What is art?

[Soujiro]

Art is personal and infinite -- everyone has their own vision of art. You may stare at a black and white photograph of a person weather beaten and think "Wow, he looks beat." while another would think "Hey, look at the contrast between black and white!"

Art is everything and sometimes nothing

 

[Arkanjel Imaging]

Art is something some one does.....How, why and for what purpose varies from person to person so....Who knows, really.

I disagree. Create is what someone does. Art is created, but not always by man IMO (which brings us back to subjectivity.)

 

[Battou]

Art is something some one does.....How, why and for what purpose varies from person to person so....Who knows, really.

I disagree. Create is what someone does. Art is created, but not always by man IMO (which brings us back to subjectivity.)

Dancing is an art form, traditional combat is an art form, these are both tought and learned as existing arts forms that are practiced and done with no requirement of the creation of a unique and/or tangable peice by the practitioner.

Dance instructors often did not create the dances they teach...merely know the dance well enough to teach it.

The Sifu did not create the martial art he teaches...but merely mastered the martial art to a point of teaching.

The term art does not apply soly on the forms that employ the creation of a final tangable result.

Even then; To do is to commit to an action, The creation is a result of the action commited to.

In the question of the viewd works commonly known as art, sure it is created by the artist. However the artist is still doing the drawing, the photographer is still doing the shutter release, the metal sculpter is still doing the welding and so on and so fourth. One simply can not create something with out doing a particular set of tasks related to and required by the art form practiced.



In the end...Art is something some one does.

 

[inTempus]

Anything and everything that someone creates can be defined as art. I can wad up some paper, fashion it into an abstract shape and call it art. Someone might agree and many might not... but that doesn't change the fact that I created it. So, to me, art is in your mind and governed by your actions and intentions.

If it's well received or if it is popular is another story... and that's why we have great artists and their work is widely accepted as extraordinary and we have people like me... basically a talentless hack with a camera. But we're both "artists".

 

[Baaaark]

Edited to add: I don't understand why people need to have things defined so much. Think of how many arguments on here have been because of trying to define the undefinable. What's the point of it all?

It's what seperates civilised man* from all other animals.


* Obviously in the sense of 'human'.

How is it civil to try and corral something into a corner of strict definition. By doing so you are severely limiting whatever is being defined. We're so obsessed with organizing things and putting them in their special spot, when some things in life this cannot be done with. You could even argue that defining anything is subjective so what does that leave you with?

Instead of looking at something as a series of "what it is," and "what it isn'ts" just look at it. Don't try to define art, just enjoy it.

 

[Sachphotography]

Read the following for my take on "What is Art"

How to Take a Great Picture. Photography tip. Sachphotography article written by Daniel Sach

 

[musicaleCA]

If it's well received or if it is popular is another story... and that's why we have great artists and their work is widely accepted as extraordinary and we have people like me... basically a talentless hack with a camera. But we're both "artists".

If you're a talentless hack with a camera, Tharmsen, than I my photographic skills must be the equivalent of the sludge that collects in the gutter underneath a McDonald's. Give yourself some credit man.

(Oh wait, I forgot you have a 1DMkIII. Right, nevermind. You are a talentless hack. Obviously the camera is doing all the work; it's just that awesome. :lmao: </sarcasm> )

 

[Moglex]

Edited to add: I don't understand why people need to have things defined so much. Think of how many arguments on here have been because of trying to define the undefinable. What's the point of it all?

It's what separates civilised man* from all other animals.


* Obviously in the sense of 'human'.

How is it civil to try and corral something into a corner of strict definition. By doing so you are severely limiting whatever is being defined. We're so obsessed with organizing things and putting them in their special spot, when some things in life this cannot be done with. You could even argue that defining anything is subjective so what does that leave you with?

Instead of looking at something as a series of "what it is," and "what it isn'ts" just look at it. Don't try to define art, just enjoy it.

It is the basis of civilisation because the basis of civilisation is communication. There is no possibility of civilisation without communication. Mankind uses language for a great deal of its communication and thus there is an overwhelming requirement to classify words so that we can understand one another and communicate accurately.

The new age airy fairy 'let's do out own thing/don't get hung up on labels' is all very well but the fundamental purpose of a word is to communicate and that is not possible unless the receiver accurately understands what the transmitter means.

 

[Arkanjel Imaging]

This is already getting too heated for me. I still disagree that art is always created by an artist. Unless you consider nature itself an artist. I can look at a mountain and say its art.

Edit: Well mark me re-educated.

Wiki defines art as: "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music and literature. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics."

I think the key element here is "human activities". As the beauty of the natural world is better defined by aesthetics. At least as described above. You know in 36 years I dont think Ive ever looked up the textbook definiton of art. Hmmmm....

 

[Baaaark]

It's what separates civilised man* from all other animals.


* Obviously in the sense of 'human'.

How is it civil to try and corral something into a corner of strict definition. By doing so you are severely limiting whatever is being defined. We're so obsessed with organizing things and putting them in their special spot, when some things in life this cannot be done with. You could even argue that defining anything is subjective so what does that leave you with?

Instead of looking at something as a series of "what it is," and "what it isn'ts" just look at it. Don't try to define art, just enjoy it.

It is the basis of civilisation because the basis of civilisation is communication. There is no possibility of civilisation without communication. Mankind uses language for a great deal of its communication and thus there is an overwhelming requirement to classify words so that we can understand one another and communicate accurately.

The new age airy fairy 'let's do out own thing/don't get hung up on labels' is all very well but the fundamental purpose of a word is to communicate and that is not possible unless the receiver accurately understands what the transmitter means.

Its far from new age, Taoism dates back before Christianity and most Greek Philosophies.

And you can stick to whatever idea you want, but don't get upset when there's argument over the meaning of a word. Perhaps some things impossible to be defined, and agreed upon wholly. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Moglex]

And you can stick to whatever idea you want, but don't get upset when there's argument over the meaning of a word. Perhaps some things impossible to be defined, and agreed upon wholly. That's all I'm saying.

I'm not saying we can always succeed but I think we ought to at least try.

As you say, some things can never be agreed upon wholly and I expect 'art' is at the top of the list.

 

[Baaaark]

I'm not saying we can always succeed but I think we ought to at least try.

As you say, some things can never be agreed upon wholly and I expect 'art' is at the top of the list.

Very well. Perhaps the balance of you looking for answers, and me being content is what we truly need.

As far as what's art for me... Art is everything. I truly think its beyond words and definition. IMO almost all art is natural at first. A sunset is art, we merely capture what's already there. Even in expressionist work or music, the notes are already there, we just put them together in a specific way.

I know that's kinda strange, though. But seriously, I'm sure anything could be considered art by someone out there. The best thing to do is keep an open mind about it all.

 

[GeneralBenson]

Read the following for my take on "What is Art"

How to Take a Great Picture. Photography tip. Sachphotography article written by Daniel Sach

Dude, you link to your website alot.

 

[Joves]

While I cant explain what it is, I do know it when I see it. Art like much of everything else is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[manaheim]

Art is truly subjective and an artist is one that endeavors to create something artistic. How others see it, doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the creator define their efforts as either artistic... or not.

Personally, Chris, I think you are close to a personal revelation in the terms of what art means to you. I myself was a world class musician and international competition 1st place winner 12 years in a row and I was called an "artist", a "virtuoso", and other all equally useless labels. I have no idea what art is to anyone but me, and I know that I, as an artist, am in the same place you are... lost in trying to find the meaning.

I am not letting that feeling of being lost dissuade or deter me, because I know one unequivocal and unshakable truth... it is not the final result and resultant labeling of something as being or not being art that is important... it is the pleasure you derive from the journey in photography and your drive to create art in all it's infinite forms... that is. Edification and pleasure is in the journey, not the reaching of the final destination.

This might be the closest thing I have seen in this thread to something that hits home... the aspect of music plays into this for me because I, too, am a musician and it's making me think about that element of it, because I never really ask myself the question "Have I created art?" when I play... I just play.

Honestly, if you ask me, I'm mostly a talented hack when it comes to music. The sounds I make are pretty and they have feeling, and I put feeling into them when playing, but my mechanics are essentially atrocious, I have NEVER practiced, the idea of improvisation is terrifying and my sight-reading is mostly advanced skills in how to hide behind other musicians when we play through a piece the first time. (I never hide after... I am a trumpet player, after all... we have a reputation to uphold)

Yet, I once had a woman come up to me in tears after a performance, saying my solo really touched her heart. I was blown away because most of the time I was playing I was thinking about whether or not I was going to have time to play some computer game I was interested in when I got home. I was shocked by the woman's reaction (pleased, but shocked), as I was the several other times similar events occurred.

Yet, I have never asked myself, "Have I created art?"

I think the reality is that I'm not an artist, nor will I ever be. My mind just doesn't work that way. I am clearly an emotional guy, and I can both feel, see, and impart emotions... but it's either through just some blind (and often surprising) talent in something such as music, or it's through mechanical and methodical tear-down and understanding of a process so that I can replicate it... such as in the case of photography.

My guess is that in neither case will I have what it takes to be a true master... unless I happen to find something where I have that base talent and also have a strong enough interest to apply the mechanical tear-down approach (which I so rarely bother doing).

That is, however, mastery... not artistry. Again, I have never asked myself this question in anything else... and my guess is that those who I would consider artists OR masters probably don't ask themselves the question, either. They are or they aren't... in fact, the truth of the matter is that probably asking the question is an answer unto itself... and frequently one we wouldn't want to hear.

If nothing else, the question is about whether or not you are something that lacks definition in any true sense, anyway. As someone on this thread postulated, if you create art, you are an artist. If you are an artist, you create art. This is probably the closest thing to a real answer, and utterly absurd at the same time. What is the point in even asking a question, to which this kind of answer can have two valuations that are so massively apart?

So, in summary... I am not an artist, or I don't need to be one, or it's irrelevant... I am who I am, and who I am is a person with some talents and some small amount of vision. If that happens to create something you would consider art, well... whatever. If it's something you found pleasurable for some reason... neat. It's just something I did.

Thanks for the discussion, guys. I appreciate the discourse.

Particularly thanks to Jerry.