April 19th, 2006

Previous Entry Next Entry
12:48 am - on the arts, time and world civilization...

(22 comments | Leave a comment)

on the arts, time and world civilization... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr


[User Picture]From: vixendarkfairy Date: April 28th, 2006 - 04:24 am (Link)

Not all lyrics are poems...

Speaking as an artist, I think intent has very little to do with whether a craft succeeds at becoming "art." I have intended to write many poems. I have written words strung into lines that to the untrained eye look like poetry. But only a few of these wannabes qualify as "poems." And those are the ones that I've published.

So, what is the difference between mere lyrics and a poem? What is the difference between a clay craft and a sculpture? What is the difference between a portrait and the Mona Lisa?

ART requires:

1) EMOTION: Whether or not there is an intended message, or the intent to let the viewer/reader decide their own message as in "object art," the work creates an emotion in someone other than the creator. An encounter with art leaves the audience laughing, crying, guilt-ridden, thoughtful... The creation of the work must have been fraught with passion as well. For it is when we dare to lose control that the muse guides us.

2) COMPLEXITY: Art will evoke many emotions -- often different to different audiences. The emotions may conflict within the audience, or they may be taken on a roller-coaster ride that spans the spectrum of human emotion. There must be layers of ideas to be understood. The level of skill of the artist must also demonstrate complexity. They must display proper use of symbolism, meter, and the other tools of their chosen trade. A storyteller may tell a hackneyed tale of forbidden love, but if he does it with outstanding skill, they call him Shakespeare.

3) ORIGINALITY: Originality is key. The most noteworthy art is completely original in some way -- be it style, message, voice, subject, or technique. The first book of a genre usually gets crowned art for this reason. A film may be art because it was the first to demonstrate a new special effect. If there is not total originality, there must be at least enough originality in the work to make it stand out from similar contemporaries and mere copies. This is why the original The Accolade IS art, but a well-painted forgery is not.

There are surely other tests for art, but these are the top 3 IMHO.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: April 28th, 2006 - 02:25 pm (Link)

Re: Not all lyrics are poems...

First, I like that you recognize that these are your opinions and not necessarilly what everyone has to judge based on. I think that's very important.

Second, I'm unclear. Are you saying that you don't consider something art unless it fulfills all of the three tests you mentioned or that it just has to pass one of them and any one of them is fine? Is something more artisitc if it passes 2 of them?
[User Picture]From: vixendarkfairy Date: April 29th, 2006 - 04:03 am (Link)

Re: Not all lyrics are poems...

I think that, to be "art," the work must incorporate all 3. Besides, how can someone create something totally original with great complexity, and have failed to evoke even the "wow" emotion? And it's equally hard to evoke emotion without the use of symbolism (complexity) or putting a new twist on things (originality). And if something is completely unoriginal, then it is a copy. Copies are never art, so... It's actually difficult to find any example that has only one of the prerequisites.

• Go to Top