Does it require heightened intelligence in order for someone

>>7665357
No

>>7665357
to create art.

I don't know about appreciate, but it does require heightened intelligence for someone to have a meaningful discussion about why they appreciate a piece of art.

>>7665357
No, you just have to do some study to realize what makes the art good, and be smart enough to express what you appreciate about it.

>>7665477
Yes

>>7665357
Depends on how you define art.

>>7665357
Generally speaking, no, as art by definition hasn't got a definite meaning.

To fully understand contemporary art though, you may need to know many underlying things.

Another thing is when we talk about music: if you can read sheets, understand harmony, and if you know when/why/how a composer wrote something, you will be able to appreciate it way more. But still, to just be able to say "shit 's dope" you don't need anything but your ears.

>>7665357
No, art is bullshit that everyone pretends to understand the meaning of for fear of looking dumb, but in reality nobody does. It's a lot like religion.

>>7665357

Nah, I think it's a lot like how people can't appreciate problem-solving in mathematics, or other STEM fields. They just think it's just memorization, or something. When, in reality, it requires quite a bit of creative and analytical skills that take serious work to develop.

>>7666377
Found the pleb.

>>7665357
Nah, you just need a little aesthetic sensitivity and some basic culture about art.
In some cases, you need to be extremely pretentious too.

File: tmp_9155-43e94626281889c9644d22d22695cd00.jpg.cf994616456.jpg (61KB, 370x500px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 370x500px

>>7666429
So tell me anon, what do you see in this painting?

Art has decorative qualities, but people who try to interpret it usually go too far.

>>7666449
its implying that the rapid expansion of science and technology without ethical concerns going unchecked can lead to our ultimate demise.
when you play God, you may end up staring in the face of the devil

>>7666454
*with not without

also nice use of scale, contrast, and perspective

File: horsie.jpg (35KB, 600x474px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x474px

>>7666449
no u tell me what you see here

Talking about art in /sci is going to be a little retarded.
Art can express what social groups or individuals were feeling or seeing at the time. It can push aesthetics into a place human kind has never seen before. Style is really important to people. Good art can represents years of technique and learning for the artist. Art can be amazing.

It doesn't require heightened intelligence to notice something great.

>>7666458
why is the horse fucking it's ribcage

>>7666489
nah bro its a once majestic and powerful beast, stripped of its freedom and strength by man through domestication, now only a shell of its former self.
step up your art game bruh bitches love sophistication

>>7665357
It takes focus (which is a variable of intelligence (my swype feature had initially assumed the word variable as the word carrier, which is also true.))

The appreciation of art = focus.

>>7666449
Fractals and relativity. Two earths. Rabbit devouring microcosm.

>>7666377
found the wannabe edgy physicist

>>7666454
>>7666492
Damn bruh, art game on point.

>>7666454
>>7666455
>>7666505
>>7666537
Wrong! It's a depiction of why I had oatmeal for breakfast.

>>7666593
>mad that there are some things he cant understand despite his boasting of a high IQ
>shitposts instead of being introspective and understanding that you cant be the best at everything (unless you're me)

The appreciation of art has been a metric in civilized society for as long as man has had stable communal structure. While it does not require heightened intelligence it does require one retain an open mind while contemplating the work, the artist and the society the artist emerges from.

Art is subjective. One might find a piece ugly but still appreciate from whence it came, and another might find a piece ugly and simply discard it as ugly.

>>7666698
>Art is subjective
not really. academically, art is very objective. principles of emphasis, balance, line, color, contrast, etc.

>>7666705
Yea, academically. But I didn't see 'the academic appreciation of art' in the OP. Also, that's bullshit because 'professional' criteria does not count one iota to how a piece resonates with the viewer.

File: klimt.jpg (371KB, 1177x1024px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1177x1024px

>>7666719
the artist uses those principles and elements in order to resonate with viewers.
pic related would incite different emotions/responses if it were done in black and white, or perhaps with less organic lines and a more inorganic, geometric appearance, etc

>>7666605
My point is that it's subjective made-up bullshit. Everyone has different thoughts about its "meaning," and so if it "means" something completely different to each person, then it has no real meaning.

File: picasso.jpg (176KB, 1250x556px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1250x556px

>>7666734
no. take this picasso for example. it has a very specific and historical meaning. remember that people also think a lot of wierd shit about physics, bullshit interpretations of QM, etc that doesnt mean those thought are valid at all

>>7666733
One of my favorite works by Klimt.
You just academically identified many things which make up this work. The most important question is, do you like it? How does it make YOU feel?

Only you can answer that so it still remains subjective, irregardless of the coloring, technique, lines, medium, etc.

Also even if the picture was recreated in grayscale or poppy seeds or spray painted on a food truck the only arbiter of the work is the viewer.

File: pathetic quality bait.jpg (3KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 600x600px

>>7666593

>>7666458
This is fun.

I see an expression of the slow degradation of old ideas and traditions. but while some have dissolved away, others have been solidly ingrained in our psyche. as represented by the peices steel construction

No, and fuck all contemporary art. Seriously hated that shit just as a prerequisite. I could shit in a jar, put it on a stand surrounded by a velvet partition, set it in a museum and all those art majors would be in awe.

Hell if I know. I pretty much just say I don't understand it then the people around me avoid me like the plague.

>>7666377
*tip*

>>7666734
>equates subjectivity with meaninglessness
>being this autistic
Look autist, art is about as subjective as language is (art being basically just a language made from visual symbols).

My idea of what the sentence "You're an autistic faggot" means might be somewhat different than yours, because we're different people with different bodies and different lives, but you probably know roughly what I mean when I say "Srsly dude you're an autistic faggot." Art's the same way; we may not interpret the symbols in exactly the same way, but it's it's valid insofar as it is similar.

File: themaresetssail.jpg (1MB, 1920x1097px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1097px

>>7666449
I see a whole different world, a world that would probably be better than this one.
That is the meaning of art

>>7666377

If everyone was pretending to like art, then you'd actually hear of people agreeing with you.

Don't just look at a painting. See it. There's layers in a painting just like in music. Paintings can invoke different kinds of feelings like a good song would do to you. People who don't "understand art" are overthinking it. Anyone can understand art.

>>7666449
A giant pink bunny eating rocks inside a vacuum while monkeys look on inside a vehicle.

>>7667181
I like the colors in this. It's like eyecandy.

>>7665357
it requires heightended intelligence in art appreciation. dunno if that correlates with maths intelligence

>>7666377
found the stupid person

>>7666336
>Generally speaking, no, as art by definition hasn't got a definite meaning.
It does though

>>7667345
It doesn't.

>>7667349
ignorance is not bliss m8

File: scan41.png (278KB, 625x465px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 625x465px

>>7667355

>>7665357
Look, this is how art works: An artist has a set of (usually strong) emotions/impressions that were created by circumstances throughout time and space. This could be a traumatic childhood, a love relationship, or just a glimpse of a summer afternoon.

He/she then uses his/her craftsmanship like drawing, sculpting, filming or writing to create something which conveys these emotions. Of course it's a bit like chinese whispers since there exists no rational framework to convey emotions - because they are two fundamentally different mental faculties. It's the same when people try to "talk about art": It doesn't matter how articulate you are, how many "psychological" explainations you might purport, or how familiar you are with the technique - all it boils down to is "I like it/I don't like it". Art is beyond rational critique. Yet it appears that humans' emotional faculties do overlap - it is hard to find someone who isn't blown away by the Mona Lisa (I mean the live thing, in the Louvre), or someone who is blown away by a drawing by some random amateur.

Ultimately we can't know for sure what art appreciation is and to what degree people appreciate art. That is until we have mapped the brain and have high resolution neural imaging to at least have a relative comparison.

Like I said, I think "art critique" is bullshit, but I want to give some background on Guernica (>>7666742) for those unfamiliar:
Picasso was amazing at realism and drawing. Then he travelled the world and discovered cave paintings and indigenous art and saw how people fit several perspectives in one drawing. That's when he created cubism: It is a blueprint for your brain to imagine motion and changes of perspective when you are familiar with what the object looks like. Like the horse head - we all know thats not how the eyes align with the snout, so what is happening?

May be

>>7667425
cont. One of things that could be happening is that the horse is charging towards you, running from some fire, checking the ground for hazards with its eyes - which grab your attention in the middle of night. Then suddently a bomb falls or a house collapses, and the horse starts to balk and neigh, tilting its head back so its wide open snout now becomes dominant. Surely the horse must be under strong emotions to act like this, and witnessing something like this is a strong emotional experience. The horse then continues to run in another direction, as indicated by its legs.

A realistic painting, like a photograph, could not have transported this as well, especially all the other things that also take place in the painting. This is why Guernica, and Picasso's cubism in general has received so much praise - When you are willing to "feel yourself into the painting" it is a great experience. You must of course see it live - why is possibly the reason why Americans are so ignorant of art.

File: icarus.jpg (1MB, 2000x1278px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1278px

>>7667425
>I want to give some background on Guernica
you never did tho. you didnt talk about how it was his response to German bombings in Spain, how it worldwide brought attention to the war in Spain, etc

you're right tho, most naive people try to look for some deep abstract meaning behind all the shit art they view, and sometimes its there, but not really. its not like analysing a novel for themes/motifs/etc.

take this painting of the fall of icarus. one could ascribe a theme to it like "life goes on" or "you're not as important to the rest of the world as you imagine yourself" or whatever, but it's just an artistic interpretation of a very famous fable/legend

>>7666454
I see amazement at the wonders of the universe and that mustachioed man evokes an image of strong humanity taking on whatever the frontiers of space can throw at them.
>>7666734
>Something can only have one meaning
And that is why you are nothing more than an autistic calculator replacement
>>7667181
The artistic style is kitsch and painfully commercial this is shit

Hey guys let's talk about the jazz music. Listen to this track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EstPgi4eMe4

Autists will say he's just whacking random keys for ten minutes but true intellectual patricians will feel the structure

>>7667463
>the war in Spain

And yet Franco was dictator until his death in the 1980s, and nobody did anything about it.

Fun fact: There is a reproduction of Guernica in the UN security council - America had it covered up when they presented fabricated claims against Iraq in 2003.

Sad thing, that people still decide to murder other people with bombs against their own better judgement.

>>7667535
It wasn't about Franco it was just about the horrors of modern war. You seem to believe that art must have always have one narrow specific aim just like science.

>>7667543
no, no, not at all. Franco ordered the bombing of Guernica, that's why

>>7667550
>German Condor Legion
>Ordered by Franco
I'm not even a /pol/ster but Franco has plausible deniability in this instance. All he did was ask the Germans to help the war effort, nobody asked them to bomb civilians, this was largely unheard of before then, but you know Nazis gonna be Nazi.

>>7667558
>Franco had plausible deniability

Top kek. Franco's troops moved into the city 2 days later. It was a coordinated strategic attack, the Germans were waaay too few to carry out any operations on their own. Besides, even wikipedia says "It was carried out at the behest of the Spanish nationalist government".

>>7666734
That's the point, you are supposed to find your own meaning of it, usually

>>7666377
this
Art is a form of social interaction, its a token of status and of how we want other people to perceive us.
I think the feelings we have for art are real; in the same way that a 2.000 £ wine taste better than a 20 £ wine.
There are no higher intellect in art, it is monkey behaviorisme.

>>7665357
Andy Warhol was pretty fucking stupid

>>7667425
>Look, this is how art works: An artist has a set of (usually strong) emotions/impressions that were created by circumstances throughout time and space
>emotions/impressions
>created by circumstances
That's just incorrect. That's a idea from romantic era art theorists that has, since then, been seen as just one of a possible set of foundations for art.

The way people think of it nowadays is more like ... think of it like math: there's an infinitude of axiom systems, each generating meaningful theorems (artwork, as it were) as a result of their coherence, each axiom system being equally meaningful.

>>7668688
youre one dumb fucking autist

>>7668691
...you wanna give me an argument or just continue to shit out of your mouth?

Look friend, I've prolly read more about art than you. What I said is about the consensus of what art people - intellectuals who've spent their lives, playing a part of a centuries old humanistic tradition - think.

>>7668696
lel youre spewing shit and you need a plug desperately.
art is used to express emotion, call attention to significant events, interpret fables, legends, etc, record historical events, help someone relax, the list goes on. people have a lot a reasons for creating art and your shit tier opinions based on whats been created within the past century or two is irrelevant to the expansive history of art

>>7668703
>disagrees with my assertion that basing art on emotional expression is too small a basis to capture all of what art can be, and that there are numerous sources of artistic behavior, each equally valid
>proceeds to list numerous sources of art - stories, fables, "the list goes on", "there are lots of reason" - that aren't necessarily reducible to emotional expression
...you do realize you're arguing my point, right? You don't apparently don't actually disagree with me.

...jesus, do you always think this sloppily?

File: Capture.png (4KB, 537x95px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 537x95px

Look at this thread.

>>7667463
There's more to that painting than simply an interpretation of Icarus' descent. It's also about the surrounding countryside. Hence "_Landscape_ with the Fall of Icarus."

>>7668680
>he doesn't "get" Warhol

at least you tried

>>7669197
Kek Warhol?

I wonder if his fans share his IQ. Then again, scoring 80 is pretty tough

>>7669197
>>he doesn't "get" Warhol
not him but warhol is easy to "get" that doesnt make his stuff any less shit

>>7668688
I'm the guy you replied to. I see what you are trying to say - a technique like fotorealism, pointillism, or cubism, as axiomatic system - but without the circumstance, it becomes a circlejerk that can only be appreciated by people who participate in it.

>>7666458
This certainly begs the question Wallace Stevens has been asking: Where was it one first heard the truth? The the? o ίππος? While a bit mawkish, contrived and hyperreal - consider its metaphysics of presence (or as Danto might put it "the transfiguration of the artform [as a revival of Hegel's end-of-art]." Where does it stand in relation to mere objects? Who is being renumerated for his/her wrongdoings? It falls flat. It is upsetting. It is shit.

>>7669388
>but without the circumstance, it becomes a circlejerk
Ya I think that's always that tension with art. By itself it really is just a formal language that only makes sense cause it sicks together (paintings are paintings cause they're paintings - colors are colors). There's prolly a bit of it that won't change because of human biology (e.g. certain pitch ratios will prolly always sound like shit because of the way our ears work, we seem to be programmed to recognize faces and facial symmetry, etc etc), but really it's prolly just culture that trains an audience to associate the signifier (the art) with the signified (the interpretation/experience/emotion/whatever), and the way culture does that training is basically arbitrary.

Basically it's like a necessarily imperfect but consistent act of translation that only makes sense when enough people get on the same page to translate it the same way.

>>7669357
>IQ
>correlative with intelligence

nice meme

>>7666458
Scrap metal.

>>7665357
>appreciating art
>requiring heightened intelligence

>appreciating art
>requiring intelligence

>art
>requiring intelligence

>art
>intelligence

you're an idiot

>>7670228
It's a question, not a statement, you autist.

>>7670232
but you know that answering question requires assessing whether it's content make sense as a statement right?

>>7670240
The question makes perfect sense.

>>7665357
I'm actually going to give a somewhat serious answer

To really appreciate art(not just the pop entertainment shit, there's a definite line somewhere) you need an IQ in the 110 range and over, so not that high.

But on top of that you need a specific kind of sensitivity. It's a kind of awareness of the creative process and how it happens and the ability to follow the patterns of thought the artist had when he was creating the piece you're appreciating. Nobody can do this with all art of course, and that's how you get different styles of art. Meanwhile, some people, even highly intelligent ones, are utterly incapable of this and as a result have a very limited capability to appreciate art.

File: 3SPOOKY5ME.png (639KB, 544x736px) Image search: [Google]

639KB, 544x736px

>>7666733
I like pictures with spooky skelethings.

>>7666458
It seems to me to be a thought experiment, where matter itself has become movement. It's making an equivalent of two separate concepts.

File: dolanmodernart.jpg (427KB, 810x1640px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 810x1640px

if you can't appreciate this art you have low intelligence

>>7665357
>le happy cyclops contemplates rape

>>7667181
Escapism is not the only meaning of art.

>>7667181
you're sad and autistic
gtfo

>>7671374
I actually agree with everyone i the last panel.

>>7666734

Not quite.

The "purpose" of art is to trigger a subjective experience in the observer; if you know the memes of the art community and art history, your experience will be richer.

You're probably confused by modern art because you don't understand its intent.

>>7673401
It's about the oppressive society that turns you into a speedball addict.

>>7673401
>implying anything can be art

>>7665357
No, you just have to belive you are of higher intelligence and you'll fabricate your own bullshit meaning.

Generally good artists lived most aspects of life that general public experiences, and their painting focused brains manage to reproduce symbols and elements that rise emotions linked to mundane experiences from every day life.
It's all about emotion triggering.

>>7666492
It's just your imagination.
And the dude you responded to.
>>7666489
Watches too much porn.

>>7673448
It most certainly can!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9iJCZ5Il8
You can skip the first minute.

>>7665357
The word you're looking for isn't "intelligence" -- which has connotations of innateness and is pretty much code for raw mental horsepower -- but being cultured and well-read which is associated with openness to experience. And yes, you have to be open to experience to appreciate art.

>>7673669
As if there's a problem with creating your own meaning.


You better not ever, and I mean ever, have the balls to whine about nihilism. Your type always does, and fails to recognize the hypocrisy.

>>7674436
>>7665357

This. Appreciating art is a personality trait, not an intellectual one. A smart person will "get" more from the art, but only because smarter people "get" more from everything.

>>7668530
Yep, art is for idiots that wants to seek approval from others.

>>7666458
Is this meant to represent movement or are the cut outs meant to form another shape/image?

I know its a jokey riding a horse.

File: 1447315140541.jpg (38KB, 604x437px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 604x437px

>>7674479
Wow.

>>7666492
what if it's not?

File: Screenshot_77.png (18KB, 85x86px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 85x86px

>art thread on /sci/

What the fuck?

Art, as in paintings, always have been and always will be a pseudo-intellectual circlejerk.

>>7674459
>Appreciating art is a personality trait

u wot m8

>>7675206
>>7668530
>>7666377
>I dont like something therfore anyone who does and tries to think about why is just pretending to get bitches
You're'r people are shit here s/ci//

File: 304527.jpg (2MB, 2000x1910px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1910px

>>7675295
liking art and maybe trying to talk about why a bit isn't pretending in order to get bitches and look cool.
Things like the pic featured in this post
>>7672203
and pretending to understand them, coming up with them, or nodding your head and going 'hrrmnn yes I concur' with them very much is.