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.

[*mipadi*]

I think of art as any creative output driven not by necessity, but rather by a desire to express a message. Thus, anything that expresses a message of the creator, whether personal, political, sociological, or otherwise, consitutes art.

Creativity is an interesting concept, and the western idea of creativity is something that arose only during the Renaissance. In Ancient Greece, however, creativity was not confined solely to creating new works, but included the reproduction of duplication of a work; for example, it was considered creative for an artisan to accurately and deftly copy a vase created by another. Of course, copying another's work often removes the message that went behind that work—in other words, the duplicator does not create with the same intent to express a message.

I think that skills such as photography do constitute art in some contexts. If a person takes a photograph to express a message, then it is art. On the other hand, taking pictures of a war zone, while a valid and necessary skill, is not something I would consider "art" per se, as it's not a personal expression of a message necessarily.

As for vectoring and vexeling? If it's something entirely new or otherwise done to express a personal message, I would consider it art. If it's merely "posterizing" a photograph, then it is highly debatable whether that can be labeled art. Commercial graphics, perhaps, but art—well, it's a stretch.

Which brings up an interesting point about "commerical art". I almost feel like the term is an oxymoron. Art can bring an artist income, but it doesn't seem like something that should be created with the sole intent to make money or sell a product. This seems like a highly debatable grey area, too.

[hi-C]

Which brings up an interesting point about "commerical art". I almost feel like the term is an oxymoron. Art can bring an artist income, but it doesn't seem like something that should be created with the sole intent to make money or sell a product. This seems like a highly debatable grey area, too.

All art is "commercial." The worth and value of art is determined by the market: the more money an artist commands, the more "artistic" a work is.

This statement reminds me a bit of the poet William Wordsworth. For most of his life, his poetry went unrecognized by the masses. But now his poetry is some of the most Canonical of the Western Canon. Why? Because he said over and over and over again that he was writing his poetry for an age that would better appreciate him, he was writing for posterity, and the idiots of his age weren't transcendent enough to understand it. It sounds like bullshit, but it's bullshit that worked.

- - -

One of the dictionary definitions of art is thus:

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

To crudely paraphrase, art is conciously creating something nice to view. If vectoring is achieving this aim, then is it not art?

[*mipadi*]

All art is "commercial." The worth and value of art is determined by the market: the more money an artist commands, the more "artistic" a work is.

So the worth and value of art is determined solely by what someone is willing to pay for it?

[hi-C]

So the worth and value of art is determined solely by what someone is willing to pay for it?

For the most part. That's the art that stays around the longest.

well, the material value of art is determined by the market, what about the impact it makes on the individual? surely, another way of looking at it is, the bigger impact something makes, the more artistic it is...

But who cares about the individual thinks? Art is a commodity. The only people who have to care are the painter and the buyer.

surely art is something more or less impossiblwe to define in a dictionary, because it is so objective. what is art for one person may not be for another. this is true of vectoring, sculpting, painting, posterizing, whatever medium you choose, really.

Then if what it means to one person is different from what it means to another, and there are all these differing opinions, how else is value to be determined?

[*mipadi*]

For the most part. That's the art that stays around the longest.

I think art should transcend mere material worth. That's a pretty capitalist position. A lot of great art in the world was created for reasons other than money, and I think art itself has an instrinsic value greater than the mere price a person will pay for it.