How broad is your definition of art?

Post Reply New Topic

When I think of art, I think of people painting or drawing pictures, or sculpting statues. Some people have even told me that writing good books and playing music are forms of art. But then you have people who put a baseball in a bird cage, put a rock in a hole, or spill lima beans on the floor, and call it art. To me, that's not art. The less the audience (is that even the right word?) is able to understand the art, the less they're able to identify with it. The less they're able to identify with it, the more worthless it becomes (in my opinion). What about you? How broad is your definition of art?

If it's called art it's art. Just because someone doesn't understand it doesn't make it any less a piece of art.

I feel that's a pretty weak excuse. What's to stop someone from just throwing something together with no thought or effort and claiming it's art? And if you call them out on it, you just don't understand it. I could burn a bag of popcorn in the microwave and call it art. Art should have some form of standard. I almost feel like people with no talent use "you just don't understand it" as an excuse for their lack of talent, and that leads them to make the most precocious, meaningless pieces of "art" in existence.

I don't know whilst I have certainly seen some 'art' I find to be more garbage I don't think art should have to have a form of standard necessarily at least nothing enforced...I can see having certain standards for particular types of art like if its something really specific but especially with music if all bands used defined standards of written music there is a lot of music that wouldn't exist or wouldn't be considered music.

I don't get that modern art or whatever that is literally like a blob or simple shape on a plain canvas or maybe a couple lines. But to each their own, I certainly prefer details and actual concepts and things like that in art.

So if you don't understand it then it's not art? Really? I am a horrible artist but when I draw it's art. Just because you don't have talent doesn't make the piece less a piece of art. Please rethink your response.

And there lies the major problem. You either have to put a limit on what art is, or literally everybody on earth is an artist. I made a sandwich, therefore I'm an artist. I combed my hair, so I'm an artist. I can fart louder than anybody I know, so I must be an artist (fartist?) Personally, I'd prefer that there be limitations set up to discern whether what you've made is art, and whether or not you're an artist, rather than hand out participation trophies to everyone who wants to be called an artist.

I'm quite skeptical about the definition of art. Some people tend to put it as some remark of high value, self-expression or pleasure, but for me art is defined by it self-regulating system. art is what the art world decides it to be, and it's often related to things that aren't useful for society by their real value, but it's useful to keep this system, to create a social identity, and invest surplus money.


(english isn't my first language and I found a bit hard to explain this hope it's understandable)

When it comes to drawing, painting, sculpting, etc, if it looks like something I could make on my own, it's not art

Most people would just consider things you create to display or be listened to in the case of music as art, even if not everyone likes it or understands it. I think you would have a hard time arguing all daily tasks in general and bodily functions are art, now if someone brushes their hair and creates an elaborate hairstyle with their hair...that could be more of an art than brushing. Don't see how farting would be art.


What standards and rules would you put in place for art...what standards would a drawing have to fit for instance for it to truly be considered art?

I think creating a standard by which all artwork must fit is probably one of the worst approaches to art and would place a limit on creativity. Also one doesn't have to be an 'artist' to make art, anyone can probably at least make some art if they put their mind to it.

Agree.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. What might be legitimate, spiritually moving art to one person might be utter crap to another. I like to think of my short horror fiction as art, while others might call it popular tripe. And they're entitled to their opinion - oh, I'll think them pompous a$$holes for it - but they're entitled to think what they want.

Love it.

Thank you.

If it makes someone ask if it is art, the answer is always yes, in my opinion.

You might think that works under my definition, above, but it only works if you convince at least one other person that it might be art. Soup cans signed by Warhol still have a high value, unless they explode and spread botulism all over the place... Maybe I can put one in an acrylic box, explode it, sign it and sell it as my own art?

I do not consider an upside down toilet art. Yes, there is a place nearby where that's considered art. I consider art anything that conveys a specific message and has time put into it. Anyone can draw five scribbles and say, "It represents why racism needs to stop."