What is art?

[Scorpion]

First off, I apologize, if this is the wrong subforum, but it seemed a little to serious and philosophical for GD. If it's wrong, please move it.

Now, on the topic: we recently had exactly this discussion in a class at school, and even though I thought that I had a pretty good picture of what art is, I had to, at the end of the lesson, concede that I can't actually formulate a definition for what art is and what isn't. For most things that I see, I have an intuitive opinion on whether they are art or not, but I have as of yet to find a definition that actually encompasses that, and it seems arbitrary in most cases.

Some of the most often-echoed points are that
- art is what is what the artist intends to be art,
- art is something of a certain quality, for which one needs specific skills to be able to create it, or
- art is what the viewer deems to be art.

However, none of these three viewpoints are what I believe to be sufficient. If I took a pencil, broke it and said that it was art, would that be art? By the first definition, it would, and yet I would say that I would be hard-pressed to find people actually considering it art.

It doesn't necessitate any skills, one might argue - but then again, Picasso's Bull's Head¹, created from a bicycle seat and its handlebars, is something that most people would doubtlessly call art, and yet it doesn't really necessitate any specific skills.

The third criterion is also problematic, because every viewer perceives something different as art. Do we let the majority decide on whether something is art or not? Does everyone decided it for himself, without there even being an objective definition of the word "art"?

I'm leaning towards that last point of view at the moment, but I was interested in your thoughts on the subject. Is art something totally subjective, or are there objective criteria, and if yes, then what are they?

¹ The Bull's Head is depicted below.

[rumborak]

My best attempt at defining it is

"Art is the use of a medium to imbue a meaning usually not found in the medium, a meaning potentially only apparent to the creator himself."

So, a chair is sometimes a chair, but when the creator of the "art" attempts to add special meaning to it, then it becomes art. If only to him/her.

[bosk1]

I prefer to apply the more liberal definition while also recognizing that something may be "art" and "complete and utter rubbish" at the same time.

EDIT:  rumborak's definition ain't bad.

[Implode]

I agree with Rumby.

[ReaPsTA]

I don't know what this means, but I consider this video to show an artist perfecting his art:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bud84dpeXo&feature=related

[theseoafs]

I prefer to apply the more liberal definition while also recognizing that something may be "art" and "complete and utter rubbish" at the same time.

EDIT:  rumborak's definition ain't bad.

Yes, and yes.

[hefdaddy42]

If I took a pencil, broke it and said that it was art, would that be art?

Not necessarily.  It could just be you breaking a pencil.

But you breaking a pencil could be art.

[Super Dude]

Honestly, I think the best that's possible is to say that art is what the consensus dictates. Because one beholder's art is another beholder's firewood.

[Jaffa]

I would say that art is expression. 

If you break a pencil in half because you feel like breaking a pencil in half, that's just a broken pencil.  If you do it with the intent of expressing something, it's art.

[RuRoRul]

I prefer to apply the more liberal definition while also recognizing that something may be "art" and "complete and utter rubbish" at the same time.

EDIT:  rumborak's definition ain't bad.

Yeah. Often the "what is art?" question seems to come up when someone wants to say something they don't like "isn't art". I don't see what's wrong with just saying it's art, but it's crap. "Art" doesn't have to mean "good".

[hefdaddy42]

True.

[Orbert]

I would say that art is expression. 

If you break a pencil in half because you feel like breaking a pencil in half, that's just a broken pencil.  If you do it with the intent of expressing something, it's art.

Exactly!  And damn you for stealing my answer.

A musician expresses himself through arranging sounds.  A writer expresses himself through words.  A sculptor expresses himself through his chosen physical medium.  And so on.  Each of these requires that the artist put something of himself into it.  The degree of effort is irrelevant, as is the degree of meaning.  Also irrelevant is how much it resonates with any given audience member.  There can be art which everyone agrees is revolting, but which everyone agrees is also art.

This somewhat agrees with the old definition "it's art because the artist says it is".

[Jaffa]

Exactly!  And damn you for stealing my answer.

[jammindude]

I agree with the last few posts.  I honestly believe that art = self-expression.  With the caveat that any appreciator of art reserves the right to question your motives.

For an example, let's go back to the broken pencil.   Have you really thought about what you were trying to express?  Or just conveniently creating an excuse to try to force it into the "art" box.   

Another example.  Andy Warhol's famous "soup can".   There are *A LOT* of people that don't think that's art.  It's just a picture of a Campbell's soup can.  But the statement he was making was not just randomly putting up a picture of a soup can.   If I go out and just say "I'll take a picture of a soup can, and that will be art"...then it's not art.    But if say, "Ya know, our world is becoming so commercialized that one day, commercial products will be more recognized than real art"...or possibly that "commercial products will be recognized *AS* art"...then I have put a thought process behind it, and I am attempting to make a statement with the soup can.    *NOW* it's art.   

[Super Dude]

I would say that art is expression. 

If you break a pencil in half because you feel like breaking a pencil in half, that's just a broken pencil.  If you do it with the intent of expressing something, it's art.

Exactly!  And damn you for stealing my answer.

A musician expresses himself through arranging sounds.  A writer expresses himself through words.  A sculptor expresses himself through his chosen physical medium.  And so on.  Each of these requires that the artist put something of himself into it.  The degree of effort is irrelevant, as is the degree of meaning.  Also irrelevant is how much it resonates with any given audience member.  There can be art which everyone agrees is revolting, but which everyone agrees is also art.

This somewhat agrees with the old definition "it's art because the artist says it is".

Well that all certainly answers a few questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdPvN7HOLh8

[Chino]

I would say that art is expression. 

If you break a pencil in half because you feel like breaking a pencil in half, that's just a broken pencil.  If you do it with the intent of expressing something, it's art.

Does that go for rolling a box-truck as well?



Imagine the conversation with the boss/insurance company... "I didn't flip the truck because I was drunk. I was simply expressing my drunkenness by flipping the truck"

[Implode]

Unfortunately they'd sue you for conversion then.

[Super Dude]

There's a painter in Russia whose works are created entirely by painting her boobs and using them as her brush.

[Chino]

There's a painter in Russia whose works are created entirely by painting her boobs and using them as her brush.

America would throw her in jail for indecent exposure.

[Implode]

Not everywhere. Assuming you're talking about painting in public, I know there's a place in New York where it's perfectly legal for a woman to walk around shirtless.

[Orbert]

It's also legal in many places if it's part of some kind of performance or artistic expression.  Which takes us back to the original question.

[Ben_Jamin]

Art is an expression meant to convey emotion, desire, or any feeling towards something. At times, it's up to someone to declare it art, even when the artist declares it an expression more so than art, they see the beauty in the expression the artist didn't and may then say it is art.

For me life is Art, and we are the paint. Our drive is the brush to paint our picture on this canvas called life.

[rumborak]

I try to stay away from words like emotion, desire, feeling etc because I don't think they're a prerequisite to art at all. Art can be letting a stream of water freeze, and it looks cool afterward. There was neither emotion nor desire involved, it was letting nature take its course. The effort of making it freeze in a cool-looking fashion imbued additional meaning to this everyday object, and that's what made it art.

rumborak

[Ben_Jamin]

I try to stay away from words like emotion, desire, feeling etc because I don't think they're a prerequisite to art at all. Art can be letting a stream of water freeze, and it looks cool afterward. There was neither emotion nor desire involved, it was letting nature take its course. The effort of making it freeze in a cool-looking fashion imbued additional meaning to this everyday object, and that's what made it art.

rumborak

You kinda proved my point in Life is Art.

[rumborak]

How is life art? No offense dude, but with those kinds of definitions really nothing is added to the discussion. All life is art? Why don't we just call it art then?
At least in my book, art still requires an "imbuer", someone who was involved in adding the meaning.

[theseoafs]

Life is not art, it's just life.  Art is manmade and expressive.

[RuRoRul]

Yeah, definitions like "Life is art" might sound pithy but they don't really mean much or answer anything.

I think the general concensus of art being something intended to express something is pretty good. And although that's often emotion it definitely doesn't have to be emotion. If I make some sort of design out of geometrical shapes because I think it looks really cool that's not necessarily me expressing any emotion about something, unless you count the emotion of "I think this looks really cool".

[Jaffa]

I would say that art is expression. 

If you break a pencil in half because you feel like breaking a pencil in half, that's just a broken pencil.  If you do it with the intent of expressing something, it's art.

Does that go for rolling a box-truck as well?

Yes.  I mean, assuming they planned on it beforehand and meant to express something. 

[jsem]

What if you just randomly accidentally spill paint on a canvas and it turns out to be the most beautiful painting ever. Is that now art? That wasn't planned to express something beforehand.

[Orbert]

That would seem to fall into the same category as finding art in nature or "life" in general.  There is beauty to be found anywhere you look, but if it's just some random event, it's not art.  Art is intentional and created.  Sunsets can be beautiful, but they're not art.  Rainbows can be beautiful, but they're not art.

By the same token, spilling paint onto a canvas accidentally is not art.  Now, that doesn't mean you can't frame it and sell it for a lot of money, and you could even tell people "I accidentally created this beautiful work of art" but to me, "accidental" and "art" contradict each other.

[Jaffa]

What if you just randomly accidentally spill paint on a canvas and it turns out to be the most beautiful painting ever. Is that now art?

No more than it would be if the paint splatter instead ended up being a random ugly orange blob.

Aesthetic quality is a way of measuring art, not defining it. 

[Elite]

Oh, God, this conversation again

[Scorpion]

Oh, God, this conversation again

Um, I'm sorry?

Anyway, thanks for the responses to this, guys. I've been thinking this over, and I think that RuRoRol hit the nail on the head, actually: just because something is "art" doesn't mean that it's good, something that many people seem to think (just as I did, I think, until I actually thought about it). Based on that, there is actually no problems with the definition "what the artist deems to be art" (or, you know, what Orbert said). I've been mulling on this and I think that that is a definition that I can agree with myself on.

[Adami]

I have what seems like a stupid question.

If art is merely an artist expressing emotion through any kind of medium, then could a guy beating another man with a baseball bat in anger be considered art?

[theseoafs]

I suppose if the artist was extremely adamant that the beating was art, then yes, it could be considered a type of performance art. 

That wouldn't make it legal, though.