What Is Art?

[Nam]

Maybe he thinks only paintings or things hanging on walls is art.



-Nam

[Crow]

Yet not art?! Srsly?

Yup. Similar to a Lars von Trier film, it has artistic merit but it is feature film/cinema/movie (whatever you want to use). A lot of people don't seem to get this for some reason.

Art is a medium itself when we talk about art movements we are talking about the medium, often refereed to as capital A art. When you study Art History you do not study the history of architecture or cinema, though you do look at areas of design and entertainment where the process of thought cross over but that isn't the prime focus such as 1930's cartoons as an extension of the surrealist art movement. You can call it a work of art if you like, if that is what it is to you but it isn't "Art" and there are many things I would consider a work of art as in something of beauty.

[Davin]

So art is potentially anything and everything... I think that makes "art" a useless term then. Literally nothing is not art under this definition. If that's what you want to consider art, that's fine for you, but I don't accept it. I think that art should be distinguished from other things. I like a lot of abstract art, and I even dislike a lot of abstract art that I still accept as art, but I think it's also good to speak out against trying to pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art.

Art is art if it is creative expression with the sole intention of being art.

I can agree that some art is created with the sole intention of being art. But I also think that not everything created with the intention of being art is art. Nor do I think that everything that is art was created with the sole intention of being art.

There isn't much to get here and yes pretty much anything can be art in the same way a writer has a story to tell then they can write a story about anything, just because an individual dislikes the story or it might not be in the prose they like doesn't stop it being a story.

That straw man again. I'll say it again, there is art that I do not like, that I still consider art. Do try to address what I actually said.

Who are you to say "pass lazy ass, unskilled bullshit as art", do you know what went into the process of the final piece? I assume not.

Be careful of the precedent you try to set here, especially when in the following you apply it outside of art. How can you call anything art if you don't know what the sole intention of the potential artist is/was? You can't know what the sole intention of the person who made something is, so you can't call anything art. It was nice seeing you argue with yourself.

Are you a lazy as developer that copy and pastes everything? maybe you are, maybe you aren't but for the sake of it I'm going to express that you are unskilled and lazy because I didn't like a post you made a while back about programming.

This an odd false equivalency. You're comparing a post I made about programming to me actually programming, when I'm talking about an artists produced art. If I were talking about an artist talking about art instead, then this point would make more sense.

I'm not going to even bother with the rest of the post.

No worries, I accept that you concede to the rest of my post.

[Crow]

No worries, I accept that you concede to the rest of my post.

If it actually matter to you then I can declare from this point forward you are always correct in everything you say be it past present or anything you might say. With your rigorous arguing skills even when there is no argument present that prevent any discussion from actually taking part you always win.

[Siz]

Yet not art?! Srsly?

Yup. Similar to a Lars von Trier film, it has artistic merit but it is feature film/cinema/movie (whatever you want to use). A lot of people don't seem to get this for some reason.

Art is a medium itself when we talk about art movements we are talking about the medium, often refereed to as capital A art. When you study Art History you do not study the history of architecture or cinema, though you do look at areas of design and entertainment where the process of thought cross over but that isn't the prime focus such as 1930's cartoons as an extension of the surrealist art movement. You can call it a work of art if you like, if that is what it is to you but it isn't "Art" and there are many things I would consider a work of art as in something of beauty.

It's anything you choose to redefine it to be, I suppose. *shrug*

[Davin]

No worries, I accept that you concede to the rest of my post.

If it actually matter to you then I can declare from this point forward you are always correct in everything you say be it past present or anything you might say. With your rigorous arguing skills even when there is no argument present that prevent any discussion from actually taking part you always win.

Alright, have fun. 

[Crow]

It's anything you choose to redefine it to be, I suppose. *shrug*

Many different meanings for a single word. Formalised art which was the beginning of the discussion and what that art bollocks stuff relates to then we are talking about the capital A art the one people study the history of and gain degrees in and become professionals within its field.

When you see/hear somebody say "X isn't art" it doesn't mean it isn't art in the other meanings. I have always thought it was pretty obvious in the same way somebody might use the word bow to mean the weapon, the etiquette or the garment dependent on the phrase it was used in. When talking about a piece of design or landscape and somebody says "what a work of art" then I automatically assume they find it to be beautiful.

[Siz]

It's anything you choose to redefine it to be, I suppose. *shrug*

Many different meanings for a single word. Formalised art which was the beginning of the discussion and what that art bollocks stuff relates to then we are talking about the capital A art the one people study the history of and gain degrees in and become professionals within its field.

When you see/hear somebody say "X isn't art" it doesn't mean it isn't art in the other meanings. I have always thought it was pretty obvious in the same way somebody might use the word bow to mean the weapon, the etiquette or the garment dependent on the phrase it was used in. When talking about a piece of design or landscape and somebody says "what a work of art" then I automatically assume they find it to be beautiful.

Fuck professionals in their field - they can't even agree what art is, which speaks volumes about what art is.

You are choosing to argue on the strength of an arbitrary personal definition. The Guggenheim building is not art in the same way that a chicken is not made of meat.

[Davin]

Fuck professionals in their field - they can't even agree what art is, which speaks volumes about what art is.

You are choosing to argue on the strength of an arbitrary personal definition. The Guggenheim building is not art in the same way that a chicken is not made of meat.

I'm a fan of this definition:

Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts – artworks, expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.

I know it's from wikipedia, but I don't see anything wrong with it. While there is still a lot of wiggle room, I think that puts many things (like the Guggenheim), inside of it, and other things (like white papers), outside of it. Instead of everything being art. And yes, when you get to edge cases things get blurry... but that's a "problem" that almost everything has.

[Crow]

Fuck professionals in their field - they can't even agree what art is, which speaks volumes about what art is.

You are choosing to argue on the strength of an arbitrary personal definition. The Guggenheim building is not art in the same way that a chicken is not made of meat.

The argument about what is art doesn't really happen except for the old fashioned art snobs when a new movement arises and they dislike it, often with an edge of facetiousness. Duchamp started and ended the argument. The only real argument comes from people who either don't engage with art and their understanding comes from a news article, they might have gone to a gallery once with their kids or dragged there with school as a child. Usually people that are actually interested in the subject have usually got this out of the way.

The Guggenheim is architecture. This website is web design. The newspaper in a magazine stand is graphic design. Some might be prettier than the other but that doesn't make any of them artworks they are all design. A piece of art if it is to your tastes and they are expressions of creativity but they aren't art. Designers would often be highly offended if you referred to them as an artist or their work as art (some would be happy and most likely a fashion designer), I would be because this is often what they think of artists:



And whilst we are at it I will cover this. What is the difference between art and design? Art is self serving, design is functional intended for a specific use.

[Siz]

Fuck professionals in their field - they can't even agree what art is, which speaks volumes about what art is.

You are choosing to argue on the strength of an arbitrary personal definition. The Guggenheim building is not art in the same way that a chicken is not made of meat.

The argument about what is art doesn't really happen except for the old fashioned art snobs when a new movement arises and they dislike it, often with an edge of facetiousness. Duchamp started and ended the argument. The only real argument comes from people who either don't engage with art and their understanding comes from a news article, they might have gone to a gallery once with their kids or dragged there with school as a child. Usually people that are actually interested in the subject have usually got this out of the way.

The Guggenheim is architecture. This website is web design. The newspaper in a magazine stand is graphic design. Some might be prettier than the other but that doesn't make any of them artworks they are all design. A piece of art if it is to your tastes and they are expressions of creativity but they aren't art. Designers would often be highly offended if you referred to them as an artist or their work as art (some would be happy and most likely a fashion designer), I would be because this is often what they think of artists:



And whilst we are at it I will cover this. What is the difference between art and design? Art is self serving, design is functional intended for a specific use.

It is only your bald assertion that says design/architecture/couture cannot be art. I disagree with you by the authority of an appreciation of the marriage between aesthetics and the constraints of practical design. Any cock can create art for its own sake (as your funny cartoon aludes) but it takes an Artist to turn practical design via creative expression into a thing of beauty.

[Crow]

It is only your bald assertion that says design/architecture/couture cannot be art. I disagree with you by the authority of an appreciation of the marriage between aesthetics and the constraints of practical design. Any cock can create art for its own sake (as your funny cartoon aludes) but it takes an Artist to turn practical design via creative expression into a thing of beauty.

I'd say it takes a good designer to do what you said as that is the job of a designer, beauty is subjective but quality design is always good design regardless of aesthetic properties. Art and design are part of the same industry and often have the same tool set but have a very different output. It would be impossible for a designer to create something that had no aesthetic properties as it is a visual medium and they have to know how to produce imagery to a high quality, all that has artistic merit but they are designers answering briefs and creating solutions to problems for their clients.

[joeactor]

I do agree that art can have many forms.

Architecture can be art.

I've even seen computer programs and math equations that were so elegant they could be called art.

But a blank canvas? Art?

Might as well call silence music... oh, wait... some people do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions

[Crow]

I do agree that art can have many forms.

Architecture can be art.

I've even seen computer programs and math equations that were so elegant they could be called art.

But a blank canvas? Art?

Might as well call silence music... oh, wait... some people do:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions

Architecture can be art (I'm using art as in the medium term the same way I have the entire thread) but isn't art in of itself it is design. The point of architecture to be art is to be the art itself and that is its primary purpose. Film, programming, paintings, drawings, literature, photography are not art unless specifically intended to be so, they can all be a method of art but the process doesn't make it art it is the intention. The creator, the artist is who makes it art rather than a novel, a piece of entertainment, design or something else.

Maybe it is because I work in the industry, have worked with artists, curators, galleries, go to openings, shows and exhibitions as well as growing up around it and seeing nearly every single example of art shown in this thread in real life the difference between something being art and something else being artistic or aesthetically pleasing and still referring to it as art but not intending it as art is clear. Everyone can hang on to the idea that there is no separation but frankly there is and it is obvious and will hinder any conversation if you want to engage with the subject (mostly make you look a bit of a fool and uneducated to be honest, like holding a wine glass by the bowl rather than the stem), go to a design exhibition then go to any art exhibition and if that doesn't help then lets just say you don't get it and that is ok.

The vast majority of art is intended for use in galleries it is created as such, the way they are displayed, the way the pieces use light, audio, smells, and the audience can interact with it goes into making the final piece, if you don't get something because you don't get a picture of it you should go visit it and see what it is actually about, galleries are free. I dislike all performance art with a passion never seen a single piece that has ever appealed to me in any way shape or form and I have sat through and walked out of many performances but it is art.

Not everything has to be art, wants to be art or should be art. Especially not because somebody enjoys it. Art should be ugly it, should challenge people, it should make them sick, it should make them have an opinion and in doing so it succeeds in being art even if the reaction received wasn't intended. Art isn't about beauty or technique, it is emotional it is conceptual, it is full of hidden meanings and doesn't pander to a common denominator or anyone for that matter once that happens expression has been lost and creativity hindered.

[Davin]

Architecture can be art (I'm using art as in the medium term the same way I have the entire thread) but isn't art in of itself it is design. The point of architecture to be art is to be the art itself and that is its primary purpose. Film, programming, paintings, drawings, literature, photography are not art unless specifically intended to be so, they can all be a method of art but the process doesn't make it art it is the intention. The creator, the artist is who makes it art rather than a novel, a piece of entertainment, design or something else.

This at least is something that can be discussed. I disagree with it, but at least it's absent of fallacies and unwarranted condescension. There is an easy to understand quote you might be familiar with, "As spatial forms become frozen through studious and academic practice, the viewer is left with a hymn to the darkness of our future."

Maybe it is because I work in the industry, have worked with artists, curators, galleries, go to openings, shows and exhibitions as well as growing up around it and seeing nearly every single example of art shown in this thread in real life the difference between something being art and something else being artistic or aesthetically pleasing and still referring to it as art but not intending it as art is clear.

Appealing to yourself as an authority is not very original nor rational. A more rational support for your claims would produce better discussion, but instead you basically said, "I know more than you, so just irrationally accept what I say." That isn't much to go on. Either we accept your authority and blindly accept your unsupported claims, or we behave like rational people and discard it until you can rationally support it.

Everyone can hang on to the idea that there is no separation but frankly there is and it is obvious and will hinder any conversation if you want to engage with the subject (mostly make you look a bit of a fool and uneducated to be honest, like holding a wine glass by the bowl rather than the stem), go to a design exhibition then go to any art exhibition and if that doesn't help then lets just say you don't get it and that is ok.

AKA: "Emperor's New Clothes." Why do you keep falling back to this tactic? It's like the straw man that you keep trotting out. Again you leave no room for discussion because you've left us with just basic irrationality with no explanation of substance. All we can do with your statement is to go, "Well Crow said I'd look like an idiot if I don't accept this, so I had to because I don't want to look like an idiot." You left no path to rationally accept your claim.

The vast majority of art is intended for use in galleries it is created as such, the way they are displayed, the way the pieces use light, audio, smells, and the audience can interact with it goes into making the final piece, if you don't get something because you don't get a picture of it you should go visit it and see what it is actually about, galleries are free. I dislike all performance art with a passion never seen a single piece that has ever appealed to me in any way shape or form and I have sat through and walked out of many performances but it is art.

More straw men. No one ever said that because they don't like it, that it isn't art, but you keep bringing it up. It's getting quite silly. You're not providing anything useful because no one is claiming what you're arguing against.

Not everything has to be art, wants to be art or should be art. Especially not because somebody enjoys it. Art should be ugly it, should challenge people, it should make them sick, it should make them have an opinion and in doing[...]

Who are you talking to? No one is talking about what art "should" be, we're talking about what art is. And again, refer to the "easy to understand" quote above. Once you start using "shoulds" with art, you risk participating in the stagnation of it.

[...]so it succeeds in being art even if the reaction received wasn't intended.

Even if the intention wasn't to be a piece of art?

Art isn't about beauty or technique, it is emotional it is conceptual, it is full of hidden meanings and doesn't pander to a common denominator or anyone for that matter once that happens expression has been lost and creativity hindered.

And here is another tiny bit of actual substance that we can actually discuss. I disagree obviously, but at least it's something that can be discussed that isn't "because Crow said so," "You'll look dumb if you don't accept it," or arguing against something no one said.

You didn't seem interested in a discussion because you came out with your condescension guns a blazing. Maybe it wasn't that good of me to respond to you in kind. No worries, though, you don't have to discuss things with me, but that doesn't mean that I won't reply to your posts.