 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Glen Berry <7no### [at] ezwv com> wrote in message
<376bfb14.137887608@news.povray.org>...
>On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 18:00:42 -0400, TonyB
><ben### [at] panamaphoenixnet> wrote:
>
>A lot of what he wrote sounds very nice. I agree with much of it, but
>he seems to be completely negating the value of art that isn't
>considered "beautiful" in appearance. There are serious works of art
>that contain important and valuable messages. Not all of these are
>pretty to look at, listen to, or experience (depending on the relevant
>media involved.) To blindly chose beautiful art as the only truly
>valuable art is shortsighted at best. I hope the Pope doesn't really
>feel that way.
>
This is what I also noticed - the Pope seems to be addressing 'creators of
beauty'. While the definitive measure of 'art' or 'beauty' is beyond my
grasp, I have a few convictions in this matter. All creators of beauty may
be artists, but not all artists need create beauty. Art is a much wider
medium.
In my opinion, any creation that evokes emotion may be called art. The
emotion may be admiration, hate, anger. It does not matter. Only when his
work is met with indifference has the creator truly failed. One may question
the ethical value of an artwork but that, I feel, is completely separate
from its artistic value. It is only because of the dogma of beauty that
people tend to confine the boundaries of art.
Not that I'd think advocating beauty isn't a good and noble thing. Nor would
I think the Pope is unaware of the wider sense of art. It's just that some
of the quotes seem a bit biased. Others I strongly agree with.
Anyway, such matters - art, religion et al - are far too subjective, too
individual to search for a global answer. You cannot discuss standards. You
can only express your thoughts. That's what I see in these extracts, and I
thank TonyB for sharing them with us.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst heeft geschreven in bericht <376a9b39@news.povray.org>...
>This is what I also noticed - the Pope seems to be addressing 'creators of
>beauty'. While the definitive measure of 'art' or 'beauty' is beyond my
>grasp, I have a few convictions in this matter. ......
>In my opinion, any creation that evokes emotion may be called art. The
>emotion may be admiration, hate, anger. It does not matter.
Mmmm... In dutch we have two words: "mooi" and "schoonheid". Mooi is beautifull
in the sense of "eye candy", as Glen called it (a beautyfull house, flower,
woman). Schoonheid is also beauty but more in the sense of the quality of beauty
(esthetic). It is more an emotion. In this other definition of beauty it's not
the emotion itself that is of importance, but the strength/force of the emotion.
A good example of this that I came across is a picture by Robert Mapplethorpe.
It shows, in close up, a man's genitals bondaged to a blood stained piece of
wood. When you look at it, there first is denial. You don't (want to) see what
you see. The moment you realize what you see, you feel it. The pain. It doesn't
look nice, but it is a very estethic picture, there is a lot of beauty in it.
>......
>Not that I'd think advocating beauty isn't a good and noble thing. Nor would
>I think the Pope is unaware of the wider sense of art. It's just that some
>of the quotes seem a bit biased. Others I strongly agree with.
This letter makes me a bit sad and on some points a little angry. Not for the
religious content, that was to be expected in a Pope's letter, but mainly
because of the mystification and romantizication of art and artists. Being an
artist is a tough job, it's hard work. I'm experiencing it at this moment,
having two month's off of my job to concentrate fully on finishing my art study.
>Anyway, such matters - art, religion et al - are far too subjective, too
>individual to search for a global answer. You cannot discuss standards.
Why not? We judge art, beauty etc. almost every day. We judge them by by
standars. Why not discuss these?
> You
>can only express your thoughts. That's what I see in these extracts, and I
>thank TonyB for sharing them with us.
Tony, where can I find the complete letter? Is it somewhere on the net?
ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo wrote in message <376aa81a@news.povray.org>...
>
>
>>Anyway, such matters - art, religion et al - are far too subjective, too
>>individual to search for a global answer. You cannot discuss standards.
>
>Why not? We judge art, beauty etc. almost every day. We judge them by by
>standars. Why not discuss these?
>
You have your standards. I have my standards. There will never be global
standards, no ISO or ANSI, regardless of how much we may debate. Art for
one, crap for another. Is crap art? Are we art? Is art art? Is my art better
than your art? etc etc etc ad nauseam.
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst heeft geschreven in bericht <376aac53@news.povray.org>...
>You have your standards. I have my standards.
Yes, Yes.
>There will never be global standards, no ISO or ANSI, regardless of how much we
>may debate.
No standards! Although....
>Art for one, crap for another. Is crap art? Are we art? Is art art?
First you'll have to get rid of personal taste, then study some more work of the
artist, read about an artist. Maybe do some art history/theory classes. After
that, you can answer these questions for your self.(I guess you already did?)
I discuss these things somtimes with my collegues at work. First thing they say:
Uhh modern art, my three year old grand daughter can paint better. What almost
always strikes me is that most people don't want to invest times or efford in
something like this (not only art, but just learning/thinking things). They come
home after work, sit on the coutch, zap from Jerry Springer to the weather
forcast to the late night entertainment, and are happy with it.
Even if you let personal taste slip in, there are big groups of people with
simmilar backgrounds with whom it's very good possible to discuss art in this
way. Take the people frequenting this part of the net. Ask them to name a
favorite artist. Escher wil probably be No. 1 followed by Da Vinci. Name some
(sf)writers: Asimov, Adams, Heinlein, Herbert, Tolkien etc. Your favorite
software: .... Enough commom ground for discussion.
The goal would not be setting standards, but learning other points of view. They
might change your own view, or help develop these.
>Is my art better than your art? etc etc etc ad nauseam.
With some knowledge (more than I have at the moment), yes, you can distinguish
quality in art.
have a good night,
ingo
--
Met dank aan de muze met het glazen oog.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[I sent this message earlier, but Netscape didn't. Dang.]
I think the Pope refers to the beauty that art transmits. As you say, beauty
depends on who looks at it and how. For there to be beauty there must be uglyness
to contrast it. Like the barn in Ken's picture. It sends a message, a feeling.
Also, there can be beauty hidden in a seemingly ugly image. Escher has some images
that look kinda ugly, but when you really look at them, when you see all the hard
work in them, when you sit down and look, and think about them, you come back with
a new appreciation for them. You have found the beauty.
Thank you everybody for reading. =) I'm glad you liked it.
PS: There was more material in the letter, but aimed at other fields of art
(music, etc.), and other more Christian/Catholic stuff.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/index.html
(Available in: English, French, German, Italian, Latin, Polish, Portuguese, and
Spanish.)
--
Anthony L. Bennett
http://welcome.to/TonyB
Graphics rendered
by the Dreamachine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, I think we are all getting the picture here...
No need to dispute this thing nonsensically! Although everyone's made great
points and shown how wide the field of art really is (and thus how wide our
imagination and creativity is).
Thanks for sharing with us TonyB, I'm sure everyone got something
interesting and thought-provoking from it :) I know I did.
So, with that said, everyone has their own opinion and their own unique form
of art. I appreciate all art, so please keep the raytraced works coming!
:)
And a big thankyou to the POV-Team for creating a wonderful tool for us to
use in that venture of self-discovery!
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance B. has aged another 2 years in wisedom I see (double his chronological age).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Was that an insult?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> Was that an insult?
Only if you resent maturity.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
TonyB wrote in message <3769700A.F91F80AF@panama.phoenix.net>...
>The human craftsman mirrors the image of God as Creator.
This obviously applies to me -- my current POV project is building an entire
world (it's going to be the basis for a Myst style game).
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
