Art, literature and popular culture

[Aiculík]

Recently I was (reproachfully) told that I count as literature also popular culture when that has nothing to do with real literature. Which, I must admit, surprised me. (not the fact I was told it, but that the popular culture has nothing with "real" literature).

On the other hand, I know a lot of people for who consider almost any book (except non-fiction) - once it is written and published - a piece of art, and think people should respect it as such. Personally, I can't agree with that, either.

It is quite complicated... I, for example, consider also popular culture to be be literuture... and some of it even to be art... but on the other hand, I don't think all literature is art. And sometimes, it's not that easy to decide. Quite often, I disagree with my professors in this questions. They consider some books "art", while I think they're nothing special and vice-versa.

I would like to know what you think about it. How do you decide if something is " real literature" or "just pop culture" or "art"?

Are songs lyrics literature? Or even art? Under what condition?

Are books written by Steel, King, Brown etc. literature or art? What criteria did you use to decide?

[Stieg]

All "art" is open to criticism.

And not all "art" represents a sancrosanct object of gifted talent, skill, and imagination loosely put.

[MaryLupin]

There is power in definition. Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=literature) defines literature like this:

1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.
6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7. Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME litterature < L litterātūra grammar. See literate, -ure]

In the English Departments that I have known literature is taken most often to mean written works that express "ideas of permanent and universal interest." What interests me is how "universal" is defined. Most often it seems to me that it is defined (probably unconsciously) as "people like me." Another example of this idea of a "universal" truth not really being meant universally is "all men are created equal." Although this sentiment was later used to argue against slavery and to argue for gender equality, what was really "self evident" was that a certain class and race of men were considered born equal. This statement of "equality" used in the Declaration of Independence was really a slam against the European class system from which the colonies were separating. Is the first definition above something similar? What (or whom) does this separate?

If we look at the canon as it is taught in university departments is there anything that can be argued as "universal." That is, are there any texts that speak to Germans, Americans, the British, the French (etc) as well as the Sioux, the Saami, Ethiopians, Javanese (etc) at the same time? If so, what are the universal human ideas and values? If not then can we (as students and lovers of literature) be more honest about how we define "literature?"

[Stieg]

There is relativity involved in the usage of "universal".

Even the tomes in the halls of academia can be outdated, misinformed, and full of fallacy yet they represented something "universal" during their time.

"Popular Culture" is definitely art whether it be a form of genre (lit and film), music or dance, or a form of consumer commercialism.

[Stieg]

There is relativity involved in the usage of "universal".

Even the tomes in the halls of academia can be outdated, misinformed, and full of fallacy yet they represented something "universal" during their time.

"Popular Culture" is definitely art whether it be a form of genre (lit and film), music or dance, or a form of consumer commercialism.

Particularly retro in commercialism; niche, subgenres, and cult in film. Sorry could work the "edit".

[Aiculík]

All "art" is open to criticism.

And not all "art" represents a sancrosanct object of gifted talent, skill, and imagination loosely put.

Yes, but what is "art"? Is Harry Potter "art"? Or novels by, lets say, Terry Pratchett?

[zealouza]

well, as for me... art is an expression. Harry potter for instance is a form of expression of J.K. Rowling therefore its an art.:yawnb:

Art varies from person to person, so it maybe art for me but for others not, it depends upon the appreciation of the readers.:D

[manolia]

Or novels by, lets say, Terry Pratchett?

Novels by Terry Pratchett is art :D

[Aiculík]

Novels by Terry Pratchett is art :D

I loved his novels Good Omens or Only You Can Save the Mankind, but very many people I know say that there are no "aesthetical values" in his woks...

[manolia]

Well, to tell you the truth i don't care much about labels..if i like something it has worth for me and not much care if it is perceived as worthy or art or whatever..i don't know what people mean by "aesthetic value" and who decides what has "aesthetic value" and what not :lol: If Terry's book will pass the test of time (as Dickens' books or Aristophanes comedies etc etc) i don't know..that is another question :D But the people that reproached you forget that people read for pleasure also and a book may not have "aesthetic value" but can give pleasure to a reader ;)

[Niamh]

as far as i'm aware any piece of writing, whether it be an information pamplet, a poem, a scientific report, a chic lit novel, a classic novel or a play is all Literature. thats why people who cant write are deemed Illiterate because they cant scribe literature.

[Granny5]

Read the song lyrics of Paul Simon. It's beautiful poetry.

[Sam Alexander]

I would rather say, everything is a text.

Is it us or the author who makes art out of texts?

If i take a Harry Potter book and rip pages out of it and plaster them onto a canvas, is this art?

I'm just saying, don't take it too seriously. Like many things today, you can attribute a whole lot of opinions to them and never come to the same point-of-view. And, in my opinion, I would rather read Ulysses backwards than counting a Vin Diesel film as art ;)

[JCamilo]

All written text is literature, not all of them are "Art".
Some texts are just art of low quality, but certainly being popular - or belonging to the high mainstream is not what deffined art (Pop art certainly is art, the concept of this genre certainly can not be ignored. And everytime someone says otherwise just answer: Charles Dickens).
Anyways, You must then analyse every piece of - Harry Potter or Terry Prachett. You must be aware that there is an industrial system that produces books, best-sellers today - those books, sadly, lack some of the most important traits that an Art form must have - aesthetic appeal as principal power, capacity to cause "enchantment" (which can be translatate to that capacity artworks have to cause impact and preserve this impact for several generations and different societies), capacity to breed new artforms (influence is the key power inside the art creation, so, a great artwork will help to inspire several more works) - those two help the art's immortality that is the final trait - Art is not meant to be forgotten and kept forgotten. Aspects of the work, the message, the symbols, etc are continually remembered. Sadlly, most best-sellers are meant to be read for 2 hours, fun and then the reader can forget it happilly, so esterile.
I very much contest Harry Potter as art or at least, the quality of Harry Potter does not seem to be high for having some of those qualities (or the traits such language use, character development,etc) in very basic level. However since it is fairly new, everything is a little "cultural prophecy". As Terry, I am sure he is writting art, not so sure about the vallue of it, but it is art.
Just be sure, never let anyone use the "it is popular, it is not art". The person either is a snob idiot or is just repeating a concept for not understanding that what we like is not the better definition of art.
Imagine, a piece of art would not be anymore if sundelly it sold millions of books??? How random is this...

[JCamilo]

There is power in definition. Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=literature) defines literature like this:

1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England.
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology.
4. the profession of a writer or author.
5. literary work or production.
6. any kind of printed material, as circulars, leaflets, or handbills: literature describing company products.
7. Archaic. polite learning; literary culture; appreciation of letters and books.
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME litterature < L litterātūra grammar. See literate, -ure]

In the English Departments that I have known literature is taken most often to mean written works that express "ideas of permanent and universal interest." What interests me is how "universal" is defined. Most often it seems to me that it is defined (probably unconsciously) as "people like me." Another example of this idea of a "universal" truth not really being meant universally is "all men are created equal." Although this sentiment was later used to argue against slavery and to argue for gender equality, what was really "self evident" was that a certain class and race of men were considered born equal. This statement of "equality" used in the Declaration of Independence was really a slam against the European class system from which the colonies were separating. Is the first definition above something similar? What (or whom) does this separate?

If we look at the canon as it is taught in university departments is there anything that can be argued as "universal." That is, are there any texts that speak to Germans, Americans, the British, the French (etc) as well as the Sioux, the Saami, Ethiopians, Javanese (etc) at the same time? If so, what are the universal human ideas and values? If not then can we (as students and lovers of literature) be more honest about how we define "literature?"

I suppose the idea of universal is not a universal dialogue but the ideas of the texts to have the capacity to remain meaningfull despite the geographical/chronological limitation of the period it was created. So, we could get many texts such Greek Philosophy or the Bible to fit there. Anyways, the important thing is, since literature can have a broad definition, ask the person which definition she/he will use and see if she remain faithful to those ideas.

[Stieg]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, the original directed by Tobe Hooper, is pure art to me. All the well packaged omens and warning bells informing viewers our gang of free spirit teens on a pilgrimage for the invalid brother and his sister to their grandfather's grave along with three friend have crossed the threshhold of macabre madness. The opening music seemingly like an opening incision on the mind of a lunatic accompanied by composer and orchestra playing no less provisional instruments. Perfection made on a minimalistic budget complimented by dirty dingy grainy celluloid that creates in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre something personal and psychological helplessly drug towards a blaring infernal. One of the best charnel house masterpieces ever made. (5 out of 5 rating!)

Yet, some my of friends just don't get it, they think the film is trash. They'd rather prefer to watch that anemic high-style and washed out colored PG-13 slasher flick called a remake.

Art is indeed a matter of individual perception and taste.

[JBI]

Literature, and literary are two different words with the same root.

[Dori]

The only texts I consider to be 'art' are the scripts of the medieval monks.

[Aiculík]

The only texts I consider to be 'art' are the scripts of the medieval monks.

Well, that's... radical. :D

Can you explain that, please?

[stlukesguild]

I would think that most creative written endeavors would qualify as "Art". Perhaps I might not include documents such as a math textbook, the 2007 tax code, etc... I would not, however, draw a line between popular and "high" culture in defining art. Theater, during Shakespeare's lifetime, was a popular art form not even worth consideration of publication. Jazz, a popular musical form, may just have been America's greatest contribution to the history of music, while film, and not Abstract Expressionism, was undoubtedly America's greatest contribution to the visual arts of the last century (and I say this as an artist). By the same token, R.Crumb may have produced the closest thing to the social satires of Goya, Brueghel, and Daumier (who himself, publishing in the newpapers of his era, might have been a "popular artist") produced in the last 50 years. The question isn't whether the pedigree is sufficiently "high" (or too "low")... the only question of interest to me is one of how successful... or not... a given work of art is.

I would rather say, everything is a text.

Ack! I hate that term. It smacks so much of ridiculous Post-Modern literary criticism. Milton's Paradise Lost wasn't a "text" it was a poem; Hamlet wasn't a text, it was a play, War and Peace wasn't a text, it was a novel. I'm just awaiting the day when this absurd affection carries over to art criticism (as most literary affectations do) and we are only allowed to discuss the "art object" and not the painting or sculpture.

The only texts I consider to be 'art' are the scripts of the medieval monks.

Well, that's... radical.

Can you explain that, please?

I will assume that what was meant there was that the only books (not "texts" dammit!) that dori imagined as worthy of the name "art"... as in visual art... were the great medieval illuminated manuscripts. I would certainly concur that these works are certainly marvelous products of visual art:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/celtic07lind_newlarge.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/illuminatedms.jpg

At the same time there are endless other examples of what has become known as the "book arts"... the book produced as a work of visual art. Among these are certainly the works of William Blake:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/blake_urizen_7small.jpg

William Morris:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/Spcollf295_frontsm.jpg

Adolf Wolfli:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/wolflibook.jpg

And any number of contemporary book artists:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/4z.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/kpc06b.jpg

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k255/Stlukesguild/b08_greything.jpg

[PeterL]

Yes, but what is "art"? Is Harry Potter "art"? Or novels by, lets say, Terry Pratchett?

There are several good and valid definitions of "art". The broadest defintion of art is anything created by human intelligence. Go to Dictionary.com and read the definitions. Art can also mean trickery. My opinion is that The Harry Potter series is art by several definitions of art, and Rowlings wrote works that speak to the eternal yearnings and goals of humans. Mr Shakespeare also wrote works that speak to the eternal yearnings and goals of humans. The same is true of most authors. People only read works that speak to the eternal yearnings and goals of humans. I am curious as to what a novel that would speak to the eternal yearnings and goals of the sapient creatures that are dominant on a planet around another star would be like.

[Mortis Anarchy]

All "art" is open to criticism.

And not all "art" represents a sancrosanct object of gifted talent, skill, and imagination loosely put.

I agree...that all art is open to criticism. "Art" is just what you believe it to be. Some paintings that hang in galleries or are being sold for thousands of dollars...wow, I feel that a monkey could do them. But then I start to think about the emotion and the time and love/passion put into it. What it means to the artist and to others. Even though I don't find it to be totally brilliant doesn't stop it really from being an art to another person.

Same with literature. I've liked or loved most of the books I've read. Those that I've disliked...truly I can't remember...personally, I don't know what people consider to be literature. I'll read anything...and if I love/like it, brilliant! If not, okay...life goes on.

I think everybody just has different standards of what they would consider literature or art.

[Aiculík]

There are several good and valid definitions of "art". The broadest defintion of art is anything created by human intelligence. Go to Dictionary.com and read the definitions. Art can also mean trickery. My opinion is that The Harry Potter series is art by several definitions of art, and Rowlings wrote works that speak to the eternal yearnings and goals of humans. Mr Shakespeare also wrote works that speak to the eternal yearnings and goals of humans. The same is true of most authors. People only read works that speak to the eternal yearnings and goals of humans. I am curious as to what a novel that would speak to the eternal yearnings and goals of the sapient creatures that are dominant on a planet around another star would be like.

I can assure you that I know dictionary.com, and that I know dictionary definitions of art. I don't need some vague, general definitions. I was interested in personal views on what is art.

Because, for example the first definition on the dictionary.com says the art is "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." But different people have different perception of beauty, don't they?

And that's what I want to know - how you percieve it. Do you open the dictionary, after you finish reading books, see if it meets the definition of art and decide accordingly? Or do you say, while reading "Aha! That's eternal yearning of humans! This book is definitely art!" Or do you have some aesthetic principles and judge book according to that? :)

That's what I want to know.

[Stieg]

In the late 19th century, there were two divergent approaches to literary criticism:

The aesthetic theory "art for art's sake" and a contrary view championed by cultural critic Matthew Arnold that literature must assume the moral and philosophical obligations previously filled by religion.

aesthetic values vs didactic purposes

Why must there be a division? Why can't both be acceptable together with plenty of middle ground?

[JCamilo]

I can assure you that I know dictionary.com, and that I know dictionary definitions of art. I don't need some vague, general definitions. I was interested in personal views on what is art.

I will disagree with everyone who says that there is many definitions of art and all of them are valid. This is one truth if we are using art as craft and not the aethetic experience which I imagine is your focus here.
Usually the many definitions of art are either just dealing with the "problem" by one of his aspects only (The form of production, the effects, etc) or it is a person telling what his own art is and with this the exclusion of all art forms that are not like his own.
Also, just because the definition is tricky, does not mean the object (Art) is tricky. It asks for more effort than say what a chair is, so we need more effort.
Another mistake is saying art is what everyone thinks. Art produces a subjective experience - but that is the effect of art not what Art is.
The best thing to do is to list several artworks that we are sure to be art; Shakespeare, A building by Niyemaer, A song by Mozart, Andy Wharhol, A Movie by Stanley Kubrik, A poem by Poe, Greek theatre, A painting by Da Vinci, 1001 Nights, A Bolchoi Ballet presentation, etc. as long those artworks are apparently very different and do a test to see if you definition can deal with all those works.
For example, the definition that popular (as mainstream) works can not be art go to the ground because Shakespeare was a popular playwriter during his lifetime.


Because, for example the first definition on the dictionary.com says the art is "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." But different people have different perception of beauty, don't they?

Yes, different perception but Beauty still the samething, just the object that provokes beauty is not. So, you just have to notice that beauty is a trait that provokes certains emotions in individuals and those artworks have those traits. But one day I may wake up thinking a crow is beauty and the other that it is not. So, you must seek in the artwork, not in the viewer, if the artwork have elements that are meant to produce (even if they fail) aesthetic pleasure - a poem have rythim because of that, for example.


And that's what I want to know - how you percieve it. Do you open the dictionary, after you finish reading books, see if it meets the definition of art and decide accordingly? Or do you say, while reading "Aha! That's eternal yearning of humans! This book is definitely art!" Or do you have some aesthetic principles and judge book according to that? :)

That's what I want to know.

That be a waste of reading time, in my opinion. Definition of art, or the notion that something is art or not, is not necessary for enjoyment. I would only stop to think about my past experiences when questioned, more or less like here. Art is more than often in the Memory, not in the present act.

[Stieg]

Art quotients and criterias are impossible to define. Art is everywhere.

Do we give brownie points for originality, intellectual expression, irrevocable genius, and appreciation for beauty?

All that is not entirely true, is it?

[JCamilo]

Art quotients and criterias are impossible to define. Art is everywhere.

That is not true. Art can talk about everything but it is not everywhere. It depends on human presence. And that it is also false that criterias are impossible to define. A musician can tell what is a good music with considerable precision, we can tell about books, movies, etc with considerable precision. The artist is not creating out of nowhere, he trained his techniques and thus he know (and we can also) what he is doing.
This text I just wrote, certainly is not art.


Do we give brownie points for originality, intellectual expression, irrevocable genius, and appreciation for beauty?

All that is not entirely true, is it?

Nothing of this define what is art, originallity defines how good or bad it is - but originallity in art is in the form that something is created not in content. Intellectual expression is something I can not even define, as all art seems to be fit there.
Irrevocable genius, we could be talking about an artist, not art.
And appreciation for beauty we are talking about the receptor, not Art.

[Stieg]

That is not true. Art can talk about everything but it is not everywhere. It depends on human presence. And that it is also false that criterias are impossible to define. A musician can tell what is a good music with considerable precision, we can tell about books, movies, etc with considerable precision. The artist is not creating out of nowhere, he trained his techniques and thus he know (and we can also) what he is doing.
This text I just wrote, certainly is not art.



Nothing of this define what is art, originallity defines how good or bad it is - but originallity in art is in the form that something is created not in content. Intellectual expression is something I can not even define, as all art seems to be fit there.
Irrevocable genius, we could be talking about an artist, not art.
And appreciation for beauty we are talking about the receptor, not Art.

But art is everywhere via art photography, digital photography, other forms of image captures, cultural artifacts, etc.

What about all the forms of historical memorablia that have significance now yet back then may not have had, i.e. posters depicting a movie or sporting event or the various forms under propaganda? That are now classified as art.

Think of the subjects sold in auctions or hosted in gallery events.

[JCamilo]

But art is everywhere via art photography, digital photography, other forms of image captures, cultural artifacts, etc.

Again, I think you mean that the possibility of artistic expression can be inspired by everything because a photo is art because an artist uses techniques to control light, angle, etc to pass a emotion but the object he photographed is not necessarily art.


What about all the forms of historical memorablia that have significance now yet back then may not have had, i.e. posters depicting a movie or sporting event or the various forms under propaganda? That are now classified as art.

I found most of them are just cultural artifacts because propaganda is not art, even if many like to claim this status and even if they use several artistic traits. Anyways, posters, etc are not everywhere - If you want to say that the commun man, or a small event, can generate art - You are correct and this is the basic idea of Pop Art.


Think of the subjects sold in auctions or hosted in gallery events.

Pele's first World Cup shirt is sold in auctions because the vallue related to memmory, not because it is art. I agree with you if you say that a normal object can be taken into the artistic domain, that was what Duchamps did, but until that, the toilet sit was still a toilet sit and nothing more.

[Stieg]

But whats the difference between architectural design, a mural, a dance philosophy, a brushstroke, a camera flash, etc? Only the action but not the notion or the aspiration. And there is art that doesn't get recognition until people realize there is artistic merit in the object.

Art truly falls under the catagory of "different strokes for different folks".

Anyways, art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art) according to wiki.

[JCamilo]

The list you gave is too random, you listed some products, fields of knowledge and objects. We can identify art by how it made, what is produce, and the effects of the object.
Art is something usually very clear but not to everyone.
I do not mind wikipedia, the boundaries of art is not subject, the artistic experience that is and that is why it seems like it is something that can be many things.

[Stieg]

The list you gave is too random, you listed some products, fields of knowledge and objects. We can identify art by how it made, what is produce, and the effects of the object.
Art is something usually very clear but not to everyone.
I do not mind wikipedia, the boundaries of art is not subject, the artistic experience that is and that is why it seems like it is something that can be many things.

Style and design is art too as is an artist's signature.

[JCamilo]

Design of what ? Design of cars is not art, just uses artist concepts.
Style as fashion ?
The artist signature ? no, not really unless it is the artwork and produced like one.

[Stieg]

Design of what ? Design of cars is not art, just uses artist concepts.
Style as fashion ?
The artist signature ? no, not really unless it is the artwork and produced like one.

The car museums located world wide would beg to differ particularly the large famous ones in New York, Frankfurt, Geneva where ever else.

Museums is an instution usually dedicated to art, whether it be classic appliances, cars, guitars, prints, popular culture, etc. (Heck, there is even a museum of painted toilet seat covers where the artist charges a small fee for tours.) There is no end.

Fine arts and applied arts, apples and oranges... bottom line art has a very broad meaning.

[JCamilo]

A Museum is not for art ONLY. Bones of dinossaurs are in museums and they are not art. The Car museums are registering history, that is all.
So, the definition "Art is what we find in museums" is a definition easily refutable.

Art have a broad meaning and that is why I told we must consider what use we are doing - In this thread he means ART as the something the artist do, not artesian do. You are using Plato's definition and as smart that guy was, he is more like the first attempt and not the last one.

[PeterL]

I think that there are two different things being discussed: Art and Aesthetics. The two are closely related and significantly overlap. I think that the biggest problem is with the word "art", which can be construed broadly or narrowly, as the speaker desires. Another problem is that many people distinguish "high art" from common art, design, etc. There are reasons for making such a distinction, but, as with the differentiation of literature into the "canon" and "non-canon", it is largely a matter of taste.

I think that the best way to reply to someone who criticizes a taste for popular fiction would be to point out that Shakespeare wrote popular plays that only came to be regarded as Literature after his death.

[Stieg]

A Museum is not for art ONLY. Bones of dinossaurs are in museums and they are not art. The Car museums are registering history, that is all.
So, the definition "Art is what we find in museums" is a definition easily refutable.

I said "usually" and yes, there are natural museums of course too.

Art have a broad meaning and that is why I told we must consider what use we are doing - In this thread he means ART as the something the artist do, not artesian do. You are using Plato's definition and as smart that guy was, he is more like the first attempt and not the last one.

What about popular or collectible commercial art from another era or modern even that have elevated distinguished artists?

[JCamilo]

But that is a good point. If one come to say that "Art" (to make easy to PeterL, yes, Art as the one related to aesthetic experience, a less broader deffinition of art) is only what is erudite, then he is slipping in his own arrogance. Just because something have the luck to be a commercial success for a given period this product would not lose or gain the art status. As I said: Scream Dickens to everyone. (Shakespeare is another good example, although he was reggarded as a good playwriter, the problem is that playwriters are not well reggarded). Someone said about Jazz, I would go futher with Blues, Rock And Roll, Cinema (usually an idustrial artform) and being in brazil something called samba and all folklore manifestations. They are as much art as the classical art.
So, we must only have as art what can consider both things.
But the problem is what I see in our discussion is that you focus in a general object (a car design) instead in one specific object. For example, Literature is not always an artform - The phone list is not an artform, but many books are. Darwin's Origem of Species is scientific literature, a book, but not an art form.
So, we must consider, in those more "cloudy" sittuations each specific object, because of course, a Car can be the product of an artist, but we must see the intention of the artist, his techniques and the effects he achive. If one have a design developed only to allow more stability in curves with high speed it is not art- no message inside the product, no aesthetical work increasing the possibility of interpretation and no real possibility of immortality (since the model will be just replaced by a more efficient model in few years and even when the language developed the works of old poets remain with the effect, even increased).
In other hand we can have an artist that create a car to express some technological-progress power like the futurist used to, this maybe a product of art.
Also, an especific artist may apply his technique in products that are not art, because there is the need of development of his skills (take example, Fernando Pessoa, a portuguese poet, personal correspondence. They are not exactly art, but we can see his applied his language experiences there, that would be relevant to his poetry) because an artist is a normal person like everyone else.
I would like to point I do not make distinction high art or popular art, only bad art and good art and some high intelectual have produced some art of low quality (it is possibile to have art of low quality after all) that are very inferior to the most pop music of Beatles.

[Stieg]

Cars are admired for not only for their construction but their visual detail and ingenius design speaking of classic cars both European and American makers, American muscle cars, and even modified street cars such as low riders. Certain aesthetics definitely create an artistic admiration in these machines.

Commercial artists and illustrators such as Art Spiegelman, Norman Rockwell, Beatrix Potter, Michael Whelan, Frank Frazetta, etc represent a legitimate aspect in the world of art.

So do any custom product whose work represents quality craftsmanship combined with highly artistic imagination. Thus the expression can ring true "work of art".

[JCamilo]

Just being pretty does not make something "art". Women are beautfull, the sunshine also, the moon then... So, cars being admired are not a good definition for art.

Again, being commercial or not is irrelevant. Frazetta is an artist becuase he produce art - various objects, that is all. Frazetta pillow book is a product of art. Frazetta accidental handprint or his breakfast are not. Maus is a artwork, Spiegelman interview to a newspaper not.

[Stieg]

Just being pretty does not make something "art". Women are beautfull, the sunshine also, the moon then... So, cars being admired are not a good definition for art. Oh, and if these objects inspire a masterpiece? e.g. the Mona Lisa


Again, being commercial or not is irrelevant. Yes, I agree, that is the VERY point I have been trying to convey well at least one of them.


Frazetta is an artist becuase he produce art - various objects, that is all. Frazetta pillow book is a product of art. Yes, but it is still art whether mass produced or holotype!

Frazetta accidental handprint or his breakfast are not. Art can take some outrageous forms and manifestations, despite the sensationalism who are you and I to deny that it is indeed fact a piece of art whether we feel it is tasteless or not?

Maus is a artwork, Spiegelman interview to a newspaper not. No it is a interview, and?

My Oxford Dictionary defines art in following ways

n. 1. a human creative skill or its application. b work exhibiting this. 2. a (in pl.; prec. by the) the various branches of creative activity, e.g., painting, music, writing, considered collectively. b any one of these branches. 3. creative activity, esp. painting and drawing, resulting in visual representation. 4. human skill as opposed to the work of nature. 5. (often foll. by of) a skill, aptitude, or knack (the art of writing clearly) 6. (in pl.; usu. prec. by the) those branches of learning (esp. languages, literature, and history) associated with creative skill as opposed to scientific, technical, or vocational skills.

[JCamilo]

Just being pretty does not make something "art". Women are beautfull, the sunshine also, the moon then... So, cars being admired are not a good definition for art. Oh, and if these objects inspire a masterpiece? e.g. the Mona Lisa

Then they are objects that inspire art, not art.


Frazetta is an artist becuase he produce art - various objects, that is all. Frazetta pillow book is a product of art. Yes, but it is still art whether mass produced or holotype!

So, if being commercial is irrelevant to define art and I doubt any can find where I argued otherwise or claimed being a unique piece is the definition or art, what is the point of them being art.


Frazetta accidental handprint or his breakfast are not. Art can take some outrageous forms and manifestations, despite the sensationalism who are you and I to deny that it is indeed fact a piece of art whether we feel it is tasteless or not?

Because I never claimed they are not art because they are tasteless. You are going to this direction by yourself. They are not art because they are not produce like art, they convey no message, no aesthetic merit - nothing to do with taste. Definnition of art is different than definition of quality.




n. 1. a human creative skill or its application. b work exhibiting this. 2. a (in pl.; prec. by the) the various branches of creative activity, e.g., painting, music, writing, considered collectively. b any one of these branches. 3. creative activity, esp. painting and drawing, resulting in visual representation. 4. human skill as opposed to the work of nature. 5. (often foll. by of) a skill, aptitude, or knack (the art of writing clearly) 6. (in pl.; usu. prec. by the) those branches of learning (esp. languages, literature, and history) associated with creative skill as opposed to scientific, technical, or vocational skills.[/quote]

Dictionaries gave overall definitions because they aim is the overall public and We are talking about a specific aspect of art - The starter of this thread said he knows what a dictionary says and that should be clear- he asked if a few books are art - so we are talking about a specific, not generic meaning or art. The definition makes no distinction between the work of an artist and artisian or artifice which means this dictionary is lost in Plato time. Let's move foward or we are going to expell artists from the republic.

[Stieg]

This thread is hi-jacked!

Oops, let me clear something up, holotype is the incorrect term, I should have posted monoprint similar to another art term monotype. Well, you get the point. :D

JCamilo, I believe art falls under many guises and catagories. There's fine art (or high art I believe might be the alternative term), applied art, commercial art, etc.

I am just saying you have to have a very open mind about art because the definition is broad, for instance a box of kellogs cereal can represent art, so can Disney illustrations, or take Andy Warhol's example Campbell's Soup canned goods can be art. Art worth over 11 million dollars!!!

What is your definition of art is?

Frankly, I think I have said my piece and ready quite the discussion. But I'd like to hear the answer to this question.

[merlinsbeard81]

They consider some books "art", while I think they're nothing special and vice-versa.

I would like to know what you think about it. How do you decide if something is " real literature" or "just pop culture" or "art"?

Are songs lyrics literature? Or even art? Under what condition?

Are books written by Steel, King, Brown etc. literature or art? What criteria did you use to decide?
To paraphrase T.S.Eliot: "Is it interesting because it's art, or is it art because it's interesting?"

If I read something, and I enjoy, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a piece of art. It can be enjoyable, but not art; enjoyable, and art; not enjoyable, yet art, and not enjoyable, and not art - In other words, the two are not in any way dependent on each other.

Pop culture is simply that which is popular. "Autrement dit", what people like. People preferred Ben Johnson to Shakespeare for ~200 years (correct me if I'm wrong, that figure may be slightly off...). And not only 'normal people' but critics too. I'm not saying that Johnson didn't create art, but he was more of the "pop culture", but time has shown that Shakespeare was the better artist.

But boiling back down to something concrete: How do I differentiate between "art" and "pop culture", or, as Aiculík said in the OP, "What criteria did you use to decide?"
i) For me, it cannot be decided while reading a book. I can only determine whether it is a piece of art (or "a piece of art worthy to be called a Piece of Art) when I look at the piece as a whole.
ii) After having read the book, I put it down and feel satisfied - I gained something from reading it. Not a short thrill or adrenaline rush, but something that will last. Or, put another way, I don't put it down and think "good book wheres the next on my list", but continue to think about the characters etc.
iii) If I've just read the book, and feel it was so good I have to read it again in order to appreciate the subtleties in it. That, or, having read it, I can appreciate the subtleties of the author and can ponder them for a bit.

So here a short list of books I would consider art, and why, and books I wouldn't consider art, and why not. (This doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the book, or that I don't think the author is any good, or that I don't respect the author for writing etc. Those are different matters entirely.)

ART:
Shakespeare - his works are 'sculpted'. Phrases of his have been incorporated into the english language to an extent we no longer realise it. The themes that he can deal with simultaneously, and at such depth is unbelievable. And you can debate/think about his characters for.. well, care to share opinions on Prince Hamlet? Exactly.

Harry Potter series - I'll get flack for this, but I'll stick to my guns. I accredit JKR with "Art" status not because "she got a generation back into reading" or any such reason. Instead, it is because of the way that she has all 7 book linked in such a way. The tiniest of events in books 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 influence what happens in 7. I only realised this after book 3, then especially 4. But the detail is reminiscent of a "Miss Marple" or other Agatha Christie - incidents that you utterly ignore they are so trivial later have huge consequences, and are of utmost importance when "solving" the story.

Agatha Christie novels - I still cannot understand how you can tell the reader exactly what happens, yet not have them understand until the very end - and keep them guessing all along the way! Also, such wonderfully unlikely characters as Miss Marple, who are on the one hand so real, so believable, yet on the other so amazing and unbelievable!

The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien layed the foundations of fantasy. He set out to create a mythology and succeeded in my opinion. The detail of his world, the languages, the history, the characteristics of the different races, the family trees.. Being able to imagine it all and lay it all out so that the reader can fully immerse themselves and get lost in it.

NOT ART
Dan Brown - Constant action can never make up for cardboard characters. His writing style lacks any eloquence, and while I admit to thoroughly having enjoyed Digital Fortress, DaVinci Code, I never felt compelled to read them again, and after having read a second and third of his novels, thought them all pretty much the same. It can be a page turner, but I can't remember a single phrase that he wrote, and can't remember thinking "wow" at any point when I read it. Unlike Shakespeare, who's phrases I've already addressed, and JKR and Agatha Christie, both of whom I still "wow" when I rediscover the truth behind the red herrings etc, unlike Tolkien, whose sense of the epic makes you realise that you were in Middle-Earth while reading The Lord of the Rings and that you actually know Bilbo and Gollum and Sam and Frodo and Gandalf and also Saruman and and and

Eragon - "pop culture" if there ever was one. Yet anyone who has watched Star Wars (only a few million people) or a number of other films / novels will instantly recognise the characters / places / situations and plot events that have been taken from the Archetype and placed with 100% success by Paolini into the large box full of broken dusty things entitled "Stereotypes". I read it, and saw nothing new. His style was poor in the first book ("But he was so young!" - No, that doesn't matter. His style was still poor. He wrote it when he was 15, but when he's gone 20 and published his second novel, the style is only a little better. And it's still irrelevant how young a person is or is not: Either they write well or they don't. If you're young and can write well, then kudos to you. But if you can't, then don't bother. People want to read the book, and don't generally care about the author (at least, as far as "Art" is concerned it shouldn't be))

Then again, that's just me. And I have never been part of the "norm". But I've written way more than I thought I would, and since this thread has been hi-jacked far away from the OP, I'm not sure how relevant my thoughts are anyway. . .

Oh well :)

[Mortis Anarchy]

To paraphrase T.S.Eliot: "Is it interesting because it's art, or is it art because it's interesting?"

If I read something, and I enjoy, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a piece of art. It can be enjoyable, but not art; enjoyable, and art; not enjoyable, yet art, and not enjoyable, and not art - In other words, the two are not in any way dependent on each other.

Pop culture is simply that which is popular. "Autrement dit", what people like. People preferred Ben Johnson to Shakespeare for ~200 years (correct me if I'm wrong, that figure may be slightly off...). And not only 'normal people' but critics too. I'm not saying that Johnson didn't create art, but he was more of the "pop culture", but time has shown that Shakespeare was the better artist.

But boiling back down to something concrete: How do I differentiate between "art" and "pop culture", or, as Aiculík said in the OP, "What criteria did you use to decide?"
i) For me, it cannot be decided while reading a book. I can only determine whether it is a piece of art (or "a piece of art worthy to be called a Piece of Art) when I look at the piece as a whole.
ii) After having read the book, I put it down and feel satisfied - I gained something from reading it. Not a short thrill or adrenaline rush, but something that will last. Or, put another way, I don't put it down and think "good book wheres the next on my list", but continue to think about the characters etc.
iii) If I've just read the book, and feel it was so good I have to read it again in order to appreciate the subtleties in it. That, or, having read it, I can appreciate the subtleties of the author and can ponder them for a bit.

So here a short list of books I would consider art, and why, and books I wouldn't consider art, and why not. (This doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the book, or that I don't think the author is any good, or that I don't respect the author for writing etc. Those are different matters entirely.)

ART:
Shakespeare - his works are 'sculpted'. Phrases of his have been incorporated into the english language to an extent we no longer realise it. The themes that he can deal with simultaneously, and at such depth is unbelievable. And you can debate/think about his characters for.. well, care to share opinions on Prince Hamlet? Exactly.

Harry Potter series - I'll get flack for this, but I'll stick to my guns. I accredit JKR with "Art" status not because "she got a generation back into reading" or any such reason. Instead, it is because of the way that she has all 7 book linked in such a way. The tiniest of events in books 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 influence what happens in 7. I only realised this after book 3, then especially 4. But the detail is reminiscent of a "Miss Marple" or other Agatha Christie - incidents that you utterly ignore they are so trivial later have huge consequences, and are of utmost importance when "solving" the story.

Agatha Christie novels - I still cannot understand how you can tell the reader exactly what happens, yet not have them understand until the very end - and keep them guessing all along the way! Also, such wonderfully unlikely characters as Miss Marple, who are on the one hand so real, so believable, yet on the other so amazing and unbelievable!

The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien layed the foundations of fantasy. He set out to create a mythology and succeeded in my opinion. The detail of his world, the languages, the history, the characteristics of the different races, the family trees.. Being able to imagine it all and lay it all out so that the reader can fully immerse themselves and get lost in it.

NOT ART
Dan Brown - Constant action can never make up for cardboard characters. His writing style lacks any eloquence, and while I admit to thoroughly having enjoyed Digital Fortress, DaVinci Code, I never felt compelled to read them again, and after having read a second and third of his novels, thought them all pretty much the same. It can be a page turner, but I can't remember a single phrase that he wrote, and can't remember thinking "wow" at any point when I read it. Unlike Shakespeare, who's phrases I've already addressed, and JKR and Agatha Christie, both of whom I still "wow" when I rediscover the truth behind the red herrings etc, unlike Tolkien, whose sense of the epic makes you realise that you were in Middle-Earth while reading The Lord of the Rings and that you actually know Bilbo and Gollum and Sam and Frodo and Gandalf and also Saruman and and and

Eragon - "pop culture" if there ever was one. Yet anyone who has watched Star Wars (only a few million people) or a number of other films / novels will instantly recognise the characters / places / situations and plot events that have been taken from the Archetype and placed with 100% success by Paolini into the large box full of broken dusty things entitled "Stereotypes". I read it, and saw nothing new. His style was poor in the first book ("But he was so young!" - No, that doesn't matter. His style was still poor. He wrote it when he was 15, but when he's gone 20 and published his second novel, the style is only a little better. And it's still irrelevant how young a person is or is not: Either they write well or they don't. If you're young and can write well, then kudos to you. But if you can't, then don't bother. People want to read the book, and don't generally care about the author (at least, as far as "Art" is concerned it shouldn't be))

Then again, that's just me. And I have never been part of the "norm". But I've written way more than I thought I would, and since this thread has been hi-jacked far away from the OP, I'm not sure how relevant my thoughts are anyway. . .

Oh well :)


I totally agree with everything you've said. To continue what you've said, books/novels etc. it has to leave an impression. It has to make you feel something and leave you wondering about it after reading it. I agree, I can never decide if it is a true piece or not while reading it...

I really can't say much more because you've already summerized everything...well for the most part. I like to take into consideration what it means to the person writing it as well. What the purpose was, the message...what the writer/painter/singer etc. hoped to pass on.

[PeterL]

Dictionaries gave overall definitions because they aim is the overall public and We are talking about a specific aspect of art - The starter of this thread said he knows what a dictionary says and that should be clear- he asked if a few books are art - so we are talking about a specific, not generic meaning or art. The definition makes no distinction between the work of an artist and artisian or artifice which means this dictionary is lost in Plato time. Let's move foward or we are going to expell artists from the republic.

I think that points out the reason why this discussion hasn't gone very far: there is no specific definition of art. Art is what someone calls art. There are general categories of art and general principals of art; but there are no specifications. If there were specific guidelines for art, then it would become engineering of words, paint, or whatever. In some ways, I would prefer having a specific definition of art, but that would lead to computerized design software being made that would fit all of those specifications. C. M. Kornbluth wrote a story about the problems of artists after such software was written. Be glad that there are no detailed specifications for art.

[Stieg]

Edgar Allen Poe has already been mentioned but I definitely consider the works of Howard Phillips Lovecraft art. Weird fiction that catagorically fits under horror, fantasy, and science fiction. Of all the weird writers he is definitely the most consistant which includes a relatively large body of work. And his essays and letters reveal an amazing brilliant young mind.

Some would argue, Lovecraft isn't without his detractors, but this is gruesome audacious art perfected. His style stands so alone in literature despite the recognizable influences of Poe, Machen, and Dunsany.

[JCamilo]

I think that points out the reason why this discussion hasn't gone very far: there is no specific definition of art. Art is what someone calls art. There are general categories of art and general principals of art; but there are no specifications. If there were specific guidelines for art, then it would become engineering of words, paint, or whatever. In some ways, I would prefer having a specific definition of art, but that would lead to computerized design software being made that would fit all of those specifications. C. M. Kornbluth wrote a story about the problems of artists after such software was written. Be glad that there are no detailed specifications for art.

I think the lack of definition - here at least - it is just because we are arguing and not aiming to the reason to have a definition. After all, just making a classification for the fun of it is pointless.
In this thread, Art is not the work of human craft, the dude narrowed it to books, so we must work with some narrowed definition - which would not exclude other definition under a different context.

Anyways, a good definition can be tested and I believe a good definition of art - which is not easy and that plus the fact most people who define art are quite defensive about their own art, help the polemic - must deal with the process of production by the artist (I do not mind if Pollock said he had not technique, that was his technique), must deal with the aesthetical sense of the work (no need to define what is beauty, rather that the author sought beauty) and the fact art conveys a message (they all happens under a communicative event and "happiness" is in this case a message). Also, it must be clear that the object produced do not need to be something solid like the pyramids, as a music or a dance is ephemeral. Also, art happens with a communication, so there must be an audience (so my thoughts if ever kept only to myself are not art) and this audience will be affected by the aesthetical power of the object and that effect lasts and possibility interpretations that go beyond the chronological momment of the first views of the object (that is why we got impressed with homer, because this lasting effects) and in my opinion, art generates art, it is inspiring, it is the true muse. So art aim to permanence (that is why a kellogs box is not art, but a artifact, it is build to be replaced, forgotten). I believe this definition (maybe need a better wording) contemplates with efficience the narrow Art, which is the aesthetical art, which is the art I really care for. As you can see, Beatles is art to me (they are almost perfect in every aspect here) but the chair I am sitting is not. So I do not mind about popular or commercial (which by the way is an accident of fate, not a real trait of an object - if someone gives to me a Picasso paiting it still have the same aesthetical vallue that it had minutes before and also, if someone copy it - the copy of this painting have no vallue, unlike the famous copies of Andy Wharhol, because those copies are part of process of production of those specific works).
That is my defintion, Stieg :D

Mortis:

I do not think art must leave an impression (and I dunno if Harry Potter really does it) because maybe the incapacity of some artworks is more due the fact they have a poor quality rather than not being produced artistically. I suppose a good measurement of quality of a artwork is how much influence they have.

[Mortis Anarchy]

Mortis:

I do not think art must leave an impression (and I dunno if Harry Potter really does it) because maybe the incapacity of some artworks is more due the fact they have a poor quality rather than not being produced artistically. I suppose a good measurement of quality of a artwork is how much influence they have.

Obviously Harry Potter has left an impression on thousands of people...I guess what I meant to say is that for me it has to leave an impression...I don't know how to describe it. I don't really mean quality. There just has to be more to it than...words. Or paint...it has to stick in my mind, hold some kind of meaning or whatever. It doesn't make any sense, but thats just how I feel. I never make any sense whenever I'm trying to prove my points.:(

[JCamilo]

I think we can not be sure about the impression of Harry Potter - It caused impression, it will leave it? We just have to wait, but since I am not gifted with prophecy skills, I can not really say.
As your other point - I think one of the polemics about art deffinitions is that sometimes the deffinition is focused on the object, others in the process, others in the artist's intent and others in the perception of the viewer. In my opinion all aspects must be considered. Your impression does sounds like one of the aspects - the Enchanment, the effect or Walter Benjamin's Aura.
However, many other objects also have those powers so art can not be only this - but indeed, it must be something that lasts and it is fertile.

[Mortis Anarchy]

I think we can not be sure about the impression of Harry Potter - It caused impression, it will leave it? We just have to wait, but since I am not gifted with prophecy skills, I can not really say.
As your other point - I think one of the polemics about art deffinitions is that sometimes the deffinition is focused on the object, others in the process, others in the artist's intent and others in the perception of the viewer. In my opinion all aspects must be considered. Your impression does sounds like one of the aspects - the Enchanment, the effect or Walter Benjamin's Aura.
However, many other objects also have those powers so art can not be only this - but indeed, it must be something that lasts and it is fertile.

I take into consideration all of them as well. Like I said earlier, I often look at a piece and not only see how it affects me, or what its purpose is...but also what it meant to the artist. What it meant for him/her. I look at the big picture, but at the hidden bits as well. What you said is exactly how I look at art. I do that because thats how I want people to look at my paintings, or get that feeling from my writings...I want it to inspire as well.

And you are right, we do have to wait and see for how long Harry Potter leaves an impression...and I may get crap for this, but I think its a pretty good start.

[JCamilo]

I take into consideration all of them as well. Like I said earlier, I often look at a piece and not only see how it affects me, or what its purpose is...but also what it meant to the artist. What it meant for him/her. I look at the big picture, but at the hidden bits as well. What you said is exactly how I look at art. I do that because thats how I want people to look at my paintings, or get that feeling from my writings...I want it to inspire as well.



Yes, I think most products of art are often a batle (with no marxist meaning behind, so it may be a dialogue) between the artist intention and the public reception and understanding. The artist often tries to "manipulate" to cause effects and the emotions that he feels more important but somehow, and I think this is a big lucky, the fact that artist discuss is "disguised" with subject language (the famous beauty) do not only help to cause some confusion and misunderstanding but also, help to create several interpretations, so the artwork can "revive" in a different context (social and chronological), never losing its power. The Iliad for us is certainly in many ways, different than it was for the greeks, and that is such a bless.
And the critic - and I think that is the main work of art critic - is to understand not only the techniques but the artist conception, so his artwork will be respected and remembered also as his interpretation, and there will be some limit of how his work will be seen (For example, not long ago, I saw someone saying that Candide was a work that glorifies ignorance. Imagine, Voltaire, defending ignorance???). I think that is pretty much the life that pulses within art experience.

[Mortis Anarchy]

Yes, I think most products of art are often a batle (with no marxist meaning behind, so it may be a dialogue) between the artist intention and the public reception and understanding. The artist often tries to "manipulate" to cause effects and the emotions that he feels more important but somehow, and I think this is a big lucky, the fact that artist discuss is "disguised" with subject language (the famous beauty) do not only help to cause some confusion and misunderstanding but also, help to create several interpretations, so the artwork can "revive" in a different context (social and chronological), never losing its power. The Iliad for us is certainly in many ways, different than it was for the greeks, and that is such a bless.
And the critic - and I think that is the main work of art critic - is to understand not only the techniques but the artist conception, so his artwork will be respected and remembered also as his interpretation, and there will be some limit of how his work will be seen (For example, not long ago, I saw someone saying that Candide was a work that glorifies ignorance. Imagine, Voltaire, defending ignorance???). I think that is pretty much the life that pulses within art experience.


I agree. And that is insane...the Voltaire bit. I don't reallly have anything else to say...I've agreed with pretty much everything you've said...okay! :thumbs_up :D

[stlukesguild]

I must say that as a visual artist I have long engaged in the dialog of defining ART. Certainly, I feel that it is important that an artist have some notion of what art is to him or her... but I'm not certain that there is any definition that can even approach being universally accepted. At the same time I will note that I am not one of those who falls for the ridiculous notion that everything is art. The Holocaust was not art; the mother dying from cancer is not art; the child being molested by her father is not art... although any of these experiences might serve as the inspiration or theme for art. I'm not going to struggle to come up with a definition here... but I will offer a few ideas as to elements that I feel are necessary for anything to be considered as art.

1. Human created- At times it has been argued that nature itself is an artist in the sense that while nature as a whole often appears formless and chaotic (or at least, lacking in a humanly perceptible form), on a smaller scale nature does create an infinite variety of highly structured and often exquisitely beautiful "art forms" (a sea shell, a snow flake, the human body). I would argue that the works of nature, for all their beauty (which I would freely admit, often far outstrip the works of greatest artists) are all simply an end. They are complete and total in and of themselves and are not symbols for or of something else. In other words, a sea shell or a snow flake is not a symbol for or expressive of anything else. On the contrary, all art (as perhaps opposed to craft) is as with any language, both symbol and expressive.

2. Creativity or invention- To my mind all art requires the use of imaginative thought: the ability to envision what is not or what does not exist...the ability to conceive, dream, philosophize or invent beyond our perceptions of our physical surroundings. In most cases a mere snapshot is not art... it is but the result of a mechanical reproduction of visual reality. I would suggest that a beautiful piece of furniture or piece of jewelry or even a painting that merely repeats what has already been done without offering at least some small aspect of imagination... invention... is but craft. The science or math text-book, the 2007 tax code, the phone book are not art because they do not involve invention but merely fact.

3. Expressive- This term is largely misused by the public. Some speak of a loose painter like Van Gogh or DeKooning or an explosive composer like Wagner or Beethoven as being "expressive"... as if Vermeer or Ingres or Mozart or Bach were not equally "expressive"... expressive of different things and in different ways. All art is "expressive" because all art speaks, signifies, communicates or engages in a dialog with the viewer. The human creation which does not seek to communicate...which does not exist as a metaphor or symbol for something beyond itself, is what we define as craft. (A building that is ONLY a building or a chair that is ONLY a chair are not ART!) The craft object, no matter how beautiful its form, exists solely as a form...solely as an object. The Art Object is at once, both object and symbol.

4. Artful Form- All art involves some degree of abstraction whereby the artist aims to structure experience, thoughts, feelings etc... from the chaos of "reality" and give it some semblance of logical form. The baby crying is "expressive" as is the teenager writing aimlessly in her journals... but there is no artistic form.

There has been much bantering back and forth with the idea of whether this or that aspect of popular culture is ART. Allow me to suggest that if it meets the terms set out above... no matter how bad, crass, or "low" it may seem, it probably is Art. Shakespeare, Dante, Mozart, Bach, Miles Davis, Rembrandt, Picasso, Pollack, television sit-coms, heavy metal music, hip-hop, graffiti, Harry Potter, advertising, etc... are all Art. The definition of art has little to do with questions of quality. If the best popular music is art (The Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis) then so is the worst. If the best theater is art (Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Jean Genet, Beckett) then so is the worst (the latest TV sit-coms. A thing is not defined solely by the finest examples of the genre. Art does not include only the best products of the ages... for there is continually disagreement about what these are. I have an artist friend who is talented and well versed in art history who is not at all fond of Rembrandt. If we look here where there are many who are somewhat well-read I am certain we would not come near to all agreeing upon what we would nominate as the 10 greatest books of all time. Neither should we think to define art solely upon the measure of "beauty". I've seen some photographs of less-than scantily clad young women in Playboy and they looked damn good to me... but I doubt they are Art. There are works of furniture, buildings, fashion designs, automobile designs that lack any attempt at the expression of something beyond what they are... but are far more beautiful than some works of art... but they are not art. This should not be taken as a value judgment. There are great examples of art and great works of craft. They are not one and the same any more than a horse is a tree.

[Stieg]

stlukesguild and JCamilo, excellent responses but I still can't really finger what art is or represents.

But here is over 41 million pages to this following quandry.

What is art (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=what+is+art%3F)?

[Stieg]

*bump* I found this bit of interpretation on one of the links with a very broad and simple but profound definition of art.



Definition of art: at its broadest, we could define art as the self-conscious use of material (similarly, we could define literature as the self-conscious use of language).

[JCamilo]

Stieg,
Imagine Science. There is Science - the old meaning that once included religion or even all philosophy and just meant the discovery of human knowledge.
And there is Science, that product of moderm times, developed from the scientific method, which certainly do not include everything like the former.

So, there is Art and Art.
There is the old art- which means the product of human craft. An wood chair was art, so the kellog box. That is a broader definition, an old one (Plato for example used to put it all together). Cultural artifacts are produced there.

And there is Art, the fine art (which does not exclude the popular), a more specific definition, that is related to aesthetic sense, which only the artist does and only artworks are produced.

Your definition, your focus so far are in the first form. But I do not deny that meaning - I am just pointing that the use in this thread is for the second definition. We are narrowing down here but in a class about pre-historic culture that narrow view would not be appropriate.

(also there is an use of the world art to define everything this that is beauty, as "The sunshine is an artwork", "Zhang Ziyi is a piece of art", "That Pele's goal was an artwork", etc. It is more a language use, an metaphor that also does not belong here).

[Stieg]

Here is another great quote:



Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas.