NationStates Jolt Archive

What is - in your opinion - the purpose of art?

Is it the classical "instruct and enlighten people"?
Is it a form of expression for the artist only, and if so, what is the point of museums?
Is it to depict reality? To give a picture of life?
Or is it to turn thoughts away from reality into greater truths?

How do you appreciate art, who is your favourite arist, and what is your favourite piece of art?

The real question is "What is Art?"

What is - in your opinion - the purpose of art?


I, myself, have gone back and forth on this one. When I am the artist, I like to think of art as a form of self-expression--of a certain worth regardless of how good or bad it is seen by the audience. When I am viewing or considering art there is also a linguistic definition which I use: that art is here to provide new metaphors through which to see life. This inspires Bysshe Shelley's turn of phrase that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." Art, to me, helps shape world view and, thus, reality.

in my view, there is only one purpose for art

to be cool

if a piece of art doesnt make you say "whoa thats cool" then its probably not very good eh?

Why does it have to have a purpose?

Q: What do you call a guy with no arms and no legs that hangs on the wall?

A: Art

We generally see art through our Western eyes. But most cultures do what WE call art (they often don't have a term for art) but it is for practical everyday use. In Africa they use a lot of Masks to invoke the gods. In Meso-america they make very ornate everyday objects such as spoons and staffs. We call it art. They call it by its use. They don't collect it in museums and think that us Westerners are weird for doing so. Our art is made for the purpose of being art. For being displayed for the sake of displaying. Theirs was for religious/cultural/domestic use.

How do you appreciate art, who is your favourite arist, and what is your favourite piece of art?

1: I look at it for a bit, and try to find out just how they painted it.

2: Art Vandelay.

3: You know that addition to the Guggenheim? Well...

art has 2 purposes: made money and provoke people.

again why should it need a purpose?

although taking a broader definition of art I certainly feel that my creative writing is a combination, I try to explore an idea or a point of view, both as a way of expressing my own ideas and creativity, and as a way of educating people to other possibilities and situations, and hopefully as a way for people to enjoy themselves whilst doing it.

Through colours, music and words, part of your inner self can be satisfied and explored through all forms of art. This part of inner self cannot be explored by empirical science - which is one of the largest deficiencies of science as an area of knowledge.

What's the purpose of art?


To express the self.

Art is something with a purpose. Everything with a purpose is art, and everything else is just accidental beauty. And since purpose is subjective, everything and nothing is art.

We generally see art through our Western eyes. But most cultures do what WE call art (they often don't have a term for art) but it is for practical everyday use. In Africa they use a lot of Masks to invoke the gods. In Meso-america they make very ornate everyday objects such as spoons and staffs. We call it art. They call it by its use. They don't collect it in museums and think that us Westerners are weird for doing so. Our art is made for the purpose of being art. For being displayed for the sake of displaying. Theirs was for religious/cultural/domestic use.


Art in the western culture started on the same level. It was used for religious purposes, it was used for decorating every-day object. Just take a look at the cave-paintings in Chauve, look at the icons of the orthodox church, look at the way we still colour and paint eggs for Easter, look at the huge choice in styles and design when you look for new curtain, for example.
And some areas of art still fulfill the same purpose. Artists don't only paint or sculpt and then put it into a museum. There is art that designs plates and cutlery, there is art in architecture, there is art in religion.

Is it fair to say that at one stage, art transcended its original purpose to become something more complex, more challenging, more thought-provoking than it had been originally? That if at one point no longer felt bound to it's former use, but became self-sufficient?
Asian art has taken that same step, just look at the importance of calligraphy in China and Japan. In it's original form, it's simply writing, a form to convey a message. But it has become a form of artistic expression that in itself is far more important than the written word.

To express oneself in non-linear ways.

Is it a form of expression for the artist only, and if so, what is the point of museums?
Museums are for history, not art. However, the display of history can be art for the curator and employees.

Why does it have to have a purpose?

Without purpose it doesnt exist.

1: I look at it for a bit, and try to find out just how they painted it.

2: Art Vandelay.

3: You know that addition to the Guggenheim? Well...

It's been a very long time since I've last been there, but I find the Guggenheim in itself to be an impressive piece of art

What is - in your opinion - the purpose of art?

Is it the classical "instruct and enlighten people"?
Is it a form of expression for the artist only, and if so, what is the point of museums?
Is it to depict reality? To give a picture of life?
Or is it to turn thoughts away from reality into greater truths?

How do you appreciate art, who is your favourite arist, and what is your favourite piece of art?

Art serves the purpose of 'truth'.

It is the vector by which subjective is made objective.

How do you appreciate it? Art is appreciated when the 'truth' of the 'artist' is communicated to the collaborator.

Favourite artist and favourite piece of art? I am quite partial to Radish Tordia - especially "Melancholy" and "A Girl in White". (I think these are both pictures from the same 'study'... just separated by a decade).

Melancholy: http://www.artlondon.com/index.php?page=bigimage&image_id=89&PHPSESSID=c10296d4203240b028441817621418d2

I can't find a link for "A Girl in White" though. :(

Without purpose it doesnt exist.
I think he means, why does it have to have deliberate purpose. It doesn't, but it does serve a purpose, to the maker and the viewer, because we are human.

Art serves the purpose of 'truth'.

It is the vector by which subjective is made objective.
Ah, but here the objective is symbolic of the subjective, so it never loses the subjective property.

in my view, there is only one purpose for art

to be cool

if a piece of art doesnt make you say "whoa thats cool" then its probably not very good eh?
This is exactly right. The question "why have humans evolved the capacity to make and appreciate art?" at first seems baffling. How could it be genetically advantagous to waste time doodling on a cave wall? The answer is to prove that you are so good at providing for yourself that you can afford to waste time doodling. It's an advertisement of evolutionary fitness just like a peacock's tail. So it really is just about making the artist look cool.

It's been a very long time since I've last been there, but I find the Guggenheim in itself to be an impressive piece of art

It was a joke... Do any of you people watch Seinfeld!?

Ah, but here the objective is symbolic of the subjective, so it never loses the subjective property.

Indeed - the objective remains subjective in context - which is why it is 'art'.

It is the means by which we can objectify that which IS purely subjective.

I think art should be a picture of something, not like modern art.

It was a joke... Do any of you people watch Seinfeld!?

Sorry... used to be broadcasted here, but was cancelled due to low ratings.
Never liked the show to much myself

art serves a great many purposes
it exists only because it can
it is a dialogue with nature
it helps to contextualize new ideas
it is evolution
btw check out "art and physics" by leonard schlain

I think art should be a picture of something, not like modern art.

Why?

I think art should be a picture of something, not like modern art.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


yeah, but so is blindness and astigmatism. =D

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Ah, but does art have to be beautiful? Or were you using that word in the sense of "appretiation"?

Ah, but does art have to be beautiful? Or were you using that word in the sense of "appretiation"?

The appreciation meaning comes closer, if you think about it...

Is it beautiful? That is in the eye of the beholder...

But - does art have to be 'beautiful'? Well - if it is beheld to be such...

I'm not using beauty (there) as an attempt to imply some rigourous aesthetic qualification.

yeah, but so is blindness and astigmatism. =D
And, in this one book I read, beams and splinters, too... :D

Communication and Inspiration. Best answer I can come up with, and based entirely on my own motivations when creating a piece.

4 years at Canadas "best" and oldest (and now ugliest) art college left me thoroughly disillusioned and confused about art. I didn't pick up a pencil or paintbrush for over 2 years at one point. I stuck to making music, where "To make you shut up and dance." is an acceptable answer.

Fine Art Depts. @ Universities should be outlawed and peopl;e who talk but don't actually do art should not be paid for this disservice. Imay offend some FA majors, but they can shut up and get a real major, or actually DO art, not just write about it. Art is something that should be either done, or experienced, anything more is just tacos and salsa: requiring lots of cheese, and of no real value.


Harumph. Grumble,grumble, sneer,snarl,etc. (Stomps off)

Communication and Inspiration. Best answer I can come up with, and based entirely on my own motivations when creating a piece.

4 years at Canadas "best" and oldest (and now ugliest) art college left me thoroughly disillusioned and confused about art. I didn't pick up a pencil or paintbrush for over 2 years at one point. I stuck to making music, where "To make you shut up and dance." is an acceptable answer.

Fine Art Depts. @ Universities should be outlawed and peopl;e who talk but don't actually do art should not be paid for this disservice. Imay offend some FA majors, but they can shut up and get a real major, or actually DO art, not just write about it. Art is something that should be either done, or experienced, anything more is just tacos and salsa: requiring lots of cheese, and of no real value.


Harumph. Grumble,grumble, sneer,snarl,etc. (Stomps off)

Actually, I've had that same experience, only a lot sooner. Back home in Germany, when preparing for my final exams, I took Art and English as my two main subjects. And I found it extremely frustrating, the way our teachers tried to reduce art to mathematical statements, to explain it in an "objective" way in an effort to make us "understand" art.
Art, I think, cannot be "understood", it can only be appreciated. It can cause individuals to think and feel from a different angle, it is a direct approach to our senses. It talks a language much older than what we speak every day. It can fascinate us, it can inspire us, it can disgust us.. as long as it provokes a reaction. And, in my opinion, the purpose of art is not art itself, but the reaction it causes in people.
Pity none of my teachers ever understood that... I kept on painting anyway.

SOME modern art is good. Much of it, however, (like alot of mainstream music, sadly) is pure, unadulterated crap.

This is exactly right. The question "why have humans evolved the capacity to make and appreciate art?" at first seems baffling. How could it be genetically advantagous to waste time doodling on a cave wall? The answer is to prove that you are so good at providing for yourself that you can afford to waste time doodling. It's an advertisement of evolutionary fitness just like a peacock's tail. So it really is just about making the artist look cool.
I think this is "backwards": humans did not develop a capacity to make art; rather, art is art because we make it. It is we who define what is art by what we do, and that is what comes from the mind/heart/soul.

Does that make sense?

SOME modern art is good. Much of it, however, (like alot of mainstream music, sadly) is pure, unadulterated crap.

Sturgeon's Law - 90% of anything is crap.

Art is creative expression.

It exists everywhere, its purpose is up to the artist.

The only absolute statement that you can make about art is that it is neccecary, that to be human is to make art.

Communication and Inspiration. Best answer I can come up with, and based entirely on my own motivations when creating a piece.

4 years at Canadas "best" and oldest (and now ugliest) art college left me thoroughly disillusioned and confused about art. I didn't pick up a pencil or paintbrush for over 2 years at one point. I stuck to making music, where "To make you shut up and dance." is an acceptable answer.

Fine Art Depts. @ Universities should be outlawed and peopl;e who talk but don't actually do art should not be paid for this disservice. Imay offend some FA majors, but they can shut up and get a real major, or actually DO art, not just write about it. Art is something that should be either done, or experienced, anything more is just tacos and salsa: requiring lots of cheese, and of no real value.


Harumph. Grumble,grumble, sneer,snarl,etc. (Stomps off)
the purpose of studying fine arts at a univeristy was explained to me (by example) by a friend of mine.

he was working on a masters degree in writing. i scoffed at the notion that you can learn to write good fiction at a university. he explained that they were giving him MONEY to write for 2 years. they didnt neet to teach him anything, just provide the means for him to write without having to worry about how he was going to pay his bills.

the light went on.

they cant teach you how to be an artist. they can go through the history of art (very valuable) they can explain various theories of this and that. otherwise the best they can do is get out of your way while providing you with time and space to develop you talent.

Express yourself !More words are not needed

Art is a form of communication. the best art communicates emotions, feelings and attitudes - things which straight exposition cannot. what some artists forget is that communication has two parts, the sender and the reciever, and while an artist may be sending a strong message, if it is not presented in a manner in which the receiver can understand it, then there is no communication.

Art is a form of communication. the best art communicates emotions, feelings and attitudes - things which straight exposition cannot. what some artists forget is that communication has two parts, the sender and the reciever, and while an artist may be sending a strong message, if it is not presented in a manner in which the receiver can understand it, then there is no communication.
So what you are saying is ,the artist don't really communicate with you, words do that better...well a writer(speecher) is also making image(like i'm now) with words, it is his one way to translate his /her mind,i read i see...do you see the same?.
No! you feel it....this is something else....still you can bring more with an picture than thousand words,why?

Communication and Inspiration. Best answer I can come up with, and based entirely on my own motivations when creating a piece.

4 years at Canadas "best" and oldest (and now ugliest) art college left me thoroughly disillusioned and confused about art. I didn't pick up a pencil or paintbrush for over 2 years at one point. I stuck to making music, where "To make you shut up and dance." is an acceptable answer.

Fine Art Depts. @ Universities should be outlawed and peopl;e who talk but don't actually do art should not be paid for this disservice. Imay offend some FA majors, but they can shut up and get a real major, or actually DO art, not just write about it. Art is something that should be either done, or experienced, anything more is just tacos and salsa: requiring lots of cheese, and of no real value.


Harumph. Grumble,grumble, sneer,snarl,etc. (Stomps off)
I found the exact same problem with college music departments. I became disillusioned after one semester and subsequently quit college to start a career.

The real question is "What is Art?"

Art: (Noun). Something that serves no purpose other than aesthetics.

Art is a form of communication. the best art communicates emotions, feelings and attitudes - things which straight exposition cannot. what some artists forget is that communication has two parts, the sender and the reciever, and while an artist may be sending a strong message, if it is not presented in a manner in which the receiver can understand it, then there is no communication.
Art is a form of communication, but not like verbal communication, and so not limited to the same format. For one thing, the receiver can be the sender. There is no requirement for the receiver to understand logically what has been sent, because what has been sent can be senseless --it appeals to feelings, not logic. It is only required that there is understanding that somewhere, for someone (the artist), it makes feeling-sense.

(Bah, I'm having to make up new words.)

Sturgeon's Law - 90% of anything is crap.

Exactly. I was thinking just the same thing.

Art: (Noun). Something that serves no purpose other than aesthetics.

Some art isn't at all aesthetically pleasing, and much art does far more than look good.

Also, art can certainly be verbal. Literature is art. It can often be quite intellectual as well, so it isn't good to say that all art is something intangible and mystical.

As to whether has a purpose: of course it does, or people wouldn't make it. That isn't to say that we need to be able to define and proscribe that purpose, but the fact that we create it speaks for itself. We do it for a reason. That may be different each time, but there is always a reason.

I personally think that good art is beneficial in some way. Or possibly damaging in some way. In any case, art that has no effect is pointless, and if art has no reason to exist then we shouldn't value it. To value art for art's sake is meaningless mysticism. Great art affects people, bad art exists only for the artist's self-indulgence. That's why I agree with whoever made the point about communication. If a piece of art doesn't communicate something to me, if it is totally meaningless to me, then why the hell should I care about it? If it says nothing to anyone, why should anyone care about it? And if communication is key, there must be a message in all art.

That isn't to say I'm a populist. If an artist makes something that only a few could understand, that's fine, if that's the best way to make that art. Nor is it to say that art isn't distinctive from other forms of communication, because of course it is. It is abstract and intuitive. It comes directly into ourselves and makes us feel something first hand, as the artist feels it, rather than second-hand, as if he simply related that feeling to us.

An account of the bombing of Guernica will make it apparent how horrific the raid was. Seeing Picasso's Guernica will make you feel the horror. That is art.

Just recently i visited the Tate modern in london, just to see what the fuss was about. Now some of the items in there were good, some bad, some made me indefferent.

However one thing struck me, no one was judging whether it was actually art, and this really brings me to the question in my head and the question of this thread.

If "art" is found in an art gallery why does that mean that everyone accepts that what they are seeing IS art. After all art is very subjective...but once and authority places art in the context of a gallery (the more pretigious the gallery the higher the art) a work becomes art.

I don't know if I've explained that properly but i would love to know what people think.

Surely the answer to the question "what is art?" depends upon which culture is answering it. Likewise "what is the purpose of art?"

After all, from a certain perspective, the national portrait gallery is nothing more than a monument to ego, and certainly not a repository of art.

Art: (Noun). Something that serves no purpose other than aesthetics.

What dictionary is that from? The "Pulled-out-of-my-ass" Edition of OED?

So what you are saying is ,the artist don't really communicate with you, words do that better...well a writer(speecher) is also making image(like i'm now) with words, it is his one way to translate his /her mind,i read i see...do you see the same?.

nobody?

the purpose of studying fine arts at a univeristy was explained to me (by example) by a friend of mine.

he was working on a masters degree in writing. i scoffed at the notion that you can learn to write good fiction at a university. he explained that they were giving him MONEY to write for 2 years. they didnt neet to teach him anything, just provide the means for him to write without having to worry about how he was going to pay his bills.

the light went on.

they cant teach you how to be an artist. they can go through the history of art (very valuable) they can explain various theories of this and that. otherwise the best they can do is get out of your way while providing you with time and space to develop you talent.

Actually, it takes no convincing for me to see where a Univeristy environment would be a great place to hone Creative Writing talents. Afterall, its a place where there is a lot of discussion and writing, and in the Arts stream, that discussion and writing is both about the points of grammar, style, clarity, and abstract notions. Its a place for a writer to sharpen his pens, the better to cleave any swords in two.

Fine Arts, as in Visual Art, is only studied @ Universities by people not up to snuff to do real art, just talk and write about it. I got all thoe things your Writer friend did when I went to an Art College, except I got nice studio space, access to all kinds of fabrication studios, top end Life Models plus intruction in new techniques from experts in the field, practicing artists who actually knew what they spoke of. I also got the benefit of being at a scool dedicated completely to Art & Design and thus pretty awesome peers who helped inspire me and had no shyness in critiques of my works. I don't want a paper about a piece, or a five page statement of intent for a piece or art. If you need to write that much about a artworks, I'd rather just be given a nice little book and you can let me imagine the piece you desribe. The only thing that matters, ultimately, is the piece itself and as one of my favourite instructors said "Evleything else is just chickenshit!" (He's chinese, so you have to imagine it in Cantonese accent)

Art itself can't be taught, but the techniques and skills that can make you better at expressing yourself with your art can and are taught. University Fine Arts programs are much more focused on the verbal and written output of theories surrounding the practice of Art, but have precious little to with actually making Art. The Academic nature of Univeristy is a straightjacket for Visual Art, unlike the fertile atmosphere it can be for Literature, Music and Scientcific disciplines. There are awesomely talented people taking Fine Art @ Universities, but they're really missing out. I'm not anti-academic or anti-intellectual, I just strongly beleive they don't mix with the Visual Arts. The mainstream art world of the past 50 years is overwhelming proof of that. (To me, anyway)

Art is all of those put together.
It can acheive whatever the artist wants it to achieve.
The artist is the one who chooses what the art says.

nobody?
ok no i guess
away over what you said

expression. art's purpose depends entirely on the artist. and the viewer, of course.

ok no i guess
away over what you said
that is art of illusion. do jou understand it? or does it stay like what i want to show you is what you want to see?..... ;)

I read that as "What is the purpose of fart?"

I read that as "What is the purpose of fart?"
Ah somebody who knows what fart is(an expresion of himslef),good you make it
evolved ;)

do you realised i spoke to my self until you came out?
it is is even funny since i'm tired and will go to sleep

Art is a form of communication, but not like verbal communication, and so not limited to the same format. For one thing, the receiver can be the sender. There is no requirement for the receiver to understand logically what has been sent, because what has been sent can be senseless --it appeals to feelings, not logic. It is only required that there is understanding that somewhere, for someone (the artist), it makes feeling-sense.

(Bah, I'm having to make up new words.)


We have a winner....you have to make up words because art transcends language....it is above language, as is music..... :fluffle:

art is expression
its an outlet to emotion

Actually, it takes no convincing for me to see where a Univeristy environment would be a great place to hone Creative Writing talents. Afterall, its a place where there is a lot of discussion and writing, and in the Arts stream, that discussion and writing is both about the points of grammar, style, clarity, and abstract notions. Its a place for a writer to sharpen his pens, the better to cleave any swords in two.

Fine Arts, as in Visual Art, is only studied @ Universities by people not up to snuff to do real art, just talk and write about it. I got all thoe things your Writer friend did when I went to an Art College, except I got nice studio space, access to all kinds of fabrication studios, top end Life Models plus intruction in new techniques from experts in the field, practicing artists who actually knew what they spoke of. I also got the benefit of being at a scool dedicated completely to Art & Design and thus pretty awesome peers who helped inspire me and had no shyness in critiques of my works. I don't want a paper about a piece, or a five page statement of intent for a piece or art. If you need to write that much about a artworks, I'd rather just be given a nice little book and you can let me imagine the piece you desribe. The only thing that matters, ultimately, is the piece itself and as one of my favourite instructors said "Evleything else is just chickenshit!" (He's chinese, so you have to imagine it in Cantonese accent)

Art itself can't be taught, but the techniques and skills that can make you better at expressing yourself with your art can and are taught. University Fine Arts programs are much more focused on the verbal and written output of theories surrounding the practice of Art, but have precious little to with actually making Art. The Academic nature of Univeristy is a straightjacket for Visual Art, unlike the fertile atmosphere it can be for Literature, Music and Scientcific disciplines. There are awesomely talented people taking Fine Art @ Universities, but they're really missing out. I'm not anti-academic or anti-intellectual, I just strongly beleive they don't mix with the Visual Arts. The mainstream art world of the past 50 years is overwhelming proof of that. (To me, anyway)
you mean when you went to university you didnt get studios and kilns and whatever the fuck it takes to make bronze statues, and glass ovens and STUFF?

well then that just sucks and no wonder you hated it. learning art history and criticism has its place but i dont think its all that good for an artist unless you plan to study the thomas "painter of light" kinkade school of self promotion.

I like art, but I don't like modern art. Gimme landscape paintings, bronze statues, and marble sculptures any day. I just can't appreciate newer stuff like others can. Like, the statues of statesmen in DC and Richmond I think are awesome, but then someone stacks three bent steel bars on top of each other and calls it "Freedom"... I think it's unsightly to have in a city. Anyone else feel that way?

Originally Posted by Markreich
Art: (Noun). Something that serves no purpose other than aesthetics.

What dictionary is that from? The "Pulled-out-of-my-ass" Edition of OED?

The "if it serves no other purpose, it's art" Edition.

Some art isn't at all aesthetically pleasing, and much art does far more than look good..

I didn't say it had to look good or be pleasing. Just that it has to have nothing except aesthetic value. :)

Also, art can certainly be verbal. Literature is art. It can often be quite intellectual as well, so it isn't good to say that all art is something intangible and mystical..

Yep. And my definition works just as well on the intangible as the tangible.

As to whether has a purpose: of course it does, or people wouldn't make it. .

I said no *other* purpose. The Arts (painting, sculpture, dance, music, et al) inherentlly seek to enrich the human cultural experience. There is no art, however, which operates outside of the aesthetic; it may or may not have a political or environmental or religious (or some other!) connotation, but it still basically has no value except in the aesthetic, as that is it's medium.

That isn't to say that we need to be able to define and proscribe that purpose, but the fact that we create it speaks for itself. We do it for a reason. That may be different each time, but there is always a reason..

Agreed, but please reference my response a few lines up: it's still an aesthetic valuation.

I personally think that good art is beneficial in some way. Or possibly damaging in some way. In any case, art that has no effect is pointless, and if art has no reason to exist then we shouldn't value it. To value art for art's sake is meaningless mysticism. Great art affects people, bad art exists only for the artist's self-indulgence. That's why I agree with whoever made the point about communication. If a piece of art doesn't communicate something to me, if it is totally meaningless to me, then why the hell should I care about it? If it says nothing to anyone, why should anyone care about it? And if communication is key, there must be a message in all art.

That isn't to say I'm a populist. If an artist makes something that only a few could understand, that's fine, if that's the best way to make that art. Nor is it to say that art isn't distinctive from other forms of communication, because of course it is. It is abstract and intuitive. It comes directly into ourselves and makes us feel something first hand, as the artist feels it, rather than second-hand, as if he simply related that feeling to us.

An account of the bombing of Guernica will make it apparent how horrific the raid was. Seeing Picasso's Guernica will make you feel the horror. That is art.

Again, agreed, but I do so in the context above. :)

The artist defines wether his work is art or not. The purpose is what ever the artist says it is. As already mentioned, the purpose has varied during the centuries and between cultures.

a lot of artists say that the purpose of their art is to provoke thought, and maybe even to change minds.

(sorry if this is repeating what someones already said, but i couldn't be bothered to read all the posts)

As it is so subjective maybe we should write why we make art (those who do)

the purpose of art for me
a) provoke thoughts (quite rarely)
b) plain aesthetics
c) express feelings, especially anger and frustration (=make me feel better)
d) picturing (tell a (hi)story with sculptures or what ever)
e) spend time on doing something I enjoy
f) see if I can draw anymore

etc etc So it's not that noble. It's just a hobby for me.

I didn't say it had to look good or be pleasing. Just that it has to have nothing except aesthetic value. :)



Yep. And my definition works just as well on the intangible as the tangible.



I said no *other* purpose. The Arts (painting, sculpture, dance, music, et al) inherentlly seek to enrich the human cultural experience. There is no art, however, which operates outside of the aesthetic; it may or may not have a political or environmental or religious (or some other!) connotation, but it still basically has no value except in the aesthetic, as that is it's medium.



Agreed, but please reference my response a few lines up: it's still an aesthetic valuation.



Again, agreed, but I do so in the context above. :)

OK, but I would have thought that aesthetics referred to beauty or taste. And www.dictionary.com agrees with me :p . That's why I think art isn't always about aesthetics, but if you define aesthetics differently I'd be interested to know how.

As for art having to have a purpose, that wasn't directed straight at you, but at the 'art for art's sake' theory. Though as it happens I would contest that art must have 'nothing except aesthetic value.' Great architecture is the obvious example, as it provides a non-artistic functional purpose, but clearly has artistic qualities.

i have to disagree with the people saying that art is defined by the artist and the people that say that a university education can't make you into a better artist
one- the first point when i make something it is not i that makes it
all of my best work came/comes from some subconscious place
all of my favorite artists seem to feel the same
as a conduit from something deeper,primal the anima mundi

two- schools help you hone your tools and skills so that you can better focus beforementioned "spark" as well as in the case of most of you it seems show you what you do not need, personally, to use

lastly as for modern art don't worry it will be classical in about 100 years
art is the culture mover sooner or later everyone can come around to understanding it

As it is so subjective maybe we should write why we make art (those who do)

the purpose of art for me
a) provoke thoughts (quite rarely)
b) plain aesthetics
c) express feelings, especially anger and frustration (=make me feel better)
d) picturing (tell a (hi)story with sculptures or what ever)
e) spend time on doing something I enjoy
f) see if I can draw anymore

etc etc So it's not that noble. It's just a hobby for me. Bah, am I the only film student in existence who can't draw for shite? :(

Although I'll be an arrogant prick and say that my writing is pretty darn good. :D

OK, but I would have thought that aesthetics referred to beauty or taste. And www.dictionary.com agrees with me :p . That's why I think art isn't always about aesthetics, but if you define aesthetics differently I'd be interested to know how.

As for art having to have a purpose, that wasn't directed straight at you, but at the 'art for art's sake' theory. Though as it happens I would contest that art must have 'nothing except aesthetic value.' Great architecture is the obvious example, as it provides a non-artistic functional purpose, but clearly has artistic qualities.

Aesthics does indeed refer to beauty or taste. And that can be pro (good) or anti (bad). Thus, the "Cross in Urine" in NYC was just as much art as Leonardo's "David". Both have aestheic value, even if one is negative to just about everyone. ;)

Architecture is the perfect example!! Consider Vitruvius in the classic "The Ten Books on Architecture" -- there's no reason for Architecture to be in any form other than the functional.
Yet we have Rococo, Gothic, Modern, Art Neuvo (sp?), and any number of other kinds -- all for aesthetics! :) In terms of function, there have been few (if any real) advancements in functional architecture for over a thousand years. (Building materials, sure. But flying butresses are just arches... etc.)