The Nature of Art
 

What is it that makes art, well.....art. Is it intent? If the person that created it says it is art, is it automatically art? Or is it a stranger's eyes that make it art? If I look at an object and I see beauty, or pain, or struggle, or contentment, does that make it art? What if the creator didn't mean it to be art and doesn't think that it is? Is everything and anything art as long as one person thinks that it is?

This is the article that brought these thoughts up:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008540

There is no essence or substance that is "art," any more than there is of justice, morality, mercy etcetera. It is a word we use to describe something we appreciate for more than what it actually is or can be used for. Why? That is the focus of many psychological studies, I am sure. What? That will be different depending on each person's personality, what they like and dislike, and all too often such a person's social origin. People have very different ideas about what is art, but even the most close minded of art critics is more in tune with what art is than those who think it can be defined (not to be confused with those people who just want to talk about the phenomenon of art itself, I hasten to add).

Long ago I chose to cut through the trite rhetoric and confused musings with the pseudo-authoritative declaration that "there is no such thing as art, merely varying degrees of stuff".

I tend to agree with you (except for the last statement) but there are very different schools of thought out there. I'm interested to see what everyone here thinks on the subject.

I should have phrased my first post as a discussion, because it reads as if I'm asking a question that I need an answer to. I am quite content in my own evaluation of art.

I bring that line up every time the question is asked on deviantART. It's a very easy and entertaining way to evaluate a single aspect of people's personality (essentially whether or not people will read past the comma).

If I look at something and say "That's art.", then it's Art for me.

Somehow?

For me, anything that has had a significant amount of work into it is a piece of art. Grabbing 3 buckets of paint and throwing them randomly on a canvas might give a cool result but it's not art IMO.

Some people are so full of themselves that they call any random idea they produce art. Frame a turd, put it on the wall, you'll just have a turd on the wall, not a piece of art. It seems to be a trend lately though, all these self proclaimed 'abstract artists' who even get paid to come up with idiotic ideas. I remember a certain gallery that had a toilet on display, was supposed to be art according to the artist (read: dude who bought toilet at store).

Art is art; like everything else, there's bad art, and then there's good art.


IMO

Some people appreciate the wild paradigm breaking and the pure balls required to do that. To them it's the thought process that is art, the signed urinal is simply the evidence of that. To others its the naked aspect of humanity on display without shame or dressing up.

You miss the point of neo-dada's origin, the signed toilet was supposed to be a direct challenge to the ideal of Art. The artist was literally crying with frustration when he learnt that so called critics and experts were admiring his work for it's aesthetic quality. Will post direct quote along with my aphoristic views on Art tomorrow night.

This thread is going to be/is already pretentious.

I can feel it in my scrotum.

I have nothing particular to add because I’ve never put any thought into the question, but this is pretty much what I find. I don’t think anything can be considered art by every person, and I can’t see that as a bad thing.

After two minutes’ thought I guess one criterion for me would be evidence of creativity, whether that’s in the imagery, construction, or thought behind the project. To me this allows framed turds to be art if it’s reflecting or expressing something significant.

Tortured dogs, on the other hand…

Then it's not art either, that's being philosophical. And yes, the two can go hand in hand. The artist can put that turd on the wall and have spend 10 weeks coming up with a brilliant philosophy for the turd and associate the two together. But in the end, while the philosophy might be great and mind shattering, the item he associates with that philosophy is not, and never will be, art.

And come on, how many pieces of philosophical artwork are out there which actually make sense to anyone but the artist? "Yes, yes of course a turd stands for the poverty of third world nations and how the world is a shitty place in all it's grandness. Marvelous! Splendid I say! Splendid!"

To me art is simply inspiration.

Art is hard to define. In my opinion, there is no art, just what people consider art. It's your own choice if you think it's art or not. Some say nudity is art. Some say it isn't. It's all a matter of opinion.

Art is defined by individuals, in my opinion.

Cherry picking, spotlight fallacy, straw man.

Art does not have to be beautiful, for the same reason that music does not have to be pleasent sounding. Art is more than Aesthetics, it is the complete and utter waste product produced by humanity. Or viewed from a different light; humanities' product.

What is Science? Something to help us survive, to help us describe and to help us physically and mentally better ourselves.

What is Art? Something to help us live, to explain the unexplainable and the unquantifiable. I am a believer in Friedrich Nietzsche's proposition that at the end of time mankind will be judged not by its quantity, but its quality; our products of Art and Culture.

Objectively speaking Art is the by product of Culture, and objectivity doesn't really give a shit if you like the way it looks/sounds or not.

Pretty much this.


But the Mona Lisa is art for sure

Art's a word.