# What do you call this kind of art?



## sunandshadow (Jun 9, 2010)

What isn't included: Realism, classical art, romanticism, western cartoons, anime.  Aka 'normal' art.

What is included: Art nouveau, impressionism, expressionism, abstract art, graffiti, illuminated manuscripts, cave paintings, Egyptian murals, Australian Aborigine art, most Native American art (especially Zuni), ancient South American (Inca, Olmec, Aztec), and Inuit art.

Is there any term I can use to refer to this second group of art styles and have people understand what I mean?


----------



## Jw (Jun 9, 2010)

sunandshadow said:


> What isn't included: Realism, classical art, romanticism, western cartoons, anime.  Aka 'normal' art.
> 
> What is included: Art nouveau, impressionism, expressionism, abstract art, graffiti, illuminated manuscripts, cave paintings, Egyptian murals, Australian Aborigine art, most Native American art (especially Zuni), ancient South American (Inca, Olmec, Aztec), and Inuit art.
> 
> Is there any term I can use to refer to this second group of art styles and have people understand what I mean?



Neo/Classical art: Classical, realism
Animation style: western, anime

Abstracted art: impressionism, expressionism, illuminated manuscripts, art nouveau
Tribal art: anything prehistoric or ethnic, and to a degree graffiti

There's no way to group that kind of art together, because the styles are so radically different


----------



## Zydala (Jun 9, 2010)

"normal" art? what? you're grouping cartoons and anime with classical? 

you'd best be off using the historical contexts and describing them by period, ex: "Renaissance", "Impressionism" "Post-Impressionism" "Prehistoric".

If you're trying to describe something that is similar about them, use terms that describe similarities, like focus or materials or color or contrast.

Because right now there's no way to group any of those together as a huge group; most of them have absolutely nothing in common.


----------



## sunandshadow (Jun 10, 2010)

It wouldn't work at all to describe them by historical period because the ones I want to exclude go back all the way to classical Greece, Egypt, and China, and the ones I want to include are still being produced today (and vice versa).  I'm grouping cartoons with classical because they are both straightforward, not heavily stylized, non-symbolic, and the common things people produce today.  Cartoons are simplified realizm with minor exaggerations.  I'm grouping tribal, impressionistic/expressionistic, etc. together because they are heavily stylized and symbolic, and not commonly produced today.  While they're certainly not the most obvious way to divide art into categories, I do believe that the two groups I described make some kind of sense.


----------



## Zydala (Jun 10, 2010)

Cartoons and anime are EXTREMELY stylized. They're simplistic in the fact that it takes very few lines to represent the image they want to achieve, but there's a million different ways to represent said figure as well. That's why there's so many different 'styles' in manga and stuff. Do you mean mass-produced or pop-culture? Because then I don't know where classical fits into that, either - historically classical pieces weren't mass-produced at all. Plus classical pieces from the Renaissance and forward were extremely symbolic. Color choices, fabric choices, subject matter... all symbolic. 

impressionism is not symbolic in the same way that tribal art is. Impressionism was using light and color to create realistic forms, like landscapes. Indigenous and Native art are symbolic in the way they use simple lines and figures, plus a lot of art is ceremonial and practical.

I think I understand what you're getting at, but like I said, you need to describe their similarities by related art terms, because I feel like you're throwing context out of the picture, which is... what art is all about, really.


----------



## sunandshadow (Jun 10, 2010)

Zydala said:


> I feel like you're throwing context out of the picture, which is... what art is all about, really.


 That's an interesting statement.  Why is art all about context?  The particular project which motivated me to start this thread is an emulation of the Voynich manuscript.  No one knows who created the Voynich manuscript or what the symbols mean - that's it's whole point of interest, that it has remained mysterious since it was found.  One possibility is that it was created specifically to be mysterious and thus sell for a high price.  Other possibilities are that it was created in the context of and alchemical or religious group about which all knowledge has been lost to us.  Either way, we don't know its historical context, yet it's still interesting.

I'd like to do the same thing - make up an original set of mysterious symbolism, and a fake language, use them consistently throughout an illuminated manuscript, and release the result as if it were an archeological find.  (But with a little disclaimer saying it's fiction, because it's illegal to pass fiction off as real archeology.)  So it's like the actual context of the book is modern English-speaking culture, yet I have to try to forget that and make up a new fictional culture to be the context.


----------



## Zydala (Jun 10, 2010)

Funny enough, you're talking to an anthropology major, so I'm extremely interested in the subject matter at hand! That sounds like a very interesting project. 

I would like to answer the questions asked, though. When studying art history (as I did last semester), the second thing we learned on the first day of class was that context matters. The interpretation of a piece can change drastically when you understand the cultural, historical, and personal context of it. When you go though a museum and look at a picture, you might think at first "oh, that's neat." But then sometimes if you look at the plaque next to it, in which the museum tells you about why the painter painted it or when it was made or for whom, the piece somehow means that much more. A simple carving from an indigenous population turns into a very important symbol of wealth or fertility with context. It's VERY important to an interpretation to a piece.

And don't assume that just because a piece isn't fully understood, that it doesn't have any context whatsoever! There's a lot of archaeological sites that have unearthed prehistoric writing (considered "pre"-historic formally because we don't understand it just yet), but because of its origins and whereabouts, we can hazard a guess as to whether it served a certain purpose.

Even the Voynich manuscript has a context - a vague and unclear one in respects, but it has does; it also has a lot of potential context. If the dating done on the book is true (early 1400s), then it can say a lot about the focus of books for that period, especially since it's been compared to herbal books of the same time period. But think about the other theories behind it: if it was a made-up language that was supposed to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western texts and languages (which there were a lot of during that time), the context tells us a lot about what might have been important in cultural relations. Or what it might potentially say about the crryptography of its time, since it resembles (but doesn't quite fit) a lot of cryptography patterns from later years. The fact that we can compare so much to it means that it has SOME sort of context, just not a solid one.

Very interesting topic! Not sure how it relates to the first topic, but this is the kind of stuff I love to talk about, lol.


----------



## sunandshadow (Jun 10, 2010)

The "historical context is important" position isn't the only position though.  Many people believe the opposite, that any work of art has meaning only in relation to the individual viewing/reading it.  "The author's intention is neither available nor desirable..." is a famous literary criticism quote.  Both positions lead to ridiculous places if you follow them too strongly - in the second case you might refuse to acknowledge a typo or other printing error in a book, while in the first case you end up saying it's impossible to ever really understand art not created within one's own lifetime in one's own culture.

It's an interesting issue.  I'm more of a structuralist/universalist who finds it ridiculous when people complain about 'cultural imperialism', but I do think a piece's creator has a privileged position from which to comment on the piece's intended meaning, and that the meaning a piece had in it's original context is a valuable thing to study even when it's quite different to what the piece might mean to any living viewer.

Glad you think my project sounds interesting.


----------



## Zydala (Jun 10, 2010)

The final interpretation is always up to the individual who looks at it, I'm not challenging that. What I was trying to say is that you shouldn't just shun context just because. ANY context of the piece at all - personal, historical, cultural - can change the meaning for an individual viewing it. You shouldn't judge a piece ONLY off of that value, but only after knowing everything you can about the piece - context, artist's intention, etc - can you give a final interpretation.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 10, 2010)

It's Anthropomorphic art.


----------



## sunandshadow (Jun 10, 2010)

Arshes Nei said:


> It's Anthropomorphic art.


 Whut?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 11, 2010)

sunandshadow said:


> Whut?


 
I can say the same about the OP here.

It's confusing to say the least and sounds like it's being overthought. What do you mean by "this"

It's all narrative to me...


----------



## sunandshadow (Jun 11, 2010)

o_0  There was nothing complicated at all about the first post - I'm just looking for a word I can use to describe art that isn't cartoon, anime, or realism, which seem like the only kinds of art I ever see people making.  This is a very practical question - I want a term I can google, or put in a post title asking for people to recommend good examples of the styles of art I am looking for.  Anthropomorphic isn't even an art style, it's just a type of content.


----------



## Lobar (Jun 11, 2010)

Pretentious.


----------



## sunandshadow (Jun 11, 2010)

Right... you go right ahead and tell those Australian Aborigines their art is pretentious.  Or is it that you think it's pretentious of any modern person to want to create art in an antique or primitive style?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 11, 2010)

sunandshadow said:


> o_0  There was nothing complicated at all about the first post - I'm just looking for a word I can use to describe art that isn't cartoon, anime, or realism, which seem like the only kinds of art I ever see people making.  This is a very practical question - I want a term I can google, or put in a post title asking for people to recommend good examples of the styles of art I am looking for.  Anthropomorphic isn't even an art style, it's just a type of content.


 
It helps if you had ART in the first post.
There's nothing there. So I'm coming on thinking you're trying to redfine furry or some other crazy stuff.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jun 11, 2010)

Degenerate art?


----------



## Jw (Jun 11, 2010)

With a little more thought on my part, you might be thinking of human-subjective art. You can represent people in pretty much any art style you've listed, but it's often heavily abstracted for lights, emotions, or motions depending on the focus of the artist. Cartoons are abstracted, too, so there's not a perfect definition for the rather strange split you've made. Really, cartoons are more like cave drawings than classical art in my opinion. However, what is clear is this: in the forms you listed, the focus is on the human-like subject and not some other force behind it.

honestly, you don't need a definition if you're planning on something already-- putting a name on something often takes the magic away from it. So i say go for making your manuscript and don't worry about giving it a genre.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 11, 2010)

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=190276


----------



## Zydala (Jun 11, 2010)

Your original question REALLY did not have an answer. There are no terms as to what you're looking for. It was much too broad, much too confusing, and was trying to incorporate too many things while discarding important contexts.

Arshes Nei's post to the conceptart thread was much more precise and I hope that the terms that were given in that thread are useful


----------



## sunandshadow (Jun 12, 2010)

Yeah, I did get the feeling my original question here had no answer.  At least it led to a bit of interesting discussion.   But yeah this thread is what made me realize I should ask a more specific question at concept art, and I'm glad to be getting specific responses there.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 12, 2010)

sunandshadow said:


> Yeah, I did get the feeling my original question here had no answer.  At least it led to a bit of interesting discussion.   But yeah this thread is what made me realize I should ask a more specific question at concept art, and I'm glad to be getting specific responses there.


 
Correction, You should have made your post more specific period. Concept Art has nothing to do with it. You were more precise in the direction of the question you were posing.


----------



## sunandshadow (Jun 12, 2010)

It would be silly to post two threads in a row at the same forum about almost the same topic.  Whenever I have more than one forum where my question might get answered, instead of posting the same thing at both at the same time, I find it useful to use one as a rough draft, and the next as a revision based on responses to the first one.

I would have preferred to have a term I could google, which is why I asked for that first, but since there isn't any appropriate term I had to ask for specific examples.  The problem with asking for specific examples is that they're going to be 3/4 stuff I'm already familiar with.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 12, 2010)

What silliness? What are you on about? Just be more specific next time and quit making excuses for not being clear earlier. Your OP post has no image in it, "Asking what do you call this art" in a furry forum.


----------

