Printable View
I am a big fan of art in general and certain artists and I wished to post them for your viewing and comments, if you'd like. (Keep it polite, please). :wink:
Here's Undine, by Arthur Rackham:
http://meemi.com/a/images/1/f/2/d/7/...03f2a7192c.jpg
:bowdown:
Art, taken as a spectator sport, I do not believe has much value at all.
Art, taken as inspiration to learn how to do for one's own self, is of immesurable value.
In which case, one tends to view not only content, but skill involved.
Not just a few days ago, I had a lucid dream segment, about art, done with crayon, or pastels, beautiful detail and technique, just about leaves, . . . I was reflecting on the whole thing in the dream. I was amazed.
your example is a bit muddy and indistinct. This could be because of the format transition, or materials and technique, hard to tell on the net. However, that presumes I knew the artists intent. I remember I did a soft focus one time for a photo, and it was critiqued for being out of focus, oh well. I did take two other awards, but hell, I thought the soft focus was nice.
The idiological content, seems to denote simply a child, but there is no inspiration with someone one cannot meet on intellectual par--and there is no hint of that in the example.
Now a piece depicting the Curies's distilling their first discovery, that would be content.
The greatest art of all, is the least practiced and least appreciated, but one of which all the other arts strive to, virtue of the human mind.
Cool!
(I thought the fish were a dragon's head for a second.) ^^'
I'll be answering your reply by bits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
I disagree with you in this. Artists make their art to be contemplated. Why the existence of Art Galleries then, and their struggle for their work to be admitted there? It has been so for centuries.
In my case, watching art is not a mere 'sport', but I used it as a form of entering a meditative state, to quiet my mind, to feel better by admiring works of talented people. I fancy that people staring at a painting in an art gallery feel themselves in a sort of 'trance'. Therefore I do value art from a spectator's point of view.
Art is a matter of tastes, so I won't argue if you don't like my example. I like impressionists, pre- and post-, and the pre raphaelites as well as many others. Would you say their art is 'muddy', blurry or out of focus? Same as in the example of your photograph, it is good if it pleases you, and you cannot please everybody.Quote:
your example is a bit muddy and indistinct. This could be because of the format transition, or materials and technique, hard to tell on the net. However, that presumes I knew the artists intent. I remember I did a soft focus one time for a photo, and it was critiqued for being out of focus, oh well. I did take two other awards, but hell, I thought the soft focus was nice.
The idiological content, seems to denote simply a child, but there is no inspiration with someone one cannot meet on intellectual par--and there is no hint of that in the example.
Totally agree with you in this. :)Quote:
The greatest art of all, is the least practiced and least appreciated, but one of which all the other arts strive to, virtue of the human mind.
BTW, I like your avatar. Is is of your own making? :)
Thanks for your imput!
So did I! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
Do you want some dragons by the same artist?
Dragon with three heads, by Arthur Rackham:
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/8...khamdragon.jpg
Yes, it is. I am a realist, however, I see realism differently than as simple photographic reproduction, for example, my avatar. It is a metaphor in a metaphor in a metaphor.Quote:
Originally Posted by BridgetJones09
The 3 figures, perception (the lady--giver of life) conception (the fire-like truth consumes all) and will ( the man who lives by the heat of the fire) Drawn with, in reverse order, 3, 1, and 2 lines. Refering to a passage, etc. and foremost, that I only drew forms, only a philosopher would know what form, definition and truth, had to do with each other, that they are the same. Now, i did not invent this kind of art, art the has referents, it is actually based on the language used in the dreamstate, i started lucid dreaming by choice when about 8. I learned something there.
and then, if you look up the Delian Quest, those geometric figures, they are Art, and some are very beautiful. But they are realities, and have a depth of meaning.
I only dabble in the arts, painting to poetry--except the art of the mind, that I have devoted myself to.
So, getting back to "meditation" in realism the content is actually in the work to abstract, otherwise one is not meditating but daydreaming--children daydream adults dream for days.
Nice! :content: Reminds me of a chimera.Quote:
Originally Posted by BridgetJones09
John William Waterhouse.
Lamia.
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/9216/lamia2.jpg
A good use of pictures is using them as the focal point of writing-an essay, poem, or whatever.
What I try to do is relate what people call art to the definition of self, the environmental acquisition system which must acquire experiences, and from those experiences abstract forms of behavior that maintain and promote the life of the body. perception determines conception, conception determines will. Therefore in some manner significant art, or art that is significant to us, actually changes what we do in life. As I said, this can be done by writing and thinking about what we wrote in regard to a work of art. There is at least a whole one act play here.
For example, the last given piece, the woman is trying to explain life, the warrior resigned to not understanding.
Be all this as it may, my position about art complies with my own definition, the greatest work is the most functional, however, the majority often view art as those things which happen to be the least functional. This is not the fault of the piece itself, but the use we make of it. Thus someone who takes a picture and writes by what they see it may imply has valued the work above those who only look at it.
I agree with you in this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
What I see in the picture is a Lamia begging for love to a warrior, and the warrior being indifferent to her begging. It means unrequitted love for me.
There's no right or wrong meaning IMO. It's different for everyone as we're all different as human beings, all valuable nontheless.
I do not write (I might) maybe 'cause I am lazy, but I like to contemplate a picture and tell myself the tale, so to speak. What the woman is saying, what the man is thinking, and so on. It relaxes me.
In this kind of art use, right and wrong is in how the story reinforces right human principles. Thus there can be untold number of stories. unrequitted love is the only outcome when there is a psychological disparity between individuals. This will always be until there is a standard in human psychology promoted by man himself.
The difference in psychology of man himself. A woman is the giver of life--and men speak of the honor of war, how can one love a woman, and yet deprive her of her own gift? And then there are many women who see heros of battle, never seeing that in this, they belittle themselves. I think if there were ever a real archeological dig, the first defective microwave oven is yet to be found, one our ancesters used.
If one understands love as all the things two people do together to maintain and promote their lives, then one can see it is based upon the same definition of the human mind. Then one realizes that true love can only be attained to the measure of sanity both have worked for. One of the main reasons I always tried to share my hobby of philosophy.