FA+
Shop
What is art?
8 years ago
Hey guys!
I'm writing some papers on critical reasoning and theory of art/artistic intent subjects for class, and part of my assignment is exploring the concept of what art is, including asking around and seeing replies from other people on what art is.
So, in your opinion:
What is art?
How do YOU define what art is?
What makes something art to YOU? What is art?
Does it have anything to do with the creator's intent? Or authority, on how many people see it as art too? Or is what you consider art personal? Does art have to be beautiful, or treated a certain way? Do you need a lot of people to agree that something is art to have it considered art?
Go on as many tangents as you want, I'd love to hear thoughts on this subject; beyond assignment requirements, its simply fascinating on its own!
For some, it is a platform of expression. For others, it is a portal to their imagination. And it can be viewed differently in many ways.
Second question:
I define art as a way to bring dreams and stories from your mind into something visual.
Third Question:
When there is something you can understand from it, both visually and conceptually.
The other questions:
It's kind of tricky because most of the time creators can either make things with some intention, or no intentions as all. Very rarely though have I met an artist who was in it just for the fame. I've seen it stereotyped, but never actually witnessed it. Art can be beautiful, it can be horrific, it can scary, it can be hilarious. That's the thing with art: It can be anything. But with art comes the viewer, and more times than not; it's up to the viewer to see what art is.
Now if you give me something that is art, but I can't see a "meaning" or understand it, then I'd be inclined to say: "That's not art, that's just a chair you spray painted pink and coke can on." I would have to see what the art holds that I can understand and make my judgment on that. A drawing of a figure I can see as art because it shows the artist's perception and perspective of a reference or body type. There's something in there that can be understood both visually and conceptually.
As for if you need a lot of people to agree something is art; there was an instance of a movie that I forgot the name to, where the husband takes credit for the wife's work. And while people were praising it, and putting it in a museum, it took only ONE art critique, to disagree with what tons of people were saying about it. He had legitimate reasons why the painting wasn't "art" and he was right. And the painting was put down and people had a different opinion. Granted the husband started acting like a maniac for screaming at the guy and not taking criticism, but regardless what is seen as art doesn't need to be agreed by tons of people.
Sorry if my answers were a bit messy. >.>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Eyes
art
ärt
noun
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"
Q2: I agree with the dictionary definition, most modern art does not always convey skill or imagination in the way most of us would think about it. Sometimes it can be thought provoking, but at the same a giant boulder doesn't really convey imagination.
Q3: Not taking a urinal and flipping it upside down and calling it art. Or not taking a boulder and setting it in a museum and then calling it art. Basically it actually has to show some inventive skillful thinking and manipulation of matter. I consider images from Nasa's missions more artistic than modern art and most of those where not intended to be art per say.
Some modern art actually makes use of some very interesting things, like some of the installation sculptures in museums are quite nice, other things are like trying to force meaning into something inherently doesn't have meaning, much like how an anecdote I saw had a teacher saying blue drapes were a symbol of the author's depressed mood, but then at an actually meeting with him the author looked at her and they are simply blue drapes, there was nothing else of note. I find modern art to be very far fetched because a lot of it just people bull shitting and trying to pass it off as art. Example would be that furniture can artistic styling, but it is not art.
For me, it needs to take more than just abstract thought, you need to actually create something.
What is art:
Art is an outlet for expression. Art can be visual or verbal. Art is created by human hands with purpose. This purpose can be simple or small. (And yes, "I thought it was cool" "I wanted to make X" etc. is a purpose.)
How do you define what art is:
Personally I find you have to take history into consideration. For example we have long debated if some pieces ("Fountain" or "Artist's Shit In A Can" to name two) should be considered art. There was this culture of "high art" vs "low art" as well as the museum culture vs the regular population. The definition is ever expanding due to these debates. These pieces were created solely to challenge this definition. (My favorite example being Duchamp being like "Oh it's gotta be on a pedestal to be art? Fine." and putting a bike wheel on a stool.) For me, the definition comes from my experiences with the display and viewing of artwork as well as the study of it. After understanding art history my definition has become quite broad. I find it hard to discount much from being art even if I don't know it's purpose because clearly these creations were made for a reason. Even if that reason is "I had an idea and wanted to make it happen."
As for the creator's intent...well that's an interesting subject as well. The creator and viewer always experience art differently. For example I will bring up the famed Bull sculpture I've been seeing around the internet. The artist, Modica, has made a piece of public art. He has researched his topic, created a concept, scoped out the area, and positioned his bull in a specific way. Public sculptures have an impact on the environment around them just as the environment as an impact right back. When you change the environment (such as the addition of the girl figure across from it) you edit the artist's intended result. This can apply to things like paintings as well. It's why when you take an art business course or study to be a museum director you take the overall show's impact into consideration. Paintings interact with one another as well as the space around them. When you curate a location (or a show) you need to think of this and think ahead to the impact on the general audience. Which is why "art" is so hard to define. With the bull, does it become less of an "art" piece and more of a novelty if you for example were to put a party hat on it? What does it do to the appearance of the sculpture? What does it do to the message of the artist?
I'll quickly wrap this up before I type an essay. LOL Art doesn't have to be agreed on as "art" by a large population. Art doesn't need to match the authority's definition (see The Holy Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili) nor does it necessarily need to be beautiful or "real" to be visually engaging (Jackson Pollock). Art can be personal or it can be shared. I also generally think art should be respected regardless of if you "get it" or are interested in it. Someone created it with purpose. Someone was brave enough to share it. Don't step on that someone. You never know just how personally invested they are
No one questions "is this really art?" when it comes to lovingly rendered pieces uploaded on websites like dA/FA/etc. Anyone has the right and the ability to share their content and that's amazing. It's when we see a wider variety of art that folks begin to think it's "good" or "bad." Yet we don't restrict these opinions. We encourage them. We add comment sections to foster discussion instead. We have folks online creating careers out of it, creating new styles, and forging ahead with personal characters/creatures/worlds rather than sitting indoors painting fruit. We have come such a long way.
There's still a dividing line between "high" and "low" art involved (such as submitting personal artwork to FA vs to a gallery show) but the line becomes blurred here. We create whatever content we desire. It no longer needs an abstract thought or concept driving it. Now we create for the sake of creation and it's beautiful