They're still dreaming for themselves, they're just taking inspiration. Like, if you have a dream about House, did the people responsible for creating it dream for you? If you're dreaming FOR someone, it's not their dream just like if you express something it's not someone else's dream. If that makes any sense at all, lol. I just don't think it's possible to dream on the behalf of another person - that's not their dream, to me. Artists pictorialise or vocalise dreams where none-artists can't. That's how I personally see it, anyway. BUT THAT IS THE FUN OF ART. That it's so fluid as a concept and everyone looks at it differently.
Also I forgot to add that you don't have to agree with it - it's a "theory" (mental cut to Mulder). It also would have made more sense if I explained it better - he was saying that in THIS particular theory, art is meant to be a symbol of something else. Representation. So he brought up dreams, what do the crazy things in your dream represent? Problems in your life, your hopes, struggles, etc. THEN he said the artist dreams for us, and later went on to add that they're the "symbol-makers". So it's not really as "ARTISTS DECIDE PEOPLE'S SHIT AND THEY HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER" as it looks on its own.
No no, I know I don't! I mean, there ARE no facts in art, really. It's about theory and concept etc etc. The whole class is about philosophy, so. It's all there to be discussed and debated.
But YES, that makes much more sense. Because I read it as "ARTISTS HAVE MOAR IMAGINATION AND THEREFORE THEY DREAM BECAUSE YOU CAN'T"
Artists creating symbols makes more sense. That's kind of what I was trying to say, anyway - they visually create the things that other people can't. You can work through things with art. Kind of like how ink blots are used in psychiatry?
That's why I hate this class. I also hate having to share the floor. In my Logic class, there were like three people who ever talked and now there's like 10. And everyone has their (stupid most of the time) opinions and then when *I* want to chime in, by the time he gets to me, my rebuttal is no longer relevant.
LOL no no. He was just saying that for art to be art, two conditions have to occur: 1, artist means for x to symbolize y, and 2, the audience has to know that x symbolizes y. And then everyone got all, "WELL MAYBE AMERICANS CAN UNDERSTAND A SYMBOL THAT PEOPLE IN SPAIN WOULDN'T GET SO THEREFORE IT'S NOT ART." so then *I* said it should be amended to "the artist's INTENDED audience" and I don't get why, since these theories have so many blatant holes, they haven't been amended or specified further. LIKE I DONT EVEN GET HOW THESE ARE PUBLISHED IN LITERATURE. ALSO, I dont get the point in even arguing something that will never have an answer. It's interesting and fun but I get so fucking frustrated because sometimes I feel like I'm wasting my time. AND. I don't GET why art canT* be art to one person and not another, I don't GET why it needs to be all programmed, categorized, and easily referenced~. WOW, TANGENT RANT, SRY.
I totally get your frustration, seriously. Like, I know you like to know things and when things are more ambiguous it can be really fucking irritating. AND I KNOW THAT FEELING, about your point not being relevant anymore :(
WHAT THE HELL, I DON'T GET HOW THAT CAN BE PUBLISHED, EITHER. Like, what makes what they're saying there any more true, relevant and worthy of teaching and reading than anything we've ever said about art? It's an opinion and one that I can't really see much reasoning behind. Why does the audience have to take away from it what the artist intended? Hey, if I watch a horror film and I laugh, does that stop it from being a horror film because I didn't respond to it in the way that the director intended?
LOL THE EDIT, I did not get the point at all until you added the T, haha. AND NEITHER CAN I. I have always gotten the impression that art is ~subjective~ for the most part. So.
STFU, TANGENTS ARE MAH FAVOURITE. Rant or otherwise, lolol
Hey, if I watch a horror film and I laugh, does that stop it from being a horror film because I didn't respond to it in the way that the director intended? I'm asking him this, I'm not kidding. I hope I remember. AND! Just because you laugh at it doesn't mean it's not art (well according to THIS gay-ass theory, it does), it just means it's not a "horror" film for you. It's still a film, which is an artistic medium. This is why I like the Neo-Representational theory. We're JUST getting into it but the gist of it is that in order for something to be art, it has to make a statement about something. Although I suspect that as we delve into it, I'm going to have just as many fucking issues with it as I do all these others. I want to make a theory. And my theory is that an object is a work of art if it is a form of expression that can be experienced with any of the five senses and so long as it causes the viewer/audience to stop and think and/or see something differently than they had before they experienced the artwork. So, yes, if someone curses at me in a poetic way or in a way that causes me to stop and think or to see the person differently because of what they said, then yes their string of curse words would be art. And why wouldn't it be? Spoken word is art, monologues on stage or in theater, plays, they're considered art. AND ANOTHER THING THAT DRIVES ME *FUCKING* NUTS - I'm sure you're familiar with Duchamp? The guy who turned a rl urinal on its side and called it art? Apparently it is, I'm not saying it's not, but that's Donaho's argument for everything - "This theory still doesn't solve the Duchamp problem. That's art but it doesn't fit these conditions, so this theory isn't entirely valid because we've found a counter-example." OKAY. LJKSADFHKLA JUST OKAY. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT ART, BUT I *AM* SAYING THAT IT'S PARADOXICAL AND RIDICULOUS TO JUDGE THE VALIDITY OF THEORIES ON ART BY COMPARING THEIR RESTRICTIONS TO THINGS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE DETERMINED ARE ART. DO YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING?! BECAUSE HE NEVER DOES. I HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THIS LIKE THREE TIMES. IF the fucking urinal doesn't satisfy these conditions that DEFINE THIS VERY THEORY, then, according to THIS theory, the urinal is NOT art. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. PLEASE SAY YES.
PLEASE DO ASK HIM. I am very interested in what he'd have to say on that.
See, the Neo-Representational theory I can kind of get a little more on board with, but that would make an essay art, right? I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying that I'm pretty sure it's not an ~accepted~ art form. You said a while ago that you considered your text book art - according to this theory it is, because it doesn't just make a statement, it makes a ton of them. So does the statement have to be something that stems from opinion in order for it to be classed as art? Or can fact be art too, because then you're opening up this huge avenue.
OK THE DUCHAMP THING, YES I THINK I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND THAT WOULD PISS ME THE FUCK OFF. YOU CAN'T SAY THERE'S NO REAL ANSWER TO ALL OF THIS, THAT IT'S ALL OPINION... AND THEN SAY THAT IT'S FACT THAT SOMETHING IS AND IS NOT ART, THAT THERE'S THIS RIGID CONSTRUCT OR OR SJDHFGSKDF IDK IDK. You can't veto a theory based on what it says about what is essentially your OPINION on something. If you did, then NO theory would ever be acceptable because no "theory" is ever going to cover ALL the bases and all the works that are socially accepted to be art. HYPOCRISY, LET ME SHOW YOU IT.
LIKE LIKE SDJHFGSDF WHY IS IT THE THEORY THAT'S WRONG AND NOT THE PERCEPTION THAT THE URINAL IS ART? WHAT.
Everything would - every sentence out of anyone's mouth would be art. What. As would textbooks, the evening news, etc. I definitely think there has to be an element of opinion in order for something to be art.
YES, THANK YOU. WHY IS IT THE THEORY THAT'S WRONG AND NOT THE PERCEPTION THAT THE URINAL IS ART? - EXACTLY.
DID YOU SEE VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA YET? Because I just finished it this second and loved it and it's just kjsdhfasdf it's all about love and art and what's acceptable according to society and this sounds unrelated - but Scarlett Johansson's character has this line about how she has ideas and no talent to express them and yeah. That. If you didn't see it yet, you should watch it when you get the chance, I think you'll like it.
I'M SORRY I FEEL LIKE I ALWAYS ~DEBATE~ THIS STUFF OR SOMETHING AND IT'S KIND OF OBNOXIOUS. I'm just interested and have a lot of opinions and feelings on art, so idk. I tend to have a lot to say :/
Reply
NO BUT I DOWNLOADED IT SKLDJFHASJK.
Reply
Reply
Reply
But YES, that makes much more sense. Because I read it as "ARTISTS HAVE MOAR IMAGINATION AND THEREFORE THEY DREAM BECAUSE YOU CAN'T"
Artists creating symbols makes more sense. That's kind of what I was trying to say, anyway - they visually create the things that other people can't. You can work through things with art. Kind of like how ink blots are used in psychiatry?
Reply
LOL no no. He was just saying that for art to be art, two conditions have to occur: 1, artist means for x to symbolize y, and 2, the audience has to know that x symbolizes y. And then everyone got all, "WELL MAYBE AMERICANS CAN UNDERSTAND A SYMBOL THAT PEOPLE IN SPAIN WOULDN'T GET SO THEREFORE IT'S NOT ART." so then *I* said it should be amended to "the artist's INTENDED audience" and I don't get why, since these theories have so many blatant holes, they haven't been amended or specified further. LIKE I DONT EVEN GET HOW THESE ARE PUBLISHED IN LITERATURE. ALSO, I dont get the point in even arguing something that will never have an answer. It's interesting and fun but I get so fucking frustrated because sometimes I feel like I'm wasting my time. AND. I don't GET why art canT* be art to one person and not another, I don't GET why it needs to be all programmed, categorized, and easily referenced~. WOW, TANGENT RANT, SRY.
* EDIT. lol
Reply
WHAT THE HELL, I DON'T GET HOW THAT CAN BE PUBLISHED, EITHER. Like, what makes what they're saying there any more true, relevant and worthy of teaching and reading than anything we've ever said about art? It's an opinion and one that I can't really see much reasoning behind. Why does the audience have to take away from it what the artist intended? Hey, if I watch a horror film and I laugh, does that stop it from being a horror film because I didn't respond to it in the way that the director intended?
LOL THE EDIT, I did not get the point at all until you added the T, haha. AND NEITHER CAN I. I have always gotten the impression that art is ~subjective~ for the most part. So.
STFU, TANGENTS ARE MAH FAVOURITE. Rant or otherwise, lolol
Reply
I'm asking him this, I'm not kidding. I hope I remember. AND! Just because you laugh at it doesn't mean it's not art (well according to THIS gay-ass theory, it does), it just means it's not a "horror" film for you. It's still a film, which is an artistic medium. This is why I like the Neo-Representational theory. We're JUST getting into it but the gist of it is that in order for something to be art, it has to make a statement about something. Although I suspect that as we delve into it, I'm going to have just as many fucking issues with it as I do all these others. I want to make a theory. And my theory is that an object is a work of art if it is a form of expression that can be experienced with any of the five senses and so long as it causes the viewer/audience to stop and think and/or see something differently than they had before they experienced the artwork. So, yes, if someone curses at me in a poetic way or in a way that causes me to stop and think or to see the person differently because of what they said, then yes their string of curse words would be art. And why wouldn't it be? Spoken word is art, monologues on stage or in theater, plays, they're considered art. AND ANOTHER THING THAT DRIVES ME *FUCKING* NUTS - I'm sure you're familiar with Duchamp? The guy who turned a rl urinal on its side and called it art? Apparently it is, I'm not saying it's not, but that's Donaho's argument for everything - "This theory still doesn't solve the Duchamp problem. That's art but it doesn't fit these conditions, so this theory isn't entirely valid because we've found a counter-example." OKAY. LJKSADFHKLA JUST OKAY. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT ART, BUT I *AM* SAYING THAT IT'S PARADOXICAL AND RIDICULOUS TO JUDGE THE VALIDITY OF THEORIES ON ART BY COMPARING THEIR RESTRICTIONS TO THINGS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE DETERMINED ARE ART. DO YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING?! BECAUSE HE NEVER DOES. I HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THIS LIKE THREE TIMES. IF the fucking urinal doesn't satisfy these conditions that DEFINE THIS VERY THEORY, then, according to THIS theory, the urinal is NOT art. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. PLEASE SAY YES.
Reply
See, the Neo-Representational theory I can kind of get a little more on board with, but that would make an essay art, right? I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying that I'm pretty sure it's not an ~accepted~ art form. You said a while ago that you considered your text book art - according to this theory it is, because it doesn't just make a statement, it makes a ton of them. So does the statement have to be something that stems from opinion in order for it to be classed as art? Or can fact be art too, because then you're opening up this huge avenue.
OK THE DUCHAMP THING, YES I THINK I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND THAT WOULD PISS ME THE FUCK OFF. YOU CAN'T SAY THERE'S NO REAL ANSWER TO ALL OF THIS, THAT IT'S ALL OPINION... AND THEN SAY THAT IT'S FACT THAT SOMETHING IS AND IS NOT ART, THAT THERE'S THIS RIGID CONSTRUCT OR OR SJDHFGSKDF IDK IDK. You can't veto a theory based on what it says about what is essentially your OPINION on something. If you did, then NO theory would ever be acceptable because no "theory" is ever going to cover ALL the bases and all the works that are socially accepted to be art. HYPOCRISY, LET ME SHOW YOU IT.
LIKE LIKE SDJHFGSDF WHY IS IT THE THEORY THAT'S WRONG AND NOT THE PERCEPTION THAT THE URINAL IS ART? WHAT.
Reply
YES, THANK YOU. WHY IS IT THE THEORY THAT'S WRONG AND NOT THE PERCEPTION THAT THE URINAL IS ART? - EXACTLY.
Reply
Leave a comment