Projects & Discussions | Inner City Development

[hack404]

Originally Posted by PerthCity

Actually miensie, I think this is a horrible example from dr in this instance.

He is pushing the fact (by comparison) that even though these pieces of metal carry no shape or form that they still convey a meaning.

The Bible is not a collection of ink markings that carry no shape or form- they are words. It is the words that carry the meaning - not random ink markings. If the Bible carried simply blobs of blue ink on different pages, how much 'meaning' would you take from it?

Same here. Metal blobs with no particular form don't have a deep meaning, I'm sorry.

At the elemental level it's the same. If you don't know what you are reading or seeing it can have no meaning. Try reading a book in a language written with a different script.

[ryan79]

Originally Posted by exoz

The ink markings aren't exactly random - they're organised into a code (letters and words) that we can all understand and communicate with. Art can operate in a similar way - by using recognisable symbols or conventions that we have already ascribed a common meaning to.

But post-modernists say that art can have whatever meaning the viewer chooses to ascribe to it. So according to them, you can indeed say "art is what you make it".

Therefore if someone chooses to say "this art is meaningless", then that's an entirely valid interpretation.

Whether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" or whatever is totally subjective.

Well I can look at Chinese and see it as nothing but ink on paper. It has no meaning to me but maybe to someone else who understands it.

And I can read the words written down and see it as completely meaningless, even if I do understand it. Just because it is understood does not make it meaningful.

Of course viewing any artwork as meaningless is totally valid. Never said it wasn't.

I never said this is meaningless. I think it is meaningless too but I still think it looks cool.

I think the bible is meaningless too.

[PerthCity]

Originally Posted by ryan79

I think the bible is meaningless too.

I think we all knew this discussion would end up on that point.

[exoz]

Originally Posted by ryan79

Well I can look at Chinese and see it as nothing but ink on paper. It has no meaning to me but maybe to someone else who understands it.

And I can read the words written down and see it as completely meaningless, even if I do understand it. Just because it is understood does not make it meaningful.

Of course viewing any artwork as meaningless is totally valid. Never said it wasn't.

I never said this is meaningless. I think it is meaningless too but I still think it looks cool.

I think the bible is meaningless too.

I wasn't have a go at you in particular. Was just disagreeing with whoever said that words on a page are random ink markings, when clearly they are anything but random. If they were, we wouldn't be having this exchange.

[desperaterobots]

Originally Posted by exoz

Therefore if someone chooses to say "this art is meaningless", then that's an entirely valid interpretation.

Originally Posted by exoz

The ink markings aren't exactly random - they're organised into a code (letters and words) that we can all understand and communicate with. Art can operate in a similar way - by using recognisable symbols or conventions that we have already ascribed a common meaning to.

PC could have described his position as being able to find no meaning in the work, but instead insists on it's universal meaninglessness - a work without form or rythym or colour or purpose.

When you boil it down, there is no meaningless art, just people who can't find meaning, which was the point of the bible/ink marking comparison. I may not be able to interpret calculations on an astrophysicists black board, but that doesn't make them meaningless. Meaningless to me? Sure. Entirely devoid of meaning? Obviously not.

You are right about the use of the word 'random' - i should have used 'arbitrary'. EDIT: Actually, I never said 'random', ryan79 threw that in... I said 'a collection of ink markings'.

[exoz]

Originally Posted by desperaterobots

PC could have described his position as being able to find no meaning in the work, but instead insists on it's universal meaninglessness - a work without form or rythym or colour or purpose.

When you boil it down, there is no meaningless art, just people who can't find meaning, which was the point of the bible/ink marking comparison. I may not be able to interpret calculations on an astrophysicists black board, but that doesn't make them meaningless. Meaningless to me? Sure. Entirely devoid of meaning? Obviously not.

You are right about the use of the word 'random' - i should have used 'arbitrary'. EDIT: Actually, I never said 'random', ryan79 threw that in... I said 'a collection of ink markings'.

Personally, I agree with you. I think if you have a strong reaction - positive or negative - to a piece of art, then on some level you're finding meaning in it, whether you realise it or not. But people are entitled to their own opinions about it.

I'm all for art that is challenging, rather than merely decorative. Can't really comment on the Northbridge piece, but looking at the photo no doubt it'll be controversial. Good.

Even if I personally don't find it aesthetically pleasing, I like art that generates a lot of discussion - I love the fact the people have been known to riot over a painting or a bit of sculpture.

Speaking of which, this is the latest plan for London – dubbed the Piffle Tower – £15 worth of steel - can't wait for the shit fight to begin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-Liberty.html

[Nate Von Longneck II]

Originally Posted by exoz

Whether a piece of art is "good" or "bad" or whatever is totally subjective.

That is incorrect.

[hack404]

Originally Posted by Nate Von Longneck II

That is incorrect.

What is bad art?

[exoz]

Originally Posted by Nate Von Longneck II

That is incorrect.

Subjectvity is pretty much the entire basis for modern art.

[Nate Von Longneck II]

Originally Posted by hack404

What is bad art?

Art that isn't good.

[samboy]

or art that isn't art.

[Nate Von Longneck II]

Originally Posted by exoz

Subjectvity is pretty much the entire basis for modern art.

Well, thats the most meaningless sentence I have read for a while.

[Nate Von Longneck II]

Originally Posted by samboy

or art that isn't art.

Samboy, you are a wise man.

[desperaterobots]

I'm now quietly withdrawing from the shit fight.

[exoz]

Originally Posted by Nate Von Longneck II

Well, thats the most meaningless sentence I have read for a while.

After Realism – which aimed to recreate an objective view of the world – the Modern art movement believed that the value of art came from an artist’s subjectivity – ie from their own internal view of the world, rather than a common, external view.

[jackso]

I really know nothing about art, but i would have thought subjectivity would play a huge role within art, within boundries. Actually i suppose you cant really put boundries on subjectivity..

[steve_87]

take it to the art thread!!
that way i dont have to read this frustrating spamming in a good thread

[aaronaugi1]

Originally Posted by samboy

or art that isn't art.

is everything art?

[BartBart]

I haven't seen it in person yet - but from the photo I get the impression that it would fit nicely with Perth Arena if it was next to it.

[ozzage]

Originally Posted by BartBart

I haven't seen it in person yet - but from the photo I get the impression that it would fit nicely with Perth Arena if it was next to it.

They could have made it bigger and linked Perth Arena with the Piazza :P