[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 30 KB, 657x527, 1578890791129.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14725878 No.14725878 [Reply] [Original]

I haven't read a book on the philosophy of art, so I would love to hear lit opinions from more well read people.

This came as results of my own effort at learning multiple arts and thinking about the topic of what is the nature of art.

I define art as any creative endeavour that tries to have an idea, tries to convey an emotion and uses the medium language and techniques (craft) to deliver the message.

As such a perfume can be art, food can be art, martial arts can be art, soccer can be art.

I make however a diference between three categories of art.
As such I define them as entertainment, fine art and real art.

I define entertainment as art that doesn't have noble goals, doesn't try to be deep about any real life issue and usually is about having a good time, it usually is the realm of most commercial art done for money.
As such entertainment art can be most art like anime, pornography, radio pop music, rap, videogames.

I define then fine art as any art that doesn't care about aesthetics and is more concerned as using art as a comunication tool to debate ideas.
As such, a lot of the crappy shit on a canvas art, atonal music, cubism, noise music, avant garde music, literary fiction, are fine arts.

And finally, I define real art to be any art that has both intelectual goals about deep philosophical issues, but also tries to deliver an aesthetical piece, but the piece also posses an advanced complexity most fine art pieces usually kind of has.
As such, the work of beethoven, van gogh, cervantes, shakespeare, Bach and other more popular shit like Evangelion is also real art.

>> No.14725894

Read Hazlitt's essay "On Gusto," and also read Burke's writings on aesthetics.

>> No.14725988

>>14725878
>I define art as any creative endeavour that tries to have an idea, tries to convey an emotion and uses the medium language and techniques (craft) to deliver the message.
art has not and has never been about messages, faggot. So what if I didn't "try to convey" an emotion? Is a jumble of sticks that fall from a tree that land to perfectly reconstruct brad pitt's face not art? Is me dropping a pencil and the pencil hitting the paper in such a way that the mona lisa is drawn not art? Is a hunk of snow that melts in such a way as to look identical to an elephant not art? You have misunderstood everything. You don't have to have a "message" for it to be art. This is just something that pseudointellectuals want because they aren't smart enough to read philosophy. Also, what doesn't fit your definition? Men can be art! Phones can be art! Chairs can be art! Everything "conveys an emotion" that uses "craft" to deliver the "message".
>As such a perfume can be art, food can be art, martial arts can be art, soccer can be art.
lol
>As such I define them as entertainment, fine art and real art.
"Real" art lol. Entertainment seperated from "real" art, lol. Pseudointellectuals, never change.
>I define entertainment as art that doesn't have noble goals, doesn't try to be deep about any real life issue and usually is about having a good time, it usually is the realm of most commercial art done for money.
Yes, because I only have a bad time with "real" art. "Real" art has to be boring! You can't have fun with "real" art!
Pseudointellectuals, never change.
>As such entertainment art can be most art like anime, pornography, radio pop music, rap, videogames.
Lol. AKA "art that my parents have gotten mad at me for excessively indulging in that I now have developed a bad conscience about" lol.
>I define then fine art as any art that doesn't care about aesthetics and is more concerned as using art as a comunication tool to debate ideas.
>As such, a lot of the crappy shit on a canvas art, atonal music, cubism, noise music, avant garde music, literary fiction, are fine arts.
"fine arts". Static as music is "fine" to you. "shit on a canvas" is a "fine art" to you. What a disgusting person. Pseudointellectuals cannot hide from themselves.
>And finally, I define real art to be any art that has both intelectual goals about deep philosophical issues, but also tries to deliver an aesthetical piece, but the piece also posses an advanced complexity most fine art pieces usually kind of has.
>As such, the work of beethoven, van gogh, cervantes, shakespeare, Bach and other more popular shit like Evangelion is also real art.
Your entire though-process is flipped upside down. You believe that the "fine arts" (aka shit on a canvas) is more complex than a multi-million dollar videogame (mere "entertainment" to you). You cannot even spell intellectual. Van Gog beside Beethoven... never change, pseudointellectuals. You at least serve as something to laugh at.

>> No.14726029

>>14725988
>art has not been about messages
most entertainment isn't about deep message, that's why is mostly about having a good time.

But the message is usually the seed of the piece, as such the idea can be deep or shallow.

>bad time
entertainment, fine art and real art can be about sad or happy or scary emotions.

>my parents
I usually think entertainment can be good, fine art can be good and real art can be good or bad.

good or bad usually boils down to the artist skill in his craft.

>shit
yes, is art, that's why I use the word fine art to classify it.

fine art is not concerned about aesthetics or craft.
That's why It can be about poop on a canvas.

>fine arts is more complex
I never mentioned quality.

there's crappy fine arts, there's excelent entertainment, and there's also amateur real arts.

It usually boils down to if the goal of the piece is to stimulate the intelect (fine art), emotions (entertainment), or both (real art).

It never said one is better than the other.

There's plenty of hentai illustrations done with more quality than real art paintings and fine paintings.

>> No.14726119

>>14726029
You think shit on a canvas "posesses an advanced complexity", and that "entertainment" art "doesn't have noble (lol) goals". I don't think you speak english, too. Your theory is less than worthless: it is actually harmful to yourself. Oh well.

>> No.14726129

>>14726119
shit on a canvas is crappy fine art, but something like finnegans wake is top tier fine art.

entertainment doesn't have really noble goals, you average romance novel or harem waifu anime isekai doesn't have any really deep goals.
average marvel cape shit film has not really deep philosophical goals.

Real art is art that is both entertainment and fine art.

I repeat again, this doesn't have to do with quality.

There's plenty of crappy anime wifu fanart and high quality hentai fanart.
There's plenty of crappy fine art done by hacks and fine art that requires college education.