I responded to corporategoth's creativity thread with my thoughts on the definition of art, but I am interested in other people's opinions. How do you define art?
Printable View
I responded to corporategoth's creativity thread with my thoughts on the definition of art, but I am interested in other people's opinions. How do you define art?
Art is that itch that always need to be itched, for example i've been playing guitar for ages and when i have something big going on in my head then usually some random tune comes in my head and i have to make a song out of it and i work on it until it's brilliant and i wont be happy or i wont have the feeling released until i've gotten rid of that tune buzzing round my head about how im feeling,
It could be an angry song if i've had a fight with my parents or a sad song if i've upset someone i didnt want too etc etc
Art is expression of something completely random thats come from how your feeling at that time and being an artist means you share it with other people weather it's musically or visually or some other way thats to complex for this time in the morning.....and thats my thoughts on art :-S
I have a pretty broad one...I define art as anything where you put your creativity to use. For me at least it makes the world a much more interesting place with such a defenition. Though many an art teacher disagreed and one said that stuff like cooking was not an art....now having seen some amazing work done by pastery chefs alone I thought he was insane...but then agian he WAS a photorealistic painter who specialized in painting realistic looking rooms with candels...amazing technical eye...everything else in his work was boring as hell. So he and I clashed many times....
Also clashed with art school heads during my interviews years back...they asked what I wanted out of the school and what I thought art was...they were not to keen on the way I held comic art so high and how the "cliche" type of art (the kind you get paid for really) was beneath them....I got to hear how this one student (now recruiter of sorts) took a room and used smells to recreate the world outside indoors....When I said "Why not just leave the window open?" the interview ended.
Seems defining art amoung artists gets you in the most trouble and the more narrowminded your view of it the smaller your world becomes.
An expression of feelings, desires, emotions, and lots of other stuff.
That's a tough one, actually. Maybe something that is done for creative rather than financial reasons? Something that has an ethereal or timeless quality. Something that moves you spiritually.
Art is symbolic expression that can only come thru brutal truths and self-obsetvations. It is a transmutation of your heart into words, music, drawing etc. It is a process as opposed to a destination.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG
OEC
I wouldn't want to define art as such, because my definition would change according to my mood and what I am looking at. Art, for me, is a form of something made by someone else (I'm not artistic) which I appreciate.
It was actually a game designer by the name of John Wick who said, "I don't believe in art, just communication."
That has defined what art is to me more than anything else. Art is communication. Even the most abstract pieces are usually trying to communicate something even if it is just "I thought this pattern was interesting". Sometimes we don't even have the right words to define what we are communicating. A choreographer once told me that the dances they created were the shapes he saw in sound. It sounds al cheesey but there is no other way to say it other than to do it.
Sometimes we are not sure what we are communicating, and sometimes it is not what we think it is, but to me art will always just be another language.
While I agree that money can destroy art, I don't think that money has to destroy it. The Sistene Chapel was a commisioned work, so argueably it was done for financial reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by MistressJennifer
I would say that when money is put above the "artist's" vision, that is when art dies. However, if a person views ( hears, tastes, etc...) a piece of art ignorant of the creators intent and feels that that piece of art moves him/her, does the fact that the creator (possibly) compromised the vision of the work in order to increase the earnings potential make it any less "true" art?
anything that inspires someone
Note...this thread is from this exact day 1 year ago!
Yeah, but let's say you just feel like drawing.
So you draw a picture.
Is that art?
I sort of think it is.
Even if it inspires no one, and is never displayed.
And even if it's art that is paid for.
It can still be art.
I think a lot of things are art.
The question is if it is good art or not.
There is a lot of bad art, and bad artists.
Or more accurately, people with limited skills.
They *try* to create something cool and creative,
but fall a little short of amazing talent.
This is true of art, music, food, etc...
BUT...you are inspired to draw it..therfore it inspires YOU...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
m.c escher=art
Andy warhol=crap.
'nuff said.
I wanna look at a campbells soup can, Ill buy a can of soup.
basically art is something thathas to seak to me in a way for enjoyment purposes rather than monetary purposes. i dont understrand how people can blow a milion bucks on a spraypainted gold chair glued to a canvas and call it art.
art is in the eye of the beholder
Q)What do you call a man with no legs and no arms hanging on a wall?
A) Art
Yeah, but what if you just have this really fun idea to glue chairs together, or to glue bottlecaps on your house? Or carve a piece of wood? Or to paint a bunch of paintings of soup cans? I still think it's art. I think Warhol was considered art, because he just did stuff that was absurd. Just totally random and creative. Like making a random sculpture out of toothbrushes. Why not? The idea is to be creative, and be artistic, without rules of what is good, and what is bad. People respect him as an artist, for the same reason people respect each new art movement. Like expressionism, or cubism, etc... Because they break the rules... Because prior to those movements, people only painted realistic paintings. Like photographs. But eventually artists got bored, and tried something new. And now, with computers, people can do almost anything. And they should. Go nuts. Be creative. It's all art. But will I like what you do? Maybe yes, maybe no. Most people's art, I think looks crappy. But if it makes them happy, then go for it. I tend to like more detailed work, but I can still appreciate the creativity of the absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by malcolm
what do you call a guy with no arms or legs in a pool?
Bob
i draw but i would never consider it art,
not because its that crappy either,
well it is but thats not the point
http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/501868/32.jpg
but they never let me enter into art competitions so i guess i just stopped considering it to be art
art is what the beholder decides is art :thumb:
If a piece of art moves me (by making me feel happy, depressed, nostalgic, etc.) then I consider it good art.
I guess anything officially created to be art is "art", because even if it is bad there is no other name that suits it other than perhaps "shit", but it has to emote emotions for me to hold it in high regards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
Art is a blonde in a red Porsche... Vintage of course...
You are art, darling!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar
what exactly is creative and absurd about having a can of soup on your wall?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
i answered the question as to what i saw as art. and warhol i think was an over popularized hack which ended up spawning countless copycats with no sense of originality.
that's my opinion.
I dont belive in weird for the sake of weird. and no. dead bodies on walls and chairs glued to walls is not art in my eye. it's stupid
Art is the basis of all non-oral history.. and good art.. is what my senses find yummiest.. for my eyes, for my brain, for my ears.. etc etc
Then there is nothing creative about the Sistine Chapel, as it is Michelango copycatting the corpses he studied human anatomy from, and the memes of the church at the time, so why is Andy Warhol any different? he was copycatting the items he studied in shopping malls and the memes of the surrealists. In fact, all art is a copy of one or more things taken from the way a person interprets the cosmos, and that interpretation is dependent on the environment the artist lives in. The only ways to admire art is to appreciate what it was copied off, the books on artists; such as your beloved Escher are interpretations of how the artist got to the point of creating what they created. A soup can is more valid to the average man of the world than an impossible scene, for a mathematician though; one of Escher's works would be much more appealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by malcolm
Every person who is artistic, will express themselves in their own way.
Some people might paint with a computer, others might paint with their own shit.
Everyone expresses themselves differently.
What you are talking about, is your opinion.
What you like, and what you think is stupid.
To some people, simple asian art, or cubism, is stupid.
To people who like simplicity, something like the Cistene chappel is cluttered and tacky.
Some people think lowriders are really cool, other people think they look stupid.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, and in the creativity of the artist.
But I refuse to define art by what I like, or do not like.
I think a chair on a wall is stupid too.
But if that artist got something out of it, or it makes other people
feel something, then it's good art for them.
:yeeaaahh::cheer::clapping:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
ART
This is a form of art I never even knew existed
just checking that this is a response to Malcolm, because I know the way I express myself can be confusing and the fact is, I agree with what you are sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by TheDeathKnight
which brings me to a question for scar
can i do a sketch of you
i wanted to do a drawing of you,
private messaging has been disabled so im just gonna ask here
nothing lewd or dirty.:shiftysha
probably just a portrait of you, but ithought id ask first some people dont like it when i sketch them in the city:doh:
please get back to me about it :D
Artisakreeayshunwitchizyouneak
Amelia -- all I have to say is: look at your own photographs. That's art.
MMMMmmmmm... and what a FINE art it is.....
THIS ENTRY IS NOT ART. But my Avatar is. Well, my Avatar is actually a cropped, digitally photographed image of one of my works of art. Because it's my creative expression. And I agree with the 'creative energy' theorists in this thread. If I want to paint a canvas white and call it art, then it's art. It may not be "good" art. No one may hang it on their wall. But it's still art. Cuz I said so.
Well then what fun is that?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Random_Idiot
Art is the reflection of life...
thus, life itself is art.
Pain,pleasure, ugliness, hatred, fear, all of that is life..and thus...is art and shows up in art.
There is a book "Touched with fire" by my mentor Kay Redfield Jamison. She speaks of how all the artists (Coleridge, Plath, and Van Gogh among a few) had some type of mental "abnormality" that would allow them to INTENSELY feel..thus their art was more meaningful. They either suffered from manic depression, depression, mania's, etc...but there has been a co-relation between art and madness...
or at least the muses would have us think so :thumb:
There is a certain urgency to art..a need to get it out..to free it from the confines of within..that would strike as madness to some. But art, to me...is the reflection of life itself and the condition the artist is in when they create it.
ha....................art is undefinable..............Marilyn Manson said that himself...........
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmeliaG
Art is the essence of all that can not be spoken in any words known. It is the outcrying of our inner most desires and passionate persuites. I find it to be the gateway between the realms of the real and that of the astral., because art not only affects those you would come to experience it, but a experience of spiritual mastery(or some might say the chaos) unto themselves.
There are endless answers to this question of pondery, but it is a question that each of us answers in the mystcal moments we are painting,drawing,photographing,designing, or even dancing, the emotional,and soulfull exstacy we experience what makes it art, not the media or final fruition of our work
I don't think that art has to be emotional to be art, if someone just starts drawing or painting because they are bored and they like doing it, it's not art then?
I just think that art is anything that a person creates or does to express themselves. dancing is art, graphetti is art, writing poetry is art, sometimes destroying stuff is art.
in the mainstream, everything before the 20th century.
there are some good artists around, they just dont get the recognition because their latest piece didnt include a broken toilet full of beans, supposedly representing the termoil faced by every human :\
This is probably one of the most interesting threads I have ever read, 14 years ago I realized what the definition of art was (for me anyway) and I saw examples of it on every level of existence so I knew I was right (for me anyway) and it was so disturbing I have been insane ever since
making models of things. real-world things (bronze statues of mermaids, etc), imaginary things (fan art showing two of Giger's Aliens fucking), and i guess that covers it. sometimes the models are a little tilted, but this is good because it highlights aspects of the model which aren't immediately obvious. like Picasso making a bull's head out of a bicycle seat and handlebars.
also, i'm stoned.