ScarletRose: not true lovers? perhaps you're correct on the majority. most chessplayers are very self-centered secular humanists with a touch of narcissism . . . I don't count myself in that number, I'm an artist . . .
ScarletRose: Abstracts are cool! Sometimes you can see things in them using pattern recognition. 'Man in the Moon' is a good example.
As for the 'well-scrubbed' approach about this board. I don't agree with it. But I do fully understand as to the motivations of those who have decided to make it that way. Just don't let them catch you wearing un-american threads...
"the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Britannica Online)
Leo Tolstoy on "What is Art?"
In order correctly to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life. Viewing it in this way we cannot fail to observe that art is one of the means of intercourse between man and man.
Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship both with him who produced, or is producing, the art, and with all those who, simultaneously, previously, or subsequently, receive the same artistic impression.
The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man's expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it. To take the simplest example; one man laughs, and another who hears becomes merry; or a man weeps, and another who hears feels sorrow. A man is excited or irritated, and another man seeing him comes to a similar state of mind. By his movements or by the sounds of his voice, a man expresses courage and determination or sadness and calmness, and this state of mind passes on to others. A man suffers, expressing his sufferings by groans and spasms, and this suffering transmits itself to other people; a man expresses his feeling of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to certain objects, persons, or phenomena, and others are infected by the same feelings of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to the same objects, persons, and phenomena.
And it is upon this capacity of man to receive another man's expression of feeling and experience those feelings himself, that the activity of art is based.
We are accustomed to understand art to be only what we hear and see in theaters, concerts, and exhibitions, together with buildings, statues, poems, novels. . . . But all this is but the smallest part of the art by which we communicate with each other in life. All human life is filled with works of art of every kind - from cradlesong, jest, mimicry, the ornamentation of houses, dress, and utensils, up to church services, buildings, monuments, and triumphal processions. It is all artistic activity. So that by art, in the limited sense of the word, we do not mean all human activity transmitting feelings, but only that part which we for some reason select from it and to which we attach special importance.
There is one indubitable indication distinguishing real art from its counterfeit, namely, the infectiousness of art. If a man, without exercising effort and without altering his standpoint on reading, hearing, or seeing another man's work, experiences a mental condition which unites him with that man and with other people who also partake of that work of art, then the object evoking that condition is a work of art. And however poetical, realistic, effectful, or interesting a work may be, it is not a work of art if it does not evoke that feeling (quite distinct from all other feelings) of joy and of spiritual union with another (the author) and with others (those who are also infected by it).
If a man is infected by the author's condition of soul, if he feels this emotion and this union with others, then the object which has effected this is art; but if there be no such infection, if there be not this union with the author and with others who are moved by the same work - then it is not art. And not only is infection a sure sign of art, but the degree of infectiousness is also the sole measure of excellence in art.
LuckyCat9: Wonderful.. freedom of choice.. And what a lovely world it is for that with all forms of art flowing freely..
I personally enjoy abstract.. but that to which careful manipulation as well as thought had taken place.. I think you and I share the same feelings as far as that throw an umbrella in a cube and call it art thing.. Which in my opinion shows lack of consideration and effort..
LuckyCat9: Yes Lucky.. it is clean to some extent.. and as it being a public board we are limited to works of art which show no nudity.. There is a reason for that rule due to the immaturity at times on these public boards..
Thank you so much for understanding.. and perhaps when you upgrade your membership you can create and uncensored art fellowship to which you can send me an invitation to.. :)
ColonelCrockett: People tend to pigeon-hole the artform as being just one separate thing from Chess or even music, when really they are the same thing. They are all forms of art.
Art is a form of human expression and it comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes, colors, rythms, and mind games. In fact, I've often scrapped the actual object of Chess, particularly those variants where you can choose your setup, (which is to beat your opponent and protect your kingdom) and just make a design, a work of art, out of a chess position!
So, no, I don't agree with those who narrow art down to a small corner and stick some label on it.
It goes against the very nature of both the artist and their creativity.
DanDanDan: I know you didn't just compare chess to a pile of rubbish . . . art is defined by most scholars to be something that brings pleasure to the artist as well as can be appreciated by others . . . chess falls in this category . . . even people who don't play appreciate when one person beats another . . .
DanDanDan: I think it's important for an artist to be free to express themselves through their craft, but also it is ideal if they can communicate to people some kind of meaning behind it.
For example, I don't like 'art for artsake'. When someone sticks an umbrella in a cardboard box and takes a picture of it, calling it art, that is meaningless and idiotic to me. However, even though I may feel this way about their mindless exhibit doesn't give me the right to tell them to stop doing it, or tell other people not to look at it.
There is even a place for 'artsake' art in the World. The problem comes in when either side acts as a self-appointed judge over what is art and what isn't.
I think both sides (the artist and the viewer/critic) should decide for themselves what they think is valid to them individually (as Scarlet said) and let each other co-exist.
Then we could have all sorts of expression and no hinderances. People could choose whatever they wanted under their own discretion.
That kind of freedom of expression and freedom of choice is the original American Dream :)
LuckyCat9: That's true. But if I put a pile of rubbish in the middle of my town and say it's art, it is art?
Some would say yes. That's because some what no boundaries and in some respects I agree. But some things cheapen the idea of art, IMO. And while some folks want to leave the door open for anything, I wouldn't personally go that far.
It's not an argument that will likely be resolved in my lifetime anyway.
ScarletRose: Chess involves artistry, but isn't art in its purest sense. However a set is certainly art in its purest sense. And to avid chess players, combinations in play, certainly the "Game of the Centruy" was Chess Art plain and simple.
But to non-chess players, combinations and memorable games are nothing as there is no point of reference ;)