Schrödinger's Name
Blessed With A Curse
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2019
- Messages
- 1,687
The thread title speaks for itself. I'd like to know when you think something is art, when someone is an artist and why.
From time to time I think about when exactly you are able to call something art and I have tried to come up with a 'definition'. This definition is of course how I personally 'decide' whether or not something is art or which category it falls into. I am pretty sure that some people may find my definition overly critical and/or harsh since saying that something is not art is most of the time perceived as an insult (even though it does not have to be). This is just how I think about it. I always like to say that I don't call myself a mathematician simply because I know that 2+2 = 4. So why not be more strict on art? Personal feelings aside.
I wanted to explain my viewpoint but I've decided to wait a bit (also because I honestly forgot half of my definition- I've wanted to make this thread for a while, my definition made sense when I thought about it one month ago, okay).
Because of that I decided it could be more fun to maybe stir the pot a bit and start with a possible 'controversial' viewpoint. Are photorealistic drawings/paintings that are completely copied* art? Why (not)?
*Copied here is of course in the sense of: you have a picture of a dog, you draw/paint exactly what you see in the picture without adding/changing anything.
From time to time I think about when exactly you are able to call something art and I have tried to come up with a 'definition'. This definition is of course how I personally 'decide' whether or not something is art or which category it falls into. I am pretty sure that some people may find my definition overly critical and/or harsh since saying that something is not art is most of the time perceived as an insult (even though it does not have to be). This is just how I think about it. I always like to say that I don't call myself a mathematician simply because I know that 2+2 = 4. So why not be more strict on art? Personal feelings aside.
I wanted to explain my viewpoint but I've decided to wait a bit (also because I honestly forgot half of my definition- I've wanted to make this thread for a while, my definition made sense when I thought about it one month ago, okay).
It's ten times easier for me to say when I consider someone an artist or not, I could explain that one right now (since I have not forgotten about this one) but I'm going to keep my opinion to myself (for a while). (Also no, I don't consider myself an artist- and this is not me being overly critical on myself.)
Because of that I decided it could be more fun to maybe stir the pot a bit and start with a possible 'controversial' viewpoint. Are photorealistic drawings/paintings that are completely copied* art? Why (not)?
*Copied here is of course in the sense of: you have a picture of a dog, you draw/paint exactly what you see in the picture without adding/changing anything.