NationStates Jolt Archive

I am taking AP art history. The book I am using is Gardenr's Art Through the Ages, 11th edition. My book is quite biased in how it defines art. The book explains that there are different realms of art, which includes the "outside" realm and the "inside" realm. The "inside" consists of pictorial arts, architecture, design art, and sculpture. The "outside" realm consists of performing arts and multimedia. I am wondering how others define art since there is not a standard definition of art. The dicitionary defines it as 'abstract images in the natural environment'. So how do you define art? How do you justify performing arts as art? Please, state the eudcation or work you have done in art as well.

My definition:
a man-made medium which not only communicates ideas but is defined by presentation rather than recognition of an image

I am taking AP art history. The book I am using is Gardenr's Art Through the Ages, 11th edition. My book is quite biased in how it defines art. The book explains that there are different realms of art, which includes the "outside" realm and the "inside" realm. The "inside" consists of pictorial arts, architecture, design art, and sculpture. The "outside" realm consists of performing arts and multimedia. I am wondering how others define art since there is not a standard definition of art. The dicitionary defines it as 'abstract images in the natural environment'. So how do you define art? How do you justify performing arts as art? Please, state the eudcation or work you have done in art as well.

My definition:
a man-made medium which not only communicates ideas but is defined by presentation rather than recognition of an image

Nice def, Oksy. I think in general that these days, art has a way to loose definition. One of my friends went to a modern art museum and he thought the funniest piece was one that was just comprised of a bunch of regular lawn chairs arranged in a random order. That kinda crap needs to stop being heralded as great art.

I have a very shallow definition of art. Essentially, anything that I find aesthetically pleasing, I can class as art. Messages tend to get lost to me because I can't interpret pictures or drawings, I'm a very sound-based thinker, so any complex visual message is lost on me. That said, I really like the Angel of the North... that rules. It's not particularly complex, but it's very striking and pleasing to me. I still don't get any deep meaning from it though. I just think it looks cool.

As for education in art, absolutely none.

I have a very shallow definition of art. Essentially, anything that I find aesthetically pleasing, I can class as art. Messages tend to get lost to me because I can't interpret pictures or drawings, I'm a very sound-based thinker, so any complex visual message is lost on me. That said, I really like the Angel of the North... that rules. It's not particularly complex, but it's very striking and pleasing to me. I still don't get any deep meaning from it though. I just think it looks cool.

As for education in art, absolutely none.

education in art is fine IMO, but no more of that Gov't endorsed/required crap.

Originally posted by Der Lieben
Nice def, Oksy. I think in general that these days, art has a way to loose definition. One of my friends went to a modern art museum and he thought the funniest piece was one that was just comprised of a bunch of regular lawn chairs arranged in a random order. That kinda crap needs to stop being heralded as great art.

I agree with you about the long chairs! I really think that art should be beautiful. I realize that beauty is an opinion but I think most people will agree that Monet's paintings of lilypads are beautiful. Who is your favorite artist? By the way, I TGed you. :)

Originally posted by Jordaxia
I have a very shallow definition of art. Essentially, anything that I find aesthetically pleasing, I can class as art. Messages tend to get lost to me because I can't interpret pictures or drawings, I'm a very sound-based thinker, so any complex visual message is lost on me. That said, I really like the Angel of the North... that rules. It's not particularly complex, but it's very striking and pleasing to me. I still don't get any deep meaning from it though. I just think it looks cool.

As for education in art, absolutely none.

There is another good point. Aesthetics is and should be an imortant characteristics in defining and classifying objects as art. You are a very good artist, Jordaxia.

Who is your favorite artist?

Renoir.

As to the original question ... you've pretty much got my idea of art down. While I do think things like randomly arranged lawn chairs can be aesthetically pleasing, I certainly don't consider it art if a human has purposely set out to arrange the chairs randomly in the pursuit of his idea of art. Accidental arrangements of things tend to amuse me, or seem almost like art to me.

I agree with you about the long chairs! I really think that art should be beautiful. I realize that beauty is an opinion but I think most people will agree that Monet's paintings of lilypads are beautiful. Who is your favorite artist? By the way, I TGed you. :)

Don't know, perhaps Andy Warhol, or Salvador Dali. I'm not in to much art, but I like what I've seen by them. Oh and you're TG'ed back. :fluffle:

If we agree art should not be regulated, we must put up with crap like the chair arrangement lol.
The definition of art must be like defining life, you can always find examples that dontfit the description, art is IMO a way of conveying feelings, that you cant xpress in "simple" terms.
I like for instance fantasy art like Boris Vallejo or Giger, but i can see the beauty in the classics too like Monet, Picasso, Rembrandt.
Here in denmark we had an artist (Marco Evaristtis) who displayed live goldfish in blenders, and made it possible for the public the turn the blenders on if hey wanted to. Is that art?? please give me your opinion.
:headbang:

Originally posted by Amyst
Renoir.

Uhh! I love Renoir, too. His paintings are soo beautiful, and captured the lives of the French so well. My mom's side of the family is very French. Sometime I wonder if my ancestors looked like the people in the paintings or if they did the same things.

Originally posted by Der Lieben
Oh and you're TG'ed back

I know. I just read it. Hugs to you, too. I think I'll just call you Bryan or Der Lieben because HorMaN's kind of stupid.

If we agree art should not be regulated, we must put up with crap like the chair arrangement lol.
The definition of art must be like defining life, you can always find examples that dontfit the description, art is IMO a way of conveying feelings, that you cant xpress in "simple" terms.
I like for instance fantasy art like Boris Vallejo or Giger, but i can see the beauty in the classics too like Monet Picasso Rembrandt.
Here in denmark we had an artist (Marco Evaristtis) who displayed live goldfish in blenders, and made it possible for the public the turn the blenders on if hey wanted to. Is that art?? please give me your opinion.
:headbang:

I forgot to say, Monet is the siznit, as well.

Originally posted by Virutania
If we agree art should not be regulated, we must put up with crap like the chair arrangement lol.
The definition of art must be like defining life, you can always find examples that dontfit the description, art is IMO a way of conveying feelings, that you cant xpress in "simple" terms.
I like for instance fantasy art like Boris Vallejo or Giger, but i can see the beauty in the classics too like Monet Picasso Rembrandt.
Here in denmark we had an artist (Marco Evaristtis) who displayed live goldfish in blenders, and made it possible for the public the turn the blenders on if hey wanted to. Is that art?? please give me your opinion.

Umm... I would have to say no about the goldfish because I'm against blending goldfish. If the lawn chairs do convey an idea or feeling, then yes it would be art. But once again there does need to be representation in art, not just recognition.

Art is anything. It does not have to be through a canvas in which it must be perceived... it can be on anything, by anything.
I think even emptyness is art.

I have a question for everyone. Would you consider models to be a medium, and modeling an art?

Not really, sense the body is something thats given to you? Possibly modeling could be an art, but I wouldn't consider the body a medium.

Not really, sense the body is something thats given to you? Possibly modeling could be an art, but I wouldn't consider the body a medium.

I think differently. I think the body can be the greatest medum for art.

I disagree with most of you. Art does not have to be beautiful. I think artist is the one who decides wether his/hers work is art or not. Other people then decide if it's worth anything.

I don't have any favourite artist but I prefer Rothko to Repin and Malevitch to Manet.

I think if it's done correctly, why not? We consider painted portraits an art, so why not people themselves? I think there's a difference to just calling the body itself art, it has an elegance, but it's not an art. It needs to have a twist on it, a variance, something original that draws your attention to it. Modelling as well can be an art, I don't see why it shouldn't be. I don't see why we should reject things simply because they're unorthodox. As I said the first time, as long as it's aesthetically pleasing, it can be considered artistic, and art, to me.

Originally posted by Der Lieben
Not really, sense the body is something thats given to you? Possibly modeling could be an art, but I wouldn't consider the body a medium.

I would have to say it is. The model is a medium when they are wearing clothes. They are trying to convey the feeling and ideas a designer has conveyed in the clothing. The model is communicating the ideas to the audience through walking on the runway with the clothing on. That is why many designers refuse to have overweight models or allow their models to smile because they are simply there to show the audience how the clothing moves, how it shoud be worn, the attitude the clothing percieves to others, etc.

I think differently. I think the body can be the greatest medum for art.
I don't believe in this case, that the body is the medium. More the talent creativeness of the individual. Like with acting. I would definitely call talent or intellect the medium there.

I agree with Helioterra, which is why I said art can be anything, done by anything.

I would have to say it is. The model is a medium when they are wearing clothes. They are trying to convey the feeling and ideas a designer has conveyed in the clothing. The model is communicating the ideas to the audience through walking on the runway with the clothing on. That is why many designers refuse to have overweight models or allow their models to smile because they are simply there to show the audience how the clothing moves, how it shoud be worn, the attitude the clothing percieves to others, etc.

Its not really the body thats expressive but more what the body is doing thats expressive. I'm just don't think I can call a body a medium, since its something thats given.

Personally, I agree with Scott McCloud when he says that art is a branch of human behavior. In short, he explains that "art" is anything done outside of our evolutionary mandate: to survive and to mate.

I hate that damn Gardiner book. They should ditch it, but they've all been teaching it so long they don't understand how bad it is.

Art is the evocation of an emotional state from one person to another person purely for the emotion involved.

This includes music, this includes ballet, this includes gold cloth archways over walkways, this includes poetry, this includes a urinal hung in an art show...

This doesn't include inciting people to riot (note the goal there is the social motivation), this doesn't include scientific papers (whose goal is to define a problem, or language, etc.).

When people start to bother to include the medium in the discussion of art, the entire subject goes south. That's because MEDIUM IS NOT THE MESSAGE (all due deference to M.M.)

The message of art is: how can I take something that is rather difficult to express from inside my head and give it to you inside your head?

Literature can be art, but need not be art. Similarly a building can either evoke an emotional response or not; so can a song; so can a painting.

Bad paintings are not art. They're just bad paintings.

Take a diagram of a circuit board, for instance. In its pure form, it is, after all, primarily an information communication device (what are the circuits like in this board) - not a device for communicating an emotional state. Yet pen and ink could be designed to communicate an emotional response. Medium is not the message.

Obviously by my definition we can immediately devolve into solipsism - but you need not do so. There can be common agreement that something evokes an emotional response - just ask a lot of people if they get one or not.

Then we can get into the discussion of whether aesthetically pleasing things that are naturally occurring are art if they evoke emotional responses (sunsets, flowers, dead puppies, whatever), and again, if a person didn't arrange that, we're not in the realm of art: we're in the realm of aesthetics which is a superset including the realm of art.

Medium is not the message - Art is: emotion from one person evoking emotion in another person with no other purpose but the emotional stimulation.

I don't believe in this case, that the body is the medium. More the talent creativeness of the individual. Like with acting. I would definitely call talent or intellect the medium there.

The artist's talent and creativity can still be considered even if a person is used as the medium. There are many places around the world this art is practiced.

Originally posted by Der Lieben
Its not really the body thats expressive but more what the body is doing thats expressive. I'm just don't think I can call a body a medium, since its something thats given.

I agree with you that for the most part, the human body isn't a medium. When it comes to modeling, I think it is. Most designers have an idea has to how clothing should be worn, that is why the show it on models. Otherwise, they would just put it on racks and sell them.

I agree with you that for the most part, the human body isn't a medium. When it comes to modeling, I think it is. Most designers have an idea has to how clothing should be worn, that is hwy the show it on models. Otherwise, they would just put it on racks and sell them.

I might more see the body as a medium if it was taken from the perspective of the photographer being the artist.

There are some points I agree and disagree with Crassius. One being "bad paintings are not art". I'm very open minded about many things and I just don't think because someone who knows art more thinks a certain painting is "bad" doesn't mean it IS bad if the artists perceives it as good... or anyone else for that matter.

Originally posted by Der Lieben
I might more see the body as a medium if it was taken from the perspective of the photographer being the artist.


So you don't consider designers to be artists.

There are some points I agree and disagree with Crassius. One being "bad paintings are not art". I'm very open minded about many things and I just don't think because someone who knows art more thinks a certain painting is "bad" doesn't mean it IS bad if the artists perceives it as good... or anyone else for that matter.

I think art must employ the use of talent always. To much just slop together nothingness is being accepted as art.

So you don't consider designers to be artists.

Clothing designers?

Najitene, you missed my point.

If the artist and the viewer both communicate the emotional response the artist was intending to convey then you know art has happened.

Screw art critics and art history professionals - they are not the boss of me.

If I get a response and the artist was intending me to do so and we're remotely on the same wavelength then art has happened.

It is when I get a wholly different response than the artist intended on conveying that we are in the realm of "bad art". Note that doesn't mean that an art critic had to put his crappy ass opinion on it - just me.

Take for instance "The Passion of the Christ". Bad art for me. Good art for other people. Bad art for me.

You've got to keep the subjective element in the definition or else you lose an important aspect of the discussion about "what is art?".

And anyone who doesn't think an interior designer or a hair stylist can be an artist needs to get off their high horse and take a look at the world.

Originally posted by Der Lieben
Clothing designers?

Yes.

Very well put, Crassius.

And let me just say for the record I don't mean artwork has to have beauty in the visual sense. Beauty can be emotional, like Crassius is getting at. It can also be intellectual or sensual.

An item, the existance of which causes an emotional reaction and has no function other than this. So crap art is still art, it caused a reaction.

And anyone who doesn't think an interior designer or a hair stylist can be an artist needs to get off their high horse and take a look at the world.

Finally. I'd like to see the opposing view on this.

An item, the existance of which causes an emotional reaction and has no function other than this. So crap art is still art, it caused a reaction.

First lose the idea of "an item".

Saying poetry is not art is stupid. Saying the page the poetry is on is the item so it can qualify for your item is stupid.

Second, bad art is not art. By definition, bad art failed to do what it set out to do. Bad art is anti-art.

Pissing in a glass and sticking a crucifix in it is not art to me - I don't give a rat's ass about a crucifix in a glass of piss. To other people the purpose of that message was art: the artist intended to evoke revulsion and the person viewing it was revolted.

Note - that isn't bad art - that's offensive art.

However, if I stick four toothpicks in an orange and offer it up for display and say: "this is my art" and you look at it and go "that's merely stupid" then we didn't just communicate any emotional state. This was bad art and shouldn't be classified as "art" as such. No emotion was communicated from artist to viewer.

Art = Artist (emotional state) -> Viewer (emotional state)

You can't ditch the implies. It's part of the idea of "what is art?" You can't ditch the Artist's intentionality or the Viewer's reception. They've got to be analogous.

First lose the idea of "an item".

Saying poetry is not art is stupid. Saying the page the poetry is on is the item so it can qualify for your item is stupid.

Second, bad art is not art. By definition, bad art failed to do what it set out to do. Bad art is anti-art.

Pissing in a glass and sticking a crucifix in it is not art to me - I don't give a rat's ass about a crucific in a glass of piss. To other people the purpose of that message was art: the artist intended to evoke revulsion and the person viewing it was revolted.

Note - that isn't bad art - that's offensive art.

However, if I stick four toothpicks in an orange and offer it up for display and say: "this is my art" and you look at it and go "that's merely stupid" then we didn't just communicate any emotional state. This was bad art and shouldn't be classified as "art" as such. No emotion was communicated from artist to viewer.

Art = Artist (emotional state) -> Viewer (emotional state)

You can't ditch the implies. It's part of the idea of "what is art?"

So basicly your definition of art is open but strict.

First lose the idea of "an item".

Saying poetry is not art is stupid. Saying the page the poetry is on is the item so it can qualify for your item is stupid.

Second, bad art is not art. By definition, bad art failed to do what it set out to do. Bad art is anti-art.

Pissing in a glass and sticking a crucifix in it is not art to me - I don't give a rat's ass about a crucific in a glass of piss. To other people the purpose of that message was art: the artist intended to evoke revulsion and the person viewing it was revolted.

Note - that isn't bad art - that's offensive art.

However, if I stick four toothpicks in an orange and offer it up for display and say: "this is my art" and you look at it and go "that's merely stupid" then we didn't just communicate any emotional state. This was bad art and shouldn't be classified as "art" as such. No emotion was communicated from artist to viewer.

Art = Artist (emotional state) -> Viewer (emotional state)

You can't ditch the implies. It's part of the idea of "what is art?"
So representative pictures are not art?

Ok. With the introduction of Crassius, I'm seeing there is a split in "art" and art. "Art" (as explained by Crassius) is having a successful presentation in which emotions are played with from the artist to the viewer.
Art, however (as seen by the others), is the simpler version of the combination of painting, tallent, creativity, etc.

I think slightly off. I combined them almost. But then again, I'm very busy here in class.

Originally posted by NianNorth
An item, the existance of which causes an emotional reaction and has no function other than this. So crap art is still art, it caused a reaction.

I would have to disagree. I don't think that a reaction is enough. I think what Crassius is getting at is an artist wants to convey a feeling or idea to the audience. When the audience understands the idea/feeling an emotional connection occurs. That emotional connection is what makes it art, not the sole idea that there was emotion.

So representative pictures are not art?

If you mean portraiture or photorealism landscapes and such, then it depends upon the piece.

"What is Art?" starts from an intensely personal space. If the subject of the piece presents me with an image the artist chose for specific function and I get that function and the artist successfully communicated emotion with that function then art has happened.

So, for instance, if you paint a picture of a sunset (or take one with a camera) and I get the depth of beauty, or expanse of the picture, or whatever the artist was after and it gets to me - then grand we've got no issues and art is happening.

If you paint your mother, and it is perfect in every detail, then you communicated something to me about your relationship and your mother - still we've got art.

If you paint a picture of a bottle of aspirin to put in an ad to sell aspirin then and its purpose was purely informational and not emotional then you didn't just engage in art. The purpose of your excercise was informational, and I got information out of it - not an emotional response. You may well have been a perfect painter, and painted the aspirin bottle perfectly, and it may be well executed. In fact, you may be hideously successful in your line of work painting aspirin bottles for use in advertising, but the excercise is not "art", it is representation for informational purposes.

Note: this doesn't mean that advertising is not art - I was merely using the utility of advertising for the example. Good advertising is both informative and artistic.

It is a mistake to confuse the skill of a painter with the idea that they are engaging in art. My wife paints skeletons for an anthropologist, for instance, for use as an illustration in a book. On purpose she makes sure to put not a brushstroke on the painting that doesn't belong there to get the realistic feel of the bone. If she engaged in "art" she would hurt the scientific objectivity of the piece.

She is exceedingly skillful. She has painted many things which are "art". Those bones in the anthropology book are not "art"; they are paintings; they are skillful; they are not "art".

Originally posted by NianNorth
So representative pictures are not art?

Being representatvie is relative to art. All art and media represents something. However, art is not informational is communicative, but not informational. Media is informational, art is communicative.

Being representatvie is relative to art. All art and media represents something. However, art is not informational is communicative, but not informational. Media is informational, art is communicative.

Aye, good summary.

I wanted to communicate one other thing about representation, medium, information, communities, emotion and how they relate to art.

It is quite possible for me to get a different emotional response from a piece than the artist intended, and to get a different one than other people receive, and that other people receive the emotional response the artist intended and I didn't.

In this instance we have "art" because there are viewers receiving an emotional response from an artist and there is communication happening.

This is bad art for me - however, this is still "art".

One has to recognize that one is not the center of the world. This is why I despise the Gardiner book so much.

The premise with Gardiner texts and others like it is that these people (art historians) are in a better position to judge what will be emotional communication for people.

For instance you will likely never see a Nagel in an art history book. For most art history professionals this painter is a hack - low skill and not communicating an emotional state.

Yet, I can't tell you the number of dorm rooms I walked into and saw a Nagel on the wall. I personally despise the artist, but I still recognize that for other people "art" was happening.

So it is a mistake to either assign "authorities" on the subject of art because it is intensely personal, or to assign "bad art" to something which you understand others may find pleasing but you do not.

Passion of the Christ and Nagel paintings are "art". I personally despise them, but that doesn't mean I yank their definition.

This gets into the community aspect of the definition of "what is art?". Anyone of sound intellect should recognize that a person who defines for others what their art "should be" is an authoritarian fascist and should be ignored.

Hence why I dislike the Gardiner text.

I agree with you soooo much on the Gardner book. You wouldn't think there would be a such thing as a conservative art historian, but there is. Lol.

My definition:
a man-made medium which not only communicates ideas but is defined by presentation rather than recognition of an image

My own definition:

Any creative work that requires talent and/or skill beyond those of the layman or workman of the genre that is designed in such a way that its form and/or function elicit a personal, deep, emotional response from those that view, use, or come into contact with it. Preference is given to those works whose primary purpose is the elicitation of the response.

I would have to disagree. I don't think that a reaction is enough. I think what Crassius is getting at is an artist wants to convey a feeling or idea to the audience. When the audience understands the idea/feeling an emotional connection occurs. That emotional connection is what makes it art, not the sole idea that there was emotion.
But then it relies on the person viewing the art to understand it or have some appreciation. So if I'm a bit of a cave man and 'Know what I like and like what I know' that devalues the art?

Isn't art any activity that isn't related to survival? You know, like Full Fathom Five, or Burnout 3, or The Last Good Kiss, or a really sweet fadeaway jump shot.

Aristotle made us define everything. The West has been kidding itself eversince. Definitions change. Definability has limitations. What's more: things simply exist even without our definition. They just appear to be easily graspable when defined. Beware of the attitude.

To me, Art is a picture, where a person can clearly see what the actual character/objects are. ... basically anything but Abstract.

But then it relies on the person viewing the art to understand it or have some appreciation. So if I'm a bit of a cave man and 'Know what I like and like what I know' that devalues the art?

Correct in a certain respect, not at all in another.

If there is but an audience of one, the art may be profound. Many modern and abstract artists rely upon this premise. Is their art any less meaningful because it enriches a smaller audience? This is a good question for debate. My answer is no.

However, as every person who strives to be an artist understands, connecting with another person (your audience) is your goal. If you never connect with another person you've failed, and you feel it.

Artists are communicators; they communicate that rarest and most ineffable of human experiences: emotion.

An artist that doesn't communicate is an unhappy person; so is an artist who communicates banality and trivia.

Everyone who takes their art seriously hopes they form a bond between themselves and their audience; everything else is just masturbation.

I am taking AP art history. The book I am using is Gardenr's Art Through the Ages, 11th edition. My book is quite biased in how it defines art. The book explains that there are different realms of art, which includes the "outside" realm and the "inside" realm. The "inside" consists of pictorial arts, architecture, design art, and sculpture. The "outside" realm consists of performing arts and multimedia. I am wondering how others define art since there is not a standard definition of art. The dicitionary defines it as 'abstract images in the natural environment'. So how do you define art? How do you justify performing arts as art? Please, state the eudcation or work you have done in art as well.

My definition:
a man-made medium which not only communicates ideas but is defined by presentation rather than recognition of an image
Your definition is a good one. I think art is transmission (not necessarily communication) of ideas and feelings through a non-literal medium of shape, sound, colour, movement, etc. The medium is a direct metaphor of the thing(s) it conveys. In this, performance art, such as dance, is most decidedly and justifiably art.

I have no education nor have done any work in the field of art. But I know what I like. ;-)

Why does art require transmission?

By that logic, John Kennedy Toole was not an artist while alive, but became one on publication after his death. Pretty much any action or work is capable of communicating something, so hinging its status as "art" on whether or not someone sees it is kind of arbitrary.

Think about somebody like Goldsworthy. He goes out and stacks some stones in the woods and then goes home without taking any photos. By this definition, his stacked stones only become art if someone else stumbles across them.

Art in all forms is an attempt to express emotions and ideas that cannot be accurately expressed through language alone.

Art is the language of emotion.

Here in denmark we had an artist (Marco Evaristtis) who displayed live goldfish in blenders, and made it possible for the public the turn the blenders on if hey wanted to. Is that art?? please give me your opinion.
:headbang:
I have a problem with that. Maybe it's art, but it's also "killing for fun". I also have a problem with that English conceptual woman who uproots big old trees and replants them upside down.

I disagree with most of you. Art does not have to be beautiful. I think artist is the one who decides wether his/hers work is art or not. Other people then decide if it's worth anything.
I agree, but I also think that something should be man-made, or at least manipulated to be art.

I follow Oscar Wilde's definition. All art is entirely useless, and anything created which has no use is art. Doesn't mean it's GOOD art, but still art none the less.

I follow Oscar Wilde's definition. All art is entirely useless, and anything created which has no use is art. Doesn't mean it's GOOD art, but still art none the less.

I have alot of respect for Oscar Wilde, but art for art's sake, is one of his ideas which I utterly reject. I don't intend to try and define art, since I think its definition is an ineffable, and personal experience, art exists when something someone else has created physically, effects someone mentally or emotionally.

I do not believe this has no use, infact I think art is essential to a healthy existence. In order to stay alive man (as in humans not males!!!) needs air, water, food and warmth. but in order to function healthily as a human being man needs other things: love, laughter, companionship, exercise, play... I believe art fits into this second category of requirements.

Art is not useless, it is a necessity of a happy life.

Why does art require transmission?

By that logic, John Kennedy Toole was not an artist while alive, but became one on publication after his death. Pretty much any action or work is capable of communicating something, so hinging its status as "art" on whether or not someone sees it is kind of arbitrary.

Think about somebody like Goldsworthy. He goes out and stacks some stones in the woods and then goes home without taking any photos. By this definition, his stacked stones only become art if someone else stumbles across them.
The expression of ideas and feelings is the transmission of them. Whether the transmission is ever received and understood is artibrary. Agreeing with you: It is art whether or not someone sees it.

Originally posted by NianNorth
But then it relies on the person viewing the art to understand it or have some appreciation. So if I'm a bit of a cave man and 'Know what I like and like what I know' that devalues the art?

No, that doesn't devalue art. In the case of the cave men, they created art for communication. That is true in all respects because man existed before they even could speak, so there was a clear point to what an artist was trying to communicate. There also wasn't the variety of art there is nowadays. Cavemen may have felt like they prefered venuses over cave paintings but that doesn't mean it isn't art. Just because you prefer abstract art doesn't mean you can be taken to a pond with lilypads through the imagery of a Monet. Just because you like Munch better than Monet doesn't make either of them less of an artist. You can still understand in 'Scream' that he has lost his mind. You don't even have to understand anything about existentialism to understand with the character in the painting.

Art is anything. It does not have to be through a canvas in which it must be perceived... it can be on anything, by anything.
I think even emptyness is art.

Hooray! Art is meaningless, everything is art!

I am farting.

It is art.

Originally posted by Willamena
The expression of ideas and feelings is the transmission of them. Whether the transmission is ever received and understood is artibrary. Agreeing with you: It is art whether or not someone sees it.

Exactly. There is no need for the artist to be alive in order for the transmission of ideas/feelings to go through. That is one characteristic of art. It has a medium. In other words, the artist conveyed their ideas/feelings on a canvas or a poem or some other medium. Just like information. We write it down or put it into a computer because we cannot keep all of the knowledge in the world in our heads. Nor can we benefit others if it is not written down. So in a sense art is a document.

Exactly. There is no need for the artist to be alive in order for the transmission of ideas/feelings to go through. That is one characteristic of art. It has a medium. In other words, the artist conveyed their ideas/feelings on a canvas or a poem or some other medium. Just like information. We write it down or put it into a computer because we cannot keep all of the knowledge in the world in our heads. Nor can we benefit others if it is not written down. So in a sense art is a document.

But a document (By which I mean a written document) only conveys meaning if the script which it uses is based on an agreed set of rules between the writer and the reader. (I understand the rules of written english, therefore I can understand the ideas a document which is written in english is conveying).

Art on the otherhand, is not based on agreed rules. This is in my opinion a strength. It engages us in a way that cannot be expressed adequetly by words, and can be personal to each person who experiences that art! Although a written document can have numerous readings if it is ambiguous. It cannot be personal to each person who experiences it.

Words can be used to create art, poetry, novels etc... However these differ from a document, in that they seek to create an image of an alternate reality in our minds, and it is this which conveys the ineffable message and creates the emotional response that makes something art!

Exactly. There is no need for the artist to be alive in order for the transmission of ideas/feelings to go through. That is one characteristic of art. It has a medium. In other words, the artist conveyed their ideas/feelings on a canvas or a poem or some other medium. Just like information. We write it down or put it into a computer because we cannot keep all of the knowledge in the world in our heads. Nor can we benefit others if it is not written down. So in a sense art is a document.
Technically I was referring to an instance in which no one sees it, so nothing ever "goes through", as unlikely a situation as that is.

I believe art is the medium as well as the ideas and feelings transmitted. The dancer's art requires her body; the painter's art requires his canvas. The writer's art is a bit different, as it requires the symbols of language, which are nothing physical. Still, yes, the story or the poem is a medium.

But a document (By which I mean a written document) only conveys meaning if the script which it uses is based on an agreed set of rules between the writer and the reader. (I understand the rules of written english, therefore I can understand the ideas a document which is written in english is conveying).

Art on the otherhand, is not based on agreed rules. This is in my opinion a strength. It engages us in a way that cannot be expressed adequetly by words, and can be personal to each person who experiences that art! Although a written document can have numerous readings if it is ambiguous. It cannot be personal to each person who experiences it.

Words can be used to create art, poetry, novels etc... However these differ from a document, in that they seek to create an image of an alternate reality in our minds, and it is this which conveys the ineffable message and creates the emotional response that makes something art!

Visual art is absolutely based on agreed rules and symbols. Look at archaic sculpture. The smile, the flat-footed stance. This is not realistic representation or intended to evoke emotion. This was done because this was how people were represented. It was an agreed convention. Jump forward a little bit and all of a sudden all the statues are contrapposto. Was this because everyone started standing differently? No, convention changed.

The conventions change between movements, but the visual arts are as locked into their own languages as firmly as novels. Otherwise, we, as viewers, couldn't make sense out of them.

Visual art is absolutely based on agreed rules and symbols. Look at archaic sculpture. The smile, the flat-footed stance. This is not realistic representation or intended to evoke emotion. This was done because this was how people were represented. It was an agreed convention. Jump forward a little bit and all of a sudden all the statues are contrapposto. Was this because everyone started standing differently? No, convention changed.

The conventions change between movements, but the visual arts are as locked into their own languages as firmly as novels. Otherwise, we, as viewers, couldn't make sense out of them.

I would agree that some art is based on agreed rules of form. for example the conventions governing the stance of a horse in a military statue. However, much of what we call art, is not merely a stylised representation of reality, which encodes concepts and facts by agreed form.

Art also has the power to create an emotional response, this response is based on a combination of: univeral human emotional response which does not have to be encoded in agreed conventions to be conveyed, personal experience of the person who has the emotional response to that art giving it a personal meaning for each person that experiences it, and similarly those things which makes a person who they are which are not based on experience (whatever you view of what causes those).

This thread is so tempting me to create another thread entitled "A debate on the art of definition"...

I would agree that some art is based on agreed rules of form. for example the conventions governing the stance of a horse in a military statue. However, much of what we call art, is not merely a stylised representation of reality, which encodes concepts and facts by agreed form.

Art also has the power to create an emotional response, this response is based on a combination of: univeral human emotional response which does not have to be encoded in agreed conventions to be conveyed, personal experience of the person who has the emotional response to that art giving it a personal meaning for each person that experiences it, and similarly those things which makes a person who they are which are not based on experience (whatever you view of what causes those).

There's no universal meaning or universal emotional response. It's not possible to craft something that means one thing and one thing only. Every reaction we have to a work is a response to a code that we've been taught at some time. I'm not talking about the poses of horses as an obvious code as to whether the subject died in bed or in battle. I'm saying that when you look at a red Newman or a red Kelly, you're going to have an emotional response to the color. But red is not naturally a hot color or an angry color. Red is not a universal sign for a particular feeling or emotion. Red doesn't communicate anything at all. It's just a wavelength of light. Anything beyond that is an agreed-upon convention. For example: Is orange the color of warning or the color of a calm Autumn? It's neither/nor. But with a little context, you can decode what emotion the painter is trying to play on. Not that you ever sit down to puzzle this out, but the feelings generated by works are the natural reaction to deeply-seated conventions. Further, I'd say that there is very little (if anything) that makes a person besides experience. You don't sign on to the "Convention of Means of Representation," but it's something that's imprinted on you, like "pink is for girls, blue is for boys."

There's no universal meaning or universal emotional response. It's not possible to craft something that means one thing and one thing only. Every reaction we have to a work is a response to a code that we've been taught at some time. I'm not talking about the poses of horses as an obvious code as to whether the subject died in bed or in battle. I'm saying that when you look at a red Newman or a red Kelly, you're going to have an emotional response to the color. But red is not naturally a hot color or an angry color. Red is not a universal sign for a particular feeling or emotion. Red doesn't communicate anything at all. It's just a wavelength of light. Anything beyond that is an agreed-upon convention. For example: Is orange the color of warning or the color of a calm Autumn? It's neither/nor. But with a little context, you can decode what emotion the painter is trying to play on. Not that you ever sit down to puzzle this out, but the feelings generated by works are the natural reaction to deeply-seated conventions. Further, I'd say that there is very little (if anything) that makes a person besides experience. You don't sign on to the "Convention of Means of Representation," but it's something that's imprinted on you, like "pink is for girls, blue is for boys."

Perhaps calling it a Universal emotional response was a bad name. but much of our emotional responses are not, in my opinion, based on learned conventions, it is of course impossible to tell.

As to whether red is merely a wavelength of electro-magnetic radiation. well I won't dispute that it has this quality. However we perceive red as a colour, this perception is not based on what we have learnt during out lives, but the fact that we have evolved (I am an evolutionist, but been given works too if you are not) eyes and a brain which gives us that experience which we call red. Again it is impossible to tell whether this elicits an emotional response based on what we have learned, or how we have evolved.

I do not believe that the emotional response we have to a picture is based on socially agreed conventions. If it were then it could have no cross cultural appeal, and at the same time, would have to rely on ambiguity to have different meanings for each person who experiences it.

The example of the horses stance in military statues wasn't meant to refer to a specific category of conventions, but to except that most art will contain aspects of an agreed code aswell as in my opinion, conveying meaning without passing through an encoded convention.

There's no universal meaning or universal emotional response. ... Red is not a universal sign for a particular feeling or emotion. Red doesn't communicate anything at all. It's just a wavelength of light. Anything beyond that is an agreed-upon convention.
Since "meaning" necessarily involves a consciousness, a universality of meaning would be an agreed-upon convention.

Since "meaning" necessarily involves a consciousness, a universality of meaning would be an agreed-upon convention.

But agreed upon socially, or the result of similarity in functioning of human perception between people?

I do not believe that the emotional response we have to a picture is based on socially agreed conventions. If it were then it could have no cross cultural appeal, and at the same time, would have to rely on ambiguity to have different meanings for each person who experiences it.

Ah . . . As we go careening toward monoculture, more and more people around the world find themselves aboard the "western conventions" bandwagon. But that said, I can still think of plenty of works that have cross-cultural appeal, but no cross-cultural understanding. For example, say you're the first missionary to see a statue of the Buddha. You can see it and appreciate the workmanship, but you don't know anything about it. Same for the first Indian to see a cross ("Wait. He's spelling something with Lincoln Logs. What comes after "t"?). There's appeal, but it's a transmission gone wrong. I look at the Buddha and say "what a funny little fat man." I look at a Tlingit totem and say "nice carvings," but the meaning of the totem is totally lost.

But agreed upon socially, or the result of similarity in functioning of human perception between people?
Human perception does not cause meaning. Meaning is assigned to what is perceived.

If "socially" limits the meaning to one culture or society, then I would say no, because cultures and societies are built up upon what came before. The meaning of things can carry through millennia of civilizations risen and fallen.

Ah . . . As we go careening toward monoculture, more and more people around the world find themselves aboard the "western conventions" bandwagon. But that said, I can still think of plenty of works that have cross-cultural appeal, but no cross-cultural understanding. For example, say you're the first missionary to see a statue of the Buddha. You can see it and appreciate the workmanship, but you don't know anything about it. Same for the first Indian to see a cross ("Wait. He's spelling something with Lincoln Logs. What comes after "t"?). There's appeal, but it's a transmission gone wrong. I look at the Buddha and say "what a funny little fat man." I look at a Tlingit totem and say "nice carvings," but the meaning of the totem is totally lost.

Ah . . . As we go careening toward monoculture, more and more people around the world find themselves aboard the "western conventions" bandwagon. But that said, I can still think of plenty of works that have cross-cultural appeal, but no cross-cultural understanding. For example, say you're the first missionary to see a statue of the Buddha. You can see it and appreciate the workmanship, but you don't know anything about it. Same for the first Indian to see a cross ("Wait. He's spelling something with Lincoln Logs. What comes after "t"?). There's appeal, but it's a transmission gone wrong. I look at the Buddha and say "what a funny little fat man." I look at a Tlingit totem and say "nice carvings," but the meaning of the totem is totally lost.

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg

I am not arguing for monoculture. The above painting demonstrates what I am arguing for.

Perhaps I have not given enough importance to the agreed conventions which give a piece of art meaning within it's cultural context. that is because this aspect of a piece of art varies greatly between pieces of art.

http://www.visit-ketchikan.com/image/totem5.jpg

Compare this with the Edvard Munch painting. The Edvard Munch painting is designed to convey a feeling of despair. I have been unable to find any examples in which this type of painting has been shown to any groups of people who are not on what you call "western convention bandwagon", but IMHO I believe this painting has the power to convey feeling in a way that is not dependent on ones cultural context, (Naturally everyones experience will differ to some degree, this is a product of personality and culture. but it does not stop this painting having a universal meaning).

On the other hand a totem pole, is constructed based on cultural conventions within those groups which produce them. It encodes information about the history and lineage of those who produce it. It is not designed with the desire to convey emotion being very important to it's production, and therefore has a different function as a piece of art, if we do not know the code, we do not know what the artist is saying!

Monoculture, is not necessary for human beings to be capable of similar emotional response to certain stimuli regardless of any agreed conventions of emotional encoding (I.e even when such a code is not being used).

I agree that art does contain agreed conventions which only have meaning within their own cultural contexts, I haven't disputed this, although I haven't been clear about making this point. This is why I am not "careening towards monoculture". I merely wish to make the point that art can affect our emotions in a way which does not require an agreed code. My over emphasis on this is perhaps due to my own preference for expressionist art.

Human perception does not cause meaning. Meaning is assigned to what is perceived.

If "socially" limits the meaning to one culture or society, then I would say no, because cultures and societies are built up upon what came before. The meaning of things can carry through millennia of civilizations risen and fallen.

In that case what came first, and why were they able to give meaning to perception, and yet no subsequent cultures are. Certain aspects of meaning that are applied to perception are not culturally defined, although we can give explaination for them in terms of agreed cultural codes (language).

For example, animals evolve to look a certain way or be a certain colour to scare away predators, we experience the same emotional response to seeing such animals (perceiving them) but our response is not based on the fact that cultural groups have given meaning to this perception, that perception has meaning based on the fact that such a perception elicits a given emotional response, which is what I initially intended to say, rather than suggest that human perception causes meaning!

I'm not saying you're careening towards monoculture. I'm saying that the world as a whole is.

I think it's important to note that the Munch piece is not more communicative than the totem, just that it happens to be in a referential language we share. There's no way I'm going to agree that the Scream is "designed" to communicate a sense of despair because that's taking a stab at the artist's intent, of which we have no idea. Moreover, I can't say whether the painting is in fact about despair, about terror, or about the fact that the screamer has just slapped aftershave on as Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern break into his house. The screamer could be a ghost, he could be mourning a loss. The gesture of hands on cheeks could mean all sorts of things, just like "V" for victory changes meaning across cultures.

Because there may be consensus of the meaning of a painting in a culture does not mean that that it is in any way universal. All you've done is show a painting produced from within our shared system of signals and codes and a sculpture from without. Say we were a Tlingit message board, circa 1800. What would we be saying about these two pieces? Would we be talking about the universality of the Scream?

Here, look at this guy:

http://www.broadartfoundation.org/images/artwork/kiefer_deutschland_lg.jpg

This brings up very strong feelings now, but what would it have evoked in 1930? What about 1530? Our reaction is conditioned.

Originally posted by Celebrity Frogs
But a document (By which I mean a written document) only conveys meaning if the script which it uses is based on an agreed set of rules between the writer and the reader. (I understand the rules of written english, therefore I can understand the ideas a document which is written in english is conveying).

Art on the otherhand, is not based on agreed rules. This is in my opinion a strength. It engages us in a way that cannot be expressed adequetly by words, and can be personal to each person who experiences that art! Although a written document can have numerous readings if it is ambiguous. It cannot be personal to each person who experiences it.

Words can be used to create art, poetry, novels etc... However these differ from a document, in that they seek to create an image of an alternate reality in our minds, and it is this which conveys the ineffable message and creates the emotional response that makes something art!

First off, I was comparing a document to art because it testifies to an artist's feelings/ideas. I would have to disagree with what you said about documents. Just like You Forgot Poland said Scream, for example, is not more communicative then any other piece of artwork. Art does not necessarily have universal meaning. In the example of 'Scream', I could understand the emotional state of the character. However, I could not name the feeling in which the artist has assigned the character. Unless I knew that it was about the negative influence of existentialism on the character, I would only be able to percieve his feeling, not necessarily be able to define his exact feeling.
When it comes to art, an artist cannot predict how the audience will percieve the painting. However, because of his perception through influences from his society, he can convey the emotional state of the artwork to his audience through making a connection between his perception and the audience's perception. That is often why we cannot fully understand the context of art from ancient societies. We can, however, understand the artist's emotional state.

In that case what came first, and why were they able to give meaning to perception, and yet no subsequent cultures are. Certain aspects of meaning that are applied to perception are not culturally defined, although we can give explaination for them in terms of agreed cultural codes (language).

For example, animals evolve to look a certain way or be a certain colour to scare away predators, we experience the same emotional response to seeing such animals (perceiving them) but our response is not based on the fact that cultural groups have given meaning to this perception, that perception has meaning based on the fact that such a perception elicits a given emotional response, which is what I initially intended to say, rather than suggest that human perception causes meaning!
Thanks for explaining that. I see what you mean. In terms of art, it is that sort of perceptional meaning that can have the appearance of being universal. For instance, the female dancer who sways provocatively, suggestively, is conveying an age-old meaning that will continue to stir loins long into the future. That's the sort of emotional response that is not a convention.

Human society invented art so there would still be pictures of breasts in case all the women got eaten by dinosaurs.

First off, I was comparing a document to art because it testifies to an artist's feelings/ideas. I would have to disagree with what you said about documents. Just like You Forgot Poland said Scream, for example, is not more communicative then any other piece of artwork. Art does not necessarily have universal meaning. In the example of 'Scream', I could understand the emotional state of the character. However, I could not name the feeling in which the artist has assigned the character. Unless I knew that it was about the negative influence of existentialism on the character, I would only be able to percieve his feeling, not necessarily be able to define his exact feeling.
When it comes to art, an artist cannot predict how the audience will percieve the painting. However, because of his perception through influences from his society, he can convey the emotional state of the artwork to his audience through making a connection between his perception and the audience's perception. That is often why we cannot fully understand the context of art from ancient societies. We can, however, understand the artist's emotional state.

I agree that my analysis of the munch painting was somewhat simplistic, and that it could be interpreted in many different ways.

I would still maintain though that humans will experience emotional response to given stimuli, that are not based on an agreed cultural convention, but are the result of a less esoteric aspect of our psyche (I'm not a psychologist so please be patient with me if that was poorly expressed), and I believe that art can present a stylised, but not codified, representation of such stimuli, and thus elicit an emotional response that is not based on understand the rules governing such a representation. (see my response to willamena, a few posts earlier!)

A better example occured to me later that day (I don't have time to look for images at the moment) but I have seen masks created by other cultures which have been created with the purpose of being scary (admitedly this assessment is based on the work of 19th and 20th century anthropologists who worked under a very ethnocentric paradigm, but I'm prepared to accept that they were passing on what they were told about such masks functions) I do not need to know that these masks were designed to scare away evil spirits to find them scary. Similarly I would not be alone in finding a halloween mask scary if I were in the company of people who have no experience of western culture and no nothing of halloween. Scary masks are scary because they elicit an emotional response which is not based on a codified set of agreed conventions(If you are ever in Oxford check out the pitt rivers museum, a relic, but it contains some great pieces, including many examples of the afore mentioned scary masks)

I will concede however that a great deal (perhaps most) of the emotions/feelings that a piece of art can elicit are based on understanding the rules governing symbolisation in art!

Thanks for explaining that. I see what you mean. In terms of art, it is that sort of perceptional meaning that can have the appearance of being universal. For instance, the female dancer who sways provocatively, suggestively, is conveying an age-old meaning that will continue to stir loins long into the future. That's the sort of emotional response that is not a convention.

Well, I guess it's up to me to hold the position that everything is conditioned. Name a color that's a "danger" color and I'll give an example of it's ambiguity.

Wasp? Bananna.

Black Widow? Strawberry.

Even sex is a conditioned response. For example, compare these three hotties:

http://faculty.evansville.edu/pc25/img/willendorf_venus.jpg
http://www.shasekh.com/galeria/mis_imagenes/burka.jpg
http://www.mellesleg.hu/cikkek/images/3001-3100/3072/hilton_.jpg

Given, there's an instinctual drive for sex, but the visual indicators that suggest that sex is imminent change tremendously across cultures. In 1920, a little bare ankle might get a dude sprung. Sir Mix-a-lot, however, will read very little into that ankle and might require "them round things in his face" to attract his attention.

Think about a kiss. Why in the world is a kiss sensual, arousing, tender, or anything? Why don't we rub the soles of our feet together or bump nipples? It's all encoded. A kiss is a signal of love or affection because that's what it's been built up to mean.

Regarding masks, here are some of the scariest (or at least most recognizible) of our era:

http://www.showtimecostumes.com/leatherface.jpg
http://www.maskworld.com/pix/masks/900.jpg
http://www.unitedmaskandparty.com/Halloween/images/gid_hockey_mask_small.jpg

Think of the Jason mask in particular. Or Michael Meyers. They'd be totally meaningless fifty years ago. It's all just a function of the popular myth of the time. Stuff is only scary because we assign it that value.

I still disagree with you Celebrity Frogs. How you percieve things is not just based on your psyche. It is also based on social influences which influence your psyche. On page 5, the second to the last post, You Forgot Poland uses a painting as an example. I don't know about you, but I feel sort of scared or strange about the place that is depicted. I would have to say that many people would think the same thing, too. That is an example of social influence. As an experiment I think I am going to create a poll. Thanks for the inspiration.

For the record, that painting is an Anselm Keifer, taken from a fairly recent series depicting the interiors of famous German buildings. This is why I gave 1930 and 1530 as points of comparison for how reactions can change across cultures. In 1530, a viewer might say, "hey, luxury living room." In 1930, a viewer might say, "hey, why is the reichstag (or whatever it is) so smoky?" While in 2005, a viewer might say, "this guy is obviously wrestling with some heavy identity issues."

Originally posted by You Forgot Poland
For the record, that painting is an Anselm Keifer, taken from a fairly recent series depicting the interiors of famous German buildings. This is why I gave 1930 and 1530 as points of comparison for how reactions can change across cultures. In 1530, a viewer might say, "hey, luxury living room." In 1930, a viewer might say, "hey, why is the reichstag (or whatever it is) so smoky?" While in 2005, a viewer might say, "this guy is obviously wrestling with some heavy identity issues."

Can you think of any artwork that is very conflicting in perception?

Here's one that popped into my head because I like the painting a lot.

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/t/tansey/triumph.jpg

This painting has a pretty obvious meaning, however, the people in the painting are not soldiers. On the left, you've got Andre Breton, Picasso, and other French artists, while on the right, you've got Greenberg, Pollock, de Kooning, and other Americans. So the painting does one thing to the general viewer, but something entirely different to the critic or historian. Culture, subculture.

Here's another by Tansey:

http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~johnw/engl594/tansey_picasso_and_braque.jpg

Or more universal, I'm blanking on the artist, but someone did a work titled "Pieta," but instead of placing the Madonna mourning over the dead Jesus, they depicted the infant Jesus sitting on his mother's lap, nursing.

So there's a tremendous ambiguity here. On the one hand, you've got a depiction of new motherhood, but on the other, when you bring the Christian mythology to bear on the piece, you've got an incredibly grim work. Think about how different the encoded cultural responses of a Italian Catholic would be from those of, I dunno, an Indonesian Muslim. The Muslim says, "What a happy scene," the Catholic says, "How tragic."

EDIT: Hold that thought, this is better:

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/a/allori/cristofa/judith_h.jpg
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/c/caravagg/03/17judit.jpg
http://reflex.at/~alfredo.barsuglia/start/gall/2003/judith_holofernes.jpg
http://www.giovaniartisti.it/Gm/2003/images/opereantiche/padova1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/lubchenco/thumb_judith_and_holofernes.jpg
http://berkovich-zametki.com/Nomer25/Judith&HolofernesW.jpg

Here you've got six versions of the same event. Each version, however (hopefully), evokes a very different sort of reaction. It isn't the subject itself that brings up this reaction, since that doesn't change, but rather the signals and details the artist emphasizes. When I look at these, I have a very definite reaction ranging from "heroine" to "bitch on ice." But I can also pick out exactly what it is that instills that reaction in each. Which, I think, supports this idea of shared reference guiding meaning.

You asked (kinda strangely for a subject like Art) for background and education. I'm a professional web design and animation artist. I went to school for Commercial Art (that's what it says on my degree).

I don't think there can ever be a definition for "Art" that really gets to the point. Art is a mirror, nothing more, nothing less.
About aesthetics-- A lot of great Art is quite ugly. Beautiful art is only one kind of artwork. I like the ugly, when it moves me.

Art is just whatever reflects, both fictionally and realistically, the world around us.
It's just a way of asking, "See?"

Originally posted by Eichen

You asked (kinda strangely for a subject like Art) for background and education. I'm a professional web design and animation artist. I went to school for Commercial Art (that's what it says on my degree).

I don't think there can ever be a definition for "Art" that really gets to the point. Art is a mirror, nothing more, nothing less.
About aesthetics-- A lot of great Art is quite ugly. Beautiful art is only one kind of artwork. I like the ugly, when it moves me.

Art is just whatever reflects, both fictionally and realistically, the world around us.
It's just a way of asking, "See?"


And let me just say for the record I don't mean artwork has to have beauty in the visual sense. Beauty can be emotional, like Crassius is getting at. It can also be intellectual or sensual.

And let me just say for the record I don't mean artwork has to have beauty in the visual sense. Beauty can be emotional, like Crassius is getting at. It can also be intellectual or sensual.
I agree. I'd also go so far as to say that I've left the theater or museum saying, "That was fucking ugly. But I felt it."

That's exactly what I said after watching "Kids" and viewing Warhol.

Now I find his screenprints of electric chairs or Mao very beautiful...
In their unique way.