What's your Definition of Art?

[Existing Light]

If you think you are an artist, you are not dead enough to actually be one. If you think you are an artist, what you really are is a wanker.

David

This made me laugh for a whole minute, at least.

I have to disagree with it, though. I know a few people that I would call artists, and they're still alive. I dont recall them calling themselves artists, though, and that might be the difference

 

[luxikon]

Art besides religion, myth and science is a different legitimate outlook on the world.
From there it derives that it can (or must?) be ugly.

 

[sun of sand]

I feel like there should be a group bottle of vaseline in here

if you use a word it has to have meaning
there isn't anyone that uses the word art that you could ask to leave
describe and define are a bit different

you can describe what love looks and feels like
you can give a definition for the word love
but you can't define love as in say why it is..can you?
it may not be

the only question that is significant to ask imo is does art exist/love exist etc or do we make it up socially


I think animals are creative just as we were
we just have more time on our hands today and so what art is has changed
now it's just paintings and whatnot

 

[ruilourosa]

piero manzoni has a message you guys

 

[Whiteymorange]

When we speak of "Art", aren't we simply asking people to look at something with an eye to its aesthetic qualities? The Dadaists, and then the Pop artists, for all their bull, made the point that the difference between a urinal (or a Brillo box) as a functional object and "Art" was simply the way we looked at it. Putting something in a gallery, lighting it, speaking of it as art, makes it art. (notice: no capital "A")

Doesn't make it good art, but it does make it art.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thanks for the constructive proposals so far, but, just a friendly reminder.

This thread was created to contribute and exchange ideas on how to come up with a definition for art. Cryptic one-size-fits-all one-liners copied from somewhere don't help much, unless they are converted into a usable definition proposal. Feel free to change my proposal or add to it. Better yet, post your own, and we'll discuss.

Saying it can't be done does not help at all. If you think it cannot be done, I respect that, but then, you cannot contribute here. This wasn't meant as an invitation to nay-sayers, this was meant as a collection of definition proposals.

Saying 'no' is easy, filling an empty page with something meaningful is hard.
Saying 'no' and then throwing darts at the people who filled the empty page is sour grapes.

 

[dpurdy]

One problem is that the word is used in more than one way so it has to have multiple definitions.
For me Art is a science. It is the science of aesthetic power, aesthetic concerns and human reactions and communications to aesthetics. It is also the product of an expression of aesthetic concerns.
Dennis

 

[keithwms]

Dennis, on the fundamental level that both are about inventing new language, I think there is a kinship between art and science. They are both linguistic activities, I think.

But I think there is an important distinction, when it comes to the expectation of feedback and acceptance. In the sciences, we make observations and then quickly report them and look to others to confirm them.

I don't think art is necessarily beholden to confirmation (or even observation), at least not in the short term. Art may be appreciated over any timescale- sometimes observers "get" it right away; other times centuries may pass. And a great deal of art is probably never appreciated by anyone.

I guess I consider science to be a subset of the arts.

 

[dpurdy]

If a tree falls in a forest...

 

[Q.G.]

... it crashes down producing a lot of noise while it does so.

 

[kswatapug]

Perhaps it is just an acronym

A - Aesthetic - Communicates an appreciation/awareness/notion of or contrast with beauty
R - Relevant - Having significance to the creator and audience
T - Timeless - Continuing to inspire and invite contemplation while enduring the scrutiny of generations

or

A - Ageless - Again, it endures.
R - Reflective - Of both the creator's and audience's perspective
T - Transcendant - Elevates the ordinary to an extraordinary, expanding our expectations

A - Active - Is a tangible, dynamic force for the creator and audience
R - Reactive - that alters the trajectory of their experience and outlook
T - Theraputic - in an emotional/spiritual way

I am also fond of the notion that art happens when difficult outcomes are executed in apparently effortless manner. So it is a celebration of the elegance of an economy of movement, composition and understanding.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Perhaps it is just an acronym ...

Very good! I like it.

 

[Bateleur]

Just some thoughts…

Perhaps it’s easier to say what art is not. Art is not (necessarily) skillful, skill is the craft, the mechanical process which may result in the art work conforming to our expectations. and therefore art is not (always) beautiful. I could go on, but rather than dwelling on the negative, I’d prefer to consider what art is to my way of thinking, although I feel unable to improve on kswatapug’s ideas.

As part of a human compulsion as old as history itself, art reveals the artists inner sense, an attempt at self explanation, by laying their beliefs and values open. Self expression which need not be rational but a recognition of the creator’s possibilities and pain, and as such may question the observers own value system. Therefore by acknowledging and recognizing the intrinsic value of each human, art is perhaps the ultimate expression of humankind.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... Therefore by acknowledging and recognizing the intrinsic value of each human, art is perhaps the ultimate expression of humankind.

What about the elephant?

 

[Bateleur]

What about the elephant?

craft

 

[Rudeofus]

Therefore by acknowledging and recognizing the intrinsic value of each human, art is perhaps the ultimate expression of humankind.

I would like to add to this: Art is a form of expression of ones innermost feelings or thoughts, and presented in a way that engages many other people.

This may or may not require the creation to follow aesthetic principles, but knowledge of them helps you express your emotions in a way (by applying or intentionally breaking them) that many people understand.

This may or may not require skill: Malevichs black square or the aforementioned urinal required little skill or craftsmanship, an intricate sculpture may require much more. Skill doesn't automatically turn junk into art, but may be required to properly express those feelings or thoughts, or make a creation more likely to draw attention.

This may or may not require marketing. While marketing and self proclamation is frowned on by many purists, it may well be justified to bring an artists's point across. Few things (even great pieces of art) draw our attention if they are not advertised. If art is supposed to be an expression, it needs receivers. Malevichs black square or the aforementioned urinal would not be art but curiosities had the artists decided to hide them in their basements instead of putting them on public display.

 

[Q.G.]

What about the elephant?

Indeed.

We may like to believe that "humankind" is something special.
But we just don't know that.

We don't know whether the elephant appreciates what he is doing.
We also do not know whether he likes to think that elephantkind is something special.

Art is, i'm sure, not about being something special.
It is about the non-trivial, perhaps. But not about being non-trivial.
It exists because we are so stupid that we can't get our fingers behind lots of things, so that everytime we think we can get a grasp of something, we rejoice in the possibility, communicate it to all humankind, and call that (that communication) art. Everyone receiving that message will join in the 'rejoiceing', but only if he or she also is trying to get a grasp of that same thing (which is a given when both the sender and receiver of the message is the artist himself.)

The Big Feeling, the pathos if you will, associated with art is the reverse of our frustration with not being able to understand what we are, who we are, what the world is, what we should be doing, etc.
In short, it is smug contentment. Some people call that aesthetics. Same thing.

(It's short lived, by the way. The feeling does not last, though it lingers a bit longer than our belief that we have solved something we were struggling with itself.)

And that being as it is, anyone is forgiven for being content to be a human being and not an elephant. It's not justified. But it's art...

 

[sun of sand]

is an athlete an artist?

i have a very hard time with sayings like
Art is the exploration of the human existence by creative means

That sounds great
but
really? Reeeeally?

I think it's more like
art is exploration of the environment
whichever environment
real or manufactured

I don't believe that by picking up a rock and throwing it at an animal i'm exploring my existence

 

[2F/2F]

Art is subjective. A lone person can appreciate anything as art, even spilled punch. This flies against almost everything in the pronouncement. Because I believe it, and it is subjective, it is so.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

To me, art is more a process than it is a product. Art is that which is done by an artist, and/or by artistic process, in other words. It is defined by why and how and with what thoughts and feelings it was made...and then once it is made, what it is actually used for is a whole other issue that has nothing to do directly with what art is. I personally believe that art is more about the artist than about the use of the art itself, or even about the art itself. It is all bout the "just because" of the matter, not about the final result or the use of the piece. It is a state of being, a way of doing things, a way of thinking and experimenting and expressing, a process, and a happening, more than it is an object. The art object itself is simply the artifact that results from artistry occurring. I guess that is the best one-liner definition that I can come up with: Art is the artifacts that result from artistry having occurred.

...but the real question is: Why are we discussing art on a photography Website?

 

[removed account4]

art is just something that is made

 

[dpurdy]

Why do we care about the definition? Is it because we are photographers and are considered less artists than real artists who make things less reliant on technology.

 

[Q.G.]

art is just something that is made

Artificial, as opposed to 'nature grown'.
That's a large part of it, yes.

 

[Q.G.]

Why do we care about the definition? Is it because we are photographers and are considered less artists than real artists who make things less reliant on technology.

That would go against the "art = craft" theory.
Mastery of the tools would be what distinguishes an artist from the non-artist. So the more tools there are to master, the more difficult they are to master, the greater the art.

Quite a 'romantic' (and i don't take that word to mean something good) approach to artistdom. Akin to the 'noble savage' concept that used to exist a long time ago.
Why would making use of (perhaps even inventing new) 'technology' to help us do what we want be something that downgrades what we are and what do?

But be that as it may, we care about definitions, we talk about things the most, when, and because, we don't understand things.

 

[OldBikerPete]

"Art is a creation that communicates emotion non-verbally" is what I generally work with.

 

[Rudeofus]

"Art is a creation that communicates emotion non-verbally" is what I generally work with.

This would obviously exclude literature and poetry ...