- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 25,499
- Reaction score
- 5,109
- Location
- UK - England
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
- Moderator 🛠️
- #1
So I was thinking, Art. It's a rather small word, but that people seem to spend endless hours debating and arguing over. Constantly reclassifying and defining the concept of it whilst also coming up with new criteria and new meanings.
However its my view that all that is for naught in the modern world. In the past things like art and music were quite strictly controlled, if your concept didn't fit with the firmly defined definitions then it was cast out. Even many major works that we consider as great art today were, back in time, considered not art (or at least not "art enough" to be displayed in places of importance for art like galleries).
But its my view that in the race to broaden the acceptable formats for what counts as art we have in turn destroyed all meaning in the word itself. We have ground it down to a term that means something only in a very generalist sense and any attempt to impose a more strict definition simply meets with flack from other groups who suddenly find that their art isn't art under that definition.
There is the line that art is something that makes you think; that prompts some kind of emotional reaction. However in itself these are also extremely generalist definitions. A person with a naturally creative mind might well find that anything can set their mind to thinking - as a result the definition loses all structure because it almost means "anything."
And yet there are some boundaries; there are some rough boarders where the majority say "this, this isn't art". However those boundaries are always changing and shifting and indeed sometimes can be based upon the creator not the art itself (a mundane creation by a no-name person is a wonder by a master artist - because the mater artists is 'showing you something within the mundane').
Indeed many arguments I see over what is and isn't art often boil down to a desire for the individual to define what they like as art whilst at the same time removing forms that they don't consider art. Leading to long complex arguments where in they define a set of rules so contrived that it ends up falling over its own wording. OR they make big generalist sweeps that cut out whole swathes (often because its a method commonly used to create "bad art").
So there is my argument - Art in itself means nothing in the modern world. We've broadened the horizons so far that they are almost no longer bound. Only within context of a specific situation can art itself have a meaning and that meaning only works within that context. A gallery can define the art they wish to display; but their definition applies only as far as the walls of their building. Beyond that in the wide wild world Art is a term without bounds.
In some ways that is good; it leaves the door open to all to explore their own creativity in their own way; in others its bad as it means a lack of any respect for even minor formal structuring means many can aspire to a very low level of ambition and never truly seek out (nor easily find) the instruction and aid to progress further.
However its my view that all that is for naught in the modern world. In the past things like art and music were quite strictly controlled, if your concept didn't fit with the firmly defined definitions then it was cast out. Even many major works that we consider as great art today were, back in time, considered not art (or at least not "art enough" to be displayed in places of importance for art like galleries).
But its my view that in the race to broaden the acceptable formats for what counts as art we have in turn destroyed all meaning in the word itself. We have ground it down to a term that means something only in a very generalist sense and any attempt to impose a more strict definition simply meets with flack from other groups who suddenly find that their art isn't art under that definition.
There is the line that art is something that makes you think; that prompts some kind of emotional reaction. However in itself these are also extremely generalist definitions. A person with a naturally creative mind might well find that anything can set their mind to thinking - as a result the definition loses all structure because it almost means "anything."
And yet there are some boundaries; there are some rough boarders where the majority say "this, this isn't art". However those boundaries are always changing and shifting and indeed sometimes can be based upon the creator not the art itself (a mundane creation by a no-name person is a wonder by a master artist - because the mater artists is 'showing you something within the mundane').
Indeed many arguments I see over what is and isn't art often boil down to a desire for the individual to define what they like as art whilst at the same time removing forms that they don't consider art. Leading to long complex arguments where in they define a set of rules so contrived that it ends up falling over its own wording. OR they make big generalist sweeps that cut out whole swathes (often because its a method commonly used to create "bad art").
So there is my argument - Art in itself means nothing in the modern world. We've broadened the horizons so far that they are almost no longer bound. Only within context of a specific situation can art itself have a meaning and that meaning only works within that context. A gallery can define the art they wish to display; but their definition applies only as far as the walls of their building. Beyond that in the wide wild world Art is a term without bounds.
In some ways that is good; it leaves the door open to all to explore their own creativity in their own way; in others its bad as it means a lack of any respect for even minor formal structuring means many can aspire to a very low level of ambition and never truly seek out (nor easily find) the instruction and aid to progress further.
Last edited:
