Upcoming Films

[Jay 27,216]

Depends. If someone paints something and just tucks it away in a desk drawer never to be seen by another pair of eyes, it's not art.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

[Quintus 5,391]

It's certainly up there.

Btw I prefer atheism over nihilism.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

It's all craft, whether you're making something, writing about something, drawing attention to something, whatever. Craft is the act of doing or making something. It's up to observers to decide if the result is art or not. All art is craft, but not all craft is art. It has to move you in some way to cross that threshold. The definition of "move" is of course extremely broad.

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Shall we go into quantum theory?

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Quintus 5,391]

If a fart happens in a noisy office does the fart really exist if nobody heard it?

Depends on how powerful the stink is.

[BloodBoal 7,532]

But if no one is here to smell it?

[Quintus 5,391]

You're saying you've never enjoyed the aroma of your own produce?

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Quintus 5,391]

We'll then the fart already exists, my friend.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

You're taking pictures of me getting out of the shower now?

[Quintus 5,391]

No, that's Alexcremers preparing to post something on JWFan.

[mrbellamy 5,231]

But BB is taking pictures of you getting out of the shower.

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Koray Savas 2,095]

It's all craft, whether you're making something, writing about something, drawing attention to something, whatever. Craft is the act of doing or making something. It's up to observers to decide if the result is art or not. All art is craft, but not all craft is art. It has to move you in some way to cross that threshold. The definition of "move" is of course extremely broad.

The difference between art and craft isn't whether one is moved or not, that's always up to the audience. It's the desired function set forth by the creator. Art is an expression of one's self, channeled through some tangible medium, and consumed by an audience. Food, painting, music, film, writing. Whatever it is, there has to be the audience. If not what is its purpose?

[BloodBoal 7,532]

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Yah.

[Quintus 5,391]

Art without a purpose is purposely artful.

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

And therefore pretentious.

The difference between art and craft isn't whether one is moved or not, that's always up to the audience. It's the desired function set forth by the creator. Art is an expression of one's self, channeled through some tangible medium, and consumed by an audience. Food, painting, music, film, writing. Whatever it is, there has to be the audience. If not what is its purpose?

Spoken like a true non-artist.

An artist must first satisfy him/herself before he/she satisfies others.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Yes.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

And therefore pretentious.

The difference between art and craft isn't whether one is moved or not, that's always up to the audience. It's the desired function set forth by the creator. Art is an expression of one's self, channeled through some tangible medium, and consumed by an audience. Food, painting, music, film, writing. Whatever it is, there has to be the audience. If not what is its purpose?

Spoken like a true non-artist.

An artist must first satisfy him/herself before he/she satisfies others.

And I said something to the contrary?

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

And therefore pretentious.

The difference between art and craft isn't whether one is moved or not, that's always up to the audience. It's the desired function set forth by the creator. Art is an expression of one's self, channeled through some tangible medium, and consumed by an audience. Food, painting, music, film, writing. Whatever it is, there has to be the audience. If not what is its purpose?

Spoken like a true non-artist.

An artist must first satisfy him/herself before he/she satisfies others.

And I said something to the contrary?

You said there has to be an audience. Not necessarily.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Depends. If someone paints something and just tucks it away in a desk drawer never to be seen by another pair of eyes, it's not art.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

only to those who think every painting is art to begin with.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

At some point there has to be, though, right? You can toil and practice all you want, but typically once something is out out there, the artist is satisfied.

[Sharkissimo 1,971]

At some point there has to be, though, right? You can toil and practice all you want, but typically once something is out out there, the artist is satisfied.

But what if the work out art is discovered after the artist is dead?

[Quintus 5,391]

And therefore pretentious.

I just made it up on the spot, thought it sounded cool. I don't really know what it means, but as if that was gonna stop me.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

At some point there has to be, though, right? You can toil and practice all you want, but typically once something is out out there, the artist is satisfied.

But what if the work out art is discovered after the artist is dead?

Well it goes without saying that it wasn't complete. Hemingway's Islands In The Stream is one of my favorite novels but it was incomplete and published posthumously. I wouldn't judge it the same way as something else.

[AC1 3,565]

Rest me to say that I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that art stems forth out of 'conviction'. It sounds like this refers to politics.

It refers to politics, social activism, faith and in the case of Spielberg, humanism. The search for aesthetic beauty isn't enough.

Why wouldn't it be enough? Really, I don't know what you mean. I find it a crass allegation. Too many artists are only interested in 'creating' or 'searching for beauty', not in politics, faith or Spielberg. Those are only influences. Life itself is an influence but not a conviction. Searching for beauty could be akin to searching for the meaning of life or searching for a better place, a better world, something that makes it all worthwhile. It's a longing, a desire, not a conviction. If there's one thing an artist believes in, it's that he must create, and even that is not always certain. I think an artist has way more questions than answers.

Can the good folks of JWFan explain to me WHY art needs to make a polical, social or religious statement? I always thought art was able to transcend politics and religion.

Works produced by human creative skill and imagination.

In order to be consumed by an audience.

What? You sound like a Hollywood producer, Koray. Art is about the self and about self-expression. It doesn't need to be created with an audience in mind. The fulfillment lies in the process of creating, not in the appreciating of the audience.

Depends. If someone paints something and just tucks it away in a desk drawer never to be seen by another pair of eyes, it's not art.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Wow, just wow.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Can the good folks of JWFan explain to me WHY art needs to make a polical, social or religious statement? I always thought art was able to transcend politics and religion.

I agree. political, social and religious statements are transient. Tied very much to a certain time and place. The great artistic pieces/paintings and sculptures that survive that are great because they transcend that particular niche. Even though they might contain some political, social or religious statement, there is something about them that makes them more then just that.

[Brónach 490]

art needs neither purpose, nor audience

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Wrong, without an audience art does not exist.

[Jay 27,216]

Wrong, without an audience art does not exist.

You and Koray are insane.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Why write a book if no one will ever read it? Why make a movie if no one will ever see it? Why cook a meal if no one will ever eat it?

Art without an audience is just mental masturbation.

[Jay 27,216]

Why write a book if no one will ever read it? Why make a movie if no one will ever see it? Why cook a meal if no one will ever eat it?

I never suggested that you didn't INTEND to have it be read/seen/eaten. Just that if by happenstance nobody does, that doesn't instantly make something not art. Say Da Vinci created some painting alone in his house that burned up in a fire before anyone besides him had seen it. He still made art.

[Glóin the Dark 1,068]

And why masturbate?

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Wrong, without an audience art does not exist.

You and Koray are insane.

Yeah but you're fucking clueless. Seriously.

[Brónach 490]

Why write a book if no one will ever read it? Why make a movie if no one will ever see it? Why cook a meal if no one will ever eat it?

Art without an audience is just mental masturbation.

Art is mental masturbation.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Everything isn't art. Every painting every drawing isn't art. The macaroni ART we all made as kids isn't art despite it being called art. DaVinci would not have considered everything he did to be art. Of course he was capable of telling the difference.

Sadly some here are clueless.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Why write a book if no one will ever read it?

The diary of Anne Frank....

DaVinci would not have considered everything he did to be art. Of course he was capable of telling the difference.

Many paintings of great artists on display today were not made for exhibition. They were done for the purpose of practice, essays in the craft. Yet these days they hang in museums and galleries and cost millions.

Van Gogh painted out of a personal obsession. Selling only a soingle work in his lifetime. His work was considered art-less and value-less at the time, yet now it's some of the most valued art in the world.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Why write a book if no one will ever read it?

The diary of Anne Frank....

failed point.

Million upon millions have read it but even if they had not it originally had an audience of one. The book it self is not extraordinary. The writing is not in anyway extraordinary. This book becomes art based on the tale of the author in an extraordinary time and place in history.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

My point exactly!

Thank you Joe.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

My point exactly!

Thank you Joe.

No its not, you pointed out that art doesn't require political or social reasons for its existence but you've just disproven your own point.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

Nope.

Art CAN have a social, political or religious statement. But it's not a requirement.

And in the case of Anne Frank, she did not write her diary to make any such statement what so ever. The book is valued because of it's historical significance and for it's emotional content. That makes it art. Even though the author never intended it as such.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

It's art for social and political reasons (history) but as actual writing goes it's not that great. Of course we have a translation. If she lived it might not be art! Of course she did lived but was lobotomized in Massachusetts in the early 60's. Wink wink.

It should be pointed out that every single post here is art based on the beliefs of a few here.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

I am a proud clueless mental wanker.

[Glóin the Dark 1,068]

[JoeinAR 1,759]

I am a proud clueless mental wanker.

A true Arteest.

[Dixon Hill 4,229]

Can't hear you, I'm sipping espresso with my pinky raised.

[KK 3,202]

I guess it was high time JWFan had its first bimonthly discussion about "art" of the year....next on the list, is Inception a masterpiece?