How to define "art"?

[pigeon_of_doom]

An emotional reaction does not have to be shallow. I think you're point about this definition being limited only works if emotional reactions aren't deep and subtle.

I'm not saying the emotional responses in themselves lack importance, just that I think there's more to art. Mostly, a high degree of technical ability in the artist's chosen medium as I have already said in this thread. I don't like the way that some people see fit to call something art that causes a feeling in them and dismiss something else for it not having that appeal to them. Not saying that you have that attitude, but it's an uncomfortably common one and one I feel doesn't give full credit to the artist's skill.

Art: Anything that is created for pleasure and enjoyment.

Sex toys as art? I don't feel I need to refute that point further. Although both generalisations are just as broad as they are wont to be.

This is just as futile a discussion as any religon, console or best game ever thread. Ah well, at least it's less likely to become a flamewar. Unless somebody wants to prove me wrong? I'd prefer an perfect definition for all art, but consider the gauntlet thrown down either way.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

To me, art is simply an expression of human emotion/experience intended to convey said emotion or experience to an audience. However, I think truly interesting art is open to interpretation and can mean a wide variety of things to the audience. For example, some people listen to Mastodon's "Leviathan" album and hear a bunch of allusions to Moby Dick. Others listen to it and hear some badass metal songs. If you read even further into it you can come away with the image of the band pursuing their own quest for the elusive "white whale" of success.

 

[WayOutThere]

I don't like the way that some people see fit to call something art that causes a feeling in them and dismiss something else for it not having that appeal to them.

I can say something is art to others but not to myself. Just because something did not effect me personally doesn't mean I can't respect it.

One the one hand, you could say it's an expression or exploration of human emotions, but then what does that make of painted portraits or landscape pictures, or pieces of photography that have a fantastic aesthetic effect but convey nothing beyond their own flamboyance? Would you deny those things the title of art?

These things have emotional impact to others.

Edit: an "aesthetic effect" is a positive or negative emotional reaction

And to what point does the artists influence make it art? Does giving a woman's portrait an enigmatic smile make it art, when without it it would not be such?

If it has no emotional impact, it would not be art. If something is skillfully done, it is skillfully done. I'll give the creator credit for that.

and requires a high degree of craftmanship to create.

usually but not necessarily

 

[Cakes]

Art is whatever you decide to call art. This text box is art.

 

[CoverYourHead]

Something that evokes emotion and thought, and was created by someone with such a purpose in mind.

 

[orangebandguy]

A pretty little picture of course. In all seriousness art is a very broad term and almost anything qualifies to be of "art status."

 

[Sigel]

I feel the subject is too broad to define. It is like discussing religion almost. Art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder. One person's Picasso is another person's eyesore. I do think some pieces of art are so above and beyond the standard, you have to blind, an idiot, and/or soulless not to appreciate them. Some examples of this is the statue of David, the Sistine Chapel, pretty much anything by Da Vinci, and Sunflowers and Starry Night by Van Gogh.

 

[Metropocalypse]

I've always thought of art as someone's interpretation of the world.

 

[Taerdin]

It is completely subjective, and cannot be 100% defined or outlined.

I find that to be a depressing idea. Just because it is subjective doesn't mean it can't be defined.

It kinda does in a way... You could try to define what you think art is, but if enough people believe differently then it suddenly doesn't fit your definition. Art is one of the most subjective things around probably. To one person a piece of art is life changing and awe inspiring, to another person it is trash or a waste of time. Think about it

Sorry that you find art depressing

 

[WayOutThere]

It is completely subjective, and cannot be 100% defined or outlined.

I find that to be a depressing idea. Just because it is subjective doesn't mean it can't be defined.

Art is one of the most subjective things around probably. To one person a piece of art is life changing and awe inspiring, to another person it is trash or a waste of time. Think about it

Sorry that you find art depressing

...


Art is subjective but it can be defined plenty well. The two things are not contradictory, I don't see why they would be.

I think that you are saying they are contradictory.

You could try to define what you think art is, but if enough people believe differently then it suddenly doesn't fit your definition.

We can always have a discussion about what the definition should be.

 

[Horizontalvertigo]

Art is totally subjective, as some can see beauty or meaning in anything, so can art be anything. Although throwing paint at a wall and giving it a 3 paragraph long name is just pure wankery. There has to be skill, thought and aesthetics in it.

From an art students perspective, if you can't fill a folio with back up work regarding the piece then you're just not trying hard enough. (yet that's not a true rule and I do plenty of work and never hand in complete folios, but that's just because I'm useless )

 

[superlosity]

I say as a painter myself I believe that art is something that should provoke and inspire.

Also I did not read any of the actual posts and really don't care if some already said this.

 

[Clashero]

I'd say this: Art is a piece of work that has among its purposes, to provoke some sort of feeling on the viewer/listener/reader: whether it is joy, sadness, laughter, deep thought or simply awe at the artist's skill.

 

[Uncompetative]

as someone who actually has done a degree in Fine Art

And look at how much good its done you.

(that whole "needlessly insulting" thing back at you)

That is really quite amusing. You made me laugh. Keep up the good work...

 

[ConanTheKing]

Something that takes talent.

I am traditional in art, I don't see someone making a red square and sticking it to a wall as art, I don't even see video games as an art form. Scultpures, paintings, drawings etc to me are art.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Anything that evokes emotion out of its audience.

So racism and genocide is art?
=P

To me, art is, well...
"?noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."
-Dictionary.com

 

[The_Healer]

Art is fundamentally subjective, to define it would annihilate the very concept that art hopes to describe. You cannot hope to give a definition to something that has, in its very nature, change.

 

[Mr Scott]

Take an art appreciation course.

 

[WayOutThere]

as someone who actually has done a degree in Fine Art

And look at how much good its done you.

(that whole "needlessly insulting" thing back at you)

That is really quite amusing. You made me laugh. Keep up the good work...

Fine, but how about you provide an actual responce to my argument.

 

[WayOutThere]

"?noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."
-Dictionary.com

Could anything be more boring than a dictionary definition?

I don't even see video games as an art form.

I'm pretty sure video games take talent to make.