What Isn't Art?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

Thread Tools Display Modes
  06 June 2005
Anything that is created without emotion or effort isnt art.
  06 June 2005
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? )

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)
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Stahlberg: I think it's because people everywhere just loove to argue.

Arguement = Art!!!
Just a Bot: a work in progress
  06 June 2005
Quote: "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...

Last edited by Stahlberg : 06 June 2005 at 11:13 AM.
  06 June 2005
I'm wondering how much more time will it take till someone brings back that "blue pixel" painting...
long time no see...
  06 June 2005

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.
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Squibbit: poop


...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......this stuff ferments(rots even more)....
more bad gass, so to speak

...so the jar exploded
modelling practice #1

Last edited by jmBoekestein : 06 June 2005 at 02:27 PM.
  06 June 2005
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.
  06 June 2005
i agree with everything Nathellion said.

that's all i'm contributing to this thread. i'm tired of this circular debate crap.
my music site
my portfolio
  06 June 2005
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.
  06 June 2005
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
  06 June 2005
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.
"Buy marking stones, marking stones buy
Much profit in their use doth lie;
I've marking stones of colors red,
Passing good, or eles black lead."
  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by Cyborgguineapig: 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..


  06 June 2005
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.

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.
"Dream big. Small dreams ain't got no suction." -S. Paige

  06 June 2005
Originally Posted by jmBoekestein: ...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......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
Thread Closed share thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Society of Digital Artists

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.