~art~
turtoni
can arouse aesthetic or moral feelings, and can be understood as a way
of communicating these feelings. Artists express something so that
their audience is aroused to some extent, but they do not have to do
so consciously. Art explores what is commonly termed as the human
condition that is essentially what it is to be human. Effective art
often brings about some new insight concerning the human condition
either singly or en-mass, which is not necessarily always positive, or
necessarily widens the boundaries of collective human ability. The
degree of skill that the artist has, will affect their ability to
trigger an emotional response and thereby provide new insights, the
ability to manipulate them at will shows exemplary skill and
determination."
~wick
Immortalist
To many archaeologists, art--or symbolic representation, as they
prefer to call it--burst on the scene after 50,000 years ago, a time
when modern humans are widely thought to have migrated out of Africa
to the far corners of the globe. These scholars say the migrants
brought with them an ability to manipulate symbols and make images
that earlier humans had lacked. An explosion of art resulted, its
epicenter in ice age Europe starting about 40,000 years ago, when most
anthropologists believe modern humans were replacing the earlier
Neandertal people. The new Europeans decorated their bodies with beads
and pierced animal teeth, carved exquisite figurines from ivory and
stone, and painted hauntingly lifelike animals on the walls of deep
caves.
Some recent discoveries have strengthened this picture. Hints of art
and personal ornaments have been found in Africa from just a few
thousand years before the artistic explosion in Europe, supporting the
idea that a worldwide migration of protoartists did begin 50,000 years
ago in Africa. As Richard Klein of Stanford University puts it, "There
was a kind of behavioral revolution [in Africa] 50,000 years ago.
Nobody made art before 50,000 years ago; everybody did afterward."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/282/5393/1451
There is a mystery at the heart of the study of the history of art:
where did art come from? That sounds like a strange question, but it's
actually a very difficult conundrum. For a long time people have
assumed that art evolved gradually, with people's ability to create
more complex works growing at the same time that they evolved
socially, psychologically, and technologically. The evidence, however,
doesn't seem to bear this out: the very earliest art we have is
already very complex. So where did it come from? What came before?
The Seattle Times reports:
[A] growing body of evidence suggests that modern humans, virtually
from the moment they appeared in Ice Age Europe, were able to produce
startlingly sophisticated art. Artistic ability thus did not "evolve,"
many scholars said, but has instead existed in modern humans (the
talented ones, anyway) throughout their existence. ... "If there were
earlier periods when they made cruder art, why haven't we got them?"
[T]hough the development of figurative art may not be a marker for
biological evolution, many experts suggest that its emergence is a
major "threshold event" for cultural development, comparable perhaps
to the invention of agriculture, the domestication of animals or the
development of metal tools. "The crucial move seems to be when humans
make something that stands for something else," said Oxford University
art historian Martin Kemp. "It usually starts with 'indirect tools,'
implements that go beyond simple sharpened tools or a needle and
thread. This conceptual step is the evolutionary aspect of ancient
art."
It is worth wondering: what existed before the art we currently have -
or did anything exist at all? If the very first art was as
sophisticated as what we have found so far, how and why was it able to
spring so "fully formed" from the mind of early human beings? Neither
language nor technology developed so quickly - would this suggest that
there is something special about art, that there is a unique
connection between human beings and art that doesn't exist between us
and language or technology?
turtoni
Interesting articles.
tg
Indeed.
-tg
tooly
"turtoni" <tur...@fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:55952855-f2e7-4268...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>Interesting articles.
Ha, you and Immort are like the preverbial males dropping their drawers to
see whose is bigger, LOL. Immort's is probably bigger of course, since he's
been at it longer [no pun intended]. I speak of compiled databases of
course, hehe.
Art is always a good thread. As a dabbler, I've often wondered why it is
that I dabble. It is satisfying for some odd reason. For reproducing 3
dimensional objects on 2 dimensional media, one must learn how to fool the
brain...or to overcome how the brain interpets the environment. That's the
work part. There is an emotional connectivity to what one reproduces
however, and whatever simili of the actual object, one feels a certain
'ownership' to the expression. I always get impressionism and expressionism
confused I guess [seems opposite to me as they are defined]. Expressionism,
I am told, is like energy just trying to release itself...and the objects
around me but catylysts for this release. Without some respect for
objectivism, expressionism looks to much like chaos to me...and not
satisfying [though I can always fool the viewer with some babble about
expressionism's essence to explain away what is really just a bad painting,
ha]. Impressionism on the other hand, makes some sense to me...as objects
remain important to some degree, but we become like 'processors' where the
information is transfered and then regarbled up inside to be spit back out
as that emotional connectivity. I can't make up my mind though, if that
connectivity is with the painting itself as another object, or the original
object I'm painting?
Ultimately, painting is just fun...and boy wouldn't it be nice to be able to
make a living doing that [ha, no way Jose']. Here's a thought. There are
today, thousands of artists as technically expertise as Rembrandt [and
better]...yet, there was only one Rembrandt [and the rest remain in
obscurity]. What's up with that?
turtoni
> "turtoni" <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote in message
are you attempting to turn this into some grumpy political cultural
stab at some peoples hearts?
i can see beauty in a pollock for example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ef/Pollock31.jpg
"Pollock’s finest paintings… reveal that his all-over line does not
give rise to positive or negative areas: we are not made to feel that
one part of the canvas demands to be read as figure, whether abstract
or representational, against another part of the canvas read as
ground. There is not inside or outside to Pollock’s line or the space
through which it moves…. Pollock has managed to free line not only
from its function of representing objects in the world, but also from
its task of describing or bounding shapes or figures, whether abstract
or representational, on the surface of the canvas."
but sure it's all subjective. but i'd not tie myself down to a
movement due to any political ideology. thats just stupid. the "real"
world can be pretty abstractly beautiful. just stare at some patterns
in mold for example.
THE BORG
You can see art in the beauty of clouds, the ocean, the sound of the wind
and rain, the loveliness of falling snow. There is art in much of nature -
although the artists were not human.
What artists can create sounds like a howling wind and rain lashing at
windows - that induce feelings where you feel safe and warm in bed? What
artists can evoke some wonderful mystery and fascination for the ever
restless ocean? What artist cans create the beautiful silence of falling
snow and the transformation of a mundane landscape into one so pretty.
Artists divine where the delicate leaves of trees and the numerous flowers -
so diverse and many so lovely.
Men seek to explain or prove this Divine Art with science. But they never
can and never will. It is better to see the beauty and art more than the
human scientific explanations of how or why snow falls or the ocean moves.
That such magical beauty does not occur from randomness - but is a specific
creation. The rustle of the leaves that fall in Autumn - to the bird song
after the storm. And to give thanks each morning for a home called Earth
that was created and given ye.
THE BORG
John
> [...] There are
> today, thousands of artists as technically expertise as Rembrandt [and
> better]...yet, there was only one Rembrandt [and the rest remain in
> obscurity]. What's up with that?
There was a time for what Rembrandt offered. The time has passed.
THE BORG
"John" <no...@droffats.ten> wrote in message
news:B6adnU1tfuBLQ-3V...@supernews.com...
A painting by Monet recently sold for about 80 million US dollars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7470832.stm
Nic
its almost a tragedy that you are not yourself any kind of real time
artist Turtoni ! I find it interesting to read writeups by people
about
artists and their work....who have no personal experience of the real
work it involves. !! However...if you were discussing the work of a
skilled designer (aka 'artist commissioned to produce work towards
specific purposes) it should be made clear. The other point is that
artists do not necessarily & deliberatly or intentionally try to
generate
instill delight or inspire feeling in the people they show their work
to.
Effective art..is a matter of collective interpretation according to
a compiled statistic.....and that really will depend on things like
the era..the medium...the people you show the work to and even
the lighting and if background music was being played.
>The
> degree of skill that the artist has, will affect their ability to
> trigger an emotional response and thereby provide new insights, the
> ability to manipulate them at will shows exemplary skill and
> determination."
while some artist do or don't appear to have a skill that triggers
and emotional response in their viewers...there are most definitely
people who will invest in the skills that some artists and some
designers have to further a 'collective ambition' although not
necessaril humane or morally realistic
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997256,00.html
turtoni
> On 6 Jul, 04:48, turtoni <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>
> > "Art is often intended to appeal and connect with human emotion. It
> > can arouse aesthetic or moral feelings, and can be understood as a way
> > of communicating these feelings. Artists express something so that
> > their audience is aroused to some extent, but they do not have to do
> > so consciously. Art explores what is commonly termed as the human
> > condition that is essentially what it is to be human. Effective art
> > often brings about some new insight concerning the human condition
> > either singly or en-mass, which is not necessarily always positive, or
> > necessarily widens the boundaries of collective human ability. The
> > degree of skill that the artist has, will affect their ability to
> > trigger an emotional response and thereby provide new insights, the
> > ability to manipulate them at will shows exemplary skill and
> > determination."
>
> > ~wick
>
> its almost a tragedy that you are not yourself any kind of real time
> artist Turtoni !
well thats nice of you to say so Nic! i'm not sure how you came to
this conclusion tho. and it'd be true to say that i certainly would
like to explore my imagination and produce forms of philosophical art
that had some kind of appeal to others. perhaps i'll have some time in
the future to folllow down that avenue.
> I find it interesting to read writeups by people
> about
> artists and their work....who have no personal experience of the real
> work it involves. !! However...if you were discussing the work of a
> skilled designer (aka 'artist commissioned to produce work towards
> specific purposes) it should be made clear. The other point is that
> artists do not necessarily & deliberatly or intentionally try to
> generate
> instill delight or inspire feeling in the people they show their work
> to.
>
> Effective art..is a matter of collective interpretation according to
> a compiled statistic.....and that really will depend on things like
> the era..the medium...the people you show the work to and even
> the lighting and if background music was being played.
agreed. i like the idea of complex forms of art that produce open
ended feeling and meaning about it; thereby allowing the viewer to
make of it what they will and raise questions about the piece within
themselves.
> >The
> > degree of skill that the artist has, will affect their ability to
> > trigger an emotional response and thereby provide new insights, the
> > ability to manipulate them at will shows exemplary skill and
> > determination."
>
> while some artist do or don't appear to have a skill that triggers
> and emotional response in their viewers...there are most definitely
> people who will invest in the skills that some artists and some
> designers have to further a 'collective ambition' although not
> necessaril humane or morally realistic
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997256,00.html
i'm going to be enjoying reading a book by Neil Gaiman "American Gods"
that a friend recently sent me.
"How ironic when the Great American Novel is written by an Englishman!
The absolutely elfin Neil Gaiman earns himself a lasting place in
American literature with this novel. There are echoes of Hawthorne,
Melville, lots of Lovercraft, and more than a smidgen of Kerouac here.
While wonderfully providing quirky and fascinating personalities for
all his mythic cast, the characterization of the Egyptian cat goddess
Bast (a Gaiman essential from his Sandman days) and of Whiskey Jack,
from Native American folklore are quite unforgettable. But most
amazing of all, is the precise and flawless capture of the
quintessence of the American character. Mr. Gaiman's scalpel-like
intuition and perception of who we are as Americans is awesomely
brutal and unflinching. Few writers born on this side of the Atlantic
understand and portray it a quarter as well. This would be an
excellent choice for academic study, but that detracts nothing from
the fast-paced, page-turning excitement and sheer joie de vivre. Life-
affirming literature and a rollicking good time --- can't ask more of
a novel!"
tooly
"turtoni" <tur...@fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:ce158bc6-a2f1-46b7...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
I've always said that people need to be in the process of building or
creating to be happy [or perhaps, when set out to pasture at some late date,
dreaming upon the memories of having once built or created].
In past threads on art, it seems no one can come up with a final 'fits all'
definition. I always add, 'isn't even a child's scribble, art?". Perhaps
wiki's attempt to define it, should add a clarifying descript
as...'successful art' [meaning acclaimed as asthetically appealing to the
masses in some way, or just monetarily successful perhaps?].
I get a kick out the language that art affecionado's use to describe the
substance of their wares, ha. Personally, I think about 90% of the art
industry is 'hype'...but lucrative 'hype'. I mean, does a Van Gogh go for
tens of millions because his art was so good, or because of the notoriety
now that books and movies have been made of his life? This is a healthy
dose of 'name branding' that any good marketer knows all too well about any
product.
So, where's Sir Fred on this one? I mean, to debunk the 'fantasy' hype as
modeled story telling of some sort? Art appears to me these days as mostly
a psychological phenonemon to attach value to a scarce object...whose only
functional aspect is to adorn our walls [or bank vaults]?