Mind = Blown - TTLG Forums

Jason Moyer on 29/3/2009 at 12:47

I find I love a lot of modern art, and I suspect it's because I tend to be more wowed by ideas than technique (of course, in a lot of pre-modern art, technique and ideas are nearly impossible to separate). Relating it to music, there are lots of musicians whose technical prowess I marvel at but whose music doesn't interest me in any way, while most of my favorite musicians are moderately skilled but creative as hell (of course, if someone can juggle both, they're totally ace). I think the same thing applies to my taste in games as well. I like and appreciate Half-Life 2 for instance, which is probably the pinnacle of FPS gaming from a technical standpoint, but I'd rather be playing Psychonauts which has less inspiring gameplay mechanics but is full of absolutely insane ideas.

Of course, taking that into account, I also tend to hate a lot of post-modern art. I have a great appreciation for early concept art (I'm thinking Compositions 1960 by La Monte Young here), but it really doesn't interest me much when people are doing the exact same sorts of shit now, even though from a technical standpoint their work is nearly identical.

Gryzemuis on 29/3/2009 at 12:49

The only thing that matters in the universe is God.
Therefor, all art should be only there to glorify God.
Art can glorify God by making a representation of the beauty of the creations of God.
The better an artist is at representing the beauty of the creations of God, the better the artist is.

Any art that is not intended to glorify God is blasphemy. And therefor it is not art.

Nameless Voice on 29/3/2009 at 13:44

I've just decided that everything I've done is craft.

rachel on 29/3/2009 at 14:37

Quote Posted by LittleFlower

Are you for real? :weird:
So say if an atheist paints the Mona Lisa, it's junk? wtf.

fett on 29/3/2009 at 15:19

Quote Posted by LittleFlower

Here's a better one: What if Demon von Child Molester paints a beautiful picture of the crucifixion? What if Marylin Manson sings a stirring rendition of Amazing Grace?

Better yet: Why the fuck are you posting on a gaming forum, having obviously played said games, which are obviously "art" in every sense of the term? Are you a blasphemer by association?

Edit: It also occurs to me that your name is taken from the Rincewind books (?) and Pratchett is a flaming atheist, so you're obviously yanking our chain here. Please say you're yanking our chain...

Kolya on 29/3/2009 at 15:41

At least LittleFlower's got principles, unlike the rest of you meandering prattlers. That being said, I fear she was joking.

nickie on 29/3/2009 at 15:49

I thought she was quoting.

Quote Posted by Muzman

I could scarcely believe it myself but in a room full of Monets or Rembrandts I really didn't want to leave.

Yes. You managed to pick my two utmost favourites, also Turner. I miss living in London. And I didn't understand what the fuss was about the Mona Lisa till I saw it. Luckily it was without a million others hanging around. I could barely drag myself away. But I couldn't tell you what it was about it.

Renzatic on 29/3/2009 at 15:52

Yeah, Littleflower was the one freaking out about our American Uberpatriot Plan to kill all the heathens in the Mideast under the guise of spreading democracy like warm freedom butter on theocratic commie toast (or the blood for oil trade everyone kept bitching about there for awhile).

Now that I've got my jollies off, lets not turn this into Yet Another TTLG Religion Thread. We've got a good thing going here, lets not ruin it now with retreads of the same old tired arguments we can easily see in the 50 threads below this one.

Kolya on 29/3/2009 at 16:08

I could swear we also had threads about the arbitrary value of art before.

Gryzemuis on 29/3/2009 at 16:09

Of course I don't believe that all art is only in the glory of God. I posted that to try and get a point across.

I am not an art history specialist. But I believe that what I wrote was the common perception of all art from the dark ages until 1800 or maybe even 1900. Art was supposed to give true picture of something that has happened because of God. Or something that was created by God. And the representation should be as life-like as possible, and as close to the truth as possible, or else it was a mockery of God.

Only at the end of the 19th century this idea about art started to change. Suddenly some artists cared less about representing God's beauty in a truthful way. No, they slowly wanted to create views that were reflecting their own view. Picasso and Van Gogh were prime examples of artists that wanted to show normal things, but show them the way they perceive those things themselves. Van Gogh didn't care about a photo-realistic way to portray a landscape or a portrait. He was more concerned about the colors. So he made paintings in his own way. Showing the things he thought were important, or beautiful. Those things are not necessarily the truth.

This was unique. Nobody had done that before them. Not during all the centuries in art history before them.

Of course, once you understand this concept, it is easy to copy. Paint something in the way you look at it. Easy. Well, it is easy now. But at the time, this was revolutionary. Many different artists came up with their own way to show things. Modern art was born.

I think modern art happened between 1880 and the 1950s and 1960s. After that, I think most ways to perceive and represent things in different ways have been explored. After the 1960s there was no Modern art anymore. Only post-modern art.

I happen to like Modern Art. Because I like ideas. I like ideas better than execution. Especially when you look at art in the context of its time, and compare it to everything that was made before it. That is why Mondriaan is fucking brilliant. He reduced representations of things to its bare minimum. To colors and lines. He was pure punk, reducing his expression to the minimum. He was the first who did that.

I don't care much about modern day post-modern art. I find the new ideas of the 80s and later much less impressive. It's still art, of course. Because nobody knows what art is. Since Duchamp, if someone says "this is art", you can't deny that.

Of course, there is a lot of bad art. Bad in ideas, bad in execution. But that's another discussion. Art is not there just to glorify God. Art is not there just to glorify the skills of the artist. Art is there so someone can express himself.