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

[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.

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.

You didn't read the piece did you? Two people created poems with no meaning, that were just a mash up of words, and people couldn't tell the difference between that and the real thing.

Then there's Jackson Pollock. If you can tell a Jackson Pollock painting from a two-year-old's art class project. I'll have to turn you in for being a cyborg. (What do you mean that's not illegal yet!?) Pollock had an accident with a brush and people got confused. Then he decided to roll with it, that's all that happened.

 

[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.

You didn't read the piece did you? Two people created poems with no meaning, that were just a mash up of words, and people couldn't tell the difference between that and the real thing.

Dont expect people to read many poems today to be able to tell the diffrence. But perhaps the point of those poems was to point out a lack of understanding within the arts, that people and artists indeed make up a meaning for no reason, that makes it a questioning piece of work.

But these poems are only a small part of the art world, and their not even part of the visual arts.

Then there's Jackson Pollock. If you can tell a Jackson Pollock painting from a two-year-old's art class project. I'll have to turn you in for being a cyborg. (What do you mean that's not illegal yet!?) Pollock had an accident with a brush and people got confused. Then he decided to roll with it, that's all that happened.

If you cant tell Jackson Pollock from childrens drawing then you cannot see at all. Like it or not, his work is distinctly his work. His painting isnt random, their full of effects and abstractions that havent been seen anywhere before.

I dont claim to understand his work besides the fact that its called "abstract expressionism", but he knows what he is doing when it comes to composition and effects.

 

[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.

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.

You didn't read the piece did you? Two people created poems with no meaning, that were just a mash up of words, and people couldn't tell the difference between that and the real thing.

Dont expect people to read many poems today to be able to tell the diffrence. But perhaps the point of those poems was to point out a lack of understanding within the arts, that people and artists indeed make up a meaning for no reason, that makes it a questioning piece of work.

But these poems are only a small part of the art world, and their not even part of the visual arts.

Then there's Jackson Pollock. If you can tell a Jackson Pollock painting from a two-year-old's art class project. I'll have to turn you in for being a cyborg. (What do you mean that's not illegal yet!?) Pollock had an accident with a brush and people got confused. Then he decided to roll with it, that's all that happened.

If you cant tell Jackson Pollock from childrens drawing then you cannot see at all. Like it or not, his work is distinctly his work. His painting isnt random, their full of effects and abstractions that havent been seen anywhere before.

I dont claim to understand his work besides the fact that its called "abstract expressionism", but he knows what he is doing when it comes to composition and effects.

So basically you're just taking his word for it. See, that's the difference between you and me, I need evidence that someone is competent, and I don't see it.

 

[kortin]

Okay, this is getting fucking ridiculous. I know redundant topics aren't unusual, but this topic came up... what? Last week? Use your forum search!

"Ok, this is getting fucking ridiculous. I know redundant posts aren't unusual, but this post came up... what? In last week's topic? Use your forum search!"
And that is about how annoying you sound. Honestly, people who post this sort of stuff are worse than the people who post the same topic every few days.


Art is both objective and subjective. Through the common media, most people know that DaVinci's Mona Lisa is considered art. I don't think there's anyone in the world who would disagree (aside from people who just love to be devil's advocates). Yet, when looking at something else, say video games, you constantly have people arguing over whether they should or shouldn't be considered art. Its a tricky thing, really.

 

[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.

You didn't read the piece did you? Two people created poems with no meaning, that were just a mash up of words, and people couldn't tell the difference between that and the real thing.

Dont expect people to read many poems today to be able to tell the diffrence. But perhaps the point of those poems was to point out a lack of understanding within the arts, that people and artists indeed make up a meaning for no reason, that makes it a questioning piece of work.

But these poems are only a small part of the art world, and their not even part of the visual arts.

Then there's Jackson Pollock. If you can tell a Jackson Pollock painting from a two-year-old's art class project. I'll have to turn you in for being a cyborg. (What do you mean that's not illegal yet!?) Pollock had an accident with a brush and people got confused. Then he decided to roll with it, that's all that happened.

If you cant tell Jackson Pollock from childrens drawing then you cannot see at all. Like it or not, his work is distinctly his work. His painting isnt random, their full of effects and abstractions that havent been seen anywhere before.

I dont claim to understand his work besides the fact that its called "abstract expressionism", but he knows what he is doing when it comes to composition and effects.

So basically you're just taking his word for it. See, that's the difference between you and me, I need evidence that someone is competent, and I don't see it.

You dont see it, because you refuse to see it, you refuse to open your mind.

If you cannot see the uniqueness and originality(at the time it was highly original) of his paintings, then you its not him, or me, its you who cannot see it.

EDIT: Sorry that sounded arrogant.

To be honest at this point its the case of "one mans trash, another mans treasure". Jackson Pollock in my opinion had made his painting with artistic intentions, and personally, i think he has great and interesting compositions and techniques. In my opinion he was definetly bringing something new to painting.

If you dont like his work, i guess thats fine, its probably a love it or hate thing.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The closest thing I can pin down to a definition of art would be an expressive work of creativity. Truthfully though I don't really know if I can pin down an exact definition, all I do know is I know art when I see it. Like movies and video games, would I call them art? Well some of them maybe. Would I call any random mindless action movie art? Not really, but would I call a really expressive film like Gattaca or AI: Artificial Intelligence art, yeah I probably would. Same with video games, would I call games like Duke Nukem Forever art? Hell no, but a game like Shadow of the Colossus, well I haven't played much of it, but from what I know of it I'd probably still call it art despite how boring (what? It didn't appeal to me, ok?) it is and the crappy ending which was spoilered for me thanks to YouTube.

 

[latiasracer]

For me, Art is pieces of good classical music and Paintings. Proper paintings, of actual things none of this "abstract" Rock with some dents in it crap.

 

[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.

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.

You didn't read the piece did you? Two people created poems with no meaning, that were just a mash up of words, and people couldn't tell the difference between that and the real thing.

Dont expect people to read many poems today to be able to tell the diffrence. But perhaps the point of those poems was to point out a lack of understanding within the arts, that people and artists indeed make up a meaning for no reason, that makes it a questioning piece of work.

But these poems are only a small part of the art world, and their not even part of the visual arts.

Then there's Jackson Pollock. If you can tell a Jackson Pollock painting from a two-year-old's art class project. I'll have to turn you in for being a cyborg. (What do you mean that's not illegal yet!?) Pollock had an accident with a brush and people got confused. Then he decided to roll with it, that's all that happened.

If you cant tell Jackson Pollock from childrens drawing then you cannot see at all. Like it or not, his work is distinctly his work. His painting isnt random, their full of effects and abstractions that havent been seen anywhere before.

I dont claim to understand his work besides the fact that its called "abstract expressionism", but he knows what he is doing when it comes to composition and effects.

So basically you're just taking his word for it. See, that's the difference between you and me, I need evidence that someone is competent, and I don't see it.

You dont see it, because you refuse to see it, you refuse to open your mind.

If you cannot see the uniqueness and originality(at the time it was highly original) of his paintings, then you its not him, or me, its you who cannot see it.

EDIT: Sorry that sounded arrogant.

To be honest at this point its the case of "one mans trash, another mans treasure". Jackson Pollock in my opinion had made his painting with artistic intentions, and personally, i think he has great and interesting compositions and techniques. In my opinion he was definetly bringing something new to painting.

If you dont like his work, i guess thats fine, its probably a love it or hate thing.

Yes, I'm sure he had artistic intentions, but so does every artist, and yet some **** will always be the arbiter of the artistic. Saying this is art, but that isn't, because I said so.

I'm not saying Jackson Pollock sucks. I'm not saying it's not art either. I'm just saying it has no meaning. It may have structure, and be pretty, but it has no meaning, and it doesn't need to. Is my point.

Yes, that was arrogant, and pretentious, and stuck-up. So why did you say it?

 

[Gloomsta]

Yes, I'm sure he had artistic intentions, but so does every artist, and yet some **** will always be the arbiter of the artistic. Saying this is art, but that isn't, because I said so.

I'm not saying Jackson Pollock sucks. I'm not saying it's not art either. I'm just saying it has no meaning. It may have structure, and be pretty, but it has no meaning, and it doesn't need to. Is my point.

Cant argue with that since i dont know if it has any meaning.

Yes, that was arrogant, and pretentious, and stuck-up. So why did you say it?

Determination to win a debate.

 

[BlackWidower]

Yes, I'm sure he had artistic intentions, but so does every artist, and yet some **** will always be the arbiter of the artistic. Saying this is art, but that isn't, because I said so.

I'm not saying Jackson Pollock sucks. I'm not saying it's not art either. I'm just saying it has no meaning. It may have structure, and be pretty, but it has no meaning, and it doesn't need to. Is my point.

Cant argue with that since i dont know if it has any meaning.

Yes, that was arrogant, and pretentious, and stuck-up. So why did you say it?

Determination to win a debate.

...win? See, you are exactly the type of person that is dragging down society as a whole. You sicken me.

 

[James Mann]

By my personal understanding i consider 'art' to be anything that was created by one person with the the purpose of being enjoyed by another, despite having no actual need for the item, or the item satisfies a need to an unnecessary level.

 

[Zaverexus]

I define art as an original creation that can invoke a unique emotional response beyond what you would experience otherwise.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Whatever pisses those people who are really snooty about waht is and isnt art off.

 

[Gloomsta]

Yes, I'm sure he had artistic intentions, but so does every artist, and yet some **** will always be the arbiter of the artistic. Saying this is art, but that isn't, because I said so.

I'm not saying Jackson Pollock sucks. I'm not saying it's not art either. I'm just saying it has no meaning. It may have structure, and be pretty, but it has no meaning, and it doesn't need to. Is my point.

Cant argue with that since i dont know if it has any meaning.

Yes, that was arrogant, and pretentious, and stuck-up. So why did you say it?

Determination to win a debate.

...win? See, you are exactly the type of person that is dragging down society as a whole. You sicken me.

:-( It was an accident. But yes i should turn of a competative state of mind sometimes.