Art, What is art? Options

[misoshiru]

Alright, this topic stems from a small debate in the graphics showcase about whether posterizing a picture is the same as vector/vexeling. But to expand on that, I'd like to raise up a question that is constantly debated today: so, what is art? Or, what constitutes art? Is it the fact that it is created or because it has an underlying meaning? Or just because the 'artist' or 'person who made it' calls it art, therefore it's art.

Also, I'd like to bring up the topic of computer graphics and photography. Vectoring and vexeling, could that go under the art category, or like photography, not truly be considered an art because that is simply the 're-making' or 'copying' of something else? Should art be confined only to the constrictions of old beliefs - the fact that you have to paint, or mold, or make something completely new to be considered as art? If so, then Andy Warhol's pop art should not be considered as art.

Okay, discuss.

[*I Shot JFK*]

to me, anything can be art, as long as you can give it a meaning, and that meaning doesnt have to be great for everyone, just the individual. even if the meaning is jsut to give pleasure, it is ther for the person who created it. taste is subjective.

i had this conversation with three of my friends in the library a few weeks back.

ben took his folder and stood it up in the middle of the table, and called it art... izzy and ainsley said it wasnt... i explained that oit showed the complex role that politics played in the role of teens lives, by placing it within the centre of the group of students, the brightness of the colour of the folder showed the candy coated trivialization that we give it, and the drooping paper within represented the festering heart beneath this sugar coating. thus, it became art, and the two girls agreed with me, because it meant something (this was of course, tongue in cheek, but you get the message)

as far as posterising an exisiting photograph, it really comes back to whether or not the new form can be given a distinct meaning, seperate fromt he original. for instance, has anyone seen Ghost World, with thora birch and scarlett johannsen? if not, i recommend it.

In the film, Birch's character submits an existing poster into an art contest, as a 'found art' piece, not painting or doing actually any 'work' herself, beyond thinking about what the poster actually meant. she applied the racist message of the painting, and the fact that it was supressed and removed, but still existed, to her contemporary surroundings. in this way, it became an entirely new piece of art.

a similar argument could be made for a posterized photograph, if the thought was their from the artist.

even if not, then the meaning could be one simply of pleasure. if the posterized photo gives a different sense of pleasure than the original, be it to the world, or just to the artist, then yes, i would consider it to be art.