What is Art?

[The Feral Underclass]

What do people think art is?

[which doctor]

Art is the fecal matter of the bourgeoisie.

[Random Precision]

Art is a creative, unique, tangible expression that is intended as art (my former Art History teacher's definition). Creative because it must be created. Unique is tough, because not all art is unique. However, I would define "unique" in the sense that a piece of art cannot be an exact copy off of another work of art. Tangible because a piece of art, whether it be a painting, literature, or music, must be sensible by humans through sight, touch, et cetera. Intended as art because that is a distinction we have to make, but I would argue that much art has a functional purpose as well.

Perhaps that was a more exapansive definition than you were looking for, I don't know.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:22 pm
Art is the fecal matter of the bourgeoisie.
Stop spamming you fucking ****!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:29 pm
Art is a creative, unique, tangible expression that is intended as art (my former Art History teacher's definition)
So essentially your art history teachers definition is "art is art because it's art"?


Creative because it must be created.

Why does art need to be created in order for it to be art?


I would define "unique" in the sense that a piece of art cannot be an exact copy off of another work of art.

Yes it can.


Tangible because a piece of art, whether it be a painting, literature, or music, must be sensible by humans through sight, touch, et cetera.

Why?

[Random Precision]

I do not know the answers to your question, but thank you for asking them. What is your answer?

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 04, 2007 09:31 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 04, 2007 09:31 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 09:22 pm
Art is the fecal matter of the bourgeoisie.
Stop spamming you fucking ****! [/b]
I thought this was a serious post.....its a reasonable point of view.

My own view is that art has been many things in history and tends today to be three different things - individual self expression as fecal dissent (e.g.. outsider art), secondly wallpaper/craft work (e.g. graphic arts) and thirdly illusions of transcendence which entertain (the good stuff).

But I dont anticipte my own capacity to delimit what it can be.

In the end, we must be wary today of all theories of what art is, if we want a theory which empowers art. All theory of art in this society will tend to hegemonise art and will almost certainly be no more than the sociology of art rather than a definition of what art 'is'.

[Iron]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 03:54 pm
What do people think art is?
Art is any form of self-expression

[My Heart is a Molotov]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension @ October 05+ 2007 08:33 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 05 @ 2007 08:33 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 09:29 pm
Art is a creative, unique, tangible expression that is intended as art (my former Art History teacher's definition)
So essentially your art history teachers definition is "art is art because it's art"?[/b]

Art is only art because that is the name we have given it. Art could be anything, but the fact that someone has actually said "this is art" makes it art.

For example, a urinal generally isn't regarded as art. Duchamp took a urinal and recontextualised it by exhibiting under the banner of art.




Creative because it must be created.

Why does art need to be created in order for it to be art?

I guess it depends what it means to create. Does it have to be a physical thing or can it be something such as creating an idea?

For example, Duchamp didn't create the fountain but he created the idea for it to be art.




Tangible because a piece of art, whether it be a painting, literature, or music, must be sensible by humans through sight, touch, et cetera.

Why?

That one confused me. If it isn't able to be seen, heard, touched, smelt, tasted, what is it? Wouldn't art have to be accessed by at least one sense?

Actually, now that I think about it, it doesn't have to be. Tom Friedman has a work that is just a blank piece of paper that he stared at for a thousand hours. The act of staring at this piece of paper gave it the meaning to be art. It also invited the audience to imagine what could have been there, what potential those hours had but was not realised.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by gilhyle+October 04, 2007 11:30 pm--> (gilhyle @ October 04, 2007 11:30 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 09:31 pm

[email protected] 04, 2007 09:22 pm
Art is the fecal matter of the bourgeoisie.
Stop spamming you fucking ****!
I thought this was a serious post.....its a reasonable point of view. [/b]
I wasn't being serious.


All theory of art in this society will tend to hegemonise art and will almost certainly be no more than the sociology of art rather than a definition of what art 'is'.

This hegemony of art theories thus confines art into a limited space. Essentially you are arguing that art is limited because people define it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Iron+October 04, 2007 11:55 pm--> (Iron @ October 04, 2007 11:55 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 03:54 pm
What do people think art is?
Art is any form of self-expression [/b]
Why is it?

I don't mean to be facetious. The point of this question is to understand how art can be limited? If you say art is self-expression that limits art to be an expression of the self? I don't think art is limited to that.

[Jay Moksha]

Art is self-expression. It is about creative freedom.Thats all...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by My Heart is a Molotov+October 05, 2007 12:52 am--> (My Heart is a Molotov @ October 05, 2007 12:52 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension @ October [email protected] 2007 08:33 am

[email protected] 04, 2007 09:29 pm
Art is a creative, unique, tangible expression that is intended as art (my former Art History teacher's definition)
So essentially your art history teachers definition is "art is art because it's art"?

Art is only art because that is the name we have given it. [/b]
That's not true. Art is called art because that is the word English people use to describe something.


Art could be anything, but the fact that someone has actually said "this is art" makes it art.

If art can be anything then art is, well, everything?


For example, a urinal generally isn't regarded as art. Duchamp took a urinal and recontextualised it by exhibiting under the banner of art.

I think that's the point right there. To contextualise something as art forces a deconstructive attitude. By that I mean one is forced to reconsider the basis of your understanding of something already defined by language.

Art is meaning.

[Organic Revolution]

Art is anything beautiful. Art is anything sad. Art is anything disturbing. Art is everything, really.

[Sir_No_Sir]

art is the artist.

[which doctor]

Stop spamming you fucking ****!

Now that's art!


Art is anything beautiful. Art is anything sad. Art is anything disturbing. Art is everything, really.
LAME!


art is the artist.
DOUBLE LAME!

ps, I was speaking metaphorically when I said art is fecal matter

[Entrails Konfetti]

Art is a process in doing or making something, techniques are involved, and employed by the artist. The artist can carefully premeditate and craft their work with dexterity, or they can be spontaneous and do it all on a whim.

By this definition there is an art to everything, from taking a crap, to painting, to shreading stuff, to just moving. Animals have art, but unlike humans we mostly use it in the recreational sense-- animals on the otherhand, it's some sort of survival adaption, like the bird in Africa that makes such intricate nests to attract a mate. For the most part with humans its something we acquire, whereas animals like the bee it's something they were born with. We cannot without the aid of tools make perfect octangular honeycombs.

There are also really crappy works of art, either the artist is mimicing another and not using a technique which is compatable with their behaviour, or they are learning it for the first time, or they will learn from their mistakes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 05, 2007 05:43 am
Art is a process in doing or making something
How is that the definition of art?


techniques are involved, and employed by the artist.

So art can only be art if it has a technique to it?


The artist can carefully premeditate and craft their work with dexterity, or they can be spontaneous and do it all on a whim.

But in order for us to call it art it must have been a process and a technique to it's creation? That implies that art must be created in order for it to be art?

That's incredibly limiting.


By this definition there is an art to everything, from taking a crap, to painting, to shreading stuff, to just moving.

I don't necessarily disagree, but my question is what makes those things art?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 05, 2007 01:51 am
Art is anything beautiful. Art is anything sad. Art is anything disturbing. Art is everything, really.
So in order for something to be art it must be: Beautiful, sad and disturbing? Surely that's not everything?

[Led Zeppelin]

Art is subjective. No need to mentally masturbate over it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 05, 2007 02:09 pm
No need to mentally masturbate over it.
Why not? People "mentally masturbate" over loads of things? I see you do it with dead irrelevant ideologies all the time.


Art is subjective.

What does that even mean?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 05, 2007 01:15 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 05, 2007 01:15 pm)
Led [email protected] 05, 2007 02:09 pm
No need to mentally masturbate over it.
Why not? People "mentally masturbate" over loads of things? I see you do it with dead irrelevant ideologies all the time. [/b]
No, I use Marxism to better understand historical and current issues that are relevant to the politics for the liberation of the proletariat.


What does that even mean?

That people have their own subjective view on what they consider art. A person can consider a piece of shit art, while another considers Da Vinci's work art. Both are right for themselves, because art is subjective.

That doesn't mean that the opinion isn't shared by others. Subjective opinions can be popular.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 05, 2007 02:45 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 05, 2007 02:45 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 05, 2007 01:15 pm

Led [email protected] 05, 2007 02:09 pm
No need to mentally masturbate over it.
Why not? People "mentally masturbate" over loads of things? I see you do it with dead irrelevant ideologies all the time.
No, I use Marxism to better understand historical and current issues that are relevant to the politics for the liberation of the proletariat. [/b]
Uh huh.



What does that even mean?

That people have their own subjective view on what they consider art. A person can consider a piece of shit art, while another considers Da Vinci's work art. Both are right for themselves, because art is subjective.

So art is art only if you like it?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 05, 2007 02:05 pm
So art is art only if you like it?
No, if you consider it art.

Some people consider crap like a shitty statue art, while I consider it trash. Same for those paintings that are a mess, made as if a 8 year old could've made them. I personally hate that crap and consider it trash, but others find it brilliant.

It's subjective.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+October 05, 2007 03:08 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ October 05, 2007 03:08 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 05, 2007 02:05 pm
So art is art only if you like it?
No, if you consider it art [/b]
You are saying that someone makes something and calls it art but if you think it's trash it isn't art?


Same for those paintings that are a mess, made as if a 8 year old could've made them. I personally hate that crap and consider it trash, but others find it brilliant.

Your definition of art comes down to taste.

You are essentially saying here that art is only art if you happen to like it. Otherwise it's trash. Or can trash be art?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 05, 2007 02:18 pm
You are saying that someone makes something and calls it art but if you think it's trash it isn't art?
To me it isn't, no. Is this so hard for you to grasp?


Your definition of art comes down to taste.

You are essentially saying here that art is only art if you happen to like it. Otherwise it's trash. Or can trash be art?

What I consider trash others might consider art.

So yes, trash can be art, these days a lot of it is considered as such.

[Tower of Bebel]

Maybe it's a word.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 05, 2007 03:29 pm
So yes, trash can be art, these days a lot of it is considered as such.

This is making no sense at all.

You are not defining art at all. You are simply saying that there is art that you think is trash and there is art that other people like.

What relevance does that have to anything that is being discussed here? You've just stated an obvious fact: Some people like art, other people don't. That's not a definition of art, that's barely even an opinion.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:44 pm
Maybe it's a word.
maybe it's a word...? It's definitely a word :)

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+October 05, 2007 04:50 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ October 05, 2007 04:50 pm)
Led [email protected] 05, 2007 03:29 pm
So yes, trash can be art, these days a lot of it is considered as such.

This is making no sense at all.

You are not defining art at all. You are simply saying that there is art that you think is trash and there is art that other people like.

What relevance does that have to anything that is being discussed here? You've just stated an obvious fact: Some people like art, other people don't. That's not a definition of art, that's barely even an opinion. [/b]
I never said that "some people like art, others don't", that's a gross oversimplification of what I said.

The error in what you said lies in the fact that art does not exist outside of someone not liking it. If no one considers something art, like for example your pubic hair, then that is not art, period.

If you suddenly start having people considering your pubes art, then to them it is art, hell you may even consider it art yourself. But then it would only be art to yourself, not to anyone else.

That's what my point is, art is entirely subjective. You have popular art like the works of Da Vinci, Van Gogh etc. and you have non-popular art like some guy making shitty sculpture in his basement. To that guy perhaps his shitty sculptures are art, but to no one else it is.

Do you get it now? It's entirely subjective. I'm pretty sure you knew this already and are only interested in debating this because you want to mentally masturbate over a non-issue.

Well go right-ahead, but I exposed you, so there.

[gilhyle]

Essentially you are arguing that art is limited because people define it.


Im arguing something slightly different, Im arguing that becoming art involves being named as art and naming one thing as art also names the 'not-art', thus delimiting art. That is something which goes on all the time. The danger arises not from that, but from going from the legitimate process of naming to a theorisation of art based on a particular process of naming, or based on the processes of naming tht occur over a particular period - for example we might define art as what was named as art in the 20th century; that would be a mistake whose only effect will be to try to control art. Art theory controls art in a way art naming does not. Naming goes on all the time, and reflects the contradictions, struggles etc of society. Theory tries to control those.

Thats not to say you cant have a sociology of the naming process, but dont pretend that that sociology is a theory of art.


I was speaking metaphorically when I said art is fecal matter

I suspected you were. The introduction of metaphor into substantive comment adds an aesthetic dimension, protecting the utterance from being merely a response and giving it an aesthetic status which protects the speaker from his location within the dialogue - nothing wrong with that and often a good way to get at some insight that isnt easily accessible within a transparent un-aestheticized discourse.....to put that more briely, your metaphor is partly correct.

I recall an exhibition many years ago in an art gallery done by the members of a once-cult famous band called the Virgin Prunes, where (among other things) they placed excrement on a stand....art for arts sake, money for god's sake !