NationStates Jolt Archive

Well.. simple question.

What is more important in a piece of art?

Aesthetics or personal value/meaning?



I'm interested in what people think, after something I saw in another thread..

I don' know if I'm using correct terms, I don't know if I'm making sense, I am quite tired, I shall check this thread later after I have slept.

Personal value/meaning.

Art is an expression that happen to be non-verbal and non-written.

Definitely personal value/meaning. Simply for no other reason than the idea that art is not always supposed to be pleasing. Sometimes art is supposed to be disturbing. It makes people think.

The Nazz is the most important aspect of art!

Cats Lots And Lots Of Cats

Personal meaning/message. It's one half of what makes art.
The first half is the artist creating the work, the second half is the reaction the piece of art produces in the individual. If it fails to produce a response (other than "Hm, cute") it's not art.
If it produces a response, it is art.

I like to take photographs, it's nice to get a good shot now and then, but I never look at something and ask myself "What does this represent?"

I don't know..

Is it art if it looks good, but has no value?

12345.;)

Personal value. The best art is that which successfully communicates meaning in an aesthetically pleasing and original way.

Both are important. Remember, you don't write a letter to show off how nice your handwriting is, and you don't write a meaningful letter so poorly that it can't be read.

personal value/ meaning


my kids' art has personal value and meaning to me, while other people see a pile of trash and tape I see more.


one of my inlaws is an artist, I don't like her very much so her watercolors while "pretty" are well, meaningless to me, which is why I would never hang one in my house.

Getting invited to cocktail parties where you can mingle with fellow artists and, more importantly, people who'll give you money for your art.

It's kind of ironic to put aesthetics, because to a logical person, the balance and mathematical perfection of the art is what is going to cause the personal value to increase. Nevertheless, I put aesthetics. It's just gotta fit right.

Personal meaning/message. It's one half of what makes art.
The first half is the artist creating the work, the second half is the reaction the piece of art produces in the individual. If it fails to produce a response (other than "Hm, cute") it's not art.
If it produces a response, it is art.
Then I disagree. There are pieces that are focused around creating a response or purely on personal meaning. That does not make them art, it makes them a message. Art requires a level of skill such that you can create an image for that message, not just make it. Aesthetics significantly improves the ability to convey the message and invoke a response.

Then I disagree. There are pieces that are focused around creating a response or purely on personal meaning. That does not make them art, it makes them a message. Art requires a level of skill such that you can create an image for that message, not just make it. Aesthetics significantly improves the ability to convey the message and invoke a response.

No, a message is desinged to convey information, not to provoke a reaction. It's focus is the information it contains, it's neither the creative act on the side of the artist, nor the response it produces in the reader/listener/beholder.

Aesthetics can be a means by which to stimulate a reaction in the beholder, but in itself beauty does not constitute art.

No, a message is desinged to convey information, not to provoke a reaction.
A message is designed to convey information or invoke emotion or provoke a reaction. The focus of the message is to convey an opinion or position.

Aesthetics can be a means by which to stimulate a reaction in the beholder, but in itself beauty does not constitute art.
Disagree. Aesthetics in and of themselves can stimulate a reaction where none would exist simply by being aesthetic, thus, even alone, they are art.

Getting invited to cocktail parties where you can mingle with fellow artists and, more importantly, people who'll give you money for your art.
So true!

A message is designed to convey information or invoke emotion or provoke a reaction. The focus of the message is to convey an opinion or position.

Disagree. Aesthetics in and of themselves can stimulate a reaction where none would exist simply by being aesthetic, thus, even alone, they are art.

The purpose of a message is to convey information. If it's used to invoke emotion or provoke a certain reaction, it is fullfilling additional purposes. It could be argued that at this stage it does become art. Where do you draw the line between simple writing and literature?

The purpose of a message is to convey information. If it's used to invoke emotion or provoke a certain reaction, it is fullfilling additional purposes.
I don't think we are defining message the same.

It could be argued that at this stage it does become art. Where do you draw the line between simple writing and literature?
Simple writing simply conveys information about a subject.

Cabra-

My uncle has a picture (on velvet) of Jesus dressed like Elvis that if you play music there are lights around him that blink in time.............. we all agree that's not art, in fact everyone but my uncle and his wife agrees that it's

a tacky
b hilarious
c should be burned or something

now, my daughter does junk sculpture, the one she made yesterday included a plastic cup, a soda bottle lid, some peices of lint, a candy wrapper, and a lot of tape

we all agree that this is art

and as tacky as the Jesus painting is, it took a lot more work, and is probably more visually pleasing than my daughter's sculpture of "blue surprised man"

so why is her's art and the other not?

(both are one of a kind, if that helps.)

Cabra-

My uncle has a picture (on velvet) of Jesus dressed like Elvis that if you play music there are lights around him that blink in time.............. we all agree that's not art, in fact everyone but my uncle and his wife agrees that it's

a tacky
b hilarious
c should be burned or something

now, my daughter does junk sculpture, the one she made yesterday included a plastic cup, a soda bottle lid, some peices of lint, a candy wrapper, and a lot of tape

we all agree that this is art

and as tacky as the Jesus painting is, it took a lot more work, and is probably more visually pleasing than my daughter's sculpture of "blue surprised man"

so why is her's art and the other not?

(both are one of a kind, if that helps.)

Considering that the mere description of that picture made me laugh out loud, I would say it did provoke a reaction and therefore qualifies as art in my book.

:D

Cabra-

My uncle has a picture (on velvet) of Jesus dressed like Elvis that if you play music there are lights around him that blink in time.............. we all agree that's not art, in fact everyone but my uncle and his wife agrees that it's

a tacky
b hilarious
c should be burned or something

now, my daughter does junk sculpture, the one she made yesterday included a plastic cup, a soda bottle lid, some peices of lint, a candy wrapper, and a lot of tape

we all agree that this is art

and as tacky as the Jesus painting is, it took a lot more work, and is probably more visually pleasing than my daughter's sculpture of "blue surprised man"

so why is her's art and the other not?

(both are one of a kind, if that helps.)

jesus on velvet is art! it speaks to your uncle, its art.

its just not GOOD art. its tacky, hilarious, sacrilegious, and probably should be burned, but its art.

as is your daughters work. it is also not good art but it does the same thing that other art does. it expresses some inexpressible inner vision and it speaks to its audience. she may some day be a great artist if she chooses to pursue it seriously as she grows up.

art is so intimidating that its more useful to use food as a metaphor.

we all have our food preferences eh? some of us love the "jesus on velvet" equivalent of food.... easter peeps perhaps.

are peeps food? yes. are peeps GOOD food? no.

we also understand that some food is better than others and that it takes skill and knowledge to make a great meal. some foods that are acknowledged to be great take sophistication to appreciate. we dont like them the first time we try them. caviar and great wine pop into my head as examples. and we know that no matter how great a meal is deemed to be by experts, there are times when we would rather have hotdogs and beans. (and that there are some people who would always prefer hotdogs and beans)

great food is loved both by the experts of the food world and those who have developed a sophisticated palate. the totally uneducated might never understand why the best french food is better than mom's sunday dinner but they should still enjoy the french food if they have any affinity for good food at all.

art is the same. to be great it requires technique and vision. van gogh's the starry night will always be better than jesus on velvet for that reason. it also has to speak to its audience. on that level the starry night is better than jesus on velvet too. the more people it speaks to, the better it is. great art leaves you with a sense of wonder that cant fully be expressed. if it can be explained, it has failed on some level.

art IS "i dont know what is art but i know what i like". if it speaks to me, it speaks to me even if it isnt techinically good. just as a hot dog and beer is perfect to me on a hot summers day.

on the other side, you can have technically good art that is so trite in its subject matter that it speaks deeply to no one. its a very pretty picture but not moving.

great art does both. good art does some of both. to be art only requires the effort on the part of the artist and to have one person who finds his work compelling.

anyway, the "personal value" is more important in art as it is more difficult to achieve. the more people who find personal value in it, the better art it is.

Considering that the mere description of that picture made me laugh out loud, I would say it did provoke a reaction and therefore qualifies as art in my book.

:D

*stiffly takes a drag of a cigarette and sips chardonnay* Well, we could also view it as a critique of the tendency of post modern society to overcommercialise every aspect of life, to the point where certain popular figures reach a cultural status on par with religious idolatry. *stiffly takes another drag*

*stiffly takes a drag of a cigarette and sips chardonnay* Well, we could also view it as a critique of the tendency of post modern society to overcommercialise every aspect of life, to the point where certain popular figures reach a cultural status on par with religious idolatry. *stiffly takes another drag*
really? what I get from it is

"I am a redneck, I like Jesus and Elvis and sparkley lights..oh, that velvet is soft too........*drools* "

really? what I get from it is

"I am a redneck, I like Jesus and Elvis and sparkley lights..oh, that velvet is soft too........*drools* "

*chortles* Yes, well. That is to be expected from one as unrefined as yourself. You just don't get "it", do you?

(i'm kidding. :p)

The Artistic value.;)

The Artistic value.;)
O Capitan! Mon Capitan!