The meaning of Art

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by geordief, Apr 13, 2017.

  1. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    587
    No problem . I used to watch the program a lot.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    587
    So a piece of art work has a license to speak unopposed? It is inherently correct? A pure vision?

    No, it was always just a point of view and the ease with which its facets were revealed shows in this case what a facile vision it was.

    With hindsight it was an open door.

    If the bull artist is so concerned with the purity of his artistic reputation he is free to come up with another offering somewhere else-or make it a threesome perhaps.

    It was a fine likeness of a bull (and bullishness) by him but he might also have titled it " bull**** " ,perhaps.

    (I appreciate the argument that the girl 's artistic power is derivative of the bull but I think this should only come into play if someone was making money out of her so that costs could possibly be awarded for copyright"infringement")
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,927
    Everyone can have an opinion on what it means, I'm talking about whether the artist has a valid copyright case against those who changed it by addition, without his permission. Also, he may not be able to sue the other artist, only the city that put it there.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. geordief Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    587
    Why not just ask the City to take away his bull (or the girl) ? Then he cuts the umbilical cord.

    Maybe you (and others) are right and he can insist that the pair are separated or that he gets compensation otherwise.
     
  8. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    You have to get it in writing.
    With a big damages clause.
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Back in the ancient times, the subjective power of art was called idol worship. An artwork, like the golden calf of the time of Moses, could induce a strong feelings in the observer. It was a powerful art piece made of precious gold. The feelings, stemming from the artwork, appeared to be a magical power within the art. Many worshiped the god inside the calf who gave the calf its magic. Moses called it idol worship, because this was not a god but a work of art.

    The feeling and thoughts that appear, due to art based triggers, are actually induced by projection factors inside the observer. However, since most people are unconscious of these factors, these inner factors will projected outward, so the feelings often appears to stem from magic in the art; prestige.

    The statues of the bull and the little girl, because this is art, can trigger feelings, which can then can induce thought processing within the observer from the unconscious. The art is nothing but a trigger that can activate unconscious processes. The direction of the thought processing can tell us about personal psychology, and at times, it can tell use of the nature of the collective psychology of the culture. The best art work can help culture know the state of its unconscious mind, which can then help us anticipate the direction of the future.

    To me the bull and the little girl is symbolic of the times. The bull not only reflects big money; Wall Street, establishment and donors, but bulls also generates lot of bull crap; advertising, propaganda and fake news. The little girl represents a movement of defiant innocence, that is stopping the bull in its tracks. In terms of real life, Trump is totally outnumbered, by an organized effort on both sides of the establishment, to discredit him using bull means; money, lies and propaganda.

    Although the little girl; underdog, is physically weaker, side by side, the bull is stopped in its tracks. This anticipates a change in culture. The powers to be wish to remove the little girl statue, but now a movement is appearing that wishes to remove the bull, and get back to truth and innocents.
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,639
    No.

    Citation needed.

    No.

    No.

    "Projection factors"? Are you making this up?

    Are you making this up?

    Citation needed.

    Wanna try again?
     
    Xelasnave.1947 and joepistole like this.
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Moses called it idol worship, because the golden calf was an idol representing a god of a neighbouring tribe.
    Whether it was art or not didn't matter: they were putting the looted Egyptian gold to good use. The Hebrews were sick of wandering in the desert
    and ready to join up with some settled people, but Moses and Aaron would then have lost their absolute religio-political stranglehold.
    Finally, the scouts spotted a city-state [Jericho] with weak enough defenses to infiltrate, sabotage and attack.
    Then, Joshua could attribute their victory to Yahweh, as well as his own divinely-insipred generalship, and thus consolidate the hierarchy
    Art had nothing to do with it then - and wouldn't again until the Roman Catholic era.
    No, they put the damn thing there. It's the creator of the bull who wants the other thing removed.
    Trump - amazingly!!! - doesn't come into this - at all.
     
  12. DrKrettin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    169
    Um - I'm not quite sure what you mean by "it" there. If you mean religion, what about Pheidias' statue of Zeus at Olympia? (for example).
     
  13. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    I mean the Abraham-Moses-(Jesus) -Muhammad line of religious propaganda. They were ideologically opposed to religious art,
    - either because the pagan religions (some of them well-established, powerful empires) had idols of all kinds; artistic depictions of both deities and natural forces,
    - or because they themselves were originally pastoral, nomadic peoples with no rooted tradition or culture.
    In fact, it's the Roman and Persian tradition that began to inform the art of Catholicism (both eastern and western brands). The development of that religious art suffered a huge setback with the fall, and medieval repudiation, of the Roman empire.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2017
  14. DrKrettin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    169
    I don't think it has actually recovered yet, but that's just my taste or lack of it. "Tacky" is the word I would use.
     
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    More generously: mass appeal.
    But they made up for it in architecture and music.
     
    DrKrettin likes this.
  16. DrKrettin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    169
    I guess that you are Bach enthusiast.
     
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,927
    Citation needed.
     
    Dywyddyr likes this.
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    needed? or wanted?
     
  19. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Bach, Handel, Britten. Well, most of 'em, really, even Gregory. Those humungus cathedral organs not too shabby, either.
     
  20. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,018
    Odd that you claim they can destroy it but not change it.

    They are, of course, fully within their rights to put another work of art beside it. If the clown who made the first piece doesn't like it, boo-effing-hoo.

    In this case, adding the little girl makes (at least) two statements:
    1. Girl Power.
    2. Standing up to the bull(shit) if Wall Street.
    Definitely an improvement.
     
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Nothing odd about it. The artist's reputation is not damaged, nor his copyright infringed, nor the integrity of the work compromised by its destruction.
    Altering the work does all of those things.

    That's why it's essential to have a contract nailing down the conditions of display before accepting the commission.

    Still irrelevant.
    The quality of the work, its popularity, the mayor's opinion, etc. etc. are not the point. The disagreement is over the meaning of the art and the right of alteration.

    ETA - You think turning it into a blatant lie is an improvement. I think it makes both statues into a joke - at best; at worst a disgusting piece of propaganda.
    (Girls have no power. Wall Street has far more than it should. Pretending this is not so, that this relationship is reversed, is just more pap for powerless egos.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2017
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,432
    If the original included serious subtext about mindlessness and ferocity with a life of its own (I've never seen it, don't know), the girl changes that in significant ways that a lot of people might take as trivialization (or too clever a highlighting).

    A bull isn't, itself, bullshit. If you've ever met one. It's an iconic monster for a reason.

    Although the trivialization of monsters does seem to resonate, somehow, these days - Tolkien wrote a famous essay approaching that topic, published in 1936 - one can see how an artist might object. Or anyone else.

    Again, I've never seen the original and don't know, but clearly there's a problem in theory - one wonders at the reception a similar installation might receive, if placed next to, say, the Hiroshima memorial. Or if, perhaps, somebody photoshopped the girl into this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg/400px-Tianasquare.jpg.
     
  23. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    It troubles me somewhat that so few people seem able - or inclined - to grasp the significance of messing with another person's creative effort.
    It's probably the result of image-glut; it's probably generational.
    I'm convinced that something's been lost here - that culture has been fatally compromised - but I can't prove that it was worth preserving.
     

Share This Page