What's your Definition of Art?

[5stringdeath]

My favorite quote is "Art is anything you can get away with."

 

[sun of sand]

what is calligraphy to be considered
harder yet
what is penmanship

 

[tlitody]

what is calligraphy to be considered
harder yet
what is penmanship

calligraphy is calligraphy

penmanship is penmanship

the problem is caused only by people who, for some unfathomable reason, feel compelled to call what is obviously what it is, something else.

Be warned pseuds abound. They try and intellectualise what has no need of intellectualising. It makes them think that what ever they are talking bollocks about is superior. Why not just call calligraphy, calligraphy? That way you don't make yourself look like a complete jerk. Unless of course you are trying to con the gullible who are also very likely pseuds.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I think its all about with our brain which is a computer made from neural networks technology and produces actions which comes from our genes and the will to do these actions. Some mulfunction creates mozart , cezanne and others.
More technically , our brain is swirled from one long tissue and first part is the oldest and placing in the bottom and other part is the top and the newer.
Old brain have our animal like wild actions , feelings and the newer part is on the top and filter and make more regular actions.
So two brains interact together and produces final decision.
Without knowing archaeology of brain and the genes , we can not explain art or terror etc.

Mustafa Umut Sarac

 

[sun of sand]

calligraphy is calligraphy

penmanship is penmanship

the problem is caused only by people who, for some unfathomable reason, feel compelled to call what is obviously what it is, something else.

Be warned pseuds abound. They try and intellectualise what has no need of intellectualising. It makes them think that what ever they are talking bollocks about is superior. Why not just call calligraphy, calligraphy? That way you don't make yourself look like a complete jerk. Unless of course you are trying to con the gullible who are also very likely pseuds.

you did call something art and say that other things were not
seems like you did a 180? and now say everything is only what it is
guernica is just another painting

what's the ranking system then

 

[tlitody]

you did call something art and say that other things were not
seems like you did a 180? and now say everything is only what it is
guernica is just another painting

what's the ranking system then

No I said Guernica is art because of what it communicates. i.e. what it represents. Calligraphy is Calligraphy, Penmanship is Penmanship and a Painting such as Guernica is a painting. Just because it may also become art through public concensus does not make it cease to be a painting.
Why do you have a problem calling yourself a photographer? Do you think you are something superior? Are you ashamed to be known as a photographer? Do you have a low opinion of photographers? Are photographs not worthy if they are not called art? Do you think calling your photographs art somehow makes them better. Do you think I'm so stupid I can't tell for myself if they are art and I need to be told? Or does it make you feel better about yourself if you call them art?

 

[sun of sand]

is calligraphy art
thats drawn out enough

i really dont understand the second paragraph of questions

I want to know what art is and more importantly
what isn't

if "you" have no idea where to begin you cannot define art and sure cant explain it

 

[ruilourosa]

common this is getting absurd: calligraphy is art?

i read that someone should take a art history course, and i belive most of you should

to undestand anything you should know better about it, watch it, read about it, meet experts, but when art is the matter seems everyone knows oceans of it, telling precisely what it is, and defending it with the argument: for me art is... art is a human creation like many others, for example no one outside the mean goes and ask or say what engineering or medicine or nuclear phisycs is, that´s becaus you should know a lot about it before asking what it is or what is not.

you have to know the language.

Please study hard, go and see museums, instruct yourself about the subject, before trying to say something constructive, and if it´s not just shut up


and belive me when you are standing in front a painting like Guernica if you understand just a bit of what is in front of you, you will be astonished

 

[tlitody]

is calligraphy art
thats drawn out enough

i really dont understand the second paragraph of questions

I want to know what art is and more importantly
what isn't

if "you" have no idea where to begin you cannot define art and sure cant explain it

The point I'm making is that there is no need to call your work art. It is totally superfluos to your work. Your work is the statement and not what you like to call it. If its photography then call it photography. If someone else wants to call it art then that's fine. But if you call your own work art then you had better be able to back that up with a very rational reasoning of why it is art. If you need to ask what art is or you can't define art then how can you call your work art. The typical dictionary definition of art means just about everything can be art. Yet we all see work labeled as art or in art galleries that we really don't see any evidence of art except in the sense of the dictionary defintion. That really makes it fairly meaningless to call your work art since intentionally pressing your nose against a window and leaving a smear of nose grease on it can be called art. So what? Am I supposed to think wow that is a clever piece of art. How wonderful someone thought of doing that. No, real art will communicate or represent something far more significant in all our lives than what most of what passes for art does.

I gave my definition of art earlier in the thread. Art is a word that has many meanings to many people. Take your pick. I chose my meaning because for me it seems to be the truth. It's what art does. It chronicles culture when you look at all art in the whole. It's a holistic defintion. The dictionary defintions tend toward the requirements for creation of art which I think are crafts and not art itself. I know others will dispute that but most of them are still trying to work it out.

 

[Bateleur]

I guess that's it. Thanks you all for participating. I'm moving on to other things. It was fun.

This has been an interesting thread, I for one being challenged to consider, for me the essence of art. I too would be interested how and where your idea's Ralph have changed or been reinforced.

 

[sun of sand]

common this is getting absurd: calligraphy is art?

i read that someone should take a art history course, and i belive most of you should

to undestand anything you should know better about it, watch it, read about it, meet experts, but when art is the matter seems everyone knows oceans of it, telling precisely what it is, and defending it with the argument: for me art is... art is a human creation like many others, for example no one outside the mean goes and ask or say what engineering or medicine or nuclear phisycs is, that´s becaus you should know a lot about it before asking what it is or what is not.

you have to know the language.

Please study hard, go and see museums, instruct yourself about the subject, before trying to say something constructive, and if it´s not just shut up


and belive me when you are standing in front a painting like Guernica if you understand just a bit of what is in front of you, you will be astonished

You're saying calligraphy isn't art? You have it right next to absurd so it seems that way
I'd think many if not most people would say calligraphy is definitely art and certainly anyone that would preach an art history course

but looking at numerous pages here you'd think a "newcomer" looking for an art defintion would then almost certainly have to discount calligraphy as an artform or at best try to find a little niche for it somewhere

If you have to "know" a lot about art before asking what art is or what it is not
doesn't that mean you have to "know" a lot about art before you can practice it? that's odd. I'd bet ANY artist would say that's foolish.
I'd think you'd be better off asking questions and hoping that leads to knowledge rather than just going out and getting knowledge magically and then ask questions

What about those cave painters then? Where are their bonafides?
pretty sure medicine began with people doing really crazy stuff looking for knowledge of things
they'd be crackpots now but does that mean they'd be doing anything wrong?
you can read a book and perhaps get somewhere faster
or you could just go out and practice and maybe come up with something missed
The books and experts aren't always correct
if you were to follow them blindly we'd be stuck

 

[sun of sand]

The point I'm making is that there is no need to call your work art. It is totally superfluos to your work. Your work is the statement and not what you like to call it. If its photography then call it photography. If someone else wants to call it art then that's fine. But if you call your own work art then you had better be able to back that up with a very rational reasoning of why it is art. If you need to ask what art is or you can't define art then how can you call your work art. The typical dictionary definition of art means just about everything can be art. Yet we all see work labeled as art or in art galleries that we really don't see any evidence of art except in the sense of the dictionary defintion. That really makes it fairly meaningless to call your work art since intentionally pressing your nose against a window and leaving a smear of nose grease on it can be called art. So what? Am I supposed to think wow that is a clever piece of art. How wonderful someone thought of doing that. No, real art will communicate or represent something far more significant in all our lives than what most of what passes for art does.

I gave my definition of art earlier in the thread. Art is a word that has many meanings to many people. Take your pick. I chose my meaning because for me it seems to be the truth. It's what art does. It chronicles culture when you look at all art in the whole. It's a holistic defintion. The dictionary defintions tend toward the requirements for creation of art which I think are crafts and not art itself. I know others will dispute that but most of them are still trying to work it out.

tell me the rational reasons for something being art
what does guernica tell us?
You say we should this and we should that
Why don't you just tell us/me WHAT it IS that makes guernica art

Do you not think that the paintings preachings are evident to everyone looking at it?
If anyone can understand the scene
the painting hasn't TOLD US anything
merely reminded
It is beautiful and I surely call it art
But
It doesn't tell me anything I haven't already -decided- for myself on my own time

 

[tlitody]

I thought I had already made it quite clear. Art is the chronicle of culture. It is what the work communicates that is art. How effectively it is able to communicate and mostly whether what it is communicating is worth communicating. Some work communicates bugger all. Some work is very powerful and tells us a lot. But as a whole art chronicles culture. It is a record of how we live and inter-react with one another and how we see the world we live in. It's really very very simple. It is only when you try and intellectualise it that it becomes a problem because interpretation is subjective. Some people try and define rules for interpreting what art is. They usually disappear up their own anal tract when trying to do so.

Now why do you want to know what art is? Why is it siginificant to you what art is? Why don't you just worry about doing what you do and do/make your work. Why would you want to call your work art anyway? What purpose would that serve?
I make photographs. Some people call them art some people call them photographs. Some people get what they are about and some don't. It really doesn't matter to me. I am not trying to be "something". I do photography because I enjoy doing photography. I don't do photography because I want to pass myself off as an artist even if some of my work chronicles culture (most of it doesn't). But even if it did I wouldn't call myself an artist. I would call myself a photographer or a craftsman because that is what I do.
Art, as you can see from this thread, is such a wooly concept and the belief by some that anything can be art, means the word art has become "undefinable". It has no meaning. It's a cop out word to allow you to do anything. It doesn't imply anything good, bad or indifferent anymore.
As someone quoted earlier in the thread. "It is anything you can get away with".
I put my own boundaries on it which are for me that it must "chronicle culture". If it doesn't do that for me, then it probably falls into the craft genre otherwise it falls into the junk genre.

You must work out your own boundaries if indeed you want any. If you don't want any boundaries then everything becomes art for you and the word art has no meaning.

p.s. interesting that you describe Guernica as a thing of beauty. I rather thought it was more a depiction of death and destruction. I never saw it as a beautiful painting. But there you go, it just shows how subjective art can be.

 

[sun of sand]

I thought I had already made it quite clear. Art is the chronicle of culture. It is what the work communicates that is art. How effectively it is able to communicate and mostly whether what it is communicating is worth communicating. Some work communicates bugger all. Some work is very powerful and tells us a lot. But as a whole art chronicles culture. It is a record of how we live and inter-react with one another and how we see the world we live in. It's really very very simple. It is only when you try and intellectualise it that it becomes a problem because interpretation is subjective. Some people try and define rules for interpreting what art is. They usually disappear up their own anal tract when trying to do so.

Now why do you want to know what art is? Why is it siginificant to you what art is? Why don't you just worry about doing what you do and do/make your work. Why would you want to call your work art anyway? What purpose would that serve?
I make photographs. Some people call them art some people call them photographs. Some people get what they are about and some don't. It really doesn't matter to me. I am not trying to be "something". I do photography because I enjoy doing photography. I don't do photography because I want to pass myself off as an artist even if some of my work chronicles culture (most of it doesn't). But even if it did I wouldn't call myself an artist. I would call myself a photographer or a craftsman because that is what I do.
Art, as you can see from this thread, is such a wooly concept and the belief by some that anything can be art, means the word art has become "undefinable". It has no meaning. It's a cop out word to allow you to do anything. It doesn't imply anything good, bad or indifferent anymore.
As someone quoted earlier in the thread. "It is anything you can get away with".
I put my own boundaries on it which are for me that it must "chronicle culture". If it doesn't do that for me, then it probably falls into the craft genre otherwise it falls into the junk genre.

You must work out your own boundaries if indeed you want any. If you don't want any boundaries then everything becomes art for you and the word art has no meaning.

p.s. interesting that you describe Guernica as a thing of beauty. I rather thought it was more a depiction of death and destruction. I never saw it as a beautiful painting. But there you go, it just shows how subjective art can be.

Now we have to define Beauty
Some would say a rainbow is beautiful and rain is ugly but how do you get one without the other
Some say childbirth is beautiful but it's rather not lol
It's what aspects you wish to define as being beautiful that are beautiful
Are scenes of death beautiful? Naw
It's knowing what those scenes af death are saying about the commonality of life that is beautiful
We all wish for security
We all get scared
We all love

..We all war? It depicts a problem that seemingly not a soul can answer


art is the chronicle of culture seems wide open to me
Soup cans tell us something about our culture
but now it has to be WORTH communicating?
Who decides the worthiness?
A painting of war is worthy why? Because people die?
A can of soup enables people to live
Maybe if we were more focused on soup cans and living there wouldnt be war
..then the soup cans would be }***revered***{ and would be the ultimate in art
What does a pollock reveal?


"Some work is very powerful and tells us a lot"
I will assume you think Guernica tells us a lot
I said Guernica tells us nothing we dont already know ..especially if you have an eye for life and beauty and whatnot else ..who doesn't?
Guernica is more an echo of our conscious
and yet what impact does it really have? the art or the conscious
Maybe we just like to think of ourselves as being peace-loving and nice and sensitive
so that when it comes time to go to war we can always claim we're the good guys
just look at "our" art ---------->

How can a reminder memo be considered the loftiest goal of art?



I don't want to know what art is as much as I want to know what art IS NOT
that's the better more valuable question, imo
Is calligraphy art or not?
If it isn't ..you gotta say why and that has to stand up
if it's easy to strip "your" reasoning away -especially- by using your own standards for what art is
then it cant be true

 

[Mateo]

Art is that which serves no real purpose other than to be looked at... or traded in such a way that proves PT Barnum right.

 

[tlitody]

Luckily you get to make your own value judgements. It may be art, but it may also be shallow art. Some people get off on it. Some people don't.

 

[tlitody]

I don't want to know what art is as much as I want to know what art IS NOT
that's the better more valuable question, imo
Is calligraphy art or not?
If it isn't ..you gotta say why and that has to stand up

If I'm not mistaken calligraphy is calligraphy. You seem to be having a problem calling it that. You seem to want to know if its something else? It's certainly decorative in its appearance. Some of those decorative twiddly bits have a lot of iconography in them which represent a lot of historical events and people to illustrate the writing. And then again in other calligraphy works those decorative twiddly bits are there to be well, just decorative twiddly bits... You decide.

 

[clayne]

Now we have to define Beauty
Some would say a rainbow is beautiful and rain is ugly but how do you get one without the other

If there's one thing I know - sun of sand's posts are almost always a work of (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

 

[GoldenMarvel]

For me, art is being able to convey a concept, feeling or moment, ideally all three, through any medium that expresses best how you feel.
All art is subjective, no way around that.

 

[Q.G.]

All art is subjective, no way around that.

We shouldn't get hung up on this, since it's not particular to art.
Everything we do, hear, think, believe, perceive, feel, express, see, etc. is subjective.
Objectivity does not exist, except as a poorly understood concept.

 

[coigach]

I've got may books art theory books, and enjoy thinking about art. My own definition has evolved over the years and is a bit less academic however...!

"something creative that emotionally hits you in the guts".

For me, this is the real test of good art, does it emotionally connect in some way? Does it take you outside yourself and make you look at things in a different way? Is it powerful, even in a mysterious 'I-don't-know-why-but-it-gets-me' way?

Much art is technically good but emotionally cold, and much is also what Ivan Massow, short-lived chair of ICA, called "craftless tat". Either way their attractions are pretty ephemeral - they don't stay with me and nag like a little voice in my head...

It's easy to limit yourself to personal taste with when you define art, but I think art should reflect everything human. It should be beautiful, ugly, reassuring, troubling, be iconoclastic and resist easy definitions.

Which brings us full circle I guess...

Cheers,
Gavin

PS - here's a link to the amusing Ivan Massow quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1801503.stm

 

[Steve Smith]

Much art is technically good but emotionally cold, and much is also what Ivan Massow, short-lived chair of ICA, called "craftless tat".

I loved the full comment he made: "most conceptual art I see is pretentious, self-indulgent, craftless tat that I wouldn't even accept as a gift".




Steve.

 

[coigach]

It made me laugh.

The ICA's reaction reminded me of the artists in the 'Young British Artists' cartonn strip in 'Private Eye'...!

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[Q.G.]

I've got may books art theory books, and enjoy thinking about art. My own definition has evolved over the years and is a bit less academic however...!

"something creative that emotionally hits you in the guts".

For me, this is the real test of good art, does it emotionally connect in some way? Does it take you outside yourself and make you look at things in a different way? Is it powerful, even in a mysterious 'I-don't-know-why-but-it-gets-me' way?

Much art is technically good but emotionally cold, and much is also what Ivan Massow, short-lived chair of ICA, called "craftless tat". Either way their attractions are pretty ephemeral - they don't stay with me and nag like a little voice in my head...

It's easy to limit yourself to personal taste with when you define art, but I think art should reflect everything human. It should be beautiful, ugly, reassuring, troubling, be iconoclastic and resist easy definitions.

Which brings us full circle I guess...

I have been wondering about this: does art have to appeal to emotions? Why would a purely intellectual (you'll notice i make a distinction - for now - between emotional and intellectual - rational, if you will - which i really don't think exists) thing not be art?

Music, by the way, is the only purely emotional form of art.
It needs words and acts to express something that goes over and beyond the few basic 'raw emotions'.

I don't think it does (have to appeal to emotions). A rational concept can hit you in the guts too.

But anyway, i think the difference between emotional and intellectual is not an essential one. It's very much (if not entirely) like the consciousness thing: always 'a mix', with the two terms merely indicating aspects, or degrees, naes for the thingies we think it is a mix of, and not two separate thingies that exist independently.


The difference that does exist is that between the banal and the relevant. Just as it does in other forms of expression, it is all too easy to produce an utterance that can only evoke reactions like "so what?" and "who cares?".
Craft has nothing to do with it. Choosing to what you apply that craft, what applying craft is supposed to achieve, does.

 

[tlitody]

Now we have to define Beauty
Some would say a rainbow is beautiful and rain is ugly but how do you get one without the other

Do we have to define beauty? I don't think so. Do we have to define Art? Well I have but it doesn't seem to fit whatever it is you are looking for. So I really can't answer the question for you. What I can tell you though, is that just because a piece of work communicates deep meaning or truths about the human condition, it doesn't mean the definition of art has to be deep and meaningful. You've heard the expression "Less is more". Well my definition fits the bill. On the other hand, if you want a defintion that reads like a technical specification, then go with the original posters defintion which I'm sure you will be able to drive a coach and horses through with your arguments since it is so easy to find contradictions to it.

Look at this way. Is making art a cultural activity and does it reflect culture itself? If so then the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, then art must be a record of cultural activity. It is therefore the "chronicle of culture". That's it in a nutshell. It couldn't be simpler. There is simply no need or requirement for further or more detailed explanation. A problem arises only if you think making art is not a cultural activity. If that is the case then please tell us what you think it is.
If deep and meaningful is what you want then look to the specific pieces of work you're considering and not to the defintion of art itself becuase you won't find it there. Do you really think the defintion of art can explain every instance of cultural activity ever practised over the course of human existance by listing all the requirements for its creation without understanding 100% of every culture which has ever existed. No human is capable of that and even if they were the defintion would run to volumes.