What's your Definition of Art?

[Steve Smith]

Music, by the way, is the only purely emotional form of art. It needs words........

Why does music need words?


Steve.

 

[Q.G.]

Why does music need words?

To do the things you left out of the quote.

But you probably mean to say that it doesn't need to do that. And i would agree completely.

But if ... the words you replaced with "..." apply.

 

[ruilourosa]

well well...


seems like calligraphy is art after all... or not, maybe also tricot, architecture, design, or anything else (oops)

respect the trade, do not say things without knowing, and yes everything can be an artistic statement, but then you are discussing the angels sex.


seems like people are asking others to shut up, (including me...) so i´m going to grab my Africa Twin (it´s a motorcicle!) and ride to Madrid this weekend, i´m going to park in passeio do prado and check some strange paintings, sculptures maybe some photos... maybe they can tell me better what art is.

i advise you to do the same

 

[Q.G.]

well well...


seems like calligraphy is art after all... or not, [...]

Yes...

And a cat is a piece of furniture. Or not.
Or it is after all. Or not, of course.
And a piece of furniture is [etc.]

 

[Steve Smith]

so i´m going to grab my Africa Twin (it´s a motorcicle!) and ride to Madrid this weekend, i´m going to park in passeio do prado and check some strange paintings, sculptures maybe some photos... maybe they can tell me better what art is.

i advise you to do the same

Sounds like a good idea. When is your motorcycle available?!!!


Steve.

 

[coigach]

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.

Good points, very thought-provoking.

I don't believe that you can seperate rational concepts from emotion - it's a cunning fallacy stemming from the Enlightenment in my opinion...

I agree that rational concepts can often have the power to be emotionally moving. I think that the danger comes from rationalising art in the way where you seperate the 'concept' from the emotion it generates. If art was just a matter of technical perfection then I would come to love art that I currently admire because of its technical merits.

I reckon that appreciating art purely as a rational concept is a bit of a dead-end because it denies the 'mystery' element of good art to transform. (And also, incidentally where I struggle with much Conceptual art. Not because of the principal of the 'concept' itself, more because the 'concept' is often a goal in itself - even if it is a banal concept and results in the intellectual equivalent of a shrug of the shoulders... "so what?" :rolleyes.

Consider Rothko's 'slabs of colour' for example. On a rational level these are very easily reduced as the results of an artist with limited draughtsmanship skills, and the work of a 'one-trick-pony' artist. They lend themselves to all sorts of trite analysis and even, God-forbid, as interior decorating art...!

And yet. When I stood in front of some of them on a gallery wall I was overwhelmed. The emotional charge from them was almost visceral. I couldn't shake them from my mind for a long time afterwards, and ultimately undid a previous prejudice about abstract art...

Who knows why this is? It's certainly not a 'magic formula', but is somehow more than the sum of its parts. It's transformative and mysterious, but for me, that's what good art does. It definitely can't be explained by solely rational means...

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[Thingy]

What is Garfunkel?

A musician whose music I grew up with many, many, many years ago....

 

[sun of sand]

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.

Was there not even the slightest touch of
I'm right youre wrong
in your "i never saw guernica as a beautiful painting"
Cause I felt it in there

If there was any condemnation we DO have to define beauty

Why is it you can define art
tell me what art is for you
give me an example of great artwork
yet can't tell me whether calligraphy is art or not

Is making art a cultural activity?
yes, OK
does it reflect culture itself?
it can ..yes, sometimes

If so then the answer is yes
What was the question?

was the question "what is art?"
a cultural activity.
Art is a cultural activity?
What isn't?
Art is a cultural activity that reflects our culture
i said only sometimes
The only truth there then is that art is a cultural activity
but that isn't any good enough at describing what art is not
unless you want to say that any cultural activity is art
but then you said it has to be worthy
and said some art isn't good or whatever only craft

to me that really doesnt ANSWER anything



It is therefore the "chronicle of culture".
no ..i said it doesn't always reflect and you said that for it to be a chronicle it has to not only be an activity but ALSO has to reflect

we need to argue this because you just want me to go along with the second condition because I agreed to the first


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.

no
the problem is that i dont believe it always has to reflect culture

and i have said a lot on what i believe art is and have asked many questions



the defintion would run to volumes
i'd probably agree with that -as to what art has been and today is-
but the definition i think would be far simpler


What about sport
cultural activity
reflects culture

therefore its an art?
i've asked this already but nobody answers

 

[sun of sand]

well well...


seems like calligraphy is art after all... or not, maybe also tricot, architecture, design, or anything else (oops)

respect the trade, do not say things without knowing, and yes everything can be an artistic statement, but then you are discussing the angels sex.


seems like people are asking others to shut up, (including me...) so i´m going to grab my Africa Twin (it´s a motorcicle!) and ride to Madrid this weekend, i´m going to park in passeio do prado and check some strange paintings, sculptures maybe some photos... maybe they can tell me better what art is.

i advise you to do the same

i can do this on my computer
or do I have to be seen in public checking strange artwork with a pipe and goblet scruffy hair torn shirt barefoot depending on the scene to have credentials enough to speak of it

 

[tlitody]

Was there not even the slightest touch of
I'm right youre wrong
in your "i never saw guernica as a beautiful painting"
Cause I felt it in there

If there was any condemnation we DO have to define beauty

Why is it you can define art
tell me what art is for you
give me an example of great artwork
yet can't tell me whether calligraphy is art or not

Is making art a cultural activity?
yes, OK
does it reflect culture itself?
it can ..yes, sometimes

If so then the answer is yes
What was the question?

was the question "what is art?"
a cultural activity.
Art is a cultural activity?
What isn't?
Art is a cultural activity that reflects our culture
i said only sometimes
The only truth there then is that art is a cultural activity
but that isn't any good enough at describing what art is not
unless you want to say that any cultural activity is art
but then you said it has to be worthy
and said some art isn't good or whatever only craft

to me that really doesnt ANSWER anything



It is therefore the "chronicle of culture".
no ..i said it doesn't always reflect and you said that for it to be a chronicle it has to not only be an activity but ALSO has to reflect

we need to argue this because you just want me to go along with the second condition because I agreed to the first


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.

no
the problem is that i dont believe it always has to reflect culture

and i have said a lot on what i believe art is and have asked many questions



the defintion would run to volumes
i'd probably agree with that -as to what art has been and today is-
but the definition i think would be far simpler


What about sport
cultural activity
reflects culture

therefore its an art?
i've asked this already but nobody answers

How tiresome. You've asked. I given you my answer. You don't accept it. As I've already said, you'll have to dream up your own definition if mine doesn't fit your requirements.

 

[ruilourosa]

i can do this on my computer
or do I have to be seen in public checking strange artwork with a pipe and goblet scruffy hair torn shirt barefoot depending on the scene to have credentials enough to speak of it

hello


you could also do sex in or with your computer...

seems art isn´t your trade man, but you have a stereotipe in your mind and you should go on and be happy and blissful with it

 

[wclark5179]

I agree this has been an educational thread. Nice to read about ideas each has about art.

I still like my definition.

 

[sun of sand]

How tiresome. You've asked. I given you my answer. You don't accept it. As I've already said, you'll have to dream up your own definition if mine doesn't fit your requirements.

I'll have to go back to find your exact phrasing, I guess
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but coming in -as i believe you did- saying most/all others defiitions are incorrect and youve the real one/only one that matters/whatever youre calling it

I feel free to ask you questions all day long regarding your knowledge

Im not sure if youve answered any of my questions

you exert your definition as truth but when questioned you -frankly- flake
you call guernica art
everything i ask about is just whatever it is and ask me why i bother to even ask if something is art or not
eventhough youve obviously formulated for yourself what is and isnt and what is to a lesser extent than what is



What was up with that pseudo crap?
im not sure if you ever included yourself
but tiresome?
I'm pretty sure the real deal would be tireLESS in explaining


so what is it that youre not receiving from me that causes you to become bored

 

[sun of sand]

hello


you could also do sex in or with your computer...

seems art isn´t your trade man, but you have a stereotipe in your mind and you should go on and be happy and blissful with it

dude youre talking about motorcycle trips around whatever city of the world to look at "strange" art and smilie faces and insults

are you kidding me, man?

What does looking at art in a museum do for this thread?
Why would looking at something better help me understand what is and isn't?
really ..explain it.
but you don't
probably won't



and to what stereotype are you referring? I wasn't aware I'd made one..

 

[tlitody]

I'll have to go back to find your exact phrasing, I guess
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but coming in -as i believe you did- saying most/all others defiitions are incorrect and youve the real one/only one that matters/whatever youre calling it

I feel free to ask you questions all day long regarding your knowledge

Im not sure if youve answered any of my questions

you exert your definition as truth but when questioned you -frankly- flake
you call guernica art
everything i ask about is just whatever it is and ask me why i bother to even ask if something is art or not
eventhough youve obviously formulated for yourself what is and isnt and what is to a lesser extent than what is



What was up with that pseudo crap?
im not sure if you ever included yourself
but tiresome?
I'm pretty sure the real deal would be tireLESS in explaining


so what is it that youre not receiving from me that causes you to become bored

I tell you what, lets do this another way.

How about you come up with a 100% complete defintive list of every question that needs answering about art that will satisfy your requirements for making a defintion of art. Then you turn that list of questions into your own defintion or requirements for art and voila you have what you are looking for without wasting anyone elses time by doing this piecemeal. What could be simpler.

You better show us the list of questions just in case someone wants to tell you that you left some out, but since you know best I'm sure you won't but we'll check anyway so be sure it is a 100% complete and definitve list.

p.s. you better be sure you ask the right questions. After all it's the ability to ask the right questions which is the clever bit and not the ability to work out the answer which is usually a purely procedural exercise.

 

[ruilourosa]

dude youre talking about motorcycle trips around whatever city of the world to look at "strange" art and smilie faces and insults

are you kidding me, man?

What does looking at art in a museum do for this thread?
Why would looking at something better help me understand what is and isn't?
really ..explain it.
but you don't
probably won't



and to what stereotype are you referring? I wasn't aware I'd made one..

hello


it´s fairly stupid to keep this going... but well, i´m on a painting break



if you ever read walter benjamin you would understand me, and if you ever visited prado museum (or any other one) you would understand me, at least better, if you keep seeing things on you computer you will lose the best of the world

art and aesthetic experiences aren´t quite a computer screen experience


the stereotipe is that the art lover must be:a guy "with a pipe and goblet scruffy hair torn shirt barefoot"

you should be open minded and instructed just that

have you ever read a gombrish or jansen? have you ever set foot in a museum or an art gallery, and looked and questioned, and investigated why these creations are made?

i do not know where you live but i live in an ancient world where art surrounds us and gets in your eyes and ears in the streets, since i was a small boy i visited museums and art galleries and even if this makes me get a romantic view of what art and it´s experience is, i just love it

save a few dollars, leave your computer, and make a journey trough your museums, or come to europe and see ours, you wont regret it and if you do i won´t have to explain it to you, beside, i belive that an explanation is not available in the inteligeble side and more on the sensible side

also, i earn money teaching...

and looking at art (not a lousy repro) has everything to do with this thread...

 

[Wade D]

Art was my dad's uncles name. Short for Arthur I think.

 

[KenS]

Definition of Art?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDo_vs3Aip4

 

[alexhill]

I feel that being informed is the most important component with art theory. If we are to ignore 'musings' on art and focus on philosophy then the best book is Art and It's Significance edited by Stephen David Ross. Chapters I found particularly interesting were
David Hume: Of the standard of Taste
Immanual Kant: Critique of Judgment
Fridrich Nietzche: The birth of Tragedy, Attempt at a Self-Criticsm
John Dewey: Art as Experience
Martin Heidegger: The Origin of the Work of Art
Walter Benjamin: The work of Art in the Age of its Technical Reproducibility

However, I much much much prefer the book Theories of Modern Art by Herschel B. Chipp. It has been a massive influence in how I work and think about art. My favorite essays are dog eared and lots of notes are scribbled in the margins. Most of my influences are painters because of how they talk about color, esthetics and meaning. You might not like a lot of 'modern' art, but after reading the chapter on cubism- you will appreciate cubism. Their writings are so interesting and thought provoking. I tend to forget they are not talking about photography
Vincent Van Gogh: Excerpts from the Letters
Cubism (everything. seriously)
Symbolism and other subjectivist Tendencies: Diverses Choses by Tahiti,
Dada, Surrealism: Lecture on Dada by Tristan Tzara, Marc Chagall interviewed by James Johnson Sweeny,

Photo specific (if that thats possible) writings on art can be found in the incredable book The Photography Reader edited by Liz Wells. This book has been a considerable cause of my options of photography. Some really good sections include
Photojournalism and the Tabloid Press by Karin E. Becker
The Paradoxes of Digital Photography by Lev Manovich
The Shadow of the Object by Sarah Kember

Another favorite of mine is Concerning the Spiritual in Art by Wassily Kandinsky and Art and Fear by David Bayles and Ted Orland.

If your mathematically inclined then you might like Shadows of Reality: The fourth Dimension in Relativity, Cubism, and Modern Thought by Tony Robbin. It was a fantastic read, (and re-read, and re-read) I can't say I understand everything in it, but it is an excellent complement to the cubist writings.

I typed my personal views up in a 'capestone' format to accompany my senior BFA project. That can be found here . I think its a decent paper, I hope I didn't geek out too bad in this thread

 

[eclarke]

Art quits being art when you start to advertise and sell it...then it's product.

 

[Q.G.]

Art quits being art when you start to advertise and sell it...then it's product.

So why can't art be a product, a product be art?

 

[totalmotard]

I think of art as artifice, something made, artificial and therefore false, but created to express something natural and true.

I've never seen a photograph that could exactly reproduce what my eye sees. Every photograph is therefore a false depiction of reality, but art is to trying to capture the natural, true essence of a thing apart from it's mechanical visual truth.

A lie told to reveal the truth, kind of like a parable.

 

[Q.G.]

I think of art as artifice, something made, artificial and therefore false, but created to express something natural and true.

I've never seen a photograph that could exactly reproduce what my eye sees. Every photograph is therefore a false depiction of reality, but art is to trying to capture the natural, true essence of a thing apart from it's mechanical visual truth.

A lie told to reveal the truth, kind of like a parable.

A representation. Yes.

But a lie?
It would only be if i would, say, sell you a picture of a bunch of flowers as if it was a bunch of flowers and not a picture of a bunch of flowers.

Representations are artifical. And i agree that that is a major part of art.
But why are they false? And what's reality?

 

[eclarke]

So why can't art be a product, a product be art?

Well, it changes the reasons for making it. I said "sell with emphasis on sell and advertise". If you are making for the sake of tghe art and somebody offers to buy it, that's different.

 

[Q.G.]

Well, it changes the reasons for making it. I said "sell with emphasis on sell and advertise".

That's an assumption, that art is made with the express purpose of being sold.
When, what you said, art is advertised and sold, it still is, contrary to what you said, art.

And who says that art can't be art if it is made to be sold?
I would certainly not say that. For i think it is completely wrong.

If you are making for the sake of tghe art and somebody offers to buy it, that's different.

Why?

Maybe it helps if you would say what you think art is?