Poll: Is the term "Art" overused?

[Blazing Steel]

I think it is since what most people call art. From classical paintings to weird shaped modles to the rubish people stick together.

I just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

 

[cobra_ky]

I think it is since what most people call art. From classical paintings to weird shaped modles to the rubish people stick together.

I just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

if anything it's underused.

 

[Uncompetative]

I picked "A little".

As someone who has done a Degree in Fine Art and been to a lot of Galleries, personally known Artists, etc. I would say that the whole:

"Is it Art?" meme.

Isn't incorrect, insofar as most things are Art. The snag is that it is the wrong question to be asking. Instead, they should ask:

"Is it any good?"

 

[BonsaiK]

Read "The Real Frank Zappa Book" from pages 160 to 163 for an excellent discussion on what exactly constitutes artistic endeavour. Every person who is a member of The Escapist forums should buy this book and read these four pages before discussing this issue in this or any other thread.

To summarise, I voted "no".

 

[conmag9]

I'm going with yes. There are a lot of peices of crap out there that people throw together (in any genre, not just the traditional forms of painting, sculpting and what we might call "art for its own sake") and deflect any criticism by virtue that "it's art". Sure, there are misunderstood artists out there that have a real gift but are stiffled by minds not build to accept their wonderful talents (myself among them. The minds not built to handle category mind you), but I would think that most who hold by that label are really just hack trying to puff up their ego a bit and join what seems like an elitist society of artists (not a literal one, just in the overall sense).

 

[BonsaiK]

Do not confuse "art vs not art" with "good art vs bad art". Just because art is bad doesn't mean it's not art. It's still art - just art that sucks.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

A little, the word art is used in many ways. Art like paintings, film, music, and so on are ok to use even if it's total crap. (see elephant painting, Conjo, and Guns And Roses) I've heard people call a dead animal on the side of the road "art"..... that is in no way, shape, or form art. That is simply a mangled cat.

 

[Eagle Est1986]

if anything it's underused.

Do not confuse "art vs not art" with "good art vs bad art". Just because art is bad doesn't mean it's not art. It's still art - just art that sucks.

Well that just about sums up what I have to say. Blessings to people who share my views and express them before I can.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Feck no! If anything it's massivley under used.

It never ceases to amaze me how little appreciation people have for the world around them, it's terrible how much they take objects for granted that contain thousands of hours of human effort and skill.

It's rubbish, people need to look at the world around them more.

 

[BonsaiK]

Frank Zappa talks about the "frame" and about how that is a defining aspect of art. He doesn't mean a literal, physical frame (although it can be) but about "positioning the art subject within time/space". No serious discussion about what is or isn't art can be had without first understanding this concept. A dead animal could in fact be art if it is given the proper place within a time/space field that defines it as such, but a dead animal that is just dead without this aspect is just a dead animal.

 

[Your once and future Fanboy]

Not as much overused as misused, the definition of art is a really abstract, and therefore something that is crafted as a statement can be called art, but so can also something pretty or shocking.
But when we use the term "artsy" for a game we must give our definition of art, what makes it "artsy" ? Why isn't other games art ? Eventually we must either choose a general definition when we talk about art or stop using it, especially as a game term.

 

[BonsaiK]

The definition of games as "artsy" is a whole different ball game and there is a lot more ambiguity there. That's getting very much off-topic though.

 

[Superior Mind]

I'd like to think that art requires skill and talent rather than just asking that people look at something in a different light. I remember hearing not too long ago about a certain piece of art - it was a full rubbish bag on a pedestal. Th janitor even chucked it out, (it didn't matter they managed to replace it without anyone knowing.) I mean sure, you can say that maybe it allows us to examine and consider something as mundane as a bag of rubbish and appreciate even somethi- fuck that, at the end of the day it's people staring at a rubbish bag and considering it's "meaning". Give me a break. Even if it had meaning - it's a bag of rubbish. It's an idea maybe but it's not art.

 

[Tonimata]

I consider myself an artist. AND THERE CAN NEVER BE TOO MUCH

 

[BonsaiK]

I'd like to think that art requires skill and talent rather than just asking that people look at something in a different light. I remember hearing not too long ago about a certain piece of art - it was a full rubbish bag on a pedestal. Th janitor even chucked it out, (it didn't matter they managed to replace it without anyone knowing.) I mean sure, you can say that maybe it allows us to examine and consider something as mundane as a bag of rubbish and appreciate even somethi- fuck that, at the end of the day it's people staring at a rubbish bag and considering it's "meaning". Give me a break. Even if it had meaning - it's a bag of rubbish. It's an idea maybe but it's not art.

Art doesn't require skill or talent. Look at Andy Warhol. One of the greatest artists of the 20th century and he had neither, and openly admitted as such. Not only that, but the fact that he had no actual skill or talent to create art was part of his whole artistic concept. His art is critically acclaimed and worth a ton of money though.

 

[Woem]

I think it is since what most people call art. From classical paintings to weird shaped modles to the rubish people stick together.

I just wanted to see what everyone else thought.

if anything it's underused.

Then how would either of you define "art"?

 

[zen5887]

Frank Zappa talks about the "frame" and about how that is a defining aspect of art. He doesn't mean a literal, physical frame (although it can be) but about "positioning the art subject within time/space". No serious discussion about what is or isn't art can be had without first understanding this concept. A dead animal could in fact be art if it is given the proper place within a time/space field that defines it as such, but a dead animal that is just dead without this aspect is just a dead animal.

Well then!

That has certainly opened up a few new windows in my mind. Maybe now I can look at 4'33" in its proper light.

EDIT: My offical stance on 4'33" is - Its a neat idea, and a good piece of art. I won't refer to it as a song, a piece or a composition.

 

[Pink_Pirate]

I think for something to be art you have to intend it to be art... beyond that anything goes

 

[BonsaiK]

Frank Zappa talks about the "frame" and about how that is a defining aspect of art. He doesn't mean a literal, physical frame (although it can be) but about "positioning the art subject within time/space". No serious discussion about what is or isn't art can be had without first understanding this concept. A dead animal could in fact be art if it is given the proper place within a time/space field that defines it as such, but a dead animal that is just dead without this aspect is just a dead animal.

Well then!

That has certainly opened up a few new windows in my mind. Maybe now I can look at 4'33" in its proper light.

Indeed. The 4'33" is just a frame (in this case a time frame), and whatever happens inside that frame is the art. John Cage's intent was not a joke, it was to get people listening - REALLY listening to the world and the ambient sound around them.

 

[Archemetis]

If Art is considered to be a shit and piss covered bed or a park bench covered in KFC wrappers that sells for something in the £20 million+ mark then no, I'm not inclinded to agree.


However, is Art is a thought engaging, work of love and passion or really any emotion, one of the best and only paintings I did came about because I was pissed off about being hit by a car that day... obviously I wasn't hurt that badly, but it's still a downer on your day.

Then yeah, I can consider that art.

If it's just a plain white room with a single lightbulb that flickers on and off and again manages to sell for something like £60 million, then no, that's not art.


I know you're thinking "So if someone makes million off of it, then it's not art? are you against money?"

No, I'm not, like many artist, I'd love to be making any amount of money from what I love to do.
But these people who've made millions have put no thought into it and if they have then I seriously doubt it's more than "I wonder how I could exploit rich idiots today?"

I mean seriously, a park bench covered in food wrappers? A plain room with a busted lightbulb in it? A fucking Janitor could make those things by accident! Which admittedly would then give it some artist value. (Man's struggle with a basic technology in an age where we're near enough integrated into our machines to make life easier, it's a take on Irony).

right, enoguh ranting now.


Art is a term used more loosely then it's first thought, but for the majority people seem to only use the term when either they feel they're in the presence of real art, or thy think the term just seems fitting because they just can't their heads behind someone's latest money making exploit.