INTP Opinions on Art

Ridiculous paintings that sold for millions:
www.iloboyou.c...
#intp
#mbti
#16personalities
#myers-briggs
Definition of Effort:
www.merriam-we...
Definition of Art:
dictionary.cam...

[@joanvidal915]

I totally agree with you, whenever I'm watching a film that is not good, I get a little bit angry because it almost feels as I'm called dumb. For example I can't stand wasting my time watching a film with many plotholes or inconsistencies, I would much rather just watch again a film I've watched before. It's not so much about the film having a deeper meaning but the spectator (me) enjoying the content, and again I can only enjoy the content if it's a good film. I love Kubrick.

[@yokaikamaitachi7955]

Also Tarkovsky is brilliant

[@Scrimix]

The modern art is bothering me a lot (or more like generic art...not sure what's the right word). I imagine artist life like this: they train for years or even decades to improve their skills (fighting frustration of not getting it right, worrying that it might not be worth it), they sacrifice stuff (like, obviously, time and effort, not having enough time with family and friends, but stuff like financial security as well), they fight anxiety of judgement by society (being weird), because they explore the unknown or something that's difficult to grasp, something that's not normal. They put a lot of thought and, again, effort into their works. To me this sounds almost heroic. Art might bring unconscious ideas and worries to consciousness (make you more aware). Art can elevate society. And then there is this pop music crap. Generic rhythms, generic trap sounds, generic chord progressions (or none at all), generic lyrics, generic emotions (like having fun at a party). The worst part of all of this is that ignorant people who don't understand anything and choose to listen to this crap are somehow devaluing the effort of other artists. I can image someone asking like: I've wasted 20 years of my life trying to create something meaningful, and this producer created a hit in 5 minutes. What's the point? And then they have 2 paths: either continue suffering like Jesus Christ or kill themselves. (I'm sorry it went so dark, but that's how I feel). At the same time I'm not necessarily judging these people. They just want to have fun, listen to what they like and stuff. I'm just sad that this is the way it is.

[@MaleINTP]

"continuing suffering like Jesus Christ " made me laugh. I think you are right.

[@kevind4850]

You made some very good points. The idea that the *primary* purpose of art is to communicate "feeling" is a remnant of the tired Romantic Movement of 200+ years ago - a convention into which "Modern" art is firmly rooted. The idea that an art movement that is over a century old, (and is the direct descendant of the Romantic fad more than a century older than that) claims to be "Modern" is beyond ridiculous. Today's Minimalist fashion seems to be more about complexity and obtuseness than it is about minimal anything. Things like the _Monochromatic_ and _Color_ _Field_ paintings can have interesting concepts behind them, but they don't communicate much of anything else intentionally. No matter whether a "Modern" or other period, any art is capable of being vapid, jejune, or ultimately empty of lasting import. Today's transactional culture elevates *salesmanship* and *price* and *jargon* (and *fashion* or trendiness) over the artist communicating anything. Some may simply have nothing very meaningful to communicate. It reminds me of seeing the response of singer Dolly Parton to an interviewer that "you'd be surprised at how much money it takes to look this trashy" (I found that disarmingly honest). People do spend an inordinate amount of money on the ridiculous and ephemeral - they always have. I've made part of my living in "art" both fine and applied. The "selling" of whatever was my work is something that I found soul-killing (how is that for a vague pronouncement, but that best describes how doing that affects me). Despite my ranting, I do see art as an integral part of human existence - whether it is adapting the things that we employ to sustain ourselves or the artificial worlds in which we are most comfortable. I can personally find myself having an emotional feeling in reaction to art - sometimes how the artist intended or something else - and also am fascinated by why that reaction was evoked. Sometime it strikes me as manipulative, or just funny. Big subject and I enjoyed your thoughts.

[@MaleINTP]

Agreed.. music is an art form and essencial to humans. Art is important to us.

[@Gio-sx7kt]

I think we have similar perspectives on art. People expected me to go into art because of my talent in it, but I didn't like the idea of making idol things without some deeper purpose or meaning, so I chose to study physics and engineering instead. I still have the talent, but I hate the idea of making art just because, or feeling forced to make it for a living without some meaning. To me art should have a meaning, a message, or a lesson in it. My favorite thing in art is how it can be used to illustrate concepts, like the interplay between art and physics. Though beauty is nice, I think it's better when it resonates with the observer in some meaningful way.

[@spacematrix9694]

Same, my mom told me to be a designer just because I'm good at drawing, but she didn't know I'm interested in astronomy since I was 8, and doing something that you are good at it is boring in my opinion, so that's why I'm more interested in physics. I think my favorite thing in art is classical music

[@117Industries]

Your speaking is really stable and clear here. You also look more focused, as if you're very quickly adapting to the YT medium and the discomfort of talking to a camera. I agree about the simplicity of modern art. I never understood it either, and it still irks me the same today. If art has no objective frame-of-reference, then how could it be interpretable? As in, how can I understand it unless it attempts to translate a concept through identifiable forms? I mean, the splodge of yellow on the canvas may have subjective meaning to me, but then so might anything. I could place a sense of meaning on the ink-splodge on my knee, subjectively speaking. So what then did the artist contribute with the splodge? I second your intuition that the nonsensical is effortless, and maybe also artistically barren. To me, the fun of art was in that it invites you to relate things that you'd not have otherwise related. Or it tells a story. Or it speaks to the depths of your mind, because it activates ideas which remain buried until exposed to certain forms. But all of this requires some kind of form, or structure. Without that it's just raw information, as random as it is meaningless. And it's going to be fun to see you get quicker. The more you practice thinking aloud, the faster your thoughts and words will get. It's fun to experience, although gradual. At peak, you'll be much much quicker than the people around you (so remember to slow down :P).

[@117Industries]

What you said about Banksy resonated with me too. I have a massive anthology of Banksy somewhere. Loved his stuff when I was 18. And Banksy's work was good art, because it had something to say!

[@MaleINTP]

@@117Industries Exactly, without a reference for me to relate to, it becomes impossible to understand what a painting is and it becomes meaningless. Thanks for the commentary on my performance, i am adapting to youtube :)

[@NameNotAChannel]

As a writer and concept artist for said writing, I see "Art" in several ways: Picture Art would be something made to be aesthetically pleasing. There is art that I don't like, and it's still art. Whether or not the art has meaning besides being pretty... to me, is meaningless. I agree that a lot of modern art has no business being called art. (I mean, campbell soup cans? really? no. Not to me, anyway.) The painting of Mona Lisa... is one that I don't like, but I still agree that it's "art." The whole "effort" and aim of making something aesthetically pleasing fits Mona Lisa. A fan's depiction of a character in a popular anime or book does not need to have meaning behind it, it just needs to be an aesthetically pleasing combination of colors and pose (it helps when it matches the subject matter conceptually and captures an element of the story or the subject's personality) I also disagree slightly on the whole level of effort needed. I'll list one example: Flip Cup paintings (or poured paintings). Essentially, you pour different colors of acrylic paint into a small cup, add a little oil (or not), put the canvas on the cup, flip it over, and then let the paint flow across the surface of the canvas. It creates some really neat art, In My Opinion, and even though it didn't necessarily take much skill or effort, it does look aesthetically pleasing, which was its goal. (various levels of talent are involved to get better results, such as color selection, order of colors added to the cup, when and where to apply the oil, and use of high temperatures to expand the oil and separate the colors to become more vibrant, etc, once poured... all come into play.) When it comes to writing, I don't think there's a big debate. Writing a story is art. Writing an instruction manual is not. (IMO, you know somebody in the world would disagree.) I consider video games to be works of art, whether or not they're trying to tell a story, since art is required to create the visual presentation of the game's content. Video games also tell stories like written works, and fall into the same category, IMO. Just a few thoughts of my own to add :)

[@91722854]

I would say it would be art if something can write a manual that is sarcastic in a conversational way

[@gamechill5507]

Oof. I can probably come up with alot of topics if we're diving into art. 1. Originality and creativity. Of course developing the fundamentals requires a process of replication (for an artists, writers, craftsmen ect). Being inspired by something and making a creation from that process is awknowleged. But what if "Art" was created by an AI? I feel like most would disagree because what created the art isn't human and thus has no emotions to convey. What is awknowleged is that humans also share the same process of replication and A.I. are created after man's own image. So inavertingly, It's already connected in that way imo. 2. Contemporary Art. I would say "bad" Contemporary Art that is suspiciously worth more then it's value is in some way related to money laundering. I think historcally the concept of art has been related to craftsmanship/skill but with contemporary art (and I assume this is why most people could find it pretentious) is because it's not so much as showing off skill, but more so the experiences/studies/and self reflection of an artist. Everyone can paint two blue and pink triangles on a canvas, but only one person decided too because they had some kind of spiritual connection to this image that for them represents a harmonical relationship that they had (Lol, don't take this example too seriously). I agree that Banksy produces "art" but whether I like his work is something unrelated lol. 3. Commercializing/Productizing Art. I have mixed feelings on this subject because while it's great that the majority of people can buy art (whatever that may be) it does have too much of a "machine factory feel" to the process if it's mass produced to the point of seeing it everywhere. Suddenly everyone has the same familar picture frame on their wall that they bought from a chain retail store. Pros and cons to consider. Going to stop here but Styles of Radical Will by Susan Sontag is an interesting read.

[@MaleINTP]

I don't think it matters if an AI has emotions or not. it's about what it produces not about what it feels. If it makes people feel the same way as they would if they knew it was human, then AI can produce art. Also, I don't think it matters if the artist was the one to paint two triangles, it either makes sense and has a good reason behind it or it doesn't matter if he was the one to paint it or not.

[@Gio-sx7kt]

@@MaleINTP I don't know. I think it might matter if the art was produced by AI. Hayao Miyasaki had an interesting reaction when some persons had put forth animations done by AI. And his response to the lack of humanity in it felt a bit on point to how I feel it should be percieved. Art isn't just a creation, but a deeper exploration of our human condition, can AI truly explore the depths of its own conscious existence or would it just be a master replicator of it's observations, or like a "fast food" art generator with no depth of purpose as it would lack a conception of its own mortality or even existence? I don't know, just throwing thoughts that came to mind. I think art really only has meaning when there is an observer to give it that, and similarly familiar observers to relate to it, and I'm not sure AI could count as a conscious observer, that could create relatable content, and even if we could create AI to look conscious, and build relatable works, how would we actually ever prove it has consciousness and that it's abilities were anything more than being a master replicator of it's observations? Without that mortal experience, could it be considered art at all?

[@MaleINTP]

@@Gio-sx7kt I don't care if the observer is mortal or the person that paints it. The definition of art that i used refered to the feelings an object creates in you, if that object was created by a man or a machine becomes irrelevant because what matters is the object and not the creator.

[@Gio-sx7kt]

@@MaleINTP I just think it would lose all meaning if machine. I don't think a machine could grasp the meaning behind a more relatable human condition to make as meaningful art as for example Banksy does. AI could replicate Banksy, but I don't think it would understand the art it was creating in a viseral way, losing its meaning, and making it just more capitalizable by things like Corporate interests, and advertisers, rather than of the human condition or other organic life. I think maybe my personal definition of art just includes a visceral component. I'd more prefer to see art an Octopus might be compelled to make if it could, then AI, for example. Like without the visceral component I think it would just become fancy computation rather than art.

[@MaleINTP]

@@Gio-sx7kt Yes it could lose meaning but to others that didn't know it was made by a machine would still look like art. There are a few interesting questions about what AI can do and if it has value. We will see philosophy evolve in the next years because of the questions of AI

[@neves2493]

I liked the name and your channel photo. INTP friend. Unfortunately I can't understand what you're saying in the video, but one day I'll see

[@MaleINTP]

I'm not sure how you can't understand what I'm saying but maybe one day

[@neves2493]

@MaleINTP I do not speak English. I'm using the translator

[@lexiferenczy9695]

Interesting thoughts you have here, I agree with you that modern art is often too nonsensical and made without much effort/ skill. So if I understood you correctly, for you meaning is the main criterion regarding the worth a piece of art has? I would be interested in what your opinion is about the beauty of art, it's purely aesthetic value. Is it maybe less interesting to thinking dominant types like you, who are likely more concerned with meaning and understanding than aesthetics? Regarding the subjectivity of beauty in art: On the one hand, beauty is very subjective and some would argue it's completely subjective. I'm not sure about that, because things like the application of the golden ratio or symmetry in paintings are considered beautiful by so many people that it seems to be a sign that there possibly is some objective quality to taste in art. Also it's quite weird why the majority of modern/contemporary art seems to be naturally disliked by so many people when taste would be completely subjective. For taste being completely subjective, there seem to be too many people who are quite similar in their aesthetical preferences.

[@MaleINTP]

In my opinion, beauty is completely subjective. As for the reason that so many people like aesthetics, i think it may have to do with our evolutionary past. We have evolved to look at colour and interpret what it means according to our past. For example, the reason it is thought that red is so liked by so many people has to do with sexual motivations. Our lips turn red in sexual scenarios and that's why it is though that many people find red attractive and likable. About the golden ratio, that is a very interesting point. I do think that mathematics was invented and not discovered. There are some mathematics and physicists that share the same opinion and others that disagree. Like a physicist that i saw said, "when we look to a galaxy and we measure it, we are not measuring the galaxy, those numbers don't exist outside our minds, we are measuring our idea of what the galaxy represents".

[@lexiferenczy9695]

@@MaleINTP Thanks for the answer! I also find the evolutionary past to be a nice explanation for aesthetics, there seems to be some hardwired "code" in our brains which determines these visual preferences quite a bit. The idea of mathematics being invented is quite intriguing to me, even though I'm not sure, if I can fully grasp it or agree to it. I think it perhaps boils down to the question, whether logic (=mathematics) is applicable to every aspect of the universe outside of our own minds or not, if logic is the most fundamental building block of existence and the universe as a whole or not. Maybe it's just the most fundamental building block of human minds.

[@Polymath9000]

I have a question for you how does Ti work for you that is when a subject is uninteresting or boring how do you feel ? Or do you get sleepy? Since Ti is similar to Fi in regards to subjects of interest that is if a subject is boring to me I will feeling anxiety or depression if am forced to study something 😃 .

[@MaleINTP]

I feel sleepy when a subject bores me

[@dietcokehead350]

I think art is a commination tool. A way to "speak" and express freely circumventing (eh, sometimes) social taboos. But also things the artist for whatever reason can't say. Although, sometimes shock in art also has important value in being able to push boundaries and censorship (though plenty of trash artists exploit shock with no meaning for the sake of it). Lastly, people who can't do art have a fucking chip on their shoulder about it and are cunts to artists. I don't think artists drink themselves to death or become addicts and stuff because they're artists I think their talents are frequently misunderstood and even the best ones are shit on by people who value pencil pushing and 9-5's over creative pursuits which has nothing to do with your vid I just think it's important to throw out there. Also, with the popularity of mbti and the math and science realms of intps are way overstated. Most the ones I have met have been artists.

[@MaleINTP]

Art is too complex to make logical sense to me. I don't like how expansive the concept is.. it's way too big to be explained. But I agree that it is undervalued sometimes and that people don't understand enought about it (specialy me).

[@dietcokehead350]

@@MaleINTP I know this sounds kinda dick headed but I feel like art is my native tongue and nothing else makes a lot of sense to me

[@MaleINTP]

@@dietcokehead350 I'm the opposite. I heard some of your songs, they are good. You should try making more

[@dietcokehead350]

@@MaleINTP Thank you