Seeing the (unfortunate) lack of discussion here, I'd like to take charge and offer a topic every Saturday (starting next Saturday, the 22nd) at 8:30 Central Time. At the end of the Discussion, there will be a preview for the next discussion in order for you to research and have an educated argument. Most of these "discussions" have something to do with a plotline I'm cooking up, involving a real life issue I'd like to get your opinions on. If you HAVE a topic or a storyline to discuss BY ALL MEANS PM OR TELL ME IN THE POSTS BELOW! If your topic doesn't come up the current discussion, that doesn't mean I'll never talk about it. I'm limiting myself to ONE discussion per day. Now with all that out of the way, the topic the first discussion is Intellectual Art, what is "intellectual", what is "art", and can the two mix? Based upon your own opinions and some research. Discussion is open for anyone! Thank you for listening to my rant.

Love you all like neighbors! Peace, love and happy thoughts be with you always!

TrueGentleman

Hmm. I don't know much about art, so I prolly won't be contributing to this one . . . but I like your idea of discussions!

4633367 Did you get inspired by this thread?

As definitions go, I would say that 'intellectual' means that some mental process has to be involved, and 'art' is just a process by which humans express themselves.

As for 'intellectual art', it does really depend on how you define the term. I think that art in its broadest sense has to be intellectual, since every piece of art is there to generate a mental reaction in the viewer, which is sort of the definition of an intellectual process. Of course, taken to an extreme this definition would make everything art (yes, even clopfics and Twilight) and in doing so make the term useless.

It really does come down to what you contrast 'intellectual art' to. Are you contrasting 'intellectual art' with more commercialized fare, e.g. a design on a T-Shirt or a Transformers movie? Then I suppose you could draw the line at intention - art as part of the artist's search for truth, as opposed to just a tool in order to make money... bearing in mind, of course, that great art (Shakespeare) frequently involved the latter motivation.

Or are you contrasting 'intellectual art' with 'pop art' - intellectual art as something that is supposed to reveal timeless truths, as opposed to 'pop art' which frequently has to be viewed within the historical context of its creation (Andy Warhol's work makes more sense when you view it as a reaction to modern mass-production methods, whereas you can understand immediately that Rembrandt's technique is brilliant). This adds a condition of timelessness to 'intellectual art' - while all art starts off as pop art, truly intellectual art can stand the test of time (like Impressionism, which started off hated by everybody but is now seen as perfectly legit art).

Then of course you can go back to the thread I linked to earlier, and see 'intellectual art' as high-quality art among an otherwise vast ocean of trash, which is of course a subjective judgment (as readers of this website must realize ).

My view? I take the easy way out and say it's a combination of the three. Intellectual art, which is really just 'art' in my view, must contain in it some aspiration to discover higher truths, some degree of timelessness, and be of at least decent quality. Is it kind of snobbish? Well, yes. Does it depend on personal taste? Yes to that as well.

Anyway, just my two cents on the issue. TL:DR - 'intellectual art' is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.

Easy there Starswirly! Let's let the other people post, but I appreciate your eagerness!

Part of my intent is to allow people who are interested in a specific topic to say so, and to allow people who don't know about the topic to research and form their own opinions on it

4633474 Pfft. Intellectual art is everything where the pretentious-tag can be added.

4633602 Dontcha confuse Starswirl with Swirlstar.

Edit: Big problem I see with intellectual art and MLP is that the more you dive into an idea, the further you get away from the point where you still immerse into the colourful world. Ultimately you'll reach the point where you think what all this has to do with MLP anyway. Alternatively, I often see myself asking how I put this idea into the shape of MLP. For the fun writings the given frame is a welcomed aid, but when it becomes more complicated it begins to become a burden. It is almost, for me, a one-way, where you either start to think "How would it be in the FiM world?" or you just accelerate further and further away.

>>Chaodiurn Easy there... isn't it the duty of the author to immerse himself in the world he is creating? To make his audience feel what his characters are feeling? Just sayin'...

4633744 It is! So how do we traverse from an essay to a story? If this is done successful, I imagine we end up with something that this group would adore.