# What's the proper approach to art?



## tangential (Aug 15, 2010)

Here are some ideas

* to communicate vs. to be deliberately obscure

* to release emotions VS. an intellectual exploration

* for ambitious purposes vs. selflessness


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

For me, I think the biggest and most confusing question is-- "is the main focus of the work its aesthetic beauty or its communication of a greater idea?"


----------



## RedDeath9 (Apr 22, 2010)

Why does there have to be a 'proper' approach?


----------



## Poet (Oct 14, 2010)

tangential said:


> Here are some ideas
> 
> * to communicate vs. to be deliberately obscure
> 
> ...


Personally, I believe Art should be: clearly communicated, Divinely, spiritually, or emotionally inspired, and selfless.


----------



## tangential (Aug 15, 2010)

Just as there is a proper approach to doing anything. I don't really want to explain this, but would you question me if I said "what's the proper approach to running a company". Not saying, fyi, that the number of proper approaches is limited to one.


----------



## whisperycat (Aug 9, 2009)

Art is just a word, a semantic construct thrown at various configurations of light, movement and sound. 

You don't get martial art in a museum and the art of diplomacy is a euphenism for deception. 

If we restrict ourselves to the common notions of art as 'stuff that gets into your mind via your senses' then 'art' is whatever you like. Indeed, the only test I know how to apply as far as pleasant V unpleasant stimulation of the senses goes, is, "Do I like this?". There are a million shades of yes and no and that range of feeling constitutes 'art appreciation' for me.

Have you ever noticed that art critics can't paint, theatre critics can't act, book critics can't write and music critics can't play? And yet these are the people who are allowed by popular consensus to define 'art'. Not very artful at all.


----------



## tangential (Aug 15, 2010)

whisperycat said:


> Have you ever noticed that art critics can't paint, theatre critics can't act, book critics can't write and music critics can't play? And yet these are the people who are allowed by popular consensus to define 'art'. Not very artful at all.


Excellent point !


----------



## Macrosapien (Apr 4, 2010)

All art is a form of transmission, be it emotion, teachings, social message, shock, etc. All art is esoteric, since it's meaning is in the artist. Even something so common as painting a sunset, the artist was motivated to put together this piece for some purpose being unknown to those who look at it, unless they ask. Which means, a simple sunset, could mean a variety of things, even the way it is colored, could have an meaning unknown, or could act upon your emotions in such a way that it purposes in you happiness to sadness or even irritation. 

IMO I look at art like I look at the process of enlightenment and believe that its sole objective is to evoke consciousness in people and communicate to their heart and intuition, if possible awaken feelings in them that they have never felt, or to the very least have not felt for a long time. :happy:


----------



## wonderfert (Aug 17, 2010)

My only requirement is that I can stand what I created. I know I'll never love it, and I'm not likely to be proud of it, but if I can stand it I'm content. 

As for "to communicate vs. to be deliberately obscure", "to release emotions VS. an intellectual exploration", "for ambitious purposes vs. selflessness", I'd ask why it matters. If I sat around worrying about the purpose of art, I'd never make it.


----------



## Thrifty Walrus (Jul 8, 2010)

There isn't one, that's why it's so magical.


----------



## weka (Sep 17, 2010)

The proper approach to art is to buy a beret and wear it without delay. All the best artists wore berets, whether their tools were brush or machine gun, sometimes both.


----------



## addle1618 (Oct 31, 2008)

The proper approach to art is to approach it.


----------

