What is art?

[hell-angel]

My wife is a diplomat of Mexico and responsible for cultural affairs in the embassy. As such I also see a lot of exhibitions of art. And in my honest opinion most of that art sucks. Bad drawing in which you can see nothing, just a couple of lines on a canvas that is supposed to have a meaning or statues that don't even remotely resemble anything.

Now, what do you consider art and why? What are your criteria for something to be art?

For me, it's simply if it looks good to me (a beautiful drawing for example like Rembrandt or a realistic statue) or an act of someone that is impressive and uncommon (like drawing in the sand and showing that on the screen by using a light below the sand).

I don't care much about the reason behind it, because if that is important for something to be art, then so can you consider raising my middle finger to be art. (that usually has a very strong meaning ;) ).

[RedSplat]

"For me, it's simply if it looks good to me."

If it ONLY looks pretty it's not art.
Art must stimulate the senses AND the mind.
But just because it doesn't stimulate your mind and senses enough, it could still be considered a masterpiece by other people.
If something is labeled art, it is art.

[Dead Chief]

Art is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder, some people like it, some people hate it. Basically anything that's been put effort in it is actually art, some good, some bad, but everything that the author has put his imagination to make is art. I agree that some just look hideous and the worse crap ever made in the history of the universe.

And it is always art, even if it ONLY looks good, sometimes the author just want that for his piece, to look good (don't take this out of context pervert).

Redsplat, you might want to change your post as it contradicts itself.

[Phait]

Art is simply expression. It's also why people can do totally abstract or lazy stuff (Pollack) and call it art. The result might express something.

Design is art as well, but moreso with real function(s). Concept art and cartoons, comics are all art as well even if they're not implicity meant to be an expression - there is an expression in the form of lines.

[Micki!]

My favorite kind of art, is that of Comic art...

It's cool, because it consists of still images, that give you the illusion that something is going on, with the help of paneling, persectives, and other minor details...

I think it is impressive if a comic achieves to make a story seem more dynamic, because the character and surrounding world "animations" give the viewer the illusion that it actually happens in there, even though you are fully aware (and see yourself) that nothing is moving at all... I'm not implying that this so-called "illusion" i speak of makes anyone think actual movements are occuring... But more, that they are more than just still images, because certain kind of drawn mimics and other details make it seem alive...

And the actual art doesn't even have to be that impressive to do this...


I love some concept artwork as well, those that resemble something cool in a special pose... It's never fun seeing "some guy standing there..."
But it's cool if it's a pic of a guy who look like he's ready for something...doing stuff, looking at something...

Not just drawn to "be there" and making him look into thin air...
Concept art should be more like "this is what it would look like if he did this", so that whoever hired the artist, get an impression of a character "in action"...

[RedSplat]

I don't see my contradiction..
I just was a bit vague with the last sentence.

[Dead Chief]

"If it only looks good, it isn't art
If something is labeled art, it's art"

[ShadeEX]

Art is not just art, it's a way of expression

I've been useing that quote for years, and it preatty much sums up what I think Art is.. A way for people to express them selves..

As Phait said a few posts above..

[motionblur]

Whatever you want or like it is.
Art is emotional and not every art can or should be explained.

Some people make it an art form creating very vague objects and the interpret for the customer. Some create and think of a meaning and what they want to say and then chose the means to create it.
Some want to create something beautiful.
Some people think of comics as art. Some don't.

It's just about everything you can think of.

I know people who like things I'd never consider true art - and then I have others tell me that they don't see why I consider things I like an art.

Hard to tell, really. As I was saying since it's emotional it's difficult to define it in a way so that everybody agrees.

[thefly]

"Art" is a misspelling of the word "rat" or the word "tar."

[Dead Chief]

Then artist would be a Ratist? or Tartist? Come on. Is that a serious response?

[Mudsling3]

Art is a subjective experience, you can virtually turn anything into art by your own experience. Yep, you are that powerful :cool: Good or bad art is a different question, so is marketable art.

[ShakeItBaby]

True art to me is something magical that evokes emotions or insight and will last the tests of time. To achieve this however is exceedingly rare, and of course, the whole matter of art appreciation is highly subjective. What irks me however is that there are so many pretentious "expressive" modern self-appointed artistic buffoons excreting out of their rectums and calling it "art" when instead it should be covered quickly so as not to blind innocent children and swiftly deposited at the nearest furnace.

[Opus131]

Art is a subjective experience

And there you have it folks, the reason why contemporary artists are such self indulgent cretins who cherish method and gimmick over the final product. In the end, if all art is subjective, then it means all artistic productions are equally valid, whether we are talking about a renaissance masterpiece or things which cannot be expressed in words, (http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=05/07/22/14413027) right?

To my experience, art has never been about any fixed rule or hard coded principle. Through out the ages, various forms of artistic expressions have emerged each with it's own peculiar function and artistic priority, some of them so unique and unlike each other that basic comparisons seem almost redundant. The only common thread is that beyond all considerations in aesthetics or technique each time a specific art form flourished, it has always seen rise to a certain number of individuals capable of such creative impetus they simply transcended all matters of style or form and create their own rules and their own aesthetic principles.

Speaking of the greatest composer of his time, Martin Luther once that "(Josquin Des Prez) is a master of the notes, which must express what he desires; others must do what the notes dictate".

This quote is a perfect elucidation between the idea of the artist, one who uses the tools at his disposal to craft something of beauty, and a master, one who creates art, period. The difference between a crafter and a master is utterly definite. With the former, you can easily understand and fully express the specific frame of any particular work of art, with the latter, there are no words to describe what you see, because they haven't been formulated yet. The work of a master is truly original, truly creative and stands in a class of it's own.

Thus, the true essence of art is not art itself, but art as a vehicle for the rare eventuality of true creativity. All other considerations are virtually a waste of time.

The problem is that historically true creativity has always been subject to the social or artistic conditions of a certain locale. In music for instance there have been periods in which certain countries produced no creative genius for decades, often for centuries, for no apparent reason of cause. True creativity behind such a rare anf fragile eventuality it's easy to assume that contemporary society simply is noxious to the development of true artistic expressions.

[Paroxysm]

I thought you liked my work ShakeItBaby!? :(

[ShakeItBaby]

I do man, I do. Even the glowstick. :D

[thefly]

Then artist would be a Ratist? or Tartist? Come on. Is that a serious response?

Irony thy name is "Dead Chief."

[Nessus]

Any creative expression can be art. However, we used to hold professional arists up to a higher standard. Now they are treated the same as a 4 year old child in that anything they decide to display is considered art, and if you think it sucks then you are an uneducated, boorish fool who just doesn't "get it."

Sorry, but if you are on public display in a museum I expect to see some inventiveness or talent. If this was a few isolated cases it would be one thing but it has been going on for years with everyone pretending that paint splashes are just as good as Renaissance paintings. They're not.

The Emporer has no Clothes.

[hell-angel]

"For me, it's simply if it looks good to me."

If it ONLY looks pretty it's not art.
Art must stimulate the senses AND the mind.
But just because it doesn't stimulate your mind and senses enough, it could still be considered a masterpiece by other people.
If something is labeled art, it is art.

I disagree, art must also be something most people cannot do or you need a lot of practice for. And what they do nowadays is something pretty much everybody can make.
Also, if what you say is true then the following is not art for you:
In krakow (poland) I say some young painter displaying their paintings on the street, some of them where painted so well that is looked like it was a photograph (it wasn't though and you could see that from real up close). No for me that is art because there are very few people who can do that. But other then that it's just pretty.

Any creative expression can be art. However, we used to hold professional arists up to a higher standard. Now they are treated the same as a 4 year old child in that anything they decide to display is considered art, and if you think it sucks then you are an uneducated, boorish fool who just doesn't "get it."

Sorry, but if you are on public display in a museum I expect to see some inventiveness or talent. If this was a few isolated cases it would be one thing but it has been going on for years with everyone pretending that paint splashes are just as good as Renaissance paintings. They're not.

The Emporer has no Clothes.


That is exactly what I mean and feel as well.

[Dead Chief]

Irony thy name is "Dead Chief."


My "name" (Nickname) would make more sense if the server of this forum worked properly and I could upload my "Dead Master Chief from Halo" avatar.

Seriously, what my nickname has to do with ANYTHING? If we go that route I can make fun of your little avatar but I don't really want to lower myself ;).

[Kalki]

I share Micki!'s tastes. Comic book art and imagery, along with games and other media can be very effective for me. They usually present iconic imagery reminiscent of mythological works.

Speaking of the greatest composer of his time, Martin Luther once that "(Josquin Des Prez) is a master of the notes, which must express what he desires; others must do what the notes dictate".

This quote is a perfect elucidation between the idea of the artist, one who uses the tools at his disposal to craft something of beauty, and a master, one who creates art, period. The difference between a crafter and a master is utterly definite. With the former, you can easily understand and fully express the specific frame of any particular work of art, with the latter, there are no words to describe what you see, because they haven't been formulated yet. The work of a master is truly original, truly creative and stands in a class of it's own.

I think the interpretation of what makes a master is cyclical, depending on the period. Sometimes the breaking of known boundaries in the quest for the inexpressive is hailed and at other times we celebrate the reimagining of the fundamental concept into its most exquisite form, that speaks long forgotten volumes through simplicity. Both survive the test of time.

[ShakeItBaby]

Nessus has hit the picture hook on the head.

[Needle]

I guess everything people spend time and effort on that isn`t directly related to body maintanance could be considered art.

Hell, even body maintanance can be art if you spend more effort on it than you really have to. Like... scratching your back with a cat tied to a stick instead of using your fingers. Or something like that.

[hell-angel]

I guess everything people spend time and effort on that isn`t directly related to body maintanance could be considered art.

Hell, even body maintanance can be art if you spend more effort on it than you really have to. Like... scratching your back with a cat tied to a stick instead of using your fingers. Or something like that.

Well, that maybe so, but then why does a painting of 2 lines on a canvas sell for 100,000 dollars and that cat on a stick only for 10?

Art is of course subjective and different for each person, but if modern art consists out of objects that could have been made (better?) by a 4 year old then where is the art? That is my problem with the "art" of today. Now I can apreciate a very big scala of art, I don't have to like it but I can apreciate it (like picasso, I don't like it but it is difficult to make and I can apreciate it. But 2 lines on a canvas or a few buckets of paint thrown against a canvas for that matter I really can't understand.

The same goes for statues of course but paintings are the most obvious objects for demonstrating my point here. :)

[FireFly]

And there you have it folks, the reason why contemporary artists are such self indulgent cretins who cherish method and gimmick over the final product. In the end, if all art is subjective, then it means all artistic productions are equally valid, whether we are talking about a renaissance masterpiece or things which cannot be expressed in words, (http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=05/07/22/14413027) right?
Isn't the question: valid for who? Subjectivity doesn't stop you from making comparisons with reference to a set of shared reactions; it still allows you to criticise, but merely requires that the criticism has a subjective reference point.

So we can still criticise modern art on the basis that it doesn't do anything for us.

[RedSplat]

In krakow (poland) I say some young painter displaying their paintings on the street, some of them where painted so well that is looked like it was a
photograph. No for me that is art because there are very few people who can do that. But other then that it's just pretty.

Yeah..
If you look at a Rembrandt or a Rodin and all you see is that its pretty like a polish street artists painting is pretty, you're not seeing all there is in art.
So, no wonder you don't like modernists, they require more than just senses. :p
But what the hell, i guess everyone 'looks' at art differently.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

IceT is right.

[Dead Chief]

The worst example of "art" would be the guy that showed a BLANK CANVAS and actually SOLD IT.

[Opus131]

we used to hold professional arists up to a higher standard.

Indeed, but in order to have any sort of standard you have to accept the possibility some forms of expression are objectively better then others.

[FireFly]

Yes, but isn't that based upon the common ground we share in our subjective experiences? In other words as humans, we're built in similar ways and process and perceive the world similarly so there are certain seemingly universal standards that apply by virtue of our human makeup.

Standards seem to be based on a fixed 'objective' view of reality, but really they're based on just another subjective (albeit shared) perspective. Working within that perspective, you can critique and criticise and there is a kind of objectivity, but as soon as you escape it, you realise that the entire frame of reference you used to make judgements is gone. Would you criticise an alien's taste in art or music?

[Destructor]

Art is a capturing of the moment, that's all. A Renaissance painting and a tin of paint splashed onto a canvas have an entirely different design and production process, but their objective is still the same. And usually most people only stare at a painting or what-have-you for a few seconds and then move on to the next anyway. So, if a turd can capture one's attention for a moment then it is a success and it is art. Whether it stands the test of time or not is another question! ;)

[Mister_Anderson]

Just put me down for all of what Firefly has said up to this point in time. And probably what he will say in the future.

[Kalki]

Yes, but isn't that based upon the common ground we share in our subjective experiences? In other words as humans, we're built in similar ways and process and perceive the world similarly so there are certain seemingly universal standards that apply by virtue of our human makeup.
You know, I've often wondered whether everyone had the same interpretation of senses- like our ability to analyse color. What I see as red may look like my interpretation of orange to you and we'd never know the difference. We'd both agree that it is red by definition, even though we're not seeing the same thing. Your visual palette could be completely different to mine.

Perhaps that's where taste and subjective outlook comes in. Maybe we all like the exact same color(as our favorites), only know them by different names. :p

[Tang Lung]

Opus and Nessus....thank you, so much.

I completely agree with what both of you said. And while my own opinion is a little more vitriolic, the whole idea of art being subjective in those terms is absurd to me.

The very thought of a Da Vinci painting being put on the same level as some british hack who lobs paint at a canvas and calls it 'f*** s*** im an artist' sends me into a nerd rage.

[Dead Chief]

You know, I've often wondered whether everyone had the same interpretation of senses- like our ability to analyse color. What I see as red may look like my interpretation of orange to you and we'd never know the difference. We'd both agree that it is red by definition, even though we're not seeing the same thing. Your visual palette could be completely different to mine.

Perhaps that's where taste and subjective outlook comes in. Maybe we all like the exact same color(as our favorites), only know them by different names. :p


I always wondered the same thing as well...But it's unlikely IMO...

One thing is for sure tho, we see things differently than women. Women perceive a wider range of colors than us men.

[Needle]

Well, that maybe so, but then why does a painting of 2 lines on a canvas sell for 100,000 dollars and that cat on a stick only for 10?

Hey, the questions was "What is art?", not "What is good art?" As far as I'm concerned, a lot of modern art replaces appreciable aesthetics and admirable craft with an elaborate set of arbitrary rules. Unless someone explains me what's supposed to be good about it and I decide to play along, they tend to be the visual equivalent of elevator music to me: a distraction for the eyes. Or maybe something you can put on your wall because it matches the rug.

But hey, that's just me. Maybe other people really have an endlessly deeper understanding of such things than me. Or maybe some people just really desperately want to be more cultured than the unwashed masses. Who knows?

[ShakeItBaby]

Pretentious Art Snob #1: "I say old bean, have you seen my spanking new all-white canvas, a captivating blank masterpiece brimming with the delightfully artistic resonance of finely wrought nothingness, encapsulating the sheer majestic essence of the artist's grand theories of the great void of human expression? I was fortunate enough to procure it for the trifling sum of two million pounds just last Thursday."

Pretentious Art Snob #2: "Oh my, old chap, but despite all the undoubted splendor of your fellow's masterpiece, I dare say your jaw will drop with awe when you feast your eyes upon my latest acquisition. I am assured that the artist, inspired by divine artistic impulses that we laypeople could hardly fathom, went to laborious pains to fasten a slingshot to his own rectum and then backwardly launched copious dollops of color at the canvas, until the magnificently chaotic randomness had completely soaked the painting with splatters. Hours have I spent standing before this masterwork marveling at the vast insights of abstract complexity it affords, the sheer microcosm of politics and social commentary it represents, the incredible depth of blended colors that were clearly intended to portray an optimistic metaphor for global community. And furthermore, dear sir, I was gifted with this priceless artifact for the mere sum of four million pounds. A steal, I must say, old chap, an outright bargain."

[Opus131]

Yes, but isn't that based upon the common ground we share in our subjective experiences?

Not necessarely no, i think it's based on the ability of the artist to express certain human elements into their work which are universal and can cut across the gulfs that separates our collective experiences as individuals as well as cultures. Those elements must be objective because human nature is a constant that will never change.

I'd like to propose an experiment. Since most people here are completely removed from the common ground shared by those who enjoyed the music of the past, it means that theoretically, it should be impossible to discern which of the following harpsichord pieces is greater then other, right?:

http://rapidshare.com/files/49979382/Harp1.zip.html

And if you think that perhaps the Baroque is still relatively close to modern sensibilities, try those renaissance pieces:

http://rapidshare.com/files/49984232/Renaissance.zip.html

It should be curious to see the results. Alas, it would be great if we could do the same between the famious painters of the past and their lesser contemporaries, but i don't have that type of expertise in the other arts. Perhaps Nessus can help with that.

[Nessus]

Well, there's a hell of a difference between this

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_171/pollack.gif

and this
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/bouguereau/bouguereau18.jpg

The first one is Jackson Pollack, revered by critics his works fetch tens of millions. The Second is William Bouguereau who has been written out of history by these same critics. Only recently have his paintings started to get 1-3 million dollars. Madness.

[Phait]

As they say, artists don't make money or get famous until after death.

[phreak]

Opus, regarding the Renaissance pieces, I'd rank them
2>4>1>3

Regarding the question raised, Opus' "it's based on the ability of the artist to express certain human elements into their work which are universal and can cut across the gulfs that separates our collective experiences as individuals as well as cultures. Those elements must be objective because human nature is a constant that will never change" is pretty much spot-on.

[Dead Chief]

Only If you're an acrilic painter and nothing more, but an artist CAN get money right know, or else it wouldn't even exist as a profitable profession.

[hell-angel]

May I say that I am happy with the responses and how polite this discussion is, I guess this is what Joe wants for the forusm and especially General Messages. :)

On topic:

Yeah..
If you look at a Rembrandt or a Rodin and all you see is that its pretty like a polish street artists painting is pretty, you're not seeing all there is in art.
So, no wonder you don't like modernists, they require more than just senses. :p

Yeah, but like that comparison posted earlier, I can see the art in the bottom one, even though I wouldn't buy it I can see the art. But in the top one I see absolutely nothing because there is nothing to see. And the so called anger or lust or what ever is just a story that they told you, nothing more, you can't see it at all. That is exactly my problem with it.

But what the hell, i guess everyone 'looks' at art differently.
That goes for everything of course ;)