Artistic Philosophy and Its Applications on AMV Production

[Arigatomina]

Plenty of literary figures did not get their due until long after their deaths. Are you arguing that what they produced was not art until they became popular?

Yes. At the time it was made, it was not recognized as art and therefore was not art.
A painting is not art unless someone dubs it art. In and of itself, it's just a painting.
A tree is not pretty unless someone calls it pretty. In and of itself, it's just a tree.
Etc.
Etc.

My philosophy on art is that it's a moot subject. Like religion except with less consequence to people's daily lives. It's a matter of opinion. That makes it pointless as a subject for debate. Today we might have more people arguing on the side of "blue is more touching a color than green" and tomorrow the green enthusiasts will have the greater voice. No matter what conclusion the debate arrives at, it's a temporary conclusion subject to change on a moment's notice, and it doesn't change the fact that one is blue, the other is green, and both are equally useless if you prefer red. I throw my hands up and walk away from these philosophical meanderings. They're all the same, no conclusion, no point, nothing new no matter what time period they take place. No one in this thread has said anything I haven't already heard in those useless rhetoric classes where you read both sides of the debate (from centuries ago) and then reiterate them today with no intention of reaching a conclusion because there is no conclusion to reach. It's an exercise. Only interesting to those who enjoy debating for the sake of debating with no intention of arriving anywhere or getting anything out of it when the lengthy debate is finished.

Are amvs art to me? No. Very little is art to me. I subscribe to the "aesthetic appreciation" school of thought. If it's useless, if it's pointless, if it's inscrutable, and if - despite how utterly pointless the object is - you still get an aesthetic reaction from it, then it's art. A chair is a chair until you can no longer sit in it and must find some other redeeming quality - aesthetic appreciation regardless of the fact that it's a broken chair that would be destined for the garbage heap if it were not dubbed art.

I don't believe anything done to express oneself is automatically art. One could argue that everything a person does is a form of expression. I don't believe everything in the world is art.

I believe many people use the term "art" as a catchall for things they feel obligated to praise. It has no redeeming qualities, but you know there must be something good about it because your peers say so. Call it art. You read a poem you don't understand or see the point of, but it's in the literature book and has attained praise for centuries. It must be art. There's a canvas smeared with suspicious brown substances that repels you horribly, but it's being viewed in a gallery by rich people discussing its philosophical merits in quietly clipped tones. Agree that it's art and politely excuse yourself before the smell gets to you.

I believe some editing styles are extremely artistic. The styles are. The mode of expression, not the message being expressed or the sources used to express that message, the style itself. I believe it because I get an aesthetic response to certain styles regardless of whether I find anything appreciable in the video itself. And it doesn't matter if the creator intended it to be artistic or if he had a message to tell through his creative editing. I responded, therefore it's art to me. There can be no debate on that because my aesthetic response, my opinion, will not change no matter how well you talk.

Now here's a question in return: If I find the way you phrase your sentences artistic, does that mean your paragraph, your post, your essay itself, is art?

I don't think so because my aesthetic appreciation is for a piece but not the whole. But that's just my opinion.

[godix]

Minorly edited in a rather vain attempt to keep from being banned yet again. The third panel really says it all.

[ZephyrStar]

If it hits you emotionally, its art. If you feel it in your heart, its art.

[CodeZTM]

If it hits you emotionally, its art. If you feel it in your heart, its art.

x2

[aesling]

If it hits you emotionally, its art. If you feel it in your heart, its art.

Even though you broke my heart and killed me. And tore me to pieces. And threw every piece into a fire.

[Niotex]

As they burned it hurt because
I was so happy for you!
Now these points of data
make a beautiful line.
And we’re out of beta.
We’re releasing on time.
So I’m glad I got burned.
Think of all the things we learned
for the people who are
still alive.

[Kionon]

Yes. At the time it was made, it was not recognized as art and therefore was not art.
A painting is not art unless someone dubs it art. In and of itself, it's just a painting.
A tree is not pretty unless someone calls it pretty. In and of itself, it's just a tree.
Etc.
Etc.

I am incapable of allowing myself to divorce the artistic intent from the artistic impression left on the viewer. I would argue that unless you want to start arguing the tenets of creationism, in some of its forms, then you need to take the analogy of the tree out of the equation. If there is any artistic intent behind a tree, it could only be viewed through a religious underpinning. The natural world can be beautiful, but willful creation is as required as expression for art to exist.

My philosophy on art is that it's a moot subject. Like religion except with less consequence to people's daily lives. It's a matter of opinion. That makes it pointless as a subject for debate.

Considering I am attempting to pursue a graduate degree in Philosophy of Religion, and I know plenty of others who are, both in and out of the clergy, it should be clear that a great many people do not consider such questions pointless.

I throw my hands up and walk away from these philosophical meanderings. They're all the same, no conclusion, no point, nothing new no matter what time period they take place. No one in this thread has said anything I haven't already heard in those useless rhetoric classes where you read both sides of the debate (from centuries ago) and then reiterate them today with no intention of reaching a conclusion because there is no conclusion to reach. It's an exercise. Only interesting to those who enjoy debating for the sake of debating with no intention of arriving anywhere or getting anything out of it when the lengthy debate is finished.[\quote]

The answers are important, but not as important as the questions. This isn't a debate where I have an intent to "win" or "convert" anyone. That isn't the point, and rarely is. The exercise is present so all though entering the discourse can sort out their own feelings on the matter, and express it to others. I want to know what others think. If everyone though the same as me, then there would be no reason to ask. I'd already know. That would be truly pointless.

Are amvs art to me? No. Very little is art to me. I subscribe to the "aesthetic appreciation" school of thought. If it's useless, if it's pointless, if it's inscrutable, and if - despite how utterly pointless the object is - you still get an aesthetic reaction from it, then it's art. A chair is a chair until you can no longer sit in it and must find some other redeeming quality - aesthetic appreciation regardless of the fact that it's a broken chair that would be destined for the garbage heap if it were not dubbed art.

So, then you do not believe in the idea that art can be functional, or that as long as something is functional it does not deserve to be called art, regardless of artistic intent or artistic impression? My chair may be functional, but it was hand-crafted, and I see it not just for its function, but also its beauty. Is it not art?

I don't believe anything done to express oneself is automatically art. One could argue that everything a person does is a form of expression. I don't believe everything in the world is art.

Neither do I, because I believe in feedback. Art would not exist at all, regardless of your reference point, if concepts merely stayed in the mind of the creator. Although, I am sure there will be someone who will argue those creations of the mind are still art. I don't subscribe to that theory, and it sounds like neither do you.

I believe many people use the term "art" as a catchall for things they feel obligated to praise. It has no redeeming qualities, but you know there must be something good about it because your peers say so. Call it art. You read a poem you don't understand or see the point of, but it's in the literature book and has attained praise for centuries. It must be art. There's a canvas smeared with suspicious brown substances that repels you horribly, but it's being viewed in a gallery by rich people discussing its philosophical merits in quietly clipped tones. Agree that it's art and politely excuse yourself before the smell gets to you.

If it obeys the precepts of entering into the discourse, I could frankly care less if I understand it. If anything, I'll be driven to try to understand it. Such as the urine jar with the crucifix in it. As a devout Roman Catholic, that work offended me deeply, but rather than decry it as "not art," I instead studied why it so deeply offended me, and what the message could be, and was I right to be offended? Indeed my interpretation is that the message, far being from attacking Christianity, was actually suggesting Christianity had already been attacked. Whether I liked it or not, whether or not I agreed with the message, whether or not I agreed with the chosen materials used... It's art.

I believe some editing styles are extremely artistic. The styles are. The mode of expression, not the message being expressed or the sources used to express that message, the style itself. I believe it because I get an aesthetic response to certain styles regardless of whether I find anything appreciable in the video itself. And it doesn't matter if the creator intended it to be artistic or if he had a message to tell through his creative editing. I responded, therefore it's art to me. There can be no debate on that because my aesthetic response, my opinion, will not change no matter how well you talk.

Then we simply disagree, and there is nothing wrong with that. The thread is designed for disagreeing. I feel that without artistic intent, without that expression, nothing can be considered art. Art starts at the moment of expression, it may not end there, but it cannot begin elsewhere. So creation without expression cannot have "art" status conferred upon it later. That's pretty arrogant of the conferring party to think they can manufacture artistic intent that did not previously exist.

As for the subject of the discourse, debate in this manner is not meant to convert. The reason for talking is to talk. That is its singular goal. But now we're getting into the philosophies of discourse. Which are only tangently relevant.

Now here's a question in return: If I find the way you phrase your sentences artistic, does that mean your paragraph, your post, your essay itself, is art?

Since we've meandered anyhow, I'll answer this. Yes. I believe creative writing of any sort is art. I certainly feel essays are art. Especially ones about complex subjects like artistic expression, religion, philosophy, politics... The list goes on. Painters use paint, sculptors use metal or stone, composers use pitches, and writers use vocabulary. I am a wordsmith. I do not simply toss words together. I craft my responses. I am not always fully successful; my work is not always perfect or as I'd like it to be. Sometimes my message is muddled, my artistic expression not clear. However, this is true for any artist, regardless of medium. My struggles would be recognizable to them all.

[Kionon]

As they burned it hurt because
I was so happy for you!
Now these points of data
make a beautiful line.
And we’re out of beta.
We’re releasing on time.
So I’m glad I got burned.
Think of all the things we learned
for the people who are
still alive.

This thread was a triumph.
I'm making a note here:
HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.

a-m-v.org, we say what we must, because we can.
For the good of all of us
Except the ones that are banned.

But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake!

pie > cake

[Rapture**]

There's no such thing as art.

[Ginger Gouki]

I think we should rember:

Cake is a grate dessert, but pie is a way of life....