Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: What is art? - Your personal art-definition

  1. #1
    Assistant Administrator Daniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    near Munich/Germany
    Posts
    768
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default What is art? - Your personal art-definition

    Hello all,

    An always great debate of ourdays is the question if something is art or not. But if you want to get into details, you see how difficult it is to get to a congruent point, because there are so many different opinions out there. So how do you define art?

    Greetings,
    Daniel

  2. #2
    Newbies
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Art is the creation of something new...
    hm, hm, hm, hm - pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa-pa...

  3. #3
    Member vivaciouswagnerian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    57
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I believe art is the true expression of oneself, regardless of whether the world accepts it or not. If it means something to you and your soul is in it, then I believe that it is true art. Someone is the world will appreciate it, even if its just your moma :-)
    "Don't bother to look; I've composed all this already"
    -Gustav Mahler to Bruno Walter, who had stopped to admire mountain scenery in rural Austria

  4. #4
    Member Drowning_by_numbers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Art is inspiration.

    Thats a little vague, but think about it. Artists like Van Goph never sold a painting in his life. I actually went to a Van Goph exhibition this morning, and when you see his skill its just insane that he wasn't appreciaited at the time. Installations like the 'Unmade Bed' or so many of Damien Hurst's pieces are, by todays standards absolutely bizzare, but the only way to get past this is to imagine beyond our time. The main problem I have with these artists though is that I basically think that they are producing art for it to sell. Its just making a statement I think, and it doesn't really mean a lot to me.

    I met an artist called Sebastian Boyle earlier this year. He produces his works under the name 'Boyle Family' and his concept of art is exactly mine. I adore their work, and if you get a chance have a look at their website: http://www.boylefamily.co.uk
    Also if anyone is interested I can mail you my interview with him.

    Here are a few extracts:
    "Me- Your pieces are very provocative. What kind of reaction do you expect to get from people looking at them?

    Sebastian-Now that’s an important point, it sounds very arrogant but it isn’t intended as it sounds. We aren’t really interested in the response because we aren’t doing it to please people, it would just undercut the randomness, undercut the purpose. We have a very mixed relationship with the galleries because we are very much a family – it’s not easy for them to sell that. They want us to do other things."

    "Me-What do you think of landscape artists like Andy Goldsworthy and do you think your work is similar to theirs?

    Sebastian-No I don’t because… well if he isn’t do the art for him he isn’t being true to himself. Some artists just make art for commercial reason, like money, and I don’t believe in that. If he is doing it for the right reasons then great, but I wonder if he is. Some artists just try to make the work... well pretty.

    Me-What do you think of recent years turner prize winners, like the unmade bed?

    Sebastian-Ah well she didn’t win with that did she? Tracy didn’t win! Maybe she came second, but there isn’t really a second. Well it’s difficult because if they are doing the art for the right reasons then yeah it’s good, but other people have done it before really so… what do you think?

    Me-Well she is trying to say, everything is art so in that sense… and she is trying to get you to look at things differently, which is what I like about your work! So in that sense I like it, but it’s not something I can really identify with."

  5. #5
    Newbies Amaya&beet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Homeland: Japan; studying
    Posts
    9
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Maybe it satisfies you

    Usually the concept "art", refers to extraordinary creations in painting, photography, sculpture, handicrafts, dramaturgy, music, film and similar fields, usually containing
    aesthetic. "Creation" in this case does not always mean "new object", or at least not concretely. For example, the sunset on the ocean, when captured at the right time, when the photographer has a firm grasp of techniques, can be placed among other artworks without doubt.

    Art also exists in every single area of sport, the difference is the denomination, e.g a successful, impressive performance in a large contest can be denominated "art", honouring the lucky candidate through applause. In a broader sense, not only creations, but also innovation or unconventional solutions in sciences frequently bear the name "art", for example, the art of proofing difficult theorems in maths. As far as I'm concerned, lumping "art" into a concise definition seems impossible, so it often enjoys the status of being abused yet undefined.

    "In the family of creations, art is the unique member having the privilege of denigrating others."
    Amaya

  6. #6
    Assistant Administrator Daniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    near Munich/Germany
    Posts
    768
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Hello Amaya,

    Interesting view. Art as the special moment. So not any moment is art in your eyes? If there is art in any kind of life, shouldn't one differ between art as the high level of "classical" aesthetics and the way of making art, the willed process by the artist?

    Greetings, and welcome to the forums!
    Daniel
    Last edited by Daniel; Sep-21-2006 at 00:42.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Oneiros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Argh, that is a very tricky question! Great art is a combination of so many things. I think that it should be beautiful, but not in a superficial way. It should relate a journey to the depths of the soul, or an ascent to such lofty heights that would be otherwise inconceivable to the rest of us. It must be a work of intuitive inspiration, and perhaps even inspire the same kind of passion in the persion viewing/listening/reading etc. It should rise above our muddled daily existence, giving us a glimpse of the spiritual realm...

    And so on.

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Cml

    I love this question. It's so classic, and a toughy !

    OK,

    I see art as communication which possesses true aesthetic value .
    Last edited by CML; Sep-17-2006 at 11:31.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •