What Is Art? Who or What Determines This?

[Dreamer]

We've had a thread started before on what members viewed as art. How they personally, define what art is to them. That wasn't explicitly outlined in the thread topic but I noticed members naturally took the thread there. But I would like to explore what art is defined as, as a culture. Why do we, as a culture, define this artist as relavent and important, while another is forgotten and their art tossed aside? Why is Picasso so widely accepted as an artist for instance?

I am less interested in an art history lesson here, and more interested in tossing around ideas as to why you think a particular culture may promote such artists, and how? Why do you see some artists in fine arts museums and others, not?

What is the role of the museum within society?

This is certainly a vastly broad topic and I'm interested in discussing it all! So feel free to take this prompt in whichever direction you please and let's see where our thoughts and speculations take us

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's probably because rich people decided this art was worth promoting. Although, interestingly, sometimes this has meant they promoted art by self-described commies, like Picasso or Rivera.

Picasso was incredibly prolific, though, and he painted in a wide variety of styles. I think he deserves the recognition. I'm not so sure about the likes of Pollack or Rothko. Mondrian is cool, though.

 

[Lord Lavender]

To me art can be many things. In its simplest form art is any subjective creation from human kind and in a way EVERYTHING in the universe can be said to be art as art is all about form and substance. Like one can gaze on a star or a planet and call it a artwork made of rock,gas, elements e.t.c. Likewise I can see a organism as a artwork of various cells and tissues. Hmm to keep things simple art is a image created by humans or other intelligent animals (A chimp,elephant and horse have created art work that wouldn't be out of place in modern art famed today) for a non-practical purpose (Architecture is a somewhat grey area though). Its such a subjective term but a good catch all would be as follows "A image or a entertainment piece created by an organism for a non-practical purpose).

 

[Population: 1]

Art is whatever stirs you as an individual. Whether visual, musical, or in writing. It can move you emotionally or impress you from a technical perspective or both. I don't think any one group really has a right to say one thing is art and another is simply crap. I have personal preferences yet what I deem to be creative expression or not only truly matters to me. One man's treasure.

I see the night sky as the most beautiful thing I've ever beheld and think the value it brings me is inexhaustible and priceless. Some people hardly give it a second glance. Is it art? Well that's a deeper question. One that involves questions of what made it and why. Perhaps if a higher power does exist we're all part of a living breathing art exhibit.

 

[Neal Caffreynated]

I guess there are several levels of answers to your question
First, what is Art: in my opinion, Art has to be the expression of someone's creativity, of the era he/she lived in and make the viewer react (often through a theoritical/political/emotional/religious/aesthetical
meaning). I found this quote from 'White Collar" - also my signature - to explain this quite clearly: "Art is a time, a place and an emotion". WHen talking about visual Arts, whether these works of Art are ancient Egyptian statues, Italian Renaissance paintings or 20st Century photograph, all of them represent indeed the era and place they were made in and an emotion linked to their creation. Egyptian statues of Pharaoh expressed the after-life, Italian Renaissance especially in the Baroque period showed intense feelings, photographs from the last Century such as around 1900 were expressions of feelings towards urban spaces or nature for example.
Then again, as for why some cultures/Art are more often highlighted than others, there are several reasons which can be found:
First is the already mentionned economical factor. Since galeries and rich art buyers rule the Art world, it is sometimes less talented artists who seem to become the more famous while others stay in the shadow. Basquiat used to say that since he was a popular artist in Art circles, the buyers would buy anything from him even if it was not so great as the only thing which mattered in the New York 1980's Art world was to own a Basquiat painting. But this situation is far from new. Pharaoh, Medieval kings or Catholic Pope used to be the ones deciding which style was better, which painter/sculptor was the greatest and which iconography should be used
Another reason might be that Museums tend to focus on only some very famous artist/period/style (even if it means to forget some others) just to add to the interest of tourists. The big craze over Da Vinci's Mona Lisa (not one of my favorite painting of his personally) could be due to this while other talented painters of his time are forgotten or have their works hung in rooms of lesser importance at the Louvre.
Finally, I guess another reason could also be the still new discovery of some cultures by the Occident - for example of Polynesian Art. The interest Europeans/Americans gave to such works is indeed still recent and thus is not extremely advertised yet in Museums. If it had been studied for some time it is new that such works have finally been recognized as an Art equal to European Art for example (which is shown through the creation of Museums on this cultures such as the Musee du Quai Branly in Paris).
Maybe it's because I intend to work later in a Museum when I'll get my Master degree but I still think Museums are extremely important institutions. First as they keep a trace of works of Art throughout the centuries. Also as they led to the restauration and discovery of many paintings/sculptures and so on and then as they can give access to anyone who wishes to see or study masterpieces, sometimes even for free as opposed to the elitist collections of Art of yesterday

 

[Mole]

Profane and Sacred Art

We've had a thread started before on what members viewed as art. How they personally, define what art is to them. That wasn't explicitly outlined in the thread topic but I noticed members naturally took the thread there. But I would like to explore what art is defined as, as a culture. Why do we, as a culture, define this artist as relavent and important, while another is forgotten and their art tossed aside? Why is Picasso so widely accepted as an artist for instance?

I am less interested in an art history lesson here, and more interested in tossing around ideas as to why you think a particular culture may promote such artists, and how? Why do you see some artists in fine arts museums and others, not?

What is the role of the museum within society?

This is certainly a vastly broad topic and I'm interested in discussing it all! So feel free to take this prompt in whichever direction you please and let's see where our thoughts and speculations take us

Art is the suspension of disbelief. If a movie, a painting, a song, a dance, a play, even a phone conversation, fail to suspend our disbelief, they fail to be art.

When our disbelief is successfully suspended, our critical minds go to sleep for a while and our imaginative minds wake up.

And it is very important to remember that over the last 300,000 years art and religion are inseparable. It is only very recently we have separated art and religion, and we invented l'art pour l'art (art for the sake of art).

And the separation of art and religion has given rise to profane art, and in an imaginative fog we wonder if profane art is art.

 

[Mole]

Let me confess to you, no, let me boast to you. I am a phone freak.

Before computers we discovered the analog phone system was not a one to one medium but a network. So we hacked the phone network and connected multiple phones all over the world.

We called ourselves phone artists, we had our own magazine, and we were very excited to operate this clandestine art project behind everyone's back and in front of everyone's face. Ah yes, we were phone freaks, Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! Click on Phreaking - Wikipedia

 

[Dreamer]

It's probably because rich people decided this art was worth promoting. Although, interestingly, sometimes this has meant they promoted art by self-described commies, like Picasso or Rivera. Picasso was incredibly prolific, though, and he painted in a wide variety of styles. I think he deserves the recognition. I'm not so sure about the likes of Pollack or Rothko. Mondrian is cool, though.

I have no doubt money is deeply involved behind the scenes in spearheading a particular direction in art and art acceptance, but I wonder what then, influences that money? Perhaps at the end of the day, it goes back to politics and pushing forward an agenda.

One could say that it couldn't be, since art is often times about pushing counterculture ideas, not for the sake of being hip or trendy, but calling into question many of the things most people take for granted, and that just so happens to be the mainstream. What if then, that "counterculture" IS exactly what the deep pocketed accounts want to be pushed? And this counterculture appeal to artists and the like (as they tend to be more liberally minded) is just the means, the ploy, to push that agenda?

 

[Mole]

I have no doubt money is deeply involved behind the scenes in spearheading a particular direction in art and art acceptance, but I wonder what then, influences that money? Perhaps at the end of the day, it goes back to politics and pushing forward an agenda.

One could say that it couldn't be, since art is often times about pushing counterculture ideas, not for the sake of being hip or trendy, but calling into question many of the things most people take for granted, and that just so happens to be the mainstream. What if then, that "counterculture" IS exactly what the deep pocketed accounts want to be pushed? And this counterculture appeal to artists and the like (as they tend to be more liberally minded) is just the means, the ploy, to push that agenda?

We take cliches for granted, and cliches become archetypes.

Cliches though have been in too many mouths, and archetypes guide our actions without our noticing.

We are somnambulists, we sleep-walk through our days, but believe I am the master of my fate, and the captain of my soul.

 

[Hiraeth]

In the general sense, art is anything that provides either aesthetic appeal or perhaps innovation and/or philosophical components. It gives form to something else in life that is created usually by another person, but sometimes found in nature as well. Something that reaches the senses through seeing, hearing, touch, taste, etc. or even in abstract usage through the imagination. Subjective as it is, everyone is going to have their own definition of what art is. My primary belief is it should evoke some sort of emotional response, whether it provides a tearful imprint on a person or leaves someone feeling dry and apathetic towards it.

The definition of art can be and has been twisted and bent out of shape for some time now in order to fit someone else's perspective on it, like Keirsey for example when addressing the SP temperament as Artisans. Hence, something as simple as cooking a child's favorite meal or knitting a sweater is defined as art. One can argue the broader definition waters art down to the mundane and ordinary, almost as if it's become a joke to some extent for people who actually have talent or innovative ideas and perhaps even leveled down to a commercialized aspect that caters to the average consumer. In this sense, the modern art movement is often seen in this light when it comes to certain areas within it, mostly having merged with the business side that produces 'kitsch' art (Thomas Kinkade and Jeff Koons come to mind in the visual art world along with the mainstream music and film industry for instance).

However, given from my own perspective, art is about authenticity and emotional appeal, but I also see it composed of two components in the artistic spectrum: the aesthetic and beautiful in comparison to the the uglier and questioning side of things. It is essentially a light evoking the shadow of the other in which each completes the whole of art itself.

All in all, art to me has broader connotations to what was once a narrower definition mainly associated with aesthetic appeal over anything else. It is a much broader term, thus given its subjective nature.

 

[Dreamer]

To me art can be many things. In its simplest form art is any subjective creation from human kind and in a way EVERYTHING in the universe can be said to be art as art is all about form and substance. Like one can gaze on a star or a planet and call it a artwork made of rock,gas, elements e.t.c. Likewise I can see a organism as a artwork of various cells and tissues. Hmm to keep things simple art is a image created by humans or other intelligent animals (A chimp,elephant and horse have created art work that wouldn't be out of place in modern art famed today) for a non-practical purpose (Architecture is a somewhat grey area though). Its such a subjective term but a good catch all would be as follows "A image or a entertainment piece created by an organism for a non-practical purpose).

If art is simply an amalgamation of sorts, does art even exist at that point? Classical art, Impressionist, pretty much everything up until say, the end of Modernism would generally be considered "art" for its aesthetic appeal by nearly everyone. There is also a talent and craft required to create such art pieces and that in itself is something to behold and be amazed. if we were to define art, something a bit more selective than a catch-all phrase, could we say that art is then something representative of the highest form of human production, something that transcends the mundane and banal? Why do we find da Vinci or Michealangelo paintings masterpieces? However, one can also expand "art" to include very practical applications. Some art pieces, if we briefly define them as such, here, might include a Lamborghini, car body and engine, brought together to form this cohesive piece of machinery that comes with the bonus of being highly stylized and unique. One might also call the Burj Khalifa, the supertall skyscraper topping out nearly 830 meters in Dubai as masterful. If there is something unifying these sorts of displays, the previous examples carrying with them a practical use, though not prized for their efficiency by any means, that is again, a representation of works created by man that perhaps, just briefly, elevates him higher. Not to the heights of God, but raises the bar just slightly higher for all others to see just how far we can go.

Tying back to Classical artwork and the periods to follow, we see this same theme is evident here as well. But is this all there is to it? Is this THE explanation what "art" is? No, that is only one subjective opinion, and perhaps, the inability for everyone to agree on a unifying definition is key here. What does that unanswered question do for us? What does it do for our culture? Perhaps that door left open is there precisely for the next Pablo, or Vincent to walk through that door and make his own mark on this world, and once again, wake us all up from our slumber and monotony.

 

[Population: 1]

If art is simply an amalgamation of sorts, does art even exist at that point? Classical art, Impressionist, pretty much everything up until say, the end of Modernism would generally be considered "art" for its aesthetic appeal by nearly everyone. There is also a talent and craft required to create such art pieces and that in itself is something to behold and be amazed. if we were to define art, something a bit more selective than a catch-all phrase, could we say that art is then something representative of the highest form of human production, something that transcends the mundane and banal? Why do we find da Vinci or Michealangelo paintings masterpieces? However, one can also expand "art" to include very practical applications. Some art pieces, if we briefly define them as such, here, might include a Lamborghini, car body and engine, brought together to form this cohesive piece of machinery that comes with the bonus of being highly stylized and unique. One might also call the Burj Khalifa, the supertall skyscraper topping out nearly 830 meters in Dubai as masterful. If there is something unifying these sorts of displays, the previous examples carrying with them a practical use, though not prized for their efficiency by any means, that is again, a representation of works created by man that perhaps, just briefly, elevates him higher. Not to the heights of God, but raises the bar just slightly higher for all others to see just how far we can go.

Tying back to Classical artwork and the periods to follow, we see this same theme is evident here as well. But is this all there is to it? Is this THE explanation what "art" is? No, that is only one subjective opinion, and perhaps, the inability for everyone to agree on a unifying definition is key here. What does that unanswered question do for us? What does it do for our culture? Perhaps that door left open is there precisely for the next Pablo, or Vincent to walk through that door and make his own mark on this world, and once again, wake us all up from our slumber and monotony.

A good point. I think it's a good thing people can't exactly agree on what art is. We definitely don't want a Ministry of Art where government guidelines defines what it is. Then every piece of 'art' becomes a tool for the regime, propaganda thinly and insultingly disguised as free expression. There's a reason that in the shadow of a growing tyranny artists and writers are some of the first to be silenced. Art can be a powerful tool for or against a government.

Thankfully even if art elitists prop up their vision of art and decide it's value in a creative and financial sense most people don't engage in the creation of art merely for fame and fortune. It's a very personal thing that seems to derive value from the actual act of creating. I write stories not necessarily for the hope of being published but because I enjoy the act and enjoy escaping into the work I've created and the process itself.

 

[Red Ribbon]

It's probably because rich people decided this art was worth promoting. Although, interestingly, sometimes this has meant they promoted art by self-described commies, like Picasso or Rivera.

Picasso was incredibly prolific, though, and he painted in a wide variety of styles. I think he deserves the recognition. I'm not so sure about the likes of Pollack or Rothko. Mondrian is cool, though.

I agree with this. It's a shame that the rich seem to have a say over what is art and what isn't.

Overall I believe that art has an objective value and people are able to look at something beautiful and be moved by it. But all the same, I don't understand why some artists aren't popular. The way I see it, anyone who produces works of beauty should be praised for their ability. I think the art field is kind of an exclusive club like how music was in the past. In the times of composers like Bach only those who can afford to go to a concert could enjoy the music, but now all of us can enjoy it easy. As a result, I think we have a great deal of musicians, spanning a wide variety of genres. I think over time we will see a change like this come to art as well.

 

[Red Ribbon]

To me art can be many things. In its simplest form art is any subjective creation from human kind and in a way EVERYTHING in the universe can be said to be art as art is all about form and substance. Like one can gaze on a star or a planet and call it a artwork made of rock,gas, elements e.t.c. Likewise I can see a organism as a artwork of various cells and tissues. Hmm to keep things simple art is a image created by humans or other intelligent animals (A chimp,elephant and horse have created art work that wouldn't be out of place in modern art famed today) for a non-practical purpose (Architecture is a somewhat grey area though). Its such a subjective term but a good catch all would be as follows "A image or a entertainment piece created by an organism for a non-practical purpose).

Do you believe that art is entirely subjective? I think art has an objective value. Things can be so beautiful, they can move whole masses. But a lot of things called art nowadays don't have that kind of appeal. Can we still consider things like that to be of equal value as something that moves everybody?

This question isn't particularly directed at you. Anyone is welcome to answer.

 

[Lord Lavender]

If art is simply an amalgamation of sorts, does art even exist at that point? Classical art, Impressionist, pretty much everything up until say, the end of Modernism would generally be considered "art" for its aesthetic appeal by nearly everyone. There is also a talent and craft required to create such art pieces and that in itself is something to behold and be amazed. if we were to define art, something a bit more selective than a catch-all phrase, could we say that art is then something representative of the highest form of human production, something that transcends the mundane and banal? Why do we find da Vinci or Michealangelo paintings masterpieces? However, one can also expand "art" to include very practical applications. Some art pieces, if we briefly define them as such, here, might include a Lamborghini, car body and engine, brought together to form this cohesive piece of machinery that comes with the bonus of being highly stylized and unique. One might also call the Burj Khalifa, the supertall skyscraper topping out nearly 830 meters in Dubai as masterful. If there is something unifying these sorts of displays, the previous examples carrying with them a practical use, though not prized for their efficiency by any means, that is again, a representation of works created by man that perhaps, just briefly, elevates him higher. Not to the heights of God, but raises the bar just slightly higher for all others to see just how far we can go.

Tying back to Classical artwork and the periods to follow, we see this same theme is evident here as well. But is this all there is to it? Is this THE explanation what "art" is? No, that is only one subjective opinion, and perhaps, the inability for everyone to agree on a unifying definition is key here. What does that unanswered question do for us? What does it do for our culture? Perhaps that door left open is there precisely for the next Pablo, or Vincent to walk through that door and make his own mark on this world, and once again, wake us all up from our slumber and monotony.

Indeed art is just a three letter one syllable word in the English language that rhymes with heart if we want to be super objective and technical. Art has changed over human history from the cave paintings we all know off (They at least have charm and dignity unlike the modern shit that passes for art these days and I bet there is a modern art piece that is literal shit ) to cutting edge modern art, fashion and deisgn. What both have in common is the fact they both were created for a subjective and creative purpose. A very good point was made on appealing to people and most people do need some level of higher form, talent and hard work to be able to call a art work a good piece. The reason we hold Da Vinchi e.t.c in high regard is that the masters created work that one could look at and gasp in amazement at as there is a lot of hard work and talent put into that art piece. A lot of modern art on the other hand fails to hold that level of appeal as for god sakes children and even animals can easily mimic the work some of them do so its more everyday so to speak. It is still art as it was created for a subjective and expressive way but it isnt talented or good art.

Regarding your point on the skyscraper and the car both can be said to be "practical art" as both are practical forms stylized in some form or way to appeal to the human senses and seek some higher ideal. Like the skyscraper is a symbol of humans being able to build super tall for the sake of it and reach the limits that we imagine exist.

As for the future of art I actually think art being more accessible in many ways (Along with modern society attempting to embrace "openness" and easier to get a platform) has diluted the talent pool as today it is far easier to get art supplies and the platform to express your "work" which has led to a different ideal of the concept of art than before. This is both good and bad as on the one hand this creates net happiness and talent as the reach is broader and more people get the chance to tap into their more art side but on the other hand thiis means we in many ways end up with a kind of golden apple in a barrel of rotten apples kind of situation in which you have to swim a sea of garbage to get to the master pieces.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Do you believe that art is entirely subjective? I think art has an objective value. Things can be so beautiful, they can move whole masses. But a lot of things called art nowadays don't have that kind of appeal. Can we still consider things like that to be of equal value as something that moves everybody?

This question isn't particularly directed at you. Anyone is welcome to answer.

I have had similar thoughts on this subject that all things have objective value like for instance we show cased side by side a Da Vinchi and a bowl of dog food marked as "Humanity Food Views" then I would think most would prefer the Da Vinchi one. Under this system I think most real art will win over fake modern art as it is mostly a few of the more "removed bodies" who think art can be anything which is a sentiment not shared by most.

 

[Hiraeth]

Do you believe that art is entirely subjective? I think art has an objective value. Things can be so beautiful, they can move whole masses. But a lot of things called art nowadays don't have that kind of appeal. Can we still consider things like that to be of equal value as something that moves everybody?

This question isn't particularly directed at you. Anyone is welcome to answer.

I personally don't think there is an objective form of art that is entirely pleasing to everyone, but I think there is an objective form of what classifies art (paintings, music, films, etc.) regardless of the skill level or thought process that went into making it. There are particular art pieces that are generally well-liked in comparison to other works, but there will always be certain individuals who will find them off-putting no matter the popularity or positive reception it garners.

For some, aesthetic value isn't the primary component that entices someone to an art piece. Creativity, innovation, the overarching idea, and perhaps meaning or backstory may come into play over skill and appearance. For instance, some people may consider a beautifully skilled piece of art empty and devoid of substance because it would be lacking that 'je ne sais quoi' that goes beyond the depth of what is merely presented on the surface. Sort of like a pretty face on a person, but their personality may be lackluster which in turn lessens their attractive factor. Thomas Kinkade would be a great example of an artist with this sort of reputation in the art world. He was an artist with obvious talent, but he painted the same pretty, colorful Disney-esque styled houses over and over again without progressing or taking any risk in trying something different. He was also notorious for commercializing his work on a grander scale, which some may argue cheapened the value of his work, but it did make him globally successful because of his mass commercial appeal. His work may be considered skillful to the discerning eye, but it lacks any deeper meaning and depth than solely the depiction of a pretty house in a pretty background setting. For this reason, his work is often regarded as safe and conventional 'fluff' art. Alternatively, I believe this is why someone like Picasso is praised because he went against the grain and experimented with different styles throughout his career as an artist despite what may seem to some as lower quality work that a young child would create. Additionally, there are many who wouldn't consider Rothko paintings 'real' art because his work is merely composed of two or three different colored rectangles on a large canvas, thus not appearing to take as much skill and time to develop in comparison to other artists. However, his work has been known to move people to tears simply by the overall feeling his paintings emit, some even comparing it in similar vein to a religious experience. I have heard many people who have seen his work in person claim this, but there are also plenty of others who weren't moved by his work either.

The same comparison can be brought down to other forms of art. Music, film, literature, etc. A point I'm trying to make is that something can be well crafted and even arguably perfect in composition, maybe even too perfect to where there are no obvious flaws or ideas that expand on the artwork and for that reason alone it becomes a flaw itself. On the other hand, other works of art may be lacking that aesthetic value, but it can move certain individuals based on other criteria that appeals to them. And of course there are artworks that include a well-rounded mix of those components as well, but there will always be that one person who is turned off by a particular art piece based on whatever their own reasons are for disliking it. In the end, it all depends upon the viewer and their own tastes toward what art is appealing to them.

Hopefully I made some sense in my web of ramblings...

 

[Obfuscate]

Jim Carrey: I Needed Color on Vimeo

 

[Obfuscate]