TTI Forums

[Moderator note: topics split]

What is the point of that video?

Oleksandr wrote:What is the point of that video?

What is good art? And what the heck is art good for? Those are two questions for the ages.

For the artist I am sure there is some form of catharsis. And for at some artists there has to be a degree of bragging rights for being able to transform their medium in ways that other people can not.

Objectively I supposed we could judge art by its realism or moral. Michelangelo’s David or Richard Strauss’ Also Sprach Zarathustra might score well by these criteria. But these are some fairly narrow constraints to place on unbounded passion.

For those of us in the peanut gallery, I suppose it comes down to our degree of appreciation. Either the art means something to us or is doesn’t. For me personally I enjoy the minimalistic music of Philip Glass. Alex Roman's Composting has many elements of minimalism both musical and visual. I appreciated it.

What criteria would you use to judge the value of art Olek? Or is art devoid of objective value?

I find this to be incredibly interesting. I didn't have much time to look into it after seeing Rand discuss it the second time she was on Donahue's show, but I'm hoping to get into it at some point. This page describes it decently: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html

musashi wrote:

Oleksandr wrote:What is the point of that video?

What is good art? And what the heck is art good for? Those are two questions for the ages.

Sigh, Musashi, sometimes I wonder if you have ever any non-fiction works by Ayn Rand. Have you read Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand? She answers all such questions.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html

Very small quote on why Man needs art:

Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art teaches man how to use his consciousness. It conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence.

Very small quote on what is the definition of art:

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. . . .

By a selective re-creation, art isolates and integrates those aspects of reality which represent man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. Out of the countless number of concretes—of single, disorganized and (seemingly) contradictory attributes, actions and entities—an artist isolates the things which he regards as metaphysically essential and integrates them into a single new concrete that represents an embodied abstraction.

For instance, consider two statues of man: one as a Greek god, the other as a deformed medieval monstrosity. Both are metaphysical estimates of man; both are projections of the artist’s view of man’s nature; both are concretized representations of the philosophy of their respective cultures.

Art is a concretization of metaphysics. Art brings man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allows him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts.

This is the psycho-epistemological function of art and the reason of its importance in man’s life (and the crux of the Objectivist esthetics).

musashi wrote:As I recall she does go into great depth exploring the role and nature of art. But in a way leaves the value judgment about good and bad with the individual, much like the description you’ve posted above. I notice that she does not provide a value judgment about which statue represents the good art.

That was only a quote, which doesn't include the whole. You have missed a lot from the book.

Here is more from the link I quoted:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html

Art is man’s metaphysical mirror; what a rational man seeks to see in that mirror is a salute; what an irrational man seeks to see is a justification—even if only a justification of his depravity, as a last convulsion of his betrayed self-esteem.

Between these two extremes, there lies the immense continuum of men of mixed premises—whose sense of life holds unresolved, precariously balanced or openly contradictory elements of reason and unreason—and works of art that reflect these mixtures. Since art is the product of philosophy (and mankind’s philosophy is tragically mixed), most of the world’s art, including some of its greatest examples, falls into this category.

So yes, she does go in great depth into what is good and bad art.


Dohh... This post kinda got messed up in the quoting process. Olek!! it happens every once in a while.

You guys should move the topic into the Deep Thoughts forum if you continue to expand on your thoughts.

But back to the video. Is it art? No. It does however have some artistic elements. Cinematography (and the composition effects applied in the linked video) is essentially photography in motion. Ayn Rand discussed photography briefly:

"The selection of camera angles, lighting or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful..."

The Romantic Manifesto “Art and Cognition,” The Romantic Manifesto, 74.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/photography.html

By using the computer effects (compositing) the cinematographer/ graphical artist is selectively enhancing certain elements of the scene, in some instances changing them to give a more dynamic look. So again, it's not art; just artistic. And in this case very well done.

To answer Oleks' question "what is the point of that video."

I believe the point was for the creator to show case his portfolio, probably for potential clients. Anyone of the clips in that sequence could be done in a movie, tv show, documentary, etc. As for why Phy posted it? I don't know. But I'm glad he did because it's awesome.

Zarkary wrote:But back to the video. Is it art? No. It does however have some artistic elements. Cinematography (and the composition effects applied in the linked video) is essentially photography in motion. Ayn Rand discussed photography briefly:

"The selection of camera angles, lighting or lenses is merely a selection of the means to reproduce various aspects of the given, i.e., of an existing concrete. There is an artistic element in some photographs, which is the result of such selectivity as the photographer can exercise, and some of them can be very beautiful..."

The Romantic Manifesto “Art and Cognition,” The Romantic Manifesto, 74.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/photography.html

It is interesting perspective. There are few mediums more faithful to realism than photography(excepting instances like this one). But from the passage it would appear that The Romantic Manifesto dismisses photography as non-art. I’m glad Ansel Adams didn’t get the memo.

Given that these digital composts are totally fabricated by the artist, not just capturing a concrete subject from the real world… Would it be safe to say that it is closer to art than a real photograph?

"Given that these digital composts are totally fabricated by the artist, not just capturing a concrete subject from the real world… Would it be safe to say that it is closer to art than a real photograph?"

I've actually been pondering this throughout the day! Adding all these special effects, such as the compositing seen in the video, brings the medium much closer to art. I think when this is done the picture can become an abstract expression instead of just a technical representation. It's almost as if the photographer/graphic artist is sculpting something out of the picture. Very interesting. While Rand was alive photography wasn't anything like it is today and her approach makes complete sense. But the craft and its medium have changed so much over the past decade with the addition of digital editing.

Ultimately I think it has to be taken on a case by case basis. If there is enough digital "sculpting" and it's done so that the image now represents something abstract, it could be art. But a picture of a beer on a table at a party: not so much. I'm definitely going to be mulling this one over a lot for a while, great topic and right up my alley. Any digital media industry enthusiasts/professionals out there have any thoughts?

Not to be too confrontational. But Ayn Rand’s perspective on photography as a purely mechanical capture of the real world seems a bit simplistic to me.

There are so many variables associated with capturing and developing a photograph and then to add criteria like theme and composition. Often photography has a timing constraint as well. I wonder if Ayn Rand’s understanding of photography was deep enough to make the dismissal of it as an art form.

I find very little art or artists pleasing. So I’m probably the worst person to judge what the majority of people would consider “art”. But here is my opinion on the matter:

Art to me, is really anything you can market. Something that you are marketing solely on its aesthetic value. We relate to art, it allows us to imagine things that we wouldn’t necessarily imagine or to visualize things that we couldn't ordinarily visualize. Art conveys context to ideas. For example Atlas Shrugged is art, it’s fictional work that conveys the ideas of objectivism more effectively than Virtue of selfishness. VoS is a statement of facts, when Rand uses examples she is trying to use a concept for you to understand VoS. In Atlas Shrugged the entire book is the concept and the ideas are presented in the context of that book. So that’s where art comes into play IMO, it can put things into perspective, whether it’s writing or movies or music or a picture.

Now if “art” doesn’t put things into perspective and it doesn’t strike interest in anyone, no one would be able to market it. And if they can’t market it, it’s not art, it’s garbage. Without human beings applying value to it, it is not art.

So is photography art? Yes. One can conceptualize the aspect of the image. For example: The photograph of the firefighter holding a dead child after the Oklahoma City bombing. That is art, it takes the entire situation and boils down all those emotions into a single photograph and that single photograph explains the entire situation for people.

Once again, the key to art is that it is marketable. if it’s not marketable it is not art. If you cannot sell it to someone, if no one finds it pleasing enough to spend a portion of their work or “effort” on it, then its not art. You can create art for yourself and not for anyone else and it is still art because you have marketed it to yourself. I.e. “I ‘spent’ my time on this just for me...” But if the artist doesn’t find it pleasing enough to keep and no one else finds it pleasing enough to buy, then it’s not fucking art.

There is a huge government supported “non-art” culture that ‘we’ call art culture in this country. These people couldn't sell their paintings to anyone and they don’t want them either. They are getting paid to create garbage. Your child scrawling crayons on construction paper is only important to you because it’s your child and eventually you throw it away because the thing itself has no value. The only temporary value was to your child, so when the child ceases to value that “artwork” it ceases to have value.

Allowing and/or perpetuating people to believe that anything they draw, write etc... is “valuable” because they did it, creates false self-esteem. The “art world” needs to learn that art is only valuable when others find it valuable or if the artist themselves finds it valuable. If an artist creates a “masterpiece” and gives it away, it is of no value to them and it certainly isn’t valuable to anyone else. So why are we teaching people that this imperfect scratching with crayons is wonderful enough to put on the “refrigerator”. The mentality of “everyone should appreciate it because they created it...” is the flaw with most art/artists. The artist cannot force any value to it, the creation itself must be valuable.

redhotrebel wrote:Once again, the key to art is that it is marketable. if it’s not marketable it is not art.

I’ve used this as my criteria for good art in the past too. The definition is very clean and easy – the more people that would pay for the art the better it is.

Thus we can safely claim that the band Menudo created far better art than say the music of Paco de Lucia. See that is where it breaks down for me because Menudo has the fame & fortune, but for some reason I can’t place the quality of their art anywhere near the majority of musicians I listen to. I wish I could break it down to an economic argument – but I can’t.

As far as needing to get paid to be considered an artist. I’m not sure that is how it works either. To me it seems that the majority of artists struggle in anonymity and poverty for their entire lifetime. Yes some metamorphose into fame and commercial success, but the majority do not. I was just in the British Museum last month. They have art work from throughout the ages, and from many different cultures. Much of the provenance is lost on these artifacts – I can’t say for sure that the pieces were bought and paid for at the time they were made. Dig them up a few hundred years later and their value escalates dramatically. Maybe the toll painting my mother-in-law made on that discarded toilet lid will be worth something someday? What does that say about our age?

musashi wrote:

redhotrebel wrote:Once again, the key to art is that it is marketable. if it’s not marketable it is not art.

I’ve used this as my criteria for good art in the past too. The definition is very clean and easy – the more people that would pay for the art the better it is.

In essense: the more people agree with you that it is art, the higher change of that being art.

This is nothing more than a collective Subjectivism, where the standard is whatever the masses decide. Under such view, art as such means nothing and stands for nothing and whatever it may mean now will easily change tomorrow depending on how masses feel tomorrow.

Digging your own grave here, folks.

Oleksandr wrote:Digging your own grave here, folks.

I’m whistling past the graveyard here – I never went to a Menudo concert or bought an album. And hey the posters were not nearly as good after Ricky Martin left the band. Technically that poster with Ricky belonged to my sister.

Back to firm ground, if the art

Ayn Rand wrote:"tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important."

Isn’t it safe to say that what one man deems essential and uplifting another might judge to be tripe? Where is the objective standard in this art stuff?

Couldn't it be possible that some great and successful Francisco Danconia-type person was moved to a higher place by Menudo’s dubious craft?

musashi wrote:Back to firm ground, if the art

Ayn Rand wrote:"tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important."

Isn’t it safe to say that what one man deems essential and uplifting another might judge to be tripe? Where is the objective standard in this art stuff?

That's a good question. I suggest checking the book out as I think Ayn Rand answers this question very well.

From what I know now, probably after reading Ayn Rand and Peikoff, there is such a thing as vicious art - that is an art that points out horror and destruction as the most important and significant - i.e. SinCity movies and the like. That's art, sure.

Oleksandr wrote:

musashi wrote:Where is the objective standard in this art stuff?

That's a good question. I suggest checking the book out as I think Ayn Rand answers this question very well.

I should work on the non-fiction works. Just help me with these two small questions interpreted by the Rand/Peikoff standard…. Menudo art or not art? Menudo good or bad art?

Oleksandr wrote:From what I know now, probably after reading Ayn Rand and Peikoff, there is such a thing as vicious art - that is an art that points out horror and destruction as the most important and significant - i.e. SinCity movies and the like. That's art, sure.

Absolutely there is a huge industry that profits from the dark side. And by the Ayn Rand standard the products of this industry should not be considered art. Interesting that you selected SinCity as an example. The hero in that story fought against the dark society that Frank Miller constructed. As gory and corrupt as the images and storyline are by an absolute standard SinCity could be judged to be significant and uplifting.

The SinCity story follows a similar context to Hamlet – one good man against a predominantly evil world. In my opinion Hamlet has withstood the test of time and is a valued piece of literary art. SinCity?... Maybe not a literary master piece, but the illustrations (separated from subject matter) are very impressive.

I am not really a good judge of what good art is, in my opinion I think art is a form of expression. Anybody can be an artist, but not everyone can be good at it. For me, photography can be considered as art as long as it is done in a way that expresses a mood or emotion. Not just imply catching movement, activities, scenarios, and faces.

Artist here.

I make art. I love my art and use it to entertain myself. I doubt it would market, and I don't buy art that is similar to mine, though, I do try to make my art in the style of other people's art as a learning tactic. Making in the style of others, mimicing, is a way to learn tricks to achieve your goal such that future projects will be able to have a wider variety of elements.

My art is music. I consider music to be representations of people's minds and how they work. Ideas can be expressed in music that words cannot describe. Listening to other's music is like looking at a picture of their mind and it helps me better understand part of it.

Am I doing something wrong by not making art that can market? I don't think so. I'm just trying to share my ideas. This is the same thing I am doing on this forum.

Hieder wrote:My art is music.

Help me out Hieder…. Menudo art or not art? Menudo good art or bad art?

I would have suggested the Monkey’s but I actually like some of their songs. These bands are corporate ensembles put together by marketing types for the explicit purpose of selling product.

To me Menudo is not art. Something backfired with the Monkeys. They were created to mirror the Beatles, and somehow the producers got too close to the genuine article when they created the counterfeit. Not that they are great, but I can remember some of their songs. I can’t remember a single Menudo song and they made 10x the money the Monkeys pulled down. Maybe it is those repressed memories from the posters….

BTW can you mimic that guitar piece, Mediterranean Sundance (Paco's link above)?

musashi wrote:

Hieder wrote:My art is music.

Help me out Hieder…. Menudo art or not art? Menudo good art or bad art?

BTW can you mimic that guitar piece, Mediterranean Sundance (Paco's link above)?

Back to if photography is art. I think corporate ensembles and most pop music groups in that vein are more like photographs than they are like pure art. In a photograph, the stuff contained within the photograph is not the art. It's the manipulation of the lenses, digital effects, and angle that add the artistic element to the photo. However, the creation is not purely the work of the photographer.

I've never heard of Menudo until just now. If they are like other pop music groups then each person involved in the creation of the final product has varying levels of artistic input to the project, however, I wouldn't say anyone is solely responsible for the entirety of the art. The producer and sound editor are like a photographer. The "band" "members" could be performing how they see fit. This would be some art in a way. Or maybe they are even another step removed if the director controls everything about their performance. The music is composed by another person, this tiny bit is another piece of art in itself. The lyrics are probably written by yet another person, again another piece of art mixed in.

I don't consider the whole of a photo to be art. This comes from a photographer aquaintance of mine as well. I wouldn't consider the whole of corporate music to be art either.

This is not the kind of art I enjoy. I like things that are more or less created by a single individual with maybe a little help from others. It better gives an image as to what is going on in the artists mind.

As far as the link, wow, that is a very complex and beautiful piece. I love complex music. It's what I listen to mostly. If I listen to it several times I'm sure I could break down most of the music theory elements used to create its awesome sound. I could probably do a very poor job composing something that would sound similar in complexity using the same elements, but I wouldnt be able to actually play it and it would take me a very long time to compose.

Hieder wrote: …but I wouldn’t be able to actually play it ...

You should give it a try. The link to that live performance has two players, on the album its three. John McLaughlin (the guy on the right in the link) did a duet version of the song with Katia Labeque on piano in one of his concerts. The performance was impressive. Katia couldn’t quite keep up with his speed or do the neck warping. But the dynamic range of the piano is better than the guitar she was hammering the spiccato sections. Katia was even using that Steinway as a bongo, she wrang the ax out! If you do get it down, concentrate on the tone and attitude. I’ve heard faithful reproductions of this piece where they played the notes but had no passion. It was like the technical challenge intimidated them or something, it came off very mechanical.

As far as Menudo, I selected them because EVERY aspect of their performance was coordinated by someone else. Edgardo Diaz was an organ grinder with the monkey, of sorts. He‘d get these kids and train and drill them. Every aspect of the product was intricately controlled by someone else, and when the boys grew into adults, Edgardo found other monkeys (it was a five piece and they had 18 different members over the years). Edgardo made mucho dinero.

Art is that which provides an aesthetic experience for the viewer. The more profound that experience is the better the art. The medium doesn't matter.

Riprion wrote:Art is that which provides an aesthetic experience for the viewer. The more profound that experience is the better the art. The medium doesn't matter.

Well, how do you determine "if it provides"?

It is based on the completely subjective reaction of the viewer. The determination of what is and isn't art is subjective because it is based on an individual's reaction. This is probably why there are so many arguments about what should be considered art. However the criteria is objective. If it elicits an aesthetic response it is art if not then not. Of course there are then conditions such as being an intentional fabrication by a sentient entity so as to preclude the Grand Canyon or a sunset. I understand that the definition is very vague and expansive but when you try to determine which qualities are similar between disparate types and styles of art, pretty much all that is left is the aesthetic experience. It is also why there is almost always a presumed adjective attached to the word art. For example, we talk about commercial art, folk art, and fine art and usually when there is no adjective it is presumed to refer to fine art.

Riprion wrote:It is based on the completely subjective reaction of the viewer. The determination of what is and isn't art is subjective because it is based on an individual's reaction. . . . If it elicits an aesthetic response it is art if not then not.

In essense, what you said means that art is whatever people feel art is.

This is rather random. Why should I accept somebody's "subjective" feeling to decide if something in front of me is an art or not?

"Art" as a generic term is fairly useless. Think of it more in terms of a taxonomic kingdom designation. "Animal" is not very useful either except to differentiate from "plant". I like to reference the antiquities section of a museum. What do they have presented as art of the Greeks? Well, you are going to have some frescoes, mosiacs, sculpture, pottery, and potsherds. A lot of those potsherds are the ancient equivalent of a McDonald's Happy Meal collector's cup. They are still art, just not very good art.

Humans love art whether they know it or not. Damn near everything around you is art. That was Duchamp's point. That and context matters, but that is beside the point.

To answer your question, you shouldn't take their word that something is art (or more specifically "fine" art). That decision is personal and subjective. If the work doesn't elicit an aesthetic reaction in you then it probably isn't very good or maybe it's just not your style.