What exactly do you consider "Art"?

This is everything that exceeds the usual capabilities of a person of mediocre abilities.
 
Some years ago, on CHRISTMAS DAY, a wacko shot a puppy live on tv...claimed it was art.

Others use human excrement to "paint" on canvas or themselves and call it art.

Another dude puts buttloads of umbrellas all along a hillside and calls it art.

Telling a woman her baby is beautiful when its butt ugly is considered truthful art.
 
It is like writing a novel that is intended to offend Christians and make them irate.
It is still a novel

Same as that offensive art



I disagree. A novel has a beginning, a middle, and an end. There is creation from nothing.

Piss jeezus was an assemblege of pre existing things.

No creation at all.
 
Here is a really good example of something offensive. Someone used a pen, like an artist, to draw this up sign. They created it with ink using their own imagination, but is it art? I cant call THAT art.

die-hard-3.jpg



Agreed. There is no creativity. I consider creativity to be an essential component of art.
 
Depends on what you mean by "art".

Art is like science.......there are all types of science.
Science is also a general term for anything involving math, chemicals, astonomy, etc...


If you want the general term definition, then art is everything, as everything is art.
The creation of something new from different or opposing resources is art.
Science is art, and art is science.

And anybody can call anything "art", because it is....according to the general definition of it.
This is why they say "art is objective" or "art is in the eye of the beholder".

If you are talking about the kind of art you do in art class in school, or find at a gallery or museum, then art is still subjective to each individual.

The literal definition of "art" should that is cannot be defined, because it's one of those subjective things that is different to everybody.

1660500754177.png
 
Art is just symbolic or colorful expression of what's inside. To acknowledge it creatively doesn't mean you have to like what the the artist is actually expressing. There are many bands who, as a musician myself, I have to give a nod because they have good or excellent musicianship and know how to play well. But sometimes I just don't like the mood, feelings or ideas expressed. Take Chicago for example (band). What they do they do well. They are better musicians than me. But in my own repertoire I probably wouldn't cover them much even though I could. It's just that I'm not crazy about their songs. They're ok. I don't run to shut them off. I can appreciate them to a degree. But they are just not go-to music for me.

Then you get people like Neil Young who have a whiny voice and crude guitar skills....and yet I feel that the creativity and soul of the man is amazing. In fact, Neil Young is supposedly THE most covered song writer of all time, at least of the 20th Century. Because his music is simple and from the heart and inspired, another musician or band which covers him can embellish it however they want. They can make it Heavy Metal, Jazz, Disco, Country.....whatever they want.
 
Now this is art:

1660501916152.png


Notice how the background is blurred to focus attention on the subject. And of course the terrific use of ambient light.
 
I disagree. A novel has a beginning, a middle, and an end. There is creation from nothing.

Piss jeezus was an assemblege of pre existing things.

No creation at all.

No way...no. No novelist creates "something from nothing"...no artist of any medium does. None of us are God. Novelists use words first, then character, setting and all kinds of plot devices that are very standard. You cited it in simple terms and there's nothing wrong with that.

Just because the novelist uses means that are intangible doesn't mean he "creates from nothing".
 
Art is just symbolic or colorful expression of what's inside. To acknowledge it creatively doesn't mean you have to like what the the artist is actually expressing. There are many bands who, as a musician myself, I have to give a nod because they have good or excellent musicianship and know how to play well. But sometimes I just don't like the mood, feelings or ideas expressed. Take Chicago for example (band). What they do they do well. They are better musicians than me. But in my own repertoire I probably wouldn't cover them much even though I could. It's just that I'm not crazy about their songs. They're ok. I don't run to shut them off. I can appreciate them to a degree. But they are just not go-to music for me.

Then you get people like Neil Young who have a whiny voice and crude guitar skills....and yet I feel that the creativity and soul of the man is amazing. In fact, Neil Young is supposedly THE most covered song writer of all time, at least of the 20th Century. Because his music is simple and from the heart and inspired, another musician or band which covers him can embellish it however they want. They can make it Heavy Metal, Jazz, Disco, Country.....whatever they want.

All of this...same. 100%

Harvest Moon. I'm from MI so we have real falls here. It's such a simple song, but when it plays...it's late October, and you just want to "feel the night".

I can't stand the dude's politics but who cares when Harvest Moon plays?
 
No way...no. No novelist creates "something from nothing"...no artist of any medium does. None of us are God. Novelists use words first, then character, setting and all kinds of plot devices that are very standard. You cited it in simple terms and there's nothing wrong with that.

Just because the novelist uses means that are intangible doesn't mean he "creates from nothing".



If I write a fantasy novel I am creating it from my imagination.
 
I cant properly define it, but i know it when i see it.

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.
 
If I write a fantasy novel I am creating it from my imagination.

Not possible at the novel level. You are relying on advanced language for that, already having:

Letters
Words
Sentence structure, grammar
Paragraphs

And you might think you are creating an innovative world--it might even be true--but you are not original in:

character
plot
story arc

And there is nothing wrong with that. Our brains LOVE familiar patterns with some deviations.
 
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.

This is good, but not complete. Art does interpret, but it does not always have to be "unique, original". Many of the posts here show paintings that are standard for the time period--and the posters show them as exemplary. They're not wrong. Neither is the artist who is creating the unique and original.

The artist is creator. The best advocate/mentor of the creator is the ultimate Creator. With God many things can be true all at once. For example. Adventure is exciting, and the known is comfortable. Both are true. And on, and on, and on. And on.
 
Not possible at the novel level. You are relying on advanced language for that, already having:

Letters
Words
Sentence structure, grammar
Paragraphs

And you might think you are creating an innovative world--it might even be true--but you are not original in:

character
plot
story arc

And there is nothing wrong with that. Our brains LOVE familiar patterns with some deviations.



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.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top