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.

[*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.

[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?

[*I Shot JFK*]

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:

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

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...

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.

[*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?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Anything created by the artist is art, just not necessarily "good" art.

Going off of that one thread, photographs and vexels and such are art because although they use other things as reference, they are still created by the artist. A painting is the same as a vexel a lot of the time; the painter looks at a photograph and paints based off of the photograph.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Anything created by the artist is art, just not necessarily "good" art.

Going off of that one thread, photographs and vexels and such are art because although they use other things as reference, they are still created by the artist. A painting is the same as a vexel a lot of the time; the painter looks at a photograph and paints based off of the photograph.

agreed, although how does one define 'good art'... i mean, by what criteria?

[demolished]

Art is color, being creative, mystery, meaningful, and emotions reliever.

agreed, although how does one define 'good art'... i mean, by what criteria?

"good art" is something that amaze us with astonishment.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

"good art" is something that amaze us with astonishment.

Do you have any idea how redundant that statement is?

I was think it could be described as something along the lines of something that is sensually appealing. With that definition, it's fairly all encompassing, but not too general, I don't think.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Good art is art that conveys the emotion and point of the piece well enough that the viewers understand it. It doesn't always have to be "pretty" or "amazing". It could be a small orange box on a blank white canvas, meant to represent loneliness and how little influence one person has in such a big world, but you certainly wouldn't think that the piece took a lot of work or is "amazing".

[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?

[illumineering]

For me, art is a creation that stimulates my senses.

[*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.

[hi-C]

^ Yeah, I've been in a capitalist sort of mood lately. We've been talking about a similar topic in my Brit Lit class, the delimition of British literature. It's left me feeling a little jaded about the role of art and literature in society.

I do agree that there is an intrinsic quality in art worth more than market value - I'd have to, being an English major - but being the all powerful machine that it is, you can't deny its stranglehold on the culture at large.

[demolished]

Good art is art that conveys the emotion and point of the piece well enough that the viewers understand it. It doesn't always have to be "pretty" or "amazing". It could be a small orange box on a blank white canvas, meant to represent loneliness and how little influence one person has in such a big world, but you certainly wouldn't think that the piece took a lot of work or is "amazing".

Um. I have a different meaning of "amazing". To me, it's not about the prettiness or ugliness. It’s something to do with physical & mental that expresses our emotions and interests.

This is why i stated this :]

Art is color, being creative, mystery, meaningful, and emotions reliever.

[*I Shot JFK*]

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

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

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?

i care what the individual thinks. when i apprecaite a piece of art, my judgement doesnt come from the price tag on it, because i have no knowledge of the price it would fetch. i could still appreciate and compare works based on my own perception of the art.

why does value have to be determined and fixed? unless your profession is directly linked with the buying and selling of art, the monetary value is more or less irrelevant to your appreciation.

[*kryogenix*]

I've been wondering this too, because I've seen some things that I would not consider "art," but is sold as art.

For example, there is this guy named Martin Creed. Check out some of his "art."




Ripped up paper. Blu-Tack. I don't see the art here.

Where does one draw the line between art and garbage? I have an empty waterbottle sitting on my desk. Is it art? I have a textbook pile leaning precariously, is that art?

[*I Shot JFK*]

I've been wondering this too, because I've seen some things that I would not consider "art," but is sold as art.

For example, there is this guy named Martin Creed. Check out some of his "art."




Ripped up paper. Blu-Tack. I don't see the art here.

Where does one draw the line between art and garbage? I have an empty waterbottle sitting on my desk. Is it art? I have a textbook pile leaning precariously, is that art?

well that depends? can you give it artisitc meaning? is it sensually appealing?

i do see the art in that, because it is causing people to consider it in terms of its artistic value, and through this controversy, gains said value

[demolished]

Hahahahaha.

In some ways, it does sensually appealing on online.


if i ever saw that in a museam, i'll be like WTF but ... i still stare at it to find meanings behind it.