It always interests me to find out how different people view a vague consept like art. I have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear what others have to say first.
I think it's an aesthetic display of thoughts or emotions and if their is no meaning or message behind it (whether mental or emotional) it should not be considered art
artwork is an expression from the artist put onto different mediums (painting,pastel,...etc). it could be emotions or whatever.
it depends on the artist. before cameras, it was to document images. now i think i agree with the above. i dont really like photographic paintings and overly realistic images and sculptures.
a person looks the world with eyes,after the person looks a paper for arts with the eyes....and art was born..ý think art is that...
there is a quote first I want to share: "We have art in order not to die of the truth" I like that. Art saves us from reality, from facts and from ourselves. It is an outlet for the soul. When you study art you learn more than just colours or what the picture represents. Art is a way for the artist to tell a story of who they are, the time they live in, it mirrors society better than any book because the picture isn't editted, it's not lost in translation it just exists for each generation to understand what they need to learn from it. That is Art. Art is life frozen in time from the eyes of the beholder.
Art is to paraphrase Joseph Campbell, man's attempt to share his life experiences with others, so that he is not forgotten.
MY art has to do with a way to arrange colors, lines, shapes, whatever--to make it look good. i think it sux when someone does art and it means something to them but not to the other person-- art that MEANS something should be felt by both the artist and the person who is contemplating it the same.
I don't think there needs to be a meaning behind art, there can be but it all depends on the artist, I think that art is just a display of creativity, an idea in the artists head they share with the world.
There is confusion about art in general! There is a trade too! These two things are almost the same… I was thinking a lot about it… There are objects that are functional. Whatever is there (on the object) for aesthetical reason only – is art… Other thing is – true art never sells! If you are an artist and you do it professionally you start to repeat something just like factory… Then your art is functional – it is for money making… Maybe not art anymore…
This question came up in an Art History class I had in college. Basically, the answer that I got from the dialogue was that art is anything anyone says is art. In other words, it is so subjective that the question is almost rhetorical. Art IS something different to everyone, and I'm not sure it should be limited by one definition over another. I know this doesn't answer your question, but I thought I'd comment on the related experience.
if something gratifies you to create, and someone else, not everyone else, just someone else, who you don't know personally enough that they'd just say so to make you feel good, is also gratified by experiencing, then that is art. sometimes, even if it just gratifies you to create, that is enough, but when it also gratifies someone else to experience, that's when you can be sure of it. =^^= .../\...
To me art is something that engages your mind, and emotions and spirit by giving you an experience of something you don't normally experience in nature or in the landscape of functional structure. To better clarify what i see as art, let me list as briefly as i can what i DON'T see as art and give the reasons why. Realistic representation of scenery. This is basically trying to imitate the function of the camera. We have cameras. Enough said about that. Abstract "art" that gives no experience outside of the ordinary commonplace world... in other words, boring and mundane...might as well be a dumpster or a street sign. What does it do for you? Will you remember it? Concept art that's message is purely intellectual and does not engage the emotions or spirit. Most likely the same message could be transmitted through the medium of literature. Anything trite. If it's been done, it's done. Uniqueness is really the biggest standard to judge art by in my opinion. If you can say about a piece of art that there is no way in the world you could ever experience anything like it if the artist had not created it, it is a great piece of art. My favorite artist is Salvador Dali. Though I am nothing close to the greatness of Dali, I am an artist. Click on gallery for a tidbit of my own art. I also have a bog you can visit. Since I am very poor and don't want to just give away reproductions of my complete artwork for free, most samples in the blog are just details of larger peices. To visit the blog, visit http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=231471805&blogID=300736823
I keep coming back to this question over and over and the more I think about it the more I get confused. Groovecookie, I think you speak sense though.
i would call it raw creativity. same difference. art to me doesn't limit itself to just visuals. if i can look/hear something and i can feel it (without touching) that what i call art. anything less than that is just a doodle/picture. it may be a good doodle/picture. but it's a doodle/picture nonetheless.
