• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Let's talk about art!

Local time
Tomorrow, 05:39
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,173
Location
Shallow grave
#1
What are your thoughts on art?

This thread is not intended to discuss a certain aspect, but rather a free for all. Feel free to discuss anything, but please remember that art has been around for thousands of years and has developed many different styles, schools of thought and definitions.
 

onesteptwostep

Think.. Be... ..buzz buzz :)
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:39
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,817
#3
Hmm I was at a retreat organization once and I met some single doctor lady who told me art was just a product of struggle. Apparently she painted when she was going through a hard time in life. If you think about it it's somewhat true. Art that resonates comes from hardship, or portrays hardship. The abstract ones we have today have no impact, or else they're just elegant maths (like surrealism, deconstructive, MC Escher stuff)

I think generally, after WW2, art's been like this, since it was generally a form of high culture.
 

Rook

Verily.
Local time
Today, 21:39
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
1,809
#4
(Seeing as this thread is within the visual sphere of things, my post has attained a semblance of redundancy)



I find myself drawn to music and literature, other forms such as visual and theatrical art hold less appeal when compared to the staggering complexity of The Outside:

bush squirrels in a marula, the mists rolling in from the mountains and the moon painted orange as it rotates by.


{I have an appreciation for well done clay sculptures though, they can be made quite vibrantly alive under the right hands}
 
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
466
#5
(Please excuse my mild temporary dyslexia, honestly I can't help it)

I'm finding visual painting/drawing just as fascinating as music. But all art seems to be a way of translating something inside the artist that words alone can't. Good art is initially made for the artist and not originally intended for the audience, and it was used to explore a thought, idea, or feeling subjective to the artist.

The big question is what is it about art that makes it pleasing? Yes, including paintings of landscapes, and then abstracts, but it also reaches a much more wider scope of applications, not excluding symbols and logos, photography, fonts, and even work memos.

Visual art has some similarities to music such as that it has structure, and some form of playful consistency, and sharing similar attributes such as contrast, fullness, texture, and a focal point.

A reoccurring thing about professional art is that the artist will have a strong tendency to put the focal point near a 'phi' of the view-port or canvas. I've noticed this with movies, where the film maker will have a strong tendency to put the focus either direct center, or at the golden ratio line of the screen. But just using phi alone will hardly guarantee attractiveness.

Using a combination of interesting palettes, transitions, a path that captures the audience into the art's unified culmination, and then allowing a safe release and exit while leaving behind an indescribable souvenir to ponder with are only some of the effects found in a masterpiece.
 
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#6
I find it strange that people are more into music than visual art considering humans and primates in general are visual animals.
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 05:39
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,173
Location
Shallow grave
#7
Hmm I was at a retreat organization once and I met some single doctor lady who told me art was just a product of struggle. Apparently she painted when she was going through a hard time in life. If you think about it it's somewhat true. Art that resonates comes from hardship, or portrays hardship. The abstract ones we have today have no impact, or else they're just elegant maths (like surrealism, deconstructive, MC Escher stuff)

I think generally, after WW2, art's been like this, since it was generally a form of high culture.
I'd argue that art that holds the most meaning speaks for a generation or, more specifically, a demographic. Your doctor lady's definition fits within the scope of my umbrella classification. For instance, modernism in art (I'm speaking of 20th century modernism - De Stijl, Bauhaus, Abstract Expressionism, etc.) was somewhat a revolution, during and following times of turmoil. As an example, the Bauhaus school was opened in Weimar, Germany in 1919, in the year following the conclusion of the first world war, after being conceived by Walter Gropius while he fought in the war.
(Seeing as this thread is within the visual sphere of things, my post has attained a semblance of redundancy)



I find myself drawn to music and literature, other forms such as visual and theatrical art hold less appeal when compared to the staggering complexity of The Outside:

bush squirrels in a marula, the mists rolling in from the mountains and the moon painted orange as it rotates by.


{I have an appreciation for well done clay sculptures though, they can be made quite vibrantly alive under the right hands}
I don't understand. Why should the visual and theatrical arts be dwarfed by music and literature? They don't do any better in comprehending the complexity of our existence. They only do it differently. I'd like to hear what you have to say.
(Please excuse my mild temporary dyslexia, honestly I can't help it)

I'm finding visual painting/drawing just as fascinating as music. But all art seems to be a way of translating something inside the artist that words alone can't. Good art is initially made for the artist and not originally intended for the audience, and it was used to explore a thought, idea, or feeling subjective to the artist.

The big question is what is it about art that makes it pleasing? Yes, including paintings of landscapes, and then abstracts, but it also reaches a much more wider scope of applications, not excluding symbols and logos, photography, fonts, and even work memos.

Visual art has some similarities to music such as that it has structure, and some form of playful consistency, and sharing similar attributes such as contrast, fullness, texture, and a focal point.

A reoccurring thing about professional art is that the artist will have a strong tendency to put the focal point near a 'phi' of the view-port or canvas. I've noticed this with movies, where the film maker will have a strong tendency to put the focus either direct center, or at the golden ratio line of the screen. But just using phi alone will hardly guarantee attractiveness.

Using a combination of interesting palettes, transitions, a path that captures the audience into the art's unified culmination, and then allowing a safe release and exit while leaving behind an indescribable souvenir to ponder with are only some of the effects found in a masterpiece.
I agree with the majority of your post here, but I'm having difficulty with the focus that you're describing. I mean, that's true for some forms, especially portraits and most landscapes, but it's certainly not a universal rule - particularly post-1900.
In saying that, you're right, it's definitely true in the medium of film, but that, I think is part of the restrictions the medium puts on the expression. Which is one thing I really like about film.
I find it strange that people are more into music than visual art considering humans and primates in general are visual animals.
Me too. Maybe it's because music doesn't need your full attention to be appreciated? Like, if you're looking at a painting or something, your primary sense (sight) is preoccupied with that, but if you're listening to music, you can be doing just about anything else concurrently.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Local time
Today, 20:39
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,160
Location
someplace windswept
#8
I second Rook. I'm rarely drawn to visual arts, most of the time I spend with art is with music and literature, I enjoy these media more overall.

The visual medium limits my imagination, it imposes firm structures on my thinking and doesn't allow the same freedom of participation compared to others. In this sense, it's more entertaining than it is a wholesome and engaging experience.

If I were to choose between visiting art galleries or museums, or sightseeing various architectural marvels, I'd rather enjoy what the wilderness has to offer. No art can compare with the landscapes and natural wonders here on earth or the harmonious feelings I have when walking among it.
 

Rook

Verily.
Local time
Today, 21:39
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
1,809
#9
I

I don't understand. Why should the visual and theatrical arts be dwarfed by music and literature? They don't do any better in comprehending the complexity of our existence. They only do it differently. I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Blarruan summed it up rather nicely.

Literature is far more rewarding for an active imagination, creating a world solely within one's mind and giving one the ability to pen down a reality never created before(or never before encountered by it's creator, at least).

Music may do the same at times, close your eyes and themes of great abstraction or tranquility can flow forth from music, a castle filled with strange and eldritch beings or an epic journey defying contemporary physics.

There are some albums that one can listen to in order, falling into a meditative trance while the mind.... explores and creates.

In the end, just as within the differing schools of the mediums themselves, preference for certain types of art are up to individual preference.


That being said, is there a definite answer as to what type of art humanity as a whole values the most?
 

onesteptwostep

Think.. Be... ..buzz buzz :)
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:39
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,817
#10
I find it strange that people are more into music than visual art considering humans and primates in general are visual animals.
Well music you can just download or go to some event and enjoy it, and it's usually readily connected with youths (because of colleges). Art has to be packaged more in order to reach an audience (galleries, art fairs, displays in public places etc).

Here's something that might be interesting: http://www.woohnayoung.com/#!fairytales/c1tyb

I find it interesting when people mash up modern motifs with traditional ones. It gives sort of an interesting juxtaposition.

And this guy...: http://www.kimjunggius.com/collections/original-artwork
Here's more. The detail is amazing.

On an abstract level I'm fond of this person: http://www.lehmannmaupin.com/artists/do-ho-suh

The theme behind his works is supposed to showcase his longing for a 'home'. He lived in both New York and Seoul but doesn't feel comfortable in either one of them. When he's in New York, he misses Seoul, but when he's in Seoul, he misses New York. He's probably happy about the money he's made now, but yeah. His works with the satin are basically to represent the transcendence of home.
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 05:39
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,173
Location
Shallow grave
#11
Literature is far more rewarding for an active imagination, creating a world solely within one's mind and giving one the ability to pen down a reality never created before(or never before encountered by it's creator, at least).
I get this kind of experience from visual art, but it's different. While I enjoy building my own mental image of the world within a literary novel, I build a similar sort of image when I analyse visual art. Only, instead of being directed outwardly and building a mental image of the world wherein the story lies, it's directed at building a mental image of the creator, the artist. I find this much more interesting and stimulating. Why did [artist] do that? What was happening in their life to make them have this perspective? What world events were shaping this artist's perspective? - that sort of thing. When I look at a painting/sculpture/whatever, I try and piece together everything that led to it.

So, I disagree that literature is more rewarding for an active imagination and argue that how one applies their imagination to an interpretation is much more pertinent.

Music may do the same at times, close your eyes and themes of great abstraction or tranquility can flow forth from music, a castle filled with strange and eldritch beings or an epic journey defying contemporary physics.

There are some albums that one can listen to in order, falling into a meditative trance while the mind.... explores and creates.

In the end, just as within the differing schools of the mediums themselves, preference for certain types of art are up to individual preference.


That being said, is there a definite answer as to what type of art humanity as a whole values the most?
I agree about the music thing. For me personally, classical music is my go-to for that feeling.

As far as what type of art humanity values the most, I don't think it's a question that has, nor needs, an answer.
 
Local time
Today, 20:39
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
#12
Music may do the same at times, close your eyes and themes of great abstraction or tranquility can flow forth from music, a castle filled with strange and eldritch beings or an epic journey defying contemporary physics.
I'm jelly
 

Polaris

Radioactive vision
Local time
Today, 07:39
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,003
#13
I have poor imagination, so for me the visual is extremely important in gaining an insight into different worlds. Literature does the same as it "paints" a picture with words. I have trouble with poetry, as interpretation is quite imaginative and subjective, whereas I tend to take something visual quite literally. Someone gave me a poetry book for my birthday once and I gracefully accepted it, later leafing through it thinking I don't understand anything, this is bollocks. I was somewhat fascinated with Sylvia Plath and William Blake when younger and I know some people I know will scoff condescendingly at this but whatever - it resonated at the time so fuck the snobs.

Later on I learnt how to interpret poetry and with this I decided it is all rubbish because if one has to learn how to interpret, then what is the point - it just seems pretentious, having to follow a recipe for how to interpret art - it should be intuitive, and if not, it's not for me.

I have written somewhat poetic things when lacking in expression myself at times, when conventional language fails and just sounds trite and redundant. Usually during times of distress, or when I experience inner peace, which is rare. I don't expect others to understand it though, but if they do - bonus. Someone recognises my experience.

I like perusing art galleries and I prefer landscapes and abstract art. I don't enjoy portraits much, they bore me for some reason. Perhaps because I struggle with eyes and facial expressions - they confuse me. Then again, people in general confuse me and the last thing I want to find in an art gallery is pictures of more bloody people, drilling their personal torment and emotion into me. I can study a portrait for it's techniques and appreciate the skill of the artist though. Certain landscapes and abstract art seem to hit a nerve in some subliminal fashion, perhaps a deep intuition that I haven't tapped into and I prefer it to remain on the level of mystery. The mystery can give me inspiration, like there are messages shrouded in some sort of code - the code seems to burn to an inner retina and stays with me in the same way music does. Music has always been my main interest, but lately I have trouble even appreciating this artform.

There just seems to be nothing new, all art seems to repeat itself through it's different forms. Perhaps I'm just jaded.
 
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
3,899
Location
stockholm
#14
Me too. Maybe it's because music doesn't need your full attention to be appreciated? Like, if you're looking at a painting or something, your primary sense (sight) is preoccupied with that, but if you're listening to music, you can be doing just about anything else concurrently.
That's definitely a big part of it. I wonder if its the only reason though. Hard to imagine appreciating imagery without having it require full or almost full attention. Maybe it really is the only reason.


@onesteptwostep:

I think the availability is a consequence of the level of appreciation. If people wanted to consume more visual art it'd be more readily available :O Oh and nice concept art.
 
Local time
Today, 20:39
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,647
#15
Music is of course the best since it's rhythmical like the heartbeat and like neuronal frequencies. Music beckons tribal synchronization. Music directly addresses the passage of time toward death simply by virtue of its form. Music will prompt bodies to release tensions produced by emotional trauma. Thus it is the nexus of spirit and flesh.
 
Local time
Today, 14:39
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
91
Location
In my head
#16
What are your thoughts on art?

This thread is not intended to discuss a certain aspect, but rather a free for all. Feel free to discuss anything, but please remember that art has been around for thousands of years and has developed many different styles, schools of thought and definitions.
What is not art? Everything is art and we are all art on someone else's canvas.
 

bvanevery

Redshirt who doesn't die
Local time
Today, 14:39
Joined
Jan 3, 2016
Messages
1,480
Location
Asheville, NC
#17
Trying to debate what is bad Art, trying to provide some kind of rational, cogent, analytical, repeatable, universalist basis for it, got met with tremendous resistance in an online painting forum I used to take part of. It got so bad that I all but abandoned my social participation there. I went looking for a different community, hopefully of people who were more like-minded in their willingness to analyze and engage a subject matter in a certain way. I landed here, on the intpforum site. The Art subforum was a bit slow so I haven't had much specifically to say here.

A fair number of artists don't feel they have to justify or explain their opinions in any way. Thus their proclivities and concerns are often meaningless to certain other groups of people. They aren't even interested in verbalizing or working out why they do what they do, or how anyone reacts to it. No shock to me that the general public doesn't like a lot of these artists, and even sees them as rich pricks.
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 05:39
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,173
Location
Shallow grave
#18
Trying to debate what is bad Art, trying to provide some kind of rational, cogent, analytical, repeatable, universalist basis for it, got met with tremendous resistance in an online painting forum I used to take part of. It got so bad that I all but abandoned my social participation there. I went looking for a different community, hopefully of people who were more like-minded in their willingness to analyze and engage a subject matter in a certain way. I landed here, on the intpforum site. The Art subforum was a bit slow so I haven't had much specifically to say here.

A fair number of artists don't feel they have to justify or explain their opinions in any way. Thus their proclivities and concerns are often meaningless to certain other groups of people. They aren't even interested in verbalizing or working out why they do what they do, or how anyone reacts to it. No shock to me that the general public doesn't like a lot of these artists, and even sees them as rich pricks.
That's an interesting discussion - how do you define bad art?
Would you care to share your opinion?

My immediate thought is that art without specific intent or imbued cultural meaning is not good art.

For instance, my favourite artist of all time, Wassily Kandinsky, painted mostly primary shapes, lines and squiggles. This sounds straight away to be rubbish, but there is a great deal of complexity in his paintings. The composition was very carefully thought out, and his use of form, hierarchy, space and order was exquisite. He worked extremely hard to understand the effects his shapes and colours would have on the viewer, and the way they would be interpreted as feelings. He intended to take the viewer on a journey of emotion.

Here are some examples:

I can't think of any examples of bad art off the top of my head.
 
Local time
Today, 18:39
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
72
#20
I've never felt deeply about any artworks, and do not understand how someone can feel an "emotional connection" or whatever it is. But I'm curious how it feels like. That being said, I quite like Picasso's artworks. As for recent years, the morbid artworks I encountered on tumblr a few years back were pretty decent. When it comes to art, I'm really attracted to morbidity and complexity. Unless you're using water color (my fav), then I like a sense of human fragility in the art.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ZenRaiden

This brain is my brain. THere are many like it but
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
360
Location
Between concrete walls
#21
I think best way to categorize art is by the motivations people have behind doing art.
Like you get dull academic art or you get the sort of graffity art that people make just to get noticed or sort of art where people just unleash their emotions and go full retard and no regretts.
I my self prefer the sort of art where either I wank off or do some drawing or else I get bored.
 

Cogitant

Fiducial Observer
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Invading your reality
#22
I appreciate intentionally symbolic art and clever art...
Art which is attached to thought and philosophy.

Alan Davie.
I met this guy in 2006. He's dead now.
Philosopher-artist and inspired by cubism, surrealism and the beat movement, his art was based on Jung's notion of the collective unconscious, archetypes, ancient petroglyphs and primal symbols.

[bimgx=550]http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.3369740.1396985417!/image/2536055127.jpg[/bimgx]​

I also like Escher, I expect he's probably a favourite with all NT types.

[bimgx=550]http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/escher/day_and_night.jpg[/bimgx]
Others I value include Max Ernst and the Northern Renaissance painters Jan Van Eyck and Albrecht Durer. There are many others which I cannot recall at this time.

PS. If this concerned architecture, you'd possibly get a book as a response from me ;)
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 05:39
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,173
Location
Shallow grave
#23
I appreciate intentionally symbolic art and clever art...
Art which is attached to thought and philosophy.

Alan Davie.
I met this guy in 2006. He's dead now.
Philosopher-artist and inspired by cubism, surrealism and the beat movement, his art was based on Jung's notion of the collective unconscious, archetypes, ancient petroglyphs and primal symbols.

[bimgx=550]http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.scotsman.com/webimage/1.3369740.1396985417!/image/2536055127.jpg[/bimgx]​

I also like Escher, I expect he's probably a favourite with all NT types.

[bimgx=550]http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/escher/day_and_night.jpg[/bimgx]
Others I value include Max Ernst and the Northern Renaissance painters Jan Van Eyck and Albrecht Durer. There are many others which I cannot recall at this time.

PS. If this concerned architecture, you'd possibly get a book as a response from me ;)
I went to an Escher exhibition in Singapore this year. All his work was there. Amazing stuff.

Also if you want to talk about architecture, go ahead. By definition, architecture IS art, and their histories are deeply intertwined. I'm an architect and I'll read your wall of text.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,734
Location
...
#24
I have a few thoughts on this that I am not sure quite how to articulate.

I believe art to be subconscious in nature rather than a conscious thing. One can learn the skills necessary to produce a work of art, but the process is incredibly intuitive and instinctive in nature rather than thought out and rational. The idea I am trying to get across is that the idea behind any piece of art dwells within the imagination and psyche of the individual creating the work of art. It is by nature, the opposite of mechanical. The mechanical use of tools producing a work of art is only the methodology rather than the product.

So when you see a piece of art, you are not even looking at the mechanical use of tools needed to produce said piece of art, but rather the idea behind said use of tools. The tools are a means to an end, but never the purpose of the art piece itself. The true purpose of the art piece is to convey a state of being that the artist experienced. The art piece is the fruition of conscious thought about the subconscious state of being the artist experienced. Art then, at its core, is the absolute state of awareness the artist has about themselves.
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 05:39
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
352
#25
'tis merely poetry, like morality and other things, a product of culture. Aesthetic has to be predictable, the patterns are a result of this. culture is what causes us to direct and receive emotions as a consequence of art.
 

Cogitant

Fiducial Observer
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Invading your reality
#26
I went to an Escher exhibition in Singapore this year. All his work was there. Amazing stuff.
So jelly of you ;)

Also if you want to talk about architecture, go ahead. By definition, architecture IS art, and their histories are deeply intertwined. I'm an architect and I'll read your wall of text.
Sure, I'd like to talk (all day) about architecture.
I might have to poke you at some time too regarding affordable software.

So much to discuss. We ought to create a separate thread dedicated solely to all aspects of architecture, where essays might be spammed.
-I’m not one to contaminate another’s thread with potentially epic and slightly off-topic ramblings about bio-energy systems, 3D scanners or anything.

Here's some pictures meanwhile...

Christopher Day.
This guy has devoted his life to green buildings and healing through design.
I can only dream of being a hermit living in my own energy efficient underground hobbit-hole. Constructed from recycled resources and sympathetic to its environment, this is close to my fantasy home.

[bimgx=450]http://www.beingsomewhere.net/images/window.jpg[/bimgx]​

Holy architecture
Temples and cathedrals are truly majestic works of art, often including deliberate and meticulous sacred geometry and ornate symbolism in their design.
They are major, labour intensive projects which often are often constructed from rarer and more difficult to obtain resources such as, say, marble and gold (gilded domes).
The deliberate richness in materials, aesthetics and use of space (which may include interior features like fancy arcades and arched vaulting), are meant to somehow bridge the gap between humankind and divinity.

Nandamanya Temple, Bagan, Myanmar

[bimgx=250]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/15/05/60/1505606475e4458c6dc786e287833d56.jpg[/bimgx]
Notre Dame cathedral, Paris
[bimgx=350]https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/85/83885-004-F4FFF1DC.jpg[/bimgx]

Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico

[bimgx=350]https://img.rt.com/files/2016.11/original/582f30a2c3618846418b45ae.jpg[/bimgx]​

African huts
The shapes, design, and textures used in African tribal building styles interests me, as do the religions and mindsets behind such buildings.

Burkino Faso
[bimgx=250]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/10/14/a1/1014a18622181a904ae8705ce297ce9c.jpg[/bimgx]

Ndebele tribe, South Africa
[bimgx=350]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/21/e4/5f/21e45f49a6fe45fe629de1656c54dbc3.jpg[/bimgx]

Togo (Vodun is still dominant there)
[bimgx=350]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/56/38/7d/56387dc8649e12453e98f16c66fd326c.jpg[/bimgx]​

One which deserves a mention:

Dragon temple, Bangkok
[bimgx=250]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2a/6d/ca/2a6dca2c17d87ff2d382a3aff18b4852.jpg[/bimgx]​

Far, far too many things to discuss. Not even scratched the surface.
Hope you like the pictures anyway. Thought they might be a little different than same old c.20th Western buildings/styles :)
 
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
2,850
Location
Objects in the mirror might look closer than they
#27
I like art, all kinds, as a general rule i enjoy more music than visuals. But there's so much to say that at the end there's nothing to say about it.
Visuals are more static and massive.
Audio is more personal and changing.
Look for streetart exarchia. There art moves people, and it serves as a social cohesive element. Not to talk about the use of the space in the neighbourhood.
Music doesn't play as much as visuals when giving identity to a place. Visual art is found in everything from ruins to dress code.
Anyway too sleepy to develop.
I enjoy doing both.

The question my friend, the thing I'm asking myself all the time is, am I good at it?
Who is an artist and who thinks he is an artist? How you determine it. Who is good and who is delusional. Please discard fame and money from your answers.
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,734
Location
...
#28
The question my friend, the thing I'm asking myself all the time is, am I good at it?
Who is an artist and who thinks he is an artist? How you determine it. Who is good and who is delusional. Please discard fame and money from your answers.
Given the definition you gave, everyone is an artist to some degree. How one dresses themselves can be considered artistic expression.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
1,510
Location
Stockholm
#29
I think of art as something that makes you experience certain ideas. For example If you want to depict greed, you don't just paint someone being greedy or try to explain what greed is, but make a painting that makes you feel and experience greed and make you conscious of it. In that sense it is a different medium, alongside philosophy and the rest, for exploring certain subjects.
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 05:39
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,173
Location
Shallow grave
#30
The most fascinating part was the progression. The exhibition spaces were in chronological order, and it really gave you a sense of his evolution as an artist. He started out just experimenting with patterns and with each thing he sort of tried something new, refined it, then in the next work, tried something new again, having incorporated the last experiment as part of his style. It was quite surreal how seeing it in chronological order made his genius seem possible - almost within grasp. But then when you see a piece isolated, he seems like some sort of magician or wizard.
Sure, I'd like to talk (all day) about architecture.
I might have to poke you at some time too regarding affordable software.
That's easy - SketchUp. It's free to model (albeit sans a few useful tools). Then you need to pay when you want to produce orthographic vector drawings from your input. I wish I had a copy of SketchUp at work.

Next level up, there's Autodesk subscription products. I don't personally use any Autodesk products, but I used to. The key benefit is you can pay by the month, with the ability to purchase light editions of the major software packages, such as AutoCAD LT and Revit LT.

There are some free ones and open source ones, but I don't personally like them. They're generally very clunky.

Honestly, unless you intend to profit from their use, I wouldn't suggest paying much money for them.

If I were to buy any architecture software right now, it'd probably be a Rhino licence. But that would be mostly for developing my algorithmic design skills.
So much to discuss. We ought to create a separate thread dedicated solely to all aspects of architecture, where essays might be spammed.
-I’m not one to contaminate another’s thread with potentially epic and slightly off-topic ramblings about bio-energy systems, 3D scanners or anything.
I believe there are a few floating around. Kuu made one a while ago. We tend to get excited about it and then give up on it after about a day...
Here's some pictures meanwhile...

Christopher Day.
This guy has devoted his life to green buildings and healing through design.
I can only dream of being a hermit living in my own energy efficient underground hobbit-hole. Constructed from recycled resources and sympathetic to its environment, this is close to my fantasy home.

[bimgx=450]http://www.beingsomewhere.net/images/window.jpg[/bimgx]​
Wow. It's certainly interesting stuff (I've not heard of him before). I can't help but wonder how he manages waterproofing with a project like in that pic.
Holy architecture
Temples and cathedrals are truly majestic works of art, often including deliberate and meticulous sacred geometry and ornate symbolism in their design.
They are major, labour intensive projects which often are often constructed from rarer and more difficult to obtain resources such as, say, marble and gold (gilded domes).
The deliberate richness in materials, aesthetics and use of space (which may include interior features like fancy arcades and arched vaulting), are meant to somehow bridge the gap between humankind and divinity.


Nandamanya Temple, Bagan, Myanmar

[bimgx=250]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/15/05/60/1505606475e4458c6dc786e287833d56.jpg[/bimgx]
Notre Dame cathedral, Paris
[bimgx=350]https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/85/83885-004-F4FFF1DC.jpg[/bimgx]

Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico

[bimgx=350]https://img.rt.com/files/2016.11/original/582f30a2c3618846418b45ae.jpg[/bimgx]​
I'll always have a soft spot for religious architecture. I'm lucky that I get to do a little bit of it here and there.

The gothic cathedral typology, to me, certainly epitomises the architectural pursuit. The marrying of the gothic arches, ribbed vaults and flying buttresses into a skeletal stone structure capable of enclosing not only large, but tall spaces, while allowing light to enter in abundance - all the while trying to reach ever closer to God... That is truly an incredible engineering feat.

Particularly the part I've highlighted in GREEN:
Funnily, if you look closely at the context these monuments were constructed in, you really see the corruption that lies at the core of the religious organisations. Particularly the Christian ones. While the people starved, the Church prospered.
African huts
The shapes, design, and textures used in African tribal building styles interests me, as do the religions and mindsets behind such buildings.

Burkino Faso
[bimgx=250]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/10/14/a1/1014a18622181a904ae8705ce297ce9c.jpg[/bimgx]

Ndebele tribe, South Africa
[bimgx=350]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/21/e4/5f/21e45f49a6fe45fe629de1656c54dbc3.jpg[/bimgx]

Togo (Vodun is still dominant there)
[bimgx=350]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/56/38/7d/56387dc8649e12453e98f16c66fd326c.jpg[/bimgx]​

One which deserves a mention:

Dragon temple, Bangkok
[bimgx=250]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2a/6d/ca/2a6dca2c17d87ff2d382a3aff18b4852.jpg[/bimgx]​
In all honesty, I know very little about African buildings. I must say, they do fascinate me.
Far, far too many things to discuss. Not even scratched the surface.
Hope you like the pictures anyway. Thought they might be a little different than same old c.20th Western buildings/styles :)
Actually, to me, the 20th century was the most interesting, architecturally - so much changed! Although the 19th century was pretty interesting too. While the profession has fallen off the horse in recent years (decades?), it will pick itself back up - or at least I think so. However, it'll probably be almost unrecognisable to its past.

BTW, I enjoyed your post. Talking about architecture is so much more interesting when it's not with other architects. I sort of despise them, actually. I recently went to an industry event and was absolutely dumbfounded at how a room full of people who supposedly make a life from thinking spatially, had not an ounce of respect for the personal space of each other. For the majority of them, all they really think about is themselves and how they want to be seen. They're all quite ludicrous, really.

:king-twitter:
 
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
2,850
Location
Objects in the mirror might look closer than they
#31
Given the definition you gave, everyone is an artist to some degree. How one dresses themselves can be considered artistic expression.
well i guess that's why i say the difference is made by someone who says: here you have this is my piece of art.
you cannot say only hand paintings are art. but maybe that's what you are all talking about in this thread when u refer to visual art.
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 05:39
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,173
Location
Shallow grave
#32
There's a quote, attributed to Pablo Picasso, but probably never uttered by him:
Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist

-Pablo Picasso...probably?
Anyway, in there is probably my own personal definition of art. For something to be 'art', it must be the expression of a mastered technique. Bonus points for breaking the rules.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 04:09
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,161
#33
I think of art as indirect but intentional expression.

I think a lot of the time I don't have the patience to explore someone else's ideas, seeing them as a revisitation of stuff I'm already familiar with (for visual pieces). For music I again tend to miss the authors original intention, except I kinda make up my own and get all emotional about it anyway.
 

Cogitant

Fiducial Observer
Local time
Today, 19:39
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Invading your reality
#34
That's easy - SketchUp. It's free to model (albeit sans a few useful tools). Then you need to pay when you want to produce orthographic vector drawings from your input. I wish I had a copy of SketchUp at work.

Next level up, there's Autodesk subscription products. I don't personally use any Autodesk products, but I used to. The key benefit is you can pay by the month, with the ability to purchase light editions of the major software packages, such as AutoCAD LT and Revit LT.
Thanks for that.
I have been considering creating a portfolio.
My involvement with architecture goes back a long way as a matter of fact.
I studied it with the original intention of becoming an architect, but didn't complete RIBA 2 for various reasons.
Also, my last long-term relationship (over a year ago now) was with a workaholic xNTJ architect. So I guess the subject is of some significance to me.
I've looked into Autodesk before. My ex uses their software.
It would probably be my choice, since I am already familiar with it, only even the subscription cost is a bit much for me right now.

I'll always have a soft spot for religious architecture. I'm lucky that I get to do a little bit of it here and there.
You are lucky indeed. My ex's last project that I know of, for example, concerned designing a temperature regulation system for a stadium (his specific area of expertise is designing and implementing energy systems).

It's the deliberate use of symbol that I am intrigued by in religious and other (mostly historical) monumental architecture.
-Understanding and interpreting constants in nature and translating them into design.
-Understanding how the deliberate use of different shapes, symbols and patterns might create a particular atmosphere on a number of levels.
-Understanding how one can encode subliminal and subconscious messages into the environment.

Personally, I find the use of symbolism in design to be of significant value, not something to be overlooked.
I used to blog about subliminal and therapeutic architecture. The impact which structure might have on psychology.

Building design + materials likely influence the psychology of the occupant
[bimgx=350]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/8e/bb/64/8ebb644a91494134a28cf526aecff4f1.jpg[/bimgx]

The gothic cathedral typology, to me, certainly epitomises the architectural pursuit. The marrying of the gothic arches, ribbed vaults and flying buttresses into a skeletal stone structure capable of enclosing not only large, but tall spaces, while allowing light to enter in abundance - all the while trying to reach ever closer to God... That is truly an incredible engineering feat.
Gothic architecture has always inspired me.
I live in the UK, and have visited many of the churches here simply because they are so beautiful, and the associated graveyards so peaceful (I enjoy reading gravestones).

It's fascinating how they developed from modest structures in the Norman/Early Medieval period to vast ornate buildings of the late Medieval period (£££).
In some places, architecture hints at older pre-Christian concepts and beliefs. Zoomorphic motifs and symbols such as the Green Man are to be found in many places.

Milan Cathedral (Interior)[bimgx=250]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ab/8f/2b/ab8f2bf490e26c7f18263cff7d6bd3fc.jpg[/bimgx]

'Pagan' Green man carved into a capital at the Church of St. Michel d'Entraygues, France [bimgx=350]http://www.greenmanenigma.com/photos/fr_angouleme.jpg[/bimgx]​

Funnily, if you look closely at the context these monuments were constructed in, you really see the corruption that lies at the core of the religious organisations. Particularly the Christian ones. While the people starved, the Church prospered.
The nature of society hasn't changed a huge amount, just power has (in the West at any rate) been transferred to more overt forms of capitalism.
Coming from a family with a RC background, it's been of interest to research the origins of the Church and the corruption/branching of it over those couple of millenia.
Personally, I'm a pantheist, and religion is not something that I subscribe to. However, I understand + respect the value of it to others.

Particularly from an historical perspective, it's doubtless that the clergy were corrupt.
The Church indeed did prey on the people
@ Martin Luther's criticisms of the Church and its abuse of power for the purposes of capital gain/use of indulgences:
Lastly, works of piety and charity are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet they do not preach these with such display or so much zeal; nay, they keep silence about them for the sake of preaching pardons. And yet it is the first and sole duty of all bishops, that the people should learn the Gospel and Christian charity: for Christ nowhere commands that indulgences should be preached. What a dreadful thing it is then, what peril to a bishop, if, while the Gospel is passed over in silence, he permits nothing but the noisy outcry of indulgences to be spread among his people, and bestows more care on these than on the Gospel!
-Martin Luther, introductory letter to the 95 theses, 1517
Western idealized interpretation of the 'Everlasting Lord' with his 'flock'
[bimgx=350]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mXrLOckNqrI/VyGqI_eJYaI/AAAAAAAALuY/TJghLz4L3QAdBHCsp-8EvWRJTo1h9icggCLcB/s1600/Jesus%252C%2BYour%2BGood%2BShepherd%2BAnd%2BDoor%2Bby%2BJoseph%2BPrince.PNG[/bimgx]​
But since people tend toward flocking, a smaller proportion tend toward control, and people are keen to accept the possibility of life after death (to numb the fear of non-existence), I suppose that religion and its associated ostentatious architecture was a somewhat inevitable outcome.
-Thank science for secularism.

In all honesty, I know very little about African buildings. I must say, they do fascinate me.
You might enjoy browsing this website concerning African vernacular architecture:
http://www.africanvernaculararchitecture.com/

-I'm avidly interested in symbolism, metaphor, semiotics and the occult.
Tribal architecture speaks to me, at least, of a way of living and the connection with the dream-time (insert Jungian reference) which the modern West has forgotten.

Regarding older ways of thinking, or perhaps, more specifically, 'magical thinking', some of the features of global and historical buildings are built to a specific design in line with spiritual/religious ideas and superstitions. For example, a roof might be curved to ward off ghosts (China).

Dogon spirit Shrine, Mali [bimgx=350]https://sacredsites.com/images/africa/mali/binu-shrine-01-500.jpg[/bimgx]

A more modern and local-to-me example of superstition-inspired architecture are the c.19th round houses found in the village of Veryan on the Roseland Peninsula:

They are apparently round so that demons/the devil can't hide in any corners

[bimgx=350]https://www.visitcornwall.com/sites/default/files/product_image/P1030600.JPG[/bimgx]

Actually, to me, the 20th century was the most interesting, architecturally - so much changed! Although the 19th century was pretty interesting too. While the profession has fallen off the horse in recent years (decades?), it will pick itself back up - or at least I think so. However, it'll probably be almost unrecognisable to its past.
Population/technological explosion led to a lot of exciting movements during the 19th and 20th centuries. I enjoy neo-gothic style and Art Nouveau in particular. Not especially keen on the Bauhaus aesthetic however, but understand the socio-political environment which sired it.
Personally, I prefer organic styles over industrial styles, and prefer to see cleverly used angles, lines and curves.

Antoni Gaudí, Casa Batlló [bimgx=250]http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/57ae38a721fff4dc072ead48/master/w_640,c_limit/art-nouveau-buildings-001.jpg[/bimgx]
The roots of 'modern' architecture lie in the renaissance, when influential minds rediscovered ancient Greco-Roman ideas and ideals, and presented them in a contemporaneous format.
Inigo Jones is a famous name from the latter part of the period. His Palladian designs employed Vitruvian laws and principles, and it is disputed that he is the father of modern architecture.

Inigo Jones, Queen's House at Greenwich
[bimgx=350]http://britainunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/jonesqueenshouse.jpg[/bimgx]
BTW, I enjoyed your post. Talking about architecture is so much more interesting when it's not with other architects.
Thanks :)
I guess even the greatest of ideas can have the life squished out of them beneath the weight of legal considerations, nitpicking, and satisfying the 9786754 demands/expectations of others. Well that's my 'INTP' perspective, at least ('J' types seem not to be too bothered by what I'd consider boring).

My ex was pretty obsessed with his work and the people involved with it (clients, colleagues, connected social events, impressing his boss).
So obsessed, to the exclusion of all else, that it led to him becoming my ex, which is a pity because I really like the guy.

But yes, I am very interested in all aspects of the subject, pretty much everything from cave-dwelling to the cutting edge and beyond.

Biomimicry and design -http://homeklondike.site/2017/02/28/biomimicry-design-lotus-building-super-trees-of-singapore/
[bimgx=350]http://homeklondike.site/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/7-Gardens-by-the-bay-park-singapore-biomimicry-in-modern-architecture-futuristic-hi-tech-trees.jpg[/bimgx]​

-I'll write something about underground building at some point soon. The idea has been attractive to me since childhood.

Underground home, Coober Pedy, Australia[bimgx=350]https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/3f/89/93/faye-s-underground-home.jpg[/bimgx]​
 

QuickTwist

Alive - Born Anew
Local time
Today, 13:39
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,734
Location
...
#35
well i guess that's why i say the difference is made by someone who says: here you have this is my piece of art.
you cannot say only hand paintings are art. but maybe that's what you are all talking about in this thread when u refer to visual art.
Mmm... I wasn't talking explicitly about visual art.
 
Top Bottom