New Cave Matsuri

[Skykid]

Holy fuck. Game set and match Skykid. Cagar is RegalSin.

Acting more like a 12 year old boy tbh.

*fist bump*

[Eaglet]

I'd also like to hear another recent poster's thoughts regarding my reply to him about the art subject, that he skipped and decided to return with fist-bumping only.

I thought about replying, but considering the nature of your other responses and my tight schedule i deemed it a waste of time.
I do have time now though so what the hell.

I guess this is what you meant:

"...profit as its primary purpose"
Ehm.
So the primary reason for people buying idol products and going to the concerts is that they want to give the creator company profit, and not because they want to enjoy the things as (purposefully crafted) entertainment?
Do you want to lock your claim in?

First of all, what you seem to be doing throughout the discussion with labels like "art", "good art", "entertainment" etc. is confuse what they're about and adding value on top of that.
Entertainment is just entertainment. Does not have to be made with a specific intent or purpose so long as it exists to do something. Can both rock and suck.
Art is art. Made with artistic sensibilities and expression as it's primary function. Can, but doesn't have to be entertaining. Can both suck and rock.
There is no inherent value in either of them. They are merely different kinds of experiences.

By this (axiomatic) definition; art cannot be made by big companies or a multitude of producers working to create a big "hit". It goes against "art"s definition.


To answer your question; you must know this yourself or else i highly doubt you cognitive abilities, but an audience enjoyment of a product doesn't have to correlate in any way with the intent it was crafted. Idolatry is all about buying into an illusion. The nature of that concept in itself negates the opinion you were trying to project unto me.


But then again; this should be obvious to most people around here.

*fist bump*

[Cagar]

-

[Eaglet]

I'm actually against adding value to the word 'art', as it should be a neutral definition, not something that you gotta "claim", like I explained before to dan76. I'd rather have the word to be as little subjective as possible, like with definitions in general. Same goes for 'entertainment'.

I agree, but the arguments that I've seen from you in the thread so far all point to the contrary. As if "art" would be a general stamp of quality to strive for. Can't be bothered to scan the thread for quotes now though.

Why & how?
Because I don't see how it does, even with the definition that you just said.
I'd also like to know if you read this:

Because "art" is an expression of something that is created without any sort of market or business plan in mind. Solely for expressions sake. Whether it's made by an individual or a group of people it is introspective in nature and not concerned with projections and profit margins.

I'd also like to know if you read this:

How the audience responds to art or entertainment doesn't matter at all. It is the intent and purpose of the creator that defines what is art and what is not.
Granted, it's been harder to define in the latter years with post-modernism fucking everything up, but in the case of corporate products it is as clear cut as can be. I'm sure that most people see this and if you don't you're gonna have a hard time discussing anything of value as definitions have to be cohesive.

True, it doesn't have to correlate with the intentions. I've never claimed so but yeah.

What is this 'illusion' you speak of?
Because unless we're talking about the fairly marginal insane fans (that are found in every hobby), the average idol fans are well knowledged about everything related to idols and the business.
They also know that new idol groups are constantly mass-produced and tried to make popular with cheap sexual attraction (bikini photoshoots) too, just like the average video-gamer knows how this is done with games.
They know about the 'perfect' illusion of a girl/woman that the idols provide, it's entirely the point of it.
The 'illusion' I believe that you speak of here is the exact same found in theatre plays or make-up advertisements. It happens, but everyone knows about it so it's hardly an 'illusion', and certainly shouldn't disqualify it from being art; especially when the illusion is exactly what the artists of idol concerts are expressing and trying to achieve!

I think you're missing the point.
You tried to project unto me the opinion that the primary reason for the audience buying idol products and going to concerts was because they wanted to support corporate profit.
Which it of course isn't. The "insane" fans (as you call them) buy into and obsess over the illusion. The rest pay for entertainment.

Of course the illusions disqualify them from being art as they're created with markets, profit and business plans in mind.
To take your theatre example; what is "art" in a play (that could be defined as art) is the script and individual performances (murkier waters here) on stage.
Not the illusion of the set up in itself. Which is entertainment.

The entire thing is pretty hard to define concretely, but it's at the same time incredibly obvious for anybody who's been involved in art and the creation of it before.
As i stated earlier, subversive post-modernism has completely fucked up the landscape of definitions.

[Cagar]

-

[Zen]

Why & how?
Because I don't see how it does, even with the definition that you just said.
I'd also like to know if you read this:

Because "art" is an expression of something that is created without any sort of market or business plan in mind. Solely for expressions sake. Whether it's made by an individual or a group of people it is introspective in nature and not concerned with projections and profit margins.
-
Of course the illusions disqualify them from being art as they're created with markets, profit and business plans in mind.

Do you think that the actual artists of the idol concerts (not the businessmen) know about the specifics of some business plan or market, and why would this disqualify their works from being art? Is your claim really that everything that is mass-produced with market or business plan in mind, is not art? How does the underlying business or profit-plan take away the 'expression' (the art part) from the works? Because I imagine that business can actually help that, by giving the artists income and time to think and craft things better.

So going by your logic, if it was revealed that Mona Lisa or The Last Supper were created with solely profit and business in mind, would they suddenly stop being art to you?
I say 'to you' because I haven't seen the idea of business or market disqualifying something from being art or expression anywhere else. Not here, here nor here. I feel that the terms 'mass-produced', 'profit-plan' etc. are used in a negative tone when it comes to art here (especially with stuff like 'crass capitalist junk' and 'waste of time' floating around them), and disqualifying works because of that indeed is inflating the word 'art', as if art made with those in mind wasn't worthy to be qualified as, 'art'. I might be reading too deep here, and you can call me out on that if that's the case. (I understand the first part though, because I too think that usually art (shows,movies and games etc) produced mainly with profit or the mainstream in mind usually tend to suck ass; but that'd be just a view of mine and yours)

How the audience responds to art or entertainment doesn't matter at all. It is the intent and purpose of the creator that defines what is art and what is not.

Agreed, but as a side note, I think that the most logical definition that I've come up with for what art is good and what's not is "the more closely the audience reacts to the artist's intended expression, the better". This is obviously highly debatable.

EDIT: and btw to keep the discussion coherent, please try to at least(!) answer directly to the questions that I presented

You are correct. The intention behind the art does not disqualify or, qualify it as being art. A lot of people posting here, seem to think it does. They are wrong.
When you write that "I think that the most logical definition that I've come up with for what art is good and what's not is "the more closely the audience reacts to the artist's intended expression, the better", you are incorrect. There is no good or bad art.
Further, whether an audience "gets" a piece of art or, does not, is irrelevant.

[Cagar]

-

[rancor]

Female idol repeatedly stabbed in Tokyo after refusing gift from fan


http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/0 ... yo-police/

[Cagar]

-

[Skykid]

"I ambushed her at the station and asked her (about the gift). I lost my temper and stabbed her many times because she didn’t clearly answer,” the suspect was quoted as saying."

I shouldn't laugh, but it's just so Japanese.