What is art?

[ljb0904]

The argument on Kincade being art has me thinking and wondering what members' definition of art is. I'm going to be a little sarcastic here on purpose, so please laugh, but I'd really like to hear what your real thoughts are.

What is art?

Is it only art if it gives you a figurative kick in the balls?
Is it only art if it shows you the refuse of modern society?
Is it only art if it shows you the dilapidated past?
Is it only art if you can't understand it without an art degree?
Is it only art if it makes you feel nauseous?
Is it only art if it's something done in a new and novel way?
Is it only art if it's unpopular?
Is it only art if you don't or can't sell it?

I'm actually really trying to understand this. I'm reading the Wikipedia pages, on art, fine art, modernism, postmodernism, etc. and all the definitions are circular, make no sense at all, and don't say anything except that movement A is a reaction to movement B which was a reaction to movement C... Which in all honesty simply sounds like a bunch of teenagers rebelling against their parents.

However,

"Effective art often brings about some new insight concerning the human condition either singly or en-mass, which is not necessarily always positive, or necessarily widens the boundaries of collective human ability." [from Art, on Wikipedia]

This I understand and somewhat agree with. Tell me what you think it is.

[paulr]

Let's hear from the experts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDo_vs3Aip4

[jetcode]

Let's hear from the experts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDo_vs3Aip4

yeah! - this is a great video and quite honestly the animations are glorious

[Bruce Watson]

"Effective art often brings about some new insight concerning the human condition either singly or en-mass, which is not necessarily always positive, or necessarily widens the boundaries of collective human ability." [from Art, on Wikipedia]

I have serious reservations about this definition. Not all art is or has to be about bringing new insights into the human condition. Some art is just about beauty. For example, just about any music that Mozart created.

One could argue that Mozart's music does give new insight into the human condition I suppose. It would perhaps be a bit of a stretch. One could say, for example, that it shows the yearning of a young alcoholic wanna-be playboy for something better. And maybe it does. But when you listen to the music does it make you experience this? Or does it just loose you in a complex world of melody, harmony, and rhythm? From reading some of his published letters it's clear to me that Mozart himself thought his music was just about beauty.

For me it is art if it can engage my mind enough to transport me away from my personal cares and focus my mind on itself, even if only for a few seconds. The better it can do this, the better the art is. Art that can stay in my mind and keep me thinking about it even when I'm not in its presence is good art indeed.

Art that focuses on human misery, stupidity, wastefulness, cruelty, etc. tends to fail at this. Art that focuses on beauty, creation, possibility, etc. tends to succeed at this. For me.

What art is for someone else I can not say.

[Dick Hilker]

Could art be the voice we use to express what would otherwise not be possible? It might take many forms and appeal to many senses, but the constant running through it would appear to be its ability to reveal the ineffable.

It seems to me that much of the photography that seeks to reveal the "human condition" does little more than exploit the suffering of others in the name of art. At what point can pictorializing the homeless be considered art? When it touches our hearts and gives us a deeper understanding of what misery's about?

Is a pretty picture of a pastoral setting really art if it only decorates our room? Regardless of the medium, can anything that doesn't "open a door" for us qualify as real art?

[jetcode]

What moves me in the moment is art - the art of dialogue, the art of music, the art of dining, the art of imaging, the art of [insert here] - can anyone realistically define "art"? I truly have difficulty with the concept as I know what I like and don't like and the rest is simply expression. Who is to say there is no art in the lack of movement or inspiration?

[Kevin Convery]

I consider art to be any type of creative process(painting, sculpting, music, photography, blah blah) that forces a response from the viewer at some emotional level. Be it positive or negative, as long as there is a reaction. Kincade's work can certainly be tagged as art because he is using some sort of craft or skill to produce something for others to view and think about. You have a response to his work, the general population thinks its lovely and inspiring while most other 'artists' think its crap. Its something that everyone can react to on their own level.

[Mark Sawyer]

I think there are two possibilities, and one doesn't necessarily deny the other...

1.) It is art if the person who creates it calls it art.

2.) It is art if the audience considers it art.

Beyond that, there is simply the critic's taste in art. So Kincade's work is art if you consider it art, in much the same way a dog turd is food if you eat it...

[ljb0904]

Good answers so far, and it pretty much confirms my belief that those who attempt define art are merely people with the power of gab rather than gifted insight or wisdom. I'll have to watch the youtube later, I'm firewalled.

Bruce, I'm with you, but I don't have reservations on that statement because of the qualifier. The definer states it "often brings" which means not always. Still life can be art, yet I don't see any statement made on the human condition by a banana, orange, and egg slicer. Still could be nice to look at, tho.

[Bruce Watson]

Good answers so far, and it pretty much confirms my belief that those who attempt define art are merely people with the power of gab rather than gifted insight or wisdom. I'll have to watch the youtube later, I'm firewalled.

Bruce, I'm with you, but I don't have reservations on that statement because of the qualifier. The definer states it "often brings" which means not always. Still life can be art, yet I don't see any statement made on the human condition by a banana, orange, and egg slicer. Still could be nice to look at, tho.

Ah, my bad. Didn't see (or it just didn't register) the use of the word "often." In that case I don't have such a problem with it.

What it all comes down to is that ancient idea that paraphrases as: "Art is in the eye of the beholder."