Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Art, the new move

  1. Mar 25, 2003 #1
    Most of you I presume are at least familair with some type of art. You've seen the Mona Lisa, you know who painted the Sistine Chapel, and possibly some of you are artist. I know one person besides me on this forum is only because he's my brother :) The question I have is more for non-artist. Of course artists ideas are welcome as well but please tell if you are one....no need to say you are not.

    Until the uprise of entertainment as the driving force behind culture, art had always driven culture. Spoken to it, guided it in someways, reflected it to others in other ways. Now movies and entertainers do this. Is it possible for art to reclaim this position, or is it just stuck in a limbo where people pretend it is just as important as it was 100 years ago. Do non artists actually buy the "box on a stick" as art, or do they realize the real talent when they see it? Has art lost its place in society as the driver, and only follows entertainment now? Could you live happily without art, not the crap you buy at home depot to decorate your homes or the crap hanging on museum walls today, but the real art created by real people?

    Most important question for me:
    What do yu want to see in art that you do not see today? What would make you say, "I have to have that"?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 26, 2003 #2
    Firstly, lets define 'art' . . .

    OK I can't - so I won't, but I urge you to try. (My first definition was something along the lines of 'creativity', 'originality'. But how about the Nazis being so 'creative and original' in coming up with ways to kill people with maximum efficiency? Surely nobody would call that 'art'?) Perhaps something along the lines of 'an act of creativity aimed to promote/convey truth and beauty?' Would such a definition include some modern art that simply involves a personal act of expression without consideration of aesthetics?

    Ishop: you seem to be saying that there is a difference between art and 'entertainment'. I think that perhaps your definition of art is a little narrow - in that you are leaving out various contemporary art forms eg movies? Remember that Shakespeare wrote his plays to entertain, same story with Mozart's operas. Nowadays we tend to see them as art and forget about their inherent entertainment value.

    Of course, not all movies are great art (in fact many are close to being rubbish). Good art, in my opinion, is something that has something important to say to us about the human condition, as well as having a high level of technical expertise. Many 'art' are unashamedly 'populist' - this has always been the case throughout the ages; but there has always been the odd painting, photograph, movie, music that expresses deep truths about being human and the search for beauty.

    I think the distinction you should also be making is one between 'pure entertainment' (little artistic value, just done for the sake of popular appeal) and entertainment that has artistic value. (The movie industry is a good place to look.)
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2003
  4. Mar 26, 2003 #3
    i wont deny that movies can be art, forest gump, pulp fiction, amadeus, ect. But it is the distinction that you proposed. The popular spit em out movies for money that drives our culture now that i meant....good clarification. but you did not answer my last question. And i am thinking along the lines of studio art here (non animated).
  5. Mar 26, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Art is come cool stuff. Old fashioned art is obsolete. I mean sure, people will always enjoy classics. Even hear in North Carolina a dude named Bob Timberlake is making a killing by making simple pictures of natural scenes. Art, like everything else, is evolving with the increases in technology. With modern computers, you don't have to be Van gogh to create something spectacular. Now, art has entered a more 3-d realm, such as computer animation, video games. Have you ever actually stopped and looked at your favorite video game, and observe the finest detail of the characters? Alot of work goes into it.

    But as I said, the old fashioned method of art is quickly becoming obsolete. I mean, how long will it be before we all have flat panel monitors placed around our walls to display different pictures?

    Acting has been along probably as long as painting. Its always been a more treasured form, since it has the ability to amuse those who enjoy art such as painting, and those who do not.

    But I see where people were discussing exactly what art is or is not. While what the nazis did was quite cruel, they perfect the art of killing. Art can really just be considered actions, and to be an artist is to be one of the best at going through those actions.

    I consider myself a paintball artist. I can completly paint a person in about 10 seconds, effectivly covering him with 130 paintballs. When you mix your ammo with various colors, the person/victim looks like a walking talking (cussing) painting.

    I don't think that the old school method of painting will ever be gone completly. There will always be people who take pleasure in staring at inanimate pictures. It will just evolve and improve as most everything else on earth does.
  6. Mar 26, 2003 #5
    Art has always fulfilled the need to escape from everyday life. When life has caught up to that art, art reacts by complementing its previous genre. Complementing occurs by agreement but also by disagreement. Art most directly reflects the freedom and psychology of the mind. The continuum of art owes much to the Mona Lisas, as to millions of representative unknown works.

    A human ability reflected in art is to fill an expressive vacuum, propelled by the winds of inner and outer change. Once that vacuum is filled, art bootstraps to another form, or nonform. The television set fulfills the "piss-in-a-bottle" mentality of art, but creativity's stained glass is not far behind.

    To compete with computers, TV will have to move, not just set. The boredom of today's programs will feedback to and from the audience, either maintaining with exponential electronic growth, or taking the place of silent films (would that television were silent!)

    Like cockroaches and lizards, art began at Creation, lived in caves and will outlast the martial arts of Man.
  7. Mar 26, 2003 #6
    Megashaw, I have to just say that real artist with talent will find your idea of art offensive. It's like saying, "anyone can be like einstien, its just number crunching." But I realize that you are not an artist and therefore hold no ill feeling towards your opinion that you are intitled too. Not to mention that I asked specificly for non artist to reply and asumed this sort of response. However I did say above your post that I meant the studio art, painting, drawing, sculpting, ect.

    I do realize what you and Loren Booda are saying. And I somewhat agree, however I am hoping for a way that those arts can be revitalized. Any suggestions?
  8. Mar 26, 2003 #7
    1. Give away my TV

    2. Not be an art snob

    3. See the art in everything

    4. Encourage art volunteerism

    5. Focus on art curriculum

    6. Support public art

    7. Use art as therapy

    8. Beautify with architecture, art

    9. Dispel the myth of art as expendable

    10. Meditate art
  9. Mar 27, 2003 #8
    hehe little over zelous but thanks
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Art, the new move
  1. Art (Replies: 52)

  2. Art (Replies: 11)

  3. Mass art still art? (Replies: 13)

  4. The ART and Arts Thread (Replies: 119)