PDA

View Full Version : What Isn't Art?


slaughters
06-24-2005, 08:52 PM
OK,

With the Roadkill thread and others recently there have been many people ready to leap to defend the artist. Claiming that whatever the artist was doing (no matter how distastful the poster personally thought it was) should be considered art.

My question now then is - What isn't art?

Is there anything at all that you would put in the "It ain't art, no matter who did it" category?

Squibbit
06-24-2005, 08:59 PM
poop



.

Cyborgguineapig
06-24-2005, 09:07 PM
poop



.

I bet a million dollars someone has molded poop into a sculpture and called it art..

But yeah, definetely not poop, or vomit, or snot or any other item that emits from a human oriface.

Also hatred is not art, it is ignorance

Oh yeah, child porn is a common no no norm shared by all the world, so that falls into not being art. Although Anime sometimes seems to suggest otherwise:rolleyes:

(Hm me thinks finding a list of things that are not art will actually be hard)

shivmoo
06-24-2005, 09:21 PM
my nans left nostril !!!...
cant think of anything else...
i bet theres a snot sculpture somewhere in the world :eek:

DaddyMack
06-24-2005, 09:52 PM
For me, the best thing about 'art' is that it's kinda indefinable as far as restricting 'it' to our common notion of boundaries... For me, if it expresses , or invokes a feeling or thought, it's art... Then again, if it 'doesn't' express, or invoke a feeling or thought, it usually just means I don't get it... Art is usually very personal to each individual member of it's audience...

I love taking my kids to the art gallery here in Sydney, and getting their interpretations of all the abstract stuff that has no obvious meaning... It's always very interesting to hear our different perceptions of the same things...

I guess for me... Everything is art... You could take one one of my caned running shoes and hang it on a gallery wall... People will get stimulus from it... Suddenly, it's art...

Sorry, for not being able to really answer the question... I guess art is an experience... What we each define as 'not art' is probably the result of our own culture and belief systems.

slaughters
06-24-2005, 10:44 PM
poophttp://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/can.htm (http://home.sprynet.com/%7Emindweb/can.htm)

http://www.monpa.com/ba/art.html

http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=13133

.

Squibbit
06-24-2005, 10:46 PM
u probably think I'm gonna check one of those out.



-

edit:
PS. special thanks for not posting any images, my world is better for it

.

scorpier
06-24-2005, 10:56 PM
should'nt every piece of art have a meaning to it?
That's what they learn in school ...

Like a symbol or a description or someting :wise:

PerfectBlue
06-24-2005, 11:01 PM
I bet a million dollars someone has molded poop into a sculpture and called it art..

But yeah, definetely not poop, or vomit, or snot or any other item that emits from a human oriface.

Cant remember the exact details.. but a few years back some artist made a life sized model of jesus on the cross out of feces and had it suspended in a tank of urine. Was on display in new york.. pissed off a LOT of people.

But it was in a prestigious gallery if i remember right, so someone important saw it as art. :bounce:

igorstshirts
06-24-2005, 11:30 PM
art1 http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dart) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (ärt)
n.

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of BEAUTY, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.


High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.



system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.




Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).




arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.

Printing. Illustrative material.

Nathellion
06-24-2005, 11:37 PM
Everything is art. Everytime I move my head, my eyes frame a set of objects in a new composition. I disagree with you, igorstshirts, because beauty is completely subjective, as are aesthetics. Which is why everything is art. One man's trash is anothers treasure.

SpeccySteve
06-25-2005, 01:13 AM
Everything is art. Everytime I move my head, my eyes frame a set of objects in a new composition. Which is why everything is art. One man's trash is anothers treasure.

Excellent news, now anyone can be an artist regardless of skill level, talent or hard work.
:thumbsup:

Nathellion
06-25-2005, 01:32 AM
Excellent news, now anyone can be an artist regardless of skill level, talent or hard work.
:thumbsup:

Excellent news, SpeccySteve completely missed the point. You're acting like the concept of 'being an artist' is some exclusive club. If someone calls themself an artist, it doesn't mean anything other than that they create. The label has no bearing on the artists 'skill level, talent or hard work,' although it is oft used with and defined as having a positive connotation. There is a subjective "good" standard that you or I might judge art by, but does that mean everything that doesn't meet the standard isn't art? I think art is basically anything that incites pattern recognition. That's not to say all art is good art by any means. :)

SpeccySteve
06-25-2005, 01:46 AM
I would respond but I am too busy forging art with my moveable head and remarkable "art-eyes".

The compositions fly from my brain, it's almost painful to be filled with so much art and yet to the casual bystander I'm just a bloke "framing art with my eyes".
Unfortunately I must sleep, all those compositions ....lost....like tears in the rain...

Ilikesoup
06-25-2005, 01:52 AM
Everything is art. Everytime I move my head, my eyes frame a set of objects in a new composition.

You're not creating art every time you turn your head. You're not even creating art every time you take a photograph. I think art requires communication between artist and audience even if it's an audience of one.

I disagree with you, igorstshirts, because beauty is completely subjective, as are aesthetics. Which is why everything is art. One man's trash is anothers treasure.

I agree that beauty is subjective. Isn't art subjective, too? I agree that beauty is too narrow a standard for "art", though. It totally excludes Heironymous Bosch. :eek:

P.S. :applause: SpeccySteve

Nathellion
06-25-2005, 02:18 AM
I would respond but I am too busy forging art with my moveable head and remarkable "art-eyes".

The compositions fly from my brain, it's almost painful to be filled with so much art and yet to the casual bystander I'm just a bloke "framing art with my eyes".
Unfortunately I must sleep, all those compositions ....lost....like tears in the rain...

Why don't you try and debate with me instead of being an ass? A subjective definition is in my opinion not solid enough to be valid. That's why I'm trying to pin it down as something objective.

You're not creating art every time you turn your head.

You're not creating it, you're taking it in.

You're not even creating art every time you take a photograph. I think art requires communication between artist and audience even if it's an audience of one.

But that's too subjective, imo. Why does art require anything? If a photo isn't art, then why are CG renders of Michealangelo's 'David' considered to be art if the former and the latter are just replicating?

Isn't art subjective, too?

That's my whole point. Since it's subjective, then it is erroneous to define it as something that encompasses 'aesthetic value,' simply because 'aesthetic value' is also a subjective concept and therefore my view of that concept could be completely different then someone else's.

I agree that beauty is too narrow a standard for "art", though. It totally excludes Heironymous Bosch. :eek:

LOL! Had I known that his artwork contained butt-plugs I might have thought twice before googling his name. :scream:

ashakarc
06-25-2005, 02:52 AM
Everything is art. Everytime I move my head, my eyes frame a set of objects in a new composition. I disagree with you, igorstshirts, because beauty is completely subjective, as are aesthetics. Which is why everything is art. One man's trash is anothers treasure.
Epistemology, Pragmatism, and subjective aestheticism...Burke..heeehaaa..drag to debate.

For everyone else, you don't have to agree or disagree with the above quote by Natehellion. This is simply a view to art from an Epistemological viewpoint rather than Ontological one. It is as truthful as a law of physics, and as illusive as a mathematical equation.

Dennik
06-25-2005, 04:22 AM
Except for poop,
what these guys (http://wolftracergroup.com/wolfmain.htm) do.

KBOC
06-25-2005, 05:15 AM
OK,

With the Roadkill thread and others recently there have been many people ready to leap to defend the artist. Claiming that whatever the artist was doing (no matter how distastful the poster personally thought it was) should be considered art.

My question now then is - What isn't art?

Is there anything at all that you would put in the "It ain't art, no matter who did it" category?

http://www.ncac.org/timeline/2%20PissChrist.jpg

Supposedly this is art... I wonder if Piss Koran would be art?

lokki
06-25-2005, 05:26 AM
DAMNATION... my reply got wiped out by forum maintenance... arrgghh!!

Let me 'splain. No, there is no time. Let me sum up...

Art is in the intent of the person creating it. Machines don't create art, nor animals poop it, but the intent of building the machine or gathering the poop may be art. Of course, it may be stark cynicism, and that's up to the audience to decide.

wow... and I had some great turns of phrase, too. oh, well.

KBOC
06-25-2005, 06:27 AM
In the strictest terms, anything man-made is art. Anything that is not is natural.

Smellovision was art. 3D Glasses were art. McCarthyism was art.

We don't put any of that in a museum and go "oooo" and "aaaah" and sing it's praises... Only the stupid would do that. Only the stupid would put photos of urine drown items on their walls.

PerfectBlue
06-25-2005, 06:58 AM
http://www.ncac.org/timeline/2%20PissChrist.jpg

Supposedly this is art... I wonder if Piss Koran would be art?
Looks like what i posted before about. Any more links on that? I still remember a life size one, where jesus was made of feces and was in a tank of urine. Was on the news once, then i never saw it again.

edit: Ok after an hour of googling.. i think this piece is what i remember. I cant, for the life of me, find anything else.. Oh well. :hmm:

KBOC
06-25-2005, 10:35 PM
I just remembered it and the outrage (very justifiable outrage, IMHO) about it... took me a while to find it, though. I'd still like to see Ted Kennedy put a bill out to fund Piss Koran...

Nerd_Pack
06-26-2005, 01:59 AM
I think the entire discussion of art just goes too damn far. In my opinion, most people don't care whatsoever what is and isn't art. Something can be sculpture, painting, advertisement, no one really ever cares what ART is. So why do artists?

I think there is an overwhelming desire in the art community to be desireable and to be liked by your peers, so you have to justify everything you do in some sort of artistic 'everything is art' way. Everything can be beautiful in it's own way, I will agree to that, and I will also agree that there are things that are ART and things that aren't, fine.

But really.... if you're not an artist... who the hell cares?

Stahlberg
06-26-2005, 11:50 AM
no one really ever cares what ART is. So why do artists?
I think it's because people everywhere just loove to argue. Wonder what would happen if God suddenly appeared and told us which religion is right, what is art and not, which political system is the best and whether George Lucas has the right to do anything he wants with Star Wars or not. We'd probably start arguing about a whole new set of things.

vijil
06-26-2005, 01:05 PM
"because beauty is completely subjective, as are aesthetics"

Although it's near impossible to really back up my opinion, some part of me is dissagreeing with that statement. If that's true, then the only remaining point to being an artist for most people is to incite a reaction. Which is fair enough, but what of the desert island artist who paints pictures in octopus ink that noone else will ever see, striving for a perfection he can't quite seem to get right? If art and beauty are purely subjective, and I mean *purely*, then the very word becomes meaningless and should be dropped from our language. Go become a universal deconstructionist and deny that anything has any meaning if you want to take relativism to it's logical conclusion.

As an artist, I far prefer the idea that there is indeed, on some level, an objective standard of beauty. Just as the need to eat and the need to be loved are objective requirements of humanity which are built into our very DNA, maybe there is also an appreciation of beauty which goes beyond the mere subjective and more towards the instinctive, and which is shared by all mankind?

The idea that there is an objective beauty even beyond mere humanity that any intelligent creature in the universe could appreciate is also somehow appealing, but I guess you'd have to be religious to actually have a basis for that belief.

skwigly
06-26-2005, 01:09 PM
Here is an interesting article taken from Skwigly Magazine (APRIL)
www.skwigly.co.uk (http://www.skwigly.co.uk)


BY Eduardo Azevedo


DIGITAL ART?



As 3-dimensional craftsmen, we are often asked about the artistic qualities of what we produce. Although artists can consider this subject controversial, teachers and researchers also, the truth is that the entire issue itself is being approached in the wrong way. The first line of my book reads: “The first mathematical experiment was artistic: the music”. Pythagoras discovered musical notes many years before Christ. Later, I ask: “are computer graphics only an artist's tool, or are they responsible for the work itself?” For some, this question seems to have no answer.

Consulting the dictionary, we can see that there are several meanings of the word ‘art’: “original word of Latin, which means: to know, ability. Capacities of man to put into practice an idea by dominating a material. Creator capacity of expressing or to transmit sensations or feeling.” The word, ‘create’ means: “give existence, give origin, form, produce, invent, imagine”. So, we need to have both an idea and a material domain to produce something that expresses or transmits emotions or feelings.

However, if for you, Image 1 does not seem be art, you could also be right - what is art for you may not be for another. If it does not stir any emotion in you then, for you, it is not art. That doesn’t mean, however, that it lacks significance for others. For those, Image 1 is art.

It seems clear that, for an image to be considered art, we need to take into account several different concepts. We will need to look at aspects of history, styles, and changes in art, and even a return to the student's chair. The study of artistic concepts will be useful not only in generating the best images, but also in understanding what the authors of such images are trying to express. In this case, even things that do not seem to be artistic can still be considered art.

Even before the invention of modern machines, the argument of what is or is not art began many years before Christ, where sculptors in Egypt were angry about pieces that were produced by molding. The artistic controversy of images generated by computer, however, can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution, when old artisans struggled to create new designs within the boundaries established by the new machines, often placing limitations on their work. The freedom to create without restriction is in fact an artist’s great collaborator, but that does not mean that an artist must limit the expression of an idea or feeling when using technology. Human beings, after all, can also express themselves with just a few resources - the first drawings found in caves (Image 2) demonstrate clearly the sufferings in hunt battles or techniques using nothing but lines.

There can also be confusion regarding the authorship of digital images. When we use a system as such as Terragem (Image 3), or any other for that matter (Photoshop, Max, etc), it follows that the authorship of this image should be shared somehow. We have to consider that the images generated by those systems establish an inter-connection between anonymous participants, and that they can be anywhere. Failing to recognize this would be as erroneous as a racecar driver who takes all the credit for his victory, while his building and maintenance teams are ignored.

Our last consideration in this topic has to do with the automatic image generation systems that we use to produce the procedurals textures, known most as noise or fractals. Those algorithms, based on mathematical equations, generate not only very similar images of natural elements (plants, rocks, water, clouds, etc) but also characters' behaviors. In this case, we have to know that even the images generated by equations can be considered art, because programmers or scientists created those equations and algorithms.

Moving the mouse, that’s my artist's gesture. I do not cut the stone; I do not dirty my hands with mud, neither my clothes with ink. I do not search for colours; everything is here, in the folds and bars of my systems. With this machine, I make intuitive choices, and gestures without apparent physical effort. While I rest my muscles, I awaken my mind to new dreams that open new dimensions, and transform my gesture into art.

slaughters
06-26-2005, 01:12 PM
In the strictest terms, anything man-made is art. Anything that is not is natural...Is murder art? Is pedophlia art? Photos of murder ? Photos or paintings of pedophlia?

It's easy to claim something is art when you like, or at least understand it. At one point do you say that something can not be called art, because it can not be tolerated by a healthy society?

Don't fool yourself, no matter how liberal or open you feel you are, everyone has a point, a line that can not be crossed.

What is yours? What isn't art?

PerfectBlue
06-26-2005, 07:05 PM
I think it's because people everywhere just loove to argue. Wonder what would happen if God suddenly appeared and told us which religion is right, what is art and not, which political system is the best and whether George Lucas has the right to do anything he wants with Star Wars or not. We'd probably start arguing about a whole new set of things.
We would simply argue if god meant it, or was testing us. :p

DimensionalPunk
06-26-2005, 11:19 PM
Not everything is art but everything has the potential to be art. I think once something is given a composition, (physically or conceptually) it becomes art.

rblitz7
06-27-2005, 12:15 AM
Anything that is created without emotion or effort isnt art.

arona
06-27-2005, 01:56 AM
i dont know but lets see. with puting some stuffes together and simply denying some parts of theory with something we might get some sort of answer:

"Everything is art"

"because beauty is completely subjective, as are aesthetics"

these comes to my mind to narrow the road:

1. if a simple guy(not artist) for instance stacks some stuffes on top of each other in a especial way and its kindof cool, it can be some sort of Art probably but i think its not what we're talking about here. I consider it as ... Usual Art ...(but its not that ART )
(so it got narrower, right? :D )

2. ART that we're talking about NEEDs some practice and/or related knowledge.
this example may be some sort of reason:

Give someone(simple guy) a pencil and tell them to draw something, finally the only thing that you can do with that piece is discarding.(it can apply for anything)

KBOC
06-27-2005, 06:16 AM
I think it's because people everywhere just loove to argue.

Arguement = Art!!! :D :p

Stahlberg
06-27-2005, 12:04 PM
"Everything is art"
"because beauty is completely subjective, as are aesthetics"

Ok, let me argue too then.
1. The argument devolves completely around how you define the word ART. And we will never reach a consensus on how it's defined, that's for damned sure. Someone quotes a dictionary? Others will skoff and quote a different one.
One definition of 'art' says it equals only: good, beautiful, well-made, etc, and 'artist' equals only: skilled, talented, good, clever, handy, etc etc... others will define it as including bunglers, poseurs, criminals, amateurs, idiots, and plain mediochre, and everything that is produced by them. It's all in the definition.

Still, I believe:
2. Big chunks of beauty and aesthetics are 'objective', inasmuch as most humans agree on them. (But not universal; aliens or dolphins wouldn't agree much). Our aesthetics have evolutionary roots, and logical reasons behind most of them. Especially true on the most basic level, less similar the higher up into the cortex we look.

3. Therefore, since aesthetics are more objective than art, art does not equal aesthetics. Which should tend to open up the tightest definitions of art a little.

4. I have no idea why I'm even bothering to write this, because it's all been said before and much better too, and that's certainly made no difference to anybody's art or appreciation of it... :)

Q_B
06-27-2005, 12:31 PM
I'm wondering how much more time will it take till someone brings back that "blue pixel" painting...

paintbox
06-27-2005, 01:19 PM
Here is a little quotation from the book "But is it Art ?" by Cynthia Freeland (translated) :

-'A big problem is that the term "Art" isn't even being used in many cultures and era's. The practice and the roll of artists is amazingly plural and intangible. Old and modern tribal people do not know the difference between art as an object or art as a ritual. The medieval European christians didn't make "Art" as such, but strived to represent and to glorify Gods beauty. In the classical Japanese aesthetics we can find things that belong to art that a modern westerner might not expect, such as a garden, a sword, calligraphy or a tea-ceremony.'-


I have come to think that yes, potentially everything is art. Art is a by-product (or maybe the main product) of our conciousness. We try define and express our being with what we do, with how we live and work. However the appreciation of art (and hence its value) changes over time, from era to era, from place to place. There are many forms of art : ritual art, museal art, urban art, feminine art, illustrative and design art, CG art etc. etc.

Here in CG Talk the predominant value lies on photorealism and technical ability (allthough with the challenges, story-telling and the emotive side of the picture is being applauded) , while if I walk into the nearby gallery with the same works it might just not be valued. There raw abstract work might be considered of more value. Each society and group will make up there own damn mind of what it is that defines 'art'

I think art defines us, and we define art. It is a inevatibility for a being with conciousness such as us humans.

jmBoekestein
06-27-2005, 03:25 PM
poop



.


:D...weeell, there was this guy who put his own shit in a jar a while back...:)...he closed the lids and put the stuff on display in some museums somwhere. Thing is...:rolleyes:...this stuff ferments(rots even more)....
:)more bad gass, so to speak:)

...so the jar exploded

Kargokultti
06-28-2005, 09:25 AM
It's just a word. Everyone has their own definitions.

To me, art is something conciously created, preferably without practical use. But considering art history, leaving commercial art inside a box of it's own would be an unnecessary complication, so I guess I'm willing to include e.g. images made to order into the same box with the images made because of weird personal reasons.

It seems very important that the images/objects be recognizable so that it is clear which particular artist made it. This would leave for example certain kinds of technical illustrations out from the art club, though I suspect that there probably is a technical illustrator's community, and that they probably recognize who made what, from the particular shade of inoffensive fair blue on the background, or the thickness of the lines, or their placement.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything is art, but yeah, poop can be. It's only a raw material (though heavily processed). The art factor depends on what you do with it.

nineinchneil
06-28-2005, 03:38 PM
i agree with everything Nathellion said.

that's all i'm contributing to this thread. i'm tired of this circular debate crap.

Fangeek
06-28-2005, 04:59 PM
If any of you is familiar with Marcel Duchamp, we have him to thank for showing us that anything creating, assembled, or placed with the intention of it being art is art. It doesn't matter who it offends, how boring it is or how little skill it requires, it's art.

AkaKico
06-28-2005, 05:25 PM
While I was going to school, me and some fellow students would go out to lunch. Sometimes we'd stack the leftover rubbish into some sort of odd configuration then spend the longest time discussing how it was 'art' and what it symbolised. In no way did we really consider it art, but should we had wanted to call it art for real... well, I guess we'd never call it art for real. But it was good times. Art is in the eye of the beholder :)

JARhead
06-28-2005, 08:39 PM
Art is ones own ability to flex his or her imagination and create it, or an expression of it, with some sort of medium. It dosent matter what medium it is, hell it can even be "Poop."

I also beleave that art, if it is created without emotion or effort, isnt art.

Art is just a Interpatation of life, and Imagination. Creative freedom is what it is, you cant limit it to Oils, clay, lead or watercolor.

Elaeria
06-28-2005, 09:19 PM
I bet a million dollars someone has molded poop into a sculpture and called it art..


Ever been to Mundare, Alberta in Canada? There's a great statue that is supposed to be the worlds largest kielbasa sausage...but um...doesn't really look like a sausage... I'm thinking someone owes you a million dollars..
http://www.wlra.us/wl/wlkielbasa.htm

~Ela~

Ilikesoup
06-29-2005, 03:54 PM
I've been chewing on a functional definition for ART for a few days like a dog gnaws on a bone. Here's what I came up with:

He's my dad. :D

But seriously, folks. I would define art as:
An original piece of work created with the primary purpose of appealing to an audience visually.

Things that qualify as art:
Painting, including horror (doesn't have to be beautiful)
Sculpture, including sand sculpture
Laser Light Shows
Some Photography -- depends on subject matter and execution

Things that don't quite make it:
Interior design -- it must be functional first, visually appealing second
Illustration, Cartooning -- its primary purpose is communicationand storytelling, secondary is visual appeal
Poop sculpture -- primary purpose is to provoke anger or disgust

As for the statement that "art is everything", IMO that comes from not clearly defining what art is. Certainly, most mass produced objects are designed with visual appeal in mind but if a funky looking cell phone doesn't work properly then it's junk, not art. We might see beauty in a flower or a sunset, but (treading on delicate religious ground here) it wasn't created with the intent of being beautiful.

Anyway, I wanted to put that out not to keep a circular debate going but to start a discussion about what we're aiming for when we decide to create. Planning out your work so that it has visual appeal (color, composition, depth, etc) is what will elevate it from a doodle to a piece of art.

barbapapa
06-29-2005, 04:39 PM
:D...weeell, there was this guy who put his own shit in a jar a while back...:)...he closed the lids and put the stuff on display in some museums somwhere. Thing is...:rolleyes:...this stuff ferments(rots even more)....
:)more bad gass, so to speak:)

...so the jar exploded


..Piero manzoni, the funny thing (or sad) is that his shit was, (and is) more expensive than gold. And even funnier is that it wasnt meant to be sold (initially was an experiment), he was was criticizing the market and the buyiers, he was showing it , and people started buying (probably he never thought it was art, , maybe it was just a joke, but i dont know for sure what he thought about his own work). The sad thing is that it succeded and showed how stupid are some collectionists and museums, and how rotten the world of art was. It was a way to demostrate how shallow art was then. Market and art are different things, but they go together, and the market usually dictates what art is or not (history corrects things, but with time), Mainly because nowdays people dont buy art for pleasure, they buy it as an investment. If not , think why banks, have extensive art collections...
the same thing happened with performance, initially was an intention to make something that couldnt be sold... and the galleries started to sell the videos (and aswell the artists when they noticed that they had to eat)
On that world there ar three things:
the creator, the seller and the buyier...
If some one has a name , the seller (the gallery) will try tho sell anything the artist does, and usually is the gallery that calls everything art, to convince the buyer to buy the product...
art world SUCKS

Miak
06-29-2005, 05:12 PM
As I get it:

Art is the creation derived from the blueprints in one's mind.

As it is one mind that creates some piece of art (in the wider meaning), it is totally personal and subjective, and others can only be explained or try to understand it's real meaning. Also, as it is derived from one mind, it is a mixture of real elements seen through the eyes of the creator. Meaning that every element in art comes from our world, no matter what it is, and as we all see our world differently, it is even more personal. And I also think that art cannot be judged by a scale with some maximal quality set. When a child draws something, others will not consider it art because they know of better things, but it will be art for the child and the children around him/her. So - long story short - everything that a man willingly creates (out of an image or vision, and not as a part of a normal living process (as for 'poop') hehe) is art, from some point of view.

CodeNothing
06-29-2005, 06:29 PM
art is whatever the self proclaimed (or publicly accepted) artist says it is. But just because they are an artist, and make art, doesnt make it GOOD art, or make them a GOOD artist. Art started and has always been about communication. In one abstract form or another. So USUALY road kill doesnt communicate much of a message to anyone except "hey, a gross dead animal."

of course the artist may have a deeper meaning he wants you to understand behind all of this, but it is the artists job to be SKILLFULL enough to lead your mind to where he wants it to go. Not just impale you with imagry (or sound) that you will simply reject and forget about.

nineinchneil
06-29-2005, 07:00 PM
i know i said i wouldn't contribute anymore, but alas, i am weak. . .

Is murder art? Is pedophlia art? Photos of murder ? Photos or paintings of pedophlia?

i'm going to tell you something that'll make a lot of people see red. . . YES, photos and paintings of murder and pedophilia can be art. we've all seen paintings of dead people, there are many paintings depicting execution (jesus christ, anyone?).
pedophilia itself is not something i'm justifying as art, but rather the way it's taken in, and the emotion it evokes; the outrage, the anger, the sadness, the realization of how f***ed up the world is. emotions are artistic. we see it on the big screen and on broadway. drama consists of emotions, and drama is definitely art.
if photos and paintings of wars, soldiers dying, adultery, dark-age torture chambers, the spanish inquisition, biblical paintings of cain murdering abel are art, why can't it be art now?

It's easy to claim something is art when you like, or at least understand it. At one point do you say that something can not be called art, because it can not be tolerated by a healthy society?

healthy society?! what in the world makes you think that we live in a healthy society? you believe that everything society dictates is right? what do you feel about the Oslo Gay Pride Festival short film on the cgtalk front page right now? i'll tell you something; the majority of our 'healthy society' wouldn't see that as acceptable. what beliefs do you base on society?

looking at art as something tangible is not accurate. art isn't an object. it's what you percieve, what you take in from that object. if you limit yourselves to seeing a painting of murder as a 'mocking' of the murder victim, then you're limiting what you percieve.

Ilikesoup
06-29-2005, 08:47 PM
emotions are artistic. . . . drama is definitely art.

Emotions are not artistic. Emotions may be the result of experiencing artistic, but me getting goosebumps is not performance art. Correct me if I am taking your statement out of context.

Shakesperean drama is art. Baby Jessica being trapped down a well is not art.


art isn't an object. it's what you percieve, what you take in from that object.

Art is conceived in the mind but until it's worked to completion it's not ART. Otherwise it's just an idea.

nineinchneil
06-29-2005, 09:24 PM
but isn't the fact that you're getting goosebumps testify that it's evoking an emotion out of you? i guess i said that wrong; emotions itself isn't art, but the act of evocation i believe is art.
they can very well make a movie about baby jessica being trapped in a well, and it can be a cinematic masterpiece. the event itself may not be art, but it's portrayal can be.

Art is conceived in the mind but until it's worked to completion it's not ART. Otherwise it's just an idea.
i agree with you to an extent; i think that until it's worked to completion, it's ill-conceived art.

on the poop issue, take for example an animal eating plant life, only to defecate it, which in turn fertilizes the next plant. i can see art in that circle of balance. people here are saying poop isn't art, but they're looking at it an something disgusting, when there are other viewpoints. you say it's disgusting and repulsive. i say it's an important factor in the preservation of nature.

Ilikesoup
06-29-2005, 11:02 PM
but isn't the fact that you're getting goosebumps testify that it's evoking an emotion out of you?

You can get goosebumps from being cold. Cold is not art. :)

i agree with you to an extent; i think that until it's worked to completion, it's ill-conceived art.

ill-conceived means the basic concept is flawed, not that the process is incomplete.

on the poop issue, take for example an animal eating plant life, only to defecate it, which in turn fertilizes the next plant. i can see art in that circle of balance. people here are saying poop isn't art, but they're looking at it an something disgusting, when there are other viewpoints. you say it's disgusting and repulsive. i say it's an important factor in the preservation of nature.

It's no coincidence that "art" is the start of the word "artificial". A painting of a flower is man's attempt to capture the beauty that he sees. A cinematic masterpiece is an event reinacted in an artificial way -- camera angles and the way that information is presented puts the event into a context that didn't exist before.

nineinchneil
06-30-2005, 12:05 AM
You can get goosebumps from being cold. Cold is not art. :) oh, quit being so literal! :D you know very well that you were originally talking about getting goosebumps as a result of emotions. cold is not an emotion, therefore it isn't what i'm talking about. it's not like i'm saying that everything that gives you goosebumps is art. . .

ill-conceived means the basic concept is flawed, not that the process is incomplete. an unfinished painting of st. jerome by leonardo da vinci (http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/karlins/karlins2-21-5.asp)
looks like art to me.

It's no coincidence that "art" is the start of the word "artificial". A painting of a flower is man's attempt to capture the beauty that he sees. A cinematic masterpiece is an event reinacted in an artificial way -- camera angles and the way that information is presented puts the event into a context that didn't exist before. agreed.

KBOC
06-30-2005, 01:39 AM
As I get it:

Art is the creation derived from the blueprints in one's mind.

As it is one mind that creates some piece of art (in the wider meaning), it is totally personal and subjective

That precludes so much artwork in the world that art becomes an extarordinarily narrow field. No motion pictures, no actors, no screenwriters, certainly no 3D craftsmen, as their tools are inhearently made by software developers who have some hand in the creations they achieve...

Waltron
06-30-2005, 03:20 PM
I'd have to go with the idea that everything has the 'potential' to become art.

I feel art is the process of envoking an emotional response in either the viewer or the creator. Regardless of whether it be a positive or negative response as long as the viewer stops to see the subject of the art. And I dont mean to just look at it (or listen, touch, smell - whatever) But to really "see" the subject as an idea as well as a thing.

I feel a lot of people mistake the aesthetic for the artwork ... something might be ugly, or offensive or appear to have no value - but that doesnt mean its not art.

For a long time I used to look at some of the stuff people put in galleries or whatever and say .. thats shit or thats good based on my personal taste. I spent 5 years studying Fine Art and I walked out the door thinking "I know Art, I went to Artschool" ... it's taken me 3 more years of actually stopping and looking at art and realising there's an unbelieveable amount I never saw when I experienced a work.

I'd prefer people to stop and ask ... why am I being asked to look at this. What was the artist trying to get me to think, feel, experience. Sometimes you need to look past what the object is to what it represents or what it could represent.

I still see a lot of work I dont like ... but I also like to think I can stop and try and analyse it a bit more (perhaps find out what it is that bugs me about it)

a rock is just a rock until you give it a meaning even if its just to say ... "Hey ... check out this rock"


I guess this is kinda ranty ... but I hate the idea of this is art, thats not art ... sure you can say something is bad art, you can even list the things that are technically wrong with the art (composition, colour, form etc) but it only takes one person to believe something is art for it to become art for that person.

CodeNothing
06-30-2005, 08:20 PM
going back to the "Is murder art?" absolutely. If you think you can argue this go speek with a serial killer on death row. They will explain in graphic gleefull detail about the coriographed motions and patterns they went through as they killed their victums.

or, talk to a special forces sniper and have him tell you about leading the target, watching the target's manerisms, knowing the perfect time to fire to ensure a kill and minumize possibility of being detected.

these things, as the self proclaimed artist say, are art forms. They are releasing their creative energy (be it healthy or not) just like a painter does on canvas.

but just because its art doesnt mean its GOOD art or that you have to LIKE it or AGREE with it.

and yes even COLD is art. put a gallery of people in 40 digree conditions and watch them. art. dumb art. but still art.

Ilikesoup
06-30-2005, 09:37 PM
talk to a special forces sniper and have him tell you about leading the target, watching the target's manerisms, knowing the perfect time to fire to ensure a kill and minumize possibility of being detected.

There's a difference between doing something artfully (cleverly, with special attention to craft) and creating art. A few posts ago you said that art is communication. An artist needs an audience, but he won't have one if he's trying to minimize the possibility of being seen.

jmBoekestein
07-01-2005, 02:15 AM
:), was the last one in the row...I guess it should cmplicate matters a bit more for ya, for clarification, the first one's there too. Personally I rely on my own moral self critique to define what I see as art. So this quote doesn't represent my opinion accurately. Too much to write down anyway. :D


art

Word:
art
1 Pronunciation (ärt)
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
7.
a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" Joyce Carol Oates.

KBOC
07-01-2005, 02:22 AM
going back to the "Is murder art?" absolutely.

Maybe we can get them all NEA grants... :p

Ranc0r
07-01-2005, 04:08 AM
OK,

With the Roadkill thread and others recently there have been many people ready to leap to defend the artist. Claiming that whatever the artist was doing (no matter how distastful the poster personally thought it was) should be considered art.

My question now then is - What isn't art?

Is there anything at all that you would put in the "It ain't art, no matter who did it" category?

I would like to point out ONE thing i know is not art,not matter how many people defend it.

The cow chopped into pieces i saw online at some gallery. It was a full cow, chopped up into quaters and slipped inside of glass.
It was just stupid.

JARhead
07-01-2005, 05:17 AM
Double post, sorry ...

JARhead
07-01-2005, 05:28 AM
Murder art? Perhaps, but I think we as human beings should be able to draw a line at some point. I mean, come on people! Weres your sense of morals? (Not directed to anyone here at CGtalk, but those who do such crimes.)

A snipers skills. I dont really pin point it to murder, if you were even pin pointing it to murder, more of the ability to use the gun with extream skill. In the end thats what art is, the ability to use a tool either it be your hands, gun or paint brush and use it with skill, the skill of expressing your self.

Anouther point I want to bring to this table of none sense is, Im sure as hell dont want a dead cow in a bottle in my living room, nor a turd in the shape of anything. Do you?

Lines are made in the dirt, dose anyone look down and see were they lay?

KBOC
07-01-2005, 08:23 AM
My question now then is - What isn't art?

If you read the Republic (by Plato) one of the underlying wisdoms of it implies that Art is that which results from finely honed craft that has purpose. That purpose may be to beautify, inspire, enlighten or serve.

To be art, it must have craft and purpose. To be fine art, it must have highly skilled craft, and refined purpose.

Without craft and purpose, it is not art.


The Republic (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html)

kursad_pileksuz
07-01-2005, 08:54 AM
ability to find out and explore "original" is a form of mental craftmanship, can lead to sensational or not, thus looking for craft in known ways may not serve well to define art.

for example politics, i do not mean exploiting good will of citizens, i mean serving citizens, bringing prosperity through politics is a form of art maybe one of the biggest art because impacts of such cannnot be done by one individual piece of gallery art maybe because there is something bigger in it.

my answer to the topic is that hollywood, games, %99 of cg works, %99 concept designs for commercial products, lord of the rings, starwars etc are not art (could have been, but has not been so far)






If you read the Republic (by Plato) one of the underlying wisdoms of it implies that Art is that which results from finely honed craft that has purpose. That purpose may be to beautify, inspire, enlighten or serve.

To be art, it must have craft and purpose. To be fine art, it must have highly skilled craft, and refined purpose.

Without craft and purpose, it is not art.


The Republic (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html)

Ira Sagan
07-01-2005, 09:09 AM
In response to the 'is poop art?' question:

An italian artist who was friends with Duchamp sold cans of his own excretion in galleries in the first part of the 20th century. Surrealists, the group to which these two artists belong, were constantly forging the question of 'what is art?'.

"Shock Art" is a trend like any other in the World of Art, but it's really up to the viewer to decide What Is Art. If something moves you, it moves you -- and in the same respect, if it doesn't move you, no big deal, you don't have to like it.

If Hypothetically one were to decide that murder is art, it wouldn't change the fact that murder is illegal, and immoral to most. That artist would most likely go to jail...

offbeatworlds
07-01-2005, 01:03 PM
You know what? This is an almost impossible question to ask, because every single person has a different opinion on the subject, and will be contradicting what everyone else said. There's no right answer for this question because it's all subjective, rather than objective.

ashakarc
07-01-2005, 01:49 PM
There's no right answer for this question because it's all subjective, rather than objective.

You've just answered the question ;]

jmBoekestein
07-01-2005, 02:18 PM
I personally can't believe it took five pages, but it's a question which could get some funny replies after all...

poop...:surprised...can you imagine what freud would be thinking about all this, lol.
"there's nothing wrong with me! I just have issues!!!" ... "are you replacing your inner childs becoming with the poop perhaps?" ... " what?! no! I just feel like crap!"

nineinchneil
07-01-2005, 03:18 PM
An artist needs an audience, but he won't have one if he's trying to minimize the possibility of being seen.
i don't believe that at all. an artist most certainly does not need an audience. that's not what makes him an artist. he could be a complete recluse, making poop sculptures, dressing them in his own clothes, and he'd be an artist.
i believe that an audience is sort of counter-productive to the personal growth of the artist. if he gets affirmation from others saying, 'dude, you're an artist! your work is great', it affects the work you do in a very subtle but significant way. you'd do your art with the knowledge that others may see it. a recluse will speak more from his heart in his work, than someone who knows that he is somewhat in the public eye (by 'public eye', i mean even just your family, or just a friend. i don't only mean a crowd of people).
but being a recluse is pretty much impossible in the world we live in. i feel that my artwork would be different if i was convinced that no one would ever see it.
because ideally you're not making this art for anyone else. you're doing it for yourself. but once you know that it can be public, your intentions changes, no matter how slight.

slaughters
07-01-2005, 03:29 PM
I didn't mean for this thread to talk about what *is* art. I'm quite aware that there are many people who are willing to beleive that anything created by anybody for any reason could be called art.

What I want to know is what *isn't* art?

Is child molestation (pedopehlia) art? No? What about images of it?

Can the "act" be untolerable, yet a photograph of the act be alright?

P.S.

I remember a number of people defending a 3D artist who made images of bound japansese school children in "questionable" poses. In fact there is a thriving market for this kind of work in Japan.

KBOC
07-01-2005, 03:40 PM
What I want to know is what *isn't* art?

I tried, everyone who followed missed the point: Without craft and purpose, it is not art.

nineinchneil
07-01-2005, 03:41 PM
What I want to know is what *isn't* art?
for the most summarized answer, see Sylanya's post.

Is child molestation (pedopehlia) art? No? What about images of it?
see previous posts.

Can the "act" be untolerable, yet a photograph of the act be alright?
this is art. (http://bias.blogfodder.net/archives/wtc%20ff%20and%20flames.jpg)


I remember a number of people defending a 3D artist who made images of bound japansese school children in "questionable" poses. In fact there is a thriving market for this kind of work in Japan.
this is art. (http://raph.com/3dartists/artgallery/6349.jpg)

Ilikesoup
07-01-2005, 03:53 PM
because ideally you're not making this art for anyone else. you're doing it for yourself. but once you know that it can be public, your intentions changes, no matter how slight.

I won't try to speak for anybody but myself here. I've filled entire sketchbooks with doodles and drawings. Those sketchbooks were more of a personal journal, a way of capturing an idea or a vision I had at the time like somebody snapping a photo. I don't know that they were art until I shared them with somebody else and that somebody responded to the sketches. Art without an audience is like a person alone talking to himself -- it happens, but somehow it seems unnatural. :curious: Before I started posting on CGTalk, there wasn't much motivation for me to create art. The art I post doesn't necessarily cater to anybody's tastes but my own, however I'm intensely interested in the reaction it generates.

Special thanks to Sylanya -- no sense in debating if we're all working from a different definition of "art". Personal observation, anyone?

KBOC
07-01-2005, 03:56 PM
for the most summarized answer, see Sylanya's post.

That it's just all subjective? :p

The deflection of a legitimate question with an answer that broadens a definition to include anything and everything based on perception... is not art, it is a copout (a method of avoidance)

Perception is not art.

nineinchneil
07-01-2005, 04:27 PM
That it's just all subjective? :p

The deflection of a legitimate question with an answer that broadens a definition to include anything and everything based on perception... is not art, it is a copout (a method of avoidance)

Perception is not art.

well, then this discussion isn't going to progress any further, because that is the answer. what i'm arguing is that anything and everything can be art based on the perception. in the end, it is all subjective, because everybody has their own opinions.

perception is what makes art art. care to deny that?

opus13
07-01-2005, 04:35 PM
... What isn't art?

if you have to ask if it is art... then it isn't.

jmBoekestein
07-01-2005, 04:44 PM
I didn't mean for this thread to talk about what *is* art. I'm quite aware that there are many people who are willing to beleive that anything created by anybody for any reason could be called art.

What I want to know is what *isn't* art?

Is child molestation (pedopehlia) art? No? What about images of it?

Can the "act" be untolerable, yet a photograph of the act be alright?

P.S.

I remember a number of people defending a 3D artist who made images of bound japansese school children in "questionable" poses. In fact there is a thriving market for this kind of work in Japan.

A cultural issue in Japan, and here you get porn magazines named seventeen, at least in EUrope you do. It's nothing new, it's biologically defined to ensure your children grow up, somtimes some genes get overly zealous though and take it too far.
As for what's not art, I'd illustrate like this. You are throwing things into a void, as long as you don't create anything there is no art whatsoever, for instance. So in essence the question is nullified by it's answer. People make shit, but what category of sit would you like to hear about? Immoral, atypical, inconvenient, misunderstood?

If you're question is as to what isn't in our eyes? My answer is detremental, that isn't art, it's a way fo collapsing arts.
If it's a moral issue, the other threads could've been continued nistead. No pun, it's just what I gather of this situation. :)

nineinchneil
07-01-2005, 04:57 PM
A cultural issue in Japan, and here you get porn magazines named seventeen, at least in EUrope you do. It's nothing new, it's biologically defined to ensure your children grow up, somtimes some genes get overly zealous though and take it too far.
As for what's not art, I'd illustrate like this. You are throwing things into a void, as long as you don't create anything there is no art whatsoever, for instance. So in essence the question is nullified by it's answer. People make shit, but what category of sit would you like to hear about? Immoral, atypical, inconvenient, misunderstood?

If you're question is as to what isn't in our eyes? My answer is detremental, that isn't art, it's a way fo collapsing arts.
If it's a moral issue, the other threads could've been continued nistead. No pun, it's just what I gather of this situation. :)
you sir, rock!

KBOC
07-01-2005, 07:23 PM
perception is what makes art art. care to deny that?

Utterly.

A mountain may be inspiring... but it's not manmade, so it's not art! I'm inspired by horses every hour of every day... but they were not crafted by humans.

I absolutely reject the idea that what is perceived as art is art.

I can look at a painting by Pablo Picasso and call it "Crap" and say he was a moron, and because I don't perceive it as art, it's not...

The problem with my perception is that not only is it art, but Pablo Picasso was a very fine master craftsman, and he put that into most if not all of what he created. My perception of his work as "non-art" doesn't mean it's not... it is. My perception isn't going to change that.

So, yes, I utterly reject the ridiculous notion that perception makes art.

nineinchneil
07-01-2005, 07:44 PM
so let me get this straight; if it isn't man-made, it isn't art? how can you say that with a straight face?!
why is art limited to what is humanly created? why is it limited to a purely aesthetic viewpoint? i can look at a range of gorgeous mountains, but i can't see artistic merit in it? i can see beauty, finesse, and fluidity in a horse's looks and motions, but i can't consider it art? that's just nonsense.

The problem with my perception is that not only is it art, but Pablo Picasso was a very fine master craftsman, and he put that into most if not all of what he created. My perception of his work as "non-art" doesn't mean it's not... it is. My perception isn't going to change that.

what do you mean by 'it is'? who decided that it is art? it's the public perception that it is art. sure you could say picasso's work was crap. i never said there isn't such a thing as bad art. but saying that it isn't art at all is simply shortsighted. but i digress; the point is that you can percieve it to be crap. that perception defines your personal opinion of the art. it doesn't matter whether or not the world agrees or disagrees with you.

everything starts with perception; culture, stereotypes, love, war. how does art not fit in there as well?

KBOC
07-01-2005, 08:03 PM
so let me get this straight; if it isn't man-made, it isn't art? how can you say that with a straight face?!

Dude, that is the most basic definition of Art. Ever heard of the "Academy of Arts and Sciences?" The study of the Natural and the Man Made.

How can you be in this discussion if you don't know this?

ART: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art) Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

everything starts with perception; culture, stereotypes, love, war. how does art not fit in there as well?

You have it backwards. Art does not fit into perception, Perception fits into Art. Perception is but a tiny component of the greater hole... it's like saying that A car fits into a piston, or a solar system fits into a planet. It's an excersize in the ridiculous. The viewer's perception, by the way, is not at all a component of art. If nobody ever saw the work Picasso did, would it not be art? Andrew Wyath's Helga pictures were hidden from view for decades, so for those decades, since they were not perceived, they were not art?

I'm a little annoyed at having to teach you these concepts... not to mention: English.

jmBoekestein
07-01-2005, 08:22 PM
You have it backwards. Art does not fit into perception, Perception fits into Art. Perception is but a tiny component of the greater hole...

Incredibly rude if not wrong also. If you would take time to learn about how our perception and conceptualisation works in us humans, you'd learn all of our exoeriences are an illusion, at the very least a truncation of the reality surrounding us.

In this sense we (our bodies, or selves) we 'construct reality. WHat you see is the result of a bunch of sifting and reshaping, not the actual wavepatterns of light.
And to add to that, without any perception, there would be no truth to relate to, ie. other people or things around us.

Your vision of a tree dear fellah, is not the truth. But an illusion you hold dear.

To illustrate, what part of your rbain is in direct contact to the world around you, and of how many 'parts' in your brain would that illusion parttake if you believe it's real contact.

edit:very sorry about the typo's, typed as I was inspecting botom of beercan...

jmBoekestein
07-01-2005, 08:23 PM
you sir, rock!

:blush:...thx.

:surprised... I try to make sense ...:)

KBOC
07-01-2005, 09:07 PM
Your vision of a tree dear fellah, is not the truth. But an illusion you hold dear

That which you know not of has no existence... yes, I've heard all the moronic bull from the holier than thou Ivy Legue Art and Coffee crowd...

Fortunately, most of them are too lazy to exist in my world... :p

without any perception, there would be no truth to relate to

Your lack of perception of truth denies it's existence... your lack of relating to a truth denies it as a truth... (tell that to the Jews who were in Auschwitz... people denied it at the time, so it therefore didn't exist and had no truth)

It's crap! It's utter bullshit! It has no basis in anything, not even a pinprick of reality!

It's kindof like reading a Clive Barker Novel... as entertaining as that is...

nineinchneil
07-01-2005, 09:17 PM
Dude, that is the most basic definition of Art. Ever heard of the "Academy of Arts and Sciences?" The study of the Natural and the Man Made. a study is a perception, einstein.

ART: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art) Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. these 'human efforts' are based on individual interpretations, or perceptions, einstein.

You have it backwards. Art does not fit into perception, Perception fits into Art. Perception is but a tiny component of the greater hole... it's like saying that A car fits into a piston, or a solar system fits into a planet. It's an excersize in the ridiculous.
you're comparing art/perception to a car and a piston? how about actually describing the relation, rather than presenting retarded analogies, einstein?


The viewer's perception, by the way, is not at all a component of art. If nobody ever saw the work Picasso did, would it not be art? Andrew Wyath's Helga pictures were hidden from view for decades, so for those decades, since they were not perceived, they were not art? you're again being narrowminded; who said anything about solely the viewer's perception. if nobody saw picasso's work, it would still be art, because picasso would percieve it as art. the artist has a say in what's art as well.


yes, I've heard all the moronic bull from the holier than thou Ivy Legue Art and Coffee crowd...
hmm, interesting. sounds like a case of 'pot calling the kettle black':
I'm a little annoyed at having to teach you these concepts... not to mention: English.
Ever heard of the "Academy of Arts and Sciences?" The study of the Natural and the Man Made.

*sigh* i think i'm done with this. i'll check back in on monday.

KBOC
07-01-2005, 09:28 PM
a study is a perception, einstein.

A study starts with Perception. It ends with interpretation coupled with skill and effort. You're giving way too much weight to perception.

these 'human efforts' are based on individual interpretations, or perceptions, einstein.

Yes, they are. But not by those who stand on the sidelines. Only by those involved in creation.

you're comparing art/perception to a car and a piston? how about actually describing the relation, rather than presenting retarded analogies, einstein?

If the relationship between a piston and a car is not self evident to you, let me suggest a good book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764550896/qid=1120249792/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-4654678-5328901?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

who said anything about solely the viewer's perception.

You did. Twice.

i can see beauty, finesse, and fluidity in a horse's looks and motions, but i can't consider it art? that's just nonsense.

what do you mean by 'it is'? who decided that it is art? it's the public perception that it is art.

CodeNothing
07-01-2005, 09:35 PM
Murder art? Perhaps, but I think we as human beings should be able to draw a line at some point. I mean, come on people! Weres your sense of morals? (Not directed to anyone here at CGtalk, but those who do such crimes.)

A snipers skills. I dont really pin point it to murder, if you were even pin pointing it to murder, more of the ability to use the gun with extream skill. In the end thats what art is, the ability to use a tool either it be your hands, gun or paint brush and use it with skill, the skill of expressing your self.

Anouther point I want to bring to this table of none sense is, Im sure as hell dont want a dead cow in a bottle in my living room, nor a turd in the shape of anything. Do you?

Lines are made in the dirt, dose anyone look down and see were they lay?

UUGGHH!!! people! dont you get it? THERE IS NO LINE TO DRAW! there is no "this is art, this is not" everything and anything is art if the artist declares it as art. period.

lets take it to another field....

what is alive? what is dead? where do we draw the line? some people say pull the plug if there is no brain activity. because they are not realy "alive". Some people say abortions are ok because the baby isnt realy "alive" untill its born. Some people dont consider plants "living things" because they have no thoughts or independent movement.
but some people say everything is alive. The very universe itself was born, is living, and will one day die. The planet is alive, and we are killing it. Fire lives, it eats, it breaths, its born, it dies.

so where do you "draw the line?"
when is something alive/dead?
only if it thinks for itself? plants are all dead then.
only if it breaths? I guess fire is alive then.
only if it reproduces cells? I guess single cell life doesnt exist then....

stop trying to draw the line of what is and isnt art. Just accept that anything and everything can be an art form. But that doesnt mean you need to agree, enjoy, accept, or even aknowlage it.

Id continue this more, but i think the guy who started this thread just wants to argue for the sake of arguing. :) I think he had his answer long before he asked the question

AKDesigns
07-01-2005, 09:56 PM
like evrything in life, it is all relative.. if u consider it to be art, who can argue... if you dont, who can argue... there is no absolute.... an argument that cannot be won, a question that cannot be answered....

kinda pointless really...

all BS aside, anything that isnt tasteful isnt art in my opinion... like disgusting things u know, mutilation etc...

although i went to the miro museum in barcelona and there was mutilation everywhere??.. wtf...

like i need to know what that looks like... like it serves any required or useful purpose??:rolleyes: ...

fabianv
07-01-2005, 10:13 PM
:D...weeell, there was this guy who put his own shit in a jar a while back...:)...he closed the lids and put the stuff on display in some museums somwhere. Thing is...:rolleyes:...this stuff ferments(rots even more)....
:)more bad gass, so to speak:)

...so the jar exploded


Haha this made my day!


As for this discussion.. guys, girls.. everyone.. its useless to debate something like this because it leads to an inevitable downward spiral of confusion.

nineinchneil
07-02-2005, 12:10 AM
A study starts with Perception. It ends with interpretation coupled with skill and effort. You're giving way too much weight to perception. if a study starts with perception, and ends with perception with skil and effort, how am i giving too much wieght to it?

Yes, they are. But not by those who stand on the sidelines. Only by those involved in creation. wrong. they are based on every individual's perception, whether it be the creator or the viewer. well, every individual that cares anyway. the artist and the audience don't have to be 2 separate entities.


If the relationship between a piston and a car is not self evident to you, let me suggest a good book. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764550896/qid=1120249792/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-4654678-5328901?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
*sigh* i was talking about the how the art/perception relationship and the car/piston relationship compare to each other, not the relationship between the car and the piston. :rolleyes:
You did. Twice.
Originally Posted by nineinchneil
i can see beauty, finesse, and fluidity in a horse's looks and motions, but i can't consider it art? that's just nonsense.
Originally Posted by nineinchneil
what do you mean by 'it is'? who decided that it is art? it's the public perception that it is art.


what?! the first comment was a reply to you saying that nature isn't art. it's not saying that as a viewer, what i say is solely important.
as for the second comment, again, the artist is part of the public. if your'e gonna quote something, try and make some sense.

KBOC
07-02-2005, 12:19 AM
And here you go again... now you're contradicting yourself in the same post:

wrong. they are based on every individual's perception, whether it be the creator or the viewer. well, every individual that cares anyway. the artist and the audience don't have to be 2 separate entities.

Then you go on to:

the artist is part of the public.

You've been implying all this time that because you can't see it, it isn't art, then you go back on yourself and say otherwise.

Make up your mind, already.

The truth is this: art has had a very clear definition for thousands of years. It's only in the modern era that it has been questioned, and that definition withstands those questions when posed honestly and not with an agenda. Just because you can't "perceive" that definition, doesn't cause it to lose it's existence. You are not god... just FYI.

(I'm still shocked and amazed that you can read a very clear definition from a dictionary, or maybe you simply ignored it, and then decided that which isn't art, in fact is... just because you decided it is...)

*sigh* i was talking about the how the art/perception relationship and the car/piston relationship compare to each other, not the relationship between the car and the piston.

<----blown away... you really do blow me away in that you can't grasp simple concepts. A small part of a greater whole. A piston is a part found in most cars... it is a small part of a greater whole. Perception is, likewise, a small part of the creation of (not the existence of) art. Art is created by human beings (read the Websters, or Oxford dictionaries, or whatever dictionary you like...). That which is a natural phenomenon is not art. Art may be an interpretation of natural phenomenon. It may be an attempt to alter natural phenomenon.

These are basic, simple concepts, yet they seem to escape you...

Kargokultti
07-02-2005, 01:23 AM
(I'm still shocked and amazed that you can read a very clear definition from a dictionary, or maybe you simply ignored it, and then decided that which isn't art, in fact is... just because you decided it is...)

O lordy...

A dictionary is only a dictionary. It's a description of the world, and in the end, no-one can take their own description directly from a dictionary. Ultimately everyone describes everything by themselves to themselves.

Which goes to say that on one hand, your understanding of art is this, and on the other hand, nineinchneil's is something else. And guess what? None of you's wrong.

I'm guessing someone in this discussion is drunk, and judging from a certain amount of nice Italian red wine ingested, it must be me. Good night. Keep up the good fight.

The truth is this: art has had a very clear definition for thousands of years.
:eek: Name any single word that has had a very clear definition, the same one, for thousands of years. Then go look up 'semantics' on Google.

KBOC
07-02-2005, 01:35 AM
A dictionary is only a dictionary. It's a description of the world, and in the end, no-one can take their own description directly from a dictionary. Ultimately everyone describes everything by themselves to themselves.

Okay, now words have no meaning... amazing...

I obviously don't need to look up semantics... to me it's just a duck... or maybe I'll make it a goose...

Kargokultti
07-02-2005, 01:49 AM
Don't put words in my mouth. Words do have meaning, but a word is not the thing itself, it's only a word. Go look up Magritte next.

KBOC
07-02-2005, 02:08 AM
Don't put words in my mouth. Words do have meaning, but a word is not the thing itself, it's only a word. Go look up Magritte next.

Why should I look it up when, as you suggest, I can just invent a meaning for it and make it up as I go along? I don't have to rely on a dictionary... you said I didn't... or do your rules not apply to me?

Kargokultti
07-04-2005, 09:03 AM
How old are you?

Please note that although I might have brought out my views rather pointedly, I did not mean to aggravate you. I hope you would return the favour.

KBOC
07-04-2005, 09:18 AM
How old are you?

42

Please note that although I might have brought out my views rather pointedly, I did not mean to aggravate you. I hope you would return the favour.

Art, (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art) the word, has a definition. If you choose to ignore it, then the word is meaningless when you use it, as is any arguement about what is and isn't art. (You also render a whole lot of liturature meaningless as well, BTW)

Kargokultti
07-04-2005, 09:46 AM
42
The meaning of life :D
23 myself. (I completely misjudged you. I thought you were an angry teen. I guess I'm closer to that age bracket then.)

Art, (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art) the word, has a definition. If you choose to ignore it, then the word is meaningless when you use it, as is any arguement about what is and isn't art. (You also render a whole lot of liturature meaningless as well, BTW)
I say everything is relative. There's the art in galleries with white walls and then there's the art in galleries that tend to go the wallpaper way and prefer the subject matter of moonlit landscapes. Then there's the running taps, roadkill, cows in formaldehyde and whatnot. And commercial art of all sorts.

They're all different, yet they're all art - in my opinion. I personally think that arguing what art is or isn't is rather pointless, but I enjoy the exercise.

lightwolf
07-04-2005, 10:25 AM
Art, (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art) the word, has a definition. If you choose to ignore it, then the word is meaningless when you use it, as is any arguement about what is and isn't art. (You also render a whole lot of liturature meaningless as well, BTW)
My, I missed a fun thread ;)
Art doesn't have _one_ definition at all. Even different dictionaries use different definitions and further attempt to refine those using adjectives as "fine" -> "fine art" etc... And once you look into other languages you will find even more varied descriptions of a deceivingly simple word.
In that context, unless a word describes a physical object, words can become quite flexible in their usage and definition (as far as the physical objects are concerned, do look up Magritte as was suggested before ;) ).
Art is a prime example of that.
Cheers,
Mike

MVDB
07-04-2005, 01:27 PM
What surely Isn't Art:

Famous people, like actors who think they 'r' creative and throw some paint on a wall, then sign it and because of that signature, crazy lazy non-thinking people will pay a lot of money for this!

I realy can't stand it!

-Michael-

levin
07-04-2005, 01:54 PM
modern art

fabianv
07-04-2005, 03:27 PM
modern art

Damn it to the deepest abyss in hell; really.

KBOC
07-04-2005, 09:08 PM
I say everything is relative.

Agree or Disagree: "Art is never an accident."

jmBoekestein
07-04-2005, 11:47 PM
Agree or Disagree: "Art is never an accident."

It's just the way it looks that makes it appear as an accident...cut it out allready.

tAstyBITs
07-05-2005, 12:19 AM
What Isn't art?

Why would anyone want to decide somthing wasn't art?

Seriously, who would want to take it on themself to become the person that decide what art isn't.

It's not really the way creativity works.

The most that anyone can do is decide that they don't like what some calls art, that's about it.

peaches
07-05-2005, 02:37 AM
wow. i just wrote an essay about this for my english class with a partner. there is no answer, as everyone knows already. it all depends on the viewer's opinion.

tAstyBITs
07-05-2005, 07:57 AM
As far as I know art is anything put forth as art.

The only argument I know that might say otherwise is the agument of functionality. Say you build a car to drive around in, is that car art or just a car. Think about it in terms of people who buy and sell art. Can a art dealer take a car and sell it as art, say for more than it's worth or would the client just complain that it's just a car. Hence if the car wasn't functional then it can be art in the mind of a art dealer.

When is a door not a door..

hmm maybe when it's art, or open. :banghead:

Kargokultti
07-05-2005, 01:44 PM
Agree or Disagree: "Art is never an accident."
I say it depends. I'd like to agree, but for instance when painting with actual paints, it sometimes happens that the palette looks better than the painting.

This probably has more to do with the fact that I don't like to see the effort it took to create an image, and less with something being art or not. A palette doesn't make much of an image but there's even less effort visible in it.

I dodge the question by answering: part accident, part conscious effort.

AthleteUK
07-05-2005, 02:31 PM
My understanding is that Art is something put forward to convey an idea, a though or an emotion.

nineinchneil
07-05-2005, 08:58 PM
What Isn't art?
Why would anyone want to decide somthing wasn't art?
Seriously, who would want to take it on themself to become the person that decide what art isn't.
It's not really the way creativity works.
The most that anyone can do is decide that they don't like what some calls art, that's about it.
i utterly agree.

The only argument I know that might say otherwise is the agument of functionality. Say you build a car to drive around in, is that car art or just a car. Think about it in terms of people who buy and sell art. Can a art dealer take a car and sell it as art, say for more than it's worth or would the client just complain that it's just a car. Hence if the car wasn't functional then it can be art in the mind of a art dealer.
the bauhaus movement proved that functionality can be art.

ThomasMahler
07-05-2005, 09:26 PM
As far as I know art is anything put forth as art.

Quoted for agreement.

magnetos
07-06-2005, 01:45 AM
i believe art isnt happiness,nor sadness , just a part of us which is trying to reach something greater then life

CGTalk Moderation
07-06-2005, 01:45 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.