- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Advanced Staff moves > Using Inspiration Creatively
Login/Join to Participatewillworkforfoodjnr
SILVER Member since Aug 2007
![willworkforfoodjnr]()
Hunting robot foxes
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
Total posts: 1046
SILVER Member since Aug 2007
Hunting robot foxes
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire
Total posts: 1046
Posted:OK so there was a bit of discussion stemming from the prop transition thread that I think is quite interesting, but to keep it on topic we should probably move to this one to continue it.
A summary of whats been said so far (sorry if you think I pulled the wrong bits out!):
Originally Posted By: tim_marstonMy personal opinion is the the best thing to do is actually practise with your chosen prop rather to think about it to much or use tools and advice from others
...
Its also my concern that tools, theories and workshops can create a very generic style of manipulation where rules, standard principles and common practices end up having a restrictive effect on the variety and creativity within the chosen prop. Many beginners take the word of more experienced spinner very seriously and this can mean that advice can be taken as the gospel and have a huge potentially negative effect on the limits of creation that the newbie may feel possible.
Originally Posted By: Noelski
The reasoning to write this was because I saw so many similarities between technical double staff poi, and clubs I figured I'd point them out.
Also standardizing tech helps people communicate, look at site swap, especially for juggling...even staff juggling.
Originally Posted By: willworkforfoodjnr
I definately agree that these standard methods of thought often create very standard performers. You can see it particularly with jugglers and the siteswap notation, and its a shame.
I actually view these ideas as tools for more advanced spin/jugglers. In the earlier phases of your development just learn some moves, build a library of interesting things to draw on. This often will be the sort of moves you are interested in or like to watch. Then when a new way of thinking comes along you can use it to modify what you already know, instead of viewing it as something totally new.
Originally Posted By: aston
Sometimes having someone suggest something new opens up new things to do.
Also, people think and approach things differently. I would not really have thought of throwing poi if someone had not mentioned doing so.
Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_Son
Depending on how its displayed and how its taken it can either lessen or extend the problem of 'cookie cutter spinners'
the theory is practically worthless without input from the person using the prop, the way I interpret and shape this theory is very different from the way a beginner would interpret and shape it.
I do my best to try to teach as many different approaches to thinking about how to use ones props that whoever I'm teaching will eventually combine components or pick a theory that suits the way their mind works best.
So, how do you generally develop new movements/tricks/whateveryawannacallem? Tim, you say that you perfer to just let creativity rule without a structure to help you discover tricks, where as MNS has a more structured approach. How do each of you generally 'find' your new movements?
Personally I find that I can quite easily become locked into a certain way of thinking. I find it very difficult to get the first spark of inspiration but once there, its like opening a door to a huge range of possibilities. That spark is almost always triggered by something external (although not always, I have had times when something has happened 'by accident' and had the same effect), be it a notation (siteswap) a concept (compound circles) or even a prop (Taking up staff inspiring my juggling).
I now use this in a pretty structured way. At practice sessions I will often stop myself while doing a move and force myself to apply it to other movements and props. Trying to replicate a 3 ball weave trick with doublestaff spin will generally fail, but even when it does it helps me learn more about how these props move and the possibilities open to me.
A summary of whats been said so far (sorry if you think I pulled the wrong bits out!):
Originally Posted By: tim_marstonMy personal opinion is the the best thing to do is actually practise with your chosen prop rather to think about it to much or use tools and advice from others
...
Its also my concern that tools, theories and workshops can create a very generic style of manipulation where rules, standard principles and common practices end up having a restrictive effect on the variety and creativity within the chosen prop. Many beginners take the word of more experienced spinner very seriously and this can mean that advice can be taken as the gospel and have a huge potentially negative effect on the limits of creation that the newbie may feel possible.
Originally Posted By: Noelski
The reasoning to write this was because I saw so many similarities between technical double staff poi, and clubs I figured I'd point them out.
Also standardizing tech helps people communicate, look at site swap, especially for juggling...even staff juggling.
Originally Posted By: willworkforfoodjnr
I definately agree that these standard methods of thought often create very standard performers. You can see it particularly with jugglers and the siteswap notation, and its a shame.
I actually view these ideas as tools for more advanced spin/jugglers. In the earlier phases of your development just learn some moves, build a library of interesting things to draw on. This often will be the sort of moves you are interested in or like to watch. Then when a new way of thinking comes along you can use it to modify what you already know, instead of viewing it as something totally new.
Originally Posted By: aston
Sometimes having someone suggest something new opens up new things to do.
Also, people think and approach things differently. I would not really have thought of throwing poi if someone had not mentioned doing so.
Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_Son
Depending on how its displayed and how its taken it can either lessen or extend the problem of 'cookie cutter spinners'
the theory is practically worthless without input from the person using the prop, the way I interpret and shape this theory is very different from the way a beginner would interpret and shape it.
I do my best to try to teach as many different approaches to thinking about how to use ones props that whoever I'm teaching will eventually combine components or pick a theory that suits the way their mind works best.
So, how do you generally develop new movements/tricks/whateveryawannacallem? Tim, you say that you perfer to just let creativity rule without a structure to help you discover tricks, where as MNS has a more structured approach. How do each of you generally 'find' your new movements?
Personally I find that I can quite easily become locked into a certain way of thinking. I find it very difficult to get the first spark of inspiration but once there, its like opening a door to a huge range of possibilities. That spark is almost always triggered by something external (although not always, I have had times when something has happened 'by accident' and had the same effect), be it a notation (siteswap) a concept (compound circles) or even a prop (Taking up staff inspiring my juggling).
I now use this in a pretty structured way. At practice sessions I will often stop myself while doing a move and force myself to apply it to other movements and props. Trying to replicate a 3 ball weave trick with doublestaff spin will generally fail, but even when it does it helps me learn more about how these props move and the possibilities open to me.
Working hard to be a wandering hippie layabout. Ten years down, five to go!
Delete TopicMother_Natures_Son
SILVER Member since Aug 2007
![Mother_Natures_Son]()
Rampant whirler.
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Total posts: 2418
SILVER Member since Aug 2007
Rampant whirler.
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Total posts: 2418
Posted:It is indeed possible to become a cookie cutter spinner, if you watch enough of a short base of spinners, steal movements from their routines theres a good chance you'll end up modelling your own movement off theirs.
In fact, its quite natural to be a cookie cutter spinner in your early-intermediate development. During the intermediate development its quite possible to teach people in a much different way. Rather than teaching movements you teach a concept and apply it to known movements. I'll try to teach something new as well, but not actually teaching it, just making them apply the concepts to work it out for themselves then trying to scaffold them into finding something similar but different again. Maybe I'll just show them once so that they get the idea but have to take more steps to get to the point where they can do it.
*all of the above is 1 on 1 teaching... I don't get to teach workshops.*
But the difference is trying to include the learner in inquiry based learning whereby they can set their own goals and progress without the aid of a teacher and as such can progress in their own direction with any new material, even if its simple as using a few basic flourishes while doing a hip reel or hip reel/extension combo or as complex as new directions in line iso, plane changing, etc.
"Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I understand."
Originally Posted By: bls337
But the more people you introduce to a concept the more chance there is that they will take that concept and make it their own.
I do not follow this at all unless you were talking about collective consciousness, but I doubt you were.
In fact, its quite natural to be a cookie cutter spinner in your early-intermediate development. During the intermediate development its quite possible to teach people in a much different way. Rather than teaching movements you teach a concept and apply it to known movements. I'll try to teach something new as well, but not actually teaching it, just making them apply the concepts to work it out for themselves then trying to scaffold them into finding something similar but different again. Maybe I'll just show them once so that they get the idea but have to take more steps to get to the point where they can do it.
*all of the above is 1 on 1 teaching... I don't get to teach workshops.*
But the difference is trying to include the learner in inquiry based learning whereby they can set their own goals and progress without the aid of a teacher and as such can progress in their own direction with any new material, even if its simple as using a few basic flourishes while doing a hip reel or hip reel/extension combo or as complex as new directions in line iso, plane changing, etc.
"Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I understand."
Originally Posted By: bls337
But the more people you introduce to a concept the more chance there is that they will take that concept and make it their own.
I do not follow this at all unless you were talking about collective consciousness, but I doubt you were.
aston
SILVER Member since Dec 2007
![aston]()
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Total posts: 4061
SILVER Member since Dec 2007
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Total posts: 4061
Posted:bls337:
The thing about not seeing enough people is that you are not aware of a different way of spinning. I have noticed here at Rhodes. Most people who all learned in the last few years tend to spin very similarly. Now, the way that they spin looks very cool, but you can see that they all learned from the same source.
Especially if you compare the way I spin to them, they are very different. I also tend to try new things more than most, I think.
In short, without actually seeing a different way of spinning, it is very hard to let any sort of creativity shine through, unless their heads are wired in the right way to want to try new things, which many people are not. (Compare how many people spin [well] and how many actually push the boundaries and innovate.)
So yeah, cookie cutter is possible for many people.
The thing about not seeing enough people is that you are not aware of a different way of spinning. I have noticed here at Rhodes. Most people who all learned in the last few years tend to spin very similarly. Now, the way that they spin looks very cool, but you can see that they all learned from the same source.
Especially if you compare the way I spin to them, they are very different. I also tend to try new things more than most, I think.
In short, without actually seeing a different way of spinning, it is very hard to let any sort of creativity shine through, unless their heads are wired in the right way to want to try new things, which many people are not. (Compare how many people spin [well] and how many actually push the boundaries and innovate.)
So yeah, cookie cutter is possible for many people.
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland
Posted:Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_SonOriginally Posted By: bls337
But the more people you introduce to a concept the more chance there is that they will take that concept and make it their own.
I do not follow this at all unless you were talking about collective consciousness, but I doubt you were.
I was thinking along the lines that people will innovate and find new and interesting ways of using those concepts. Everyone brings something different to the table and will take those ideas and apply them to their own skillset. The more people working on something the greater chance of innovation. Something like that...
I'm still trying to figure out what I think... but I'm sure my opinion will always change.
But the more people you introduce to a concept the more chance there is that they will take that concept and make it their own.
I do not follow this at all unless you were talking about collective consciousness, but I doubt you were.
I was thinking along the lines that people will innovate and find new and interesting ways of using those concepts. Everyone brings something different to the table and will take those ideas and apply them to their own skillset. The more people working on something the greater chance of innovation. Something like that...
I'm still trying to figure out what I think... but I'm sure my opinion will always change.
Delete
aston
SILVER Member since Dec 2007
![aston]()
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Total posts: 4061
SILVER Member since Dec 2007
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Total posts: 4061
Posted:Originally Posted By: bls337Originally Posted By: Mother_Natures_SonOriginally Posted By: bls337
But the more people you introduce to a concept the more chance there is that they will take that concept and make it their own.
I do not follow this at all unless you were talking about collective consciousness, but I doubt you were.
I was thinking along the lines that people will innovate and find new and interesting ways of using those concepts. Everyone brings something different to the table and will take those ideas and apply them to their own skillset. The more people working on something the greater chance of innovation. Something like that...
I'm still trying to figure out what I think... but I'm sure my opinion will always change.
That does work, to an extent.
Like I said, you need those people to be wired in a particular way to actually try and push things. Also, unless you are showing them stuff that is not overly well-known, they are quite likely to end up re-inventing what has already been done.
Mostly because what has been done is mostly the "obvious" stuff. Once you know the concept.
Very few people will be able to come up with something radically new. Or at least, that is what I have seen....
But the more people you introduce to a concept the more chance there is that they will take that concept and make it their own.
I do not follow this at all unless you were talking about collective consciousness, but I doubt you were.
I was thinking along the lines that people will innovate and find new and interesting ways of using those concepts. Everyone brings something different to the table and will take those ideas and apply them to their own skillset. The more people working on something the greater chance of innovation. Something like that...
I'm still trying to figure out what I think... but I'm sure my opinion will always change.
That does work, to an extent.
Like I said, you need those people to be wired in a particular way to actually try and push things. Also, unless you are showing them stuff that is not overly well-known, they are quite likely to end up re-inventing what has already been done.
Mostly because what has been done is mostly the "obvious" stuff. Once you know the concept.
Very few people will be able to come up with something radically new. Or at least, that is what I have seen....
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland
Posted:Re bansheeCat
re megs quote;
there is much current debate over whether "a highly developed skill in compilation." IS actually a form of creativity.
Hmmmm, just came across this again, and had a think about it. Yep, I don't doubt that mashup and remix culture is creative, sometimes extremely so, and I do love a lot of it's products and it takes skill and craft to make their works. And that you can create entirely new works out of old, and that the new works are also art.
But for one: I don't think we are dealing with the same level of 'taking' as remix culture is. With found objects, you have a perfect copy of the object to use, itself, the same with music and video. (quality not being such a big issue) However with spinning, you have no copy of the trick to use, first you have to learn it, in order to copy it. So you are stealing an imperfect copy.
It would truly be interesting to see a remix routine, consisting of very rigourous immitation of all the originals styles and moves, blended together into an uber routine, so clean and clear that you could identify the original sources youtube videos.
However with music and other things the original source is usually very clear. Not so with this case.
secondly: Ask yourself if when you saw an inspiring artwork or beautiful music and it was created as an original vs one created with found objects or as a remix, which one you would think had taken more work, more creativity, more time and more thought to create.
I realise that the source materials for remix art can play a profound role in it's meaning and expression, but really I haven't seen much spinning that says anything, so that point is a bit moot.
Plus obviously a peice of remix art can be more profound and more enlightening than an original or the sources it uses, but one has to ask if the artwork would have been possible without the sources or the found objects, just with more work for the artist? I guess that's not the point thou really....
re megs quote;
there is much current debate over whether "a highly developed skill in compilation." IS actually a form of creativity.
Hmmmm, just came across this again, and had a think about it. Yep, I don't doubt that mashup and remix culture is creative, sometimes extremely so, and I do love a lot of it's products and it takes skill and craft to make their works. And that you can create entirely new works out of old, and that the new works are also art.
But for one: I don't think we are dealing with the same level of 'taking' as remix culture is. With found objects, you have a perfect copy of the object to use, itself, the same with music and video. (quality not being such a big issue) However with spinning, you have no copy of the trick to use, first you have to learn it, in order to copy it. So you are stealing an imperfect copy.
It would truly be interesting to see a remix routine, consisting of very rigourous immitation of all the originals styles and moves, blended together into an uber routine, so clean and clear that you could identify the original sources youtube videos.
However with music and other things the original source is usually very clear. Not so with this case.
secondly: Ask yourself if when you saw an inspiring artwork or beautiful music and it was created as an original vs one created with found objects or as a remix, which one you would think had taken more work, more creativity, more time and more thought to create.
I realise that the source materials for remix art can play a profound role in it's meaning and expression, but really I haven't seen much spinning that says anything, so that point is a bit moot.
Plus obviously a peice of remix art can be more profound and more enlightening than an original or the sources it uses, but one has to ask if the artwork would have been possible without the sources or the found objects, just with more work for the artist? I guess that's not the point thou really....
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Posted:Wow,
Hmm..
I tried to read as much of this as I could be here's what I got.
A long time ago (is like 5 years ago a long time?) I used to teach people tricks when I taught workshops. It was kind of all I knew. Also I had some screwed up conception that if I knew a lot of tricks and techniques, people would think I was cool or talented or whatever.
Which I believe is the biggest problem in spinning is many people don't really think about deep questions like, why they spin, Do most of us think if people where not watching would most firedancers do still spin?
So at that point I was always seeking validation for my actions, and altogether I was pretty boring and lacked a fair bit of creativity. (even though sometimes I doubt how much I have now) I hung out in obtuse geek partner poi circles where we did a hell of a lot more talkig and not enough practicing.
I was confused about why I was spinning/juggling in the first place.
Now I know why I juggle/spin, I like the challenge of working to learn something difficult and then finding ways to make it easier for others to learn (like that classic, crusty old spinner saying, " oh it took me years to learn that and you 5 minutes) I am not a huge fan of performing and such but I realize it is a part of the whole thing.
So in terms of how I teach now? I pretty much do most of what blue said a long time ago in the thread. I want everyone to learn a few tricks but to have those tricks be the foundation for them to understand something more deeply.
i.e. - I can teach stalls as ways to transition that allows you to change poi timing and direction. That statement alone goes over the head of most people. Not that they can't understand it intellectually, but they are interested (creatively) in differeny things; whether performance, tech, showing off whatever. Who am I to judge reasons why people spin (even though sometimes its hard not to say something)
What the important thing for me is to not limit what others think of themselves when I teach workshops, even if in my own jaded crusty spinner mind I think their style/tech is totally not compatible ultimately with mine.
Whatever, I hope that had a point
Hmm..
I tried to read as much of this as I could be here's what I got.
A long time ago (is like 5 years ago a long time?) I used to teach people tricks when I taught workshops. It was kind of all I knew. Also I had some screwed up conception that if I knew a lot of tricks and techniques, people would think I was cool or talented or whatever.
Which I believe is the biggest problem in spinning is many people don't really think about deep questions like, why they spin, Do most of us think if people where not watching would most firedancers do still spin?
So at that point I was always seeking validation for my actions, and altogether I was pretty boring and lacked a fair bit of creativity. (even though sometimes I doubt how much I have now) I hung out in obtuse geek partner poi circles where we did a hell of a lot more talkig and not enough practicing.
I was confused about why I was spinning/juggling in the first place.
Now I know why I juggle/spin, I like the challenge of working to learn something difficult and then finding ways to make it easier for others to learn (like that classic, crusty old spinner saying, " oh it took me years to learn that and you 5 minutes) I am not a huge fan of performing and such but I realize it is a part of the whole thing.
So in terms of how I teach now? I pretty much do most of what blue said a long time ago in the thread. I want everyone to learn a few tricks but to have those tricks be the foundation for them to understand something more deeply.
i.e. - I can teach stalls as ways to transition that allows you to change poi timing and direction. That statement alone goes over the head of most people. Not that they can't understand it intellectually, but they are interested (creatively) in differeny things; whether performance, tech, showing off whatever. Who am I to judge reasons why people spin (even though sometimes its hard not to say something)
What the important thing for me is to not limit what others think of themselves when I teach workshops, even if in my own jaded crusty spinner mind I think their style/tech is totally not compatible ultimately with mine.
Whatever, I hope that had a point
Delete
aston
SILVER Member since Dec 2007
![aston]()
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Total posts: 4061
SILVER Member since Dec 2007
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Total posts: 4061
Posted:Some good ones.
Thanks for the post.
Thanks for the post.
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland
Posted:kind-a felt weird about the dissing of "cookie cutters" and thought it'd be worth a thread on it's own
we look at someone/something and get inspired... we got this "awe" moment... and then?
is it that we want to put ourselves into that same position and get "awed" at? is this why we started spinning poi/staff?
btw I often feel more inspired by the way of transporting individual or a set of moves than by the moves themselves... but that's just me.
Meanwhile I got aware that most of the time I'm just standing on the beach, repeating moves and sets... until in a performance (or when practicing for the same) I start dancing and they just ooze out... as a part of the dance...
only my 2cts worth...
we look at someone/something and get inspired... we got this "awe" moment... and then?
is it that we want to put ourselves into that same position and get "awed" at? is this why we started spinning poi/staff?
btw I often feel more inspired by the way of transporting individual or a set of moves than by the moves themselves... but that's just me.
Meanwhile I got aware that most of the time I'm just standing on the beach, repeating moves and sets... until in a performance (or when practicing for the same) I start dancing and they just ooze out... as a part of the dance...
only my 2cts worth...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Posted:Quote:btw I often feel more inspired by the way of transporting individual or a set of moves than by the moves themselves... but that's just me.
Meanwhile I got aware that most of the time I'm just standing on the beach, repeating moves and sets... until in a performance (or when practicing for the same) I start dancing and they just ooze out... as a part of the dance...
Meanwhile I got aware that most of the time I'm just standing on the beach, repeating moves and sets... until in a performance (or when practicing for the same) I start dancing and they just ooze out... as a part of the dance...
Delete
Tankboy
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
Posted:This isnt even a conversation.
Dancers use the same vocabulary. The same set of techniques: Tondue, Degaje, Plie...ok, i cant spell in french, but you get my point.
Choreographers use those terms when building dance peices.
There is no one who calls into question whether dancing is an art form.
And even to dance in a style, jazz, tap, contemporary, classical ballet, hip hop
does not bring into question the legitimacy of their dance, but only from whom they get their inspiration.
No go practice!
Dancers use the same vocabulary. The same set of techniques: Tondue, Degaje, Plie...ok, i cant spell in french, but you get my point.
Choreographers use those terms when building dance peices.
There is no one who calls into question whether dancing is an art form.
And even to dance in a style, jazz, tap, contemporary, classical ballet, hip hop
does not bring into question the legitimacy of their dance, but only from whom they get their inspiration.
No go practice!
Delete
Posted:This is a conversation.
Some dancers use the same vocabulary. Like ballet dancers for example, a b-boy would never use the terms you say. And quite frankly anything a b-boy does couldn't really be described as a plie.
Choreographers do use those terms, if they are building a ballet piece, but they also use a far bigger selection of other words, completely unique and descriptive to theat peice, as well as no words, for showing and moving the dancers. To build a routine with just the standard ballet terms would be as cookie cutter as we are talking about. Basically it'll be a demonstration, a view into the practise that ballet dancers do.
People do actually. Dancing is the youngest of all the classical artforms. So before that you can bet it was debated over.
So I guess your argument is that you can make art out of building blocks that everyone uses, and hence, because dance is an artform, this status can be ascribed to spinning, because people learn standard building blocks.
But your accertions are poor:
That dance has a vocabulary of basic terms, (like jump and squat) is poor, since most dance doesn't use those terms and those that do, use them as a base, not as high level terms.
That dance is an art, which has been debated.
That the analogy holds strongly enough to ascrib the title of art onto spinning.
That learning to be a cookie cutter spinner is somehow analogous to either learning the basic terms of ballet or of learning the basics of ballet.
For instance, can can dancers clearly know what they are doing is not art. As do standard music video backing dancers. a
and further, copying a move from someone is one thing, copying a body position or movement is another, and copying a section of their spinning and or routine is yet another.
Some dancers use the same vocabulary. Like ballet dancers for example, a b-boy would never use the terms you say. And quite frankly anything a b-boy does couldn't really be described as a plie.
Choreographers do use those terms, if they are building a ballet piece, but they also use a far bigger selection of other words, completely unique and descriptive to theat peice, as well as no words, for showing and moving the dancers. To build a routine with just the standard ballet terms would be as cookie cutter as we are talking about. Basically it'll be a demonstration, a view into the practise that ballet dancers do.
People do actually. Dancing is the youngest of all the classical artforms. So before that you can bet it was debated over.
So I guess your argument is that you can make art out of building blocks that everyone uses, and hence, because dance is an artform, this status can be ascribed to spinning, because people learn standard building blocks.
But your accertions are poor:
That dance has a vocabulary of basic terms, (like jump and squat) is poor, since most dance doesn't use those terms and those that do, use them as a base, not as high level terms.
That dance is an art, which has been debated.
That the analogy holds strongly enough to ascrib the title of art onto spinning.
That learning to be a cookie cutter spinner is somehow analogous to either learning the basic terms of ballet or of learning the basics of ballet.
For instance, can can dancers clearly know what they are doing is not art. As do standard music video backing dancers. a
and further, copying a move from someone is one thing, copying a body position or movement is another, and copying a section of their spinning and or routine is yet another.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Tankboy
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
Posted:Are you really going to sit there and argue that dance is not art, meg?
Theater, dance, music, circus, these are by definition performance ARTS.
If a particular style, or set of techniques, or video inspires someone to delve deeper into any artform its a good thing, not a bad thing.
Technique is technique. Even if the technique is a signature pose, or sequence. Stealing a whole act, if its a professional act is one thing, but going through a specific technical display is playing the same scale or mode(yeah, i switched from dance to music, what!) Whether it comes from this video or that person, doesnt matter. People all start somewhere, if they see a video and copy it, good!
Theater, dance, music, circus, these are by definition performance ARTS.
If a particular style, or set of techniques, or video inspires someone to delve deeper into any artform its a good thing, not a bad thing.
Technique is technique. Even if the technique is a signature pose, or sequence. Stealing a whole act, if its a professional act is one thing, but going through a specific technical display is playing the same scale or mode(yeah, i switched from dance to music, what!) Whether it comes from this video or that person, doesnt matter. People all start somewhere, if they see a video and copy it, good!
Delete
Posted:I could very easily yes. Just like most art is not art. Are you going to argue that all kids pictures are art just because they are made with traditional art materials and techniques?
Art has no definition. And most of traditional circus I would argue is not art. Just as I would argue that a lot of obvious candidates in music and theatre and dance aren't art either.
Technique is not a pose or a sequence. A technique is a technique, and you don't learn or need many in spinning.
A technical display / scale is not art, and it's not usually what people put on video or copy or get taught at the start and understand that they need to learn.
And I still wouldn't say that copying videos is a good thing. It's definately a thing thou. You can do it if you like but I wouldn't recommend it.
Art has no definition. And most of traditional circus I would argue is not art. Just as I would argue that a lot of obvious candidates in music and theatre and dance aren't art either.
Technique is not a pose or a sequence. A technique is a technique, and you don't learn or need many in spinning.
A technical display / scale is not art, and it's not usually what people put on video or copy or get taught at the start and understand that they need to learn.
And I still wouldn't say that copying videos is a good thing. It's definately a thing thou. You can do it if you like but I wouldn't recommend it.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Tankboy
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
Posted:yes, childrens pictures are art! you can debate the quality of the art all you want, but putting a mark on a peice of paper is art.
a technical display, or scale, is the practice of an art form, and hence, art.
There is technique to posing, there is technique to arranging choreography. There is no "A technique," there is only technique.
you dont need a lot of technique for anything, but you have the option of delving into it.
And why do you suppose circus arts are called circus arts.
a technical display, or scale, is the practice of an art form, and hence, art.
There is technique to posing, there is technique to arranging choreography. There is no "A technique," there is only technique.
you dont need a lot of technique for anything, but you have the option of delving into it.
And why do you suppose circus arts are called circus arts.
Delete
Posted:oh wow - meg's claiming "dance is not an art"... *popcorn and a soda anyone? - or more for tea and cookies?* I'm not surprised.. 
"Just like most art is not art."... "Art has no definition. And most of traditional circus I would argue is not art. Just as I would argue that a lot of obvious candidates in music and theatre and dance aren't art either."...
Whilst the latter is your (entitled and honored, thoughdefinitelynotagreedwith) opinion, the former is outright ... wrong:
Originally Posted By: MWDArt; meaning: subtle or imaginative ability in inventing, devising, or executing something
Originally Posted By: WikiArt is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.
already two definitions I can relate to...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1261816241)
"Just like most art is not art."...
"Art has no definition. And most of traditional circus I would argue is not art. Just as I would argue that a lot of obvious candidates in music and theatre and dance aren't art either."... Whilst the latter is your (entitled and honored, thoughdefinitelynotagreedwith) opinion, the former is outright ... wrong:
Originally Posted By: MWDArt; meaning: subtle or imaginative ability in inventing, devising, or executing something
Originally Posted By: WikiArt is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.
already two definitions I can relate to...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1261816241)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Oh yeah, who would be surprised that firetom would interrupt this discussion to argue with me? I'm not going to reply to you. Sad times for the missing ignore option.
Childrens paintings are not art. They can be art with the appropriate context. Just like writing a message to your friend in class isn't art. Even thou it's marks onna paper. It can be art, but as it is, it isn't.
Just cos it's called martial arts, doesn't mean punching someone is an artwork.
There are about 3 techniques in spinning I think. Keeping timing, isolation, doing different things with your hands, other than that... lesser used techniques.
Why do I suppose it's called circus arts? So if I called a rose a spade then I could totally use it to dig a hole? What kind of argument is that? Some of circus skills you can totally use to make art, mostly however they aren't used for that purpose... they are used for entertainment. There is a big difference.
Childrens paintings are not art. They can be art with the appropriate context. Just like writing a message to your friend in class isn't art. Even thou it's marks onna paper. It can be art, but as it is, it isn't.
Just cos it's called martial arts, doesn't mean punching someone is an artwork.
There are about 3 techniques in spinning I think. Keeping timing, isolation, doing different things with your hands, other than that... lesser used techniques.
Why do I suppose it's called circus arts? So if I called a rose a spade then I could totally use it to dig a hole? What kind of argument is that? Some of circus skills you can totally use to make art, mostly however they aren't used for that purpose... they are used for entertainment. There is a big difference.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Tankboy
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
Posted:The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines art (Noun) as:
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
2 a : a branch of learning
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
All of which apply to spinning, and circus, and a child making marks on paper.
Further more,
Fine Art (Noun)
is defined as
1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects usually used in plural b : objects of fine art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill
And I contest that if the term object can refer to music, ie, the performance of a song, that it can also be applied to circus in the performance of an act, or dance as the performance of a dance.
Now Meg, what was it you were saying?
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation
2 a : a branch of learning
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
All of which apply to spinning, and circus, and a child making marks on paper.
Further more,
Fine Art (Noun)
is defined as
1 a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects usually used in plural b : objects of fine art
2 : an activity requiring a fine skill
And I contest that if the term object can refer to music, ie, the performance of a song, that it can also be applied to circus in the performance of an act, or dance as the performance of a dance.
Now Meg, what was it you were saying?
Delete
Posted:Originally Posted By: mcp
A technical display / scale is not art, and it's not usually what people put on video or copy or get taught at the start and understand that they need to learn.
At first I was like, hey MCP, I totally disagree with you, but I thought about it and I dont concider my spinning art. I play guitar and I dont really concider what I do with that as art either. I do concider some martial arts as 'art' and I concider climbing as an art.
But Im interested to hear on what you concider to BE art, not just what you think art is not. cause when I apply this way of thinking then I would say that 90% of Art that I come across really isnt art then. and that would mean that millions of artists are living a lie.
for example take Beethoven. I would concider his music to be art, but it still follows clearly defined technique, rules and patterns. Which is why it can be played, copied and repeated by musicians today. When Hendrix ripps out a solo in the midle of songs. Its not truly spontanious inspiration. Its actually usually a a variation of a scale progression that you can again break down to technique and copy.
people make a lot of money making copies of famous artwork by copying the original artists technique. In fact I cant think of ANY art that cannot be broken down to technique, or in the case of music - scales and progressions.
A technical display / scale is not art, and it's not usually what people put on video or copy or get taught at the start and understand that they need to learn.
At first I was like, hey MCP, I totally disagree with you, but I thought about it and I dont concider my spinning art. I play guitar and I dont really concider what I do with that as art either. I do concider some martial arts as 'art' and I concider climbing as an art.
But Im interested to hear on what you concider to BE art, not just what you think art is not. cause when I apply this way of thinking then I would say that 90% of Art that I come across really isnt art then. and that would mean that millions of artists are living a lie.
for example take Beethoven. I would concider his music to be art, but it still follows clearly defined technique, rules and patterns. Which is why it can be played, copied and repeated by musicians today. When Hendrix ripps out a solo in the midle of songs. Its not truly spontanious inspiration. Its actually usually a a variation of a scale progression that you can again break down to technique and copy.
people make a lot of money making copies of famous artwork by copying the original artists technique. In fact I cant think of ANY art that cannot be broken down to technique, or in the case of music - scales and progressions.
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
DeletePosted:If I needed to look up a definition of art in a dictionary, I would understand that I really didn't know what art was.
It's like yours saying you don't know what art is, and yet you want to argue with me about it?
Does someone doing a triple on the flying trapeze make you cry, make you feel more deeply what it is to be human, make you wonder about life and it's meaning...? well probably if you knew the difficulty and the story behind the really difficult tricks... but the act itself, it's done and then you think no more of it. Like a football game, you don't watch a football game and hate it and then later come back, watch it again and decide it was amazing. It's entertainment, you just watch it once. It's a technical display, a musician playing a particularly hard scale. It's not art, unless it's in a different context.
You can say that some 15 year old doing the goth 2step in a club is equal to a 45 minute dance production by a national ballet company because they are both 'art'. But I wouldn't and I wouldn't see what that would get you.
Fine art can't be contested, it's like a technical term, it has a defined meaning, fine art applies to the fine arts, that of painting sculpture and drawing and whatnot. Classical arts are different again. You don't study music when you study fine art. If you want to get universities and art historians to change the term, you can.
Otherwise you are arguing with me, I can't be bothered to go summarise my statements again just to make it easier on you. Since I have to clarify yours usually as well.
EDITED_BY: mcp (1263129572)
It's like yours saying you don't know what art is, and yet you want to argue with me about it?
Does someone doing a triple on the flying trapeze make you cry, make you feel more deeply what it is to be human, make you wonder about life and it's meaning...? well probably if you knew the difficulty and the story behind the really difficult tricks... but the act itself, it's done and then you think no more of it. Like a football game, you don't watch a football game and hate it and then later come back, watch it again and decide it was amazing. It's entertainment, you just watch it once. It's a technical display, a musician playing a particularly hard scale. It's not art, unless it's in a different context.
You can say that some 15 year old doing the goth 2step in a club is equal to a 45 minute dance production by a national ballet company because they are both 'art'. But I wouldn't and I wouldn't see what that would get you.
Fine art can't be contested, it's like a technical term, it has a defined meaning, fine art applies to the fine arts, that of painting sculpture and drawing and whatnot. Classical arts are different again. You don't study music when you study fine art. If you want to get universities and art historians to change the term, you can.
Otherwise you are arguing with me, I can't be bothered to go summarise my statements again just to make it easier on you. Since I have to clarify yours usually as well.
EDITED_BY: mcp (1263129572)
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Tankboy
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
SILVER Member since Jan 2006
Resident Demolitions Expert
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Total posts: 103
Posted:And Im not trying to convince you that what I think is art is art, I am trying to open you to the possibility that what you think is art may differ from what someone else things is art.
So many people disagree with you, that the dictionary contradicts you.
Just because things that I think are beautiful dont make me want to go all emo and slit my wrists onto a canvas doesnt mean I appreciate it any less. Sure, art can evoke emotions, but not all art does, look at andy worhol.
meg, you're just wrong.
So many people disagree with you, that the dictionary contradicts you.
Just because things that I think are beautiful dont make me want to go all emo and slit my wrists onto a canvas doesnt mean I appreciate it any less. Sure, art can evoke emotions, but not all art does, look at andy worhol.
meg, you're just wrong.
Delete
Posted:This conversation makes me smile. Im not sure if Meg is playing devil's advocate or is simply in love with being evil. Either way though I have to agree somewhat on her side.
Art should tell a truth about the human condition (aesthetic). The technique used to describe that truth, be it motion, paint, sound or whatever, is only the language used to help describe that aesthetic.
If a child should draw a picture of a sun and tree, they are just learning to use the language of symbols to talk visually. Their art speaks of their attempts to define the world they see around them. That is truth in a way, though it may be on a simplistic level. Another child draws themself with a great distance between them and another to describe their inner loneliness over having lost a friend. An intangible concept made concrete.
There was an exhibition put on back in the 80s about "bad" art. Needless to say, no one remembers it because it really wasn't worth remembering, just like no one remembers what the warm-up of an orchestra sounded like.
Technique, whether skilled or not, is simply a string of letters and words jumbled together. To speak of art as being good or bad; to give it a label depends on how successful a person was at using their given tool to convey a truth: emotion, relation, empathy, etc to any given audience.
Speaking of Andy Warhol, he spoke in truths. Not emotion, but in attacking the concept that art had to be separate from the commercial reality that surrounds people. If Campbell's soup is a part of the everyday, it is a part of our reality and therefore a part of the truth of who we are. Today he would have printed ipods and laptops. And he would have done it on Photoshop and caused argument and debate to spawn. He would have induced emotion by challenging what we believe should and should not be, in the world of art.
Though I will say that anyone who attempts that today stands a good chance of becoming dismissed as a pale copy of an original idea. Irony, no?
Art should tell a truth about the human condition (aesthetic). The technique used to describe that truth, be it motion, paint, sound or whatever, is only the language used to help describe that aesthetic.
If a child should draw a picture of a sun and tree, they are just learning to use the language of symbols to talk visually. Their art speaks of their attempts to define the world they see around them. That is truth in a way, though it may be on a simplistic level. Another child draws themself with a great distance between them and another to describe their inner loneliness over having lost a friend. An intangible concept made concrete.
There was an exhibition put on back in the 80s about "bad" art. Needless to say, no one remembers it because it really wasn't worth remembering, just like no one remembers what the warm-up of an orchestra sounded like.
Technique, whether skilled or not, is simply a string of letters and words jumbled together. To speak of art as being good or bad; to give it a label depends on how successful a person was at using their given tool to convey a truth: emotion, relation, empathy, etc to any given audience.
Speaking of Andy Warhol, he spoke in truths. Not emotion, but in attacking the concept that art had to be separate from the commercial reality that surrounds people. If Campbell's soup is a part of the everyday, it is a part of our reality and therefore a part of the truth of who we are. Today he would have printed ipods and laptops. And he would have done it on Photoshop and caused argument and debate to spawn. He would have induced emotion by challenging what we believe should and should not be, in the world of art.
Though I will say that anyone who attempts that today stands a good chance of becoming dismissed as a pale copy of an original idea. Irony, no?
"to a man whose only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail." Abraham Maslow
DeletePosted:Originally Posted By: TankboyAnd Im not trying to convince you that what I think is art is art, I am trying to open you to the possibility that what you think is art may differ from what someone else things is art.
So many people disagree with you, that the dictionary contradicts you.
Just because things that I think are beautiful dont make me want to go all emo and slit my wrists onto a canvas doesnt mean I appreciate it any less. Sure, art can evoke emotions, but not all art does, look at andy worhol.
meg, you're just wrong.
tank:
1) Meg is NEVER wrong
Originally Posted By: wikiDance (from French danser, perhaps from Frankish) is an art form that generally refers to movement of the body, usually rhythmic and to music,[1] used as a form of expression, social interaction or presented in a spiritual or performance setting.
you may consider that
2) Meg can't dance, thus another reason why
3) dance can not be art, and as
4) Meg is never wrong,
5) everybody else must be wrong - most certainly including me and obviously excluding KASKADE...
So many people disagree with you, that the dictionary contradicts you.
Just because things that I think are beautiful dont make me want to go all emo and slit my wrists onto a canvas doesnt mean I appreciate it any less. Sure, art can evoke emotions, but not all art does, look at andy worhol.
meg, you're just wrong.
tank:1) Meg is NEVER wrong
Originally Posted By: wikiDance (from French danser, perhaps from Frankish) is an art form that generally refers to movement of the body, usually rhythmic and to music,[1] used as a form of expression, social interaction or presented in a spiritual or performance setting.
you may consider that
2) Meg can't dance, thus another reason why
3) dance can not be art, and as
4) Meg is never wrong,
5) everybody else must be wrong - most certainly including me and obviously excluding KASKADE...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:I think I need a bag of chips and a drink,
sorry...
In my opinion if you just train a particular thing and maybe you good in it its skill or similar.
If you put this into a different context, e.g. a big performance with background, making a huge setting, choreographies etc., than its becoming art. if you expressing something, people get an idea....thats art... the thing about this discussion is the the term art, and perception of it it really depending on the individual.
Art can be persistent or transient... there are no rules
there are much more things, but i have to work now...
maybe one... in germany there is an insurense for artist really good thing...there is listed what counts as an artist... actor in a film not, except is an star...
theater yeah, hiphop trainee no, capoeira yes....
you see what i wanna say?
chris
sorry...
In my opinion if you just train a particular thing and maybe you good in it its skill or similar.
If you put this into a different context, e.g. a big performance with background, making a huge setting, choreographies etc., than its becoming art. if you expressing something, people get an idea....thats art... the thing about this discussion is the the term art, and perception of it it really depending on the individual.
Art can be persistent or transient... there are no rules
there are much more things, but i have to work now...
maybe one... in germany there is an insurense for artist really good thing...there is listed what counts as an artist... actor in a film not, except is an star...
theater yeah, hiphop trainee no, capoeira yes....
you see what i wanna say?
chris
Delete
Posted:I don't believe that the definition of art depends on the setting...
But I side you that it is all about "expression". There are no rules ... but much more to it... Art can (and sometimes has to be) ridiculous, without purpose, timeless or perishing quickly, like this one:
If someone doubts that dance is art, I truly feel that this person is in a pitiable state of existence, as s/he has never experienced the sweetness that witnessing or practicing dance can have on the mind...
To me t's about art - and can not be explained but has to be experienced...
But I side you that it is all about "expression". There are no rules ... but much more to it... Art can (and sometimes has to be) ridiculous, without purpose, timeless or perishing quickly, like this one:
If someone doubts that dance is art, I truly feel that this person is in a pitiable state of existence, as s/he has never experienced the sweetness that witnessing or practicing dance can have on the mind...
To me t's about art - and can not be explained but has to be experienced...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:This is an opinion based topic with massive amounts of subjectivity!
Technique is not art
For me its kinda like there are 26 letters in the alphabet, but just listing any 5 of them doesn't make a word.
or perhaps more aptly, opening a dictionary to a random page and reading words isn't going to make a sentence (it could be Art if you are making some kind of post modern point but thats another bag of worms), but those words may be arranged artfully and be used to produce something that could be a sentence, or arranged more delicately and be used to make a poem.
Just as exercises in a ballet class are not Art, yes they are part of an artform, but that doesn't make them art. The techniques must be used in a sequence to express something or tell a story/ portray the aesthetics that the choreographer intends. Then it can be called art.
Picasso said "What do you think an artist is? A fool who has only eyes if he's a painter, only ears if he's a musician, or a lyre at every level of his heart if he's a poet, or even nothing but muscles if he's a boxer? On the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly alive to the heart-rending, fiery or happy events of the world, molding himself wholly in their image. How would it be possible for him to take no interest in other men, and with cool indifference detach himself from the life which they bring you so lavishly? No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war for attack and defense against the enemy."
What resonates with me is 'art is not to decorate apartments'
I feel this totally applies to spinning, if we are just making pretty circles and fancy lines we are not artists, we are demonstrating skill and technical aptitude much like a gymnast does during a routine.
The skills and techniques employed by the gymnast can be used to create art, and is done often in a setting of circus art/ physical theater
Art says something, or at least seeks to say something. that doesn't mean it makes sense to everyone or is fully digestible. but it is not just a demonstration of skill.
oh and on the topic of cookie cutter spinners another Picasso quote
"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal. "
Technique is not art
For me its kinda like there are 26 letters in the alphabet, but just listing any 5 of them doesn't make a word.
or perhaps more aptly, opening a dictionary to a random page and reading words isn't going to make a sentence (it could be Art if you are making some kind of post modern point but thats another bag of worms), but those words may be arranged artfully and be used to produce something that could be a sentence, or arranged more delicately and be used to make a poem.
Just as exercises in a ballet class are not Art, yes they are part of an artform, but that doesn't make them art. The techniques must be used in a sequence to express something or tell a story/ portray the aesthetics that the choreographer intends. Then it can be called art.
Picasso said "What do you think an artist is? A fool who has only eyes if he's a painter, only ears if he's a musician, or a lyre at every level of his heart if he's a poet, or even nothing but muscles if he's a boxer? On the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly alive to the heart-rending, fiery or happy events of the world, molding himself wholly in their image. How would it be possible for him to take no interest in other men, and with cool indifference detach himself from the life which they bring you so lavishly? No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war for attack and defense against the enemy."
What resonates with me is 'art is not to decorate apartments'
I feel this totally applies to spinning, if we are just making pretty circles and fancy lines we are not artists, we are demonstrating skill and technical aptitude much like a gymnast does during a routine.
The skills and techniques employed by the gymnast can be used to create art, and is done often in a setting of circus art/ physical theater
Art says something, or at least seeks to say something. that doesn't mean it makes sense to everyone or is fully digestible. but it is not just a demonstration of skill.
oh and on the topic of cookie cutter spinners another Picasso quote
"Bad artists copy. Good artists steal. "
aston
SILVER Member since Dec 2007
![aston]()
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Total posts: 4061
SILVER Member since Dec 2007
Unofficial Chairperson of Squirrel Defense League
Location: South Africa
Total posts: 4061
Posted:I would not call what I do art, although I do think it is an artform.
'We're all mad here. I'm mad, you're mad." [said the Cat.]
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "Or you wouldn't have come here."
- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures In Wonderland
Posted:that's the problem with most artists (I know) ... they adore other people's work but got troubles to identify their own genius...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:a friend of mine has a story.
His wife's grandfather was a famous for his beautiful pottery and had been so for over 30 years.
When they first met my friend said to his grandfather in law,
"it must be amazing being able to live your art"
To which the potter replied
"what art? this is my work! if other people wish to see it as art it is up to them. I just do my work."
His wife's grandfather was a famous for his beautiful pottery and had been so for over 30 years.
When they first met my friend said to his grandfather in law,
"it must be amazing being able to live your art"
To which the potter replied
"what art? this is my work! if other people wish to see it as art it is up to them. I just do my work."
Posted:Tankboy: Well seems like many people don't think I'm wrong.
I'm glad thou that you have 'appeal to authority' as one of your arguments. It's a shame everyone doesn't respect dictionaries as much as you do. There would be like no arguments then. We could all just say: this is what this is: boom done.
I don't think you know anything about what I think is art. Art can be anything, art can be someone drilling a hole in a piece of wood badly, or endlessly repeating a juggling trick until they learn a bad habit. But at the same time it's not. It usually takes something else to make it art, even if that thing is only the observer, or an artist to put the thing into a context that makes it art.
I think all art does evoke emotions, because all decisions are based on emotions. Andy Warhol said stuff about the art world, just as Duchamp did. Plus you seem to be contradicting your earlier argument, that what I think is art can differ what other people think is art, so can't Warhols art be not art to you but art to somebody else?
I could be more acerbic at this point, but I'm a bit tired.
Squid: Evil is fun sometimes. Look at nature. It loves it. Our life is based on killing other things. Gotta love nature.
Squid also makes very good points. Which I agree with.
Firetom writes something I didn't read fully due it looking like basic Meg trolling.
Flamba wrote something that seems like a good point already made, but it's hard to tell with the English.
I heard that an eccentric art collector bought an artists entire life and works the other day. He set up cameras in his studio and get all the works and tapes and everything. So you never really know what is or isn't gonna be art in the end. But it's a good example of what I generally think: Art = Life.
DaG wrote some good stuff too. That picasso quote is especially interesting. "It is an instrument of war for attack and defense against the enemy." Whhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa. Good quote.
"Bad artists copy, Good artists steal." This is true to a point. I think you have to get to the very bottom of what you are copying in oder to steal it thou... They do say there are no new ideas under the sun, and so really your going to have to steal em aren't you? But they're lying, there are new ideas. They're only saying that to you to make you feel better about not being creative enough to find them.
I love you a little bit now Dag. Oops, did I say that out loud?
On the topic of inspiration and cookie cutter spinners.... I think it's too much idol worship...
Make spinning that doesn't look like anyone else's spinning. Having someone say: Oh wow, you really look like G when you spin, it's not a compliment, it's a critique. That's the mindset people should have... if you ask me.
It is amazing to be able to live your art thou. AMAZING. Better if you notice you are doing it thou.
I'm glad thou that you have 'appeal to authority' as one of your arguments. It's a shame everyone doesn't respect dictionaries as much as you do. There would be like no arguments then. We could all just say: this is what this is: boom done.
I don't think you know anything about what I think is art. Art can be anything, art can be someone drilling a hole in a piece of wood badly, or endlessly repeating a juggling trick until they learn a bad habit. But at the same time it's not. It usually takes something else to make it art, even if that thing is only the observer, or an artist to put the thing into a context that makes it art.
I think all art does evoke emotions, because all decisions are based on emotions. Andy Warhol said stuff about the art world, just as Duchamp did. Plus you seem to be contradicting your earlier argument, that what I think is art can differ what other people think is art, so can't Warhols art be not art to you but art to somebody else?
I could be more acerbic at this point, but I'm a bit tired.
Squid: Evil is fun sometimes. Look at nature. It loves it. Our life is based on killing other things. Gotta love nature.
Squid also makes very good points. Which I agree with.
Firetom writes something I didn't read fully due it looking like basic Meg trolling.
Flamba wrote something that seems like a good point already made, but it's hard to tell with the English.
I heard that an eccentric art collector bought an artists entire life and works the other day. He set up cameras in his studio and get all the works and tapes and everything. So you never really know what is or isn't gonna be art in the end. But it's a good example of what I generally think: Art = Life.
DaG wrote some good stuff too. That picasso quote is especially interesting. "It is an instrument of war for attack and defense against the enemy." Whhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa. Good quote.
"Bad artists copy, Good artists steal." This is true to a point. I think you have to get to the very bottom of what you are copying in oder to steal it thou... They do say there are no new ideas under the sun, and so really your going to have to steal em aren't you? But they're lying, there are new ideas. They're only saying that to you to make you feel better about not being creative enough to find them.
I love you a little bit now Dag. Oops, did I say that out loud?
On the topic of inspiration and cookie cutter spinners.... I think it's too much idol worship...
Make spinning that doesn't look like anyone else's spinning. Having someone say: Oh wow, you really look like G when you spin, it's not a compliment, it's a critique. That's the mindset people should have... if you ask me.
It is amazing to be able to live your art thou. AMAZING. Better if you notice you are doing it thou.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Posted:Is it an airplane? Is it a rocket? NO! it is... SUPERTROLL
[edit] There is a German saying that it echoes back from the forest the way you shout into it... I didn't mean to troll you, Meg - I only found that taking your aggressiveness with a pinch of humor (irony/ sarcasm) actually serves my emotional state a lot better.
This did turn into a discussion as to whether dance is an artform - or what can be considered to actually be art or not...
And especially when it comes to it, I do feel that dance is much more than just a jerky way of walking or shuffling your feet...
Maybe you don't enjoy dancing... I never saw you dancing in any of your videos, so I can't really say whether you do dance and enjoy it or not. If not it might explain why you oppose dance to be an artform to begin with.
Art imo is to take something into a new context... One takes a stick and turns it in her/his hand... sees girl with a crystal ball who isolates the same and lets it run over her body... one imitates her movements: KAZAM! Contact staff is born...
other people observe the attempt and take it further... This is what I believe happened around 2002 on the EJC in Bremen and the one before that in Rotterdam.. Might be mistaken, maybe contact staff has been around much much longer... only never saw it before.
It's a gift to be able processing an external influence and turn it into something new and unique... so to me it is about "using" inspiration... the "creative process" in which inspiration is used (to me) is inevitable...
[edit] There is a German saying that it echoes back from the forest the way you shout into it... I didn't mean to troll you, Meg - I only found that taking your aggressiveness with a pinch of humor (irony/ sarcasm) actually serves my emotional state a lot better.
This did turn into a discussion as to whether dance is an artform - or what can be considered to actually be art or not...
And especially when it comes to it, I do feel that dance is much more than just a jerky way of walking or shuffling your feet...
Maybe you don't enjoy dancing... I never saw you dancing in any of your videos, so I can't really say whether you do dance and enjoy it or not. If not it might explain why you oppose dance to be an artform to begin with.
Art imo is to take something into a new context... One takes a stick and turns it in her/his hand... sees girl with a crystal ball who isolates the same and lets it run over her body... one imitates her movements: KAZAM! Contact staff is born...
other people observe the attempt and take it further... This is what I believe happened around 2002 on the EJC in Bremen and the one before that in Rotterdam.. Might be mistaken, maybe contact staff has been around much much longer... only never saw it before.
It's a gift to be able processing an external influence and turn it into something new and unique... so to me it is about "using" inspiration... the "creative process" in which inspiration is used (to me) is inevitable...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [inspiration creatively] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > DVD Previews > Poi technique - Instruction and Inspiration > Poi technique - Instruction and Inspiration *help/resource
2. Forums > Using Inspiration Creatively [60 replies]
3. Forums > Inspiration for... [8 replies]
4. Forums > Random acts of kindness, life's poetry and sources of inspiration ... [51 replies]
5. Forums > inspiration from computer games [2 replies]
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.