Most Artistic?

[Jklint]

Everything is art -- to the individual. In other words, what is or isn't art is always subjective to the individual, regardless of what conventions society claims.

What the individual claims as art may have zero relevance to future generations and interred accordingly since by your guidelines art can be any piece of crap one creates. Also, according to this view art is still art if it consists of nothing more than the lowest levels of craftsmanship. In that case there is hardly a person alive who doesn't qualify as an artist in some respect which is nothing more than a "leveling off" and anointing one's mediocrities with the name of art. Such a commonplace view is always endorsed by those who strive to limit the dynamic range between themselves and those with real talent. "Art" or artist has many connotations. It can also describe someone who is especially adept at subterfuge and deceit and not least by emulation in its adjectival form of artful.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

This is complete BS. This is what you say, but not what you think. Why is it that no one thinks a single line drawn on a napkin is art? There is a Human standard at work. Your claim above is only valid within defined parameters and is subject to degrees of value.

A single line on a napkin framed and hung on a wall may not satisfy your idea of artwork, but it's good enough for me (this is the definition that I use, yours may be different). Art is easy.

When you move, you transfer your artworks to your new apartment. Put them all into a box labeled "art," and go. You don't have to stand around thinking well, is this really art? Just put it in the box. That old mailart piece from Ray Johnson that was taped to the refrig? you know the one that fell down and got stepped on and the footprint makes it better, put that into the box too, it's art.

For me there's no need to think about "human standard" and "degrees of value." To me art is a simple category of objects. In the English language, one word can have different meanings. You should use whatever definition you like. I don't really know why I'm defending against your "complete BS" statement, use whatever definition you like, and I will too.

[Spiral Out]

Art is easy.

For me there's no need to think about "human standard" and "degrees of value."

You should use whatever definition you like.

If I defecate on a canvas, use my genitals to smear it around and then exhibit it in an art gallery does that make it art?

If this is the case then the concept of art would thus cease to exist in any meaningful form. In my opinion, of course.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

If this is the case then the concept of art would thus cease to exist in any meaningful form. In my opinion, of course.

No problem, you're entitled to this opinion.

[Spiral Out]

Yes of course, but is it Art? Can you say truthfully that your opinion would be that it is genuine Art?

[3uGH7D4MLj]

Yes of course, but is it Art? Can you say truthfully that your opinion would be that it is genuine Art?

Sure. I'm a bit worried about how you're going to keep the **** from falling off the canvas, but go for it. I can't wait to see.

[Spiral Out]

Ok, well, our discussion has descended into short banterings so I'll assume we're merely humoring each other at this point.

Anyway, I think the point has been lost in that while I agree that art is personally subjective, even such subjectivity must still has some minimum level of standards that addresses the components of creativity, craftsmanship, originality, skill, imagination, taste, purpose and other principles of art. You know in your heart that my previous absurd offering is an example of something that obviously nobody would consider art. It lacks any of the principles that art requires.

I just can't accept that absolutely anything can be art. There must be guidelines even subjectively. If everything can be art then everything IS art, and thus nothing is art. There would be no reason for the word "art" as a distinguishing term.

[Fleetfootphil]

If everything can be art, it does not follow that everything is art. And, actually, the concept of what is art has already ceased to exist in a meaningful form. It's just rhetoric now.

I just read today of students and others in Chicago putting on a mock trial of Matisse in the early 1900's for crimes against art. I think he was guilty but..... new art grew from his thinking (not that I like Matisse as an artist. I think his technique was abysmal.)

[XavierAlex]

These threads seem to all revolve around art and its definition. I'm inclined to be on the side that art needs a creator who at least designed a work for whatever purpose; however, most of all of human endeavors, not all, but most, have some creative ingenuity. A chef creates a cake; a film maker makes a film; a writer writes a novel; or a business owner starts a business; flirtation has been known to be an art.

But I would draw a line and say that not everything is art or "true" art. Now there are ways to perceive beyond our own creation and seeing it as a form of art. If you look at a sunrise, photograph it or paint it, or simply just appreciate it, is the sunrise art? Perhaps, it isn't, but something fundamentally better and more important than art.

To say the sunrise is the same as an artistic work created by man really is interpreting things in such a way to inflate the word "art". Art may try to mirror or distort that sunrise, but the sunrise will be itself. Just as elephants and birds make sounds that are incommunicable with humans. Do we say birds singing are art? Possibly. But I think more is at work than even art.

To cut it short, art can be relegated to a way in which we communicate with each other through various mediums. A guitar or saxophone expresses certain things words can never express. But art can be simply art for better or worse. And if an elephant creates a painting, it does not surprise me but I would put that more in the realm of natural expression, such as if a spider crawls across the top of water. We observe these things and they provoke or evoke sentiments in us, but I don't think they rightly figure in to either the artist nor the art--which is ok.

[Walker44444]

Painting 4 is the only one that has an interesting combination of line, shape, tone, colour and space.

The other three are terrible.

[Belinda]

(Nested quote removed.)

A single line on a napkin framed and hung on a wall may not satisfy your idea of artwork, but it's good enough for me (this is the definition that I use, yours may be different). Art is easy.

When you move, you transfer your artworks to your new apartment. Put them all into a box labeled "art," and go. You don't have to stand around thinking well, is this really art? Just put it in the box. That old mailart piece from Ray Johnson that was taped to the refrig? you know the one that fell down and got stepped on and the footprint makes it better, put that into the box too, it's art.

For me there's no need to think about "human standard" and "degrees of value." To me art is a simple category of objects. In the English language, one word can have different meanings. You should use whatever definition you like. I don't really know why I'm defending against your "complete BS" statement, use whatever definition you like, and I will too.

This is true. Most of the confusion arises because sometimes we should be using the term 'work of art' instead of the term 'art'.

'Work of art' is capable of definition by expert authorities or by amateurs who have a certain amount of experience of the specific idiom.

[Fleetfootphil]

When I move, I put things in boxes and label them "wall hangings". I don't label them art because I don't think that is what they are, but that's just me, I guess.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

When I move, I put things in boxes and label them "wall hangings". I don't label them art because I don't think that is what they are, but that's just me, I guess.

Sure, and you should absolutely. I'm not campaigning for my definition of art, only defending it.

-- Updated January 23rd, 2013, 11:22 am to add the following --

Painting 4 is the only one that has an interesting combination of line, shape, tone, colour and space.

The other three are terrible.

The first one is my fave. But then I really like paint.

[Fleetfootphil]

Should? lol

It's not as if I am asking permission or seeking affirmation. It's just what I do, which is contrary to the statement above indicating that everyone unthinkingly puts the same type stuff in a box labeled art when they pack to move.

[Belinda]

It's a metaphorical box . This means that we each pack ideas away according to our separate ways of categorising ideas.

'Art' is one category meaning slightly different things to different people. 'Wall hangings' is another category which means different things to different people.