Sta.sh
Theme
.
.......... The design MUST HAVE ONLY 2 COLORS; BLACK AND WHITE
this journal 
Recently I had an interesting conversation with friends about, what is art? It's quite amusing to see someone flounder out a definition of art. In my Art History undergraduate classes the first class always discussed this topic. I remember one time a student critiqued a piece art saying to wasn't art until the professor revealed it was actually a Picasso. The mere audacity of someone trying define what art is, is intellectual masturbation; spend all day, all year defining and in the end you've done nothing. Art is undefinable.
Take for example, a plate of dinnerware. Is it art? How about if it's Rococo? Or used in painting by Julian Schnabel? Or Ming?
When Duchamp hung a urinal on the wall, was it art? Most would say, "Hell NO! That is not art! Are you kidding me?!" Others would say, "No, it is art because Duchamp did it." Is it art? When a plumber hung that same urinal on a wall that Duchamp eventually used, was it art? This was exactly the whole point of Duchamp and Dadaism, art cannot be defined because art is everything.
People that try to qualify what is and isn't art are sadly ignorant. Why? Because our tastes are subjective. During this conversation a friend of mine stated, "The artist must state it is art. Otherwise, it isn't art." My response was grabbing a high lighter and jotting a sticky note and said, "It's art!" "Wellllll ....." According to his definition of what defines art, that post-it was just as much a piece of art as anything in the Louvre. However, when I actually applied his definition it was soon realized that this definition is inaccurate which is exactly the point. What defines art as art is undefinable. Does that sound universalistic? It is; most definitely; from the graffiti on the overpass to the Goya's,"The Nude Maja," and back to a child's grabbing a crayon and scribbling their first line on a piece of paper; it's all art.
What exactly is so frustrating or offensive about everything being art? If anything the world becomes more alive. Possibilities are endless. Anything can be art or rather everything is art. Anyone can be an artist. Aesthetics are inherit in everything from urban decay to a building designed by Francis Lloyd Wright.
Needless to say during this conversation tempers ignited with emotion overtaking reason as frustration at the futility of embarking on such an endeavor set in. Typically those who do not have an education are usually the ones with the most rigid definition of what is and isn't art. They are the ones who "know" and define the difference between commercial and fine art, nudity and pornography, illustration and fine art, etc. However, I do not think that the logic for their conclusions always stems from stupidity but rather from not having seriously analyzed the subject of art itself. Ask any professor, art critic, museum curator or educated artist and they'll agree that anything can be art. Any time anyone tries to define what is and isn't art what they're actually defining is their personal tastes or appeals to their intellect.
Word to the wise, if you ever feel compelled to define ART, don't, you will only look like a fool.
| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
Bemused 
The boring, than mundane, portrayed in the usual way so as not to draw attention to it shouldn't be considered art. A program meant to take a string of text and manipulate it to remove the spaces in it isn't really art since that's a fairly common function. Conversely, a screen saver that displays ever changing fractals unlike any other, electric sheep, could be described as art.
~from the graffiti on the overpass
There's actually a legal distinction about that: graffiti cannot be considered art if it is created on property without it's owners permission, in that case it's considered vandalism.
~emotion overtaking reason as frustration at the futility of embarking on such an endeavor set in.
~Any time anyone tries to define what is and isn't art what they're actually defining is their personal tastes or appeals to their intellect.
Simply because an object is trivial doesn't negate it's artistic possibilities and what you find trivial another person may not. Take urine. It's perhaps below trivial but Andreas Serrano did a piece entitle, "Piss Christ." There is a really interesting genre of photography that I love, urban decay. There is probably nothing more mundane than rot, yet these photographs often present the subject in an interesting way that makes one reconsider what is being presented. Some artist focus on the mundane because that's exactly what it is, it's overlooked. Can a rock be art? If you ever happen to be in the Napa Valley visit the di Rosa Art Preserve. It's amazing and there are several things that are mundane and art. Two brothers found a shipwrecked boat and sold it for $250,000 .. or maybe it was $2.5 million; I can't remember but it's at display at the di Rosa Art Preserve.
As for graffiti it may be vandalism but to simply write it off as not being art is a mistake. Look at Bates or Banksy. Graffiti incorporates a lot of art but the medium is a wall not a canvas or a piece of paper. But you're telling me that if that image was on something else that what was painted could then be considered art? Graffiti incorporates a personal voice and engages the senses just as you defined. In some places like Oakland, New Jersey or New York graffiti is a way to bring color to a mundane and boring brick project area beautifying their neighborhood. It engages their neighbors by bringing in color to slabs of concrete and brick. Legal definitions may define graffiti as not being art but the definition is incorrect as I just pointed out. It is art. There is composition, design, color, technique, etc.
The first part of your last comment is very biased. Simply because what you do not consider appealing to your personal tastes or intellect shouldn't take away from some else finding art. I hate Thomas Kincade. I find him revolting and he does not appeal to my tastes at all! But my hating those pieces doesn't take away that they are art. Plenty of people like his work.
that all art is, is an opinion.
People (well artists) have twisted this into a tangible thing...a visual thing, a thing that's drawn or created....
Look at the most expensive pieces of 'art' ever created. a solid orange canvas....a very simple painting of the american flag on wood, splatters of paint.
People get so mad when they see...."oh my god that sold for 200 million dollars...."
think about this. who has 200 million dollars....stupid people or smart people.
They are buying an opinion...not a piece of art.
there should almost be a distinction to calm down artists...because the big ticket items that sell as art...well are just statements shrouded in paint, or some form of sculpture.
They are buying an idea...a concept.
not saying that is art...but maybe artists that draw are really pawns...and the people who run the show create the ideas.
and again...who has the money...the pawns or the idea people.
maybe it shouldn't boil down that way...I love to draw but I love to create ideas and manipulate opinion just as much.
just a different take I suppose but I think there's a lot of truth in what I wrote.
I normally hate talking about my beliefs in art...because very few artists are going to agree with me.
People invest in concept, in visionary ideals, in deconstructing reality, in challenging the given.
It's really an interesting thing.
I was just walking one day thinking about all the art I like and figured it out in one quick moment of clarity...art wasn't about drawing at all....or almost very little.
and most of it wasn't a drawing that anyone would really consider a structured thing.
and I don't even care....people have in the past been surprised and thought the fact that I am not really concerned about comics being inked or not was pretty weird....if I really started going around saying...I don't care if art is even drawn....they'd send a lynch mob...(and not the band)
it's not that I don't care about art, or penciling, or inking...I normally look at the finished thing as an idea....does it interest me or not?
that's all I really care about.
good journal on that one wes/
r~
I'll come back and post on it...I was just about to leave....hopefully tonight I'll have some time.
cool topic though for sure!
ricH
simply put (i don't watch this show - by the way) the American idol contestants are ALL singers - good singers?
"One man's art is another man's trash."
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
It's subjective. For every "standard" applied to art there is a counterpoint.
The Paris Salon rejected Manet's, "The Luncheon on the Grass," which is one of the his greatest pieces and a seminal piece marking the transition from Realism to Impressionism. For all the negative reasoning behind their critique of that painting it became a very important piece of art.
I've seen paintings, sculptures, logos, etc. which I thought were utter crap but just because I don't like it does not lessen it from being a piece of art.
Art is what it is and it is impossible to define.