I know you're very confident about your opinions on various things in life. That doesn't turn them into facts though. If anything is completely subjective, it's art. When it comes down to it opinions on what makes a great painting or a great song is just opinion, because taste is completely subjective.No, you're missing the point. Again. Just because I find something appealing that doesn't mean that it's universally appealing. Art has got nothing to do with appeal, contrary to what pseudo-intellectuals who prole drift metaphysical ideas would have you believe. I suggest you hit Schopenhauer's aesthetics if you really wanna look into it. Then again, it might be best to avoid it altogether. There isn't nor there ever will be a philosophy that's sublime enough to counter the good old "That's just your opinion" broken record chant.
I know you're very confident about your opinions on various things in life. That doesn't turn them into facts though. If anything is completely subjective, it's art. When it comes down to it opinions on what makes a great painting or a great song is just opinion, because taste is completely subjective.
To me art is simply any creative endeavor, and the quality of that art is in the eye of the beholder. It's more about what the art means to the artist then the viewer.That would appear to be the case since the term "art" has been compromised to such an extent that the only term that can probably match it in that regard is "god". People often confuse mastery in a particular skill with art, as well as creations that exalt them to unusual and sublime states of their soul. There's a good reason why some smart people from the past like Nietzsche encouraged us to invent new words that would, with greater precision, describe the shades of what we're feeling, thus differentiating it from something old and already intact. That way, we would be spared of encumbering one term to the point that it becomes useless, like the one we're discussing at the moment.
We wouldn't have all this confusion if we, as a species, were capable of communicating ideas and emotions through more perfect means than words, which do a very poor job at it, reducing true communication to basic exchange of information. It is impossible to successfully convey both ideas and emotions, being that we're all locked up in this prison of ours that we call mind. When we're discussing anything else than mere concrete events, namely engage in abstract conversations, all we're doing is looking at this landscape inside ourselves and try to portray it to best of our abilities to our listener, leaving it to his imagination to not only fill in the blanks but also idiosyncratically imagine and arrange the scenery we're describing. In more plain words, we're not communicating at all. Not even now.
I hate repeating myself but art has got nothing to do with appeal. What's appealing to us is what our innate individual preferences tell us is appealing. Appeal is in the service of individual will and therefore subjective, art is the creation through which we briefly escape the fetters of will's tyranny and come closer to our metaphysical roots of oneness with the Being.
That would appear to be the case since the term "art" has been compromised to such an extent that the only term that can probably match it in that regard is "god". People often confuse mastery in a particular skill with art, as well as creations that exalt them to unusual and sublime states of their soul. There's a good reason why some smart people from the past like Nietzsche encouraged us to invent new words that would, with greater precision, describe the shades of what we're feeling, thus differentiating it from something old and already intact. That way, we would be spared of encumbering one term to the point that it becomes useless, like the one we're discussing at the moment.
We wouldn't have all this confusion if we, as a species, were capable of communicating ideas and emotions through more perfect means than words, which do a very poor job at it, reducing true communication to basic exchange of information. It is impossible to successfully convey both ideas and emotions, being that we're all locked up in this prison of ours that we call mind. When we're discussing anything else than mere concrete events, namely engage in abstract conversations, all we're doing is looking at this landscape inside ourselves and try to portray it to best of our abilities to our listener, leaving it to his imagination to not only fill in the blanks but also idiosyncratically imagine and arrange the scenery we're describing. In more plain words, we're not communicating at all. Not even now.
I hate repeating myself but art has got nothing to do with appeal. What's appealing to us is what our innate individual preferences tell us is appealing. Appeal is in the service of individual will and therefore subjective, art is the creation through which we briefly escape the fetters of will's tyranny and come closer to our metaphysical roots of oneness with the Being.
Lol, you're not communicating, because your head is way too far up your own ass to be able to listen and give suitable replies. That's not me trying to insult you, that's my honest opinion.
Without the whole diatribe of BS, all you are saying is my definition is the right one, because it just is. Your definition of "appeal", your definition of "art" are your definitions, that's all they are. They aren't a metaphysical truth, they're just how you see it. Maybe others share them, maybe some famous philosophers have shared them, but that doesn't change the fact that they're just your personal views and that of some others. But you want it to be more than it is.
You haven't given any substantial examples or any kind of proof of them being more than just your personal views. But apparently you think that a long winded masturbatory string of philosophical phrases and catchwords are good enough to support your statement with, which are, IMO, just there to dazzle but are very empty words when it comes down to the real content.
I see that people here can't make the distinction between artists and entertainers.
wow you are so smart and above the rest of us; please take your wisdom to the War room.
Good thing for me then that I have you to provide such a "substantial" and "insightful" perspective on the matter. You basically said "That's just your opinion, man!" in a greater amount of words than your predecessors that I engaged in this thread, solely due to being fairly uneducated on the subject to give a suitable counter. And that's not an opinion, it's a fact. I presume you would fall flat on your ass if you came to realize that art is something metaphysical, meaning that it's outside of phenomenal world and therefore not a subject to scientific method, which you are so stubbornly trying to appeal to in this case by making me "prove" I am right by providing evidence or proof. Aesthetic contemplation is not something that is achieved via rational or empirical methods. I know that this is unfathomable even to the rationalists with most prowess, let alone to you who are, due to your laziness or innate incompetency to amount to higher spheres of understanding, stuck on an elementary level of their system of thought.
But, hey...it's just me using big words to confuse you and appear smart to others. I guess it is stupid of me to try and discuss this on an MMA forum where people think in slogans and phrases they've been fed throughout their lives.
Mere fact that I got a reply from you reflects how little you think of yourself. Some asshole wrote random shit on the internet and you reacted. It's almost as if my opinion is actually factual and you're feeling the need to combat it.
You've not actually contributed to the actual thread question; just trying to show how smart you are on a Sherdog forum lol.
Please quit your rambling rhetoric (which is oh too smartified for us) and suggest an artist.
Good thing for me then that I have you to provide such a "substantial" perspective on the matter. You basically said "That's just your opinion, man!" in a greater amount of words than your predecessors that I engaged in this thread, solely due to being fairly uneducated on the subject to give a suitable counter. And that's not an opinion, it's a fact. I presume you would fall flat on your ass if you came to realize that art is something metaphysical, meaning that it's outside of phenomenal world and therefore not a subject to scientific method, which you are so stubbornly trying to appeal to in this case by making me "prove" I am right by providing evidence or proof. Aesthetic contemplation is not something that is achieved via rational or empirical methods. I know that this is unfathomable even to the rationalists with most prowess, let alone to you who are, due to your laziness or innate incompetency to amount to higher spheres of understanding, stuck on an elementary level of their system of thought.
But, hey...it's just me using big words to confuse you and appear smart to others. I guess it is stupid of me to try and discuss this on an MMA forum where people think in slogans and phrases they've been fed throughout their lives.
Hahaha, dude keep talking without actually backing anything up. The fact that you don't feel any need to back up anything you say tells everything about what "level" of "system of thought" you are stuck on. The system of thought that doesn't build on reason.
I'll suggest entertainers.
Red Hot Chili Peppers. From "One Hot Minute" to "Stadium Arcadium".
Haha, why, because we're too uneducated to get your smart art references?