Yes, I said, but is it art?

I came across this site with pictures of odd buildings. I am not sure whether I like them: they might be like jokes and only work the first time you see them. They might bring a smile every day if you live there. Really not sure.

www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/74157

Do you like any, or all, of them?

Well I came across this

http://global.designdb.com/disko/read.asp?...ardseqnum=11989

And I think I really like it. I know I like the guggenheim building in Bilbao. That is a boaty type thing and this is pebbles. The ones I opened with are baskets and stuff. Now I am not sure about those and very sure about these. So what I was wondering is, what is the difference?

Is it the fact that the last two are stylised and not absolute copies, so you leave something for the viewer to discover? But that leaves the problem the garden designer faced ( I like to call this vista effect "surprisingness": oh yes? What do you call it the second time round the garden?).

Is it that the shapes are pleasing in themselves? Well maybe. But there is nothing particularly unpleasing about the shape of a basket. Nothing wrong with it. And I really like books as physical objects; i like the slight curve of the spine.

So maybe it is that the other ones are cartoony? No "essence of basket" just "basket"?

I imagine arty type people think about these questions and have some interesting things to tell me about this. So I would like your thoughts on this, if you will

I can't say it's really art. I suppose it's some form of an architectural feat. (or perhaps nonsense...hahaha) I do think that second one is quite clever. The aquarium that looks like beach rocks.

Actually, that second one does have an artistic feel to me. Since they put work into how it looks from the inside and out. The reflection of water on the rocks is a nice touch. Especially with the lights at night.

What separates the two things.

All those other buildings and the rocks building. In my opinion, the buildings in your first article are just buildings. They're sorta cheesy looking and they are sort of a ploy to get your attention. They're really commercial. These buildings are very straight forward with the idea of: "Heyy we're a basket making company. Look out building is a basket." Same can be said for all of the other pieces.

Something about the second one (if it helps I am an artist and am an art student) It has this feel where you can tell an artistic designer really put some time and thought into how it would look from all angles. They clearly paid attention to the flow and size of the rock shapes. People's eyes like to flow in a circle whether they're aware of this or not. So artists make compositions typical based on a circle type method (or other basic shapes). For example, paintings that people love the most are very clever in carefully leading the eye around the entire painting. So that the person can admire everything about that piece. They also added water effects at the bottom and accented those effects with light. As well as followed through to the interior. (though in the other buildings defenses they didn't provide interior shots, but I suspect it turns into your average building inside.) I feel the focus on the second rocks building was to make you feel like you're really walkin under some sea rocks.

It certainly does help to get an artist's view on this, Stafal. I was not aware that we like circles, particularly, for a start. So that is something I have learned. Is that in itself learned or is it innate? I ask that because I believe (thuugh I could be wrong) that most very early houses were roundish: igloos and houses in subsaharan africa and the early ones in Scotland all fit that pattern. But now the default shape is a rectangle and that is what kids draw when asked to draw a house: I have mentioned how curious I think that is in other contects but it is an observation with relevance here too. I wonder if it would be fair to say that there is a low level discomfort built in to our environment because of the focus on rectilinear shapes? If there is it is obviously not something which bothers us a whole lot: and sometimes scale changes it anyway, maybe. But I know for myself that things like high rises with flat roofs are just ugly: and I cannot be alone because they have started putting hats on them here. Partly cos flat roofs don't work here but also partly aesthetic.

Umm it's something innate. I think. There's that Golden Ratio thing. The somewhat scientific explanation for like everything. Pretty much it's this spiral thing. (I only half understand this concept btw..... I'll find a few links and post at the bottom.) So this golden ratio is mainly the idea of everything fitting into a perfectly mathematical square that can have a spiral drawn in it. Of course it also relates to nature. Since all things in nature grow in this spiral. For reals. all flowers and shells are the best example of this. Anyways so a circle (not really talkin perfect circle) or the idea of a loose shape that connects. (or a spiral) is something we are drawn to and I get the feeling it is just a natural thing. Perhaps something related to while flowers and shells grow in spirals.

Why were the first houses round, well I suppose it's something that people are actually most comfortable with. The room seems more open since there are no harsh edges and it has a warmer feel. Something like togetherness. People do tend to like to sit or stand in a circle to talk to one another. However, the switch to square and rectangular buildings has to do more with that rigid shape provides more structure and support and is therefore more safe. As people began to advance and interact with other people you could say there was more of a need for safety from one another. Also people seem to find need to organize and compartmentalize more.

I can't say much for high rises. I live near Philadelphia. Most buildings are so high up I can't say I notice a flat top....

I personally find I love round rooms. Perhaps partially because they're rare or perhaps due to this circle thing. But if you've ever been in a house that has a round room somewhere it's usually my personal fav. And I find many people will feel the same way. There is something appealing about a round room. So I wonder why it's not a trend. (or at least half round. A full round room is a bit discomforting)

Though this is all mostly theorizing on my part. Based off of art history classes I've taken and just my weird interest in human nature.

Some links to this Golden Ratio thing I mentioned first:

A picture of the Spiral.
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=the+golden+...=1t:429,r:0,s:0

A seemingly knowledgeable site about it. ^^
www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/s97b/art.htm

site with a buncha pics of spirals *shrugs* idk XD looks cool
http://www.thenewearthworks.com/Articles/1...ion/spiral.aspx

I had not been aware that the Golden Ratio was related to the Fibonacci series, though had heard both terms before. So that is another thing I have learned. Sadly I can do nothing with it: I can't see the signficance, or even the beauty, of it as a mathematical phenomenon. But it is perhaps true to say that we are attracted to forms we find in nature. Not sure about that. Although the rectangle and the series have mathematical properties in common I can't actually see or recognise that. I would never in a million years look at the parthenon and think " why, it looks like a seashell!". That is because it doesn't. So to me it is a mathematical curiousity: but I cannot go the extra mile and assume that both are attractive because that mathematical relationship resonates with something in my brain or my mind (if you makes such a distinction). It might, but I do not really see how you could demonstrate that.

Yeah I cannot understand the mathematical parts at all either. I do know that some old styles of building and painting were more mathematical because back during the Renaissance art was considered a form of science. However, the fact that everything can fit into this weird equation and set of squares with a triangle is beyond me.

I agree with the idea of things growing in nature using the golden ratio and it's why we find them interesting. But eh it's all a matter of opinion with this sort of thing so it's not like you could ever really get a decisive answer out of anyone.

Personally, I don't see how art and math mix in the first place.....

Well there are people who find beauty in maths, so I am told. It is not something I can relate to, but that is because I never have that satisfying moment which they report, when a regularity or a symmetry presents itself as a perfect whole. I can see that if one has a sudden perception of that sort it might produce an internal response similar to that others get from a sunset. A feeling of transcendence, or perhaps its opposite: of smallness and the peace which comes from being unimportant in the scheme of things.

Which, I suppose, raises questions about the nature of art. And that is sort of where I came in. Is it really all a matter of opinion? It seems to me that those who point to such real world symmetries are claiming that it is not. Rather they are saying that there is something objective about art: something which arises from the fact that our brains/minds are in reality part of a greater whole. On this conception the aim of art is to make us aware of that: or at least to make us feel that truth, however inarticulately.

I do not know enough about art to judge such claims. We seem to be "pattern recognisers", as a species: it is intrinsic to our intelligence, I think. Most of us like to find a pattern, and you see that in many kinds of puzzles; in maths; in music; in poetry (particularly obvious in the kinds of poetry or rhyme which children takes such joy in); and also in pictures, if the image can be said to be powerful in proportion to how it resonates with other experiences and understandings. From that perspective appreciation of any particular discipline rests on our ability to recognise a pattern: and so experience is important in expanding what we can find joy in. Arguably we become more sophisticated in our ability to do that with practice or exposure.

The basket building does make a pattern: we know of baskets and what they are for and where we expect to find them. There is a moment of suprise on viewing a building in that form and the resonance arises from the use of the form in an unexpected context: all the normal contexts are elicited instantly, both of baskets and buildings: and there is a little smile in "solving " the puzzle by realising the building houses a basket making company. It adds a term to the puzzle; an element to the pattern, perhaps. But that happens once, and then there is no more to discover: maybe that is why it does not really rise to the level of "art". The shift in our appreciation is fed to us: we get the simple message almost at once: and there is nothing more to explore. By contrast the pebble buildings do not convey one simple message under the control of the maker. It is more abstract and so it fits in to a wider range of discrete "patterns" which we can compare it to over a longer time. So we do not immediately think of pebbles, for the building is more abstract and it is not as obvioius that that is what it represents, compared to the basket: we come to it more slowly and perhaps we consider other possibilities too: which adds to the pleasure of discovery, because we bring more to the pattern recognition (we participate more) rather than being fed one insistent answer. Not sure if that is well expressed but you know what I mean?

I presume there are many other theories of art, but I don't know what they are. Maybe that is the kind of thing that history of art addresses?

You're all over the place in your definition of "art".

Art is about emotion.

The pevailang emotion in nature is fear.

Art comes in to change the dread and fear. Art creates hope and certainty that things can be better. Art points us to the promised paradise lost.

To use one of your topics, "pattern" is found in nature, from crystals to a bird's feathers, to valleys laden with grass. The repetition of a motif, be it a patch of grass, feathers on a bird to the angular forms in a crystal- the human eye finds this pleasing and cannot get enough.

It is always an emotion that tells us first we are in the presence of art.

Can an umbrella pattern become "art"?



Are crystal patterns "beautiful"?



[URL]http://news.discovery.com/earth/naica-big-pics.html[/URL]

Sure I am: I don't have a definition of art, Piktor. Stafal said it is a matter of opinion: I think that others do not accept that: I think that perhaps you are one of them. But I don't know anything, and that is part of the reason for this thread.


That is quite a broad statement but it does not preclude the "pattern recognition" idea: because the "satisfaction" I referred to is possibly an emotion in itself. So if a mathematical solution produces a feeling of security, or of joy, or of wonder, then it has done the same job for that individual as more conventional artistic productions do for others, surely? To the extent that is true it is not so much a "matter of opinion" but a matter of subjective experience. It is admittedly hard to differentiate the two: if maths does not elicit that emotion in me, but it does in another, then maths is art for the other but not for me. There seems something rather odd in that conclusion. And the oddness lies in the proposition that the art is not located in the thing, but in the person, I think. That may indeed be true, of course: but we seem unsatisfied by that because we do try to define art more generally, if not universally.

Compare the concept of "taste" and its differential applications. If I prefer milk chocolate and you prefer dark, we accept that is no more than a matter of taste. We will not fight about it and we will not (except in jest: see chocolate thread) try to show that one of us is right and one is wrong. Used in that way there can be no dispute: it is a matter of taste and that is the end of it. I can no more challenge your preference than I can meet your howl of pain with the question "are you sure?"

But "taste" is used in another way as well: a person can be said to have "good taste" and that is not at all the same thing: it carries an implication of objectivity which is not present in the case of chocolate. And we do have such arguments about art: there is literature about what makes "art" and how it can be distinguished from "not art". There are even laws and court cases about it, not least in the case of "obscenity" (see the Lady Chatterly's lover trial for an interesting example of that). To the extent that such a concept is in play the matter is not wholly subjective: or so those who adopt that useage are claiming.

That is a real debate with consequences: the notion of a devalued "proletarian" art brings the question into the realm of politics, for example. Similarly the idea that there is something "objective" has led to some to seek to explain art in terms of maths or neurology or psychology or anthropology etc etc etc.


What makes you think that?


Can't comment unless you explain your previous assertion because I don't see it that way and this conclusion depends on that premise, I think?


So you contend that the patterns found in nature are in fact art? I find that an interesting point of view because I have come across people who would absolutely deny that: they would say that art is necessarily a human production and that nature is perhaps inspiration, or raw material, but not art in itself.


Is every use of motif art? Is "beautiful" the same as artistic?

"The prevailing emotion in nature is fear."

What makes you think that?

Ask biologists. Watch wild creatures. Fear saves all creatures from the dangers of the unknown.

Birds are vigilant out of fear, so are bears, lions, monkeys. Animals and humans have survived on fear, not on trust.

Art is uniquely human. The smartest dog will sniff at a work of art, then will merrily go on its way. Same for gorillas, horses, butterflies.

Humans are uniquely sensitive to beauty. Beauty produces hope and a belief that a better world is possible.

Fear is certainly present: but so is love, or at least sex. I would not be so sanguine as you about the centrality of fear. I do not see so very many vigilant lions: not ones who let it interfere with the laziness of life Nor do I see that monkeys spend more time afraid than in other pursuits. These perceptions are filtered through the prism of our own preconceptions. For myself I could not disagree more with your idea that humans have survived on fear and not on trust: we are social animals and trust is far more important in my view.

I do not think I suggested that animals appreciate art But nor do I know whether humans are uniquely sensitive to beauty: can you smell the beauty of a woman a mile away? I believe some butterflies can: and they act on it. Is that not beauty too?

I'm not trying to convince anyone about my observation that fear is the prevailing emotion in nature. I state this as a fact, not as a belief.

For sure, art is an affirmation of hope, an assertion of the existence of the being in the middle of daily life's drudgery and despair.

At the same time art is useless and non-utilitarian. People might go the full length of their lives without Beethoven or a Shakespeare sonnet and die happy.

I have no idea if butterflies distinguish odors beautiful from ugly.