Artist or Creator?

[ThrobbingEgo]

Would you consider something by Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll art? Is a bowl of poutine considered art? Is a five year-old scrawlings considered art?

Is a five year old bashing on a piano art? Is ET (the infamous Atari game) art?

I think there's a subjective threshold for quality, but I don't think the medium has any weight in what is and isn't art. That's my point.

 

[Ancientgamer]

Art is the creation of something in which function follows form.

Visually, the spectrum would be:



Artist____________Designer_______________Engineer
Form_____________Compromise_____________ Function



Anything on the left side could be considered art, and the creator and artist of sorts.


It doesn't have to be good to be art. We'd do well to keep that in mind.

 

[Calobi]

Also, just because theater were competing against things like bear-baiting and dog fights doesn't mean it was only a form of entertainment by my definition. Sure, people watched them to get away from their troubles and lives, but the same could be said for your example of Super Mario Bros 3 today. If you watch the levels, the way it flows, it's art. However, if you have a bad day and want to relieve some stress, well those Goombas have nice squishy heads. Same for the plays. I could watch a play for the fact that it is a diversion and nothing more. That's not hard. I could also watch one and try and feel what it's conveying; the emotions put forth by the writer and the actors as people.

And 16th century kings could have, in their private collections, masturbated to what are now museum pieces. What's your point?

My point (Which I admit I may have missed in the way I tried to convey it) is that theater isn't considered art to me because it's dead and stuffy; it wasn't only entertainment back then because it had to compete with entertainment. it exists as both depending on how the person chooses to interpret it.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Would you consider something by Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll art? Is a bowl of poutine considered art? Is a five year-old scrawlings considered art?

Is a five year old bashing on a piano art? Is ET (the infamous Atari game) art?

I think there's a subjective threshold for quality, but I don't think the medium has any weight in what is and isn't art. That's my point.

That wasn't your point. You're point was that art is the human urge to create. Medium has nothing to do with it. You are also missing MY point, which has nothing to do with which medium, but that many things that are not considered art (i.e., a five-year old bashing a piano or ET the infamous Atari game) are, however, expressions of the human urge to create, by your definition.

The question is, What makes it or what doesn't make it art?

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Art is the creation of something in which function follows form.

Visually, the spectrum would be:



Artist____________Designer_______________Engineer
Form_____________Compromise_____________ Function



Anything on the left side could be considered art, and the creator and artist of sorts.


It doesn't have to be good to be art. We'd do well to keep that in mind.

So anyone who makes something for no practical purpose can be considered an artist?

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Any fool can merely "Create" a bunch of colors splattered on a peice of paper, or moving pixels, but it takes an "Artist" to make them come to life before your eyes, and force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release. Some poetry in that statement, take it as you will.

Yet when you look at a smattering of colours on a canvas, you obviously seethe with disapproval. Emotion, no?

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Also, just because theater were competing against things like bear-baiting and dog fights doesn't mean it was only a form of entertainment by my definition. Sure, people watched them to get away from their troubles and lives, but the same could be said for your example of Super Mario Bros 3 today. If you watch the levels, the way it flows, it's art. However, if you have a bad day and want to relieve some stress, well those Goombas have nice squishy heads. Same for the plays. I could watch a play for the fact that it is a diversion and nothing more. That's not hard. I could also watch one and try and feel what it's conveying; the emotions put forth by the writer and the actors as people.

And 16th century kings could have, in their private collections, masturbated to what are now museum pieces. What's your point?

My point (Which I admit I may have missed in the way I tried to convey it) is that theater isn't considered art to me because it's dead and stuffy; it wasn't only entertainment back then because it had to compete with entertainment. it exists as both depending on how the person chooses to interpret it.

But this could apply to just about anything.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Would you consider something by Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll art? Is a bowl of poutine considered art? Is a five year-old scrawlings considered art?

Is a five year old bashing on a piano art? Is ET (the infamous Atari game) art?

I think there's a subjective threshold for quality, but I don't think the medium has any weight in what is and isn't art. That's my point.

That wasn't your point. You're point was that art is the human urge to create. Medium has nothing to do with it. You are also missing MY point, which has nothing to do with which medium, but that many things that are not considered art (i.e., a five-year old bashing a piano or ET the infamous Atari game) are, however, expressions of the human urge to create, by your definition.

The question is, What makes it or what doesn't make it art?

Ah, well, that does put a damper on "the urge to create." Either I'm prejudiced against the Atari rendition of ET, or there's something more going on here.

Still, I don't believe that there is any reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Any fool can merely "Create" a bunch of colors splattered on a peice of paper, or moving pixels, but it takes an "Artist" to make them come to life before your eyes, and force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release. Some poetry in that statement, take it as you will.

Yet when you look at a smattering of colours on a canvas, you obviously seethe with disapproval. Emotion, no?

Yeah, I'm going to make a judgement call here and say that's too much of an abstraction. Anyone agree?

 

[Calobi]

Also, just because theater were competing against things like bear-baiting and dog fights doesn't mean it was only a form of entertainment by my definition. Sure, people watched them to get away from their troubles and lives, but the same could be said for your example of Super Mario Bros 3 today. If you watch the levels, the way it flows, it's art. However, if you have a bad day and want to relieve some stress, well those Goombas have nice squishy heads. Same for the plays. I could watch a play for the fact that it is a diversion and nothing more. That's not hard. I could also watch one and try and feel what it's conveying; the emotions put forth by the writer and the actors as people.

And 16th century kings could have, in their private collections, masturbated to what are now museum pieces. What's your point?

My point (Which I admit I may have missed in the way I tried to convey it) is that theater isn't considered art to me because it's dead and stuffy; it wasn't only entertainment back then because it had to compete with entertainment. it exists as both depending on how the person chooses to interpret it.

But this could apply to just about anything.

As could art. And beauty. And most anything that isn't a material in and of itself.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Would you consider something by Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll art? Is a bowl of poutine considered art? Is a five year-old scrawlings considered art?

Is a five year old bashing on a piano art? Is ET (the infamous Atari game) art?

I think there's a subjective threshold for quality, but I don't think the medium has any weight in what is and isn't art. That's my point.

That wasn't your point. You're point was that art is the human urge to create. Medium has nothing to do with it. You are also missing MY point, which has nothing to do with which medium, but that many things that are not considered art (i.e., a five-year old bashing a piano or ET the infamous Atari game) are, however, expressions of the human urge to create, by your definition.

The question is, What makes it or what doesn't make it art?

Ah, well, that does put a damper on "the urge to create." Either I'm prejudiced against the Atari rendition of ET, or there's something more going on here.

Still, I don't believe that there is any reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

That's a belief you can take to the grave sir, though it has nothing to do with this argument. And while I personally don't disagree with you, I wouldn't mind knowing what you would argue to those who would.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Still, I don't believe that there is any reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

That's a belief you can take to the grave sir, though it has nothing to do with this argument. And while I personally don't disagree with you, I wouldn't mind knowing what you would argue to those who would.

Rephrase: There is no reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

Peachy?

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Also, just because theater were competing against things like bear-baiting and dog fights doesn't mean it was only a form of entertainment by my definition. Sure, people watched them to get away from their troubles and lives, but the same could be said for your example of Super Mario Bros 3 today. If you watch the levels, the way it flows, it's art. However, if you have a bad day and want to relieve some stress, well those Goombas have nice squishy heads. Same for the plays. I could watch a play for the fact that it is a diversion and nothing more. That's not hard. I could also watch one and try and feel what it's conveying; the emotions put forth by the writer and the actors as people.

And 16th century kings could have, in their private collections, masturbated to what are now museum pieces. What's your point?

My point (Which I admit I may have missed in the way I tried to convey it) is that theater isn't considered art to me because it's dead and stuffy; it wasn't only entertainment back then because it had to compete with entertainment. it exists as both depending on how the person chooses to interpret it.

But this could apply to just about anything.

As could art. And beauty. And most anything that isn't a material in and of itself.

Sorry, sir, you're going to have to clear that one up. I like this discussion, but that went over my head.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Any fool can merely "Create" a bunch of colors splattered on a peice of paper, or moving pixels, but it takes an "Artist" to make them come to life before your eyes, and force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release. Some poetry in that statement, take it as you will.

Yet when you look at a smattering of colours on a canvas, you obviously seethe with disapproval. Emotion, no?

Yeah, I'm going to make a judgement call here and say that's too much of an abstraction. Anyone agree?

How? Unless this gentleman regularly goes about raging at shit he doesn't like, which I highly doubt he does being no doubt an exemplary citizen, something that he holds obvious disdain for would be one that would ''force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release.''

 

[Guestowel]

I think the best way to find out if something is art is to ask the person who made it.

 

[randommaster]

Entertainment is anything that isn't necessary for survival. Art is creating entertainment, either for yourself or others.

This is the smartest thing I have read so far. Well done, sir.

I just finished reading about trolling, so I was expecting someone to call me an asshat.

I thank you for defying those expectations.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Any fool can merely "Create" a bunch of colors splattered on a peice of paper, or moving pixels, but it takes an "Artist" to make them come to life before your eyes, and force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release. Some poetry in that statement, take it as you will.

Yet when you look at a smattering of colours on a canvas, you obviously seethe with disapproval. Emotion, no?

Yeah, I'm going to make a judgement call here and say that's too much of an abstraction. Anyone agree?

How? Unless this gentleman regularly goes about raging at shit he doesn't like, which I highly doubt he does being no doubt an exemplary citizen, something that he holds obvious disdain for would be one that would ''force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release.''

Unless the intention of the work of art was to create frustration, I'd hesitate to call that art. That'd be the artistic equivalent to constantly talking gibberish to piss someone off.

If I punch someone in the face, I'm sure to get an "emotional response," but is that art? Nonverbal communication, perhaps.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Still, I don't believe that there is any reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

That's a belief you can take to the grave sir, though it has nothing to do with this argument. And while I personally don't disagree with you, I wouldn't mind knowing what you would argue to those who would.

Rephrase: There is no reason why the medium chosen for a work of art should have any impact on whether it is, or is not, art.

Peachy?

1) ''There is no reason a video game can't be art because it is a video game''. Understood. The first time. Don't know why you bring it up. Nothing to do with this argument.

2) What would you say to someone who, unlike me, disagrees with you?

3) What makes art art? Regardless of medium, which, I will rephrase, has nothing to do with this.

4) Peachy?

 

[Calobi]

Also, just because theater were competing against things like bear-baiting and dog fights doesn't mean it was only a form of entertainment by my definition. Sure, people watched them to get away from their troubles and lives, but the same could be said for your example of Super Mario Bros 3 today. If you watch the levels, the way it flows, it's art. However, if you have a bad day and want to relieve some stress, well those Goombas have nice squishy heads. Same for the plays. I could watch a play for the fact that it is a diversion and nothing more. That's not hard. I could also watch one and try and feel what it's conveying; the emotions put forth by the writer and the actors as people.

And 16th century kings could have, in their private collections, masturbated to what are now museum pieces. What's your point?

My point (Which I admit I may have missed in the way I tried to convey it) is that theater isn't considered art to me because it's dead and stuffy; it wasn't only entertainment back then because it had to compete with entertainment. it exists as both depending on how the person chooses to interpret it.

But this could apply to just about anything.

As could art. And beauty. And most anything that isn't a material in and of itself.

Sorry, sir, you're going to have to clear that one up. I like this discussion, but that went over my head.

Art, beauty, genius are examples of things that aren't in themselves material. You can't touch them. They are represented in other objects, and those objects are given those things as titles. But the things (art, beauty, genius) themselves could be applied to anything. What you find jaw-dropping gorgeous could garner nothing more than a passing glance from me. The thing which keeps me up at night in cold sweats could be something you laugh at.

 

[BlackIronGuardian]

Any fool can merely "Create" a bunch of colors splattered on a peice of paper, or moving pixels, but it takes an "Artist" to make them come to life before your eyes, and force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release. Some poetry in that statement, take it as you will.

Yet when you look at a smattering of colours on a canvas, you obviously seethe with disapproval. Emotion, no?

Yeah, I'm going to make a judgement call here and say that's too much of an abstraction. Anyone agree?

How? Unless this gentleman regularly goes about raging at shit he doesn't like, which I highly doubt he does being no doubt an exemplary citizen, something that he holds obvious disdain for would be one that would ''force emotions from your body that you wouldn't otherwise dare release.''

Unless the intention of the work of art was to create frustration, I'd hesitate to call that art. That'd be the artistic equivalent to constantly talking gibberish to piss someone off.

If I punch someone in the face, I'm sure to get an "emotional response," but is that art? Nonverbal communication, perhaps.

But a punch in the face was created with the purpose of pissing off and/or hurting the other person to a varying degree, so, yes by that call it could be considered art. But by his definition a complex creation is art because of it's ability to instill a strong emotion, but something that's very ''bad'' (subject pending, of course) can also elicit a strong emotion just as easily as something ''good'' can, regardless of purpose.