# What is art?



## bearetic (Apr 23, 2009)

Is a red dot on canvas art?
Is porn art?
Any other questions you can think of?

I'm pretty open minded, so I say if it's some kind of traditional artistic medium, it's most likely art. If it's on the fringes, (such as performance art) I won't get my panties in a wad over what you call it.

If it's minimalist, and you can convince me that there was some kind of effort or skill or message or some expression of emotion or SOMETHING behind it, then I'll respect it for being something, whatever it is, no matter what you call it.

About porn? Look at the last 2 paragraphs. Also, what I've said is just a start.


Carryover from another thread. Good topic!


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

I love art. If I don't love it, it's not art, like Jeff Koons.



Speaking of art, you guys should go to Paper Rad's site, they rock. Watch out for flashing things, epileptics.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Apr 23, 2009)

If the creator is willing to be proud of it, or the performers willing to put their heart into it, I consider it art.


----------



## Takun (Apr 23, 2009)

you don't even KNOW man


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

I forgot my friend Jim Ether.


----------



## Jelly (Apr 23, 2009)

Post-structuralism.


----------



## Meeew (Apr 23, 2009)

I think anything that takes creativity and is unique is art. Even if it's very simplistic if you can develop the idea in a creative fashion then it grows to an art form.


----------



## Sinister Exaggerator (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I forgot my friend Jim Ether.



Now I want a Mr. Mustardseed. :<


----------



## krisCrash (Apr 23, 2009)

Why do so many ask if porn is art?
Where exactly does porn begin anyway...?


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 23, 2009)

I generally consider art simply to be defined by the intentions of whoever created it. I feel like a similar piece can be two different things depending on what whoever created it put into it.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

Bathos said:


> Now I want a Mr. Mustardseed. :<



I want one of those paintings, man.


He's what I want to grow up to be.


----------



## Werevixen (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I forgot my friend Jim Ether.



Nice. Five minute randomly applied blotches on canvas?


----------



## Mojotaian (Apr 23, 2009)

to answer question ,well... porn is art... believe it or not, it's classed under "The Body" and has books with naked ppl in it.

What is art? Well, in a bitter tone "Art is whatever the teacher says is art"

Personally, art is anything that either shows skill or has a powerful message, or a portrait, my Anon pictures for example are portraits.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 23, 2009)

Describing the definition of art is subjective at best. Every definition and variation is different.
One person may think Photography isn't art,  but another may think that Impressionism isn't either.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 23, 2009)

Art is supposed to be subjective. Personally I an a picky bitchy dragon. If it does not look to me like the person put any real effort into it, and it pretty much thoughtless, I do not consider it art.

You can spit on a rock and call it art, but I'm going to call it as it is. A rock with spit on it. You can plaster a red dot on a canvas but I"m sorry, abstract takes more than that to be art to me.

The furry fandom has revoked it's rights to call it's porn art because in the furry fandom porn is nothing more than 1000% tasteless smut.

EDIT: If anything can be art, what point is calling yourself an artist? Think about that.


----------



## HoneyPup (Apr 23, 2009)

Meeew said:


> I think anything that takes creativity and is unique is art. Even if it's very simplistic if you can develop the idea in a creative fashion then it grows to an art form.


I agree with this.



Ceuper said:


> I generally consider art simply to be defined by the intentions of whoever created it. I feel like a similar piece can be two different things depending on what whoever created it put into it.


I agree with this to an extent. If anyone here remembers the starving dog "art", that kind of thing is where I draw the line, even if the "artist's" intentions were that is was art. 

Porn can be art.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 23, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> Nice. Five minute randomly applied blotches on canvas?



According to the National Gallery of Canada, this is art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire , about $1.8M Canadian worth.


----------



## Xipoid (Apr 23, 2009)

I once heard someone describe what they thought art was, and I much agreed with them.

"Art is anything without purpose beyond itself."


----------



## dwolv (Apr 23, 2009)

art is a form of communication. Paint + canvas is not art but what that paint + canvas has gone through and what it say's to a specific individual is. That's the problem with band wagons in art. If you don't see how the mona lisa is a work of art you shouldn't say it is just cause everyone else thinks so, you can only respect that to another person it may be. Basically whatever speaks to you is art on some level.


----------



## Kanin (Apr 23, 2009)

Everything that expresses something is art.


----------



## Chronic (Apr 23, 2009)

character said:


> Is a red dot on canvas art?
> Is porn art?
> Any other questions you can think of?


*First*: Depends on what kind of message the dot is conveying. If it's just "Look, arts!" then I wouldn't call it art.
*Second*: Yes, if the point of it is beyond fapping. For example, a pornographic pic of just hardcore yiffing or girly bois in sexy poses I wouldn't consider art. Now say it's a pic of a very sensual scene between lovers. Then it usually has a deeper meaning (although I could just be thinking about it too much).
*Third: *What do _you _consider "art"? :3


----------



## krisCrash (Apr 23, 2009)

A lot of drawings out there aren't unique though. Does that stop them from being art?
(I kind of think so)


----------



## Grimfang (Apr 23, 2009)

Anything can be art. Art doesn't have to astonish and inspire. There tends to be a good amount of skepticism aimed towards "furry art". Why wouldn't it be, though? Most agree that art has a lot to do with expression. While I'm not necessarily defending any extremes, I don't think I'd refute the _arthood_ of anyone's work, even if it was sloppily thrown together with the sole intention of having a cheap wank. Why not?

Remember that one dude who had a starving dog in an art gallery? It literally starved to death in front of a passing audience. My initial reaction was rage and all. That much was pretty much given with most reactions, but if you think about it, why wouldn't that be art? Art doesn't have to be _nice_, pretty, classy, or proper.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 23, 2009)

Chronic said:


> *Second*: Yes, if the point of it is beyond fapping. For example, a pornographic pic of just hardcore yiffing or girly bois in sexy poses I wouldn't consider art. Now say it's a pic of a very sensual scene between lovers. Then it usually has a deeper meaning (although I could just be thinking about it too much).
> *Third: *What do _you _consider "art"? :3[/QUO
> 
> I agree with the porn part of this.
> ...


----------



## Doubler (Apr 23, 2009)

For me art isn't a property of the object, but a propensity of the subject. I see it as a certain hermeneutic proces; a way of percieving, experiencing and thinking about something, not a particular aspect of it's being.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 23, 2009)

Art is creativity, and beauty to the beholder. What else is there to say.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

Werevixen said:


> Nice. Five minute randomly applied blotches on canvas?



What? Where?


----------



## PeachesWolfiez (Apr 23, 2009)

Everything is art. 

Someone had to come up with a concept design for the car you drive, the house you live in, the logos for the companies of the bills you pay, the massive spurting cawk of doom porn that you bought.....everything. It's a creation or a design. Splotches on canvas might not mean a lot to you. But maybe that artist was enraged for 5 minutes and took his radical emotions and applied them to a board.

Monet's "Waterlilies" looks like a bunch of swirly ovals of different color up close, but when you are standing 20 feet away, and looking at all three panels, it's BREATHTAKING. 

Some people would consider the art of Robert Mapplethrope to be perverse, and disgusting, but I see a man who was desperately trying to send a message out to a world that didn't want to understand.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I certainly don't feel it's my place to knock someone over whether what they do should be considered "art" or not.


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 23, 2009)

I looked up that starving dog thing and found this: http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp

The link says it wasn't necessarily true, that the dog may have been properly cared for 'behind the scenes'. I think that's a great idea if the latter is the case as it might actually give people a positive message. Starving a dog until it dies is different, however; I think that's sick to do.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

I thought the whole point of the dog exhibit was to show that people care about starving animals only when they're the center of attention and that Snopes article seems to say that the artist was making the same point.


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I thought the whole point of the dog exhibit was to show that people care about starving animals only when they're the center of attention and that Snopes article seems to say that the artist was making the same point.



I still think it's sick to kill a dog because of that. It seems really pretentious and stupid. "Oh look, you're not complaining until I hold a dog captive and starve it to death! HA-HA, hypocrite!" I am a very strong believer that if I (or anyone else) can make even the smallest difference to another living thing or this world for the better, that's what counts. I actually do care about every animal alive that is starving. It's not at all realistic, or even beneficial, to help them all, but if I have it in my power to help one I sure as hell will.

What would have happened if he had taken a starving child from Africa and done the same thing? Sure, most people pass them by in the streets. Sure, the child probably would have died anyway. Does that make it right?

In my opinion, not at fucking all, and I feel the same way about this. It's just a very callous way of treating an already callous situation. Great. He's treating the dog like an object for display rather than a living, feeling creature. That's exactly the goddamn problem in the first place, the problem that he's supposedly protesting? That makes him the biggest hypocrite of them all.

That is, unless, the dog WAS properly fed and cared for, which is what it seems most of the articles Google brings up say. That makes sense, that's a good idea and I don't have any objection to that at all. 

Rant.


----------



## Arcadium (Apr 23, 2009)

IT'S YOUR FACE!!!!


In my book, it's something you took the time to do, and you appreciate as creative work. I doodle, i consider it art. I'm happy the way it came out, and i worked the creative part of my brain.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

Juanita BermÃºdez, the director of the CÃ³dice Gallery, stated that the animal was fed regularly and was only tied up for three hours on one day before it escaped.[6][7] Vargas himself refused to comment on the fate of the dog,[7][5] but noted that no one tried to free the dog, give it food, call the police, or do anything for the dog.[5]


So there you go. Wikipedia assuages your fears for another day.


----------



## Meeew (Apr 23, 2009)

Yeah I hope that exhibit was merely show and not blatant animal cruelty.

Can you imagine putting yourself in the poor things paws? The dominant species of the planet puts YOU up on display and lets you starve to death while dozens of onlookers watch. That is just sick...


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Juanita BermÃºdez, the director of the CÃ³dice Gallery, stated that the animal was fed regularly and was only tied up for three hours on one day before it escaped.[6][7] Vargas himself refused to comment on the fate of the dog,[7][5] but noted that no one tried to free the dog, give it food, call the police, or do anything for the dog.[5]
> 
> So there you go. Wikipedia assuages your fears for another day.



Like I said, I think that's a great idea. People ARE callous choads and making an example of that is always good. Killing a dog for it that you could save, not so much. I don't know how accurate it is to imply that the people who didn't call the police are callous because obviously there was no mention of the dog being starved in the actual exhibit. If there had been a sign saying 'This dog is being starved', or something, I'm certain someone would have done something. 

Maybe not, but that's how it seems to me.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

Meeew said:


> The dominant species of the planet puts YOU up on display and lets you starve to death while dozens of onlookers watch. That is just sick...



That's life, dude. But please, let's not turn this into a discussion about the dog. 


LET'S TALK ABOUT ARTTTT!!!! *Eyes sparkle with wonder*


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 23, 2009)

> That's life, dude. But please, let's not turn this into a discussion about the dog.



I think it's a valid discussion. We're still talking about the morals of art, after all.


----------



## Grimfang (Apr 23, 2009)

Ceuper said:


> I looked up that starving dog thing and found this: http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp
> 
> The link says it wasn't necessarily true, that the dog may have been properly cared for 'behind the scenes'. I think that's a great idea if the latter is the case as it might actually give people a positive message. Starving a dog until it dies is different, however; I think that's sick to do.



Yeah, I guess there's not a lot of proof as to what did actually happen, just claims and counterclaims. I guess I just see the creative method of making a statement like this as artistic. And again, I'm not necessarily supporting any extreme, but I think it makes more sense 

Is art objective or subjective? Someone mentioned the answer lies within the eye of the beholder. I agree with that, but I don't think something is not classified as art just because someone doesn't appreciate it.

I probably should have worded that more clearly. I'm not really looking to debate it or change anyone's mind. It's just my opinion.

I'm actually a very sensitive person. D:



			
				Load_Blown said:
			
		

> That's life, dude. But please, let's not turn this into a discussion about the dog.



Words taken from my mouth... and -- who are you and what have you done with Load_Blown??



Ceuper said:


> I think it's a valid discussion. We're still talking about the morals of art, after all.



oi.. I'm a slow poster. I always miss posts. This is true. I think the topic has just become tired and worn here. IT usually runs the course of "Objectivity vs Compassion", and regardless of what the devil's advocate may feel about the suffering of the dog, there is an undeniable message behind the whole thing.

We can rest assured with the artist's claim that the dog lived on though.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

Ceuper said:


> I think it's a valid discussion. We're still talking about the morals of art, after all.



As long as it's about something broad like morals and not just that one exhibit. I've seen too many good threads taken down by argle-bargle.



Grimfang said:


> Words taken from my mouth... and -- who are you and what have you done with Load_Blown??



I've chilled out a lot.


----------



## Shindo (Apr 23, 2009)

my body is a work of art


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> As long as it's about something broad like morals and not just that one exhibit. I've seen too many good threads taken down by argle-bargle.



Yeah, fair enough. Good point. 

Along those lines, I'm a pacifist. I also care about every living thing to a sort of obsessive degree. I practically get up in arms about killing insects for movies. Anyone seen 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape'?  

Now, I love art. I love controversial art. I love art that says something in a unique way. I am also one of those snobby metaphorical people. But as soon as the art involves the suffering of a living thing I am absolutely against it, no matter what. Not that I hear about it much, which is why I was focusing on the dog story. Anyone have any other, similar exhibits to share so I can rant more?


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 23, 2009)

Shindo said:


> my body is a work of art


Picasso?


----------



## Shindo (Apr 23, 2009)

SHENZEBO said:


> Picasso?



salvador dali


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Apr 23, 2009)

Art is whatever you make out to be art.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

Ceuper said:


> Anyone have any other, similar exhibits to share so I can rant more?



Let's talk about Cosimo Cavallaro's *NSFW cause you can see his doodle* Chocolate Jesus 


It's sacrelicious.


----------



## Ceuper (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Let's talk about Cosimo Cavallaro's Chocolate Jesus
> 
> 
> It's sacrelicious.



Hahaha. Unfortunately I'm not Christian so I don't really give a damn. Unless it's a live man encased in chocolate until he suffocates.


----------



## Shindo (Apr 23, 2009)

i try to be an artist but i mainly only make charcoal drawings of people, but i s'pose they are alright


----------



## Bunneh45 (Apr 23, 2009)

Anything is art if you consider it art. You can generally call something art if you can assume that most people would also consider art, but anyone is free to consider something as art if they want to.


----------



## Gavrill (Apr 23, 2009)

Art is what happens when a mommy paint brush and a daddy paint brush--


----------



## bozzles (Apr 23, 2009)

If the creator of something calls it art, it is art.


----------



## MIDI-Kitty (Apr 23, 2009)

I hope this clears up any confusion [NSFW]

don't worry, i'm an expert at this sort of thing, ill show you the ropes


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Apr 23, 2009)

SOCIALIST REALISM

http://members.telering.at/pat/soc.htm


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

I love Socialist Realism.


----------



## Shindo (Apr 23, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> SOCIALIST REALISM
> 
> http://members.telering.at/pat/soc.htm



ahahah why doesnt america have this


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Apr 23, 2009)

Shindo said:


> ahahah why doesnt america have this









That's where you are wrong, my friend.


----------



## Shindo (Apr 23, 2009)

jesusfish2007 said:


> That's where you are wrong, my friend.



new desktop background


----------



## Kangamutt (Apr 23, 2009)

Art is what you make of it.

/thread


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

"The artist does not create for the artist; he creates for the people, and we will see to it that henceforth the people will be called in to judge its art." - Adolf Hitler


----------



## Shindo (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> "The artist does not create for the artist; he creates for the people, and we will see to it that henceforth the people will be called in to judge its art." - Adolf Hitler



lets listen to what hitler said...



really?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

Hitler was not a half-bad artist in his own time. Just think what might have occurred had he not been rejected from art school.


----------



## Shindo (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Hitler was not a half-bad artist in his own time. Just think what might have occurred had he not been rejected from art school.



i bet he would have killed 6 million jews

haahhahahaah

wait..


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 23, 2009)

Maybe he produced the largest human art project ever conceived. It's all in the definition.


----------



## Shindo (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Maybe he produced the largest human art project ever conceived. It's all in the definition.



his mother would be proud


----------



## AlexInsane (Apr 23, 2009)

Art is a series of tubes.




Oh wait, sorry, I meant lines.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Apr 23, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> Art is a series of tubes.



TANGLED UP TUBES


----------



## Curagnaste (Apr 23, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Hitler was not a half-bad artist in his own time. Just think what might have occurred had he not been rejected from art school.


There is a conspiracy theory that the people around Hitler had him on drugs to make him easy to control. There was once a photo of him coming out of his house naked supposedly. I know every conspiracy theory in the book . I don't personally believe this theory, but I can say, there is a very thn line between madness and brilliance, and Hitler crossed it. It has happened to many people in the course of history.


----------



## krisCrash (Apr 24, 2009)

"What is art?"
sentence that devaluates and depresses artists.

All I've heard is..

It's kind of a visual medium on the continuum between propaganda and craft, my teacher said
Which we can call not quite "look at me!" and "pure braindead effort" today.


----------



## Bambi (Apr 24, 2009)

Curagnaste said:


> There is a conspiracy theory that the people around Hitler had him on drugs to make him easy to control. There was once a photo of him coming out of his house naked supposedly. I know every conspiracy theory in the book . I don't personally believe this theory, but I can say, there is a very thn line between madness and brilliance, and Hitler crossed it. It has happened to many people in the course of history.


 
In contrast, it might seem like madness or brillance when the people below you are easily taken advantage of due to their naivity.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 24, 2009)

bozzles said:


> If the creator of something calls it art, it is art.



I spit on a rock. Can I call it art now?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 24, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I spit on a rock. Can I call it art now?



Yeah, who's stopping you?


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 24, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I spit on a rock. Can I call it art now?



Sure. And if you can sell it, even more so.  Must something be populist to be considered art?  If it pleases one other person, then its art.


----------



## Kanin (Apr 24, 2009)

Art is something that expresses something, it is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 24, 2009)

I think too many people are concerned with art as product, and I don't see it that way. I think art is joyful and isn't necessarily something you do with profit in mind. I never planned on being a rich artist, I guess I can say.


----------



## Corto (Apr 24, 2009)

What is art? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.


----------



## Loken (Apr 24, 2009)

Oh my god I have an art history exam tomorrow. D:

In any case I tend to lean to the dada idea that art is what the artist says it is.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 24, 2009)

Loken said:


> art is what the artist says it is.



THIS IS UNDENIABLY TRUE.


I AM A SPOON.


SO WAS THAT.


----------



## Loken (Apr 24, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> THIS IS UNDENIABLY TRUE.
> 
> 
> I AM A SPOON.
> ...


Yea Duchamp was an asshole like that.

I would say after some thought that art is any raw form of expression that is either made intentionally to be art or is taken out of its original context and appreciated by a society as art.  

The subject of porn that was brought up is interesting because now I am going to be obsessive and research where exactly porn became its own entity separate from art.  Awayyyy I go.


----------



## SnickersTheCat (Apr 24, 2009)

Art is simply creating something. That's how I understand it anyway.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 25, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Yeah, who's stopping you?



The fact that I have more respect for myself and real artists?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 25, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Sure. And if you can sell it, even more so.  Must something be populist to be considered art?  If it pleases one other person, then its art.



If anything can be art, what point is calling oneself an artist?

I swear, if I can spit on a rock and sell it and make money there is something to be said that is wrong in the world, or the artistic side of it.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 25, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I swear, if I can spit on a rock and sell it and make money there is something to be said that is wrong in the world, or the artistic side of it.



Real artists don't necessarily make a lot of money.


I think your head is in the wrong place.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 25, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Real artists don't necessarily make a lot of money.
> 
> 
> I think your head is in the wrong place.



I dunno, i always thought artists made shitloads of cash o.o


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 25, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I dunno, i always thought artists made shitloads of cash o.o



What kind of artists?


It can go both ways, really.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 25, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> What kind of artists?
> 
> 
> It can go both ways, really.



The sort of artists i was thinking of were those that get their paintings into well known art galleries such as tate modern.


----------



## Shindo (Apr 25, 2009)

i know a lot of really poor artists
i cant think of any artists i know personally that are wealthy


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 25, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The sort of artists i was thinking of were those that get their paintings into well known art galleries such as tate modern.



Well yeah, there are well-known artists who get their work into high-profile galleries, but I would say the majority either aren't interested in that or don't have the sort of exposure needed to have a show. (Which might be a lie, I'm just estimating)


----------



## Kangamutt (Apr 25, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The sort of artists i was thinking of were those that get their paintings into well known art galleries such as tate modern.



You mean the dead ones?
And the horrid excuses for artists like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 25, 2009)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> You mean the dead ones?
> And the horrid excuses for artists like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst?



Well, alive or dead. Although they are worth more when the artist is dead.....lets go kill a few, steal their paintings and sell em on ebay! 

Of course, i am only joking.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 25, 2009)

The Last 51 Years of Art History Represented by 51 Seconds of Battlestar Galactica Season 4 Episode 18 (2009) - John Michael Boling


----------



## Surgat (Apr 25, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I spit on a rock. Can I call it art now?



It might not be terribly meaningful, significant, creative, pretty, marketable, _good_, or whatever, but yeah. Why wouldn't it be?


----------



## AlexInsane (Apr 25, 2009)

Where's Cyberfox when you need him to explain something...


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 25, 2009)

The rules of art, much like the rules of history, are dictated by the winners.


----------



## Ikrit (Apr 25, 2009)

my art teacher in high school considered popping pimples art


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 25, 2009)

lazyredhead said:


> my art teacher in high school considered popping pimples art



Well it is fun.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 25, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> Real artists don't necessarily make a lot of money.
> 
> 
> I think your head is in the wrong place.



No my head is exactly where it need to be. The point of being an artist, yes I understand that is to be disassociated from money. A real artist is into it for the art....but the be an artist often means you do have to pull in some cash as profit to cover cost of materials, if that makes sense?

Back to the original thing though, if I spit on a rock and call it art than there needs to be people out there smart enough to tell me to STFU and stop insulting real artists.

If anything and everything can be art, than anyone can be an artist and that negates the point of calling yourself and artist, or calling anything art.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 25, 2009)

Surgat said:


> It might not be terribly meaningful, significant, creative, pretty, marketable, _good_, or whatever, but yeah. Why wouldn't it be?



...
It's not art...it's called being stupid.

My faith in fellow human beings has dropped about, lets say 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 points or so. I don't think any of you get the point of the question.

People should not be terrified of speaking out against someone who is foolishly going around calling something art when it isn't. I think that is the problem with the artistic community and over half the art schools out there. People are to afraid to tell people like it is because of this silly notion anything can be art...and the result is trash flooding the system.

Case in point, if I spit on a rock and call it art, someone should put me in a place and say "No it's not, now stop being stupid."


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 25, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> My faith in fellow human beings has dropped about, lets say 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 points or so.



I'm glad I could help you.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 25, 2009)

I guess I'm not used to setting limits on expression, no matter how insignificant and effortless.

It just seems like a waste of time saying "This guy is a real artist because he spent twelve years of his life working on his magnum opus, as opposed to this lazy motherfucker who broke plates over his head and then glued them together."

Where does the line between real artist and bullshit artist begin? Is there a set amount of time and "heart" that needs to go into something before you'll see it as worthy of that tag "art"? I hate putting limits on abstract concepts.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 26, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I guess I'm not used to setting limits on expression, no matter how insignificant and effortless.
> 
> It just seems like a waste of time saying "This guy is a real artist because he spent twelve years of his life working on his magnum opus, as opposed to this lazy motherfucker who broke plates over his head and then glued them together."
> 
> Where does the line between real artist and bullshit artist begin? Is there a set amount of time and "heart" that needs to go into something before you'll see it as worthy of that tag "art"? I hate putting limits on abstract concepts.



It might be a pain in the butt, but it's better to have some sort of a limit at least in your own eyes than the run around like some hippy beatnik saying "EVERYTHING IS ART!" Way to degrade the entire thing.


----------



## Ren-Raku (Apr 26, 2009)

Art can be almost anything. Playing piano for me, is art. Photography is an art form. Driving is an art. It depends on which angle you look at it. Personally, I'm sorta disappointed that I'm uploading photographs and hardly anybody is commenting them >.<


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 26, 2009)

Ren-Raku said:


> Art can be almost anything. Playing piano for me, is art. Photography is an art form. Driving is an art. It depends on which angle you look at it.



Interesting expansion of the debate.  I agree.  Shooting is an art.  Fencing is an art, dropping a woolly bugger on a 1lb tippet and 6 weight rocket taper floating fly line _exactly_ next to a rising trout is an art.  Some will argue, that like driving or piano, these are skills, not art.

Spitting on a rock takes no skill....finding and selecting the correct rock to spit on is the trick.  Anyone can bang out 77 drunken verses of " Louie Louie" on the piano, its the artist that makes Chopin come alive.



> Personally, I'm sorta disappointed that I'm uploading photographs and hardly anybody is commenting them >.<



I'm hardly anybody.   And yes, in-camera photography is a dying art.


----------



## Ren-Raku (Apr 26, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> I'm hardly anybody.   And yes, in-camera photography is a dying art.



Much appreciated, if you see a bad photo, please tell me why it is bad, and what I can do to improve in the future


----------



## KittyBourbon (Apr 26, 2009)

I'll quote my favorite art teacher to define my view on art:

"Art is an expression of oneself, an expression of the mind. Sometimes you don't see it right away, and other people will miss it entirely but that's how art is supposed to be."

People have told me that a reference for a fursona isn't art. To me it is. Because I pour my time, my emotions, and so much of myself into that reference so that my fursona can express who I am.

Anything can be art, as long as you're expressing yourself in some way through it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Apr 26, 2009)

KittyBourbon said:


> I'll quote my favorite art teacher to define my view on art:
> 
> "Art is an expression of oneself, an expression of the mind. Sometimes you don't see it right away, and other people will miss it entirely but that's how art is supposed to be."
> 
> ...



I like this definition.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 26, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> It might be a pain in the butt, but it's better to have some sort of a limit at least in your own eyes than the run around like some hippy beatnik saying "EVERYTHING IS ART!" Way to degrade the entire thing.



Then I guess I'm a hippie beatnik. 


Everyone has their own ideas about art, and every piece of art is not equal. People will support what they agree has feeling and worth and those things that most people find have little value will fall by the wayside.

That's why I think it's not so degrading to call everything art as it is an encouragement, because everyone has the potential to create art.


----------



## Surgat (Apr 26, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> ...
> It's not art...it's called being stupid.
> 
> My faith in fellow human beings has dropped about, lets say 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 points or so. I don't think any of you get the point of the question.
> ...



I like how you didn't explain _why_ you thought it wasn't art. I can tell you haven't thought much about this.

Tell me how spitting on a rock differs _qualitatively_ from other performances. How come one performance, like a dance or drama performance can expresses something, represent something (in the case of dance), have significant form (i.e. has a "mood"), serve some ritual function, or do whatever it is art does, while the other can't.


----------



## Jack (Apr 26, 2009)

what is art?... art is the window to your immagination, where you can express your inner thoughts. or just something that gives you joy. 

anything that you do that expresses you or something else is art.


----------



## AlexInsane (Apr 26, 2009)

Reasoning as to why spitting on a rock is not art:

No artistic effort went into its making. It's like saying that breathing is art, or that blinking your eyes is art, or that picking your nose is art. I personally do not feel that physical actions can be art. Physical actions can be profound, and they can convey emotions and feelings, but most animals speak through body language, and something as commonplace and crude as that can't be art. 

To make art, you have to work for it. You have to suffer. You have to expend a tremendous effort to achieve the intended output. Spitting on a rock? Anyone can do that.


----------



## Irreverent (Apr 26, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> Spitting on a rock? Anyone can do that.



The struggling anthro-fan, devoid of perspective concepts and colour blind, unfamiliar with the tools of the trade, struggling to draw stick figures with thought balloons may not be Blotch, but is still an artist plying his/her trade.


----------



## KittyBourbon (Apr 26, 2009)

AlexInsane said:


> Reasoning as to why spitting on a rock is not art:
> 
> No artistic effort went into its making. It's like saying that breathing is art, or that blinking your eyes is art, or that picking your nose is art. I personally do not feel that physical actions can be art. Physical actions can be profound, and they can convey emotions and feelings, but most animals speak through body language, and something as commonplace and crude as that can't be art.
> 
> To make art, you have to work for it. You have to suffer. You have to expend a tremendous effort to achieve the intended output. Spitting on a rock? Anyone can do that.



I suppose there would be a barrier on physical actions not being art? Because dance of any form is art. 

Unfortunately this is a question that the majority of people will have different answers to. Art is defined as something different by each person.


----------



## AlexInsane (Apr 26, 2009)

Like I said, I don't feel that motion-oriented activities of a human nature can be labeled as art.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see why people call art 'art'. Things are what they are. A painting is a bunch of pigment on a painting medium. Music is vibrations and echoes in the air. Dancing is just people moving in a specific manner. Architecture is just something for people to walk on, under, or through.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 26, 2009)

Surgat said:


> I like how you didn't explain _why_ you thought it wasn't art. I can tell you haven't thought much about this.
> 
> Tell me how spitting on a rock differs _qualitatively_ from other performances. How come one performance, like a dance or drama performance can expresses something, represent something (in the case of dance), have significant form (i.e. has a "mood"), serve some ritual function, or do whatever it is art does, while the other can't.



I've already explained.

If anything can be art, what point is calling oneself an artist?
Let me say it again.
And bold it*
IF ANYTHING CAN BE ART, WHAT POINT IS CALLING ONESELF AN ARTIST?*

The answer to that is, no not anything can be art because art takes something that non-art does not. It takes effort. It's something that not everyone can do. It's something you pursue, and you work at it, and you can improve, or get worse. It changes medium. It takes effort. You think about it and then you make it using first talent, until you you turn it into a skill.

If it takes no effort and it's something something anyone can do it's not really art. If I spit on a rock that is not art. That is something anyone can do, takes little time, no skill and no effort. The entire artistic community has been dumbed down because people think "ANYTHING" can be art and they don't stop to think that when you can make Anything art, than the word loses it's meaning, and there is no point in calling yourself an artist, let alone what you create art. Now people can always bat around what they actually think is art but without limitations...there is no point in calling anything art or anyone an artist.

You are not an artist because you sat down and through together thoughtless trash. You are an artist because you used some sort of talent or skill to take a medium and make something of it, and it something not not just anyone can do.

I've thought about this...trust me. I'm just stunned how...open some of the people are because to me it's just flabbergasting.

If I spit on a rock it is not art.

Hunting down a good rock that takes a good shape and painting it up, or adding sections by some means to make something of it, and it turns out being something different than what anyone can do....then, then, in my mind it starts to become art.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 26, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Interesting expansion of the debate.  I agree.  Shooting is an art.  Fencing is an art, dropping a woolly bugger on a 1lb tippet and 6 weight rocket taper floating fly line _exactly_ next to a rising trout is an art.  Some will argue, that like driving or piano, these are skills, not art.
> 
> Spitting on a rock takes no skill....finding and selecting the correct rock to spit on is the trick.  Anyone can bang out 77 drunken verses of " Louie Louie" on the piano, its the artist that makes Chopin come alive.
> 
> ...



I'm not certain I completely agree with where you are going but I really love the way you put that. Nice way of words.


----------



## bearetic (Apr 26, 2009)

I'll copypasta the dictionary, since no one has thought to look there yet:



> art1 (Ã¤rt)
> n.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Surgat (Apr 26, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> I've already explained.
> 
> If anything can be art, what point is calling oneself an artist?
> Let me say it again.
> ...



I didn't say anything could be art. Art is a man-made product, built to have a thing called significant form. A painting and a day with lousy weather can both be "gloomy," but only the former is art. 




			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> The answer to that is, no not anything can be art because art takes something that non-art does not. It takes effort. It's something that not everyone can do. It's something you pursue, and you work at it, and you can improve, or get worse. It changes medium. It takes effort. You think about it and then you make it using first talent, until you you turn it into a skill.
> 
> If it takes no effort and it's something something anyone can do it's not really art. If I spit on a rock that is not art. That is something anyone can do, takes little time, no skill and no effort. The entire artistic community has been dumbed down because people think "ANYTHING" can be art and they don't stop to think that when you can make Anything art, than the word loses it's meaning, and there is no point in calling yourself an artist, let alone what you create art. Now people can always bat around what they actually think is art but without limitations...there is no point in calling anything art or anyone an artist.
> 
> ...



There are a number of problems with this.

1.)In the case of spitting on a rock, in thinking up the rules for a performance, finding the right materials, using physical force to spit, and coordinating mouth muscles to produce the desired trajectory of the spit, there is deliberate physical exertion/effort. What's the minimum effort needed to make something do whatever it is art does or makes it what it is (which you haven't explained), and why? 

2.)If all that matters is that some high amount of effort is put into something, then there's still nothing stopping spitting on a rock from being art. 

It's like how Jackson Pollack went over his paintings and touched up parts before he finished. Say for example, someone went through a lot of hassle to make their performance just right: they studied up on geology and rock formation, traveled all over the place to areas which have different rocks with different types of mineral contents, examined and found or bought a wide variety of rocks of different types, shapes, sizes, maybe they looked for rocks with fossils, researched and sought-out specific types of fossils, changed their diet so that their spit would have the correct Ph balance, started flossing so it'd be cleaner, practiced, etc. Then it'd be art? 

Alternately, say it was done by someone with severe physical disabilities which made it really tricky. How about then?

It seems like it'd take more effort than a quick sketch, or quick, simple musical performances like "Hot Cross Buns." 

3.)Skill, skill application, and aptitude are irrelevant. A beginner and a master painter both make art. Making a quick sketch without paying attention to things like composition or anatomy, and making a masterpiece are both the production of art. Likewise, it's art when someone spits on a rock as a performance and when someone does something more meaningful, creative, and complex or difficult. 

4.)You seem to be under the impression that avant-grade and conceptual artists as a rule don't put any thought into their art (disregarding the quality of their thought), nor have any kind of artistic skill. I'm not sure where you get this from. 

For example, John Cage was a pretty competent composer with more traditional instruments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UPlYnBFrI0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWlFR7rMvOk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYsx5Di3bso

He also produced stuff like this: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSulycqZH-U 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HypmW4Yd7SY

Picasso also had a realism phase: 
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/picasso/picasso1.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/picasso/picasso172.html





AlexInsane said:


> Like I said, I don't feel that motion-oriented activities of a human nature can be labeled as art.
> 
> To be perfectly honest, I don't see why people call art 'art'. Things are what they are. A painting is a bunch of pigment on a painting medium. Music is vibrations and echoes in the air. Dancing is just people moving in a specific manner. Architecture is just something for people to walk on, under, or through.



They're all categorized as "art" because they have something in common not shared with other things, and because it's a useful distinction to have. It indicates these things' importance, it encourages people to group them to together in sciences, educational materials, museums, and whatnot, and it makes communication easier. 

It's good because what they all have in common is what makes people want to learn about and observe them, so most people probably aren't into just one type of art. Plus, instead of talking about "the music, sculpture, dancing, theater, painting, and architecture" of a certain time and place, you could substitute all that for just the term "art." 


On a related note, I don't think people used to group them all together the way they do now, though. Ancient peoples didn't class architecture, prose novels, or instrumental music as art.


----------



## bearetic (Apr 27, 2009)

Looking at the dictionary makes it clear that there are many definitions of the word "art". A bunch of different concepts lumped under one word lead to the continuing debate on what art is, and the notion that "everything is art."

"Art" = "visual art" in many people's minds.

Maybe we should answer a few questions:

1. What DEFINITELY IS art?
2. What DEFINITELY IS NOT art?

and go from there.

1. A theatre performance of a Shakespeare play.
2. Some guy walking on the street. No extraordinary circumstances, he's just your average Joe going from point A to point B.
2. Even better, ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS, although that's probably been done before, lol.

Or maybe some broad categories might be easier?

1. What is generally considered to be art?
2. What is generally not considered to be art?

1. A representational (resembling something) two-dimensional work utilizing traditional artistic media and artistic principles.
2. An ordinary piece of copier paper. Not outstanding in any way. Sure, one may appreciate its beauty or something about it, but it's generally not considered "art."

Lots of things can have some aesthetic, artistic, or emotional qualities, but you might not call them art. I think that this is one good way to think about art.

"Good" art vs "not so good" art is another helpful distinction to make.

**********

If I enjoy something, it doesn't matter a whole lot to me what label you stamp on it.


----------



## bearetic (Apr 27, 2009)

Surgat said:


> They're all categorized as "art" because they have something in common not shared with other things, and because it's a useful distinction to have. It indicates these things' importance, it encourages people to group them to together in sciences, educational materials, museums, and whatnot, and it makes communication easier.



The function of language! Our abstract concepts that are broad categories that function well as generalities and get general ideas across. So often things are hard to categorize, though. Welcome to life, everyone.

(not condescending or demeaning)


----------



## AlexInsane (Apr 27, 2009)

Nothingness and everything are absolutes and therefore humans are incapable of understanding and depicting them in any way.

I mean that. What is nothing? Is it the absence of something, of anything? Like outer space, the void? But the void has things in it; to be sure, it probably has particles of dust and debris floating in it, as well as various gases. Therefore, even if you look at a patch of void that appears to have nothing in it, in reality it has things in it, which means it can't possibly be nothing.

Well, what about the color black? Or white? These indicate nothing as well, one because there's no light, no color, and the other because there's only blank space. But color means something, doesn't it? Color is the reflection of light off of an object. Black absorbs all color, which means that black HAS to have something in it, and white reflects all color except some kind of light, can't remember what. 

My point is that nothingness cannot exist to the human mind. There is always something, never nothing. You can't have pure nothing, because it is beyond humanity's talents to understand such a thing.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 27, 2009)

Surgat said:


> I didn't say anything could be art. Art is a man-made product, built to have a thing called significant form. A painting and a day with lousy weather can both be "gloomy," but only the former is art.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then why did you bother quoting my post if you just want to change topic? What I am talking about....what I am dealing with, is the inane notion that anything can be art in the physical realm, that is physical mediums. What I brought up is something that nearly every single one of you ignoring? Convenient I guess?

IF anything is art, what point is calling oneself an artist. You think about that then you think about the rock thing.

You don't call spitting on art rock because, when you dilute art to that level it becomes pointless to use the word or call yourself an artist. I'm sorry but I don't care how you suger coat it, there is no effort in spitting on a rock. You use muscles...great, so do painters but painters actually manipulate a medium, to make it more than what it is. So do sculptors. They either add or or take away until they get the job done.

You spit on a rock there is only one outcome. It's saliva on a rock. I don't care how much time went into selecting the rock, it's still a rock with spit on it, and not on part with other physical mediums. Now if you take the time to search and search, for a rock with funny shape, and paint it up to play upon that shape, or you chisel the rock to make it look more like something, or you take other bits of rocks and add to you, you start getting something that becomes like art. It's not something anyone can do, to have the vision to see what something could become if you take the time to work with it. That took real effort.

I already explained what you accuse me of not explaining. Re-read, and look for it. I'm not going to waste time sounding like a broken record just because someone does not seem to want to read.

As for you disabilities thing, I'd say stop cutting people with disabilities slack in order to boost their self esteem. If you are disabled and un-able to contribute to the world of art in a meaningful way, so what? Get over it. Why should they get slack when over a million people out there also lack the ability to contribute in a meaningful way due to a lack of any talent what so ever. People need to get over that instead of insisting..."Anyone can be an artist! Anything can be art." Again I am not talking the broad stroke of art...but one specific aspect.

Again, I am taking about spitting on a rock and calling the end product art. I am no talking about "Spitting on a rock to call it a performance" although it's still a shitty way to take something mundane and pointless and call it "art". So stop trying to turn what I am saying around, and bringing up irrelevance to negate it.

Did I talk about spitting as a performance? No I did not. Therefore it is not relevant. This is as far as I will go. Mod or not you can either stay on topic with the person you are discussing with or not. I'm not going to waste my time with irrelevance.

If you want to talk about spitting on a rock as a performance than you make your own post separate from mine, not dealing with mine. This discussion deals with only one thing that I am taking about and it is art as a physical medium.


----------



## Ren-Raku (Apr 27, 2009)

tl;dr


----------



## Jelly (Apr 27, 2009)

KittyBourbon said:


> I'll quote my favorite art teacher to define my view on art:
> 
> "Art is an expression of oneself, an expression of the mind. Sometimes you don't see it right away, and other people will miss it entirely but that's how art is supposed to be."
> 
> ...



What about generative or autonomous art? Fractals and random non-expressions of the artist but the processes of the machines? Can't these be interpreted by others as artistic expression, despite being without expressive intent from the creator?


----------



## CaptainCool (Apr 27, 2009)

as long as the creator put in a lot of creative effort into it i see it as art. it doesnt have to be good, it doesnt have to be that original, it may also creep me out.
but vulgar stuff (e.g. taking a dump and making a photo of it >.>) is not art for me...


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 27, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> What about generative or autonomous art? Fractals and random non-expressions of the artist but the processes of the machines? Can't these be interpreted by others as artistic expression, despite being without expressive intent from the creator?



No, no they cannot.


It's all useless anyways. You're all going to die, slip away into the void.


You're just filling time.


----------



## KittyBourbon (Apr 27, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> What about generative or autonomous art? Fractals and random non-expressions of the artist but the processes of the machines? Can't these be interpreted by others as artistic expression, despite being without expressive intent from the creator?



They could be, it would depend on the person viewing it. 



> Then why did you bother quoting my post if you just want to change topic? What I am talking about....what I am dealing with, is the inane notion that anything can be art in the physical realm, that is physical mediums. What I brought up is something that nearly every single one of you ignoring? Convenient I guess?


Anything CAN be art, not anything IS art. I agree that spitting on a rock is not art. The notion that something CAN be something doesn't equate to it actually BEING something. I could spill my wine on a white shag carpet and panic as a stain forms that looks like some famous person. That would NOT be art to me, or to most people. But someone out there in the world would say that the stain would be a "work of art" and would therefore consider it art. Meaning that that stupid little stain that wasn't supposed to be there at all became art to somebody else who was willing to pay for it.

To many, splatter paint is not art. Because ANYONE can splatter paint all over a canvas in pretty ways and in pretty colors. Yet, it's an accepted form of art and is actually in museums?

Art is art anytime even one person that is viewing it decides to call it art. It might not be art to you, or to me, or to someone else, but it's art to to that ONE person... and therefore, is art.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 27, 2009)

At the end of the day, Art is Subjective and depends on the person's POV.

If one can take car parts and shape them into a metalwork animal styatue, then yes it can be art. 

But if a Person rented a gun, took a car hood and shot bullets into it and gave it to the museum...I wouldn't consider it art..


----------



## Surgat (Apr 27, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Then why did you bother quoting my post if you just want to change topic? What I am talking about....what I am dealing with, is the inane notion that anything can be art in the physical realm, that is physical mediums. What I brought up is something that nearly every single one of you ignoring? Convenient I guess?
> 
> IF anything is art, what point is calling oneself an artist. You think about that then you think about the rock thing.



The point of calling yourself an artist is to designate yourself as someone who regularly produces art, especially for if done for profit. Duh.



> You don't call spitting on art rock because, when you dilute art to that level it becomes pointless to use the word or call yourself an artist.



One instance of spitting on a rock wouldn't make you an artist, just like doodling a picture in your math notebook during class wouldn't make you an artist. It doesn't "dilute" anything to call the doodle or the spitting on the rock "art." Art isn't an acid, or a base, or a drink of some sort; it's not the kind of thing that _can_ be diluted (excepting of course any possible specific artworks that consist of a liquid). 

If you didn't mean "dilution" in that sense, then your argument is circular. Categorizing things like doodles and spitting on rocks as art could only make the category meaningless *if they did not have the characteristics necessary for inclusion in the category in the first place*. 




> I'm sorry but I don't care how you suger coat it, there is no effort in spitting on a rock. You use muscles...great, so do painters but painters actually manipulate a medium, to make it more than what it is. So do sculptors. They either add or or take away until they get the job done.



So the amount of effort required is only a matter of degree. Thus, spitting on a rock can in principle be art.  



> You spit on a rock there is only one outcome. It's saliva on a rock. I don't care how much time went into selecting the rock, it's still a rock with spit on it, and not on part with other physical mediums. Now if you take the time to search and search, for a rock with funny shape, and paint it up to play upon that shape, or you chisel the rock to make it look more like something, or you take other bits of rocks and add to you, you start getting something that becomes like art. It's not something anyone can do, to have the vision to see what something could become if you take the time to work with it. That took real effort.



Effort is effort. 

Also, first you say that the end product is what matters, then you go on to say that it's the effort that goes into something that counts. Which is it?



> I already explained what you accuse me of not explaining. Re-read, and look for it. I'm not going to waste time sounding like a broken record just because someone does not seem to want to read.



Your only _thought_ you answered my question. Your reply was vacuous. 



> Again, I am taking about spitting on a rock and calling the end product art. I am no talking about "Spitting on a rock to call it a performance" although it's still a shitty way to take something mundane and pointless and call it "art". So stop trying to turn what I am saying around, and bringing up irrelevance to negate it.



Okay, so let's ignore the possibility of it being a performance. 

What's the problem? Is it the materials used? If so, how do the materials used differ qualitatively from those used in other forms of art, and why is that qualitative difference relevant to something's status as art?  



> Did I talk about spitting as a performance? No I did not. Therefore it is not relevant. This is as far as I will go. Mod or not you can either stay on topic with the person you are discussing with or not. I'm not going to waste my time with irrelevance.



That was not absolutely clear.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Apr 27, 2009)

> The point of calling yourself an artist is to designate yourself as someone who regularly produces art, especially for if done for profit. Duh.


No it's not. The point of calling yourself an artist is to differentiate yourself. Profit has little to nothing to do with it.



> One instance of spitting on a rock wouldn't make you an artist, just like doodling a picture in your math notebook during class wouldn't make you an artist. It doesn't "dilute" anything to call the doodle or the spitting on the rock "art." Art isn't an acid, or a base, or a drink of some sort; it's not the kind of thing that _can_ be diluted (excepting of course any possible specific artworks that consist of a liquid).
> 
> If you didn't mean "dilution" in that sense, then your argument is circular. Categorizing things like doodles and spitting on rocks as art could only make the category meaningless *if they did not have the characteristics necessary for inclusion in the category in the first place*.


And yet you blissfully ignored that I was talking about "once instance" to begin with before jumping on me and going on an irrelevant tangent.

"*I SPIT ON A ROCK CAN I CALL IT ART NOW*"....that has been seen somewhere. I wonder? Oh yeah, it one of my beginning posts.



> One instance of spitting on a rock wouldn't make you an artist, just like doodling a picture in your math notebook during class wouldn't make you an artist. It doesn't "dilute" anything to call the doodle or the spitting on the rock "art." Art isn't an acid, or a base, or a drink of some sort; it's not the kind of thing that _can_ be diluted (excepting of course any possible specific artworks that consist of a liquid).
> 
> If you didn't mean "dilution" in that sense, then your argument is circular. Categorizing things like doodles and spitting on rocks as art could only make the category meaningless *if they did not have the characteristics necessary for inclusion in the category in the first place*.



....I think it should be obvious that when I say dilute I don't mean that literally. If you take the whole of art, and water it down with meaningless trash in an effort to please everyone who wants to call themselves artists, than you in a way dilute the entire thing to the point where there is no point in calling yourself and artist, or calling it art. Google damn Surgat stop this more complicated that it is intended to be when it is a really simple thing.



> So the amount of effort required is only a matter of degree. Thus, spitting on a rock can in principle be art.


You're not listening. *What was my original post? What was my secondary post?* Don't jump into a discussion if you don't fully understand what means to be said.

Effort is not effort in the way you are thinking, or the way you are implying.

A rock is in the way. One person comes up, pushes his hand against it, but then decides it's too heavy and sits down. Another person comes up, puts his entire body against it, and then strains until he can budge the rock enough to make it roll just enough out of the way.

Two people put in effort but only one person moved the rock. Art is a bit like that. You have people who try and then do nothing and demand equality, and then you have people who go beyond trying and those people are the real artists. Not some idiot deciding to spit on a rock and suddenly saying "Hey I made art! Now I'm equal to....some other artist who actually puts the time and effort into things"



> Effort is effort.
> 
> Also, first you say that the end product is what matters, then you go on to say that it's the effort that goes into something that counts. Which is it?



Effort is not effort. Read above.
Also please try to read and comprehend a bit better. There is only one end result because there is no effort involved. I'm not switching things up.

There are things than nearly anyone can do...like spit on a rock.
Then there are things that no just anyone can do, envision what a rock can become, and work with it to make it something else. What leads up to the end result is part of the end result it is one, and the same.

Which is why I originally brought up the whole thing "If I spit on a rock can I call it art" in response to someone who said "Anything can be art". I narrowed it down to physical mediums, and pointed out "If anything can be art, what point is calling yourself an artist".....you come in arguing with me going on about irrelevance trying broaden it when the argument/discussion was originally specific. I'm done here.

You either get it or you don't. It's so simple.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 27, 2009)

Hey, who's your favorite underground cartoonist? Mine's Kaz


----------



## Liam (Apr 27, 2009)

I feel that art is where an ordinary person can observe said 'art' and just go 'holy shit that is art'  
For example, a mosaic of smaller pictures that make up a larger one often leaves me feeling that it is truly art, whereas if someone were to just draw a couple straight lines on an otherwise blank canvas does not feel the same.
Art changes with the times.


----------



## Hottigress (Apr 27, 2009)

my opinion is that if sumone puts all their emotions into sumthing, porn includedXD, that it is art. even if its just telling sum1 u love them. art is close to unexplainable wen u have a realization of evverything. i am making no sense. *%(^ it.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 28, 2009)

xxxkittyxxx said:


> my opinion is that if sumone puts all their emotions into sumthing, porn includedXD, that it is art. even if its just telling sum1 u love them. art is close to unexplainable wen u have a realization of evverything. i am making no sense. *%(^ it.



I agree completely.


----------



## Hottigress (Apr 28, 2009)

Jack said:


> what is art?... art is the window to your immagination, where you can express your inner thoughts. or just something that gives you joy.
> 
> anything that you do that expresses you or something else is art.


 

was i art to you? that presents an interesting question.


----------



## bearetic (Apr 28, 2009)

xxxkittyxxx said:


> was i art to you? that presents an interesting question.


*NO.*

Maybe you as a person, but not your garbled earlier post.


----------



## shen-po (Apr 28, 2009)

art is the expression of somthing in a medium that's decided by the creator ^^ but myself i prefer stylized arts :3


----------

