Is D&D Art?

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not keeping up here.

There is no mud for me on this. Design and art are indivisible, as is their functionality.

Here's a little essay talking about the distinction: Art and Design

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd really like DannyAlcatraz to define art without referring to art itself as part of the definition.

That won't happen because I'm not trying to define art. That's kind of like defining God.

Every definition I've ever seen has been incomplete or deficient- though that wiki article isn't bad- so, like those who taught me, I try to look at the creator's purposes.

I cannot make heads nor tails as to how he distiguishes art from non-art.

I've said it simply as humanly possible more than once: intent.

Can architecture be art?

Yep.

Can commercial art be art?!

Yep- but not because of the name. Technically, most commercial art is "design."

 

[nedjer]

Here's a little essay talking about the distinction: Art and Design

I get what the dude's saying, as they're not synonyms - but, ironically, he artificially constructs a polemic by taking "from the world only on [his] terms and give back as [he sees] fit".

I'd see it more as two sides of the same coin; and Glasgow happens to offer a particularly good example. CR MacIntosh is the much recognised half of a team; the other half Margaret MacDonald is a) much maligned and b) now the most expensive Scottish artist ever by a distance.

She managed to bring together art and design in a way that demonstrates that the distinction between the two is a construct arising more from the difficulty in realising such artwork than the impossibility.

There are numerous examples, but here's a shot from House For an Art Lover of a fusion of design and art that's functional and decorative.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I LOVE them, BTW!

 

[wrecan]

so if I sell wrecan my dog art as dog art, it's art.
If I lie to him, it's fraudulent and it won't be art.

But, given my definition of art, I wouldn't accept it as art unless you lied o me about its origin.

 

[nedjer]

I LOVE them, BTW!

If you mean CRM and MMM there's maybe an extra reason why an educated dude like yourself would. They were extremely gifted at using techniques to set the static in motion. The Art Lover piano room is one of her finest in this respect, as the lamps don't just have flames, they've flames that 'move'; the ladies at the window are lit to shift between the material and the spiritual, using an alchemical veil metaphor which is accentuated by the physical motion as the curtains sway in an allusion to the breath of life . . . it goes on in much the same way and it ties into some of that research I was reading yesterday.

Seemingly 'connecting' to art is influenced by the complexity of the art and the resulting arousal. So, according to the research, a piece of 'art' has to work harder to appeal to 'brighter' people.

Pics too small to see the lamps. Here's a closer view.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That would explain the relative popularity of Lady Gaga vs Yes.

 

[nedjer]

That would explain the relative popularity of Lady Gaga vs Yes.

Not for the first time in this thread, (just can't seem to get Scarlett out of my mind), I won't go into the details but, bizarrely, I was ask to look at a copy of Lady GaGa's biography recently.

We've all been so very wrong about her. The book evidences her role as an inspirational force for world peace. She's also the last best hope for the education of our children - and a leading campaigner against drug abuse. That was all in one chapter, so the messianic Ms GaGa is probably working on propping-up the Euro as I type.

Sadly, I wasn't able to read the rest as my bin had somehow filled with vomit and I needed to go clean that up.

 

[wrecan]

That won't happen because I'm not trying to define art.

Which makes it impossible to determine if anything is or is not art.

I've said it simply as humanly possible more than once: intent.

Intent to do what? I intentionally play D&D. Is that enough?

How can I intend to make art when I can't define art? How do I know my intent to play D&D is insufficient?

 

[wrecan]

I don't need to misrepresent my dog's art

Except that in the original hypthetical to which I responded, you specifically said you were misrepresenting your dog's art:

So, if my dog spills some paint and it results in a pretty cool looking painting, and I misrepresent how it was generated, but simply display it, promote it, sell it as a work of art, if you accept it as art, then it must be art.

And since your standard was whether I accept it as art, and I won't accept your dog's spills as art unless you misrepresent its origin, I don't see how it would constitute art.

so if I sell wrecan my dog art as dog art, it's art. If I lie to him, it's fraudulent and it won't be art.

Well, which is it?