What is 'Art'?

K

Kurogane

Chuunibyou
Okay, long story short; a pretty long argument- well 'discussion' today in college involving me and some other tutor, who I'm not sure was actually a teacher, or some lummix just posing around the art halls.

Anyway!

After about 90 minutes into the 'ice-breaker' activity, continued from the day previous, I basically lost interest in the traversty which the tutor dubbed: a 'creative' activity.

Worth mentioning:

I haven't been interested in fine art; masterpieces etc, for about 2 years now, ever since I turned to the more lively side of the coin.
Not to say I disregard anything of that kind as boring, but quite clearly - very unnappealing.

Today was a massive drop down the well; a flawed definition of the word art was spoonfed like post-war propaganda into everyone- well, MOSTLY everyone.

I don't see imitation abstract sculptures as art, in fact- it is, what it is: unnattractive, unskillful, and untalented crap.

I know for a fact there are a helluva lot more than a handful of people out there who would lynch me for such crap, but hear me out kay?

The atrocities that unfolded were as good a grade as you'd find in a primary school, unimaginative and executed terrible; another reason I stayed out of the entire thing, yet this particular art snob had to disagree, and said you have to shove your creative motivation into every task you do, buuuuuuuuuuuuut:

Any artists reading here? - 99% of people who plan to actually improve on their art will always tell you that it's absolutely imperative to have fun while you work, otherwise this art dealie is not for you.

More of a personal peeve when I take a step back, but I'll always hold that opinion whenever some oblivious snob talks crap from their high horse. Ugh
 
Well, have you had the speech where they tell you (in this day and age) that there is nothing "original" anymore, because most is already done before?

What was the defination that you were given?
Also, I do find imatations weak myself, but you will have to take elements of other's work as reference. That, in it's own way, is imaginative, but unoriginal.
 
Art is what you make of it, everyone sees art as something different, go into a gallery and people call scribbles art.

I don't know if its art but I know what I like and thats all that matters
 
Motoko said:
Link100p said:
Art is a form of expression.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy.

By that definition, I could sneeze on a paper towel and call it art-- no sir.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised. Some people would consider that art. There's a famouse art collection (don't remember the name), but they're just canvasses completely painted in one colour??

Suppose art is quite a complicated subject tho. :?
 
voddas said:
Motoko said:
Link100p said:
Art is a form of expression.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy.

By that definition, I could sneeze on a paper towel and call it art-- no sir.
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised. Some people would consider that art. There's a famouse art collection (don't remember the name), but they're just canvasses completely painted in one colour??

Suppose art is quite a complicated subject tho. :?
Click to expand...

The line between crap and art is constantly being pushed together, and eventually we'll have nothing new; originality just won't even exist anymore.
 
That's how I feel. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Art to one person doesn't been jack to another (sneezing into a tissue for example). Heh.
My sister is an artist, not the cr*p kind either. She likes some wierd stuff like.
She's very good at doing manga too. She's not a big fan though. She only does it for me (aaawww). Got some fantastic drawings of hers in my house.

Not to vea away from the subject.... :D
 
Motoko said:
Link100p said:
Motoko said:
Link100p said:
Art is a form of expression.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy.

By that definition, I could sneeze on a paper towel and call it art-- no sir.
Click to expand...
What would you be expressing?
Click to expand...

My contempt for the common cold.
Click to expand...
You'll need more than just a paper towel, I mean it could me your saying "Common cold, not that much of a problem, I just wipe my nose with a tissue."
 
Link100p said:
Motoko said:
Link100p said:
Motoko said:
Link100p said:
Art is a form of expression.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy.

By that definition, I could sneeze on a paper towel and call it art-- no sir.
Click to expand...
What would you be expressing?
Click to expand...

My contempt for the common cold.
Click to expand...
You'll need more than just a paper towel, I mean it could me your saying "Common cold, not that much of a problem, I just wipe my nose with a tissue."
Click to expand...

Dude. At the end of the day, it's a soiled paper towel, not a work of art.
 
For me,despite what the actual piece of art is,art has to have an ideal or a reason behind it.This is because i believe art has to have part of the artist in it.The extent of that can vary,especially when considering apparent 'crap' such as a few splashes on a canvas.Which also links with my other point of art being what you make of it also.Art is one thing to one person,and another to someone else.
 
TRASHBAT said:
For me,despite what the actual piece of art is,art has to have an ideal or a reason behind it.This is because i believe art has to have part of the artist in it.The extent of that can vary,especially when considering apparent 'crap' such as a few splashes on a canvas.Which also links with my other point of art being what you make of it also.Art is one thing to one person,and another to someone else.
Click to expand...

Like any degree of creation, there has to be a universal standard, to which anything made can be applied to; not necessarily a piece of art, but a degree of skill and effort applied to it.

Some people say art is a piece which was produced over time, not a 5 minute job-- I agree to an extent with this, but not completely, as you could spend hours and hours on something which amounts ot nothing, or loses it's sheen with every piece of crap you throw onto it.
 
Motoko said:
TRASHBAT said:
For me,despite what the actual piece of art is,art has to have an ideal or a reason behind it.This is because i believe art has to have part of the artist in it.The extent of that can vary,especially when considering apparent 'crap' such as a few splashes on a canvas.Which also links with my other point of art being what you make of it also.Art is one thing to one person,and another to someone else.
Click to expand...

Like any degree of creation, there has to be a universal standard, to which anything made can be applied to; not necessarily a piece of art, but a degree of skill and effort applied to it.

Some people say art is a piece which was produced over time, not a 5 minute job-- I agree to an extent with this, but not completely, as you could spend hours and hours on something which amounts ot nothing, or loses it's sheen with every piece of crap you throw onto it.
Click to expand...

I remember in infants school,my teacher once asked me in front of the class how long my piece of art had taken.Insinuating to the others in the class who had produced rubbish work as they had rushed it that you need to take time if you want to produce something good.Well I replied,a few minutes and she got rather angry with me.Thats why,like yourself i don't completely agree with that statement as i know various people who can knock out an amazing piece of work ridiculously quick.The same can be said with music,where a song can just come to a person very quickly at a random time.

I think any piece of art needs to of been constructed with emotion.I like to see what the artist felt whilst doing it,through the image/music/whatever

This is interesting :) Yay for worth while topic :3
 
TRASHBAT said:
Motoko said:
TRASHBAT said:
For me,despite what the actual piece of art is,art has to have an ideal or a reason behind it.This is because i believe art has to have part of the artist in it.The extent of that can vary,especially when considering apparent 'crap' such as a few splashes on a canvas.Which also links with my other point of art being what you make of it also.Art is one thing to one person,and another to someone else.
Click to expand...

Like any degree of creation, there has to be a universal standard, to which anything made can be applied to; not necessarily a piece of art, but a degree of skill and effort applied to it.

Some people say art is a piece which was produced over time, not a 5 minute job-- I agree to an extent with this, but not completely, as you could spend hours and hours on something which amounts ot nothing, or loses it's sheen with every piece of crap you throw onto it.
Click to expand...

I remember in infants school,my teacher once asked me in front of the class how long my piece of art had taken.Insinuating to the others in the class who had produced rubbish work as they had rushed it that you need to take time if you want to produce something good.Well I replied,a few minutes and she got rather angry with me.Thats why,like yourself i don't completely agree with that statement as i know various people who can knock out an amazing piece of work ridiculously quick.The same can be said with music,where a song can just come to a person very quickly at a random time.

I think any piece of art needs to of been constructed with emotion.I like to see what the artist felt whilst doing it,through the image/music/whatever

This is interesting :) Yay for worth while topic :3
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in the original post, you can't produce anything worthwhile and worthy of your own judgement, if you have no motivation to do so. It's fact.

Even if you made something that looked good to another person, artist or non-artist, you yourself wouldn't be happy with it, therefore you wouldn't feel as though you'd accomplished anything.

Reverse that, and you'd be bagging a lot of abstract artists and know-nothings that think even the most bland and unimaginative pieces of crap deserve to be called art.

Lemme go hypothetical on your asses for a minute here:

3 students in a competition produce three different grades of art; terrible, decent, and excellent- and by some bizarre wave of judgment of a panel of uninvolved judges (much like the actual public), the terrible piece of art is the winner of said competition.

Does that make the terrible artist, the best artist? - Of course it doesn't, but sometimes it seems that's the reality of it.

Just look on DeviantArt, or any other art community with a broad spectrum of design; there are heaps of artists who have talent coming from every orifice, yet they're unnoticed, and probably will continue to be.

Moar later.
 
Well, I think good art needs to be in one of 3 things:

1) Needs to send a message/statement to people (in general or specific audience). Personally, I like it better if the audience sees the message easily, but complex ideals can be more effective if the imagery is done well. Things like a woman wearing fur jackets etc. has splashes of blood on it, ultimately saying "Fur is murder."

2) Needs to illustrate something in a certain perspective. Now, I dont find photos of landscapes and people as art, although some consider it having sufficient value. You have the ever accurate work of the Baroque, but also 'simple-looking' sculptures made of wood. Both these examples have had imagination and hard work put into it, just to show how they can see things.
Although a portrait/life drawing is like a photograph, it has the artist's hard work put into it, crafting their own colours to fit the picture they see.

3) Is it "eye candy?" Don't automatically think bums and boobs, 'cause if you have studied art, it all about the asthetics of the work. It's the ability to attract people at 1st glance and hook them to your work.
Is the political poster powerful enough to sway you? Are the colours in the painting bold/gentle enough to fit the image? Does the sculpture work better one way or the other, or does it matter?
Thr rubik's cube was successful in the product design catergory. It's colourful, simple to use and entertained the audience, i.e. problem solvers. If it wasn't successful, how do we know about it?

As for the time worked on it, usually it's like the saying, "Rome wasn't built in a day." But there can be almost instant classics. This is rare. Scribbles dont work for me, but there is also work that has had so much effort to it, it's over-worked. There is no specific time limit to this, but I find better work is researched and created by skill.[/quote]
 
Back
Top