PDA

View Full Version : What is Art?



Edmond
10-02-2005, 02:14 AM
I have a good question

What is Art?

Yesterday, my teacher took a pencil from my me and asked is this art? And the whole class wasn't able to give a straight answer, perhaps in this forum some hidden intellectual can show me the answer

I want to listen to what you guys think, then post my own opinion

Lauralou
10-02-2005, 02:37 AM
I think a pencil is art; as a small child I'd beg my mother to buy me the fancy pencils because I thought they were pretty. To me art is anything a human being consciously creates be it objects, drawings, writing, music, or movement. Just because a pencil seems common place doesn't take away the fact that it was designed by people which make it a work of art. However this is just my opinion I'm sure many people would disagree.

samercury
10-02-2005, 08:24 AM
I agree Lauralou. Art can be anything and everything- it doesn't have to be designed. A pencil qualifies as art in my opinion. Just take a look at one- they're so facinating...

blp
10-03-2005, 12:11 PM
There's a nice passage about a pencil in 'Transparent Things' by Nabokov. For me, that passage is art, but not the pencil itself. Commonplace subject matter is excellent for art. Really interesting subject matter stands on its own and doesn't leave enough for art to do.

Yes, a pencil can be fascinating to look at. So can the surface of a desk or the marks on a window pane or any number of seemingly simple objects. But art is artifice. You take these things or any things and frame them in a way and talk about them in a way that provides the interest, even in the absence of the actuality of those things. You find relationships between different things, or create them, for instance.

There's a strain of 20th Century art, beginning, fairly decisively, with Duchamp, that makes the things present, that uses the objects, largely unmodified, as the artwork. The artwork arrives 'readymade' for the artist by industrial processes. Duchamp chose objects that were largely dull, mass produced, lacking aesthetic qualities, easy to purchase in ordinary stores, and called them artworks. Sometimes he made tiny changes to them, buying a shovel and writing the title on the handle: 'in advance of the broken arm', mounting a bicycle wheel on a stool or signing a urinal with the pseudonym R. Mutt. Sometimes he made no changes at all. But Duchamp's readymades do not seem to function as objects of contemplation. The point is not to say that anything can be fascinating if you look at it enough, therefore an artwork. The point is still to talk about systems of relations between objects - between the readymades, their processes of creation, viewers and purchasers of art and their expectations and the artist. Although the objects are made present, they still, like more traditional artworks, point to things that are absent, notably the artist who is pointed to particularly strongly as the one who has designated the object an artwork.

Edmond
10-03-2005, 12:58 PM
I am glad to see the Duchamp in the post, yesterday I came up with a shortlist, this list tells you whether something is An Art work or not

1. Has to exist
2. Must have Romantic quality
3. Romantic quality must be higher then classical quality
4. Must be created by a human(s), (computers, pencils, etc are mediums)
5. Must have a purpose, "to have no purpose" like Duchamp is also to have a purpose
6. Must invoke a human thought process, emotion.

This is the list for those of you who wants to have only one definition of Art, but there is another answer, Art is subjective, what ever your opinion on art is, that consititute your definition of Art.

It is kind of pointless really, which is what's so neat about philosophy

Aurora Ariel
10-04-2005, 10:43 AM
Does anyone have any thoughts on Tolstoy's, What is Art?
He writes ( p 50) from What is Art?: 'To evoke in oneself a feeling one had experienced, and having invoked it in oneself, then, by means of movements, lines, colours, sounds or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling that others may experience the same feeling- this is the activity of art.Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one may consciously, by means of certain external signs, hand on to others the feelings he lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings, and also experience then.'

'Tolstoy thinks that poets and other artists in some way infect those
who read or see their productions with feelings which these productions portray.'

I first read this about 6 months ago, but what do you think about these comments of Tolstoy?Do poets infect you in some way?What is the spirit of poetry?An essence of immortality or web of thoughts?Is something fading or been grown?Is there a forgotten Spirit of Love and Beauty?The best poetry never decays as it survives different forces and is still read.I've read other comments about the theory of art from others, but this one came to mind.

subterranean
10-04-2005, 08:13 PM
I agree with you Ariel. I think we don't just create our own definitions of art, the definition we have, may influence by our fav authors, poets, musicians, painters, etc. Also, our values and norms may also interfere in our "judgement". Ok, a pencil on a table can be considered as a form of art by some people, but for others it is nothing. A picture of a naked woman can be called an artowrk, but for people who have strong religious backgrounds, may considered it as inapproriate. We have one case here, in my country, where a local actor modelled almost naked in a phot exhibition, and the result: is few people considered the pose as art and many scold him and demand an apology from him for breaking "eaastern" values (in this case politeness). Though I don't really agree with the things listed by Edmon, but I agree that there are special guidelines to determine something as an art or not.

Everyone can write poem or sing, but not everyone can be a poet/singer

Edmond
10-05-2005, 11:22 AM
This conversation hasn't been going anywhere, you guys still didn
t explain what Art is, my list is a way to actualy make the subjective definition into something all people can understand. Now let's carry the conversation further, is Art a product of the artist, or a product of the Audience?

blp
10-05-2005, 01:02 PM
In Jean Luc Godard's film 'Pierrot le Fou', the American film director Samuel Fuller is asked why he makes films and replies 'Emotion'.

In Joyce's 'A Portrait of the Artist as Young Man', Stephen Daedalus posits the question of whether if a man hacks away randomly at a piece of wood with an axe and accidentally produces a perfect sculpture of a cow's head, it should be considered art.

In 'The Critique of Pure Reason', Kant makes a distinction between A priori truths, which are eternal and do not depend on evidentiary proof or experience to be known and empirical truths, which do. Discussing attempts to devise a scientific system for the achievement of artistic beauty, he says it's impossible because artistic beauty is inextricably linked with the empirical, which is changeable, not eternal. I think that's what he says anyway. It's a really hard read.

Pendragon
10-05-2005, 01:18 PM
Art is a form of communication. When the artist manages to convey their intermost feelings through their chosen mediea to their chosen audience, then that is art. If you cannot feel the emotion of the moment, the expression of the artist, then perhaps they were not creating this particuliar work for you, but for someone else. When I write poetry or songs they don't say the same thing to everyone, and some of my darker poetry might be termed "shocking". But to others it may convey the emotions and feelings I felt as I wrote, thus making art out of words.

subterranean
10-05-2005, 08:20 PM
IMO, someone produces something and people(in your term "audience") who see/listen/touch/use it, give that product a value. The value may vary, which depends on each audience social/educational/political/religious/cultural backgrounds.


is Art a product of the artist, or a product of the Audience?

Edmond
10-07-2005, 01:02 PM
better, my opinion is kind a fusion of your opinions, i kept trying to convincing my peers that Art is a language, that conveys emotions and thoughts, if you think about it, this definition applies for all the art that I know of, so art should be independent of the Audience, it should be art just because of the creator. But, my teacher brought up Commedia Dell'arte, where the actors actually creates emotions, body language, and stick only loosely to the script, so are the actors making "art"?

lep250
10-07-2005, 11:47 PM
A great book to read in your inquiry on the definition of art is Lewis Hyde's, "Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property." Hyde believes that art is a gift and there are 3 forms of the gift that function in the completion of a piece. The first is the initial thought of that artist or creative idea, the second is the ability to create the work, and the third is the final product or piece of canvas/published text.

subterranean
10-09-2005, 07:44 PM
My avatar is a painting by E. E. Cummings in title of "Nude Trio". Now, when you look at it, do you consider it as art or not?
I give value to this painting and yes, to use your term, I feel something when I see it thus I decided to have it as my avatar. Same feelings applied when I choose Salvador Dali's painting and used it as my previous avatar.
So how can it be independent of the audience?
In the sense of production, I do think that some artists created something out of audience's values, means they produced what they wanted to produced regardless of the audience's expectations.. In this case, they are independent from the audience.
But that's just what I think as my knowledge is very limited in this area.



better, my opinion is kind a fusion of your opinions, i kept trying to convincing my peers that Art is a language, that conveys emotions and thoughts, if you think about it, this definition applies for all the art that I know of, so art should be independent of the Audience, it should be art just because of the creator..

blp
10-10-2005, 08:01 AM
Hyde believes that art is a gift and there are 3 forms of the gift that function in the completion of a piece. The first is the initial thought of that artist or creative idea, the second is the ability to create the work, and the third is the final product or piece of canvas/published text.
The idea of art as a gift goes a long way, though probably not all the way to defining art. I'm not sure what the three stages tell us though. In some ways it just seems to be stating the obvious. But then also, there are plenty of instances where the demarcations between those stages break down, e.g. when a painter or poet doesn't start with any idea, but finds the work in the making of it or when that kind of process is presented as the work by a performance artist.

Edmond, the idea that art is a language seems to me to have problems. It's true that art's a network of relations and probably true that it's used for communication - probably - but a language is something one acquires and then largely takes for granted. Artists seem to have to keep finding new forms or making old ones new and often this process is one that deliberately thwarts obvious readings, hence, it would seem, opposes communication. Of course, you never really stop communicating until you're dead or in a vegetative state, so even if some art appears to aspire to this muteness (late Beckett perhaps or Robert Morris), it's still communicating something about this aspiration. OK, so there's probably always a communication and a gift, even if it's only the artist communicating with themselves (e.g. Emily Dickinson), but even if they're a writer and using language, you might just as easily say that their efforts point to the inadequacy of language for certain communications and the need for something else that is not language. Not language, but art. This might be short for artfulness, which is to say, a certain cunning.

starrwriter
10-27-2005, 03:37 PM
Here's a novel answer to the question:

Art is any creation in which a large amount of mana is invested. Not the Biblical manna from heaven, but mana as understood by the native cultures of Hawaii (where I live) and other Pacific islands.

To them mana is a personal kind of power that only a few people possess. They are either born with it or develop it in the course of their lives. Mana is spiritual energy manifested in physical reality. It assumes different forms -- purely artistic, social, political, etc. A person's life itself can be a work of art if it expresses enough mana.

Countess
10-27-2005, 04:02 PM
Mana is also considered a Jung archetype:

You must understand that these archetypes are not really biological things, like Freud's instincts. They are more spiritual demands. For example, if you dreamt about long things, Freud might suggest these things represent the phallus and ultimately sex. But Jung might have a very different interpretation. Even dreaming quite specifically about a penis might not have much to do with some unfulfilled need for sex.

It is curious that in primitive societies, phallic symbols do not usually refer to sex at all. They usually symbolize mana, or spiritual power. These symbols would be displayed on occasions when the spirits are being called upon to increase the yield of corn, or fish, or to heal someone. The connection between the penis and strength, between semen and seed, between fertilization and fertility are understood by most cultures.

Countess
10-27-2005, 04:04 PM
PS: What is the definition of art?

My answer: I don't know but I know it when I see it. (-;

Union Jack
10-29-2005, 01:35 PM
Art is an experience displayed.

starrwriter
10-29-2005, 02:12 PM
Art is an experience displayed.
Too simple a definition. The experience is transformed by many factors before it is displayed.

Union Jack
10-29-2005, 02:18 PM
Too simple a definition. The experience is transformed by many factors before it is displayed.
Is it? Is the experience itself transformed? Or is the representation of it? Our "view" of an experience may change upon further thoguth, but the experience itself does not, merely our perception of it.
Thus my staement would now read, "Art is a perception of experience displayed"

Union Jack
10-31-2005, 04:57 PM
oops double post.

Countess
10-31-2005, 05:59 PM
Re: Milton's Paradise Lost.

My only caveate is that man's fall was always a part of God's plan, the reason being he was ready to provide the redemption (himself/Christ), and this is the means by which he calls people into a relationship wtih himself.

Countess

BSturdy
10-31-2005, 09:41 PM
In my (hastily formed opinion): Duchamp was a charismatic genius but he became increasingly paranoid obsessive and cynical.

The legacy of this has been a dearth of empty pointless nonsense.
Of course the myopic commerciality of the major art galleries has lead to installations being embraced for the obvious advantages

The tightrope puzzle of existence cannot be taken on vaguely: this leads to vexation, vertigo, very high prices

Countess - just stirring the debate - can art be heard? Or felt or imagined?

BSturdy
10-31-2005, 10:09 PM
Art is against commerciality, art can also be the devil's advocate

Art is selfless creation

starrwriter
11-01-2005, 12:53 AM
Art is selfless creation.
Surely, you jest. The artist injects his self into every facet of his creation. Utilitarian philosophy is nonsense when applied to art. It's one step away from subjugating art to social/political "relevance," as happened in the Soviet Union.

MiSaNtHrOpE
11-01-2005, 10:16 AM
Art is something universal, with powerful symbolic meaning in which deep emotion is experienced by the audience.

LEGION
11-01-2005, 11:39 PM
yeah

I think the pencil from the art , becouse each thing has benefits and is created by human's hands is from the art .

don't forget no art without pencil or any other pen .

by it , we can paint , write poems , write any history , and aslo any
events and writings can by involved in the art.

Beginnings of the art was by pen , becouse in the past wasn't computers.

el01ks
11-02-2005, 05:10 AM
Art is completely subjective. For example, some people assert that something isn't art because they don't find it attractive. Art is whatever the artist says is his art, and whatever an audience is prepared to accept. I personally see nothing artistic in balancing a chair on a toilet, for example, or half a cow, or an elephant made out of faeces, but modern artists and their admirers would disagree.

NewWorldOrder
11-02-2005, 12:37 PM
Why a tree is more beautiful than a building ? Because the tree has a hidden fractal multidimensional order whereas the building has one straight linear order: that is my "scientific" explanation :)

starrwriter
11-02-2005, 01:53 PM
an elephant made out of faeces ...
That kind of art is crappy.
Never mind.

ThatIndividual
11-02-2005, 02:13 PM
"Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest."

"Art raises its head where creeds relax."


"Art is the proper task of life."

-- Friederich Nietzsche

starrwriter
11-02-2005, 03:28 PM
Maybe I'm a philistine, but I don't have any appreciation for monumental architecture as a form of art. The pyramids of Egypt would bore me to tears as would the Greek Parthenon, the Great Wall of China, etc.

Monumental architecture is political ego carved into stone, often by slaves. It tries to defy gravity by sheer size -- as if it were a home to the gods. Real art confines itself to a human scale.

NewWorldOrder
11-03-2005, 04:28 AM
Maybe I'm a philistine, but I don't have any appreciation for monumental architecture as a form of art. The pyramids of Egypt would bore me to tears as would the Greek Parthenon, the Great Wall of China, etc.

Monumental architecture is political ego carved into stone, often by slaves. It tries to defy gravity by sheer size -- as if it were a home to the gods. Real art confines itself to a human scale.

I have defined Art as hidden Order, if you don't perceive this hidden order it is because this is not in the appearance of things, it is in the conception, in the design. Order is about Architecture. Nature has an architecture which is the use of fractality to reproduce the same design at different scale and you can find this also in art. The golden number is often found in nature, art introduced this number because of that, and the pyramid is full of this golden number.

And if you are studying politics, well you can also be amazed by the hidden architecture that has been set up since 200 hundred years see for example here: the architecture of Modern Political Power
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/

For example the appearance is to make you believe that two forces oppose capitalism and communism whereas in truth the two are forged by the same architectural power and rehearse each other because profits come from confrontation, the most evidence of this is stock market: chaos generates transfer of wealth from the vast majority to the minorities. This is "beautiful" art of power that most people cannot perceive morally it is ugly since it's about crushing people and make them economic slaves.

pcockey
11-03-2005, 09:54 AM
Art is what is unnecessary for life, yet makes life worth living.

jessezzel
02-06-2006, 04:13 PM
in my opinion art is creativity so anything that is CREATED is art.

Xamonas Chegwe
02-06-2006, 05:16 PM
Art is man's attempt to show others what he feels; to share his emotions; his sense of wonder, disgust, love, hate, the ridiculous, the sacred, the profane.

Art is art if it comes from the heart. "I'm a poet...and I know it." (Bob Dylan (Just the bit in quotes - the rest is all mine))

rachel
02-06-2006, 05:38 PM
To me art is something that is not naturally there and is an expression of your innermost feelings whether they are good bad indifferent put out there for others to share.

XXdarkclarityXX
02-06-2006, 10:57 PM
Art is anything which outwardly displays creativity and/or difference. Is something different from its surroundings or is made so by creative methods? I would call it art.

IrishCanadian
02-06-2006, 11:27 PM
I think ...
An "artist" is so when s/he does his/her trade with zeal for quenching his/her emotions however subtle they may be at the time (as grand as the death of a loved one or as simple as the need to write, paint etc.). An artist has power when he/she is engaged in the work. Writer's block is the opposite. Sometimes (And this is not a bad thing) the artwork takes over and creates itself as the artist as the medium for creation. These turn out the be the poems that no one likes but the author that finds it very close to him/her. Or the song that the writer crys to and everyone else doesn't understand. But then you get the art of people that we talk about in this forum (all those great writers) who, while having a relataionship with the work he/she is writing, have power over all the mediums and allow themselves to be taken over by the feelings that cause the art. In this way the work becomes perfectly structured (as wanted) for presentation while containing all the emotion that makes it beautiful.

CLAREn
02-07-2006, 09:24 AM
I think art like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what is perceived as art to one person is meaningless and uninspiring to another. Art is the creation of one persons ideas and perceptions translated onto a medium on any given subject. To some a pencil is art to others what that pencil produces is art. For me personally what that pencil represents is art. I am sure someone will correct me!!

Unspar
02-07-2006, 10:41 AM
"Bad art is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as bad art."

What do you folks think of that?

blp
02-07-2006, 10:41 AM
Some thoughts for the sake of argument:

None of us is a true original. We are all operating within systems of exchange and presentation that have been handed down to us. We cannot escape these systems.

The truth of art is the absence of truth in all our lives writ large.

A Beuysian utopian credo stating that everyone is an artist might be given a less optimistic if not pessimistic slant: everyone is an artist whether they like it or not.

We are all artists as we are all philosophers. It's just that most of us aren't very good artists or philosophers.

Countess
02-07-2006, 11:39 AM
>A Beuysian utopian credo stating that everyone is an artist might be given a less optimistic if not pessimistic slant: everyone is an artist whether they like it or not.
We are all artists as we are all philosophers. It's just that most of us aren't very good artists or philosophers.

That's a bit like saying "we are all engineers, whether we like it or not".

I'm not an engineer - not by a long shot. I've a calling as a writer, so that is what I am.

I do believe in the existence of Kitsch and the Kitsch-man. Whether you want to call that "inferior art" or "horse dung" is up to you. (-:

C

blp
02-07-2006, 12:00 PM
Engineers? I don't think it's the same. We don't all have to solve engineering problems in our lives, but we all engage in artifice and we all have philosophical questions.

baddad
02-08-2006, 09:37 PM
"Bad art is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as bad art."

What do you folks think of that?

Agreed. And may I add a thought along the same vein? My own thinking goes something like this: In the broadest sense possible (I try to allow my own perceptions as broad an interpertation as sanity will allow.....not always successfully.....) there exists no molecule or molecules, no atoms or atom forming any given configuration, whether by human design, folly, or serendipitious occurence that could not be considered artful........


......sanity............highly overrated........

blp
02-08-2006, 09:54 PM
No, you've lost me. No such thing as bad art? And here I was thinking I was sitting on a pile of it in my own home.

Evergreenleaf
02-16-2006, 07:03 PM
No, you've lost me. No such thing as bad art? And here I was thinking I was sitting on a pile of it in my own home.

:lol: I agree with you there; I've got a lot of it too.

I think that the term "bad" is completely subjective. Many people might agree that they all think of something as bad--even an entire society can agree--but I guarantee that there is nothing in the world that every person agrees is bad. Therefore, "bad" cannot be an intrinsic quality in anything. It's just an adjective used by individuals, and it can't be taken too seriously. Same with "good."

elpidi26
03-16-2006, 01:40 PM
Here's the answer.

Art is Art.

OOh. I shudder at the simplistic and symmetrical beauty in that statement. The statement is art in itself, i.e., it is as beautiful and meaningful as it is informative. It is simple yet elegant. It is concise yet powerful. Wow.

blp
03-20-2006, 08:22 PM
Here's the answer.

Art is Art.

OOh. I shudder at the simplistic and symmetrical beauty in that statement. The statement is art in itself, i.e., it is as beautiful and meaningful as it is informative. It is simple yet elegant. It is concise yet powerful. Wow.

Not too pleased with yourself then?

Even my bad art is better than this.

blp
03-20-2006, 08:25 PM
Claus Oldenberg said that at happenings in the sixties, there was always a moment when someone said, 'but is it art?' and this was always the moment when he left the room.

elpidi26
03-25-2006, 10:07 AM
You cut me blp. You cut me real deep. I'll never deal with art again. Thanks.