Technical art: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Technical art » Technical art

Technical art

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1524

Posted 04/21/09 - 11:35 AM: Subject: Technical art	#1
So there's art that just hits you aesthetically regardless of whether you're an art scholar or bob the builder, and there's technical art that you have to have a degree in art to understand. I'm no art history buff, but I would guess that the technical aspect of art deals with a history of artistic development and artistic movements that only make sense within its context. Through such progressive developments, technical art became its own entity that no longer draws upon commonly understood aesthetic themes. My question is if you have to have a degree in fine art to find a piece of art appealing, is it good art at all? Surely all art has a specific context in which it could be understood, but I was under the impression that it's art works that transcend such contexts are generally known as superior to art that can not transcend such contexts. I mean consider a piece of art that is powerfully beautiful for 95% of the planet's human population, perhaps even some other species, compare this piece of art with a piece of technical art that is only understood by elite art critics and enthusiasts, say 1% of the planet's human population. Is it far fetched to assume that the piece that appeals to more people is better art?
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 103
Total Posts: 2587

Posted 04/21/09 - 02:08 PM:	#2
I'd think that now-adays getting 1% of the worlds' population to like any single particular piece to be quite astounding; be it technical or otherwise. A condensed / badly mashed quote from a translation of the "Air Gear Anime" "It is extremely technical. The skill of a true Air Gear master looks like beauty." Edited by Cadrache on 04/21/09 - 02:20 PM. Reason: wrong word used.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/21/09 - 08:31 PM:	#3
kkiiji, its just like any other sort of value system. Culture has a wide variety of people in it with a wide variety of tastes. It isnt that some art is so amazing that only art masters can get it, its just that people who work in art see a lot of it are more aware of some of its possibilities that others arent simply because they arent as familiar with it. I play guitar, and in the 80's there were these guys who were famous for playing crazy fast technical solos- but not many people outside of musicians ever liked them that much. They would rather see people who might not be technical virtuosos, but could connect on a different level. Or like if you lived in NYC, you might love certain hangouts or whatever, but tourists love spots like the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. Why would you want to go to the Bowery when you could be at the Empire State Building? Because if you live there, you get used to those places as just eye candy, and otherwise boring for the most part. Its only special for certain people, not for people who actually live in the city.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

TempletonEsquire
Irrationally Biased

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Location: Close To Nil

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 313

Posted 04/21/09 - 11:38 PM:	#4
We see history through rose colored glasses when it comes to art, but how could we not? Our history comes from the defining moments in art that did not necessarily define the current age but instead defined the next age which then defined the age after that, etc. We can not really know what is representative for this age until history is written skewed enough so that it makes it seem like there is a linear timeline. The frustrating part must be that we now have the internet which acts like a giant recorder, and now you have the question: do we go with what's popular? or what's new? And if we go with what's new, then how can we prove something is new? Since the only thing left taboo are things better left taboo, there isn't a real barrier to break down for the betterment of society. Drawing a naked bosom is now lost amongst the millions of naked bosoms. Without barriers any artistic movement is just a preference. A purely subjective observation. Liberty is already here, so what's next? I think what artists and audiences should ask themselves is: Can we coexist? Can the audience support the artist's lifestyle, and can the artist support the audience's need for the familiar new?

sensabile
Hungry Mogwai

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England

Total Topics: 132
Total Posts: 4312

Posted 04/22/09 - 07:49 AM:	#5
kkiiji wrote: Surely all art has a specific context in which it could be understood, but I was under the impression that it's art works that transcend such contexts are generally known as superior to art that can not transcend such contexts. I mean consider a piece of art that is powerfully beautiful for 95% of the planet's human population, perhaps even some other species, compare this piece of art with a piece of technical art that is only understood by elite art critics and enthusiasts, say 1% of the planet's human population. Is it far fetched to assume that the piece that appeals to more people is better art? The phrase "such contexts" is ambiguous. Is there any art whatsoever that transcends context? I can think of no art (by no means a definitive thought!) that transcends context. Consider though, a piece of artwork that does require very technical and specific knowledge of artwork and its relevant techniques. To the vast majority of people it would perhaps be meaningless. But if the artist's intentions were to inspire in his contemporaries a new direction or new feeling that appeals to less technically nuanced individuals, what then? All subsequent art is indebted to the original, but the vast majority of people have no appreciation. That perhaps would be brilliant art, but not well-known or understood by many. The trouble though, is when too much art is overly technical or when no artist cares to convey anything to anyone else who hasn't the same historical/contextual knowledge-base as themselves. I suspect snobbery and/or shallow vision. Or maybe they just know something we don't!
For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 04/27/09 - 07:54 AM:	#6
kkiiji wrote: So there's art that just hits you aesthetically regardless of whether you're an art scholar or bob the builder, and there's technical art that you have to have a degree in art to understand. I'm no art history buff, but I would guess that the technical aspect of art deals with a history of artistic development and artistic movements that only make sense within its context. Through such progressive developments, technical art became its own entity that no longer draws upon commonly understood aesthetic themes. My question is if you have to have a degree in fine art to find a piece of art appealing, is it good art at all? Surely all art has a specific context in which it could be understood, but I was under the impression that it's art works that transcend such contexts are generally known as superior to art that can not transcend such contexts. I mean consider a piece of art that is powerfully beautiful for 95% of the planet's human population, perhaps even some other species, compare this piece of art with a piece of technical art that is only understood by elite art critics and enthusiasts, say 1% of the planet's human population. Is it far fetched to assume that the piece that appeals to more people is better art? perhaps the best art is found within nature itself, but the eye of the beholder may be darkened.
~vince~ Don't confuse me with the facts.

Partisan189
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
Location: U.S.A

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 47

Posted 04/27/09 - 09:39 PM:	#7
Well obviously just like anything else there are infinite ways to qualify art, really most art can be appreciated by the average viewer without need for context or extensive knowledge in composition. Although what you term "technical," which I'm assuming is the finer points of works of art such as composition, depth, form, color, texture, spatial qualities, line, etc. Although it may help to have knowledge of these concepts to get a greater appreciation of art, but in essence these qualities were sought after precisely so the artist can convey certain reactions from the average viewer without basic knowledge or context. Without things like perspective or texture paintings wouldn't look nearly the same. So in reality viewers don't even have to be aware of such concepts to acknowledge certain qualities of paintings, because it may look more aesthetically pleasing to the eye for the very reason the artist utilized certain techniques. But, there are certain categories of art that may be less accessible to the average viewer such as a Mondrian or a Pollock painting which border on the abstract and to some viewers shouldn't even qualify as art. Just look at Duchamp's The Fountain and you'll probably be asking yourself why the hell would someone consider this art. But, that is why artist do these things so they can defy conventions and continually shape the evolution of art. So of course like anything else there are accessible works of art such as Baroque or Neoclassicism that focus on painting more realistic images that common man can appreciate, and on the other side you have Abstract Expressionism or Cubism that seeks to defy the conventions of art itself and thus suits itself to the more elite of the art community. You could say this is useless because it doesn't appeal to the common man, but without these kinds of Avant Garde movements art would stagnate.

dontsinktheboat
Is not a panda bear.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/19/09 - 08:33 PM:	#8
Like the person above me said, there are infinite ways to define art. To qualify as one piece as superior to another is purely a decision made by the individual. Some art is made for the masses, and is made aesthetically pleasing to draw the attention of lots of people. However, some art is made specifically to challenge an individual to look at the world with some new perspective. This can be aesthetically pleasing as well or intentionally not so much, such as anything by Willem de Kooning. Naturally it won't be a crowd favorite, but you can't label it as inferior for being so.

Vinni
sentient.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 18

Posted 05/20/09 - 04:55 PM:	#9
I, personally, follow Tolstoy's theory of art. If an artist, whether technical or otherwise, attempts to influence others to feel the way he does (through art) and at least some people feel that same emotion, the piece has done its purpose. Technical art, however, is a lot more appealing to me considering its ability to be analytically interpreted.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.