art definition

[cacian]

when does art draw the line ?
in todays world art can be a painting and a piece of cardboard hugging a side of a wall.
art is a transformation not an information.

[stlukesguild]

I'm not certain what you are after. "Art" can pretty much be anything that an artist says is art and/or that which an audience accepts as "Art".

Whether the resulting work is "good" or "bad" is another question altogether.

Where do YOU draw the line?

[Pompey Bum]

art can be a painting and a piece of cardboard hugging a side of a wall.

Art's the one that costs money to look at.

p.s. Salut Cacian!

[Danik 2016]

I found this video (5 minutes)interesting. It may fuel the discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

[Iain Sparrow]

I found this video (5 minutes)interesting. It may fuel the discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

Typical, very snobbish and narrow definition of "modern art", and those artists who don't paint pretty pictures.

When you go to an art gallery or stuffy museum are you really moved by portraits of the noble class, wealthy merchants, pastoral landscapes, plump white women with one breast showing... cavorting with a satyr in a forest clearing, etc? On a technical level they are indeed masterpieces, on an emotional level it's like being forced to watch an episode of Downton Abbey.

[YesNo]

Good video, Danik.

When we were in Colorado Springs, we stopped by the galleries along Colorado Avenue and Manitou Avenue. The one that stood out was the Hunter-Wolff Gallery and one artist represented there, Clifford T. Bailey, stood out the most although there were many other artists there who produced work of high quality: http://hunterwolffgallery.com/galler...fford-t-bailey

Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified". Quality must be subjectively acknowledged otherwise we are caught with another problem of modernism--the belief that subjectivity can be reduced to an objective computer program. The art that offends today is similar to mechanistic beliefs: both deny our subjectivity. The art does so by assaulting our subjectivity directly. Those who believe they can, say, dump our consciousness into a computer assault our subjectivity through our intelligence by presenting their pseudoscience as if it were science.

I hope that encourages the discussion. The negative presentation of art in the video represents a growing negative social mood.

[YesNo]

Typical, very snobbish and narrow definition of "modern art", and those artists who don't paint pretty pictures.

When you go to an art gallery or stuffy museum are you really moved by portraits of the noble class, wealthy merchants, pastoral landscapes, plump white women with one breast showing... cavorting with a satyr in a forest clearing, etc? On a technical level they are indeed masterpieces, on an emotional level it's like being forced to watch an episode of Downton Abbey.

Although we might occasionally disagree, I do like the art you produce. Here's one you linked to in the Tattoo thread: http://mockingbirdoutpost.deviantart...late-541728186

[Iain Sparrow]

Good video, Danik.

When we were in Colorado Springs, we stopped by the galleries along Colorado Avenue and Manitou Avenue. The one that stood out was the Hunter-Wolff Gallery and one artist represented there, Clifford T. Bailey, stood out the most although there were many other artists there who produced work of high quality: http://hunterwolffgallery.com/galler...fford-t-bailey

Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified". Quality must be subjectively acknowledged otherwise we are caught with another problem of modernism--the belief that subjectivity can be reduced to an objective computer program. The art that offends today is similar to mechanistic beliefs: both deny our subjectivity. The art does so by assaulting our subjectivity directly. Those who believe they can, say, dump our consciousness into a computer assault our subjectivity through our intelligence by presenting their pseudoscience as if it were science.

I hope that encourages the discussion. The negative presentation of art in the video represents a growing negative social mood.

I think what's at the heart of Mr. Florczak's disdain for modern art, is that fine art has been removed from the realm of those with extraordinary talent, and can now be produced and appreciated by everyday people. Personally, I've come to appreciate folk art more than I ever thought I would, as well as modern art and architecture.

That said, I do believe certain aesthetic standards never go out of style. I just think the standards put forth in that video are way too rigid. Not just with the visual arts, but even if you apply such criticism to modern literature... no matter the artistic discipline, it needs to be dynamic and respond to the world as it is. The world changes, art changes with it.

[Iain Sparrow]

Although we might occasionally disagree, I do like the art you produce. Here's one you linked to in the Tattoo thread: http://mockingbirdoutpost.deviantart...late-541728186

Thanks!
I think I fall into that most inglorious of artistic categories... being an, Illustrator(whore).

[YesNo]

Thanks!
I think I fall into that most inglorious of artistic categories... being an, Illustrator(whore).

I don't think what you do is inglorious at all.

I agree with you that art has to be able to change which is why there can not be a complete objectification of its standards. Also I agree that folk art is valuable. Besides, whether the art elite turn their noses up at it or not, people will do whatever art they feel like doing.

However, the white canvas at the end of the video and the huge stone midway seem to me to be overpriced assaults on our subjectivity. They are nothing that we need to train our subjectivity to learn to appreciate.

[PeterL]

when does art draw the line ?
in todays world art can be a painting and a piece of cardboard hugging a side of a wall.
art is a transformation not an information.

Art is anything that humans have created that is not strictly natural. The arts include mechanical, military, domestic, etc. Anything artificial is art. If you wish to restrict art to the fines arts, then say the "fine arts".

[Danik 2016]

Typical, very snobbish and narrow definition of "modern art", and those artists who don't paint pretty pictures.

When you go to an art gallery or stuffy museum are you really moved by portraits of the noble class, wealthy merchants, pastoral landscapes, plump white women with one breast showing... cavorting with a satyr in a forest clearing, etc? On a technical level they are indeed masterpieces, on an emotional level it's like being forced to watch an episode of Downton Abbey.

I agree with you, Sparrow, this definition of modern art is narrow, but your views on traditional art seems equaly narrow, maybe because the selection offered in the video is very small.
I chose it not because I agree with it because it is didactic and may help people think about the different concepts of art. It would be nice if you or someone else posted a different evaluation of art.
I didn´t know you were an artist until Yes/No posted the link. I think book ilustration is as noble as any other kind of art. There are famous book ilustrators in the Victorian Age, there is Saint Exupery, there are many known ilustrators of children books, including an American lady (can,t remember her name), who became famous for her ilustrated animal stories (bunnies).

[Danik 2016]

Good video, Danik.

When we were in Colorado Springs, we stopped by the galleries along Colorado Avenue and Manitou Avenue. The one that stood out was the Hunter-Wolff Gallery and one artist represented there, Clifford T. Bailey, stood out the most although there were many other artists there who produced work of high quality: http://hunterwolffgallery.com/galler...fford-t-bailey

Although I liked the video, the demand for "objective standards" in art may not be aiming high enough. Art standards cannot be "objectified". Quality must be subjectively acknowledged otherwise we are caught with another problem of modernism--the belief that subjectivity can be reduced to an objective computer program. The art that offends today is similar to mechanistic beliefs: both deny our subjectivity. The art does so by assaulting our subjectivity directly. Those who believe they can, say, dump our consciousness into a computer assault our subjectivity through our intelligence by presenting their pseudoscience as if it were science.

I hope that encourages the discussion. The negative presentation of art in the video represents a growing negative social mood.

Thanks Yes/No! As I told Sparrow, I chose the video because of the didactic presentation not because I agree with its opinions. I'm not at all an expert in art, but I agree with those critics who say that art is an historical product.
We evaluate art according to our subjectivity as you say, but this subjectivity IMO is formed by the values and standards of our time and enviroments. Maybe great art is the one that transcend these boundaries becoming
universal and timeless.
I get the feeling that contemporary art is a bit lost. But as one critic said (don´t remember his name) you can only evaluate well an art period after it is over.

[Danik 2016]

I think what's at the heart of Mr. Florczak's disdain for modern art, is that fine art has been removed from the realm of those with extraordinary talent, and can now be produced and appreciated by everyday people. Personally, I've come to appreciate folk art more than I ever thought I would, as well as modern art and architecture.

That said, I do believe certain aesthetic standards never go out of style. I just think the standards put forth in that video are way too rigid. Not just with the visual arts, but even if you apply such criticism to modern literature... no matter the artistic discipline, it needs to be dynamic and respond to the world as it is. The world changes, art changes with it.

I quite agree with you there.

[kev67]

I think it can be difficult to define the borders between art, entertainment and record. They overlap. By record I mean things like documentaries, portraits or biographies. In a different way, art merges into craft and design.