BYU's stance on nude art - "Self Censorship"

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The difference I see between artists and others is that an artist is encouraged to pour their inner selves into their art.  Art is all about expression.  And it can get very self-focusing for the young.  Other people who are in engineering schools, for example, are not encouraged to pour their inner selves into their designs.  They're actually encouraged to do the opposite - forget yourself and think logical, scientific.

That's a lot of Hollywood propaganda that you're spewing.  It is so prevalent that most people don't even question it.  You're definitely not a Hollywood leftist.  But even you believe it.  You don't even question it.  And it seem almost as blasphemous as telling a liberal that global warming is not man-made.

But it's just plain wrong.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, our family tradition has always been that we teach our kids a form of art - any art.  In the Philippines, it is easier because art is 3 credit hours every year in school from elementary through high school.  In the US, not so much.  So, I enrolled my kids in any art form they're interested as an after school program.  My artist son found his talent when I signed him up for piano lessons.  My non-artist son is still banging on the drums even as he's not really into it as much as my other son is.  The advantage to this - especially for my drummer son - is that they learn to find a means to express their inner selves in a very constructive way that uplifts the soul.

I really love this.  Without realizing it, at first, I have helped all my children develop their artistic selves as well.  For us it started like this...I love theater, and acting, but as a mom, I felt being in a play would take too much time away from the kids.  So I got them involved in theater instead, LOL.  My daughter, who is 18 and loves acting jokes that she has been dong theater since she could walk.  I also introduced them at a young age to musicals, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers was the magical beginning, we came full circle when my boys were in a stake musical version of that play!  I didn't know they could dance so well!  So far three of my boys have gotten heavily involved in ball room dance (participating on teams).  My youngest son likes theater and I'm encouraging him to draw.  
 

[zil]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's a lot of Hollywood propaganda that you're spewing.  It is so prevalent that most people don't even question it.  You're definitely not a Hollywood leftist.  But even you believe it.  You don't even question it.  And it seem almost as blasphemous as telling a liberal that global warming is not man-made.

But it's just plain wrong.

Are you saying artists don't pour their inner selves into their work, that others also do, or...?

[The Folk Prophet]

There is factually no difference between the artistic and the technical from a creation point of view. None.

 

Edit: For that matter from an execution point of view either.

Edited August 23, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Like this?

Or this?

So subtle and understated, like me.

[Guest]

Just now, zil said:

Are you saying artists don't pour their inner selves into their work, that others also do, or...?

ANY meaningful endeavor or talent requires both mental and emotional commitment and development.  But again we see this separation when dealing with scientific things (she mentioned engineering) and artistic things.  I don't think artists should depend on emotion any more than an engineer should to the advancement of their craft.  

DaVinci was not an emo.  He was a very technically minded person who happened to be human enough to have powerful emotions as well.  He knew the brush.  He knew about paint.  He knew about light sources.  He understood contrasting colors.  And he also understood what beauty was.  He also felt fulfillment when he knew he had touched other people through his work.

Today, there is a school of thought that says that art is emotion.  No.  Art may be used to express emotion.  But that is not the purpose of art.  Art is there to remind us that there is beauty in the world.  But to accomplish that task takes a great deal of technical knowledge.

Consider the root of the word "Art" is "craft or skill".  That takes learning and practice.  Only some savants can claim otherwise.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

ANY meaningful ...

Thank you for clarifying your position. 

[Guest]

I'll give you another example:

A young woman said that she wanted to be a professional photographer.  She was 17 and preparing for life -- not college.  Her mother was kind of worried about this daughter not going to college.  I was not a homeschooling proponent as I am now.  But I was curious what the deal was.  Some people just don't go to college.

The girl said she already understood how to work a camera, so she was just going to take pictures and sell a bunch to make a living.  Hmmm.  Sound business model there.

From what little I knew as a photographer's son, I stumped her on her technical knowledge of the camera.  She said that she could just look that up.  But she didn't.  She didn't even write down the terms I used that she had never heard of.

I then talked about the artistic side of it.  That is what really changed her mind.  Her plan was just to walk around and take pictures of anything she saw that "looked cool".  Well, that's going to require a lot of walking.

If you have some art classes that will actually teach you what "looks cool" to the human eye (and, yes, there is a great deal of objectivity to what looks attractive).  Then you don't just "happen upon" something to take a picture of.  You can decide what you want in your picture and go to a place where you might most easily find such.  Then you know what is missing or what needs to be taken away to make the photo just right.

I could say the converse for the emotion I put into my engineering work, but I'm afraid that would be less understood than what I've written already.

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

ANY meaningful endeavor or talent requires both mental and emotional commitment and development.  But again we see this separation when dealing with scientific things (she mentioned engineering) and artistic things.  I don't think artists should depend on emotion any more than an engineer should to the advancement of their craft.

Musically, the idea of art being a reflection of the mood or emotional state of the composer is associated with Romanticism. Beethoven, pretty much the father of the Romantic era, is often attributed with composing music according to what he was feeling at the time. This is very obviously a gross oversimplification, but there might be some elements of truth to it.

Step back in time a bit, to Mozart, and you will find him composing light and beautiful music during some of the most desperate periods of his life. Many of his comic operas were written in periods of real despair. A well-known, if apocryphal, Mozart quote is, "Cows piss; I compose." You do what you do because that's what you do. To expect otherwise is like saying that basketball players or computer programmers or automobile mechanics can do their thing only when the emotional conditions are right. Nonsense. A neurosurgeon has to operate, even when his wife is leaving him.

As I wrote before, I do believe that many artists nurture their emotional pain, channeling that into a sharpened perception of human interactions. This in turn affects their artistic expression. This sequence is not really that much different for anyone else, except that (as NT said and I agree with) I think artistic types are more prone to this sort of thing. In fact, I think that this characteristic (along with an attraction to artistic disciplines) is what really defines the "artistic type".

Edited August 23, 2017 by Vort

[anatess2]

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's a lot of Hollywood propaganda that you're spewing.  It is so prevalent that most people don't even question it.  You're definitely not a Hollywood leftist.  But even you believe it.  You don't even question it.  And it seem almost as blasphemous as telling a liberal that global warming is not man-made.

But it's just plain wrong.

Really?  So you think that my son's art school is... blasphemous or something?  Or is that my dad is blasphemous for insisting on art instruction?  I'm not quite sure what you think is blasphemous.

Edited August 23, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I think artistic types are more prone to this sort of thing.

For what it's worth, and being an "artistic type" myself, I disagree.

Perhaps it might (and I say only "might") be true the other way around. Maybe those who nurture and channel their emotions into things are prone to becoming artists -- but that could be simply because they've had it crammed down their throats their whole lives that that is what they're supposed to do.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Musically, the idea of art being associated with the mood or emotional state of the composer is associated with Romanticism. Beethoven, pretty much the father of the Romantic era, is often attributed with composing music according to what he was feeling at the time. This is very obviously a gross oversimplification, but there might be some elements of truth to it.

Step back in time a bit, to Mozart, and you will find him composing light and beautiful music during some of the most desperate periods of his life. Many of his comic operas were written in periods of real despair. A well-known, if apocryphal, Mozart quote is, "Cows piss; I compose." To expect otherwise is like saying that basketball players or computer programmers or automobile mechanics can do their thing only when the emotional conditions are right. Nonsense. A neurosurgeon has to operate, even when his wife is leaving him.

As I wrote before, I do believe that many artists nurture their emotional pain, channeling that into a sharpened perception of human interactions. This in turn affects their artistic expression. This sequence is not really that much different for anyone else, except that (as NT said and I agree with) I think artistic types are more prone to this sort of thing.

I can appreciate that.  

If some may recall, I had once said,"People into music or art tend to be very emotional people."  Now I'm saying that they need to be very technical people.  This may seem like a contradiction.  It is not.

As you say,"Artistic types are more prone to this sort of thing."  Yes.  That is the tendency.  But that is due to a number of factors.  One of them is this societal belief that to be a great artist, you need to be an emotional person.

While that is the tendency due to current societal norms, I believe it does not need to be that way.  "Art" does not demand it.  I think that may be along the lines of what you're saying as well.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Really?  So you think that my son's art school is... blasphemous or something?  Or is that my dad is blasphemous for insisting on art instruction?  I'm not quite sure what you think is blasphemous.

No, it is that in today's "Art = emotion" mentality, people will call ME blasphemous for saying that art requires as much technical competence as an engineer does in his work.  And that an engineer (to be very good) needs to pour his emotion into his work just as much as an artist does into his.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I can appreciate that.  

If some may recall, I had once said,"People into music or art tend to be very emotional people."  Now I'm saying that they need to be very technical people.  This may seem like a contradiction.  It is not.

As you say,"Artistic types are more prone to this sort of thing."  Yes.  That is the tendency.  But that is due to a number of factors.  One of them is this societal belief that to be a great artist, you need to be an emotional person.

While that is the tendency due to current societal norms, I believe it does not need to be that way.  "Art" does not demand it.  I think that may be along the lines of what you're saying as well.

I do not doubt that emotional people are drawn to art. That doesn't speak to whether they're any good at it though.

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not doubt that emotional people are drawn to art. That doesn't speak to whether they're any good at it though.

That is pretty much what Billy Joel said.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, it is that in today's "Art = emotion" mentality, people will call ME blasphemous for saying that art requires as much technical competence as an engineer does in his work.  And that an engineer (to be very good) needs to pour his emotion into his work just as much as an artist does into his.

And, may I add, (as you have said, I believe...so perhaps reiterate), creating "art" requires no emotion whatsoever.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And, may I add, (as you have said, I believe...so perhaps reiterate), creating "art" requires no emotion whatsoever.

Now, there I would have to disagree with you.  I did not say that, nor do I believe it (depending on what you mean by "art").  To say it requires no emotion whatsoever, is no better than saying art is all emotion.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

Just now, Carborendum said:

No, it is that in today's "Art = emotion" mentality, people will call ME blasphemous for saying that art requires as much technical competence as an engineer does in his work.  And that an engineer (to be very good) needs to pour his emotion into his work just as much as an artist does into his.

Oh Carborendum,  you engineer you.  You go to Art School so you can learn all the different types of technical elements so that you can give voice to what you want to express.

My son doesn't learn Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, scales, dynamics so he can play Beethoven's music the way Beethoven wants it played.  Do you know that no person on this planet alive today knows how Beethoven played Moonlight Sonata?  All we know is the dynamics written on that page and the history of Beethoven in that period of time.  But, my son learns Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc. etc. because it is a very technical approach to music technique, the purpose of which is so that when a musician decides to express himiself into music, he knows EXACTLY how to do so.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Now, there I would have to disagree with you.  I did not say that, nor do I believe it (depending on what you mean by "art").  To say it requires no emotion whatsoever, is no better than saying art is all emotion.

Hmmmm. I don't think that art is necessarily inherently emotional. Though I could see myself writing the exact opposite in response to something else... I think art is inherently expressive, but not necessarily emotional.

[Guest]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Oh Carborendum,  you engineer you.  You go to Art School so you can learn all the different types of technical elements so that you can give voice to what you want to express.

My son doesn't learn Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, scales, dynamics so he can play Beethoven's music the way Beethoven wants it played.  Do you know that no person on this planet alive today knows how Beethoven played Moonlight Sonata?  All we know is the dynamics written on that page and the history of Beethoven in that period of time.  But, my son learns Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc. etc. because it is a very technical approach to music technique, the purpose of which is so that when a musician decides to express himiself into music, he knows EXACTLY how to do so.

You seem to be condemning me for something.  But then you all but made my point.  I'm confused.  Captain Confusion strikes again!!!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Hmmmm. I don't think that art is necessarily inherently emotional. Though I could see myself writing the exact opposite in response to something else... I think art is inherently expressive, but not necessarily emotional.

Expressive... emotional...  let me ponder that a while.

[anatess2]

Just now, Carborendum said:

You seem to be condemning me for something.  But then you all but made my point.  I'm confused.  Captain Confusion strikes again!!!

I'm not condemning you of something.  I'm trying to defend myself after you called me blasphemous and nothing more than some hollywood libtard.

[Vort]

Just now, anatess2 said:

I'm not condemning you of something.  I'm trying to defend myself after you called me blasphemous and nothing more than some hollywood libtard.

 

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

You're definitely not a Hollywood leftist.  But even you believe it.  You don't even question it.

???
Methinks you (anatess) may have misread him (Carb).

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Now, there I would have to disagree with you.  I did not say that, nor do I believe it (depending on what you mean by "art").

Then you would be wrong. I can create something just as artistically beautiful and valid that I don't "feel" as I can when I really "feel" it -- if I simply know the technical how of doing it.

Granted, there are a host of artists who create by feeling alone, and that feeling happens to render the technical. But it's still technical.

Statistically, yes, I would think people who don't put emotion into what they do will create inferior products, but that speaks to caring more than it does ability. Per ability, emotion is not requisite.

I don't care how much someone "feels" that violin solo. On his worst, most emotionless, I-don't-want-to-be-here days, Itzhak Perlman is still going to drive artistic circles around Joe I-can't-even-create-vibratto.

Not buying it with performing art -- fine...go back to Vort with his Mozart example. Most composers who "feel" the stink out of their stuff still write blah junk. Mozart, on his worst day, created phenomenal art.

It's technique. Pure, simple, 100% technique.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hmmmm. I don't think that art is necessarily inherently emotional. Though I could see myself writing the exact opposite in response to something else... I think art is inherently expressive, but not necessarily emotional.

It is COMMUNICATION.

You can communicate whatever you want to communicate including propaganda, historical fact preservation, etc. etc.  But, the main purpose of Communication is being able to understand and be understood - hence, touching on an emotional connection.  A form of empathy.

Edited August 23, 2017 by anatess2