- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > Art discussion (plz giv ur opinion)
Login/Join to Participate
Posted:does anyone here consider art to be autonomous?
do you think art exists outside of society, completely independant with no reliance on what goes on else where in the world? I've been set an essay and was just wondrin what any HoPers in the know would have to say about it....if anything! (ps be nice)
EDITED_BY: xorba (1132759137)
do you think art exists outside of society, completely independant with no reliance on what goes on else where in the world? I've been set an essay and was just wondrin what any HoPers in the know would have to say about it....if anything! (ps be nice)
EDITED_BY: xorba (1132759137)
All that is solid melts into air
Delete Topic
Posted:It became popular because people can carry the idea and the style of the same "illegal art" without them actually breaking the law. Now keep in mind that as beautiful as some of it is, a lot of tagging, and probably the majority is still gang / territory related. I'd rather "cheat" and put my design on my shirt than screw up and tag someone elses territory and get in a fight over it. My body in my canvas 
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted:haha, this may be true for the US, but in Australia there is little connection between graf and gangs, although some people may have their crews located in certain geographical areas, the likelyhood of getting in a fight cause you taged on somebody elses "turf" is highly unlikely. In Australia i think its more of a community (like HoP) than it is gang related.
although keep in mind that there are still situations where you could well get in trouble. i heard of a guy getting beaten up because he did a piece on the cities war memorial(which i think he diserved, but anyway)
although keep in mind that there are still situations where you could well get in trouble. i heard of a guy getting beaten up because he did a piece on the cities war memorial(which i think he diserved, but anyway)
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:Graf isnt the new cool thing, its been the cool thing for a long time. Look at Jean-michel Basquiat.
All that is solid melts into air
DeleteCharles
BRONZE Member since Jun 2001
![Charles]()
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
Location: Auckland
Total posts: 3989
BRONZE Member since Jun 2001
Corporate Circus Arts Entertainer
Location: Auckland
Total posts: 3989
Posted:I think commissioned balloon sculptures are art, but others don't.
They aren't the Sistine Chapel, but you decide for yourself... Charles blatantly showy off website...But you were warned!
They aren't the Sistine Chapel, but you decide for yourself... Charles blatantly showy off website...But you were warned!
HoP Posting Guidelines
* Is it the Truth?
* Is it Fair to all concerned?
* Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
* Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
Posted: Written by: Charles
I think commissioned balloon sculptures are art, but others don't.
They aren't the Sistine Chapel, but you decide for yourself... Charles blatantly showy off website...But you were warned!
they are very cool charles! and if this is art...
Non-Https Image Link
methinks yours is too
I think commissioned balloon sculptures are art, but others don't.
They aren't the Sistine Chapel, but you decide for yourself... Charles blatantly showy off website...But you were warned!
they are very cool charles! and if this is art...
Non-Https Image Link
methinks yours is too
Aurinko freedom agreement reached 10th Sept 2006
if it makes no sense that's because it's NOn-sense.
Posted:of course balloon sculptures are art! love 'em
I made a catapult today, i'm an art student and i made it in the art studio, it ties in with my project so who would call that art?
I made a catapult today, i'm an art student and i made it in the art studio, it ties in with my project so who would call that art?
All that is solid melts into air
DeleteMr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: xorba
Graf isnt the new cool thing, its been the cool thing for a long time. Look at Jean-michel Basquiat.
yeah, i've got his movie sitting in my dvd player, its the best movie i've seen in a long time.
charles, those are sooooooo cool! and i thought the asian guy thats traveling around australia was good!
Graf isnt the new cool thing, its been the cool thing for a long time. Look at Jean-michel Basquiat.
yeah, i've got his movie sitting in my dvd player, its the best movie i've seen in a long time.
charles, those are sooooooo cool! and i thought the asian guy thats traveling around australia was good!
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:*Gah. Ry you've got your visual arts degree already.. look away look away.. 
*
Couple of points. Be careful- appealing to the primitive is different to definition as primitive.
Also, it seems to need a bit more depth (depending I suppose.. how much are you allowed? 3000, 5000 words?). References? Definitely needs to be beefed up a bit more.
Perhaps talk a bit more about exoticisation of the Other.. If the West had anything to say about about it, they were never primitive.
Also. Primitivism, as you might have suggested, is not of vague definition in the discussion. Solving the problem of modern art which appeals to the primitive is more an issue concerning context and recontextualisation (perhaps compare decollage) rather than unclear definitions.
Good luck for the essay.
PS. From your initial post, I thought your essay was the standard one inviting a "Art does not exist in a vacuum" response. I think that discussing autonomous art would have been going on a bit of a tangent..
*Couple of points. Be careful- appealing to the primitive is different to definition as primitive.
Also, it seems to need a bit more depth (depending I suppose.. how much are you allowed? 3000, 5000 words?). References? Definitely needs to be beefed up a bit more.
Perhaps talk a bit more about exoticisation of the Other.. If the West had anything to say about about it, they were never primitive.
Also. Primitivism, as you might have suggested, is not of vague definition in the discussion. Solving the problem of modern art which appeals to the primitive is more an issue concerning context and recontextualisation (perhaps compare decollage) rather than unclear definitions.
Good luck for the essay.
PS. From your initial post, I thought your essay was the standard one inviting a "Art does not exist in a vacuum" response. I think that discussing autonomous art would have been going on a bit of a tangent..
Delete
Posted:i guess art is is a reflection of inspiration. so something natural can inspire you to create. therefore everything is a part of art, but not everything IS art. like anger is something i draw upon when i write lyrics and riffs. but the anger isnt art. the music is, anger is more the material. hope that helps in an obscure way.
power to the riff
power to the riff
Just call me Pop.
DeletePosted:thanks Ry, going off on a tangent is a problem I have. But also a gift. To be honest the art history side is of some interest, but i'm more interested in the contemporary and making my own work. looking at the purpose of an object right now, and asking whether anything can/should exist for no reason. but the ideas are at a very early stage, I've got 4 months to come up with something solid(ish). any thoughts?
All that is solid melts into air
Delete
Posted: Written by: xorba
does anyone here consider art to be autonomous?
do you think art exists outside of society, completely independant with no reliance on what goes on else where in the world? I've been set an essay and was just wondrin what any HoPers in the know would have to say about it....if anything! (ps be nice)
To address the original question - I don't think art is autonomous. The very first example of art that we have is drawings on the sides of caves depicting a hunt. The concept of art seems to have sprung from our ancient ancestors as a means of communicating their experience(s) of the world. When I think of the artists of the Rennaissance, the Impressionists, Cubists, surrealists etc., et al, what each school did was come up with a different way of seeing the world, and teaching the viewers to see the world differently. But it was always about some aspect of the world and even when the reality depicted in the art was purely fantastical, there were still recognizable human figures or figures that were recognizably not human -- but even then they're non-human-ness was based on our understanding of what humans look like in the "real" world. I don't know if I've said what I mean there.
When I think of Arabic or Buddhist art -- mandalas, and the designs woven into rugs and such -- even though they're geometric patterns, they still carried meaning, even if that meaning was mathematical, which is still a construct of "the world."
Even for abstract expressionists whose work is visually not necessarily dependent on anything in the world, the abstraction itself is defined by its lack of concreteness or resemblance to any actual "thing." And those artists whose practice is purely academic and based more in theory than expression -- even then, the art is rooted in a societal construct.
So regardless of the type or quality of the art, it seems to me that at its root, art comes from an urge to express an experience of the world, or to comment on some aspect of society (even if it's what it considers art a la Marcel Duchamp and the urinal). Even if there's no agenda in the art, per se, that in itself is a statement in opposition to art that has an agenda, which again puts itself in relation to something else in the world/society.
So no, I don't think art can be completely autonomous. I actually believe that art is a function or perhaps side effect of society. A society afraid of its artists is afraid of itself...
does anyone here consider art to be autonomous?
do you think art exists outside of society, completely independant with no reliance on what goes on else where in the world? I've been set an essay and was just wondrin what any HoPers in the know would have to say about it....if anything! (ps be nice)
To address the original question - I don't think art is autonomous. The very first example of art that we have is drawings on the sides of caves depicting a hunt. The concept of art seems to have sprung from our ancient ancestors as a means of communicating their experience(s) of the world. When I think of the artists of the Rennaissance, the Impressionists, Cubists, surrealists etc., et al, what each school did was come up with a different way of seeing the world, and teaching the viewers to see the world differently. But it was always about some aspect of the world and even when the reality depicted in the art was purely fantastical, there were still recognizable human figures or figures that were recognizably not human -- but even then they're non-human-ness was based on our understanding of what humans look like in the "real" world. I don't know if I've said what I mean there.
When I think of Arabic or Buddhist art -- mandalas, and the designs woven into rugs and such -- even though they're geometric patterns, they still carried meaning, even if that meaning was mathematical, which is still a construct of "the world."
Even for abstract expressionists whose work is visually not necessarily dependent on anything in the world, the abstraction itself is defined by its lack of concreteness or resemblance to any actual "thing." And those artists whose practice is purely academic and based more in theory than expression -- even then, the art is rooted in a societal construct.
So regardless of the type or quality of the art, it seems to me that at its root, art comes from an urge to express an experience of the world, or to comment on some aspect of society (even if it's what it considers art a la Marcel Duchamp and the urinal). Even if there's no agenda in the art, per se, that in itself is a statement in opposition to art that has an agenda, which again puts itself in relation to something else in the world/society.
So no, I don't think art can be completely autonomous. I actually believe that art is a function or perhaps side effect of society. A society afraid of its artists is afraid of itself...
taken out of context i must seem so strange
~ ani di franco
Posted:I'd have to disagree with that, at least in some circumstances. It's the typical argument of 'who gets to decide what is art, the artist or the art critic?'
I'll agree that by far most art has social and real world ties that are near impossible to remove, there are types of art that are purely aesthetic though however. You may say that art that is purely mathematically based is also socially based, but I'd have to argue that. Some things are done simply because they look appealing, not because of any underlying social meaning. Not because of some obscure commentary the artist is hunting for, just because it appeals to them while they were making it at that specific time. The viewer tends to 'see' things in peoples work, I've had it done to my own many times over. People think I'm making elaborate and deep comments on the world based off of my choice of materials and form, and don't realize, nor care to think that maybe I did it that way simply because I wanted it that way. Art is art though, and I have no problem with people seeing whatever they want to see in what I make, does it take someone seeing some social expression in my work before it's considered 'art'?
I'll agree that by far most art has social and real world ties that are near impossible to remove, there are types of art that are purely aesthetic though however. You may say that art that is purely mathematically based is also socially based, but I'd have to argue that. Some things are done simply because they look appealing, not because of any underlying social meaning. Not because of some obscure commentary the artist is hunting for, just because it appeals to them while they were making it at that specific time. The viewer tends to 'see' things in peoples work, I've had it done to my own many times over. People think I'm making elaborate and deep comments on the world based off of my choice of materials and form, and don't realize, nor care to think that maybe I did it that way simply because I wanted it that way. Art is art though, and I have no problem with people seeing whatever they want to see in what I make, does it take someone seeing some social expression in my work before it's considered 'art'?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted: Written by: xorba
looking at the purpose of an object right now, and asking whether anything can/should exist for no reason. but the ideas are at a very early stage, I've got 4 months to come up with something solid(ish). any thoughts?
Well.. you can use me as a subject if you like. I clearly exist for no reason.
Can 'to wait for a reason to exist' be a reason to exist?
Back to it though. Just tossing up stuff.. I guess an object can exist for no reason, and its justification would be just not having a reason to not exist. But then. If it did have a reason to not exist, that could just as viably be another reason to exist (e.g. to combat ignorance?)
I think it's slightly interesting, but going to be difficult to make compelling. If it's a graded piece, I personally would go with another topic.
looking at the purpose of an object right now, and asking whether anything can/should exist for no reason. but the ideas are at a very early stage, I've got 4 months to come up with something solid(ish). any thoughts?
Well.. you can use me as a subject if you like. I clearly exist for no reason.
Can 'to wait for a reason to exist' be a reason to exist?
Back to it though. Just tossing up stuff.. I guess an object can exist for no reason, and its justification would be just not having a reason to not exist. But then. If it did have a reason to not exist, that could just as viably be another reason to exist (e.g. to combat ignorance?)
I think it's slightly interesting, but going to be difficult to make compelling. If it's a graded piece, I personally would go with another topic.
Delete
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [art discussion giv ur opinion] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Art discussion (plz giv ur opinion) [43 replies]
2. Forums > Common Ground '08, - PLEASE Keep discussion in the '09 thread! :) [568 replies]
3. Forums > Poi Theory of Everything - discussion [21 replies]
4. Forums > Art - help required [37 replies]
5. Learn > Interviews > Sugra the Juggler > Time and Money (The 13 Moon Calendar) *help/resource
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.