Forums → Art, Music, and Writing → What Makes Art "Art"?
| 37 | 17837 |
I recently took an art class and there were many different opinions regarding this topic and who better to ask than the artists and creative minds of Armorgames?
For me art is something that you put a bit of yourself into. Something you really care about and is tangible in some way. However, I don't think this is a very good definition of what art is.
What are your thoughts AG?
- 37 Replies
Well you will need to think about it.
Such a definition does not exist on internet.
This is one of my description, and I say it's art.
@Ivan - I wasn't asking for an answer when I made this thread because I believe that there is no one answer to this question. I was only wondering what other people's opinions were.
@ivan I said my opinion in the very first post of the thread.
Here it is: "For me art is something that you put a bit of yourself into. Something you really care about and is tangible in some way."
@ivan What? I'm sorry is English your second language? Sometimes it's a bit hard to understand you. :/
Do you know how to read between the lines?
Art is the best thing that comes out of you,its your expression to the world.
Everything you do is a kind of art,because you put into it yourself.
@ivan Please don't insult me.
I understand that you feel very passionate about your opinion of what art is, however it is not the only opinion out there and you must respect other opinions as well.
I never insulted you,on the contrary I have only tried to faithfully describe you my vision of art. Like you said "very passionate"
I'm sorry if you understood something wrong,because I did not have any bad intentions.
@ivan It's alright. I just took it the wrong way I guess when you asked me if I could read between the lines. I think I can, but I thought that you were Implying that I couldn't, which would be a bit insulting.
I'm glad that you were not insulting me! Sorry for my misunderstanding.
The definition of "art" can be as inexplicable as art itself. There's really no "true" set definition of art, but my simple definition is a more broader form of what Reton said; Art is subjective.
By this definition, theoretically, anything can be art. Some people, for example, regard cooking as an art, while others do not. It's also not bound by its state of tangibility, for if a person considers it art, then in their mind it is most definitely art and none can say otherwise.
Whether it be a skill, some form of prose or poetry, aesthetic creation, anything can be art in the mind of an individual, and at the same time, anything could also NOT be art depending on another individual.
The only reason why we regard things like drawings, sculpting, poetry, etc, as art is because it is widely recognized by the majority of the world as art forms, and as such, are labeled as "art". If one day, the world starts saying something like, "raking leaves is a form of art", many people would start to rake leaves as a profession just because there would be consumers that would pay to see people raking leaves (because if the world recognizes something, there would always be a consumer base for it).
This produces the notion that by doing these types of things, it automatically fits snugly into being considered art, but it's possible for just even a single person to believe that, say, bird watching is an art. Even if bird watching is not widely accepted as a form of art, it is undoubtedly one in the mind of said individual.
Long posts are long.
TL;DR
Art is subjective, meaning, art is whatever the hell you think it is.
@Riptizoid101 I like your definition however, earlier in the thread Reton8 brought up an interesting point. Paraphrase: If you say art can be anything than what make "art" a word any different from a word like "everything", "something" or "everything"?
I feel like this is the root of the problem when trying to find a definition of what art is, and what makes art "art" because I think pretty much everyone would agree with you Riptizoid in the fact that art is whatever you think it is, but that doesn't define art. "Art" is different than just "something"... isn't it?
What are some reasons we might elevate "something" to "art"? I think if we begin to answer this question, perhaps we can more deeply understand what separates art and makes it special.
If you say art can be anything than what make "art" a word any different from a word like "everything", "something" or "everything"?
Those words are different from art in their fundamental meaning. The words "anything" and "everything" are used for all encompassing situations, and though technically art can be "anything", I'm talking from a third person view. In reality, the individual themselves define what art is to them, hence I say "art is subjective" rather than "art is anything". "Something" is also too broad, as "anything" can be a something. Rather, art relies on the perspective on the individual and unlike the other words, art is not as mundane.
To put it simply, art depends on the individual, in a sense. Art can be "anything" in a third person perspective, but what a person considers art depends on them. For example, everything, anything, and something are all words that are applied to, well, all things.
However, an individual will not apply the word "art" to all things. What he considers art is art, and what he does not consider art is not art. Basically, unlike the words "everything", "something", and "anything", art is a selective word. While the word "art" is flexible, it is usually not applicable to all things (from an individual perspective).
But what's art?
Usually, it is defined by visual aesthetic beauty (in the case of painting, sculpting, etc) as well as emotional impact (poetry, prose, etc).
Art, I believe, is up to the individual's interpretation. Do they find significant meaning behind something? Perhaps it's art. Do they find that their emotions are drawn out immensely because of it? Perhaps it's also art.
I suppose, in essence, if it has any impact on the person, it CAN be considered an art. The reason why I emphasized "can" is because there's a sort of thin line between art and things you like/love (though they can be one and the same in certain situations).
Art isn't really my forte, anyways. Simply, art's definition is elusive. It'd be like holding out a jar and closing it saying that you've captured air, and even though you do have air, everything around you is still immersed in air and you really haven't captured anything.
Eh... I'm still drowsy from my nap so I hope none of this seems incoherent. =P
TL;DR
Art is subjective, but not all encompassing.
@riptizoid101
You said, "Usually, it is defined by visual aesthetic beauty (in the case of painting, sculpting, etc) as well as emotional impact (poetry, prose, etc)."
I'm not trying to nit-pick. That really are very good qualities that define art. However there are a few exceptions to these qualities that I would like to address.
Open-casket Funeral. Staring at your loved one. Visually intriguing/aesthetic and it has emotional impact. But there is something missing there and we just can't call it art. What's missing? Art is so complex.
Eh I only said that because that's the "usual" definition, emphasis on usual, but yeah, I see what you mean. Perhaps it's the different emotions that art draws out instead of things like you've mentioned. So, perhaps it should be better defined if psychology was brought into this.
But yeah, I agree, art is complex, both its definition and art itself.
You must be logged in to post a reply!