# Is it art?



## TopazThunder (Mar 30, 2008)

Lately I've been thinking about something that many people don't consider normally until they start walking the Post-Modernism art galleries: What qualifies as art? There is such a dizzying array of subjects, styles and media, how do we determine what is 'art'? (I'm well aware that other media other than the visual such as writing and music are considered art, but to keep things simple I'm referring specifically to the visual arts, although you could apply these principles to any form of artistic expression).

My little handy-dandy Webster's dictionary defines art as: _n._ 1. the production or realm of what is beautiful. 2. objects subject to aesthetic critera, as paintings. 3. A field or category of art. (There are several other definitions to this word but mean different things than what I'm discussing in this context).

So, if we look at the definitions, we can safely assume that anything is beautiful or pleasing to the viewer is considered art. Can we? What may be gorgeous to one person may be horrid trash to someone else. But it should still be considered art.

My view on the subject takes it one step further. What separates a "drawing" from "art" is how the image makes us react to it, like an emotion, thought or feeling of some kind.

 To me, even though a painting (or anything for that matter) might exhibit technical genius in every aspect such as color, composition,  well thought out and whatnot, if it doesn't possess that "soul," that ability to make me think or feel something from the work, it isn't really art to me. Then I look at a pen and ink next to it, with its slightly wonky perspective and anatomy, and I get a feeling from it. I can't tear my eyes away because it's making me think about something I wouldn't have thought of oringally. It's pulling me into the artist's world, much like a good book would. Who do you think would be the true artistic genius?

Sorry if that sounded slightly convoluted and fuzzy, but what do you guys think? I've always thought this subject to be interesting, but I haven't got any other opinions on the topic.

So, what do you qualify as neccessary criteria for it to be art? What is art to you and what isn't?


----------



## Aegidia (Apr 2, 2008)

My art teacher in high school used to say, when showing us absurd pieces of art: "Remember: just because it's _art_, that doesn't mean it's _good art_."

I took a look at what my own dictionary says about 'kunst', which is the Dutch word for 'art'. Literally translated, it says:
1. the creative and original expression of thoughts or feelings, often in an emotionally moving or shocking way  
4. skills (in arts and crafts) obtained through practice and study
5. what is made by man and not by nature
(2 and 3 were irrelevant)

Now, I'm pretty convinced that the whole discussion is pointless. It's like discussing religion: the only people you're going to convince are the people who were with you all along. Personally, I don't think art made purely for shock value or 'artified randomness' is actually art. But I do think that a masterfull portrait or landscape is art, even when the artist wanted nothing else than to just paint a landscape, or earn his month's wages by making a portrait. The perfect work of art exhibits technical perfection and combines this with an emotionally strong, meaningful idea. I dislike 'concept art' (as it is meant here, which is art where only the idea really matters, not the way it's executed) intensly, because basically it says 'My idea is _so cool_, yet I can't be bothered to spend time and effort on perfecting the presentation. Cause, y'know, that would be *work*.'

But hey, maybe I'm just not a good judge of these things. I'm an incredibly selfish artist: I'm not making art for _other_ people to _see_, I'm making art for _me_ to _express myself_. Who cares about viewers? Sure, it's nice to know your work is seen and appreciated, but it doesn't change the nature of the work and as such, it isn't important. 90% of my work is wrapped in plastic and stacked in my store room and it's being perfectly happy there. 

I'm terrible at names, but anyway: Examples of really good contemporary art, for me, are that guy who puts stones in geometrical patterns in remote areas of the world and then photographs them. Or that goldfish in a blender in... Scandinavia, I think it was? Everybody got all up in arms about the poor goldfish and I just thought: 'But the _artist_ won't push the button'.


----------



## Meliz (Apr 2, 2008)

art is something you make for the reason of making a statement to the world. i like art which just says a big "fuck you" to something. like that urinal on its back on the pedestal with the autograph of the "artist" on it, totally rad. yeah ^^


----------



## Kiriska (Apr 2, 2008)

Art is as subjective a subject as you can get and I find it pointless to debate an all-encompassing, universal definition that even a majority would agree to. Art is whatever you perceive it to be. Sometimes I find that something as mundane as everyday life to be artistic in some fashion. It's only perception and just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, art is as well. General definitions are contested all the time and despite the rather widespread acceptance of post-modernist ideas amongst scholars and professionals, many still scoff at it from the sidelines and the general public doesn't care to understand.

As for a personal definition, I think pretty much everything is art. (Yeah, that's real helpful right? xD)


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 2, 2008)

I wonder... just for shiggles and gits, how many of you consider this particular piece art?


----------



## Anubis16 (Apr 2, 2008)

Personally I think there is a distinction between a "sketch / drawing" and art.  To me art has to have a message, whatever it may be.  It could be something very simple, or some broad statement about society.  It doesn't really matter.  I think of the medium, whether it be a painting, music, writing, etc., is just a delivery system for the message.  And to respond to what M. Le Renard asked, yes I think it is art, just not good art.  It does have a message, so by my standards it's art.  However it's delivery system is seriously lacking.  That's one of my big beefs with contemporary/modern art; it relies almost entirely on the message.  To me the difference between art and good art is when it strikes a balance between the message and the medium; not relying too heavily on either.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 3, 2008)

I just remember, when I saw that piece in Centre Pompidou, that it totally blew my mind.  I mean, if I'd have known that you could just buy a blank canvas and then sell it right back as modern art for a $10,000 profit, my life would have turned out a lot differently than it did.  (I know, I know: he DID actually paint it.  White.)
But I guess in the end some people found some reason to love this piece, which, for them, means it's art.  I just... you know... tend to prefer things that actually required effort to make.  To put it nicely, it's not me spending millions of dollars on blank or almost blank pieces of canvas.


----------



## AnthroHorse (Apr 3, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:
			
		

> I wonder... just for shiggles and gits, how many of you consider this particular piece art?



That is a great pic :shock: 
Any how, I think its only art if it draws an emotion. which also means that some people can see it as are while others can think its just blah.


----------



## TopazThunder (Apr 5, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:
			
		

> I just remember, when I saw that piece in Centre Pompidou, that it totally blew my mind.  I mean, if I'd have known that you could just buy a blank canvas and then sell it right back as modern art for a $10,000 profit, my life would have turned out a lot differently than it did.  (I know, I know: he DID actually paint it.  White.)
> But I guess in the end some people found some reason to love this piece, which, for them, means it's art.  I just... you know... tend to prefer things that actually required effort to make.  To put it nicely, it's not me spending millions of dollars on blank or almost blank pieces of canvas.



Yeah, a little effort tends to define better art. And even if it's not a great piece, people can still tell when someone puts focus and effort into art; like they actually thought it out.



			
				Anubis16 said:
			
		

> Personally I think there is a distinction between a "sketch / drawing" and art. To me art has to have a message, whatever it may be. It could be something very simple, or some broad statement about society. It doesn't really matter. I think of the medium, whether it be a painting, music, writing, etc., is just a delivery system for the message. And to respond to what M. Le Renard asked, yes I think it is art, just not good art. It does have a message, so by my standards it's art. However it's delivery system is seriously lacking. That's one of my big beefs with contemporary/modern art; it relies almost entirely on the message. To me the difference between art and good art is when it strikes a balance between the message and the medium; not relying too heavily on either.



Yeah, I get what you're saying. Like, even though it has a message, it can be difficult to get it through and make most people viewing the piece empathize or even consider your stance if your delivery just isn't..."there." Wow, does that make any sense to anyone other that me? Talk about garbled delivery...

But yeah, that's one big reason why I'm not so into modern art these days. Sure, it's opinionated and it forces you to think in ways you woudn't, but I just don't like the way it's executed.


----------



## Vfox (Apr 15, 2008)

I forget if it was Greenberg or Rosenberg that said something is not good art until it is free of content, of one meduim, and you have a transendental moment in front of it. In otherwords anything free of content that will take you away from everything else in your day is the only thing that should be considered valid art. (Granted this was more in the post WWII era) As far as minimilism that may have been true, but to ignore the rest of the art world seemed a bit much for me. 

A good example of people fighting this concept was Robert Rauschenberg, he erased a work of art by de Kooning and claimed his action of erasing became the work itself. I love that abstract thought process when it comes to the creation of "art". If you put thought into something, regardless if you are frabricating it or not, you can make art....high brow, low brow, kitsch and clamp, it's all the same if you break it down this way. Some may disagree, but to me, as long as effort is placed into the making of a work, or in the conception of the idea of a work (Sol LeWit anyone?) of art, it is art. 

I was turned away from an art school a few years ago because they didn't think my drawings were "art worthy". I must admit it hurt to have that thrown in my face, but I became that much more focused on what I do. Today, my drawings are considered art by my peers because I never stopped doing what I thought was worthwhile. Because I put effort into my work, I feel that I have every right to call it art. To me it doesn't matter if it is my graphic work, my jewelry, or my drawings, if it requires true effort of the mind, the body, or both, it's art. I guess what I'm rambling about is that artistic taste is in the eye of the beholder; if we place effort in all we do it will catch one of those eyes.


----------



## Dyluck (Apr 15, 2008)

For me, art is a form of expression. If a work doesn't _mean_ anything, it isn't art to me. Anything else is just a drawing, painting, et cetera. For example, I find this work by Goya to be a fantastic piece of art, while something like this court painting, I really wouldn't, despite the fact that it could be considered to be much more "aesthetically pleasing."



			
				TopazThunder said:
			
		

> To me, even though a painting (or anything for that matter) might exhibit technical genius in every aspect such as color, composition,  well thought out and whatnot, if it doesn't possess that "soul," that ability to make me think or feel something from the work, it isn't really art to me.



Word.



			
				M. Le Renard said:
			
		

> I wonder... just for shiggles and gits, how many of you consider this particular piece art?



That thing is bloody brilliant is what it is.


----------



## TopazThunder (Apr 15, 2008)

Vfox said:
			
		

> I was turned away from an art school a few years ago because they didn't think my drawings were "art worthy". I must admit it hurt to have that thrown in my face, but I became that much more focused on what I do. Today, my drawings are considered art by my peers because I never stopped doing what I thought was worthwhile. Because I put effort into my work, I feel that I have every right to call it art. To me it doesn't matter if it is my graphic work, my jewelry, or my drawings, if it requires true effort of the mind, the body, or both, it's art. I guess what I'm rambling about is that artistic taste is in the eye of the beholder; if we place effort in all we do it will catch one of those eyes.



Yes. That has happened to me as well; they did not consider it art because what I created did not conform to their definition of art. But yeah, it's awesome that it didn't keep you from doing what you wanted, even if a certain circle of people didn't approve. I've noticed many institutions try to compartmentalize art, and for that, some people they don't deem "artistic" are turned down.


----------



## thomasa (Apr 19, 2008)

Its difficult and almost unfair to identify a solid definition of what art is. When you do, you will leave some thing out. 

To me, there are drawings painting and sculptures, and then there is this sort of difficult to obtain ability to create "art". and to me, "art" is anything made with very specific intention, that is deeply derived from the artists very being. I know "art" over an illustration because the artist made it with the pure intention of impacting me with something I have thought of before. Its not unfair to say "art" should have effort, but I think sometimes people confuse effort with detail.


----------



## eevachu (Apr 20, 2008)

I personally go by this philosophy for art:

"Anything created is art, but not everything created is good."

If I decided to spill a pot of ink on a piece of paper and call it art, it's art, but it doesn't mean _I_ think it's _good_ art.  However if I show it to someone else and it makes them shit an artistic brick, he obviously thinks its artistic genius.  Art is one of the most opinionated subjects in the world and people seem to forget that everyone has their own definition.


----------



## Dyluck (Apr 21, 2008)

So, what do you guys think of... this?







Or how about... this?






Sauce is Kazimir Malevich, from the Suprematism movement, created in 1913 and 1918, respectively.


----------



## Luna_Redmoon (Apr 21, 2008)

I made a website about art once for a school project...

www.freewebs.com/torysartlesson

I dunno...I just kinda threw it together as it was last minute.
Surprizingly...teacher said it was her best one she has ever seen. And a very original idea...I was like...okay whatever lol.


----------



## thomasa (Apr 21, 2008)

David M. Awesome said:
			
		

> So, what do you guys think of... this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Work like this must be taken into context. It was done in a period of art that started to embrace concepts and process. Mainstream art these days is mainly product. The art is in the finished picture you look at. But art like this is significant in how it was being done; and by that I mean the concepts and ideas behind it. Avant garde and Dada-ism is far more equatable to performance art than anything. When Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal to a museum with the signed name of R. Mutt, the artist is by no means concerned with the actual final product, and neither should the viewer. His creative expression in this was him taking a manufactured mass produced urinal, signing it, and submitting it as his own; a sort of pessimistic prediction of human expression in the years to come; or when he put the mustache and goatee on a post card of the mona lisa with the letters L.H.O.O.Q. (a play on words, when phonetically pronounced in french it equates to "she has a nice ass") it was him telling the uptight bourgeois to shove it.


----------



## Dyluck (Apr 21, 2008)

thomasa said:
			
		

> Work like this must be taken into context. It was done in a period of art that started to embrace concepts and process. Mainstream art these days is mainly product. The art is in the finished picture you look at. But art like this is significant in how it was being done; and by that I mean the concepts and ideas behind it. Avant garde and Dada-ism is far more equatable to performance art than anything. When Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal to a museum with the signed name of R. Mutt, the artist is by no means concerned with the actual final product, and neither should the viewer. His creative expression in this was him taking a manufactured mass produced urinal, signing it, and submitting it as his own; a sort of pessimistic prediction of human expression in the years to come; or when he put the mustache and goatee on a post card of the mona lisa with the letters L.H.O.O.Q. (a play on words, when phonetically pronounced in french it equates to "she has a nice ass") it was him telling the uptight bourgeois to shove it.



You deserve a prize or something.


----------



## Vfox (Apr 22, 2008)

thomasa said:
			
		

> When Marcel Duchamp submitted a urinal to a museum with the signed name of R. Mutt, the artist is by no means concerned with the actual final product, and neither should the viewer.



I am not sure I agree with that. Duchamp's Fountain was certainly a "ready made", but choosing the right item was of upmost importance to him, and vicariously his audience. If he would have placed a table lamp on that display it could have looked like a normal fixture in the gallery. Because he chose a urinal, something that is not designed to be in the public sphere, and placed it on display says to me that he viewed the item itself as important. Not only that but the slight "shock value" of calling something of such lowbrow taste, highbrow art was a great contrast. His original intent was to simply "they had been thrown it into the publics face as an act of defiance" (referring to his readymades), but he later changed his tone and claimed, as you stated, that it was an act of indifference. I think his final claim of the readymade was simply another ploy of going against the grain. 

It was a simple way of rebelling from the status-quo with not so simple reasoning. It was not only saying what he thought could be art but was one of the first to explore making art without "making" the work. He really was a genius when it came to art and paved the way for untold Minimalism artists.


----------



## thomasa (Apr 22, 2008)

Vfox said:
			
		

> thomasa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I certainly agree with you, and you are correct. But I was simply trying to say that the point of the piece was not the physical entity of the urinal (like the aesthetic qualities) but what, like you said, it represents.


----------



## Vfox (Apr 22, 2008)

In that case we are both right. =^-^=


Now we just need to get some people to talk about Michael Heizer!


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 22, 2008)

To me, any 'art' that requires you to read 5 paragraphs of information about it to understand it, is not art. Art shouldn't need explaining, it should simply be. Like that crap with the white canvas painted white, I'm sure the artist has reasons behind it, but it is only those reasons that matter; without them, it's just a white canvas. The canvas does not in fact matter, you could just read their reasons for it and be done with it.


----------



## thomasa (Apr 22, 2008)

LizardKing said:
			
		

> To me, any 'art' that requires you to read 5 paragraphs of information about it to understand it, is not art. Art shouldn't need explaining, it should simply be. Like that crap with the white canvas painted white, I'm sure the artist has reasons behind it, but it is only those reasons that matter; without them, it's just a white canvas. The canvas does not in fact matter, you could just read their reasons for it and be done with it.



But that is exactly the point! That the significance of these pieces goes beyond classic aesthetic values. And trust me, it doesn't take reading 5 paragraphs. just conceptual thinking. There seems to be some standard these days that good art needs to hold good aesthetic qualities. And frankly, that disappoints me.


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 22, 2008)

If I wanted to know what the artist was thinking, I'd ask them. Maybe I'd go listen to some philosophy or psychology classes. Having it as a prerequisite to being able to 'appreciate' some art is bullshit. 

A pile of junk is still a pile of junk no matter how much thought was put into it. You might as well say my cat's litter tray is art because the cat gave it some slight thought before deciding where to place his next deposit.


----------



## shiftyfox (Apr 22, 2008)

After reading all this, I bet those paintings were all a joke.  He was probably  
just proving that people will do anything they are told.  The only reason people consider a blank canvas art is because its hanging in a fancy museum with a million dollar price tag and everybody is making a huge fuss over it. Kinda like how people love caviar only because they are told they are supposed to love caviar.  
Honestly, what dissapoints me is that fine art has to be as abstract and confusing as possible to be considered good these days, to hell with aesthetic value.  The first time I ever went to the Seattle Art Museum, the main attraction was a pile of telephones.  The second time was 5 screens with screaming girls.  I don't think I have ever seen any modern art in a museum that I would ever want to hang up in my living room which makes me sad.


----------



## thomasa (Apr 22, 2008)

But does "living room wall quality" really equate to something that means something and does it best to change the world?

Oh and those paintings, come from a genre called Suprematism.
It was creative focus on basic geometric forms and what could be done with them; a form of minimalism crossed with design.

Classic fine art has given us this need to have everything illustrated to us explicitly; they told visual graphic stories. Modern conceptual art tells stories as well;
it tells stories about places, things, even the artist themselves, and most importantly, this gave artists the ability to express raw ideas and concepts and emotions. It just takes more involvement to "understand"


----------



## shiftyfox (Apr 22, 2008)

I dunno, a pile of telephones is a pile of telephones to me...there are better ways to use simple geometric forms as an artistic expression.  But, I mean this is all probably on a level of sopheest-y-quahcione way above me.


----------



## thomasa (Apr 22, 2008)

Well, he picked telephones over anything else. And there in a messy pile, not laid out neatly. Its a pretty played out message, our need to find solace in being connected, and all the ways we feel we MUST communicate with each other at the fear of loneliness, it becomes this incomprehensible mass of us struggling to find connection in the mass we have inadvertently built.

but thats just what I see in my head from your description.

There seems to be some attachment of conceptualism to high class pseudo intellectualism; when in reality it started completely differently.
Some of the first examples of this kind of work occurred around the early 20th century, around world war 1. Artists and intellectuals who were forced to run from there homes blamed it on the high class, the rich profiting off the killing of innocent people. What symbolized high class to the artists? Beautiful detailed rich colorful paintings that were bought by empty headed bourgeois because they were "pretty". So they set out to create "anti-art", ugly simple creations that no one could appreciate for only its visual beauty. It had to be understood beyond the viewers eyes, and into the viewers themselves. They were telling the rich to take a fuckin hike.


----------



## Vfox (Apr 22, 2008)

thomasa said:
			
		

> There seems to be some attachment of conceptualism to high class pseudo intellectualism; when in reality it started completely differently.
> Some of the first examples of this kind of work occurred around the early 20th century, around world war 1. Artists and intellectuals who were forced to run from there homes blamed it on the high class, the rich profiting off the killing of innocent people. What symbolized high class to the artists? Beautiful detailed rich colorful paintings that were bought by empty headed bourgeois because they were "pretty". So they set out to create "anti-art", ugly simple creations that no one could appreciate for only its visual beauty. It had to be understood beyond the viewers eyes, and into the viewers themselves. They were telling the rich to take a fuckin hike.



It's interesting to compare work by...say Ingres...both _Grande Odalisque_ and _Vow of Louis XIII _ are art without thought, they are simply an easily read story, little/nothing more...then compare it to Gericault's _Raft of the Medusa_. Gericault made a strong political statement (referring to a idiot captain leaving his crew to die after being shipwrecked) during a time when everyone else was doing work that fed the eyes, not the mind. He was both celebrated and damned for it, but it is a GREAT work of art. Romanticism and Rococo styles certainly had some interesting work though. 

Anyway, it wasn't until, as you said, WWI that we see this "unart" appear in the public art world. Even if people don't like it now, people...more importantly, the masses, did like it. It had its place in history and is something we use today to help us explain our own work. I think it's more important to challenge the mind than the eyes anyway.


----------



## DJ Pirtu (Apr 22, 2008)

Often, when discussing on what is art, I'm reminded of a definition of the difference between art and propaganda that I heard during one  art class.
While propaganda is aimed to make you think something or another, art only makes you think. Period.

An insufficent description of art in total, yes, but I think it tells something about what I ought good art should be like. At least according to todays standards. It's good to remember that the definition of 'good art' hasn't always been the same. In the ye old goody times a few hundred years back, should an artist trie to take any liberties from the instructions he was commissioned for, or those of the general standards of painting, there wouldn't have been a soul in the world that would have declared that work as 'good'. Well, except for the artist's mother, perhaps...

But, getting back to the subject of good art, to me a good art work accomplishes either or both of two things. It either makes me ponder things other than just "What the hell are they paying this guy for?" or it makes me feel something emotionaly.


----------



## Dyluck (Apr 22, 2008)

Vfox said:
			
		

> Raft of the Medusa [. . .] Rococo styles



Raft of the Medusa was over romanticized for what it was about, and the Rococo period was just terrible in general, but otherwise you made a lot of good points, I like where this thread has gone.


----------



## shiftyfox (Apr 22, 2008)

thomasa said:
			
		

> Well, he picked telephones over anything else. And there in a messy pile, not laid out neatly. Its a pretty played out message, our need to find solace in being connected, and all the ways we feel we MUST communicate with each other at the fear of loneliness, it becomes this incomprehensible mass of us struggling to find connection in the mass we have inadvertently built.
> 
> but thats just what I see in my head from your description.
> 
> ...



well I get the meaning behind a stack of telephones, or a blank canvas or whatever, and I wont argue that theres nothing to it. I guess my issue is that its really just a statement and not a whole lot else.  It just skips the art and goes straight to the message.  In turn it seems to lack a lot of the feeling you get from other paintings where the artist devoted a lot of time and effort to get to his finished work.  

On the flip side I never really was a big fan of picture perfect portraits either.  While the artist may have spent a lot of time and effort drawing a girl sitting on a porch, all it shows is that the artist was willing to spend a lot of time and effort to prove that there was a girl sitting on the porch.  Again, no feeling.  

So I suppose whats aesthetically pleasing to me is something that has feeling to it.  Everything else is just kinda boring to look at.


----------



## DJ Pirtu (Apr 22, 2008)

shiftyfox said:
			
		

> well I get the meaning behind a stack of telephones, or a blank canvas or whatever, and I wont argue that theres nothing to it.. I guess my issue is that its really just a statement and not a whole lot else.  It just skips the art and goes straight to the message.  In turn it seems to lack a lot of the feeling you get from other paintings where the artist devoted a lot of time and effort to get to his finished work.



I don't know. I have a hard time putting the message I'm getting from the blank canvas one in words. And I think part of the effect of the message would be lost, should it be put in another way.
As an analogy (a bit shaky one, but real). I remember hearing of this one exhebition, where an artist had put on a map of the town. And in that map was a pin at every spot where a woman had been raped.
While I'm a bit shaky on the details, I'm quite sure that that map sent quite a bit more powerful message than just saying "You know, I think we should do something about all these rapes we're having around...".

Also, while I can't argue that painting a few canvases white, even tough they would be fairly large, would require less effort than a ful detailed portrait, one must not ignore the time and effort spent in planning.


----------



## shiftyfox (Apr 22, 2008)

well yeah, doing that is still just a statement to me, and while it may get the point across pretty well, I wouldn't really call it good art.  Last year my school campus was littered with little flags representing fetuses killed from abortions.  It was a big statement, but it wasn't considered art.  

and for planning to paint a white canvas?I would assume it would take the same amount of planning as a couple of newlyweds would take on deciding on what color of off white to paint their new dining room. (which is a lot, I suppose)


----------

