Art

[Kwan Yu]

Art is vision of good feeling for life
Adoration of Goodness

[murex]

Adoration of Asthetics.
Some art portrays evil, but is still a nice piece.
So really, you can adore good and evil with art.

[Kwan Yu]

murex said:

Adoration of Asthetics.
Some art portrays evil, but is still a nice piece.
So really, you can adore good and evil with art.

Agreed.
In art there is no evil.

[piper]

Maybe......if the art depicting the polarity of good and evil OK I get that. But if the vibration of a piece is conveyed does the tecnique in creating outweigh the vibration that it sends out if it is say a depiction of hate or abuse or something like that???

Hmmm have to think about this one some more.....

[Lasher]

I think you've got a good point piper... at the same time though I've always found a negative depiction in art to be very cathartic. Like how my parents, not unlike most, always gave me a hard time for the type of music I listened to. They kept telling me that it would have a subliminal effect on me. I always scoffed and chalked it up to a generational gap becasue, as I said, the only side-effect that I have ever felt from some of the genuinely fierce stuff I sometimes listen to, is one of release and sometimes a kind of euphoric exhaustion.

Hmm... your right, more thought is needed.

[Trivium515]

Well I think that whether one is feeling negativity, or positivity, art is a way of transforming energy into something creative, whether it depicts something of beauty or something down right ugly, it is still a creative manifestation of one's thoughts or feelings. And as Lasher was saying, also a great form of release.

[TarotDragon]

Its hard for me to say either way on this topic. For one, art is always something creative and that's always translated as good to me, in one way or another. But then I think of some of he stuff I've created when I've been angry, just wrathful, and though it was well done, there was nothing good about it, other than the cathartic release. I mean, it emptied me of that bit of nastiness in me. Does that change the aspect of it?

[Lasher]

Art, I think, is the only valid medium for expressing, acknowledging and exploring negative aspects of existence. I think that pointing out an evil is a dramatic and explicit way of proving the existence of it's opposite. I think that a purpose for art is to spell out what is unsaid. I think to draw negativity into the plane of art opens a path to and manifests the opportunity of drawing it out of the plane of existence. I think that bringing to life somehting ugly in the frame of art allows it to die in the frame of mind... To die or to transform. I think that as long as distortion exists it's depiction through creativity is truth. I think that ultimately creation is a positive act regardless of the subject matter. The bringing into existence, the filling of a void. I think I'm thinking about this too much. ;D

[Trivium515]

lasher said:

I think that pointing out an evil is a dramatic and explicit way of proving the existence of it's opposite.

Hmm, cool way of putting it.

I think I'm thinking about this too much. ;D

Well to me that's another beauty of art, in whatever form, it's the one thing you don't have to think about. You can just let go, and let it come out in its pure form, sometimes others can appreciate it, other times you're the only one that gets it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as 'bad' or 'ugly' art because if you spent a considerable amount of time, effort, and spirit on something, it means something special to a part of you...Ahh bet I'm not making sense any more...

[TarotDragon]

Agree with you in a sense, Glacier. It seems impossible that if a lot of work and effort is put into something, it should be good. But you can put everything you are into something and its still... dark in its vibrations or something. I dunno. Probably not making much sense either.

[piper]

Yup....I think I've put my finger on it for me......it is not whether the end result is evil or bad looking for me. I guess what strikes me is that I differentiate between the creative force that drives the initital output. Like is it fair to say that a really angry release, although valid and dramatic and cathartic is artful and therefore beuatiful. For me not so much. As the tendency towards anihlation would be destructive.

Wherein the creation of something from a point of divine inspiration likens itself on the same playing field as God.

Then again God and the Devil it's all the same........back to square one......

[Kwan Yu]

The Hellish work
of Hieronymus Bosch
and Dante
is art.

[Trivium515]

strictlyplatonic said:

Agree with you in a sense, Glacier. It seems impossible that if a lot of work and effort is put into something, it should be good. But you can put everything you are into something and its still... dark in its vibrations or something.

I know what you mean here, there has been both writing and drawings that I have worked on but could never seem to get them to portray what I wanted them to, just came out differently, sometimes I would fight it but that would usually end up with me crumpling up the paper and tossing it. I found that if I just went with it, though it came out completely different them what I had imagined, somehow it was still right.

[TarotDragon]

lasher said:

I think that pointing out an evil is a dramatic and explicit way of proving the existence of it's opposite.

I dunno. Showing a scene of annihilation doesn't give me that sense of the good. Its showing me exactly that, a scene of destruction and that's all I get. Maybe with like a photo or something it'll give me the urge to want to change it, and therefore maybe there's some good in it, but I also feel a deep depression that that bad is there in the first place.

Does that make sense?

[Lasher]

piper said:

Like is it fair to say that a really angry release, although valid and dramatic and cathartic is artful and therefore beuatiful. For me not so much. As the tendency towards anihlation would be destructive.

I think you may be right, piper... I was thinking about this one instance of a band and their lyrical tendency towards what can be called negative or dark or self-loathing... and how, the ultimate fate of the author of some of the most despairing of their songs, was in fact annihilation. The self-destruction of a musician is not extremely unusual, I know, but the art that was created was all but predicting that destruction. Maybe even, as you say, a catalyst towards it...?

I don't know, but I don't think so. I think in the end, that sorrow existed and it's expression stands as some of the most beautiful art I know of. I think that that fate was sealed long before, and the creation of those songs were initialized to compensate for the loss to come.

Anyway... I may not be understanding what you were saying and I've just gone off on a tangent... entirely possible, actually. But that was the thought that came to mind in regards to a tendency towards destruction through art.

lol, shouldn't write when you're tired... it comes out all jello and cottonballs @_@