|
Forums >
General Industry >
What is art?
Here's one opinion: "Art is not there to explain...but to awaken feeling in the heart of the person looking at it. A work of art must not be something that leaves a man unmoved, something he passes by with a casual glance. It has to make him react, feel strongly, start creating too, if only in his imagination. He must be jerked out of his torpor...." Picasso Was he right? Jul 10 06 05:13 pm Link That is what art DOES, not what art IS. Jul 10 06 05:45 pm Link Continuing with Brian's thought of what art isn't, art isn't something made by nature (which may cause Picasso's rush). Art made in the likeness of other art isn't art, it's academic art. Art isn't something discovered or found. It isn't made by accident. And art isn't "artsy" or "artistic." It's just art. More anyone? -D Jul 10 06 06:06 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: So, if it doesn't do what Picasso suggests, it's not art? Jul 10 06 06:18 pm Link Art can be created by the common man, but rarely can it be defined by him. LGL Jul 10 06 06:21 pm Link D. Brian Nelson wrote: I like the definition of art as "deliberate transformation". Jul 10 06 06:37 pm Link But making a piece of lumber from wood is deliberate transformation. Jul 10 06 06:48 pm Link ChrisCorbettPhotography wrote: Beyond that it's just subjective judgement. A log (or a horse) cut in half can be art. Jul 10 06 06:59 pm Link Fotticelli wrote: I am confused! I thought it had to be black and white. Jul 10 06 07:07 pm Link Ageed, but you've got to do something to the piece of lumber, or horse. The transformation is what you do with it it seems to me. At the opening of the new modern art museum in Munich a few years ago, one exhibit room contained plywood boxes, that was it. Art? I guess so. Jul 10 06 07:07 pm Link GWC wrote: It can be red. Jul 10 06 07:09 pm Link GWC wrote: You are thinking artsy. Jul 10 06 07:46 pm Link Art is the product of genius. Jul 10 06 07:50 pm Link Lumber may be deliberate transformation, but not art- unless Picasso signs it. Jul 10 06 07:54 pm Link hmmm ...art is beauty even if that beauty has an ugly side, *art is art when it makes the individual feel something from withinside emotionally (joy,fear,shock,sadness,etc) *art is art when it makes you think,creativly,critically, or evokes thinking or said emotions. *art is created, not nesscarily with intent of the above (eg I stumped my foot on a parking meter,,'DOH' damned parking meter, but wait look at the parking meter, its design, it's colour, what a beautiful thing that should incur this burden upon my foot and drain my wallet of coin, 'DAMN you parking meter, I love you and the wrath you incur on society, there must be a better way' -and thus a photo was taken of the parking meter and a sculptor friend fashioned a parking meter from bronze and the pigeons were happy. *art is not porn, because the rule say art cannot arouse. *porn is not art, and vice verse because those are the rules and there are different threads for that sort of thing. Thus we cntinue to catorgorise in a vain attempt to understand and amuse ourselves until the meter maids depoisit coins in our slots and arouse us from oour beautyfull musings. Jul 10 06 08:09 pm Link Brian Diaz wrote: Art can only be defined by what it does. Or what the artist attempted to do. Jul 10 06 08:09 pm Link Art is humanity and creation... Or maybe the destruction of reality Jul 10 06 08:11 pm Link I found myself in conversation with an indigenous Ecuadorian from a village in the Andes. He said "You seperate your artists from the rest of your society. In my village the potter makes beautiful pots, the weaver weaves beautiful blankets, there is beauty in everything made in the village. No one there considers themselves an artist, they are just doing what they do for the village. When it is time for music, all join in. No one considers themselves a musician, the village is playing music together because that is what we do there." I like this idea. It probably does not help define art though. I was in MOMA in San Francisco with a friend. We heard a sound, like a labored grunting. We thought it might be someone that needed help so we searched for it. We came to a room in the museum. Large and open, with sets of clothing fastened to the walls and pairs of shoes on the floor underneath each outfit. In the center of the room was a cluster of school desks in disarray, the small ones we used in grade school. At the far end of the room, pushed up to the wall was a teacher's desk. The grunting sounds were a repeating tape coming from a speaker in the desk. My friend was very annoyed at the waste of a room for such rubbish. I told her she did not appreciate the art. She said "What Art?" I said "Somebody talked MOMA into giving them an entire room in the museum to put this shit. The art is not the art, the art is the talking them into it!" NOW she was annoyed at me too!!! Jul 10 06 08:15 pm Link Isys Entertainment wrote: no it isnt or at lest not always. Jul 10 06 08:15 pm Link art is something that sits on its ass in a museum. Jul 10 06 08:16 pm Link Stephen Dawson wrote: Art cannot only be subjective. If art is subjective, then what becomes of the critic? How do we know what to put in museums? What will be our cultural legacy? Jul 10 06 08:17 pm Link Sometimes when I see a work, I find myself angry at the content. I felt something, so it must be art... If I don't get some sort of feeling, or my attention isn't captured, then the message wasn't conveyed. Jul 10 06 08:20 pm Link HarveyT wrote: You mean like a parking ticket? I collect them. Jul 10 06 08:25 pm Link Art is anything you can get away with! Jul 10 06 08:28 pm Link What is "art", is a suitable subject for discusion in Art Appreciation 101. Elsewhere it is wasted breath. Jul 10 06 08:36 pm Link Art is life--emotions shared through love, hate, loss, passion...Some share their art through a camera, drawings, music, dancing...some even share their art through sex! Art cannot be defined with one true meaning. With each day the artist gets more creative, more expressive, more powerful--but only if it's real. To the admirer, art will forever be anything we men and women choose it to be, just as I choose words to be my art. Staying Creative Under The Lens - Jack Frost Jul 10 06 08:36 pm Link Stephen Dawson wrote: No, there are many good "art is.." definitions out there. "Art is a critique of the world" is a good one. It implies an intent and relating something to something. Jul 10 06 08:38 pm Link I think those who are interested in critiqing the creative expressions of others will define art in the context of their critique. For those interested in expressing their own creativity, all you really need to know is that art is. Or, as Bayles and Orland put it, "To the critic, art is a noun. ... To the artist, art is a verb." Jul 10 06 08:59 pm Link Jul 10 06 09:01 pm Link Tim Hammond wrote: I agree. More artn' less talk! Jul 10 06 09:05 pm Link Isys Entertainment wrote: Art is the creative extension of our humanity. Jul 10 06 09:08 pm Link GWC wrote: That is only part of it. If it is black and white, and one breast is showing, it might be art. If both breasts are showing, it is definately art. Jul 10 06 11:44 pm Link Art is a reflection of reality that has been filtered through human thought and emotion. Jul 10 06 11:53 pm Link D. Brian Nelson wrote: So the beautiful redwoods or waterfalls could not be considered art? Jul 10 06 11:56 pm Link I believe art is the depiction of one's mind onto a medium of some kind. The art in question can be beautiful, realistic, abstract, poorly done, or ugly. The quality of the art, and the feeling the piece provokes, is subjective; however, formal and academic standards can dictate how well the art was executed. The accuracy and skill of the artistry depends on how realistic the piece is to the artist's original "head image." If kept in mind, this philosophy does not allow for some to say, "Thatâs not art...," while others claim, "It's genius!" I've always taken offence to those who claim in a matter-of-fact way, "Thatâs not art!" That statement is a poor way of expressing one's distaste of a piece. It's a statement of fact where, due to the subjectivity of the medium, there is no "fact." Some have a very limited, uneducated view of art, yet they feel they can dictate what's art and what's not in an absolute statement. The better response to an unappealing piece would be: "I don't care for this piece or style," or even - "I don't like it." I believe art can also originate from happy accidents, as these can lead to a new vision, and be used to construct an original, mostly intended, piece. Jul 11 06 12:13 am Link Sad but true I have come to detest the term "art". Like the word love it is so cliche and abused. Me personaly, I am not interested in creating art, but I do want to make pictures that are both repulsive and desireous. What else is there? Jul 11 06 12:23 am Link Doug Harvey wrote: No, those would be considered "sublime," a category distinct from man-made "beauty." Art is something made by humanity. Jul 11 06 12:45 am Link jac3950 wrote: I like that Jul 11 06 09:24 am Link Yes ME TOO ART ... SHOWS WE WERE HERE suggests who we are /were immortality or a moments fun, a process or a result Art is life, like music Dec 05 06 12:37 am Link ChrisCorbettPhotography wrote: I think he also said "art is when I sign my name to something"..At least towards the end of his career he should have. Dec 05 06 12:40 am Link |
