Pope attacks art vandalising Bible

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Toughiv
expression but not art.

so what's the difference between art and expression then?

the merit of the work? the merit of the idea? the general consensus? the skill of the execution? the skill of the artist whether or not the skill is expressed? your opinion?

it's a big debate, been done to death. the only answer that encompasses all art is to say that the artist is the only one qualified to call an expressive work "art".

Difference is Art is the creation of beautiful or significant things and expression is the communication of your beliefs or opinions. I think the difference can be seen, and that expression is the correct term to use when discussing this so called art, which in the majorities view is distateful.

However, I will conceed your point, which simply put "the beauty is in the eye of the beholder". And so to that individual what they have done is art. However, for expression to be art, it has to be accepted by the majority. I say this because, lets go back to my blood splattering example.

If most people see that the blood splatters created were good and the value of that "art" was worth more than the damage caused, then the work i done would be regarded as art. If however, they didnt see my blood splatters as more worthy, then I would be branded as a mad man.

I.e. Art is an idea, expressed in such a way that majority can appreciate it. This however isnt. Therefore it is not art and remains expression.

reply to post by pieman


Not at all pieman. I was jsut getting at how much of a shambles today's societies are. The fact that if you dont stand up for what you believe in and stand your ground, people will walk over that ground because nobody respects nomore.

Originally posted by Wookiep
oh, so you're asking why I think that "religion" isn't a factor in the matter of disrespect of ones who belief in the bible in the case of the OP? You didn't make that clear, MY apologies!

no, that's not what i'm asking, i'm just not sure which bit of this is unclear to you, i'll try again.

"if an artist does not respect a religious view, why shouldn't that artist express their lack of respect?"

Now, if you cannot grasp that concept then we are at a dead-end. Goodnight, for now!

the concept is equally applicable either way, the artist disrespects a book which she feels disrespects her. millions believe the bible is disrespectful to them. why is one group allowed to be disrespectful and the other not, weight of history? homosexuality is older than the bible or the christian church.

Originally posted by Toughiv
I.e. Art is an idea, expressed in such a way that majority can appreciate it. This however isnt. Therefore it is not art and remains expression.

but this isn't correct in every case,

classical music is widely accepted as art yet it is not appreciated by anything like a majority of people.

abstract art is viewed as art but not appreciated by the majority of people as either beautiful or significant.

then you have a slew of nudes hanging in galleries that are viewed as art today but were viewed as pornography at the time they were painted.

the majority opinion does not make the expression "art" in every case so it can not be the yard stick by which something is measured as art or not.


as for respect, well it's not something you can force down peoples throats, respect is earned, if you haven't earned it don't whine because you haven't got it.

[edit on 29/7/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


Hmm i knew this was going to be your counter argument, but I havent put in proper words how I would like to EXPRESS the following idea

Right, you have people who appreciate classical music and you have people who appreciate abstract art. If the majority of the people who apprecite classical music dislike a certain *new* classical piece of work, then it would not be regarded as art, more like someone's ATTEMPT at art.

That was what I was trying to argue, this is not agreeable to the majority of people who appreciate freedom of ideas etc. This thread on it own has to be testament to that. So yes, her work is expression but not art. It falls short of creating something beautiful or significant in most people's eyes.

Thanks

Originally posted by pieman
Originally posted by Wookiep
oh, so you're asking why I think that "religion" isn't a factor in the matter of disrespect of ones who belief in the bible in the case of the OP? You didn't make that clear, MY apologies!

no, that's not what i'm asking, i'm just not sure which bit of this is unclear to you, i'll try again.

"if an artist does not respect a religious view, why shouldn't that artist express their lack of respect?"

Ok, well theres a couple questions here then, re-read your post. I'll answer this one:

If an artist does not respect a religious view they ARE entitled to express their lack of respect through many avenues. People have done this forever! Do you watch T.V.? Wow, watch youtube much? Check out some of those minutemen ones. lol. Theres a lot of stuff out there that hurts society, like it or not. Too bad for all of us, cuz that's expression, sir. Expression is one thing, and sometimes unfortunate today, HOWEVER (and again, this is where we disagree) it's not acceptable by means of desecrating their (any "religion") sacred writings that have exsisted thousands of years! It suddenly makes it "art" because you and a few anti-religious people say it is? Welcome to 2009. It doesn't make it right because you say it's socially acceptable.

How have I not answered this?? Having a view is one thing, disagreeing is another, and it's *all* just fine. Again when I say "religion" is not applicable on this subject, it's because there are a whole LOAD of things we can apply this to. Just use your brain and determine for yourself what common-sense tells you. What shouldn't be considered art, no I hate that word because I *am* an artist, what shouldn't be considered "expression"? (since all forms are considered art for you apparently) Anything *disrespectful* to society and unfortunately for you sir, that includes the bible.





[



[edit on 29-7-2009 by Wookiep]

Originally posted by Toughiv
Right, you have people who appreciate classical music and you have people who appreciate abstract art. If the majority of the people who apprecite classical music dislike a certain *new* classical piece of work, then it would not be regarded as art, more like someone's ATTEMPT at art.

but then that just says that it is based on expert agreement, this is not true either, many artists go unloved by their peers but history judges their work as having merit.

there are many, many examples of artists that are thought talentless or worthless until long after their death, so acceptance by your peers cannot be seen as a good measure of artistic worth either.

next?

reply to post by pieman


Yes it can for we can say whilst they were alive and it wasnt merited it is not accepted as art. Once work is accepted that is when it will be accepted as art.

Expression and Art are two in the same, its just that Art is expression accepted by most.

NEXT!

Put it this way.

Graffiti, art or vandalism? If most people think that the graffiti is pleasing then it is branded as Art, if most view it as an eye sore...then it is vandalism.

Much the same point here

Thanks

Brad

Originally posted by Wookiep
What shouldn't be considered art, no I hate that word because I *am* an artist, what shouldn't be considered "expression"? (since all forms are considered art for you apparently) Anything *disrespectful* to society and unfortunately for you sir, that includes the bible.

i read your point as saying that anything which is disrespectful to society is not a valid form of art/expression. have i missed something? are you serious?

reply to post by Wookiep


I would has to ask, who then decides it is unacceptable, One man who heads a church, which has more skeletons in it than a cheesgrator? And a few Christians.

If you are going to imply every christian finds this art exhibition unacceptable. Then you are completely wrong. If this was the Case, then why has the Head bishop of the prodestant christian church, not come out and condemmed this also. Nor has the Head of the Church IN scotland either.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Laurauk]

Originally posted by Toughiv
Expression and Art are two in the same, its just that Art is expression accepted by most.

so if they are two in the same then there is no specialness attached to either label.

we've already gone over the "most people" bit, do try to keep up.

reply to post by pieman


I havent read all of the thread im afraid. I literally read the first post, said what I had to say then engaged in a debate with yourself.

As i said, they are one in the same, but LANGUAGE dictates the difference.

Art represents an expression but one which is accepted by most.

Expression is the communication of ones ideas/thoughts/feelings etc.

What is so hard to understand?

If you think I am wrong...explain and maybe we can continue this discussion.

Refer to my graffitti point, i personally believe you are in a corner.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Toughiv]

Originally posted by Toughiv
I havent read all of the thread im afraid. I literally read the first post, said what I had to say then engaged in a debate with yourself.

no, i mean you and i have already gone over it, refer above, classical music, abstract art etc.

Art represents an expression but one which is accepted by most.

Expression is the communication of ones ideas/thoughts/feelings etc.

so then, in your opinion there is a difference, in your opinion art is expression that is accepted by most.

clearly it doesn't need to be accepted as beautiful by most, neither does it need to be accepted as skilled in accomplishment by most, what element of expression needs to be "accepted by most" in order to make that expression art?

Refer to my graffitti point, i personally believe you are in a corner.

the actual work is undoubtedly art, the art may be viewed as decorative or defacement by the owner of the thing onto which the art is applied.

the "mona lisa" may well be art, but if someone paints it on my TV screen, it's defacement as far as i'm concerned.

[edit on 29/7/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


You are arguing for subjectivity. Thing is, if I painted the Mona Lisa over your TV it wouldnt be art. It would be my expression of how I see her face etc.

It is only are when it is accepted as a beautiful expression by most.

So I am arguing the terminology used to describe this persons work is wrong.

Originally posted by Toughiv
It is only are when it is accepted as a beautiful expression by most.

So I am arguing the terminology used to describe this persons work is wrong.

i used the mona lisa because it is widely accepted as art, i use it to illustrate my point about the difference between decoration and defacement. it is already accepted as art. there is no question as to it's artistic merit. what is your point here, i don't get it.

i understand you believe the terminology is inaccurate, i just think you're incorrect.

[edit on 29/7/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


And now we come to the nature of belief systems. For there is no objective truth on this matter, one could argue objective truth doesnt exist.

However, I accept your points do hold merit. However, we will always agree to disagree. Good argument though. You have good technique.

Cheers,

Brad

One last point to consider. You say that to the artist what they create is art.

So, taking that idea, it is art to them but to those that do not appreciate it, it is not art. So it holds true as art for the artist but an eyesore for other people.

How about people who have hallucinations. To them the hallucinations are real, but the the sane, those hallucinations are not visible.

So really youu would argue that the hallucinations are in fact real? Because the insane person deems them so?

Cheers,

Brad

Seems we have a diverse range of opinions, so here is a little cup of coffee to all those free thinkers out there.

www.nytimes.com...

www.jweekly.com...

www.hindujagruti.org...

The bible defacement is unquestionably and definitely art, wether you agree or not, it doesnt change its status.

You can debate for an eternity the merits and demerits of art or wether you like it or not, it still doesnt change the fact, and art, from just one view point, exists to challenge ingrained beliefs and concepts.

This example does just that and artists as a general rule are clued up enough to know the reaction they will get. And, this in this case may well be the MAIN point of the bible exhibit.........

Your reaction is part of the art, it was meant to evoke all the reactions we have seen on this thread. Criticize it as much as you want, that was the intention.

Whatever your rection was, you have become part of this piece of art