Anti-Rand
- Started
- Last post
- 164 Responses
- Mimio0
Maybe you should explain that Geith.
- Geith0
Article author=intellectual midget
- gramme0
I was thinking post-medieval serfdom.
Sheesh.
- neue75_bold0
You currently have images turned off...
- capsize0
It flies in the face of centuries of community-first living, in which every person who walked around fed and clothed did work of some sort.
serfs, peasants, slaves
capsize
(Nov 14 07, 06:31)
- capsize0
and deep.
- capsize0
yep
- gramme0
hm. Profound //
- capsize0
art kills death, everything else is shit.
- gramme0
@ capsize:
...facile and what?
I recognize that this centuries-old argument is probably a waste of time. Nobody's life is hanging in the balance while we try to define the parameters of art (should art have parameters??).
- gramme0
It flies in the face of centuries of community-first living, in which every person who walked around fed and clothed did work of some sort.
Carpenters, painters, sculptors, writers, printers, musicians, designers and architects.
capsize
(Nov 14 07, 06:31)
- neue75_bold0
crotch-maivens and one-night lays...
- menos0
to add to the pan:
from the CRblog at
http://www.creativereview.co.uk/…
"On the distinctions between graphic design and contemporary fine art
Peter Saville: ...and this is the point in which fine art and late 20th century applied art diverge completely. In the applied arts we learn to please people, we learn strategies of pleasing others. Pleasing yourself or expressing yourself, the confessing self, is not pertinent within the applied arts. It might be terribly interesting but it’s not exactly what we’re looking for. The prevailing condition within the applied arts is also to make things look good. Things that look good tend to be familiar – things tend not to look good until we are to some extent familiar with them. We see this in the culture of design all the time, what was radical 20 years ago and received with shock, we now see as kind of easy on the eye."
- capsize0
if the above definition is to be trusted at all...
no. it's facile and
- capsize0
It flies in the face of centuries of community-first living, in which every person who walked around fed and clothed did work of some sort.
serfs, peasants, slaves
- gramme0
The glaring problem in this thread is that nobody has clearly defined "art". Therefore we are chasing our tails trying to credit or discredit design, until we have something clear and concrete for comparison.
Webster's definition:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
--------------------
When design is at it's best, it accomplishes the above. It uses beauty to move the viewer. Think of a beautiful book on cartography. Think of the online portfolio of an accomplished photographer (a project I recently have worked on and found very rewarding in and of itself). So what if many think the thing people are being moved to do or think is banal. Perhaps, more often than not, this is the case. Nevertheless, design can and often does rise to the level of art, if the above definition is to be trusted at all.
You have all probably heard the phrase "art for art's sake." The meaning of this phrase it that the only aim of a work of art is the self expression of the individual artist who created the piece. The problem with such a concept is that it automatically negates the artistic value of the majority of what we consider art. Forget the Sistine chapel. Forget anything created by Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Monet, Constable, etc. etc. It's all trash, since the majority of work created by the above-mentioned was done for paying clients, often beginning with a commission rather than a purchase after the fact.
The concept of "art for art's sake" is a 20th century construction, a product of modernist, individualistic thought. It flies in the face of centuries of community-first living, in which every person who walked around fed and clothed did work of some sort.
I am proud of the fact that graphic design has not been entirely destroyed by the "art for art's sake" adherents. I believe that it is possible to create art or design that both fulfills one's personal aesthetic and conceptual desires, as well as fulfilling the needs of our clients. It doesn't happen often, but it happens often enough that I for one have not yet lost hope for a meaningful career.
- capsize0
art i about teh information it contains or refers to. Something that tells you how to get get point a to point b is useful but not art, or not very accomplished art. A label isn't a caption and since we have eliminated dmost all signifiers in our art a title or caption is practically the only way for art to convey meaning.
- studderine0
i dont know, i'm not a designer per say, and i am not an artist. maybe my opinions don't matter.
- ukit0
Let's face it, if "pure" art was the only valid way for anyone to live their life we would all be sitting in mud huts making finger paintings with our own feces.
- studderine0
yea, you know what npattern, fuck design. yea fuck some of the most important signage that ANYONE from almost any cultural background can understand just by looking at it. yea, thats useless. information design.