What is Art?

[Chadwhat]

Art is the ability to cause emotion indirectly through a visible or obvious medium. Rather than through what is commonly understood as direct living, such as person to person interactions, or watching strangers. The medium can be aesthetic and invisible, but it has to be there. One can cause direct fear with a camera just like with a gun, so showing some innocent kids violent images obviously isn't artistic, even though it is realistic emotion based on something real happening. Nature isn't art, because it is direct. Another way to phrase it is that art doesn't have to be, but life does. Yet they remind one of the other such to the fact that it becomes the chicken or the egg question. I like what Hilda said about art being virtual reality over reality. It, art, is preferable to life because it is safe even when it is severe.

On more abstract levels, people will say about someone that so and so has turned their profession into an art, by which they understand an aesthetic medium or structure of some kind has been built invisibly as a filter for so and so's doings. They are not living directly without style, which is a certain organization (structure, crystalization) of thought, and the ability to live in such a way that it causes emotion with style and form as much as substance, is artistic living.

Bad art inspires despair and boredom, not indirectly, but directly as ugliness. It is itself repulsive, as if it were alive. As if Frankenstein was in your living room rather than in your mind. Whether that's art, who cares? Run.

Nature, life, and art produce similar emotions, but they are not the same. Some people are wired so as to need all three of them desperately, or one more than the other. Since people are complex, art deepens itself in many directions as it seeks to make them feel, but essentially, it's just that naked production of emotion, indirectly but certainly.

[Groktruth]

Xris,

This quote seems, well, hypocritical:

"...but lets not make out that god is some great artist."

If I get your drift, you do not want to preached to, or pressured into becoming a Christian, or pagan Venus worshipper, because you admire religious art. Nor do believers, who are enjoying the notion that God is, indeed, some great artist, want to be lumped into some "lets" that is forbidden to do so.

Appreciating the art of the gardener, precisely because, as you stressed, the gardener was intending to create meaningful art, to communicate the wonderful, "Do you see what I see?" moment, broadens the positive impact of art on our lives. The believer who takes it a step farther, and senses God wanting to communicate with them the same way, ought to be encouraged to "make out that God is some great artist." Anyone appreciating an artistic moment is a better person for it, to all our prosperity.

And, who knows, maybe God is a great artist. Be good if it was true.

As for the negative stuff around, I now get it that you were being facetious when you attributed it to the devil. Now, why would that be? What would keep the devil, if he was a real person out there able to work in such media as tsunamis, from getting his message across artistically?

My grandmother used to say to me, when I was a piece of (devilish art?)work, "I don't know what has got into you!"

You wouldn't be opinionated about the hypothesis that the world is haunted, would you? Not a sound philosophical attitude, that.

[Xris]

The gardener is not creating art he is tending his garden. Nature creates the beauty but it's not art. Even if you believe in god, the purpose of god is not defined in some act of art. If you see god in autumn leaves, I will ask will , do you see him in the fire that destroys a forest? Your confusing a pretty or beautiful scene with art. Art is a human act to relate the artists with the viewer. If the artist paints a picture of god he is trying to relate his god or some other feeling to the viewer. I can appreciate that message or feeling without believing in god. What a strange god that creates to impress us with his artistic skills.

[MJA]

Natural Art

Does not a gardener design his garden?
Is not a garden designed?
Is not a design art?
Is not art designed?
And is not a gardener nature?
Is not a garden nature?
Are we not all nature?
Is not nature artistic?
Is not nature designed?
Is not nature art?
Surely Nature is everything,
And everything art.

=
MJA

[Xris]

Natural Art

Does not a gardener design his garden?
Is not a garden designed?
Is not a design art?
Is not art designed?
And is not a gardener nature?
Is not a garden nature?
Are we not all nature?
Is not nature artistic?
Is not nature designed?
Is not nature art?
Surely Nature is everything,
And everything art.

=
MJA

Design is not art. Nature is not art. Everything is not art.

[Chadwhat]

In a queendom men (I mean heterosexual men not gaydom "hetrosexuals") have only two options which are either anarchism or art.

What is a queendom?

[Apeman]

Design is not art. Nature is not art. Everything is not art.

Yes, so as I strain to keep my grammar, punctuation, syntax, spelling, typographical errors and originality in alignment with the good moderators of this forum, I can only be in kind and friendly support of Xris' refined and unadorned comment above. Those three things mentioned are indeed NOT art at all ever. I will now bid a momentary farewell with good grace and politeness lest I carry-on and submit myself to further deleting and excluding (by the great fault of my challenging, addressing or contradicting of some of the retorts here-in).

[Groktruth]

Truth being as painful as it usually is, I can understand the fervent limitations on what art may be, that are expressed here. For, in my experience, art, inspiring art, anyway, is a key part of knowing what is true. Like trustworthy authority, it helps in deciding what ideas are worth investing in, in order to appaise their truthfulness.
All truth, of course, must be confirmed by several sources. Art is one of these.

But, those, how do they say it? "with their heads in the sand" to avoid seeing what scares them need to marginalize, if not kill, the messenger. So, for them, true art becomes some random, meaningless event.

Three cheers for free will.

[Remana Liply]

Art is Creation. Creation is Art.

[Apeman]

Sorry, my bad. I seem to file every response under the "what is art?" question. As I see it as the most urgent matter to the human experience.

[Xris]

I suppose those athletes noted above would indeed be better at their "sport" on a non vegan diet. They are not at the "top" of their game, or anywhere near the elite members of their game...so yes, they could be better. But by the strength of their convictions regarding the treatment of (seemingly only furry?) animals, they have overcome a diet that is not as densely nourishing as one welcoming the vastness of nutritional possibilities. The "experts" on the internet will contradict each other - and diet fads come and go. Veganism seems to be suited over a primarily moralist skeleton. And it has yet to be agreed-upon just what exactly is "right" and what exactly is "wrong". Vegans (and other groups, religion and trend-ridden) indeed decidedly NOT to eat the greater amount of food available. Our physiologies have evolved to eat MANY things to be able to perform the function of a vitalized survival - but yet, we may be too smart or too aware (or too gullible) for our own good; finding plenty of esoterica and etherea and ideology to get in the way of a proper meal.

Me, I eat as well-rounded a diet as possible, containing lots of everything; and I suppose "health" is decided by the amount of energy and intensity and vigor one can present when it is needed. Also, good nutrition permits attained "strength" that has much to do with how one interacts with the demands of the physical world; which can, in turn, affect outlook, worldview self-confidence and general potency. Everyone possesses a variation of "conscience" which continually puts up for considering the "way" of nature. But Nature doesn't care, and the animals and bugs and plants and organisms (and all of THOSE possess equal amounts of "life") have no such concerns. Our bodies tell us that we should eat what we CAN eat, and to eat what FUELS us - nothing more, nothing less.

We need the art of good moderator here friend to move your post to the correct thread.

[Aestheticaddiction]

To me, art is possibly everything and nothing at the same time. I tend to think of art as an idea or concept that is not tangible that is conveyed by something that is tangible. If you show something like Starry Night to a kid in today's age that has yet to learn about Van Gogh - the reaction is vastly different from the period in which it was made, and also the reaction over the years that has made it as famous as it is today. The painting, the physical existence, to me, is not art. What it stands for is art, and I think that what it stands for can be built upon over time.

Continuing with this piece as an example, there are a number of reasons its held in such regard. The most talked about one is that it was very different stylistically, short quick brush strokes, compared to other works at that time. While style sometimes can seem to be a superficial quality, it is not always just about aesthetics. It introduced an entirely different way of thinking. What may make it art is not only the fact that no one before him really painted like that, but why did no one paint like that? What is it that inspired Van Gogh to paint in such a way? Its a very mind boggling question. There are a lot of people that look at Starry Night and go "I could paint that". And sure, you probably can, but you didn't think of it first.

This is a fraction of how I regard art, I may come back and expand on other ideas later. But generally I regard it as a way for people to put something out there that cannot be said in words, or in the case of poetry and writing, cannot be stated matter of factually. But I don't think that art stops when the piece is complete, and I also don't think art has to be intentional either.

[Groktruth]

To me, art is possibly everything and nothing at the same time. I tend to think of art as an idea or concept that is not tangible that is conveyed by something that is tangible. If you show something like Starry Night to a kid in today's age that has yet to learn about Van Gogh - the reaction is vastly different from the period in which it was made, and also the reaction over the years that has made it as famous as it is today. The painting, the physical existence, to me, is not art. What it stands for is art, and I think that what it stands for can be built upon over time.

Continuing with this piece as an example, there are a number of reasons its held in such regard. The most talked about one is that it was very different stylistically, short quick brush strokes, compared to other works at that time. While style sometimes can seem to be a superficial quality, it is not always just about aesthetics. It introduced an entirely different way of thinking. What may make it art is not only the fact that no one before him really painted like that, but why did no one paint like that? What is it that inspired Van Gogh to paint in such a way? Its a very mind boggling question. There are a lot of people that look at Starry Night and go "I could paint that". And sure, you probably can, but you didn't think of it first.

This is a fraction of how I regard art, I may come back and expand on other ideas later. But generally I regard it as a way for people to put something out there that cannot be said in words, or in the case of poetry and writing, cannot be stated matter of factually. But I don't think that art stops when the piece is complete, and I also don't think art has to be intentional either.

I was told once that to become a great artist, I needed to do what other great artists had done before me, as well as they had done it. And then to move on, looking for the "first" or timely way of doing things in this moment. Discipline, then tune into my "muse." My muse, they said, would wait in the wings until I had proved my receptivity, by submitting to the masters.

I took the lesson with me into science, but if still helped me find today's great art.

[Nazreen]

I do believe that art is creation made from tools that forms one thing into a greater or another thing that which pleases the beholder who sees what he/she wants to see or feel at the time.

[Groktruth]

I do believe that art is creation made from tools that forms one thing into a greater or another thing that which pleases the beholder who sees what he/she wants to see or feel at the time.

I imagine someone with a really good radio, tuning into some sort of cosmic programming, and so either clarifying, or amplifying, a message that others are also getting, but with static and poor reception. Artists have better spiritual antennae. Which is why we call great art "inspired!"