Why does having "too many" soft synths bother me?

[trimph1]

There was an attempt sometime ago to suggest that since language had an internal logic all its own that language spoke through us.

There seems a bit of this message being here as well. The 'creator' does not 'create'. The Artwork comes out by itself...

Another kettle of fish entirely.

[aciddose]

Which part of "art is a social construct" don't you understand? Not creation or creativity but art.

well, personally, I dont get the 'social construct' part. Creation is an act. Creativity is a capacity for creation. Art is the result of creativity harnessed in the exploration of a specific concept or idea.

Where's the 'social'?

He doesn't seem to recognize that society is actually a collection of individuals who are all making up their own percentage regarding their influence on a work.

So if you use his definition where art with 100% influence by the artist is "not art", art can't exist at all as we have no way to create anything without an artist being involved.

You have to invent some sort of arbitrary nonsense like "at least two artists with at least a minimum of X% influence".

[whyterabbyt]

Which part of "art is a social construct" don't you understand? Not creation or creativity but art.

well, personally, I dont get the 'social construct' part. Creation is an act. Creativity is a capacity for creation. Art is the result of creativity harnessed in the exploration of a specific concept or idea.

Where's the 'social'?

It comes once something is finished I guess.

Indeed. There's an odd separation between the use of 'art' as a description of intent, and 'art' as a description of its reception by an 'audience'. Its odd because they're related, often conflated, but actually in many ways completely separate. And the latter is fluid, as the audience changes.

But if we're talking about 'being artists' then as far as Im concerned, its really only the former which is specifically relevant.

[aciddose]

You're reading something out of what I said that I did not intend to say.

But you did post it nevertheless. Some people read their statement back before hitting the submit button, some don't. The ones who don't are in most cases pretty much full of themselves, while the ones who do are (at least somewhat) able to question their own statements. Think about it

No, I never said what he interpreted. Read it again until you understand it, try reading it without making the assumption it must be incorrect in some way ahead of time.

(I'm not really sure what you mean to say when you say "did post it", do you mean I should have clarified? I thought it was perfectly clear already and did consider it, but posted it like that intentionally.)

[whyterabbyt]

Art is an emergent thing, not something you define ahead of time and build to exacting specifications.

Something built to exacting specifications is something different, that is business, not art.

That's quite an ignorant view of how artists work, IMO. It reads more like a justification of ones own preferences than a cogent and informed assessment of how other artists work.

Whilst Im quite in agreement that work undertaken purely for commercial gain is usually seen as inextricably at odds with the concept of being am artist, I completely disagree with your claim that undertaking a creative act for its own sake is the sole defining factor in something being art, and the significant factor that you have omitted is exactly 'something you define ahead of time'.
You seem basically to be saying that 'concept' or 'idea' are the opposite of art, and that is fundamentally untrue. I can only assume you either dont know many working artists, or have failed to understand how they create in your rush to place yourself, not just as one of their peers but above them, and those around you... 'the only one who understands artistic expression'.

FWIW, the monstrously deluded arrogance in that statement alone is enough to undermine your entire thesis. Given that Ive never ever seen one iota of actual imagination in your posting beyond the absolutely literal, I can only assume that that level of belief in yourself is entirely down to an absolute failure to comprehend the nature of it; a blind man trying to claim authority over colour.
Of course, among fledgling artists, the belief that you and only you are enlightened enough is hardly rare, but its rarely a direct indicator of actual talent. In my experience, what tends to be indicative of talent is the willingness to explore and exhaust an idea; quite literally defining something ahead of time and building to exact specifications.

Very interesting! Could you name some whom you consider musical artists and any specific works you have in mind?

Well, for example, I'd suggest that the work of people like Shaeffer, Cage or Xenakis very obviously come under that; in terms of intent, I think that that generation or so of 'academic' composers gave us the benchmark for the exploration of how 'sound' and 'music' could potentially be defined and redefined.

[whyterabbyt]

Which part of "art is a social construct" don't you understand? Not creation or creativity but art.

well, personally, I dont get the 'social construct' part. Creation is an act. Creativity is a capacity for creation. Art is the result of creativity harnessed in the exploration of a specific concept or idea.

Where's the 'social'?

I'm distinguishing between art and creation.

So did I.

[aciddose]

When something is 100% defined to meet a specific criteria with no human influence (no artist), and I admit this is a stupidly narrow definition but one I'm willing to accept, it can not be considered art. It can not be an expression of an artist if there is no artist involved.

What happens when an AI creates something that people consider art? Is art restricted to humans. The Vogons, I understand, are a little miffed by that assertion. They should write better poetry IMHO.

Who created the AI?

Besides we haven't come that far yet. In that sense art is an emergent thing as I've already said, and the idea the artist is wholly in control of the expression really doesn't make sense without getting further into the dirty world of philosophy, determinism, free will and all that.

Even considering that, the art as an expression of the artist is still valid regardless of what has defined the artist. We just take that as an assumption really.

So yes, emergence from any process might be considered art, but this is where the term takes on so many different meanings like a lot of the very confused words we have in our modern languages. When we're talking about "emergent art" you're saying it only becomes art in that sense once it is appreciated. You're ignorant however of the alternative, actually root definition of art - an expression of the skill of an artist to produce a work. Without an artist there can be no art in that sense. When we consider the landscape as a work of art we make the assumption it was created by some process, and that process becomes the artist.

[Gamma-UT]

Indeed. There's an odd separation between the use of 'art' as a description of intent, and 'art' as a description of its reception by an 'audience'. Its odd because they're related, often conflated, but actually in many ways completely separate. And the latter is fluid, as the audience changes.

But if we're talking about 'being artists' then as far as Im concerned, its really only the former which is specifically relevant.

Here's a tangible example. Director Tony Kaye shot a Daliesque advert for Dunlop (Venus in Furs for the soundtrack) about 20 years ago. He later claimed that this was art in his view. There was quite a debate at the time as to whether an advert could be art, whether this advert could be art and whether Kaye was right to call himself an artist. Although Kaye is probably regarded as being an artist today, it wasn't a slam-dunk then. But that's not the point: it's that there was a debate about it that reinforces the idea of art being a social construct. People had to agree that it was the case, and it certainly didn't have to be everybody. But it also couldn't be Kaye on his own.

Ditto the tabloids banging on about sharks in fishtanks and unmade beds, although the thrust is in the other direction where something understood to be art is decried as non-art.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Art is an emergent thing, not something you define ahead of time and build to exacting specifications.

Something built to exacting specifications is something different, that is business, not art.

That's quite an ignorant view of how artists work, IMO. It reads more like a justification of ones own preferences than a cogent and informed assessment of how other artists work.

Whilst Im quite in agreement that work undertaken purely for commercial gain is usually seen as inextricably at odds with the concept of being am artist, I completely disagree with your claim that undertaking a creative act for its own sake is the sole defining factor in something being art, and the significant factor that you have omitted is exactly 'something you define ahead of time'.
You seem basically to be saying that 'concept' or 'idea' are the opposite of art, and that is fundamentally untrue. I can only assume you either dont know many working artists, or have failed to understand how they create in your rush to place yourself, not just as one of their peers but above them, and those around you... 'the only one who understands artistic expression'.

FWIW, the monstrously deluded arrogance in that statement alone is enough to undermine your entire thesis. Given that Ive never ever seen one iota of actual imagination in your posting beyond the absolutely literal, I can only assume that that level of belief in yourself is entirely down to an absolute failure to comprehend the nature of it; a blind man trying to claim authority over colour.
Of course, among fledgling artists, the belief that you and only you are enlightened enough is hardly rare, but its rarely a direct indicator of actual talent. In my experience, what tends to be indicative of talent is the willingness to explore and exhaust an idea; quite literally defining something ahead of time and building to exact specifications.

Very interesting! Could you name some whom you consider musical artists and any specific works you have in mind?

Well, for example, I'd suggest that the work of people like Shaeffer, Cage or Xenakis very obviously come under that; in terms of intent, I think that that generation or so of 'academic' composers gave us the benchmark for the exploration of how 'sound' and 'music' could potentially be defined and redefined.

"Suggesting" the work of the dead and canonized is indistinguishable from a timid appeal to authority (whether that's what it is, I cannot say).

So- living active artists who *are* artists, please. Otherwise you're merely engaging in foggy platitudes.

[vurt]

[aciddose]

I like how I turned the thread into a philosophical discussion about what defines art and how it will now degrade into posting long lists of references.



Master at work. Now that is art.

[crimsonwarlock]

You're reading something out of what I said that I did not intend to say.

But you did post it nevertheless. Some people read their statement back before hitting the submit button, some don't. The ones who don't are in most cases pretty much full of themselves, while the ones who do are (at least somewhat) able to question their own statements. Think about it

No, I never said what he interpreted. Read it again until you understand it, try reading it without making the assumption it must be incorrect in some way ahead of time.

(I'm not really sure what you mean to say when you say "did post it", do you mean I should have clarified? I thought it was perfectly clear already and did consider it, but posted it like that intentionally.)

I was talking about this:

I know better than anyone else here about artistic expression, simplicity and so on. I would bet my life on that.

It's a pompous statement no matter how you look at it. The term 'God complex' comes to mind.

[whyterabbyt]

Indeed. There's an odd separation between the use of 'art' as a description of intent, and 'art' as a description of its reception by an 'audience'. Its odd because they're related, often conflated, but actually in many ways completely separate. And the latter is fluid, as the audience changes.

But if we're talking about 'being artists' then as far as Im concerned, its really only the former which is specifically relevant.

Here's a tangible example. Director Tony Kaye shot a Daliesque advert for Dunlop (Venus in Furs for the soundtrack) about 20 years ago. He later claimed that this was art in his view. There was quite a debate at the time as to whether an advert could be art, whether this advert could be art and whether Kaye was right to call himself an artist. Although Kaye is probably regarded as being an artist today, it wasn't a slam-dunk then. But that's not the point: it's that there was a debate about it that reinforces the idea of art being a social construct. People had to agree that it was the case, and it certainly didn't have to be everybody. But it also couldn't be Kaye on his own.

Ditto the tabloids banging on about sharks in fishtanks and unmade beds, although the thrust is in the other direction where something understood to be art is decried as non-art.[/quote]

So your talking solely about the 'reception by an audience' facet. As I said, that's an entirely fluid thing anyway. If you'd said 'cultural' rather than 'social' I would have got what you meant better, I think.

However, to continue my distinction, someone retrospectively claiming that their work is art in order to leverage that cultural reception, doesnt change whether or not it was truly an artistic endeavour of theirs in the first place. The original intent can't be rewritten, only its PR.

[Numanoid]

I like how I turned the thread into a philosophical discussion about what defines art

"Never compromise your art, keep it close to you heart"

Wow, somebody really must have put some uppers in the rabbit food

[aciddose]

You're reading something out of what I said that I did not intend to say.

But you did post it nevertheless. Some people read their statement back before hitting the submit button, some don't. The ones who don't are in most cases pretty much full of themselves, while the ones who do are (at least somewhat) able to question their own statements. Think about it

No, I never said what he interpreted. Read it again until you understand it, try reading it without making the assumption it must be incorrect in some way ahead of time.

(I'm not really sure what you mean to say when you say "did post it", do you mean I should have clarified? I thought it was perfectly clear already and did consider it, but posted it like that intentionally.)

I was talking about this:

I know better than anyone else here about artistic expression, simplicity and so on. I would bet my life on that.

It's a pompous statement no matter how you look at it. The term 'God complex' comes to mind.

Same thing I said before applies here. Same to you really. You're going to assume I'm thoughtless enough to post that meaning what you interpret it to mean? Either you mean to accuse me of intentionally posting something I know is false, or you're saying I posted something without having considered it.

In truth it was a combination. I knew it was false, but I posted it in the context of the argument I was replying to. I stand by my assertion in that case.

If you want to expand the context to include people who actually do know as much or more than me regarding the definition of the word "art" and philosophy associated with it, that is not just moving the goal posts but changing the field.

As I said, I would have gone with "as much or better" if I was worried about offending those who apparently seek out reasons to be offended, but honestly I don't mind at all.