What is art and what separates it from things that are not art?
Art
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| What is art and what separates it from things that are not art? |
Art is in the eye of the beholder - hence it's defintion will always be elusive
everything is art.
it's not what is the object, but what was in the heart of the creator
it's sort of like love, you can't put your finger on it
it's not what is the object, but what was in the heart of the creator
it's sort of like love, you can't put your finger on it
I agree with the "Art is in the eyes of the beholder" statement. It's meaning is subjective and varies from person to person.
Art can vary from a painting to music to a branch of learning, etc. It has multiple meanings.
Art can vary from a painting to music to a branch of learning, etc. It has multiple meanings.
Everything is art, and nothing is art. Both ways it's true. In my opinion, if you can find a deeper meaning in something, it is art. So as said before. "Art is in the eyes of the beholder"
I guess something is 'art' if someone is moved by it, if someone looks at it and thinks: hey, this changed my world!
So 'art' is about making a difference.
JohanFH
So 'art' is about making a difference.
JohanFH
Anything that has a creator is art.......everything else is just aesthetics
| Quote: |
| Art is in the eye of the beholder - hence it's defintion will always be elusive |
i disagree, art is not in the eye of the beholder
Art is what ever the artists sais it is. Art is an expresion, art is a story, art is faith, art is history, art is a lesson, art disbelief, art is a reaction and art is everything.
But to a extent which is very appropriate these days art is simply what the artists sais is art. I think that most artists these days are simply trying to push the boundries by doing such crazy things, or such simple things, like "The Running Tap." Was that art? some owuld say no, but the artist created the running tap i order to provoke an oput cry, and worked, it was relevant because at the time there was a hosepipe ban, and for something to waste to much water was horrific, but nopn the less it was art and it was conveying a message that the artist wanted to conver, and in my eyes the message was "This is art, because im saying it is"[/quote]
I think that it is extremely difficult to provide a definition of what art really is - some works that are considered art are very controversial.
For example the Dada movement - and art like Manzoni (see some at http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/page21.htm) is really pushing the limits. I guess it all has to do with the context and meaning of the work, as today it would hardly be considered valuable art to blow up a balloon, or even to paint like the abstract expressionists (Pollock etc.)
So I think that the context of the work itself plays a major role in the meaning and value of a work of art.
For example the Dada movement - and art like Manzoni (see some at http://home.sprynet.com/~mindweb/page21.htm) is really pushing the limits. I guess it all has to do with the context and meaning of the work, as today it would hardly be considered valuable art to blow up a balloon, or even to paint like the abstract expressionists (Pollock etc.)
So I think that the context of the work itself plays a major role in the meaning and value of a work of art.
| tumbleweed wrote: |
| Anything that has a creator is art.......everything else is just aesthetics |
are trees aesthetics? even if you believe in God, do you believe he creates every tree in the history of the world?
I believe art is in the eye of the beholder because art does not always have a creator to tell us what his creation is (see post above.) What if the creator dies, before he says what it means, is his final painting not art? What if he refuses to tell us, is it not art?
The original quote was, of course, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." However, you can argue that art is meant to be beautiful in some way. Even art meant to depict the inhumanity of war is beautiful in the way it presents its topic. Art just needs a meaning to whoever sees it (the beholder) to be beautiful, and thus be art.
And I have believed since I was a kid that the way trees in a forest overlap was art.
| silentlythinking21 wrote: | ||
are trees aesthetics? even if you believe in God, do you believe he creates every tree in the history of the world? I believe art is in the eye of the beholder because art does not always have a creator to tell us what his creation is (see post above.) What if the creator dies, before he says what it means, is his final painting not art? What if he refuses to tell us, is it not art? The original quote was, of course, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." However, you can argue that art is meant to be beautiful in some way. Even art meant to depict the inhumanity of war is beautiful in the way it presents its topic. Art just needs a meaning to whoever sees it (the beholder) to be beautiful, and thus be art. And I have believed since I was a kid that the way trees in a forest overlap was art. |
For me there is a difference between natural beauty and art, if you see a painting of say just for example a sunset that makes you think WOW look at that sunset , you can never be sure if it was real or just from the imagination of the artist (creator)... but what you can be sure of is that it was created and regardless of if you like it or not ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder") the thought of what is aesthetically pleasing or displeasing as the case maybe in the artists brain is changed in form/created so it can be shared.
I like trees aswell
Art is a is the pure manifestation of our spirits, minds, feelings, souls, divinity or whatever you call that. Everyone is an artist, but nobody know it.
 |