ART!
- a_contemplative_life
- Moderator
- Posts: 5896
- Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:06 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
ART!
Art
noun
1 the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power : the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris.
• works produced by such skill and imagination : his collection of modern art | an exhibition of Tibetan art | [as adj. ] an art critic.
• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture : she's good at art.
We can define it, but everyone's got their own notion of what it is! The recent exchange of views in the "If You Had Been Oskar" thread made me think that maybe we need a thread devoted to everyone's notions of what we find aesthetically pleasing. (As long as we abide by the Forum Rules.)
I'll start with some things that most people probably wouldn't consider "art" just to get the ball rolling and the synapses firing!
The mighty F8F Bearcat...
The P-51 Mustang!
The Me-262...
These are all military aircraft, but they're still feats of engineering genius, and beautiful in their own way, IMHO.
noun
1 the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power : the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris.
• works produced by such skill and imagination : his collection of modern art | an exhibition of Tibetan art | [as adj. ] an art critic.
• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture : she's good at art.
We can define it, but everyone's got their own notion of what it is! The recent exchange of views in the "If You Had Been Oskar" thread made me think that maybe we need a thread devoted to everyone's notions of what we find aesthetically pleasing. (As long as we abide by the Forum Rules.)
I'll start with some things that most people probably wouldn't consider "art" just to get the ball rolling and the synapses firing!
The mighty F8F Bearcat...
The P-51 Mustang!
The Me-262...
These are all military aircraft, but they're still feats of engineering genius, and beautiful in their own way, IMHO.
Re: ART!
I agree they are beautiful! But may be not as much as this
I have often remarked that some many things in LTROI are so ambiguous that is like a mirror: When people try to fill in the blanks, they end up filling them in with themselves.
Wolfchild
Wolfchild
Re: ART!
What's the source of that definition? I'm surprised to see that music doesn't even get a nod.
Anyway, I had this History of Arts teacher back in high school who was a very respected and knowledgeable man. One of the axioms he'd usually try to imprint on us was "In Art there is no progress".
I've routinely come back to this postulate over the years trying to unveil its deeper meaning. On one hand it sounds accurate, particularly if we understand "progress" over a timeline -- is a Picasso painting more "advanced" artistically than a Paleolithic cave painting (leaving technical considerations aside), or one of the Abu Simbel statues less awe-inspiring than the Sixtine Chapel?
On the other hand, I find the no-progress idea lends itself too easily to an "anything goes" mindset that really runs counter to my understanding of "art" as a weighty enough word that has to do with truly elevated or gifted conceptions/executions, way above what popular culture would have. Particularly noticeable in the music field due to its ubiquitousness and ease of access, where basically everyone is called an "artist" (disclaimer: not sure if there's some nuance of the English language at play here) and close to the definition one coworker of mine gave me once when discussing the artistic merits (or lack of) of the industrial music genre: "art is anything anyone produces that's destined for anyone else's consumption"; a statement I confess I dismissed as being broad enough to effectively neutering the word "art" to the point of non-existence.
"Artists", as described by the media and record companies.
Great thread by a_c_l, and I'd be interested in hearing other's opinions.
Anyway, I had this History of Arts teacher back in high school who was a very respected and knowledgeable man. One of the axioms he'd usually try to imprint on us was "In Art there is no progress".
I've routinely come back to this postulate over the years trying to unveil its deeper meaning. On one hand it sounds accurate, particularly if we understand "progress" over a timeline -- is a Picasso painting more "advanced" artistically than a Paleolithic cave painting (leaving technical considerations aside), or one of the Abu Simbel statues less awe-inspiring than the Sixtine Chapel?
On the other hand, I find the no-progress idea lends itself too easily to an "anything goes" mindset that really runs counter to my understanding of "art" as a weighty enough word that has to do with truly elevated or gifted conceptions/executions, way above what popular culture would have. Particularly noticeable in the music field due to its ubiquitousness and ease of access, where basically everyone is called an "artist" (disclaimer: not sure if there's some nuance of the English language at play here) and close to the definition one coworker of mine gave me once when discussing the artistic merits (or lack of) of the industrial music genre: "art is anything anyone produces that's destined for anyone else's consumption"; a statement I confess I dismissed as being broad enough to effectively neutering the word "art" to the point of non-existence.
"Artists", as described by the media and record companies.
Great thread by a_c_l, and I'd be interested in hearing other's opinions.
In a gloomy empty land, with dreary hills ahead.
Re: ART!
Tsk. You forgot this one:
...the story derives a lot of its appeal from its sense of despair and a darkness in which the love of Eli and Oskar seems to shine with a strange and disturbing light.
-Lacenaire
Visit My LTROI fan page.
-Lacenaire
Visit My LTROI fan page.
- a_contemplative_life
- Moderator
- Posts: 5896
- Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:06 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
Re: ART!
More art!
Edgar Degas, Dancers
Bruegel, The Triumph of Death
Scythian gold pectoral
Per Hasselberg, Snow Bell (a Swedish example!)
Edgar Degas, Dancers
Bruegel, The Triumph of Death
Scythian gold pectoral
Per Hasselberg, Snow Bell (a Swedish example!)
- a_contemplative_life
- Moderator
- Posts: 5896
- Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:06 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
Re: ART!
You're right. Shame on me!Wolfchild wrote:Tsk. You forgot this one:
- a_contemplative_life
- Moderator
- Posts: 5896
- Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:06 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
Re: ART!
You're right! How could I have omitted the DR-1??Lacenaire wrote:I agree they are beautiful! But may be not as much as this
Well, the Camel isn't quite as elegant, but since we are including old warbirds as "art," why not . . .
This is rapidly turning into my favorite thread in awhile!
Re: ART!
Interesting topic ACL -- I think aircraft have wide appeal precisely because of their varying and interesting shapes around a predictable base (the same reason kids love dinosaurs), forms molded pursuant to functional, rather than aesthetic value, but resulting in forms of exquisite beauty, nonetheless.
I'll have to stick up for the rotorcraft. Here's one of my favorites, the Kamov Ka-50 Чёрная акула ("Black Shark"), with coaxial rotors, and the long nose and sleek lines so pleasing in fixed-wing planes like the P-51 Mustang:
I'll have to stick up for the rotorcraft. Here's one of my favorites, the Kamov Ka-50 Чёрная акула ("Black Shark"), with coaxial rotors, and the long nose and sleek lines so pleasing in fixed-wing planes like the P-51 Mustang:
Last edited by pristidae on Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Hade du tyckt om mig ändå?"
Re: ART!
It's interesting too how the "shark mouth" nose art caught on. I guess because fighter planes innately assume a shark-like shape, and because we humans love to anthropomorphize or theriomorphize (make inanimate things apppear to be animals), this design greatly appeals to us. It started as a visual marking identifying a German naval airwing, the Haifischgruppe "Shark Group":
Then, after seeing Haifischgruppe nose art photos in National Geographic, the famed volunteer "Flying Tigers", who flew to defend China from Japan in WWII, improved the design for use on their Curtiss P-40's:
And today, we see the "shark mouth" on many military aircraft:
Then, after seeing Haifischgruppe nose art photos in National Geographic, the famed volunteer "Flying Tigers", who flew to defend China from Japan in WWII, improved the design for use on their Curtiss P-40's:
And today, we see the "shark mouth" on many military aircraft:
"Hade du tyckt om mig ändå?"
- gattoparde59
- Posts: 3242
- Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: ART!
I am going to visit Historicon coming up in July.
http://www.historicon.org/
This is convention for model soldier makers who spend months and years making their miniature armies, navies and airforces and then they play war games with them. The tips section of their guide advises to "bring your tape measure." Not sure I will participate, but it might be fun to watch.
Hm.....? I wonder where these troops come from:
I think these are Habsburg troops:
http://www.historicon.org/
This is convention for model soldier makers who spend months and years making their miniature armies, navies and airforces and then they play war games with them. The tips section of their guide advises to "bring your tape measure." Not sure I will participate, but it might be fun to watch.
Hm.....? I wonder where these troops come from:
I think these are Habsburg troops:
I'll break open the story and tell you what is there. Then, like the others that have fallen out onto the sand, I will finish with it, and the wind will take it away.
Nisa