What do you think art is

[DeeStar]

I'm currently writing a dissertation for my MA, and I would like to get as many peoples opinions as possible for what art is. So what makes a work of art, or for that matter what makes an artist?

Do you think someone who creates art assets for computer games is an artist or a craftsman? Do you think the context in which a piece is viewed is relevant? Do you think that art has to be representational? should art provoke thought? should it express the world around you?

All opinions are appreciated.

(Not sure if this is the right place for this thread, if not feel free to move)

[Hyskoa]

1) Use the search function, there's already been several threads and they all ended in Elwell locking them.
2) We're not here to do your legwork/dissertation. Practically the same as those "interview several industry professionals" assignments that teachers give out because they don't know it themselves and don't know what else to do with their students to keep them busy.

[DeeStar]

i think you've misunderstood me entirely! Ouch! I have already looked into this, from Leo Tolstoi's Opinions to William Morris (pretty much the two extremes) and quite a few in between . I'm sorry if it came across that i was being lazy and wanted people to do the work for me, but I'm just interested in getting as many different people as possibles views on the subject. I already have a view, I'm not looking to steal one from someone else. After all who really decides what a work of art is?

My dissertation is almost complete! I'm not looking for someone to do it for me. I have done my own legwork. Surveys are a valid form of research and that's all this is. If this gets closed then Im not going to start an argument, but all i want is peoples own honest opinions? not their research.

I'm genuinely surprised at the response, isn't it quite offensive to assume that I don't know what I'm talking about? do you honestly think that I would be able to write a 15,000 word dissertation based on one survey from one website? Or that any tutor worth their salt would possibly pass it if I did?

If your interested, I think a lot of art is based on the notion of the signified and the signifier. That is perception. Most things can be classed as art so long as they are presented in the right way. I think that the viewer is as important as the artist and the work of art. Art movements such as Dadaism seem to prove this. Obviously theres more, but i dont want to bore people with my views.

[Derek the Usurper]

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2003/Best_of_ARC/best1.asp?msg=91&forumID=18

I agree with a lot of the views on this site.

[Derek the Usurper]

thanks for the response, but i really am just looking for opinions, not articles. people usually look at something and say to themselves "this is a work of art" but what makes one for you?

I'm simply not willing to write the essay needed to explain my specific stance on the subject, so I linked you to numerous essays which detail some neo classicist views I share. Perhaps you should take the time to read them.

[DeeStar]

Im sorry, all i meant was something like the examples above, just a summing up sentance. I think Im coming across like a total ass here when all i wanted to do was take a survey. If someone shows me how to delete this threat, Im on it.

[Derek the Usurper]

Im sorry, all i meant was something like the examples above, just a summing up sentance. I think Im coming across like a total ass here when all i wanted to do was take a survey. If someone shows me how to delete this threat, Im on it.

I don't think you're an ass, but I think you should read what I linked if you haven't investigated it already. Art Renewal is a completely different view than that of anything they are teaching in accredited colleges.

"Do you think someone who creates art assets for computer games is an artist or a craftsman?" Artist.

"Do you think the context in which a piece is viewed is relevant?" Ideally, yes.

"Do you think that art has to be representational?" If it wants to communicate the expression well, yes.

"should art provoke thought?" Yes.

"should it express the world around you?" If it wants to communicate well, then art should have at least a limited basis in some kind of reality that an audience can relate to in some way.

[Ninjerk]

You're going to an internet forum for opinions in an MA dissertation? Is that...like...legitimate in graduate school?

[DeeStar]

I was more interested in opinions than anything else. Not even just for my dissertation,just because I'm...Interested. But from some of the responses that just makes me stupid? I conducted a survey at my local art gallery/center, and no one had any problems with it. Here I seem to be offending people left right and center, and everyone is assuming I'm some lazy slacker who doesnt know what shes talking about.

Again, do you honestly think that An internet Forum would be the only place I would go for research? Seriously? I did manage to get my honers degree before starting my MA which includes writing a disertation. As I said before I just thought it would be interesting to see what a community of artists thought about the subject.

I suppose you dont know me, you havent seen the research and what Ive written so far. All you've seen is a post on a website, and from it you assume the worst.

But hey just cause I dont get it doesnt mean I dont respect it. I'll shut this thread down as soon as i figure out how. I tried deleting the first post but it doest give me the option, and i am sorry for any offense caused.

[DeeStar]

Ok, I think the reason I'm getting these responses is that Ive went about it in the wrong way, and maybe it does apear like I'm trying to steal other peoples work. Hopefully this will solve that. This is the survey I handed out.
'
I honestly just expected one sentence answers like these. I didn't expect people to write essays for me. Anyway I'm still trying to delete the thread.


which of these things make a work of art? you can choose as many as you like, or add more.

Communication
Beauty
Strong feeling
the artist to have an understanding and respect of art
Anything can be art if viewed in the right contest (dadaism ect.)
it must be relevent to our times/ a comment on society
art is something with no functional intention in mind when being created (for example a beautifull stool made by a master craftsman is not art unless it was created with only artistic value in mind and is not too be sat upon)
art is anything done to the highest level posible (for example a great football player is an artist)
Art is anything an artist says it is
Art is dependant on the viewer. If there is no viewer there is no art
------------------------------------------------------

[Kagemusha22]

Anything you make it to be. The one crucial rule in Art is that there are none.

[Baron Impossible]

Art is anything an artist says it is

Many would hope so, but it's not true. Because art is necessarily subjective then something can only be defined as art if the majority concur. Joe Bloggs might shit in a jar and declare it art but because most people would disagree, then it's not. It's shit. In a jar.

This means that something could conceivable be art one week and not art another. I don't see an issue with that. Cave paintings are now considered art by the majority, although I doubt the people who painted them would have considered the concept.

An alternative view would be that something can be both art and not art at the same time, with either definition true for an individual. This isn't helpful, though, as although the word retains meaning it can't sensibly be applied to anything.

All IMVVVVVHO of course.

[DeeStar]

The idea that that something can become art over time is an interesting one, and something I've looked into myself. Theres an interesting conceptual artist, On Kawara, who does a lot of work on this subject.

I also agree with your first point, I really do think that the audience is as important in the equation as the art and the artist. A painting that no one sees has the potential to become art, but is unfinished.

Thanks for your reply

[Derek the Usurper]

Many would hope so, but it's not true. Because art is necessarily subjective then something can only be defined as art if the majority concur. Joe Bloggs might shit in a jar and declare it art but because most people would disagree, then it's not. It's shit. In a jar.

This means that something could conceivable be art one week and not art another. I don't see an issue with that. Cave paintings are now considered art by the majority, although I doubt the people who painted them would have considered the concept.

An alternative view would be that something can be both art and not art at the same time, with either definition true for an individual. This isn't helpful, though, as although the word retains meaning it can't sensibly be applied to anything.

All IMVVVVVHO of course.

Your opinion is based on an ad populum (majority rules) logical fallacy. Just because the majority of a population subscribes to some kind of ideology does not make it so. Are those the only grounds on which you believe it?

[Baron Impossible]

Your opinion is based on an ad populum (majority rules) logical fallacy. Just because the majority of a population subscribes to some kind of ideology does not make it so.

Ad populum deals primarily with the majority view on matters of fact, or matters to which, if enough information were available, a definite answer would become clear. When considering subjective issues it's perfectly acceptable to take the majority view, assuming a fair cross-section of opinion. If it were not then we could barely say anything about anything.

[Derek the Usurper]

Ad populum deals primarily with the majority view on matters of fact, or matters to which, if enough information were available, a definite answer would become clear. When considering subjective issues it's perfectly acceptable to take the majority view, assuming a fair cross-section of opinion. If it were not then we could barely say anything about anything.

Ideologies like religion are subjective too, yet Ad Populum would apply to statements implying that any religion is correct based on how many believe it. There is no logical reason to assume the minority view on any particular piece of art is any less valid than the majority when based purely on that distinction.

Just how effective can the majority be at coming up with an informed opinion on art if the majority has not studied art, and is potentially disinterested in general? You wouldn't take a poll on a subjective moral issue in order to form an opinion on it. You would look for tangible evidence in order to come up with the best possible solution.

[Ninjerk]

Where are you attending graduate school, if I may ask?

[Baron Impossible]

Ideologies like religion are subjective too, yet Ad Populum would apply to statements implying that any religion is correct based on how many believe it. There is no logical reason to assume the minority view on any particular piece of art is any less valid than the majority when based purely on that distinction.

If you're talking about core beliefs then there is, because the "correctness" of a religion is not a subjective judgement. Once terms have been defined, and given enough information, it is broadly possible to state whether the basis of a religion is true or false. That is not the case for a subjective label, such as "art". No matter how much evidence we accumulate no statement of fact can come about.

Just how effective can the majority be at coming up with an informed opinion on art if the majority has not studied art, and is potentially disinterested in general? You wouldn't take a poll on a subjective moral issue in order to form an opinion on it.

Morality tends to be individually defined. However, if you wanted to label a behaviour as moral or immoral then yes, you'd need to take a poll.

Judgement of "what is art", IMO, comes down to 6 options

1 Everything is art
2 Nothing is art
3 Everything may or may not be art
4 Something is art if I say so
5 Something is art if it conforms to certain criteria
6 Something is art if the majority believes it to be

Options 1 - 3 are pointless for obvious reasons.

Option 4 is fine for the individual but the term "art" ceases to mean anything because it cannot be communicated.

Option 5 (e.g. "Did it take skill to produce?") sounds useful but in the end is pointless, being that the criteria themselves are subjective judgements and therefore are not helpful.

Therefore my preference is option 6, imperfect as it may be.


EDIT: Just to be clear, though, although I think option 6 is the only option for discussing "art", being that 4 does not allow for people to understand each other, I am happy to go with 4 on an individual basis.

[the_jos]

I think art is a non-standard intentional expression of something with a certain medium.
This is a rather broad definition but I think a more narrow one would limit it.

For example, this writing isn't art. It's a standard intentional expression of my thoughts.
Would I have composed this posting as a poem it might be considered art. Poems are also words, but used in a non-standard way.

The same goes for objects. A chair is something standard, but those designed by Eames ended up in the museum (http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A1671&page_number=1&template_id=6&sort_order=1).
Why? They were non-standard in that time.

This definition doesn't distinguish between good and bad art though.
Is shit in a jar art, as suggested above? I'm not sure. It could be, though it might get closer to art if Joe Bloggs did use a specific jar with a specific intention.

[DeeStar]

Where are you attending graduate school, if I may ask?

I have no problem giving you this info, but can you let me know why its relevant first? I'm always a bit Wary about giving stuff like this over the internet. I will tell you that I completed my honers at D.O.J college of art and Design as I have completed that course.

I think basing art in part on what the majority believes is valid up to a point. Mainly because communication is such a large part of what art is. An artist who does not communicate what they intend with a given piece may as well be talking to themselves.

I think it is important that art has some kind of criteria, otherwise it is devalued. If everything is art, then nothing is. Thats why I believe the intend to create art is also important.

[Derek the Usurper]

If you're talking about core beliefs then there is, because the "correctness" of a religion is not a subjective judgement. Once terms have been defined, and given enough information, it is broadly possible to state whether the basis of a religion is true or false. That is not the case for a subjective label, such as "art". No matter how much evidence we accumulate no statement of fact can come about.



Morality tends to be individually defined. However, if you wanted to label a behaviour as moral or immoral then yes, you'd need to take a poll.

Judgement of "what is art", IMO, comes down to 6 options

1 Everything is art
2 Nothing is art
3 Everything may or may not be art
4 Something is art if I say so
5 Something is art if it conforms to certain criteria
6 Something is art if the majority believes it to be

Options 1 - 3 are pointless for obvious reasons.

Option 4 is fine for the individual but the term "art" ceases to mean anything because it cannot be communicated.

Option 5 (e.g. "Did it take skill to produce?") sounds useful but in the end is pointless, being that the criteria themselves are subjective judgements and therefore are not helpful.

Therefore my preference is option 6, imperfect as it may be.


EDIT: Just to be clear, though, although I think option 6 is the only option for discussing "art", being that 4 does not allow for people to understand each other, I am happy to go with 4 on an individual basis.

I suppose I should have mentioned that I disagree with your supposition that art is necessarily subjective on all levels. I think Option 5 is similar to what I think, but in the context of seeing good art from bad art, not art from non-art. "What is art" isn't a binary question.

I think that once you define the purpose of any piece of art, you can then somewhat objectively decide how well it fulfilled that purpose. An anatomical drawing, created specifically to be an accurate representation of human anatomy, can be judged based on that objective criteria, where experts in anatomy would me more likely to have an informed opinion than non-experts.

The only way I see any kind of poll being useful is in order to find a consensus on what art's purpose should be. The poll should not be directed at people, but at art itself. What characteristics does all art have? Answer that and you can safely judge how well specific art fulfills those basic characteristics.

We can't assure objectivity, but I fail to see why we can't strive for it.

[DeeStar]

I think that's dependent on the answers your searching for. I Don't think that all art shares characteristics, except in that people classify them as art. For example a cubist chair has little in common with marcel Duchamps urinal, but both are viewed in Galleries. What some people call art others call garbage. It's only peoples opinions that change, not the objects.

I just find it interesting finding out what individuals perceive art to be, and what criteria s have to be fulfilled for them, is perception really the strongest deciding factor when classing something a work of art?

[Derek the Usurper]

I think that's dependent on the answers your searching for. I Don't think that all art shares characteristics, except in that people classify them as art. For example a cubist chair has little in common with marcel Duchamps urinal, but both are viewed in Galleries. What some people call art others call garbage. It's only peoples opinions that change, not the objects.

I just find it interesting finding out what individuals perceive art to be, and what criteria s have to be fulfilled for them

A cubist chair and Duchamp's urinal both attempt to communicate. The communication can be with the artist and the audience, or the artist with themselves, but both pieces of art still share this characteristic.

[Lamp]

Derek, I think that Baron really hit the nail on the head. In plain terms -- f you hold up an object and ask, "is this art?", there isn't any "true" answer. The meaning of the term "art" is defined subjectively, the same way that morality is defined subjectively. You might as well ask, "Is spitting on somebody's face a nice thing to do?" Well, most of us would say "Of course not, that's a very insulting and cruel thing to do"-- but in another land with a different, equally subjective culture, having your face spat onto might be the highest honor imaginable.

Baron already said it, but there IS, so far as I can surmise, a true and definite answer to questions of religion. Either it's true or it isn't, and whether or not WE have the tools and evidence to reach the correct conclusion hasn't the slightest effect on reality.

Art is whatever we say it is. We can only define something as "art" so far as we can define "goodness" or "badness". And thankfully, we do define those things, and rightly so! After all, our existence would be highly unpleasant if we all hadn't a good idea of what feels good and what feels bad, and for that matter, what makes something "art". You just have to accept the difference between questions that are based in fact and questions that are not.

[DeeStar]

Yes, I think communication is important in what makes a piece of art. But I'm not entirely sure that an artist creating a cubist chair sculpture is trying to communicate a specific thought or emotion the artist shared at the time of its creation.

I think that the cubist chair becomes art because of the artist intention, not to make a chair, but to create a sculpture. Marcel Duchamp however wanted to share his enjoyment at having a playful poke at the art establishment. Both of these are just my interpretations

[Zapp!]

I think that if someone intentionally creates something that makes people want stop and look at it, then it becomes art. But if it is reall boring and mundane then it doesn't count as art to me. For example a crazy looking house, a painting or a sculpture would probably make me stop and look at it for a while, so I would think of them as art. While I wouldn't pay much attention to some dull looking flats or some grass cos I see that all the time.
I do however think that it is only art if it has been created to be art. Because if I saw a morbidly obese person walking down the street wearing bright yellow clothes would make me stop and stare at them, but I wouldn't want to call that art.

[Zazerzs]

http://www.barnstonestudios.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=31

Myron puts it pretty clearly. I think he's dead on.

[J Wilson]

Does anyone else find the very question of "what is art?" boring as hell? Why do art students find the continual need to try to define art? Is it because so many art schools these days try to muddy the waters, passing judgement and telling them "no, this illustration is NOT art," while gladly proclaiming that jar of shit (to use someone else's example) as cutting edge art? With such arbitrary thoughts, no wonder it leaves students confused and begging the question of "what is art?"

It's like trying to define happiness, when you let someone else tell you "no sorry, you thought you were happy, but that was an illusion. Your happiness doesn't match my scale." I think most sane people would tell you to fuck off. Why is art different?

My question is, why do YOU care what anyone else thinks is art? Do many artists actually worry about it, or do they just enjoy what they enjoy, and leave the intellectual ponderings to art elitists?

[Black Spot]

Art is whatever you can persuade someone to part money for in the belief that what they are buying is art.

[Crane]

An opinion

[Ninjerk]

I have no problem giving you this info, but can you let me know why its relevant first? I'm always a bit Wary about giving stuff like this over the internet. I will tell you that I completed my honers at D.O.J college of art and Design as I have completed that course.

I think basing art in part on what the majority believes is valid up to a point. Mainly because communication is such a large part of what art is. An artist who does not communicate what they intend with a given piece may as well be talking to themselves.

I think it is important that art has some kind of criteria, otherwise it is devalued. If everything is art, then nothing is. Thats why I believe the intend to create art is also important.

It isn't really relevant, I was just curious.

My question is, why do YOU care what anyone else thinks is art? Do many artists actually worry about it, or do they just enjoy what they enjoy, and leave the intellectual ponderings to art elitists?

Maybe talking about art is easier than making it, I don't know.

[Jasonwclark]

This line of questioning describes exactly how contemporary Art education has been completely co-opted by 20th century philosophy and linguistic theory. I think the best response you could give, in this context, would be to say that it's essentially an ontological non-issue, and that MAs should not be awarded for written dissertations, but for the creation and defense of actual works. No doubt that will piss off more than a few tenured professors, but its still a worthwhile challenge to make. :)

This article may be of some interest:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

All the best

[DeeStar]

This line of questioning describes exactly how contemporary Art education has been completely co-opted by 20th century philosophy and linguistic theory. I think the best response you could give, in this context, would be to say that it's essentially an ontological non-issue, and that MAs should not be awarded for written dissertations, but for the creation and defense of actual works. No doubt that will piss off more than a few tenured professors, but its still a worthwhile challenge to make. :)

This article may be of some interest:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

All the best

I think the dissertation only accounts for twenty percent of the final mark while the practical accounts for the remaining eighty. But yeah, I Think writing the dissertation in defence of my own work would be interesting. Although the topic is tied into my practical :)

Ninjerk. your probably right that writing about art is easier than making it, but its not a bad thing to have an understanding about something your interested in either. I do create art too, thats why I am interested in the subject. Im not really sure why that offends you so much :/

[DeeStar]

Does anyone else find the very question of "what is art?" boring as hell? Why do art students find the continual need to try to define art? Is it because so many art schools these days try to muddy the waters, passing judgement and telling them "no, this illustration is NOT art," while gladly proclaiming that jar of shit (to use someone else's example) as cutting edge art? With such arbitrary thoughts, no wonder it leaves students confused and begging the question of "what is art?"

It's like trying to define happiness, when you let someone else tell you "no sorry, you thought you were happy, but that was an illusion. Your happiness doesn't match my scale." I think most sane people would tell you to fuck off. Why is art different?

My question is, why do YOU care what anyone else thinks is art? Do many artists actually worry about it, or do they just enjoy what they enjoy, and leave the intellectual ponderings to art elitists?

In a way, your right. An artist should concentrate on what they want to do and not care what the art elitists think. I also agree that a lot of conceptual art pushed upon student is a poor joke

But regardless of your lack of interest in the subject the want or need of humans to create and communicate with others through artistically expression does interest me. I cant be the only one. There are whole books written on the subject.

[DeeStar]

Man, I've been a bit of an idiot! just read through the thread and realised that never once have I clarified why I've found it important to try and create a "Criterea" or classification for a work of art. Ooops. I'm trying to provide a reasoned argument for computer games to be considered a form of art. For the record I believe that they are, but many artist I've spoken to believe the oposite.

Before I could begin I first needed a definition for both what constitutes a work of art and what makes an artist.

The main body of work is not about "what is art" (I'm not a gluten for punishment), but it's an important part.

Although I do enjoy just creating art, i think it would bug me a bit if I worked as a games artist and people devalued what i was doing by not acknowledging it as an art form. Rightly or wrongly.

As with any job people should be given credit for what they do.

[Ninjerk]

Man, I've been a bit of an idiot! just read through the thread and realised that never once have I clarified why I've found it important to try and create a "Criterea" or classification for a work of art. Ooops. I'm trying to provide a reasoned argument for computer games to be considered a form of art. For the record I believe that they are, but many artist I've spoken to believe the oposite.

Before I could begin I first needed a definition for both what constitutes a work of art and what makes an artist.

The main body of work is not about "what is art" (I'm not a gluten for punishment), but it's an important part.

Although I do enjoy just creating art, i think it would bug me a bit if I worked as a games artist and people devalued what i was doing by not acknowledging it as an art form. Rightly or wrongly.

As with any job people should be given credit for what they do.

I believe if movies are a form of art, then video games must be, too. As to what would define that properly, I'm not really sure.

[DeeStar]

A famous American film critic (His name escapes me at the moment, but he has a large internet fan base) claims that not only are comuter games art, but they never will be. This is down to the fact that films portray the artist, or directors vision, whether as computer games are in part controlled by the player.

This argument definitely has flaws though. The most obvious being that every choice in a computer game has already been determined. There's also several multiple choice film endings.

The guys second name is Edbert i think

[SilverClock]

Hmmm...
Intention
Interpretation
Imagination
Communication
Expression...
Words I thought of while reading all of this.
I'm one of the ones who don't care what it is. Art is art.
Trying to define a definition for it wouldn't get you anywhere and you would just be running around in circles. That's actually probably why Hyskoa mentioned those locked threads...I'd imagine they got locked because you could talk about it forever and not really get anywhere.
I'd advise to put a clear end to the poll once you're done with it, DeeStar.
Just sayin'.
As for computer games being art, in MY opinion...yes they are. You even have art teams behind the scenes helping to make those games. Coming up with tons of ideas like creating characters and new worlds.
If someone tells you that something isn't art, that's THEIR opinion. If someone thinks a simple rock is art--a work of nature--there's not much you can do to convince them otherwise, because your beliefs aren't solid themselves.
Kind of like evolutionists vs. creationists, there's nothing either side can do to REALLY PROVE without a doubt that one is true, and one isn't.
But that's the reason why you're having this poll, isn't it?

I'm currently writing a dissertation for my MA, and I would like to get as many peoples opinions as possible for what art is.

I think what people should be trying to do is just straight up giving their own opinions, rather than debating. It's just plain faster that way.

[Ninjerk]

A famous American film critic (His name escapes me at the moment, but he has a large internet fan base) claims that not only are comuter games art, but they never will be. This is down to the fact that films portray the artist, or directors vision, whether as computer games are in part controlled by the player.

This argument definitely has flaws though. The most obvious being that every choice in a computer game has already been determined. There's also several multiple choice film endings.

The guys second name is Edbert i think

Roger Ebert.

[DeeStar]

that's him, and sorry i mistyped, he says not only are computer games NOT art.

Silverclock, thanks for the reply. Although I agree with pretty much all your points, I do think that trying to create some sort of definition isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if its as loose a definition as it must communicate something to the audience and it must be intentional. I think if we label anything art then it devalues artists.

While I believe that the art teams working on computer games are true artists some would argue that they are highly skilled craftsmen. Thats why 've been checking out William Morris's arts and crafts movement. He believes that craftsmen are artists.

[karta tajba]

A person who does art for a video game or computer game is an artist, the context is very revelvant that because with the context who are you going to express the thought of the work and it should be resentationable if you trying to express an idea or thought throught you work and should be thought provoke because art is suppose to make you think why this person feel and yes it should it express the world around because that where we get our inspiration from The Real World

[J Wilson]

Of course video games are art. They were created by human beings by a creative impulse. It could be argued that they have gone from a purely technological oddity with a very simplistic purpose, like early cameras, to a more fully functioning medium as time has passed.

Ebert's idea that because the player takes a direct role in the game, it isn't art, shows how limited his idea of "art" is. The purpose of any art is to evoke a response or communicate an idea to the viewer. By letting the player get directly involved in the moment, the possibility to make a deeper connection exists.