What IS ART?

[Syreth]

The right-brained nature of art doesn't exactly lend itself to being defined or classified. I've heard someone say, "there is an art to everything." He's right, I guess. Even some of the most non-artistic things I can think of have an element of artistry to them... At least, that's how I see it.

I also echo that making qualitative judgments about art (good or bad) is a different subject altogether than defining what is art and what isn't. Bad art is still art.

[Kung_Fu_Master]

Stop me if you've heard this all before. *Ahem*

Art is by definition a physical interpretation of a thought and/or idea that stimulates any one or combination of the five senses by using an uncountable amount of middens to give it shape.

Now what does that mean?......I'm not sure (and I'm the one that strung those letters together.) but if I had to guess it means as long as there was/is an idea art can be the byproduct. In short: I think, therefor I make art.

[ChristianKitsune]

Stop me if you've heard this all before. *Ahem*

Art is by definition a physical interpretation of a though and/or idea that stimulates any one or combination of the five senses by using an uncountable amount of middens to give it shape.

Now what does that mean?......I'm not sure (and I'm the one that strung those letters together.) but if I had to guess it means as long as there was/is an idea art can be the byproduct. In short: I think, therefor I make art.

Could it be I make art, therefore I think?

[Kung_Fu_Master]

Could it be I make art, therefore I think?

No it can not.

[armeck]

i believe art is passion combined with action

[Mr. SmartyPants]

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

Why can't anything be considered good art? Is an individual wrong if everyone disagrees with him when he sees something he considers as good art?

[Htom Sirveaux]

Why can't anything be considered good art? Is an individual wrong if everyone disagrees with him when he sees something he considers as good art?

I think it is't meant to be general statement, but a matter of personal opinion. How can art be critiqued if one cannot think of it as "good" or "bad"? But it is true that anything could be considered art regardless of whether one thinks it "good" or "bad". I myself don't think a picture of a tomato soup can is good art, but I'll (grudgingly) admit that it's art all the same.

[Yuki-Anne]

I think that truly good art stirs some kind of emotional or meditative response within its viewer.

Also, is it weird that every time I see the title of this thread, "What is ART?" I immediately think, "Baby, don't hurt me... don't hurt me... no more..."

[Htom Sirveaux]

Also, is it weird that every time I see the title of this thread, "What is ART?" I immediately think, "Baby, don't hurt me... don't hurt me... no more..."

Not at all Anne, I thought the same thing. Maybe a bit more like "Baby, don't paint me . . ."

. . . or not :/

[Etoh*the*Greato]

What is art?

Baby don't hurt me.

[Nekomimi]

Wow, I think my definition of art is pretty shallow, considering all the various examples. I just like stuff that moves me. Oh, and stuff that moves that I can play with, that's fun, too

[goldenspines]

Why can't anything be considered good art? Is an individual wrong if everyone disagrees with him when he sees something he considers as good art?

I agree with what Htom said.

Though, everything cannot be considered "good art" because not everyone will see every piece of art as good. Using this same logic, there is no "bad art" either. Art styles are like trends, some will be more popular than others at certain times and places. Does that make them any less art? No. It just makes them less popular.
Though, less popular art can be considered "bad art" in the sense that the artist(s) aren't making any money off of their work. XP

[Shao Feng-Li]

Oh man, art is a weird one. I suppose anything can be art in the eye of the beholder. But Picasso's anatomy was horrible, but people like it. Canvases that are painted one solid color hang in galleries. I find that I like any art more when there's balance and order in it- things that you'd find in creation. You know, think about a flower. But of course, God made a flower that looks and smells like rotting meat- and He calls His creation "all very good." Even spiders and roaches. I think I'm getting on a tangent here.

[ChristianKitsune]

Oh man, art is a weird one. I suppose anything can be art in the eye of the beholder. But Picasso's anatomy was horrible, but people like it. Canvases that are painted one solid color hang in galleries. I find that I like any art more when there's balance and order in it- things that you'd find in creation. You know, think about a flower. But of course, God made a flower that looks and smells like rotting meat- and He calls His creation "all very good." Even spiders and roaches. I think I'm getting on a tangent here.

To clarify, it wasn't that Picasso didn't know what he was doing, the picture above is one of his earlier works... Some artists saw the camera as a device that sort of changed everything...why take months, and years to paint something that can be documented in (then minutes) by film and photography....

So artists like Picasso saw this as an opportunity to sort of create a figure in a whole new way... and not follow the traditional rules when it came to painting it. *shrugs* that's what I always believed...

XD and I believe you are thinking of artists like RothKo...really it's more than a "Swatch of color" but i understand what you are saying

[TheSubtleDoctor]

What is art? To paraphrase justice Stewart: it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

Picking up on the comments concerning the evaluation of art (moving away from discussing the critereon for art): I am of the opinion that beauty is just as objective as truth or goodness (and, if we say that there isn't any such thing as good or bad art, we are, in effect, saying that there isn't any such thing as objective beauty). Mine is an opinion which has historically been the majority view, though is does not enjoy much popularity these days.

Do I have an argument for the objectivity of beauty? Not an air-tight, valid one, no. However, I do have an inductive one to offer. The argument turns on whether you accept Ockham's Razor (an explanatory principle "Do not postulate entities without necessity;" that, roughly translated, means that the simplest explanation is usually the best). The Western world has, by and large, accepted this principle since the 14th century.

Here are two views:

(A) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; it's subjective
(B) Beauty, like truth and goodness, is objective [certain things just are beautiful/not beautiful whether they are recognized as such or not]

Here's a list of four things:

(1) the diversity of tastes in beauty
(2) the uniformity of taste in beauty
(3) the existance of experts in beauty
(4) the powerful effect of certain beautiful objects/events

Anyone who holds (B) has to account for (1). If beauty is objective, then why the heck is there so much disagreement on what is beautiful and what is not? Essentially, this is the same argument the cultural relativist will give for the subjectivity of truth or goodness. Logically speaking, though, the fact that there is disagreement about the beauty of some object or event does not necessarily entail that beauty is not objective any more than disagreement over the truth or falsehood of some scientific datum entails that truth is not objective. So, it turns out that (1) is not really a threat to (B).

Still, if the aesthetic subjectivist presses, we can always say that there are people that are just wrong about what is or is not beautiful, just as there are many people that are wrong about what is or is not true or good.

(B) explains (2), (3) and (4).

Anyone who holds (A) has to account for (2), (3) and (4). According to (2) there are certain pieces of art that humanity has always (and will always) find beautiful. Beethoven's 9th comes to mind here. According to (3) there are certain artists, architects and desginers that get selected over other ones to make art for people. These experts in their field get paid, while the rest of us (including those technically proficcent in the field) do not b/c they make better art than others do. According to (4), certain things inspire us in certain ways: the sunset has become a sort of romantic cliche because it has moved millions and inspired thousands of pages of poetry...why not the same for moonsets? Suburban homes across the country have pictures of flowers (perhaps a Georgia O'Keefe)...why not pictures of dead rats?

So, (A) has a lot more to explan/account for than (B). Even if one doesn't care for the logical conclusion of (B), (A) appears to have a lot more to explain that it cannot explain in a non ad hoc way. Therefore, I think (B) is probably true.

[Nate]

Except that's wrong.

[mechana2015]

Beauty should not be a determination for art. There are paintings of things that arn't beautiful (a famous painting of Kronus eating his children comes to mind) that are absolutely in museums worldwide. Aesthetic appeal should never have determination of something being art, since art, being a reflection of the world we live in in most cases, may not be reflecting something beautiful.

[ShiroiHikari]

Couple of questions. What separates the works of great masters from the works of a 15-year-old art student? Does something have to speak to you personally to be considered "art"? Can something only be called a "work of art" if it has a message to convey, or is the still life of a fruit bowl also "art"?

[Radical Dreamer]

What separates the works of great masters from the works of a 15-year-old art student? Does something have to speak to you personally to be considered "art"? Can something only be called a "work of art" if it has a message to convey, or is the still life of a fruit bowl also "art"?

I think this is where the "good art vs. bad art" thing comes in. What separates the two is the skill level and an understanding of artistic principles. That said, you can't really compare one of Carravaggio's paintings to a 15 year-old's light and dark value studies. There's an entirely different skill level at play.

As far as something speaking to you personally, no, I don't think it has to. I can see a piece of art that doesn't really do much for me, but that doesn't lessen the artist's intent in creating the piece; it just means I don't like it. XD

As far as still life drawings/paintings go, I dunno. I've never really thought about that, because I usually only see still life drawings as a means to enhance one's technical skills. I would still consider it art, though, if only because it's all connected to the artist's process. I dunno though. I'm kind of starting to BS, so I think I'll end this post here. XDD

[Fish and Chips]

Oh boy, art! That's where I'm a critic!

I've long felt art is something that requires an inclusively exclusive definition, something that allows Anything To Be art but not necessarily making Everything That Is art; or as they said in Pixar's Ratatouille, "Not everyone can become a great cook, but a great cook can come from anyone."

Personally, I separate art into two categories: Art with Capital Letters and lowercase art. There is absolutely no debate over what constitutes lowercase art - that is, any and all human endeavors relying on skill and creativity. Art with Capital Letters would fall under this as well, but just because all Art is art doesn't make all art Art.

Some people may argue what separates art from Art is a message, an intention, but I don't think that's really it. Plenty of great Art rests on the laurels of presence or function, standing as Art for its own sake. There is no underlying message behind the Mona Lisa, but I'm sure if you were to ask Roger Ebert he would recognize it as Art. Similarly, architecture is about practicality, not conveyance, yet St. Peter's Basilica stands as a monument to human engineering and the glory of God. Art.

Art doesn't have to account for or conform to concepts of beauty either. Some of the most important works of art in history have dealt with very ugly subject matter. I don't think there's anyone who would consider Dante's Divine Comedy not Art, despite an entire third of it focusing on the sorrow and vulgarities of Hell and damnation.

So what is Art?

Art is, for me at least, something that stands removed from everything else, something that could only stand as itself. A picture is worth a thousand words, but a thousand words could say something a picture could never convey. Take, for example, Ernest Hemingway's (alleged) famous six word story:

"For sale: baby shoes, never worn."

Read that. There's only six words there, but so much is contained in them. You couldn't paint this, make a movie about this, write a book about it, compose a song or a comic book or a video game about it. What we have here is something that could ONLY exist as it does, in simple prose. That is art. That is Art.

Every medium that is brings a unique strength to its delivery, a distinct breath no other medium could even remotely emulate, only crudely copy - art that capitalizes on this is Art. You could invent time travel, go back in time to take a photograph of Mona Lisa, but it wouldn't carry the same weight of mystery as Da Vinci's painting. Alternatively, however, you could capture a moment in time, frozen forever, that no painter could be fast enough to record. There are nuances in film no book could ever depict without artificially drawing your attention, but there are books that make you realize and reach an understanding a movie could never convey without sounding preachy.

By this definition even "Disposable" popular art like comics and video games have room to be recognized as Art, though they'd have to deliver something impossible for another medium to achieve. As it stands, most comics and nearly all video games aren't Art because they try too hard to be other mediums.

You are now free to completely ignore this wall of text I might as well have not even written.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Except that's wrong.

Convincing =).

Art doesn't have to account for or conform to concepts of beauty either.

Beauty should not be a determination for art. There are paintings of things that arn't beautiful (a famous painting of Kronus eating his children comes to mind) that are absolutely in museums worldwide. Aesthetic appeal should never have determination of something being art, since art, being a reflection of the world we live in in most cases, may not be reflecting something beautiful.

Not sure if this is in response to what I said, but if so: I never said that beauty was the critereon for something to be art. My post wasn't at all about how to tell whether something is art. Rather, I was only arguing against the claim that there is no such thing as objectivly good or bad art. There are genuine works of art that are not beautiful.

I think that there is beauty in the kind of example you describe, as I am hesitant to reduce beauty to a certain sort of stimulation we experience. Rather, we recognize something as beautiful, we see an actualy quality that an object posseses.

What separates the works of great masters from the works of a 15-year-old art student?

The former is good art, while the later is, unless we are dealing with a prodigy, probably not-so-good art (which is STILL art).

What separates the two is the skill level and an understanding of artistic principles. That said, you can't really compare one of Carravaggio's paintings to a 15 year-old's light and dark value studies. There's an entirely different skill level at play.

I concur! This difference is something we all intuitivley recognize and seems to be good evidence in support of the theory that beauty is something objective.

Every medium that is brings a unique strength to its delivery, a distinct breath no other medium could even remotely emulate, only crudely copy - art that capitalizes on this is Art. You could invent time travel, go back in time to take a photograph of Mona Lisa, but it wouldn't carry the same weight of mystery as Da Vinci's painting. Alternatively, however, you could capture a moment in time, frozen forever, that no painter could be fast enough to record. There are nuances in film no book could ever depict without artificially drawing your attention, but there are books that make you realize and reach an understanding a movie could never convey without sounding preachy

That was quite moving, Fish. You are a gifted writer.

[Furen]

Wow, insightful fish!

[ShiroiHikari]

[quote="Fish and Chips (post: 1425821)"]Oh boy, art! That's where I'm a critic!

I've long felt art is something that requires an inclusively exclusive definition, something that allows Anything To Be art but not necessarily making Everything That Is art]

</thread>

[mechana2015]

What separates the works of great masters from the works of a 15-year-old art student?

Time and/or recognition usually. A decent number of the 'great masters' weren't recognized in their day, and it was only later when their work was viewed by a larger audience that a consensus was formed that there was intrinsic value to the work, above and beyond the basic value of a painted image on a board. Other cases include incidents where wealthy patrons, who are well known and well liked enough, like the Medicis, would support and commission artists and would apply intrinsic value by way of their social status. If a famous/rich person, especially one known for having 'good taste' says something has artistic value... it may well have artistic value from that point on, whether the artist is alive or not, because the person can promote it as valuable. This is the reason certain movies are consistently celebrated years later, because they were able to garner recognition enough to be valued and kept in the public eye long enough for the public to take interest as well.


And in response to Subtle Doctor - That was to you. "Beauty" has no place in being a determinator for art, whether you are determining art or not-art, or determining good art vs. bad art. A piece can stand entirely on technical merits and still be considered 'Art' and be nothing but a series of lines and squares in primary colors. Museums of Modern, Ancient and CLassical art around the country have whole exhibits that are independent of all but a tiny minority's concept of beauty, but contain social, cultural or technical relevance that places them firmly in the world of Art, both modern or ancient.

But I'm a graphic designer, so I may see things through a odd lens.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Fish, you've captured (as succienctly as possible) the very nebulous nature of art. And I think for that reason it is why so many things are capable of being art but the subject still ellicits so much argument. Art (notice the capital?) is a very subjective thing... I've said several times that some of my favorite pieces of art were actually commercial. They're visual (and sometimes tactile, audio, and even olfactory) constructs attempting to convey something very specific and the analysis of them is something I enjoy doing greatly. A well conveyed window scene in a story, or a well put together display or sign is beautiful to me both in form and function.

At the same time, I'm also a "games as art" geek. Are all games Art? No. Nonononono. Are games capable of Art and have in the past produced pieces were were actually very good pieces of Art? I would say yes. Of course, Ebert would disagree with me but he has come out to concede Tycho's (From Penny Arcade) point: Just because something is not now does not mean it never will be.

[Nate]

Convincing =)

Perhaps not, but it IS true that what you said is wrong. I don't need to be able to explain myself.

If someone says "There are 10 million bones in the human body" I can immediately recognize that that's wrong. I can't tell you how many bones are in the human body. I don't know that. However, my lack of knowledge doesn't make the fact that the human body doesn't have 10 million bones any less true.

And if the person who said that asked me "Okay then genius, how many bones ARE there in the human body" and I said "I don't know, but not 10 million" they could also just say "Convincing" and smile and pretend they'd refuted my statement of truth when they hadn't. But they'd still be wrong.

Beauty is subjective. dealwithit.png If it wasn't, are you trying to say all the guys who have fat wives with horse faces don't find their wives beautiful? Even if we don't see them as beautiful, they do.

Also, beauty being subjective doesn't make truth subjective, so that part of your argument is completely, totally non sequitur. Especially since your argument boils down to "Since these things are popular that makes them objectively beautiful" to which my response is that the Twilight movies and books are popular so that must make them objectively good. Appeal to popularity is NEVER a valid point.

I was only arguing against the claim that there is no such thing as objectivly good or bad art.

I do agree, though, that there is objectively good and bad art. However, that doesn't make the bad art "not art" nor does it mean people can't dislike the good art and like the bad art.

I love Kung Pow, even though it is objectively a bad movie. It's still one of my favorite movies, probably actually because of how bad it is. If it wasn't so bad, I probably wouldn't like it as much.

Also Deadly Premonition is probably one of the worst games ever made, and it's brilliant, a true work of art.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

I do agree, though, that there is objectively good and bad art. However, that doesn't make the bad art "not art" nor does it mean people can't dislike the good art and like the bad art

:stressed: Sweet goodness! Is anyone actually reading my post? I never, ever said that beauty=art, just that beauty=objective (this is the reason we can evaluate art). We agree, Nate! We agree!

A piece can stand entirely on technical merits and still be considered 'Art' and be nothing but a series of lines and squares in primary colors.

I did not utter anything to the contrary.

Museums of Modern, Ancient and CLassical art around the country have whole exhibits that are independent of all but a tiny minority's concept of beauty, but contain social, cultural or technical relevance that places them firmly in the world of Art, both modern or ancient.

I think people are misunderstanding me. When I talk about beauty, I am not referring to something being pretty or something that evokes a tingly feeling inside of you. I am speaking about an objective standard of excellence or goodness whereby we judge that a piece has aesthetic value.

Also, beauty being subjective doesn't make truth subjective, so that part of your argument is completely, totally non sequitur.

I never said that, sir. I stated that the argument for the subjectivity of beauty is the same as one of the arguments for the subjectivity of truth. If beauty/truth is objective, then why is there such disagreement about what is true beautiful? And, need I remind you, that disagreement -> subjectivity is actually a non-sequitur, logically speaking.

Especially since your argument boils down to "Since these things are popular that makes them objectively beautiful"

Wow. Nope. ThatIsTotallyfalse.png. I merely stated that someone who believes in the subjectivity of beauty has to explain why certain pieces have been considered beautiful by people from all walks of life, for centuries and centuries. Claiming that someone has to explain this is not equivalnet in any way to declaring that popularity=objectively beautiful. The believer in objective beauty can explain this simply, while the believer in the subjectivity of beauty seems to have a difficult time accounting for this (if she can).

Appeal to popularity is NEVER a valid point.

(1)My argument isn't actually ad populum (2) It is an inductive argument, so it doesn't have to be valid, just more probable than the alternative. Like the proofs of God's existence, for example.

[mechana2015]

Beauty is entirely subjective, based on a complex combination of mental wiring, experiences and culture. It is an invalid method of determining anything except the Miss America pageant and it's like, and is too mercurial to codify anything past individual opinions. I've taken plenty of art history classes and I can tell you that beauty is not a valid tool for evaluation of the significance of a piece, and saying 'it's pretty' would net you an F as an answer to why something was artistically significant. Certain aspects of appeal, such as symmetry or the golden mean can be used as analytical tools, but even they are only situational, and can be altered by other conditions, such as culture and personal experience. Academically at least, artistic significance is often determined through historical, sociological, cultural and technical aspects.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

Beauty is entirely subjective, based on a complex combination of mental wiring, experiences and culture. It is an invalid method of determining anything except the Miss America pageant and it's like, and is too mercurial to codify anything past individual opinions. I've taken plenty of art history classes and I can tell you that beauty is not a valid tool for evaluation of the significance of a piece, and saying 'it's pretty' would net you an F as an answer to why something was artistically significant. Certain aspects of appeal, such as symmetry or the golden mean can be used as analytical tools, but even they are only situational, and can be altered by other conditions, such as culture and personal experience.

OK, we can agree to disagree about the subjectivity of beauty (though my argument hasn't been dealt with)...but ARGH, I still think you are not getting me. this

it's 'pretty'

isn't beauty...never said it was. THIS

Certain aspects of appeal, such as symmetry or the golden mean

is more on the mark of what I meant by beauty. I'll quote myself here:

I think people are misunderstanding me. When I talk about beauty, I am not referring to something being pretty or something that evokes a tingly feeling inside of you. I am speaking about an objective standard of excellence or goodness whereby we judge that a piece has aesthetic value.

Maybe I should have just said that aesthetic value is objective. !@#%$^%^$#@

Aaaaaaand I'm callin' it a thread. Feel free to PM me, though.

[Nate]

(though my argument hasn't been dealt with)

Because it doesn't have to be.

I could make up a false premise with bogus evidence and conclusions too. Hey, you haven't given a conclusive argument as to how Scientology is wrong, so obviously they're right because you can't deal with their arguments! See how absolutely ridiculous that is?

Maybe I should have just said that aesthetic value is objective.

You could have and you'd still be completely wrong so what does it matter? Wrong is wrong no matter how you want to phrase it.