Poll: Is the term "Art" overused?

[BonsaiK]

Take my rubbish bag example from earlier. It was intended as art. Does that make it art? I say it doesn't - not even shitty worthless art. The empty Red Bull can on my desk right now isn't art and it doesn't come any closer to being art if I declare "This empty can of Red Bull on my desk is art".

Yes it does. It is art as long as you have a boundary so people can determine where the art begins and ends. Is it good art? Doubtful (no offence). Is it plagiaristic art that will get you into a whole lot of trouble? Quite possibly in the case of the Red Bull, if anyone finds out about it. It's still art though if you've found a way to separate the time/space that holds you "art work" out from everything else and said (directly or implicitly) "right, within this time/space area here is going to be my art". Otherwise then yes, you just have a Red Bull sitting on a desk and a bin that you should really empty.

 

[BonsaiK]

Games? Some
General Music? Yes
ghetto/doof-doof music? No
Modern art? Mostly
Old Art? Yes.

So music isn't art if it comes from the ghetto? Gosh. So much for the popular stereotype of the "struggling artist", hey.

If they were really struggling then they wouldn't be able to afford studio time.

You don't need studio time to create music.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I'd say the term is overused alot nowadays.
Vincent Van Gogh - Art
Picasso - Art
Painting of a tin can - What the fu-
Splattering a canvas with random bits of paint - Seriously? Everyone does that in Pre-school

Im just saying that this new "pop" art thing doesn't seem like real art to me

 

[theultimateend]

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"?

Much the same way you would define the color blue in a manner, while not using any examples of blue objects, that provides any lay person with an immediate visualization of blue, with the prior fact that this person must have never had an experience with blue before.

Assuming I didn't miss anything you'll be in for some work, you could get technical and mention wavelengths but no lay person is going to be able to visualize the blue with it. We cannot describe the color in words without using an example (unless the other person has already seen it) yet we all tend to agree it exists.

Art is much the same to me. You cannot properly describe it without examples, however it is difficult to argue that it doesn't exist. I personally don't think that modern art is art, but can I justify that? No. I just think it is to easy. However when I look deeper into it does that mean to me that art must be hard? I tend to find all my understanding of it to rely on the hope that I don't follow up my own observation.

Basically Blue is Blue and Art is Art.

Games? Some
General Music? Yes
ghetto/doof-doof music? No
Modern art? Mostly
Old Art? Yes.

So music isn't art if it comes from the ghetto? Gosh. So much for the popular stereotype of the "struggling artist", hey.

If they were really struggling then they wouldn't be able to afford studio time.

You don't need studio time to create music.

You need one to fake it.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Probably a little more than a bit. Check out this song and tell me if it can legitimately be called art.

Spoiler

I understand what the announcer says the point of this song is, but I don't buy it.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

I'd say over-rated, instead of over-used. But yes, I do agree that some of todays crap shouldn't really be classed as art.

 

[Superior Mind]

Take my rubbish bag example from earlier. It was intended as art. Does that make it art? I say it doesn't - not even shitty worthless art. The empty Red Bull can on my desk right now isn't art and it doesn't come any closer to being art if I declare "This empty can of Red Bull on my desk is art".

Yes it does. It is art as long as you have a boundary so people can determine where the art begins and ends. Is it good art? Doubtful (no offence). Is it plagiaristic art that will get you into a whole lot of trouble? Quite possibly in the case of the Red Bull, if anyone finds out about it. It's still art though if you've found a way to separate the time/space that holds you "art work" out from everything else and said (directly or implicitly) "right, within this time/space area here is going to be my art". Otherwise then yes, you just have a Red Bull sitting on a desk and a bin that you should really empty.

You criticise my Red Bull can? How dare you! This is going to be worth a mint after I die.

Interesting point by the way and I understand better where you're coming from. I suppose it satisfies my criteria a bit too, if not the talent part than at least the skill in determining how you can make it, (whatever "it" turns out to be,) stand out from time/space as art.

Still, any "artist" who does this kind of bare minimum "hey look it's art" schtick deserves a personalised Superior Mind kick-in-the-shins.

 

[Hikikomori Ookami]

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?"

So chopped up dolls in a washing machine is indeed a worker of art, but it isn't any good any the artist needs to be sent to an insane asylum? I can agree with that.

I can see the effort that went into some things that people call "art," but it's scary some of the things that manage to make it into museums that would look more fitting in a dumpster.

 

[minoes]

Art is art if one person sees it as art.

Only if that person is the artist who made it. Art can only be defined by the artist, not by us.

We can´t just go calling random things art.

 

[cobra_ky]

if anything it's underused.

Then how would either of you define "art"?

Anything resulting from an intentional creative act.

i pulled that definition out of my ass. i loved to hear any criticism over it.

 

[cobra_ky]

Art is art if one person sees it as art.

Only if that person is the artist who made it. Art can only be defined by the artist, not by us.

We can´t just go calling random things art.

so cave paintings aren't art, then?

 

[minoes]

Art is art if one person sees it as art.

Only if that person is the artist who made it. Art can only be defined by the artist, not by us.

We can´t just go calling random things art.

so cave paintings aren't art, then?

Yes they are, because as you said art is:

Anything resulting from an intentional creative act.

In this case people expressing themselves through grafitti.

But keep in mind that this definition only applies to post-modern and contemporary art.

This is also why Chezee_Pavilion is right when he says "Gears of War is Arty".

 

[Deleted]

The problem isn't that everything can be art. Its that talentless people are getting paid to make messes.

I respect art if it looks like what its supposed to (amazing portrait), or if it took a considerable amount of effort (an intricate vase). But nowadays people would rather see the bathtub full of salami because it represents the economy or some shit,

 

[Twilight_guy]

The definition of Art is not really set in stone but, it is generally something, anything, that a person makes that conveys some sort idea, feeling, or concept. That technically makes everything that people do art so long as it leaves a mark that others can appreciate. Therefor, when people actually refer to something as art they are only referring to a small portion of the plethora of things that can be considered "art". Art is therefor underused.

 

[Eldarion]

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.

Any kind of expression is art.

Therefore technically everything is art to some degree.

 

[epicwin1]

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.

Agreed good show on this, also if you have to "ask" someone to look at things in a different light then your doing it wrong!

 

[minoes]

I disagree- I think art can be defined by the perceiver. If I find random things to be art then random things are art FOR ME.
Sometimes the audience and the artist take entirely different messages away from a piece.

Yes, for you and me something may be artful, but the object by itself still would not be art (see Found Art [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_art]) unless it has an artist´s input.

As for taking different meanings from what the artist originally intended, that is perfectly valid and sometimes even encouraged (like in most installations), but again this is only for contemporary art.

 

[Nova5]

My "Art Appreciation" professor (shut up, the course was mandatory) in community college called damn near everything art. Apparently a trimmed hedge (not a stylized one, mind you, but one cut with sheers to look like a square brick of green)is art. Glad to know all that time she spent in art school taught her how to weed out the crap!