What is Art?

[MarcusA]

To me, art bespeaks a mood, an attitude. Art is the mirror image of science. Art explores the mind for clues. If not, the heart has its reasons. Art is heroic.

[Asmodean]

I understand art as evocation of emotion. there is also an oft-cited condition of it having no purpose outside itself, but I think it very well may. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel does, after all, keep the rain from coming in.

A story becomes art when it resonates with the reader in such a way, as to paint pictures in their head. A picture becomes art when it resonates with the onlooker such as to tell a story. Music can satisfy either or both conditions in its listeners, but then, all of that can just be a pleasant and comfortable way to pass the time. Is it still art if it's elevator music, a newspaper article or an architectural drawing? It can be - or not.

That is not too unlike what you propose, if one thinks about it.

[No one]

A guy with no arms or legs, hanging from a wall.


A guy with no arms or legs in a pile of leaves? Russell.

[MarcusA]

If you stick it on a wall, it's art. On the other hand, comedy is an art that you live and die in.

[MarcusA]

As far as I'm concerned, art is that which is popular.

[Asmodean]

Not sure I'd agree with that. For example, the "artsier" the film, the more pathetic its box office usually ends up being. Then, while some artists are larger in death than ever they were in life, a lot "never" get even that far.

I suppose you could say that art is that, which is popular in much the same way as you could say "cars are popular" without specifically saying that Chrysler PT Cruisers are, but that... Doesn't say all that much.

[MarcusA]

Art is popular to the masses because it's an obscenity to them. It's expensive. It's dear to the heart. Not all arthouse films are bad. For every proposal, there is a critic. And, I have watched more gay films than I really need to because of the critics. I'd rather trust the public in matters of taste because not everyone is a philistine. Critics have agendas that they want to push.

[MarcusA]

briefly blancmange,
transcendentalism -
a Rothko

I think that I nearly fainted in front of the damn picture.

[Asmodean]

Art is popular to the masses because it's an obscenity to them. It's expensive. It's dear to the heart. Not all arthouse films are bad. For every proposal, there is a critic. And, I have watched more gay films than I really need to because of the critics. I'd rather trust the public in matters of taste because not everyone is a philistine. Critics have agendas that they want to push.

Critics and/or perceived or even objective quality are one thing. Popularity is quite another. I would argue that "the masses" tend not to care about the vast majority of art. It tends to have its niche, which is rarely mainstream. Even if we consider, say, films like Avatar to be art - most people have not seen it and/or have little passing interest in it. That one made like two billion plus (And you can pick your Avatar - they both did, with a fair margin) in box office, which is "as good as it gets" in terms of popularity - relative to other films of similar release conditions.

By a similar token, the average Joe probably doesn't have much interest in seeing the Mona Lisa either, beyond a certain "been there, seen that" aspect. Hundreds of thousand people are, however. So... "The masses" on both sides, first-degree approximated to people with an opinion and those without.

Is art popular to the masses? Which art, to which masses?

[MarcusA]

"Beauty is fame." What is genius but an undiscovered artist.

[Asmodean]

Why undiscovered? Or do you mean that a genius is undiscovered as an artist?

[MarcusA]

There's no such thing as genius, only developed talent.

[MarcusA]

Art for art's sake is better than art for God's sake.

[Asmodean]

Talent, developed and applied past a certain threshhold is genius.

[MarcusA]

Genius is exempt from the norms of society.