Ken wrote:
>I've always wondered why "Art Appreciation" is required course work for people
>studying art in school. It seems they go to great lengths to learn how to say
>something is beautiful in 5000 words when saying "it's beautiful" will suffice.
>Is the quantification of art really that important?

Understanding why something is beautiful (or the attempt) might make it
easier to create something beautiful?

>What I am saying is that I don't think that you will find everyone here is into
>the discussion of art as much as they are in the creation of art, and for many
>people who are into 3D graphics programs they are really more into the technical
>thrill of it all. If the disucssions really lead to the promotion of better art
>then it serves a purpose. If the discussions are for discussion sake alone they,
>to me, serve no purpose. I can easily appreciate art as it is presented without
>having to discuss it and I suspect many share my opinion on this.

Assuming we learn nothing from the discussion, which isn't true for me, I
still enjoy talking with people who share my hobby. It's fun!

>And for the record, the next time I hear someone say that a red dot painted on
>a white background is art I am going to punch them in the nose for being too
>stupid to deserve to live.

I think of art like that as exercises of the extreme. How simple can a piece
be and still be art? More as an experiment, and a very successful one
judging from the discussions here alone.

Post a reply to this message