Man-made Art . . .

Nope, beauty is all the same, some see beauty in something man produces, I simply see the natural world as far superior and no matter how hard people try they cannot match the natural beauty of this world.

You carry on thinking they are different but I will continue to decide for myself what I would rather look at the natural world as something vastly better.

Not saying you cannot appreciate works of mankind's art it just doesn't come close to nature and never will.

Me I would rather spend my days looking at the national world than anything man tries to capture.

I see, so you thought the title of this thread was "Beauty" rather than "Art".

Maybe you should try spending your days learning to read instead of looking at the ummm . . . "national world"? 

Just a thought.

So you don't consider natural beauty  as art. Got you, even though beauty is in the eye of the beholder you chose to limit yourself to something man produces. 

Will take that under consideration  NOT.

Yet you know fuck all what real art is.

Fuck how do these idiots mange to get by in this world.

So  just out of interest art is only produced by humans and nothing else right?

Whats your excuse for being mentally impaired if it not alcohol, born that way?

So according to your logic, photography is not an art form?

Looking at a natural wonder and considering it as nothing but pushing a button suddenly makes it a form of art?

Fuck me I am an artist after all and I didn't even know it.

So ButtPlug, "Art is by definition the outcome of human endeavour."

Oh, absolutely, the definition of art being solely the outcome of human endeavour is spot on. Because, clearly, the universe handed out artistic licenses exclusively to Earthlings. Those Martians? Amateurs. And don't get me started on the folks over at Planet Meton. No art there, no sir. Just rocks and alien dust bunnies. It's like the universe's blandest waiting room.

Let's expand on this galaxy-brained notion, shall we? Imagine the interstellar art critics, traveling light-years, only to scoff at Metonian landscapes. “Pfft, what is this, a mountain range crafted by natural geological processes? Where's the human touch? Where's the angst and the existential dread? This is just... nature. Next!”

And the Metonian response? Well, they're just sitting there, not creating art, because, you know, they lack those handy opposable thumbs and that quintessential human angst. They're probably gazing up at their three moons, utterly oblivious to the concept of a moody, introspective self-portrait or a sculpture that screams 'I'm a complex being with emotions!'

It's a universal truth (pun intended), art is a human-only club. Dolphins making patterns in the water? Cute, but let's not flatter them by calling it 'art'. Elephants painting with their trunks? Adorable, but come on, let's not get carried away. It's not like they're hosting gallery nights and discussing the finer points of Dadaism over a glass of Chardonnay.

So, to all the extraterrestrial beings and Earth's own non-human residents: Sorry, no art for you. You're just not human enough for this exclusive party. Keep doing your thing, but let's leave art to the pros – us humans, the connoisseurs of creativity, the maestros of meaning, the sole proprietors of all things artistic in this vast, art-deprived universe.

OK Ayling....

 In the narrative of Elizabeth Klarer, Ayling is indeed a significant figure. According to Klarer's account, Ayling was her son, fathered by the extraterrestrial being named Akon, whom she claimed to have had a relationship with. Klarer's story states that she became pregnant with Ayling during her time on Akon's home planet, Meton, which she described as being in the Alpha Centauri star system.

Klarer's claims about her relationship with Akon and the birth of their son, Ayling, are part of what makes her story one of the more detailed and unique accounts in the annals of supposed alien contact. She described her experiences in depth, including her life on Meton and the advanced technology and peaceful society of its inhabitants.

It's important to note, however, that Klarer's claims, including the existence of her son Ayling as a human-alien hybrid, have not been substantiated and are generally considered part of UFO folklore. The scientific community, while acknowledging the theoretical possibility of extraterrestrial life, has not found credible evidence to support the specific details of Klarer's story. Her narrative remains a fascinating and controversial part of UFO lore, particularly among those interested in the subject of alien encounters and unexplained phenomena.

I know Mozart's wife is an artist and a very good one at that. so I trust that he knows more about art than we ordiary mrtals do.  .    

Some artists are seeing  the world  in a differnt light when on a drug high and comes out with thiings different from what we see as good art and then think that we are suimpletons,        

Crusader fan brings our flighty, hysterical arty types down to earth with a bump.

Ou rooitwit talks about the beauty nature creates which he so appreciates. Good on ol rooitwit. But sorry I have to ask who created nature. If there was always nothing there would be nothing today.

God is the Ultimate Artist that is why nature is the ultimate art because God created it.

Secondly, man is made in the image of God. True that image is now bent and twisted but nevertheless mankind does have artistic ability. Man also has the ability to appreciate art. Some art snobs corrupt that ability and so we have a lot of trash masquerading as art being praised by these loons.

However woe to him who points out the obvious like Sader did. They soon get called "a drunk" by Plumster - the one who so hates name calling. Bwahhahahahahahahaha how these mamparas so shoot themselves in the foot.

Plumster you can support Mozzzie all you like when he is correct but quite obviously he was desperately wrong about Rassie and the Boks and wrong on a host of very serious issues. Naturally you wont find me applauding your supporting the drivel Mozzzie posts. 

Anyhow oaks please allow the arty types here to fully display their snobbish pretentions mixed in with some fair comment. Hahahahahahahahahaha funniest thread in months!

To reduce art to something that only snobs and elitists will have any interest in is rather...unfortunate. You get pretense, snobbery, fakery in most any form of art, but a small section of twattery doesn't condemn the entire scene to ruin. That's a pretty dumb way to look at things.

I'm not an aficionado myself, but I do run into stuff I like occasionally - don't always note the names though. Latest one I found that I really like is this from Hermann Corrodi. I like art that seems to tell a story, captures a moment or an atmosphere. I quite like Edward Hopper's stuff too. Very emotive.

Yep I believe that's him, M. Check out the Caravans in a Sandstorm on the Wikipedia page as well. Terrific atmosphere.

I agree with Sader on this, regarding natural and man made art

We could really try and split the differences between the two, but the most obvious and most common similarities that I see regarding the two are these.

Do they both involve creativity - yes

Do they both evoke emotional responses - yes

Do they both include beauty in their make up - yes

Do they both involve unique and complex designs - yes

Can both be interpreted differently by various individuals - yes

Are both very diverse in design - yes

Can both provide thought provoking ideas - yes

Are both unlimited on their design, creativity and complexity - yes

Can both display art form through both simple, but also intricate creations - yes

Very similar to some examples already provided here .... art can be seen in the huge landscapes of the Yellowstone National Park.... down to the very tiny details of a single Maple leaf.

Art can also be seen in the fluid movements of a Ballet dancer down to a Samurai warrior going through his fighting techniques, or a Buddhist Monk practicing his Kung Fu training....

Nah ..... art is not just what someone can put down on paper or canvas..... art is all around us every single day, it is just how the individual chooses to view it.

No, the word  "art" has a very clear and established definition...here it is...

Try to find any dictionary, anywhere in any dark recess of the internet, and see if they include the natural word in the definition of art...I'll save you some time, they don't describe the natural world as art because it is not art!

1. 1.the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."the art of the Renaissance"
   
2. 2.the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance."the visual arts"

Sure, if you want to describe the universe as an artwork created by an intelligent designer then go ahead. But that's not what anybody thinks of as art. That is called creation. They are different things.

Nobody that I know, or have ever met does not appreciate the natural beauty of earth or the universe. But natural beauty and art can both be appreciated at the same time. I like pizza and I like cars. The salami slices on my pizza are round and I can compare them to my car's wheels if I like, but really...the two have nothing to do with each other in terms of what they are.

BEAUTY is in the eye of the beholder. Art is art, regardless of whether you appreciate it or not. The natural world is the natural world and it can be depicted in art...but that does not mean the koppie outside my house is art. It becomes art when somebody paints or draws it.  

You lost me at yes, they both "involve creativity".

Nature is nature. It's not created . . . unless of course you believe in a benevolent almighty god of sorts.

No one can dispute the beauty of, say, the Cliffs of Dover but man didn't carve out those cliffs. Erosion, water, tectonics, rock striations and that sort of stuff created the Cliffs of Dover. So it's not art.

Now if someone had to sit down and paint a picture of the Cliffs of Dover, capturing some part of its beauty, then that would be art.

Yes?

Anyhow oaks please allow the arty types here to fully display their snobbish pretentions mixed in with some fair comment.

Part of the problem is poor Plumster and Pakster cant comprehend what they read. Bwahahahahha 

Of course I dont condemn real art.

Rooitwit talks about elements of nature but thinks that the Universe created them from nothing. Hahahhahahahahahaha rooitwit is a natural comic.

Much of what artists put down on canvass is taken from nature. I..e they are simply copying to one degree or another what the Great artist has created. They are using teir created brain to create art.

Some oaks appear very confused.

I do hope our arty friends are not minimalists!

Tis clip about minimalists is truly side splitting stuff.

Fair points made

I still definitely do believe that one could think of some natural beauty as art in some form ... such as living or live art......which does certainly exist.....and yes, that would include it being created by a human or some superior being.

Living art is also performance arts....and something created could also be seen as art.

For instance, if I look at the SMACS 0723 universe, I see living art.... no question about it.

"I'll save you some time, they don't describe the natural world as art because it is not art!"

Ok Plum, since you mention ChatGPT so many times on here, and how you appreciate it and use it so much....I decided to take your approach and ask it a very simple question regarding your remark above.

The question was this.

"Can the natural world be seen as art"

ChatGPT's response:

Absolutely, the natural world often embodies artistic elements. Think about the intricate patterns of a snowflake, the vibrant hues of a sunset, or the mesmerizing formations of a coastline. Nature showcases an unparalleled level of beauty, symmetry, and complexity that can easily be considered art. From the graceful curves of a mountain range to the delicate details of a flower, nature's wonders can evoke the same emotions and appreciation as a piece of artwork. The way landscapes are shaped, colors are blended, and life forms interact—it's all a masterpiece in its own right.

"they don't describe the natural world as art because it is not art!"

Plum ....I then decided to narrow it down to exactly what you said above, and asked it this question instead.

"Can someone describe the natural world as art"

ChatGPT's response:

Absolutely! The natural world is a masterpiece, a canvas painted with vibrant colors, intricate patterns, and awe-inspiring landscapes. It's an art gallery with diverse sculptures, from towering mountains to delicate flowers, each telling a unique story. The changing seasons offer an ever-evolving exhibit, showcasing nature's versatility and creativity.

Consider the symmetry of a sunflower or the graceful dance of a murmuration of starlings in the sky—they're living artworks. The way light plays on water, the rhythmic crashing of waves, the gentle sway of trees in the wind—all elements of a mesmerizing composition.

Nature's beauty isn't just visual; it's a symphony of sensations. The scent of a pine forest, the touch of soft moss, the taste of sweet fruits—all contribute to this immersive masterpiece. Nature, in its complexity and simplicity, is indeed art at its most profound and unfiltered form.

The first requirement for something to be considered art is it needs to have had an artist.

Now we could debate for the rest of our lives whether there is a god or if he created all the beauty in the world (except don't forget, if that's the case then he also created things like shantytowns, pollution of the rivers and oceans, quarries and mines ) and can be considered to be an artist, but I'd rather keep things simple and think of art as man made and natural beauty to be made by nature.

Therefore, I stand by what I've said on this thread that it is about art, and not natural beuaty. If simpletons like CFan and Baboon-ou want to pretend that means I don't have any appreciation of natural beuaty then let them squawk away. It doesn't worry me in the slightest.

Very interesting perspectives from an AI... especially on such a varied and intriguing topic 

"The first requirement for something to be considered art is it needs to have had an artist"

I agree, and it got me thinking about ChatGPT again, purely because, ChatGPT needed a creator.... an artist.

So I posed this question..

"Would you consider ChatGPT to be art"

ChatGPT's response:

"ChatGPT could indeed be considered a form of art. Its creation involves a fusion of technological innovation, linguistic expertise, and creative design. The architecture and programming that enable ChatGPT to understand and generate human-like text involve intricate algorithms and machine learning techniques, which in themselves can be seen as a form of artistic innovation.

Moreover, the interactions and conversations it engages in, like this one we're having, often require a sense of creativity in understanding context, tone, and language nuances to provide meaningful and helpful responses. There's an artistry in how it adapts to different queries and communicates in a way that feels natural and relevant.

The blend of science and creativity in developing such an advanced language model can indeed be seen as a unique art form, showcasing human ingenuity in leveraging technology to emulate and interact with human-like conversational patterns."

So, here is the very interesting aspect about all of this.....here we now have something that has been created solely by man....and not naturally by the universe, telling us that the natural world is most definitely seen and observed as art.

I know this is going slightly off the "art" direction, but as I said before, the term "art" can mean so many different things, to so many different people..... each with their own individual interpretations of it..... and I personally don't believe any of them are actually wrong.

Thanks for this thread, I am not an art enthusiast at all, but because of this thread, I have looked up some of the paintings that were referenced by some of you here, and I can fully understand and appreciate why some of you are so adamant about the differences pertaining to the art form.... some of these paintings are just mesmerizing and stunning in their details.

If you go all the way back to Bushman art, there was no pretense….just a need to capture and express what the tribe members were experiencing in their lives. From there it evolved into expressing religious thoughts. Would the Sistine  Chapel be of any interest if Michelangelo hadn’t painted the ceiling?

Much of the world’s tourist trade….to Paris, Rome, Florence, Bilbao, London….is related to art. Our sense of history, the Parthenon for example, is enhanced by art.

It’s not an either or with nature. In the most basic sense it’s respecting nature and bringing it into our living environments. 

Art has evolved in many ways since it was mostly depiction. Impressionism, expressionism and abstraction all followed. From what I gather on here, most posters like expressionism….’telling a story’.

I like all three. But a room full of expressionist paintings can be too frenetic. Expressionist exclamation points in a room with color field art fits the eye and actually makes the one or two expressionist works more powerful.

And abstract works like those of Francis or Frankenthaler have their own subtle beauty. Expressionist painting hits you immediately….a beautiful color field piece grows in your mind over time.

I have lived around the art world for a long time, there is some pretense. But there is far more passion. There are some ‘stamp collector’ types but also those who would risk their financial well being to own the most humble Picasso.

I have sometimes suggested posters explore music beyond their current tastes. I’d make the same point about art. We can all grow, even though we age. Find something to explore. 

I’m currently reading The Red and the Black by Stendhal for the first time. The character development is much deeper than in modern novels. Read a classic occasionally and look at some abstract art. And above all listen to Mozart’s Jupiter symphony or for a lighter touch Holst’s Jupiter, which they play at the RWC.

Art is a product of mind.  Now your new god ChatGPT tells you the natural world can be seen as being art.

Chat is telling you slack jawed slope headed Neanderthals something. Can you guess what. 

We don't have debate the existence of God forever Rooitwit. We had the debate and you were routed. 

If you deny this explain how a  the Universe created itself from nothing. 

The floor is yours. 

Within a few years (if not already), AI could take all the famous paintings of one artist (e.g. Van Goch), and create thousands of unique paintings in a similar style. 

Or take in the most famous paintings from all artists, and create versions that are an amalgamation of all of them. 

AI is still not truly original because it bases its output on input. 
However, the paintings could be the same quality - or perhaps better (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). 

Nothing new about that,  there are many fakers who can create a Van Gogh. For the same reason people are willing to pay half a million dollars for a historical document, they will pay for the original.

Within a few years (if not already), AI could take all the famous paintings of one artist (e.g. Van Goch), and create thousands of unique paintings in a similar style.

Already.

Another question posed to ChatGPT

"Why can the natural beauty of the world and the universe be considered art, if it is not man made"

ChatGPT's response:

"Nature's beauty often aligns with artistic qualities due to its sheer complexity, symmetry, and awe-inspiring features. The natural world showcases intricate patterns, vibrant colors, and harmonious compositions. Artists often draw inspiration from nature's forms and landscapes to create their works.

Consider a sunset: the gradient of colors, the interplay of light and shadow, and the sense of wonder it evokes. It's like a masterpiece painted across the sky every evening. Similarly, the geometric precision of a snowflake or the intricate designs found in seashells reflect a level of detail that could easily be compared to fine art.

In essence, nature's beauty possesses the elements of artistry—composition, color, texture, form—even though it's not created by human hands. Its innate ability to evoke emotions, inspire creativity, and captivate observers is what makes it akin to art."

Again, I just find it interesting and actually quite amazing, that something that is 100% man made... that relies solely on all the information that man has put into creating it, describes art like this