What is art?

[Pannonian]

You could always try the view that one defines what is not art, and at the end of it all what's left must be art. I'm somewhere in the middle between defining art by substance and defining what isn't art by void.

[Adrian II]

You could always try the view that one defines what is not art, and at the end of it all what's left must be art. I'm somewhere in the middle between defining art by substance and defining what isn't art by void.

Would you say that Bath Scene 2 is art?

[Pannonian]

Would you say that Bath Scene 2 is art?

Anything that takes work to create is craft, and for me the distinction between art and craft blurs. Art does not have to be craft, but it certainly pushes me towards concluding that a work of craft is art. Art can theoretically exist without craft, but I tend against concluding that a statement is a work of art. If an artist has to resort to words to explain why his statement is art, then they'd better be bloody good with those words to convince me.

Is Bath Scene 2 art? I'll need more time to consider, but the very fact that it was worked on pushes me to view it favourably.

[Fragony]

Here's art for ya

[Fragony]

wut no praise for my beautiful collection? Rub me right there if you will

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are we talking only about visual art? What about literature as art, or performance?

[Adrian II]

Are we talking only about visual art? What about literature as art, or performance?

All art. Film, sculpture, the works.

And come on, guys, I didn't ask for picture galleries. I can make my own. Inserting a picture in your post is fine, but at least tell us why. What do you make of it; what does it say about your expectations of art, your views, whatever?

[Adrian II]

Anything that takes work to create is craft, and for me the distinction between art and craft blurs.

OK, so art has something extra that craft doesn't have. What is it?

Put your views to the test. For example, take the famous antique Scythian bronzes. Here is one from the 3rd century BC, a goat attacked by a griffin. Superbly crafted, particularly given the restrictions of the age. But is it art?

[Pannonian]

OK, so art has something extra that craft doesn't have. What is it?

Put your views to the test. For example, take the famous antique Scythian bronzes. Here is one from the 3rd century BC, a goat attacked by a griffin. Superbly crafted, particularly given the restrictions of the age. But is it art?

My answer would be, why not? Having been trained in art appreciation to some extent, I've become blase to people who self-consciously proclaim themselves as artists. For me, if they wish to be recognised as so, then they'd better make a ruddy good argument for it. My preferred mode of art is the everyday, or things created for the everyday, that nonetheless somehow makes me look at the world in a different way. More often that not, it is extensive experience of or reaching towards the extraordinary that allows one to make the ordinary extraordinary. That, for me, combines craft and art at the highest level.

Hmm, a bit of daoism creeping in there.

[Adrian II]

Having been trained in art appreciation to some extent, I've become blase to people who self-consciously proclaim themselves as artists.

I agree; a lot of modern art is really decoration and a lot more doesn't even deserve that title.

But it sells. There is a market for it and it is large enough to justify the mass production of crap on a scale the world has never seen. It's a bit like tv and film, actually. I mean, compared to the number of good movies that come every year, isn't it amazing how much really bad television you can watch round the clock every day, truckloads and truckloads of cheap shows, junk games, pseudo-literate public service crap, useless health advice, giggling anchors, idiots blabbering about the weather, movie stars, themselves? Jeesus!

And it pays! It's a trillion dollar industry.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree; a lot of modern art is really decoration and a lot more doesn't even deserve that title.

But it sells. There is a market for it and it is large enough to justify the mass production of crap on a scale the world has never seen. It's a bit like tv and film, actually. I mean, compared to the number of good movies that come every year, isn't it amazing how much really bad television you can watch round the clock every day, truckloads and truckloads of cheap shows, junk games, pseudo-literate public service crap, useless health advice, giggling anchors, idiots blabbering about the weather, movie stars, themselves? Jeesus!

And it pays! It's a trillion dollar industry.

I agree with you 100%

[BananaBob]

I agree; a lot of modern art is really decoration and a lot more doesn't even deserve that title.

But it sells. There is a market for it and it is large enough to justify the mass production of crap on a scale the world has never seen. It's a bit like tv and film, actually. I mean, compared to the number of good movies that come every year, isn't it amazing how much really bad television you can watch round the clock every day, truckloads and truckloads of cheap shows, junk games, pseudo-literate public service crap, useless health advice, giggling anchors, idiots blabbering about the weather, movie stars, themselves? Jeesus!

And it pays! It's a trillion dollar industry.

Well, Id say Art is an aesthetic attempt at creative expression. Their is a huge demand for abstract art because everyone wants to be cool and have a chic factor to them. But, art could be just someone splashing paint on a wall. The chances of getting a good result are rare, but it could happen. In regards to 'skill'... Their is the vast topic of art theory (eg shape, colour, etc), and if you follow this theory, you almost have a guaranteed decent art piece. The goal and the end of toiling away meticulously and studying the masters is the same as the self styled maestro punch a canvas: aesthetic pleasure of the viewer. Following either path is difficult: effort and luck respectably.

My thoughts on it anyway

[ICantSpellDawg]

OK, so art has something extra that craft doesn't have. What is it?

Put your views to the test. For example, take the famous antique Scythian bronzes. Here is one from the 3rd century BC, a goat attacked by a griffin. Superbly crafted, particularly given the restrictions of the age. But is it art?

Absolutely.

[Vladimir]

OK, so art has something extra that craft doesn't have. What is it?

Put your views to the test. For example, take the famous antique Scythian bronzes. Here is one from the 3rd century BC, a goat attacked by a griffin. Superbly crafted, particularly given the restrictions of the age. But is it art?

Given the restrictions of the age. Given restrictions.

Art is anything which is designed with an aesthetic, or maybe not purely utilitarian function. Can a stapler be art? Yes; if it is designed with an aesthetic quality.

When people think about what art is they think about what it means to them, not what it is. “Given restrictions” is important because all art is given restrictions. Whether it is the size of the canvas, the talent of the artist, or the need to make a profit as with our stapler manufacturer, it doesn’t matter.

Art is not simply something which inspires emotion as there must also be an intent to do so. A utilitarian stapler can inspire emotion (usually anger in my case) as well as a geode: Neither is art.

When you consider what is art, think about restrictions the artist may have faced. Keep a subtle eye on things as much as possible and you’ll find much art in the world. If you want to appreciate art, give up all your preconceptions about it.

But what do I know? Apparently grotesque images pass as art now.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

For those of you who don't like my broad term, think of another word: War.

[naut]

L'Ange du Foyeur ou le Triomphe du Surréalisme, Max Ernst

[Adrian II]

Max Ernst, Der Elephant von Celebes

[naut]

L'Ange du Foyeur ou le Triomphe du Surréalisme, Max Ernst

I better comment on what I added. In all honesty I've never understood what Ernst's paintings were or what they represented, I have simply enjoyed them as they cause me to think, to try to understand. I have no idea what L'Ange de Foyeur in this painting is, mostly because of the irregular vector lines and contrasting textures of the Angel. The bold white head certainly invokes a punctum. While the odd shading and lighting, with no distinct light source and the near unbroken landscape leads to little progression or insight into the size or scale of the Angel. The one thing I have come to understand in my own view is why it is called le Triomphe du Surréalisme. I think that since the brain usually works on contrasts and comparisons between an object and its surroundings, and yet since there is a distinct lack of any contrasts between the focal point (i.e. the Angel) and its surroundings I am left to ponder and comprehend something I cannot without the aid of comparison, thus creating a surreal experience.