What is art?

[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%

[Sasaki Kojiro]

*yawn* I know it when I see it. This is the only true definition.

[Ser Clegane]

If it touches you beyond pure function it is art for you.

In case of the Fischl painting that would mean, that if it provokes you to think beyond the simple information that is given in the "picture" (i.e. a naked man shaving, a woman sitting in the bathtub) it is art for you (and I emphasize the unspecific "you" as "art" is purely subjective, IMHO)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Craft and Skill have often been equated with art but things are never that simple, thank God.

Often without craft it is difficult to create art, but not impossible. I think art needs to have a subjective element to it's presentation, but at the same time it also needs to be something crafted, i.e. effort went into it's creation.

[Adrian II]

[..] "art" is purely subjective, IMHO)

That sounds reasonable until you take it apart and put it together again. It is like saying that a classic coq au vin may be just as tasty as a tub of lard - it all depends on your taste, doesn't it? That's right. You can like them both. You can even prefer the tub of lard over the coq au vin. But there is still a difference in quality. The coq au vin is a dish, the lard isn't.

Of course there is a subjective component in everyone's taste. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. But art does not equal beauty. Edvard Munch's The Cry for instance is not beautiful, but it is art. A sunrise may be beautiful to behold, but it is not art, if only because it was not created by man.

Just as there is a difference between artists in craftsmanship, empathy, intelligence, vision, enthusiasm and concentration on detail, there is a difference between viewers. This is the difference between the trained and the untrained eye, between love of detail and appeciation of craftsmanship on the one hand and superficiality on the other hand. The precise nature of that difference is what we are trying to establish in this thread, even if we can never exclude the subjective element.

This means that in theory, you and I and TuffStuffMcGruff could agree on a criterium for what constitutes art, and at the same disagree completely about whether any particular object qualifies as beautiful.

For those who would still object I propose a simple challenge. Below are two images. One is Phoebus and Esmeralda from Walt Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, the other The Painter's Daughters and a Cat by Thomas Gainsborough. Tell me if they are of the same quality. If not, what exactly is the difference? (The cat is invisible, I know! )

[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

[LeftEyeNine]

Art is brain fart.

Everybody does (you can't prevent some from saying that he/she is doing arts) and essentially the owner can actually stand it at all terms.

[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.