What is art? How would you define art? Can you even?

We as humans seem to be the only known species to fine, interprit and enjoy art. We see art in nature, sounds, vision. What part in our brain would cause us to do this? It obviously has nothing to do we any need of survival like most things can be traced to, or does it? Pretty bireds get the mate. Perhaps it's a way to find and attract a mate. Art through clothing? But then what are movies, games, music, pictures? You can't exactly wrap yourself in the Mona Lisa and ask for a shag right?

Perhaps it's just a freak gene that only humans have. Aliens might watch us and wonder why the hell we're drawing up different colours on a piece of paper, and why others would even bother to look at it.

Or maybe this is all pointless. Perhaps there is no real reason. Like our existance, we'll never know why and we can never exaplane it. Damnit, why does even bug me?

Well the Tate say art is something that serves no purpose other than itself.
Something that does something useful is engineering while something engaging is entertainment.

Naturally, that Tate are a bunch of self serving, self important toffs.

I would say Art is anything that triggers an emotional response in people, although quite why it does that and who for is anyone's guess.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1245/1465986364_9310badd6c.jpg =natural art

In my opinion, art is something any given person finds aesthetically pleasing.

TomNook:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1245/1465986364_9310badd6c.jpg =natural art

In my opinion, art is something any given person finds aesthetically pleasing.

But that's the thing, why does it even please us? No other animal gives a damn about a pretty picture or an interesting noise.

PurpleRain:

TomNook:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1245/1465986364_9310badd6c.jpg =natural art

In my opinion, art is something any given person finds aesthetically pleasing.

But that's the thing, why does it even please us? No other animal gives a damn about a pretty picture or an interesting noise.

I guess it comes with our self awareness.

Indigo_Dingo:
In my opinion, Art is the conveying of a sophisticated experience, emotion or message. Censorship shouldn't apply to art, but when something is not art, it should be censored. Examples of non-art that should be censored include Big Brother.

Where does one draw the line? I'm sure Big Brother has loads of fans who consider it a masterpiece of modern culture.

Indigo_Dingo:

TomNook:

Indigo_Dingo:
In my opinion, Art is the conveying of a sophisticated experience, emotion or message. Censorship shouldn't apply to art, but when something is not art, it should be censored. Examples of non-art that should be censored include Big Brother.

Where does one draw the line? I'm sure Big Brother has loads of fans who consider it a masterpiece of modern culture.

This is Big Brother we're talking about, right? I'm sure thoise fans probably couldn't even spell modern culture

It doesn't matter, some politician probably thinks the same about us. He could use the exact argument to justify a video game band or that games like porn law.

PurpleRain:
But that's the thing, why does it even please us? No other animal gives a damn about a pretty picture or an interesting noise.

What about Bowerbirds? The males spend phenomenal amounts of time building their bower, then spread blue things around it in an almost obsessive compulsive manner, and then the female inspects it and chooses the bird whose bower she likes best. Perhaps not a great example but they must like or appreciate something about it to keep doing it.

Novajam:

PurpleRain:
But that's the thing, why does it even please us? No other animal gives a damn about a pretty picture or an interesting noise.

What about Bowerbirds? The males spend phenomenal amounts of time building their bower, then spread blue things around it in an almost obsessive compulsive manner, and then the female inspects it and chooses the bird whose bower she likes best. Perhaps not a great example but they must like or appreciate something about it to keep doing it.

Its a mating ritual, the male with the best bower gets the girl.

TomNook:

Novajam:

PurpleRain:
But that's the thing, why does it even please us? No other animal gives a damn about a pretty picture or an interesting noise.

What about Bowerbirds? The males spend phenomenal amounts of time building their bower, then spread blue things around it in an almost obsessive compulsive manner, and then the female inspects it and chooses the bird whose bower she likes best. Perhaps not a great example but they must like or appreciate something about it to keep doing it.

Its a mating ritual, the male with the best bower gets the girl.

Yes, But I'm arguing the point that animals other than humans can consider something art with the argument that bowerbirds must appreciate the art of bower making since it's so interwoven into their mating ritual and since they put such amounts of detail into them. Again, I'm making obscure references, clutching at straws, all that.

More to the point, I'd say art is whatever you want it to be. If you think it's art, then that should be good enough for you. For example, I've usually got a folded up piece of paper that I use like a disposable coaster. But I'm always drawing little stars and lines and squiggles all over it. I think It looks cool sometimes. But my dad probably thinks it's trash. Manky trash.

[captainobvious]Art is subjective, thus, it is whatever you believe it to be.[/captainobvious]

Art is so broad and personal and subjective that one person's definition will never be accepted as THE definition. That said, given that I have had experience of a Fine Arts Degree, I would say that you are actually asking the wrong question. Since the 1900s the Modernist movement has repeatedly tried to challenge society's idea of what constitutes art. This is often referred to as 'The Shock of the New'.

I have come to regard this as 'Novelty Art'. Whilst I cannot refute that it is art I don't feel I have to waste my time engaging with it...

So, I would recommend that you all stop asking the question "Is it Art?' and instead start asking the question 'Is it any good?'

In my opinion art is anything attractive, if it draws your eye and you just want to look at it I would consider it art. Really art is whatever you consider to be art, for example to me "modern art" Is just people that are too lazy to make real pictures, whereas others think its deep and meaningful.

to quote the great Oscar Wilde:

"We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless."

Art is anything that elicits an emotional response from a person. The reason it is subjective is because we all have different things that press our buttons. We get these specific buttons to be pressed from life's experiences. In my opinion, our appreciation of art comes from emotional responses we train ourselves to go through when exposed to certain objects or concepts, being the wannabe engineer that I am, I consider nuclear reactor to be a work of art simply because I've just got a thing for physics. To me, that object represents man's intellectual prowess and ability to manipulate matter as he wishes, thus it evokes a pretty strong response when I think about it. Visually it is not pleasing, however, I feel that what the object means, has a greater impact on our perception of art than photons bouncing off our eyes.

art is anything someone calls art.
and when it's made by women it has far too much nudity, tampons, the pill, used condoms, blood, and vaginas to be anything worthwhile.

l33tabix:
art is anything someone calls art.
and when it's made by women blah dee blah

I want to say.. sexist.

I love making art, I draw all the time and some of the time, people don't think my wacky scribbles and doodles are all that interesting, I don't care. It's fun!
I wish I could do more art in more fields, like music, dance or paint but I can't. Regardless, I am quite content with drawing in addition to my awesome Photoshop skillz.
Behold!

I could put some grapes in a bottle of water adn it would be called art.
Art is my friend...no really my friend is named Art

Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: \ˈärt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars - more at arm
Date: 13th century
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts barchaic : learning, scholarship
3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art
5 aarchaic : a skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful
6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter

I went through a visual aesthetic class in college in which 'What is art?' was the question the whole class was based on.

We started with the first written theories of Plato and Aristotle, read through the evilness that is Kant, and went through other artists and teachers, and after going through different philosophies on the subject we were to write a massive paper about our own conclusion, as it was explained by the teacher:

" Art cannot be defined so easily- no word should be defined by using that word in the definition, and with art and other abstract ideas such as love; it is difficult, if not impossible to define them with any real satisfaction."

Some in their presentations said that art can't be defined and we should just stop trying- others said that it was anything that a person could pick up and change, others said it was that which the artist intended to be art... the list goes on. But each definition had it's own flaw, and didn't take everything into account. Is what a child scribbles down considered art? What about an elephant painting? A toilet on display in an art show- it wasn't changed by the artist, only found and presented as art. What about theater? Dance? There was a woman who pulled a scroll from her vagina and started reading poetry from it... performance art, is that art? Who decides what is art, the people or the artist? Then who is an artist, someone who's been schooled or someone with the natural 'gift'? A well done advertisement in a magazine... is it art or just an ad? Does art have purpose, or is it just there to be 'pretty'?

The answer you seek is not easy, and you cannot have other people decide for you really. It's like defining love, every person has a different experience with it and relates to it differently... thus they define it differently. I could tell you my own theory, but it's not really relevant to you except for comparison, though I will say that perhaps it is through art that we can find relevance- a creative outlet displaying our purpose. Even if you are considered 'bad' or too young, we all have a need to create something, fix something, bring something to the light.

I don't believe in freak genes.

Art is something drawn/painted/whatever that has a very good resemblance to actual things. Like landscapes, or portraits, not random splatters of paint or the vast majority of modern art. Picasso, and other abstract artists, are however, an exception.

It is simply in human nature to find and appreciate art, but each has his own idea of what art is. Someone could create art accidentally, and another could try, and it would not be art to them

TomNook:

Novajam:

PurpleRain:
But that's the thing, why does it even please us? No other animal gives a damn about a pretty picture or an interesting noise.

What about Bowerbirds? The males spend phenomenal amounts of time building their bower, then spread blue things around it in an almost obsessive compulsive manner, and then the female inspects it and chooses the bird whose bower she likes best. Perhaps not a great example but they must like or appreciate something about it to keep doing it.

Its a mating ritual, the male with the best bower gets the girl.

Obviously you've never been in a band :D

Anyway, I am somewhat annoyed when people compare humans to other animals because, to our current knowledge, we are the only sentient life-form on this planet, and play by a slightly different set of rules in our ways of thinking.

Art is anything you want it to be, defining it would be like putting down a set barrier on human thought and creativity.

It's been mentioned before, but I suppose art is something which elicits an emotion or meaningful response from an individual. That definition covers pretty much all types of art: prose, poetry, theatre, performance art, music, sculpture, etc.

Trying to find a more precise definition seems rather useless - a narrow definition won't fit an infinitely broad field.

Uncompetative:
Art is so broad and personal and subjective that one person's definition will never be accepted as THE definition. That said, given that I have had experience of a Fine Arts Degree, I would say that you are actually asking the wrong question. Since the 1900s the Modernist movement has repeatedly tried to challenge society's idea of what constitutes art. This is often referred to as 'The Shock of the New'.

I have come to regard this as 'Novelty Art'. Whilst I cannot refute that it is art I don't feel I have to waste my time engaging with it...

So, I would recommend that you all stop asking the question "Is it Art?' and instead start asking the question 'Is it any good?'

But even art that is not good can still hold some artistic merit. Much of what we define as folk art lacks seriously in such areas as execution and unity of theme, but still manages to get its ideas and/or emotions across quite handily. So although it may not be "good" art, it is still art with merit.

Thais:

Uncompetative:
Art is so broad and personal and subjective that one person's definition will never be accepted as THE definition. That said, given that I have had experience of a Fine Arts Degree, I would say that you are actually asking the wrong question. Since the 1900s the Modernist movement has repeatedly tried to challenge society's idea of what constitutes art. This is often referred to as 'The Shock of the New'.

I have come to regard this as 'Novelty Art'. Whilst I cannot refute that it is art I don't feel I have to waste my time engaging with it...

So, I would recommend that you all stop asking the question "Is it Art?' and instead start asking the question 'Is it any good?'

But even art that is not good can still hold some artistic merit. Much of what we define as folk art lacks seriously in such areas as execution and unity of theme, but still manages to get its ideas and/or emotions across quite handily. So although it may not be "good" art, it is still art with merit.

That, in turn, depends on how you define what is 'good'. Would an arrangement of Big Brother recordings be a better expression of the zeitgeist than a compilation CNN broadcasts used for the same purpose?

Art that is unequivocally terrible is very important, though, for the express reason that it shows us what not to do. As long as bad art is recognized as being bad, it helps artists to grow and improve.

Of course, when rubes think something terrible is good, that lowers everyone's standards, and culture becomes steeped in mediocrity. Cue the nasty glances at the Halo series, Oblivion, etc.

Saevus:

Thais:

Uncompetative:
Art is so broad and personal and subjective that one person's definition will never be accepted as THE definition. That said, given that I have had experience of a Fine Arts Degree, I would say that you are actually asking the wrong question. Since the 1900s the Modernist movement has repeatedly tried to challenge society's idea of what constitutes art. This is often referred to as 'The Shock of the New'.

I have come to regard this as 'Novelty Art'. Whilst I cannot refute that it is art I don't feel I have to waste my time engaging with it...

So, I would recommend that you all stop asking the question "Is it Art?' and instead start asking the question 'Is it any good?'

But even art that is not good can still hold some artistic merit. Much of what we define as folk art lacks seriously in such areas as execution and unity of theme, but still manages to get its ideas and/or emotions across quite handily. So although it may not be "good" art, it is still art with merit.

That, in turn, depends on how you define what is 'good'. Would an arrangement of Big Brother recordings be a better expression of the zeitgeist than a compilation CNN broadcasts used for the same purpose?

Art that is unequivocally terrible is very important, though, for the express reason that it shows us what not to do. As long as bad art is recognized as being bad, it helps artists to grow and improve.

Of course, when rubes think something terrible is good, that lowers everyone's standards, and culture becomes steeped in mediocrity. Cue the nasty glances at the Halo series, Oblivion, etc.

You're not addressing the comment. I wasn't saying that some art is good and some art is bad, all I'm saying that even art that is judged to be "bad" can still have artistic merit.

(and a television show where you lock 8 people in a room and set them at each other's throats is art how?)

Thais:

Saevus:

Thais:

Uncompetative:
Art is so broad and personal and subjective that one person's definition will never be accepted as THE definition. That said, given that I have had experience of a Fine Arts Degree, I would say that you are actually asking the wrong question. Since the 1900s the Modernist movement has repeatedly tried to challenge society's idea of what constitutes art. This is often referred to as 'The Shock of the New'.

I have come to regard this as 'Novelty Art'. Whilst I cannot refute that it is art I don't feel I have to waste my time engaging with it...

So, I would recommend that you all stop asking the question "Is it Art?' and instead start asking the question 'Is it any good?'

But even art that is not good can still hold some artistic merit. Much of what we define as folk art lacks seriously in such areas as execution and unity of theme, but still manages to get its ideas and/or emotions across quite handily. So although it may not be "good" art, it is still art with merit.

That, in turn, depends on how you define what is 'good'. Would an arrangement of Big Brother recordings be a better expression of the zeitgeist than a compilation CNN broadcasts used for the same purpose?

Art that is unequivocally terrible is very important, though, for the express reason that it shows us what not to do. As long as bad art is recognized as being bad, it helps artists to grow and improve.

Of course, when rubes think something terrible is good, that lowers everyone's standards, and culture becomes steeped in mediocrity. Cue the nasty glances at the Halo series, Oblivion, etc.

You're not addressing the comment. I wasn't saying that some art is good and some art is bad, all I'm saying that even art that is judged to be "bad" can still have artistic merit.

(and a television show where you lock 8 people in a room and set them at each other's throats is art how?)

My intention was to concur that art always has some sort of merit. Art is supposed to intrinsically have merit if it is 'good', but bad art, too, has merit (though perhaps in a different manner).

And imagine how informative said television show would be if it was examined a century from now in the context of demonstrating how decadent and depraved the Western world was at the new millennium - that was my thought. CNN would show the role and impact of the media in people's lives at the time period, how it blended 'reality' with a perverse sort of entertainment. Whether it's of artistic or historical value is a substantially blurred line, as I more or less pulled the example out of thin air without consideration.

Saevus:

[Thais:]
[Saevus:]
[Thais:]
[Uncompetative: blah blah blah we all said a lot of stuff and then we got here:]

And imagine how informative said television show would be if it was examined a century from now in the context of demonstrating how decadent and depraved the Western world was at the new millennium - that was my thought. CNN would show the role and impact of the media in people's lives at the time period, how it blended 'reality' with a perverse sort of entertainment. Whether it's of artistic or historical value is a substantially blurred line, as I more or less pulled the example out of thin air without consideration.

I'd argue more for Big Brother and other "personality driven" reality shows to me more a psychological experiment than anything to do with art, culture or history. The question of "how far will you go to win" seems to be the predominant one.

Honestly I can't tell art and trash apart.
How come when I put a tin can on a pedestal it's trash, but when someone else does it it's "art"