Artistic Philosophy and Its Applications on AMV Production

[JaddziaDax]

ive seen the pic im not sure why i would need one O:

[Castor Troy]

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

x2

If you feel it in your ass, it's a fart.

[Arigatomina]

The natural world can be beautiful, but willful creation is as required as expression for art to exist.

Wow. Wasn't expecting that. I take it you dismiss all the artists who take pictures of trash found along the side of the rode, random people they meet, all landscape artists, all photographers, and everyone else who doesn't create his art from scratch. That doesn't leave much, you know. You're not even including amvs because we didn't create the anime or music we're using (no more than a photographer created that tree or the person he posed in front of that tree).

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.

What do you get out of talking religion with those people? Confirmation of things you already believe in, a reminder that because you prescribe to a single faith you must automatically deny everything else because each religion (with few exceptions) is exclusionary by nature, pride at having reminded the choir you're preaching to why they already believe what you're saying, and maybe some ruffled feathers if you waste your time trying to convert members of opposing faiths (since, like yours, their faiths make them obligated to deny anything that counters their own doctrine). Whether you enjoy it or not, I don't see anything to be gained from these topics. They don't go anywhere, they don't accomplish anything, and they're extremely repetitive. Just like art philosophers - they're still repeating the same debates the first religious philosophers did, with slightly more modern wording. I just don't get the point of that. Amvs can be considered pointless, but at least with this hobby you get a finished product to show for all the time spent.

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.

Oh. Then why have you been responding to people with different opinions from yours, as if you were correcting them for being mistaken (for not sharing your own opinion)? You just did it with me when you said "any art not made intentionally cannot be art". Pft. That's a matter of opinion. If you're really asking what we think, don't say our opinions are wrong just because they're not yours. o.O Right?

Then again, if you don't pick apart the opinions that differ from your own, it's not a discussion. It's just a poll. Those are not interesting at all. >.<

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.

Ah. That might be one of the big differences (aside from the created/intentional art thing). I find parts artistic - not the whole. Which means the structure, the pattern of the wording itself, strikes my art-bone like a certain wallpaper pattern might make someone dizzy in a good way. But that doesn't mean I like the room. I don't have to like the subject matter a person is writing about to appreciate the *way* they write. In fact, the ones I usually like the best use their pretty rhetoric on subjects I could care less about. That just sucks.

[aesling]

for some reason i think this post calls for "cake art":

Cake pictures

The cake is a lie!
The cake is a lie!
The cake is a lie!
The cake is a lie!
The cake is a lie!

[inthesto]

If you feel it in your ass, it's a fart.

Now there's a sentiment I can get behind.

[Kionon]

Wow. Wasn't expecting that. I take it you dismiss all the artists who take pictures of trash found along the side of the rode, random people they meet, all landscape artists, all photographers, and everyone else who doesn't create his art from scratch. That doesn't leave much, you know. You're not even including amvs because we didn't create the anime or music we're using (no more than a photographer created that tree or the person he posed in front of that tree).

Hold on. You take it incorrectly. I don't know what you think I said, but I didn't say it. And reviewing the section you quoted, I can clearly see I never said, reconstitution isn't art. I said:

The natural world can be beautiful, but willful creation is as required as expression for art to exist.

You're jumping to conclusions not supported by the text. In all the cases you mention, there was intentional expression and creation. Nowhere did I even imply that I spoke of landscaping, or photographs of natural settings. What I said was purely natural beauty isn't art unless you believe in expressive, creator deity. Landscaping and photographs require willful composition. But there are mountains which existed long before we did. Do I consider them art? Yes, but only because I believe in an expressive, creator deity. Taking that religious view out of the equation, secularly they, themselves, the actual mountains, cannot be considered art.

What do you get out of talking religion with those people? Confirmation of things you already believe in, a reminder that because you prescribe to a single faith you must automatically deny everything else because each religion (with few exceptions) is exclusionary by nature, pride at having reminded the choir you're preaching to why they already believe what you're saying, and maybe some ruffled feathers if you waste your time trying to convert members of opposing faiths (since, like yours, their faiths make them obligated to deny anything that counters their own doctrine). Whether you enjoy it or not, I don't see anything to be gained from these topics. They don't go anywhere, they don't accomplish anything, and they're extremely repetitive. Just like art philosophers - they're still repeating the same debates the first religious philosophers did, with slightly more modern wording. I just don't get the point of that. Amvs can be considered pointless, but at least with this hobby you get a finished product to show for all the time spent.

You presume too much. There's so much assumption here about who I am and what I am like, I don't even know where to start.

I do not always get confirmation of that which I already believe. In fact, the whole point is so that I don't. I want to learn new concepts. I want to take in new viewpoints and new scriptures. I want to adjust my world view. It is true, I'm an exclusivist, but just because I believe that the full truth is exclusive does not mean I believe I hold it all. I do not deny that every religion has something to offer. That's why I am a philosopher and not a cleric. I do not intend to study in a divinity department, but I do intend to study in a philosophy department. I look at religion through the lens of philosophy. If I chose to join the priesthood, than likely it would be the other way around. For you to assume that my faith makes me less tolerant rather than more is ludicrous with as little information as you have on me.

I do not convert, I do not evangelize. Your faith is your own, and my faith is my own. Both are open to change, and should be open to change. The goal of philosophical discourse, especially as it pertains to religion, should be the betterment of all religious views. I have spent years following philosophical arguments, and your claim that the discourse has not changed isn't the issue. You're still focused on answers. The discourse is about the questions. More importantly, it's about who asks those questions. Don't look for change in the discourse; look for change in the participants.

Oh. Then why have you been responding to people with different opinions from yours, as if you were correcting them for being mistaken (for not sharing your own opinion)? You just did it with me when you said "any art not made intentionally cannot be art". Pft. That's a matter of opinion. If you're really asking what we think, don't say our opinions are wrong just because they're not yours.

I am not saying "that's wrong," I am saying, "I think" or "I feel" or "I disagree." Almost every paragraph I write starts along the lines of that, and everything in the body of the subsequent paragraph falls under that heading. When I wrote what you just quoted, there is understandably a "I feel" or "I think" in front such a statement. I cannot claim you are wrong, I can only claim that I believe something else to be the case. I don't know who has attacked your beliefs in the past, but I assure you, I am not that person, and I do not represent that person. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't respect.

Then again, if you don't pick apart the opinions that differ from your own, it's not a discussion. It's just a poll. Those are not interesting at all. >.<

What you call picking apart, I call clarification. I want to understand. When I present challenges it is only to increase my own understanding of your world view. That's the nature of discourse. Again, I am certainly not attacking you, and there need be no counter-attack.

[DayWalker B.]

If you feel it in your ass, it's a fart.

Now there's a sentiment I can get behind.

LMAO! XD

[Arigatomina]

What I said was purely natural beauty isn't art unless you believe in expressive, creator deity.

No, I understood that part. I just don't agree with it. I don't believe in an expressive creator deity. I still think a random person could go out, take a snapshot of a pretty tree, and be considered an artist because the tree is pretty. It's not the way he photographed the tree that made the picture pretty (and "artistic" because people respond to it being so pretty). He didn't add anything to the tree. He didn't intend to add anything. All he did was find it. There was an entire week's discussion on "found art" in the class I took. The definition of "found art" was that the person capturing it added nothing to the object itself. So he didn't put his own creative expressions into it. All he did was be the first to find it.

Landscaping and photographs require willful composition.

Again, I disagree with that. I understand you believe that, but I don't believe it. I've seen journals where people take random photos out the window of a bus during a trip and have critics acclaim those scenes as highly artistic. These are random snapshots - meaning no thought, intention, expression is behind them. It's aim the camera at passing scenery and click the button. But people consider it art - found art. And some of those people are athiests - they don't consider these photos artistic because some God intended them to be artistic - they consider these photos artistic because - to these people - those photos are artistic and that's all there is to it. I'm disagreeing with your statement.

Taking that religious view out of the equation, secularly they, themselves, the actual mountains, cannot be considered art.

They're not art to you. You "cannot" consider them art. That's your opinion. That's the definition you put on what is and is not art. I disagree with your definition. Is there anything else to say on the subject?

You presume too much. There's so much assumption here about who I am and what I am like, I don't even know where to start.

It wasn't actually intended to be personal. I've attempted to sit in on a number of "religious study" groups. I've yet to find one where it wasn't people preaching to the converted, pushing their personal views as incontrovertible truth, or reiterating the same questions I'd already read in literature classics. This thread has that same feel to it.

For you to assume that my faith makes me less tolerant rather than more is ludicrous with as little information as you have on me.

Yeah, I can only base it on this thread.

Taking that religious view out of the equation, secularly they, themselves, the actual mountains, cannot be considered art.

To me, that's forcing your own belief onto me as if it were truth just because you subscribe to it. It sounds like you want to make sure I know that your view is inflexible. And that's fine. I get it. But I don't agree and I'm not going to. So there's no reason to repeat your view to me again unless you're trying to make me agree with it. You've already told me and I've already told you I don't agree. Why repeat your view unless you're trying to make me change mine? I didn't misunderstand your view the first time you said it. I just didn't agree with it.

The discourse is about the questions. More importantly, it's about who asks those questions. Don't look for change in the discourse; look for change in the participants.

I don't have the patience for it. I'm still hoping this thread will pop up a few more people talking more about how they put their artistic styles into amvs. I dislike arguments about what is or is not art. I don't see anything to argue about. You feel it = it's art. You don't feel it = it's not art. Topics like this...
"Here's what I believe, I'm not going to change, I'm not going to see it your way, but go ahead and tell me what your way is so I can remind you that my was is different and that I'm not going to change."
It's tiring.

I don't know who has attacked your beliefs in the past, but I assure you, I am not that person, and I do not represent that person. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't respect.

No one. I usually steer clear of anything that sounds like religious preaching. I only shared my opinions because I thought that was the point of the thread. I just don't see why you'd reply to restate your own opinion if the point is to hear other people's opinions. You've already given your opinion when you started the thread. Why say it again every time someone offers a different opinion?

What you call picking apart, I call clarification. I want to understand. When I present challenges it is only to increase my own understanding of your world view. That's the nature of discourse. Again, I am certainly not attacking you, and there need be no counter-attack.

If I took your statements wrong, I apologize. It honestly did sound like you were trying to change my opinion to match yours. I don't think my opinion of art is any better than anyone else's. And if there's any opinion I've given that you'd like me to try and explain better, just ask. Chances are I won't be able to explain any better, though. As far as I'm concerned, art is annoying because everyone says something different and no one can argue with any of it. Most art is identified solely by gut reaction. You look. You think "this is art". There is no explanation. All I can say for sure is that I'll take those random snapshots of "found art" over intentional expressionism any day - because the interpretation is entirely up to the viewer, with no input whatsoever from the artist who lucked out and snapped the camera at that perfect moment. And there's no explaining why I consider it art. I just do.

If you want to reply, feel free to move it to PM. Just please don't tell me my love of "found art" is due to God again. I'll take that as an attack. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. I've had aesthetic responses to soap stains. I refuse to credit God for intentionally having created them just to get that reaction from me. It's water and chance and texture. And my own warped head reacting to weird things. That's all.

[Kalium]

Landscaping and photographs require willful composition.

Again, I disagree with that. I understand you believe that, but I don't believe it. I've seen journals where people take random photos out the window of a bus during a trip and have critics acclaim those scenes as highly artistic. These are random snapshots - meaning no thought, intention, expression is behind them. It's aim the camera at passing scenery and click the button. But people consider it art - found art. And some of those people are athiests - they don't consider these photos artistic because some God intended them to be artistic - they consider these photos artistic because - to these people - those photos are artistic and that's all there is to it. I'm disagreeing with your statement.

Pointing a camera and pushing a button are both acts of will. Deciding to show people a photograph is likewise an act of will.

[Arigatomina]

Pointing a camera and pushing a button are both acts of will. Deciding to show people a photograph is likewise an act of will.

I'll concede that. But people don't consider the photos art because the photographer moved his finger and then shared the results. The art is what his finger-movement captured and it would still be art no matter whose finger did the moving. It's not reliant on the button pusher. So I don't consider it reliant on the willful intent of that particular button pusher. A security camera can capture artistic scenes. Do we credit the man who installed the camera? I don't.

My main point is that - in my opinion - art can exist without an artist. Without the creation of that art being reliant on willful intent and expressionism on the part of a person (or a God). Art can be determined solely based on the viewer's reaction to an object, whether it was made intentionally or stumbled onto by accident. And once that viewer labels it "art" it is art. That's my opinion.