A&P Let's compare paintings, sculptures, jewelry, architecture, and gardens

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by QuickHitCurepon, May 15, 2009.

  1. Which art do you believe or feel is more moving? Give us examples, and the category with more showings may be better.

    Should be nice. :)

    Painting?
    [​IMG]
    By Boticelli

    Sculptures?

    By Michaelangelo

    Jewelry?
    [​IMG]

    Architecture?
    [​IMG]
    Does anyone know what the name of this tower is?

    Gardening?
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2011
  2. The_Eagle_Has_Landed

    The_Eagle_Has_Landed New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    i dont know but to me gardening and jewelry dont seem like art in the traditional sence
     
  3. That's why they are underdogs in this competition.
     
  4. psykosis

    psykosis Go placidly amid the noise and the haste

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2001
    Messages:
    123,788
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Listing between sin and salvation
    I prefer sculpture over paintings.

    Architecture is its own thing, and I LOVE it if it's done well.

    Gardening/landscaping can be beautiful, and I like shooting it, but it's not in the same category as the above.

    And jewelry is meh.
     
  5. Keiphus

    Keiphus my dog eats bears

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Architecture isn't art.

    Flame suit on.
     
  6. The Great Deceiver

    The Great Deceiver 21st Century Schizoid Man

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    59,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    It can be.
     
  7. barto

    barto you and your...third dimension

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    seattle
    it definately seems like modern architecure (for the most part) isnt but buildings that were built hundreds of years ago are :dunno:
     
  8. Twiztid

    Twiztid What the FUCK is a samoflange?

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Could have fooled me.

    I have a hard time saying any is better than the other though. Apples to oranges IMO.
     
  9. Wheezer

    Wheezer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,629
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston
    Not true. Many new buildings and homes are GREAT works of art. They just go un-noticed these days because of the utilitarian aspect of the building. They're designed to function, but if you look closely there is a lot of aesthetics involved in the design.
    Look at new stadiums (China's bird nest), new design for the Freedom Tower, high end home designs....art definitely has a heavy hand in these designs.
     
  10. UnNakedChef

    UnNakedChef 2jz Sackrider Holder

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    8,270
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin foo!
    I was about to say Gaudi, Gehry, etc might disagree. :mamoru:
     
  11. UnNakedChef

    UnNakedChef 2jz Sackrider Holder

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    8,270
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin foo!
    Qutab Minar. It's a minaret in India. Tallest in all the world...well, at least until Pakistan and India go all nucular on each other.
     
  12. SkiMax

    SkiMax OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    26,742
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Chicago
    what about this for art?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Keiphus

    Keiphus my dog eats bears

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both of these buildings are form following function. In the case of FLW, his house is literally falling into the water, but its primary purpose is to be a living space.
     
  14. Keiphus

    Keiphus my dog eats bears

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whoa, so age is the qualifier for architecture being considered art? So, in 200 years your house will be considered "art"? I don't know if I agree with that.


    Aesthetics are involved in everything we do as humans, does that mean everything is art? Where do you draw the line? Art has design in it, but not all design is art.
     
  15. SkiMax

    SkiMax OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    26,742
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Chicago
    :rofl: gehry is definitely not form following fucntion.

    mies is form follows function
     
  16. Keiphus

    Keiphus my dog eats bears

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not arguing the effectiveness of Gehry's "function" but instead trying to say, "it is a museum first."
     
  17. SkiMax

    SkiMax OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    26,742
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Chicago
    that is the disney concert hall its not even a museum. the main principle of form follows function is that you can tell the function by the form of it and you couldnt tell that it wasnt a museum so it kind of fails at that doesnt it...

    gehry is in no way form follows function
     
  18. Keiphus

    Keiphus my dog eats bears

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    At first glance it looked much like the Gug in Spain. Ultimately though, Gehry built the museum or concert hall as a functional space. That is form following function.

    Are you an architect? (Just trying to understand where you are coming from)
     
  19. Keiphus

    Keiphus my dog eats bears

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    I also meant to add, I am not saying Gehry isn't an artist, but instead that the particular buildings above aren't necessarily art.
     
  20. SkiMax

    SkiMax OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    26,742
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    Chicago
    by your definition then doesn't every single building belong in the form follows function camp? they were all built to serve some function.
    in the form follows function theory the function should be the most apparent aspect of the building and form, like it says, follows in importance. You should be able to tell exactly what the buildings function is by the form of it.

    yes i'm an architect
     
  21. The Great Deceiver

    The Great Deceiver 21st Century Schizoid Man

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    59,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Gehry's buildings (more like sculptures) are all spectacle, they are all expensive and leaky, and most of them are ugly because they are cartoonish. It could work for Disney and googie though. Another weak point would be his lack of concern with proportion and order. And then there's the problem of context, you couldn't tell if the building was in Bilbao or Los Angeles, there is a weak relationship to the site, there is no regionalism
     
  22. The Great Deceiver

    The Great Deceiver 21st Century Schizoid Man

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    59,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    How many years experience?
     
  23. DRAIGON

    DRAIGON New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Can add Drawings, Sketches?
     
  24. DRAIGON

    DRAIGON New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    This is my daughter and my wife.

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
  25. Keiphus

    Keiphus my dog eats bears

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    6,138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Put simply, yes, I do believe that to an extent. I do not believe that "form follows function" necessarily means you should immediately be able to tell the purpose of a building based on its shape. It's too subjective. Keep in mind, I am defining "form follows function" loosely in regards to the visual arts, not specifically architecture. When applied to architecture specifically and the modernist? movement perhaps that's a tenet of its use, which is why I asked what camp you were coming from. Also realize I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, just stating my opinion in attempts to liven the discussion.

    I believe: A) Buildings are buildings, they serve a purpose. B) They might look cool, but that doesn't qualify them as art.

    A synthetic 1:1 ant farm made to look exactly like the Venus de Milo is not art. It's a cool as fuck ant farm. Does that make sense?
     

Share This Page