How to define "art"?

[Antlers]

I'm not artistic. So I'm inclined to think if someone makes something that I could easily have done, that isn't art, website definitions aside.

My opinion will not be well received. I think (note use of the words 'I think') that if you draw a picture of a horse, and it looks like a horse, and is called 'Horse', then that's fine. If you take a photo of the ground at a busstop with a disposable camera and call it 'Serenity in a pool of darkness', that's bollocks.

I have a friend who does art in college. I went to an exhibition of hers lately. One of the things pieces of raw meet hanging upside down in a small dark room. Another was a video of someone walking down a street on a loop. What the flying fork is that about? I was so unimpressed. Unimpressed is not a strong enough word.

So whatever. If you want to call utter nonsense (such as a video of someone walking down a street on a loop) 'art' then go ahead. But don't expect me to bloody appreciate it. Which I'm sure you don't. You, being an 'artist' obviously. In fact, I'd say my opinion means very little to artists. So we're all ok then.

Anyway, this is irrelevant to the video. Regarding censorship and art, I don't agree with censorship. I think boundaries should be in place, such as age ratings and genre (i.e. don't put Silent Hill in the kids section next to Rayman) but once you're free of that then I've no objection to it being made.

 

[Akai Shizuku]

Could anything be more boring than a dictionary definition?

I agree with it. =P

 

[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...

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

Sorry, what was that?

responce

I know what a 'ponce' is... I know that your last post didn't deserve a serious response...

 

[Desert Tiger]

Art, to me, is something that takes a lot of effort, skill and talent to make, that is intriguing and pleasing to view or experience.

 

[eels05]

Its primary role is exploration of sorts.

It almost performs the same function that an individuals sub-consious does,making sense of the world,and throwing up symbollic answers and meanings on a cultural level...

Fuck me sideways.I cant believe I just typed that crap.

 

[esperandote]

is the expresion of the emotions

 

[NBSRDan]

Creative expression in non-lingual form

That is how I define art.

 

[Ancientgamer]

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.

NO!

NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!


The thing that always infuriates me about these threads. The big question should never be "what art is." But rather "What is art."

To put that another way, The term art is NOT subjective. It means something. it describes something. To say it means whatever you want destroys it's whole purpose. People always mix that up with the things that are or can be subjective. That is; to interpret the meaning of an art piece, and to determine if a subject should fall under the objective definition of "art".


I think both extreme sides of the spectrum, from the wishy-washy "art is like, whatever you want man..." to "only fine art is true art" (both opinions have been expressed in this thread, much to my dismay) Are over-reactionary backlash to the relatively recent popularity for conceptual art. Some heralded it as the harbinger of doom, and moved to highly conservative viewpoints, while others missed the point entirely and ran in the wrong direction with it.


As for the definition of "art", I contend it's objective definition is -"Any creation made with the express, first and foremost purpose to be the comunnication of emotion."

There is both good art and bad art, the quality\beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

When taken to it's logical end, this can successfully cover every form of art, from serialism to conceptual art, while still allowing a viewer to pontificate on the value of said. And tight enough on the reins that you can draw the line between what is and isn't art.

 

[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.

Sorry, what was that?

responce

I know what a 'ponce' is... I know that your last post didn't deserve a serious response...

You're saying art can't be defined because what it means changes over time. I'm saying it is always about one thing but how it accomplishes that changes over time.

If that doesn't make sense tell me and I'll be happy to explain more.

If you see a reason why I'm obviously wrong I'd like to know what it is so I don't hold an flawed position.

I'm interested in intelligent discussion if you are.

 

[Mozared]

I tend to go with "everything made with the intention of sharing emotions" - this definition basically means that everything people claim to be 'art' is indeed art; in some cases it's just bad art.

 

[TheZapper]

Art is anything you can get away with.

I know im just just mindlessly spouting a famous quote, but that is about the depth of my knowledge of art. Not my favoured subject.

 

[Fbuh]

Quite frankly, I define art as what happens when people start thinking. I can't say that I fully agree with the definition about exploring emotions, mostly because a piece of artwork does not have to have meaning in order to be art. Very rarely do I make art to express my emotions. I'd rather just make something that looks neat.

 

[Florion]

Sorry, what was that?

responce

I know what a 'ponce' is... I know that your last post didn't deserve a serious response...

You're saying art can't be defined because it what it means changes over time. I'm saying it is always about one thing but how it accomplishes changes over time.

If that doesn't make sense tell me and I'll be happy to explain more.

If you see a reason why I'm obviously wrong I'd like to know what it is so I don't hold an flawed position.

I'm interested in intelligent discussion if you are.

All right you two, how about you break it up before this turns into an unrelated flame war about who insulted whom?

I believe that art has to be created for the purpose of being art. It may be useful by the way, perhaps because it wants to say something about its function, but if it was created in order to be a tool or a thing to make money with, it's not art.

That sounds quite good, although I think it may be a little naive? A lot of art has heavy elements propaganda (as in being a vehicle for the artist's beliefs) and thus a kind of tool, and I wouldn't use that against it. And, of course, concessions to the consumers of art pieces are commonplace, radical artists who make exactly what they want to create are becoming rarer in these days of corporate management, but I don't know if they were even that common to begin with as there was always an oppressive force or financial worries prompting artists to become more commercial.

I could have just misunderstood your meaning of "tool" and "thing to make money with" though. I have little confidence in my own opinion on art but I'm just trying to expand the discussion here.

Yeah, I guess it really hinges on how you define tool and money-maker. I was thinking like a physical tool ? like there are some lampshades that are really stylistic, but in a lot of cases, I wouldn't call them art simply because they're pretty. They were created for the function of keeping the light from burning your eyes out. On the other hand, I have seen a lamp that was made to look like a feathered wing, not for any particular reason, and the person who made it named it Icarus. I can't be sure, but I can't help thinking there may have been artistic intent there. I didn't bother to think on it enough to figure out what the (potentially) artist was trying to convey, though. As for definition of "created just to make money," I guess I say that just to distinguish people who make baubles or massive, corporate video game developers from artists trying to say a particular something and hrm, Tale of Tales, for example.

xP I think I'm about as confident as you are if not less. Also, sorry for taking so long to get back to you, I didn't get the message that says you quoted me! D:

 

[Arqus_Zed]

"?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.

Damn straight!

And as for the art-aspect, just an example:
Rez recieved an award from The Agency for Cultural Affairs Media Art Festival in Japan.

Even though -in my opinion- 'art' doesn't need a certificate of sorts, it's still nice to know people openly respect certain games as a form of art.

 

[The_Healer]

*snip

I gotta be honest with you, I really just felt like saying something that sounded deep and philosophical.
But I agree with what you said.
Even though I have the artistic talent and appreciation of a blind hedgehog with schizophrenia... in a bag.

 

[Casual Shinji]

For me Art means focusing on one extract of the human emotion and then elevating it to the next level.

Or just look at Michealanglo's David; solid marble that is. Nobody could make something like that in this day and age. So it would also mean, something that could NEVER be repeated again.

 

[Florion]

For me Art means focusing on one extract of the human emotion and then elevating it to the next level.

Or just look at Michealanglo's David; solid marble that is. Nobody could make something like that in this day and age. So it would also mean, something that could NEVER be repeated again.

:3 I'm curious; why only one extract? Many novels express a multitude of themes.

Also, I'm pretty sure someone would be able to make something like the Michelangelo, but you wouldn't because it's already been done. That, and it's not the style to make things like that anymore. Post-modernism's where it's all at.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

xP I think I'm about as confident as you are if not less. Also, sorry for taking so long to get back to you, I didn't get the message that says you quoted me! D:

Don't worry about it, no rush. And I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who's not entirely secure in their own opinion. I think in your comments on the lamp you may be mistaking an stylistic flourish for something more meaningful. Things like those tend to be a nice effect, but not much more.

And I was thinking about the idea of art not being a tool, but then I remembered architecture and now I'm not so sure. So many phenomenal buildings of varying complexity that certainly express, or evoke something are scattered across this globe but practicality is the utmost concern in regards that the building is, in fact usable. Although this may just equate to the same basic level of accessibility that all art must have (a book must be physically readable, a film watchable, an art-piece viewable, a game playable). Of course this is completely irrelevant if the person doesn't see architecture as art, something I'm undecided on myself, but it's a new spin on the topic. Is something of the grandeur and complexity of the Taj Mahal not art, but a comparatively much simpler sculpture is?

For me Art means focusing on one extract of the human emotion and then elevating it to the next level.

Or just look at Michealanglo's David; solid marble that is. Nobody could make something like that in this day and age. So it would also mean, something that could NEVER be repeated again.

I don't have too much to add to what Florion said, but why would art limit itself to just one aspect of the human condition, and especially just the emotional part? Look at a William Blake poem: simultaneous commentary on social, spiritual, and moral issues of the time contained within a few deceptively simple lines. The best art works on many levels of interpretation imo, although it can be overdone (just look at how dense a film like The Prestige is).

And as for your example of Michaelangelo, I think the main thing is that nobody has needed to try to do it again. It's like that in all forms of art. It's always moving forwards. Even when it's looking back all the time (damn postmodernists). Learn from the best, incorporate what you have learned into your own work and try and create something of your own or be forever labelled a derivative hack (or become wildly successful. It can work both ways.). Perhaps exact replication is impossible though; I mean for all the people who try to copy him, nobody so far has been able to recreate Hemingway's writing style. But my point is that these great artists have made their mark on their chosen form of expression, pioneering new techniques along the way and it's up to the next generation to take their craft further.

I think I lost track of my thoughts here.

Post-modernism's where it's all at.

*Shudder* Don't get me started on that. Had some decent ideas but has outlasted its welcome as far as I'm concerned (and I've only known about it for the last three years).

Oh, and WayOutThere, I don't particularly want to be drawn into the kind of discussion where it just boils down to us dissecting each other's posts, but I still think your definition of art is fundamentally flawed and places far too much importance on emotional impact. I'll get back to you if I can come up with some firm argument to attack your point, but I think our viewpoints are unreconcilable. But do you reckon you could clarify your definition a bit more? In your OP you say art is an exploration of emotion, then later shift more towards it being about meaning something to a person which doesn't necessarily follow.

Why are my posts on this subject always so long? I hate having this attitude that I know I'm wrong but so is everybody else.

And Uncompetitive, can you contribute to the discussion now if you've gotten the petty squabbling out of the way? If you do have a degree in Fine Arts then you're probably one of the people best placed to correct people's misconceptions.

 

[Florion]

And I was thinking about the idea of art not being a tool, but then I remembered architecture and now I'm not so sure. So many phenomenal buildings of varying complexity that certainly express, or evoke something are scattered across this globe but practicality is the utmost concern in regards that the building is, in fact usable. Although this may just equate to the same basic level of accessibility that all art must have (a book must be physically readable, a film watchable, an art-piece viewable, a game playable). Of course this is completely irrelevant if the person doesn't see architecture as art, something I'm undecided on myself, but it's a new spin on the topic. Is something of the grandeur and complexity of the Taj Mahal not art, but a comparatively much simpler sculpture is?

I'm one of those people who considers architecture closer to craft than art. It is definitely a complex thing capable of evoking emotional response and draws inspiration from various influences, but I stand by the fact that one doesn't make a building primarily to make a statement. But the accessibility idea is intriguing... I've always been so stuck to the idea that "art has a message," that I disliked the idea of "art is something that evokes or expresses emotion," but a friend of mine writes beautiful poems that make no demands - they just tell the ongoing story of her life. I have no doubt that that is art, but then I don't know why architecture wouldn't be. Oh man, this is hard. xP