CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I lay this question on the line for you all to answer.
What is it? What defines it?

Please discuss, I look forward to your responses. You do not have to be an art major or an artist or even like art to answer.

It's up to each individual's interpretation.

So anything can be art.

Some think of it it as raw emotion in a tangible form. Some think of it as a bodily function without the first letter.

And some think of it as:



I agree with Ryan. Just because something is absolute rubbish doesn't mean it's not art.

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:It's up to each individual's interpretation.

So anything can be art.

Quoting this since I agree with Ryan since he is 100% right.

And with that I'll bow out of this thread before the inevitable flood of responses going "Well ________ isn't art!" and I feel the need to punch babies repeatedly in the face to quell my rage.

inb4postmodernism.

Oh wait. I BROUGHT IT IN.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Hey Ryan what are you doing with that can of worms OH GOD WHAT ARE YOU DOING STOP OPENING IT THIS INSTANT.

Ooh, interesting topic.
I think that everything palpable/visible was designed by someone, either directly by God or humans, so it's almost like everything is art... like the shirt you're wearing right now, or the computer that you're on, or if you're wearing a pair of glasses. Everything is someone's design.

And I say this, as an artist... it helps me appreciate things around me more often.

But so far as what we classify as "art" apart from the daily things around us, it depends heavily on emotion and inspiration (at least for me.) If I force myself to draw, it comes out terrible. My best art comes when I have the strongest feelings, like when I'm listening to music, or after hanging out with other people, or when I'm thinking deeply. And it's also important to remember that art has the power to make the viewer feel differently. (I actually did a test picture on this, and got interesting responses... Not to sound like a shrink, but how does it make you feel? Claustrophobic? Kind of vulnerable?)
I don't think it's possible to have art without emotional involvement.

Aaaand I could talk forever on this XD but I'll let others share their opinions too...

Not anything is art. Post-modernism can go rot.

I would say of visual art what I say of literature. Although it is hard to define, it has to some something that people like for a long time. There has to be quality involved. There has to be substance involved.

I would say that almost anything could be made into art, that doesn't mean that anything IS art. William Wordsworth made ordinary language into beautiful poetry during the Romantic period, but that doesn't mean that every word the peasant said was poetry.

Many people would agree that art is beautiful and something special. If anything can be art, then doesn't that get rid of the uniqueness of art? When everything becomes art, then the term "art" becomes meaningless and art no longer exists.

Well guess I'll be warming up my baby-punching fist. WHY DO I DO THINGS I HATE?

Many people would agree that art is beautiful and something special. If anything can be art, then doesn't that get rid of the uniqueness of art?

If God loves everyone, doesn't that make God's love not really special?

If everyone is unique, then isn't no one unique?

Playing word games is stupid. Anything can and is art. You can't tell someone how to feel about something...well, okay, you CAN, but why? You think your opinion is the best? Everyone should only think what you think and like what you like?

What gives you the right to tell someone who's inspired and moved by something "Oh you're an idiot, that's not art, stop being emotionally moved by it right this instant!" What gives you the right to tell someone who worked for a long time, put a lot of thought into something "Oh that's not art, you wasted your time doing something stupid!"

Once you start trying to say things aren't art, you're being really egotistical and arrogant. Heck I could look at the stuff people have posted on this site and be like "Pssh that isn't art, you just threw some colors in a graphics program, get out of here."

I remember when photography wasn't art. I remember when CG wasn't art. It sure must be nice to sit on a throne from on high and declare things "NOT ART!" Just like they're doing with video games now.

Mr. Rogers (post: 1425443) wrote:Not anything is art. Post-modernism can go rot.

I would say of visual art what I say of literature. Although it is hard to define, it has to some something that people like for a long time. There has to be quality involved. There has to be substance involved.

I would say that almost anything could be made into art, that doesn't mean that anything IS art. William Wordsworth made ordinary language into beautiful poetry during the Romantic period, but that doesn't mean that every word the peasant said was poetry.

Many people would agree that art is beautiful and something special. If anything can be art, then doesn't that get rid of the uniqueness of art? When everything becomes art, then the term "art" becomes meaningless and art no longer exists.

Mr. Rogers is touching up on what everyone associates with art. If you look at the idea of art plainly, then yes, the post-modernist idea stated above reveals the problem that "art" is really an undefined world. Perhaps it's best just to stick with a definition that pleases us and follows a standard we choose. Yeah, that will lead us into conflict with other peoples' definitions, but no matter how we view art, there is always someone else who is going to have a different opinion. Oh well...

Nate (post: 1425445) wrote:I remember when photography wasn't art. I remember when CG wasn't art. It sure must be nice to sit on a throne from on high and declare things "NOT ART!" Just like they're doing with video games now.

It wasn't at first, but then it was made into art. But, not everything is made into art.

It's a question that is always asked and never answered.

As far as I'm concerned, art is anything made with a creative, largely non-functional intent. Also bear in mind that there is such a thing as good art and bad art--just because it doesn't meet a certain set of standards for aesthetic quality doesn't mean it isn't art. XD Also, there's a difference between design and art: the purpose of art is mainly aesthetic or emotional quality alone, created for one's own pleasure or for the pleasure of others (usually without financial compensation). Design (and illustration) carry more of a functional (and paid-for) purpose, and while they have the same aesthetic values as some art, it doesn't mean they are specifically labeled as such.

At least, that's how I see it at the moment. XD

Hey guys, nice opinions! I'm glad to see discussion but I didn't create this thread to cause argument.

Currently I am studying Abstract expressionism in class, including works by Pollock, RothKo, and Still.

Its a hard question to answer...XD I'm an artist and I even have a hard time putting my finger on it!

Art is a process, not a product. Legitimate art is a continuous process: the artist forms an expression and makes a plastic representation of that expression. The viewer interacts with the representation (not the expression itself, mind you) and walks away with their own sense of the artist's expression.

By corollary, "art" that is not viewed by anyone other than the artist is not art.

This explains, to a large extent, why modern art is the way it is: it is referential to other works and theories that the average person is not familiar with, but resonates deeply with other artists, and is frequently exploratory, critical, or satirical of those theories.

So, I don't concur that "art" is whatever someone says it is. People who produce works consisting of cat vomit are likely con artists, not legitimate ones, who are aiming to separate the naive from their money or attention. That's not to say you could not make a legitimate artistic expression using cat vomit, but by starting in that medium you are setting the bar pretty high, and should expect some criticism for it.

I think that this really depends on what kind of art we are talking about. For instance, there are:

Fine Arts
Commercial Arts
Applied Arts
Creative Arts

"Art" is a pretty broad term that can encompass almost anything, including things like medical arts and military arts. However, if we are going to talk about Fine Art specifically, it would be traditionally limited to paintings, sculpture, architecture, music, poetry, and theater (drama/dancing).

Cognitive Gear (post: 1425459) wrote:I think that this really depends on what kind of art we are talking about....
"Art" is a pretty broad term that can encompass almost anything, including things like medical arts and military arts.

Agreed. I mean, I personally think that making a meal can be an art- you're creating something for people to experience, whether that person is yourself or people at a White House dinner. It may not last forever, but nothing lasts forever in the end- food just lasts a shorter time than most art.

Radical Dreamer (post: 1425448) wrote:As far as I'm concerned, art is anything made with a creative, largely non-functional intent. Also bear in mind that there is such a thing as good art and bad art--just because it doesn't meet a certain set of standards for aesthetic quality doesn't mean it isn't art. XD Also, there's a difference between design and art: the purpose of art is mainly aesthetic or emotional quality alone, created for one's own pleasure or for the pleasure of others (usually without financial compensation). Design (and illustration) carry more of a functional (and paid-for) purpose, and while they have the same aesthetic values as some art, it doesn't mean they are specifically labeled as such.

At least, that's how I see it at the moment. XD

This.

I agree with Ryan and Nate saying that anything can be art, but not everything is going to be "good" art. People have different likes concerning visual representation. Some will like Leonardo and Michael Angelo type art, while others will appreciate the more abstract ideas of Duchamp and Warhol.

In my own personal opinion, (visual) art is simply the visual representation of ideas. Not everyone will see each idea the same way and that's the beauty and creativity of it.

Although, some go to the extreme of this theory. XD Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Oak_Tree

I agree with what Radical Dreamer said on what is art.


One thing that will get anyone on my bad list is a hurry is, when people say that photography is not art since any idiot can take a picture.

Yeah right. Yes people can take pictures, but most of those are of family or trips. But there is a lot to learn in photography that is not easy to do.

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]
Col. Roy Mustang [/color][/font]

Htom Sirveaux (post: 1425425) wrote:Some think of it as a bodily function without the first letter.

I think that can be considered an art too... I just don't like the exhibitions that proponents of the art hold. Though there are some rather... skilled... artists out there, and they can beget quite strong emotions from the attendees of their exhibitions.

So, I read over what I wrote again, and also what RD wrote, and maybe I was connecting "art" and "design" too quickly. But when I think of something being designed, I think, "art." I just do. Someone maps the design out, either in their mind or on something else, and creates it. I'm interested in your opinion- what would you label what they created? Just a creation? Can it also be called functional art?

And then again, I assume that many of us would agree humans are God's creation. Would you not say the human body is a work of art?

I in no way expect anyone to agree with my ideas. I didn't mean to start any kind of argument, I'm sorry. I am interested in what others think about this subject though.

Beau Soir (post: 1425473) wrote:This is mostly directed to Mr. Rogers, though I would like to know others' opinions as well.

Nothing was in reply to you.

I suppose if art was more about the process than the finished piece (which is a valid thing to say) then it is harder to define than I have previously stated.

Mr. Rogers (post: 1425475) wrote:Nothing was in reply to you.

I suppose if art was more about the process than the finished piece (which is a valid thing to say) then it is harder to define than I have previously stated.

Then I have been sorely mistaken. My apologies. I'll edit my post.

I think art is art...
seriouslly

Everything can be art. By definition, art can be termed as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." So technically anyone can perceive anything as art, because anything can be beautiful or appealing in someones eyes. This is not a principle of post-modernism, which is defined as " a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of objective truth and global cultural narrative," Because, though everything can be art, the person viewing the material wont always perceive everything as art. For instance, you might see what you think is a simply lovely portrait, i could find rather hideous and meticulous. Could anything cease to be art in the eyes of another just because you dont agree that its beautiful? Of course not.

Art is a word used by people wanting to give legitimacy to crap (like so many "high art" people in this age), and people wanting to insult things they don't like ("Videogames are not art".)

As such, I'm trying to train myself to avoid using the word. It's kind of difficult.

Art is whatever you want it to be

Bobtheduck (post: 1425491) wrote:Art is a word used by people wanting to give legitimacy to crap (like so many "high art" people in this age), and people wanting to insult things they don't like ("Videogames are not art".)

As such, I'm trying to train myself to avoid using the word. It's kind of difficult.

Hey that's a good way of looking at it, I'm with you!

To me, Art is something that comes from oneself...There are multiple ways of expressing it...sometimes it comes in the form of a story, or a song, or even the way someone walks...Anything that inspires, or even something that doesn't... Anything that has an impact...to me that is art.

Be it in the form of a painting, or a song, or a movie...whatever stirs emotion...that's what I call art...

It goes further than paint, further than a voice, further than a moving image... it's from the soul.

That's my philosophical version... XD

If anyone has ever heard of De Buffet, he painted childlike imagery...images of innocense..(and honestly some were inspired or thought to be inspired by not so innocent circumstances... >_<)

But even a Child's drawing can be a masterpiece...it's raw...untouched by schooling or anything else...the child paints with emotions, and memory...

That's a very fascinating thing to me... I think.

As is this thread with so many different anwers...and the wonderful thing is... THERE IS NO ANSWER!

Nice topic there ck, I never really thought of art this way. Different perspective added to my life now.