what is art

[Neur0heiler]

I remember Luke was saying earlier that things must be entirely new to be art, even if they are crap

he added that context is very important to a piece of art so I'm wondering why that wouldn't apply to Neoclassicism, where for example the context of the time period is hugely important in the meaning of the genre

I would submit that what is art is entirely subjective in that I believe the only necessary and sufficient conditions for art are that it needs to something artificial (e.g. trees don't count) and evince an emotional reaction deliberately (whether awe or disgust or anything) and this doesn't work for everyone

so for me I don't really find Jackson Pollock paintings to be art because they don't really cause me to feel one way or another, although they are significant in society in some sense and they could certainly be art in the eyes of others

now realistic fantasy artwork and martial industrial music that Luke hates is art for me because it gets a reaction out of me

and trolling could be considered performance art

in fact my definition means Sen. Jesse Helms considered Robert Mapplethorpe's erotic photography art, whether he was willing to admit it or not

[Neur0heiler]

(12:11:43 PM) pyohlin: http://sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17465816#post17465816
(12:13:01 PM) gregulus: lol
(12:13:05 PM) gregulus: this will be funny
(12:13:16 PM) gregulus: i wonder if luke thinks that things can stop being art
(12:13:29 PM) pyohlin: yeah
(12:13:37 PM) pyohlin: trolling is art
(12:13:47 PM) gregulus: 4chan is the center of modern art
(12:13:48 PM) gregulus: oh god
(12:13:51 PM) gregulus: OH GOD
(12:13:52 PM) pyohlin: yes!!!
(12:13:58 PM) gregulus: how terrible
(12:14:09 PM) pyohlin: that's what I'm saying

[gregulus]

I'm being serious in my question, btw. Can things (styles, ideas, etc.) that were once considered art stop being art in later generations.

[Neur0heiler]

luke is probably going to say yes

[Mr. Ron]

so for me I don't really find Jackson Pollock paintings to be art because they don't really cause me to feel one way or another, although they are significant in society in some sense and they could certainly be art in the eyes of others



I would say that they are still art regardless if they make you feel something. Their state as art transcends individual emotion.

[sweboy]

Something is art if the person who made it thinks it is art.

NO BS, sweboy 2009

[Mr. Ron]

Something is art if the person who made it thinks it is art.

NO BS, sweboy 2009
I agree with this, even though the art they make might be totally stupid to the individual who looks at it.

[stevensonmat2]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

[DENEpants]

Art is hard.

[RNR]

Something is art if the person who made it thinks it is art.

NO BS, sweboy 2009


But how do you know something is art if you don't know whether or not the person who created it thinks that it's art, or you don't even know who created it.

[stevensonmat2]

It kind of a dumb thing to debate. Inevitably there will be those who view something as art and those who won't. There really can't be a clear cut standard.

[Ceminon]

First off, I personally think that whether something is or isn't art is entirely irrelevant. To some, non-artificial things can be much more effective in evoking a certain feeling than an artificial piece of 'art' that is created to evoke exactly that feeling.

But I kind of agree with sweboy. If the maker of an 'artwork' has intended it to be art, then it should be regarded as such. If it is unclear whether the maker has intended it to be art, then I'd fall back on the first sentence in this post.

[Chrysostom]

My school art teacher once said that regardless of what we think about a given work of art, art is essentially the end result of deliberate creative effort. Looking back, I suppose he was saying that as long as something is intended by the artist to be a work of art, then it is one. Thus, Tracey Emin's 'My Bed' is as much art as Carravagio's 'Amor Victorious'. Now I'm considerably more conservative/traditionalist regarding the art I like, so although I'd like to, I find it hard to argue against my art teacher's definition.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah, basically.

[sweboy]

But how do you know something is art if you don't know whether or not the person who created it thinks that it's art, or you don't even know who created it.

How do you know, to whom a letter on which the corner containing the recipient's name has been teared off is intended? How do you know, if the half-built house by your feet is meant to be a theatre or a library? How do you know, I ask you, if a post on an Interweb forum is solely an attempt to explain the intellectual views of the poster, or a piece of art?

[RNR]

My school art teacher once said that regardless of what we think about a given work of art, art is essentially the end result of deliberate creative effort. Looking back, I suppose he was saying that as long as something is intended by the artist to be a work of art, then it is one. Thus, Tracey Emin's 'My Bed' is as much art as Carravagio's 'Amor Victorious'. Now I'm considerably more conservative/traditionalist regarding the art I like, so although I'd like to I find it hard to argue against my art teacher's definition.



Right, because your arguments would be coming from your personal opinions on a piece of art when what your teacher was talking about was the denotation of the word "art" as it is most commonly used.

[sweboy]

In the wake! of existance
we tumble down the mountain sides

[RNR]

How do you know, to whom a letter on which the corner containing the recipient's name has been teared off is intended? How do you know, if the half-built house by your feet is meant to be a theatre or a library? How do you know, I ask you, if a post on an Interweb forum is solely an attempt to explain the intellectual views of the poster, or a piece of art?

Aight I gotcha. I agree that we can't know for sure, although sometimes it's reasonable to assume that something is art, like a painting that seems to gush with blatant emotion.

[Moon Flavor]

Everything is art.

Everything.

Think about it

[Ceminon]

hello

with out art i cant leave

[Jude]

arguing about what art is is the worst possible way to spend your time

the amount of anything that it has ever produced in all of human history totals to: jack ****

[Neur0heiler]

Everything is art.

Everything.

Think about it

I'm glad this thread was enriched by the valuable stoner perspective

[Neur0heiler]

arguing about what art is is the worst possible way to spend your time

the amount of anything that it has ever produced in all of human history totals to: jack ****

the amount of anything that criticizing people for debating over the definition of art totals to: still less than jack ****

[Iskandar]

I agree with this, even though the art they make might be totally stupid to the individual who looks at it.Thirded.

Intent defines art.

PS. what Luke meant is that merely duplicating someone else's work does not make it art. You're not creating anything that way.

[TerranYouApart]

my postcount is art. i'm about to make myself some food which will be art. i once met a guy named art. everything, maaaaaan

[Neur0heiler]

the duke I took in Already_Taken's right shoe before he put it on this morning is art

Thirded.

Intent defines art.

PS. what Luke meant is that merely duplicating someone else's work does not make it art. You're not creating anything that way.

yeah but he says things like Neoclassicism aren't art which can be construed as a contradiction of his own definition of art ... the difference between Neoclassicism and vanilla Classicism might be say, historical context (remember he said context is important)

[uncus_my_son]

ya the world is art and its full of shi

[TerranYouApart]

bro i don't wake up till the afternoon

[Iskandar]

yeah but he says things like Neoclassicism aren't art which can be construed as a contradiction of his own definition of art ... the difference between Neoclassicism and vanilla Classicism might be say, historical context (remember he said context is important)Well he says merely duplicating the work of others isn't art but I don't know if that's strictly what Neoclassicism is. It's modeled on Classicism, not a clone of it.

[Gattsu347]

Art is hard.

you're making it hard.

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

didn't read the thread but gabe's answer is probably the funniest

[Smokey D]

I never said art has to be new to be art. All that is required for art to be art is the appropriate intention by the artist.

In terms of value, however, art must tend to challenge and destabilize. Art which merely reproduces what has gone before should not be considered good art, no matter how technically accomplished it may be. To be clear, I see no reason that the neo- schools can't be good art.

The aesthetic dimension of art is an entirely separate issue.

Also, my name is not Luke.

[Iskandar]

Until you tell us what it really is, we're going to assume it is in fact Luke, bearing in mind that you've gone on record to state it.

So art doesn't have to be new to be art, but it has to be new to be good?

[Smokey D]

More or less.

Although I never claimed neo-schools weren't art or weren't good art.

[Iskandar]

They don't duplicate their predecessors exactly so much as take inspiration from them. If they did, there wouldn't be a need to call them "neo-".

[andyneverstoppingmachine]

so what if the "newness" is a retreat to authenticity

[Wanker]

http://api.ning.com/files/wPfMkfHmCBa3KN5O8JQP3lbP5ty5HfLcDO*x8azAFHdPiqFuqY H4ypLsQvRkKcd8sNcwOVwnJvL4pxekfyV0WDcwPjmUhNgg/tree_logic_massmoca.jpg

Trees as art.

[14CAPITALLETTERS]

art is the wind on my face that god made that is art, god made the greatest work of art of all, the design of existence itself.

[Meatplow]

the only good art is the art that disguises itself being the work of a hack to somebody the best

art is dead

[gregulus]

I love "____ is dead" statements.

[Iskandar]

Saying things are dead is dead.

Did you see how meta I got just there? I'm postmodern as ****.

[Neur0heiler]

Also, my name is not Luke.

http://sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15485243&postcount=7060

lol luke

[Neur0heiler]

Saying things are dead is dead.

Did you see how meta I got just there? I'm postmodern as ****.

I'm not just meta

I'm urmetapostmodern

[Neur0heiler]

in other words, reactionary

[Meatplow]

Saying things are dead is dead.

Face it, saying things like saying things are dead is dead is dead.

We are all zombies.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

I love "____ is dead" statements.

gregulus is dead

[gregulus]

Be nice.

[EightMilesHigh]

Art is progressive. Art is something that must move forward or else it becomes self-indulgence and art that is self-indulgent is masturbation.

Idk I just pulled that out of my ***.

[YouGottaBeCrazy]

"art is fart"

-Shakespeare

[Ceminon]

http://api.ning.com/files/wPfMkfHmCBa3KN5O8JQP3lbP5ty5HfLcDO*x8azAFHdPiqFuqY H4ypLsQvRkKcd8sNcwOVwnJvL4pxekfyV0WDcwPjmUhNgg/tree_logic_massmoca.jpg

Trees as art.

That is a pathetic attempt at appearing to be creative. :confused:

[Neur0heiler]

I don't get it

[Chu]

Everything is art.

Everything.

Think about it
Definitely. Art is an entirely subjective term. (Though, you raised an interesting point on whether art can lose it's "art", I would tend to think not though).

Art is usually the result of something.
So there's a process of creation.

1. You start out with bare minimum.
2. You add to it.
3. You get an end product.

Of course, the process repeats itself a lot on step 2, but the point is, you go through a sequence of steps to create something.

Whether you're drawing an epic Mona Lisa, or programming a simple "Hello, World" application, or a carpenter creating a wooden stool, you're creating art - just who appreciates the art, and for what reason they appreciate the art is pretty difficult to identify imo, but you can never honestly say no one is going to like it, and perhaps to just one it is art, that would probably be a sufficient condition...

[Neur0heiler]

doesn't art have to be artificial at least

[Neur0heiler]

I mean seashells look pretty cool but I don't think you could call them art because there is ostensibly no personal designer behind them

an image generated by an algorithm inspired by seashell structure could be art though

[Ceminon]

A photograph of seashells can be art.

[Neur0heiler]

yes but the photograph is artificial that's the thing it's the context that makes it art

[Ceminon]

Agreed.

[suspect device]

art is created for the appreciation of one person alone, the artist. anyone else liking it is a seriously huge bonus. anyone else understanding it completely without being prompted is a miracle

[14CAPITALLETTERS]

there is no such a thing as a text. all is text, all is textual.

[Wanker]

That is a pathetic attempt at appearing to be creative. :confused:

It's contemporary art.

[pedro durruti]

I mean seashells look pretty cool but I don't think you could call them art because there is ostensibly no personal designer behind them

an image generated by an algorithm inspired by seashell structure could be art though
yeah, though chance is as much the artist as the artist is themself. that's how many artists operate actually, on the whole process of chance. and seashells are basically nature's art. and we are not separate from nature, anyways, so our art is no different from a beach's, fundamentally. all things are creation, and all creation is art. nature is just as much a personal designer as i am, and i am also just as much a personless designer as nature is... MOO HOO HAHA

[RNR]

art is created for the appreciation of one person alone, the artist. anyone else liking it is a seriously huge bonus. anyone else understanding it completely without being prompted is a miracle

Some art attempts to stir emotions in its audience and convey ideas. Ultimately it's for the artist's benefit, but the audience's reaction could be a major factor in the artist's designs.

[Against Miik!]

I hate this question. I took an art history class once, and every freakin class, our prof would put something up on the screen, be it a picture or a video, and ask the class, "is this art?", as if you thinking its not (and often times it wasn't), made you some kind of ignoramus.

[PunkItUp]

christ soaking in piss....the mona lisa

art is w/e the artist makes it out to be. or the admirer wishes it to be

there is high art and low art, i suppose. i am a fan of both, but not an enthusiast or aficionado. i just see artistic merit in many creative things

art. its simple, really. or should be

[Tripp_chaos]

art is what the viewer perceives...

[Badmoon]

art is pretentious

[rasputin]

art is the representation of the meaninglessness of life

[suspect device]

Some art attempts to stir emotions in its audience and convey ideas. Ultimately it's for the artist's benefit, but the audience's reaction could be a major factor in the artist's designs.

yeah, i can see that. part of the artists appreciation might be based on the reaction of the crowd and that reaction can be positive or negative depending on what the artist hoped to achieve

[Meatplow]

I love trashy low art as much as pretentious bullshit

taste is purely subjective, but so much fun to argue about

[Futue te Ipsum]

According to Andy Warhol it's "anything you can get away with

an alternative question is:
"does it really matter what art is?"
No.

[Iskandar]

Man I just remembered why I hate you.

[Futue te Ipsum]

you're using your tenses in a very weird way

[Ceminon]

According to Andy Warhol it's "anything you can get away with

an alternative question is:
"does it really matter what art is?"
No.

Andy Warhol's art looks like **** and he inspires millions of pretentious and talentless fags to make more shitty art.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

art more of a verb than anything


art is proof that ultimately things don't make sense but it's okay

[robertsona]

haha if you add an f to art it becomes fart XD

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

that is art omgmo

[Futue te Ipsum]

The only "interesting" thing about art, really, is that we have any concept of it in the first place. It must serve a purpose, but what is that? A showcase of genetic strength? a means of social bonding? Is it a human analogue of the peacocks tail, or an epiphenomenon of another process? means of communication?

Either way though, it doesn't really increase my opinion on artists. NEver met one I didn't want to hit.

[Iskandar]

Isn't art supposed to be about expression and stuff.

[Meatplow]

is doing an arts degree of any description a really bad decision?

[pedro durruti]

haha if you add an f to art it becomes fart XD
not in spanish
in spanish fart is spelled with a PPPP