The Art

[abraxas]

2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

and the definition of "beautiful" is?

Wouldn't
2) Intended to be contemplated.

Be more appropriate?
-

 

[invisible]

Photographs can be found in art galleries and art museums. I suppose that makes them qualify as art.

 

[pgriz]

Art is... to be contemplated, by its creator, or by others. It has no functional utility. Good art is a key that opens doors in our minds, allowing new perspectives, arousing emotion, opening our eyes to things that we did not perceive. Bad art leaves us indifferent or dismissive.

Art is moreover, a creation of sentience, and as such cares not about the tools of its genesis. Good art will continue to be created by whatever tools are available, be they chisel, brush, camera, computer, instrument, or hand. So discussions about whether art is art because it is created by some means and not other, are specious.

Art does not even have to have a corporeal existence to be art. Dancers, choreographers, performers, actors, singers, musicians, all create art without leaving a material object behind. Yet if a song, a dance, a performance moves you to tears, then you have experienced the art.

Because art is the interplay between the creator and the perceiver, it is always individual. You can describe its effect on you, but you will never be able to fully convey its impact on you to others, as their reaction may be different from yours. Good art for some people, is bad art for others. Neither opinion is wrong.

Good art is a perception-modifyer. And if you don't agree, that's fine with me. Except... greenpbl says the little kid in me.

 

[table1349]

What purpose is there in defining any term? It makes communication clearer and fosters mutual comprehensibility. Witness 'bokeh' lately. It has come to mean merely 'selective focus' whereas it really means the character of out-of-focus areas and is a property of a lens.

If anything can be 'art', what's so special about 'art' then?

'Fine art' is not something abstract at all. In the narrow sense, it's something made by hand and intended to be looked at. Ever hear of 'decorative art'?

Do you know the difference between glass as art and glass as functional?

http://www.spencerart.ku.edu/~sma/images/chihuly.jpg

This is made by hand, and intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

http://www.glassblower.info/images/chihuly-seaforms.jpg

Both parts have to be present to be 'art'.

This is not art:

http://earth911.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/green-glass-bottle.jpg

Why?

It's made by machine and intended only for functional use. But even if it were hand-made it would not qualify as art.

For something to be 'art', it must satisfy the following conditions.

It must be:

1) Made by hand, and
2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

We are talking of course about the plastic arts, not the performing arts.

A photograph fails to satisfy the first condition (it's made by a lens), the hand-made wine bottle fails to satisfy the second condition (it's not intended to be contemplated as something beautiful).

Now do you understand?

I understand. I understand that you feel the need to force your beliefs on others as truths. With no shred of provable/repeatable evidence. Something commonly referred to as an opinion.

There are only two truths in our this world that we live in at this present time. Pure Math and Death.

All other things are just opinions. And as we all know Opinions are like @$$HOLES, every one has one and...... well you know the rest.

Guess I will go now and endeavor to persevere at my chosen artistic venue.

I'm not trying to force beliefs onto anyone. I'm trying to clarify the meanings of some terms that have been abused.

Meanings as you interpret them. Abused as you interpret them. Thus they are YOUR opinions.

 

[Flash Harry]

ART!!!!!!!!!!

Intentional, I think not, wrong aperture at little distance equals mistake, not art. H

 

[invisible]

ART!!!!!!!!!!

Intentional, I think not, wrong aperture at little distance equals mistake, not art. H

Intentional. Flickr: Mishele21's Photostream

 

[white]

"wrong aperture"

:lmao:

 

[usayit]

I like it.

 

[abraxas]

I'd like to hear PPs answer. ---

2) Intended to be contemplated as something beautiful.

and the definition of "beautiful" is?

Wouldn't
2) Intended to be contemplated.

Be more appropriate?
-

 

[Derrel]

So,so,so many words have been traded. I thought I'd step back to mankind's earlier ages, and communicate my message about art using drawings, not words. I hope you like my effort. It is,as it clearly states, NOT ART, since it was made with a Macintosh, not by hand.

Very creative and VERY ARTISTIC!! :thumbup: :mrgreen:

Thanks g! I appreciate the mention and the compliments. I really felt that I could express my deepest feelings only by using clip art. I am hoping it catches on,and starts a new artistic movement, you know, like pointalism, or impressionism, or neo-realism. My comment "this is NOT ART" is my winky-winky homage to Renee Magritte. (Untitled Document)

 

[mishele]

ART!!!!!!!!!!

Intentional, I think not, wrong aperture at little distance equals mistake, not art. H

LOL.........BAhhhahhhaaaaa!!!

The funny thing here is......I don't give a **** what any one else thinks...lol It's ART.......Oh and it's ART!!!!!!!!!! (and yes the red bold print makes it so...lol) :thumbup::lmao::hug::

 

[OrionsByte]

There's a picture of this thread next to the word "semantics" in the dictionary. True story.

Defining something does not give it meaning. The meaning of something does not give it a definition. Definition and meaning are obviously related, but you can't get to one from the other.

You could define "home" simply as a residence, but that doesn't say anything about what a particular "home" might mean to the person that lives there. "This is my home," and "I am at home," are completely different statements, even though they may refer to the same place.

Photographs, paintings, architecture, music - you can define them in terms of the implements used and the techniques involved, but you cannot define or quantify what they mean to the people that create or observe them. A discussion about whether or not photography is art has nothing to do with definition and everything to do with meaning, and meaning is personal and subjective.

You can try to draw lines in the sand all you want, but no amount of philosophy is going to convince me that whether or not something is called "art" should change how I feel about it, nor that anyone has a right to tell me that something that moves me cannot be considered "art" to me.

 

[Petraio Prime]

There's a picture of this thread next to the word "semantics" in the dictionary. True story.

Defining something does not give it meaning. The meaning of something does not give it a definition. Definition and meaning are obviously related, but you can't get to one from the other.

You could define "home" simply as a residence, but that doesn't say anything about what a particular "home" might mean to the person that lives there. "This is my home," and "I am at home," are completely different statements, even though they may refer to the same place.

Photographs, paintings, architecture, music - you can define them in terms of the implements used and the techniques involved, but you cannot define or quantify what they mean to the people that create or observe them. A discussion about whether or not photography is art has nothing to do with definition and everything to do with meaning, and meaning is personal and subjective.

You can try to draw lines in the sand all you want, but no amount of philosophy is going to convince me that whether or not something is called "art" should change how I feel about it, nor that anyone has a right to tell me that something that moves me cannot be considered "art" to me.

If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. Want to discuss golf? Then you better learn what chipping, putting, driving, slice, and hook mean.

Those terms are not relative. Why should 'art' be any different?

We are talking about the psychological need for photographers to call themselves 'artists', to abuse, subvert, and distort the perfectly clear meaning of 'art'.

I reject your statement out of hand.

 

[usayit]

If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved. Want to discuss golf? Then you better learn what chipping, putting, driving, slice, and hook mean.

Those terms are not relative. Why should 'art' be any different?

I reject your statement out of hand.

"talk" Intelligently?
"meaning of" chipping, putting, driving , slice????
Terms ~not~ relative, Why should "art" be any different?

All coming from the only person who rejected the dictionary meaning of the word "art"?

You can't state that art is not "relative" and yet reject its dictionary meaning.

You ability to have intelligent debate is laughable.

 

[abraxas]

If we want to talk intelligently about anything, we need to learn the language and terms involved.

Hey PP,

Out of all the 'words' you've been typing, it seems you -forgot- the word, 'artisan.'

-