What is art?

[Chesto]

While I wrote this I thought that.. How do you think that whether one thinks the picture is abstract or non-abstract(don't know the word) has anything to do with that does he think it as art or no?

 

Representational?

 

Most people can look at a representational ( non- abstract ) work of art and say that they either like it , or don't like it. What casual art 'lovers' do not seem to realize is that representational work requires as much back story ( knowledge, education, research ) as non representational ( abstract ) work. Without the back story most people go on their gut reaction to a work. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing... just rather limiting: like judging a video game by only looking at the box and the developers blurb, and not playing it.

[sarac]

I mostly agree with ninja_lord666,art is the best to express your self...I'm a artist,so for example,when I'm in bad mood I'll draw something more in dark colors and stuff...I really love to draw,and something what is made on quick i wouldn't call art,that could only be sketch...

[delphinus]

I mostly agree with ninja_lord666,art is the best to express your self...I'm a artist,so for example,when I'm in bad mood I'll draw something more in dark colors and stuff...I really love to draw,and something what is made on quick i wouldn't call art,that could only be sketch...

 

The "freudian" method of aesthetics study seems to be still the most used (and abused). I don't think this is so important, i prefer to consider the reaction of the viewer more than the state of mind of the artist.

 

Most people can look at a representational ( non- abstract ) work of art and say that they either like it , or don't like it. What casual art 'lovers' do not seem to realize is that representational work requires as much back story ( knowledge, education, research ) as non representational ( abstract ) work.

 

Are you sure? let me remind you of the artistic vanguards in early '900: Kandinsky, Klee, Itten, and the constructivists Malevic, Chernikhov and El Lisitsky introduced a SCIENTIFIC METHOD based on pure geometric forms, abstract lines, color fields; studying the graphic perception and its properties, and trying to draw the lines for a new way of educating and discipline creativity.

[hoots7]

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.

I think what your saying is art can’t be a coincidence, has to have intent, purpose & cause.

For instance: a plumber tries to fix some leaks & inadvertently makes some cool looking plumbing work. You say it’s not art because the guy was just trying to fix a leak, I guess I can agree with that.

So ink blots are only art if the person’s goal is to make art…wait stop that means the exact same blot can either be art or trash, which takes me back to what my professor told me way back when.

Now I’m really CornFused, thanks.

[xenxander]

Really what all of this sums up is: anything is art.

 

I didn't think a wall of TVs was 'art', but apparently it is, for it's on display in museum. To me, it's just clutter.

 

The plumber's pipes are art to someone else. Art doesn't have to have intent in the 'maker's eyes', it has to have 'intent' in 'someone's eyes'.

 

But in that regard, it has to be 'art' because 'someone else' has said it was art? You could make a clay sculpture and call it art, but if no on else on the planet thought so, then is it still art? Some say yes, you intended it to be just no one understands it.

Some say 'no', because of the very same reason.

 

Everything and nothing is art. And everything that is art will eventually become junk, for as things age they are valued higher provided they are not damaged or defaced (and even then some still consider them 'priceless'), though the physical aspect, anything that ages deteriorates. Thus everything today that is 'art' will one day be landfil.

[Eiden]

Art or what one considers art it purely subjective. However, there are certain basic requirements of all art forms. I realize that people here have focused solely upon a very small selection of visual art, i.e. paintings and sculptures, but the word art encompasses so much more than these two forms. What of music? What of poetry? What of literature and photography.

 

Most agree there has to be an intent to create 'art' but there's more to it than that. A true artist must have skill, talent, and an understanding of his or her subject. Art must be able to convey a meaning, it must evoke an emotional response to qualify as art. Despite my extreme dislike of rap I would consider it a form of art. The singer had intent, he understood his subject(or at least, he/she pretends to) and it evokes and emotional response. (In my case, it evokes anger and condescension.) In the same manner, I do not consider many contemporary painters and sculptors to be artists, nor their efforts to have produced art in any broad definition of the word.

 

Do we consider the scribblings of a child on a piece of paper to be art? Not hardly. So, why would or should we consider someone 'scribbling' with a paintbrush on canvass as art? Like one had referenced the trash bag story. A self proclaimed artist with connections says a thing is art, and the pathetic and gullible populace say it is so. Can anyone here tell me what emotion is evoked by say, a broad brush stroke and a splatter of droplets on a canvas? Would you feel anything if you were not told it was a piece of art? Would you feel anything or comprehend some fictitious deep affinity to the artist if the artist him/herself had not expressly told another what message he or she was trying to convey? This is the funniest thing about 'accepted' art.

 

I think photography is probably the most defined visual art form. A photograph isn't considered 'good' or art by anyone unless it induces either deep thought or emotions. I can take a picture of wildlife around my house, is it pretty? yes, is it art? no. I can only say, what a beautiful bird. A good photographer can capture the very essence of life and we can all relate to it and proclaim it as art.

 

 

Not sure if anyone else sees it all this way, but, it's my two cents and I spent them.

[DecalMirror]

Practically here's been two types of opinion: one thinks that whether the work is considered as art, is a decide of viewer, while the other think the artist himself makes that statement. But imagine this: There's pile of rubble and pipes laid to ground in random form by someone. Then someone comes there and thinks "whoah, that's something great art..blah, blah.." Then the its creator comes up and says it's no art.

 

So, who's right in that kind of situation?

[delphinus]

Practically here's been two types of opinion: one thinks that whether the work is considered as art, is a decide of viewer, while the other think the artist himself makes that statement. But imagine this: There's pile of rubble and pipes laid to ground in random form by someone. Then someone comes there and thinks "whoah, that's something great art..blah, blah.." Then the its creator comes up and says it's no art.

 

So, who's right in that kind of situation?

 

That happens, especially in architecture, when an old building (in these cases, "old" is a pretty recent work) generally considered ugly, loses his primary functions and can be demolished. but something of that architecture has put an unique mark, and somewhat of a unique "personality" to the environment surrounding that place, and is asked not to be demolished, and re-used for something else.

 

The architect, or more probably the engineer, had no other purposes but to make that building only for his functions, without any aesthetic solutions. But the people has found something in that building that is worth to keep it away from demolition or abandonment.

[Viblo]

I'd think of it like a comedian. We can't really explain why he's funny but he is and he manages to fire up feelings inside of us that make us laugh and like art, not everyone find him funny. I hope we all agree that it is the feelings that drive us to look at art, after all the majority of the world likes to do things that... well, they like-- and I'm sure art would not exist if people wouldn't get these feelings from them. Hardly would they stare at some shapes and geometry if they wouldn't get *anything* out of it.

 

Just like it's hard to bring out hard evidence that the comedian *is* funny or not; it's hard to explain to someone that something is art or not. Because it's so subjective it's easy to effect and even manipulate these feelings, just like placebo effect and --like talked about before-- "This is art" propaganda. You must've noticed this, your mental state is a big factor what kind of feelings you get from various things, even thought it's just what music you're listening to while you're walking through a museum or smell in the air.

 

---

I'm going a little off-topic now.

Many of us think that being affected so much by manipulation like "This is art" propaganda is bad, because it's not "true", or "true feelings" because we just like it because we're told to like it. I can't see any difference and personally I just think it's a good thing, I had a period when I was younger when I liked everything that was Japanese, I listened to songs wholly because it was Japanese not because it was really good. I noticed how many of the songs I listened to was just because the girlfriend sent it, it was Japanese or whatsoever and I thought: "This is bad!" but then I just thought: "Does it matter?" because long as I'm glad, it doesn't matter how it's done, after all we're all want to be happy in one way or another.

---

 

Bah, longer reply than I wanted it to be, maaaa.

 

Vif...

[Robert_evrae]

You say that art has to be made with a purpose - it cannot be coincidence.

 

What about art that is random in nature - on purpose. Is it still art? If you write a computer program to output a random pattern, is the result art?

 

 

Incidentally, if anyone knows how to colour a single pixel in OpenGl for C++, please enlighten me!