What is Art?

[WaterHorse]

I was doing a homework for the History of Art class, we had to write about What is Art?
so I read Lev Tolstoi's book What is Art? as a reference, when I finished the book I thought "if this man is right, everything I know about art is wrong" then I realized that is just a human who wrote a book and we all think different, and I think art is a form of expression, a way in which artist comunicates what he feels and the viewer identifies himself with the artwork, thats what I think, What about you? Whay is art for you?

[Carrion]

The whole expression thing is true, but only a fraction of what art is. Some artists aren't expressing anything rather than placing emotions into people rather than the other way around or telling a story.

Art is a broad word and sometimes too broad, where people can make useless shit and call it art with no one being able to say something about it. The reason for that is the fact that art isn't SOMETHING its a continuously changing beast of its own kind. It will never settle down and stay the same....

[rendibsivad]

This thread should go a loooong way!

[WizMystery]

This question bugs me. Actually, let me correct that statement - the fact that human kind still has not defined an objective way of answering this question bugs me. Anything is art the moment an author or interpretee declares it to be. This I think is not just my answer, but THE answer, one that at least approaches truth. As arrogant as that sounds, allow me to break down the logical fallacy one presents when they try to define art.

Here, you are asking a subjective question about the extent to which art is subjective. The broader one's definition, the more subjective they consider art to be. The narrower one's definition, the more objective they consider art to be. It cannot be proven that art is objective. Art is not derived from the universe, it is a synthetic concept of man. Because every human on earth is unique, they do not act in a way such that any other human can accurately and precisely predict by science.

A perfect example of art, if it were to truly exist, would be one that acts according to observed law. There are no observed laws in art, we can only create them. Take music theory for example. Long before triads were in use, perfect fourths were considered consonant and pleasing to the ear. Music was based on harmony in the Middle ages when this occurred. When the Renaissance came around, there was less importance held on the relation between voices and instead the interest of the linear parts. The Baroque era still derived its music from linearity, but third harmonies were used much more often than in the past. The Classical Era was based on the decision to write music by harmony using triads that developed in the previous period. You would think that, by only examining history up to that point, the triad was the ultimate form of musical pleasure. However, the Romantic, Impressionist, and Modern periods all showed signs of leaving that value astray. Rock music, which is now even more popular than music of the past was in its prime (mainly due to exposure) is based on the power chord - a mixture of fifths and octaves. As beautiful as it sounds, the triad is no longer the basis of music. Music in our time is so broad that importance to a single parameter or aspect of music differs largely by genre. It is impossible to stress them all in a single piece - while avante-garde music is largely based on experimentation and movement away from conservative values, some neo classical music still retains stress on the triads of the past. These two things cannot be combined as their goals are very much opposite. If one were to define music so narrowly to contain only one of these things, then the other would be false. However, a definition based on the expectations of a genre stems only from bias - it is only typical that one would define perfect music as what they, as a subject, have been listening to their whole life because it is what they are used to, and that's the only thing they have to go on. Therefore their claims are subjective, and therefore they cannot claim that music is objective, and therefore they are wrong.

The same exact thing goes for any art "field" (which, itself, is a definition of art). Different genres call for different things, having been endorsed by different people.

But that only disproves the objectivity of art. Where's the proof of subjectivity? A concept or field of knowledge is objectively declared subjective if proof can only stem from claims derived from the subject. That seems to be the case here, and so all art is subjective, objectively.

If all art is subjective, then that means there is no method of measuring the degree to which something exists as art. Because of this, art is both nothing and everything. Art is just a word that we use to describe something that is not not art. I do not consider myself breathing to be art, but at the same time I do not consider my breathing to not be art. Therefore I do not apply the term to describe it. However, once someone describes their breathing as an art, it is art.

Conclusion; Art has no definition. Objectively.

[WaterHorse]

And if the useless shit isn't art and is just "look at this shit, I call it art but it isn't really I just took a piece of shit and I covered the entire canvas with it and everyone thinks that it is art and it isn't really I just did it to show all the people that anyone can call art to some piece of shit when it isn't"

but I can't say what art is, I'm just a teenager writing my thoughts, maybe I have a wrong concept about art, and I don't really know what art is, and like Captain-Carrion said "art is a broad word".
Everyone have different concept about art, maybe someone disagree with me or agree with me, or has a completly different idea about art.

Don't know what to say...

sorry for any grammatical errors, english is not my native language

[Hyptosis]

I don't wanna be a tool, but 'art' is a word. Trying to define something so vague is an exercise in futility. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone with a different opinion.

[WizMystery]

At 5/19/11 09:58 PM, WaterHorse wrote: And if the useless shit isn't art and is just "look at this shit, I call it art but it isn't really I just took a piece of shit and I covered the entire canvas with it and everyone thinks that it is art and it isn't really I just did it to show all the people that anyone can call art to some piece of shit when it isn't"

but I can't say what art is, I'm just a teenager writing my thoughts, maybe I have a wrong concept about art, and I don't really know what art is, and like Captain-Carrion said "art is a broad word".
Everyone have different concept about art, maybe someone disagree with me or agree with me, or has a completly different idea about art.

Don't know what to say...

sorry for any grammatical errors, english is not my native language

But that's just it - people claiming that a person smearing shit on a canvas isn't art is not proof at all. Those claims are too shallow to allow for an official definition of art to exist. What tends to happen as people become more educated is that their definition of art broadens as they learn to appreciate more. You start out as the arrogant sixth grader who can say nothing but "lol this iz shite, it haz no catch melodie," and eventually evolve into "Well this piece takes an interesting spin on the use of polymeter." The reason this occurrs is because of an emotional response to art - if you like it, you'll be more likely to accept it as art. The more you encounter, the more you like, and the broader your definition of art becomes. As the width of your definition of art increases, the priciseness and significance of your definition approaches zero.

The fact that everyone likes different art is fine with me, but the fact that everyone defines art differently is not. It's the clashing between objectivity and subjectivity that creates a logical fallacy and only leads to one possible correct answer.

[Kuoke]

At 5/19/11 08:41 PM, WaterHorse wrote: I was doing a homework for the History of Art class, we had to write about What is Art?

That is the ballsiest thing ever to get asked, but you're still in high school I take it, so you're probably just going to get this sort of crap for the next year.

Seriously, one sentence:
"Art is what people believe art to be".

/END

[WizMystery]

I should also make it clear that the act of defining art is not the same as using the word to describe things.

[Daverom]

At 5/19/11 08:41 PM, WaterHorse wrote: What is Art?

Baby don't hurt me
don't hurt me
no more.

Art is subjective and really can't be solidly defined, what would be art to some, other people could think of as a joke or an insult that it could even be considered so.

[Kumakun4]

Art is expression through creation.
That's why it feels like such a broad term that applies to many things.
You took a shit on a piece of paper and smeared it to prove that art can be shit on a piece of paper?
Congratulations, you've just created a piece of art that expresses your belief that you can smear shit on a piece of paper and pass it off as art.
I think it's beautiful in its simplicity, in the fact that such a minuscule definition can mean so many things to so many different people.
While I will agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the final truth of it remains that Art is just that-- expression through creation.

[Luxembourg]

Art
-noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

This is a dictionary definition. I don't feel it's quite right, as it suggests that ugly things cannot be art, and I think I've seen more than enough to know that's not true- Alex Pardee's work is oftentimes hideous, yet it is most certainly art.

My personal definition is that art is an exercise in creativity through some media- nothing complex or specific. Shit on a canvas is art, in my opinion, not because it says something about culture or art itself, but because it says something about the artist who created it. That artist was expressing something. Maybe not necessarily an emotion or something deep, as the artist could be expressing complete and utter bullshit. That, however, is still a form of expression. It would be art, just not in the form that the artist intended it.
This is just a personal definition, and many could disagree with it. Questioning what art is is somewhat of a futile endeavor, as there is no consensus whatsoever on a definition.

[Kumakun4]

At 5/19/11 10:46 PM, Luxembourg wrote: Rawr.

Basically what I said.
But further elaborated :D
I'm glad we see eye-to-eye!
You know what they say about great minds and all.
But yeah, the trick here is to not confuse what you consider to be good art, as opposed to art in general.

[MasterMerol]

If I hate it, it's art, and I love art!

[esko-man]

At 5/19/11 09:51 PM, WizMystery wrote: the fact that human kind still has not defined an objective way of answering this question bugs me.

"Art is relative"

[WizMystery]

At 5/19/11 11:47 PM, esko-man wrote:

At 5/19/11 09:51 PM, WizMystery wrote: the fact that human kind still has not defined an objective way of answering this question bugs me.

"Art is relative"

But that's my point. You can't say art is relative and then slap a restriction on it via a definition, those views would conflict with each other.

[bigjonny13]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.
What may be art to one, may just look like shit to another.

[Aigis]

Art is the product of human creativity that is made, in some sense, for the purpose of being art (this does not have to be express; it can be implied by the nature of the thing that is being created).

I take a very wide definition of art in that anything that can be called art is art, no matter how good it is. I use adjectives to indicate quality.

[Kumakun4]

At 5/20/11 12:11 AM, WizMystery wrote: But that's my point. You can't say art is relative and then slap a restriction on it via a definition, those views would conflict with each other.

Don't get confused though. What people are defining with restrictions isn't actually what is considered art, but rather what THEY consider to be GOOD art.
I still say art is expression through creation.
Anything after that no longer concerns the definition of art, but rather personal views on what is considered good art over bad art.

[Luxembourg]

At 5/19/11 10:56 PM, Kumakun4 wrote:

At 5/19/11 10:46 PM, Luxembourg wrote: Rawr.

Basically what I said.

I didn't even see your post, because it was posted while I was typing. Whoops.

[Morthagg]

Okay, I was constructing a serious and well-formulated response, but then internet explorer crashed and now I'm in a state of Fuck That.
Anyway, short version: Your question is wrong. You asked what a word with a lot of different meanings means. The only way to correctly (or semi-correctly) answer that question is to break it up in its different meanings and define those. The 'art' of your everyday-person doesn't have the same definition as the art you find in museums and the art periods books are written about, and the art you find in museums is not the same as (although comparible to) art for instance 'wild' tribes make, and that will not be the same as art that's made in a commercial setting. Find the different nuances and you will have a better overview. They're all connected, of course, but that doesn't mean they're the same.

[WizMystery]

At 5/20/11 12:43 AM, Kumakun4 wrote: Don't get confused though. What people are defining with restrictions isn't actually what is considered art, but rather what THEY consider to be GOOD art.
I still say art is expression through creation.
Anything after that no longer concerns the definition of art, but rather personal views on what is considered good art over bad art.

I'm talking about people who outright claim that a thing is not art, IE "rap is not music.". What you consider to be good art can range from person to person, but it is universally required that no definition of art exists. Your definition appears tomake sense based on works conjured in the past, but it is possible you could be proven wrong.

Take, for example serialist music. Serialist composers use patterns to define musical parameters and sometimes rely completely on those patterns, creating music by formula. It is both human expression and music at this point.

Now, say I were to invent a program that generates music from background noise. It may use diffetent aspects of the noise to define certain parameters. I keep it running throughout all of my life, generating countless hours of original music for my own merit. It is still expression and music at this point, though the expression is indirect.

Now I die. The program keeps generating more music.

Let's say I made it my goal to hide where the music is coming from. The public believes that the music is the direct result of my expression. After I die, people continue to buy and enjoy the music that the program is generated. They are confused that work continues to be released, but they suspect the release is post-humous. Eventually it is discovered that a program is what made my music. People refuse, at this point, to accept that the music is my expression, but they still consider it art because of its strange resemblance to other music/art.

What would you say about this situation?

[Knocturne]

Well, in ancient times artists were as valued as someone who could bake, someone who could fight and what not and their art was only really made to celebrate victories, record events (like them victories) or for religious practice and art in general functioned that way for hundreds of years, I'd say it wasn't really until the fall of Rome and other ancient civilizations that art started becoming such an abstracted concept. And even more, it wasn't until the last forty to fifty years that "artists" have pouted and really blurred all lines to what it meant to be art or what it meant to be an artist.

I'd like to always think of an artist in the much more antiquated definition, as someone who is a master of art, and who makes art for a living.

Because you can't say "Oh I'm an accountant" and only been doing your own accounting for yourself, that's dumb artistry is a kind of job option.

I'd define art in the vague and antiquated way by saying it's the placement of objects to stimulate the senses, thought or emotion.

I'm pretty much ignoring the contemporary because I dislike contemporary art very much, and to cover myself, I don't consider myself an artist or my work art. Not really.

[Kumakun4]

At 5/20/11 09:27 AM, WizMystery wrote: What would you say about this situation?

The machine is still your creation. Regardless of whether or not you're alive, it continues to produce music. Not only is the music it produces your form of expression, but even the machine ITSELF is a piece of art in its own right. You created a device that will continue to express itself in your stead, in the form of music, long after you've passed away.
If that's not expression through creation, I don't know what is.

[WizMystery]

At 5/20/11 12:53 PM, Kumakun4 wrote: The machine is still your creation. Regardless of whether or not you're alive, it continues to produce music. Not only is the music it produces your form of expression, but even the machine ITSELF is a piece of art in its own right. You created a device that will continue to express itself in your stead, in the form of music, long after you've passed away.
If that's not expression through creation, I don't know what is.

Excuse me, as I've made an error in my example.

Allow me to now go off on a bit of tangent. We know that the man made the program and that it is his work. Which of the two deserves credit for the music: the man or the program?

[esko-man]

At 5/20/11 12:11 AM, WizMystery wrote:

At 5/19/11 11:47 PM, esko-man wrote:

"Art is relative"

But that's my point. You can't say art is relative and then slap a restriction on it via a definition, those views would conflict with each other.

Don't think of it as a definition but as a statement that is widely accepted and more true than false.

[WizMystery]

At 5/20/11 07:31 PM, esko-man wrote: Don't think of it as a definition but as a statement that is widely accepted and more true than false.

I don't get the point you're making now.

[Kumakun4]

At 5/20/11 03:24 PM, WizMystery wrote:

At 5/20/11 12:53 PM, Kumakun4 wrote: The machine is still your creation. Regardless of whether or not you're alive, it continues to produce music. Not only is the music it produces your form of expression, but even the machine ITSELF is a piece of art in its own right. You created a device that will continue to express itself in your stead, in the form of music, long after you've passed away.
If that's not expression through creation, I don't know what is.

Excuse me, as I've made an error in my example.

Allow me to now go off on a bit of tangent. We know that the man made the program and that it is his work. Which of the two deserves credit for the music: the man or the program?

The man made the machine. The machine doesn't make music, it simply follows instructions.
That's like asking who made the painting, Da Vinci or his brush?
In a sense, I guess they both deserve credit.

[WizMystery]

At 5/20/11 08:46 PM, Kumakun4 wrote: The man made the machine. The machine doesn't make music, it simply follows instructions.
That's like asking who made the painting, Da Vinci or his brush?
In a sense, I guess they both deserve credit.

Lets say, then, I was able to build a machine that appeared to have consciousness. The machine's programming would be constructed from an infinitely generating string of "self-watching" programs that allow it to act just as a human would. These programs were designed by humans, but much of its other programming was generated by these programs without human intervention. Because of this, the robot teaches itself how to write music.

Who deserves the most credit?

[Kumakun4]

At 5/20/11 09:05 PM, WizMystery wrote: Who deserves the most credit?

I honestly don't care, this no longer has anything to do with the definition of art.