As an artist, I often find myself wondering what makes art art. At what point is something purely materials, and at what point is it art? I know of plenty of art pieces, which in my opinion, are quite genius, while others could not even think of them as art. After a long time of thinking it over, I came to my conclusion that my personal definition for art is that it is something that was intentionally created for the purpose of being art. So basically, if the artist says it is art, it is. Undeniably, my definition leaves a lot of room for interpretation. A key example is Duchamp’s Fountain. For those who do not know the piece, Duchamp simply purchased a urinal and signed it. Ever since, the previous urinal has been considered very prestigious art. This may alter my definition. Duchamp had no hand in creating the urinal, and all that he really did to it was put it into the context of art. Does this count?
If we were to stick my previous definition, the question is raised as to how much of the artist’s work is required to make it art. If I were to glue three sticks together and tie it to a balloon, would it be art? It is difficult to determine how much of the artist is needed to say that the artist actually created it.
Of course, everyone has their own ideas about what is art, which leaves us lacking in a common definition. Maybe a piece is only art when it is seen as art by someone. Maybe nothing is always art, but everything is sometimes. Even with this notion that everyone chooses what they consider art, I am still leery as to what I consider art.
Perspective and importance, percieved by the viewer or not, is art.
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
You bring up the question of what is art. It is kind of like asking what your favorite color is. My answer is in all the world there will be a infinite amount of answers an infinite amount of definitons and an infinite amount of artists who think they know. So with that in mind i think art is individual. it is what you decide it is. Like you said sometimes you just know, don't you? and sometimes you absolutely know it isn't. But i think the question of art reveals the power of opinion.
Glutenously yours,
Pasta Rasta
Individual=Perspective, from eaches perspective..
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
At first I just read the wat is art and responded, and you agreeed. I like how you write, like I do, Omnisciently, you question your own perspective, as well as anyones. So you sit in yours and everyone elses shoes your whole life like I do, but most people would never realize that about you, just as they dont with me. Nice birds eye isn't it?
---
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
I'm glad you like my style. I try to write from both my own perspective, as well as those of other peolpe's and question which one could be right, if one at all.
Thats why you like I, are fit(unlike most people) rulers or philosophers, we consider all sides to a problem. Nothing in this life is gonna challenge you much tho sorry to say..
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
you raise a good point my friend...but i once heard a quote from auguste rodin simply states "art is contemplation" and another great quote i heard just the other day "take down the masterpiece, and put up the art" i don't remember who say this but i think that the word "Art" is used not sparing enough i think that if it says something to the viewer/listener/reader then in my mind it is considered art.. therefore art is what it means to you you are the only one who can classify anything as "Art"
thats just my opinion
I think art has to be created first off. While a field of wildflowers is beautiful, I don't think it can be considered art. A picture of that field could be. An arrangement of tulips designed could be, but random tulips could not.
As far as the urinal, I'm not sure what to make of it. It was originally created to serve a functional purpose, not an aesthetic one. But the field of flowers itself was not created either (at least, not by man), and that can be made into art.
:idk:
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Is not every image you see a picture conveyed to your mind anyways, all a picture does is make someone else able to see the same angle you see as beautiful.
----
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
But we're not talking about beauty. We're talking about art. Things can be beautiful and not be considered art. Things can be likewise considered art, and not beautiful. The fact that the picture is created, in my mind, is what makes it art. an image in your mind cannot be art because it is not created in the physical world.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I believe art needs no material, most art forms there and then is conveyed.
Example, you write on song first in the brain then play it, its art once you've made it... but i do understand how you feel about art having to be available for an audience thats a common way of thinking of it, art is defined as a conscious arrangement or production, so doesn't need to necessarily be producted.
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
I certainly agree that music is art, but even the concerto in the composer's head can change before he or she writes it down and/or plays it. It isn't until it is written down that it has permanence, and certainly does no one any good stuck in the composer's head. While the art itself is not material, the way of creating it comes when it is written down on paper, or played for the first time.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
But I've had plenty of art in my head which found material later, and some that hasn't, art can be conscious, but its not really an art show or can really be realized other than by the composser until materialized. So technically, all art is art even before the moment the line is draw ;) definition wise, tho i do side with you on the need to display. Also I've invented things I will never draw for my own reasons, you can hold art you dont want a crowd to see...
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
so is art. Everyone can have their own interpretation of art. Why not?
I think writing is art. Styling hair can be art. Cooking can be art. It's absolutely limitless.
I can create something and find a dozen people that tell me it's art, and two dozen that tell me it's not. So is it art? I think it's up to whoever looks at it, and, of course, if I look at it, I can decide for myself if I do believe it to be art. But does believing that something's art make it art? Does it matter?
-Sonja :)
I didnt see this thread on the similar posts, but the discussion covered a lot of good ground.
http://www.progressiveu.org/001853-what-is-art
So, if you want to read...
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
Since I am also an artist I believe art can be classified as art by opinion. Good art and bad art are a different story. I think something that is created by someone, that is original should be considered art. But also it is the artist's opinion on whether it is considered art I guess. I find this kind of confessing also. The thing I have always wanted to know is how come people can classify things as good art and bad art because it is really just someone's opinion people have found some art work great while I think it is not so great. vica virsa.
Something people should know about:
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
I think "good art" can be art that effectively achieves its goal, be it to creat beauty or to get a message across, while "bad art" doesn't.
You have a very good point there and I think that is the best way to judge art.
I am here to inform and help:
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
i think once someone considers it art than it is. so pretty much anything can be art. even three sticks and a balloon can be apreciated by someone
~ <3 Breanne <3 ~
art is something created. a piece of canvas isnt really art because its blank- nothing special on it. hoever, if a picture of an angel was on it then itd be art because something was created on the canvas. some art looks pointless like 5 strokes on a canvas but some is very creative like dali's "St. George and the Dragon". different artists have different things that inspire them.