art: what is it?

[which doctor]

What is your definition of art?

Websters defines art as the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects.

I do not like such a definition, because who is to determine was is aesthetic or not. Aesthetics opens up a whole new can of worms, one that I would have liked to keep closed.

I prefer the definition of the reflection of emotion onto a medium of some sort which can be perceived by others.

I like to think of art as dealing with emotion, not how beautiful something is. There are many things I consider to be aesthetically pleasing, such as a sunset, but I wouldn't call it art. Also, there are things I don't consider aesthetically pleasing that I would consider art.

Art to me, is more about letting others feel your emotions than making something that is "beautiful."

What do you think, what is your definition of art?

[Tower of Bebel]

The only question harder to answer is: "what is the meaning of life?". Art is definately a creation made my man. It's a creation to look at, to think of.
It's hard for me to give a definition since English is not my native tongue.

[black magick hustla]

The problem about questions like "what is blahblahblah" is that they generate meaningless discussions.

The definition of "art" depends on the context it is used.

[Dr Mindbender]

I would define it as ''a philospical, or emotional perspective or political argument portrayed via a practical medium''

[RedAnarchist]

I don't think you can get a true definition of something like art. Its too broad and large a concept to be dfined in one sentence.

[which doctor]

We're not trying to reach a conclusion about anything here. I'm just curious as to how others view art. I understand this is mental masturbation.

For instance, do you consider something that was designed, mass produced, and sold, to be art, if you consider it aesthetically pleasing?

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:13 am
Art to me, is more about letting others feel your emotions than making something that is "beautiful."


agree....

art is all about our emotions, it's all about what we feel about something and we make art to let other people know and feel what kind of emotions we had.

[seraphim]

'Art' is determined by pompus people who want to peddle crap to idiots with more money than sense.

[Vicarious]

There is no agreed definition of art

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:52 am
There is no agreed definition of art
Yes, I understand.

But what is your definition of art?

[Idola Mentis]

I prefer the definition of the reflection of emotion onto a medium of some sort which can be perceived by others.
Seems to me that just covers expressionism, which makes a lot of assumptions not all artists agree with. Need something wider to cover the entire practice of art.

The group who holds the museums and shuffles the millions doesn't cover it either. All aesthetic objects is too wide - the stuff made by cultures with no tradition for art is actually crafts and other things, though the art establishment tries to project its idea of art on it. "The creation of objects for no other purpose than the creation of the object in itself" might cover it.

I don't see why aesthetics is so icky to the touch for you? It's just the science of finding out why people will tend to choose one otherwise functionally identical thing over another.

[An archist]

Art should make people think, it should be a slap in the face, to wake you up (that can be seen literally).

[whoknows]

if you have no training and no talent but make an object by writing, drawing, sculpting, or any of the other techniques which can be used by artist, then you are making an effort at self-expression, which is not necessarly art, but which is necessary to the develope your ablity to think and understand.
If you do have talent and training (this inclueds the self-taught) and can make very fine objects then you are a craftsman, or artisian.
If you are an artisian who can make an object with the properties that can resonate within the mind of the viewer, simulating the viewer to an emotional or intellectual understanding or awareness beyond the object itself then the object as a calilist to the transdental state, can be said to be art.
Children's paintings, even random objects can simulate such a responce, but I hold that to be called art the object/proformace must be an artificial work of humans and must of a high degree of workmanship. These two criteria separate art from other simulents and thus give art a workable and useful definition.

[Pawn Power]

art is only "art" upon my approval.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 08, 2007 01:21 am
art is only "art" upon my approval.
Oh, that's what everybody says.

[RedAnarchist]

Art to me has to say something. It has to have meaning, depth. I want the artist to be telling us something, to be showing us something.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by whoknows+June 08, 2007 11:03 am--> (whoknows @ June 08, 2007 11:03 am)
Pawn [email protected] 08, 2007 01:21 am
art is only "art" upon my approval.
Oh, that's what everybody says. [/b]
Ok. art is what ever you delinate.

[Comeback Kid]

Art is the physical expression of emotion, experience and perception of the world through a physical medium.

[Sloth]

wow this is a pretty awesome thread i actually happen to be doing a photography piece right now dealing with this very issue.

I believe that there is no singular or uniform answer to this question that is posed but rather a wide variety. such an answer depends on not only on the individual but also the art movment and a wide array of other factors.

this being said denotes to the idea that anything can be art. whether or not if there is any meaning placed in the piece, tangible or not.

Example: givin the idea that art should evoke emotion. to create a piece (in no matter what medium) that makes you feel no different; if this was the intentsion of the piece, than this could be considered art.

[Comrade_Scott]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:32 am
'Art' is determined by pompus people who want to peddle crap to idiots with more money than sense.
what he said

[coda]

i think it is only art when the person creating it thinks it is art --as in the expression, the end result or process is successful. so, to me art is totally subjective and rests and fall on that.