What is your definition of art?/why do you consider video games and movies art?

[zehydra]

Art is this: Expression for the sake of emotional feedback.

The one common denominator of ALL art is the fact that you're doing it for no other reason than you enjoy it.

 

[zehydra]

My definition is anything created by deliberate action that stimulates my imagination or which is enjoyable to experience. There also has to be some level of talent behind it. As in I should be able to look at it and think "damn, wish I had spent my developing years learning how to do that." For reference of what doesn't qualify in my book you need look no further than most of Jackson Pollock's works. If that's art then I was an artistic savant in pre-school finger painting.

If it's not art then what is it?

Also, what is "Talent"?

 

[KeyMaster45]

My definition is anything created by deliberate action that stimulates my imagination or which is enjoyable to experience. There also has to be some level of talent behind it. As in I should be able to look at it and think "damn, wish I had spent my developing years learning how to do that." For reference of what doesn't qualify in my book you need look no further than most of Jackson Pollock's works. If that's art then I was an artistic savant in pre-school finger painting.

If it's not art then what is it?

Also, what is "Talent"?

To me it's crap being passed off as art.

To me, talent is something that works hand in hand with skill. You can be skillful at something, but it takes talent to master that skill and do things with it that most others cannot. It is the ability to harness a skill and use it to express oneself.(if we're talking about it in the artistic sense) Talent is often mistaken for skill. You can be a skilled painter, but your work may have no talent behind it.

 

[zehydra]

My definition is anything created by deliberate action that stimulates my imagination or which is enjoyable to experience. There also has to be some level of talent behind it. As in I should be able to look at it and think "damn, wish I had spent my developing years learning how to do that." For reference of what doesn't qualify in my book you need look no further than most of Jackson Pollock's works. If that's art then I was an artistic savant in pre-school finger painting.

If it's not art then what is it?

Also, what is "Talent"?

To me it's crap being passed off as art.

To me, talent is something that works hand in hand with skill. You can be skillful at something, but it takes talent to master that skill and do things with it that most others cannot. It is the ability to harness a skill and use it to express oneself.(if we're talking about it in the artistic sense) Talent is often mistaken for skill. You can be a skilled painter, but your work may have no talent behind it.

I guess what I meant to ask is What is "Skill", when it comes to art?

 

[KeyMaster45]

My definition is anything created by deliberate action that stimulates my imagination or which is enjoyable to experience. There also has to be some level of talent behind it. As in I should be able to look at it and think "damn, wish I had spent my developing years learning how to do that." For reference of what doesn't qualify in my book you need look no further than most of Jackson Pollock's works. If that's art then I was an artistic savant in pre-school finger painting.

If it's not art then what is it?

Also, what is "Talent"?

To me it's crap being passed off as art.

To me, talent is something that works hand in hand with skill. You can be skillful at something, but it takes talent to master that skill and do things with it that most others cannot. It is the ability to harness a skill and use it to express oneself.(if we're talking about it in the artistic sense) Talent is often mistaken for skill. You can be a skilled painter, but your work may have no talent behind it.

I guess what I meant to ask is What is "Skill", when it comes to art?

Skill is simply the technical and theoretical understanding of a subject, and the ability to apply it in practice. In say, drawing or painting, the difference between skill and talent is separated at the point where an artist stops drawing/painting what they see and starts drawing/painting what they imagine. The former requires understanding of perspective, color theory(etc..), and the practiced ability to apply them to the canvas to create an image of something they've observed. The latter requires a mastery of the former plus the ability to channel your own visions of the world and fantasies through them to the canvas.

 

[Gloomsta]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

Well, when you look at it: much modern art doesn't have a message either.

Thing is that unless there is a special toaster designed for an art purpose, their all made to look good and fit in the home. Thats good design.

Wether you like Modern Art or not, the artists that make modern had a message in mind(i hope they did), even the contempory artists. Im not a big fan of contempory, but i guess its still art.

You obviously never heard of this story: http://www.cracked.com/article_19419_6-parodies-that-succeeded-because-nobody-got-joke_p2.html

Two people try to prove that most modern art sucks, by intentionally creating art poetry that was just a mash-up of words. That have no meaning, and nobody notices.

Look, my point is, good design is art. They are no different.

Good Design, for the sake of Good Design is not art by definition. Its good design, nothing wrong with that, but why are you trying to put it into something else?

Oh and just because of some shit today in the artworld doesnt mean that everything is shit.

Wall-E is a modern animated movie that has in my opinion a deep message, an example of good modern art.

'Modern art' is not the same as art made in modern times. Wall-E is not modern art. It's modern, it's art, but it's not modern art.

Design is art because it requires creativity, which is the definition of art.

Creativity isnt the definition of art, the definition of art is creating a thought-provoking piece of work with a "deep" message behind it or questioning things. However, creativity is often used in creating art pieces.

Otherwise with no message or "deep meaning" its just design.

 

[Gloomsta]

My definition is anything created by deliberate action that stimulates my imagination or which is enjoyable to experience.

That could easiy be enteraiment.

There also has to be some level of talent behind it.

How do you measure talent?

As in I should be able to look at it and think "damn, wish I had spent my developing years learning how to do that."

Technical ability doesnt always mean good. Not many enjoy technical wank in music.

For reference of what doesn't qualify in my book you need look no further than most of Jackson Pollock's works. If that's art then I was an artistic savant in pre-school finger painting.

Jackson Pollock has very good composition to his work, i bet you wouldnt be able to select the correct colours and sizes of canvases and patterns like he does.

 

[orangeban]

Games are most definetly art, first consider how many games are actually a sort of Frankenstein's monster of art, for example, Zeno Clash has breathtaking vistas and a setting worthy of a darker Dr Zeuss. They also contain stories and music, both of which are considered art on there own.

Gameplay can also be an artform, if we go back to Zeno Clash, the combat in that is so brutal, so visceral that I found it actually got my blood pumping, pulling at some sub-conscious sting that made me call for violence. Or Amnesia, which used gameplay to make me shit my pants.

Art to me is something that stimulates the emotions, in the same way an interesting fact can stimulate the mind. This is a very subjective definition, which actually makes most things art, since most things will stimulate someones emotions.

 

[KeyMaster45]

My definition is anything created by deliberate action that stimulates my imagination or which is enjoyable to experience.

That could easiy be enteraiment.

There also has to be some level of talent behind it.

How do you measure talent?

As in I should be able to look at it and think "damn, wish I had spent my developing years learning how to do that."

Technical ability doesnt always mean good. Not many enjoy technical wank in music.

Scroll up a bit and you'll find my answers to someone else who asked the same things. You're basically saying that what I consider to be art is wrong though, correct?

For reference of what doesn't qualify in my book you need look no further than most of Jackson Pollock's works. If that's art then I was an artistic savant in pre-school finger painting.

Jackson Pollock has very good composition to his work, i bet you wouldnt be able to select the correct colours and sizes of canvases and patterns like he does.

I just love it when this particular tactic is used. "I bet you couldn't do it so you can't criticize it." Doesn't change the fact I think his "art" is crap and the people who fawn over it are just trying too hard to not look uncultured in front of their peers. Also doesn't change the fact I'm going to continue telling people I think his work is crap. Hell I think he's even got a piece that's just a canvas he painted entirely black. Dude was just a crazy bastard people paid to sling paint at a canvas so they could act superior when they told people they "understood" his work.

 

[Gloomsta]

Scroll up a bit and you'll find my answers to someone else who asked the same things. You're basically saying that what I consider to be art is wrong though, correct?

Your definition of art is wrong and narrow, yes. Oh and Jackson Pollock had knowledge of colour theory if you didnt realise it yet.

I just love it when this particular tactic is used. "I bet you couldn't do it so you can't criticize it." Doesn't change the fact I think his "art" is crap and the people who fawn over it are just trying too hard to not look uncultured in front of their peers. Also doesn't change the fact I'm going to continue telling people I think his work is crap. Hell I think he's even got a piece that's just a canvas he painted entirely black. Dude was just a crazy bastard people paid to sling paint at a canvas so they could act superior when they told people they "understood" his work.

Thats not what i meant.

What i meant is Jackson Pollock has talent in composition and colour theory, his images look very unique and id say its hard to replicate. You can critise it, but i dont see any good critique coming from you. All you say is "Jackson Pollock is crap", thats not exactly constructive.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I don't consider video games or movies art.

Also, everything is subjective. Everything.

Lulz, you're kidding right?

No.

 

[BlackWidower]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

Well, when you look at it: much modern art doesn't have a message either.

Thing is that unless there is a special toaster designed for an art purpose, their all made to look good and fit in the home. Thats good design.

Wether you like Modern Art or not, the artists that make modern had a message in mind(i hope they did), even the contempory artists. Im not a big fan of contempory, but i guess its still art.

You obviously never heard of this story: http://www.cracked.com/article_19419_6-parodies-that-succeeded-because-nobody-got-joke_p2.html

Two people try to prove that most modern art sucks, by intentionally creating art poetry that was just a mash-up of words. That have no meaning, and nobody notices.

Look, my point is, good design is art. They are no different.

Good Design, for the sake of Good Design is not art by definition. Its good design, nothing wrong with that, but why are you trying to put it into something else?

Oh and just because of some shit today in the artworld doesnt mean that everything is shit.

Wall-E is a modern animated movie that has in my opinion a deep message, an example of good modern art.

'Modern art' is not the same as art made in modern times. Wall-E is not modern art. It's modern, it's art, but it's not modern art.

Design is art because it requires creativity, which is the definition of art.

Creativity isnt the definition of art, the definition of art is creating a thought-provoking piece of work with a "deep" message behind it or questioning things. However, creativity is often used in creating art pieces.

Otherwise with no message or "deep meaning" its just design.

...and I completely disagree. I'd elaborate on that, but every point I can make, I've already made.

 

[Gloomsta]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

Well, when you look at it: much modern art doesn't have a message either.

Thing is that unless there is a special toaster designed for an art purpose, their all made to look good and fit in the home. Thats good design.

Wether you like Modern Art or not, the artists that make modern had a message in mind(i hope they did), even the contempory artists. Im not a big fan of contempory, but i guess its still art.

You obviously never heard of this story: http://www.cracked.com/article_19419_6-parodies-that-succeeded-because-nobody-got-joke_p2.html

Two people try to prove that most modern art sucks, by intentionally creating art poetry that was just a mash-up of words. That have no meaning, and nobody notices.

Look, my point is, good design is art. They are no different.

Good Design, for the sake of Good Design is not art by definition. Its good design, nothing wrong with that, but why are you trying to put it into something else?

Oh and just because of some shit today in the artworld doesnt mean that everything is shit.

Wall-E is a modern animated movie that has in my opinion a deep message, an example of good modern art.

'Modern art' is not the same as art made in modern times. Wall-E is not modern art. It's modern, it's art, but it's not modern art.

Design is art because it requires creativity, which is the definition of art.

Creativity isnt the definition of art, the definition of art is creating a thought-provoking piece of work with a "deep" message behind it or questioning things. However, creativity is often used in creating art pieces.

Otherwise with no message or "deep meaning" its just design.

...and I completely disagree. I'd elaborate on that, but every point I can make, I've already made.

So why is that that just because something is creative it becomes art? Why do you seek to apply the word art to design? Going through the history of art, its always been about a message within.

But this is in no way to undermine design. A nice car looks nice, because the designer knew what he was doing, it involves creativity, but beyond that i dont think car designers intend to have a huge deep philosophical message.

 

[thelittleman66]

Well, movies and video games certainly can be art.
I just don't like it when people won't shut up about how artistic and respectable video games should be.

 

[BlackWidower]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

Well, when you look at it: much modern art doesn't have a message either.

Thing is that unless there is a special toaster designed for an art purpose, their all made to look good and fit in the home. Thats good design.

Wether you like Modern Art or not, the artists that make modern had a message in mind(i hope they did), even the contempory artists. Im not a big fan of contempory, but i guess its still art.

You obviously never heard of this story: http://www.cracked.com/article_19419_6-parodies-that-succeeded-because-nobody-got-joke_p2.html

Two people try to prove that most modern art sucks, by intentionally creating art poetry that was just a mash-up of words. That have no meaning, and nobody notices.

Look, my point is, good design is art. They are no different.

Good Design, for the sake of Good Design is not art by definition. Its good design, nothing wrong with that, but why are you trying to put it into something else?

Oh and just because of some shit today in the artworld doesnt mean that everything is shit.

Wall-E is a modern animated movie that has in my opinion a deep message, an example of good modern art.

'Modern art' is not the same as art made in modern times. Wall-E is not modern art. It's modern, it's art, but it's not modern art.

Design is art because it requires creativity, which is the definition of art.

Creativity isnt the definition of art, the definition of art is creating a thought-provoking piece of work with a "deep" message behind it or questioning things. However, creativity is often used in creating art pieces.

Otherwise with no message or "deep meaning" its just design.

...and I completely disagree. I'd elaborate on that, but every point I can make, I've already made.

So why is that that just because something is creative it becomes art? Why do you seek to apply the word art to design? Going through the history of art, its always been about a message within.

But this is in no way to undermine design. A nice car looks nice, because the designer knew what he was doing, it involves creativity, but beyond that i dont think car designers intend to have a huge deep philosophical message.

Art doesn't need a huge, deep, philosophical message. I've already explained this.

 

[Gloomsta]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

Well, when you look at it: much modern art doesn't have a message either.

Thing is that unless there is a special toaster designed for an art purpose, their all made to look good and fit in the home. Thats good design.

Wether you like Modern Art or not, the artists that make modern had a message in mind(i hope they did), even the contempory artists. Im not a big fan of contempory, but i guess its still art.

You obviously never heard of this story: http://www.cracked.com/article_19419_6-parodies-that-succeeded-because-nobody-got-joke_p2.html

Two people try to prove that most modern art sucks, by intentionally creating art poetry that was just a mash-up of words. That have no meaning, and nobody notices.

Look, my point is, good design is art. They are no different.

Good Design, for the sake of Good Design is not art by definition. Its good design, nothing wrong with that, but why are you trying to put it into something else?

Oh and just because of some shit today in the artworld doesnt mean that everything is shit.

Wall-E is a modern animated movie that has in my opinion a deep message, an example of good modern art.

'Modern art' is not the same as art made in modern times. Wall-E is not modern art. It's modern, it's art, but it's not modern art.

Design is art because it requires creativity, which is the definition of art.

Creativity isnt the definition of art, the definition of art is creating a thought-provoking piece of work with a "deep" message behind it or questioning things. However, creativity is often used in creating art pieces.

Otherwise with no message or "deep meaning" its just design.

...and I completely disagree. I'd elaborate on that, but every point I can make, I've already made.

So why is that that just because something is creative it becomes art? Why do you seek to apply the word art to design? Going through the history of art, its always been about a message within.

But this is in no way to undermine design. A nice car looks nice, because the designer knew what he was doing, it involves creativity, but beyond that i dont think car designers intend to have a huge deep philosophical message.

Art doesn't need a huge, deep, philosophical message. I've already explained this.

That is the POINT of art.

Do you even go to an art school? How much have you studied it. It just seems your making up your own definitions for art now.

 

[DracoSuave]

So I created my own definition of art; Art is any self expression of emotion through media.

Every work of fiction, every crossover, incest/wincest/freakcest, Harry Potter meets Naruto fits this description.

Yes, they do. Because they are art.

Quality is not the defining factor.

Almost every artistic endevour this day has, at one point, been decried as 'not art' by established 'experts.

Salvador Dali, for example. His dripping clocks? Totally art. Does it make sense? HELL NAW but that's not the point. At the time it was contemporary, however, Dali's work was considered to be non-art because it didn't reflect anything reality could come up with. Of course, surrealism started to influence sculpture, which was essentially a bunch of sculptors trolling the established community.

Art is the act of expression, whether it be realistic, fanciful... sensible, or absurd. Art can be sublime or obscene.

It doesn't even have to be good.

That is the POINT of art.

No. That is a measure by which art can be quantified. It is, however, not always the point of art. Art can be pointless and still be art.

 

[JesterRaiin]

So I created my own definition of art; Art is any self expression of emotion through media.

Every work of fiction, every crossover, incest/wincest/freakcest, Harry Potter meets Naruto fits this description.

Yes, they do. Because they are art.

Quality is not the defining factor.

Than everything is "art". Case closed, rest well.

 

[BlackWidower]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

Well, when you look at it: much modern art doesn't have a message either.

Thing is that unless there is a special toaster designed for an art purpose, their all made to look good and fit in the home. Thats good design.

Wether you like Modern Art or not, the artists that make modern had a message in mind(i hope they did), even the contempory artists. Im not a big fan of contempory, but i guess its still art.

You obviously never heard of this story: http://www.cracked.com/article_19419_6-parodies-that-succeeded-because-nobody-got-joke_p2.html

Two people try to prove that most modern art sucks, by intentionally creating art poetry that was just a mash-up of words. That have no meaning, and nobody notices.

Look, my point is, good design is art. They are no different.

Good Design, for the sake of Good Design is not art by definition. Its good design, nothing wrong with that, but why are you trying to put it into something else?

Oh and just because of some shit today in the artworld doesnt mean that everything is shit.

Wall-E is a modern animated movie that has in my opinion a deep message, an example of good modern art.

'Modern art' is not the same as art made in modern times. Wall-E is not modern art. It's modern, it's art, but it's not modern art.

Design is art because it requires creativity, which is the definition of art.

Creativity isnt the definition of art, the definition of art is creating a thought-provoking piece of work with a "deep" message behind it or questioning things. However, creativity is often used in creating art pieces.

Otherwise with no message or "deep meaning" its just design.

...and I completely disagree. I'd elaborate on that, but every point I can make, I've already made.

So why is that that just because something is creative it becomes art? Why do you seek to apply the word art to design? Going through the history of art, its always been about a message within.

But this is in no way to undermine design. A nice car looks nice, because the designer knew what he was doing, it involves creativity, but beyond that i dont think car designers intend to have a huge deep philosophical message.

Art doesn't need a huge, deep, philosophical message. I've already explained this.

That is the POINT of art.

Do you even go to an art school? How much have you studied it. It just seems your making up your own definitions for art now.

Yeah, pretty much. Of course I've never said otherwise. But this is not based on nothing.

A huge, deep, philosophical message is not the point of art, I've already explained this.

You obviously never heard of this story: http://www.cracked.com/article_19419_6-parodies-that-succeeded-because-nobody-got-joke_p2.html

Two people try to prove that most modern art sucks, by intentionally creating art poetry that was just a mash-up of words. That have no meaning, and nobody notices.

 

[Gloomsta]

Art is anything that requires creativity to produce,

Does that make mechanical inventions such as a car or a toaster art? It was certainly creative to come up with those.

I think your confusing the words "design" and "art".

The device in and of itself, no. The toaster and car are basically tools, and inventions used for a specific purpose and developed and designed through a logical process of scientific development, and trial and error. Sometimes a toaster can be art, if it is designed from an artistic point of view. But most often then not, no.

A toaster can be beautifully designed, but beautiful design falls short of the definition of art.

However i do agree that a toaster can be used or built for art.

But being creative can often involve being a good inventor or good designer. Design and Art are close, but still seperate.

The question was, what my definition of art is, and I still think all that qualifies as art. Some cars can qualify as art, the exception there being if its design is purely inspired by the laws of physics, and nothing else.

Yes but what you talk about is design and not art.

Good design doesnt have a message to qualify as art.

Well, when you look at it: much modern art doesn't have a message either.

Thing is that unless there is a special toaster designed for an art purpose, their all made to look good and fit in the home. Thats good design.

Wether you like Modern Art or not, the artists that make modern had a message in mind(i hope they did), even the contempory artists. Im not a big fan of contempory, but i guess its still art.

You obviously never heard of this story: http://www.cracked.com/article_19419_6-parodies-that-succeeded-because-nobody-got-joke_p2.html

Two people try to prove that most modern art sucks, by intentionally creating art poetry that was just a mash-up of words. That have no meaning, and nobody notices.

Look, my point is, good design is art. They are no different.

Good Design, for the sake of Good Design is not art by definition. Its good design, nothing wrong with that, but why are you trying to put it into something else?

Oh and just because of some shit today in the artworld doesnt mean that everything is shit.

Wall-E is a modern animated movie that has in my opinion a deep message, an example of good modern art.

'Modern art' is not the same as art made in modern times. Wall-E is not modern art. It's modern, it's art, but it's not modern art.

Design is art because it requires creativity, which is the definition of art.

Creativity isnt the definition of art, the definition of art is creating a thought-provoking piece of work with a "deep" message behind it or questioning things. However, creativity is often used in creating art pieces.

Otherwise with no message or "deep meaning" its just design.

...and I completely disagree. I'd elaborate on that, but every point I can make, I've already made.

So why is that that just because something is creative it becomes art? Why do you seek to apply the word art to design? Going through the history of art, its always been about a message within.

But this is in no way to undermine design. A nice car looks nice, because the designer knew what he was doing, it involves creativity, but beyond that i dont think car designers intend to have a huge deep philosophical message.

Art doesn't need a huge, deep, philosophical message. I've already explained this.

That is the POINT of art.

Do you even go to an art school? How much have you studied it. It just seems your making up your own definitions for art now.

Yeah, pretty much. Of course I've never said otherwise. But this is not based on nothing.

A huge, deep, philosophical message is not the point of art, I've already explained this.

You obviously never heard of this story: http://www.cracked.com/article_19419_6-parodies-that-succeeded-because-nobody-got-joke_p2.html

Two people try to prove that most modern art sucks, by intentionally creating art poetry that was just a mash-up of words. That have no meaning, and nobody notices.

A cracked article on what they believe is bad art doesnt explain anything. And if artists fail to deliver a deep message, then the artists are not doing their job.

You didnt explain anything, youve just linked me a fucking article expecting me to understand.