What makes art art?

[bearshit]

I hosted a forum on this at an art gallery once. It was really an interesting evening. I just would like to get thinking peoples' ideas on what distinguishes art from lower creations. Anybody game?:)

[Free in Freeport]

Hmm

I think it's my reaction, as much as the level of skill that goes into creating something. If something makes me (0r others) think, or stirs me (us) emotionally, the artist has something.

Are you an artist yourself?

[bearshit]

A singer. Yes. So, a recreator. Not a creator. An interpreter.

[bearshit]

So...how it makes you feel...how it makes you react. I like that.

[Preno]

What makes art art?Art critics.

[Notta]

Music can stir a human's emotions, as can a play or a story. Art is imagination made tangible.

[columbus]

I hosted a forum on this at an art gallery once. It was really an interesting evening. I just would like to get thinking peoples' ideas on what distinguishes art from lower creations. Anybody game?:)

I fomented an argument at my local art co-op on this exact subject a few years ago.

My argument was that art is anything made simply because it looks good. (We were discussing visual arts, not poetry or dance or any of the other arts, although the principles held) My friend Steve was arguing that art is things people make because they feel a creative urge. It was an epic knock-down drag out, since both Steve and I know everything and much of it is different.:)

So here is my definition of art: Art is that which humans value only because it improves the world by looking good. If it has another function it is not Art. Much of what passes for art is really a political cartoon or pornography. Cheaply stamped designs on the end of a spoon bought at Wal-Mart are Art, because they serve no purpose other than to look good. Million dollar paintings at Saatchi Gallery are often not Art, because they are "statements", and that is all the value they really have.

Monet and Rothko, ART. Large Brillo boxes, by Warhol not Art. Titian and Michelangelo, not Art at the time, but now Art because nobody cares about their original function as story-tellers and religious apologists.


:):):):):)

Tom

[Rie]

Helluva question! Hard to answer. I would say that what makes Art Art is the person who felt enough and saw something that embodied his thought and was, in a sense, compelled to somehow capture it on paper or film or in stone or any way that worked.
It is self expression par excellence and hard hard hard on the person we can call the 'artist'

[Alex]

What makes art art?

The aesthetes.

[kennyc]

Do animals, other life-forms (if they exist) have art?

Hmm... There are the bowerbirds....maybe that's a kind of art?

I think art is an attempt to communicate emotion, feeling, meaning, experience in a way that the viewer experiences some emotion/mental state upon viewing, hearing, reading...that places them in a particular emotional/mental frame of mind.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I think of art as a semiotic pun.

[Berthold]

Do animals, other life-forms (if they exist) have art?

Hmm... There are the bowerbirds....maybe that's a kind of art?
And some candidates for proto-music: songbirds and whales.

[Free in Freeport]

I hosted a forum on this at an art gallery once. It was really an interesting evening. I just would like to get thinking peoples' ideas on what distinguishes art from lower creations. Anybody game?:)

I fomented an argument at my local art co-op on this exact subject a few years ago.

My argument was that art is anything made simply because it looks good. (We were discussing visual arts, not poetry or dance or any of the other arts, although the principles held) My friend Steve was arguing that art is things people make because they feel a creative urge. It was an epic knock-down drag out, since both Steve and I know everything and much of it is different.:)

So here is my definition of art: Art is that which humans value only because it improves the world by looking good. If it has another function it is not Art. Much of what passes for art is really a political cartoon or pornography. Cheaply stamped designs on the end of a spoon bought at Wal-Mart are Art, because they serve no purpose other than to look good. Million dollar paintings at Saatchi Gallery are often not Art, because they are "statements", and that is all the value they really have.

Monet and Rothko, ART. Large Brillo boxes, by Warhol not Art. Titian and Michelangelo, not Art at the time, but now Art because nobody cares about their original function as story-tellers and religious apologists.


:):):):):)

Tom

I think there's more to art than mere prettiness. To elevate something from mere decoration to art, there has to be some meaning involved. The meaning need not be clear. Better in fact when it is open to interpretation.

Art need not be pretty, either. Some famous works are deeply disturbing, but compelling.

What kind of art do you do?

[TheRedMarron]

Any art created to make profit is not art.

-non artist

[nygreenguy]

I think there's more to art than mere prettiness. To elevate something from mere decoration to art, there has to be some meaning involved. The meaning need not be clear. Better in fact when it is open to interpretation.

Art need not be pretty, either. Some famous works are deeply disturbing, but compelling.

What kind of art do you do?

But meaning is so subjective. One person may look at something and not see anything, while another may be moved. I would say nature photography is art, but its not always possible to have any sort of meaning in it.

[nygreenguy]

Do animals, other life-forms (if they exist) have art?

Hmm... There are the bowerbirds....maybe that's a kind of art?

I think art is an attempt to communicate emotion, feeling, meaning, experience in a way that the viewer experiences some emotion/mental state upon viewing, hearing, reading...that places them in a particular emotional/mental frame of mind.


hmm...a communication of emotion. Im finding it difficult to think of anything which may prove this wrong. Perhaps the best definition thus far. This must mean bird song and bowerbirds create art because their art instills fear and sexual desire.

[Ray Moscow]

Just about any human activity or its result can be considered art, especially if it's "intended" that way.

I wouldn't consider birdsong "art", although it's often beautiful.

[Free in Freeport]

I think there's more to art than mere prettiness. To elevate something from mere decoration to art, there has to be some meaning involved. The meaning need not be clear. Better in fact when it is open to interpretation.

Art need not be pretty, either. Some famous works are deeply disturbing, but compelling.

What kind of art do you do?

But meaning is so subjective. One person may look at something and not see anything, while another may be moved. I would say nature photography is art, but its not always possible to have any sort of meaning in it.

Far from it! I love well done nature photography, and find lots of meaning within it. But you're right, it is very subjective. One man's art, another man's rubbish.

[kennyc]

..
Art need not be pretty, either. Some famous works are deeply disturbing, but compelling.

What kind of art do you do?

I agree. Sometimes the more disturbing the "greater" the art.

As far as your question, I feel very creatively driven for a while now ... unfortunately my muse is very fickle and drags me through all manner of creative artistic endeavors such as Writing, Poetry, Music, Drawing (graphite), painting (digital) and .....:eek: See the links in my sig.

[kennyc]

Just about any human activity or its result can be considered art, especially if it's "intended" that way.

I wouldn't consider birdsong "art", although it's often beautiful.

Do you not consider music art then?

I agree that art can be expressed in many ways ... including computer software programming...many aspects of it is truly art but those who recognize and appreciate it are few. :o

[Ray Moscow]

Just about any human activity or its result can be considered art, especially if it's "intended" that way.

I wouldn't consider birdsong "art", although it's often beautiful.

Do you not consider music art then?

I agree that art can be expressed in many ways ... including computer software programming...many aspects of it is truly art but those who recognize and appreciate it are few. :o

Yes, (human created) music is art.

Birdsong is beautiful, but it isn't intended by the birds to be art (as far as anyone knows).

[kennyc]

Just about any human activity or its result can be considered art, especially if it's "intended" that way.

I wouldn't consider birdsong "art", although it's often beautiful.

Do you not consider music art then?

I agree that art can be expressed in many ways ... including computer software programming...many aspects of it is truly art but those who recognize and appreciate it are few. :o

Yes, (human created) music is art.

Birdsong is beautiful, but it isn't intended by the birds to be art (as far as anyone knows).

Hmmmm, maybe human music is the same?

How about the Music of the Spheres? :p :D :D

[His Noodly Appendage]

Like I said, semiotic pun. The indirect juxtaposition of two or more concepts or symbols in an ironic, humorous or otherwise poignant way, via cultural (or otherwise) associations with elements of the work.

It's the tension between the two - the discontinuity, the context-shift, the required re-parse, etc. that generates the "Huh." that is the sensation of Art-with-a-capital-A.

Even better if the audience only 'gets it' subconsciously, giving the impression of deep significance with no apparent source - an almost-mystical effect.

This is why having someone 'explain' a piece is so bloody cringeworthy, and why you generally lose any appreciation you had for it at that point. It's like someone ponderously explaining all the cultural significance behind an englishman/irishman/scotsman joke. Oh dear god, just kill me now.

[Free in Freeport]

Sorry Noods, that's entirely too cerebral. I like visceral reactions better.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Are jokes not visceral?

[Free in Freeport]

Not the ones you tell!

[Rie]

It's all a matter of 'line' as I think Noodly touched on, albeit not viscerally enough;)... A 'thing' , a person, a 'scene', a movement in dance has to have what comes easily in dance parlance... and that is 'Line'.

When you paint for example you completely unconsciously select the form best for the 'subject' matter to be painted or watercoloured or 'gouched' or pen and inked and when you carve or whittle or shape from stone or clay, as the potter does, still there is this process of selection of the 'right' colour, shape to convey the reality that your mind sees.

This is where 'Impressionism' comes in. A thing can be conveyed in a way idiosyncratic to the painter or the dancer who is interpreting the music.

This is such a difficult thing to explain.
It's all very well to say "I just know what I like" from the point of view of the beholder, but to transfer your brain's image onto the medium of artistic expression is entirely up to the artist and may well be not 'appealing' to the viewer!

So Art abnove all is not created to please... it may well do this if the artist manages to combine his vision with the medium... but he does not ever think "Oh, this will please others". And so if you aren't gifted with an eye for shape, colour, form, movement or an "ear" for music you probably should stick to technical drawing.

[Free in Freeport]

True, Rie.

I'm actually not disagreeing with Noods. He's just way too highbrow for a ditz like me.

[Preno]

Like I said, semiotic pun. The indirect juxtaposition of two or more concepts or symbols in an ironic, humorous or otherwise poignant way, via cultural (or otherwise) associations with elements of the work.That doesn't seem to include music (at least the large portion of music that doesn't have any symbolic content).

[His Noodly Appendage]

Those who use the phrase 'tone poem' might disagree...

[Preno]

How does providing a particular genre of music which does have symbolic content invalidate my point (especially since I specifically acknowledged that there are types of music which do have symbolic content)? What you need to demonstrate is that all music (or at least all music that can be called art) has symbolic content.

[columbus]

I think there's more to art than mere prettiness.

I have a very large definition of Art. I am quite accepting of prettiness. What I am not accepting of is ugliness, whatever the point. I've seen some really ugly stuff presented as Art. That is were I draw my own line. If it isn't beautiful, it isn't Art. Art can have meaning or social significance, but it doesn't have to in order to be Art. What it has to have is beauty, the rest be damned.
A piece I commonly use as an illustration is "Oh Charlie, Oh Charlie", by Charles Ray. It was a large sculpture consisting of eight life size and exquisitely detailed renditions of the artist performing as many sex acts as eight men(with eight penises, sixteen hands, eight mouths, and eight butts) could possibly perform on each other. It was technically superb. It was controversial, and "deeply meaningful". I thought it was gross. Give me "prettiness" any day. I rather like Monet's "Impression: Sunrise", despite the fact that there was nothing important about the painting other than prettiness. The fact that it was "merely pretty" is what made it so ground-breaking. The Impressionists pioneered new artistic ground by deciding to "decorate a canvas", instead of telling a story or illustrating a classical concept.

To elevate something from mere decoration to art, there has to be some meaning involved. Why? You are implying that a poster supporting the war in Iraq is better Art than an abstract painting. The poster has some "meaning", but a beautifully composed and executed watercolor without a message is not.

The meaning need not be clear. Better in fact when it is open to interpretation. So, what is the point if the meaning isn't clear? If a piece is ugly, and you see it as one message and I see it as the diametrical opposite, then why not just burn it and move on?
If the value isn't beauty then it isn't Art.

Art need not be pretty, either. Some famous works are deeply disturbing, but compelling. You keep refering to "pretty", as thought it were different from "beautiful". What do you mean by that? A beautiful piece can be disturbing but compelling, just look at Klimt. But if it is "not beautiful", then I don't care how disturbing or compelling it is, it isn't Art.


What kind of art do you do? I enjoy playing with paint and photoshop and structure, but I do not consider myself an artist. The closest I could come to answering the question, "What kind of art do you do?" would be to say that I enjoy exploring materials and images, but I am basically a craftsman. I make things that are pleasing to me, for whatever reason. Sometimes I sell them, but not often. I have a day job I will keep.

Tom

[His Noodly Appendage]

Preno: my point is that semiotic stuff is pretty all-pervasive. Just the look-n-feel of a piece can carry a host of associations with it, which you can play off.

[Free in Freeport]

Preno: my point is that semiotic stuff is pretty all-pervasive. Just the look-n-feel of a piece can carry a host of associations with it, which you can play off.

Now THERE is a definition I can actually understand! Thanks Noods.

[Preno]

Preno: my point is that semiotic stuff is pretty all-pervasive. Just the look-n-feel of a piece can carry a host of associations with it, which you can play off.That may be the case (although I doubt it is, such associations don't seem to be vital to music as an art), but it still fails as a definition.

[Alex]

Is this infamous scene a "work of art"? It is or used to be on exhibition in the Saatchi Art Gallery in London:

http://circumerro.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/emin-my-bed.jpg


Charles Saatchi describes himself as a collector and connoisseur of art, so if he thinks Tracey Emin's bed is a work of art do we take his word for it?

[Cath B]

Do animals, other life-forms (if they exist) have art?

Hmm... There are the bowerbirds....maybe that's a kind of art?

Geoffrey Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_%28evolutionary_psychologist%29) made some interesting (and not entirely tongue-in-cheek methinks) speculations about this in his book The Mating Mind - at least, I think that's where I read it.

Along the lines that while the result of an effective bower is attracting a mate the conscious thought of its avian designer might be along the lines of, "I get a real kick out of designing this for it's own sake, it's just lucky coincidence that it also attracts the females."

I think art is an attempt to communicate emotion, feeling, meaning, experience in a way that the viewer experiences some emotion/mental state upon viewing, hearing, reading...that places them in a particular emotional/mental frame of mind.

Bearing in mind that the imagined viewer may sometimes be the artist him/herself.

And the "emotion, feeling, meaning, experience" may be derived partly or entirely from the execution rather than the product.

Not sure if I'm making much sense here,I'm just feeling my way ...

[David B]

Do animals, other life-forms (if they exist) have art?

Hmm... There are the bowerbirds....maybe that's a kind of art?

Geoffrey Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_%28evolutionary_psychologist%29) made some interesting (and not entirely tongue-in-cheek methinks) speculations about this in his book The Mating Mind - at least, I think that's where I read it.

Along the lines that while the result of an effective bower is attracting a mate the conscious thought of its avian designer might be along the lines of, "I get a real kick out of designing this for it's own sake, it's just lucky coincidence that it also attracts the females."

I think art is an attempt to communicate emotion, feeling, meaning, experience in a way that the viewer experiences some emotion/mental state upon viewing, hearing, reading...that places them in a particular emotional/mental frame of mind.

Bearing in mind that the imagined viewer may sometimes be the artist him/herself.

And the "emotion, feeling, meaning, experience" may be derived partly or entirely from the execution rather than the product.

Not sure if I'm making much sense here,I'm just feeling my way ...

I think I'm with you, and I was thinking much the same about birdsong.

Though some birdsong is alarm calling, and some not so much attracting a female(s) as it is telling other males 'this is my neck of the woods, so fuck off'.

Then again, I suspect that the aesthetic experience that some ladies seem to get from skilled use of make up, or jewellery selection is a sort of second level experience in the same sort of way that I think you are trying to get at, where the artistic expression of choosing body adornment is partly subconsciously aimed at attracting males, and partly (more?) aimed at subconsciously moving up the pecking order of females - which might have it's own influence on sexual attraction.

David

[Cath B]

Then again, I suspect that the aesthetic experience that some ladies seem to get from skilled use of make up, or jewellery selection is a sort of second level experience in the same sort of way that I think you are trying to get at, where the artistic expression of choosing body adornment is partly subconsciously aimed at attracting males, and partly (more?) aimed at subconsciously moving up the pecking order of females - which might have it's own influence on sexual attraction.



Yes, absolutely.

Cooking's another example.Thinking now of the auctioning of the lunch boxes in that corny musical Oklahoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma!).

But perhaps what folk call Art appears at its most intriguing when there appears to be no obvious intention of sexual attraction or status seeking.

Like the work of Angus McPhee, weaver of grass (http://www.ambaile.org.uk/en/item/item_narrative.jsp?item_id=16911)

Angus MacPhee was born in the township of Iochdar, South Uist in 1916. He grew up on a traditional croft where he worked alongside his father after leaving school at 14. At this time his talent for music (he sang and played the chanter), tending animals and 'making things' was recognised. The latter would keep him occupied for almost 50 years of his life, making, creating, and constructing the most elaborate and amazing grass garments and objects. Angus spent this major part of his life in Craig Dunain, a psychiatric hospital on the outskirts of Inverness.


Whatever happened for Angus in the early days of his life in the farm ward, he displayed a strong individuality by his intense activity with grass weaving. As he walked down the long grassy field from the ward backdoor, he could be seen to gather lengths of the couch grass until he held a handful. Then standing beside the bushes at the end of the field, he would begin to weave the grasses into lengths and plait these, adding new lengths to produce a plaited rope.



Angus would work discreetly, neither secretively nor hidden, but avoiding any unwanted attention. The staff soon accepted this strange behaviour, considering it harmless yet meaningless and left him to it. So day in, day out, whatever the weather, Angus spent every minute of his free time making things out of grass. We know only fragments of what and how he made these creations in the early days. Never communicating, he kept his thoughts to himself.


Twice a year the hospital gardeners would arrive at Kinmylies grounds with the task of keeping the estate tidy. As they pruned branches and, in the autumn, gathered leaves, they also raked in all the weavings made by Angus. When all the garden waste was collected, they would announce there would be a bonfire on the first fine late afternoon. Staff and some of the patients would assemble, as all groups of people do, to watch a bonfire. Angus also attended. Much of the flames, sparks and crackling would have been his woven garments. Angus never commented. He stood and watched.



Only a fraction of the life-time's work of Angus McPhee remains. From the small collection now conserved, we can glimpse the importance of this simple, yet complex man, who could touch prehistory and the avant-garde with one piece of his art.


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6md7g/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mcphee.jpg

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6md7g/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mcphee.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thecroft.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/weaver-of-grass/&usg=__Kvm23On00LblBcRejnd8CoF2aNQ=&h=355&w=508&sz=73&hl=en&start=1&itbs=1&tbnid=iIlTtMG3UKZLLM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dangus%2Bmcphee%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26 tbs%3Disch:1

[mood2]

Hello :)

I'd say Art is a creative expression of ideas and feelings in which the method of expression is significant in itself (through displaying skill, originality or whatever).

So Emin's bed definitely is Art in my book, iconic art at that, because it was such an original and evocative way of expressing the artist's state of mind. It's not for everybody, but I don't see that's a problem, no art is.

I'm not sure how birdsong would fit into my definition though! Maybe the fact that humans find it attractive could make us think it has something to do with art.

[David B]

Hello :)

I'd say Art is a creative expression of ideas and feelings in which the method of expression is significant in itself (through displaying skill, originality or whatever).

So Emin's bed definitely is Art in my book, iconic art at that, because it was such an original and evocative way of expressing the artist's state of mind. It's not for everybody, but I don't see that's a problem, no art is.

I'm not sure how birdsong would fit into my definition though! Maybe the fact that humans find it attractive could make us think it has something to do with art.

I'd have thought that the intent, skill, etc of the performer of the bird song, and the effect upon the listener that might make it art.

Some birds learn to sing, and use a lot of variation, and imitate/adapt other sounds they hear in their song.

And, perhaps crucially for it being considered as art, some do it more or less well, from the POV of it fulfilling its functions of advertising their fitness as mates, and repelling potential invaders into their territories.

I'd see a role for sexual selection in human art, as there is in the song (and, for that matter, dance in some species) of various species of bird.

David

[Bane]

A person can call just about anything "art". I tend to think of art as having some kind of message (even if it is just "randomness is OK"), so stuff like Tracy Emin's bed, or (IIRC) the tent in which she wrote down the names of everyone she slept with, may fit under that at a stretch....if anyone can actually prove that there was a point to it, then I suppose it is art. However, it's bad art, if it is art at all. And yes, I do indeed believe I can come up with something much more appealing! Well...after I gain some toughness anyway :)

[bearshit]

For me, art, to be art...has to somehow transcend itself.

[Cath B]

This thread's been making a poem (someone else's not my own!) dance around in my head.

In my craft or sullen art
Exercised in the still night
When only the moon rages
And the lovers lie abed
With all their griefs in their arms,
I labour by singing light
Not for ambition or bread
Or the strut and trade of charms
On the ivory stages
But for the common wages
Of their most secret heart.

Not for the proud man apart
From the raging moon I write
On these spindrift pages
Nor for the towering dead
With their nightingales and psalms
But for the lovers, their arms
Round the griefs of the ages,
Who pay no praise or wages
Nor heed my craft or art.

Anyone know the poet without looking it up?

Wikiing the poem I found this:-

In 2009, the London-based Poetry Society used the text of this poem for their "Knit A Poem" project. Each letter of the poem was charted and knit onto a square by volunteers. Spaces and "white space" used knitted blocks without a letter to fill in around the text, also knit by volunteers. More than 850 volunteers from all over the world participated. The finished poem was 7mx9m and was unveiled on October 7, 2009 in front of the British Library in London.

It seems to me that in this instance the designer is an artist and the knitters are crafts(wo)men.

[Rie]

But Cath this work could be called the work of an artisan not an artist and there is such a fine line there!
I would have to say that art is something intangible and from the depths of experience and wisdom and also be an expression of the technical skill of the artist in whatever medium. When I cry seeing my daughter create her form of art it's because there is before me (forget that she is my daughter) beauty of expression in interpreting music by moving in a prescribed pattern.
And another dancer may well not achieve this 'flow' this beauty for many intangible reasons.

[Cath B]

But Cath this work could be called the work of an artisan not an artist and there is such a fine line there!

What I was trying to get is that the concept required originality whereas the execution required a skill.

But right enough, my example falls on two points:

Firstly,it might not have been an original idea - the designer(s) representing the Poetry Society might have got the idea from somewhere else

The result might not have been good enough to be a work of art (but who's to say? :dunno:)

I would have to say that art is something intangible and from the depths of experience and wisdom and also be an expression of the technical skill of the artist in whatever medium. When I cry seeing my daughter create her form of art it's because there is before me (forget that she is my daughter) beauty of expression in interpreting music by moving in a prescribed pattern.
And another dancer may well not achieve this 'flow' this beauty for many intangible reasons.

Maybe.

I think I'm out of my depth.

The more I try to formulate ideas here the more "ifs" and "buts" I find.

[Eudaimonist]

I think of art as a form of communication. It communicates something about how the artist sees the world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Preno]

For me, art, to be art...has to somehow transcend itself.Apart from being a fashionable phrase, what does that even mean?

[bearshit]

I don't mean it to be fashionable. I mean that art has to somehow point to or reach for something that changes it. Makes it bigger. Makes it mean something more. It's hard to express. Lucky I'm not a visual artist...they don't seem to be able to express much of this in words. Just images.

[Preno]

I mean that art has to somehow point to or reach for something that changes it.I don't understand what it means for a string quartet to reach for something that changes it.

[kennyc]

For me, art, to be art...has to somehow transcend itself.Apart from being a fashionable phrase, what does that even mean?

My response exactly.

[Ray Moscow]

Art is not easy to define.

I suppose it's anything that humans do or produce that illicits some feeling or sense of wonder or otherwise communicates some difficult-to-state message to other people, but there are probably exceptions to even this broad definition.

If we don't catch the feeling ("it left me cold") or message ("what the hell was that supposed to be about?"), it still might be art, just not "good" art for our particular tastes or sensibilties. Someone else might love it.

[bearshit]

Preno...yes...a great string quartet points to something. It may just point to the contributions of previous composers or the skill of the artists collaborating to create it. But it represents more than just the notes on the page being played. It has to.

[mood2]

Hello :)

I'd say Art is a creative expression of ideas and feelings in which the method of expression is significant in itself (through displaying skill, originality or whatever).

So Emin's bed definitely is Art in my book, iconic art at that, because it was such an original and evocative way of expressing the artist's state of mind. It's not for everybody, but I don't see that's a problem, no art is.

I'm not sure how birdsong would fit into my definition though! Maybe the fact that humans find it attractive could make us think it has something to do with art.

I'd have thought that the intent, skill, etc of the performer of the bird song, and the effect upon the listener that might make it art.

Some birds learn to sing, and use a lot of variation, and imitate/adapt other sounds they hear in their song.

And, perhaps crucially for it being considered as art, some do it more or less well, from the POV of it fulfilling its functions of advertising their fitness as mates, and repelling potential invaders into their territories.
I'd see a role for sexual selection in human art, as there is in the song (and, for that matter, dance in some species) of various species of bird.

David



You make an interesting case :). And I do like the idea of bird art. Where I get stuck is that I can't see how birds have sufficiently sophisticated brains to be creative in an artistic sense. To use imagination, make aesthetic choices. Someone earlier mentioned that art is symbolic in nature, a symbolic construct devised to represent or interpret something else (an idea or a bowl of fruit, doesn't matter). That's why it's a creative thing. I don't think that's what birds are doing, they're communicating in a way which is more direct like language imo. Their song is a means to an end only, like a pig's grunt or a horny ant wiggling it's antennae (if that's what horny ants do, I don't like to ask).

I kinda like silly tree art http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ6C_lKPFMs

[mood2]

Cath B -
What I was trying to get is that the concept required originality whereas the execution required a skill.

Yeah I get what you're saying, I agree. I'm sure I've read that even back in Renaissance times successful artists like Da Vinci might have a team helping to work on a painting, it was like an apprenticeship scheme or something, but the overall idea and choices belong to the artist.

[Free in Freeport]

I think of art as a form of communication. It communicates something about how the artist sees the world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well said. That's actually what I was tryign to say. I think.

[kennyc]

I think of art as a form of communication. It communicates something about how the artist sees the world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well said. That's actually what I was tryign to say. I think.

Ummmm.... http://www.secularcafe.org/showpost.php?p=135569&postcount=10

[Alex]

The world is a big and very complicated place. What aspects of it are we talking about that are communicated through the artist's vision?

I can see a street light outside my window right now. I could draw a picture of it and call my sketch a work of art, but see no reason why anyone else should.

[Ray Moscow]

The world is a big and very complicated place. What aspects of it are we talking about that are communicated through the artist's vision?

I can see a street light outside my window right now. I could draw a picture of it and call my sketch a work of art, but see no reason why anyone else should.

The fact that you created it makes it art.

If it "speaks" to someone else, it is "good" art to that person.

If you can create art that speaks to large numbers of people, you're a good artist. (Obviously that's difficult, or else it would be more common.)

Many artists who are reckoned "great" nowadays were not recognised as such in their time. Van Gogh comes to mind (since the last Doctor Who episode was about him). He was a near total failure in his lifetime, and only after his death was his greatness recognised.

Conversely, some who are considered good for a while don't last. (As in "pop" art or music)

[David B]

The world is a big and very complicated place. What aspects of it are we talking about that are communicated through the artist's vision?

I can see a street light outside my window right now. I could draw a picture of it and call my sketch a work of art, but see no reason why anyone else should.

The fact that you created it makes it art.

If it "speaks" to someone else, it is "good" art to that person.

If you can create art that speaks to large numbers of people, you're a good artist. (Obviously that's difficult, or else it would be more common.)

Many artists who are reckoned "great" nowadays were not recognised as such in their time. Van Gogh comes to mind (since the last Doctor Who episode was about him). He was a near total failure in his lifetime, and only after his death was his greatness recognised.

Conversely, some who are considered good for a while don't last. (As in "pop" art or music)

Recognition and staying in the public mind is not a defining characteristic of art, IMV, since there are cases of people being remembered for creating what is generally recognised as really terrible art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tay_Bridge_Disaster

David

[Alex]

The fact that you created it makes it art.

If it "speaks" to someone else, it is "good" art to that person.

If you can create art that speaks to large numbers of people, you're a good artist. (Obviously that's difficult, or else it would be more common.)


I cling, though I suppose it's futile, to the idea that a work of art should create something in the world that didn't exist before, or make an aspect of the world look, sound, or seem new.

So this "something" could be audible, visual, and/or tactile - as a rule. Something which can only be smelt or tasted doesn't seem to cut the mustard as an art form. Though I expect the scent boffins who make perfumes would say they are artists; and some chefs seem to consider themselves as cookery artists.

I don't think my sketch of a street lamp would be a work of art precisely because it would have "nothing to say": it wouldn't "speak" to anyone at all - not even me.

[Ray Moscow]

Unless you had considerable skill or put a lot of time into the drawing, it probably wouldn't excite anyone. But I would still class it as art.

If Picasso had done a sketch that looked exactly the same, it would be worth a fortune. It wouldn't "say" anything different than yours, though. It would just be linked to a "great" artist and assumed to be profound or somehow connected to great art.

[miss djax]

A singer. Yes. So, a recreator. Not a creator. An interpreter.

ah yes, some of the great artforms are nothing but this ;) hiphop sampling other music, david hockney's riffs on collage, andy warhol, basquiat, the entire fluxus movement, graffiti, i could go on ;)


sorry to be so late on this thread, i suck ;)

[miss djax]

i think art is art because i (or artist) says it is. from the ready made movement to the instant art of the dada-ists, at some point schools of art are reactions to another, thats why they emerge. sort of like the artsy new kids on the block givin' the finger to the art establishment ahead of them.

to me, GOOD art is evocative. and sometimes the more offensive/sad/weird/wtf/etc the more evocative the response, especially if i HATE it.

think of it this way - over the course of a day how many images are we bombarded with? how many commercials, peoples faces, billboards, pieces of paper, on a commuter train for 15 minutes, for example, thats alot of information to process. and yet we do. we see things for a split second that don't even register, or perhaps don't linger because they don't trigger anything.

so what is it about an image/photograph/painting that's creative content moved me in such a way that i HATED IT and i thought about how much i HATED IT. something about the work resonated, albeit negatively. surely there must be some kind of skill to cause such a response. otherwise that image/etc would have slid to the back of my mind like the millions of other things i see over the course of a day.

[Goldie]

My granddaughter thinks a lot, so I guess she qualifies.
When I was reading what she wrote about what she'd learned in the second grade, I came across this little nugget:

"I learned in art that even if you make a mistake it still looks good."

I wonder how many 'works of art' were mistakes.

[Goldie]

I draw peoples faces. It's the only thing I can do and make it look like what it's supposed to be. Everything else I draw looks like a cartoon.

An artist once told me that I wasn't an artist, that I just had good eye/hand coordination.
That's fine. I wasn't trying to be an artist. But, people continue to ask me to draw them.
I don't know why I am good at faces and nothing else. I like people's faces. Maybe that's it.

[Rie]

I have always liked the street art... the talented work called 'graffiti'. It is very often beautifully drawn.