What is art?
 

answer pls

Paraphrasing:

~Some Guy

Hell, I don't even know it when I see most of the time.

I read that in the voice of Cunk.

Do you mean Philomena Cunk?

I do indeed.

She don't look anything like Gravdigr.

:headshake

:D

She didn't do a "Moments of Wonder" on art. But she did one on philosophy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLAk...r324YB&index=6

I believe that philosophy and art go hand in hand. Most "Art" requires thought to fully understand.

I generally consider art to be inessential creativity that appeals. There can obviously be more to it (e.g. the art of medicine); but, this seems to be the contemporary mainstay.

There is no answer that would be universally accepted. Sometimes paint is used to make pleasant pictures, and sometimes it's just weather proofing. Many, maybe most, think Picasso made pleasant pictures, I think he was weather proofing canvases. Maybe the best answer I can conjure, is creating something that pleases yourself, but I can't see the division between art and craft.

I'm skeptical of the whole "art" thing, and discussions about "art." I've seen crude stuff in museums that I wasn't very impressed by, but somebody decided it was art. Whatever.

But there is something. Art is real. When you take one medium and you manipulate it to represent something else entirely, I think there is something special going on there. Chip off bits of a rock and it becomes a person. That's magical.

Sorry, 'what is art?' is kind of a trollish question.

Oh, I know... Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts, 'cause Wiki said so.

Thou art being perfunctory.

Art is imagery etc, that makes you feel things other than the literal representation of the medium in use.

Yes!

Throughout history gatekeepers and rich folk have tried to control society by refusing to acknowledge as art the artworks which they don't like. With the privilege of hindsight, it makes a lot of sense to skip ahead and embrace everything: Art is anything that anybody says is art.

The more important question is: what is good art?

And that's usually a pretty subjective, personal question.

It makes a lot of sense to me to walk through an art museum and find lots of things that you don't give a damn about. In what ways is your life relatable to that of someone living in Europe in the 1870s? (And so on for every other decade and continent represented)

LJ has mastered the art of persuasion.

LJ expressed well what I was trying to say in my post.

The problem is that even that definition doesn't capture some things well. I think most people would be in agreement that Mikhail Baryshnikov dancing ballet is considered art. But when I watch him dance, it doesn't make me feel anything other than impressed at his skill. It's pretty and impressive, but doesn't evoke anything else. The medium is dance, the feeling it evokes is nothing. Maybe that's just me. But I wouldn't protest if anyone called his dancing "art." I'd agree with them.

To me, art must communicate something, preferably pleasurable, but cannot have a practical purpose.

I guess that rules out porn, Spex. :o

I differentiate dance, etc as 'performance art' Performance being the operative word. There's talent, and skill there, but you're right.... It seldom evokes ant reaction beyond admiration of their skill. There are exceptions of course.

To me, poetry is art because it conveys messages or images without actually depicting them. A portrait of a head or a still life is where my interpretation breaks down. It's art, but it's really just a snap shot.

On the other hand, a photograph of a person's head can be art.... so...

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...f4&oe=57314EC2

Of course, this photograph sold for $1,089,335.

That's not art. That's crazy people doing crazy things.

I think the potato photo is art, just not very effective. Pretty to look at, like ballet. Not worth $1M.

Art is trying to say something a different way.

Expressing oneself differently constitutes art.



.....................^Who wants to buy it?^.......................:D

sexo "inessential" right, that's a strange quality of it; it's art because we do it for some other reason, or purpose, not because we had to in order to fulfill the basic needs.

But none of us would chose a life without it.

WHS^

I'm reading a book by V.S. Ramachandran about (among other things) the neurological reaction to art, and how they can on the one hand say art is definitely art because it stimulates these particular neurons the way art does, and yet also predict that person X won't like art style Y because their inferior parietal sulcus or whatever is smaller than average and didn't fire when they did this other thing to it. It's a really good book.

FWIW, my perspective is that if it is interpretive or spontaneous dance, then the dancer is an artist. If it's choreographed, then the choreograher is the artist and the dancer is a technician.
It's worth as much as some sucker is willing to pay ;)

sexo, moving on from inessential, "creativity that appeals".

Creativity, i.e. creating: art is making something that was not there before. But not just --

"I hit this piece of wood with a hammer, and now there is a dent in it, so I am creative".

That doesn't count; that creativity has to be directed at appealing.

"I made this dent to show how imperfection stands out amidst sameness."

It's intent, then; my creativity was directed at, not creating something appealing as in pleasant and tasteful, but something that appeals to us, calls on our senses and emotions and whatnot.

Yes, it's not just that a woman takes off her clothes; rather, the way she appeals it off that makes the strip tease a performance art which calls on our whatnots.

(the debbil made me do it)

xob "creating something that pleases yourself, but I can't see the division between art and craft"

"Pleases yourself" removes the audience entirely. And here is where it goes right into navel-gazing. Does it count if there's no audience?

If you play an amazing musical piece in the practice room, with nobody but yourself, was that art? If you paint an amazing painting, but show it to nobody, is that art?

In the theatre, the audience is the whole thing. It's played at them, it's lit for them, etc. and each performance is different and usually they are a big reason why.

So you're saying in order to be art it has to be done for someone else? I'm not buying that line for a moment.

No but it does give the art new meaning. Much more meaning in some cases.

It's like, masturbation counts but it's a whole different thing with other people!

New meaning? Sounds like approval, pats on the head, needing reassurance from others, or is it recognition from others. How about if you get paid for it, that's certainly affirmation of approval, when it's a job, is it art? If more people like it does that mean it's better art, you're a better artist? No, if I paint a picture and never show it to anyone, vs hanging in a museum, I'll miss out on the hosannas and cash, but it's the same damn painting, the difference is my ego, not the art.

The expression Art for art's sake comes to mind. Wikipedia has an entry for it that deals mostly with the separation of art from utilitarian function; but, also touches on art for oneself versus for others. A couple of excerpts:

Point;

Counterpoint;

It seems to me that the implications of Poe just about brings it into the realm of spirituality while Sand's implications just about brings it into the realm of commercial success; but, both stop short.

The end product from the spark of creativity is art to me regardless of how many get to experience it. Sometimes the impact on the few; or the one, is greater than the impact on the many.

I believe one can conclude, with a high degree of probability, that it depends on what your definition of is, is.

"approval, pats on the head, needing reassurance from others, or is it recognition"

Any reaction at all. It might make them run from the room, or vomit, or cry, or be confused, or curious, or angry. To bring about any emotion at all would be the most meaningful goal an artist could shoot for imo.

If you create something meaningful and don't share it with others, that is sad. If people who see/hear/read your art bring their own meaning to it, and find new meaning, that elevates the work.

If a critic says they don't like it, guaranteed their will be a dozen people who will say they like it just to be contrary. If the critic says they like it, guaranteed 1000 people will gush like it's the new sliced bread. What are the critics and indeed the public doing, comparing my work to someone, everyone, else's work, to see how well I stayed within the lines, their lines? See how close I came to what they wanted to see?

NO, the work does not change, regardless of how many emotional attachments people heap on it, or causes it gets attached to. A piece of art might get elevated in importance sociologically, but that doesn't make it better or more important art. The poster of Rosie the Riveter has all kinds of emotional attachments to many causes, but the poster is the same as the day it made.

I've been told (not here) that this isn't a poem.
To me is is.

This Is Just To Say

I have eaten
the plums
that were in
the icebox

and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold

(William Carlos Williams)

So if someone else decides that [visual] art is art, I'ma not gonna interrupt.

This is my favorite of this type of poem.

Driving to Town Late to Mail a Letter

It is a cold and snowy night. The main street is deserted.
The only things moving are swirls of snow.
As I lift the mailbox door, I feel its cold iron.
There is a privacy I love in this snowy night.
Driving around, I will waste more time.

—Robert Bly

Those could be Springsteen lyrics.

The screen door slams
Mary's dress waves
Like a vision she dances across the porch as the radio plays
Roy Orbison singing for the lonely
Hey that's me and I want you only

That's actually the tune I heard in my head as I read the poem.

:thumbsup:

I do believe the song has replaced the poem as how we express ourselves in this way. Each word carefully chosen, and Bly and Springsteen create very vivid pictures in our heads with as few words as possible.

Like, we see the porch Mary is dancing on, even though it wasn't mentioned. We can hear that screen door. We can feel that mailbox.

fuckin right

And he was standing
At the corner
Where the road turned dark
A part of shiny wet
Like blood the rain fell
Black down on the street

And kissed his feet she fell
Her head an inch away from heaven
And her face pressed tight
And all around the night sang out
Like cockatoos

In another sense though --

If a piece of art becomes well-known, and is thought to be important enough to pay attention to, it actually then contributes to all future art.

When someone sits down to write music, or a novel, or paint a landscape, they start with what they know, which is roughly a summary of everything that was well-shared and appreciated in history.

All western music was changed by Bach, Beethoven, and the Beatles. Were there better writers than McCartney/Lennon, yes but they won't have changed all music. And so in 100 years their music is likely to sound seem uninteresting or even strange.

Doesn't even have to be a hit or a critical success to change everything. The Velvet Underground and Nico sold 30,000 copies, not enough to even be a minor hit or make any lists. Brian Eno later said "everyone who bought one of those 30,000 copies started a band."

And when they started those bands what did they play? Did they want to sound like Velvet underground, or make money for nothin' and chicks for free like the Beatles? Would Bach and Beethoven have changed music if they hadn't become the rage with European patrons(money), so they became the cool kids? Should we play what we have been for free grog at the tavern or play what the rich people want to hear hoping for better gigs?

Of course I admit I'm rather soured on the music business, so lets take paintings. Everybody say the Mona Lisa is the cat's pajamas. But is it that good, or just better than most from it's era, so became the standard among the patrons(there's that word again), when most of the people in the world never heard of it. In fact most of the people of the world hadn't seen a painting outside of maybe the church, or a cave, at that time. There isn't much from the period to compare it to now.

My point is all these accolades come from critics or promoters who steer the hoi polloi. Now back when people bought record albums you had thousands of releases every year to choose from. But damn few people heard any of them if the didn't get airplay, which was dictated by critics and coughpayolacough promoters. The old, I don't know much about art..., is certainly true, but unfortunately what we're exposed to in order to make that choice, is more orchestrated than we care to admit. Sure, with the internet there's more opportunity to find stuff, but ain't nobody got time for that. :haha:

I'll bite...

The Mona Lisa is the cat's pajamas.






Sorry, couldn't help m'self.:p:

So...Is this art?

Artist Creates “Secret Friends” by Drawing On People’s Backs

Sure it is, performance art.

THIS. IS. SPARTA!!!!

Attachment 55410

Bass player! :eek:

Magnificent

Cool!

I like it.