I must confess ... art sometimes confuses me

[dpolglaze]

rexee, I would not call that monster an artist in any sense of the word. I'm just saying.

Dan

[Ricardo Reis]

Why, isn't the question valid? Is it carved in stone? The only answer about "what is art" that satisfies me is "art is what wants to be art". What gives someone the right to say this is art, that is not? What makes it better than my opinion on it? Because he is an artist? Because he has studies? Because he has a wallet fat enough? Because he writes in a magazine? Because... ?

Oh, bah. To hell with all of it. To each man his own and all be merry.

[rexee]

Originally Posted by dpolglaze

rexee, I would not call that monster an artist in any sense of the word. I'm just saying.

Dan

Couldn't agree with you more!

http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/Expr...lerGrmnArt.pdf

Here's the whole thing

R

[ONEALM]

What gives someone the right to say this is art, that is not?

Than is everything Art ? I mean literally everything ? If there's no definition as Russ pointed out, then we can start labeling anything and everything as art.

I just had a very artful sandwich for lunch. The bread was made in such a way that it touched me deeply - as to the very bottom of my stomach....

But seriously, there needs to be some parameters, however nebulous we may choose to make them, that define the term. Although I understand that "art" to me may not be art to someone else and certainly vice-versa, to say art is what art wants to be literally means there is no definition and if I say it's art, it is. If you say it's art, it is. If my wife thinks it's not art....

You get the idea. One of those circular arguments that cannot be resolved....

[Russell Smith]

Originally Posted by Ricardo Reis

Why, isn't the question valid? Is it carved in stone? The only answer about "what is art" that satisfies me is "art is what wants to be art". What gives someone the right to say this is art, that is not? What makes it better than my opinion on it? Because he is an artist? Because he has studies? Because he has a wallet fat enough? Because he writes in a magazine? Because... ?

Oh, bah. To hell with all of it. To each man his own and all be merry.

The question of "what is art" is absolutely worth asking, but when it has been asked so many times that we accept anything and everything as "art" just because somebody says it is, then we eventually find ourselves having thrown out any defining qualities that might help us to define what art is.

To me, the question of "what is art" is similar to the idea of Political Correctness - in theory its a great concept, but when, in practice, it has been taken to the extreme, then it becomes its own worst enemy.

(can't wait for the Flak I'll get on THAT comment )

[rexee]

Great thread by the way...

Rexee

[Ricardo Reis]

Originally Posted by Russell Smith

The question of "what is art" is absolutely worth asking, but when it has been asked so many times that we accept anything and everything as "art" just because somebody says it is, then we eventually find ourselves having thrown out any defining qualities that might help us to define what art is.

Russel, I don't agree with you. We don't have to accept "anything and everything as "art"". It just means it is perfectly valid someone else to consider whatever he wants as art. Anyone can consider whatever he wants has art but what he says it is doesn't mean others have to agree. And what is found is that when you have a large and diverse group of people agreeing "Yes, this is art" then it is a sure sign (or more, a very strong indication) that the work carries something that resonates with our most basic inner selfs as humans.

You will find me in the barricades any time, against those that want to force you to consider "this and that" as "ART". But you will also find me on the barricades against those that will force you down with "this is not ART" because, in the end, it's an individual choice. What makes you tickle doesn't mean it will make me jump, and vice-versa.

[Terrencejones]

Originally Posted by Ricardo Reis

And what is found is that when you have a large and diverse group of people agreeing "Yes, this is art" then it is a sure sign (or more, a very strong indication) that the work carries something that resonates with our most basic inner selfs as humans.
.

If it takes a large group of people to decide if something is art or not then it is a good sign it isnt. I know you dont mean it in the sense of a large group together but I would never allow Popularity to sway my own judgement in regard to anything, esp. art.
Terry

[karrart]

Originally Posted by Russell Smith

It has become intellectually chic to think that art has no boundaries, and thus anything and everything is art. The problem with that is without some definition, there is no art - in other words, if everything is art then nothing is art. Ironic, isn't it?

That's it ."Post modernist irony". I'm tired of it, from sit-coms to the "real" art world- nothing but an overlay of dishonesty. Russ has nailed the real irony.
I went all through this intellectual claptrap decades ago. I read the books, thought the thoughts, wanting to be "hip" and "cultured" and not seen as some sort freaky throwback because I gravitated to pictorial representation. But in the end, it became evident that it was all noxious mind gas.
Me? I've said it before- I make pictures (well....ok...other stuff too).
Robert Karr....freaky throwback
whole lotta picture makin' goin' on' :
The Fine Art of Aviation/Robert Karr, Grant-Free Artist

[Ricardo Reis]

Originally Posted by Terrencejones

If it takes a large group of people to decide if something is art or not then it is a good sign it isnt. I know you dont mean it in the sense of a large group together but I would never allow Popularity to sway my own judgement in regard to anything, esp. art.
Terry

I was quite thinking "popularity"... more on a time basis... but, heck, why not "popularity"? Don't they call it "pop art"?

And I didn't write "it took a large group of people". I said if you have a large of group of people excited/moved/thinking of a particular work it is a "strong indicator" (meaning statistics, something to be confirmed for each case) that the author stroke an important aspect relating to us humans. If this basis is diverse, including people with diferent cultural backgrounds, separated in time, then the stronger it is.

But art can also just say something to one person.

Off course, potentially, everything can be art. It's a question of framing. The important part is that you're not obliged to buy any frame someone, how much credentials he has, tries to impose you. How problematic can be to accept this?