11-16-2010, 01:38 PM
man, these kinda questions remind me of university... it really is endless!
I consider art (as an object, media, image, sound, sculpture) to be anything that engages the brain into curious or abstracted thought without intrinsically having any other purpose, i.e, something that is arguably without function other than to stimulate creative thought processes.
On this logic you could say that reading a book on carpentry is 'art', as it teaches creativity and engages the brain; however it does have a functional end, in that it serves a direct purpose. I hope I'm being clear on this :tongue:
Film is interesting - can you consider 'Predator' (1987) to be a work of art?
it's entertainment in a visual medium, but it lacks any qualities of engaging the brain on any level deeper than entertainment. I had this argument with an old flatmate many years ago, he considered all movies to be Art.
I draw the line with graffiti - tagging is expressive and visually stimulating, but it has no cognitive merits and as such breaks my little theory earlier, because I do consider it to be art. It exists for its own sake and provides an outlet for someone to express themselves. I've seen awful graffiti that lets the rest down; most people in England will know of Banksy, the underground stencil artist sellout who pasted London with a number of wonderful and thoughtful stencils that elevated the entire art form.
I consider art (as an object, media, image, sound, sculpture) to be anything that engages the brain into curious or abstracted thought without intrinsically having any other purpose, i.e, something that is arguably without function other than to stimulate creative thought processes.
On this logic you could say that reading a book on carpentry is 'art', as it teaches creativity and engages the brain; however it does have a functional end, in that it serves a direct purpose. I hope I'm being clear on this :tongue:
Film is interesting - can you consider 'Predator' (1987) to be a work of art?
it's entertainment in a visual medium, but it lacks any qualities of engaging the brain on any level deeper than entertainment. I had this argument with an old flatmate many years ago, he considered all movies to be Art.I draw the line with graffiti - tagging is expressive and visually stimulating, but it has no cognitive merits and as such breaks my little theory earlier, because I do consider it to be art. It exists for its own sake and provides an outlet for someone to express themselves. I've seen awful graffiti that lets the rest down; most people in England will know of Banksy, the underground stencil artist sellout who pasted London with a number of wonderful and thoughtful stencils that elevated the entire art form.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
