Conquer Club

I think this is an interesting question. What do you guys think?

any visual means of expressing emotions

Not having abortions over a period of 9 months!

I wouldn't confine art to just 'visual'.

I'd say... Art = "Whatever moves you." --- Whatever that means.


--Andy

InkL0sed wrote:I think this is an interesting question. What do you guys think?

Art is dead, dude *drags on spliff*

icedagger wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:I think this is an interesting question. What do you guys think?

Art is dead, dude *drags on spliff*

No... God is dead. Stupid head.

So, back on topic; another question to consider: is it art just because the artist/creator says it is? Think Damien Hirsch or post-modernists (you know, the kind who claim an empty canvas is a painting) as prime examples.

i'd like to think that the novel, or the screenplay could be considered art.

perhaps political writing, or even writing autobiographies for people who aren't you could one day be considered art too... i mean fucking a, what's the difference between writing a first person narrative novel and ghostwriting an autobiography?

fucking nothing, that's what.

I consider art to be anything original (or however much original is possible in this world). Now there is a difference between simply "art" and "bankable art"/"marketable art".

As for the blank canvases, it might be possible to get real art out of that idea but you would have to build on it and actually do and say something other than a little rebellious statement. And just because rich folk like it doesn't make it art.

However you express yourself. Whether it be painting, writing music, writing books, making movies or tv shows, radio stuff, all of that.

jnd94 wrote:However you express yourself. Whether it be painting, writing music, writing books, making movies or tv shows, radio stuff, all of that.

So if you taped yourself standing on a street yelling at traffic for 10 minutes, that would be art? You would be expressing yourself.

InkL0sed wrote:

jnd94 wrote:However you express yourself. Whether it be painting, writing music, writing books, making movies or tv shows, radio stuff, all of that.

So if you taped yourself standing on a street yelling at traffic for 10 minutes, that would be art? You would be expressing yourself.

Photography can be less original...

Which is why I don't think art is always about expressing yourself. Sometimes it can be about expressing your observations. For example a professional photographer might see a statue but he doesn't just snap a shot and skip along he pauses and thinks about where he wants to place it in the photo, what angle, how close up. He's expressing something else how he sees it.

Art is anything created that tries to convey meaning by appealing to the emotions and intellect of people.

...beat THAT.

EDIT: let me explain why this definition dominates everything:
In the "videotape of yelling at traffic" example above, if you're really trying to convey some sort of message by that (about the hopelessness of some people on their soapboxes, maybe?), then it's art. If you're just doing it because you think it's badass, then it's not. If you write a bunch of stuff you think sounds incomprehensible enough to seem like deep poetry, then you're not trying to convey any meaning via emotion or intellect, so your not doing art. If you're actually trying to communicate a feeling or idea, then it's art, even if it's just as incomprehensible. In fact, you could even try convey a message about feux-"deep" poetry, by writing random metaphor-sounding randomness... as long as that's your real intent.

static_ice wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

jnd94 wrote:However you express yourself. Whether it be painting, writing music, writing books, making movies or tv shows, radio stuff, all of that.

So if you taped yourself standing on a street yelling at traffic for 10 minutes, that would be art? You would be expressing yourself.

Photography can be less original...

Which is why I don't think art is always about expressing yourself. Sometimes it can be about expressing your observations. For example a professional photographer might see a statue but he doesn't just snap a shot and skip along he pauses and thinks about where he wants to place it in the photo, what angle, how close up. He's expressing something else how he sees it.

Interesting... I think I may have found a definition I agree with

Art is a means of expression for the senses that requires skill on the part of the artist and provokes both thought and/or an emotional response in the people experiencing the artistic works.

EDIT: That means, of course, that what is considered art varies from person to person. It's all a matter of perspective and what you choose to call it. While you may not consider a video tape of a drunk hobo yelling at traffic for ten minutes, why can't somebody else? Dadaism is considered an art form, but I certainly would not give it that title.

Expressing an emotion to one or more of the senses of an audience.

I agree with two of the above (Dito and Holo). From my art classes, the "best" definitions of art usually revolve around "purposely trying to evoke a specific emotion or response from an audience."

hecter wrote:Art is a means of expression for the senses that requires skill on the part of the artist and provokes both thought and/or an emotional response in the people experiencing the artistic works.

EDIT: That means, of course, that what is considered art varies from person to person. It's all a matter of perspective and what you choose to call it. While you may not consider a video tape of a drunk hobo yelling at traffic for ten minutes, why can't somebody else? Dadaism is considered an art form, but I certainly would not give it that title.

I read recently of a South American 'artist' who tied a starving dog up in one of his exhibitions - he also surrounded it with his collages made from dog food.
'Thought provoking and extremely emotional' it may have been, but art, definitely not.
Amazingly enough, he wasn't prosecuted and continues to exhibit despite violent protests.

mandyb wrote:

hecter wrote:Art is a means of expression for the senses that requires skill on the part of the artist and provokes both thought and/or an emotional response in the people experiencing the artistic works.

EDIT: That means, of course, that what is considered art varies from person to person. It's all a matter of perspective and what you choose to call it. While you may not consider a video tape of a drunk hobo yelling at traffic for ten minutes, why can't somebody else? Dadaism is considered an art form, but I certainly would not give it that title.

I read recently of a South American 'artist' who tied a starving dog up in one of his exhibitions - he also surrounded it with his collages made from dog food.
'Thought provoking and extremely emotional' it may have been, but art, definitely not.
Amazingly enough, he wasn't prosecuted and continues to exhibit despite violent protests.

i was going to create another one of my self-defeating scenarios regarding thought provocation and emotional responses with art, but i suppose that does the trick lol

I'll take a different angle from the rest of you, you've all been talking about expressing oneself and emotions and so forth. But it's really a lot simpler than that, art is what we consider to be art.

A possible point of criticism is that the same thing might be considered as art by one person and as not-art by an other. But I don't see that as a problem really. In fact it rather nicely corrseponds with what we can observe. Some people said that inducing miscariagges over a period of time and presenting the results to the public is art, others said it isn't. The same was true when the exhibition with that dog came up, some said it was art, others said it wasn't.

To conclude, art, like most things in society, is a human construct and can only be satisfactorily defined from the angle of human perception.

MeDeFe wrote:I'll take a different angle from the rest of you, you've all been talking about expressing oneself and emotions and so forth. But it's really a lot simpler than that, art is what we consider to be art.

A possible point of criticism is that the same thing might be considered as art by one person and as not-art by an other. But I don't see that as a problem really. In fact it rather nicely corrseponds with what we can observe. Some people said that inducing miscariagges over a period of time and presenting the results to the public is art, others said it isn't. The same was true when the exhibition with that dog came up, some said it was art, others said it wasn't.

To conclude, art, like most things in society, is a human construct and can only be satisfactorily defined from the angle of human perception.

Could it really not be defined by the intentions of the producer? That doesn't make it any less subjective, or easier to really define, but I think it's still rather concrete, as far as abstract definitions go.

*yawn*

btownmeggy wrote:*yawn*

Smart-ass comments are not appreciated by the Conquer Club social community. Such expressions will surely mark you as a spot within our otherwise cohesive family.

Neoteny wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I'll take a different angle from the rest of you, you've all been talking about expressing oneself and emotions and so forth. But it's really a lot simpler than that, art is what we consider to be art.

A possible point of criticism is that the same thing might be considered as art by one person and as not-art by an other. But I don't see that as a problem really. In fact it rather nicely corrseponds with what we can observe. Some people said that inducing miscariagges over a period of time and presenting the results to the public is art, others said it isn't. The same was true when the exhibition with that dog came up, some said it was art, others said it wasn't.

To conclude, art, like most things in society, is a human construct and can only be satisfactorily defined from the angle of human perception.

Could it really not be defined by the intentions of the producer? That doesn't make it any less subjective, or easier to really define, but I think it's still rather concrete, as far as abstract definitions go.

However, that doesn't account for some people considering something as art while others do not. Also it is hypothetically possible that an object not originally regarded as art can become art, whether purposely by being placed in a new context, or by chance if it is regarded from a different perspective than otherwise. I'm very sceptical about defining art from intention of the artist, especially seeing how the artist is already aware of our conventions about art and is reacting to them.

MeDeFe wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I'll take a different angle from the rest of you, you've all been talking about expressing oneself and emotions and so forth. But it's really a lot simpler than that, art is what we consider to be art.

A possible point of criticism is that the same thing might be considered as art by one person and as not-art by an other. But I don't see that as a problem really. In fact it rather nicely corrseponds with what we can observe. Some people said that inducing miscariagges over a period of time and presenting the results to the public is art, others said it isn't. The same was true when the exhibition with that dog came up, some said it was art, others said it wasn't.

To conclude, art, like most things in society, is a human construct and can only be satisfactorily defined from the angle of human perception.

Could it really not be defined by the intentions of the producer? That doesn't make it any less subjective, or easier to really define, but I think it's still rather concrete, as far as abstract definitions go.

However, that doesn't account for some people considering something as art while others do not. Also it is hypothetically possible that an object not originally regarded as art can become art, whether purposely by being placed in a new context, or by chance if it is regarded from a different perspective than otherwise. I'm very sceptical about defining art from intention of the artist, especially seeing how the artist is already aware of our conventions about art and is reacting to them.

Some are and some aren't. I don't know what you mean by objects not regarded as art accidentally becoming art. An avalanche itself isn't art (unless created for that purpose). If an avalanche was documented and presented as such, then I would consider the presentation art. Am I misunderstanding you?