What IS ART?

[Radical Dreamer]

Okay guys, calm down. There's no reason to be rude.

[mechana2015]

Symmetry and the golden mean are mathematical aspects of appeal, but in themselves are not appealing, and can be used to define technical aspects of art and composition of a visual nature, but are irrelevant in the face of forms such as poetry and fiction writing. There is no objective standard of visual excellence because culture and personal experience will always play a part in it. In addition, Art is a constantly evolving process, and any constraint or classification, especially one dependant on opinion, as "beauty" is, will rapidly be challenged or broken for the sake of proving that it can be done.

Graffiti is a absolute disgrace to some and visually excellent to others. Paul Gauguin is seen as childish by some and dynamic by others. Ukyo-E paintings look fundamentally off in some eyes and brilliant to others. Preferential visual qualities cannot determine artistic relevance and value since they are not based on concrete data. Once you acquire concrete data you are not talking about beauty, but technical excellence, which is an entirely different criteria.

Summary: Beauty is the wrong word to use when trying to define art.

[Htom Sirveaux]

What separates the works of great masters from the works of a 15-year-old art student?

Publicity.

Also Mech, since you touched on poetry there . . .

I love T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land. I think it's a great poem. I don't like that one about the man from Nantucket. I think it's horrible. A 14-year-old schoolboy might beg to differ. But we can at least agree that both are poems.

The "good/bad" argument may have little or nothing to do with what defines "art", but art in any form is pointless if one cannot be allowed to form a personal opinion about a particular piece. It's impossible to appreciate all art just because it's art.

[Kung_Fu_Master]

Publicity.

This.

[ShiroiHikari]

I think there are a few more differences than just publicity.

[Radical Dreamer]

Publicity.

8(

Carravagio's "The Incredulity of St. Thomas":




15 year old art:




I think there's probably a bit more than publicity to it. XD

[Yamamaya]

Art is air.

[Htom Sirveaux]

15 year old art:

An Andy Warhol masterpiece:


I say again: Publicity. Talent is only marginally important.

[Roy Mustang]

8-year-old painting prodigy is new art world star

Here is one that didn't get publicity up and until now.

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="Red"]
Col. Roy Mustang[/color][/font]

[Radical Dreamer]

An Andy Warhol masterpiece:


I say again: Publicity. Talent is only marginally important.

Art for the sake of irony or breaking the aesthetic norms is still art (especially if you're being controversial in a time where that kind of controversy was innovative).

Think of it this way. There are certain rules in the aesthetics of art: rhythm, balance, color, etc. Those rules can be broken if you know how to break them, or when to break them, or if you're just going for complete irony. It's still art. It's just like how there are many rules in writing that can be broken by the right author at the right time. James Joyce and other stream-of-consciousness writers are unconventional, but their works are still considered literature.

[Cognitive Gear]

An Andy Warhol masterpiece:


I say again: Publicity. Talent is only marginally important.

I hope that the irony of posting an Andy Warhol piece in an attempt to prove that publicity is more important than talent or message in a thread titled, "What IS ART?" is not lost on you.

[SIZE="1"]That wikipedia link is a preemptive response to the inevitable irony definitions. XD[/SIZE]

[Htom Sirveaux]

@Corrie: I'm not debating whether or not it's art. Go back and read my previous posts. I admit that it's art, whatever the crap it's supposed to symbolize.

Which brings me to

Thinktank (for so I've always mentally called you as a variation of your SN): Dunno. Not a Warhol fan. I just know it's a picture of a banana that sells for a bajillion dollars. So sue me.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Wrong. "Good" and "Bad" are value judgments which are relative to the individual. There is no such thing as objective "good" or "bad" art because what constitutes as art is, again, entirely up to the individual. Consensus agreement doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa is good art. It's just a collective opinion.

If a person believes Kung Pow was a good movie (cause let's say they LIKE sub-standard aspects in movies) then nobody can tell them otherwise.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Wrong. "Good" and "Bad" are value judgments which are relative to the individual. There is no such thing as objective "good" or "bad" art because what constitutes as art is, again, entirelyup to the individual. Consensus agreement doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa is good art. It's just a collective opinion.

Er . . . what's wrong, exactly? I think that's pretty much what we've been saying, more or less - that good/bad is a matter of personal opinion.
Only, without the freedom to form a personal opinion, art (or at least, attempting to appreciate art) is pointless.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Sorry. That was in reference to TheSubtleDoctor.

[Htom Sirveaux]

Ah. Yeah, that was like, a page ago.

[Radical Dreamer]

@Corrie: I'm not debating whether or not it's art. Go back and read my previous posts. I admit that it's art, whatever the crap it's supposed to symbolize.

XD I think my point still stands, though--on the rules of basic drawing skill, at least. Andy Warhol's paintings may break a lot of rules and be ironic, but he also knew how to paint a portrait to catch the resemblance of a person and do it using the right proportions, shapes, shadows, etc. What I'm saying is that a 15 year-old (likely) hasn't mastered those skills, so they can't be compared with a painter like Carravagio, Van Gogh, Picasso, or even Andy Warhol. XD These men were talented as well as famous (Van Gogh posthumously) because they were skilled artists, not just because they got a lucky break. XD

[Htom Sirveaux]

XD I think my point still stands, though--on the rules of basic drawing skill, at least. Andy Warhol's paintings may break a lot of rules and be ironic, but he also knew how to paint a portrait to catch the resemblance of a person and do it using the right proportions, shapes, shadows, etc. What I'm saying is that a 15 year-old (likely) hasn't mastered those skills, so they can't be compared with a painter like Carravagio, Van Gogh, Picasso, or even Andy Warhol. XD These men were talented as well as famous (Van Gogh posthumously) because they were skilled artists, not just because they got a lucky break. XD

I did mention talent, I said it was marginally important. What do you want from an incurable cynic, eh?

[Cognitive Gear]

Thinktank (for so I've always mentally called you as a variation of your SN): Dunno. Not a Warhol fan. I just know it's a picture of a banana that sells for a bajillion dollars. So sue me.

Warhol is known for his exhibit The American Supermarket, which was really the first event to really challenge the public with the question, "What is art?"

[Nate]

[SIZE="1"]That wikipedia link is a preemptive response to the inevitable irony definitions. XD[/SIZE]

Oh don't dance. I've gotten under that doorknob. I then realize all elephants have to do to change language is to tear words the wrong way and suddenly it pops correct!

"Good" and "Bad" are value judgments which are relative to the individual. There is no such thing as objective "good" or "bad" art because what constitutes as art is, again, entirely up to the individual. Consensus agreement doesn't mean that the Mona Lisa is good art. It's just a collective opinion.

Ryan, I want you to know something. I agree with you, but I was using the words wrong. It's kind of like what mech said. I think there can be good art on a technical level. Like the still life of a bowl of fruit. I can say, for example, that the painting mimics the color and size of the fruit almost perfectly, that as a painting, it is almost exactly like a photograph of the bowl.

In that sense, it would be good art on a technical level. Is it good art as far as art goes, though? That's up to the individual, but it is still "good" art in the sense that it is done well.

I do agree completely with you in the sense that as far as the "art-ness" (for lack of a better word) of the art, there is no objectively good or bad art. All art is completely 100% subjective, as I was trying to explain to Doc earlier. XD Again, sorry for being unclear.

[Yuki-Anne]

Fruit in a bowl is SO Best Western lobby.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Fruit in a bowl is SO Best Western lobby.

Fruit in a bowl predates Best Western by a few hundred years. Hehe.

To be fair, though, it probably always served the same effect. A lot of the pieces we consider to be quintessential paintings of art history were more often than not created just to decorate some lonely corner of someone's home.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Nate, I might be taking it even further. For the moment, I'll say the same value judgments apply to technical judgments of art. Take the relative quality of art to its logical conclusion, technical aspects are relative as well. Just because something is a universal standard does not make it an objective standard. One could say like what Mech said, and talk about how symmetry and golden means are what humans tend to like more, but they may simply be due to environmental conditioning.

[Radical Dreamer]

Nate, I might be taking it even further. For the moment, I'll say the same value judgments apply to technical judgments of art. Take the relative quality of art to its logical conclusion, technical aspects are relative as well. Just because something is a universal standard does not make it an objective standard. One could say like what Mech said, and talk about how symmetry and golden means are what humans tend to like more, but they may simply be due to environmental conditioning.

While there may be some subjectivity in critiquing the aesthetic value of a piece, I'd have to say there's little to no subjectivity in looking at the technical artistic skill. I wouldn't be in art school if there were. XD Look at any book on drawing anything realistically, whether it's the figure or a manmade structure, and you'll find the same rules about light sources, shadow placement, perspective, etc. You really can't look at a stick person and say "this is a well-done figure drawing, good job." XD

[Mr. SmartyPants]

So you're saying that art at a technical level is "better" if it seems like it can fit within the realm of reality? Okay then. But it's still subjective, because how do we know that we all perceive reality similarly?

However, one may be able to make a case of logic and math being objectively axiomatic (premise which must be unquestionably true), then of course, for example, since light angles are mathematic. You could say that proper angles of lighting are better at a technical level because they represent logic.

However, I don't think I buy this idea. For now, I'll still retain the idea that technical standards are a result of, basically, society telling us so and having that be reinforced to our subconscious. Being at an art school doesn't negate this. It just means that the majority of people accept a certain standard.

[Bobtheduck]

Art.

[Fish and Chips]

Fish, you've captured (as succienctly as possible) the very nebulous nature of art. And I think for that reason it is why so many things are capable of being art but the subject still ellicits so much argument. Art (notice the capital?) is a very subjective thing... I've said several times that some of my favorite pieces of art were actually commercial. They're visual (and sometimes tactile, audio, and even olfactory) constructs attempting to convey something very specific and the analysis of them is something I enjoy doing greatly. A well conveyed window scene in a story, or a well put together display or sign is beautiful to me both in form and function.

Agreed. Commercial art is Art.

At the same time, I'm also a "games as art" geek. Are all games Art? No. Nonononono. Are games capable of Art and have in the past produced pieces were were actually very good pieces of Art? I would say yes. Of course, Ebert would disagree with me but he has come out to concede Tycho's (From Penny Arcade) point: Just because something is not now does not mean it never will be.

The problem with games is that the majority of them try very hard to be movies, and only occasionally novels. The power of games is in choice, in participation, in actually playing. In all other mediums you are only ever an insubstantial 3rd party, an audience bearing silent witness to the work]So you're saying that art at a technical level is "better" if it seems like it can fit within the realm of reality? Okay then. But it's still subjective, because how do we know that we all perceive reality similarly?[/QUOTE]I imagine Ryan is very entertaining to ask how many fingers you're holding up.

[ShiroiHikari]

While there may be some subjectivity in critiquing the aesthetic value of a piece, I'd have to say there's little to no subjectivity in looking at the technical artistic skill. I wouldn't be in art school if there were. XD Look at any book on drawing anything realistically, whether it's the figure or a manmade structure, and you'll find the same rules about light sources, shadow placement, perspective, etc. You really can't look at a stick person and say "this is a well-done figure drawing, good job." XD

I think this is something to keep in mind. Art doesn't necessarily equal technical perfection, but sometimes it helps. As someone said earlier in the thread, you have to know the rules in order to be able to break them. (Was that also you, Corrie? XD) A fingerpainting of a stick figure might be art but it is not Art.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Edit:

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Fish:

Oh, and I absolutely agree with you, particularly regarding the folly of games trying to be movies or novels. The best games-as-art arguments are games that have managed to find those things that videogames can do to convey something uniquely.

As I've said before, this is one of my favorite subjects so I'd be happy to rave about this one all night. Hah.

There is a good indie one you can pick up called Sleep is Death. What this game accomplishes is cooperation in creating a story. There are two players: One who directs and one who acts. The director sets the scene, helps guide things, communicates the game to the player. The player stands within the game world presented and interacts with it. Both players can work together cooperatively to create a wholly new story, or they can even clash with eachother to create something else entirely. The fusion of it is beautiful, if the tools a little simplistic. It's pretty fantastic.