What is art?

[DecalMirror]

Like the heading asks, what is art? For example I draw an abstract shape to red and green background with MSpaint in three minutes.

 

Is that art?

Why it is/is not?

Who decides what is art?

 

Despite the example, the discussion may include any form of art: fine art, performance, sound in its many forms and any other you can imagine. So who dare to start...

[Abramul]

I'd say that art must have meaning in addition to form. Purpose doesn't really count much towards making something art.

[Chesto]

Yes. Intention is the key. Well...the tip of the iceberg of the key. Not only must the Art be intentionally committed- thus eliminating monkeys and typewriters or elephants and house brushes- it must be explained, and at great length. Said explanation must take ever so much longer, and be ever so much more complex than the Art 'work', or the work will fail. Oh. And publicity, and all the paraphernalia that that entails.

[hoots7]

Oh my... what a question, I remember in college taking an art appreciation class were the professor asked that question on the first day & we spent the whole semester answering it studying artist styles, themes, technique & work.

We don't have a semester (or more to the point I won't spend that long on the subject) so I'll cut to the chase. He said that art can be anything that a person finds value in. It's kind of the opposite definition of what a weed is ; an unwanted plant. So, any plant can be a weed (even a beautiful rose) and anything can be “art”.

[Abramul]

I was going to disagree, but your use of 'value' isn't sufficiently clear. Either way: An object created and used without consideration given to anything other than its suitability for such use is not art. It can potentially become art, though.

 

Artistic value is not an inherent trait. It must come from a creator, user, or perceiver.

 

To expand on my previous post, I would note that "This is an aspect of Beauty" counts as a meaning.

[ninja_lord666]

Art, especially modern art, is an expression of Self. People express themselves in many ways: music, painting, writing, etc. To some, a small white circle in the middle of a large black canvas if just a waste of perfectly good materials, but to others, it could have meaning; it could mean a small speckle of hope in a void of despair, a bit of success in a sea of failure. It could also have a religious tone if you swing that way. It could represent finding God amongst all the lies and evil.

In essence, art is whatever you make of it. Now I, myself, am partial to classic art, things like the Mona Lisa, the Sistine Chapel, David, etc. However, I can see the merit of modern art, as long as it actually is made with reason. If some slaps a white dot on a black canvas then makes up a bulls*** story, that's not art, that's scamming. With modern art, it's sometimes hard to tell.

[DecalMirror]

I think that today's trend have been that if the artist is well known, his works are art but if no one knows his name, it's just some freaked-out's creations. I read some time ago a text that said: "The art is not made by the artist, but the viewer." That's not really what I personally think, but that's how most of people think.

 

This is how it goes in Finland. I didn't find any article in English but the picture tells it all. It's a gigantic *censored* made by some third degree art student(woman). She got several awards with it including a large monetary stipend and the aesthetic act of the year 2007(don't really know what's the name of that prize in English). There was, however, much criticism on that. I'll try to translate one that had some good points in it:

 

"If Joe, 15 year old high school student draws a 2m penis on the closet wall, he get banned from school, got to pay fine about 2000€ and have to pay the cleaning. If Kati, 27 year old art student draws a 2,458m penis on the closet wall, she will get respect of all artists and artist's stipend(20000€)."

 

In my opinion that work had a clear message of freedom of speech. Many people didn't think that as art but as a grotesque monument of wickedness of some sort or something like that.

 

Uh, I think I wandered to offtopic a bit. Well.. I think that the artist decides whether his works are art or not. However, art must be made, not "decided to be". I mean that anything that has been made already can't suddenly turn into art, if the creator says so.

[Chesto]

Uh, I think I wandered to offtopic a bit. Well.. I think that the artist decides whether his works are art or not. However, art must be made, not "decided to be". I mean that anything that has been made already can't suddenly turn into art, if the creator says so.

 

The Dada-ists did it with ' found' objects. And with that and other things they did and said they pretty well messed up everybody's heads as to what art 'is' for... ever. Or to look at it in a more positive light, they freed people's perceptions of what 'Art' could be.

 

You know, decal, I've never seen one of 'those' on wheels before. Giant vaginas on wheels, Lordi... you've got it all, in Finland!

[DecalMirror]

The Dada-ists did it with ' found' objects. And with that and other things they did and said they pretty well messed up everybody's heads as to what art 'is' for... ever. Or to look at it in a more positive light, they freed people's perceptions of what 'Art' could be.

 

Yeah, that's true. However, dadaists still create their works as art. They don't just decide some objects to be art.

 

That *censored* was quite unique here too. Would that be even possible in US(your American, right?).

[ninja_lord666]

That *censored* was quite unique here too. Would that be even possible in US(your American, right?).

He's British. I'm American, though. I'd say probably not. I doubt that would be acceptable. There's a fine line between nude figure art, and a giant *censored*.