What art is, to you at least.

[Danza]

I feel like I'm in the wrong forum to post this, but this forum has spoken out to me as a population of intellectuals who actually have great opinions and stick to them. The people who come into this forum actually have some sense, and on this far corner of the Internet, great discussion flourishes. This thread isn't exactly for artists, nor is it for everyone. Basically I've come to tell my sad little story and see what happens, and also to see what other people have to say. I'm not here to brag about my art and say I'm the next goddamn Mozart who's going to reinvent art on a galactic scale, but more to ask you, as people, your opinions.

Second, I'm not going to post art and say "rate 1 to 5", that's bullshit. I'm going to wait and see how much activity my little stuff gets, and by that, I mean if one person asks to see some of my stuff, than by all means I'll post a few pictures. But I'm going to try to explain myself beforehand.

Where do I start? I was born in a small rural town in the United States. Anyone who has lived in one of these places will immediately have sympathy for what I'm talking about. Most people my age (I'm young, out of high school but young.) think this place is boring. "There's nothing to do here, Where do I shop?!? etc, etc." I see it as a slow, tired little town with not much direction to go in. I work in a factory, long tiring hours of something I hate. The only reason I'm there is to save for college, so I can hopefully make something of myself. Anyways, I'm pouring my heart out here, let's get back to what I came to do in the first place.

I started drawing like every other kid did, in elementary school. My teachers failed me again and again because I wasn't drawing or coloring or whatever they had me doing the way they wanted me to. In my adolescent mind, I wasn't saying "Screw the man", I was just doing what I wanted to do. I again failed art in 9th grade, because of the same thing. This time, I was being arrogant, and doodling my own stuff instead of following the course, (At the school's expense, man they had some nice drawing paper), My style grew after a close friend of mine introduced me to a few of what are now my favorite artists. Wayshak, Alex Pardee, Craola. People who made art that they wanted to make, AND MADE A LIVING DOING IT. (If you're interested in this story so far, google any of them.) Art became a huge part of my life, when I wasn't sleeping in class, I was drawing. Eight hours a day of nothing but doodling allowed me to perfect what I like to believe is my style, and I became, (sad to say) the artist that I am because of the public school system. I mean, I almost flunked out because I was more worried about drawing then how our crops are grown. I didn't flunk because of bad grades, I almost flunked because of drawing in classes like Art, Agriculture, Welding. Those classes are all we have, and you have to have those credits to pass, I did great in core classes, but those classes that didn't mean anything to me, the ones I was made to take that were extras? I didn't care. I cared about how many eyes I was going to put on this particular monster.

Now on to the meat of this article, Art is an amazing, powerful tool, and like musicians, we portray our souls and inner thoughts through our mediums. We speak to other people in this way, because our meaningless words could never convey our deep, dark, inner universes that flow through us. We make our own worlds because we hate the ones we're already in. Now, In my own opinion, I'm not talking for all artists anymore, I feel like art is a depraved world. Anyone can get on a computer and make art fast and efficiently and impress people. I call these people "Posers", I'm not talking about fledgling or even accomplished digital artists who make works of art. I'm talking about people who get on paint or even the more advanced programs and make a quick little design to impress people around them. Now, before you crucify me for insulting you, I want to say something. If you're making art digitally, and you're passionate about what you do. You're okay in my book. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people I've met, in person, who do this kind of shit for the praise. I don't like them. They don't care about art, they care about the glory and the fame of it. They're the boy bands and auto tuned pop groups of art. And I hate them. Now I'm going to haze realism a little bit, now, all you realists out there, take a break and listen to me. I have a deep, humble respect for realism, because I can't touch it. I cant do realism because I don't have the integrity or the patience to sit down and make things look like a picture. In fact, that's what art is. Art is making a picture of something. But to me, you can just take a picture now. You see a beautiful sunset? You don't paint it, you take a picture. I feel like the real hero's of realism, are the one's who take it, and apply it to abstract art. That's just me though, I'm an abstract artist, therefore I have a biased view and a tendency to lean that way. A great example would be Hannah Yata, look her up too. But anyways, I've made this too long, and I'm just trying to convene some of my feelings, because in this back water town, I have no one to do that with.

In closing, I'm sorry for any grammatical errors and mistakes I made throughout this little shin-dig. Any if you've read down to this point, I have to say, you're a wonderful human being to even have taken the time to do so. I'll come back and hopefully discuss your opinions with you, and if you have any questions about what I do, or how I do it, feel free to ask. OH, and I kind of forgot to mention why I made this thread. Talk about what art means to you, where it sits, what it's done or hasn't done for you. If you're an artist, talk about your art, if you aren't, talk about what kind of art you like, what mediums appeal to you the most. In general, just talk about art. Anyways, see ya soon, folks.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Art is a form of visual symbolism, which means art is a form of language that grows in complexity when it absorbs the surrounding lexicon.

Meaning of art is dual in nature. It is both objective and subjective.

I don't do visual art, I chop it like every other asshole on the internet. I write, and did music for a couple of years and the internet makes those things a lot harder to do.

 

[Danza]

I'm writing way too much, so to be quick about it.

1. I'm an artist, by other people's eyes, but not by mine. Because to me, I can always be better.

2. I do my stuff for me, not other people. And if that's what anyone else is doing, they by god they deserve to keep on going.

3. In accordance to what I said, I'll post some some of my stuff. (I don't have a scanner, so when I do get one I'll post some non shitty phone camera pictures)

Beauty is Skin Deep: Pink is the New Black: Ink, Lush, Purity:


Hopefully that will give you an idea of what I do. Again, sorry for the camera. I need a scanner really bad, and I'll come back and re-do these when I get one.

And Dope, everything is art. Physical, Digital, Writing, Music. Even the way gamer's get down on their device of divine choosing is art. You ever watch someone kick ass on a game you suck at? That's art. That's the beauty of it. That's why I don't try to label my art, and when people ask me what it is, I always say "That's up to you, man." Anything that is even remotely artistic is up for interpretation, and anyone who bashes or doesn't condone someone else's work for no reason besides "I don't like it", is a horrid person. Honestly, they should hate themselves for wanting to just, hate to hate. I understand being sadistic, but being sadistic for nothing more than "It's not my favorite" is atrocious.

 

[SnapSlav]

This is hardly the wrong place to post this. If anything at all, you could've included it in the "General Discussion Thread", but that, like many random topics, would run the risk of getting lost in the myriad of randomness that springs up there. So making it your own topic is fine. "if it hasn't been asked before, it's okay to ask it," is the general rule of the thumb. It's only when oft-tread topics get repeated reflexively that any complaint starts to rise.

That being said, "defining" art is a tough one, for myself, because it's such a multifaceted concept. It's in almost anything, like the aesthetic counterpart to mathematics and geometry. I suppose the most broad-based "rules" you could stand to make about art being it's all the result of any individual's creativity. When you look at people who call themselves "artistic", and you see the wide range of individuals and how little their share in common, it's the drive to create that bonds them all. Telling a story without words creates art, but telling a story with words does to, so that's not it. The act of receiving stimuli with your senses is the apparatus with which we take in art, but so is everything, so that's not necessarily exclusively what denotes art either.

Whatever anyone may choose to use to define it, I do believe it has a definition, even if it's a hard one to pin down. It's there, even if it's not fully understood. Like some of the best and yet-unrealized concepts, I believe that holds true with art just as well.

Incidentally, don't feel discouraged by your own drive to churn out large volumes of words. This post is uncharacteristically brief coming from myself. More people dedicating themselves to what they wish to share only serve to enrich the dialog. It can't hurt it. =)

 

[zegh8578]

"Art is in the eye of the beholder", although it is also in the ears and in the mouth and in the touch. It is anywhere you want it to be. You cannot take someone elses art away, it is subjective.

I would say it is impossible to set a limit to what art is, and therefore tricky to actually define it, because definitions rely on limitation. Personally, I prefer that art is man-made, there has to be some kind of purpose behind.
I almost feel like the word "art" is a sensation, rather than a solid concept. Very few people actually say "I am going to make some art, brb", they are more specific about it, "I'm going to go paint" or "make music" or "sew pants", it is the observer, the critic, who expresses wether or not it is art - and usually only if they approve.

 

[SnapSlav]

"Art is in the eye of the beholder"

That is a misquote. It's "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" NOT "art".

You can perceive something as beautiful or describe it as "artistic", but ultimately art is the result of an act of creation, however it may be perceived (by either its audience or no one at all besides its creator).

 

[zegh8578]

"Art is in the eye of the beholder"

That is a misquote. It's "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" NOT "art".

You can perceive something as beautiful or describe it as "artistic", but ultimately art is the result of an act of creation, however it may be perceived (by either its audience or no one at all besides its creator).

Either way, we aggree.
Nitpick :]

 

[SnapSlav]

Fundamentally it's a disagreement, because were it only up to perception, then anything accidental could be construed as art, which I do not hold to be the case. Thus the picking of nits.

It's why I despise those who splash paint on walls and call that their "artistic expression", because unlike Picasso who learned the traditional ways of drawing realism and actively created his own style, those types just let physics do their work for them. That's not art. That's a form of expression, sure, but they didn't create anything. They were merely the catalyst for something which got made. You can't assemble a massive number of letters, throw them on the ground, let them fall where they may, and end up with a Steinbeck novel.

 

[zegh8578]

Fundamentally it's a disagreement, because were it only up to perception, then anything accidental could be construed as art, which I do not hold to be the case. Thus the picking of nits.

It's why I despise those who splash paint on walls and call that their "artistic expression", because unlike Picasso who learned the traditional ways of drawing realism and actively created his own style, those types just let physics do their work for them. That's not art. That's a form of expression, sure, but they didn't create anything. They were merely the catalyst for something which got made. You can't assemble a massive number of letters, throw them on the ground, let them fall where they may, and end up with a Steinbeck novel.

OP asked for our definitions. I did misquote - but I did then add "Personally, I prefer that art is man-made, there has to be some kind of purpose behind." in order to narrow it down a bit from precisely "anything at all can be art", particularily inanimate results of normal laws of physics, biology, etc. I do not consider a beautiful parrot to be art, because it is what it is, and did not intend to be a parrot.
You can throw the letters on the ground as an art-project tho, sorry, just couldn't resist

So, imo, we still agree (although I allow a minimum of leeway for people to consider parrots or canyons or such to be "art" if they really really want it to. Or maybe I just don't want to argue with them about it... it's a tricky thing! They could be strongly religious, and consider God to be a creator, for example.)

 

[Atomic Postman]

What art actually is remains totally arbitrary.

You can hold your own interpretation, but there's always someone who will disagree and will hold a definition vastly different from your own, and both of your perspectives will be equally valid.

Ugh.

 

[Walpknut]

It's a language.

 

[Akratus]

I made this once:

Spoiler

Anything is art if we say it is. I really despise the use of the word art as some sort of compliment or mark of quality or intensive means. There is such a thing as bad art. Terrible art even. Or immoral art. I contend that most games are shit, yet art. Even something no ordinary person would want to compliment, like rapelay or big rigs, is art to me. There is no intrinsic worth in art. An artist once sold cans of his shit, and that was art to many. It's a waste of time to go over any individual thing and determine whether it is good enough to be the thing it is.

 

[Walpknut]

I do tend to not subscribe to the idea of "Anything is art" because if we go by that then absolutely nothing is art.

Then again, I don't separate things into Art and shit, a game can not be art and still be a good game, same with a movie or with an illustration. Pure entertainment is fine and needed, it serves a function. Whereas art serves itself first and foremost, if it has a secondary "practical" function it's okay I guess. There is no Bad art, because if it's bad then it's not art.

 

[Akratus]

But I'm not saying literally anything is art. I guess I retract that first statement of anthing being art if it is called that. I still think it has to be manmade, but other than that basically anything anyone made to show or get out there is collectively, art.

But Walpknut, you say a game/movie/illustration can not be art. How? Which one(s)?

 

[SnapSlav]

It's a cop out to say "anything is art if we say it is". That's just not how it works. Conveniently, it makes a LOT of people happy if you say that it is, however. But it's just not the truth. Whether something is art is whether something is art, and you can't change that just by saying so. If a person endeavored a creation from their heart and soul, and they declare the fruits of their labor to be art, it's art, and whether you like it or not doesn't change that. But by contrast, if someone stumbles upon a thing haphazardly and realizes that it will get them much notoriety and attention if they call it art, that's not art, that's them taking advantage of a situation and people's gullibility. However by contrast-contrast, if someone takes the credit for someone else's art, it's art, it's just not THEIR art.

Bottom line, this can seem convoluted and confusing, but it's really not when you get down to brass tacks and start working out the rationale behind it all.

 

[Atomic Postman]

For reference, this is the Oxford Dictionary definition for it:


"The expression or application of Human creative skill and imagination,typically in a visual form such as a painting or a sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

 

[Sander]

Being pissed off that the creation of art is now more accessible to more people than ever before seems like a weird thing, to me.

 

[Walpknut]

But Walpknut, you say a game/movie/illustration can not be art. How? Which one(s)?

Like 80% of them? Most games are just entertainment, same with books, movies and Illustrations. Movies, games and drawings CAN be art, but it requires more than existing for me to consider it art.


Also I don't agree with the notion that art has to be deliberate.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I've always thought of art as either one of two things:

1. To re-create something that already exists as detailed as possible so as to be enjoyed by people who haven't been there.

Such as before the invention of the photograph when people wanting to preserve an image hired a professional artist to create a portrait.

2. To create something that doesn't exist in reality, but can be conjured up by the imagination so it can be enjoyed by others.

Such as someone creating a fictional comic with an entirely unreal setting.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[SnapSlav]

For reference, this is the Oxford Dictionary definition for it:


"The expression or application of Human creative skill and imagination,typically in a visual form such as a painting or a sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

I'm not usually one for dictionary definitions, especially when they betray themselves and revert some definitions to their complete opposites JUST to abide by trends from idiots/media, but it's funny how closely it mirrors what I said. At least it's not off base, unlike, say, what it thinks "literal" now means...