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?

[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.

[YOUTUBE]wlzUP_M83W4[/YOUTUBE]

[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.

[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.

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.