This stupid "art" issue.

[vede]

First off, I put "art" in the search forums page and got zero results, while I know that there has been an art thread. I hereby give up on even trying to prevent repeat threads (when the previous thread has sunk past immediate memory). It's pointless, because to get to a previous topic you'd have to manually go through the pages to avoid the crap pile that is the search function here.

Now for the main part:

The next time someone says "X just isn't art" I'm going to kill someone.

---

Issue 1: By claiming things as "art" or "not art" as matters of fact, where those things are of subjective quality, you are asserting that your opinions are more important than another person's, because yours is fact, and theirs is wrong.

Issue 2: By claiming things as "art" or "not art" in subjective mediums, you cause the concept of "art" to lose all significance. By asserting that one medium or genre is or isn't "art" as if you are stating fact, you alienate people who prefer the medium or genre that is not "art" to you, and people will realize that saying something is or isn't "art" means nothing, as you have degraded it into a statement of opinion on equal ground with "I like."

Issue 3: For those of you claiming that one medium or genre (usually rap, here) isn't "art," what implications do you think this has? Does its lack of "art" status (according to you) actually mean anything? Does it mean that it's impossible for people to like that medium or genre? We can safely assume that it certainly does not mean people can't like it, so where do you draw the imaginary line between "art" and "not art"?

---

My opinion: "Art" is used to describe all forms of subjective-quality material. Rap music, metal music, action movies, romance novels, Chinese food, sculpture, architecture (from an aesthetic perspective), all of it.

Secondarily, "art" can be used to describe any craft or trade which requires any kind of skill. "The art of programming," "the art of plumbing," "the art of plane construction." But this definition is not the focus of this thread.

---

Now, people of the Escapist, discuss.

I'd like to see some actual debate, thus, I have some rules.

1) No attacks on any form of media, or fans thereof.
2) If you make a statement, you have evidence and examples right there with it.
3) If you are replying to a statement, make sure you take them up on all issues. Don't pick and choose.

Failure to follow the rules will result in nothing really, except everyone in the thread can call you out on not following the rules.

---

(The first sentence of the "main section" of this post is not in effect for this thread.)

(If this being a repeat thread is really just radically offensive to people, I don't care if it's locked.)

(Also, I just noticed that the left-facing and right-facing parentheses are not mirror images of each other when you're typing your post. Odd.)

 

[SharPhoe]

I know exactly what you're saying. People may be subject to their own opinions on what they believe to be art, but that doesn't mean they should shove it on other people. Art simply can't be defined by what you like or dislike. For instance, I'm not at all fond of non-objective pieces, but I do not deny that they are still pieces of art.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The problem with defining art is that the concept is inheritly subjective and as such cannot be quantified objectively. For a time, art had to possess some sort of universal meaning (See the Romantic period for examples) that would be imparted from artist to viewer. Even this has fallen by the wayside as modern interpretations seem to indicate that art is a shared experiece between artist and viewer, and as such cannot possibly possess a universal meaning but rather delivers a unique experience to each passerby. By this definition, most anything coutns as art.

Poetry, however, certainly annoys me more than most media. Through careful culling with spartan hand, a poet ensures that each word has maximum meaning, inevitably leading to a variety of interpretations. The very nature of modern poetry seems to be designed to resist a definitave interpretation. Yet, year after year students the world over are forced by Academia to throw these poems on the rack in an attempt to extract some universal meaning that likely wasn't there in the first place. Actually, my problem isn't with poetry but rather the Academic culture that apporaches literary interpretation with thumbscrews with the zeal of an extremist.

 

[vede]

The problem with defining art is that the concept is inheritly subjective and as such cannot be quantified objectively. For a time, art had to possess some sort of universal meaning (See the Romantic period for examples) that would be imparted from artist to viewer. Even this has fallen by the wayside as modern interpretations seem to indicate that art is a shared experiece between artist and viewer, and as such cannot possibly possess a universal meaning but rather delivers a unique experience to each passerby. By this definition, most anything coutns as art.

Poetry, however, certainly annoys me more than most media. Through careful culling with spartan hand, a poet ensures that each word has maximum meaning, inevitably leading to a variety of interpretations. The very nature of modern poetry seems to be designed to resist a definitave interpretation. Yet, year after year students the world over are forced by Academia to throw these poems on the rack in an attempt to extract some universal meaning that likely wasn't there in the first place. Actually, my problem isn't with poetry but rather the Academic culture that apporaches literary interpretation with thumbscrews with the zeal of an extremist.

I would say that, yes, most everything counts as art, it is the only way you can define it while keeping it as an objective term, instead of synonymizing it with simple statements of opinion. And since people insist so strongly in stating "art" as fact, we must have a definition that implies that the word's usage does indeed designate a factual statement.

I would also say that the extreme zealotry of academic interpretation is stupid, and evokes a particular rage in me when I go to English class.

 

[Skeleon]

Art is subjective. How else could you consider this art:

Spoiler

 

[vede]

Art is subjective. How else could you consider this art:

Spoiler

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

Whether or not art is good is subjective.

Whether or not something is even art is not.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God

Enough said. Some of his other work, is 100% not for the faint of heart.

Edit - This was the "artist" that actually ruined what I coin as art nowadays. It was already nearly dead, but Hirst pushed it a few kilos past it.

 

[crypt-creature]

Most forms of artwork I can tolerate and accept, but not kids taking screen captures of WoW and uploading it as their artwork. That is crossing a heavily blurred line.
And that mainly has to do with a particular 'art' site that is really becoming a mockery of their own ideals (for example, you can't upload a screen capture of a movie but a video game is OK).

Sorry if this is very random and doesn't really have much to do with the initial request (might have infringed on part of it too), brain is getting fuzzy from lack of sleep.

Art seems to be the process of creation in some form or another. Though, with the 'screen capture' thing one might say photography is an earlier form of 'capturing'. I'm just going to say no, because it might be a similar action it is used in a vastly different context.

With that, I'll stop babbling.

 

[Skeleon]

Whether or not something is even art is not [subjective].

I don't think that is true, unless you consider every single work of Man as a piece of art, not just "most everything".
I do believe I know what you're trying to say I just don't agree that something as inherently subjective as art can ever be truly classified objectively.
But if you're willing to classify anything and everything as art, why bother?
I believe art is subjective, i.e. classified by the critics (that includes the artist him-/herself) as art or as a waste of paint.
And through criticism it gains status as art or looses it.

 

[F17]

We've been looking through some stuff in photography class, and some of it has very little photography to it. Lots of montage, lots of chopped up stock images, but very little photography involved. Can something be photography if it has no actual, artist-taken photos in it?

 

[Lord George]

God I hate post modernism so much. To my mind I consider Art to be something that has been created from nothing, a pure creation of the artists mind, if that be a sculpture, painting, poem or dance piece.

Otherwise we just end up with everything being art, which at the same time makes nothing art. Its like the world being full of blinding light, because in such a world you would not be able to see anything, you would not be able to distinguish good art from bad art, or tell Picasso from a toiler. Which is exactly what has happened a the moment to art.

 

[EeveeElectro]

My art teacher said anime wasn't art... what a numpty.