Your own definition of art

[Bandito]

Without using official boring (and per se inaccurate) definitions, explain what do you consider to be art.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Art is where materialism and idealism meet and have wild unprotected sex with the lights on.

[thriller]

It's creation by humans. I watch Six Feet Under and there is an artist on the show. They always talk about 'the meaning of art' or 'the meaning of a certain piece'. When did art become so existential? A car is art. It may not be made for the art community, but it has a specific design and image. Anything created by humans, IMHO, is art.

[Fawkes]

I use the term for the sake of easiness and accessibility, but I am very skeptical of the notion of there even being a universal, qualitative definition of what art is.

[ckaihatsu]

---





Okay, jotting down the main themes covered so far in this thread I've gotten this list:


- art as non-definable (possibly encompassing the a-humanity functioning of the universe and all organic, natural-life processes)

- art as life

- art as individuality / subjectivity

- art as personal expression / fulfillment

- art as pretense / pretentiousness / less-than-genuine / narcissism

- art as social self-identity

- art as defined by a larger consensus

- art as a defining social event

- art as determined by an in-crowd, or "playground politics"

- art as cultural byproduct

- art as non-definable (possibly encompassing the entirety of human intentionality and/or activity)

- art as access to material resources

- art as making a living / vocation

- art as commodity / brand / media distribution outlets (commercial / industrial)

- art as judgable on its own merits

- art as beauty / aesthetics


I've ordered the list in the format of an expanding circle, from the pin-point center representing a non-humanity non-definability, to the smallest circular area representing the individual person in a generic physiological-organism way, all the way out to the broadest area of time-tested artistic norms.

For the purposes of a materialist Marxist critique I think we can address art in its broader social forms, from about the 'material resources' point outward. It's a good place to start because many artists seeking genuine self-expression may validly raise the objection that they do not have adequate access to the means and materials by which to *make* their creations in the first place (myself not included, btw).

Moreover, as Jimmie Higgins pointed out, even if they *could* do *some* artwork many would not be able to *sustain* their efforts for very long, for the same basic reason -- they could not materially support themselves from the commodification of their most heartfelt creations.

Beyond this point would be matters of bourgeois control of the means of publicity, as through branding and notices for the same, over corporate-controlled mainstream media outlets (TV, print ads, etc.). Without sufficient exposure no artist would have a broad-enough audience from which to derive broader-based discussions and critiques, much less anything approaching a general societal consensus on their artwork's merits and/or aesthetic value.

Since cultural commodities -- and even scientific discoveries and technologies -- are subordinate to the machinations of the profit-based economic system, our entire societal reality has been, and is being, defined by the prevailing uses of materials (and human efforts) according to bourgeois-economic motivations. Many genuinely heartfelt *individual* intentions and motivations must give way to the *prevailing* currents of bourgeois culture, thus forfeiting any access to necessary resources, including the artist's *own* life-time.

[BIG BROTHER]

For me quite simply art is doing something with produces pleasure.

[Knight of Cydonia]

art is undefineable ... like me:tt2: because for me...we can create any kind of arts and name it as we like ...kind of say what what you want it:lol:

[F9]

art is undefineable ... like me:tt2: because for me...we can create any kind of arts and name it as we like ...kind of say what what you want it:lol:

this.
there are just some things that are hard to define and when you do it you fell in traps and need to "recognize" things that you dont agree with.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Art is the original commodity in Marx's scale of things because, like money, it has no apparent use-value in the Western capitalist system. Art stands at the apex of all that is unexplained, until being unexplainable becomes its own use-value. - Paul Werner, Museum Inc: Inside the Global Art World (Chicago: Prickly Paradigm/University of Chicago Press, 2005), 20.
-

[L.A.P.]

It's really not that hard to figure out what the definition of art is.

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

[Game Girl]

To me, art is another form of expression. An artist has a different view of the world. A normal person could see a photo or a painting of a naked person and think it's softcore porn. But an artist only see's natural beauty and if done correctly, they can also see purity and innocence.

[Ele'ill]

Art is creation. It doesn't have to have a purpose.

[Meridian]

I use the term for the sake of easiness and accessibility, but I am very skeptical of the notion of there even being a universal, qualitative definition of what art is.

There isn't and there doesn't need to be, the term only exists to the degree it is being used, heard or read. So the meaning is continually determined by how it is used.

[Black Sheep]

Art is creation. It doesn't have to have a purpose.

:glare:
Are you asserting that creation doesn't have a purpose or that an artist doesn't have a classifiable mindset when creating a piece of art?

[Ele'ill]

:glare:
Are you asserting that creation doesn't have a purpose or that an artist doesn't have a classifiable mindset when creating a piece of art?

I'm saying it doesn't have to have a purpose. When I sit down and sketch stuff without a goal in mind it's still art.

[Sosa]

As an art historian I avoid this question like a plague. But I'll throw in my definitions I came up with...well not really definitions, more like scribblings and ideas I thought of and wrote in my journal when thinking about art:

"Intention, concept, execution, presentation, interpretation. Made in the context of art theory/history. Concept of Art, idea, relative to historical context/historical art world"

I'm going to be an asshole and conform to the institutional theory of art and say that art is whatever the art world says is art.

[Sosa]

It's really not that hard to figure out what the definition of art is.

Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

So by that definition would you consider a dildo to be art? Or what if a painting doesn't stir any senses, emotions and/or intellect...is it still art?

[Sosa]

For me quite simply art is doing something with produces pleasure.

Then I make art just about everyday when I masturbate :D

[x371322]

I'm going to be an asshole and conform to the institutional theory of art and say that art is whatever the art world says is art.

Fuck the art world! You art snob. :lol:



would you consider a dildo to be art?
Possibly. In the right context.


what if a painting doesn't stir any senses, emotions and/or intellect...is it still art?
Yes. I'm sure the painter would think so anyway. That's good enough for me.

[Sosa]

Fuck the art world! You art snob. :lol:



Possibly. In the right context.


Yes. I'm sure the painter would think so anyway. That's good enough for me.

You know, I don't actually get offended when I'm called an art snob...and I have been called that even thought I'm not, at least I don't think I am.

Yes a dildo in the right context could be considered art but I meant it in its normal context.

I would also agree

[x371322]

You know, I don't actually get offended when I'm called an art snob...and I have been called that even thought I'm not, at least I don't think I am.

Yes a dildo in the right context could be considered art but I meant it in its normal context.

I would also agree

I was only being funny. No offense was intended (hence the laughing smiley). You're free to think of art as you wish.

[manic expression]

To me, art is human expression through deliberate form. The first part of that takes precedence over the second, though. Art is far bigger than whatever the "art world" says. Art is what happens anytime someone dances to a rhythm or sings a song.

[Sosa]

I was only being funny. No offense was intended (hence the laughing smiley). You're free to think of art as you wish.

Oh I know, lol.

[Sosa]

Here are some questions to consider:

What is Art proper? What, if anything makes something fine art? Is there some feature of or property that is essential to Art...Something without which a work does not deserve the label art. What makes one an artist? Can anyone be an artist? Why is it important at all to define art? And what are the problems with defining it? Why is it important if something is Art anyway? Is art any more important than any other human endeavor? If so where does art derive its distinctive value? Are some works of art more valuable than others (high and low art) and on what do we base that judgment?

[manic expression]

Excellent questions, Sosa...and hard ones to answer. Let me try a few:

Is there some feature of or property that is essential to Art?
I think human expression is the thing. Without it, it can be craftsmanship, but not art.

Is art any more important than any other human endeavor?
I think art is one of the activities humans just do. And it's because of that that all other human endeavors reflect themselves in art. That's why art has the power to illustrate love, pain, happiness, sorrow, regret...the power to move hearts and souls. Something like cooking (which is, in the general sense, an art IMO) can do the same sort of thing...but that affects our senses directly, and I don't feel it can point the the mysteries of existence. That potential is what distinguishes art from other arts. And that, I suppose, is why it's not a terrible idea to have this kind of conversation.

Are some works of art more valuable than others?
We could say some forms of art are more useful. Palladio's architecture shelters people while Monet's paintings do not. But that's a utilitarian value, I don't think that factors into the value of the artistic aspects of Palladio and Monet's work. As far as that goes, the value of the art and not the utility, I cannot say. I would venture to guess that it has more to do with taste, with individual experience and the like. In short, the essence of art hums in different tones, and thus resonates differently with different viewers.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

Art is whatever resonates with people as being 'art'.