How do you define "art"?

[BadMojo]

Back when I was studying, I had many discussions with my arts teacher about what art truly was. Truthfully, the term art is hard to define and categorize, however, I think that it is used very widely nowadays. Too widely as a matter of fact (Stated by me :p)

For instance, when I was in Berlin, I saw my first Picasso up close. I was dismayed and disappointed. The strokes by the paint brush were rough and crude. There was no effort in the picture, yet it was still regarded as fine art. Why?

In Berlin, next to the museum of modern art, lies the museum of classic art. And by contrast, when I looked upon the amount of work put into these old paintings. The attention of detail is extraordinary! How one even can put a crude painting by Picasso in the same category as these old paintings is almost grotesque.

For me, art should be something special and unique. It should be something extraordinary. Something that has taken a real effort that makes the beholder wonder in awe.

I find it amazing; that artist are able to create marble statues so lifelike that you expect them to leap to life and say “Boo!” every second you stand mesmerized by their beauty. It’s incredible that they have found a way to make stone look like pure white skin. It’s astounding that those artists have such attention and care for detail that they the statues have carved veins, wrinkles and all other human imperfections into lifeless stone.

But what pains me is that the term “art” is not only used for these exceptional masterpieces. It is also used for what I sometimes call crap.

Is shitting in a can art?
Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal with the title “Fountain”. Is that “ready-made” art?

There are so much “art” that is crude. Art has become something that everyone can achieve to make. Fart into the wind and you got art. Art has become worthless in its diversity. Because, if art isn’t exceptional, what is its value?
Sure “art” can set things into a different perspective but what’s so special by that? Everything we do in our daily lives changes what’s around us and does just that. But can we call every little stupid thing we do for art. That’s stupid.

But that’s my opinion, and I would like to hear yours.

[xhaan]

First, and this is IMO of course,
An art is something which you work to advance in, refine your 'technique' (I use technique as a relative term here), it is a process, a practice, and an experience.

Secondly, I don't feel that all art is for the observer, it is first for its creator, the artist. Not everything is intended for -your- approval, even though some may seek approval, that is not necessarily the rule of art. Who are you, or anyone else, to say what art really is? It is subjective practices which have been refined and redefined over thousands of years, how can one claim to be an authority on what 'art' is, while having only one lifetime to experience it?

And also, "Fountain" is from the Dadaist movement, where apparently a bunch of people were disillusioned and hated the constraints of society, and began to make "anti-art". (I'm not an authority on Dadaism, however, so I may be a bit off.)

[Sylvanus]

I completely agree Mojo. I truly do not have much of an affinity for art, I do not spend much time, money or effort on it. I do enjoy it for its aesthetic qualities, in that I don't mind having it around, and it looks nice having it there. I have seen several prints of Picasso's works, and they are interesting, but not necessarily pleasing to look at. I probably don't have the eye for brush strokes and things of that nature that you do Mojo, but if it is as bad as you say I would probably find it unappealing.

I understand that Dadaist art had it's place in history, I don't necessarily agree with the motives, but at least they called it for what it was: "anti-art". There are modern pieces of filth that still go under the guise of art that are anything but. For instance the controversial "Holy Virgin Mary" by Chris Ofili, which is actually a crude picture of something looking vaguely human with elephant crap flung all over it. Or as Michael Davis puts it "Chris Ofili's collage is "shocking," in that it is deliberately provocative and intends to jolt viewers into an expanded frame of reference, and perhaps even toward illumination. In this sense, it relates to the medieval aesthetic of ugliness in which visual dissonance and distortion were used in art to urge the viewer to move beyond the superficial material plane to a higher level of spiritual contemplation." Madonna (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Throwing together words like "expanded frame of reference" and "illumination" doesn't change the fact that the only ones that consider this piece of garbage art are the ones that are either trying to stir the pot or make a buck off of it (or both). This isn't the only example. There have been more than a few TV shows that poke fun at the 'existential artist', that merely has to throw a few random strokes on a canvas and it becomes a priceless piece of art. There is definitely a group out there, that have made pretty good livings getting enough people duped into thinking that their half hearted efforts are worth gold.

There are many things I consider art, two excellent examples are Michelangelo's 'David' and the Sistine Chapel ceiling. He put his heart and soul into the creation of these, and it shows in every minute detail. There are many others like him that do make true art.

[Tsuru]

Well, Ayn Rand defined art as the "selective recreation of reality according to a person's metaphysical value judgments." That's kind of a dry and boring definition but it does the job, so I guess it's good enough for me. :p

[Sylvanus]

Well, Ayn Rand defined art as the "selective recreation of reality according to a person's metaphysical value judgments." That's kind of a dry and boring definition but it does the job, so I guess it's good enough for me. :p

Dry and boring and incredibly concise. I like concise.

In more verbose terms, you could say that perhaps it is a reflection of the person's character that they choose to convey onto a creation of their own. Or: "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?"
-Jesus
(Not to say that art necessarily has anything to do with religion.)

[Fissiongrid]

I once heard this somewhere and I stick to it:

"Art is anything that isn't related to survival."

[OmegaPsi]

Imo I think art is something that just makes you go "WoW!" because it looks like they put effort into it. Unlike some of the art thats in DC looks like it took them 15 mins to build it and they donated it to the city. THe buildings in DC i would consider art. Those took time effort and thought. I absolutly love the Greek and Roman architecture and sculptures and such, because I know it took skill and thought to make it.

[xhaan]

I thought INTJ's were not that detail oriented. :laugh:

You know, when I see works of art that are painstakingly detailed, and accurate, I am quite impressed. However, it's that same attention to detail that makes me wonder what the motives were, were they actually expressing something, or just trying to capture a predefined image as closely as possible? There is a big difference.

Sure, anyone can make a vague drawing and fling some crap on it, but to me, the difference is whether they were actually thinking of 'taking the easy way out' by just doing something random and vulgar, or are they actually expressing something which is deeply felt, with their actions? I make this distinction because I have been there. I too did not understand this form of 'art', until I actually experienced myself the need to do it.

And I'll also tell you, IMO, a true artist doesn't enjoy 'selling out' in the slightest, it becomes a survival mechanism, people who 'think they know' gobble the stuff up, and well, it does present opportunities... also, artists often go unappreciated, until after they are dead.

I, personally, destroy most of my 'controversial' works, because they are mine, not for somebody else to gawk at and try to 'figure out'.

[Des]

I agree with you Badmojo. I am an artist and I hate it when I see something aweful deemed art. I don't care for piccasso either. To me art has to be a well done representation of a real thing that's recongizable. By real I mean it can be a concept. There is well done fantasy art, not real, and you can tell what it is. But I guess to spare feelings for those that have no talent they allow you to glue a bunch of trash together and call it modern art. Gosh I hate modern art because it's not art it's garbage. If I can tell what it is, if I realize it's a difficult pose or a difficult perspective or something that few people can do then that's art.

[xhaan]

I agree with you Badmojo. I am an artist and I hate it when I see something aweful deemed art. I don't care for piccasso either. To me art has to be a well done representation of a real thing that's recongizable. By real I mean it can be a concept. There is well done fantasy art, not real, and you can tell what it is. But I guess to spare feelings for those that have no talent they allow you to glue a bunch of trash together and call it modern art. Gosh I hate modern art because it's not art it's garbage. If I can tell what it is, if I realize it's a difficult pose or a difficult perspective or something that few people can do then that's art.

Tell me now, why does it have to be 'something that few can do'?
Also, why do -you- have to like it? I believe you are thinking of another word, which is 'spectacle'.

And also, poses and perspectives are learned things, not talent (though some may be gifted in picking them up faster than others). It's really not much different than drafting, or working on an engine or something. Anyone with a brain cell or two can do it, with practice.

[Des]

Because art takes talent. Real art that is. And why do I have to like it? Well Mojo posed the question so I'm responding as to why I like it and what I think. And no, some people could practice for 50 years and never get it.

[xhaan]

Because art takes talent. Real art that is. And why do I have to like it? Well Mojo posed the question so I'm responding as to why I like it and what I think. And no, some people could practice for 50 years and never get it.

I'm trying to point out that it's more than what you think, because it IS subjective. The question itself is just begging for trouble, and will get nowhere without some concessions.

So, either you want affirmation from other people, or you actually want to see a different view. I'm not seeing the latter.

I too admire complex, painstaking, and antiquatedly 'beautiful' work, but I also know that what looks like 'crap' can actually take a very long time to envision and create, depending on the how and why. What looks like beautiful and detailed work to you, may be trite emulation to me.

And if someone is practicing for years and doesn't get it, then they are either dense, don't care to really learn it, or are just being 'fashionably untalented'. Hell, you could just about do it with math (and some do). Observe, duplicate. Not hard if you have eyes, but I have seen a couple blind painters which are quite amazing.

[ushop]

I recently took an aesthetics class, and most people agreed that art is when anyone creates something and considers it art. Things get complicated, however, when artists claim their work depicts so and so and means blah blah when other people don't see it. For example, Random Dude can paint a blue circle, and say that it's his emotional turmoil. If other people don't "get" it, then who should they believe? The artist, or themselves?

It's so easy to fool people that way that I think abstract art is a waste of time. I've never been a fan of Picasso, no matter how many times my art teachers have praised him. I don't get how figures so obviously disproportionate can be praised; when I work, I measure the success of my drawing by how well it looks like the subject. Realism takes effort and years and years of practice. To me, that's art.

[xhaan]

I recently took an aesthetics class, and most people agreed that art is when anyone creates something and considers it art. Things get complicated, however, when artists claim their work depicts so and so and means blah blah when other people don't see it. For example, Random Dude can paint a blue circle, and say that it's his emotional turmoil. If other people don't "get" it, then who should they believe? The artist, or themselves?

It's so easy to fool people that way that I think abstract art is a waste of time. I've never been a fan of Picasso, no matter how many times my art teachers have praised him. I don't get how figures so obviously disproportionate can be praised; when I work, I measure the success of my drawing by how well it looks like the subject. Realism takes effort and years and years of practice. To me, that's art.

This is exactly why I believe in destroying my own personal works, because there are many that I do not want to fall into the hands of others who have no understanding of it. I can appreciate why people think abstractness is a waste, or a lack of talent, it has been just as done to death if not moreso than 'conventional art'.

I share what I intend for others to actually 'get' in some way, and it usually tends to be more structured than my more abstract work that I destroy or keep for myself.

And really, it's -not- difficult, if you acknowledge that it isn't difficult. Maybe one needs a teacher who knows, but still.

Study horizons and vanishing points, planes, ratios, foreshortening, scale vs. distance... for lighting and highlight, study light direction and reflection, refraction, how different densities and surface textures and colors reflect light, the fact that most shadows are not black, but are a darker shade of the color they are cast on.. for human or animal figures, anatomy and looking at models helps a lot... it goes on. For just about everything, there is a way to know it and learn it.

Also try drawing sideways, or upside down, or through a mirror, stand on your head if you have to... even if your art is not drawing, being able to draw helps greatly in other things, as you can sketch accurately, refine, and reiterate until you are satisfied, before you apply it to your medium of choice.

Check this out:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you know the rules, you then know how to break them for further effect!

[Kfbr]

Imo I think art is something that just makes you go "WoW!" because it looks like they put effort into it. Unlike some of the art thats in DC looks like it took them 15 mins to build it and they donated it to the city. THe buildings in DC i would consider art. Those took time effort and thought. I absolutly love the Greek and Roman architecture and sculptures and such, because I know it took skill and thought to make it.

I grew up in DC and love the architecture, in fact I consider most skylines art.

My friends will stop and point at a Monet or a Van Gogh but I will stop at an overpass and point to the skyline or an industrial complex and say, "look what humanity has created."

[Rohsiph]

I didn't expect to find so much hate for Picasso . . . eh.

Art doesn't require great effort, but it usually doesn't hurt.

Realism rarely interests me . . . landscapes that look real, yet don't exist, are pretty interesting, but--

well, an example: I remember walking through an art museum in Chicago a few years ago. The museum had a wide collection of religious-inspired portraits and scenes depicting various Bible stories. These paintings rarely caught my eye, until I realized how many paintings I kept skipping over--I thought about it . . . I didn't want to look at figures that didn't mean anything to me. I tried re-evaluating my position, trying to figure out what the figures meant to the artists, and that helped me reach a better level of appreciation, but none of these paintings could interest me nearly as much as any of the more abstract peopleless landscapes.

My own visual style seems to be unique . . . a few more artistic friends have offered that there are hints of other artists in what I was doing about a year ago, but they never got around to showing me examples.

Here is my art:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm interested in what the peanut gallery thinks about it in relation to the topic at hand. Am I actually showing you art? Or just scribbles?

I show this, and about a dozen similar drawings I've completed, to family & friends . . . and they never offer me very deep insight. Every now and then, they show me something about a piece of mine that I hadn't seen, but this is usually the exception. All they usually say is "wow, that's nice," or "good job."

Useless . . .

[Des]

I'm trying to point out that it's more than what you think, because it IS subjective. The question itself is just begging for trouble, and will get nowhere without some concessions.

So, either you want affirmation from other people, or you actually want to see a different view. I'm not seeing the latter.

I too admire complex, painstaking, and antiquatedly 'beautiful' work, but I also know that what looks like 'crap' can actually take a very long time to envision and create, depending on the how and why. What looks like beautiful and detailed work to you, may be trite emulation to me.

And if someone is practicing for years and doesn't get it, then they are either dense, don't care to really learn it, or are just being 'fashionably untalented'. Hell, you could just about do it with math (and some do). Observe, duplicate. Not hard if you have eyes, but I have seen a couple blind painters which are quite amazing.


No I'm not looking for affirmation. I know what I think and that's all that matters to me. Really I don't care what you think art is or isn't. Others have responded here that I disagree with but I have not said anything to them because the question was posed by Badmojo and I like everyone else is responding what I think.

Oh and as for math, well I know several people that genuinely try but still can't pass. It's not something everyone can do. But enough of that, this is about art. I've responded to the original question which is what I came to do. You can keep trying to convince me otherwise but it won't do you any good.

[BadMojo]

For me, art is something exceptional which means that it must have a certain amount of quality to be art. Otherwise I just see it as decoration.
Please note that art doesn't have to be realistic in my opinion. But one can create quality without realism. Take H.R. Giger for instance.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[TheConcertinist]

Art is the result of discipline and insight. Attitude and intention should never have anything to do with it. Art isn't a word describing an object, but a word describing quality. A painter, for example, isn't an artist until he can demonstrate excellence in his field. Calling yourself an artist because you can click the button on a camera, or because you think 'deep' thoughts, is arrogant, and serves only to diminish the value of true artistry.

[xhaan]

Art is the result of discipline and insight. Attitude and intention should never have anything to do with it. Art isn't a word describing an object, but a word describing quality. A painter, for example, isn't an artist until he can demonstrate excellence in his field. Calling yourself an artist because you can click the button on a camera, or because you think 'deep' thoughts, is arrogant, and serves only to diminish the value of true artistry.

You may be right to an extent on the arrogance, but not everyone does that.

If attitude and intention have nothing to do with it, then build machines which make 'proper art', so that this subject never arises again. Intention has a freaking LOT to do with it my friend, without attitude or intention, you may as well BE 'just clicking a button on a camera' as you say, because otherwise all you are still doing is faithful copying or emulating. You require a need to create before you create, even if it's only to make money, or to appeal to someone else. Take out intention, all you have left is mechanics.

Look at the works that Mojo posted, by H.R. Giger (who I think is awesome, BTW) and try to tell me that there's no 'attitude' or 'intention' in there.

Here is my art:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm interested in what the peanut gallery thinks about it in relation to the topic at hand. Am I actually showing you art? Or just scribbles?

I show this, and about a dozen similar drawings I've completed, to family & friends . . . and they never offer me very deep insight. Every now and then, they show me something about a piece of mine that I hadn't seen, but this is usually the exception. All they usually say is "wow, that's nice," or "good job."

Useless . . .

I'm certainly intrigued by this, I'd like to know why and how you made that. It reminds me of a demon, or a raptor of some kind, and I like your color choices, the tangent of the curves, all the points.. how the vagary and lack of symmetry comes together to seemingly make a sinister figure. But that's just my take on it, since you offered it for view.

[rwyatt365]

To me "art" is something that is entirely subjective and not constrained by a definition. What is art to one person (the artist and the one that "gets it") might be junk to another (usually, me ;) ).

My sister is an accomplished (unrecognized) artist and I attended a showing where several of her pieces hung next to a (widely renowned) artist who displayed a tabletop painted red – that was it, a red table top. People who looked at the tabletop exclaimed at its "power" and "simplicity" and "depth" and all I could think was that the "art" in that piece was the load of BS that the "artist" sold to those people. I don't decry the guy for his art, he's getting paid for things like that. My question is; will there be the same "power" and "simplicity" and "depth" in that piece 100 years from now? Will someone still proudly hang that on their living room wall as an heirloom passed down from Auntie Sarah? To me, it would be in the trash. But that's just my opinion.

[xhaan]

To me "art" is something that is entirely subjective and not constrained by a definition. What is art to one person (the artist and the one that "gets it") might be junk to another (usually, me ;) ).

My sister is an accomplished (unrecognized) artist and I attended a showing where several of her pieces hung next to a (widely renowned) artist who displayed a tabletop painted red – that was it, a red table top. People who looked at the tabletop exclaimed at its "power" and "simplicity" and "depth" and all I could think was that the "art" in that piece was the load of BS that the "artist" sold to those people. I don't decry the guy for his art, he's getting paid for things like that. My question is; will there be the same "power" and "simplicity" and "depth" in that piece 100 years from now? Will someone still proudly hang that on their living room wall as an heirloom passed down from Auntie Sarah? To me, it would be in the trash. But that's just my opinion.

Which, again, is why I DO trash things like that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not speaking of the wonderful comlpexities of a dot here. I'm saying that this isn't always a 'spectator sport', it is, as you just said, SUBJECTIVE. And what is subjective, is. One's rules on art matters to him, but that is it, it doesn't project to others.

art1 /ɑrt/
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic (a) principles, of what is beautiful (b), appealing (c), or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.

aes·thet·ic /ɛsˈθɛtɪk or, especially Brit., is-/
–adjective
1. pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.
2. having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.
3. pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality.

beau·ty /ˈbyuti/
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).

ap·peal /əˈpil/
–noun
4. the power or ability to attract, interest, amuse, or stimulate the mind or emotions: The game has lost its appeal.

[Oica]

Potentially Appealing Creative Effort.

[xhaan]

Potentially Appealing Creative Effort.

Best definition ever.

[TheConcertinist]

You may be right to an extent on the arrogance, but not everyone does that.

If attitude and intention have nothing to do with it, then build machines which make 'proper art', so that this subject never arises again.

The object itself isn't the art, the object is a RESULT of art, or rather artistry.

[xhaan]

The object itself isn't the art, the object is a RESULT of art, or rather artistry.

Right you are, in a sense, which is why I say that it does not separate from attitude or intent. But art is a noun with different meanings, it is -both- the work, and the result, at the same time.

Of course you can say it isn't the final object whatsoever, but that is ignoring commonly recognized definition, which is a good way to make things fall apart when trying to communicate with someone else. This is also why I tend to separate 'art' [a creative and refined process, or the result of such process] from 'spectacle' [something done in order to be impressive to others, or something that is impressive to others]

And yes, to preempt: this is semantics. And yes, semantics are important, unless: "Be once more less red elephant agony."
Yeah, I hope you get the idea.

Anyways, I will stop debating, I hope readers will forgive my sensitivity. Back to the original topic:

But that’s my opinion, and I would like to hear yours.

My OPINION is, that one cannot always discern complexity simply by looking at it. In classes, I had done a few peices which took a VERY long time, because they had a lot of vagary, perceived simplicity, or lack of detail or effort, but these actually took -much- effort and planning, and a long time to envision, which was most of the work in itself. I would purposly use vague shapes and lack of detail to -convey- detail, in such a way that it was unconventional yet entirely planned, to appear to defy planning.

Could I slop some paint around randomly? Sure, once in a while I actually did, too, but that doesn't mean I did it every time, even if it LOOKED as though I did.

A late edit:
Now that I consider this more, I also feel that the less you use in your work, the more difficult expression becomes. Just try conveying an image using only black and white contrast, without hatching or stippling, or otherwise creating faux shades. (not grayscale, no shades. Total black or total white only, line drawings don't count, there must be filling.) Also try seeing what you can do with some crap and a tin can, as exampled before.

[BadMojo]

My OPINION is, that one cannot always discern complexity simply by looking at it.
The closest "definition" I can come up with is that art is something exceptional.

Take for instance phrases like "That car is a work of art" of "She is an artist in the kitchen" - Both of these are used as if something is really well made - a quality.

[xhaan]

The closest "definition" I can come up with is that art is something exceptional.

Take for instance phrases like "That car is a work of art" of "She is an artist in the kitchen" - Both of these are used as if something is really well made - a quality.

Take apart the structure of your phrase, and you will see that 'well made' is also relative, as it usually has more to do with the aesthetic qualities of the item, rather than how structurally sound or functional it is. In the way people commonly use it that is.

Edit:
Also, 'exceptional' can and does fit in the definitiion of art, but I think you are using it to narrow the scope more than the contested definition... it's your own construct, rather than consensus, which works fine for you, until you try to talk with someone else about 'art'.

[BadMojo]

Take apart the structure of your phrase, and you will see that 'well made' is also relative, as it usually has more to do with the aesthetic qualities of the item, rather than how structurally sound or functional it is. In the way people commonly use it that is.

Edit:
Also, 'exceptional' can and does fit in the definition of art, but I think you are using it to narrow the scope more than the contested definition... it's your own construct, rather than consensus, which works fine for you, until you try to talk with someone else about 'art'.
I also mentioned earlier that this was my personal opinion/definition... Surely those who teach art at a higher level disagree with me. I even had a run-in with a college professor during a lecture once. I basicly told him that all his work was a bunch of crap because he couldn't explain to me why it was art.
Well, he had it coming when he said that a garden that he and his "art friends" made for an elderly home, was better then a garden that gardeners could make, simply because their garden was art. That kinda pissed me off.

[xhaan]

I also mentioned earlier that this was my personal opinion/definition... Surely those who teach art at a higher level disagree with me. I even had a run-in with a college professor during a lecture once. I basicly told him that all his work was a bunch of crap because he couldn't explain to me why it was art.
Well, he had it coming when he said that a garden that he and his "art friends" made for an elderly home, was better then a garden that gardeners could make, simply because their garden was art. That kinda pissed me off.

The point I'm trying to get across is, 'art' is a word, a subjective idea. If you are rigid about it, and don't try to reach consensus, you may as well call it 'fuboomagoo'.

[BadMojo]

The point I'm trying to get across is, 'art' is a word, a subjective idea. If you are rigid about it, and don't try to reach consensus, you may as well call it 'fuboomagoo'.
I agree with what you say, but stubborn as I am, I will not call Andy Warhol's work art. Period! ;D

[TheConcertinist]

The point I'm trying to get across is, 'art' is a word, a subjective idea. If you are rigid about it, and don't try to reach consensus, you may as well call it 'fuboomagoo'.

That's your whole point?!

[xhaan]

That's your whole point?!

Yes.
A point which says opinion is irrelevant without consensus.
It doesn't matter what you think, and what others think doesn't matter to you, UNLESS you are looking for affirmation, opposition, or trying to reach consensus. It's like playing 'cops and robbers' or 'cowboys and indians': "I shot you!" "NU-UH! I shot you first!"
Yeah.

[Santana28]

okay, i dug up a couple of blogs on the subject. keep in mind, i was probably drunk when i wrote one or both ;)

------------------------
of art and artists...

I was thinking about anxiety the other day... I was making my way through the supermarket aisles TRYING to get in and get out with my 2 items as quickly and painlessly as possible, despite it being the day before Thanksgiving and a total madhouse. So many people around... i was zoning into this weird little paranoid self-protective bubble - watching everything that moved and planning my way out. What a crazy feeling - total and complete anxiety.

So then i was listening to some awesome Depeche Mode on the way home after that mess.. something hit me. I finally figured out why i like what i do - anxiety. Artists are motivated by many things... love, hate, lunacy, fanatacism... and anxiety, among others. The best artists suffer from severe anxiety - and express this anxiety. Anxiety about the world around them, and their place in it. Anxiety about perfection and frailty and weakness and defiance. Like Dali, or Picasso.... paint, music, whatever - its all vibration anyways. The nervous inherant drive to create is more akin to fight or flight i think... its a primal necessity. It makes the rest of the world seem unimportant. Anxiety.

And just for speculation... if God created us in His image, and the pinnacle of this image is the gift of creativity, and if creativity could possibly be the fruit of anxiety....

just wondering.

-----------------
Creativity vs. Art, redux and ranting.

Creativity VS. Art. I've come to realize that i am not an artistic person - I am a creative person, but i am not artistic.

Art... i'm talking out my head right now... anxiety, coping methods, narccisism, perfection, technique, interpretation, fluff - emotion and accomplishment and self.

I loathe artists. Creative people, however - have my eye.

Life, to me.. is art. To love someone is no different than painting a picture. You apply what you know and have learned for your methodolgy and technique... you apply your emotions as color... your insecurities and pride contrast themselves on the canvas... are you painting to relieve yourself? Or to express yourself? Or to prove something?

Painting is a useless art form. Paint chips peel. Layer upon layer upon layer - you can paint over what you will, but underneath it all the original remains untouched.

I, for one, hate empty canvases. I want to throw color onto something which once was alive, but now is dead. But no matter what i do, life never returns to it - art has it's limits. Art is useless without life.

Creativity is love, and love is life. Art stirs the shit, and paces in circles. Differentiate, people.

[BadMojo]

keep in mind, i was probably drunk when I wrote one or both ;)

Hehe, I'm sipping a few ones myself. God bless ya :thumbsup:

[Santana28]

Hehe, I'm sipping a few ones myself. God bless ya :thumbsup:

its funny...when i drink, i usually end up with a compulsion to write. and i look back at it later and find some of the most profound stuff. i try not to drink too much...but when i do!

[xhaan]

its funny...when i drink, i usually end up with a compulsion to write. and i look back at it later and find some of the most profound stuff. i try not to drink too much...but when i do!

Heh, I'm almost the same way, except I can't write for crap when I drink, but what I think of SEEMS good to me. ;D

[danalaina]

I agree with what you say, but stubborn as I am, I will not call Andy Warhol's work art. Period! ;D

i'm curious why you seem to care so much about it, if it's not something you really care about.

for myself, art is a drive...it's creative impulse in action. a few times a year i'm absolutely seized with the feeling that i *must* draw or paint something. it's a compulsion that i can't shake until i do it. i don't know if that's the norm. it's just me. the art is in the creating, not the creation.

as to whether anyone else appreciates it or calls it art or me an artist...quite honestly, i don't give a rat's ass. it's for me.

[BadMojo]

i'm curious why you seem to care so much about it, if it's not something you really care about.

You actually said it slightly yourself. It's the creation, or the amount of work that should be noticed. As I mentioned before, I hate to see crap, like for instance the work of Andy Warhol, overshadow what I call true art. That the focus of human brilliance is removed from the exceptional creations human can make. I am annoyed, because I feel the art in some strange way. I get affected by the great craftsmanship of the true artist. To see end-results of such astounding beauty it's amazing to behold; and to see this beauty being overshadowed by worthless crap. Crap that doesn't have a fair amount of effort put into it. Crap that doesn't show the fullest extent of human creation - and to see crap like that being put on the same pedestal as "true" art kinda pisses me of.

[xhaan]

You actually said it slightly yourself. It's the creation, or the amount of work that should be noticed. As I mentioned before, I hate to see crap, like for instance the work of Andy Warhol, overshadow what I call true art. That the focus of human brilliance is removed from the exceptional creations human can make. I am annoyed, because I feel the art in some strange way. I get affected by the great craftsmanship of the true artist. To see end-results of such astounding beauty it's amazing to behold; and to see this beauty being overshadowed by worthless crap. Crap that doesn't have a fair amount of effort put into it. Crap that doesn't show the fullest extent of human creation - and to see crap like that being put on the same pedestal as "true" art kinda pisses me of.

See, that's the thing. You shouldn't let it piss you off, because there's nothing you can do about it, unless you plan to become authoritative art police. You're getting worked up over something that will not change.

[BadMojo]

See, that's the thing. You shouldn't let it piss you off, because there's nothing you can do about it, unless you plan to become authoritative art police. You're getting worked up over something that will not change.

Aha! Now you see why I plan world domination?!!! ;D

[danalaina]

You actually said it slightly yourself. It's the creation, or the amount of work that should be noticed.
if that's what you took from what i wrote, you're misinterpreting me. "the amount of work" doesn't interest me in the slightest.

and i think you might be stumbling on my distinction between creating and creation. to me, it's the act that's important, not the product. how much or how little work went into something doesn't matter.

As I mentioned before, I hate to see crap, like for instance the work of Andy Warhol, overshadow what I call true art.
it all has its place in art history. there's a reason for all of it. there are few famous artists whose work i can't appreciate when placed in perspective. Warhol, Lichtenstein, etc...they're as significant to me as any Renaissance master.

That the focus of human brilliance is removed from the exceptional creations human can make.
if a pretty picture were all the significance and worth i felt art had, maybe i'd agree, but there's so much more to it. to be brutally honest, that you seem to equate "exceptional" and "pretty" sort of discourages me from trying to continue this conversation. while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, your views on this matter seems painfully limited to me. =/


but if you want to talk about effort and try to quantify artistic value...

the more fussing in the creation, the less art it is. art to me has nothing to do with effort expended. it's got only to do with emotion...the emotions involved in creation and (secondary) the emotions felt by the viewer.

the more time an artist spends on something, the more s/he's nitpicking and editing it to death. that's intellectual masturbation. we don't learn anything when we spend endless hours on a single, beautiful painting, obsessing on details. we learn something when we spend an hour each on 500 paintings, even if they're all awful. especially if they're all awful.

we learn when we make choices. "pretty" is a cop out for me. it's not challenging, and it's not stimulating - either to look at or to make. and while sometimes the OCD bits of me take over when i'm working and try to perfect everything, i'm trying really, really hard to get away from it.

[BadMojo]

it all has its place in art history. there's a reason for all of it. there are few famous artists whose work i can't appreciate when placed in perspective. Warhol, Lichtenstein, etc...they're as significant to me as any Renaissance master.
yes, but how many Renaissance masters do we see nowadays? If you look at students' final products from art schools. Few few of them delivers real quality. Most of them make something "quick" and abstract. And truthfully. I understand them. Why should they work on something that takes a lot of work, when they can achieve the same fame and glory from "the quickies".
therefore, art loses its brilliance and becomes worthless, because it no longer pays to do something spectacular.


if a pretty picture were all the significance and worth i felt art had, maybe i'd agree, but there's so much more to it. to be brutally honest, that you seem to equate "exceptional" and "pretty" sort of discourages me from trying to continue this conversation. while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, your views on this matter seems painfully limited to me. =/


but if you want to talk about effort and try to quantify artistic value...

the more fussing in the creation, the less art it is. art to me has nothing to do with effort expended. it's got only to do with emotion...the emotions involved in creation and (secondary) the emotions felt by the viewer.

the more time an artist spends on something, the more s/he's nitpicking and editing it to death. that's intellectual masturbation. we don't learn anything when we spend endless hours on a single, beautiful painting, obsessing on details. we learn something when we spend an hour each on 500 paintings, even if they're all awful. especially if they're all awful.

we learn when we make choices. "pretty" is a cop out for me. it's not challenging, and it's not stimulating - either to look at or to make. and while sometimes the OCD bits of me take over when i'm working and try to perfect everything, i'm trying really, really hard to get away from it.
Art in my opinion does not have to be pretty. But I think art needs to be work of quality. Art should be something that amazes because it's something extraordinary that a normal man can't possibly achieve.

But again. That's just my opinion.

[danalaina]

yes, but how many Renaissance masters do we see nowadays? If you look at students' final products from art schools. Few few of them delivers real quality. Most of them make something "quick" and abstract. And truthfully. I understand them. Why should they work on something that takes a lot of work, when they can achieve the same fame and glory from "the quickies".
therefore, art loses its brilliance and becomes worthless, because it no longer pays to do something spectacular.


Art in my opinion does not have to be pretty. But I think art needs to be work of quality. Art should be something that amazes because it's something extraordinary that a normal man can't possibly achieve.

But again. That's just my opinion.
i'm gonna go ahead and stop before i make myself or you cranky, because it's not going anywhere fruitful. it would be tough for me to talk about this with any depth without sounding like a pompous twit, and your words are suggesting to me that you don't have the background in this area for it to sound otherwise.

[Santana28]

i'm gonna go ahead and stop before i make myself or you cranky, because it's not going anywhere fruitful. it would be tough for me to talk about this with any depth without sounding like a pompous twit, and your words are suggesting to me that you don't have the background in this area for it to sound otherwise.

why does one require a "background" in the subject of art to judge it?

[TheConcertinist]

In light of the vagueness of the word, I move that the word 'art,' and its derivatives, be stricken from the english language. I further move that the likening of something or someone to art or artistry be abolished. For example, a painting isn't art, it is simply a painting. For further example, a painter isn't an artist, they are simply a painter. If someone creates something that is of exceptional quality, that object will be referred to as an exceptional object, not as art.

Do I hear a second?

[Santana28]

In light of the vagueness of the word, I move that the word 'art,' and its derivatives, be stricken from the english language. I further move that the likening of something or someone to art or artistry be abolished. For example, a painting isn't art, it is simply a painting. For further example, a painter isn't an artist, they are simply a painter. If someone creates something that is of exceptional quality, that object will be referred to as an exceptional object, not as art.

Do I hear a second?

well, considering the word "art" itself is an interpretation of an interpretation... :)

i would be alright with allowing the word "art" to remain. the word "artists" however should be forever stricken from the books. i HATE that word.

[Rohsiph]

Do I hear a second?

No.

the more time an artist spends on something, the more s/he's nitpicking and editing it to death. that's intellectual masturbation. we don't learn anything when we spend endless hours on a single, beautiful painting, obsessing on details. we learn something when we spend an hour each on 500 paintings, even if they're all awful. especially if they're all awful.

Especially if someone wastes 500 hours on 500 objectively awful paintings? I had a small insight when writing that line . . . if the definition of "awful" that we're using is the same P. B. Shelley used in his Romantic poetry, then we're talking about something other than my first impression. But I think that's probably not the case . . .

I agree with most of what you said in your responses to Badmojo, but I am confused why you would apparently prize quantity over quality? I vehemently agree that art isn't about the time spent on it . . . but if someone creates five-hundred works and every single one is lacking in quality, then it signifies to me that this person is incapable of producing great art.

Perhaps you're trying to break down the existence of distinction between "great" art and "art" art? The person who wastes time to make "bad" art is still an artist . . . and, hopefully, the process of creation is very meaningful to this artist. But I think it's important to note a difference--dialectics might be useful here. Apollonian vs. Dionysiac, or Beautiful vs. Sublime, or Real vs. Imagined . . . great art evokes insight on both sides. Good art establishes profound attributes from one side. Bad art is a waste of time. That said, I think that most art in the modern world is just "art" art--meaningful to limited audiences, without the capacity to last more than a few decades, here for the moment . . .

i would be alright with allowing the word "art" to remain. the word "artists" however should be forever stricken from the books. i HATE that word.

I still have no idea why you hate "artists" . . . the closest I can get is imagining that your definition of "artist" portrays only the pretentious, single-sighted type that commands a militant faith in the absolute necessity of his/her own work being greater than anything that has come before. However, this type is usually not an artist--rather, this type is usually a delusional idiot.

If your definition of "artist" is someone who focuses on creating works meaningful to his/herself, with aspirations of having his/her work appreciated and/or understood by larger audiences outside of his/herself, then I am very curious where your hatred comes from because I really can't understand it.

[errrzarrr]

Can't define it. Giving it a strict complex definition is limiting it.

For me, Art and Science is the best one person can learn to improve in live. Powerful weapons for the progress of a nation.

[Santana28]

If your definition of "artist" is someone who focuses on creating works meaningful to his/herself, with aspirations of having his/her work appreciated and/or understood by larger audiences outside of his/herself, then I am very curious where your hatred comes from because I really can't understand it.

that is precisely the problem - the word is too broad to be properly defined. people that refer to themselves and think of themselves as "artists" are improperly defining themselves, or playing the term to garner value through the eyes of other narrow-minded people who see them as such.

i have no problem being labeled a "creative" person. Creativity is not limited to certain methods or techniques of expression - it is applicable in every aspect of our lives. A "creative" person is not an otherwise disinterested person who happens to have a talent for applying pigment in interesting ways to canvas.

An "artist" is crowned with the title through mere virtue of that which he/she has created or interpreted. A creative person is crowned with the title through the mere virtue of the act of creating, regardless of the application or end result.

[danalaina]

why does one require a "background" in the subject of art to judge it?

there's no background required to appreciate art (or not, as the case may be). when you move into the area of significance to the movement and crap like that, there's common ground and vocabulary that's sort of necessary to have the conversation.

but again, like i said above, it's really hard to move to this area and not come off too precious.

[Rohsiph]

that is precisely the problem - the word is too broad to be properly defined. people that refer to themselves and think of themselves as "artists" are improperly defining themselves, or playing the term to garner value through the eyes of other narrow-minded people who see them as such.

Some who refer to themselves are improperly defining themselves . . . but I think I'm beginning to better understand your position.

i have no problem being labeled a "creative" person. Creativity is not limited to certain methods or techniques of expression - it is applicable in every aspect of our lives. A "creative" person is not an otherwise disinterested person who happens to have a talent for applying pigment in interesting ways to canvas.

It's clear that an "artist" in the definition you're applying will often be a painter. Is a musician an artist? A filmmaker? A comic-book writer? A toy designer? A pastry chef? A quilt-maker?

Depending on the primary individual motivations, I would probably assert that all more-specific "career" types listed above are types of "artists." Dependent on motivation because I would be careful of asserting someone primarily motivated by money/wealth/fame to be an artist.

An "artist" is crowned with the title through mere virtue of that which he/she has created or interpreted. A creative person is crowned with the title through the mere virtue of the act of creating, regardless of the application or end result.

There is a difference . . . but I'm still surprised that you find it a difference worthy of malice towards one side.

If I'm understanding your perspective now, your "hatred" seems to be rooted in a disingenuity from many called "artists" who . . . take a certain pride in their work? If I'm understanding your sore-spot, it's because the "artist" is necessarily after something whereas the "creative" person perhaps just wants to have some fun.

I appreciate your comments; I think I'm getting close to understanding your view :)

[danalaina]

[...] I am confused why you would apparently prize quantity over quality?

you're missing my point. there is no quantity over quality in what i'm saying. the distinction is learning something vs. learning nothing.

if i were to spend a year on a single, pretty painting, i would be fussing over details - not making big decision after big decision. the idea is to be bold, even if you're making mistakes. dithering over details is cowardly and retards growth.

when you get it right, it's amazing, and when you get it wrong, you learn from it. i would gladly take 500 mistakes where i learn something useful over one pretty picture where i learn nothing. pretty just isn't that hard or that interesting.

[...] but if someone creates five-hundred works and every single one is lacking in quality, then it signifies to me that this person is incapable of producing great art.

if you've got an artist producing the same pretty thing again and again, year after year, s/he's not really much of an artist...certainly not a great one.

the idea i'm driving at isn't about what the viewer sees/wants...it's about the artist and the artist's growth. those 500 bad paintings aren't for you...they're for the artist to try new, big things and learn so that someday, that masterpiece might happen.

[xhaan]

you're missing my point. there is no quantity over quality in what i'm saying. the distinction is learning something vs. learning nothing.

if i were to spend a year on a single, pretty painting, i would be fussing over details - not making big decision after big decision. the idea is to be bold, even if you're making mistakes. dithering over details is cowardly and retards growth.

when you get it right, it's amazing, and when you get it wrong, you learn from it. i would gladly take 500 mistakes where i learn something useful over one pretty picture where i learn nothing. pretty just isn't that hard or that interesting.


I agree, even though I said I have spent a lot of effort in creation, it wasn't for the effort itself, or attention to detail. It was the effort in envisioning something, 'did what I feel REALLY go into it?'

I can draw with blobs and stick figures, and try to convey what I feel with it. Sometimes random squiggling is enough, other times I have to give it layers of feeling.

[Rohsiph]

<post>

Aha, I think I actually understand: the key is growth. I was reading into what you were saying about "fussing over details," assuming that doing this would lead to a more meaningful piece.

What I had in mind when I made my response above was the difference between the quantity of work that I produce vs. that which my best friend produces. He (my friend) does a lot more writing than I do--but it's often imprecise, rough, and could generally use lots and lots of polish. I don't write nearly as often, but when we share our work he'll commonly agree that mine is more often of a higher quality. We're both experimenting with ideas, both moving forward with each piece we create . . . and we seem to be moving forward at almost equal rates--but, from piece to piece, he moves less than I do. For every 25 poems he writes, there'll be 3 gems--for every 10 poems I write, there'll be 3 gems, and it takes me just as long to write 10 poems as it does for him to write 25 poems.

I still wonder if you're assuming just as much as I had when you assert that "fussing over details" will at least tend towards the artist learning less than someone who produces a lot of "failures"--but, that said, I do think I agree with your position more than I originally thought.

[danalaina]

What I had in mind when I made my response above was the difference between the quantity of work that I produce vs. that which my best friend produces. [...] I still wonder if you're assuming just as much as I had when you assert that "fussing over details" will at least tend towards the artist learning less than someone who produces a lot of "failures"--but, that said, I do think I agree with your position more than I originally thought.
i didn't make myself clear enough. you can't really use what i'm saying as a yardstick between two people. someone who's been at it for thirty years will have a different learning curve than someone who's just starting...not to mention what differences natural ability, style and work ethic can create between even a pair with a similar amount of experience.

besides...it's not really for me to judge the value what someone else is doing. there's no way i'll assign the same significance. i can offer my opinion, but if the person's anything like me, what s/he's doing is personal, and someone else's opinion won't matter much.

the difference in growth i'm talking about is about one person...one person spending forever on a single piece versus that same person spending much less time on many pieces. the many is much more likely to lead to more growth simply based on the quantity of decisions being made.

[BadMojo]

i'm gonna go ahead and stop before i make myself or you cranky, because it's not going anywhere fruitful. it would be tough for me to talk about this with any depth without sounding like a pompous twit, and your words are suggesting to me that you don't have the background in this area for it to sound otherwise.

Actually I do have a background in art, and I've noticed that I do not have the skills to create what I define as great art. Why should I even try to make art? To create another shock to the world for the world to admire?
I do understand what Warhol and the others are trying to express. But I do not call it art. It's simply a matter of opinion to me, as I have made clear several times. I simply do not value their worth.
There's no need to get angry over a conversation regarding feelings of items. I simply just appreciate great craftsmanship and excellence. Is that really so hard to understand? Is it hard to understand that I feel that lesser work overtake the places of what should have been jewels of human capability?

To do something without effort is in the end worthless. Here I do not speak to reason. Reason is empty when it comes to feelings. And this is why art is so hard to define. I do not feel "modern art". I feel that it is a nifty and provocative idea. But a simple idea does not create art - at least not in my world. Is that really so hard to believe that you deem it shallow?

[Diana]

the more fussing in the creation, the less art it is. art to me has nothing to do with effort expended. it's got only to do with emotion...the emotions involved in creation and (secondary) the emotions felt by the viewer.

the more time an artist spends on something, the more s/he's nitpicking and editing it to death. that's intellectual masturbation. we don't learn anything when we spend endless hours on a single, beautiful painting, obsessing on details. we learn something when we spend an hour each on 500 paintings, even if they're all awful. especially if they're all awful.


Well, maybe its past the point in the conversation to bring this up. But ...just to throw in a monkey wrench.. what about...

Dancing as art? Naturally thats my preferred type of 'artist' because I myself am a serious ballet dancer/soon to be dancing professionally.

My point of conflict is the thought that effort does not create better art. (If this is a misinterpretation, by all means correct me!) I can see this possibly applying to art in the sphere of paintings and the like, but as far as professional dance, you physically cannot perform certain movements correctly and/or well by ballet standards unless you put forward the hours and hours of painful, nitpicky self-editing (in the form of rehearsing something until you "get it"), attending daily technique class to build strength, and heeding corrections from teachers. If the dancer who plays Odile in Swan Lake does not put forward the effort in coming to all day classes and rehearsals each day, there is no physical way her ankles will be strong enough to perform the traditional 32 fouettes en pointe that take place in the second act.

Well, I'm out of time to write more but...just thought I'd present one more perspective...

[danalaina]

There's no need to get angry over a conversation regarding feelings of items. I simply just appreciate great craftsmanship and excellence. Is that really so hard to understand? Is it hard to understand that I feel that lesser work overtake the places of what should have been jewels of human capability?

what you don't seem to understand is that you're using very limiting language that pretty much precludes the idea that anyone else could feel differently. you haven't been saying, "i don't like this" so much as you've been saying, "it's crap."

i don't see any point in going further in that sort of discussion.

[Santana28]

Some who refer to themselves are improperly defining themselves . . . but I think I'm beginning to better understand your position.

It's clear that an "artist" in the definition you're applying will often be a painter. Is a musician an artist? A filmmaker? A comic-book writer? A toy designer? A pastry chef? A quilt-maker?

Depending on the primary individual motivations, I would probably assert that all more-specific "career" types listed above are types of "artists." Dependent on motivation because I would be careful of asserting someone primarily motivated by money/wealth/fame to be an artist.

There is a difference . . . but I'm still surprised that you find it a difference worthy of malice towards one side.

If I'm understanding your perspective now, your "hatred" seems to be rooted in a disingenuity from many called "artists" who . . . take a certain pride in their work? If I'm understanding your sore-spot, it's because the "artist" is necessarily after something whereas the "creative" person perhaps just wants to have some fun.

I appreciate your comments; I think I'm getting close to understanding your view :)

you can't use the term "artist" without first defining the term "art." now being such a broad term, "art" can be applied to a variety of implementations - anxiety of expression (the NEED to express oneself as an attempt to understand oneself or create something which causes someone else to better understand you), or technical ability in some defined form, or interpretation of something into another form.

i don't claim to "hate" many things - but i genuinely loathe people who need the opinions of other people to find value in themselves.

you can't define creativity - it's like love. it IS love. if you hinder it's expression you are only destroying its value.

my favorite works of "art" are generally destroyed soon after creating them, or hidden away where no one else can see them. when another person sees my work and judges it to be "good" or "bad" i feel violated - one, because they can't possibly see it in the same manner that i do, and two, because they have judged it based on criteria that it was never intended to be subject to, and found it able to be judged. i feel like a whore when i create things for other people, and i find no pride in producing something which is liked.

i know this is a little more philosophical approach to it than most people take, but its just the way i look at it. as someone who has lived their entire life being judged by my natural ability to reproduce things in visual form, it has basically been a thorn in my side for my entire life. i love creativity, but please...please... don't call me an "artist." i'm not.





Santana28 added to this post, 1 minutes and 30 seconds later...


My point of conflict is the thought that effort does not create better art. (If this is a misinterpretation, by all means correct me!) I can see this possibly applying to art in the sphere of paintings and the like, but as far as professional dance, you physically cannot perform certain movements correctly and/or well by ballet standards unless you put forward the hours and hours of painful, nitpicky self-editing (in the form of rehearsing something until you "get it"), attending daily technique class to build strength, and heeding corrections from teachers. If the dancer who plays Odile in Swan Lake does not put forward the effort in coming to all day classes and rehearsals each day, there is no physical way her ankles will be strong enough to perform the traditional 32 fouettes en pointe that take place in the second act.

if you interpret perfection in some form of technical ability to be "art", then by definition better technical ability = better "art."

[danalaina]

My point of conflict is the thought that effort does not create better art. [...] you physically cannot perform certain movements correctly and/or well by ballet standards unless you put forward the hours and hours of painful, nitpicky self-editing (in the form of rehearsing something until you "get it"), attending daily technique class to build strength, and heeding corrections from teachers.

what you're saying here isn't contradictory, actually.

though the idiom's a little different, you've got to learn (read: train) in order to be able to work the masterpiece someday. to be able to pull off that massive string of fouettes en pointe, one wouldn't perform only that move and no other...ballet training is diverse, because many techniques need to be honed. it's the same with the idea of the 500 paintings vs. the one.

i trained for about twelve years, though certainly i could never have been a professional dancer. congratulations. that's quite impressive.

[BadMojo]

what you don't seem to understand is that you're using very limiting language that pretty much precludes the idea that anyone else could feel differently. you haven't been saying, "i don't like this" so much as you've been saying, "it's crap."

i don't see any point in going further in that sort of discussion.
Isn't it obvious that I'm trying to express my point? That I'm trying to pin out what I feel. I am not trying to convince you, or to go with my ideas or definitions.

I use the word "crap" because I see that kind of "art" as crap. I could also use a more proper word like "junk", because that is way I see it, it simply doesn't hold any value for me.

Again, this is a personal opinion. Nothing more. I've tried to explain why I believe in it. We simply do not agree on the subject.

[danalaina]

Again, this is a personal opinion. Nothing more. I've tried to explain why I believe in it. We simply do not agree on the subject.

yep. i'm not at all faulting you for what you think. who am i to tell you what to like? i was just saying (like in #51 above) that if that's how you feel about it, there's not much point in me taking the conversation where i might normally go with it. =)





danalaina added to this post, 7 minutes and 14 seconds later...

you can't use the term "artist" without first defining the term "art."

this definition (or lack or whatever) seems to be very important to you. is it really?

for myself, when i say "art" or "artist," it's just a word that gives someone else a vague idea of what i'm talking about. i'd just as soon call it "fred" if that conveyed the necessary idea. the words don't have much value to me beyond their ability to communicate a little basic meaning.

[Santana28]

yep. i'm not at all faulting you for what you think. who am i to tell you what to like? i was just saying (like in #51 above) that if that's how you feel about it, there's not much point in me taking the conversation where i might normally go with it. =)

danalaina added to this post, 7 minutes and 14 seconds later...

this definition (or lack or whatever) seems to be very important to you. is it really?

for myself, when i say "art" or "artist," it's just a word that gives someone else a vague idea of what i'm talking about. i'd just as soon call it "fred" if that conveyed the necessary idea. the words don't have much value to me beyond their ability to communicate a little basic meaning.

dana - i think you're focusing too intently on the individuals who are posting than the topic being discussed...just fyi.

i suppose you are correct - you could just replace the word "art" with "fred". but then if you considered yourself a "fredist" you would still have to define (to yourself, if no one else) what the word "fred" meant to you. no one bothers to apply definitions to themselves unless there is meaning behind it of some sort - even if is an empty definition "i am random."

yes - words mean alot to me. but more than the words, it is the implications they bring and the power that people give to them. FUCK is just a word - yet look at all of the power it has? If you take away it's meaning, then it has no power. "Art" without a definition is just another collection of letters.

sure, i can call myself an "artist" - and i cringe the entire time, because the creative spirit means more to me than anything else - and the word "art" as popularly used has bastardized it. theres a part of me that intensely wants to reclaim the word art for what it should be used for, than what it is used for, and that annoys me. when people refer to me as an artist, i refer to myself as a designer... or a painter... or whatever it is i happen to be doing at the moment. but by providing someone a "vague idea" of what you're talking about still seems to me as if you're searching for some sort of feedback on the word itself, otherwise you would have referred to yourself as a "dancer" or a "musician" etc etc. its not too difficult to supply a basic description of "artistic" things that are much more specific and honest than the word "artist."

[Rohsiph]

Santana28: ok, mostly . . .

except--

how is defining "creation" so much different? I can define it: creation is the act of making something that was not there before that act.

I don't like agreeing to disagree, as I understand relativism to be, ultimately, a failure of effectively understanding the saliency of the greatest possible argument . . . but, the more you say about it, the less I can agree with what I am beginning to see as your key problem with "artists":

How/why is being an artist so significantly more dishonest than being a creator?

To try and avoid circles: I think I understand that you see the artist as someone who is primarily motivated not by the need to create, but rather by the need to be valued as a certain thing.

I don't see why such a desired valuing is necessary to be an artist, or why a creator is precluded from having the same desire (which you are implying by suggesting that an artist is to be hated, whereas a creator is to be respected).

Perhaps we can reach a middle-ground:

would you have respect for someone who creates something that is meaningful & significant to him/herself, as well as to a wider audience, for the immediate purpose of fulfilling inward desires, yet who still calls his/herself "artist" based on following definitions that don't line up with your own?

The problem I am having with your view is that it appears to me, abstractly (and I acknowledge that I'm reading into what you've been writing here), you mean to define things in order to separate yourself from the pretentiousness & dishonesty of certain people . . . but then by claiming to hate "artists" in general, I can't help but seeing you as just as bad, if not perhaps a bit worse, than the more narcissistic kinds of artists out there.

[Santana28]

The problem I am having with your view is that it appears to me, abstractly (and I acknowledge that I'm reading into what you've been writing here), you mean to define things in order to separate yourself from the pretentiousness & dishonesty of certain people . . . but then by claiming to hate "artists" in general, I can't help but seeing you as just as bad, if not perhaps a bit worse, than the more narcissistic kinds of artists out there.

i completely understand where you are coming from in your critique; i appreciate your not attaching emotion to it where none was intended!

i'm sure i sound like the most arrogant "artist" to ever walk the face of the earth - i might possibly be ;)

i suppose the flaw i find in the difference between the two terms, is that "artist" is a noun, and "creative" is an adjective - the "artist" is the end result of the "art" (whatever that form may be), while the "creative" person is the pure act itself. i search for perfection in myself, and i am not arrogant enough to suggest that i have found it by labeling myself with a noun to announce to the world who i am. my life is a quest for the better in myself, and that quest is a creative quest - and the quest itself is where i find the value, not the end result.

i disagree with your definition of the word creation (which i know to be technically the correct definition, but not the one i choose to adhere to quite as strictly) - in my eyes it is not "the act of making something that which was not there before" - it is the act of acting itself, towards a more perfect end. destruction can be a creative act, if the end result is moving forward.

to me, "art" is static. "artists" are using static terms.

in regards to "I don't see why such a desired valuing is necessary to be an artist, or why a creator is precluded from having the same desire (which you are implying by suggesting that an artist is to be hated, whereas a creator is to be respected)."

i'm speaking in terms of how one views oneself - if one is alright allowing other people to refer to them as an "artist" even if they cringe hearing it, then so be it - that is a compromise one has to make with the world i suppose. i do it. i don't snap at people and tell them not to call me an artist - most people couldn't comprehend the subject through my eyes. "it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck - it is a duck." i am not suggesting that an artist is to be hated, and a creator is to be respected - i really don't care what people think of me. all of the valuing lies within myself, directed only towards me. i'm sharing how i see the terms, because someone asked. i'm not expecting or attempting to have you or anyone else agree with me - take from this whatever value it holds for you.

does that make any more sense? thanks for the questions. i had to think about that for a bit!

[Rohsiph]

Thanks Santana28, I think that clears up my lingering concerns :)

What you say about destruction potentially being creative if it moves things forward is very interesting. My concept of particularly effective art often extends into just that--finding meaning in destruction, building from it.

I've found it to be a slightly annoying tendency particularly true to intuitives: we come up with our own subjective definitions of wide concepts, connecting them to more subjective definitions, until our "individual" dictionaries are entirely fleshed-out, built to enhance the foundations of our deeper principles/understandings. Then, when we meet a fundamentally different interpretation of a concept, it takes all this uncovering just to find there's a pretty similar view of the underlying ideas, except we're using different words.

My understanding of the words "art" and "artist" branch deeply, in many directions, with some rare forms that disgust me, as well as rare forms that (emerge when I begin to use terms like "true art/artist") inspire me. Creation as an expanded idea in the way I think you're using it is an integral part of the "good" side of the way I use the words "art/artist."

Cool discussion :)

[Santana28]

Thanks Santana28, I think that clears up my lingering concerns :)

you're welcome :) thank you.

[danalaina]

dana - i think you're focusing too intently on the individuals who are posting than the topic being discussed...just fyi.

teach me how to have a conversation without speaking to an actual person, and then maybe i'll agree with you. =)

[...] but by providing someone a "vague idea" of what you're talking about still seems to me as if you're searching for some sort of feedback on the word itself, otherwise you would have referred to yourself as a "dancer" or a "musician" etc etc. its not too difficult to supply a basic description of "artistic" things that are much more specific and honest than the word "artist."

on the contrary, it's quite difficult if i were looking to provide something that wasn't vague, actually. i don't often choose to share details with people i don't know well, and i don't generally have to explain anything about myself to people i do.

i don't remember ever uttering the words "i'm an artist" as a response to anyone, though, so i am not actually searching for feedback as you seem to suggest above (if you meant "you" in a general sense, forgive my misinterpretation). i don't have any problem using the word to describe people or things, though.

yes, as you said "fuck" is a powerful word - but only because people fear it. perhaps you're looking to wash "art" clean of its common associations...dunno. myself, i think every word in the language exists for a reason, and i'm not fond of sacred cows.

[INTJoe]

On my first day of architecture school, our teacher asked us all to define "art", and of course it started as "paintings, sculpture, etc." and he would rebut with "But what about a building? Is a building art?" "Well, sure, it could be." "What about music?" "Well, yeah I guess..."

I don't think we ever came to a conclusion as a class, but he just wanted to stimulate our brain a bit and begin thinking of buildings as "artwork".

I think you could argue that anything man-made that stimulates the senses is "artwork", whether by design or not.

[BadMojo]

I think I'll define art as an exceptional human creation.

[sriv]

My definition of art:

Physical representation of creativity.

How much one likes that physical representation is up to them to decide.

[Vivid]

The way I see it, you can be one of two people. You can be the person who discriminates about what is and isn't art, or you can be the person who discriminates about what they do and don't care for. To me, anything is art if someone says so. Whether or not I like it is a whole other matter.

[Vardigon]

Art is either of two broad categories for me: that which is eternal, or an experience of something great that only lasts for a moment.

[aok]

everything and nothing

[Szarra]

"I don't know if it's art, but I like it!" -No idea who started the quote or if this is even the original, but it works for me.

To me, art is emotion. If it was created to make me feel something, it is art.

As for Picasso, I like his earlier works better than his later style. Guernica being the exception. I almost cried when I saw that painting and I only saw a slide, not the real thing!

[lancelot]

Art is an expression of yourself: what you value and how you think.

[indecisiverobot]

i found this thread somewhere and just had to register.
i'm just surprised that dave hickey hasn't been brought up. i believe that the problem people have with art is that they believe it has to be universal. as a painter (i believe that people shouldn't play fast and loose with the term "artist" because that implies they create art. art can be either great or poor.) i find that the more i learn about art, the more complex ideas i wish to express.
when someone writes a doctoral thesis, they don't put things in plain language. there are references to obscure studies, researchers that nobody has heard of, whatever. my point is that some of the people who make art know a heck of a lot about what they're doing. sure, some people could be trying to mess with us (a lot of contemporary artists focus their work on just that), but many times there is a reason for their work.
"what is art?" isn't an answerable question.
if you give a broad definition of art, it allows art to be either successful or unsuccessful (good or bad art).
people shouldn't call themselves artists. they should let the textbooks decide.

in my experience (and i could be wrong), i find that artists who are sensory people are more accessible to the public. Ns are favored more in/by academia. i don't think that Js do as well in art (meaning school and the high arts world) as Ps. SJs have a real problem with contemporary art.

i didn't answer anyone's question.





indecisiverobot added to this post, 12 minutes and 31 seconds later...

i forgot this in the last post.
i don't believe an artist has to be emotional. they don't need to make someone cry or be inspired. they don't have to be anything. i believe that all an artist needs is a fanbase.

also, picasso was an amazing craftsman with his work (although that might have been mentioned). and a lot of warhol's work was a giant "fuck you" anyways. i'm sorry for the profanity.