Whats your definition of art?

[Orks da best]

since the recently painful mass effect 3 retake movment, and art being used a lot there I ask a question for everyone. What is your definition of art, what do you view art as?

For me, I see as art as something that imspires emotion in people, it can be any emotion, such as excitement in the transformers moveies (ugh, its only a example chill down.) Or sadness when a character dies, or puzzlement when a character says a phase that makes you think of some moral, value, or other thing. For me that is what art means, emotion.

Whats your meaning of art?

 

[Jonluw]

Art is defined by its vicinity to the gallery.

Heap of old tires? Trash.
Heap of old tires in a gallery? Art.

 

[Lucem712]

I gotta agree. Nothin' in any other medium has matched the feeling I got in the final scenes of MGS3 or match the guilt of watching

Spoiler: Heavy Rain Spoilers beyond this point

Ethan hang himself in prison, due to your failings.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The whole definition of 'art' needs to be fucking patched.

When a guy can piss into a toilet with his own blood, 'draw' an Iron Man face and win an art competition then the term 'art' is just slightly too ambiguous.

 

[Waffle_Man]

"The perception of intention." It should be noted this means that I believe the nature of art rests more with the observer than the creator and the process of creation is just as important as the result.

Whether or not something is good art is an entirely different story.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I'll just quote myself from a previous thread:

Personally I would define it as anything that stirs your emotions, that makes you feel something, that creates a reaction in your thought processes on a level higher than base instinct, then it is art.

 

[Waffle_Man]

The whole definition of 'art' needs to be fucking patched.

When a guy can piss into a toilet with his own blood, 'draw' an Iron Man face and win an art competition then the term 'art' is just slightly too ambiguous.

All things considered, that's actually a fairly impressive feat...

 

[aba1]

Art is as the definition states and just because you don't like something or think it takes talent doesn't make it not art. Art is not judged based on the amount of effort put into it either.

 

[CODE-D]

I limit it to pictures and sculpture brought about from nothing but the idea of that could exist and look kinda pretty, cool or pretty cool.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The whole definition of 'art' needs to be fucking patched.

When a guy can piss into a toilet with his own blood, 'draw' an Iron Man face and win an art competition then the term 'art' is just slightly too ambiguous.

All things considered, that's actually a fairly impressive feat...

Yes, but I could do the same thing with a pile of my own excrement if I was so inclined.

It wouldn't make it art.

 

[Erana]

Art is a mess, that's what it is. Different factions of people muttering about different ideas, with the ideas of whether commodification and beauty diserve a place in the surrounding discourse, some tethered irreprably to decades of rhetoric, while others have not even spent a day of their life contemplating the matter while prattling on noisily about their uninformed convictions without even realizing the influence of the tentative, Western art canon...

Defining art is futile unless there's a specific context in which this definition is to be used, or particular insight is sought in this pursuit. Even then, the definitions that are arrived at are like representing a house fire with a Polaroid photo of it.

 

[Erja_Perttu]

"The perception of intention." It should be noted this means that I believe the nature of art rests more with the observer than the creator and the process of creation is just as important as the result.

Whether or not something is good art is an entirely different story.

Oh God Yes. I've been trying to think of a way of phrasing how I feel about art for years, and that's it, bang, right there. I've seen so much that I've looked at and thought to myself - it doesn't mean anything, or that it looks so thrown together,with nothing to support it - I don't perceive any intention to it and it frustrates me no end!

So yes, I agree with this.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Yes, but I could do the same thing with a pile of my own excrement if I was so inclined.

It wouldn't make it art.

And why not?

Something a lot of people miss when dealing with modern art in general is the flip side of "could" in "I could have done that." Sure, you could have, but you didn't. Just because something is easy for anyone to do doesn't mean that everyone will do it. A large number of people dislike abstract expressionism because the skill required to do them isn't all that obvious. Sure, there is no technical skill required to make such a creation, but the exact combination that the artist came up with is (supposedly) result of careful consideration for various formal elements. I don't particularly like abstract expressionism, but I know enough to appreciate it's nature as art.

Art is more than just what is created. It is the thought process that leads an individual to the results of their effort. It's reason that the Mona Lisa is near universally considered a work of art, but a photo of it likely isn't. Not necessarily because the photo or photos in general can't be art, but because the viewer is probably under the impression that no thought was put into the creation of the photo.

I suppose someone might respond to this by saying that anything could be called art or not art by such a definition, but I don't think that's a real issue. If someone randomly generated some terrain, took a screen shot, and told you that they took hours of intense work to draw it, you would be none the wiser. What's more, they could come up with all sorts of bullshit explanations about their thought process while making it. Would it be art? Would it matter how much thought was actually put into it? Is it possible that you would still have both an intellectual and emotional response to the lie?

Does art really need to be given a singular or easily encapsulated definition?

 

[Chemical Alia]

For something to qualify as art simply requires artistic intent and expression by its creator.

Whether it's good or bad art from there is entirely subjective and arguable.

A car accident can "stir one's emotions". While most art is meant to cause an emotional or intellectual response, these things alone do not make something art.

Art is defined by its vicinity to the gallery.

Heap of old tires? Trash.
Heap of old tires in a gallery? Art.

The medium is irrelevant. Intent is what matters here, not the perceived value of the piece or its message.

 

[Jonluw]

For something to qualify as art simply requires artistic intent and expression by its creator.

Whether it's good or bad art from there is entirely subjective and arguable.

A car accident can "stir one's emotions". While most art is meant to cause an emotional or intellectual response, these things alone do not make something art.

Art is defined by its vicinity to the gallery.

Heap of old tires? Trash.
Heap of old tires in a gallery? Art.

The medium is irrelevant. Intent is what matters here, not the perceived value of the piece or its message.

Look closer at what I'm saying. It seems to me that we agree as to what makes something art.
What is the object's vicinity to a gallery if not an expression of the fact that there lies intent behind it?
[sub]Note that I use the word 'gallery' in a very broad sense here.[/sub]

 

[Scarim Coral]

To me art is something of visual that repersent of something along of the lines of hidden meanings, provocative or something quality about that thing.

 

[Chemical Alia]

For something to qualify as art simply requires artistic intent and expression by its creator.

Whether it's good or bad art from there is entirely subjective and arguable.

A car accident can "stir one's emotions". While most art is meant to cause an emotional or intellectual response, these things alone do not make something art.

Art is defined by its vicinity to the gallery.

Heap of old tires? Trash.
Heap of old tires in a gallery? Art.

The medium is irrelevant. Intent is what matters here, not the perceived value of the piece or its message.

Look closer at what I'm saying. It seems to me that we agree as to what makes something art.
What is the object's vicinity to a gallery if not an expression of the fact that there lies intent behind it?
[sub]Note that I use the word 'gallery' in a very broad sense here.[/sub]

I see what you're saying. Presentation and location of the installation speak to intent.

 

[SckizoBoy]

For me, I see as art as something that imspires emotion in people, it can be any emotion, such as excitement in the transformers moveies (ugh, its only a example chill down.)

I quite agree...

Though it's more a case of emotions that come from empathising with either the artist or the artist's subject, whether it's comprehension of a painter's motives to paint a particular subject, an actor's personification of a particular character, or the writer's description of a scene.

I only say this because of how much rage/disappointment inducing 'art' that's out there.