Jesus, what's next? Sex classed as politics?

Only if people get political about it.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Jesus, what's next? Sex classed as politics?

Only if people get political about it.

Julie. Now I'm very confused...

Jesus, what's next? Sex classed as politics?

Only if people get political about it.

Julie. Now I'm very confused...

Only if conversations about sex would turn up to be political tainted, means disagreeing with eachother in very simple terms, in the Cafe, we mostly agree with each other:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Jesus, what's next? Sex classed as politics?

Only if people get political about it.

Julie. Now I'm very confused...

The personal is political, Janneseti.

...and as we've seen from discussion here, art is personal.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Jesus, what's next? Sex classed as politics?

Only if people get political about it.

Julie. Now I'm very confused...

The personal is political, Janneseti.

...and as we've seen from discussion here, art is personal.

Of course it's personal.
And funny.
And disturbing.
And necessary.
And political.
So whats your Point Es99?

Without Culture and Art....

Jimi Hendrix - The Star Spangled Banner [ American Anthem ] ( Live at Woodstock 1969 )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjzZh6-h9fM
From a talkshow Jimi explains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-ZYUaRKQkk

Art or Rock?

It can bring tears to people, so it has emotion, but it is just names on sliced rock.

Neither really. Its a symbol, a Lieux de Mémoire, but not art.

Art or Rock?

It can bring tears to people, so it has emotion, but it is just names on sliced rock.

Neither really. Its a symbol, a Lieux de Mémoire, but not art.

That is Art IMO.
Yes a symbol which means its art per definition!

That is Art IMO.
Yes a symbol which means its art per definition!

No, symbols don't have to be art. A symbol contains a message, art contains a story. A symbol has to be instantly recognizable while art does not need to be recognized as such. And finally, with a symbol, the focus lies with the message it tries to convey, while art is much more about the inherent aesthetic value of its chosen medium.

This memorial is not art. Its message is to the survivors and its message contains no aesthetic value whatsoever. The symbol here is political purely functional in nature.

Ask yourself this question. Would a symbol be created in and by itself if the message it currently tries convey did not exist? If yes, then its art, if not, then its not art. This memorial wall would never have been created if those people hadn't died. It exists only because its part of a collective memory and serves no existence outside of symbolizing that collective memory. Its not art.

That is Art IMO.
Yes a symbol which means its art per definition!

No, symbols don't have to be art. A symbol contains a message, art contains a story. A symbol has to be instantly recognizable while art does not need to be recognized as such. And finally, with a symbol, the focus lies with the message it tries to convey, while art is much more about the inherent aesthetic value of its chosen medium.

This memorial is not art. Its message is to the survivors and its message contains no aesthetic value whatsoever. The symbol here is political purely functional in nature.

Ask yourself this question. Would a symbol be created in and by itself if the message it currently tries convey did not exist? If yes, then its art, if not, then its not art. This memorial wall would never have been created if those people hadn't died. It exists only because its part of a collective memory and serves no existence outside of symbolizing that collective memory. Its not art.

Oh dear
A memorial is not art?
Then what is it? Rubbish?
The Washington Memorial Wall IS art. Period.

That is Art IMO.
Yes a symbol which means its art per definition!

No, symbols don't have to be art. A symbol contains a message, art contains a story. A symbol has to be instantly recognizable while art does not need to be recognized as such. And finally, with a symbol, the focus lies with the message it tries to convey, while art is much more about the inherent aesthetic value of its chosen medium.

This memorial is not art. Its message is to the survivors and its message contains no aesthetic value whatsoever. The symbol here is political purely functional in nature.

Ask yourself this question. Would a symbol be created in and by itself if the message it currently tries convey did not exist? If yes, then its art, if not, then its not art. This memorial wall would never have been created if those people hadn't died. It exists only because its part of a collective memory and serves no existence outside of symbolizing that collective memory. Its not art.

Yes its a symbol. And yes it would not have been built if Viet Nam had not been fought. Yes it is a memorial. But having seen it in person.
It is art.
Its simple and pleasing to the eye. If art is supposed to move you, The Wall does. I walked its length reading the names of the fallen in a stupid war of my gerneration. When I exited the momument and turned around to look at it I had tears streaming down my face.
I do disagree with you that the Wall isnt art. To me its the highest form of art calling out the stupidty on man.

---

[/quote]

Old James

When I exited the momument and turned around to look at it I had tears streaming down my face.
I do disagree with you that the Wall isnt art. To me its the highest form of art calling out the stupidty on man.

A tragic burden our generation has carried for over 40 years.

---

When I exited the momument and turned around to look at it I had tears streaming down my face.
I do disagree with you that the Wall isnt art. To me its the highest form of art calling out the stupidty on man.

A tragic burden our generation has carried for over 40 years.

That is the message of the art, the lesson taught.

It is transformative to visit. Good art is transformative.

While none of its individual parts is particularly arty, the sum total has archived more than the parts. That is also part of its art. It is also architecture. It is a building of two walls.

If you wish to compare it to another monument a couple miles away

This one isn't particularly arty at all. Highly traditional and essentially what you would expect to see.

---

Yes its a symbol. And yes it would not have been built if Viet Nam had not been fought. Yes it is a memorial. But having seen it in person.
It is art.
Its simple and pleasing to the eye. If art is supposed to move you, The Wall does. I walked its length reading the names of the fallen in a stupid war of my gerneration. When I exited the momument and turned around to look at it I had tears streaming down my face.
I do disagree with you that the Wall isnt art. To me its the highest form of art calling out the stupidty on man.

Well sure, I'm not saying that such a memorial can't be extremely emotional and beautiful. But I don't think the fact that something can make you emotional makes something art. The graveyard where my grandfather is buried also makes me emotional, but I wouldn't say that his tombstone is art because of that. And I've been to the American military cemetery in Normandy and that is a very emotional and very impressive site as well, it practically serves the same function as the wall (although you can argue that the soldiers buried in Normandy have died for a much better cause) but again I would be hesitant to call the cemetery art.

And lets take this a little further. Would you say that the Berlin wall, or the pieces that are left of it, are art? Its emotional for those that know what it stood for, and its beautiful in a way as well, thanks to the graffiti. Does that make the Berlin wall art? I would disagree and I think most people would disagree with the notion that the Berlin wall is now art.

Well sure, I'm not saying that such a memorial can't be extremely emotional and beautiful. But I don't think the fact that something can make you emotional makes something art. The graveyard where my grandfather is buried also makes me emotional, but I wouldn't say that his tombstone is art because of that. And I've been to the American military cemetery in Normandy and that is a very emotional and very impressive site as well, it practically serves the same function as the wall (although you can argue that the soldiers buried in Normandy have died for a much better cause) but again I would be hesitant to call the cemetery art.

This is ART.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skogskyrkog%C3%A5rden
Skogskyrkogården, official name in English: The Woodland Cemetery, is a cemetery located in Enskede suburb of Stockholm, Sweden.
In 1994, Skogskyrkogården was named a UNESCO World Heritage Site and although it does not have the number of famous interments as the Norra begravningsplatsen, its much older counterpart in northern Stockholm, it is a major tourist attraction.

I was born in Enskede. Not Enschede in Holland although I have been there 1969:)

Yes its a symbol. And yes it would not have been built if Viet Nam had not been fought. Yes it is a memorial. But having seen it in person.
It is art.
Its simple and pleasing to the eye. If art is supposed to move you, The Wall does. I walked its length reading the names of the fallen in a stupid war of my gerneration. When I exited the momument and turned around to look at it I had tears streaming down my face.
I do disagree with you that the Wall isnt art. To me its the highest form of art calling out the stupidty on man.

Well sure, I'm not saying that such a memorial can't be extremely emotional and beautiful. But I don't think the fact that something can make you emotional makes something art. The graveyard where my grandfather is buried also makes me emotional, but I wouldn't say that his tombstone is art because of that. And I've been to the American military cemetery in Normandy and that is a very emotional and very impressive site as well, it practically serves the same function as the wall (although you can argue that the soldiers buried in Normandy have died for a much better cause) but again I would be hesitant to call the cemetery art.

And lets take this a little further. Would you say that the Berlin wall, or the pieces that are left of it, are art? Its emotional for those that know what it stood for, and its beautiful in a way as well, thanks to the graffiti. Does that make the Berlin wall art? I would disagree and I think most people would disagree with the notion that the Berlin wall is now art.

There is a saying here between artists that they are really good in working on the sentiment. Must only apply to Belgium then I guess...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Yes its a symbol. And yes it would not have been built if Viet Nam had not been fought. Yes it is a memorial. But having seen it in person.
It is art.
Its simple and pleasing to the eye. If art is supposed to move you, The Wall does. I walked its length reading the names of the fallen in a stupid war of my gerneration. When I exited the momument and turned around to look at it I had tears streaming down my face.
I do disagree with you that the Wall isnt art. To me its the highest form of art calling out the stupidty on man.

Well sure, I'm not saying that such a memorial can't be extremely emotional and beautiful. But I don't think the fact that something can make you emotional makes something art. The graveyard where my grandfather is buried also makes me emotional, but I wouldn't say that his tombstone is art because of that. And I've been to the American military cemetery in Normandy and that is a very emotional and very impressive site as well, it practically serves the same function as the wall (although you can argue that the soldiers buried in Normandy have died for a much better cause) but again I would be hesitant to call the cemetery art.

And lets take this a little further. Would you say that the Berlin wall, or the pieces that are left of it, are art? Its emotional for those that know what it stood for, and its beautiful in a way as well, thanks to the graffiti. Does that make the Berlin wall art? I would disagree and I think most people would disagree with the notion that the Berlin wall is now art.

There is a saying here between artists that they are really good in working on the sentiment. Must only apply to Belgium then I guess...

What? An Artists work is ment to working on the sentiment:)
Look how many there are in this thread discussing Art.

Yes its a symbol. And yes it would not have been built if Viet Nam had not been fought. Yes it is a memorial. But having seen it in person.
It is art.
Its simple and pleasing to the eye. If art is supposed to move you, The Wall does. I walked its length reading the names of the fallen in a stupid war of my gerneration. When I exited the momument and turned around to look at it I had tears streaming down my face.
I do disagree with you that the Wall isnt art. To me its the highest form of art calling out the stupidty on man.

Well sure, I'm not saying that such a memorial can't be extremely emotional and beautiful. But I don't think the fact that something can make you emotional makes something art. The graveyard where my grandfather is buried also makes me emotional, but I wouldn't say that his tombstone is art because of that. And I've been to the American military cemetery in Normandy and that is a very emotional and very impressive site as well, it practically serves the same function as the wall (although you can argue that the soldiers buried in Normandy have died for a much better cause) but again I would be hesitant to call the cemetery art.

And lets take this a little further. Would you say that the Berlin wall, or the pieces that are left of it, are art? Its emotional for those that know what it stood for, and its beautiful in a way as well, thanks to the graffiti. Does that make the Berlin wall art? I would disagree and I think most people would disagree with the notion that the Berlin wall is now art.

There is a saying here between artists that they are really good in working on the sentiment. Must only apply to Belgium then I guess...

What? An Artists work is ment to working on the sentiment:)
Look how many there are in this thread discussing Art.

True... Is there actually a general definition of Art?

This is what Wikipedia says:

Art may be characterized in terms of mimesis (its representation of reality), expression, communication of emotion, or other qualities. During the Romantic period, art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[2] Though the definition of what constitutes art is disputed[3][4][5] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[6] and creation.[7]

The nature of art, and related concepts such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Yes its a symbol. And yes it would not have been built if Viet Nam had not been fought. Yes it is a memorial. But having seen it in person.
It is art.
Its simple and pleasing to the eye. If art is supposed to move you, The Wall does. I walked its length reading the names of the fallen in a stupid war of my gerneration. When I exited the momument and turned around to look at it I had tears streaming down my face.
I do disagree with you that the Wall isnt art. To me its the highest form of art calling out the stupidty on man.

Well sure, I'm not saying that such a memorial can't be extremely emotional and beautiful. But I don't think the fact that something can make you emotional makes something art. The graveyard where my grandfather is buried also makes me emotional, but I wouldn't say that his tombstone is art because of that. And I've been to the American military cemetery in Normandy and that is a very emotional and very impressive site as well, it practically serves the same function as the wall (although you can argue that the soldiers buried in Normandy have died for a much better cause) but again I would be hesitant to call the cemetery art.

And lets take this a little further. Would you say that the Berlin wall, or the pieces that are left of it, are art? Its emotional for those that know what it stood for, and its beautiful in a way as well, thanks to the graffiti. Does that make the Berlin wall art? I would disagree and I think most people would disagree with the notion that the Berlin wall is now art.

There is a saying here between artists that they are really good in working on the sentiment. Must only apply to Belgium then I guess...

What? An Artists work is ment to working on the sentiment:)
Look how many there are in this thread discussing Art.

True... Is there actually a general definition of Art?

This is what Wikipedia says:

Art may be characterized in terms of mimesis (its representation of reality), expression, communication of emotion, or other qualities. During the Romantic period, art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[2] Though the definition of what constitutes art is disputed[3][4][5] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency[6] and creation.[7]

The nature of art, and related concepts such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

My definition of Art is shorter:)
Activities that are not boring:)

Some Music AKA art to this:)
Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison & Janis Joplin together!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZovbveguEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugGjdzxXswY

Philistinism

:D

- It is only philistines who live at home.
- Guess so. Cheers for freedom!