What's your Definition of Art?

art is in the doing, not the selling

wclark5179 said:

I like to make pictures that shows the world as a beautiful place

Click to expand...

But who created the art? You with a camera or is the creation by nature the art itself?


Steve.

But who created the art? You with a camera or is the creation by nature the art itself?

Click to expand...

Art is a subjective term and no goup of people would ever agree to it. I cannot define it but Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive definition of it. For me I do not really walk around thinking about how artful this or that is. For instance a bar of soap was carefully designed, it has a nice aroma, colors and it's shaped very ergonomically and a person could call it a work of art. I call it a bar of soap. The same thing with photos. A person can walk around snapping away making works of art and you could even wear a cool hat or something while your snapping away. I just call it snapshots, photos or pictures. However I am not saying photos are not art. I am just saying I think of photos as well "photos". But to the quote above I would say a photo is created in combination with the photographer and the gear/process. You see a subject of some sort and you snap it or in case of a digi guy you rapid fire it.

My *current* understanding of 'art' is best described by paraphrasing an already stated sentence:

>> Take imagination, add skill and you get art <<

Rudeofus said:

This would obviously exclude literature and poetry ...

Click to expand...

Correct and correctly so, I believe. That's a different stream of creativity.

It is a question that brings memories of my two stints in graduate school crashing down upon me. I'm not going to approach the broader issue, because I'm far more interested in narrower questions which seem to have more useful meaning. Qualities, and function. That is, I'm not going to unless I allow myself, inadvertently, to be sucked in...

However, I will say that this discussion and almost all discussions about it consider the word "art" to be a noun. I find that it is more meaningful to me to think of it as a verb -almost. "Almost" because to use it in that way will be incomprehensible to just about everyone else. I think of "art" as being active, that there is movement in the term. A "product" of art would be a painting, sculpture, or what have you, but the art is in the doing. Art doesn't exist without the action. Now someone is going to object that I mean "craft" here, but I don't. Craft is the set of skills and their application. Art involves action on many more fronts, all of which involves "work" in a tangible sense, as it would be defined in physics, although the object may be invisible at most points along the way. This can be on many levels, from holding a hunk of charcoal and moving it, to the higher intellectual and spiritual planes.

I wish I could come up with a neat definition like you have, Ralph, but I'm afraid that I couldn't be satisfied. I would always find exceptions. Your definition would satisfy many with strictly classical orientations just fine. I do find value in much of the theory behind post and post post modernistic work, as well as much to be unhappy with. As a high school student, I was strongly advised against relativism, for which there would be no room in your definition. However, I have subsequently found that the postmodern concern with cultural relativism has a very important place if applied in a way that isn't strictly destructive (or, should I say, "deconstructive"?). Every culture has structures for building meaning, and these are the foundations of its art.

In my opinion (and that's all I suppose that matters to any of us with such a subective medium) something is art if we decide it is.

I've seen thousands of supposedly great works of art by "great artists" in my 49 years. However, although I can often "get" what the artist is trying to express - sometimes with a bit of help from an "expert" - that doesn't mean I must regard it as "art" or "artistic". My view may be naive and uncultured to some but my "rule of thumb" is that if I would put it (or a copy of it) on my wall at home, it's art. If I wouldn't, then although it might be clever, expressive, colourful or some other adjective - it's not art, at least, not to me....

Paul Jenkin said:

In my opinion (and that's all I suppose that matters to any of us with such a subective medium) something is art if we decide it is.

Click to expand...

Would it still be agreeable to you when we change "if we decide" to "if we recognize"?

bowzart said:

... I wish I could come up with a neat definition like you have, Ralph, but I'm afraid that I couldn't be satisfied. I would always find exceptions. Your definition would satisfy many with strictly classical orientations just fine. ...

Click to expand...

We must free ourselves from the expectation that a definition, any definition, must fit all cases. We could take many definition and would get in trouble pretty fast, if we'd expected a 100% match. Take 'photography' and see how fast you get before you get into trouble. Even rudimentary things such as 'light' don't have 100% fitting definitions (wave, quantum, both, who knows for sure).

I'm not looking for a perfect, 100% accurate definition for 'art'. I'm just trying to understand what people mean when they use the word. I admit, I'm also trying to 'force' people to think about that themselves, because I believe, the word is often used to liberally and without much thought at all.

What should I assume if someone says:

'Art is a creation that communicates emotion non-verbally.'

If I communicated my emotion by creating sufficient acceleration in my right fist to hit people on the nose, while not saying a word, would they call it art, or would they call for revenge?

Of course, I would never do that, but it explains my dilemma with these slippery definitions. Let's not define it for definition's sake, but let's be clear about what we mean when we talk about it, and that in my opinion, needs a definition of some sort. Not a perfect fits-all but a bit more than poetic or romantic one-liners.

It will force us to think about it, and that's the intent of this thread.

What you say about a 100% fit being unimportant is quite true. I suppose that approximates what I believe to be the inevitability of exceptions, and my reluctance to try to formulate into any sort of rigid generality. Within this uncertainty, we could have a situation where we may need to decide where our comfort zone lies, or whether we need one. The definition is far less important than the discussion.

With college students over the past several decades, I have seen how the resistance to ideas has increased. Where it used to be that students would rise to the challenge; it just ain't so these days, at least in the contexts where I've found myself. So, I appreciate your efforts.

Since we are human and as such, we share a great deal in our basic nature, but differ in that we are all unique in respect to our origins and experience. It is part of our condition to be unable to understand one another without a lot of bumps and jags. We can see this on the world stage, as groups of people who have so much in common pick up weapons and engage in killing each other - over definitions. It is also true right down to the kitchen, where husbands and wives often talk right past each other - just to bring it into a context to which I expect most everyone can relate. So, where my wife and I agree basically upon how we want to live our lives, we really get messed up on the details. Conflict ensues. Likewise, in a group like this, there may be an assumption that we agree on this really big thing we call art, when it comes down to the details of what it is, we will disagree.

When this happens, probably many times each day, rather than confront the problem in all its complexity, we take the easy way out and affirm that the truth lies in our individual opinion. In a veiled existential crisis, we deny that we are disoriented, and we opt for narcissism. Not to do so would require us to cope with uncertainty about what we are. If we did NOT do that, we'd need to face the larger issues: What is it to be human? What is real? What matters?

"What is art" is a question that lives on that level of importance. If we choose art to match the color of our living room couch, or just to make ourselves feel good, we are able to avoid having to face ourselves.

So, if I'm going to have a definition, I will exclude "comfort" as a term. I will also toss out the importance of my own opinion, and with that, it becomes irrelevant whether I "like" it. It will include a requirement that I face myself, my nature, and challenge my assumptions.

It could be pretty "ugly". It very well could be something I WOULD NOT want to hang in my house. It could be something that I can't stand looking at. So, I simply wouldn't hang it in my house, but I might not be able to forget it, either, because it would continue to challenge me to identify and reconsider my assumptions.

"It very well could be something I WOULD NOT want to hang in my house. It could be something that I can't stand looking at."

True enough. Art does not have to be pretty. And it doesn't have to be happy. And I don't have to like it. Some of my best work I have neither liked, nor chosen to hang on my wall. But it was art, and it was good.

Over the decades, I've become comfortable with the ideas of art expressed by St. Francis and Baudelaire.

St Francis said that labor is done by the hands, craft is done by the hands and the mind; art is done by the hands, the mind, and the soul. Baudelaire said that "art is technique charged by emotion". And he warned that "technique is impotent to create ANYTHING."

df cardwell said:

... St Francis said that labor is done by the hands, craft is done by the hands and the mind; art is done by the hands, the mind, and the soul. Baudelaire said that "art is technique charged by emotion". And he warned that "technique is impotent to create ANYTHING."

Click to expand...

I like all of these, because they make sense to me, and they reinstate the inseparable tie between art and craft.

Where did I read recently - someone said that quotations say more about the person quoting than they actually say about the source since a quotation is taken out of context, and you know some of the pitfalls that entails. The quotations by St. Francis and Baudelaire seem remarkably consistent with the quotation from Bertrand Russel beneath them. It gives us a very good idea of dfcardwell.

RalphLambrecht said:

Art is the conscious expression or application of creative human skill and imagination, producing aesthetic work, primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional power by a group of people.

Click to expand...

You are a long way short with your definition. What you have done is give the definition of craft. There is a big difference.

My own definition is: "Art is the chronicle of culture".

So where's the difference? Well the act of painting or photographing or sculpting or furniture making or basket weaving are all crafts. However, when they communicate something about human existence, i.e. culture, they become something more which you can intellectualise as art and is subjective. But the act of creation in itself is not art. Only what it communicates can be art and a sunday afternoon painter painting a landscape is not art. It is craft. And that is not to denigrate the craft because a Faberge Egg is a thing of pure beauty and the pinnacle of craftsmanship in that genre. But that does not make it art. Picasso's Geurnica is art because of what is communicates and not because of its style of painting or the skill involved in the physical making of the painting.
Once you call something art you intellectualise it and put your head on the block to be shot at. So be wary unlesss you really do have something to say about the world we live in.
Unfortunately it has become fashionable to call any photography art. The vast majority is not, especially landscape photography and "Fine art Nudes". Most of them really have nothing to say about culture or "human existence", as someone here put it. Most are technical exercises in craft technique and calling them art shows a shallow depth to the creators thinking on what they are doing and why.
Yes art is always created by using craft but craft can exist without art and should be valued for itself. There is no need to call ones own work art. That should be the preserve of the viewer (if they are able to make the distinction). Just because someone calls their work art doesn't mean it is and don't be fooled into thinking it is. Engage brain and think about what you are looking at and what it really communicates. Is it just emporers clothing and because someone else says it's art you must agree with them?
Some art forms such as writing (novels or playwriting) or scoring a piece of music are different in that the mere act of the creation of the piece is by definition an intellectual excersize but there is craft skill in the structuring of the work and you will always hear actors talk of their work as craft.
Why oh why do photographers think they are artists when clearly very few are.

The orignal question, full of caveats and disclaimers, shows a lack of clear thinking on what art is. The need to ask indicates this but it is a good way to get ideas to aid your thinking.

Think on, you might get there if you try hard enough. But be warned, you may have to throw away some pre-conceptions and rules before you finally get there. And that includes realising that dictionaries and professors may be wrong.

tlitody said:

My own definition is: "Art is the chronical of culture".

Click to expand...

Well, you can't say this without first defining for us what a "chronical" is!

2F/2F said:

Well, you can't say this without first defining for us what a "chronical" is!

Click to expand...

It's a typo

i dont have a soul
what is it?

art is soul? sounds like what you say when you have no idea
just bite the bullet and say it
art is god


Punching can be an art
you can punch/flail like a girly girl or punch with precision
It's an even better art when two are trying to punch with precision

isnt sport just a competition of "physical artistry"
We all can sense when someone has done something beautiful on the playing field

stadiums are filled world wide day in day out
how about the museums? not even close in scale id suspect
some would say that is proof of something
those in the stadium may say that it certainly IS proof ...of something

isn't skill art
skill as in doing something unnecessary for survival ..even just sharpening an arrowhead
so essentially anything outside of scavenging for food/water
making this thread "job security"
when did art begin
use of fire to cook food?
farming?

what was the first artistic achievement

art changes
farming today is not an artform
was it way back then when only 9 could do it reliably?
If cooking can be considered an artform today ..culinary arts
geez, you'd think the first time something was cooked would most certainly have to be seen as artistic/creative/innovative
don't you have to be creative to be artistic to be innovative?
where intelligence comes in i dunno
I'd think you'd have to be creative before you can be intelligent
i think you have to be able to sense important events and remember them ..or just remember everything
when you have sufficient memories of similar events you can begin to "piece" together causes and effects and after time can use the causes for new "effects"
fire makes things hard/brittle and dry weather turns ground hard and so after a millennia of creativity turn it into pottery
memory/creativity/intelligence/innovation
is creativity the same as artistry and we only for the sake of modern "job" security and/or mental accessability define art as something entirely different



what is art
explain art
then only can you can fiddle with a definition
cant explain art through a definition imo only define what it is you want it defined as being




that time was wasted

Don't we know what our culture is? Isn't that what culture IS ..the -knowledge- of the workings of our society
however you wish to say it

sounds like youre saying art is the lampooning of our knowledge/culture

telling us something about culture we don't actually recognize for if we were to we'd have to change it for the shame it brings us

RalphLambrecht said:

Art is the conscious expression or application of creative human skill and imagination, producing aesthetic work, primarily appreciated for its beauty or emotional power by a group of people.

Click to expand...

Great art often comes from the sub-conscience, with no prior conscious thought or planning.

In photography often the best images are those taken instinctively.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

... In photography often the best images are those taken instinctively.

Click to expand...

Ian

Does 'art' mean 'best' in your opinion?

tlitody said:

You are a long way short with your definition. What you have done is give the definition of craft. There is a big difference. ...

Click to expand...

There is no essential difference between art and craft.

We already went through this in another thread.

tlitody said:

... My own definition is: "Art is the chronicle of culture"...

Click to expand...

That's a statement not a very clarifying definition. Try harder!

RalphLambrecht said:

That's a statement not a very clarifying definition. Try harder!

Click to expand...

You'll have to work on it if you want to pad it out to give the appearance of being something more than it is. I can show you the path but you must walk it yourself unless you want to be led by the nose.

RalphLambrecht said:

There is no essential difference between art and craft.

We already went through this in another thread.

Click to expand...

Well maybe you came up with the wrong answer.

RalphLambrecht said:

Ian

Does 'art' mean 'best' in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Out of context that's a meaningless question.

What I meant was often the first image shot of a specific situation is the best maybe artistically as well, sometimes you then get an oppotunity to work arounf that situation, and you may be lucky and get better.

Art is extremely subjective, one man's art is another man's porn, or kitsch and luckily we don't all like the same things in art

Having seen Fay Godwin work when she shot one of her well known images at Chatsworth I'd have to say the framing, choice of viewpoint etc, was instinctive, subconscious, and I know many other photographers work the same way.

I'll throw another spanner in the works, sometimes it's the body of work or the sequence of images that's the art, not the individual image.

Ian

sun of sand said:

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

Click to expand...

Depends on the animal. If it is a large carnivore, and it becomes irritated by your rock-throwing, your existence may suddenly become very important to you...