Fun Stuff > MAKE

As abstract as you can stomach

<< < (5/18) > >>

ekmesnz:

--- Quote from: ScrambledGregs on 17 Dec 2006, 07:31 ---This is why I like words and music better. You don't have to know anything about intent to like it or get it.
--- End quote ---

Is no one listening? >< Intent does not matter.

ScrambledGregs:
But hard-to-type-username just said it does matter.

ekmesnz:

--- Quote from: ScrambledGregs on 18 Dec 2006, 05:49 ---But hard-to-type-username just said it does matter.

--- End quote ---

Well, in cases of an allegory like Lord of the Flies I guess it may be interesting to see what he is talking about, but I don't think that significantly affects how the story appeals or doesn't appeal to the reader.

cTony:
Intent can even direct you away from it - It takes away from how much they art means to you in particular, and reduces the individuality of your relationship with the particular art piece.
Isn't art so much more interesting when everyone each has their own individual interpretation on it?
Thoughts, i think, will all be very unique, but the one thing that is interpreted in almost the same from everyone is feeling, emotion. Intent is not usually required in explaining the feeling. unless the art is particularly complex and bad at doing that...
.. IMO.

KharBevNor:
The problem with suprematism, and e erfu similiar idea that has attemptedc to direct people away from art as something that exists in a ctultural context has been that it itselft has been part of its cultural context. Al ths shit exists in the context of the somewhat elite western fine art movements that attempted to concieve it. It is no more divorced from its cultural context or possesed of a universal appeal than any art in historu. No one has ever fucking looked at white on white and felt some sort of universal emotiuonal connection without the context of knowing its intent, which is of course to have no intent. To have no intent is itself an intwent. Pieces like that are  based around the idea of reflection, not communiocation, and to me art is communication. Whote on white is just a mirror. If I was to define art, meaning just visual media, I would say it is a non verbal language, that is, it is a medium for communication. The problem with 'fine' art, that is art which just exists for arts sake, is that it is insular, that is it speaks only to people who are versed in the cultural context of fine art. And that can be fine, but there;s no way that can be universal. I mean, whats that fucking piece called, its' called something like oak tree, and its actually a glass of water, and its got that long piece of text with it, fuck, but anyway, that piece is really, really, fucking clever, but its not like thats gonna be some great amaxing universal peice of art. Art is, to be honest, pretty fucking up itself. But then again, I am an illustrator, so my entire life resolves around trying to communicate via artwork, so, yeah.

Whatever.

What I'm trying to say, at the end of the day, is that Rothko fucking sucks. Go look at fuckign Hogarth or Kittelsen. That's treal fucking art. Thats communication. That's clever. That's fucking GOOD. You knopw?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page