BertyBottyBiter wrote: -Jay- wrote:
BertyBottyBiter wrote:Art (I hate the word personally) is supposed to make you think, make a statement or mess with your head.
Really? See, now, I look at a painting I like and think 'that looks really nice' or 'that's really cool'. No thinking, head-messing or statement-shovelling there.
That's what I hate about the art world. When the greeks were sculpting a beautiful statue of some goddess or other, were they thinking about existentialism? Or 'mere' aesthetics? Why can't something just look nice?
Of course they weren't thinking about existentialism. The existentialist movement wasn't till the 20th century. But similarly they weren't just creating something pleasing to the eye.
Ancient Greek sculptors were interested in the perfect human form and the importance of proportion. It was a mental exercise as well as an aesthetic one. Plus remember that most statues, and even vase paintings, had strong ties to religion and worship and hence their beliefs in life, death and the meaning of existence.
Although they may just 'look nice' to us, to the ancient Greeks they would have stimulated thought and emotion (statues as grave markers etc).
I think my original point stands.
Although to be fair, thats probably the case with all art when referencing the person who actually created it. In most cases though the person who actually commissioned it would have been doing so as a cock waving exercise. Not exclusively I'll grant you but in lots of cases that kind of vanity would be the primary factor in commissioning a piece of art or sculpture. Purely because it was big, visible and looked good at parties. Not too different from today really.
Its easy to sit and debate the merits, intentions and mechanics behind 'art' all day long, but its value both aesthetically or at any deeper level is completely in the eye of the beholder. A hundred people can take a hundred completely different things away from a single piece of art so no-one is ever going to reach a 'correct' conclusion.
The idea that art is 'meant' to make you think, or mess with your head or do anything else is pretty far off the mark, in and of itself there isn't any correct way to view, approach or debate art, the whole point is that you enjoy it in a personal way, and if that's just smiling benignly at the artists skill and appreciating its aesthetics, then thats good enough. If it makes you weep because you can see about 8 layers down that the artist is making a profound statement about love or the meaning of life, thats ok too.
To go from discussing the merits of games like Okami and SotC, to a debate about the potential musings and intentions of sculptors that died thousands of years ago is a little absurd to be honest. Both games are beautiful in their own right and do what they do very well.
For our next debate I think we should start with Metal Gear Solid and finish with a lengthy disagreement about exactly what colour the sky is.