Welcome to Inkbunny...

To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )

Thoughts on art and art discourse

I like paheal as a site but I find the environment kind of trash. There are a lot of self absorbed, pretentious, people who believe their opinions are facts and state them as such. (To be fair these people are everywhere but are abundant in places that allow anonymous posting like Paheal)

Personally, I don't believe there is an absolute objective good in art. That doesn't mean that art can't be discussed in objective terms at all but to do that you need to define a goal. If you believe the goal of art is to emulate reality and I believe the goal is to evoke emotion then we will always be at odds, on some level, about what makes art good. These are only two factors in many that decide how one judges art. To assume that you know the "true" goal of art and can speak on behalf of everyone is the height of hubris.

Humans may have a lot of overlap in what they appreciate but the truth is not determined by popular decision. Otherwise you'd have to concede that pop music is objectively the best kind and I doubt the kind of snobby navel-gazing person I'm referring to would concede that.

Viewed:	80 times
Added:	3 years, 7 months ago 06 Sep 2020 14:45 CEST

9 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

AaronAmethyst

3 years, 7 months ago

link

Sounds like 4chan, honestly. They have a very high horse and they seem to have a high mind mindset of what can be considered good art and everything else is shit.

HowlEchoes

3 years, 7 months ago

link

@ AaronAmethyst

Oh yeah this would definitely apply to 4chan as well. Anonymity seems to foster this sort of solipsistic arrogance.

awakenji

3 years, 7 months ago

link

Yeah folks that go on porn sites and then have the attitude or thought that "Art is to represent or emulate reality" definitely have real problems. More so when it's in furry fandoms.

HowlEchoes

3 years, 7 months ago

link

@ awakenji

Yeah I've complained about that sort of thing with furries before. It's absurd to me that people want to put strict limits on something that clearly isn't real. For example, there are those who feel that anthro sharks shouldn't be drawn with breasts since they're not mammals but this doesnt logically follow because "anthro" literally means you're humanizing something. By their logic, animals should only ever be drawn as they look in real life. I consider that thinking to be in direct opposition with the creative and imaginative part of art that so many people admire. (Including those people probably)

awakenji

3 years, 7 months ago

link

@ HowlEchoes

Agree with your case and point completely. That's one of many cases of flawed logic in the furry community.

AllanGrey

3 years, 7 months ago

link

You're right, IMO, that art has to evoke some kind of emotional response to be attractive. Usually that's what hooks me into writing my too-wordy comments on a piece, and I try to be complimentary about what I found good about it all. After all the artists probably put hours into a decent picture, so I can give it 5-10 minutes of study. (Not that a funny or emotional sketch can't be a lot of fun too.) Sometimes it seems weird that a picture I find amazing doesn't seem to have an effect on most people, but maybe I'm just weird. ;)

Also I absolutely agree that it's pointless to interact on any site that allows anons to post. Too many people think they're funny or "edgy" when they're just annoying – even worse is when people go crazy in response to it. (I'm not sure which of those two types are worse.) Fortunately Phail is only for reposting art from elsewhere, not a place artists use as their primary site.

As for what art is, I don't think there's an easy explanation yet I don't think "I know it when I see it" is an answer either. Like you said, it just seems like a representation of what the artist perceives, with the artist's exaggerations & biases to express their own feelings.

Anyway, I'm not very profound… and there's a certain Princess Tiabeanie picture that's been waiting too long for my attention. :)

HowlEchoes

3 years, 7 months ago

link

@ AllanGrey

I agree that art is not an easy thing to define and I'm actually glad about that. I think it's built into art to be hard to define. The element of creativity is intrinsically about challenging our perceptions. Because of this, our considerations about what art is are always being challenged.

Tyurianwhatlol

3 years, 6 months ago

link

I would argue there is another kind of arrogance among art relativists....

HowlEchoes

3 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 3 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ Tyurianwhatlol

Sure I would agree. It can lead to a sort of perception that one can do no wrong because it's "just their opinion". But I only find this relevant if someone is claiming to aim for a certain artistic goal (like mastering realistic shading) and then claiming that the methods to reach this goal are subjective. I would argue that they are not. In the same way that there is an objectively best way to get to a destination if your goal is to get there in the least amount of time. I would say that relitavism ought to stop when an artistic goal is defined. That being said, if someone's goal is to merely express whatever they are capable of expressing at the time then the objectively best way to do that would be to simply draw what they feel in the moment and even if it looked like shit to someone else it would have at least met the *conscious or proclaimed* goal of the artist.

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Log in or create an account to comment.

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.