How would you define 'art'?

[Ħ]

I'm just curious to what you'd all define 'art' to be as. I'm chatting it up with my roommate and he's complaining about how photography isn't art, because art is supposed to transcend nature and reality, yet photography is pretty much just a 100% representation of reality. I disagree with him and think that his 1) his definition is too narrow and 2) photography can easily leave room for abstraction. Perhaps a few photographs of a party on someone's facebook aren't 'art', but certainly art through photography exists.


What do you guys think?

[wolfking]

Most of the celeb crush thread.

[Adami]

Just my own subjective opinion, but....

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. See fine art, commercial art.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts  collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

[jammindude]

Art = self expression

[/thread]

[Ħ]

Art = self expression

[/thread]

So if you feel that a DT song is an accurate expression of yourself...then are you (the listener) an artist?

[Adami]

Art = self expression

[/thread]

But self expression doesn't equal art. Or else screaming would be art.

[SeRoX]

Art is a huge subject to define it with a sentence, I think.

When imaginary and reality unite would be my definition. Pretty much in every branch of art uses both elements in their work but it's not always balanced. I think that's the way it is.

[theseoafs]

Art is nearly impossible to define comprehensively and simply, I've found.  Generally, here's how you can go about telling art from non-art.

1) First of all, it has to have been made by someone.  Art is personal and human, so no, you can't see art in mountain ranges or hear it in the city.  The person who made that something - the artist - must also consider it "art".
2) This something has to be creative; that is, non-scientific.
3) Generally, art appeals to our natural sense of aesthetics.  If someone's made something and you find it beautiful, there's a good chance it's art.  If someone's made something and you find it repulsive, there's also a good chance it's art.  Art provokes emotional responses from people.

That 3-step definition is pretty comprehensive and hasn't steered me wrong before, but I'd be happy to accept challenges.  So, in short, if you've got a thing that's A) made by an artist who considers it art, B) is creative (non-scientific), and C) has an audience that is affected by it and sees in it artistic merit, you've got art.

Art = self expression

[/thread]

Incorrect.  I've expressed myself verbally every day since I've been able to talk, and none of that would be art.

[Sigz]

is creative (non-scientific)

Science and engineering require plenty of creativity.

[theseoafs]

is creative (non-scientific)

Science and engineering require plenty of creativity.

You're talking to a comp sci guy.  I know that.  

[senecadawg2]

Most of the celeb crush thread.

Yes sir.

[Scorpion]

I like Mr. Seoafs' definition, actually. 

[lonestar]

I like to think that art is something one person creates to incite emotion in another person.

[Ruba]

Art is a way to express oneself.

Oh, jammindude was faster. And theseoafs has a good point, hmmm...

Art is emotion. But lonestar said that.

I give up. You guys said it all.

[Elite]

Art is something that 'moves' somebody, whther it's the creator or the person viewing/watching/listening to it. The amount of people it moves in one way or another is not important. Whether it is able to move a person is completely subjective.

Also, no forklift jokes.

[jammindude]

Now (unlike the religious thread) this probably *IS* a "no true Scotsman" argument.   (but since this is more light-hearted, I'm going to do it anyway)

Screaming is not really self-expression.   Screaming is what you do when you are unable to express yourself. 

Art is true self expression.   (or should I say, "tr00"?    )

[theseoafs]

Art is something that 'moves' somebody, whther it's the creator or the person viewing/watching/listening to it. The amount of people it moves in one way or another is not important.

It is!  If everybody on the Earth agrees something has no artistic merit, then what you have is NOT art.

[Scorpion]

I'd say that art is subjective, and that is it no art to those that it does not move, but art to those that it does. Simple as that.

[Elite]

Art is something that 'moves' somebody, whther it's the creator or the person viewing/watching/listening to it. The amount of people it moves in one way or another is not important.

It is!  If everybody on the Earth agrees something has no artistic merit, then what you have is NOT art.

But is there is one person who thinks there is (read my post again, I implied there should be at least one that thinks something is art) artistic merit to it, who is 'the rest of the world'  to dispute? Remember that tastes differ and that principle applies here as well.

[theseoafs]

Art is something that 'moves' somebody, whther it's the creator or the person viewing/watching/listening to it. The amount of people it moves in one way or another is not important.

It is!  If everybody on the Earth agrees something has no artistic merit, then what you have is NOT art.

But is there is one person who thinks there is (read my post again, I implied there should be at least one that thinks something is art) artistic merit to it, who is 'the rest of the world'  to dispute? Remember that tastes differ and that principle applies here as well.

Well, if only one person thinks that something is art, and it's not the artist, then that person is wrong, because even the artist concedes that there is no artistic merit to be found there.

If it is the artist, then what you've got is a very bad artist, because the piece is literally universally agreed to be without artistic merit.  We can't call that art either.

So yeah, I'd say that if exactly one person thinks something has artistic merit, then it's not art.  When two people (hopefully more) on the planet decide it does, then we'll talk about whether it's art.

[Ħ]

What if everybody died today? Would the stuff that was art cease to be art?

[Elite]

Art is something that 'moves' somebody, whther it's the creator or the person viewing/watching/listening to it. The amount of people it moves in one way or another is not important.

It is!  If everybody on the Earth agrees something has no artistic merit, then what you have is NOT art.

But is there is one person who thinks there is (read my post again, I implied there should be at least one that thinks something is art) artistic merit to it, who is 'the rest of the world'  to dispute? Remember that tastes differ and that principle applies here as well.

Well, if only one person thinks that something is art, and it's not the artist, then that person is wrong, because even the artist concedes that there is no artistic merit to be found there.

If it is the artist, then what you've got is a very bad artist, because the piece is literally universally agreed to be without artistic merit.  We can't call that art either.

So yeah, I'd say that if exactly one person thinks something has artistic merit, then it's not art.  When two people (hopefully more) on the planet decide it does, then we'll talk about whether it's art.

So we'll take this into account. Hypothetically, we have an artist who creates something only he believes is art. Why wouldn't it be? He made it and if it means something to him in an artistic way, why can't it be *art*?

I get your point that it should be art according to multiple people, but this discussion can go on forever, because there is no definite answer. It's like my favourite discussion of all time, ' what is music?', only there's more specific boundaries to be set there.

I honestly don't know when something can be considered art, though we can probably all agree that there will never be a situation where only a handful of people consider something to be art. So therefore, art is always considered to be so by many people. We can probably also agree that simply creating a random doodle from plastic spoons is not considered art, it probabl has to something special, Although this can be disputed by various examples of simple stuff that was considered art, maybe simply because it was exhibited at a museum.

Frankly, the question is too difficult to answer for anyone, because when you go onto subjects as subjective as *art* everybody has different opinions.

[theseoafs]

@H: Ah, there's a flaw (albeit a minor one) in my definition. Thanks.

It should include a clause somewhere that reflects the timelessness of art; that is, if something was found to have artistic merit at one time, then it can always be considered "art" because it's a reflection on the aesthetics of that culture.

We can probably also agree that simply creating a random doodle from plastic spoons is not considered art, it probabl has to something special, Although this can be disputed by various examples of simple stuff that was considered art, maybe simply because it was exhibited at a museum.

You've got it backwards.  Stuff gets put in museums because it is art; it doesn't become art when you put it in a museum.

Frankly, the question is too difficult to answer for anyone, because when you go onto subjects as subjective as *art* everybody has different opinions.

That's just the thing though! Plenty of people think that art is subjective, and that they alone can decide whether something is art based on whether it suits them.  It's not; although all art may not move you personally, there are still objective bases for determining whether something is art.

[Priest of Syrinx]

The problem with defining "art" is that, traditionally, the term "art" was applied through acclaim.  A picture is a picture is a picture, but when enough people would say that your painting is beautiful, it would thus become "art".  For centuries this was a determination made by so-called experts who had training in the media and aesthetics.  In the 19th century a collective of French artists rebelled against this notion, and took their work straight to the public.

The vast majority of photography is not art.  It is craftsmanship.  I'm a semi-pro tog - I do event photography and also sell wildlife & nature photos -  and this opinion is rather unpopular among other togs.  Oh, well.  Certainly, there is "artistry" in many forms of photography, but "art"?  No, not really.  And I don't think being a "craftsman" rather than an "artist" is bad at all!  In a world overflowing with crap, how can there be shame in creating something that is better than "required"?

[rumborak]

I think something is art if it successfully communicates something that is non-obvious to the medium. And the recipient can be anyone, including just the artist himself.

rumborak

[slycordinator]

It should include a clause somewhere that reflects the timelessness of art; that is, if something was found to have artistic merit at one time, then it can always be considered "art" because it's a reflection on the aesthetics of that culture.

This assumes that every future culture will respect the aesthetics of every previous culture. If in the future everyone decides that what we consider art to be totally without any artistic merit, I see no reason to believe that they'd call it art simply because art is supposed to be timeless.

You've got it backwards.  Stuff gets put in museums because it is art; it doesn't become art when you put it in a museum.

Just like how awards are only given to good musicians?

That's just the thing though! Plenty of people think that art is subjective, and that they alone can decide whether something is art based on whether it suits them.  It's not; although all art may not move you personally, there are still objective bases for determining whether something is art.

The only thing I think you can "objectively" look at is the number of people who feel that a given work is art or not. IMO, that's not the same as objectively determining that it is art.

[Heretic]

I was actually asked this question in an interview the other day!

-What is your definition of art?

Well, to me, art is expression. Art is something that is tangible and emotive, something that is created because the creator had the inspiration and the imagination to do it. Art isn't limited to drawings or sculptures, it's anything that is creative and made for a purpose-- music, writing, crafting, etc.-- art is creating. It's hard to limit art, but to me, art is the expression of one's interests, emotions, thoughts, ideas, and influences into a single creation.

So yes, basically that. People like to throw up comments about how things aren't art because of their personal preference towards things-- but honestly, art is truly just the expression and creation of the artist.

[Super Dude]

I don't know, and I think that should be precisely the point. And I'm not saying you can wipe shit on a canvas and call that art (I mean maybe, but I wouldn't look at it), but that's just how I see it.

[Zook]

Random paint splotches and KrotchRaut.

[theseoafs]

It should include a clause somewhere that reflects the timelessness of art; that is, if something was found to have artistic merit at one time, then it can always be considered "art" because it's a reflection on the aesthetics of that culture.

This assumes that every future culture will respect the aesthetics of every previous culture. If in the future everyone decides that what we consider art to be totally without any artistic merit, I see no reason to believe that they'd call it art simply because art is supposed to be timeless.

I don't see any reason to believe that.  First of all, that's an incredibly far-fetched situation; nobody's ever decided that all of a particular generation's art was worthless and burned it, and I see no reason why that might ever happen.  Even if it did, we still wouldn't say "this is no longer art".  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say "this was art once, but now everyone thinks it's shitty so it's not art anymore".

You've got it backwards.  Stuff gets put in museums because it is art; it doesn't become art when you put it in a museum.

Just like how awards are only given to good musicians?

No, not really.  We're trying to differentiate between art and non-art here, not good art and bad art.  Art is put in museums because people consider it to be art.  I don't know what's hard to understand about that.

That's just the thing though! Plenty of people think that art is subjective, and that they alone can decide whether something is art based on whether it suits them.  It's not; although all art may not move you personally, there are still objective bases for determining whether something is art.

The only thing I think you can "objectively" look at is the number of people who feel that a given work is art or not. IMO, that's not the same as objectively determining that it is art.

On the contrary, that's exactly what it is!

Let me explain.  A perhaps less roundabout definition of art would be "something which has artistic merit".  However, this definition is very circular and nonintuitive.  We also run into the problem of subjectivity.  While everybody has a sense of aesthetics, our aesthetic-ometers are all tuned a bit differently; not everybody agrees that certain things have aesthetic appeal.  That means that if we define art this way, a work may be art when it's in front of a person that likes it, and not art when in front of a person that doesn't, and that's a paradox we want to avoid.

So, we're forced to measure artistic merit in objective terms, which is rather impossible.  To solve this tricky problem, we're going to employ an intent and perception model, which you can see in my definition above.  In order for something to be art, the producer has to consider it art, and an audience needs to agree that it has artistic merit.  Problem solved!

[slycordinator]

I don't see any reason to believe that.  First of all, that's an incredibly far-fetched situation; nobody's ever decided that all of a particular generation's art was worthless and burned it, and I see no reason why that might ever happen.  Even if it did, we still wouldn't say "this is no longer art".  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say "this was art once, but now everyone thinks it's shitty so it's not art anymore".

Can you say "strawman argument"?

1) I never suggested that anything would happen all of a sudden. Things can happen gradually. Even things that result in people considering what I view as artistic to instead be worthless, although I never suggested that the people would go so far as to burn it. On the other hand, aren't you suggesting that it's not possible for them to decide to burn the stuff (since they will for all eternity view the stuff as art)? Because I'm open to the possibility of people disliking things enough to do anything from ignoring it to destroying it as well.
2) I never suggested that the people would say "this is no longer art." The statement they would likely make, if they made one at all on the matter, is something along the lines of "This isn't art" and possibly adding "but those crazy people from the past viewed it as art."

No, not really.  We're trying to differentiate between art and non-art here, not good art and bad art.  Art is put in museums because people consider it to be art.  I don't know what's hard to understand about that.

I was making a joke. You clearly missed the

So, we're forced to measure artistic merit in objective terms, which is rather impossible.  To solve this tricky problem, we're going to employ an intent and perception model, which you can see in my definition above.  In order for something to be art, the producer has to consider it art, and an audience needs to agree that it has artistic merit.  Problem solved!

Again, I say that this is only an objective basis for determining whether people exist that think something is art rather than an objective basis for determining that it actually is.

Like I could go and analyze all the people that came to my old school's clinic with a certain condition, look at the reported 0-10 pain levels, and analyze those numbers objectively. Even though I'd be analyzing the numbers objectively, it wouldn't be an objective basis for measuring pain.

[theseoafs]

I don't see any reason to believe that.  First of all, that's an incredibly far-fetched situation; nobody's ever decided that all of a particular generation's art was worthless and burned it, and I see no reason why that might ever happen.  Even if it did, we still wouldn't say "this is no longer art".  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say "this was art once, but now everyone thinks it's shitty so it's not art anymore".

Can you say "strawman argument"?

1) I never suggested that anything would happen all of a sudden. Things can happen gradually. Even things that result in people considering what I view as artistic to instead be worthless, although I never suggested that the people would go so far as to burn it. On the other hand, aren't you suggesting that it's not possible for them to decide to burn the stuff (since they will for all eternity view the stuff as art)? Because I'm open to the possibility of people disliking things enough to do anything from ignoring it to destroying it as well.
2) I never suggested that the people would say "this is no longer art." The statement they would likely make, if they made one at all on the matter, is something along the lines of "This isn't art" and possibly adding "but those crazy people from the past viewed it as art."

Okay, but again, the premise is far-fetched so I don't feel I need to deal with it.  Find me an example of something that was once considered art but is now universally agreed not to be art and I'll deal with the objection.

Like I could go and analyze all the people that came to my old school's clinic with a certain condition, look at the reported 0-10 pain levels, and analyze those numbers objectively. Even though I'd be analyzing the numbers objectively, it wouldn't be an objective basis for measuring pain.

That's true, but that study would be objective proof that pain exists.  We're not "measuring" anything; we're determining objectively whether something is art.  It's a binary thing; something is either art or not art, and I'm putting forth a definition for making the decision.  I honestly don't get why you're arguing.

[slycordinator]

Okay, but again, the premise is far-fetched so I don't feel I need to deal with it.  Find me an example of something that was once considered art but is now universally agreed not to be art and I'll deal with the objection.

I wasn't suggesting that I had an example of this happening. I was suggesting that you need to prove the claim that such a happening is impossible.

That's true, but that study would be objective proof that pain exists.

No it wouldn't. It would only be a report of the incidences of reported pain. It would only suggest the average levels of pain for the given condition and how those levels generally change with the given intervention. But it wouldn't be proof of anything, actually.

We're not "measuring" anything; we're determining objectively whether something is art.  It's a binary thing; something is either art or not art, and I'm putting forth a definition for making the decision.  I honestly don't get why you're arguing.

Finding whether there is "an audience that agrees that X has artistic merit" is inherently measuring how prevalent it is that people find X to have artistic merit. Sure, the calculation you're using from the measurement is binary but that doesn't mean a measurement was not taken.

And I'm arguing because I disagree that this is an "objective" determination that the thing is or isn't art. It may be an unbiased way to go about it, but objectivity implies much more than merely being unbiased. [edit]But I guess you must mean unbiased rather than objective per se.[/edit]

[MetalJunkie]

art¹ [ahrt]
noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

[Adami]

art¹ [ahrt]
noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Check my first post in the thread  .