Art is anything at all. It is that which causes emotions and thoughts, that which activates our senses:
A snowflake, a lamp-post, a mathematical equation. I particularly enjoy receiving charges of philistinism for standing in contemporary art galleries gazing intensively at the fire extinguishers (So vibrantly red, so cool and clear in instruction when their actual use will be at a moment of extreme panic.)
“But art requires an artist, it must be a deliberate expression or act of creativity!” comes the cry.
Why?
If we are atoms, and art’s origin is us, we are surely only (literally!) the middle men. Let the atoms produce the art all by themselves.
I think you’re right, however I would undoubtedly be left with the impression that it was a deliberate work of expression and that the painter was trying to express something, as opposed to being left with the impression that someone had carelessly left a heap of trash on the floor.
Funnily enough, I rather thought that was what it was about.
Ummm, I think art actually might be finding (creating) a form which transmits those things to others.
See above.
Also, art is a process, one which does not stop when a particular artist completes a particular work; the process undergoes a shift then, and extends itself to all who experience the work.
Art’s origin is in us, in both the making and the experiencing. And not in us – it’s a synthesis of experience and thought and inner reaction to those.
Art (and I mean all the various forms) is the longest conversation humanity has ever had; it often proceeds most powerfully by seeming non sequiturs which are the expression of unexpected associations between things previously said.
By the way, Mangetout and Aro, thank you for exposing me to John Martin. I was unaware until today. I like his stuff a bit. Oh yes!
Agreed, I was merely pointing out that non-deliberate or even entirely natural forms can do the same. To me, this handily steps off the “art is what an artist does” carousel.
Tommy Cooper once polished my frisbee. I will not elaborate on precisely how he did this, but suffice it to say that it was an astonishingly swift operation.
Truly, though, I don’t know any artists who do it strictly for the money. There are many more lucrative ways of making a living. Including, but not limited to, washing dishes and sweeping sidewalks.
It seems to me that art is something that certain people are driven to make, and that they do so regardless of the return on their investment of time and labour.
Think of it this way. If I tell you a new word. dolk and when you ask me what it means, I tell you it means everything, what have I told you? A dolk doesn’t actually mean anything, because it’s nothing new. It’s a synonym for everything.
Yes, a heron standing as if frozen into the still water of the mouth of a river at ebb tide, the sun just gone down, an immanent silence in the dimness – this sort of thing touches some us.
But can it be called art? Even by a person with a belief in a Divine Mover(see the dictionary def. of art below; to my understanding, a Divine Mover is usually thought to epitomize perfection) ?
If we accept the dictionary definition of an art as a “skill acquired by experience, study, or observation”, than it follows that Art as we are talking about it in this thread (art with a capital F!, as a crotchety poet once said) is the application of that skill to transmit meaning or emotion. This implies active intent, or deliberation, and application to the process of making.
No, I specified that it was that which causes emotions and thoughts, that which activates our senses (under my own personal definition). The emphasis is on the beholder, not semantic and IMHO circular discussion of the creation process.
As suggested in the OP, if I like it and yet I am “seeing” something completely unintended by the artist, there is surely little to distinguish this from liking and “seeing” something not intended by anyone or anything at all, such as a snowflake.
Fewl, agreed, but since “intent” and “deliberation” are apparently illusions, cognitively speaking, I personally would have little trouble calling the scene itself “art” (since, after all, if I took a photograph of the scene that is what it would indeed be).
If anybody understands it without a 300-page volume of explanation, it is not really art. It is mere illustration.
If anybody actually likes it, it is not art, it is too commercial.
Art is only snobby, incomprehensible, preferably hostile and nihilistic. Nothing else deserves to be called art. Anything that is liked by the plebians, ESPECIALLY anything liked by plebians who do not have properly leftist political inclinations, cannot be art. Just ask any art school graduate.
Glad you liked them. He was a lesser known contemporary of both JMW Turner and John Constable (IIRC), both of whom I’m sure you are familiar with.
This is a big selling point of Art, that it is bourne out of desire, talent and an aching need to create, which I would like to still believe but, alas, do not. I once attended a poetry recital where the poet admitted many of his works were commercial, written purely on commission for a client. This seemed to be contary to the whole spirit of the tortured poet and how he has to write to retain his sanity. But, as you said, you gotta eat.
For many it is just another job, not a true passion or calling. To paraphrase Robert Frost “to be a poet is an obsession, not a profession.” Today it can be both.
Art exists in the perception that something was created and/or displayed by a consciousness for the purpose of communication and/or aesthetics. Note that something does not have to be actually created by anyone to be perceived as art; art exists in our perception of the object and our beliefs about it. If we watched someone take a set of watercolors and paint something that kind of looked like the Virgin Mary, we would say it was art. If we saw that exact same image being created by a waterstain, it would not be art (barring a beleif that some conciousness is directing the waterstain). However, if we saw that waterstain and wanted other people to see the resemblence to the Virgin Mary, and displayed that stain in a way so that they would be inclined to see that resemblence: put a frame around it, add a title, etc. then people will see it as art. So anything can be art, but not everything will be art, because the perception that a thing is art depends on your belief that a consiousness was involved.
There is often a great deal of confusion about the term “art”, since I think “art” has aquired connotations of something particularly noble or great. When some people say “that’s not art”, they generally mean “that is not art I think is good”, like someone who drives a Porsche will sneer at an old rustbucket, “that’s not a car”.
My definition of art is quite broad, and for example would include things like parking signs, which most people do not think of as art. But there is probably a lot more art–thought and intent on the part of the creating conciousness-- involved in such everyday things than people think. Whoever made that “park here” sign determined the font, color, kerning, leading, proportions; possibly which materials to use, and the proper placement, for the goal of making a clearly readable–and aesthetically satisfying–sign.
I did not say that. I did in fact say the opposite. Maybe I did not say it well, in which case I myself am not a good artist (or that post was not among my best work, let’s say), but I don’t think I was all that damn incomprehensible.
I’ve tried really, really hard, but I just can’t believe in art any more. It’s either given a definition so vague and broad that it becomes meaningless or the question’s avoided altogether.
Perhaps there is something there, but too often I’m put off by the intellectual snobery against anything new or popular. The one thing I know art isn’t is trying to have meaning - and it always annoys me that just because something does, people inherently find it better.
We ain’t so far apart on art.