noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
As in a once-popular brand of shoe polish?
Huh...
And all this time, I thought Shinola was a Photoshop plug-in.
Margu
Established
a work of art has power and it makes no hiding of that fact. a work of art floors you and makes you humble in its presence.
if something does not do that for me then its not art in my book.
if something does not do that for me then its not art in my book.
one90guy
Well-known
I 2nd that and also believe the only difference between art and poop is an opinion. Others may know more.
David
unixrevolution
Well-known
Something I wrote to a friend on the subject:
Okay, So....Art or not art?
This is something that I, as a photographer, have thought about a lot, and I'm really excited and interested to discuss it with others, as I think it invites introspection.
The fundamental question of "What is art?" Well, Art has a few basic defenitions. The first one comes from Oxford's english dictionary:
works produced by human creative skill and imagination
That jives with me pretty well, actually. It pretty much fits my precondeptions of what art is and is not. Unfortnately, it isn't complete. Computers, power tools, and many other contraptions are produced by creative skill and imagination. Are those art? I don't really think so.
Another thing I hear all the time is that "For it to be art, it must move you." Something that is, truly, art is something that produces an emotional response or conveys a thought or idea. I agree with that.
However, something you (and a lot of others, mind) have said about art is that it has to have a certain amount of skill or talent. Katie's dad says, "It's not art if I can make it." I disagree with that, mostly because I think art is something anyone can create.
I don't think there is fundamentally a certain level or skill or talent that elevates art from not-art. If there was, where is the line? Who drew it there? Why? Who's got the authority to move it?
That begs the question, "Can there be an arbitrary skill or talent threshold to call something art?" I think the answer is no. If there is, a lot of kindergartners have to have their mellows harshed about how they lack the skill to really make art, and their fingerpaintings don't qualify as such.
That said, I also don't think that every photograph or painting is necessarily "artistic" or "art" in itself, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with technical merit or even subjective quality. A perfectly exposed, focused, and expertly printed photo of a soda can is not art. Art must be expressive, it must convey emotion or feeling, or even a thought of some kind.
Art is also a product of the mind, not the hand. If I produce a small painting, and you produce the exact same painting at a larger scale, I am the "artist" of both works. You are simply the "craftsman" that made the larger one. There is some linkage somewhere between craftsmanship and art, but I tend to think of art as being only for its own sake. Of course, I tend to revere craftsmanship as much as artistry anyway
Are hot rods, custom cars, and custom bikes and choppers art? Yes. They express something, and they are reflections of the mind of the person who made them.
The other part is something of intent. If I splat a waterballoon of paint on the wall accidentally, it is not art. If I splat it against the wall on purpose, it is. Art cannot be accidental. It must be intentional. You must mean to make art for it to be art.
So what about that art you don't like, the odd metal bits at weird angles? Is it art? Well, it makes you feel something right? Maybe not something good, but that leads to another tenant, art need not be pleasant. Many examples exist of art that's designed to make you feel outraged, upset or sad.
So is there good art and bad art? Yes. Good art expresses what the artist intended it to. Bad art does not. Art that is really bad isn't art anymore.
So, I think, to simplify....Art is anything someone makes that expresses a thought, idea, or emotion, and has a meaningful impact on the viewer. It has to make them think or feel something. It has to be made intentionally. If it expresses what it intended to, it is good. If it does not do it well, it is bad. If it doesn't at all, it's not art anymore, and it has nothing or nearly nothing to do with inherent talent or skill.
Okay, So....Art or not art?
This is something that I, as a photographer, have thought about a lot, and I'm really excited and interested to discuss it with others, as I think it invites introspection.
The fundamental question of "What is art?" Well, Art has a few basic defenitions. The first one comes from Oxford's english dictionary:
works produced by human creative skill and imagination
That jives with me pretty well, actually. It pretty much fits my precondeptions of what art is and is not. Unfortnately, it isn't complete. Computers, power tools, and many other contraptions are produced by creative skill and imagination. Are those art? I don't really think so.
Another thing I hear all the time is that "For it to be art, it must move you." Something that is, truly, art is something that produces an emotional response or conveys a thought or idea. I agree with that.
However, something you (and a lot of others, mind) have said about art is that it has to have a certain amount of skill or talent. Katie's dad says, "It's not art if I can make it." I disagree with that, mostly because I think art is something anyone can create.
I don't think there is fundamentally a certain level or skill or talent that elevates art from not-art. If there was, where is the line? Who drew it there? Why? Who's got the authority to move it?
That begs the question, "Can there be an arbitrary skill or talent threshold to call something art?" I think the answer is no. If there is, a lot of kindergartners have to have their mellows harshed about how they lack the skill to really make art, and their fingerpaintings don't qualify as such.
That said, I also don't think that every photograph or painting is necessarily "artistic" or "art" in itself, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with technical merit or even subjective quality. A perfectly exposed, focused, and expertly printed photo of a soda can is not art. Art must be expressive, it must convey emotion or feeling, or even a thought of some kind.
Art is also a product of the mind, not the hand. If I produce a small painting, and you produce the exact same painting at a larger scale, I am the "artist" of both works. You are simply the "craftsman" that made the larger one. There is some linkage somewhere between craftsmanship and art, but I tend to think of art as being only for its own sake. Of course, I tend to revere craftsmanship as much as artistry anyway
Are hot rods, custom cars, and custom bikes and choppers art? Yes. They express something, and they are reflections of the mind of the person who made them.
The other part is something of intent. If I splat a waterballoon of paint on the wall accidentally, it is not art. If I splat it against the wall on purpose, it is. Art cannot be accidental. It must be intentional. You must mean to make art for it to be art.
So what about that art you don't like, the odd metal bits at weird angles? Is it art? Well, it makes you feel something right? Maybe not something good, but that leads to another tenant, art need not be pleasant. Many examples exist of art that's designed to make you feel outraged, upset or sad.
So is there good art and bad art? Yes. Good art expresses what the artist intended it to. Bad art does not. Art that is really bad isn't art anymore.
So, I think, to simplify....Art is anything someone makes that expresses a thought, idea, or emotion, and has a meaningful impact on the viewer. It has to make them think or feel something. It has to be made intentionally. If it expresses what it intended to, it is good. If it does not do it well, it is bad. If it doesn't at all, it's not art anymore, and it has nothing or nearly nothing to do with inherent talent or skill.
Last edited by a moderator:
clicker
Well-known
Art is or is not what artist do when they think they are doing something artful.
Chris101
summicronia
one90guy
Well-known
That's not art by my loose standards, I guess one man's art is another mans s--t.
David
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I hear that Shinola's marketing department is so good that it could sell "doo-doo" to a pig farmer...
CactusJuice
Member
Ooh ooh I know this one! Hang on, let me go get my textbook...
Murchu
Well-known
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
For me, it's something that transcends the mundane or shows what we originally thought to be mundane to be something altogether more interesting and/or thought provoking. It's the next level up from a purely functional representation of the subject into an expression of the subject that generates a personal engagement with it or response to it.
I don't always see it as a positive thing either. I can regognise a work of art as "art" but I don't, necessarily, need to like it. In fact, there is a lot of "art" that I wouldn't have in my house, even if I had the money to buy it.
I don't always see it as a positive thing either. I can regognise a work of art as "art" but I don't, necessarily, need to like it. In fact, there is a lot of "art" that I wouldn't have in my house, even if I had the money to buy it.
Pablito
coco frío
That sounds like good art. What is bad art?
serg-k3
Established
Art is the ability to mimic nature, This is what they can not all but only your favorites. Art is nature itself, it is divine.
Chris101
summicronia
That would be what I do.
paulfish4570
Veteran
art is garfunkel.
DougFord
on the good foot
Art is Carney
daveleo
what?
"Art" is actually a contraction of "fart".
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Art is very democratic. Anyone can make art; all they have to do is pronounce it to be such. Whether or not its received as good or bad is entirely owned by the viewer.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
I'd rather believe that Art is the contraction of "heart"...
Art is transcendent subjectivity divinely derived from the four daughters of Zeus and Uranus, though I can understand your confusion, depending on how Uranus is pronounced.
TheFlyingCamera
Well-known
Art is something that is detectable with one or more of the five senses that, once detected, evokes a positive response and does not make me say, "That is a worthless piece of crap!"
Here are some examples:
A painting by Monet, Van Gogh or Da Vinci
A symphony by Beethoven or Mozart
A Leica M camera that uses film
A Leica M lens
A photograph by Ansel Adams, Jim Brandenburg, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Constantine Manos or Steve McCurry
A wood and canvas canoe
A 1963 Corvette Spilt Window Coupe
A Supermarine Spitfire
A P-51 Mustang
A wooden sailboat
A perfectly grilled New York strip
A cold bottle of Tap Room 21 Copper Lager
All are quality of life issues (to me)...
Art has no purpose other than just to BE. Art may have been applied in the creation of many of those objects you list, but a Leica M or M lens are not ART, they are tools. The boat and canoe may be examples of fine craft, but they have an intrinsic purpose which is not art, but rather to be used as a means to an end (transportation). Depending on how they are made, they may have a secondary aspect that is non-utilitarian but endowed with equal import by the creator. The cars and aircraft may be emotionally stirring, but like with the boats, they are a means to an end, and the emotionally stirring aspect is utterly coincidental to their purpose (well, with the Corvette it wouldn't have been coincidental, but it was still secondary). So they may have been artfully created, but they are not art. I realize it's splitting semantic hairs, but we're already in that realm with the question at hand.