I think that art is art when it is not commercial is not a very solid argument in my humble opinion.

1. If the definition is true, then my mom's spaghetti is art because she made it for non commercial purposes. She learned how to make spaghettis from her mother, she improved the sauce each time, she added her own touch to it and she made it tasteful to the whole family.

2. if the definition is wrong, then artists are people chosen by the bourgeoisie to be their slaves and muses who entertain them when they are bored and when the financial greed suffocates them to death. The bourgeois wants to see something genius that he can't do. The bourgeois is absorbed by his calculations, his plots, and charts. He wants to take, he rarely gives. When a person gives, the burgeois calls him artist.

To make a long story short, I think that what is important is the approach. Business can be done artisticly, as long as art is a means to improve everything around us.
Art can be done commercially. So we need to think what is the best commerce?

The debate to me is very close to the situation of women and men. Men think that changing diapers, preparing dinner...are tasks that are easy and not that important. They also think that goint to work every day is the real thing. But women have proven that they can do the same work too. They chosen to stay at home in the past to make life better. But when men think that they are superior because they work outside, they are just wrong. So art=women, commerce=men.

I used this analogy to question the values we give as a society to any activity. We all love money and would love to get rich as soon as possible. We respect successful businessmen. But we also fear their greed, their violence, like a woman who fears her angry husband. On the other hand, we apprecaite art like we appreciate the curves of a top model (they don't have curves!?).
Why don't we think differently and see things as they are? Things are rarely disconnected and they most of the time are complementary, like a man and a woman.

Art is not superior to commerce and commerce is not superior to art.
Maybe art is idealized because it is not present in our daily lives?

[quote="Crowned"]I think that art is art when it is not commercial is not a very solid argument in my humble opinion.

1. If the definition is true, then my mom's spaghetti is art because she made it for non commercial purposes. She learned how to make spaghettis from her mother, she improved the sauce each time, she added her own touch to it and she made it tasteful to the whole family.

2. if the definition is wrong, then artists are people chosen by the bourgeoisie to be their slaves and muses who entertain them when they are bored and when the financial greed suffocates them to death. The bourgeois wants to see something genius that he can't do. The bourgeois is absorbed by his calculations, his plots, and charts. He wants to take, he rarely gives. When a person gives, the burgeois calls him artist.

To make a long story short, I think that what is important is the approach. Business can be done artisticly, as long as art is a means to improve everything around us.
Art can be done commercially. So we need to think what is the best commerce?

The debate to me is very close to the situation of women and men. Men think that changing diapers, preparing dinner...are tasks that are easy and not that important. They also think that goint to work every day is the real thing. But women have proven that they can do the same work too. They chosen to stay at home in the past to make life better. But when men think that they are superior because they work outside, they are just wrong. So art=women, commerce=men.

I used this analogy to question the values we give as a society to any activity. We all love money and would love to get rich as soon as possible. We respect successful businessmen. But we also fear their greed, their violence, like a woman who fears her angry husband. On the other hand, we apprecaite art like we appreciate the curves of a top model (they don't have curves!?).
Why don't we think differently and see things as they are? Things are rarely disconnected and they most of the time are complementary, like a man and a woman.

Art is not superior to commerce and commerce is not superior to art.
Maybe art is idealized because it is not present in our daily lives?[/quote]



hey ya ;)

Clever one.
Although I'm with you on the first point: that sauce is art for sure.
I think I can turn your question into "Why don't we see things as they are, why don't we think differently ?".You're right, a door's is a door even if we call it a masterpiece.Deciding what is art relates pretty much on what the viewer wants to see, talent included.

I don't put commerce and art in opposition on a philosophical plan, but on a sociological, or historical plan, the fact that pure spontaneous creation stops when money's involved is a fact. Duchamp made a toilet bowl worth millions just because he decided it's art; he pushed the limit and demonstrated his society's reality.
So basically, fooling people into thinking that a toilet boil is worth millions is the opposite of art, it's creation at level 0 and business at its best.
In both these aspects we can see we're all rather learning a tool than using it fully to express a message.


Another thing, Mastering a tool and using it to express a message or feeling is art, untill it gets commercial; yes these aspects are complementary on a philosophical plan, that has imo nothing in common with reality.

Me...I was an artist way before I got involved in photoshop...way before I started doing graphic design and commercial work...and Photoshop, for me has turned into an extension of my artistic self...Yes, I do what I need to do to make the money, but I keep that "commercial" side of my brain separate from my "artistic" side...even though sometimes, commercial ideas will merge with more traditional ones in my personal art...

too much things id like to say about this matter. Just letting u know first that my purpose is financial, my acts artistics. I paint cuz i need to live and earn money, but when i a do it i do uit for the discipline itself, the art itself, and to release a power in me, to get aground of conttrol on my life, ...painting is what i master the most, i feel like having no controm or being useless out of art.Consequence to earn money from what u know to do is logical. no big philosophy enters this, and its the point between artists an artisnans Led,the first one whont be able to duplicate his pieces while the secondwill. few differences...and no big deal either with being an artist and being a commercial...bth are required unless u have a team,partners, a secretary.I selll my paintings but i make them,its all the name oof the game...

art... is anything you want it to be... its the way you look at it... the earth could be sen as art. my computer mother board.

Its called an arts stand point...

looking at somthing as if it was a peice of art is making it into art. thats why so many things that normal people consider to be crap when put into a different context... Art context the object becomes art. whether taking somthing out of its context or changing it so it can be somthing else or make it vanish is still art...

as for your first post... that makes art seem objective when art is entirly subjective... anyone can create art. and i mean it "ANYONE"

You can learn how to draw, study other people learn how to be an artist.. people will tell you that wont make an artist... but yes it will because even the smallest peice of squiggle can be looked at as art...

Arts not somthing you learn its somthing you make. but you can stil learn how to be an artist how to carry yourself in certain ways aslo terminology eventually the more you learn the more distorted the world gets until everything is art.

Good artists convey messages with incredible proficency... you may not even create somthing you think is art but to sombody else it could be the best peice of art they have ever seen.

That episode of the simpsons put that into a context which is easily comprehendable. although very socratic inronic in its methods. where homer thinks he is some kind of art genious to marge who is a really good painter.

here is a fine example of an art begetting art situation.. ever (in an english class in school) had a teacher turn around to you and say somthing from thier opinion like "i see so you conveyed this emotion using this..." or somthing like that and you look blankly and say ... yes thats what i did sure) turning your classic boring writing peice into somthing that elicits an emotion without your prior knowledge all of a sudden your work is a really good peice of art... in this case the literiture arts

I have this to say about it all......
Encarta's supposed definition of art is just stupid.
thank you.
OH! and I do not at all think art is subjective...
It's that freewheeling hippie love subjective art definition that is so pervasive and is exactly why there are so few masters in the world today, and of those masters , you don't see their works in museums or magazines.
Thank you-have a nice day.

hmm shows your in-depth knowledge and the extensive research ya did there Scion...

aka A load of crap


Lets just break that down...
Encarta's supposed definition of art is just stupid.
thank you.
Stupid people didn't write Encarta and stupid people don't quote this educatonal resource used in many schools.

although there have been allogations of subjectivity within encarta by bill gates himself to the man in charge of the division the information contained is accurate enough to quote at degree level

OH! and I do not at all think art is subjective...
Art as a subjective method of communication as art in it's entirity is mainly down to the person veiwing it making it purly subjective.


you don't see their works in museums
and artwork's are shown in galleries not museums thats where we keep all the artifacts... and the glaaeries your looking for modern artists is called funnily enough the tate modern.

or magazines.and the magazine is called creative review it comes out every month full of competitions and artists ranging form photography, painting composition works and so on, http://www.creativereview.co.uk/Home/Home.aspx theres the website

It's that freewheeling hippie love subjective art definition that is so pervasive and is exactly why there are so few masters in the world todayAnd lastly the hippie or hippy movement is old enough to be in a museum.

as for the influences on arts and the art culture.

perhaps you missed the woodstock art and music festival.

or perhaps these famous ARTISTS
The Beatles , Jimi Hendrix, early Pink Floyd, and Jefferson Airplane; blues such as Janis Joplin, traditional Eastern music, particularly from India, (Ravi Shankar), rock music with eastern influences (The Beatles), soulful funk like Sly & The Family Stone, jam bands like the Grateful Dead and the Allman Brothers Band, and folk music like Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell. Neo-Hippies often participate in the bluegrass and/or folk music scene.

the beetles ... the beetles DID I FORGET TO MENTION THE BEETLES.

but what do you know you just spouted an oppinion based on fiction.

Go do your do research like a good boy.

Oh dear.

thats a burn right there...

game set and match to marx man

[quote="ledirlo"]

( I dont think there's only one real "artist" here at psc )

Turn on your monitor.

Marx,
Since you've joined this site you have repeatedly crossed the line and disrespected people who have not in any way disrespected you.
I will remind you that when members of this site were
making it clear how they felt that you had nothing positive to add to this site and wanted you to leave, that there was only one member that spoke on your behalf and and made an issue that you alone had to defend yourself from quite a few members coming down on you at once.
I remind you that I was the only member that asked them to
give you a chance and cool it for a while.
Since that time I've been flamed by you in forums repeatedly and have never countered your flames.
If Proc does not take action on this current act of disrespect by you, I will take it as permission for me to flame back.

yup...

this is just funny.

Stupid people didn't write Encarta and stupid people don't quote this educatonal resource used in many schools.

So, since they aren't stupid people, we must take theirs as the supreme definition?


the beetles ... the beetles DID I FORGET TO MENTION THE BEETLES.

Oh, you spelled the beatles wrong, maybe you should do your research.

what is this discord in our happy nest??

Quick! Someone post a gordonk or some blue tits!!