What is Art?

[Elypsis]

I visited a Modern Art Gallery once, I think it was in New York. There was a room that was totally empty, except for a suit hanging from the ceiling. It was old and full of holes. I had a little chuckle at the "holy suit" bit, but then I got to thinking. Can this really be considered art? What is art? What can qualify something as art? Can I make millions off hanging my old sweaters in an empty room? So that's my question. What is art?

I suppose I should also list my answer to the question. I think art needs to evoke thought and emotion. But it also needs to be created through those qualities. Some effort needs to be put in, and it should have been made with an intention.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Your definition is pretty good. Good Art, for me, contains; rich meaning, clear talent (complex techniques and control), and creativity (something new, or shown in a new way). I also appreciate any art that maybe doesn't have all three but truly excels in one way or another.

Some would argue that the suit has much deeper meaning, or at least much deeper intended meaning, than what you felt about it. The fact that you dismissed it as a holy suit joke is somewhat full of meaning in itself, that you disrespect modern art enough to think it really didn't have meaning. Did the artist mean something more by it? Probably. But a large part of modern and postmodern art is about eliciting different reactions from people with different backgrounds and preconceptions. Its not MEANT to be interpreted the same way, nor even necessarily in the way the artist presented it. Supposedly, you are the part of the art, painting on your meaning.

Then again, I probably would have the same reaction as you. I go to look at art to appreciate a true talent doing something that I find astonishing and clever. If I wanted to create my own meaning, I would go make some art on my own.

Edit: VVV Agree

 

[Aught3]

I oppose modern art on the grounds that it's ugly. Bring on the next art movement already!

I'm going to stop myself before I go off on a rant.

 

[WolfAU]

My advice; 'Don't go there!' There really isn't any satisfactory definition about art, with most coming down to '...designed to be thought provoking or elicit an emotional response', which really provides no framework.

In Australia the Chasers (a show) did a skit where they went into art galleries dumping their junk off (broken vacuum cleaners, old computers etc) claiming it to be a 'delivery', with alot of galleries accepting it.

 

[Aught3]

^ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ROFL
That's brilliant, man those guys crack me up!

 

[PuppetXeno]

Good art makes the observer reflect on things.. Whatever that may be.

The crappiest type of art I ever encountered was by Wim T Schippers, an exposition I attended for a study project.

Upon entering the gallery, you had to pass through a dark corridor where you basically couldn't see a thing, then as you went through the door, a bright light blinded you and you couldn't see where you were going. And then you soon came face to face (in some cases, literally) with the first of Wim's exhibits: a 4x4m patch on the floor made entirely of.... peanutbutter.

Needless to say, some people slipped and had to walk around the rest of the time with their pants smelling of peanutbutter. A gallery worker was stand-by with spare jars to patch the floor where people had left their foot(and body)prints.

Although pretty funny, I don't call that art, I call it a prank. I think it was even called anti-art.

But the true experience of what art is, is completely subjective. Mine is - if it's clearly a result of creative effort for people to reflect upon, ...

Still doesn't mean I enjoy everything I classify as art. At an old school of mine we've had a full-size replica of Who's afraid of Yellow, Red and Blue. To be honest that never did a thing for me, no matter how hard I tried. It's just mainly red. And you can think about how it was conceived or created or anything, but other than that it's just a large red panel. Bravo. The art-world equivalent of a troll-post.

 

[Whisperelmwood]

To me, art is something that shows talent - be that in painting, sculpting, collage, daiorama, sketching - whatever. An appreciation for composition, the 'law of three', colour, light/dark and shape. A knowledge of anatomy (when working with humans or animals), a knowledge of structure and perspective. An understanding of how to evoke emotion or contemplation in the viewer. A communication - of feelings, intent, narrative.

Art, to me, is NOT a messy bed in the middle of a gallery (Tracy Emin) nor a pickled animal (Damien Hirst) - both may have been thought about, and both may have been created to evoke emotion or contemplation - but to me, they are.. well, CRAP.

No talent was involved in messing up the bed, and Damien is a 'concept' artist at best, he comes up with the idea and then pays other people to do his work for him. (Yes, I understand that traditionally, artists have used understudies to work on the larger paintings for them, doing the parts that the actual artist need only pay a minimum amount of attention too himself, but Hirst does not do this.)

Modern Art is one of my bugbears. Ocasionally I'll see something that I like - but more often than not, I hate Modern Art. I see little talent other than the ability to 'sell' (or, the ability to bullshit) and in my own personal estimation, this is not Art.

However. Even 'bad' art to me, can be art. If it shows an attempt at using the above listed knowledge and understanding, then it's fine by me, however bad it may actually be - it is a true attempt at real art.

 

[Josan]

I can't remeber 100% correctly, so don't quote me on this, but in his book "How the Mind Works" Steven Pinker discusses art very shortly, and he makes some good points that what is often called "Art" by definition has to be useless, as art is a way for the richest and most succsesful individuals to show of their supremacy, what better way to show you have enough resources than to openly waste them on shiny objects?

 

[Whisperelmwood]

I can't remeber 100% correctly, so don't quote me on this, but in his book "How the Mind Works" Steven Pinker discusses art very shortly, and he makes some good points that what is often called "Art" by definition has to be useless, as art is a way for the richest and most succsesful individuals to show of their supremacy, what better way to show you have enough resources than to openly waste them on shiny objects?

A good point, but it misses out the whole concept of art appreciation. One does not need to be rich to enjoy a masterful rendering of the human form. Nor, these days, does one need to be rich to OWN a masterful rendering of the human form.

 

[Weirdtopia]

Art is an expression of emotions, the question is, weather art has to be material or not? In Art everything is art it's just how it's seen and shown. Beauty is the eye of the beholder.

 

[ebbixx]

And at least some contemporary artists, especially those categorizing themselves as conceptual artists, would argue that this entire thread has become part of their artistic endeavor. It may have lost the "shock of the new" by now, but at least within some window of time, a lot of contemporary artists' works tend to be chiefly "about" the variety of engagements people make with something when that something is labelled as "art." Since many of them question the notion(s) of art itself, it shouldn't be very surprising that debates about whether something is or is not art becomes in effect a part of the "art" itself.

And Pinker is a putz. :shock:

 

[philebus]

I really don't think that it is worth trying to pin down a definition of art. Its falls to the same problems as game and so what someone means by art is best understood from the context in which they use the word rather than from a forced phrase. I am happy to call modern art, just that, art. It is.

On the other hand, this does not mean that we cannot judge it - clearly it is bad art. Most modern art seems to be what we call conceptual art. This simply means that the aesthetic is not all that important but instead we should judge it by the concept underlying the work and the way that the work impacts that concept on those experiencing it. So, when you judge this bilge, you ask first, is it an interesting concept? 90% of the time, no, it really, really isn't. Then you ask, is this really the best way to communicate this concept or can it or has it been done far, far better through a different medium? 90% of the time, its a silly way to do it and its already been done better in a proper painting or a book or a song or a poem etc. You can further judge the artist by asking first, is this a clever way of presenting the concept or could you have gotten the same or better from a Primary School art class? Last of all, ask, did this work require any skill to be exercised by the artist or was it something a 5 year old could do, or was it done by a contractor?

Of course, it isn't really fair to use the term modern art, as this is a rather sweeping term that I've heard applied to Degas and Klimt - who really did have talent and produced amazing work.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

And at least some contemporary artists, especially those categorizing themselves as conceptual artists, would argue that this entire thread has become part of their artistic endeavor. It may have lost the "shock of the new" by now, but at least within some window of time, a lot of contemporary artists' works tend to be chiefly "about" the variety of engagements people make with something when that something is labelled as "art." Since many of them question the notion(s) of art itself, it shouldn't be very surprising that debates about whether something is or is not art becomes in effect a part of the "art" itself.

In fact, your entire explanation of "contemporary artists" is the reason I don't consider them artists at all. If I left the discussion right now, I would be making the same mistake that those fake artists make. Can you figure out what it is?

 

[CitiZoid]

My position on this one is similar to 'Art for art's sake', or 'Ars gratia artis' as was emblazoned above Leo the Lion.

Simply put, I don't think art has to be anything. If it holds any significance for either the artist, or the observer, then it has attained some purpose and as such is valid. You're not likely to find many issues quite as subjective as art, so 'Good' art and 'Bad' art arguably do not exist. Arguably.

You have to question why modern art annoys you so? Is it the success it has achieved, despite the apparent lack of skill involved? If so, why is your opinion on it more valid than those who's patronage made it successful?

Ultimately what i'm saying is that if it washes with somebody, then why not?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/art - This is food for thought anyway. Art can mean so many things that pinning down what it is can be tricky.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

For me, it's purely something that elicits a positive reaction. I'm strongly biased towards "real" art - you know, painting or sculpture that looks amazing, took real talent to create, and depicts something realistically or graphically. I think modern and abstract art is absolute ass, and the people who peddle it are talentless fucktards.

But hey, that's my opinion. If you are inspired by a toilet plumbed into a baby or whatever (although that would be pretty cool) go for it.

 

[AndromedasWake]

For me, art is any kind of expression of imagination through some creative media. So obviously it could be a static painting, or a movie or something interactive like a video game. I think it's fair to say that in the strictest sense, a lot of things are art. But I also use a corruption of the word 'art' to mean 'good art'. If something is bad art, I just call it crap instead of art, even if it strictly is art

Art is entirely subjective though of course. But personally, my favourite kind of gallery art is old paintings of ships at sea. I have tremendous respect for anyone who can draw water and make it look real (plus I live by the sea and like sailing). I also love art which is a product of science. Most of the really spectacular pictures of space (see the Hubble Heritage gallery) are ways of visualising things our eyes can't normally see, as well as distinguishing between different features using false colour techniques. But to me, the finished products are art all the same, and make up most of my posters

I'm quite put off by modern art though. I fail to see where the talent and skill comes in with most of it. In London, we have the tate modern and national portrait gallery. The Tate is full of stuff I could make with a rummage through my bin (someone posted a Chasers link above that sorta backs this up) and there's a modern art section to the NPG which is completely awful compared with all the other rooms. But if some arty farty type wants to spend millions buying that stuff, well I guess that's their prerogative. I will stick to my sea paintings and astro pics

 

[felixthecoach]

My understanding of art is that it breaks down into 2 types
1. art that is consistent with the way humans universally become emotionally stimulated (symmetrical, colorful, emotional, etc)
2. culturally driven art based on how the culture at the time thinks art should look or sound.

History in art seems to predict that the "New" art will always be viewed as lost or bad compared to the old stuff. Look at the Western Countries in the 1950's with musical art. Those old people were looking at the baby boomers and crying over the "rock and roll" not being artistic. Now we have the Baby boomers crying over punk music, later punkers will be crying over generation Y's new art form.

So my view of good art? Whatever makes me happy at the time. If i'm with my 23 month old niece and she draws me a picture of my face (that is, 2 dots, a big-ass circle for my glasses and a huge nose) i'll think it's better than da Vinci. If I'm angry and the radio happens to have a great angry rock song on, that's good art.

Why cant art be subjective?

 

[Aught3]

There seems to be a bit of a theme running through some of the posts that modern art is just bad art. Sort of the 'A for effort' response.

I would argue that the modern-type 'artists' actually set out to make something bad - a piece of crap. They are proud when they succeed in making something ugly. And that's exactly why I don't like their work. I hope history agrees with me on this point.

 

[GoodKat]

I had to...

 

[ebbixx]

I had to...

And I for one love "Piss Christ." I won't know for sure if it's art within my remaining lifetime, I'm fairly sure, but I just have to live with that. De gustibus non disputandum est and all that.

Generally, history has show that public taste, and the opinions of artists and non-artists alike have little bearing, at least in the short run, on what does or does not continue to be seen as art 40 or 100 years after the initial shock, though there are a lot of examples of art that's now more or less beyond dispute as belonging to the category that caused scandal. argument and indignation at the time it was made. Then again, how much of that is bound up in systems of patronage and the economics of making art?

Make your judgments as you will... assuming anyone even pays attention to them, they will probably only be remembered if they turn out to be hilariously misguided and famously silly in the eyes of future generations.