[Split]What is art?

[Denim]

Realistically speaking though, the pretense of 'art' is one I don't follow when you're referring to FA.

There's a handful of 'art' and then copious amounts of porn. Alongside an even bigger mound of utter rubbish.

Some wanker with FruityLoops isn't making music. Attempting a story in English and failing miserably because of poor syntax, grammar and horrendous spelling is like begging for your stupid ass to get trolled.

To call FA a social hub is laughable since the primary purpose is to provide free porn :/

True art, and this is important, is anything that serves no purpose but itself.

If you look at it to turn you on it is not art. If it tells a story then it is not art. In a general and highly obtuse sense it may be the creative and skillful application -of- art(n) or exist inside of an 'art form', but it is not art.

This isn't a debatable either, Rakuen, go look it up in a dictionary if you need to :p The foremost definition states that 'art' is the "archaic present 2d singular of be". Merely existing at all is the only purpose art can serve for it to be considered such.

I'm not an artist because my work serves purpose outside pure aesthetic pleasure, but I do feel it's important we make this distinction, ladies

[Valerion]

This is completely off-topic for this thread, and I suggest we take it to a different thread.

Art is not defined by intent or use, it's defined by the viewer. From my (Afrikaans) dictionary:

kuns: 1 - vermoë om wat in die gees of gemoed leef of daarin gewek is tot uiting of voorstelling te bring op 'n wyse wat skoonheidsontroering kan wek.

Wikipedia puts it in a better way:

Traditionally the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery, a concept which altered during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art. Art is also able to illustrate abstract thought and its expressions can elicit previously hidden emotions in its audience.

Ultimately art is defined by the person viewing it. Can a building never be art, because it is made for a purpose other than simply existing? Can porn never be art? Can a Ming dynasty vase be considered art? What if I use it as a container for something? Does it cease to be art, then, because it now serves another purpose?

What about art that gets sold? You create a painting and sell it. Is it still art? After all, it now exists to make you money. It no longer "serves no purpose but itself." By this definition, very little that is considered art these days is art, as the original purpose was something completely different.

[Denim]

No offense, but I wouldn't quote an Afrikaans dictionary on this one. You aren't reading this correctly, Valerion, you're doing that typical knee-jerk furry thing.

True art, as came to light in a lengthy discussion I had with a musician friend of mine, was indefinable for it's ability to be interpreted differently by many people. In the context of FA it is exceptionally rare for anything to be considered art by this definition because most of it is drawn by horny, depraved and lame wankers who have hand on their dick while they're scribbling this nonsense out feverishly.

If an artist creates a nude it shouldn't arouse you. But furry art largely does, it's intended to, that is it's purpose. It is rare for that purpose to be purely to appeal to the eye and not the loins.

There is art(n), art(adj), art(v) and 'art'. Which are you talking about?

But yes, new thread for this. And then I can troll and we'll see exactly what causes drama

[anoyomouse]

Topic split for you guys.

I like my prons >.>

[Valerion]

*raises eyebrow* Kneejerk? Interesting. But you will note I quoted from two completely seperate sources. I don't use WP on its own, in a discussion like this. So I looked for a different opinion.

Look at poetry. The writer may have meant one thing, and had one thing on his mind when the piece was created. When the reader gets it, his own mindset shapes what he reads, and his own interpretation of it changes the meaning for himself. Now, who is correct? The writer, or the reader? This, if I understand you correctly, means it's art, because it is interpreted differently by different people.

You say the purpose of it is to provide sexual stimulation. Now, I am right now in a bit of a bad patch emotionally, so while I do read FA, I no longer get my keyboard messy. Does this mean I don't appreciate the art for what it is? I also possess a book filled with photos of naked men. Most definately at least an attempt at art instead of pornography, given the comments in it and the poses. If I decide to paw off to that, am I misinterpreting?

Art can stimulate any emotion in you. If art makes me horny, then it succeeded in its job IMO. Same as if it made me cry, or reflect. Or feel angry. It's simply a state of mind, modified by the work of art.

Given what I saw so far, I'd guess about 1/3 of FA is not tagged mature/adult. I don't have proper stats, of course, would be interesting to see. Barring all the doodles and so on, I would guess there's likely quite a few tens of thousands of non-mature furry artwork. And not created to be sexual in any way. For reference, look at the galleries of nambroth and vantid, for example (I recently started watching them, they are fresh in my mind).

And here's another dictionary:

art1

• noun 1 the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively. 3 (the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, and drama. 4 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with human culture (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects). 5 a skill: the art of conversation.

This time I took the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

[Denim]

I never said there wasn't any art to be found on FA at all, but there is certainly a staggering amount of porn and rubbish.

It's insulting to the real artists who post there, though why they do is beyond me. And certainly, to call the sum total of what's on FA 'art' is highly inaccurate.

Poetry and music especially need to be approached differently. But I'm sort of bored of this now and would like you to answer my question about truth D:

Also, I never called into question your ability to quote sources. It's just interpretation that's important because there are many meanings to the word art but the base and root is what I am referring not, not derivatives.

[Valerion]

I guess we agree to differ then. My last post on this.

I merely quoted sources to bolster my argument, but since you seem to simply discount the quality or applicability of them, I needed to find ones that reflect my position better.

My opinion still hasn't changed - art is in the eye of the beholder. If I consider it art, then to me it is art, there's no global objective definition that says A is art and B is not. And some of the porn on there I consider to be art. Look at Blotch, for example. Artistic porn.

And as to the artists posting there, they did know what they were doing when they started posting. You can't call someone posting in a place known for porn insulting to them. FA has been what it is now right from the start. If you post your art between some furry porn, it is your choice. That said, FA has got a pretty good filter, so you will only see what you want to see. If you are there for the non-mature stuff, you can set it up so you can't see the mature stuff. And if you are not logged in, that's all you see.

No, I will not argue truth or when to use it with you. Sorry.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Art's an expression of something. If you're horny and want to express that so other people can experience it then you can draw porn. If you're amazed at the beauty of ocean you'll draw a seascape. If you want to show how much you love your wife you'll build the Taj Mahal.

Art is totally subjective. There are people who consider graffiti art and those that call it vandalism. There are those that enjoy the grace of ballet and those that fall asleep. Because you don't think porn can be artistic that's your opinion but it doesn't mean that porn isn't art. There's an entire branch of bondage that's meant to be artistic.

From wiki: "Kinbaku (also Sokubaku) is a Japanese style of sexual bondage or BDSM which involves tying up the bottom using simple yet visually intricate patterns, usually with several pieces of thin rope usually hemp or jute (generally 6 mm or 8 mm in diameter)."

[Denim]

I'm afraid I can't agree. 'Artistic porn' by any artist does make a bit of a mockery of the art bit because skill and expression are not the same. Something can be skillfully constructed, but entirely soulless, just as something that looks abstract can be brimming with meaning. Sort of like... Being able to speak the language, but not saying anything worthwhile.

Anyone can consider anything aesthetically pleasing for any reason they like, but does that necessarily qualify everything as art? And actually, there is a definition, which I showed you earlier.

Rakuen, think about this. If art is subjective then why are interpretations of the pornographic material on FA all the same? Because there was a single thought in the creator's mind about what purpose his piece would serve. Obviously you'd find S&M and bondage attractive, but then you're a submissive cock-whore. Dick out, stroke, pleasure. Meaning isn't universal and just because a particular piece by Blotch features a touching display of affection between two characters that doesn't mean that it's art. Again, it's about intent and purpose because he created it with the intention of it moving you. But moving you to something specific, so it's purpose can be defined. Gentle smiles and narrowed, loving eyes showing something softer than hardcore porn. Basically put, we all cried as kids when Mufasa died.

Porn gets you off, the ocean is home to the largest body of species on the planet and the Taj Mahal was a palace that people lived in. These things all serve a purpose or do things outside of being what they are. What we do is project perceived meaning and apply a skill to express something about them. That isn't the same as creating something for the sole purpose of it being. Practicality is called into question so there needs to be a separation between an expression of something in an artful way and 'art'.

The simplest test since the Renaissance has been to question the nature of any creation. And if at any point the artist has created it with a specific intention that was easily understandable or meant to move everyone that saw it in a specific way then it was not considered art.

A car can be beautiful, but cannot be art because it was designed with a specific purpose in mind. Similarly a painting can be beautiful but if the artist was expressing a specific concept then it is no longer art because the purpose was specific.

I'm not arguing that we can find practical things aesthetically pleasing, nor am I debating or denouncing the views of others but there does need to be that separation, a line where, perceptually, you carve something into a niche where it no longer does anything at all but look pretty. To me that's the pinnacle of artistic achievement, when the artist can dispense with their work being useful in any way, be it for profit or to show others something specific, but to please the eye

[Dracius]

I'm not taking any sides or anything, but I must say that for every single person, the experience is different. I'm sure you obviously know that, but if you think about it, can you actually definte art? It would be in a dictionary or something like WP because it has to have a definition for us to understand and comprehend it. But it does not tell you what the experience is going to be like, which is what art is providing, no?

What may seem like really good art to me could be terrible to some people. Some artists can be quite clever and create a variety of emotions from a specific piece of artwork, or they can just target one emotion, sex. If an artist creates artwork, specifically for porn, and thousands of people love it, he is succesful, no? He got the message across in the way that he was aiming for in the medium of his choice.

Porn is porn, it arouses you. In my opinion, art is what you make of it, you either like it or you dont. I guess you could even compare this to the taste of food, its a different experience for everyone.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Mmm this topic seems to be a lot like asking what colour is the nicest or which flavour ice-cream tastes the best.

"And if at any point the artist has created it with a specific intention that was easily understandable or meant to move everyone that saw it in a specific way then it was not considered art."

Saying that is pretty much saying art can't be simple.It has to be complex and not have any point. A lot of what is in art galleries isn't then art. The Mona Lisa wasn't meant to be some complex thing, it was a portrait. Any piece that was commissioned or drawn to capture the essence of something has a purpose and so can't be art.

"To me that's the pinnacle of artistic achievement, when the artist can dispense with their work being useful in any way, be it for profit or to show others something specific, but to please the eye "

Isn't pleasing the eye a useful thing? People pay decorators specifically to make their house look better. If I like spirals and I sculpture various glasses that spiral so it'll please my eye is that art? It's a decoration so only meant to please the eye but that's a useful purpose. People live better when they're happier and are happier when they are more comfortable in their surroundings.

Can you even give an example of art that fits all the criteria you want it to?