What is art? A discussion

[devilof76]

I don't agree. I don't think art has to particularly mean or represent anything. Jackson Pollack created art though many see it as just blotches of paint on a canvas.

I think what Jackson Pollack created was trash, not art.

EDIT: and thanks Eli, but I have to give credit to my teacher on that one.

 

[Giant Chicken]

I think it is a tricky question... most of us think the napkin is a piece of trash not art, but there are people who would call it art if it is an expression of some sort.

What about paying $2,000 for an elephant's art? That is about what they cost. Can elephents express their feelings???

Is this elephant an artist?

 

[lcummins]

I think... therefore I art!

 

[Entropy]

I think what Jackson Pollack created was trash, not art.

EDIT: and thanks Eli, but I have to give credit to my teacher on that one.

Well then I think you prove your bias with this statement as Pollack was certainly an artist. It might not be art that you care for, but art none the less.

What I find most amusing about this age old argument is not the various definitions of art, but the people so eager to put confines and definitions on art as if they had some sort of special insight or monopoly on the truth. This type of discussion is always more illuminating about the people expressing opinions than getting any closer to understanding art or artistic expression.

 

[Dusty]

Well then I think you prove your bias with this statement as Pollack was certainly an artist. It might not be art that you care for, but art none the less.

What I find most amusing about this age old argument is not the various definitions of art, but the people so eager to put confines and definitions on art as if they had some sort of special insight or monopoly on the truth. This type of discussion is always more illuminating about the people expressing opinions than getting any closer to understanding art or artistic expression.

Very well put! I totally agree. If you want it to be art, and you sell it as art, and other people enjoy it as art... it's art. Everyone is so different, you can't tell one person that something they enjoy or create is not art.

I personally love Jackson Pollack's work. I also love the art that's just squares of color. Usually, the art is in the color selection, the symmetry (or asymmetry) and the passion behind it. For some reason, if *I* simply throw some paint on a canvas it just does not convey the same emotion. Because, I'm just throwing paint on canvas, there is no creative passion behind it.

Art is intangible. Personally, I think it's present in almost everything - architecture, nature, books (not even just the words, but the printing process), technology, groups of people walking down the street, etc, etc, etc. Even war, in a way, is poetic, although it's getting less and less so in modern times. I think it's my love for quantum physics that makes me notice and appreciate the patterns and art present in so-called chaos?

 

[mindbook]

“To do a dull thing with style-now THAT'S what I call art.”
Charles Bukowski

 

[lcummins]

...I think it's my love for quantum physics that makes me notice and appreciate the patterns and art present in so-called chaos?

Quantum physics... now that's art!!!

I too love science and math; they were my favorite subjects in school!

 

[screamingmetal]

Art is all about communication, whether it be communicating a belief, an idea, what you consider beautiful or horrible, your emotions, a representation of something from in the real world or something imaginary. Unfortunately today, excellence in performing an art and tremendous skill is no longer a requirement. Neither is intent by the artist from the outset of creating art. That's why you get people that throw paint on a surface without much thought and crumple a napkin without much skill and call it art.
For me there has to be a strong intention by the artist and a great deal of skill in use to call something, art.

 

[Entropy]

Art is intangible. Personally, I think it's present in almost everything - architecture, nature, books (not even just the words, but the printing process), technology, groups of people walking down the street, etc, etc, etc. Even war, in a way, is poetic, although it's getting less and less so in modern times. I think it's my love for quantum physics that makes me notice and appreciate the patterns and art present in so-called chaos?

I 100% agree Dusty!

Art is all around us. We are works of art in fact.

Do you know the work of Andy Goldsworthy? He uses only materials found in nature and his works tend to only last a short amount of time. There is a wonderful documentary about him called Rivers and Tides. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWBSMc47bw

 

[Entropy]

Art is all about communication, whether it be communicating a belief, an idea, what you consider beautiful or horrible, your emotions, a representation of something from in the real world or something imaginary. Unfortunately today, excellence in performing an art and tremendous skill is no longer a requirement. Neither is intent by the artist from the outset of creating art. That's why you get people that throw paint on a surface without much thought and crumple a napkin without much skill and call it art.
For me there has to be a strong intention by the artist and a great deal of skill in use to call something, art.

I don't think that communication is a prerequisite to anything being art. An artist can certainly paint, or write, or sculpt something without even knowing what it means, without any intent to communicate any particular idea. Art can simply be. The viewer likewise can see no message within the art or certainly read a different message from it that was never intended. This is okay. I don't even think art has to be made by man, that's a rather arrogant assumption IMO.

And again, "excellence" and "talent" are subjective terms. Art does not need a set amount of time to be created nor does it need any particular set of skills. These parameters are within the viewer's own head and their own narrow scope of what "something should be".

 

[Alice Adrenochrome]

Actually, it is very simple: everything that's place in the context of art, IS art.

 

[Mr Pixies]

Yeah, art can be anything, just like anything can be food, but not all of it tastes good, or digests well.

 

[Mr Pixies]

I have some questions to probe you guys with; does art have a function? What is it's function? Is art necessary/beneficial to ourselves, to society? Could we do without it? And what would things be like without it?

 

[Darth Madden]

I think art's function is to make people feel emotions... good or bad.

 

[creecher]

does art have a function? What is it's function?

Of course it has a function. Many functions. I think it's an extension of our imaginations. One function would be to gain understanding of things we have yet to, or have never encountered before. To see things in a different light or from a different perspective. To give our brains some exercise.

Is art necessary/beneficial to ourselves, to society?

I don't think it is necessary, but it is beneficial. Where would we be without some imagination.

Could we do without it? And what would things be like without it?

Yes we can do without it, but things would be rather banal.

 

[screamingmetal]

I have some questions to probe you guys with; does art have a function? What is it's function? Is art necessary/beneficial to ourselves, to society? Could we do without it? And what would things be like without it?

Anthropologists have said that art was influential in the development of Human cognitive thinking and language.

I think of it as exercise for your imagination. Without imagination, we wouldn't have the inventions of our modern world.

 

[screamingmetal]

What I find most amusing about this age old argument is not the various definitions of art, but the people so eager to put confines and definitions on art as if they had some sort of special insight or monopoly on the truth. This type of discussion is always more illuminating about the people expressing opinions than getting any closer to understanding art or artistic expression.

Art must have a definition, it just can't be anything because without a specific definition, the term has no meaning. Words must have a meaning otherwise they're just gibberish. If you can understand any word I type, then you value the meaning of words just as much as I do. If art is everything and not something specific, then the term has no significance and makes it nonsense.

I don't think that communication is a prerequisite to anything being art. An artist can certainly paint, or write, or sculpt something without even knowing what it means, without any intent to communicate any particular idea. Art can simply be. The viewer likewise can see no message within the art or certainly read a different message from it that was never intended. This is okay. I don't even think art has to be made by man, that's a rather arrogant assumption IMO.

And again, "excellence" and "talent" are subjective terms. Art does not need a set amount of time to be created nor does it need any particular set of skills. These parameters are within the viewer's own head and their own narrow scope of what "something should be".

All the arts are forms of human communication, whether it's writing, painting, drawing, sculpting, music, dancing, film, computer graphics, video games, sewing, photography, even architecture. They all communicate something whether it's merely form, shape, color, line, or something a bit more complex like philosophy. Name something that's art and it'll fit into the confines of human communication. Jewelry for example is used to communicate wealth, Symbolism, power, cultural affiliation, or simply to adorn a persons body to get attention and make it more beautiful to others.

Skill is certainly a requirement.
Merriam Webster agrees:

Main Entry:
2art Listen to the pronunciation of 2art
Pronunciation:
\ˈärt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
Date:
13th century
4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art

To answer the question that started this thread, if someone crumples a napkin intending to communicate something, is that art? I'd have to say no because there's no real creativity or skill involved. Creativity is using your imagination. And there's no real Imagination being used when simply crumpling a napkin, it's just a crumpled napkin nothing else. If he creatively and skillfully folded it however, that's origami which most of everyone would consider that art. Just because someone communicates something to another person, doesn't make it art IMHO.

 

[Darth Madden]

I think what Jackson Pollack created was trash, not art.

Yep, I think my cat threw up something like this last night... and it sure wasn't art.

https://www.klassikerne.vmk.dk/ress/grafik/musikhistorien/*******.number-801.jpg

 

[Entropy]

Name something that's art and it'll fit into the confines of human communication.

a sunset, the structure of a leaf, a flock of birds swooping over a lake for fish, the grand canyon, a fractal. All are forms of art I believe and certainly artistic but not made or manipulated by humans.

Is the "artness" of something found within the creator, the creation or the viewer? I would submit that art is found within the human imagination, a matter of perception and interpretation.

is everything art? no. but can art be found in everything? yes

If he creatively and skillfully folded it however, that's origami which most of everyone would consider that art.

Ah, now how much skill then do you require for something to become art? How many planned folds do you need? 1? 20? 50? This is the slippery slope of rigid definitions I mentioned earlier. Random chance can certainly produce art just much as carefully planned out skillful movements.

 

[screamingmetal]

a sunset, the structure of a leaf, a flock of birds swooping over a lake for fish, the grand canyon, a fractal. All are forms of art I believe and certainly artistic but not made or manipulated by humans.

Is the "artness" of something found within the creator, the creation or the viewer? I would submit that art is found within the human imagination, a matter of perception and interpretation.

is everything art? no. but can art be found in everything? yes

You're referring to humanity's perception and appreciation of beauty and structure, there's no requirement for art to be beautiful. The things you mention become art when man is inspired by it to do something creative, that something is the art. Art only requires an expression by the artist, the viewer isn't always important.

Ah, now how much skill then do you require for something to become art? How many planned folds do you need? 1? 20? 50? This is the slippery slope of rigid definitions I mentioned earlier. Random chance can certainly produce art just much as carefully planned out skillful movements.

It's not how many planned folds, it's about having a plan, that's all. If the plan is to fold it into something interesting or creative, then there's no specific fold requirement, that is determined by the artist to achieve whatever they want to achieve and the skill needed to achieve it. How much skill is required to crumple a napkin? None. A monkey can crumple a napkin but does that make it art? No, there has to be some skill involved even if it's only a little, and there has to be a desire for creative expression to do it.
How much skill determines the value of the art. If there's no necessity for a high degree of skill for art to have great value, then everyone could display their kid's art in the Louvre.