What is art and what is not? Where do you draw the line?

[Kazimiera]

I ask this question because there have been some posts touching on the subject.

What do you define as art and what not?

Why would Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol, for example, be considered as lesser artists that Leonardo da Vinci?

What makes Neoclassical art, for example, worth more than dadaist art?

My husband has a degree in Visual Art and Art History and we have had this discussion on many occassions, and argued about it too. In my eyes, Leonardo da Vinci is a greater artist than Andy Warhol. I find Andy Warhol's stuff ridiculously overrated, but that's just my opinion.

What are your views on the matter? I'm just using Warhol and Da Vinci as an example but there are hundreds of other artists who one can use.

What makes this art? And not the lower picture?

http://1.1.1.3/bmi/www.quia.com/files/quia/users/horace/Achilles---French-Neoclassical.jpg

http://1.1.1.5/bmi/www.merello.com/images2/art_contemporary_art.-merello._blue_vase.jpg

[Panopticon]

Art needs to be beautiful in some way, there needs to be a creative process and it needs to have some purpose. It is not art just because someone calls it art.

I think Roger Scruton makes very good arguments for his critique of contemporary art.

wlzUP_M83W4

[Tabiti]

Hard to answer. Everything depends on your own personal views, and social trends and values.
Anyway, I think art is something that should touch you, something to affect your soul, no matter in the good or the bad way. Art is an image of someone's feelings made in the purpose to evoke feelings in others.

[Kazimiera]

Art needs to be beautiful in some way. It is not art just because you think it is. I think Roger Scruton makes very good arguments for his critique of contemporary art.

What defines beauty? Is it not a relative term? I might find a painting of sunflowers beautiful, whereas you might think they are horrid. Maybe you don't like the style it was painted, or perhaps you just don't like sunflowers. Maybe you don't like still-life paintings and I do. Which would lead me to believe that beauty is a totally subjective experience and not a constant.

[Han Cholo]

I agree there must be a criteria. But in my criteria art does not have to be beautiful. It can be gross, it can depict something ugly. Art for me is anything that can translate a feeling, idea, memory in a proper way into some sort of musical composition, sculpture, canvas, etc. through proper skill and use of different elements. It also has to retain certain degree of harmony and has to have a purpose or meaning behind it.

[Panopticon]

What defines beauty? Is it not a relative term? I might find a painting of sunflowers beautiful, whereas you might think they are horrid. Maybe you don't like the style it was painted, or perhaps you just don't like sunflowers. Maybe you don't like still-life paintings and I do. Which would lead me to believe that beauty is a totally subjective experience and not a constant.

Beauty is not relative and subjective. There are clear patterns of how and what humans perceive as beautiful and what is ugly. There are certain standards of beauty that most adhere to unwittingly. It is simply in our biological wiring.

I recommend you see the video I posted: it is a thought-provoking essay.

[Kazimiera]

I agree there must be a criteria. But in my criteria art does not have to be beautiful. It can be gross, it can depict something ugly. Art for me is anything that can translate a feeling, idea, memory in a proper way into some sort of musical composition, sculpture, canvas, etc. through proper skill and use of different elements. It also has to retain certain degree of harmony and has to have a purpose or meaning behind it.

Okay. How about this one? It is an image of Christ, a pretty standard image, with a yellow glow about him. But then you hear that this crucifix is submered in a glass of urine. (Piss Christ, Andres Serrano, 1987) It takes on a whole different meaning suddenly. The artist was obviously trying to say something. It evokes an emotional response, even if it is a negative one. And you are likely to have stronger emotions (albeit negative) than towards a Micheangelo, even if that emotion is anger, revolt or outrage. Depending how you view Christianity will also influence your feelings towards this piece.

http://1.1.1.4/bmi/zedmartinez.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/serrano-andres-piss-christ-1987.jpg

[Han Cholo]

Okay. How about this one? It is an image of Christ, a pretty standard image, with a yellow glow about him. But then you hear that this crucifix is submered in a glass of urine. (Piss Christ, Andres Serrano, 1987) It takes on a whole different meaning suddenly. The artist was obviously trying to say something. It evokes an emotional response, even if it is a negative one. And you are likely to have stronger emotions (albeit negative) than towards a Micheangelo, even if that emotion is anger, revolt or outrage. Depending how you view Christianity will also influence your feelings towards this piece.

http://1.1.1.4/bmi/zedmartinez.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/serrano-andres-piss-christ-1987.jpg

Yes, but that's judging with your personal emotions and not by logic.

Also:

Serrano has not ascribed overtly political content to Piss Christ and related artworks, on the contrary stressing their ambiguity. He has also said that while this work is not intended to denounce religion, it alludes to a perceived commercializing or cheapening of Christian icons in contemporary culture.[8]

[Kazimiera]

Yes, but that's judging with your personal emotions and not by logic.

So this would make it a subjective experience then: personal emotions.

[Osprey]

Art is basically anything that involves creativity, persistence and defines any material object or an emotion. Whether its pleasing to the senses, accepted by popular vote, intents on creating discord are all subjective opinions.
There are as many forms of art, as there are forms of viewers.
For me, the David by Michelengelo was a better form of art than the abstract stuff of today, but that's my opinion. It does NOT mean that the random color spill on a sheet is not art.

[Comte Arnau]

To me, art must have two things: technique and emotionability (capacity to move). The first part is objective: you may not feel moved by a Velazquez, but you can't deny his perfect technique. The second part is subjective: people feel moved for different things.

That is why I am rather conservative in my taste for art. Most of what people call art nowadays is nothing but visual provocation.

[Kazimiera]

To me, art must have two things: technique and emotionability (capacity to move). The first part is objective: you may not feel moved by a Velazquez, but you can't deny his perfect technique. The second part is subjective: people feel moved for different things.

That is why I am rather conservative in my taste for art. Most of what people call art nowadays is nothing but visual provocation.

I do tend to agree with you on this one, but what is considered classical and beautiful art today was viewed a visual provocation by the Church back in the Middle Ages. Many good artists were seen as blasphemous because of the subject matter, or because nudity was depicted. 500 years down the line, nobody is feeling provoked about the images anymore, but then it was a big deal and people were scandalised.

Does technique make a difference? The techniques used in the 16th century were very different used to the techniques in the 1900's. Is Picasso a lesser artist than Vermeer because of style and technique?

[Vesuvian Sky]

I always found dot in middle of page to be less then "art":


http://imageshack.us/a/img255/3436/blackdot1.png

Although people who wear black turtlenecks, and black jeans who listen to Bauhaus and dig Art Deco may disagree w/ me.

[Comte Arnau]

I do tend to agree with you on this one, but what is considered classical and beautiful art today was viewed a visual provocation by the Church back in the Middle Ages. Many good artists were seen as blasphemous because of the subject matter, or because nudity was depicted. 500 years down the line, nobody is feeling provoked about the images anymore, but then it was a big deal and people were scandalised.

Does technique make a difference? The techniques used in the 16th century were very different used to the techniques in the 1900's. Is Picasso a lesser artist than Vermeer because of style and technique?

Notice how I didn't mention what technique, but just the existence of it. Obviously things and tastes are prone to change with the passing of time, but the essence of a thing must remain or it can't be called 'thing' any more.

I consider Picasso an artist who simply got tired of tradition and started to explore how to deconstruct art, using innovative techniques. He was a true artist, but he was also very responsible for a number of posterior pseudoartists who thought they were also making art by simply making shit. I'm sorry, but if now I put my watch on a chair and place it in the middle of a room calling it 'Waiting for you', that is NOT art. :)

[Kazimiera]

Notice how I didn't mention what technique, but just the existence of it. Obviously things and tastes are prone to change with the passing of time, but the essence of a thing must remain or it can't be called 'thing' any more.

I consider Picasso an artist who simply got tired of tradition and started to explore how to deconstruct art, using innovative techniques. He was a true artist, but he was also very responsible for a number of posterior pseudoartists who thought they were also making art by simply making shit. I'm sorry, but if now I put my watch on a chair and place it in the middle of a room calling it 'Waiting for you', that is NOT art. :)

Why would you not consider that art??

[Kazimiera]

A question for everyone relating specifically to this piece.

Would you consider this piece as art or as design? And why?

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q526/katzentatzen79/gridprojection046.jpg

[Comte Arnau]

Why would you not consider that art??

Because then you are trivializing art and the work of artists, just focusing on the concept of what is but a visual message.

After destroying the work of critics, though, it is just normal that we all feel entitled to judge what is art or not basing it just on the fact that we like it or not. We've made of art a matter of taste, to the point that when we don't like something, we can't consider it good. We've been taught that only new innovative provocative things are now art, and we despise the real deal now as just another boring piece of 'old school'.

[askra]

A question for everyone relating specifically to this piece.

Would you consider this piece as art or as design? And why?

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q526/katzentatzen79/gridprojection046.jpg

Looking it without that i know what it means, i think that is an horrible piece of design, but it may hide a deeper meaning and concept, and in this case i would consider it art.

[Vesuvian Sky]

A question for everyone relating specifically to this piece.

Would you consider this piece as art or as design? And why?

http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q526/katzentatzen79/gridprojection046.jpg

Its always subjective at the end of the day but I guess it really depends on what its purpose was for. To be honest it looks like something designed more for utilization or purpose like a dentist chair or something. Though art does lie in the realm of aesthetics and if one chose to view it as artistic expression or aesthetically then sure whatever floats your boat.

Even if its designed for everday use or specific function, it doesn't stop someone from viewing it as art even though it wasn't intended to be art.

'Nother great example, I usually don't view old metal bottle caps as art but people will collect them and hang them up on walls. Same w/ automobile license plates (yeah really, I've seen this done before). I personally wouldn't be into such as art but some people really dig these things in artistic sense, collect them, then hang them up on walls clearly for arts sake.

edit: but ultimately, me personally, I would rather be inclined not to view it so aesthectically since it has rather sharp protruding metal components which is somewhat against my sense of art, subjectively speaking, and appears to be created more so out of function which often steers a design/object in a less then artistic or aesthectically pleasing direction.

[Comte Arnau]

Art is not design, even if design can be artistic.

[Kazimiera]

Art is not design, even if design can be artistic.

Please explain?

[Comte Arnau]

Please explain?

Art can be art for art's sake. It can have a purpose or a message, but they are not necessarily the main aspect, and it can even be deprived of it.

Design, artistic or not, has got a purpose, usually a practical one.

You may have dozens of dishes with a beautiful design, and one artistique plate. In a sense, art has a certain uniqueness that prevents it from being massive.

[Svipdag]

I am going to answer a somewhat different question of narrower scope which I feel better qualified to answer: What is a work of art ? Having been a serious amateur landscape painter until neuropathy in my hands made it almost impossible to control a brush, I feel that I have some qualifications to address this subject.

IMO, a work of art is an object which, by the efforts of an artist is made to express something to others. This rules out "found" art. A porcelain urinal, however pleasing and/or evocative its form may be to the "artist", but to which he has done nothing except to exhibit it, is not a work of art, or, at least, not HIS work of art.

If the creator of the work needs to explain it verbally to others in an effort to convey what it is intended to express, he has failed to create a work of art. This is especially true if, even after his explanation, they cannot see the connection.

Art is intentional, not accidental. If the object created owes as much or more to chance as to the efforts of him who executed it, it may, perhaps, be a pleasing accident, but he is hardly justified in taking credit for it.
This, IMO, rules out the DUCO-on-cardboard paintings of "Jack the Dripper".

How much talent, how much intention, how much effort does it take to stand on a stepladder and drip DUCO enamel out of cans onto cardboard on the floor ? Was the result dictated by the "skill" of Jackson Pollock or to chance ? BTW, I have seen early drawings by Jackson Pollock and it is obvious why he turned to non-representational art . HE COULD NOT DRAW !

Are abstract paintings art ? Some, yes, some, no. A black dot in the middle of a white field conveys nothing without a verbal explanation and is not convincing even with it. On the other hand, several years ago, I saw an abstract painting by Jim Grabowski which astonished me.

Close examination of the painting revealed nothing which much resembled a ship. Yet, as soon as beheld it, I got a powerful impression of a ship in a violent storm at sea. I asked Jim if that was what he had intended to express and he nodded with a self-satisfied smile. Somehow, he had managed to express, not so much the FORM of a ship in a storm, as the IDEA of it.

If an artist really has something to say, and chooses to do so in an abstract style, it can be done. If he has nothing to say, what is better for saying nothing than abstract painting ?


"TRAHIT SVA QVEMQVE VOLVPTAS" - P. VERGILIVS MARO

[Kale]

Everyone seems to say "art is ___" or "art does ___" or "art has ___ and ___ qualities".

The way I see it..."art is"

[Svipdag]

Does this help to define art in any way ? If so, how ?


"Sternuo, ergo sum." - M. H. Francis,

[Fortis in Arduis]

I like some entartete kunst like the Bloomsbury Group, the fauves, naive art, and much else, but art should be beautiful and inspire us towards good.

I cannot say much more because I do not have a masters degree on the subject, but I was a representational artist, until, like Hitler, I realised that I was not going to make any money from it.

I am bitter and it was a factor contributing to my turning into a fascist young man.

I was quite an accomplished painter, but I burnt eleven years of my work when I was about twenty-one years old, and I have not looked back. It is too painful for me.

[Kalitas]

Art is whatever is full of passion, hate, anger or love. Art is the expression of your "soul". Art is everything that carries a message. "Art is an explosion"

[MarkyMark]

This is not:
fS1uDnIPTvo

That was disturbing yet funny at how stupid they are.

[Guapo]

Meh

[Anusiya]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/70/Bob_at_Easel.jpg/220px-Bob_at_Easel.jpg

See? Pure art!

[Kilohertz]

^ Yay, happy trees! :D

I feel like art is language via a medium of some sort.

[Svipdag]

I leave it to the taste of the viewer to draw the line between art and kitsch. For example, I call Thomas Kincaid "Kitschmeister" His work is pleasingly pretty but shallow and, to me, anyhow, insincere.

[LouisFerdinand]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkY3uNK9SIc

[Bogdan]

Art is a product of creativity to convey a message or emotion. I draw the line at stuff deliberately designed to gain money or grab attention only

[Svipdag]

I ask this question because there have been some posts touching on the subject.

What do you define as art and what not?

Why would Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol, for example, be considered as lesser artists that Leonardo da Vinci?

What makes Neoclassical art, for example, worth more than dadaist art?

My husband has a degree in Visual Art and Art History and we have had this discussion on many occassions, and argued about it too. In my eyes, Leonardo da Vinci is a greater artist than Andy Warhol. I find Andy Warhol's stuff ridiculously overrated, but that's just my opinion.

What are your views on the matter? I'm just using Warhol and Da Vinci as an example but there are hundreds of other artists who one can use.

What makes this art? And not the lower picture?

http://1.1.1.3/bmi/www.quia.com/files/quia/users/horace/Achilles---French-Neoclassical.jpg

http://1.1.1.5/bmi/www.merello.com/images2/art_contemporary_art.-merello._blue_vase.jpg

I don't think that there is an objective standard, therefore this is just my opinion. However, I have been a landscape painter
and I have viewed art of many kinds from all over the world, so, my opinion is not exactly uninformed. I consider that a work of art represents SOMETHING which can be recognised. It may represent, however by suggesting
g rather than depicting. Representing by suggesting, however, is VERY difficult to do.I prefer that my paintings be much more literal and am pleased when a viewer exclaims "I know that place; I've been there !"

Although beautiful art is much easier to appreciate than ugly art, I don't think that anyone can deny that Goya's painfully bitter depictions of the horrors of the occupation of Spain, unpleasant though they be to behold, are art, and art of a very high order. On the other hand, I do not think that every painting must have a "message" .

The "message" of one of my landscapes usually is:"What I have shown here is, as I have depicted it, worth looking at because this is how it IS. I found it worthy of attention. Perhaps you will also.