View Full Version : Is art wrong?


platinummatt!
11-24-2006, 10:49 PM
Ok Im not so sure about wrong. Do you feel art, maybe not all of it though, is wrong. Due to its nature, its imitation of life. A film perhaps in which a passionate scene between 2 people is happening. Now Im counting this as art for now. The passion is not real, in the sense of the passion between the people, although their acting may bring this. That imitation of life, do you feel it is wrong. As its not real and its just a copy. Lots of art I can see the imitation of life, and sometimes I dislike it. Although this imitation may be as close as some get to the real thing. This may be based mainly around things which are set up to imitate life, with actors etc.

Does anyone get me? Anyone know anyone with these views.

platinummatt!
11-24-2006, 11:00 PM
Although art is everywhere in many forms. Is every song's story telling of life an imitation?

Exige Jr
11-24-2006, 11:04 PM
Art can never be wrong, since it is expression.

I would elaborate but that requires energy.

platinummatt!
11-24-2006, 11:05 PM
A form of expression. Thats a good point.

THE REAL NINJA
11-24-2006, 11:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWS1yYblPZY you tell me

The Noose
11-25-2006, 01:41 AM
Ok Im not so sure about wrong. Do you feel art, maybe not all of it though, is wrong. Due to its nature, its imitation of life. A film perhaps in which a passionate scene between 2 people is happening. Now Im counting this as art for now. The passion is not real, in the sense of the passion between the people, although their acting may bring this. That imitation of life, do you feel it is wrong. As its not real and its just a copy. Lots of art I can see the imitation of life, and sometimes I dislike it. Although this imitation may be as close as some get to the real thing. This may be based mainly around things which are set up to imitate life, with actors etc.

Does anyone get me? Anyone know anyone with these views.


I have no idea wat u are asking or trying to say.
Wat do u mean by wrong? As in immoral or the opposite or right??
Art does not attempt to immitate life. If somone produces a painting of a sunset, it isnt trying to reproduce the sunset, it is an attempt by the artist to capture what they see as a beautiful scene. They are interpreating it through their use of paint. Every painter has a different style, and therefore will produce a different personalized version of what they see.
U cant see what other people are seeing. With artists, they can show us what they see.

A photographer will show us things we cannot see. A sculpture creates things that dont exist. A film maker brings a story to life through their eyes.

I see art as a form of communication. The artist shows u what they see, or how they feel in a way other than just words. Through colour, or sound or some other ****e. blah blah blah art art art....

Nacho_Analstain
11-25-2006, 01:44 AM
matt,did u invent drugs?u really are a trippy guy

phallus
11-25-2006, 01:49 AM
I have no idea wat u are asking or trying to say.
Wat do u mean by wrong? As in immoral or the opposite or right??
Art does not attempt to immitate life. If somone produces a painting of a sunset, it isnt trying to reproduce the sunset, it is an attempt by the artist to capture what they see as a beautiful scene. They are interpreating it through their use of paint. Every painter has a different style, and therefore will produce a different personalized version of what they see.
U cant see what other people are seeing. With artists, they can show us what they see.

A photographer will show us things we cannot see. A sculpture creates things that dont exist. A film maker brings a story to life through their eyes.

I see art as a form of communication. The artist shows u what they see, or how they feel in a way other than just words. Through colour, or sound or some other ****e. blah blah blah art art art....

yeah, i thought, when i first saw this thread that it would be about how artists are selfish, or self indulgent or something

platinummatt!
11-25-2006, 10:41 AM
Opposite to right yes. But take for instance... a picture of 2 lovers in a passionate embrace. A photographer has set this up. It is not real. Yet it is trying to imitate it being real. Is this not cold?

THE REAL NINJA
11-25-2006, 12:34 PM
Opposite to right yes. But take for instance... a picture of 2 lovers in a passionate embrace. A photographer has set this up. It is not real. Yet it is trying to imitate it being real. Is this not cold?
**** is wrong art is not

K-DOGG
11-25-2006, 05:24 PM
Ok Im not so sure about wrong. Do you feel art, maybe not all of it though, is wrong. Due to its nature, its imitation of life. A film perhaps in which a passionate scene between 2 people is happening. Now Im counting this as art for now. The passion is not real, in the sense of the passion between the people, although their acting may bring this. That imitation of life, do you feel it is wrong. As its not real and its just a copy. Lots of art I can see the imitation of life, and sometimes I dislike it. Although this imitation may be as close as some get to the real thing. This may be based mainly around things which are set up to imitate life, with actors etc.

Does anyone get me? Anyone know anyone with these views.


Simply put: no. Art is an expression of our souls and a record of our civilization's cultures throughout time. It records perspective, how the artist views the world or whatever he portrays. Art, all forms, is an expression of soul. Imagine what we would not know about ancient cultures without their artistic remains.

Don't think of art as false, for it is anything but....it is an echo of life in all of it's richness.

platinummatt!
11-25-2006, 06:06 PM
Ok. Not all art. Art which is trying to impersonate something, esp that hasnt happened.

phallus
11-25-2006, 06:09 PM
Ok. Not all art. Art which is trying to impersonate something, esp that hasnt happened.

that's not necessarily bad either, even if it's something that only happened uin the artists imagination, it's still giving u an insight into something. what the artist thinks might happen

platinummatt!
11-25-2006, 06:11 PM
But its imitating it. It can seem wrong to me sometimes

K-DOGG
11-25-2006, 06:14 PM
But its imitating it. It can seem wrong to me sometimes

Then lighten up or go to a monostary. :D

platinummatt!
11-25-2006, 06:16 PM
Hey man, its hard to show you what I mean lol! A monostary? wtf lol.
Its like an evil imposter of life.

phallus
11-25-2006, 06:16 PM
Then lighten up or go to a monostary. :D

i wouldn't recommend this to anyone, those monks are sexually frustrated, they'll beat u

platinummatt!
11-25-2006, 06:20 PM
I considered it

K-DOGG
11-25-2006, 06:25 PM
i wouldn't recommend this to anyone, those monks are sexually frustrated, they'll beat u


You say that like it's a bad thing. :spank:

:D

K-DOGG
11-25-2006, 06:27 PM
Hey man, its hard to show you what I mean lol! A monostary? wtf lol.
Its like an evil imposter of life.

I know what you mean. You're talking about portrayls of "happiness" or other such concepts that came soley from the imagination of the artist and raises your expectations to the unrealistic of what life holds.

How's that?

platinummatt!
11-25-2006, 06:30 PM
No, lol not really what I mean. thanks for trying though. Im trying to explain it.

phallus
11-25-2006, 06:31 PM
I know what you mean. You're talking about portrayls of "happiness" or other such concepts that came soley from the imagination of the artist and raises your expectations to the unrealistic of what life holds.

How's that?

that argument can be defeated, too... u are presupposing that everyone has the same experiences, or more specificallly feels the same about common experiences... for example, when i see a pic of bettie page, or kate beckinsale, it is a joyous experience for me that i know no one else feels

platinummatt!
11-25-2006, 06:32 PM
wohs that in your pic. Both your avatar and sig?

K-DOGG
11-25-2006, 06:33 PM
wohs that in your pic. Both your avatar and sig?

The woman in his sig is the sex symbol to end all sex symbols....the Immortal Bettie Page....she kicks Marilyn Monroe's ass. Actually, I think she's been promoted to goddess.


The avatar is James Toney.

K-DOGG
11-25-2006, 06:35 PM
that argument can be defeated, too... u are presupposing that everyone has the same experiences, or more specificallly feels the same about common experiences... for example, when i see a pic of bettie page, or kate beckinsale, it is a joyous experience for me that i know no one else feels


True; but I thought that's what he was attempting to get at with this thread.

phallus
11-25-2006, 06:36 PM
wohs that in your pic. Both your avatar and sig?

The woman in his sig is the sex symbol to end all sex symbols....the Immortal Bettie Page....she kicks Marilyn Monroe's ass. Actually, I think she's been promoted to goddess.


The avatar is James Toney.

she is bettie page, the most beautiful woman that ever lived...i have better pics of her, even a video of her getting spanked by another bird, but they won't fit in the tiny space allowed for sigs

phallus
11-25-2006, 06:38 PM
True; but I thought that's what he was attempting to get at with this thread.

then he's wrong:

what if the artist feels that way and is trying to communicate it to everyone who sees her/ his art. then it's not fake, it's one persons joy, therefore its not fake because someone experienced it

platinummatt!
11-25-2006, 06:49 PM
oh right.......

phallus
11-25-2006, 06:50 PM
oh right.......

u can't argue with me, i sell televisions at best buy

K-DOGG
11-25-2006, 06:54 PM
then he's wrong:

what if the artist feels that way and is trying to communicate it to everyone who sees her/ his art. then it's not fake, it's one persons joy, therefore its not fake because someone experienced it

I completely agree. Art, by definition to me, is truth...for there are many views of truth, at least as many as there are points of view/aka people.

Now,there's pseudo-art, as I call it, where someone does something by direction soley for money....but one could argue that that's true art as well because of the Cistine (sp) Chapel and the fact that Leonardo was paid to create one of the most famous works of art known to man.

platinummatt!
11-25-2006, 06:54 PM
Lol, no I was oh righting at bettie page. Hey man, those who do jobs like that may have a lot of time to think

phallus
11-25-2006, 06:57 PM
Lol, no I was oh righting at bettie page. Hey man, those who do jobs like that may have a lot of time to think

u mean, u dispute the FACT that bettie page is the most beautiful woman that ever lived...just imagine a pug licking her beautiful flesh, though, i think she'd look better with me licking her beautiful flesh

phallus
11-25-2006, 07:01 PM
I completely agree. Art, by definition to me, is truth...for there are many views of truth, at least as many as there are points of view/aka people.

Now,there's pseudo-art, as I call it, where someone does something by direction soley for money....but one could argue that that's true art as well because of the Cistine (sp) Chapel and the fact that Leonardo was paid to create one of the most famous works of art known to man.

but it's also very beautiful, when i see it ( pics, i've never been there ), i'm always struck by how powerful and beautiful it is... i would call andy warhols **** pseudo -art, the soup cans and pictures of mao, but even then, it's thought provoking, so it's still causing a reaction in people

The Noose
11-26-2006, 09:42 PM
Opposite to right yes. But take for instance... a picture of 2 lovers in a passionate embrace. A photographer has set this up. It is not real. Yet it is trying to imitate it being real. Is this not cold?

Staged scenes like that are ofetn frowned upon by art critics. It is like a photographer taking pictures of a very poor village, and its children. If the photograher captures these images and its natural, then its fine. But if he asks them to pose, and look sad, then its fake, and pointless.
From an art perspective, that is wrong. even if it is a beautiful picture.

As far as a picture of two lovers embracing, thats different. If a artist asks a couple to stare into each others eyes and 'act natural' while they take pictures, its kinda fake.
If it is two actors pretending to be lovers, then again its fake, but it depends on what the pictures purpose is.
If it is just a very artistic photo of two people embracing and it is appreciated just for its aesthetic value , then fine.
But if it is trying to convey emotional love between two people by using actors, then id say it could be considered 'wrong'. It is cheating its audience.

With **** and films, we all know they are acting, and suspend disbelief, allowing ourselves to enter into that world.

platinummatt!
11-27-2006, 12:30 PM
Staged scenes like that are ofetn frowned upon by art critics. It is like a photographer taking pictures of a very poor village, and its children. If the photograher captures these images and its natural, then its fine. But if he asks them to pose, and look sad, then its fake, and pointless.
From an art perspective, that is wrong. even if it is a beautiful picture.

As far as a picture of two lovers embracing, thats different. If a artist asks a couple to stare into each others eyes and 'act natural' while they take pictures, its kinda fake.
If it is two actors pretending to be lovers, then again its fake, but it depends on what the pictures purpose is.
If it is just a very artistic photo of two people embracing and it is appreciated just for its aesthetic value , then fine.
But if it is trying to convey emotional love between two people by using actors, then id say it could be considered 'wrong'. It is cheating its audience.






With **** and films, we all know they are acting, and suspend disbelief, allowing ourselves to enter into that world.


Hey that came pretty damn close to what Im talking about! Thankyah bobby

The Noose
11-28-2006, 12:58 AM
Hey that came pretty damn close to what Im talking about! Thankyah bobby

Coooooooool. :grouphug:

Mr Las Vegas
11-28-2006, 12:09 PM
I'm not usually one for my art, but I know what I like. Hence why I had a 10ft marble statue of myself erected between either stairwell in my mansion.

phallus
12-14-2006, 01:00 AM
Staged scenes like that are ofetn frowned upon by art critics. It is like a photographer taking pictures of a very poor village, and its children. If the photograher captures these images and its natural, then its fine. But if he asks them to pose, and look sad, then its fake, and pointless.
From an art perspective, that is wrong. even if it is a beautiful picture.

As far as a picture of two lovers embracing, thats different. If a artist asks a couple to stare into each others eyes and 'act natural' while they take pictures, its kinda fake.
If it is two actors pretending to be lovers, then again its fake, but it depends on what the pictures purpose is.
If it is just a very artistic photo of two people embracing and it is appreciated just for its aesthetic value , then fine.
But if it is trying to convey emotional love between two people by using actors, then id say it could be considered 'wrong'. It is cheating its audience.

With **** and films, we all know they are acting, and suspend disbelief, allowing ourselves to enter into that world.



matt, u should down on actors, not artists, everything an actor does is fake, and they're trying to suck us in to believing their fake emotions. in ancient greek the word for actor is hypocrite

MANGLER
12-26-2009, 05:44 AM
Art is all about representin peoples' thoughts. Whatever they feel they express thru they art It's hard to call art wrong, even if you disagree wit the expression.