2
   

Do you consider war as an art form?

 
 
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2012 08:57 pm
The concept of art is so ambiguous.
Look at war for example:
I look at the General as the artist, his various paint brushes are the tools of war at hand, the colors are, well, chaos and disorder, and his canvas is the battlefield.

If war is considered an art form, then it is one of the oldest art form, because it has been present since the beginning of humanity. Well in the dawn of humanity, before there were true governments, war was synonymous with small scale invasion against enemy groups.

Then isn't war the oldest art form?
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2012 09:19 pm
@aspvenom,
Sun Tzu might agree with you. I don't think he considered war itself as art, but the way it was executed could be artistically done.
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2012 10:06 pm
@rosborne979,
I might consider it a craft, but "art" is far deeper and broader than is "war".
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 Jun, 2012 10:49 pm
@aspvenom,
If one is inclined to that kind of imaginative flights of poesy, virtually anything created by humans can be considered an art form. If war, then why not creative genocide? Going to the bathroom in an unusual and creative manner could be considered an art form. Isn't sexual intercourse an art form? It can be, I think.

Point is, after a while the word "art" loses all useful meaning.
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 02:31 am
@aspvenom,
I think the "art" of war is similar to the "art" of raising crops or the "art" of paving a road. In these contexts the word "art" doesn't mean that something artistic is produced. It merely means that the tasks of the work are carried out to perfection.

If you are forced to go to war in the first place, mastering the "art of war" can save the lives of your men and limit the casualties on both sides. A general who has ingenuity, boldness and creativity that none of his opponents can match or overcome may be considered a master in the art of war, but he could hardly be called an artist.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 02:36 am
If Art is beauty and beauty is perfection, then Art simply means that things are extraordinarily well done, whatever they are...any other pseudo definition for me is decoration over the essential...Art is just Equilibrium !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 03:56 am
@Lustig Andrei,
...you're so wrong...it doesn't need to be "creative" it just needs to be perfectly efficient...unless of course by creative one goes exactly in that direction (also efficient doesn't equate to linear nor Spartan)...that's French talk...I really hope to keep my art working well while sitting on the toilet for the next 40 years...
roger
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 03:59 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
If it weren't creative, I would have to consider it more craft than art. Bricks are pretty much laid as they were centuries ago. Some are better at it than others, but that only qualifies them as good craftsmen.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 04:04 am
@roger,
You see...bricks are bricks but is whatever you do with them that matters...and it better have a purpose...tired of that "Frenchy" existential talk of Art without a purpose...purpose is beauty !
...the thing about being creative is that it is to vague, it can have 2 directions, either to build, or to destroy...Destruction can be beautiful indeed but only if it has a purpose, although I rather leave that in the hands of Nature and not in the hands of man...we better stick with simpler Art...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 07:10 am
Had a long, detailed post which i lost when one of my games crashed. Some of it is saved in a notepad file. Like Ah-nold, "Ah'll be bahck."
0 Replies
 
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 07:28 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Art seems to become more ambiguous in the sense then, yet it is so hard to limit the concept.

But I've always wondered, in paintings, and movies, war is depicted as art, but taken directly in its own medium, it is not.

I suppose it is due to its sinister nature, since the infantry men has to endure the result, whether a comfortable person sitting in the comforts of his country, like me, thinks it is aesthetic or not.
My ambiguous "criteria" for war was an expression that engages the observer, and draws them in, and I thought I understood war as a face of humanity, the primal monster within humanity being expressed.
I saw it as a way for future civilization to look back and see the effects and the emotions that partook with the carnage, and possibly learn.

I imagine that is why the average interviewee can not consider war as art, in its direct format of death, blood shed, and the epitaph of frailty that is part of being human.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 07:34 am
@aspvenom,
aspvenom wrote:
I imagine that is why the average interviewee can not consider war as art, in its direct format of death, blood shed, and the epitaph of frailty that is part of being human.


"Epitaph of frailty?" Is this paragraph supposed to mean something? Who are the "interviewees?"
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 07:35 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Yes, nature always beat man at creative destruction, that is synonymous with the cycle of life and death.

Our destruction it seems will get into a cycle of death and death, with our current military technology and inventions, such as the nuke.
0 Replies
 
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 07:40 am
@Setanta,
By "interviewees" I meant just people in the forum answering the question. Sorry for the confusion.
"Is this paragraph -sentence-(sic) supposed to mean something? "
Well, I meant epitaph in the sense of the ongoing history of human beings. War is one, disease is another.
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 07:46 am
@aspvenom,
Well you're a snotty son of a bitch.

Quote:
"Is this paragraph -sentence-(sic) supposed to mean something? "


It was a separate paragraph, which was your formattting choice. I had intended to make a detailed response to this tripe, but i don't think you're worth that much effort. Leaving aside your delusions of linguistic competence, i don't care for your ******* attitude.
aspvenom
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 07:50 am
@Setanta,
Oh maybe it was a paragraph, sorry, I don't consider myself in no way linguistically competent or professional. I'm no English major. By mistake I thought that the only criteria for paragraphs was that it had to be at least three sentences.
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 08:17 am
@aspvenom,
What I meant was "I don't consider myself in no way" a competent judge of competence in English.
I'll be mature and admit, it was ignorance in my part.

But Setanta, what did you originally plan to say regarding the topic?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 04:24 pm
@aspvenom,
You mean: "I don't consider myself in ANY way" [to be] a c ompetent..."
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jun, 2012 06:05 pm
@JLNobody,
If you must rub it in, yes, I guess.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Do you consider war as an art form?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2019 at 09:09:09