I will shorten my question, What is Art?

"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. "

That clears that up then :suspect:

Brian Sewell eat your heart out...

the deliberate creation of something for no purpose other than aesthetic appreciation.

Originally posted by Fearful
"The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. "

That clears that up then :suspect:

Can someone please inform both Tracey Emin & the fools in charge of Turner prize allocation :suspect: :loopy:

That, Cyclone, is not a bad stab at a definition. I will give you that . However, it does not cover the 'accidental' art of some avant garde 'performance artists' using 'found objects' etc. Nor does it cover the Dadaist gestures of Marcel Duchamp, whose intention was to 'shock' first and foremost, with little or no concerns about 'aesthetic appreciation'.

Its like drawin n stuff.

Yeah paint an that, like.

Originally posted by timo
That, Cyclone, is not a bad stab at a definition. I will give you that . However, it does not cover the 'accidental' art of some avant garde 'performance artists' using 'found objects' etc. Nor does it cover the Dadaist gestures of Marcel Duchamp, whose intention was to 'shock' first and foremost, with little or no concerns about 'aesthetic appreciation'.

Methinks the urinal was art though timo! I mean, Duchamp couldn't possibly have been taking the p*ss surely?

Originally posted by Cyclone
the deliberate creation of something for no purpose other than aesthetic appreciation.

Hmm... how does architecture fit into that description? Art with in-built practicality, a la the Guggenheim or Pompidou.

I dunt knor owt abart art, me, but ah knor wor a like. That established, I will say to Red Robbo; Duchamp's infamous exhibition of a urinal , signed 'R. Mutt', may be partly satirical in intention, partly a conceptual piece which suggests that art is entirely subjective in a universe of relativism rather than one of absolutes, or it may be a puerile, schoolboyish attempt to shock the establishment of the day. I think Duchamp's first priority was to shock, and that the 'aesthetic appreciation' side of things was irrelevant to him.

It is similar to the antics of Gilbert and George today. Lacking any formal, fine art ability, they revert to 'conceptual' art, such as 'Bum Cross', a revolting compilation of the hairy cleavages between two pairs of buttocks arranged to form a cross. In one of their works, they stand naked in a urinal [very original] placed across the nave of a gothic cathedral. They usurp the claims and terminology of art, but I fail to see a glimpse of the infinite in photographs of the pair wearing Michael Winner's boxer shorts. Nor, call me conservative if you wish, do I consider the sight of Gilbert and George's scrotums, penises and perineums to be intimate self-portraiture, or a variation on 'the speaking likeness'.

At t'end ot' day, art is wot yer like, int it though?

Originally posted by BoppinBruce
I will shorten my question, What is Art?

To me ART is something that should be beautiful that shows creative ability or skill.

Originally posted by timo
...call me conservative if you wish...

You know Timo, that's the first time I've thought of you as "conservative" with a small "C".

;)

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.

Unfortunately said by Scott Adams before I got there ;)

I seem to remember reading an article about Gilbert & George some time ago. At the time, in many of their art 'installations', they were making a big deal of homoerotic imagery, trying to say they were pushing the boundaries of accepted sexuality, etc, and generally presenting themselves as two loveable, queeny old eccentrics. Turned out they in fact were both married heteros, but at least they had the good grace to try pass their sham gayness off as "the ultimate art performance" (it was cringeworthy!).

Originally posted by evildrneil
Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.

Unfortunately said by Scott Adams before I got there ;)


I like that. Well, it's a bit more challenging than Rolf On Art, ain't it?

Bonny,
I agree wholeheartedly with your definition. Unfortunately, the officials of the Arts Council and its quangos are now arbiters of taste in Britain. As Brian Sewell has pointed out, they are the 'experts' who decide what shall be seen, subsidised and sent abroad to represent Britain. This collection of pseuds, with their deliberately obscure even meaningless language, and intolerant orthodoxy, are supported by half-witted ministers and civil servants. The Nicholas Serotas [Tate] of the world are like a new priesthood, and we are expected to bend the knee and accept whatever is in the gallery as art, whether it be the evidence of an emptied bladder or bowel, or the dirty, unmade bed of a deluded, talentless 'artist'.

For me, art is something of beauty, intrigue, interest. Something that catches my attention and makes me want to keep looking, whether it's because of the colour, shape or whatever.

A messy bed as a piece of art? Not for me - I'd have an unbearable urge to strip it, wash the sheets and them make it up looking lovely and crisp and clean ....



:heyhey:

Hels,
Your phrase, 'makes me want to keep looking' is important in relation to art, I think. If you do not want to repeat an experience, then the art has 'failed' in a sense. Then again, there will be some third-rate 'conceptual artist' somewhere, steeped in postmodernism, who might say that he'she intended you to feel disgust.

I apply the same idea as yours to music, which interests me a billion times more than art in the representational sense [or, as Tim Rutter might say, 'Drawin' an stuff']. I am quite 'ruthless' with music ,whether it is Radiohead or Bruckner. If I don't want to keep listening, or repeat the experience, I don't do so. Never mind who made it. There is often the assumption in art that the fault lies with the audience, not the artist. I reject that. I can't stand the music of Van Morrison, the art of David Hockney, and the writing of the Bronte sisters. Millions would tell me I am wrong. I trust my own reactions to art, and none of the previous examples are for me.

Thanks for making me think there.

does making a building beautiful make it art, or does it just make it a nice building?
Personally I wouldn't consider a building to be art no matter how attractively designed. But maybe the think about art is that we all have a slightly personal idea of what is and isn't.

Cyclone,
I think you are in favour here of a subjective appreciation of art, rather than universal, absolute, 'intrinsically true' definitions of beauty etc. I disagree re buildings- surely, art can be functional too, as in the case of beautiful buildings like St George's Hall and the Anglican Cathedral in Liverpool. They serve a purpose as buildings, but are also architecturally, aesthetically beautiful, according to most peoples' conditions of worth.

Originally posted by timo
Cyclone,
I think you are in favour here of a subjective appreciation of art, rather than universal, absolute, 'intrinsically true' definitions of beauty etc. I disagree re buildings- surely, art can be functional too, as in the case of beautiful buildings like St George's Hall and the Anglican Cathedral in Liverpool. They serve a purpose as buildings, but are also architecturally, aesthetically beautiful, according to most peoples' conditions of worth.

sounds about right.

and I do agree that they are aescetically pleasing buildings. But personally I don't think they are art. Although there is artistry in their design.

Every age has its own conception of what constitutes an art or art form. For example, until quite late in the development of Westerm civilization, what we now regard as 'classical music' was not really regarded as an art and composers were regarded as little better than tradesmen, albeit some of them well paid and respected. Things started to change in the late 18th century (about the time of Mozart and Haydn) and cetainly by the time of Beethoven. Beethoven knew he was an artist and knew his worth - as did Schubert.

Glad you and I can agree on something! I do think, though, that art can be multi-functional. Perhaps that was Duchamp's point with the urinal! Your view begs the question, when is it 'art'? Does 'art' have to be officially displayed and labelled as 'art' to be 'art'?

Anyway, enough of art. I've a pile of sociology essays to mark now...

Originally posted by timo

Anyway, enough of art. I've a pile of sociology essays to mark now...

Now THAT'S what I call art! :hihi:

Art is a something done/created by some1 who calls themself a artist... modern art is no longer just about asthetics but also just trying to make you think.

Picture (http://www2.neweb.ne.jp/wd/zon/1997/docu0005.jpg)
This is a perfect example.. now u aint gonna want that on your kitchen table so what is the point of it?

Art is like pornography...you know it when you see it.

:) Sierra

I love ART! and there's so much of it in Sheffield.

To check out our fantastic thriving art scene visit www.artsheffield.org

Originally posted by Craigy
Art is a something done/created by some1 who calls themself a artist... modern art is no longer just about asthetics but also just trying to make you think.

It doesn't even do that now - you've seen one bisected animal or unmade bed and I'm afraid you've seen them all!

Yes indeed! There have been a few too many 'shocking' gestures and we tire of them. We come to expect a modern art which, under the guise of conceptualism, deals with used tampons, filthy duvets, all things anal, and variations on taxidermy. They do not make us think. We do not ponder the eternal verities of beauty and pain, life and death etc anew. We inwardly groan with boredom and disgust.

It has come to the stage where traditional fine art could be seen as 'shocking', and avant garde, especially if displayed in the Tate. Conservative ideas in art are now the truly radical ones. That is a good idea! Let us return to fine art, and throw all the disgusting scrawls, accidents with paint and ludicrous 'installations' of modernism into the fire.