• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Art or Not

From Wikipedia...
Etymology

The word art derives from the Latin ars, which, loosely translated, means "arrangement" or "to arrange". This is the only universal definition of art, that whatever is described as such has undergone a deliberate process of arrangement by an agent. A few examples where this meaning proves very broad include artifact, artificial, artifice, artillery, medical arts, and military arts. However, there are many other colloquial uses of the word, all with some relation to its etymological roots.
Click to expand...

If someone's made it, it's art. You might not like it, but that's your opinion, which is a completely different kettle of smoked kippers.
 
I think a very common problem is that people tend to use the word "art" to describe two different concepts without realizing it. One concept of art is that which is created by humans (or elephants or whatever) with the intention of evoking a sense of beauty, an aesthetic response. The other concept of art is that which is created in order to convey some sort of provoking or challenging message.

There is plenty of crossover between these two categories, but the two categories certainly aren't the same.
 
Saying that it's all completely subjective or in the eye of the beholder renders the word absolutely useless. Perhaps it is, now. But I think we should then come up with a new word to describe paintings, music, poetry, etc. that tend to strike people as pretty.
 
asthmatic camel said:
From Wikipedia...

If someone's made it, it's art. You might not like it, but that's your opinion, which is a completely different kettle of smoked kippers.
Click to expand...

I think that is a sense of the word that was not intended to be discussed in this thread.
 
brodski said:
"art" is anything which is placed in a context to be viewed as "art", I know its kind of circular, but basically "art" is whatever anyone claims it is.
Where the "conceptualist" movement went wrong is in assuming that just because they claim that something is "art", they assume that it is "good" or "worthwhile" art.
Click to expand...

Suppose I claim everything in the universe is art, both individually and collectively.

Now, everything is art.

What word should we now use to categorize those things almost everyone agrees is art (Beethoven's symphonies, the paintings of van Gogh, the sculpture of Rodin)? "Good Art"? That leads us back to the same dilemma.
 
Bluegill said:
Suppose I claim everything in the universe is art, both individually and collectively.

Now, everything is art.

What word should we now use to categorize those things almost everyone agrees is art (Beethoven's symphonies, the paintings of van Gogh, the sculpture of Rodin)? "Good Art"? That leads us back to the same dilemma.
Click to expand...

claiming it does not make it so, there has to be some human input to attract an audience, putting the "work" in a context to be viewed as "art". Without an audience, there is no art.
 
brodski said:
claiming it does not make it so, there has to be some human input to attract an audience, putting the "work" in a context to be viewed as "art". (snip)
Click to expand...

So all I'd have to do is set up a telescope.
 
But that makes the word "art" useless. If art is everything, the word has no value.
 
Bluegill said:
But that makes the word "art" useless. If art is everything, the word has no value.
Click to expand...

"art" isnt everything, "art" is everything when placed in a specific context.

But yes, the whole conceptualist movement had devalued the meaning of "art".
 
I think it has to be human-made to be art. Or maybe by those really smart chimps that fingerpaint. Not that the natural universe isn't beautiful, but it's not art.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I think it has to be human-made to be art. Or maybe by those really smart chimps that fingerpaint. Not that the natural universe isn't beautiful, but it's not art.
Click to expand...

you do you cover "found" natural objects placed in art galleries?

is it teh act of arranging them that makes them art? or is it teh fcat that they have been placed in an "art" context? Or are they not true "art"?
 
TragicMonkey said:
I think it has to be human-made to be art. Or maybe by those really smart chimps that fingerpaint. Not that the natural universe isn't beautiful, but it's not art.
Click to expand...

I think that's a good starting point. Made by a human or something like a smart monkey.

I think the next part is that is must have been made with the intent of provoking in the observer a particular type of reaction, or something in a specific category of reactions.

The next part, I think, is the trickiest. What is that/art those reactions?

Most people (though not all, certainly) react differently to a Monet painting hung in a gallery than they do to a framed page of an Emerson Toaster Oven Consumer Warranty. One might find something to admire in the pattern of letters and spaces in the warranty, or find minimalist delight in its wording, but the great majority of people wouldn't consider them to be in the same aesthetic ballpark. Figuring out how to define "art," it seems to me, is figuring why there is a difference, and how to manipulate that difference.
 
brodski said:
you do you cover "found" natural objects placed in art galleries?

is it teh act of arranging them that makes them art? or is it teh fcat that they have been placed in an "art" context? Or are they not true "art"?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider a found object to be art unless it is altered or manipulated with the intent to make it art. All by itself, it can be beautiful, but I wouldn't consider it art.
 
brodski said:
you do you cover "found" natural objects placed in art galleries?

is it teh act of arranging them that makes them art? or is it teh fcat that they have been placed in an "art" context? Or are they not true "art"?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider found natural objects to be art. A gemstone that has been cut and polished, maybe. But just a lovely stick? No. A lovely stick as part of a flower arrangement? Yes. I think the key is human involvement, and that would have to go beyond just picking up something pretty.
 
Bluegill said:
I wouldn't consider a found object to be art unless it is altered or manipulated with the intent to make it art. All by itself, it can be beautiful, but I wouldn't consider it art.
Click to expand...

Which sort of creates a paradox. What if an artist found a really really pretty leaf, then painstakingly recreated it with paper and paint, making an exact replica?

I think the leaf is not art, but the recreation is. Weird.
 
Bluegill said:
I think the next part is that is must have been made with the intent of provoking in the observer a particular type of reaction, or something in a specific category of reactions.

The next part, I think, is the trickiest. What is that/art those reactions?
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the artist may intend to provoke one reaction, but get quite another. Whitman's poem lamenting the death of Lincoln always cracks me up, for some reason. How much of the artist's intention has to succeed in order for it to be art? I think the fact that the artist intended to convey something is enough to make it art; whether the message is received or interpreted correctly is going to depend on the audience. If they don't get it, it'll be misinterpreted art, but still art.
 
Bluegill said:
Which sort of creates a paradox. What if an artist found a really really pretty leaf, then painstakingly recreated it with paper and paint, making an exact replica?

I think the leaf is not art, but the recreation is. Weird.
Click to expand...

Yes. Because you don't get, at the end of the process, the same leaf the artist worked from. You're getting the artist's idea of the leaf, as expressed through his or her skill. (Actually, you're getting your idea of their idea of the leaf, but that's just needlessly complicating things.)

Perhaps they key to something's being art is that it has to have been interpreted by the artist; the end result is something that occurred in the artist's mind, then made visible via application of talent and work. The original leaf may be beautiful, but it's not art. The picture of the leaf is art, since it's a view into the mind of the artist when he looks at the leaf.

Which means photography might walk a very narrow line close to not being art.
 
DrMatt posted something a long time ago on this topic, and it sort of changed my thinking. I kind of like the idea of defining art not by reference to an object or a creation, but by our internal reaction to it. Or rather--in order to make this jibe with the concept that is has to be created by a monkey or a smart elephant or whatever--that it exists in our relationship to this creation (and therefore, I guess, the creator). This is pretty complex, I think, but it does simplify some elements: it makes the audience an essential part, and it makes aesthetic disagreements irrelevant in finding a definition. I think. I'll have to think more on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom