[ SECRET POST #2799 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2799 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #400.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[diet_poison]

I'd basically define art as anything that results from human creative expression. It doesn't have to mean anything to be art. That definition is not only narrow but also, imo, kind of pretentious. It's essentially telling people that the art they make purely for enjoyment/because it's pretty/because they feel like it doesn't count because it doesn't have some kind of academic ~symbolic meaning~ behind it. Sometimes it's just pretty pictures or a nice story or whatever, and it's still art - no reason why it shouldn't be.

Art is entertaining sometimes. Sports are entertaining sometimes. But saying the two are essentially the same because they share that one feature in common is kind of silly to me. Sports are a measure of human (and sometimes animal) physical ability. Art is a product of human expression. Sometimes (such as in gymnastics or figure skating) the two can coincide, but they're in completely different categories of "things humans do that might also be entertaining to the doers and/or to onlookers".

[(Anonymous)]

I think that something being pretty DOES have message though -- it's expressing beauty or conveying an emotion that the artist felt. I don't think that art having a message or a meaning means it needs to be deeply symbolic or esoteric. But I do think it needs to be trying to convey SOMETHING.

But really, I use the definition I use because I find that video games are too often dismissed in the realm of art. There are people who will say Transformers is art more readily than something like Spec Ops and I don't think that's fair. Transformers is fun, it's entertaining, but I'd say it's got more in common with a roller coaster than a piece of art. In my opinion, at least.

[diet_poison]

But a roller coaster is created for the purpose of giving someone a physical thrill. (Though they *are* sometimes nice to look at.) Transformers has visual, musical, and story components; even if you think it's not deep enough, it's still art. And what else does "have to mean something" mean if not depth? Like a person might create something on a whim and go "well that looks nice" but they weren't necessarily creating it with the intent of expressing beauty. Or, well, let me put it this way - if a person sold paintings that they didn't particularly find pretty or enjoy making, are they not still art? Even if someone who buys them thinks they're pretty?

It's still human expression.