Art

[Saevus]

It's been mentioned before, but I suppose art is something which elicits an emotion or meaningful response from an individual. That definition covers pretty much all types of art: prose, poetry, theatre, performance art, music, sculpture, etc.

Trying to find a more precise definition seems rather useless - a narrow definition won't fit an infinitely broad field.

 

[Thais]

Art is so broad and personal and subjective that one person's definition will never be accepted as THE definition. That said, given that I have had experience of a Fine Arts Degree, I would say that you are actually asking the wrong question. Since the 1900s the Modernist movement has repeatedly tried to challenge society's idea of what constitutes art. This is often referred to as 'The Shock of the New'.

I have come to regard this as 'Novelty Art'. Whilst I cannot refute that it is art I don't feel I have to waste my time engaging with it...

So, I would recommend that you all stop asking the question "Is it Art?' and instead start asking the question 'Is it any good?'

But even art that is not good can still hold some artistic merit. Much of what we define as folk art lacks seriously in such areas as execution and unity of theme, but still manages to get its ideas and/or emotions across quite handily. So although it may not be "good" art, it is still art with merit.

 

[Saevus]

Art is so broad and personal and subjective that one person's definition will never be accepted as THE definition. That said, given that I have had experience of a Fine Arts Degree, I would say that you are actually asking the wrong question. Since the 1900s the Modernist movement has repeatedly tried to challenge society's idea of what constitutes art. This is often referred to as 'The Shock of the New'.

I have come to regard this as 'Novelty Art'. Whilst I cannot refute that it is art I don't feel I have to waste my time engaging with it...

So, I would recommend that you all stop asking the question "Is it Art?' and instead start asking the question 'Is it any good?'

But even art that is not good can still hold some artistic merit. Much of what we define as folk art lacks seriously in such areas as execution and unity of theme, but still manages to get its ideas and/or emotions across quite handily. So although it may not be "good" art, it is still art with merit.

That, in turn, depends on how you define what is 'good'. Would an arrangement of Big Brother recordings be a better expression of the zeitgeist than a compilation CNN broadcasts used for the same purpose?

Art that is unequivocally terrible is very important, though, for the express reason that it shows us what not to do. As long as bad art is recognized as being bad, it helps artists to grow and improve.

Of course, when rubes think something terrible is good, that lowers everyone's standards, and culture becomes steeped in mediocrity. Cue the nasty glances at the Halo series, Oblivion, etc.

 

[Thais]

Art is so broad and personal and subjective that one person's definition will never be accepted as THE definition. That said, given that I have had experience of a Fine Arts Degree, I would say that you are actually asking the wrong question. Since the 1900s the Modernist movement has repeatedly tried to challenge society's idea of what constitutes art. This is often referred to as 'The Shock of the New'.

I have come to regard this as 'Novelty Art'. Whilst I cannot refute that it is art I don't feel I have to waste my time engaging with it...

So, I would recommend that you all stop asking the question "Is it Art?' and instead start asking the question 'Is it any good?'

But even art that is not good can still hold some artistic merit. Much of what we define as folk art lacks seriously in such areas as execution and unity of theme, but still manages to get its ideas and/or emotions across quite handily. So although it may not be "good" art, it is still art with merit.

That, in turn, depends on how you define what is 'good'. Would an arrangement of Big Brother recordings be a better expression of the zeitgeist than a compilation CNN broadcasts used for the same purpose?

Art that is unequivocally terrible is very important, though, for the express reason that it shows us what not to do. As long as bad art is recognized as being bad, it helps artists to grow and improve.

Of course, when rubes think something terrible is good, that lowers everyone's standards, and culture becomes steeped in mediocrity. Cue the nasty glances at the Halo series, Oblivion, etc.

You're not addressing the comment. I wasn't saying that some art is good and some art is bad, all I'm saying that even art that is judged to be "bad" can still have artistic merit.

(and a television show where you lock 8 people in a room and set them at each other's throats is art how?)

 

[Saevus]

Art is so broad and personal and subjective that one person's definition will never be accepted as THE definition. That said, given that I have had experience of a Fine Arts Degree, I would say that you are actually asking the wrong question. Since the 1900s the Modernist movement has repeatedly tried to challenge society's idea of what constitutes art. This is often referred to as 'The Shock of the New'.

I have come to regard this as 'Novelty Art'. Whilst I cannot refute that it is art I don't feel I have to waste my time engaging with it...

So, I would recommend that you all stop asking the question "Is it Art?' and instead start asking the question 'Is it any good?'

But even art that is not good can still hold some artistic merit. Much of what we define as folk art lacks seriously in such areas as execution and unity of theme, but still manages to get its ideas and/or emotions across quite handily. So although it may not be "good" art, it is still art with merit.

That, in turn, depends on how you define what is 'good'. Would an arrangement of Big Brother recordings be a better expression of the zeitgeist than a compilation CNN broadcasts used for the same purpose?

Art that is unequivocally terrible is very important, though, for the express reason that it shows us what not to do. As long as bad art is recognized as being bad, it helps artists to grow and improve.

Of course, when rubes think something terrible is good, that lowers everyone's standards, and culture becomes steeped in mediocrity. Cue the nasty glances at the Halo series, Oblivion, etc.

You're not addressing the comment. I wasn't saying that some art is good and some art is bad, all I'm saying that even art that is judged to be "bad" can still have artistic merit.

(and a television show where you lock 8 people in a room and set them at each other's throats is art how?)

My intention was to concur that art always has some sort of merit. Art is supposed to intrinsically have merit if it is 'good', but bad art, too, has merit (though perhaps in a different manner).

And imagine how informative said television show would be if it was examined a century from now in the context of demonstrating how decadent and depraved the Western world was at the new millennium - that was my thought. CNN would show the role and impact of the media in people's lives at the time period, how it blended 'reality' with a perverse sort of entertainment. Whether it's of artistic or historical value is a substantially blurred line, as I more or less pulled the example out of thin air without consideration.

 

[Thais]

[Thais:]
[Saevus:]
[Thais:]
[Uncompetative: blah blah blah we all said a lot of stuff and then we got here:]

And imagine how informative said television show would be if it was examined a century from now in the context of demonstrating how decadent and depraved the Western world was at the new millennium - that was my thought. CNN would show the role and impact of the media in people's lives at the time period, how it blended 'reality' with a perverse sort of entertainment. Whether it's of artistic or historical value is a substantially blurred line, as I more or less pulled the example out of thin air without consideration.

I'd argue more for Big Brother and other "personality driven" reality shows to me more a psychological experiment than anything to do with art, culture or history. The question of "how far will you go to win" seems to be the predominant one.

 

[Spartan Bannana]

Honestly I can't tell art and trash apart.
How come when I put a tin can on a pedestal it's trash, but when someone else does it it's "art"

 

[Saevus]

Honestly I can't tell art and trash apart.
How come when I put a tin can on a pedestal it's trash, but when someone else does it it's "art"

Look up Marcel Duchamp's Readymades - not sure if it'll help too much, but it may give you some insight.

 

[Larenxis]

I have not read anything of this thread, including any more than the first sentence of the OP.
Art is something created with the intention of being art, and is not for the sake of survival or reproduction. It's good to have an aesthetic or communicative appeal, but not really necessary.
There, I've solved everything ever. Just check, your cancer is gone! Thank me later.

 

[Saevus]

Art is something created with the intention of being art, and is not for the sake of survival or reproduction. It's good to have an aesthetic or communicative appeal, but not really necessary.

It's about as necessary as cars, plumbing, and refrigerators if you expect the human mind and society to evolve.

 

[l33tabix]

hahaha i was put on probation for that? only because it's true. I mean look at Tracey Emin LOOK AT HER. People thinks shes all prestigious and a what not and her last exhibition had a victorian woman having sex with a mechanical zebra in it. Prove me wrong.

 

[GothmogII]

hahaha i was put on probation for that? only because it's true. I mean look at Tracey Emin LOOK AT HER. People thinks shes all prestigious and a what not and her last exhibition had a victorian woman having sex with a mechanical zebra in it. Prove me wrong.

Still...a little more tact would have been on order no?


As for the subject at hand...I'd classify everything and anything anyone is willing to call art. That is, I don't like accepting general consensus that X is art and Y isn't. It's all down to what the individual feels it is. It's not like saying 2+2=3, but...then, 2+2=4 right? And...it's been discovered to be so by years upon years of thought and research into the matter right? But, I don't think art is like that, where as someone can say 2+2 does not equal 4, you wouldn't be overly worried about telling someone that they were wrong. But, art being as it is, you can't really -prove- someone as having the wrong ideas about things when it relates so closly to what they like to look at, how it effects them etc.

That said, I have a fond dislike of art that is...well, maybe splashes of paint on a screen, or canvas covered in little splotches. I understand that when people first did that, is was kind of a take that against more accepted forms. But today, it just seems like anyone can do it and attach some 'deep' 'physcological' 'meaning' to such pieces and be lauded as geniuses.
But still, despite this, I still would not consider them not to be artists, or their work not art.


Also...about art being anything for aesthetic purposes only and anything practical not. I cannot for the life of me name one single product or invention that some thought has not also gone into it's aesthetic appeal aswell as it's practicalities. And even items where there has been no deliberate attempt gone into how it looks, cannot not be used in some way as art. I dare anyone to think up even one thing!

 

[Anarchemitis]

I like the art behind the genius of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
May the great Arkleseizure be with you, Adams. May you rest in odd peace.

 

[iamnotincompliance]

Behold, [a href="http://dhost.info/dilbert/theblueduck.png"]the ultimate art![/a]

Anyone who actually gets this, know that I salute your repository of useless knowledge, because I always strive to make references as obscure as possible.

Anyway, I have my own definition of art, and it stands at "If I could've made that, it isn't art." What Anarchemitis posted, I couldn't do. I call it art. The blue duck is art. That guy who saturated miles of pristine California highway with umbrellas, that is not art. Another guy (more recently) convinced one of New York major museums to suspend several Geo Metros in midair in such a way as to convey the car being blow sky-high. While that is a fate well deserved by Metros, that is not art. All I'd've needed is some ridiculous excuse to get away with such shenanigans (like the ones those people used) and I could have done that.

Yes, I realize I completely ignore music, nature, etc, etc, etc, but my definition stands.

 

[Copter400]

But that's the thing, why does it even please us?

It pleases us because it does. Best not to think too hard about this stuff; thinking about how the brain works is like trying to open a crate with the crowbar that's inside it. Oh, and you're blindfolded.

 

[PurpleRain]

I have my own definition of art, and it stands at "If I could've made that, it isn't art."

Or perhaps that art is easy to make, it's become so common you've grow decencortised(sp?) to it.

But that's the thing, why does it even please us?

It pleases us because it does. Best not to think too hard about this stuff; thinking about how the brain works is like trying to open a crate with the crowbar that's inside it. Oh, and you're blindfolded.

I like the quote in Mass Effect, "It would be like trying to describe colour to a creature without eyes."

 

[Uncompetative]

Honestly I can't tell art and trash apart.
How come when I put a tin can on a pedestal it's trash, but when someone else does it it's "art"

Simple, your pedestal isn't in the White Cube gallery in London. 'Context' matters.

Note: you can just about get away with doing 'happenings' and performance art outdoors (i.e. no apparent gallery 'context' to imply art), but it is harder to pull off. There was a case of a public artwork installation of found objects put in a shopping centre that was accidentally swept up by the local bin men - true story.

Performance art can often be confused with street theatre, which isn't quite the same thing as art tends to eschew narrative for theme alone.

Nudity and quasi-pornography, and self-injury are often employed to differentiate the work of a Performance artist from the actor.

The work of Christo (i.e. wrapping famous to the point of cliche buildings/bridges up and then unwrapping them so you "see them afresh") is about the only good example of a happening that comes to mind. I don't particularly like public sculpture, I feel it is there for the wrong reasons (i.e. "great men" with dubious pasts) or are entirely abstract (i.e. Henry Moore) which are, in truth, largely, massively scaled-up pebbles that he found on the beach, that resembled distended and perforated figures - also true.

I hope this answers your questions.

By the way, I didn't intend to imply that people shouldn't ask "Is it Art?", but "Is it any good?" meant by reverse-implication that "Bad Art", or Kitsch (like Big Brother) wasn't categorizable as Art. I would say that the act of making a montage of a series would help author it so that it made some artistic point, if only (as has been suggested) as negative social commentary on wannabe celebrity and decadence.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

almost everything is art, it's just how you see it.

stuff thats obviously excluded: Pron, violence, etc.

 

[Saskwach]

Gah, someone had to open Pandora's Box. Seriously, this argument always chases its tail until it's back to where its head was at in the first place: I got sick of it in high school.
But just to contribute and not be one of those damn annoying "this thread sucks" snobs: art is whatever I say it is. So there!

 

[The Wooster]

almost everything is art, it's just how you see it.

stuff thats obviously excluded: Pron, violence, etc.

Guernica by Picasso. Violent.