Agreed.  But communication requires a fundamental understanding of technical principles like grammar, speech, prose, style, and various subjects.  Otherwise a 3 year-old going gaga googoo is very communicative and artistic, so is a monkey flinging .  In other words, there must be method to the madness.  You cannot break with convention if you do not recognize it first.  Revolutions require a status quo. 

Perhaps one could argue that technical comprehension (understanding) is more relevant than technical mastery (execution).

It's still not the point though.  And I would never agree that it is necessary in an absolute way.  Townes Van Zandt isn't technically good at anything and yet is one of the most profound songwriters ever.  It's what you're able to communicate that matters.  A lot of that has to do with a choice or certain life experiences that drive a person to dig deep into something.

Though I agree that it is often or even usually necessary to develop technical mastery inorder to say what you want.  It is a language. 

Though still what drives a great artist to learn techncal skills is the desire to communicate and not being able to, rather than technical obsession.

I love Bob Dylan songs so long as they are not performed by Bob Dylan.

I just read this whole thread again start to finish.  I identify really strongly with all of RD's posts.  Almost step for step, I see it the same way.  At first I thought it was just the same thing Purrin said, but the subsequent posts really built on how breaking from convention isn't *the point*, it's just something that sometimes happens in an effort to communicate.

I still see a pretty gaping hole in Purrin's logic, at least as it relates to real life.  The argument seems to be that it's easy to tell who's dicking around vs. who's not.  And...I just don't see how it's that simple in real life?  I suppose I could chalk it up to naivety/lack of exposure on my part (as was suggested a page ago) but given the presumption evident in that statement alone, and given the fact that I studied fine art/visual art formally for four years, and thus met *many* artists and students of different abilities, I really hesitate to.  The same applies to the dancers, vocalists and musicians I studied with (not that I studied any of those things, we were just at the same institution).

If I was writing a short story, or writing a script to a movie, I would have full authority to have...Morgan Freeman come on and give a little back-story.  Validate presumptions.  In fact, ignite them in the first place.

Morgan Freeman doesn't exist in real life, and he doesn't give backstory to you and you just *don't know* who's dicking around and who's not, and the respectful thing to do, generally, is to try to understand the piece itself.  It stands alone, the artist and their credentials are secondary. 

You seem all over the place in your logic tbh.  You say everything is art and then attempt to define w/ the most nebulous, esoteric metrics of having a Hollywood narrator opening the storyline.  Once you begin defining anything, it's really not as romantic or mysterious as it's often portrayed and you've descended into science at that point.  Yes, there is a science to art and anything else.

So I ask you a simple question.  What is NOT art?  If you feel it's just communication, am I engaging in art when a telemarketer calls me in the middle of dinner?  Why or why not? 

If a baby throws food in my face, is that art?  How about when a mom takes a picture of the baby throwing food in dad's face.  Is that art?  When is a picture just a picture and when does it become art?  Are all pictures art?

Also, no offense, shouldn't this topic be the first thing they teach you as a fine arts major?  I'd at the very least expect some expertise in the ability to define the milieu.  As I recall, one definition of art is that which serves no functional purpose other than existing as itself.


Also relating to headphones is really a matter of what ones consider neutral vs. natural, objective and subjective, etc.  I don't see how else art relates to headphones other than tuning unless as a objet d'art hanging from n Omega stand.

@DF, definitely, agreed.

You seem all over the place in your logic tbh.  You say everything is art and then attempt to define w/ the most nebulous, esoteric metrics of having a Hollywood narrator opening the storyline.  Once you begin defining anything, it's really not as romantic or mysterious as it's often portrayed and you've descended into science at that point.  Yes, there is a science to art and anything else.

So I ask you a simple question.  What is NOT art?  If you feel it's just communication, am I engaging in art when a telemarketer calls me in the middle of dinner?  Why or why not? 

If a baby throws food in my face, is that art?  How about when a mom takes a picture of the baby throwing food in dad's face.  Is that art?  When is a picture just a picture and when does it become art?  Are all pictures art?

Also, no offense, shouldn't this topic be the first thing they teach you as a fine arts major?  I'd at the very least expect some expertise in the ability to define the milieu.  As I recall, one definition of art is that which serves no functional purpose other than existing as itself.


Also relating to headphones is really a matter of what ones consider neutral vs. natural, objective and subjective, etc.  I don't see how else art relates to headphones other than tuning unless as a objet d'art hanging from n Omega stand.

I...said everything is art?  On page 2 I wrote the sentence "I don't think everything is art."  Then I went on to give an example of something that separated art from not-art. 

I'm a little confused as to you how you got from "I don't think everything is art" to "you say everything is art." 

Considering that, I'm not surprised you think my logic is all over the place. 

Morgan Freeman wasn't a metric for defining art either.  Again, confused, not what I said.

And sure, there's science to art at some micro-level.  That's a given.

Explain again why you think Monoprice 9927 are giant killers?