# Please, define ART



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I made may searches for the word art before launching this thread. I hate to make duplications.

Define, if possible, with your own words. What is art? I think it is difficult for me. I will wait in order to have your brilliant ideas. I'm sure there are plenty of smart people here or there that could define art. 

Maybe we have more than one GOOD definition. I would say that at least there are two good definitions. 

One more general and another one more specific. In a more general way almost everything could be considered art (except what idiots like Stockhausen called art, i.e. September 11).

Please, explain.

Martin, ready for delectation


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm not going to venture with my own definition (yet), but would like to share this blogpost someone recently shared with me about the difference between *Art* and *Design*.
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/09/the-difference-between-art-and-design/

Good Art Inspires. Good Design Motivates.
Good Art Is Interpreted. Good Design Is Understood.
Good Art Is a Taste. Good Design Is an Opinion.
Good Art Is a Talent. Good Design Is a Skill.
Good Art Sends a Different Message to Everyone. Good Design Sends the Same Message to Everyone.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think today, it's basically a matter of context. Eg. if it's played at a concert, it's art. Or if it's in an art gallery, same thing. Of course, it's not watertight (what about public art or buskers on the street, etc.?). But that also talks to how 'high' art and 'low' art can also be different, very different.

So I think it boils down to context and intention. Maybe also perception of the viewer. I'm talking of now, the present, not a hundred years ago or whatever (but even back then, guys like Erik Satie and ALfred Jarry might have similar loose 'definition' of what I've put above).

That's not saying I mean I like all 'art' of today (or of the past). That's just saying that now, it's a matter of 'anything goes,' basically. All the barriers and taboos have been shattered and smashed to the ground. We've got nothing to smash anymore. So we get naval gazing, or rehash, or shlock horror or titillation. It appears we've reached an impasse, a kind of dead end for art. Pessimistic? You bet. Don't know where we go to from here. Just get exposed to as much as possible, try to enjoy what we enjoy, and give things a go. 

That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

_The word art derives from the word "Artifice."_ That bears a remarkably important contextual import.

All art is, therefore, 'synthetic.'

The synthesis via artifice leads to constructs which are far from journalistic 'reality,' yet, through that artifice, art can be so 'archetypal' in what it conveys that it resonates in the listener / reader / observer as 'more true' than the day to day reality, and can make a long-lingering impression. It has the same power to convey deep meaning even in its most abstract non-literal / non-figurative / abstract modes.

_There is a hangover notion about 'what art should do' from the mid to late 1800's, mainly Anglo / American: this notion was that all art should elevate, ennoble, inspire. The notion is period tosh sentiment, nothing more, nothing less._

Art, no matter how grim the subject, or how repulsive the message, does deal with its subjects in more 'poetic' terms, and part of what is involved goes into the realm of 'aesthetics.'

I might as well toss into this salad another tidbit of etymology: _"Sentiment" is defined as a distilled emotion._ I do think anything worthwhile which can be called 'art' has a good deal of distillation as part of its process and in the finished product. Ergo, 'Refined' must enter my definition of 'what is art.'

As far as 'levels' of quality in the arts goes, I borrow from the French definition of Cuisine:
Haute (high)
Moyenne (an average, median)
Paysanne (basic, rough) --- 'Haute, high = 'fine art,' etc.

Within that order, it is not a matter of how 'sophisticated' the palette of the food is, but literally _how finely and evenly cut and how finely presented it is_... again, a matter of 'refinement.' That leads me to allow that some pop music, for example, is very 'artful' but it is nowhere near 'fine' art. The metaphor is readily applied to all media which can at all be called 'art' or 'creative.'

General question, some general principles to ponder... I hope you have been 'amused.'


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Oh my god, one of THESE topics


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Oh my god, one of THESE topics


I think the dreaded Tracy Emin's bed piece will be mentioned in no time! :lol:

But it seems to be going sensibly so far, let's hope it keeps that way.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Art these days seem to be whatever its creator/artist considers it as art, is art. I, HarpschordConcerto, blow my nose with a tissue paper, throws it in a rubbish bin, and calls that _Winter Runs of Nose & Paper_, is art as far as I am concerned. But of course, it is junk art.

I think Martin wants a defintion of art, not what is necessarily good art or not. So there you have it! Art is whatever the artist/creator considers it as art. Dinosaurs' footprints might well have been art as far as the dinosaurs were concerned, as were cavemen who painted their handprints on cave walls.

HC, the artist.


----------



## Il_Penseroso (Nov 20, 2010)

The most beautiful thing about Art is that you'll never find a definition which could cover everything, and it's actually no use to search for such a definition: It varies from time to time as well as from place to place.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Art was a fantastic drummer and jazz band leader originally from Pittsburgh.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Lunasong said:


> I'm not going to venture with my own definition (yet), but would like to share this blogpost someone recently shared with me about the difference between *Art* and *Design*.
> http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/09/the-difference-between-art-and-design/
> 
> Good Art Inspires. Good Design Motivates.
> ...


Interesting... But... Define art yourself though.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Art these days seem to be whatever its creator/artist considers it as art, is art. I, HarpschordConcerto, blow my nose with a tissue paper, throws it in a rubbish bin, and calls that _Winter Runs of Nose & Paper_, is art as far as I am concerned. But of course, it is junk art.
> 
> I think Martin wants a defintion of art, not what is necessarily good art or not. So there you have it! Art is whatever the artist/creator considers it as art. Dinosaurs' footprints might well have been art as far as the dinosaurs were concerned, as were cavemen who painted their handprints on cave walls.
> 
> HC, the artist.


I think YOU understood what I meant. Your own definition.
Not a technical and "perfect" one.

My text was accidentally lost.

Art is huge and it is for me one of the most difficult things to define. It is easier to define what is not art.

Art... What can I say. Art is meant to offer pleasure. It is not necessarily useful nor useless. I relate art with God in the largest expression. I consider myself as an artist. I constantly create. I wrote a few novels and several poems.

What is art? Making love: not useful, not useless, makes pleasure, painting (not A wall, please!), creating a text, music, architecture, etc. (*)

I am a simplistic guy. Art is too huge, it is beyond every possible typical and enpoverishing definition. Definitions classify and empoverish. Just yor own definition would be strongly appreciated.

(*) This is already a kind of definition, my humble definition. Not blowing my nose! Please.
Simplistic not being equivalent to being moron. Blowing your nose is useful, just useful.

Art: poduces pleasure (first purpose of art), not necessarily usefull nor useless.

Martin


----------



## Abracadabra (Jun 6, 2012)

My own personal definition of art would be as follows:

Art is like beauty - it's entirely in the perception of the beholder.

However, after I defined art in this way I looked up the word on Google and got the following definitions:

*ART*
1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination.

If that is some sort of "official semantic definition" for the word, then clearly my definition fails in many cases.

Also if that definition is holds, then there can be not "Art in nature" because nature isn't an expression of human creative skill and imagination.

I do believe people often speak about "Man-made Art" versus "Natural Art" though, so many people see "Art in nature". So there's probably no real consensus that "Art" has to be man-made.

As far as trying to make a distinction between "Art and Design" I think that would be pretty futile. Especially based on the formal definition above since design could simultaneously be an expression of human creative skill and imagination. Thus almost all designs would automatically be a form of art.

In the end I feel that words like "Art" defy rigid definition because after all, if my definition of art is accepted (i.e. that Art is in the perception of the beholder), then the actual meaning of the word would also depend upon the perception of the beholder. In other words, it would be highly unlikely that two people would ever agree on what constitutes "art" in any specific example.

However, based on the formal dictionary definition above, all of nature can be ruled out as not being "art" because it wasn't the result of human expression, skill, and imagination. Although one could argue that it requires human imagination to see art in nature. In that case, art is entirely in our imagination, it's not "out there" at all. (by that definition)

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Well, to get serious for a minute -

My own personal definition of "art" is "an expression by an intelligence _about_ something that is _not actually _that thing". By my definition, random expressions without any purposeful direction is not "art" - it's "doodling".


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

This is going quite well, I believe. I have asked my wife. And she told me: generally is not useful, offers beaty and helps to live.

I like that. Now, I will say/ add, ART must include two main components: ESTHETICS and ETHICS. If not, it is not art, it is something else.

Esthetic without ethic is not art and vice versa.


Martin, Zero IQ


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> This is going quite well, I believe. I have asked my wife. And she told me: generally is not useful, offers beaty and helps to live.
> 
> I like that. Now, I will say/ add, ART must include two main components: ESTHETICS and ETHICS. If not, it is not art, it is something else.
> 
> ...


Others might say that the presence or absence of ETHICS makes the difference between GOOD art and BAD art.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Others might say that the presence or absence of ETHICS makes the difference between GOOD art and BAD art.


Is there something such as bad art? Is Danielle Steel bad art or not art at all? When you are creating just aiming $$$$ is that art?, bad art? or not-art? mmm....

IMHO, I'd say Danielle Steel work is NOT art. I can compare D.S to Microsoft... LOL Is Windows art? no way! Is McDonald art?
no! D.S. is for literature what McDo is for food. Am I wrong? I like this image a lot, it is very funny! If D.S. were British, the queen of England will nominate her Lady... Why? LOL I don't need to tell you that... Do I?

Martin


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Abracadabra said:


> I do believe people often speak about "Man-made Art" versus "Natural Art" though, so many people see "Art in nature". So there's probably no real consensus that "Art" has to be man-made.
> 
> However, based on the formal dictionary definition above, all of nature can be ruled out as not being "art" because it wasn't the result of human expression, skill, and imagination. Although one could argue that it requires human imagination to see art in nature. In that case, art is entirely in our imagination, it's not "out there" at all. (by that definition)


Wholly agree with you on that point.
Art is artifice: what occurs in nature is _perceived_ by man as 'artful.' There is no artifice in nature... ergo, 'the music of the birds and the wind soughing in the boughs' _is thought of as being musical_ but is not organized, thought about: once that sound import is transliterated by a person into a sound medium, then it is called 'art.'

The 'music or art of nature thing' is a linguistic convention, not a literal truth.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Art these days seem to be whatever its creator/artist considers it as art, is art.


Art is not what just anyone calls art, any more than an artists is just anyone who calls themselves an artist. Even children get that much. Then again, it was a child who cried out the emperor had no clothes


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Abbey Road Technology.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Wholly agree with you on that point.
> Art is artifice: what occurs in nature is _perceived_ by man as 'artful.' There is no artifice in nature... ergo, 'the music of the birds and the wind soughing in the boughs' _is thought of as being musical_ but is not organized, thought about: once that sound import is transliterated by a person into a sound medium, then it is called 'art.'
> 
> The 'music or art of nature thing' is a linguistic convention, not a literal truth.


In the Renaissance God was very important, he was the creator, the artist who made beautiful mountains, rivers, oceans... Every piece of art reflected God... And when it was otherwise, timidly they called the work "profan". Nowadays, in a world without God, what do we say when we see a breathtaking landscape? Just nothing, we say nothing. We don't relate that to God because God is forgotten. I am old fashion, I believe in God. I think God is the most important artist (not very popular though). Today God became a tool of war!!!!! That IS sad. I believe in God, I am against extremism. I don't believe in RELIGIONS. I hate them.
About bad art. I don't think bad art exists. When it is bad art, it is NOT art.
I am an idealist. I still believe in Santa. In my world many people are nice. I love the song Imagine.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)




----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

an arrangement of nature.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Is there something such as bad art? Is Danielle Steel bad art or not art at all? When you are creating just aiming $$$$ is that art?, bad art? or not-art? mmm....
> 
> IMHO, I'd say Danielle Steel work is NOT art. I can compare D.S to Microsoft... LOL Is Windows art? no way! Is McDonald art?
> no! D.S. is for literature what McDo is for food. Am I wrong? I like this image a lot, it is very funny! If D.S. were British, the queen of England will nominate her Lady... Why? LOL I don't need to tell you that... Do I?
> ...


Well, this is not MY argument. You've already read what I think. I was simply pointing out what some might say.

But, on the other hand, I'm not sure the case you make is entirely fool-proof. Is Danielle Steel's output not art because it's UNETHICAL, or because it has no real AESTHETIC value?

Aesthetics and ethics are two different things. I believe art can be unethical. Much art, for example, makes use of graphic violence. Personally, I find that repellant and I reject it - not because I find no aesthetic value in the work as a whole (other parts of the work can be very artistic - take 'A Clockwork Orange' as an example) - but because, in my opinion, it's not ethical to use graphic violence as entertainment. I won't argue it's not art. It's just "bad" art for me.

But, Danielle Steele may also be unethical in certain ways, but your complaint has more to do with the fact that her writing has no aesthetic value. I agree. But, that doesn't really address the question, does it?

Ethics raises the question of badness in a moral sense. Aesthetics is dealing with badness as a matter of artistic quality. Two different things.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Well, this is not MY argument. You've already read what I think. I was simply pointing out what some might say.
> 
> But, on the other hand, I'm not sure the case you make is entirely fool-proof. Is Danielle Steel's output not art because it's UNETHICAL, or because it has no real AESTHETIC value?
> 
> ...


Look. Maybe you're right. I am just allergic to her. I'm sorry. AEsthetic is more a point of view, it is terrible subjective. Is it not?


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I had a discussion about food being art with Trolls once...he thought I meant that modern, fancy plating crap but I meant REAL food and real cooking...I think he said it was a craft or something but then that all comes down to the same thing. If taking paint and using a canvas and choosing to do this and that with it is considered art, why then would not taking a variety of ingredients and combining them in such a unique way (as in painting) to create something that that not only looks beautiful but tastes delicious...NO ONE will EVER convince me that this is not art. Some a**h*l* can splatter a bunch of senseless paint on a wall or sign the Mona Lisa with a spray can, call it art, but I can't turn a beautiful piece of brisket into a delectable beauty that stimulates not only the eyes but the smell and taste and...oh,...don't even try and convince me of that one.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Agreeing while I enjoy tortellini with bolognese.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Vaneyes said:


> Agreeing while I enjoy tortellini with bolognese.


Rossini would agree with you, and in any case, Berlioz said he was a better cook than a composer. I'd guess that according to Berlioz, Rossini's cookbooks where greater 'art' than his operas, so there you go.

Bon appetit!


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Vaneyes said:


> Agreeing while I enjoy tortellini with bolognese.


Respectfully, I hope you enjoy your own jokes.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Good cuisine is an art, for sure. It gives a big pleasure like a nice painting or a wonderful opera or concerto. Why not art? I agree. But not any meal... Sometimes I create good meals, I am not a "good" artist in the kitchen, some would say "it is bad art" . LOL. I am limited. God made me short, not much hair, not very smart but with a very good heart. I am happily married and I have two terrific children. Every night since they were 3 and 5 I had to tell them a story without any book for about 4 years. Dad had to imagine princes, princess, dragons, wizards, witches... Sometimes the stories were longer and funny... A story could take 2-3 nights. And of course a funny-happy ending each time. They still remember Dad's stories.

Sleep well.

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Rossini would agree with you, and in any case, Berlioz said he was a better cook than a composer. I'd guess that according to Berlioz, Rossini's cookbooks where greater 'art' than his operas, so there you go.
> 
> .
> 
> Bon appetit!


I believe Berlioz, I don't like his music. I enjoy Rossini very much

Martin


----------

