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."

[Lucas M]

If we ever understood art, who would need us humans?
We would go the way of the dodo to be replaced by perfect selfrepairing robots.

[Greg Lockrey]

I don't know....but when I see some, I'll let you know.:D

[Jim Jirka]

There is Fine Art and Decorative Art. For me if it is fine art, it stirs me and intellectually engages me. I also have a tendency to delve into it more. Decorative art impresses me for a moment, without much time spent after the initial look.

[Walter Calahan]

It's the expression of analytical thinking about our humanity.

[Brian Ellis]

Why not just post links to the many other threads dealing with this seemingly never-ending topic?

[Jim Jirka]

One good thing about forums is that if you have a problem contributing to the topic, you can just move on.

[J. Gilbert Plantinga]

"Art is the creation of forms symbolic of human feeling."
-Suzanne Langer, _Feeling and Form_

[ljb0904]

Gee, Brian, why not say something useful if you're going to take the effort to post a complaint. Better yet, why don't you post a link? :-D

[ljb0904]

"Art is the creation of forms symbolic of human feeling."
-Suzanne Langer, _Feeling and Form_

Good one.

[John Kasaian]

Yous guys are all wrong---Art is a retired plumber. He's married to my wife's cousin Cheryl. I know this for a fact and I've got witnesses to prove it :D

[Greg Lockrey]

Why not just post links to the many other threads dealing with this seemingly never-ending topic?

And an opportunity to give a smart ass remark.:p

[ljb0904]

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

So it's just a chance to leave your mark? :D

[Steven Barall]

If you think that Wikipedia is going to help you define your world then there are probably some much more basic questions about your life that you ought to be looking into. See how much you can find out by tuning off your computer, getting off your ass and going outside and actually having some sort of real physical experience. It's all about finding out about your relationship to the world. Good luck. Cheers.

[steve barry]

wikipedia sucks....big time.

art is NOT in the eye of the beholder. avant-garde art is not subject to taste. decorator art - is all taste. thats peoples biggest problem with the "what is art" question. go to a museum, then go to 90% of the "art galleries" and if you don't notice a difference, maybe wikipedia is the place for you.

[ljb0904]

If you think that Wikipedia is going to help you define your world then there are probably some much more basic questions about your life that you ought to be looking into. See how much you can find out by tuning off your computer, getting off your ass and going outside and actually having some sort of real physical experience. It's all about finding out about your relationship to the world. Good luck. Cheers.

Well that was pretty rude, and having "real world experience" is obviously no help to your manners. Good luck answering your own basic questions

[Rob Champagne]

Art is the chronicle of culture.

[Mark Sawyer]

And someday the artists will all go on strike, depriving us of our culture...

[neil poulsen]

I like to think of art as a celebration of our creativity.

It's our creativity that does the most to define us within the animal kingdom.

[Bill_1856]

According to Sean Yates, ART is the guy who lives over the garage behind the bowling alley.

[EdWorkman]

Art is the emperor's new suit

[Asher Kelman]

I would like to offer my idea of what the nature of art is.

Art is some entertaining and communicative creation of man whereby some intent of the maker is carried with the work. It may be extraordinary by it's beaty, patterns, workmanshift and craft or else by the ideas it promotes celebrating or challenging ideas current in that society. It evokes a recapitualtion of feelings, reactions in viewers, each informed and so tuned individually by their own personality, education and experiences. Art which is more impressive tends to create a necessity to revisit and reexperience and promote and even a desire to possess rendering that art to have commerical worth. This latter process, powered by the art community allows some works to become commodities like money and popular like superstars. That in brief is what art is to my way of thinking.

Asher

[lostcoyote]

that's pretty good asher...

here's one - if it has not already been mentioned...

art is art in the eye of the beholder
value begins and ends there

[Asher Kelman]

that's pretty good asher...

here's one - if it has not already been mentioned...

art is art in the eye of the beholder
value begins and ends there

That sounds good and at first blush is reasonable.

Well I can pretty well agree with your first line that "art is art in the eye of the beholder", (except I'd say it's more experiential, multi-sensual involving far more than eyesight and visual sensory appreciation, and I'm not intending to be merely semantic).

The "Value", you mention, however is so much more complicated.

First there is the individual. He/she may need some experience or knowledge to sense, acknowledge or appreciate value and that therefore is very dependent on what factors are involving that persons life, how they feel at that time and where they are at.

The art museum or curator might look at the work based not on what they see but on what the work is as part of similar works or works that went before or followed.

A gallery or collector might simply value the work according to how much money it might fetch on resale as the work becomes a commodity. There what the owner sees in it with his/eyes is not as important as what value the market perceives ir represents as an investment.

So there is art, that we appreciate starting with what we see and feel and then art that is important in our culture and then art we can potentially make money with which I call ART there the word "value" is mainly driven by market-makers and marketers not necessarily aesthetic values that we might want! :)

[lostcoyote]

i didn't mean to imply that value was a one way street hinged at monetary value, although that is certainly a value people agree upon...

there is sentimantal value, asthetic value, emotional value... etc...

i wonder tho, do all of these qualifications of values still reside within the beholder and what has come to influence the beholders beliefs about values?

[Christopher Nisperos]

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...

Excellent. This is similar to my traditional response to this pointless question. What is art? Who cares! If a person —ostensibly, an "artist" (if, as Mark points out, he or she wants to call themself that)— creates something which someone else subsequently appreciates as art ... then it is art ...at least for that person and for whomever else appreciates it as art. Before that instant in time, it doesn't exist as such. Period.

Even dog turds, by the way, have probably been presented as art (if not food*). I supposed it has had its appreciators. Problem is, how to frame it?

Best,

Christopher
(PS* I once had a girlfriend whose cooking could have been described as "art" under this definition. Thank god for Swanson's frozen... on the other hand...oh, nevermind)

.. .. .. .. ..

[Alan Davenport]

Back in the halcyon days when everyone KNEW what art was, artists (guys like Da Vinci, Rembrandt, et al) usually had a wealthy patron who paid their expenses and kept them fed. If the artist's patron didn't like what the artist produced, the artist would no longer eat. Thus, artists quickly learned that "art" was whatever the patron liked.

Nowadays, we have taxpayer-supported art associations and, in Oregon, legally mandated expenditures (1% of new construction for public edifices) for artwork. Therefore, as a bona fide taxpayer, I am a patron of the arts.

Ergo (see para. 1,) if I like it, it's art and if I don't like it, it's not art.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

Some things are better not defined. Some forty years back there was a media guru a
Canadian named Marshall McLuhan (The Medium is the Massage) that said "Art is anything you can get away with", but Mr. Keath Richard of The Rolling Stones said
"Art is short for Arthur"