What is art?

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Now before reading this you must understand,my intentions are not to flame or insult art or artists.It is not to go against or for anything.This topic is more to curiosity on my part for such a vague topic area.

To my understanding,art is very vague,meaningless.
What I have observed from art and artists is that any and everything can and will be considered art.The problem here is that you create a field of study with no primary focus or motivation.The very definition of art basically states that art in itself is useless and will never serve anything but itself.This narrows down the subject to basically saying "existence and or action is art" a.k.a. art has no point and is only supported by itself.Art is so vague that it has no point existing.
You can't see that clearer then in the modern day where we have Beethoven and ancient architects being compared to graffiti and cheese sculptures.

Well,what are your thoughts and stand on art.
(If you can't think of anything then look at our video game "art" wars)

 

[Danish rage]

The word art comes from the word artisan, which is basically another word for specialized worker.
So i guess almost anything created by human hand is art.
Personally I would like to think art is a way to understand society and it´s history.
Art is creation, any creation. Pretty art is something else though. It´s rare. And more specific i don´t think any videogame qulifies as pretty art, yet.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Art is a method of conveying an emotion to others in such a way to illicit an emotion as well, or to create thoughts or stir the imagination. It is a function of ones soul in many cases.

 

[Dieter Meyer]

BABY DONT HURT ME!

Wait...

Art is whatever you want it to be, you can look at anything from an art perspective because everything makes you feel something.

What I mean is: Art is whatever stimulates some kind of emotions in you.

 

[Astoria]

My understanding of art is an expression of creativity. If it's been forced I don't believe it's truely art.

 

[Nova Helix]

12 seconds in has a good description of art.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

My understanding of art is an expression of creativity. If it's been forced I don't believe it's truely art.

See,that somewhat falls in line.People like as they wish sure but what I see is all this vague terminology which sometimes contradicts itself.

 

[StrangerMouse]

Anything which anybody could define as art.

 

[Twilight_guy]

There is no definition of art. If there was, then this topic wouldn't exist, there are only theories on what art is. I personally think art is (potentially) any human creation or action that tries to express or convey some idea or emotion. Of course I recently had this discussion in an Art Anthropology class and the final conclusion that was come to is that art is what the artworld says it is. Art is only art if the larger society accepts it as art (since I can do anything and claim its art and if nobody agrees its not art, I'm just crazy). That definition leaves no actual agency in the discussion and removes human's ability to create art themselves (things have to be specified as art to be art and if I don't or do want something to be art it doesn't matter) so I like the definition that includes a more complex whole namely art is something that was created with the intention of creating art and is accepted as art by the culture.

An Interesting note from this definition is that games are a self-defeating art form. If we all accept games as art then they become art since we as a society accept them but so long as we don't think of them as art they aren't. Since we don't agree its not true but if set aside doubt and said "yes this is art" it becomes art. Our own fence straddling is about if its art makes it not art. Funny that.

 

[comadorcrack]

BABY DONT HURT ME!
Wait...

epic Ninja!

Anyway art is what ever the oldest critic says it is.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

First, if your intention wasn't to start a flame war, you might consider paying some attention to the way you phrase things. You start out with a perfectly neutral "I don't understand the meaning of art" and then quickly jump to "art is meaningless". Not only is that a bad way to start a discussion, it makes you look foolish because you're saying "I don't understand x" and then immediately giving an opinion on x.

It's difficult to give a "necessary and sufficient conditions" sort of definition for "art" precisely because it's difficult to give such definitions for the overwhelming majority of words, even when we look at a single person and factor out the fact that every person has at least a slightly different understanding of most words. Take a seemingly simple word like "game". What is a game? What conditions are both necessary for something to be called a game and sufficient to ensure that what we're talking about is a game and not something else? You can invent conditions that include some games, but you'll never get conditions that include all of the things we consider games without accidentally including a bunch of things we wouldn't consider games. This second problem is why the "art is existence and or action" is such an unsatisfying answer.

The question of "what is art" is really less a question of the qualities of some bizarre Platonic concept of "art" floating in the aether somewhere and more a question of what things people refer to as "art".

But we don't want to fall into the trap of saying that the word has no meaning simply because we can't give necessary and sufficient conditions (as this would preclude most words from having meaning). I think we can agree that people use the word "art" meaningfully, usefully describing situations and objects. When I say it's a museum "for art", you understand that it's probably distinct from a natural history museum. There may be times when your concept of art doesn't encompass something I describe as art, but there may be times when your concept of vegetable doesn't encompass something I describe as a vegetable.

In the end the only reasonable definition of "art" is an attempt to codify how people use the word and doing so means recognising a sort of "family resemblance" situation. You can often tell that people are from the same family by looking at a whole constellation of features - it isn't the case that everyone has to share a single feature for them to bear a resemblance. Different people will weight different features differently, giving different ideas of what constitutes resemblance (what constitutes art) and this sort of view is going to preclude the sort of short "this is art"/"this isn't art" definitions people try to give since necessary and sufficient conditions just don't exist for most words.

TL;DR: If you want to make the argument that "art" is too nebulous to be useful you are (a) empirically wrong, since the word is used usefully all the time and (b) making an argument that the overwhelming majority of words with reference are too nebulous to be useful.

An Interesting note from this definition is that games are a self-defeating art form. If we all accept games as art then they become art since we as a society accept them but so long as we don't think of them as art they aren't. Since we don't agree its not true but if set aside doubt and said "yes this is art" it becomes art. Our own fence straddling is about if its art makes it not art. Funny that.

This guy gets it. Incidentally, this is how all words work, not just art.

 

[Gunner_Guardian]

It seems like the word art is used more like a title then a definition.

If we think something is deep enough and well done we call it art. If it just appeals to the masses and doesn't care about giving a deep rewarding experience then we don't use that term.

Regardless in the end it's a social construct that has no real definition except the definitions people give it.

 

[somonels]

I just substitute "art" with "garbage." There is just so much wrong with the whole concept of it for me to enjoy.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

First, if your intention wasn't to start a flame war, you might consider paying some attention to the way you phrase things. You start out with a perfectly neutral "I don't understand the meaning of art" and then quickly jump to "art is meaningless". Not only is that a bad way to start a discussion, it makes you look foolish because you're saying "I don't understand x" and then immediately giving an opinion on x.

It's difficult to give a "necessary and sufficient conditions" sort of definition for "art" precisely because it's difficult to give such definitions for the overwhelming majority of words, even when we look at a single person and factor out the fact that every person has at least a slightly different understanding of most words. Take a seemingly simple word like "game". What is a game? What conditions are both necessary for something to be called a game and sufficient to ensure that what we're talking about is a game and not something else? You can invent conditions that include some games, but you'll never get conditions that include all of the things we consider games without accidentally including a bunch of things we wouldn't consider games. This second problem is why the "art is existence and or action" is such an unsatisfying answer.

The question of "what is art" is really less a question of the qualities of some bizarre Platonic concept of "art" floating in the aether somewhere and more a question of what things people refer to as "art".

But we don't want to fall into the trap of saying that the word has no meaning simply because we can't give necessary and sufficient conditions (as this would preclude most words from having meaning). I think we can agree that people use the word "art" meaningfully, usefully describing situations and objects. When I say it's a museum "for art", you understand that it's probably distinct from a natural history museum. There may be times when your concept of art doesn't encompass something I describe as art, but there may be times when your concept of vegetable doesn't encompass something I describe as a vegetable.

In the end the only reasonable definition of "art" is an attempt to codify how people use the word and doing so means recognising a sort of "family resemblance" situation. You can often tell that people are from the same family by looking at a whole constellation of features - it isn't the case that everyone has to share a single feature for them to bear a resemblance. Different people will weight different features differently, giving different ideas of what constitutes resemblance (what constitutes art) and this sort of view is going to preclude the sort of short "this is art"/"this isn't art" definitions people try to give since necessary and sufficient conditions just don't exist for most words.

TL;DR: If you want to make the argument that "art" is too nebulous to be useful you are (a) empirically wrong, since the word is used usefully all the time and (b) making an argument that the overwhelming majority of words with reference are too nebulous to be useful.

An Interesting note from this definition is that games are a self-defeating art form. If we all accept games as art then they become art since we as a society accept them but so long as we don't think of them as art they aren't. Since we don't agree its not true but if set aside doubt and said "yes this is art" it becomes art. Our own fence straddling is about if its art makes it not art. Funny that.

This guy gets it. Incidentally, this is how all words work, not just art.

I do understand as you mean,and do so apologize for phrasing (my autism does me no justice at 1 am with insomnia).I gotta be honest here,I am a little surprised about just how well this fits.Still seems to me that art has no meaning but regardless,I gotta thank ya.The lack of answers or even basic info with such is really a killer in many situations for me.My art teacher couldn't explain it to me and no one has really stretched past the art for arts sake for people I know personally.Really though,this calms the mind a bit.

 

[THAC0]

I personally think art is (potentially) any human creation or action that tries to express or convey some idea or emotion.

and you would be correct.
I was an art major for like 3 years in college before i switched to computer science and then to history.

buildings are art, which some people have issues with, but if you look at early christian churches they were made with the intention of creating a drape exterior, but an emotionally overwhelming interior as a way of symbolizing Christianity. that is pretty deliberate, and yeah, its art.

if i lay two rocks and a coke can on a table that can be art, because perhaps i was trying to make a statement with it. or perhaps my statement was the absence of a statement and so it is art either way. now say i take a picture of my rock/coke can display and stick a black and white filter on it. it went from being sculpture art to photographic art. still art.

i just finished a cigarette. I was a little bit annoyed so i flicked the thing against the wall before walking away. bam! living art. if some people had been watching me do it, it would have been performance art.

pretty much everything you do or say or create is art in one form or another. does that mean that everything is art and holds artistic value, well kinda, but that doesn't mean anyone cares about it.

some people get all wrapped up in this and can get obsessed with the artistic value of every single thing that they see or do or think and it can get really annoying really fast, but technically, they are correct.

the only things that aren't art, are things that don't express an emotion or idea. a thunderstorm or an oil spill are not art. those are just things that happen, but a picture or a sculpture or story or poem or painting or movie or video game or speech or power point presentation about a thunderstorm or an oil spill, yeah that's art.

this post, and every post that has come before it or will follow it are also art. no pressure guys.

if i was a bit rambling in this post i am sorry, i am a little bit drunk. the act of getting drunk: art.

 

[Knusper]

I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'm not an artist. Apparently, anything can be art.

Dadaism ftw!

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

First, if your intention wasn't to start a flame war, you might consider paying some attention to the way you phrase things. You start out with a perfectly neutral "I don't understand the meaning of art" and then quickly jump to "art is meaningless". Not only is that a bad way to start a discussion, it makes you look foolish because you're saying "I don't understand x" and then immediately giving an opinion on x.

It's difficult to give a "necessary and sufficient conditions" sort of definition for "art" precisely because it's difficult to give such definitions for the overwhelming majority of words, even when we look at a single person and factor out the fact that every person has at least a slightly different understanding of most words. Take a seemingly simple word like "game". What is a game? What conditions are both necessary for something to be called a game and sufficient to ensure that what we're talking about is a game and not something else? You can invent conditions that include some games, but you'll never get conditions that include all of the things we consider games without accidentally including a bunch of things we wouldn't consider games. This second problem is why the "art is existence and or action" is such an unsatisfying answer.

The question of "what is art" is really less a question of the qualities of some bizarre Platonic concept of "art" floating in the aether somewhere and more a question of what things people refer to as "art".

But we don't want to fall into the trap of saying that the word has no meaning simply because we can't give necessary and sufficient conditions (as this would preclude most words from having meaning). I think we can agree that people use the word "art" meaningfully, usefully describing situations and objects. When I say it's a museum "for art", you understand that it's probably distinct from a natural history museum. There may be times when your concept of art doesn't encompass something I describe as art, but there may be times when your concept of vegetable doesn't encompass something I describe as a vegetable.

In the end the only reasonable definition of "art" is an attempt to codify how people use the word and doing so means recognising a sort of "family resemblance" situation. You can often tell that people are from the same family by looking at a whole constellation of features - it isn't the case that everyone has to share a single feature for them to bear a resemblance. Different people will weight different features differently, giving different ideas of what constitutes resemblance (what constitutes art) and this sort of view is going to preclude the sort of short "this is art"/"this isn't art" definitions people try to give since necessary and sufficient conditions just don't exist for most words.

TL;DR: If you want to make the argument that "art" is too nebulous to be useful you are (a) empirically wrong, since the word is used usefully all the time and (b) making an argument that the overwhelming majority of words with reference are too nebulous to be useful.

An Interesting note from this definition is that games are a self-defeating art form. If we all accept games as art then they become art since we as a society accept them but so long as we don't think of them as art they aren't. Since we don't agree its not true but if set aside doubt and said "yes this is art" it becomes art. Our own fence straddling is about if its art makes it not art. Funny that.

This guy gets it. Incidentally, this is how all words work, not just art.

I do understand as you mean,and do so apologize for phrasing (my autism does me no justice at 1 am with insomnia).I gotta be honest here,I am a little surprised about just how well this fits.Still seems to me that art has no meaning but regardless,I gotta thank ya.The lack of answers or even basic info with such is really a killer in many situations for me.My art teacher couldn't explain it to me and no one has really stretched past the art for arts sake for people I know personally.Really though,this calms the mind a bit.

Glad one of my ridiculous forum essays was able to help someone. I should note that I didn't really mean to give any indication of what I think to be the utility of art. I think that's a more subjective and a more difficult question and I think a lot of different views can be pretty easily justified. The problem is that this question inevitably gets confused with the question of how we define the word "art". These are very different questions and it's useful to keep them seperate.

Edit: The question of the utility of studying art is also a question seperate from either of these questions. I think that one is, at present, a more difficult sell, but that's my own opinion.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

First, if your intention wasn't to start a flame war, you might consider paying some attention to the way you phrase things. You start out with a perfectly neutral "I don't understand the meaning of art" and then quickly jump to "art is meaningless". Not only is that a bad way to start a discussion, it makes you look foolish because you're saying "I don't understand x" and then immediately giving an opinion on x.

It's difficult to give a "necessary and sufficient conditions" sort of definition for "art" precisely because it's difficult to give such definitions for the overwhelming majority of words, even when we look at a single person and factor out the fact that every person has at least a slightly different understanding of most words. Take a seemingly simple word like "game". What is a game? What conditions are both necessary for something to be called a game and sufficient to ensure that what we're talking about is a game and not something else? You can invent conditions that include some games, but you'll never get conditions that include all of the things we consider games without accidentally including a bunch of things we wouldn't consider games. This second problem is why the "art is existence and or action" is such an unsatisfying answer.

The question of "what is art" is really less a question of the qualities of some bizarre Platonic concept of "art" floating in the aether somewhere and more a question of what things people refer to as "art".

But we don't want to fall into the trap of saying that the word has no meaning simply because we can't give necessary and sufficient conditions (as this would preclude most words from having meaning). I think we can agree that people use the word "art" meaningfully, usefully describing situations and objects. When I say it's a museum "for art", you understand that it's probably distinct from a natural history museum. There may be times when your concept of art doesn't encompass something I describe as art, but there may be times when your concept of vegetable doesn't encompass something I describe as a vegetable.

In the end the only reasonable definition of "art" is an attempt to codify how people use the word and doing so means recognising a sort of "family resemblance" situation. You can often tell that people are from the same family by looking at a whole constellation of features - it isn't the case that everyone has to share a single feature for them to bear a resemblance. Different people will weight different features differently, giving different ideas of what constitutes resemblance (what constitutes art) and this sort of view is going to preclude the sort of short "this is art"/"this isn't art" definitions people try to give since necessary and sufficient conditions just don't exist for most words.

TL;DR: If you want to make the argument that "art" is too nebulous to be useful you are (a) empirically wrong, since the word is used usefully all the time and (b) making an argument that the overwhelming majority of words with reference are too nebulous to be useful.

An Interesting note from this definition is that games are a self-defeating art form. If we all accept games as art then they become art since we as a society accept them but so long as we don't think of them as art they aren't. Since we don't agree its not true but if set aside doubt and said "yes this is art" it becomes art. Our own fence straddling is about if its art makes it not art. Funny that.

This guy gets it. Incidentally, this is how all words work, not just art.

I do understand as you mean,and do so apologize for phrasing (my autism does me no justice at 1 am with insomnia).I gotta be honest here,I am a little surprised about just how well this fits.Still seems to me that art has no meaning but regardless,I gotta thank ya.The lack of answers or even basic info with such is really a killer in many situations for me.My art teacher couldn't explain it to me and no one has really stretched past the art for arts sake for people I know personally.Really though,this calms the mind a bit.

Glad one of my ridiculous forum essays was able to help someone. I should note that I didn't really mean to give any indication of what I think to be the utility of art. I think that's a more subjective and a more difficult question and I think a lot of different views can be pretty easily justified. The problem is that this question inevitably gets confused with the question of how we define the word "art". These are very different questions and it's useful to keep them seperate.

Edit: The question of the utility of studying art is also a question seperate from either of these questions. I think that one is, at present, a more difficult sell, but that's my own opinion.

Yeah,honestly I would have just plain all together avoided the subject if it wasn't pushing itself into my head every couple hours