What exactly do you consider "Art"?

[SweetSue92]

How can you not be original in character, story arc and plot?

I grant you that the vast majority of stories follow a pattern, because they are popular, but that doesn't preclude innovation.

Well you already conceded it--the "vast majority" of stories follow a pattern; the originality is either sprinkled in or it's an outlier, and in that case most people won't like it. There is nothing wrong with that, btw. Our brains are very ordered. We like basic routine with some "difference" sprinkled in.

 

[westwall]

Well you already conceded it--the "vast majority" of stories follow a pattern; the originality is either sprinkled in or it's an outlier, and in that case most people won't like it. There is nothing wrong with that, btw. Our brains are very ordered. We like basic routine with some "difference" sprinkled in.

Yes, the VAST MAJORITY. That doesn't equal ALL.

Now does it.

 

[SweetSue92]

Yes, the VAST MAJORITY. That doesn't equal ALL.

Now does it.

Well no but I think you started out saying the novelist was inventing something from nothing. Which is absolutely not true. There is a structure to a novel which, while not tangible, is almost universal. A writer can break it but readers will almost always hate it.

I mean you could write a novel about some guy sitting in a room with a fly buzzing around his ears. Right? You can call that "original" and you might even put it on self-publish and call yourself a novelist. But without character development, plot, setting and etc, probably very few people will buy it.

 

[westwall]

Well no but I think you started out saying the novelist was inventing something from nothing. Which is absolutely not true. There is a structure to a novel which, while not tangible, is almost universal. A writer can break it but readers will almost always hate it.

I mean you could write a novel about some guy sitting in a room with a fly buzzing around his ears. Right? You can call that "original" and you might even put it on self-publish and call yourself a novelist. But without character development, plot, setting and etc, probably very few people will buy it.

That may all be true, but ultimately the novelist CAN write a completely original piece.

It is merely difficult to do.

Good art is usually hard.

 

[SweetSue92]

That may all be true, but ultimately the novelist CAN write a completely original piece.

It is merely difficult to do.

Good art is usually hard.

Yes. But in this thread, the "completely original" is being pointed at as being pretty bad, "not art". In the visual arts, what people like are "pictures". In novels I think this would translate to recognizable story patterns with recognizable character arcs and plot structure. I think the term "novel" itself implies something of that, as opposed to essay, non-fiction, poetry, etc.

I'm not trying to argue, btw. One of the arts is my day job (sort of) and another is a strong hobby so I love this topic.

 

[Godboy]

I can. Art is beauty, it is imagination, it is creativity and interpretiveness. It connects the passion of the artist's mind to the imagination of the viewer in creatively interpreting the world around us in a unique, original way that fundamental speaks to the heart saying more to the mind than any words can.

Any art that is ugly automatically makes your definition not work.

 

[Blues Man]

That means you don't like it. But that's not how art works.

I don't know the official definition of art, but would guess something close to "a creation not meant for function, but for beauty or to make a statement".

Does not say, "everyone must like it".

On the contrary I have a deep respect for real art. Not the crap that passes for it in most cases.

People today say I am an artist so what I do is art. I do not think that is true

 

[Blues Man]

Blues Man does not get to determine the sole definition of art.

That you do not care for it does not mean it's not art.

If you bothered to read the title you would know I am not telling anyone else what art is.

 

[BothWings]

To me, a good piece of music is art.

God bless you always!!!

Holly (a girl who will forever love the late beautiful precious masterpiece of a gentleman)

I remember that dude

 

[martybegan]

The Art world is a satire of itself

There are no standards of what makes quality art. It seems to be more about how the artist sells himself more than the quality of his work

It all comes down to beauty is in the eye of the beholder

I have to agree for once with rightwinger. I have my views on art, and they are relatively conservative (except metal-work, I am a fan of weird metal fabrications).

But I do not begrudge anyone who can get people to pay them for their work, even if it's a video of them shoving a half eaten bag of Doritos up their ass while singing songs from the Musical Oklahoma while dressed as Mother Theresa.

 

[martybegan]

I have to agree for once with rightwinger. I have my views on art, and they are relatively conservative (except metal-work, I am a fan of weird metal fabrications).

But I do not begrudge anyone who can get people to pay them for their work, even if it's a video of them shoving a half eaten bag of Doritos up their ass while singing songs from the Musical Oklahoma while dressed as Mother Theresa.

Also, if someone uses this idea as "inspiration" I expect a 10% cut.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I remember that dude

I miss him so much.

God bless you always!!!

Holly (a girl who will forever love him)

 

[toobfreak]

Any art that is ugly automatically makes your definition not work.

I've never seen ugly art. The very definition of "artful" is aesthetically pleasing and balanced, so if something is genuinely ugly/revolting, then it probably shouldn't be considered "art."

 

[LuckyDuck]

Classical paintings and classical sculptures.