Death for art is sick

[Saint Syko the confused]

  Is an artist that kills for art-sake an artist or just a dumbass with a twisted mind (I usually like a twisted mind but only if he isn't a murder what do you think.

ALL BOW BEFORE THE MIGHT OF DISCORDIA!!!

[Urraco]

You havn't been here long have you?

[Cain]

You havn't been here long have you?

Well, neither have you, truth be told.

Syko, I don't see any reason why the two labels would be contradictory. 

[Urraco]

You havn't been here long have you?

Well, neither have you, truth be told.

Syko, I don't see any reason why the two labels would be contradictory. 

Point taken.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Art is subjective.

If you think a pile of rotting corpses looks pretty then it's art.

[Urraco]

Hm. This brings the Tao to mind.
Without a concept of Ugliness, there would be no Beauty.
Likewise, if we didn't have a concept of Artlessness, there would be no Art.

[whatc]

What is artlessness?(what sort of things..)

[Urraco]

That's where subjectivity turns it's ugly head.

[Elder Iptuous]

anything done for art's sake is art.  some of it suck, though.

[Urraco]

anything done for art's sake is art.  some of it suck, though.

let it be known!

[Reverend Ju Ju Booze]

well, I think "art" is quite a made-up concept, ant thus an empty word.
I mean, what's art?
If it's meaning, why great essayists are seen as intellectuals but not artist?
If it's  aesthetics (not only in a visual meaning of the term), why isn't a bull-eye-hitting merchandise packaging art?
If it's skill, why isn't shuffling a card deck spectacularly art?
Defining "art" is futile.It has to be meaningful ( though not neccessairly in a rational way), aesthetic ( though horrormirth exist and may be art), and "well-done", the latter obviously being a very subjective and context-defined characteristic...

And so on

Also, some things are art if you are the genius who does it first,while is lame if you do afterwards, no matter how much soul and brains and skill you put in it.What would mean a "better" Monna Lisa nowadays? Wahrol? Seen better visual memes on the net. And so on

My idea: "art" is not only subjective, but really context-related. I just can't define it and relate to "artistic" stuff just thinking, in a quite instinctual way, about what it gives and mean to me, and, in a more rational way, about what it means in its time-space-society-culture-politics made context.
That's Art, the RJJB way

[Urraco]

well, I think "art" is quite a made-up concept, ant thus an empty word.
I mean, what's art?
If it's meaning, why great essayists are seen as intellectuals but not artist?
If it's  aesthetics (not only in a visual meaning of the term), why isn't a bull-eye-hitting merchandise packaging art?
If it's skill, why isn't shuffling a card deck spectacularly art?
Defining "art" is futile.It has to be meaningful ( though not neccessairly in a rational way), aesthetic ( though horrormirth exist and may be art), and "well-done", the latter obviously being a very subjective and context-defined characteristic...

And so on

Also, some things are art if you are the genius who does it first,while is lame if you do afterwards, no matter how much soul and brains and skill you put in it.What would mean a "better" Monna Lisa nowadays? Wahrol? Seen better visual memes on the net. And so on

My idea: "art" is not only subjective, but really context-related. I just can't define it and relate to "artistic" stuff just thinking, in a quite instinctual way, about what it gives and mean to me, and, in a more rational way, about what it means in its time-space-society-culture-politics made context.
That's Art, the RJJB way

Hm, so the prognosis: Art is a visual representation of a cultural meme?

I like it. Very fresh idea. It sums up any work of art now to think of it, especially in the realms of Dada and Pop Art.

Symbolism at it's finest!

[Reverend Ju Ju Booze]

Well, not only visual, of course.
For example, Rn'R was quite light-hearted in the beginnng, it was quite a revolution because it embodied a lot of social cultural and so on stuff.
But ( I think ) not as a representation of it - it was linked, in a net(or blob)-like structure ( don't take structure as a synonim of system ) to other expressions, behaviours, knowledges, and so-ons...
Coexisting, not in a side-by-side meaning, but in a co-existing meaning, ya know, existing together, cooperating at existence...
Maybe art is some kind of chord made up of different cultural, memetic, ( or else ) notes.When the chord hits the bulleye, we call it art. What do you think?

[Bu🤠ns]

i thought art was that illegitimate bastard of subjectivity and objectivity.  Perhaps the one concept that has no opposite.

[Urraco]

Well, not only visual, of course.
For example, Rn'R was quite light-hearted in the beginnng, it was quite a revolution because it embodied a lot of social cultural and so on stuff.
But ( I think ) not as a representation of it - it was linked, in a net(or blob)-like structure ( don't take structure as a synonim of system ) to other expressions, behaviours, knowledges, and so-ons...
Coexisting, not in a side-by-side meaning, but in a co-existing meaning, ya know, existing together, cooperating at existence...
Maybe art is some kind of chord made up of different cultural, memetic, ( or else ) notes.When the chord hits the bulleye, we call it art. What do you think?

Bach wasn't a genius to everyone.
That is, when the chord is right, but the listener is hard of hearing, it won't be art.
Likewise, if the composer doesn't know the formula, he will be less understood.
This is where you have frames of reference for art:
What an Expressionist called art isn't the same thing a Cubist called art.
It's the same practice, can create some of the same effects on the sencitive viewer, but is "heard" in a different way.