MBSS Philosophy Cyber-Café

Art is art no matter what its called or titled. If dogs and elephonts that can "paint" and its 1000s of dollars in worth then of course its beautiful art. espcially since it was claimed to be art already. art is expression of you current emotions or emotions that you want people to recive or understand.

The work is unique and still ties into the artist. If the exhibit is based on his work people attending would be more than interested in the piece that even he couldnt improve.

There is no reason for Daphne Stone to change her opinion on the piece of art. But I want to note that nothing will measure up to the Mona Lisa.

"Art is a reflection of human nature, he said. It is beautiful, and awful. It is simple, and it is incomprehensible. Art is the process of taking things apart to see how they work, and it is the process of breaking things to remind us how fragile they are. He sat on the edge of my couch, drinking a glass of water, and he said that we were creating an atmosphere that would retain the radiation reflecting off the surface of the earth. We were melting the edges of the ice caps, cooling down the northern seas. We were slowing the Gulf Stream, dramatically changing the way the environment behaved. He grabbed my shoulder and said, Isn't art supposed to move you? Isn't it supposed to shake you by the hair and say "Aren't you afraid?"

He said art isn't just for your benefit, or mine. Art can be a lesson that we leave behind, a horrible warning instead of a shining example. Art, he said, isn't your little paintings and comic books. Art is the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs."
-Joey Comeau

This is one of my favourite quotes, and the way I see it, the basic message is this. Things that change the way we see the world, that move us in some way, are art. Art is dramatic, and unexplainable, but good art makes us feel something, and/or discover something about ourselves. By this definition the piece of stone is art. Looking at it effects people. The effect is more important than the creation. Art has impact.

The art is still that of Moore, though he couldn't expres nature with a brush (or what ever tool he used) he could have natuse expres it self for him. Daphne should put the art work up though the form of it was expresed with out a brush it is still art, and it should be displayed... so long as some credit gose to mother natuer Lol.
Nothing should change her opinion of what the art is, it is an exprestion of somthin no one can posibly get on their own.

There are many ways to produce art. To recognize that something is already beautiful and thus decide you can't improve it is a legitimate type of beauty and art. Moore should not be credited for creating this piece because didn't create it, he found it. There are many things of natural beauty that have nothing to do with human creation. This piece has "sensuous contours and geometric balance, which together capturedthe mathematical and spiritual aspects of nature." because what better representation for the beauty of nature is there than nature itself.

In my opinion, art does not require an intellegent designer or creator. Some art is created, but there is also another type of art that is discovered. Discovered art does not require intellegence to form it, but only to appreciate and recognize the beauty that occurs naturally.

I think that when the thought, or lack of, was discovered the painting should not be worth any less value to Stone and I don't think her opinion of the painting should change.. Moore, believed that he couldn't improve on nature so he left it to it's own devices. Is this evidence not enough to show that there was some thought behind creation of the painting. It was not totally mindless, there was a purpose..The question could be asked if the painting could even be considered art, as it was created by nature... does not art need an artist?

Napoleon Bonaparte was raised with every formal manner that existed this time and studied at an army accademy, he completed it in honour.
Does this change your oppinion that he became hilariously stupid and his arrogance got him banned TWICE!!!!

By that I mean everyone who shaped himself or herself in "society" wants a piece of the cake! That means your aspect of beauty equals your greed for money and worthfull humans! They so make themselves more stupid then they really are because their aspect of natural beauty becomes a false reality... Beauty equals money

Napoleon Bonaparte was raised with every formal manner that existed this time and studied at an army accademy, he completed it in honour.
Does this change your oppinion that he became hilariously stupid and his arrogance got him banned TWICE!!!!

By that I mean everyone who shaped himself or herself in "society" wants a piece of the cake! That means your aspect of beauty equals your greed for money and worthfull humans! They so make themselves more stupid then they really are because their aspect of natural beauty becomes a false reality... Beauty equals money

No, I don't think that this should change anything at all. She can still apprectiate the beauty of this sculpture but her appreciation should be shifted from this man to Nature itself. She fully has the right to explain that this was not a Moore piece at all but indeed a work of Nature. She should also explain that Moore realized the beauty and left it. With this association to the artist people may still want to have to piece that was "too beautiful for Moore to improve."

This stone is beautiful, but it is not art. Art in all its forms implies human will and human skill: thus one may recieve a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology, which has nothing to do with beauty.

If the primary concern of the Gallary is the aquisition and display of art by artists this stone obviously should be removed. If however the main goal is the aquisition and celebration of beauty - regardless the source - the stone should be kept.

This distiction can be made by the curator. In this case the lack of an artist actually increases the awe implicite in this beauty because it has been formed of itself.

No, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the peice of art was by some other artist, it would still be in the art gallery. Nature makes beautiful things, why shouldn't it be presented in public? A name of an artist doesn't make the art any better, or shouldn't. Also, Moore didn't work on the peice because he couldn't make it any better. If he thought it should be left as it is, then it must be good. I think the peice of art should be put into a seprate spot of the art galery where it will be known that there wasn't an artist but nature created this beauty.

No, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the peice of art was by some other artist, it would still be in the art gallery. Nature makes beautiful things, why shouldn't it be presented in public? A name of an artist doesn't make the art any better, or shouldn't. Also, Moore didn't work on the peice because he couldn't make it any better. If he thought it should be left as it is, then it must be good. I think the peice of art should be put into a seprate spot of the art galery where it will be known that there wasn't an artist but nature created this beauty.

It was a compleate mistake on Daphne's part, Moore only took for his own viewing, and to take out outr of his studio, with no explination as to when he created it was her fault. It should not be called art, as art implies making of creating somehting with human hands. The rock should simply be considered a natural beauty.

If anything, her opinion should improve on the piece of work. No it was not carved by human hands, nor was it conceived by a human mind, but the point was that it emulated nature, which makes perfect sense because it was created by nature. It is amazing the pieces of art that get put forward by nature that never get looked twice at, the way two trees grow around each other when their seeds sprout too close, or the pattern that a river leaves on a mountain-side. It is still artwork, it is simply natural.

~Sorcha

I don't see the problem. He is displaying a rock from nature. It's teh same as having photography in an art gallery, it's simply nature. But if he is lying about it, saying her carved it, then that is a problem. But it doesn't sound like that is a problem.