My swords

[Demuwan]

Well, that's a pointless possession. I've found myself more and more reluctant to buy things "just because". I now limit myself to books, cds, films and games, you know... things I can actually use and get something out of?

 

=/

 

Why the hell is it pointless to have swords as decorations. If we want to be pedantic about things everything is pointless (excepts swords they have a very obvious one:heh: )

I see nothing wrong in enjoying the craftmanship and beauty of a sword especially ones as nice as shown. Just because they cannot watched, read or listened to doesn't mean they cannot still be treasured and enjoyed.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Just because they cannot watched.

Well you can watch them. But I doubt they'll do anything.

[Ninty 182]

I collect dildos

 

 

So when are you gona post those pictures

[Demuwan]

Well you can watch them. But I doubt they'll do anything.

 

Ok, fair enough

[Kirkatronics]

Well you can watch them. But I doubt they'll do anything.

Put them on top of a semi-closed door =]

Sounds like theyd eventually do something.

[jayseven]

Of course it's meaningless! Beauty is an extra... it can never transcend physicall limitations! Would Ghandi have been a greater man if he were better looking? Would Guernica be better if it was more beautifull?

Physicall beauty is meaningless, and that's a solid hard fact! Now, beauty can be a conceptual thing, much like in Guernica's case... it's full of beauty, but none of it physicall, all of it conceptual.

 

You're being silly when you talk about ghandi - he's not art :P I'm not going to accept that as part of your pre-emtive barricade against "oh, but anything can be art if you just think it is" either, because of course that's silly.

 

Art is undefinable. I like to think that art requires an artist, which removes all natural entities and focuses on the artist's vision, or conception if you will, of anything abstract or concrete.

 

Physical Beauty is not meaningless. try telling that to the Greeks, or anyone involved in a european renaissance. Talking about Picasso then dismissing physical beauty is ignorant of what most of the art movements in the early 20th century were trying to achieve, and I would argue that dismissing that one aspect in turn narrows down and debases the artist's and the audience's mental potential for processing the art.

 

beauty is not an extra. Beauty is arguably an option, especially if you couple the meaning of 'beauty' as to being something which creates admiration, or attraction, or affection, or pleasure - something to that degree.

 

As to it being a solid, hard fact - well [blankety] beauty is meaningless, too, but bandering that around adds nor detracts from the argument. Nobody is arguing that the swords will be more swordlike if they were more beautiful -- which is what I take to be your argument, that Ghandi and Guernicca couldn't be more Ghandi or Guernica if you added another palm tree -- they are mostly arguing for, I would hope, the other emotions and feelings, 'meaning' that they glean from swords.

 

So I refute your solid, hard fact. I put it to you that paintings like Guernicca only ever existed because it was people like you who motioned in the Renaissance, who believed that there must be some objective correctness in the arts, and people like Chris The Great who saw the potential for beauty, for art in everyday objects that ushered in the more interesting eras of art.

 

[edit: yeah that's not a very coherant post.]apparantly writing an entire post in brackets makes the forum think there aren't any characters here.

[Oxigen_Waste]

According to Princeton

 

Princeton got ir right. Except for the beautifull. It's pretty much proven... fashion has attempted several times to be recognized as the "8th art", and it will never be it, because it's not significant, merely beuatifull. Beauty means nothing or something pretty close to nothing.

 

I wouldn't say it was meaningless collecting swords. Chris_the_great obvoiusly gets enjoyment from it. I would deem that a meaningful reason for collecting them.

 

I'm not saying it's meaningless, I'm saying it's pointless. It obviously holds some meaning to him, or else he wouldn't do it, right? Also, doing something just because it makes you feel good is infantile gratification, like masturbation, which is alright, do it as much as you like, just don't claim it's something more than it is, which is what I'm blaming him for, not collecting them. I mean, collecting swords is ok, what's not ok is for him to claim they are something which they obviously are not. You know, denying facts is kinda lame.

 

From what i gather, art is defined as when someone calls something art and has a reason to do so.

Its you oppinion that your trying to show as fact again, and smiting his oppinion.

 

You gather wrong... Princeton kinda nailed it, it's pretty much the creation of things that appeal to your senses, emotions and thought, while being significant.

 

It's my opinion? No, it isn't. Honey, I collect rubber dicks. It's pointless. I admit it. I love chainsaws and plan on getting some, it's pointless, I admit it. Swords are also pointless, and I have a genuine love for swords, spears, halberds and most of all, axes. I'd love to have some. It's still pointless, despite what I may think. And this is what I'm saying: I, me, the person me, is wrong. I'm wrong, my opinion is incorrect. It is WRONG. Because no matter how much I may derive from collecting these things, nothing changes the FACT that they are pointless and meaningless objects. It's what they are, no matter what you think of it, that's reality. Want me to admit I'm wrong? Prove to me that it isn't so.

 

Why the hell is it pointless to have swords as decorations. If we want to be pedantic about things everything is pointless (excepts swords they have a very obvious one:heh: )

I see nothing wrong in enjoying the craftmanship and beauty of a sword especially ones as nice as shown. Just because they cannot watched, read or listened to doesn't mean they cannot still be treasured and enjoyed.

 

Once again, I'm not saying it's wrong to collect swords and enjoy them, I'm just saying it's wrong to claim them to be anything more than what they are: stunningly beautiful ornaments designed to establish atmosphere, NOT art. I love swords, I just preffer to spend my time on more enriching experiences... It's like the difference between having sex with someone you have no feelings for and having it with someone you love, they're both great, but while one of them is an enriching experience, the other one is just empty pleasure, thus making it a worst experience, overall. Make sense?

[Dan_Dare]

these aren't art. Craftsmanship (in a limited sense- none of these are unique, right? but not art by any means. Nooooo way.

[Demuwan]

Of course it's meaningless! Beauty is an extra... it can never transcend physicall limitations! Would Ghandi have been a greater man if he were better looking? Would Guernica be better if it was more beautifull?

Physicall beauty is meaningless, and that's a solid hard fact! Now, beauty can be a conceptual thing, much like in Guernica's case... it's full of beauty, but none of it physicall, all of it conceptual.

 

 

 

Sorry, but I think you are talking a load of nonsense.

Meaning is something that is created it is not some kind of universal constant that remains equal amongst all human beings. Meaning is something that is massively subjective and to say that beauty has no meaning is ridiculous. It may not have any meaning to you but to some people beauty may be paramount.

[LazyBoy]

OW, if you won't admit to the sword itself being art, would you except it being a part of art, as the katana is to the art of sword drawing/swordplay.

[Demuwan]

 

 

Once again, I'm not saying it's wrong to collect swords and enjoy them, I'm just saying it's wrong to claim them to be anything more than what they are: stunningly beautiful ornaments designed to establish atmosphere, NOT art. I love swords, I just preffer to spend my time on more enriching experiences... It's like the difference between having sex with someone you have no feelings for and having it with someone you love, they're both great, but while one of them is an enriching experience, the other one is just empty pleasure, thus making it a worst experience, overall. Make sense?

 

I have no problem with that it’s the self-righteous attitude present in your posts that I have a problem with. Also your interpretation of 'art' seems to be too narrow minded with an almost scienitifc longing to classify and generalise.

[Zero]

I'm not saying it's meaningless, I'm saying it's pointless. It obviously holds some meaning to him, or else he wouldn't do it, right? Also, doing something just because it makes you feel good is infantile gratification, like masturbation, which is alright, do it as much as you like, just don't claim it's something more than it is, which is what I'm blaming him for, not collecting them. I mean, collecting swords is ok, what's not ok is for him to claim they are something which they obviously are not. You know, denying facts is kinda lame.[/Quote]

 

I see what your saying about something being meaningful but having no point although, I'm sure Chris the great said it was just another way to decorate his room so, it does have a point.

[Oxigen_Waste]

You're being silly when you talk about ghandi - he's not art :P I'm not going to accept that as part of your pre-emtive barricade against "oh, but anything can be art if you just think it is" either, because of course that's silly.

 

Of course he's not art, my point was merely that beauty would not enrichen him or make him better in any way.

(Anything can be art if you just think it is? Why would I ever deffend that kind of bullshit? That's completely false, I agree with you there.)

 

Art is undefinable. I like to think that art requires an artist, which removes all natural entities and focuses on the artist's vision, or conception if you will, of anything abstract or concrete.

 

Art is very definable, I've done so above, what is undefinable is artistic range, that is, the number of applications an artist can choose to devote his art to. Making swords, however, is a science, not an art, there's no creative process there, no exploitation of concepts, it's just steel and flourish. Another thing, abstract, 99% of times, means "I can't come up with anything remotely worthwhile so I'm just gonna randomize something and call it abstract art".

 

Physical Beauty is not meaningless. try telling that to the Greeks, or anyone involved in a european renaissance. Talking about Picasso then dismissing physical beauty is ignorant of what most of the art movements in the early 20th century were trying to achieve, and I would argue that dismissing that one aspect in turn narrows down and debases the artist's and the audience's mental potential for processing the art.

 

Those weren't art, those were embelishment campaings, when devoid of meaning or significance, by definition, it isn't art. That's the stagnation of a generation, when there's a lack of inspiration, and WWI gave them just what they needed, new-found inspiration, which is when art really started being relevant again. People reffer to the previous as art merely not to upset the retarded logic of these creatures with too fragile an ego to admit themselves shallow. You see, that's why I loved Picasso, because he admitted to what he was and then moved on to creat meaningful art, whose magnum-opus vastly surpassed anything he created in his earlier periods, both in impact and conceptual beauty. Don't take my word for it, he said it first hand.

 

beauty is not an extra. Beauty is arguably an option, especially if you couple the meaning of 'beauty' as to being something which creates admiration, or attraction, or affection, or pleasure - something to that degree.

If beauty causes attraction, affection or pleasure to a person, that person is shallow. Beauty is eye candy, it is a sensation, not an emotion, sensations are means to communication emotions, therefore, beauty is only important when it conveys an emotional charge, all by itself, it's lifeless.

 

As to it being a solid, hard fact - well [blankety] beauty is meaningless, too, but bandering that around adds nor detracts from the argument. Nobody is arguing that the swords will be more swordlike if they were more beautiful -- which is what I take to be your argument, that Ghandi and Guernicca couldn't be more Ghandi or Guernica if you added another palm tree -- they are mostly arguing for, I would hope, the other emotions and feelings, 'meaning' that they glean from swords.

 

Not saying that Guernica would be more Guernica, what I said was, even if it was more beautifull, it wouldn't be better, beauty is, as you so very well put it, an option.

 

Huh? Swords gleam emotions? Oo What the fuck are you talking about? Swords don't convey shit... They're pretty and "ooh" worthy, but they don't convey emotions... Like, at all... Unless you're talking about the artistic decoration on the swords, which would, in itself, be sculptures.

 

So I refute your solid, hard fact. I put it to you that paintings like Guernicca only ever existed because it was people like you who motioned in the Renaissance, who believed that there must be some objective correctness in the arts, and people like Chris The Great who saw the potential for beauty, for art in everyday objects that ushered in the more interesting eras of art.

 

So, it was people like me who brought about the greatest artistic creations ever made by man, and people like Chris who promoted mundane art (which makes life more pleasent, no doubt)? Yes, that's completely right. I agree with you.

 

But you didn't refute anything. Oo

 

Sorry, but I think you are talking a load of nonsense.

Meaning is something that is created it is not some kind of universal constant that remains equal amongst all human beings. Meaning is something that is massively subjective and to say that beauty has no meaning is ridiculous. It may not have any meaning to you but to some people beauty may be paramount.

 

Meaning is conceptual significance. Beauty has no conceptual significance. That's all I'm saying. Beauty is insignificant and unnecessary. If beauty is paramount to you, you're shallow, that's all I'm saying. And that's all crystal clear.

 

OW, if you won't admit to the sword itself being art, would you except it being a part of art, as the katana is to the art of sword drawing/swordplay.

 

Swordplay isn't art. Oo

 

These are the seven arts

 

Music

Painting

Sculpture

Cinema

Literature

Theatre

Architecture (this one is a bit arguable).

 

 

Always have been.

 

Also your interpretation of 'art' seems to be too narrow minded with an almost scienitifc longing to classify and generalise.

 

That's true.

 

I see what your saying about something being meaningful but having no point although, I'm sure Chris the great said it was just another way to decorate his room so, it does have a point.

 

It's not a significant point, that's what I meant.

 

ANYWHO, we're... okay, I'm ruining the thread with all of this. Sorry about that.

[jayseven]

Remind me of your definition of art? I've missed it.

 

Abstract covers concepts, concrete covers that which you can touch, see, whatever. So abstract covers love, hate, anger, frustration, laughter, god, spirits, dreams, and so on. Concrete is stuff like trees, grass, books, water, flies, badgers, and so on.

 

To glean is to attain information, meaning from something. I suppose we are covering three different concepts here; whether the artist had a meaning to portray, whether the object has a meaning to portray and whether the viewer feels a meaning from the object. You are arguing most certainly that the object has not been impregnated with any meaning, not necessarily exudes any of its own. I am arguing that the viewer finds meaning in it.

 

Do you argue that art, then, needs more than one person? That it is the communication aspect that is most important with art?

 

And you know, you don't have to swear all the time :P It makes you seem like you're getting angry and worked up over matters so trivial!

 

If beauty causes attraction, affection or pleasure to a person, that person is shallow. Beauty is eye candy, it is a sensation, not an emotion, sensations are means to communication emotions, therefore, beauty is only important when it conveys an emotional charge, all by itself, it's lifeless.

I do agree. Hedonism is not something I condone. I'm just saying that you can't flat-out say beauty is meaningless when you then go on to say except when it conveys an emotional charge... which is my point when i listed what I did. I agree it is a sensational thing on the large part, but that does not mean the word cannot be used in conjunction with emotional feeling behind it. Surely you can only complain of the word because it just displays the speaker's limited capacity to express what they themselves mean?

 

Those weren't art, those were embelishment campaings, when devoid of meaning or significance, by definition, it isn't art. That's the stagnation of a generation, when there's a lack of inspiration, and WWI gave them just what they needed, new-found inspiration, which is when art really started being relevant again. People reffer to the previous as art merely not to upset the retarded logic of these creatures with too fragile an ego to admit themselves shallow. You see, that's why I loved Picasso, because he admitted to what he was and then moved on to creat meaningful art, whose magnum-opus vastly surpassed anything he created in his earlier periods, both in impact and conceptual beauty. Don't take my word for it, he said it first hand.

Not to comment on this or anything - i'm sure you have a point - I'm just confused which period of art you're referring to at which time

 

The point I refuted was your solid hard fact; "physical beauty is meaningless." Again I'm confused; so you're saying Picasso's art is indeed mundane, and that you actually do prefer the renaissance?

 

Just to say; I think having display swords is silly because most people will think it looks silly when they come over and see it. you need a big fuck-off ace or warhammer on your wall to freak the shit out of people.

[Sheikah]

Making swords, however, is a science, not an art, there's no creative process there, no exploitation of concepts, it's just steel and flourish. Another thing, abstract, 99% of times, means "I can't come up with anything remotely worthwhile so I'm just gonna randomize something and call it abstract art".

 

This is simply untrue. Many swords are styled, and expertly crafted and personalised, no different to a sculpture. In today's age, swords have no physical use (not these swords, anyway) and can only be used for viewing purposes. Making swords is a science? I missed that one on the school syllabus, sorry.

 

Meaning is conceptual significance. Beauty has no conceptual significance. That's all I'm saying. Beauty is insignificant and unnecessary. If beauty is paramount to you, you're shallow, that's all I'm saying. And that's all crystal clear.

 

And here is how I can 'factually' bring a hammer down on this comment. Beauty is actually an essential part of natural selection that has probably allowed us to survive until this day. The judgement of mates to be 'beautiful' in contrast to others millions of years ago resulted in selection, ultimately determining the species as we are today. Certain physical traits were selected for - this includes the desselction of deformities (those that would be ugly) in possible mates, that could have resulted in offspring that would have been unfit or possibly non-viable in comparison to the rest of the population. That shows the value of selection of beauty.

[Oxigen_Waste]

Remind me of your definition of art? I've missed it.

 

Abstract covers concepts, concrete covers that which you can touch, see, whatever. So abstract covers love, hate, anger, frustration, laughter, god, spirits, dreams, and so on. Concrete is stuff like trees, grass, books, water, flies, badgers, and so on.

 

To glean is to attain information, meaning from something. I suppose we are covering three different concepts here; whether the artist had a meaning to portray, whether the object has a meaning to portray and whether the viewer feels a meaning from the object. You are arguing most certainly that the object has not been impregnated with any meaning, not necessarily exudes any of its own. I am arguing that the viewer finds meaning in it.

 

Do you argue that art, then, needs more than one person? That it is the communication aspect that is most important with art?

 

And you know, you don't have to swear all the time :P It makes you seem like you're getting angry and worked up over matters so trivial!

 

 

I do agree. Hedonism is not something I condone. I'm just saying that you can't flat-out say beauty is meaningless when you then go on to say except when it conveys an emotional charge... which is my point when i listed what I did. I agree it is a sensational thing on the large part, but that does not mean the word cannot be used in conjunction with emotional feeling behind it. Surely you can only complain of the word because it just displays the speaker's limited capacity to express what they themselves mean?

 

Not to comment on this or anything - i'm sure you have a point - I'm just confused which period of art you're referring to at which time

 

The point I refuted was your solid hard fact; "physical beauty is meaningless." Again I'm confused; so you're saying Picasso's art is indeed mundane, and that you actually do prefer the renaissance?

 

Just to say; I think having display swords is silly because most people will think it looks silly when they come over and see it. you need a big fuck-off ace or warhammer on your wall to freak the shit out of people.

 

 

First of all, you're confusing the concepts of Conceptual and Abstract. Conceptual art is a part of abstract, yes, but when refering to abstract art, one usually excludes conceptual art, abstract art would be something like Miró, whilst Baraka is Conceptual. Other than that, you're right.

 

As for the art periods, I'm reffering to almost all the artistic movements pre WWI Upheavel.

And I do love Picasso... on his return to Clacissim and Surrealism, which actually centered on conveying a message.

 

As for the whole point of beauty.

 

I retain my point, beauty is meaningless unless it has a meaning behind it, in other words, when a concept is adorned by beauty it's valid, while the beauty itself, when deprived of meaning, is nothing short of randomness.

 

Let me illustrate... let's see... let me think up two paintings...

 

Ok, Magritte's "The Son Of Man" and Bosch's "Garden Of Earthly Delights", are both conceptually excellent, and while Bosch's painting is much more physicall beautifull, that doesn't make it better than Magritte's. And conceptually, they're both very powerfull. Which pretty much means that beauty is nothing more than an extra, on it's own, it's meaningless.

[Sheikah]

I retain my point, beauty is meaningless unless it has a meaning behind it, in other words, when a concept is adorned by beauty it's valid, while the beauty itself, when deprived of meaning, is nothing short of randomness.

You said (and I quote) "beauty has no meaning and is insignificant". But it was certainly significant in allowing the continuation of species and therefore has definite meaning. Beauty also invokes admiration and emotional response - works of art can also be deemed beautiful. I honestly can't grasp at why you insist beauty has no meaning.

[jayseven]

Ok, first of all ([sic]), I know that difference, but I was referring to the conceptual and and abstract entities of the sensory world!

 

So you were saying that piccasso onwards is better than renaissance? So the bit where I said "people like you did the renaissance" and "people like CTG did surrealism" is surely some propz to da Chrismon?

 

And what you say about beauty/meaning -- i'm not disagreeing with you that beauty alone is empty. I agree that it needs to be coupled with other meaning. But I am saying that this other meaning is not always inherant in the object you perceive, that the meaning is in your own mind; that you use the object to glean this meaning from your own mind and because there was no artist with intention to cause this or any meaning that you create. Ultimately this is what art does too! The only thing you can argue is that with Art there is intention; there is an artist that created this intention.

 

Often, the easiest way to explain this notion is to clamour onto 'beauty,' which I deem as good as the phrases "nice" and "i'm ok" at explaining the full meaning that the speaker intends.

 

I am arguing that it is the meaning that makes art, not just the intention. I guess that means I'm conflicting with myself when I said "all art has an artist," but maybe 'artist' is another argument :P

[Shino]

Oh great, another Art thread.

[jayseven]

Well to be fair, it's been a while.

[Oxigen_Waste]

This is simply untrue. Many swords are styled, and expertly crafted and personalised, no different to a sculpture. In today's age, swords have no physical use (not these swords, anyway) and can only be used for viewing purposes. Making swords is a science? I missed that one on the school syllabus, sorry.

 

Making Swords is a science. Adorning the sword is accomplished by using a process used to create art, as you so well put it: sculpture. However, I have yet to see a sword with art on it, as it's adorns aren't signficant, they're simply embelishments. But yes, making a sword is a science, it's an objective proccess devoid of emotion, constrained by the laws of reality. It's a science. Why is that wrong?

 

 

And here is how I can 'factually' bring a hammer down on this comment. Beauty is actually an essential part of natural selection that has probably allowed us to survive until this day. The judgement of mates to be 'beautiful' in contrast to others millions of years ago resulted in selection, ultimately determining the species as we are today. Certain physical traits were selected for - this includes the desselction of deformities (those that would be ugly) in possible mates, that could have resulted in offspring that would have been unfit or possibly non-viable in comparison to the rest of the population. That shows the value of selection of beauty.

 

Okay, that's just retarded, firstly, evolution deemed how we are today out of usefullness, not beauty, no matter how pretty you are, if you can't adapt, you won't survive, so if we're here today it's because we've evolved according to practicality.

 

Second, the concept of beauty is a ver recent one in human history, the whole proccess of selection of mates is hormonal, not visual, that's the way of nature. Only when we became intelligent did we start defying nature.

 

Third, physicall beauty is irrelevant when compared to the conceptual beauty, when choosing a mate... you'll pass on a pretty person over someone you love, you choose conceptual beauty over physicall beauty, and this is usually the way of the world, you settle for a partner that fits you, not one that pleases your eye, you reproduce with the good one, not with the pretty one.

 

Fourth, what the fuck does human history have to do with art? I never said beauty doesn't play a part in human nature, I merely said it's artistically devoid of value.

 

I love how you get so involved in these petty discussions.

[My Buttons are Magic!]

ok.. by passing all this arty nonsense

 

i think the swords look stunning but i wouldnt let me touch one.. u would end up dead..

[Oxigen_Waste]

The only thing you can argue is that with Art there is intention; there is an artist that created this intention.

 

 

That's all I ever tried to argue. I never generalized.

 

For the rest of your post, yup, pretty much.

 

You said (and I quote) "beauty has no meaning and is insignificant". But it was certainly significant in allowing the continuation of species and therefore has definite meaning. Beauty also invokes admiration and emotional response - works of art can also be deemed beautiful. I honestly can't grasp at why you insist beauty has no meaning.

 

Already adressed this. Except one thing:

 

Beauty also invokes admiration and emotional response - works of art can also be deemed beautiful.

 

Admiration, correct.

Emotional response, completely false, unless there's a concept behind, in which case it isn't the beauty that triggers anything, it's the concept. Am I wrong? Show me.

 

Everything can be deemed beautifull. That was never the point, the point is, physicall beauty by it's own has no value in art. It's just a pleasent optional extra.

 

I'm off for the day. I'll be back around 5 am.

[jayseven]

Yup, pretty much

So I was right and you were wrong? Stop the presses!

[Sheikah]

Okay, that's just retarded, firstly, evolution deemed how we are today out of usefullness, not beauty

Wow, I can't believe you are saying that. Obviously survival of the fittest governed evolution, but to say that physical traits played no part in selection? Every geneticist would laugh at you for saying that.

 

One strikingly obvious example is blonde hair. Blonde hair grants no physical advantage, but it was selected for in the past by males. By this way, more blonde-haired people existed (particularly in European territories) due to the increase of these genes in the gene pool.

 

no matter how pretty you are, if you can't adapt, you won't survive, so if we're here today it's because we've evolved according to practicality.

 

Entirely irrelevant to the point at hand - you exclaimed that all beauty was insignificant, so I only needed to provide one point to disprove that. It had a significant effect in the determination of the human race.

 

 

Fourth, what the fuck does human history have to do with art? I never said beauty doesn't play a part in human nature, I merely said it's artistically devoid of value.

 

Actually, you just said beauty was insignifant generally, and the subject in question had begun to be applied to far more than just art. Besides, you've argued the toss about it here, suggesting you believe you are right in general too.

 

I love how you get so involved in these petty discussions.

 

Umm, take a look at the number of posts you have in this topic and how long they usually are.