Jump to content

💙 HEAVY METAL LOVER T-SHIRT 💚

Follow Gaga Daily on Telegram
music news

Beyonce album coming on Netflix


ShockPop

Featured Posts

1 minute ago, StrawberryBlond said:

If you're not a fan like you claim, why are you defending them so much? Bey and Jay are not that deep. Their music is very straightforward and easy to understand, as are their videos. Not all art is super hard to decipher or is designed to be. I somehow doubt these people, who didn't even graduate high school or pursue higher education, can make videos with obscure historical and philosophical references that even educated people can't pick up on. Let's be real here.

the meaning of art is not necessarily rich on obscure historical and philosophical references, and I'm not defending them I'm defending my stance on the meaning of art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply
StrawberryBlond
Just now, Loud said:

the meaning of art is not necessarily rich on obscure historical and philosophical references, and I'm not defending them I'm defending my stance on the meaning of art.

I never denied that art was subjective. I'm just saying that when certain artistic references are obvious...they're obvious. It's hardly a blasphemous idea, is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I never denied that art was subjective. I'm just saying that when certain artistic references are obvious...they're obvious. It's hardly a blasphemous idea, is it?

its not blasphemous it is only a very narrow mindset compared to what art actually offers. In your previous comment you said that "Not all art is super hard to decipher or is designed to be. I somehow doubt these people, who didn't even graduate high school or pursue higher education, can make videos with obscure historical and philosophical references that even educated people can't pick up on." and I read it again and I think this sums up your way of thinking, because by reading this I'm assuming you believe that the only way of knowing "obscure" or "philosophical" things is by having a degree on them or at least something on higher education, and by saying that you're just ignoring all the capabilities that people who only completed HS have. Books exist, and the internet exists, and videos exist, and ART exists to assist you in learning things by not necessarily going to a university and getting a diploma in those fields. You can't just throw a person's opinion or world view on the trash just because they aren't a graduate on politics, or sociology, or any other thing. Because having a doctorate doesn't mean you know, and not having it doesn't mean you don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond
1 minute ago, Loud said:

its not blasphemous it is only a very narrow mindset compared to what art actually offers. In your previous comment you said that "Not all art is super hard to decipher or is designed to be. I somehow doubt these people, who didn't even graduate high school or pursue higher education, can make videos with obscure historical and philosophical references that even educated people can't pick up on." and I read it again and I think this sums up your way of thinking, because by reading this I'm assuming you believe that the only way of knowing "obscure" or "philosophical" things is by having a degree on them or at least something on higher education, and by saying that you're just ignoring all the capabilities that people who only completed HS have. Books exist, and the internet exists, and videos exist, and ART exists to assist you in learning things by not necessarily going to a university and getting a diploma in those fields. You can't just throw a person's opinion or world view on the trash just because they aren't a graduate on politics, or sociology, or any other thing. Because having a doctorate doesn't mean you know, and not having it doesn't mean you don't know.

But art can be obvious too. You must surely have seen art made by someone who had no idea of subtlety, right? You don't have to be highly educated to make or pick up on obscure or philosophical things, all I'm saying is that you have a higher likelihood of getting it if you're educated. Or, at the very least, are heavily into researching history. Which a lot of people certainly don't do. What I tend to find is that people who didn't get far in high school and got famous young, like Bey and Jay did, don't research things like this because if they were interested in such high brow things, they would have placed getting to learn this stuff over and above fame, but no, they've dedicated their lives to fame, which doesn't leave a lot of time for researching history. If you ever hear Beyonce talk, she doesn't sound highly intelligent (she didn't even have time for school because her parents were trying to make her famous), so I doubt she has any real interest in researching history or high art. Even I don't know very much about the great masters, apart from the Mona Lisa and I'm educated, so why would I expect Bey and Jay to know more than I do? While books, videos and the internet exist, you need to be a certain sort of person to want to use them. Most celebrities who are always releasing new material, rehearsing, touring and have children to look after, tend not to have the time to do voluntary research. They outsource this stuff if anything. It won't come from their own minds, rather the minds of experts who they've hired to make themselves look smart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StrawberryBlond said:

But art can be obvious too. You must surely have seen art made by someone who had no idea of subtlety, right? You don't have to be highly educated to make or pick up on obscure or philosophical things, all I'm saying is that you have a higher likelihood of getting it if you're educated. Or, at the very least, are heavily into researching history. Which a lot of people certainly don't do. What I tend to find is that people who didn't get far in high school and got famous young, like Bey and Jay did, don't research things like this because if they were interested in such high brow things, they would have placed getting to learn this stuff over and above fame, but no, they've dedicated their lives to fame, which doesn't leave a lot of time for researching history. If you ever hear Beyonce talk, she doesn't sound highly intelligent (she didn't even have time for school because her parents were trying to make her famous), so I doubt she has any real interest in researching history or high art. Even I don't know very much about the great masters, apart from the Mona Lisa and I'm educated, so why would I expect Bey and Jay to know more than I do? While books, videos and the internet exist, you need to be a certain sort of person to want to use them. Most celebrities who are always releasing new material, rehearsing, touring and have children to look after, tend not to have the time to do voluntary research. They outsource this stuff if anything. It won't come from their own minds, rather the minds of experts who they've hired to make themselves look smart.

But Beyonce and Jay-Z did this video, which proves they are interested in the topic somehow (or at least their interpretation of it). Again, for them this video could mean a-nee-thinga, and not necessarily be related to racism in the US. I already answered the things you're saying in here. You're starting your justification/theory on a square that requires the meaning of the video to be fixed, and the meaning of the video is NOT fixed, as is art. You can't say they are being hypocrites and attention-whores for using the race card when the meaning of art is subjective. And when you say "But art can be obvious too. You must surely have seen art made by someone who had no idea of subtlety, right?" what do you mean? Because I can tell you that I did not see any work of art that is not subtle from a general perspective. From a personal perspective it is obviously not subtle since I gave it a meaning, but you can't say art is not subtle for all people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond
1 minute ago, Loud said:

But Beyonce and Jay-Z did this video, which proves they are interested in the topic somehow (or at least their interpretation of it). Again, for them this video could mean a-nee-thinga, and not necessarily be related to racism in the US. I already answered the things you're saying in here. You're starting your justification/theory on a square that requires the meaning of the video to be fixed, and the meaning of the video is NOT fixed, as is art. You can't say they are being hypocrites and attention-whores for using the race card when the meaning of art is subjective. And when you say "But art can be obvious too. You must surely have seen art made by someone who had no idea of subtlety, right?" what do you mean? Because I can tell you that I did not see any work of art that is not subtle from a general perspective. From a personal perspective it is obviously not subtle since I gave it a meaning, but you can't say art is not subtle for all people.

They may be interested in the most basic way but not actually possess any knowledge about the art portrayed, who painted it or even what it's called. I know I didn't have much clue until the actual information on it was provided when people nitpicked the video. "Not necessarily related to racism in the US?" They've been making racially charged art for a couple of years now and this one is one of the clearest portrayals of that, right up there with Beyonce's All Night video. Even the title of the song is racially charged, in the most provocative way. The race card is all over this video, how could you say it's subjective? By saying you must have seen non-subtle art, I mean that you must have surely seen something that hits you in the face with its very clear message. It's usually something provocative, like a picture of a girl in a bikini leaning over, sucking a phallic shaped object. Get it? Provocative images are very easy to artistically interpret and this video is very racially provocative, hence, very easy to read. I suppose to people who aren't aware of the way race relations are portrayed in modern art, they might find it all a bit confusing and obscure. But to those of us who are clued up on this stuff, it hits us right between the eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

They may be interested in the most basic way but not actually possess any knowledge about the art portrayed, who painted it or even what it's called. I know I didn't have much clue until the actual information on it was provided when people nitpicked the video. "Not necessarily related to racism in the US?" They've been making racially charged art for a couple of years now and this one is one of the clearest portrayals of that, right up there with Beyonce's All Night video. Even the title of the song is racially charged, in the most provocative way. The race card is all over this video, how could you say it's subjective? By saying you must have seen non-subtle art, I mean that you must have surely seen something that hits you in the face with its very clear message. It's usually something provocative, like a picture of a girl in a bikini leaning over, sucking a phallic shaped object. Get it? Provocative images are very easy to artistically interpret and this video is very racially provocative, hence, very easy to read. I suppose to people who aren't aware of the way race relations are portrayed in modern art, they might find it all a bit confusing and obscure. But to those of us who are clued up on this stuff, it hits us right between the eyes.

Why do they have to know the names of the painters and the artwork? that's like saying you have to know the name of all of a band's albums in order to be a fan of theirs. I'm sure no one can ever say who made what in the louvre because it has such a big collection it is almost impossible.

Now, the racism theme in Beys videos don't necessarily mean that in every possible context. Racism is a problem and it existed as it exists today and during all of human history, but that doesn't mean it is the only type of discrimination humans can suffer. Beys videos could be talking about racism for you, but they can be talking about the will of the people for somebody living under a dictatorship, for example.

The subtelty of your example about the girl sucking the plastic dildo is ALSO subjective, even if you can't possibly find another meaning to it. For that I ask you: do you think this image will mean the same thing to an adult and to a child? No, because context matters. If you are a virgin and a very conservative person (so conservative that you don't even know that much about sex) the image will mean another entirely different thing to you. The phallic shape means a DIC.mp3 in most of the cultures, but not in all of them, and even in the very liberal and sexualized ones like ours it could mean a lot of things depending on the context. Also, you'll have to ask yourself WHY is that girl sucking that d*ck? And in your attempt of finding an answer to that you'll notice there are many. It could be a commentary on race, capitalism, sexuality, and the list goes on and on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond
2 minutes ago, Loud said:

Why do they have to know the names of the painters and the artwork? that's like saying you have to know the name of all of a band's albums in order to be a fan of theirs. I'm sure no one can ever say who made what in the louvre because it has such a big collection it is almost impossible.

Now, the racism theme in Beys videos don't necessarily mean that in every possible context. Racism is a problem and it existed as it exists today and during all of human history, but that doesn't mean it is the only type of discrimination humans can suffer. Beys videos could be talking about racism for you, but they can be talking about the will of the people for somebody living under a dictatorship, for example.

The subtelty of your example about the girl sucking the plastic dildo is ALSO subjective, even if you can't possibly find another meaning to it. For that I ask you: do you think this image will mean the same thing to an adult and to a child? No, because context matters. If you are a virgin and a very conservative person (so conservative that you don't even know that much about sex) the image will mean another entirely different thing to you. The phallic shape means a DIC.mp3 in most of the cultures, but not in all of them, and even in the very liberal and sexualized ones like ours it could mean a lot of things depending on the context. Also, you'll have to ask yourself WHY is that girl sucking that d*ck? And in your attempt of finding an answer to that you'll notice there are many. It could be a commentary on race, capitalism, sexuality, and the list goes on and on. 

Well, to make a video that makes visual references to the artwork you're standing in front of, you'll need to research a bit about the artwork the Louvre hosts and what the intention was behind all that artwork. That's a lot of work for the average celebrity to do. Just hire someone to do it for you.

If it's artistic angle is not about race, why is everyone in it black? And mirroring the poses of the white subjects depicted in the paintings behind them? I don't think one's situation really matters - most people will come to the same conclusion when they are informed of the environment the art was made in and who made it. You sometimes need a bit of information before you can make an educated judgement on art.

Of course such an image would mean something different to a child (though kids know so much these days, it wouldn't surprise me if their minds are just as dirty) but age also plays a role in how your perceive art correctly and yes, I do think there is a correct way to perceive art. You have to be educated a bit about how the world works to truly get it and a child does not have a developed understanding of how the world works. For a conservative virgin, they would most definitely see something sexual, for they know what sex is even if they choose not to participate in it. You don't have to know much about sex to understand what such an obvious image portrays because knowing what it means is just a part of an adult's natural understanding. Even as children, if we see something we shouldn't, even if we don't fully understand what we just saw, we instinctively know that it's dirty. That's how easy it is to work out certain artistic portrayals. And I think every culture holds the same meaning for a phallic object, actually. The why behind the image isn't what I'm questioning, I'm just saying what the overall meaning behind the image is and the obvious nature of it, that's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Well, to make a video that makes visual references to the artwork you're standing in front of, you'll need to research a bit about the artwork the Louvre hosts and what the intention was behind all that artwork. That's a lot of work for the average celebrity to do. Just hire someone to do it for you.

If it's artistic angle is not about race, why is everyone in it black? And mirroring the poses of the white subjects depicted in the paintings behind them? I don't think one's situation really matters - most people will come to the same conclusion when they are informed of the environment the art was made in and who made it. You sometimes need a bit of information before you can make an educated judgement on art.

Of course such an image would mean something different to a child (though kids know so much these days, it wouldn't surprise me if their minds are just as dirty) but age also plays a role in how your perceive art correctly and yes, I do think there is a correct way to perceive art. You have to be educated a bit about how the world works to truly get it and a child does not have a developed understanding of how the world works. For a conservative virgin, they would most definitely see something sexual, for they know what sex is even if they choose not to participate in it. You don't have to know much about sex to understand what such an obvious image portrays because knowing what it means is just a part of an adult's natural understanding. Even as children, if we see something we shouldn't, even if we don't fully understand what we just saw, we instinctively know that it's dirty. That's how easy it is to work out certain artistic portrayals. And I think every culture holds the same meaning for a phallic object, actually. The why behind the image isn't what I'm questioning, I'm just saying what the overall meaning behind the image is and the obvious nature of it, that's all.

"most people will come to the same conclusion when they are informed of the environment the art was made in and who made it."

this is the problem. Art has no context, and when you inform somebody of the "environment" or "who made it" you're just contextualizing art. And when you do that, you're just basically telling them what it means and not letting them decide by themselves.

"You sometimes need a bit of information before you can make an educated judgement on art."

I disagree. Anybody can make a judgment on art, and there is no such thing as an "educated judgment" in art. You yourself said that a kid may be able to grasp the meaning of a sexual image like the one you said, so the kid's opinion is not valid because they are not a doctor in sexology? I understand you said sometimes, but I think my example applies to everything.

For example, what do you see here?

Recognition-Constant-Mayer-oil-painting-

There's a wounded man being helped by another. Maybe if you studied art you would maybe know the author of this painting, and say why he painted it, but does that mean it is the only valid explanation for the painting's meaning? No, because an "educated judgement" of art is the same as believing the artist's interpretation of his own art is the universal interpretation of his art, and there is nothing further from the truth, THAT'S why I believe there is no such thing as an "educated judgment" in art, because art is subjective, you can't just take a meaning (whether it is a meaning that's almost universally accepted or not) and just say "this means that" as I said. It doesn't work like that.

And on the last paragraph you ignored a remark I also did, which said "Also, you'll have to ask yourself WHY is that girl sucking that d*ck? And in your attempt of finding an answer to that you'll notice there are many. It could be a commentary on race, capitalism, sexuality, and the list goes on and on." Yes, a kid can see it is a metaphor for a penis and all that, but they will maybe see it as gross, and an adult may see it as satisfying, or as a commentary on sexualizing things innecesarily, or ANYTHING. That's art and that's why art is art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

highlikegaga

those two people fighting above...with longer and longer posts and now there are pictures for references

tumblr_inline_nt780nGAa31ts1va1_500.gif

anyway, we need the audience to buy Bey's album when it comes out

giphy.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond
1 minute ago, Loud said:

"most people will come to the same conclusion when they are informed of the environment the art was made in and who made it."

this is the problem. Art has no context, and when you inform somebody of the "environment" or "who made it" you're just contextualizing art. And when you do that, you're just basically telling them what it means and not letting them decide by themselves.

"You sometimes need a bit of information before you can make an educated judgement on art."

I disagree. Anybody can make a judgment on art, and there is no such thing as an "educated judgment" in art. You yourself said that a kid may be able to grasp the meaning of a sexual image like the one you said, so the kid's opinion is not valid because they are not a doctor in sexology? I understand you said sometimes, but I think my example applies to everything.

For example, what do you see here?

Recognition-Constant-Mayer-oil-painting-

There's a wounded man being helped by another. Maybe if you studied art you would maybe know the author of this painting, and say why he painted it, but does that mean it is the only valid explanation for the painting's meaning? No, because an "educated judgement" of art is the same as believing the artist's interpretation of his own art is the universal interpretation of his art, and there is nothing further from the truth, THAT'S why I believe there is no such thing as an "educated judgment" in art, because art is subjective, you can't just take a meaning (whether it is a meaning that's almost universally accepted or not) and just say "this means that" as I said. It doesn't work like that.

And on the last paragraph you ignored a remark I also did, which said "Also, you'll have to ask yourself WHY is that girl sucking that d*ck? And in your attempt of finding an answer to that you'll notice there are many. It could be a commentary on race, capitalism, sexuality, and the list goes on and on." Yes, a kid can see it is a metaphor for a penis and all that, but they will maybe see it as gross, and an adult may see it as satisfying, or as a commentary on sexualizing things innecesarily, or ANYTHING. That's art and that's why art is art.

There's no harm in deciding what a piece of art means for yourself but if you try to tell other people your interpretation, they might laugh at you because you clearly aren't educated enough on the art to know the real intentions. To make another sexual reference to help in this case, I once heard this story from a mother whose child asked why the women on a magazine cover where in their underwear and to avoid an inappropriate explanation, she said that they'd lost their clothes in a hurricane. Now, that's what this kid is going to tell his friends and they're going to laugh because they might be more informed. See what I'm saying? You could say art is subjective but there is a clear objective nature to it sometimes. I know, you know, we all know, that the women on that magazine cover were not meant to be interpreted as losing their clothes in a hurricane. So, surely, some art can have an objective nature to it?

This ties in to your second point about not needing to be educated to make a judgement on art. You don't have to be an art expert, historian, philosopher, whatever, but you need some base understanding of how the world works to comprehend certain stuff to make the best judgement you can.

I'd assume that painting was one of many depictions of The Good Samaritan, though I don't know who painted it or why. But with an understanding of religion (I have a degree in that, by the way) as well as seeing various depictions of this scene in my lifetime, that's my educated understanding of it. It takes a certain amount of world knowledge to know that you're looking at a painting with a certain theme to it and what the general sense of it is.

I didn't ignore your remark, I incorporated it into my final sentence: "The why behind the image isn't what I'm questioning, I'm just saying what the overall meaning behind the image is and the obvious nature of it, that's all." And you brought up what an piece of art makes you feel personally, which is also something that I'm not arguing because I know that's definitely subjective. I'm just talking about the obvious meanings when you look at certain depictions. What you take away from that meaning is up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, highlikegaga said:

those two people fighting above...with longer and longer posts and now there are pictures for references

tumblr_inline_nt780nGAa31ts1va1_500.gif

anyway, we need the audience to buy Bey's album when it comes out

giphy.gif

im just helping them see the light

VQ1UzKO.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Wolf Boy said:

Why would she pay for preservation? shes not working at the Colosseum for museum purposes. Does every artist/director/photograher have to donate money to every site they use? wtf

hum no legal obligation but a moral one. shes using the museum for her own art and profit. its the least she could do

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, StrawberryBlond said:

There's no harm in deciding what a piece of art means for yourself but if you try to tell other people your interpretation, they might laugh at you because you clearly aren't educated enough on the art to know the real intentions. To make another sexual reference to help in this case, I once heard this story from a mother whose child asked why the women on a magazine cover where in their underwear and to avoid an inappropriate explanation, she said that they'd lost their clothes in a hurricane. Now, that's what this kid is going to tell his friends and they're going to laugh because they might be more informed. See what I'm saying? You could say art is subjective but there is a clear objective nature to it sometimes. I know, you know, we all know, that the women on that magazine cover were not meant to be interpreted as losing their clothes in a hurricane. So, surely, some art can have an objective nature to it?

This ties in to your second point about not needing to be educated to make a judgement on art. You don't have to be an art expert, historian, philosopher, whatever, but you need some base understanding of how the world works to comprehend certain stuff to make the best judgement you can.

I'd assume that painting was one of many depictions of The Good Samaritan, though I don't know who painted it or why. But with an understanding of religion (I have a degree in that, by the way) as well as seeing various depictions of this scene in my lifetime, that's my educated understanding of it. It takes a certain amount of world knowledge to know that you're looking at a painting with a certain theme to it and what the general sense of it is.

I didn't ignore your remark, I incorporated it into my final sentence: "The why behind the image isn't what I'm questioning, I'm just saying what the overall meaning behind the image is and the obvious nature of it, that's all." And you brought up what an piece of art makes you feel personally, which is also something that I'm not arguing because I know that's definitely subjective. I'm just talking about the obvious meanings when you look at certain depictions. What you take away from that meaning is up to you.

"Now, that's what this kid is going to tell his friends and they're going to laugh because they might be more informed."

They will laugh because they have another interpretation of a naked person, which probably came from other friends or other source. They're contextualized as well. Now, when you say that "There's no harm in deciding what a piece of art means for yourself but if you try to tell other people your interpretation, they might laugh at you because you clearly aren't educated enough on the art to know the real intentions." you are describing an asshole person. If somebody truly understands the goal of art they will NOT laugh at your interpretation, they will see it as a proof that that is good art. Only a person who believes they are above you will laugh at you, and that is an asshole. They don't understand art as much as they think they do, because not being open to another meanings is certainly the worst thing you can do when admiring art.

"I'd assume that painting was one of many depictions of The Good Samaritan, though I don't know who painted it or why. But with an understanding of religion (I have a degree in that, by the way) as well as seeing various depictions of this scene in my lifetime, that's my educated understanding of it. It takes a certain amount of world knowledge to know that you're looking at a painting with a certain theme to it and what the general sense of it is."

That's exaclty what I said. You're defending your point of view by finding the meaning by which the artist painted the painting, and that is not how you should do it. The artist may have painted it thinking about the things you said, yes, but that doesn't mean it is the only possible meaning of the artwork. Tomorrow we could start WWIII and this painting could be remembered from that point on as a representation of the conflict, even if it was painted hundred of years before it. Because art doesn't have a meaning, it only has the meaning you give it.

You saying that you have a degree on that was not necessary btw. I don't think any better of you or your view on art just because you have a degree on religion. Having a degree is not a proof you know how to correctly interpret art.

"I didn't ignore your remark, I incorporated it into my final sentence: "The why behind the image isn't what I'm questioning, I'm just saying what the overall meaning behind the image is and the obvious nature of it, that's all." And you brought up what an piece of art makes you feel personally, which is also something that I'm not arguing because I know that's definitely subjective. I'm just talking about the obvious meanings when you look at certain depictions. What you take away from that meaning is up to you."

Obvious meanings? there are no obvious meanings. If you were an alien that had no idea what human reproduction organs look like, would you find the image of the woman sucking the dildo to be a sexual one? no, it would actually be very confusing. And don't say I'm exaggerating, because this is exactly what I mean when I'm talking about context. Context can be a bitch when interpreting art, and it totally spoils the fun and personal attachment we may have to the work if it wasn't present. Now, some context is always present that's true, but you can't go around life saying that "this means that", because you provided an innecesary context that a person who wanted to truly appreciate art may have wanted to avoid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nikola

What did this thread become

I've got an "F" and a "C" and I got a "K" too And the only thing that is missing is a bitch like "U"
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...