WHAT IS ART?

[tarkus]

Have at it.

 

 

[Rod S]

What one perceives as having artistic content? Whatever can be labelled as an 'art' form gets called Art - it's more about labels, perceptions, interpretations (the "artist's" own even) and so forth than an actual description of the thing or event itself.

 

To each his own. You can put together an exibition of your own droppings and someone will call you 'controversial', 'genius', 'revolutionary' and .... art.

 

You can record the static off an AM radio and someone will... (insert random blabber)... art.

 

If you're a good enough salesman you can convince a lot of (most?) people that just about anything is Art. People are so addicted and enthusiastic about being spoonfed opinions and interpretations that anything will go against the right audience. Anything.

 

I care less and less about this word nowadays

[tarkus]

Good answer.

 

next?

[ProfD]

Along the same lines Rod S mentioned, art is whatever expression an individual uses to put their creative muse in a tangible form.

 

Good or bad is subjective. Once accessible i.e. marketed, the public ultimately decides whether or not it has value, artistically speaking.

 

Great timing on the question. Personally, I do not view myself as an artist. Labels are usually constrictive.

 

I am fine with being a musician. Hopefully, my sonic gumbo appeals to others. If they want to call it art--no problem. Regardless, it is something I have to do.

 

 

[iLaw]

In my opinion art must only be intended as art, which is to say that it must be the intentional product of a person who intends that the work provoke or stimulate some thought or feeling. The measure of both the artist and the work is how well this is accomplished.

 

Bird songs may be pretty, but they're not art. A beautiful sunrise may be awe-inspiring and thought-provoking, but it's not art.

 

An ordinary day-to-day object, on the other hand, may be ugly, but if the artist puts it on a pedestal or in a frame in such a way as to cause the viewer to think about it in a new (and we can hope for insightful) way, that's art.

 

YMMV, of course.

 

Larry.

[analogman1]

Ars Gratia Artis. ("Art for the sake of Art") I guess even the Romans were confused about this!

That says it all.

[RABid]

Art it relative. I think one mistake many artists make is assuming everyone should have the same definition and perception of art. It is okay if not everyone considers your art to be art. Don't try to force your definition of art on the masses, instead, deal with people who appreciate your art.

[Griffinator]

ART = a low-end "semi-pro" gear manufacturer. Famous for the "Multiverb" in the early 90's.

[iLaw]

Let's not confuse whether something is art with whether it is good art. We're each entitled to our own opinion as to whether we think a work of art is good, and if enough people agree with us it may come to be a commonly-held opinion.

 

But I think the artist gets to decide whether it is art.

 

Larry.

[tarkus]

In my opinion art must only be intended as art, which is to say that it must be the intentional product of a person who intends that the work provoke or stimulate some thought or feeling. The measure of both the artist and the work is how well this is accomplished.

 

Bird songs may be pretty, but they're not art. A beautiful sunrise may be awe-inspiring and thought-provoking, but it's not art.

 

An ordinary day-to-day object, on the other hand, may be ugly, but if the artist puts it on a pedestal or in a frame in such a way as to cause the viewer to think about it in a new (and we can hope for insightful) way, that's art.

 

YMMV, of course.

 

Larry.

 

Good answer - a collection of sunrises or a framed photo of a sunrise or motion picture of a sunrise could be art. An audio collection of bird calls can be art too.

 

 

[Finale]

My MIDIboard is a work of art.

[delirium]

http://funnyartpictures.com/04funnyjunk/funnyjunk-pictures/funny-photo-03s.jpg

[Dave Horne]

My tax forms are artistic.

[gliderproarc]

I believe that art is the finished work of the artist. The artist is someone who needs to be creative. The need to create so drives him/her that they cannot help but produce something. They may try to capture an emotion on a canvas, or express their joy on a trumpet. For me, it comes down to a need to express one's self artistically. Wether or not not the art is for other people is not as important as the expression it's self.

Some art IS for other people. It can be a very effective way to convey an idea/thought/emotion ect. It can be a medium that gets across a point that words don't do justice.

 

Having said what I believe art to be, I suppose that art really is in the eye or the beholder.

[kanker.]

Art is a 3 letter word for something overpriced.

[delirium]

http://i11.tinypic.com/4bplo9x.jpg

[Sandy Hemenway]

Emotion is the key point in regards to what is art, (IMO).

 

I'm ambivalent about what role intent plays, though if one simply considers God an artist, then birds, sunsets and landscapes could potentially be considered art as much as a painting or recording.

 

I think there is much truth in the phrase, "I don't know what art is - but I know it when I see it."

 

I believe that many people TRY to intellectualize art, which (IMHO), misses the entire point. Be it music, paintings, or sculpture, I believe the intent of art SHOULD be to illicit emotional responses. This is why abstract art works -- because random patterns and colors CAN evoke emotions - a specific form or real world parallel isn't needed.

 

The intent of the artist was brought up as defining. But what about the perception of the audience? If I look at an abstract which has zero emotional impact on me - then TO ME it isn't a big leap to say that it isn't art - at least to me.

 

How many people have heard someone utter, (or have said themselves), about some musical piece - "that isn't music, it's just noise?"

 

If a key foundation block of art is indeed emotion, then it may not only be beauty that is in the eye of the beholder, but the beholder may also define what art is on an individual level.

[delirium]

http://home.comcast.net/~eschermc/Drawing_Hands.jpg

[Legatoboy]

Art is an interplay between Form and Content. . . .

 

Well that's one paradigm. . . I know it's alittle boring, but it's true! How much are you gonna give to the Form, how much energy are you gonna give to the Content, HA!

 

Kinda like Sh$$, or stay On the pot (and get it right)!

 

lb

 

 

[kad]

This is ART

[SilverDragonSoun]

I think the perception of what art is, is an individual perception unto each person's definition. I think societal condition accepts certain pieces of art as art but ultimately I believe each person's perception defines art for them.

[ITGITC]

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Art-Garfunkel-Photograph-C12146856.jpeg

 

 

Yeah.

 

Ummmmmm, somebody had to sooner or later.

 

[Legatoboy]

Li'l dooters!

 

Lil Dooter's Art Show and Emporium!

 

(God rest ye lil' dooter!)

 

 

 

[Ed Coury]

Here...

 

http://www.kleonard.com/mellotron/mpsum05/images/mpsum05-04.jpg

Ohhhhhh.....A R T -- sorry :grin:

[delirium]

ART of war ?

http://myrtus.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/armyranger.jpg

[lerber3]

So which came first, the art or the artist?

 

... or do they create each other?

[delirium]

you mean what was first the egg or the chicken?

 

http://www.funnymos.com/funny-pictures/chicken.jpg

 

[SK]

Beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder, but art really shouldn't be. But it's gone beyond the point these days where we can make a distinction between what is classified as art, and what should be called art.

 

Something that just makes 'a statement' to provoke or shock, is no more redeeming than watching a car wreck. Art should give some insight or a new perspective you can grow from. It should express something deeper than simply saying "look at what I came up with!"

 

Hey, that's my anachronistic viewpoint.

[Clifton]

Beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder, but art really shouldn't be. But it's gone beyond the point these days where we can make a distinction between what is classified as art, and what should be called art.

 

Something that just makes 'a statement' to provoke or shock, is no more redeeming than watching a car wreck. Art should give some insight or a new perspective you can grow from. It should express something deeper than simply saying "look at what I came up with!"

 

Hey, that's my anachronistic viewpoint.

 

I agree with you there that art must have some form of meaning, but who is to say whether there is a deeper meaning or simply a statement? THAT is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I think what is art and what isn't is impossible to define. That's what makes art so interesting .

[Dave Horne]

you mean what was first the egg or the chicken?

 

http://www.funnymos.com/funny-pictures/chicken.jpg

 

Jimmy's fried.