What is Art?

[Digital Prophet]

Now let me start by saying that I started this thread so I wouldn't hijack someone else's thread. But there seems to be som considerable difference of opinion in the thread as to whether the referenced work is "art" or not.

Now I think I made my stance clear on the matter and this thread isn't about that particular artist or body of work. What this is about is the time old question of "What is art"?

Holly suggests that "Art", like beauty is subjective. And I am apt to agree. But there is such a school of thought that feels that the definition of art is finite. That it is not only possible to point at something and decide that is or is not art, it is required to do so.

And maybe these people are right. There are schools of art. Masters of art. There is art history. Artists. Art galleries. The art industry. Art auctions. The list goes on and on. Can this multibillion industry truly exists based on abject and individual concepts and preconcieved notions? Or is there a concrete base of art.

Is a self portrait of an "unattractive" person art? What about a painting of an "attractive" person in an "unattractive" manner? If you shoot a photo with bad exposure and that is out of focus did you just screw up or create art? If you take an otherwise acceptable photo and tilt it, did you just add instant art? Does EVERY photo of a soldier, police officer or crying child qualify as "daring and moving" art?

Who decides what is art. Why is one piece art and another piece (identical for all intents and purposes) called crap? Why is one artist a genius and a similar artist a hack? When does a gimmick cease to be schtick and become art?

As far as I can see "art" is "art" because it is, otherwise we would call it something else. Like "George" or something.

Please someone tell me if and why I am wrong. I have my own thoughts but I want to hear others first so I can soak them up.

Prophet out.

[brad]

Originally Posted by Digital Prophet

Who decides what is art. Why is one piece art and another piece (identical for all intents and purposes) called crap? Why is one artist a genius and a similar artist a hack? When does a gimmick cease to be schtick and become art?

As far as I can see "art" is "art" because it is, otherwise we would call it something else. Like "George" or something.

Art can't be defined. It simply is. I could put a black dot in the middle of a white canvas and call it art. It may be unimaginative and boring, and I may be a "hack" for doing it and presenting it, but it is still Art because it is.

Just because someone doesn't like it, that does not mean it is not art. Crappy art is still art. A "hack" still produces art.

Even a Velvet Elvis is art to someone.

Art is created. Art is expression. Art is passion.

Art is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in the mind of the creator. If the beholder thinks it isn't art, doesn't make it any less art in the creator's mind.

(By this definition, paintings produced by animals.. elephants, monkeys, whatever.. are not art because it was not created as an expression of their own mind... actually, that may be going out on a limb, so to speak.. who knows what's in an animal's mind?)

[Steelsun]

Art is subjective, everyone has their own feeling for what is art.

As the saying go "I don't know what art is, but I know it when I see it."

For me, Pollocks work is NOT art (it's the byproduct of painting your room). Rockwell's work is Art.

[Guther]

Your right, Art, and what constitutes Art is largely subjective. But I am sure that some basic qualities could be beat out if we wished to do so. *shrug*

[Digital Prophet]

So is the consensus that while art is without definition what is not art is finite? That seems almost contrary.

Maybe it is a matter similar to what is obscene and what is not or the relationship of rectangles and squares. But even in the latter there is a finite solution where as the former begs it's own questions of subjective natures.

Prophet out.

[rose]

Art has no definition or boundaries. Art is a creature of the unknown, yet also has certain limitations,
the mind,
.

there was this women who globed paint on her ass and sat on a canvas...is that art?
to her apparently it was.

[Shane]

Art is simply an expression of humanity's creativity and imagination . . .

[Joshua]

Art - "the products of human creativity" wordnet.princeton.edu

I like that definition because it takes everyone else out of the picture and leaves only the creator. It says art is human creativity and say's it with no biasis, no elitism and does not try to exclude people on any basis. It leaves the door open for pure creativity with no limits. I believe anything that is an extension of human creativity is art.

Now, I am not so ignorant to think that this is the world view, especially the view from inside the "art world". Humans have to be able to categories, value and profit from their lives. Why? because we are driven by the almight faith in the dollar. If any smuck off the street can make art and sell it the business could lose "control". The elitist would be overwhelmed with popular opinion and the rest of us might just feel like artist. Basically, I feel that we have industrialised art as defined above. Anytime you bring in a market, the purpose at least in small part changes when you do your art. You now have to take into account the "mass appeal" idealogy, which says the art must bring interest or pleases or stimulates to the masses (majority). We all know the supply/demand concept and when you have a "mass appeal" you then have a piece in high demand and low supply. Ding Ding Money! With the addtion of the monetary value in the judgement factor of "what is art", I believe is where you get your exlusionary opinions.

Now, I was one that said for me it is not art and how would I justify that opinion if I believe in the definition provided above? The honest truth is it is really a hypocritical opinion, based on my belief in definition. Unfortunately, I am judging it based on another factor, which is "do I like it". I believe we all do this to art as we are exposed to it and try to classify it with in ourselves.

The correct response from me should be, "yes its art, but I do not like it." I would also add that my opinion of what should and should not be displayed is usually much different from the majority of the art world's displays.

Just my 2 cents

[Holly]

One of my favorite sayings regarding screw-ups...

Overexposed? Blown Highlights? Out of focus? Grainy?

Turn it black/white and call it art.

However...I think for a lot of people art is intentional. Intentionally including noise/intentionally throwing focus off, intentionally throwing in an odd angle...odd composition...basically doing whatever they have to do to portray on paper (photographic or otherwise) what is on the person's mind.

Can mistakes be art? Sure. lol....see there are no rule when it comes to art. Too many variables.

[Silvernic]

Originally Posted by Digital Prophet

Is a self portrait of an "unattractive" person art? What about a painting of an "attractive"
As far as I can see "art" is "art" because it is, otherwise we would call it something else. Like "George" or something.
Prophet out.

As far as I can tell, it's the price tag that makes the difference between art and non art!

[Rick Waldroup]

I wish I had a definitve answer to "what is art"? Then I realize that there probably is no real answer. Sometimes it drives me crazy. Whenver I see those dog photos by William Wegman or the angel and baby photos by Anne Geddes or paintings by Thomas Kinkaide, I want to jump off the nearest cliff. But millions of people love those artists and believe they are artists in the true sense of the word. I do a lot of street photography- is that art? I'd like to think so but a lot of folks think that it is just documenting something. Or how about graffiti- is that art? It is an interesting question with a million different answers.
Can we trust the art critics to guide us on what great art is? How much art is trendy or just a fad, soon to fade away and be forgotten and how much art that begs a deeper degree of understanding and appreciation will last the test of time? And how do you tell the difference between the two? As you can see by these rambling thoughts I am clueless as to an answer. I appreciate a thread like this because it gets the old noggin to working and that is always a good thing.

[Rick Waldroup]

Originally Posted by Silvernic

As far as I can tell, it's the price tag that makes the difference between art and non art!

Now that may be the real answer !

[Roadrnr]

I believe there is no definite answer for what art is except for it's whatever someone is willing to buy it for. I have seen some art that looks like a third grader's painting, in fact, I did an oil on canvas that looks like that. The difference between what I saw and what I did is, the fact that someone is willing to buy it. However, it doesn't necessarily make my oil on canvas not art. I created something from nothing and I consider it art. No one else might, but I do.

[huxley]

as an art educator this is MY definition of art...

art is the meaning, idea, process, or technique that was invented or evolved into a new/unique style. the end product might not be flattering or perfect. but it is the THOUGHT that was intended or evoked that makes it art.

[Redmouse]

Originally Posted by huxley

art is the meaning, idea, process, or technique that was invented or evolved into a new/unique style. the end product might not be flattering or perfect. but it is the THOUGHT that was intended or evoked that makes it art.

I will have to quote you on that.