What is Art?

Actually, it is quite arguable that anything that the "people in the art world" name as art is very likely NOT art at all.

Anything is quite arguable. You'd be wrong, though, if you argued it.

You seem to be referring to art by its popular handle; a term spread far and wide, like jelly and jam, to sweeten the bad taste of significance that has been diluted by the barely serviceable commerce of "culture".

You, sir, seem to think, like some philistines I know, that art is something above and beyond what the people in the art world simply deem is art. Nothing suggests this view, and history proves it wrong.

We use the three-letter-word here for lack of a better one (perhaps we could change it to "rat" so we wouldnt have to discuss all those other things that proclaim to be "artistic".

'Art" or "Rat" -- they refer to one and the same thing. It's merely a matter of which attitude you want to adopt.

Art is an event, an episode an interaction (not between humans but between an individual and some physical force...action). It is not for the consuming, nor is it even for the exhibiting or presenting - insofar as it will only ever be artifacts and rendered performances that actually confront an audience; all POST-art.

Art is what gets displayed in galleries by artists, is received as art by people who write about art, gets reviewed by people who review art, and gets viewed by people who typically view art. A urinal fits this description, as Mr. Duchamp knows, and so anything fits this description. The Mona Lisa is no more art than a urinal. I hate that it's so, but it's so.

And whether or not anyone might become thrilled or bored by the superfloua and gratuiti that gets offered-up as art is not to be bothered with DURING creative throes. There are plenty of other lives for a properly divided individual to tend to. Sell the art as one of those characters, fool the art world folk if you must (if you can), and realize that the only time you are NOT costumed is when ideation and process address aesthetic, anti-functional excess.

This is all pretty and yet irrelevant talk.

Why has the subject become so complex? Art is an intention to express yourself through a medium. There is no such thing as good or bad art. If the individual attempts to paint for anything other than to express themselves then they are fraudulent but only they can judge themselves. We may suspect them and very often I express my doubts in very anglo saxon manner.

Why has the subject become so complex? Art is an intention to express yourself through a medium.

This can't be a sufficient condition, because I just drew a picture of my elbow and I guarantee you it's not art.

There is no such thing as good or bad art.

Well, for someone with no taste, maybe.

If the individual attempts to paint for anything other than to express themselves then they are fraudulent but only they can judge themselves. We may suspect them and very often I express my doubts in very anglo saxon manner.

Utter nonsense.

Why has the subject become so complex? Art is an intention to express yourself through a medium.

This can't be a sufficient condition, because I just drew a picture of my elbow and I guarantee you it's not art.

There is no such thing as good or bad art.

Well, for someone with no taste, maybe.

If the individual attempts to paint for anything other than to express themselves then they are fraudulent but only they can judge themselves. We may suspect them and very often I express my doubts in very anglo saxon manner.

Utter nonsense.

So who is going to decide what art is? If you want to draw a picture of your elbow then the product is art. The intention is the only requirement.

So who is going to decide what art is? If you want to draw a picture of your elbow then the product is art. The intention is the only requirement.

All you're doing is repeating your opinion. How many times are you going to do it? I got it already: you think it's just about having a certain intention. Great, now can we do philosophy?

So who is going to decide what art is? If you want to draw a picture of your elbow then the product is art. The intention is the only requirement.

All you're doing is repeating your opinion. How many times are you going to do it? I got it already: you think it's just about having a certain intention. Great, now can we do philosophy?

So suddenly art is philosophy. I asked a question. With your opinion who is going to decide what is art?

The answer to your question has alredy been stated, but I'll say it again. Here is the short answer: art is whatever people in the art world say it is. There are no intrinsic properties of an object that make it art.

many moons ago while at University I enrolled in a photography class. The instructor was explaining the process of making a print from a negative. at the end of his lecture he said " and if your picture doesn't turn out the way you want it, call it art"

Funny I thought, but true. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Where I appreciate all art, some more than others, I know there are things I think of as art others might not. For instance, I can look at large equipment, like a D9 Caterpillarar , and I can see art. In the lines, the contours, and over all design. Others would just say its a big bulldozer, and I concurre. But its also art if you appreciate it as such. Monet is art too, as Picasso, Degas, Dali, and millions of others who create things. Its all in who is looking at it, and how they perceive it. As they say, Its a personal thing.



On a side note, why is it that only on this forum, my spell checking software double up and merges words together. Ive used the same software for years, and only here does it mess things up?

No Fiver, "art world people" the vague perpetrators who you have assigned divine authority, actually rarely have ANY experience with the committing of oneself - by exhaustive measures - to engaging and advancing whatever amount of creative drive that does exist within them. They are busybodies fraught with the usual succumbing that civilization, culture and commerce afflict upon the potency of everyone. They have not, like those in the throes of fitfully examining significance through the laborious plying of originality as it manifests as "real", managed to even wonder what "art" it. So therefore they are NOT allowed to determine it. Thats all.

And yes, exactly because it is indeed the most subjective and beholder-driven thing possible, it requires maximum attention between properly prioritized thinkers. This "art" thing is the root of ALL human consciousness and IN-pressing is FAR mor important than EXpressing. Expression is for soda pop labels.

And one must never be so lazy as to judge the "artness" of something by the mere artifact that represents it; the painting, the sculture, the symphony, the Venus Willendorf. If you threshold your perception, as you should when it comes to matters of aesthetics, you will be able to imagine the event BEHIND the facade.

No silly - you totally missed the point. The urinal was not the art at all, and was never intended to be. Sheesh!

The answer to your question has alredy been stated, but I'll say it again. Here is the short answer: art is whatever people in the art world say it is. There are no intrinsic properties of an object that make it art.

The art world, what exactly is the art world? Could you tell me exactly. Do they need a degree in appreciation to inform us when we mere mortals should consider what a particular painting or sculpture is? So if it never appears in front of these amazing experts it should never be considered as art. What a strange elitest point of view.

The answer to your question has alredy been stated, but I'll say it again. Here is the short answer: art is whatever people in the art world say it is. There are no intrinsic properties of an object that make it art.

I recall when some incredibly talented creatures, including an elephant wielding a paintbrush who really enjoyed creating major, imaginative (and they say animals have no imagination!), abstract masterpieces as so pronounced by art aficionados. Of course they had to reconsider their judgement once they knew who the "genius" was. "Merit" in the art world depends much less on skill than how much people are willing to fork out for it as an "investment" and resold at markup. This amounts to any piece of crap having intrinsic value as so proclaimed by art experts. It is to laugh!

No animals do NOT possess "imagination", at least not as such might be compared to a human imagination. There is never an argument there. And the fooled art evaluators (and it could happen to any of us who are interested in non-objective abstraction) were only responding to the SAME formal qualities that one might enjoy or condemn when observing the contours and strata of an eroded precipice, a pasture or meadows boasting its color, a patch of moss or the minutiae of a arachnids web. Plain ol' nature is all it is. Nothing more. There are visual treats there indeed...it can be overwhelming and impressive and intimidating. But it cannot be art. It cannot be art (I said that twice on purpose). So that is why it is not relevant to condemn those poor art critics who were baited to expound upon the random messes of animals. Because HUMAN abstraction is not ever a random mess (unless it was undertaken as a commercial ruse - out of the breeze, ease and insignificance of giving-a-darn about what some other human might "think" of it ...or PAY for it.

In the most general terms, art is the transfiguration of Nature into Cosmos, which is performed by Human, thus displaying the Latter as having the properties of God the Creator.

All the Arts, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, only some become commercially successful.

In the most general terms, art is the transfiguration of Nature into Cosmos, which is performed by Human, thus displaying the Latter as having the properties of God the Creator.

That's great! But can you define 'Cosmos' in the specific sense you wish to use this rather general and abstract term? I'd love to get a clearer perception of your statement.