# Art > Art & Art History >  should art be fun?

## cacian

for the sake of art renovation could a new century admit art is to be fun only?

----------


## Losh

Should art be fun? Of course, without a doubt! Should art be created only for the purpose of entertainment? Of course not. In my opinion, art, or at least good art is still fun while managing to carry an important message or emotional tone.

----------


## cacian

> Should art be fun? Of course, without a doubt! Should art be created only for the purpose of entertainment? Of course not. In my opinion, art, or at least good art is still fun while managing to carry an important message or emotional tone.


why not just for the purpose of fun?
a message can be fun and work equally better if not best then a miserable one to reach out.
a fun message is better recorded then a miserable one. the mind is more receptive to beauty because it is swift and easy on the eye.
art is an idea above all and not a message necessarily.

----------


## Philosopherpoet

Creating art is fun. But it never stops there. To say that is to oversimplify art. I'm a poet, my wife is a painter and photographer. We create our art for fun but to also fulfill a need. Rene Magritte made some seriously fun art. I can guarantee it was to fill a need. Every artist has their own personal need. When it's created the artist can only hope that their art evokes an emotional response from the observer. If someone finds art to be fun then the artist has accomplished their goal.

----------


## cacian

> Creating art is fun. But it never stops there. To say that is to oversimplify art. I'm a poet, my wife is a painter and photographer. We create our art for fun but to also fulfill a need. Rene Magritte made some seriously fun art. I can guarantee it was to fill a need. Every artist has their own personal need. When it's created the artist can only hope that their art evokes an emotional response from the observer. If someone finds art to be fun then the artist has accomplished their goal.


indeed but I am not sure evoking a feeling is the right thing for it.
I understand art to be a form of anomaly thrown in the deep end to salvage the monopoly.
monotony is not part of it but out of it. anomaly here is meant in a positive light.
I think one must think art as a solution/evolution rather then a devolution on feelings.
in order to achieve artistic expression I feel I must urge it to purge double meanings but stick to one single thought at any given time. puritanical is a form of aritistic abiliy that encourages the artist to experiences ideas concrete that allow for more art to appear and not drown in feelings. art does not cry it trys. we cry but we must try too.
let's not attack art in order to attack us it only ends up turning back on us. it becomes like us we look at it and we us under a dim light not knowing what to do.
art is dimensional in appearance it has light depth and vast imagination yet to be explored. it is not a voodoo dull that one sticks pins on for effect.
art is a euphoric state and if one is not reaching it then one is not achieving it.
art is a sound track not a music plaque to sacrifice it for the sake of a brand it to give it no right.

----------


## 108 fountains

Well, I think art can be fun, and individual artistic works can be for the sake of fun only, but to me art should and must be so much more - it can evoke emotions, it can convey a message, it can embody beauty... Great art expresses our humanity; the best art reveals our divinity.

----------


## Philosopherpoet

I have to admit Cacian when you state it the way you did in reply to my first post that in most ways I would agree with you. There are definite ways art can be for fun. The actual act of creating it is always fun for me. But the creation of art for simply the sake of fun, I have to disagree there. At least for me in my opinion, just doing art for fun would trivialize it, again for me. Face painting is for fun the Mona Lisa was not. Extreme example yes. But art is a realm of extremes and of opinions. Art is in and of itself a double entendre.

----------


## cacian

> I have to admit Cacian when you state it the way you did in reply to my first post that in most ways I would agree with you. There are definite ways art can be for fun. The actual act of creating it is always fun for me. But the creation of art for simply the sake of fun, I have to disagree there. At least for me in my opinion, just doing art for fun would trivialize it, again for me. Face painting is for fun the Mona Lisa was not. Extreme example yes. But art is a realm of extremes and of opinions. Art is in and of itself a double entendre.


double entendre? and that is why I feel it is not how it should be.
I do not think that art should pretend something we may never know. I think it should say something and say it clear. to ponder over something is to lose track of the purpose of it. there is so much to be had, time is at the sense and creativity is burting to come out, and tostand there and ponder at something for too long is not art it is questioning what is not there. it is unchartered teritiories or as I like to call it unterritorial . it does not allow for the mind to learn to capture appreciation fully it teaches it to doubt what is ultimately not there and instead instructs it to reach out for the impossible.
the artist creates an atmosphere but not an objective that is palpable. it allows for impressions to float but it does not grab the meaning, the subject is not grabbed it is dragged. 
art is a feeling with an image that should prosper in order to take you to the next meaning. it is a building block of meanings and they all relate. it is not a chain reaction it is a chain action. art reforms and cultivate and take one from one level to the next until satisfaction euphoria is reached.
it is not about looking down to look up because it does not. it is about looking up to look up. the mind needs to be taught to look up and art gives us that plenty of opportunities.
that is the purpose of art is to challenge and upgrade the mind to see beyond. to doubt art is to doubt us. we are a mind not just a body with senses feelings. art is smart not tart too much of the makeup ceremonies and demonic impressions and one is left corroded with unachievement. it is not about looking it is about understanding. I understand what I see and I understand me and one really needs to. art is a meaning of life and if it paraded in shrine blood gut death oppression repression then that is not life and it would be deluding for us it to label as such. 
we owe life a better meaning then that and art is crying out for us to do just that.

----------


## Philosopherpoet

I believe my words are being lost in translation. Art of any kind is interpretive. Art is life's Rorshach test. We all see what we want to see and how we want to see it. The artist puts their idea to canvass or paper and then let's everyone take what they will from it. For the artist themselves art is a labor of love. They've put a piece of their soul out there for public consumption. Art is the Circus of the Macabre. It is basically cannibalistic, at least on the psychological level. Art comes with no guide or directions. We proceed as individuals in whatever direction we please. Compare the different approach and direction that Hieronymous Bosch and Wassily Kandinsky go. Or for written art compare if you will the difference in approach to poetry by Comte de Lautremont with William Blake. Side by side they cannot be compared. That is art in its truest sense....Incomparable. Art goes where it wills.

----------


## cacian

art is interpretation but it is also imitation. to imitate to is to perfect something that is seemingly obvious. to imitate is to insinuate a correction to bring it to life. art is an interpretation for a perfect insinuation. it does not mean it wants and wanting is something we are all guilty of. wanting is a strong desire to get. and so simply art in this sense follows.

an artist should in my eyes indicate an intent and prolong it to ensure it is intended fully. to create something and hope that it is got here and there is saying to me that the artist although is able to create something is not in fact in control of the point.
visuals are stimulus their role is to connect with established images in existence with mind psychic in our mind thinking process. by looking at art we are able to join the points so to speak,
a visual's role is not to accumulate because then it makes no sense. it should infiltrate and allow for diverse ideas to flow.

Art comes with no guide or directions
I somehow feel it is not the case because we go to art we seek it and therefore we make it a rule a condition by adopting its motifs.
it is therefore a reason to use it to achieve guidance and directions. understanding art is art.
if we wanted art to go where it wanted then we are to let go of it wanting to lead us to where we think we want to go.
in other words apprehension of it in that if it does not provoke a tear or an emotion then it is not art. 
art is not a purpose it is a mean. it is not the reason it is the cause. art does not make us we make it.
to make something is to create a motion that is able and not disabled. making is achievement. to make something is to achieve perfection otherwise it does not work.

----------


## Philosopherpoet

So are you saying life imitates art or art imitates life? Because we are walking a path that leads to The Theater of the Absurd:Logical construction and argument gives way to irrational and illogical speech and to its ultimate conclusion, silence. Unless your obfuscated as to the point you're trying to get across. Some of what you say is very convoluted. It is true that imitation is the truest form of flattery. But were artists to imitate each other, which is your opinion, then we would have no freshness in art. It would grow stale. New ideas are what keep all forms of art from stagnating. We would never have had surrealism, the DADA movement. The ancient Greeks imitated in only what they thought was the perfect human form. Other then that they expanded upon it, and Greek art was/is beautiful. You seem like you think art owes you something in particular, almost as if you're jaded. Art owes nothing to anyone yet it always give. As Nietzsche says-"Art is not just a form of human activity but is rather the highest expression of the human spirit." I prefer to agree with the Great Ones as opposed to someone who keeps rambling on inanely and never coming to a summation of what quite simply put, amounts to your opinion. I agree to disagree. I will also let history speak for me.

----------


## cacian

> So are you saying life imitates art or art imitates life?


I am saying art imitates a subject an idea a concept. life could not imitate. it does not see us it is with us. we see it because we are it.




> Because we are walking a path that leads to The Theater of the Absurd:Logical construction and argument gives way to irrational and illogical speech and to its ultimate conclusion, silence.


silence is a loud noise only heard by those who seek it. absurd is irrational it goes against silence. the absurd is dysfunctional silence is a statement. two very different things.




> It is true that imitation is the truest form of flattery.


imitation is not a flattery far from it it is an urge to get rid of it. the it is that that is being imitated only it works in reverse. it is a psychological collage it sticks to fall out.




> But were artists to imitate each other, which is your opinion, then we would have no freshness in art.


an artist does not imitate another he or she compliments the other each other.
fresh is not art airy and voluminous is art. fresh is an indication of lack of something. art does not lack it lags and rightly so when it is abundantly repulsed with ideological subsidies. it is needy and therefore it lags but it is easily reversed. it bounces back.




> It would grow stale. New ideas are what keep all forms of art from stagnating. We would never have had surrealism, the DADA movement. The


surrealism is an indication that art is gone badly wrong. art is realistic because we are real. the human mind if for real and surrealism is a cry for help it is a denegation that the mind is unsure. consumerism of doubts is what art is today. it looks shabby and over dabbed, it is like a picture over painted on with so many layers the shape is there but the movement is bare.




> The ancient Greeks imitated in only what they thought was the perfect human form. Other then that they expanded upon it, and Greek art was/is beautiful.


the ancient Greeks were ancients in their ways they had a long way to go. their idea of art is a naked human form.
it speaks volume of their own selves. they did not look up they looked down at each other and they painted bodies that did nothing but suggested stimulation because their life style lacked freedom of movement/speech.




> Art owes nothing to anyone yet it always give. As Nietzsche says-"Art is not just a form of human activity but is rather the highest expression of the human spirit."


I disagree with Nietzsche art is not a form of human activity, it is an idea that is for the human activity, art stimulates an activity. in order for a human to be active it needs art to stimulate him. without art there is no activity.
art is not a manual reject it is an injection of thoughts to simulate the mind to become active. art is synergy and the mind the energy.
art is not an expression of the highest spirit, spirit and mind do not converge they diverge.
art is an impression that allows for an expression to form.
spirit has nothing to do with it the mind has.

----------


## miyako73

Yes, it could be fun but not thoughtless. Crumpling a paper to call it art is neither fun nor thoughtful. Art, for me, is a process that involves thinking, conceptualizing, doing, and executing.

----------


## sandy14

surrealism is an indication that art is gone badly wrong. art is realistic because we are real. the human mind if for real and surrealism is a cry for help it is a denegation that the mind is unsure. consumerism of doubts is what art is today

No, totally disagree with you there. Why should an art movement based upon dreams reflect reality? Art can attempt to express the ineffable, or at the very least allude to it. Questions can be more liberating than answers, and sometimes it is a struggle to find the right question, let alone the answer. Reality changes - what we thought was real or certain today, may not be real or certain tomorrow. 

Art is art and its value lies in the eye of the artist and the beholder. There is a lot of art out there, much of it is derivative, much of it is not particularly original or interesting, and you don't have to like any of it. However, that does not invalidate its existence. If someone has a picture, or a blob of blu tak and wants to call it art, then why should I disagree? I might not understand it, or think much of it, but then understanding can come with time.

----------


## Philosopherpoet

Cacian I just want you to know I enjoy this back and forth banter. You contradict yourself, are redundant and babble on like a non-medicated multiple personality complex individual. You tend to parrot a lot of what I've said. Maybe you realize it maybe you don't. You have a serious short coming in thinking. It's your way and no one elses. Life does not exist like that. In simplistic terms we exist side by side best with the mindset of Quid Pro Quo. You like to compare apples to oranges. That never works. Fortunately for others yours is just another opinion. Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas. As for Ancient Greek Art its influence was worldwide as far as the 19th century. Instead of spouting randomized groupings of words, maybe you should research what your talking about. Art is so much more then you're willing to give it credit for. I'm done with this discussion that has gone circular. Nihil tuleritis in alio. Vita non est inconveniens, si placet. Multo igitur ars elit.

----------


## stlukesguild

for the sake of art renovation could a new century admit art is to be fun only?

Art... and as you have posted in the Art & Art History forum I will presume you are speaking of visual art... is the product of endless thousands of artists who are each individuals as unique and different as those found in any other walk of life. Art can be fun...







Art can be silly...









Art can be witty or ironic...











Art can be joyful... playful...











But art can also be poetic, somber, sad, tragic, horrific, etc... In no way would I want to see art limited to a single world view... the expression of a single human emotion. The very idea is not merely absurd but obscene.

----------


## stlukesguild

a fun message is better recorded then a miserable one. 

According to whom?

the mind is more receptive to beauty because it is swift and easy on the eye.

Again... according to whom?

art is an idea above all and not a message necessarily.

Excluding "Conceptual Art", Art is first and foremost a visual image or object... not an idea.

----------


## stlukesguild

indeed but I am not sure evoking a feeling is the right thing for it.
I understand art to be a form of anomaly thrown in the deep end to salvage the monopoly.
monotony is not part of it but out of it. anomaly here is meant in a positive light.
I think one must think art as a solution/evolution rather then a devolution on feelings.
in order to achieve artistic expression I feel I must urge it to purge double meanings but stick to one single thought at any given time. puritanical is a form of aritistic abiliy that encourages the artist to experiences ideas concrete that allow for more art to appear and not drown in feelings. art does not cry it trys. we cry but we must try too.
let's not attack art in order to attack us it only ends up turning back on us. it becomes like us we look at it and we us under a dim light not knowing what to do.
art is dimensional in appearance it has light depth and vast imagination yet to be explored. it is not a voodoo dull that one sticks pins on for effect.
art is a euphoric state and if one is not reaching it then one is not achieving it.
art is a sound track not a music plaque to sacrifice it for the sake of a brand it to give it no right.

Been to Colorado recently, have we?

----------


## cacian

> indeed but I am not sure evoking a feeling is the right thing for it.
> I understand art to be a form of anomaly thrown in the deep end to salvage the monopoly.
> monotony is not part of it but out of it. anomaly here is meant in a positive light.
> I think one must think art as a solution/evolution rather then a devolution on feelings.
> in order to achieve artistic expression I feel I must urge it to purge double meanings but stick to one single thought at any given time. puritanical is a form of aritistic abiliy that encourages the artist to experiences ideas concrete that allow for more art to appear and not drown in feelings. art does not cry it trys. we cry but we must try too.
> let's not attack art in order to attack us it only ends up turning back on us. it becomes like us we look at it and we us under a dim light not knowing what to do.
> art is dimensional in appearance it has light depth and vast imagination yet to be explored. it is not a voodoo dull that one sticks pins on for effect.
> art is a euphoric state and if one is not reaching it then one is not achieving it.
> art is a sound track not a music plaque to sacrifice it for the sake of a brand it to give it no right.
> ...


no but art is a coiffure held up high to be seen not to be had.
how is Colorado got to do with it? although the idea visiting Colorado is tempting.

----------


## cacian

> a fun message is better recorded then a miserable one. 
> 
> According to whom?
> 
> the mind is more receptive to beauty because it is swift and easy on the eye.
> 
> Again... according to whom?
> 
> art is an idea above all and not a message necessarily.
> ...


not an idea? from ideal. so ideally art is not to be, what is, is the image, the object.
I have a question:
if art was a movement and by that I mean a motion how would you describe it?

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> ...
> how is Colorado got to do with it? although the idea visiting Colorado is tempting.


John's "Rocky Mountain High" has recently taken on a new meaning...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wP7Chi9...%3DwP7Chi9MPSg
(I forgot how much I like that song)





> ...
> I have a question:
> if art was a movement and by that I mean a motion how would you describe it?


In literal terms, one example would be kinetic sculpture such as that created by Alexander Calder or Bruno Munari aka "mobiles"

Oscar Schlemmer had a pretty wild notion on the concept of movement:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6B7VKfdW4

There are any number of examples of "static" art whether painting or sculpture, that evoke movement.
One example that requires no description, just seeing, is Bernini's "Apollo and Daphne"

(from Wikipedia):

----------


## cacian

> In literal terms, one example would be kinetic sculpture such as that created by Alexander Calder or Bruno Munari aka "mobiles"
> 
> Oscar Schlemmer had a pretty wild notion on the concept of movement:
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8c6B7VKfdW4


thank you Gilliatt.
that hurt my eyes it is freaky weird. I do not get what the idea behind this utube .




> There are any number of examples of "static" art whether painting or sculpture, that evoke movement.
> One example that requires no description, just seeing, is Bernini's "Apollo and Daphne"
> 
> (from Wikipedia):


that is more an entertwining circle then a forward movement.

----------


## stlukesguild

that is more an entertwining circle then a forward movement.

Bernini's Apollo and Daphne suggests motion in a great variety of ways. There is the sense of Daphne's "metamorphosis" taking place before our very eyes. There is the forward trajectory as Daphne flees and Apollo reaches forward to grasp. There is the upward thrusting arc of the work as a whole. 



The Baroque built upon the innovation of the Renaissance... the mastery of anatomy and physiology, the grasp of linear and aerial perspective, the ability to create the illusion of solid form on a flat surface through the use of light and shadow. To this they brought an increased dynamism... employing diagonals, the point of view, and the gesture (of the human body... the gesture of the composition as a whole... and the gestural brushwork) to bring about the illusion of motion within a static image/object.

More on Apollo and Daphne here:

http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/post/...erninis-apollo

Here is an artist that explores the link between the human form and kinetic art:

http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/post/...heather-hansen

----------


## cacian

> Bernini's Apollo and Daphne suggests motion in a great variety of ways. There is the sense of Daphne's "metamorphosis" taking place before our very eyes. There is the forward trajectory as Daphne flees and Apollo reaches forward to grasp. There is the upward thrusting arc of the work as a whole.


if understand it right a metamorphosis is a transformation of some sort. I can think the cocoon butterfly that is a metamorphosis.
upon observation of such there is no movement as such but just shedding of layers and so not necessarily twisting and turning but just falling off.
movement is the way I understand is going from a to b . movement is projected with lines and project some sort of distance that suggest movement.
there is distance ebbing or projected in the picture. I do cannot see movement.
this reminds of the musical box with a figure going around in circle. whilst it is turning it is not moving ie it has not gone anywhere.
whilst there is friction or motion there is no distance created that suggested the object has changed position from the initial one from one point to the next.
that is how I interpret movement.





> Here is an artist that explores the link between the human form and kinetic art:


I do not quite what is the actual point one is trying to make?
kinetic a definition I quote




> If you marvel at the kinetic pace of popular cartoons, you are amazed at how lively and energetic the shows are. Kinetic comes from a Greek verb meaning "to move."
> 
> _Used generally, kinetic can simply mean "animated," "dynamic," or "lively," but it also has more specific meanings in the realms of art and science. Kinetic drawings, sculptures, and installations have moving parts. Alexander Calder's mobiles are well-known examples of kinetic art. In physics, the phrase "kinetic energy" is used to describe the energy of motion. Any object in motion possesses kinetic energy, and this energy can be harnessed, transferred, and transformed to do work: Think of wind turning turbines to generate electricity._


kinetic is as a result og a stationary force being exersed upon to create a sparodic circular motion. in other words, like a wind turbine, it is put not moving and therefore it is possible for kinetic energy to occur.
this means that whilst there is friction emanating from one point it is dispersed in and around the point which allows for a circular motion to occur. that is in fact a friction due pressure pushing outwards thus inward motion.
that is not movement because it has not moved anywhere the initial source of energy is at the center and has not gone anywhere it could not.
so to sum up in my opinion kinetic is an optical illusion in the sense that whilst it is in motion it is not moving from its point of source/origin.
another optical allusion is the clock whilst it is turning in round the clock so to speak time is not moving
a number is an optical allusion whilst we see write number we do not feel them.
a movement creates distance and motion is in still. they are two very different things. that is my opinion.
please free to disagree.

----------


## PeterL

> for the sake of art renovation could a new century admit art is to be fun only?


I think that it depends on which art one is involved with. The art of having should be good fun, as one example. The art of nastiness probably is not much fun, and the same is true of the art of mopping floors. 

Which art were you thinking of?

----------


## cacian

> I think that it depends on which art one is involved with. The art of having should be good fun, as one example. The art of nastiness probably is not much fun, and the same is true of the art of mopping floors. 
> 
> Which art were you thinking of?


art in its simplest sense.
visual is art.

----------


## PeterL

> art in its simplest sense.
> visual is art.


In its simplest sense "art" is anything that is man-made from bulldozers to delicate blown glass figures.

----------


## cacian

> In its simplest sense "art" is anything that is man-made from bulldozers to delicate blown glass figures.


art is not to destroy and a buildozer destroys. a cut glass is a utensil for usage. 
I see art in a picture painting.

----------


## Nick Capozzoli

> art is not to destroy and a buildozer [sic] destroys. a cut glass is a utensil for usage. 
> I see art in a picture painting.


I think "buildozer" was a Freudian slip...as this machine is used to "build" things. You could use one, for example, to move
earth around to create roadways, an embankment, etc. 

Requiring art or any other human endeavor to be "fun" is too restrictive and needs more clarification. For one thing, you need
to define "fun." Even a simple definition, like "fun" means "enjoyable," I'm sure that it will mean different things to different 
folks. "Fun" also implies something that is easy and not difficult or painful, either to create or appreciate.

----------


## Frostball

I was watching a Salman Rushdie interview, and near the end he spoke to the fact that most art is, of course, rather useless, so why should artists be allowed to shake up the world so with their constant pushing of boundaries that causes some folks to get rather upset. He talked about a Saul Bellow novel in which a dog was barking nonstop, and that the character in the book imagined the dog was barking in a "protest against limits of his experience as a dog", and that the dog was pleading to "Please open up the universe a little more".

This struck me as very profound, I really enjoyed the heck out of it. The idea of a dog protesting the limits of its expression and experience, since all it can do is bark, and that it can only possibly experience so much with the brain and consciousness that nature has given it. The same applies to us humans, that we have a limit to what we can experience and it is art of all forms that allows us to pry open the universe a little more for us and allows us to experience something that would otherwise not have been possible.

I've never read any Saul Bellow books, and I'll have to watch that part of the video again to catch the title of the book as I've forgotten, but I certainly would very much like to read it now.

----------


## PeterL

> art is not to destroy and a buildozer destroys. a cut glass is a utensil for usage. 
> I see art in a picture painting.


Painting pictures is an art, but metalworking, woodworking, papermaking, building, etc. are also arts. In the broad sense, art is "2. the exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature )"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art?s=t
scroll down to World English Dictionary

Bulldozers are tools. They can be made to destroy, if that is the desired results.

----------


## stlukesguild

if understand it right a metamorphosis is a transformation of some sort.

Yes.

I can think the cocoon butterfly that is a metamorphosis.

Certainly.

upon observation of such there is no movement as such but just shedding of layers and so not necessarily twisting and turning but just falling off.
movement is the way I understand is going from a to b . 

The movement in the narrative of Daphne and Apollo involves the fact that Apollo is infatuated with the beautiful nymph, Daphne, but she rebuffs his overtures. She flees, He chases after her. Fast as she is, Apollo gains ground upon her. Just as he reaches out, about the grasp her body, she cries out to her father, a river God, to save her. Immediately she begins to metamorphose into a Willow tree. Her fingers burst into branches and leaves. Bark surrounds her torso. Bernini captures the very moment this all takes place. No, there is no literal "movement". Such would be impossible to achieve in marble. Rather, the artist employs the visual techniques to suggest movement: the fluttering draperies, the diagonals and arcs of the form, her hand exploding into branches and leaves, his arm reaching to embrace her body while his face expresses dismay at her transformation.

Artists constantly speak of motion or gesture within an image or objects that are static. Drawing from the human figure in a still pose, artists seek to discern and capture the internal movement... the "movement" as read by the eye:

This gesture is what brings a sense of animation... "motion" to a static work of art:



This "motion" is sought within the single figure... and the composition of the art work as a whole. This gesture or motion is what makes a Greek sculpture such as this:



... where the eye follows the internal "S-curve" of the body... the shifting hips, the contraposto shifting of the balance... appear far more animated than this... regardless of questions of anatomy:



A lack of understanding of physiology... of how one muscle must relax as another is pulled tense... is what makes a work like this appear stiff... in spite of all the artist's mastery of anatomy:

 

movement is projected with lines and project some sort of distance that suggest movement.
there is distance ebbing or projected in the picture. I do cannot see movement.

That is but one form of motion. You fail to grasp the other. Of course there were endless Roman artisans who also failed to grasp this concept... resulting in the overly stiff copies of Greek works that were incredibly animated.

this reminds of the musical box with a figure going around in circle. whilst it is turning it is not moving ie it has not gone anywhere.
whilst there is friction or motion there is no distance created that suggested the object has changed position from the initial one from one point to the next.
that is how I interpret movement.

You interpret many things in a manner that few other would.

----------


## stlukesguild

The great German art historian/critic/theorist posited that "There is no such thing as Art, only artists." His argument goes on to suggest that ART as an idea is not something that we can define. It has no definite essential elements or forms. Painting is a craft... which at times rises to the level of Art. Ultimately, ART is defined by that concerned and engaged audience which has the greatest amount invested in the study, appreciation, promotion, preservation and creation of ART. The individuals who painted upon the cave walls in Southern France 25,000 years ago certainly did not think of what they were doing as ART... at least not as we understand the term. Neither did the scribes illuminating sacred texts to the glory of God imagine themselves as Artists. The mere idea would have been deemed blasphemous, for only God was an Artist as only God could create. They would have imagined themselves as but conduits through which God spoke. But today we certainly see their achievements as ART:



When Marcel Duchamp and the Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven placed a urinal in an art exhibition in no way did they believe that the object was ART:



Rather, they were questioning the limits of art... and pointing out that ART is something dependent upon context. To those educated in the history of Modern Art and Modern Art Theory, Duchamp's urinal is ART... to most others... NOT. Returning to Gombrich, one realizes that ART is something that changes according to the thinking of the culture.

----------


## cacian

> I think "buildozer" was a Freudian slip...as this machine is used to "build" things. You could use one, for example, to move
> earth around to create roadways, an embankment, etc. 
> 
> Requiring art or any other human endeavor to be "fun" is too restrictive and needs more clarification. For one thing, you need
> to define "fun." Even a simple definition, like "fun" means "enjoyable," I'm sure that it will mean different things to different 
> folks. "Fun" also implies something that is easy and not difficult or painful, either to create or appreciate.


fun simply easy on the eye uncomplicated and lurid. there is no ins and outs to it what you see is what you get. it does not require thinking it simply flatters and simplifys what is otherwise complicated. 
fun is one single perception of simple and clear. for example an image that focus on just one subject using plentiful of colours lighting but does not lose the subject it intensifies it is fun. 
for example a picture of the sun on canvas on its own with plenty of light effects colours dimension is fun because it focused on the sun only but the usage of colours shape lights emphasises it even more. the image compliments the elements used to create it and vice versa. fun is multidimensional so whilst painting the sun the sun has painted the skills behind it too. the artist imagination comes through because of painting one single subject and that is the sun.
in other words when I look at this particular painting I know that what I am looking is the sun. my mind does not wonder off and decide there is more to it then meets the eyes. I wish not to query over it I just want to look at it. I also need to capture the skills behind it and because the art work is simple it has allowed the viewer to capture the artist at his work.
simple allows for such appreciations of both the paintee and the painter to come through. that is fun.

----------


## stlukesguild

fun (is) simply easy on the eye uncomplicated and lurid. there is no ins and outs to it what you see is what you get. it does not require thinking it simply flatters and simplifys what is otherwise complicated.

Sounds like Frank Stella: "What you see is what you see." While I certainly embrace the notion that I should take pleasure from art... and I even lean toward art that is "beautiful"... I don't think that "beauty" or "pleasure" (fun) is art exclude depth or complexity. Indeed, if art does not spur thinking... if it gives up everything at first sight... I'm not likely to be drawn into spending any time with it... let alone returning.

for example an image that focus on just one subject using plentiful of colours lighting but does not lose the subject it intensifies it is fun.

Whether you are aware of it or not, you are reiterating one of the long-held biases in art: that bright colors denote a lack of seriousness.

for example a picture of the sun on canvas on its own with plenty of light effects colours dimension is fun because it focused on the sun only but the usage of colours shape lights emphasises it even more. the image compliments the elements used to create it and vice versa. fun is multidimensional so whilst painting the sun the sun has painted the skills behind it too. the artist imagination comes through because of painting one single subject and that is the sun.

Huh???

in other words when I look at this particular painting I know that what I am looking is the sun. my mind does not wonder off and decide there is more to it then meets the eyes. I wish not to query over it I just want to look at it.





A work of visual art should be first and foremost visual. This does not mean that it does not inspire further thought beyond the mere mimicry of what is seen. An image of the sun... or nearly anything... will inspire a great variety of emotional and intellectual responses. The audience with a great deal of experience with art history or art criticism will see the painting in question in ways different from the audience with no artistic background. 

I also need to capture the skills behind it and because the art work is simple it has allowed the viewer to capture the artist at his work.
simple allows for such appreciations of both the paintee and the painter to come through. that is fun.

Again... Huh???

----------


## feathereds

"Should art be fun?"

There are good answers here but I'll add my 2cents: 

It depends.

It depends on what you want to get out of art. For many practitioners art is a way of calming them down. It could be supplanted with yoga postures or music practice and their personal experience of "art" wouldn't feel a whit different. If that's your goal then yes, art should be fun. Definitively so.

There's nothing wrong with that.

For other practitioners, art needs to be a constant struggle. Choosing the right composition - fixing tonalities - adjusting atmosphere - perfecting the picture gets exponentially more difficult as you get more serious about art. Eventually every art session can feel like wresting out teeth from an adult's mouth. Most of the time, for these artists, it is like Rilke said. Their career work is fun. Their choice of fun feels like work.

Confused? Here's a hint: if you're on an online forum about art, you probably think it's at least a little fun.

----------


## JBI

I think art should be an enjoyable experience, in that you do not regret seeing it. I think many people feel alienated by much of modern and contemporary artwork because it fails to engage them in a way that gives them a sense of enjoyment from looking at it. Generally, something like Duchamp's Urinal does not leave anybody with a sense of anything after viewing it, and movements in painting the ugly do not give the viewer much to think about.

The general idea of seeing something beautiful or meaningful and feeling moved generally is what is behind the whole idea - that some of this is very much inaccessible to a perhaps willing audience who lack the time, or resources to enjoy it is perhaps a shame. I get the feeling that for many Caravaggio though is a very difficult painter to really enjoy, despite being an undisputed genius of painting, fun is hardly the word to describe his works. So begrudgingly, I must admit that fun, or enjoyable too are limited.

Generally, there needs to be a sort of interaction between painting and audience to make a work successful. If either side is unable to engage, then of course the work will not work for them.

----------


## stlukesguild

Well... JBI, you know that the audience for the "fine arts"... painting and sculpture (as well as opera, ballet, the symphony, poetry, etc...) was historically almost wholly limited to the "elite": the aristocracy, the high-ranking clergy, the more educated among the very wealthy, and the artists and scholars employed in the service of these same "elite". In the world of the traditional visual arts... primarily painting, sculpture, and print... the shift took place with the Dutch. The Puritan, mercenary, and mercantile Dutch saw the rise of the Middle-Class or the Bourgeois, and the demise of the aristocracy and high-ranking Catholic clergy. This new moneyed class had an expendable income, a desire to appear cultured, but little knowledge or interest in learning about art. Thus we find the first real development of the professional "middle-man"... the art dealer and the art galleries. 

By way of contrast, the "elites" of the Italian Renaissance... a Medici Lord, perhaps... or a Bishop or Pope might employ scholars or even poets or artists as advisers... giving input on a given artist or art work... yet these same elite patrons were commonly well-educated concerning the arts and culture. These were seen as necessities in social circles. Michelangelo, for example, dealt directly with an educated group of patrons. Most works of art were commissioned specifically by these patrons.

The Dutch Bourgeois, on the other hand, had little time or inclination for developing such relationships with artists. They wanted to purchase art works that mirrored their personal interests: their pride in the landscape of Holland:





Prior to this period there were very few true landscapes in the history of art. The nearly contemporary Flemish painter, Peter Paul Rubens, had probably produced the greatest body of landscape paintings in Europe prior to the Dutch "Golden Age"... and most of these had been done for his own pleasure. But the Dutch were very proud of their little country that had won independence from the all-powerful Spanish Empire, and now was a great economic powerhouse.

Other topics demanded by the Dutch Bourgeois patrons include images of the ships that has made Holland wealthy with trade to the East:





Still-life paintings that portrayed luxuries such as seafood, fresh fruit and citrus, wine, etc... thus putting on display the new-found wealth of the Dutch merchant class:





Among these still-life paintings were endless images of flowers... especially tulips... again a luxury:



There were also interior views... essentially still-life paintings on a large scale... which bespoke of the pride of the Bourgeois in his fine home with cabinets and ceramics imported from China:





Of course some of these interior views had a moral narrative... or spoke of a love of domesticity. 

And of course there were portraits of family:





The bourgeois patron wanted these images which spoke of their personal interests and bragged of their wealth... and they wanted to appear cultured... to buy paintings by "good" artists... but weren't willing to put forth the effort in learning about art or developing relationships with artists. Thus entered the "art dealer". Initially, the "art dealers" were somewhat akin to the advisers of the elites... but soon this was organized into a more mercenary, capitalist system. Dealers would take work by favored artists and place it on display in galleries. The bourgeois collector interested in a stormy landscape or a landscape with cows or a still-life with lobster and blackberries could look through a dealer's inventory of completed paintings... choose a work he liked... certain that the work was of great merit (as certified by the dealer).

At the same time... just across the border in the Spanish Netherlands (Belgium) artists like Peter Paul Rubens still worked directly for educated, aristocratic patrons. Where the Dutch artist labored in an increasingly capitalist market system... churning out repetitive product... often small in scale... to meet market demand, Rubens worked on commission... often producing grandiose narrative works:



This change in the system of marketing art... with an increasing gap (in terms of knowledge and understanding of art) between the artist and patron was not overly embraced by the artists. By the Romantic era... with the development of the concept of the artist as revolutionary, prophet, visionary, etc... there was an increasing hostility between the artist and bourgeois. The middle-classes often found the latest art... the avant garde... difficult or challenging. The artists, at the same time, often set about provoking the bourgeois... after all, they increasingly saw themselves as aligned more with the "bohemians" and the wealthy... both of whom were little affected by bourgeois standards and values. Even so... many of the patrons of avant garde artists such as the Impressionists, Post-Impressionists, Fauves, Cubists, etc... were still to be found among the bourgeois or upper-middle-class.

With the passing of the 20th century, the gap between the artists and the bougeoise/middle-class grew increasingly large. This was accelerated by the developments of photography and film which in many ways supplanted painting and sculpture among the middle class. In artistic circles there is often debate as to who abandoned whom first: did the artists abandon the middle-class audience with increasingly esoteric and hermetic work that was incomprehensible to most viewers... resulting in their own increasing irrelevance? Or did the audience abandon the artists... demanding nothing more than "pretty pictures" and turning to photography and film to fill the void? Regardless... today the traditional visual arts are the domain of the super-wealthy. They represent the majority of the buyers and it is to their desires that artists create. Certainly the interested viewer without great wealth can look... but not touch. Bill Watterson of _Calvin and Hobbes_ fame, offered the following insightful observation in one of his comic strips:

_"People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world."_ 

In many ways this is what painting and sculpture have become. Of course the best way to assure that one's work is a private language for sophisticates, is to create work that is utterly incomprehensible to the majority of the potential audience. In a culture that has been increasingly educated... to the point that a good many of the audience can appreciate Impressionism, Matisse, and Picasso... if not Abstract Expressionism... the art must become ever more hermetic and impenetrable. 

Whether this current situation is the fault of the artists, the audience, the middle-men, or the super-wealthy is irrelevant. There is a realization among many artists that both sides must "engage" (as you term it)... that both sides must put forth an effort. This may be occurring in many ways as a result of technology. The internet is increasingly undermining the dominance of artistic discourse by a few limited voices. Art News, Art in America, and the critics employed by the few major art publications (and paid through advertising revenues charged to the galleries exhibiting the same artists being reviewed... can anyone say "conflict of interest?") are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The internet is also having a major impact upon marketing... and has begun to challenge the control of the dealers. There is a growing recognition that there is no longer (if there ever was) a single, dominant "art world". Rather, we are confronted by a collection of smaller "art worlds"... each having their own values, standards, etc... and anyone of which is equally likely to turn out artists of real and lasting merit.

----------


## JBI

I did not mean to discuss the difficulty of relationships only, I meant to pose the question of "negativity" in art, the same way looking at a lot of art simply makes people feel unhappy. Engagement is one thing, but what if, at the end of the line, the image being portrayed in the artwork lacks any form of a catharsis, and leaves the viewer with a sort of claustrophobic feeling, or a dreary feeling. Generally the tragedy functions only because order is restored in the end to the world, but some art is tragic without restoration. It's that sort of pushing of the intensity to the unrelenting level that really alienates some people, especially in our world where we love happy endings, and assurances that there is some sort of cosmic good will that is keeping the world "good". 

We would not, for instance, paint Auschwitz as a piece of "artwork" easily, without a feeling that there is no good in the painting. Desolation and dreariness are subjects that haunt the audience (one would, perhaps, be required to add the sun breaking in through the clouds, or some other cliche to show that there is a beacon of hope). 

AS for elite audiences, even the academic audiences are elitist. For all those lovers of Japanese prints and Renaissance aficionados, most only know the names of the most famous artists and not the value of the works. The same can be said of abstract works as well.

I've seen numerous displays of Chinese calligraphy in China, Taiwan, and the West, including works by the greatest masters - yet I am haunted by this feeling that the vast number of viewers in the museum do not actually understand anything about the works, much less why they are "beautiful". I get this suspicion that people are all just nodding their heads, and have no clue what exactly about this persons penmanship is so special.

----------


## islandclimber

> for the sake of art renovation could a new century admit art is to be fun only?


It's rather ironic that you state this rather monomaniacal concept, and then immediately progress into overwhelming obfuscations, periphrasis, and inane logical transgressions in order to defend it... The Postmodernists and Surrealists that you deride in such a muddled fashion have nothing on you. 

The mirror of self-reflection perhaps? 

Your argument could be stated henceforth as: _...art should be fun because art should be fun because art should be fun because..._ emphasis here on the endless repetition of this A is true because A is true because A is true because... You take circular reasoning as a logical fallacy to the level of the absurd. However, you might have a better chance convincing a single individual on this planet to agree with you by exercising the potentially hypnotic effect of endlessly repeating this mantra. 

I do wonder at times if you're an evil mastermind out to impose some disturbingly universal cultural hegemony across civilization in order to turn humankind into little more than Dogs. They like fun too.

----------


## cacian

> It's rather ironic that you state this rather monomaniacal concept, and then immediately progress into overwhelming obfuscations, periphrasis, and inane logical transgressions in order to defend it... The Postmodernists and Surrealists that you deride in such a muddled fashion have nothing on you.


nothing on me? that is not fair. I make an effort .I think about things. progression is in the initiation of thoughts. that is what is on me.



> The mirror of self-reflection perhaps?


self reflection ? not really. it is thinking about things and airing them out that is a reflection. it is a thinking process not to your liking but suffice to say I say what I want to say.




> Your argument could be stated henceforth as: _...art should be fun because art should be fun because art should be fun because..._ emphasis here on the endless repetition of this A is true because A is true because A is true because... You take circular reasoning as a logical fallacy to the level of the absurd. However, you might have a better chance convincing a single individual on this planet to agree with you by exercising the potentially hypnotic effect of endlessly repeating this mantra.


It is not about convincing anyone but then that is perhaps maybe part of it but not entirely. it is about saying it. that is the major part.




> I do wonder at times if you're an evil mastermind out to impose some disturbingly universal cultural hegemony across civilization in order to turn humankind into little more than Dogs. They like fun too.


LOL that is a cracker although I do have to say I am rather fond of dogs I would not change them for anyone or the world and so you can rest assured humans are what they are but they have a long way to go yet.

now here is a question:
could you paint a metaphor?

----------


## stlukesguild

A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.

A visual metaphor is a direct comparison of a place, person or idea by use of an image that shows certain similarities.



Man Ray's _Le Violon d'Ingres_ offers a comparison of a woman's body... and of a woman's body as seen in the great odalisque paintings by Ingres... with a violin.

One of the most common metaphors in art is that of comparing a woman... or a woman's body to a vase. The blossoming or billowing shape of the Greek vases were clearly abstractions of the female body... and often adorned with images of goddesses:



Sculpture of female goddesses often portrayed them with such vases:



The metaphor suggested that not only was the woman's body gently rounded like a vase... but it was also a vessel... bearing children.

The metaphor continued into modern times:



Ingres' _Source_ suggests that just as the vessel holds the source of life: water... so is woman the source of life. Courbet would offer up something of a parody of this in the highly sexualized "source" _L'Origine du monde_:



Picasso took the metaphor even further... using the shape of the vase to again suggest the female body:





The idea of the vase is here again employed... to suggest the female body... but in a different manner:



Jean-Baptiste Greuze portrays a young girl... her clothes clearly disheveled... her breast bared... after lovemaking holding a broken water pitcher. The metaphor is quite clear: a "fallen woman" in like a broken pitcher... no longer of any use.

These are but a few variations upon a single common visual metaphor. There are undoubtedly an endless number of others.

----------


## cacian

very interesting StLukes upon reading and seeing I cant help but think the vase is a symbol of urn and an urn is a symbol of death is it not?
some of the paintings here I would disregard as too much of the naked eye.

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> ...
> 
> now here is a question:
> could you paint a metaphor?


Yes....





"Archimedes Met a Four" as he strolled west on the road from the Acropolis.

(The clarity is not the best, my computer is down so this is direct from the I pad camera)

----------


## cacian

> Yes....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Archimedes Met a Four" as he strolled west on the road from the Acropolis.
> 
> (The clarity is not the best, my computer is down so this is direct from the I pad camera)


I once wrote 
''meter for'' and I realised I was onto a metaphor.
upon looking at that picture it reminded me of a game show on television called 'catchphrase'. the contestant has to say a phrase out of looking at cartoon images. this one reminded of it.

----------


## sandracollin

Art is fun and that is for sure. All kinds of arts are entertaining if you have an eye for it but then again not everyone can appreciate art. An artistic person can find beauty in every way that is why I salute people who are into arts. Art is not limited to painting as there are other things or skills we can associate with art as well.

----------

