>Art should imitate nature >Art should depict ideal

>>2975866

There is enough room in the world for art to depict both.

>>2975866
Nature is ideal beauty.

>>2975869
>Art is subjective

>>2975871
No it isn't.

>>2975871
/thread

>>2975866
Why should I pick either? Art should inspire emotion. Imitation of nature or depictions of ideal beauty are both just tools to achieve the real aim.

File: ideal beauty.gif (31KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 320x320px

>>2975905

>>2975908
>Art is subjective

>>2975911
Try going back to the third grade and pick up reading comprehension this time around.

>>2975866
>art should depict ideal beauty
only retards think this

>>2975943
>Emotions are objective

>nature and ideal beauty are mutually exclusive

>>2975957
Yes they are.

File: Agostino Arrivabene - Il male di vivere II, 2004.jpg (37KB, 605x752px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 605x752px

art should bring nature to its ideal consummation by way of man

read Schopenhauer

>>2975949
>Being this retarded.
Emotions are no more subjective than say "ideal beauty".

>>2975969
Pick up a dictionary.

>>2975986
I edit one. Somehow, I've never come across anything relating to an objective notion of ideal beauty. In fact, in other pursuits, I've seen multiple different approaches to what would constitute ideal beauty, heavily implying that such a thing is objective.

>>2975866
You know that art isn't one single painting right?

>>2975993
An objective ideal not being discovered does not mean one doesn't exist. The case for many artists (not of the imitation school) has been to find this ideal and depict it. But emotions are always felt internally (there is nothing that inspires emotion universally) and as such they are subjective, and far more subjective than the pluralistic idea of objective ideals.

>>2976008
>Art is subjective

>>2976009
>An objective ideal not being discovered does not mean one doesn't exist
It also doesn't mean that one does exist. And until you prove that one does, you have no case.

>Argumentum ad populam
Not a good start. Many artists have also been trying to inspire emotional states, or even political actions! How terrible, I know. Not to mention your "art is subjective" meaningless tirade being itself a form of subjective argument, namely that art should be objective. Hell, you can't even have your dichotomy in some form of non-visual art. How do you apply it to architecture, or to poetry?

>>2975866
Art is propaganda

File: 1461047541942.jpg (3MB, 3993x2387px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3993x2387px

>>2975866
Art should depict the ideal natural beauty.

>>2976025
>And until you prove that one does, you have no case.

Yes I do. Regardless if one exists or not doesn't mean that some artists aren't trying to depict it.

>Many artists have also

So you admit there is no single purpose of art to inspire emotion. You just lost.

>namely that art should be objective.

Not my argument.

>>2976037
That's just the ideal.

>>2975866
mixing the two is the essense of art

>>2976043
Can't have both.

File: E Y E.jpg (635KB, 936x743px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 936x743px

>>2976042
Not all ideals are natural.

>>2976064
None of them are.

File: 1436147013924.jpg (156KB, 1041x1080px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1041x1080px

>>2976074
That depends on how you define ideal.

>>2976041
>Yes I do. Regardless if one exists or not doesn't mean that some artists aren't trying to depict it.
An artists subjective (we're bouncing around there again, funny how that works) motivations does not apply to art in the abstract. Moving away from art and to something more concrete, Richard Gatling is on the record of inventing the Gatling gun to reduce the number of soldiers necessary to wage war. Turns out that wasn't the purpose of the Gatling gun as used. Oops.

>So you admit there is no single purpose of art to inspire emotion. You just lost.
No, I admit that artists have multiple motivations, which is distinct from the purpose of art.

>Not my argument.
Then when did you jump into the chain of replies after>>2975911? Why are you taking up those same talking points?

>>2976083
>artists have multiple motivations, which is distinct from the purpose of art.

Nah.

>>2976110
Well then, if the purpose of art is simply an imperfect attempt to articulate the will of the artist, then you're left with an easy answer, or lack thereof to the original question. There is no clear answer, just what this or that artist thinks is important for a given piece.

>>2975905
i second the shit

I agree with Kant's take on aesthetics.
There is natural beauty and idealistic artistic beauty. The perception of beauty in nature is based upon the harmony of understanding and intuition, which results in the joy of fulfillment of purpose, even if it is a mysterious purpose.
High quality art manifests examples of principles as brilliant ideas viewed together as proclaiming some kind of message.