Is art Good?

[Maxwell.]

in fact it is low effort and I do not find much value in it. But it is communicative; you're naive to think otherwise.

I don't see it communicating anything but low effort and trying to scam people who think it is trying to be deep, when it's not.

[Ad Bot]

[Juncoph]

Could mean lots of stuff. Loneliness? Isolation? Emptiness of thought? It's not the most provocative or interesting art piece, in fact it is low effort and I do not find much value in it. But it is communicative; you're naive to think otherwise.why are you offended?

tell me what you see in this, please

[Mega-Bear]

Seeing as you couldn't give an accurate definition of what it means, does that not mean it has failed to communicate, and effectively is a meaningless piece?

I gave a vague answer because the piece itself is vague. It's a white dot against black. There is not much substance to it obviously. But, as an arrangement of shape and color by an emotional being, it is inherently communicating something.

I don't see much scope for pointless, meaningless work in the creative arts industry. We're lucky enough to be working a fun job where we get to demonstrate our talents, so we really should be producing top tier content that enriches the lives of those who take time out of their busy lives to engage with it.

Substance before style.

I agree McJob, lots of post-modernism in the same vein as the dot Maxwell posted is quite boring and I think we ought to use the technology of modern times to the best of its ability to create art. My only argument is that all art communicates, you seem to be getting the wrong impression from what I'm saying.

I don't see it communicating anything but low effort and trying to scam people who think it is trying to be deep, when it's not.

You're assuming it's meant to be interpreted as "deep."

tell me what you see in this, please

Looks like wood.

You guys are taking what I said wrong. My point is all art communicates, regardless of quality. Don't freak out like children and think I'm defending the lowest order of effort. Far too many assumptions are being made on your parts right now.

[Juncoph]

I gave a vague answer because the piece itself is vague. It's a white dot against black. There is not much substance to it obviously. But, as an arrangement of shape and color by an emotional being, it is inherently communicating something.I agree McJob, lots of post-modernism in the same vein as the dot Maxwell posted is quite boring and I think we ought to use the technology of modern times to the best of its ability to create art. My only argument is that all art communicates, you seem to be getting the wrong impression from what I'm saying.You're assuming it's meant to be interpreted as "deep."Looks like wood.

You guys are taking what I said wrong. My point is all art communicates, regardless of quality. Don't freak out like children and think I'm defending the lowest order of effort. Far too many assumptions are being made on your parts right now.

just wood? you're naive.

[Mega-Bear]

just wood? you're naive.

I don't have much to work with though. I do find it interesting to think about the weathering on the wood, but there is not much substance to it otherwise. Would you like to share your interpretation or continue misrepresenting my own arguments?

[Juncoph]

I don't have much to work with though. I do find it interesting to think about the weathering on the wood, but there is not much substance to it otherwise. Would you like to share your interpretation or continue misrepresenting my own arguments?

not much to work with?!

look at how cracked and faded the wood stain has become. there is age and longevity here, yet decay. furthermore, there is some sort of red substance in blotches, perhaps signifying impurity and past mistakes that can never be undone.

and the direction of the grain! if we follow it like we follow words in a book, we see it descend. perhaps it represents a fall? a tragedy?

[McJob]

But, as an arrangement of shape and color by an emotional being, it is inherently communicating something.

Just because something "appears" to communicate, doesn't mean it actually is. If it fails to give a clear message, than it's not communicating.

My only argument is that all art communicates, you seem to be getting the wrong impression from what I'm saying.

And yet you've failed to prove as such. The process of communication isn't as simple as "there's something buried in the subtext here." Communication is not passive; it's an active process and only becomes communication when there's understanding.

Two people yelling at each other across a loud pub and not understanding what the other is saying isn't communication, even though they're both talking.

You guys are taking what I said wrong. My point is all art communicates, regardless of quality. Don't freak out like children and think I'm defending the lowest order of effort. Far too many assumptions are being made on your parts right now.

It's not that we're taking your message wrong, it's that you're failing to understand what we're telling you. I studied this stuff for years.

It's funny; in a way you're correct. Art communicates. But you're branching in things that don't communicate as "art", which is simply incorrect.

[Maxwell.]

You're assuming it's meant to be interpreted as "deep."

okay whatever, I'll just leave this here because that piece is actually trying to be sold for money. I don't see it communicating anything and I never will.

[Mega-Bear]

Juncoph, I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.

If you re-read my posts I'm agreeing with McJob that there is a such thing as low-effort, uninteresting art. He suggests however that this makes art uncommunicative; I suggest that all art communicates, some pieces more effectively than others. edit: though see below, he changed my mind

You're constructing a strawman that I find ALL art to be extremely meaningful, which I do not.

Just because something "appears" to communicate, doesn't mean it actually is. If it fails to give a clear message, than it's not communicating.

Fair point.

It's funny; in a way you're correct. Art communicates. But you're branching in things that don't communicate as "art", which is simply incorrect.

Hmm, you do make a lot of sense. In fact if I translate your argument to music, the only medium I really know anything about, it essentially boils down to "what is music and what is noise?" In which case I have to say you're right, I misunderstood what you were saying earlier, and I do agree. :)

okay whatever, I'll just leave this here because that piece is actually trying to be sold for money. I don't see it communicating anything and I never will.

I don't really care for monetary values assigned to art. Maybe somebody buys the piece because it looks good in their minimalist home, who cares. It's not a great piece to begin with anyway.

[Maxwell.]

You're constructing a strawman that I find ALL art to be extremely meaningful, which I do not.

(1) All art communicates no matter what it is, there is no such thing as non-communicative art.

excuse me for taking you too literal the first time, then

[Mega-Bear]

excuse me for taking you too literal the first time, then

No worries, I can understand why you would think that. McJob's explanation resonated with me when I applied it to my medium of choice. I have heard nearly 900 albums and come across quite a few which fail to communicate effectively. He and I were almost on the same page to begin with but now I definitely agree with you guys, it is possible for pieces to utterly fail at carrying any significant meaning.

[Nonnel]

a good, wholesome debate with a happy ending

[Juncoph]

BUT IM SERIOUS THIS WOOD IS A MASTERPIECE

[Mr.Noßody]

If its not good, I have no job.